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]

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.

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respect for Tesla (the man was a genius probably several magnitudes above Einstein), but don't limit yourself to outdated science.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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]