Check it out. 10,000 beans will feed a lot of illegals! :shrug:

The first person to debunk the fact that the David Sereda examined (and further photo analyzed) NASA UFO evidence as being proof of the UFOs filmed as representing non human technology, gets $10,000 USD!

http://www.profindsearch.com/proof_that_aliens_exist.htm

ohh, ok, let me get in my space shuttle and check it out... ohh, wait, if I owned a space shuttle, why would I care about $10000?

the astronauts explained it during the mission. there is debris traveling with the ship, that is being illuminated by the sun.

I don't think things like this should be debunked, because people shouldn't believe they are alien technology in the first place. there are a lot of things it could be, why would someone jump on the alien hypothesis?

ohh, ok, let me get in my space shuttle and check it out... ohh, wait, if I owned a space shuttle, why would I care about $10000?

the astronauts explained it during the mission. there is debris traveling with the ship, that is being illuminated by the sun.

I don't think things like this should be debunked, because people shouldn't believe they are alien technology in the first place. there are a lot of things it could be, why would someone jump on the alien hypothesis?


You have done ZERO research obviously. When you have at very least watched the entire Evidence: The Case For NASA UFOs or read the book, get back with me.

does watching a video or reading a book constitute research?

does watching a video or reading a book constitute research?


It's a start, therefore the answer is a resounding YES if only in the most modest and embryonic of senses. It certainly should not be all the research done however.

Trust me. There are members here that don't pay much attention to the "Pseudoscience" section (that's a perception that NEEDS to change) that will readily admit that David Sereda has some amazing ideas in theory.

The truth is, the man is a complete moron with respect to handling his own
PR.

That Coast To Coast with Art Bell has done more to ruin the legitimacy of ongoing research into this incredible phenomenon than any other single entity.

PLEASE, take a moment to consider this extremely shallow over view of The Galaxy Clock.

http://ufonasa.terra-ent.com/2_galaxyClock.htm

I will be the first to tell you and everyone else on SciForums that I am a NOBODY that knows less than nothing about Quantum Physics. However, I find some of the peripheral discoveries and theories beyond fascinating. I NEED those like the many advanced students and teachers alike here to expound on these principles. Not for my selfish interests alone ;) but rather for the betterment of science itself.

There is so much more here than meets the eye with respect to legitimate cutting edge science.

well, UFO investigation is not something that is in the realm of legitimate science. that is due to the fact that every scientific investigation into UFOs has turned up nothing. when scientists look at it, it turns out to be mundane. however, the idea of UFOs being alien spacecraft is very romantic, so people keep making a big deal about it.

people should put that much effort into other aspects of the unknown.

well, UFO investigation is not something that is in the realm of legitimate science. that is due to the fact that every scientific investigation into UFOs has turned up nothing. when scientists look at it, it turns out to be mundane. however, the idea of UFOs being alien spacecraft is very romantic, so people keep making a big deal about it.

people should put that much effort into other aspects of the unknown.

So you are basically apathetic. Incidentally, you are absolutely wrong about science and UFOs. Typical skeptic.

Ludicrous video.

Better: http://www.nss.org/resources/library/shuttlevideos/shuttle75.htm

But if you want to see just how incredibly stupid the claim that the UFOs are engineered objects can be, listen to the live commentary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuFBUS0kiSA

This is not a life-changing UFO encounter. This is just poor cinematography.

The people who say the big circular disk is a physical object which passed behind the 100 km distant tether ignore the fact the this video (like almost all UFO "photos") is badly out-of-focus and what they see as "passes behind" is actually "passes in front of an object which saturates the camera." The "features" they see on the "disks" are real -- they are parts of the camera itself.

Ludicrous video.

Better: http://www.nss.org/resources/library/shuttlevideos/shuttle75.htm

But if you want to see just how incredibly stupid the claim that the UFOs are engineered objects can be, listen to the live commentary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuFBUS0kiSA

This is not a life-changing UFO encounter. This is just poor cinematography.

The people who say the big circular disk is a physical object which passed behind the 100 km distant tether ignore the fact the this video (like almost all UFO "photos") is badly out-of-focus and what they see as "passes behind" is actually "passes in front of an object which saturates the camera." The "features" they see on the "disks" are real -- they are parts of the camera itself.

That is THEE dumbest thing I have ever read concerning this film. Do you have one shred of proof? No you do not. Just blabbering to get attention.

This is the very type of thing I am referring to when I state my extreme lack of patience with the skeptic mentality.

Here you have an explanation from a skeptic, actually several, without any REAL explanation whatsoever. These explanations that you offer cannot be duplicated. PLEASE, show me just 1 other example of film taken in space that demonstrates the same effects you are describing here as attributed to your ridiculous explanations. Parts of the camera? Passing in front of the tether because of saturation? Badly out of focus????

You should be ashamed of yourself. If for no other reason than your predictability.

Wasn't the video that was sent to Edgar Mitchell (ex apollo astronaut and big supporter of UFO / alien stories) and he claimed that he could see nothing unusual in it and they just looked like particles to him?

My instinct is that if a prominent beleiver who also happens to have actually been into space sees these as something mundane then that pretty much rests the case

Had they exhibited some kind of indication that they were being controlled - or had any appearance of any discernable structure, then this case might warrant some interest - as they don't it's one of the less interesting UFO cases.

To me they just look like artefacts of the recording device and its depth of field - the large blobby lights you get small light sources close to the camera lens when it is focused to infinity (see Airy discs) - or when zooming on a very distant one - its a similar effect to the diamond shaped "ufos" that are an artefact of the shape of the camera aperture.

Check it out. 10,000 beans will feed a lot of illegals! :shrug:

The first person to debunk the fact that the David Sereda examined (and further photo analyzed) NASA UFO evidence as being proof of the UFOs filmed as representing non human technology, gets $10,000 USD!

http://www.profindsearch.com/proof_that_aliens_exist.htm

I can debunk it. Take a roundish block of ice, carve out some lumps and bumps, carve out a notch, place it on a string at a distance at night, shine a light at it, record with a video camera, move the string.

Also observe that in the original video the notch object is:

* Asymmetrical and has random crevaces and indentations all over it.
* Not rotationally aligned with its trajectory (even aliens would want to see what's in their path especially with ice chunks whizing by).

But this is a rather glaring case of the obvious and I strongly doubt that person is going to pay me $10,000. On top of that there's no confirmation the cash exists and there is no contract that I could legally hold him to (the latter being the most important so I could immediately sue him when he rejects the evidence).

http://ufonasa.terra-ent.com/2_galaxyClock.htmTake it from someone in the theoretical physics research community, that is complete and utter nonsense.

