It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New Analysis Video of the STS-75 Tether Incident

page: 40
77
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by bloodline
(P.S. We don't need JimOberg to agree it's BOKEH. He's entitled to his opinion, which he hasn't shared here.


Please review the thread.

Jim Oberg has been already told us what he has determined these objects to be. He does not say they can be accounted for by "bokeh".

Are you saying Oberg is also incorrect in his assessment?




You have to admit that lazyninja brings up a good point when he says "why do they always fly with the hole facing towards us" right?


This has been covered already. The point has been brought up.

Lazyninja would have some possible answers to his question had he taken the time to read the thread.



[edit on 4-7-2009 by Exuberant1]




posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   
The ether shines brighter with less air.
An evacuated bulb can shine very bright.
Perhaps these are flying light bulbs the non Edison
Tesla type.
Perhaps these lights are surface brightness at the
surface of a metal craft interface with rarefied air.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
The ether shines brighter with less air.
An evacuated bulb can shine very bright.
Perhaps these are flying light bulbs the non Edison
Tesla type.
Perhaps these lights are surface brightness at the
surface of a metal craft interface with rarefied air.


i can understand respect for Tesla (the man was a genius probably several magnitudes above Einstein), but don't limit yourself to outdated science. ether? seriously?

and exhuberant1 - your "critters" have been shown clearly *inside the shuttle* filmed with the same kind of camera. if you're still holding on to the idea that their apparent shape is their actual shape, then pass the pipe please.

[edit on 4-7-2009 by JScytale]



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lazyninja
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


The pulsating DONUT "ufos" (do I really have to be this specific) are exclusively shot by the old NASA cameras which shot the tether incident.



Incorrect.

This footage of a "Donut UFO" from STS-119 is quite recent and was shot with a different camera system:






First you said that there was no pulsating UFO footage shot by private individuals - you were proven wrong in the next post.

Here is your incorrect statement:
"...there is no footage of pulsating donuts taken from ordinary private citizen's cameras. No further questions! "

Now you have claimed that these UFOs are captured "exclusively" and by "Old NASA Cameras" - You have just been proven wrong again, and in this very post.









[edit on 4-7-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by JScytale
...your "critters" have been shown clearly *inside the shuttle* ...


The effects in that video do not posses the properties of motion that we see with the 'critters' in the STS-75 tether UFO footage which we are analyzing in this thread.

Even NASA does not support the continuously disproven bokeh hypothesis - to which you lend your support.




posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by JScytale
...your "critters" have been shown clearly *inside the shuttle* ...


The effects in that video do not posses the properties of motion that we see with the 'critters' in the STS-75 tether UFO footage which we are analyzing in this thread.

Even NASA does not support the continuously disproven bokeh hypothesis - to which you lend your support.






sigh.
they don't have to be moving to prove that they, just like the particles filmed during STS 75, are camera artifacts.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Even NASA does not support the continuously disproven bokeh hypothesis - to which you lend your support.

I missed that, could you point to a NASA statement about that?

Thanks.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Even NASA does not support the continuously disproven bokeh hypothesis - to which you lend your support.

I missed that, could you point to a NASA statement about that?

Thanks.



Can you find a statement from NASA which is supportive of the bokeh Hypothesis?

If one exists, you should be able to locate it.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Even NASA does not support the continuously disproven bokeh hypothesis - to which you lend your support.

I missed that, could you point to a NASA statement about that?

Thanks.



Can you find a statement from NASA which is supportive of the bokeh Hypothesis?

If one exists, you should be able to locate it.


That's not an answer to the question asked of you.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

This footage of a "Donut UFO" from STS-119 is quite recent and was shot with a different camera system:


You say it uses a different camera system. I'm assuming it's just a higher resolution colour camera, and that it still needs to be fitted with the donut shaped metal part around the lens to provide a decent lighting environment. Would you guess that's a correct assumption? Or do they use a different lighting method nowdays?

I've been looking around to see if I can find a picture STS-199 camera and so far haven't been able to come up with anything. Note that I'm looking for a picture of it attached to the actual satellite/whatever, and not a picture of the camera model.

[edit on 4-7-2009 by Lazyninja]



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Can you find a statement from NASA which is supportive of the bokeh Hypothesis?

If one exists, you should be able to locate it.

I never said NASA supports the bokeh hypothesis, and I don't care what NASA says, I have my own opinions, as you may have noticed, if you have followed some of my posts.

Now, if your statement that ...

Even NASA does not support the continuously disproven bokeh hypothesis - to which you lend your support.
is based on a real NASA statement, could you please point to that statement?

If your statement is not based on a NASA statement, why did you wrote that?

Thanks in advance for a honest answer.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by JScytale
 


See these 'life' giving experiments with electricity made by Tesla:

www.tfcbooks.com...