I was right - camera artefacts - nothing more:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=SYLHqv-foMk

Fwd to about 35 secs and watch from there

I would claim the 10k but it's someone elses vid - I've emailed them with the link to the "challenge" website and bet him $10k that they wriggle out of paying up :D

Wasn't the video that was sent to Edgar Mitchell (ex apollo astronaut and big supporter of UFO / alien stories) and he claimed that he could see nothing unusual in it and they just looked like particles to him?

My instinct is that if a prominent beleiver who also happens to have actually been into space sees these as something mundane then that pretty much rests the case

Had they exhibited some kind of indication that they were being controlled - or had any appearance of any discernable structure, then this case might warrant some interest - as they don't it's one of the less interesting UFO cases.

To me they just look like artefacts of the recording device and its depth of field - the large blobby lights you get small light sources close to the camera lens when it is focused to infinity (see Airy discs) - or when zooming on a very distant one - its a similar effect to the diamond shaped "ufos" that are an artefact of the shape of the camera aperture.



Thanks for your response SP. I chose to respond to you first because of some key points you raise. The GREAT thing about SciForums is that you honestly get well considered responses. The thing about your response is that although you understandably disagree with the legitimacy of the premise, you are not offering ridiculous fictional absolutes but rather intelligent considerations for what may in fact be.

I will start here:

They do exhibit clear indications of control. They change directions deliberately. There goes your "artifacts from the recording device theory".

Also, why do the objects appear identical on completely different equipment used by NASA if they are products of specific equipment? This is a phenomenon recognized by NASA as "unexplainable". This is their official view. Although they too make many hypothesis for what these objects may be. Originally they were thought to be blobs of water. These things are HUGE. Not tiny. This was a known fact prior to Sereda ever examining the photos.

It's critical to understand that within the challenge lies the need to "debunk" (what a term eh?) the PPP (Penetrating Photographic Process) imagery process and analysis. This is NOT just about viewing the original raw NASA footage.

If these were random ice particles or debris, why are they all structurally the same? That makes ZERO sense.

CLEARLY, the objects pass in front and behind the tether with no deviation in focus whatsoever. There goes the ridiculous saturation inaccuracy theory.

If anyone here (I say this reverently, not condescendingly) had honestly researched this matter, you would know that Sereda contends these objects represent an ability to technologically alter matter's molecular frequency composition. Thus enabling light speed travel. Science FULLY supports this notion via the last 20 years of Quantum research. We simply, much like the string theory, don't understand how to access or mechanize these proofs on paper.

Take it from someone in the theoretical physics research community, that is complete and utter nonsense.

I RESPECT the time alone that it took for you to write this single sentence GREATLY. That's a fact. However, even if it takes a few weeks, could you get back with me/us, on the how and why of your rebuttal as opposed to the "utter nonsense" quick dismissal?

Wasn't the video that was sent to Edgar Mitchell (ex apollo astronaut and big supporter of UFO / alien stories) and he claimed that he could see nothing unusual in it and they just looked like particles to him?

Yeah, and one of the Astronauts on that Mission was Jeff Hoffman, the only astronaut I have ever met (we worked at the same place, although at different times, and he came back to visit), and he never mentioned aliens.

I think Jeff and the rest of the crew can share that $10,000.

They do exhibit clear indications of control. They change directions deliberately. There goes your "artifacts from the recording device theory".
.

Ooh, how loaded was that sentence?

Some change direction, as shuttle thrusters are fired. The rest all move along in perfect ballistic trajectories, becoming visible as they are lit, fading as they get too out of focus, some being pin points of light, other defocussed illuminations of the camera Iris.

The objects are real, the majority are specks of dust or ice near the shuttle, plus perhaps a few shooting stars further away. Their shape is the way it is due to the camera, that is the artefact part.

Yeah, and one of the Astronauts on that Mission was Jeff Hoffman, the only astronaut I have ever met (we worked at the same place, although at different times, and he came back to visit), and he never mentioned aliens.
.


What? you mean he didn't say:
"Hi, I'm Jeff and I believe in aliens. What's your name?" :D

What? you mean he didn't say:
"Hi, I'm Jeff and I believe in aliens. What's your name?" :D

He showed us that footage, and more, from that mission. Not one of the observers (PhD's, postgrads, and Profs) saw anything they didn't expect to see. It some shots you can see ice flake off the manouevering thruster to become debris!

I think if you new more about space, and observation, you'd perhaps be less likely to jump to conclusions.

Ooh, how loaded was that sentence?

Some change direction, as shuttle thrusters are fired. The rest all move along in perfect ballistic trajectories, becoming visible as they are lit, fading as they get too out of focus, some being pin points of light, other defocussed illuminations of the camera Iris.

The objects are real, the majority are specks of dust or ice near the shuttle, plus perhaps a few shooting stars further away. Their shape is the way it is due to the camera, that is the artefact part.


As usual you are unprepared Phil. PLEASE, do your home work and get back with us.

Incidentally, the video you are referring to is not the same one being considered here. Not even close. There is roughly a whole decade's worth of video that was streamed live from the shuttle in the 90s.

As usual you are unprepared Phil. PLEASE, do your home work and get back with us.

Oh really. I've seen this, and personal camcorder footage taken by a guy that was up there. You haven't.

Incidentally, the video you are referring to is not the same one being considered here. Not even close. There is roughly a whole decade's worth of video that was streamed live from the shuttle in the 90s.

The site linked in the OP reference the very same mission. (the STS-75 Space Shuttle mission) So yes, that is the very mission. I met one of the crew. Did you? No.

You got nothing.

Oh really. I've seen this, and personal camcorder footage taken by a guy that was up there. You haven't.



The site linked in the OP reference the very same mission. (the STS-75 Space Shuttle mission) So yes, that is the very mission. I met one of the crew. Did you? No.

You got nothing.


ROTFLOL!! You are so funny.:D

Do you have one shred of proof? No you do not. Just blabbering to get attention.

Just like David Sereda.

Just like David Sereda.


No Q, not true. Sereda did a fine job of researching and presenting his claims with detailed scientifically derived hypothesis and subsequent theory. He did so in a very deliberate and professional manner as well. Watch the video.

So nope. Not even close to the same.

Sereda did a fine job of researching and presenting his claims with detailed scientifically derived hypothesis and subsequent theory. He did so in a very deliberate and professional manner as well.

:roflmao:

They do exhibit clear indications of control. They change directions deliberately. There goes your "artifacts from the recording device theory".

well phlog has already answered this so I wont bother to add to whast he said other than he's spot on.


Also, why do the objects appear identical on completely different equipment used by NASA if they are products of specific equipment? This is a phenomenon recognized by NASA as "unexplainable". This is their official view. Although they too make many hypothesis for what these objects may be. Originally they were thought to be blobs of water. These things are HUGE. Not tiny. This was a known fact prior to Sereda ever examining the photos.

they look the same because the internal workings of camcorders are very similar - same reason why almost all camcorders can produce the old diamond 'ufo' as an artefact of the shape of the aperture iris - and the same reason why the debunking video image looks pretty much exactly the same as the nasa footage


It's critical to understand that within the challenge lies the need to "debunk" (what a term eh?) the PPP (Penetrating Photographic Process) imagery process and analysis. This is NOT just about viewing the original raw NASA footage.

not sure what you are on about here - just commenting so you dont think I'm ignoring it


If these were random ice particles or debris, why are they all structurally the same? That makes ZERO sense.

if they are an artefact of the recording equipment it makes PERFECT sense


CLEARLY, the objects pass in front and behind the tether with no deviation in focus whatsoever. There goes the ridiculous saturation inaccuracy theory.

That's because they are already out of focus - watch them resolve from fuzzy blobs into the artefact shape as they move from edge to the centre of the screen - they reach a point where the focus is so bad that we get a nice view of the internal workings of the camera


If anyone here (I say this reverently, not condescendingly) had honestly researched this matter, you would know that Sereda contends these objects represent an ability to technologically alter matter's molecular frequency composition. Thus enabling light speed travel. Science FULLY supports this notion via the last 20 years of Quantum research. We simply, much like the string theory, don't understand how to access or mechanize these proofs on paper.

Sereda is seeing what he wants to see - and then making a whole bunch of stuff up that he would like to be true from there.

On top of all that if someione who has actually been into space and is used to seeing particles moving about, and is also a UFO beleiver, has seen and rejected the video then we don't really have anywhere to put this except into the bin.

Like I said - this is one of the less good bits of ufo evidence - about a 3.5 out of 10 becuase it takes a little bit of consideration before discarding it outright.

To all,

A couple of points. I don't know enough about the camera issues to say anybody is wrong here, so I can't say someone is right. I have looked and don't see any showing controlled behavior such as changing directions. Electra, let me know the time in the vid if you have seen that. I do notice that none of them run into each other which is odd if it were debris floating you would think they would bounce off each other at some point. But I will say if they are craft then we are in deep. If more of them were stopping and changing direction or speed it would be more interesting. The biggest issue I have is the distortion of the tether which is only about 1/10 the diameter of a quarter (my understanding) that means there is major distortion of the tether, which would also means that the size of the objects could be distorted, right ? The tether is about 80 miles away, is 12 miles long and very thin. So there are definetely camera issues here. Would be kind of hard to replicate again considering what it took to get these shots in the first place.

Along those lines we have seen the STS 48 vid, but there could be the case for the adjuster rockets to blow nearby debris and several of them do change at the same time which would possible indicate they are near the camera.

But I am attaching this link because this one to me brings up some more difficult debunkery challenges that I don't think can be easily explained away.

It is the STS 114, around .49 in we see an object (whatever you want to call it) appearing to cruise towards earth at a tremendous rate, then slows, then stops, then changes direction with none of the other objects changing direction at all and NO adjuster rockets being fired. The others don't change direction BEFORE or AFTER it turns. The weirdest part or maybe not so weird is that the camera pans away as the object clearly goes back the other way, showing it being controlled by some kind of force or ?

Coincendence ? Maybe, but it is my understanding that the cameras are controlled from the ground. Does anyone know what the delay factor on the camera adjustment is ? In other words if I was on the ground controlling the camera and I saw something that I did not want revealed, how long would it take for the camera to start panning away ?

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=nasa+sts+114&emb=0#

Thanks for any help.

Also, this NASA vid shown on Japanese tv, shows the "debris" or objects in tight formation that is very unusual, not in the least chaotic like the other NASA vids. Anyone care to elaborate on what we are seeing here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PF39Ur5qATQ

To all,

A couple of points. I don't know enough about the camera issues to say anybody is wrong here, so I can't say someone is right. I have looked and don't see any showing controlled behavior such as changing directions. Electra, let me know the time in the vid if you have seen that. I do notice that none of them run into each other which is odd if it were debris floating you would think they would bounce off each other at some point. But I will say if they are craft then we are in deep. If more of them were stopping and changing direction or speed it would be more interesting. The biggest issue I have is the distortion of the tether which is only about 1/10 the diameter of a quarter (my understanding) that means there is major distortion of the tether, which would also means that the size of the objects could be distorted, right ? The tether is about 80 miles away, is 12 miles long and very thin. So there are definetely camera issues here. Would be kind of hard to replicate again considering what it took to get these shots in the first place.

Along those lines we have seen the STS 48 vid, but there could be the case for the adjuster rockets to blow nearby debris and several of them do change at the same time which would possible indicate they are near the camera.

But I am attaching this link because this one to me brings up some more difficult debunkery challenges that I don't think can be easily explained away.

It is the STS 114, around .49 in we see an object (whatever you want to call it) appearing to cruise towards earth at a tremendous rate, then slows, then stops, then changes direction with none of the other objects changing direction at all and NO adjuster rockets being fired. The others don't change direction BEFORE or AFTER it turns. The weirdest part or maybe not so weird is that the camera pans away as the object clearly goes back the other way, showing it being controlled by some kind of force or ?

Coincendence ? Maybe, but it is my understanding that the cameras are controlled from the ground. Does anyone know what the delay factor on the camera adjustment is ? In other words if I was on the ground controlling the camera and I saw something that I did not want revealed, how long would it take for the camera to start panning away ?

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=nasa+sts+114&emb=0#

Thanks for any help.

Did you watch the DVD I referred to or just these little clips that were put up here? You won't find any sufficient evidence via what has been posted here if you do not watch the entire DVD in context.

well phlog has already answered this so I wont bother to add to whast he said other than he's spot on.