Light flowing in the air. Very dim so the lab was darkened.
These are not life forms just light in some form.
Up in the air with greater voltages and frequencies the theory
of the Tesla UFO should say you get very bright lights.
And as the photography minded know, I've seen an explanation
on youtube, the lens floods out or causes blinking or something
other than the real craft.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Can you find a statement from NASA which is supportive of the bokeh Hypothesis?

If one exists, you should be able to locate it.

I never said NASA supports the bokeh hypothesis, and I don't care what NASA says, I have my own opinions, as you may have noticed, if you have followed some of my posts.

Now, if your statement that ...

Even NASA does not support the continuously disproven bokeh hypothesis - to which you lend your support.
is based on a real NASA statement, could you please point to that statement?

If your statement is not based on a NASA statement, why did you wrote that?

Thanks in advance for a honest answer.


Do you know of any NASA statement which supports the Bokeh Hypothesis or which utilizes it to explain the UFOs in the tether footage?

I do not.

If you could locate such a statement, you would be able to prove this statement to JScytale to be incorrect; "Even NASA does not support the continuously disproven bokeh hypothesis - to which you lend your support."

As you cannot locate such a statement - perhaps it does not exist. Perhaps you have not yet bothered to look. In any case, it has not yet been proven on this thread that NASA is supportive of the Bokeh Hypothesis or have used it to account for the UFOs in the STS-75 tether footage which we are currently analyzing.


*In answer to your question "why did you wrote that? "

-Why does anyone wrote the things they wrote?






[edit on 4-7-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by bloodline


Thanks for the effort Bloodline but it doesn't show the part I'm wondering about. What I need is to see a picture of that thing after it's actually been fitted out by NASA for use in space. Since these anomalies are still showing up on modern cameras, I would like to find out if the modifications NASA makes to these cameras is producing the pulsating donut.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Do you know of any NASA statement which supports the Bokeh Hypothesis or which utilizes it to explain the UFOs in the tether footage?

I do not.
Neither do I, but that was not what I was asking for.


If you could locate such a statement, you would be able to prove this statement to JScytale to be incorrect; "Even NASA does not support the continuously disproven bokeh hypothesis - to which you lend your support."
Yes, but as you were the one making the statement, I asked you, who am I supposed to ask about things you write?


As you cannot locate such a statement - perhaps it does not exist. Perhaps you have not yet bothered to look. In any case, it has not yet been proven on this thread that NASA is supportive of the Bokeh Hypothesis or have used it to account for the UFOs in the STS-75 tether footage.
But I don't care if NASA is supportive of the bokeh hypothesis or not, I just want a straight, honest answer from you about your statement.


*In answer to your question "why did you wrote that? "

-Why does anyone wrote the things they wrote?

That question was for the case in which your statement was not based on a real NASA statement, so does it mean that this statement:

Even NASA does not support the continuously disproven bokeh hypothesis - to which you lend your support.
was made by you in the name of NASA?
Don't you think that presenting your opinions as someone else's (someone that is not present in the discussion) is not a honest way of presenting things?

Or is just my understanding of the English language playing tricks on me once more? Some word-playing pass me by, you have to remember that I only "speak" English on ATS, and I never had nobody teaching me some of the peculiarities of the language.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

*In answer to your question "why did you wrote that? "

-Why does anyone wrote the things they wrote?



when seeking honest intelligent discussion, the answer isn't usually "because i felt like making something up."

you're making yourself less and less credible by the post, i recommend you reverse this trend.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Armap, If you want to prove that NASA is supportive of the Bokeh Hyopthesis to explain the UFOs in the footage we are examining, you will have to back it up with some evidence in the form of links to external sources (ideally from NASA).

It seems that you cannot find any statements made by NASA that use the Bokeh hypothesis to explain the UFOs in this footage. Thus far you have been unable to provide us with one or post any links to external sources which would indicate NASA's support for the Bokeh Hypothesis ...









[edit on 4-7-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lazyninja I would like to find out if the modifications NASA makes to these cameras is producing the pulsating donut.


You could simply write NASA and ask for that data... They are very helpful at times.

I too would like to see the camera that produces these...










When ya have that data give me a shout... until then there is little point to endless rehashing... but hey guys knock yourselves out


[edit on 4-7-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Hey Zorgon, you're a knowledgeable guy about NASA and related matters, maybe you can help me. I might possibly write to NASA, but I'm so uninformed that I don't even know what the part of the camera is called, I know what it looks like! but that isn't so helpful
Maybe I should just send a picture.

I need to find out, what method of lighting modern NASA cameras use, I'm having real problems of finding this information.

Oops, I didn't read your post entirely. I see you're not interested in finding it out yourself. Oh well, then I'll just make a general appeal to everyone in ATS, since the two major proponents of the pulsating alien theory are (unsurprisingly) not interested in helping me.



[edit on 4-7-2009 by Lazyninja]



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join