The only thing that is "spot on" is the one on his shirt. No truth or valid explanation whatsoever. Just buffering.


they look the same because the internal workings of camcorders are very similar - same reason why almost all camcorders can produce the old diamond 'ufo' as an artefact of the shape of the aperture iris - and the same reason why the debunking video image looks pretty much exactly the same as the nasa footage

Then why are they moving about when the camera is stationary? If what you are stating were the case, unless the camera moved, the object would not move. It CERTAINLY would not pass behind another solid object either. Please explain this.


not sure what you are on about here - just commenting so you dont think I'm ignoring it

I'm not really "on about" anything SP. I am just trying to grasp why no one is actually viewing the DVD and is making comments on material out of context. These clips are NOT represent of the case as a whole. Not even close. In fact, the case is yet to be remotely refuted. So far I have one person stating that it's "utter nonsense" without so much as a stitch of back up.


if they are an artefact of the recording equipment it makes PERFECT sense


That's because they are already out of focus - watch them resolve from fuzzy blobs into the artefact shape as they move from edge to the centre of the screen - they reach a point where the focus is so bad that we get a nice view of the internal workings of the camera

Again SP, you are NOT commenting on the DVD, you are commenting on a clip out of context with respect to the case presented.

Sereda is seeing what he wants to see - and then making a whole bunch of stuff up that he would like to be true from there.

On top of all that if someione who has actually been into space and is used to seeing particles moving about, and is also a UFO beleiver, has seen and rejected the video then we don't really have anywhere to put this except into the bin.

Forgive me, but aren't you appealing to authority here without real factual evidence to refute what you "believe" to be, or not to be the case? When Sereda questioned the head of NASA's ET BioChemestry dept., that person's response concerning the objects was far less absolute than Edgar Mitchell. Why do think that is?

Why is it that Edgar Mitchell would be so quick to dismiss these objects when he himself has never seen a UFO, yet claims to be a real proponent of them?

Why aren't we talking about the highly sophisticated real nature of these camera's on the shuttle either? What about the specific spectrum of light that these cameras are designed to "see" that the human eye does not?

What about the FACT that these same cameras do not typically pick up these objects? Why not if this is a common representation of their inner workings?

Why do we see the objects in the vast numbers we do in some shots and then just single identical objects in different shots?

Like I said - this is one of the less good bits of ufo evidence - about a 3.5 out of 10 becuase it takes a little bit of consideration before discarding it outright.

I not only welcome your opinion SP, I respect it. Thanks again.

Electra,

I watched his NASA evidence for ufo's 1-11, I could actually find number 10.

The problem is that I don't have anyone else to reference his claims against. Has he presented all of the information available ? Has he made leaps of faith in making claims that they can ONLY be a craft ? In other words, I would like to see him debunk the debunkers with regards to the camera issues, simple because I do not know enough about the camera focus issues.

But I brought up some points as to why to that is important. If they were that large, they would be large when the camera pans back and the tether appears very thin, they only appear large when the camera zooms in but the tether appears very wide at that point. We know the tether is very, very thin, 1/10th of quater in diameter. This is not being addressed as far as I can tell.

But again I am no expert in these camera issues. I also have some doubts about them appearing to just be moving in one direction as if debris, where in other NASA vids we have objects which appear to be much more intelligently controlled.

Such as this one which I am sure you have seen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5bG0UVVEEk&feature=related

Electra,

Now what would really be convincing in the sts 80 or the tether incident is if they started moving in ways that were clearly controlled. For example, if one of them were to move vertically toward the shuttle, or in the case of the sts 80, if they moved from those standing positions horizontial across and made u-turns etc.

Then why are they moving about when the camera is stationary? If what you are stating were the case, unless the camera moved, the object would not move. It CERTAINLY would not pass behind another solid object either. Please explain this.

not sure what you aree driving at - the particles are moving because they are moving - the camera is stationary because its stationary - not sure why this would be relevant - please explain


Forgive me, but aren't you appealing to authority here without real factual evidence to refute what you "believe" to be, or not to be the case? When Sereda questioned the head of NASA's ET BioChemestry dept., that person's response concerning the objects was far less absolute than Edgar Mitchell. Why do think that is?

Why is it that Edgar Mitchell would be so quick to dismiss these objects when he himself has never seen a UFO, yet claims to be a real proponent of them.


Granted, perhaps it is an A2A, but unlike DS at least EM actually HAS some authority - the fact that he has been to space and seen the behaviour of ice particles etc there is VERY relevant - so is the fact that he's a UFO buff and therefore either impartial - or at worst - biased towards saying it IS a UFO.

Furthermore why DS expects a biochemist to know anything about optics and have a valid opinion on this is beyond me - why didn't he speak to someone who knows about optics - especially considering how many people other than myself see this as an optical illusion caused by the camera
I only have an inkling because I'm into photography, and often see very similar artefact effects when I shoot underwater and I get an effect called back-scatter caused by particulate in the water (and it ruins my fekin shots :mad: ) - tiny particles get expanded to great big lumps often shaped exactly like either the ccd in my camera or the aperture iris.# depending on the aperture setting I use.
As to explanation of why this happens, its beyond me - its physicsy and mathsy so makes my brain hurt.

here's an example (not one of mine - I bin mine when I get it)

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r279/geochic73/IMAG0034-1.jpg



Why aren't we talking about the highly sophisticated real nature of these camera's on the shuttle either? What about the specific spectrum of light that these cameras are designed to "see" that the human eye does not?

Irrelevant - its stil the same camera mechanism so it will still produce the same artefacts regardless of the wavelengths of light the recording medium (i.e film or ccd) is sensitive to.
Analogy: an out of focus shot taken on colour film will still be out of focus with the same settings on B&W or UV sensitive film.


What about the FACT that these same cameras do not typically pick up these objects? Why not if this is a common representation of their inner workings?


we do and it is - http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2087001&postcount=13

as is the old diamond ufo thing - I the first one I saw was in the 70's but was taken in the 60's - and people are still fooling themselves with them today




Why do we see the objects in the vast numbers we do in some shots and then just single identical objects in different shots?

because in some shots there are lots of particles (or ufos if you prefer) - and in some shots there aren't (I'm guessing you meant to ask something a little more searching here, but didn't quite express it right - I can only answer what you ask).

I RESPECT the time alone that it took for you to write this single sentence GREATLY. That's a fact. However, even if it takes a few weeks, could you get back with me/us, on the how and why of your rebuttal as opposed to the "utter nonsense" quick dismissal?
Firstly, Hawking's first name is Stephen, not Steven.

Secondly, Planck didn't write a 'code'.

Thirdly, matter is not just 'electromagnetic wave patterns vibrating so fast within a space that they give the illusion that mass is solid'. There's other forces you know. On the scale of the nucleus electromagnetism is relegated to third place in terms of strength. High energy short range dynamics are typically the weak force and the strong force. If you take any quantum process which can be described by quantum electrodynamics (the model of light and it's interactions with matter) and dial up the energy you find that eventually the weak force takes over your dynamics, photons play less and less of a role. On the scale of nucleons gluons pack much more punch. And besides, mainstream physics doesn't say an electron or a proton is a bound state of a photon, they are fundamental fields in and off themselves.

Fourthly, 'mass is believed to be both made of particles and waves. Particle and wave theory are fusing together as they are both revealing the same thing.' is evidence the author of that page doesn't even know the concepts of quantum mechanics. All quantum objects are described in terms of quanta of field oscillations. It's been like that for about 80 years now, so the choice of the present tense in the second quoted sentence is wrong.

Fifthly, 'All mass has waves that vibrate at different frequencies. The waves in solid mass as we experience it is relatively low in frequency (measured in Hertzian waves). Photons (lightwaves) are very high in frequency (Hertzian waves)' is nonsense. What causes a substance to be a solid or a liquid etc are inter-molecular and inter-atomic bonds like Hydrogen bonds and Van Der Waal forces. Heating up a block of ice till it melts doesn't change the atoms or even molecules of the water itself, it's still H_{2}O.

Sixthly Photons are said to have near zero-mass, a property that allows them to attain light speed. A Photon's mass is a huge debate still unanswered until now. is nonsense. The mass of the photon in quantum field theory is exactly zero. It moves on null trajectories and via the Ward Identity is protected from renormalisation effects which might give it mass. Current experiments show the photon has a rest mass of less than 10^{-51} kilograms.

Seventhly "Because mass can now be reduced to Zero, an object's (spacecraft's) mass can now easily glide towards light speed" is inconsistent. Since we can reduce the mass the mass glides to some velocity? It's like saying "I weight 4 seconds".

It's written by someone who knows little of the concepts of quantum mechanics, none of the details and who obviously has no problem with trying to fool people into thinking he does.

Electra,

Now what would really be convincing in the sts 80 or the tether incident is if they started moving in ways that were clearly controlled. For example, if one of them were to move vertically toward the shuttle, or in the case of the sts 80, if they moved from those standing positions horizontial across and made u-turns etc.


You MUST see this DVD. The objects in the tether incident are just a fraction of what is shown. There are times when the objects do incredible maneuvers and are clocked at 500,000 (plus!) miles per hour. Don't cheat yourself my friend. Simply sign up for Netflix if they still have their "2-4 weeks for free" promotion and rent it right away. You will have it in your mail box most likely in 3 days and if you don't want to continue your membership, it will be FREE.

It's worth it. Get It!:D

not sure what you aree driving at - the particles are moving because they are moving - the camera is stationary because its stationary - not sure why this would be relevant - please explain



Granted, perhaps it is an A2A, but unlike DS at least EM actually HAS some authority - the fact that he has been to space and seen the behaviour of ice particles etc there is VERY relevant - so is the fact that he's a UFO buff and therefore either impartial - or at worst - biased towards saying it IS a UFO.

Furthermore why DS expects a biochemist to know anything about optics and have a valid opinion on this is beyond me - why didn't he speak to someone who knows about optics - especially considering how many people other than myself see this as an optical illusion caused by the camera
I only have an inkling because I'm into photography, and often see very similar artefact effects when I shoot underwater and I get an effect called back-scatter caused by particulate in the water (and it ruins my fekin shots :mad: ) - tiny particles get expanded to great big lumps often shaped exactly like either the ccd in my camera or the aperture iris.# depending on the aperture setting I use.
As to explanation of why this happens, its beyond me - its physicsy and mathsy so makes my brain hurt.

here's an example (not one of mine - I bin mine when I get it)

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r279/geochic73/IMAG0034-1.jpg



Irrelevant - its stil the same camera mechanism so it will still produce the same artefacts regardless of the wavelengths of light the recording medium (i.e film or ccd) is sensitive to.
Analogy: an out of focus shot taken on colour film will still be out of focus with the same settings on B&W or UV sensitive film.



we do and it is - http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2087001&postcount=13

as is the old diamond ufo thing - I the first one I saw was in the 70's but was taken in the 60's - and people are still fooling themselves with them today




because in some shots there are lots of particles (or ufos if you prefer) - and in some shots there aren't (I'm guessing you meant to ask something a little more searching here, but didn't quite express it right - I can only answer what you ask).


There is simply too much here to respectfully consider and reply to. I really cannot thank you enough. I will "dig in" this evening and respond shortly there after.

Maybe I am putting too much stock in Sereda, but it certainly seems as though the man is genuine.

A few things quickly:

I screwed up when I stated "Biochemist, it should have been Astrochemist.
The person is Dr. Joseph Nuth, III, Head of Astrochemistry at the Goddard Space Flight Center.

Secondly, I quickly realized that I may have misunderstood what you meant by particles as artifacts. I thought you were referring to some mechanical attribute inside the camera device itself. Are you saying this is somewhat likened to dust?

If this is the case why do they all have a very similar appearance? Isn't dust or debris going to be all different random shapes?

What about the fact that they can be seen to be spinning? The images on the DVD are MUCH clearer than what s in these clips but I realize the clips are relevant, just not the same.

I screwed up when I stated "Biochemist, it should have been Astrochemist.
The person is Dr. Joseph Nuth, III, Head of Astrochemistry at the Goddard Space Flight Center.


Astrochemist schmastrochemist!
Gimme an optics expert (I'd hope nasa has one or two of them) - or even smart layperson - who'll explain to me categorically why these are not what they look like to me - i.e. artefacts caused by the camera itself and I'll give it some credance.


Secondly, I quickly realized that I may have misunderstood what you meant by particles as artifacts. I thought you were referring to some mechanical attribute inside the camera device itself. Are you saying this is somewhat likened to dust?

I did mean an attribute of the camera.
It is caused by the aperture vanes of the video camera opening and closing as they try to adjust to an uneven level of brightness and lack of something to lock focus on (or trying to focus on something too small for it to get a proper 'lock' on) - which is exactly what you would expect with small bright particles moving against a very dark background - when they reach the extreme range of the camera's zoom/ aperture the image takes on the shape of the aperture within the camera - or as seems to be the case here - gives a reflection of the ccd or the zoom mechanism - that's the best explanation I can give of how it actually happens other than the fact that I know it does- its gets physics and mathsy from there - perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me can explain it better.

so for example this:
http://www.diyphotography.net/files/images/heart-bokeh.jpg

when pushed beyond focal range or aperture (or both) becomes this (hexagonal aperture in this case):

http://www.diyphotography.net/files/images/regular-bokeh.jpg

Basically though, bear in mind that in the vid I posted, the light that the person is focussing on is way too distant for it to be resolved properly(unless he has a 4 foot long telephoto (unlikely)), and yet an image is resolved - so we know this isn't the real image of what's being focussed upon but an artefact - i.e.an artifical effect caused by the way the camera works - add to that the fact it looks pretty much exactly like the 'ufos' in the vid - that clinches it for me 99.9%


If this is the case why do they all have a very similar appearance? Isn't dust or debris going to be all different random shapes?

If what we are seeing is a reflection of the aperture / ccd then they will all be the same shape


What about the fact that they can be seen to be spinning? The images on the DVD are MUCH clearer than what s in these clips but I realize the clips are relevant, just not the same.

That is not in the vid I saw to be honest - they were all at the same orientation in the one i saw - could be the zoom barrell turning - I dunno - I'd have to pass that one to someone who has a better understanding of the camera's workings than me.

SP,

You are saying that they are debris of somekind ?

That it is simply the camera focus issue.

They have to be debris because they are clearly moving.

So I can buy that.

I have heard others show examples of stagnant lens issues that re-create a similar object. But that doesn't match up with objects moving across the screen.

So what you are saying is that it can't properly focus on the tether and the moving objects as it zooms in so the objects (whether dust or debris) are essentially being created to look this way by the camera's internals.

Is this right ?

This may explain why the tether looks so wide when it should be very thin at that distance while zoomed in and why the debris look so small when the camera is not zoomed in and the tether looks proportional.

SP,

You are saying that they are debris of somekind ?

That it is simply the camera focus issue.

They have to be debris because they are clearly moving.

So I can buy that.

I have heard others show examples of stagnant lens issues that re-create a similar object. But that doesn't match up with objects moving across the screen.

So what you are saying is that it can't properly focus on the tether and the moving objects as it zooms in so the objects (whether dust or debris) are essentially being created to look this way by the camera's internals.

Is this right ?

This may explain why the tether looks so wide when it should be very thin at that distance while zoomed in and why the debris look so small when the camera is not zoomed in and the tether looks proportional.

the short answer is yes - that's what it looks like to me - I'd need someone who is techy with the internal gubbins of a camera to explain it properly though, but if you check this vid out you'll see a virtually identical effect that happens when a camera goes to extreme zoom on a small / distant light source
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=SYLHqv-foMk

SP,

You are saying that they are debris of somekind ?

That it is simply the camera focus issue.

They have to be debris because they are clearly moving.

*So I can buy that.

I have heard others show examples of stagnant lens issues that re-create a similar object. But that doesn't match up with objects moving across the screen.

So what you are saying is that it can't properly focus on the tether and the moving objects as it zooms in so the objects (whether dust or debris) are essentially being created to look this way by the camera's internals.

Is this right ?

This may explain why the tether looks so wide when it should be very thin at that distance while zoomed in and why the debris look so small when the camera is not zoomed in and the tether looks proportional.

I admit that it is a GREAT thing to have SP commenting and being gracious enough to not just blow this off like most others, but I gotta say to both of you, YOU'RE NOT PLAYING FAIR.:bawl:

I NEED you to BOTH watch the DVD and to refute Sereda directly based on his commentary and presentation.

All the issues like "the camera's focus on infinity", "airy discs", "the perceptive size of the tether at 75 - 100 miles" etc. etc. are ALL addressed in clear and succinct fashion within his presentation.

I am telling you that this guy is NO dummy and that he has gone to great lengths to prepare this presentation and research the matter. I do not see it as a commercial presentation designed to make money. That's for certain.

I will now return to studying what SP has presented here. It's a GREAT lesson in photographic explanation if nothing else.

But I will ask you this SP. Don't you think that NASA would know enough about camera technology to use camera's on it's shuttle that did not exemplify the type of common place inaccuracy that is being described here?

the short answer is yes - that's what it looks like to me - I'd need someone who is techy with the internal gubbins of a camera to explain it properly though, but if you check this vid out you'll see a virtually identical effect that happens when a camera goes to extreme zoom on a small / distant light source
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=SYLHqv-foMk

I'm no camera expert either but I can certainly attest that what you are saying is true - from my own personal experience.

I once tried to record a lunar eclipse and got the EXACT SAME hex shapes that you showed/described. So it turned the Moon into a UFO when watching the results - but while looking at it live the appearence was quite normal.

All these UFO believers need do is try a simple experiment with a camera and some distant streetlights. During the playback, they'd find all the little UFOs they ever wanted to see! (Heh!)

ROTFLOL!! You are so funny.:D

Funny? Is that all you have?

I have met one of the crew from that mission when I worked with a bunch of Astronomers and Satellite engineers. I've seen higher quality footage of the same scene, both official NASA footage, and personal camcorder footage.

There was nothing out of the ordinary witnessed by any of the audience, who were all skilled observational scientists, and engineers.

To reiterate, we saw this projected in a lecture hall from a higher quality source. Not some crummy quality youtube video, I had commentary from a guy that was there, not insinuation from some armchair UFO freak.

Like I said, you got nothing.

I'm no camera expert either but I can certainly attest that what you are saying is true - from my own personal experience.

I once tried to record a lunar eclipse and got the EXACT SAME hex shapes that you showed/described. So it turned the Moon into a UFO when watching the results - but while looking at it live the appearence was quite normal.

All these UFO believers need do is try a simple experiment with a camera and some distant streetlights. During the playback, they'd find all the little UFOs they ever wanted to see! (Heh!)


Yeah, it's well known, the 'lozenge' shaped UFO's are a product of (from memory) early Sony camcorders, which had a simple Iris, that had four elements. An out of focus source of light cast a lozenge shape onto the CCD, which having 'sharp' edges, would appear to be in focus.

I'm not sure which brand is responsible for the 'millennium falcon' shaped artefacts, they're an odd shape, not Iris related I don't think, but maybe a reflection of the CCD housing itself, inside the camera?

It is the STS 114, around .49 in we see an object (whatever you want to call it) appearing to cruise towards earth at a tremendous rate, then slows, then stops, then changes direction with none of the other objects changing direction at all and NO adjuster rockets being fired. The others don't change direction BEFORE or AFTER it turns. The weirdest part or maybe not so weird is that the camera pans away as the object clearly goes back the other way, showing it being controlled by some kind of force or ?

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=nasa+sts+114&emb=0#



I presume what we are seeing is the Earth, from the Shuttle, as it is in orbit with it's underside facing outwards, so we are looking up at the Earth. We can just see the curvature of the Earth at the bottom. The lights we see therefore are cities on Earth, and stars/planets over the horizon.

As we don't see much debris, I can only assume there is no illumination from the shuttle, so near shuttle objects are fairly dark.

It does move in an odd fashion, but to be honest, the motion doesn't imply control, it decellerates uniformly, comes to a stop, and accelerates away, kind of in an ballistic trajectory, if a sharp peak, although the force providing the change on momentum perhaps isn't the Earth, as it seems to move away, but after the upward motion, during decelleration, the acceleration phase is also down in shot. Odd, but it's not like it flew in a circle, or pulled a sudden turn. I don't know what it is, I've just played with my globe, and I can't see how a terrestrial ballistic launch, could appear like that. Without range information though, it really is hard to say what forces are in play.

The panning away is just circumstance. If there were something to be covered up, the vid wouldn't have got released.

And because the "disks" are 2-D projections on the camera's CCD chip of a pencil of unfocused light, they don't obscure what is behind them. And if what is behind them is overexposed, you get the illusion that the disk passed behind the overexposed object. After going though any number of nonlinear filters and lossy compression steps, you just won't be able to recover the original data from the youtube video.

Compare the size you think they are to Sputnik. The tether was easily visible from the ground, why not the tiny ice particles? Oh, yeah, because they are tiny ice particles in the immediate vincity of the Shuttle.

The Shuttle.
The Shuttle.

Aw great, now I'm having an 1986 flashback.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnsK3N012RE @ 0:35-0:45

Funny? Is that all you have?

I have met one of the crew from that mission when I worked with a bunch of Astronomers and Satellite engineers. I've seen higher quality footage of the same scene, both official NASA footage, and personal camcorder footage.

There was nothing out of the ordinary witnessed by any of the audience, who were all skilled observational scientists, and engineers.

To reiterate, we saw this projected in a lecture hall from a higher quality source. Not some crummy quality youtube video, I had commentary from a guy that was there, not insinuation from some armchair UFO freak.

Like I said, you got nothing.

I never claimed to "have" anything. As per usual that's "your" predictable divisive manner of attempting "your" feeble manipulation to discredit wonder.

Truth is: David Sereda "HAS" something that blows your minuscule experience level completely out of the water.

Refute him. You'll loose EVERY time.

Like always, you give the appearance of "having" something because of "your" routine substitution practice.

PLEASE, do me a personal favor and GIVE UP. You have been doing your best to get the better of me since I first came to SciForums. Everyone knows it's the typical, superior "little scientist" routine, in which you attempt to exercise dominance and authority in an effort to somehow egotistically empower yourself.

PLEASE, this routine in which you don't bring a single REAL consideration to the table has gotten putridly old.

I read your electronics quandary this morning Phlog. Now *that's* REAL and thought provoking. Please, can we try to keep it that way and loose the condescending pseudo superior potato chip routine?

Thanks
Electra

And because the "disks" are 2-D projections on the camera's CCD chip of a pencil of unfocused light, they don't obscure what is behind them. And if what is behind them is overexposed, you get the illusion that the disk passed behind the overexposed object. After going though any number of nonlinear filters and lossy compression steps, you just won't be able to recover the original data from the youtube video.

Compare the size you think they are to Sputnik. The tether was easily visible from the ground, why not the tiny ice particles? Oh, yeah, because they are tiny ice particles in the immediate vincity of the Shuttle.

The Shuttle.
The Shuttle.

Aw great, now I'm having an 1986 flashback.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnsK3N012RE @ 0:35-0:45

Sir, if you were to even begin to consider the REAL issue, which you have not, (surprise!:rolleyes: ) you would know the very premise for Sereda's theories lie in these object's (which BTW, are claimed to be of HUGE proportion by NASA themselves ) non visible attributes.

I apologize to you that I came off like a total arrogant asshole in my initial response. That was just plain wrong and frankly, I don't need a moderator to tell me so. But for the sake of REALITY, would you at very least consider, if only for a short time, the ACTUAL premise of Sereda's claims.

Thank You

I never claimed to "have" anything. As per usual that's "your" predictable divisive manner of attempting "your" feeble manipulation to discredit wonder.

'discredit wonder' sorry bub, I've never been to Disneyland.

Truth is: David Sereda "HAS" something that blows your minuscule experience level completely out of the water.

Refute him. You'll loose EVERY time.

Loose? Do you mean 'lose'. A quick google reveals Sereda to be a very good self publicist, but using some hackneyed new age/environmentally friendly/spiritual BS that I've seen dozens of times before. I think I can easily debunk Sereda.

Also, I worked in Astrophysics for four years. Some of the guys there had been doing it for forty years. The sky is covered, all the time, with satellites looking up, from Radio frequency, through Infra Red, optical, X-Ray to Gamma Ray. Earth Observation Satellites cover the Earth looking down. RADARs mapped cloud structures, IR telescopes probed weather features. Doppler effect radars measured winds, and with all these instruments, gathering data, we never saw an alien spacecraft. One presumes an alien spacecraft decellerating from near light speed would be an energetic event, it would trigger all manner of observations, ... but none of our guys got called out for that.

Maybe you should go to a University, and see how research, real research is conducted. Assuming you have the academic credentials to enter one, of course.

Oh, I just found out Sereda is wrong on a few little technical facts. In an interview 'Breaking the Light Speed Barrier' he stated;

"Our nearest stars are Alpha Centauri A and B. They are 4.2 and 4.3 light years from earth. " (http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/mar3/sereda.htm)

Er, no, the nearest star, is Proxima Centauri. Every schoolboy knows that.

Oh, it gets better, from the same site;

"David: It is. There are stories of masters and yogis who have been able to do exactly this with their own bodies. Christ in his resurrected body can literally appear anywhere on the planet in a blink of an eye because that body is made of pure light and can move around. It is free of the laws of physical matter."

New age bullshitter. NEXT!

Oh, it gets better, from the same site;

"David: It is. There are stories of masters and yogis who have been able to do exactly this with their own bodies. Christ in his resurrected body can literally appear anywhere on the planet in a blink of an eye because that body is made of pure light and can move around. It is free of the laws of physical matter."

New age bullshitter. NEXT!

And therin lies one of the major problems with undereducated people like electrafixtion - they aren't even smart enough to check out the sources they put SO much trust in! Loosers!!!:bugeye:

But I will ask you this SP. Don't you think that NASA would know enough about camera technology to use camera's on it's shuttle that did not exemplify the type of common place inaccuracy that is being described here?Bear in mind that the Shuttle is mostly built from fairly old technology for at least 2 reasons. The Shuttles were built in the late 70s, early 80s so only gets partly updated when refits and repairs are done. Secondly, modern electronics are fairly fragile when it comes to radiation. You cannot just pack the Shuttle with the latest products from Intel, Sony and Canon and all's good because the high energy ions and photons which the Shuttle encounters due to being above most of the atmosphere can be enough to fry a 2008 Intel Pentium 4 or a very high definition camera light detector. Older technology, where the etching process is considerably cruder (like the slabs of rock known as 486s were made with), is less affected by these radiation factors. Special shielding or entirely new construction methods are often needed for truly delicate bits of hardware. So just because you can buy an 8Gb memory stick for your HD video camera in your local Walmart doesn't mean all NASA has to do it strap one of them to the Shuttle and it'll work.

So admittedly, you both (Phlog & Read-Only) don't have a lick of proof or refute, you're just stuck on "judge books by their covers".

Either of you via your routine practices, certainly don't succeed as coming off "intelligent" or "over educated" ROTFL, whatever that means.

Bottom Line: You BOTH got NOTHING. Just empirical hot air without a shred of proof or credible rebuttal.

So admittedly, you both (Phlog & Read-Only) don't have a lick of proof or refute, you're just stuck on "judge books by their covers".

Either of you via your routine practices, certainly don't succeed as coming off "intelligent" or "over educated" ROTFL, whatever that means.

Bottom Line: You BOTH got NOTHING. Just empirical hot air without a shred of proof or credible rebuttal.

Nope, you're just showing even MORE of your lack of good sense and judgement. The FIRST rule of thumb is always know your sources before relying on them. You grossly failed in that respect - just as you have in many, many others.

Sorry, but that's the plain truth!!

Bear in mind that the Shuttle is mostly built from fairly old technology for at least 2 reasons. The Shuttles were built in the late 70s, early 80s so only gets partly updated when refits and repairs are done. Secondly, modern electronics are fairly fragile when it comes to radiation. You cannot just pack the Shuttle with the latest products from Intel, Sony and Canon and all's good because the high energy ions and photons which the Shuttle encounters due to being above most of the atmosphere can be enough to fry a 2008 Intel Pentium 4 or a very high definition camera light detector. Older technology, where the etching process is considerably cruder (like the slabs of rock known as 486s were made with), is less affected by these radiation factors. Special shielding or entirely new construction methods are often needed for truly delicate bits of hardware. So just because you can buy an 8Gb memory stick for your HD video camera in your local Walmart doesn't mean all NASA has to do it strap one of them to the Shuttle and it'll work.

AlphaNumeric,
Apart from this specific issue, with respect for what you said concerning the shuttle's age, is it possible that there is a "secret" space program that is extremely ahead of curve that we as a society view coming from NASA?

For instance. Could the triangles observed throughout the world that are obviously represent of some form of technology be exemplary of scientific engineering and capability that NASA truthfully knows either (a) nothing about, or (b) knows about but is instructed to maintain secrecy concerning?

Nope, you're just showing even MORE of your lack of good sense and judgement. The FIRST rule of thumb is always know your sources before relying on them. You grossly failed in that respect - just as you have in many, many others.

Sorry, but that's the plain truth!!

Read-Only
I believe your heart is in the right place, but it's a short sighted heart.

Why the hell would I be here ASKING and bringing such information/challenge to the forefront of this communities interest, if I was taking ANYTHING for granted?

Many "here" (at SciForums) have exhibited so much less impulsive, reactionary, thought & response to my posts.

I suggest that you quit attacking and start providing. Otherwise you are guilty of encouraging me to do the same exact thing you are attempting to belittle me for.

AlphaNumeric,
Apart from this specific issue, with respect for what you said concerning the shuttle's age, is it possible that there is a "secret" space program that is extremely ahead of curve that we as a society view coming from NASA?Of course, since short of searching the entire planet (if not solar system) I cannot say with 100% conviction that there isn't. However, do I think there is? No. I'm sure there's plenty of technology which isn't known outside military or high tech research groups but then that's a given. I don't think such technology is that far ahead of what you can buy in shops or used in well 'visible' areas (for instance you can't buy a microchip etching machine in Walmart but the technology itself is within the public's knowledge). After all, the technology used to put Man on the Moon was, by todays standards, shockingly crude. There's more CPU power in most cars than was in the Apollo 11 rocket. We can store dozens of gigabytes of information on things the size and mass of a postage stamp.

Short of a Russia/China/US mass conspiracy (which is a truely crackpot idea you hear from 'We didn't land on the Moon!' nuts), one government couldn't keep such things from all the other powerful countries. Russia, China and the US probably know to within a few feets (if not inches!) where the other's major research facilities for rocket/plane testing are, thanks to spy satellites. Heck, the way the US shows Russia its reducing some of it's military equipment (due to say an arms limitation treaty) is to put all the vehicles into the desert, chop them up and wait a week. Why? Because by then a Russian spy satellite has flown over and seen them.

Large launch facilities are easy to spot even using Google map. You can see where things like Heathrow airport are without needing to zoom into London itself very much. Miles of concrete and tarmac tend to stand out. Particularly if you're building your 'secret facility' somewhere miles from people (otherwise it wouldn't be secret!). Since pretty anywhere 'miles from people' is devoid of large areas of human constructions, such sites would stick out like a sour thumb to any observation satellite.
Could the triangles observed throughout the world that are obviously represent of some form of technologyGiven the lack of consensus in this thread it's hardly 'obvious'. Many highly likely explanations have been provided to you already.
be exemplary of scientific engineering and capability that NASA truthfully knows either (a) nothing about, or (b) knows about but is instructed to maintain secrecy concerning?There's plenty of technology which is brand new, cutting edge stuff but which NASA know nothing about. Much research is out sourced to private companies, who then develop the technology required to solve whatever problem NASA might have. Similar things happen at CERN. Physicists say "We need a magnetic field of [such and such size] with [such and such] properties. We have $10 million to pay [some company] to research and develop this technology. When the LHC was at the design stage much of the technology it now uses didn't exist.

And did you read my previous post about why that galaxy clock or spiral or whatever was nonsense? It appears to be deliberately written to mislead people who don't know about relativity and quantum mechanics.

http://netmar.com/~maat/archive/mar3/sereda.htm

Hilarious. He calls himself a scientist when he's had no training or education.

Phlog,

"It does move in an odd fashion, but to be honest, the motion doesn't imply control, it decellerates uniformly, comes to a stop, and accelerates away, kind of in an ballistic trajectory, if a sharp peak, although the force providing the change on momentum perhaps isn't the Earth, as it seems to move away, but after the upward motion, during decelleration, the acceleration phase is also down in shot. Odd, but it's not like it flew in a circle, or pulled a sudden turn. I don't know what it is, I've just played with my globe, and I can't see how a terrestrial ballistic launch, could appear like that. Without range information though, it really is hard to say what forces are in play."

Thanks for taking a look. It was one of the more interesting ones I have come across. The one thing that struck me was that it didn't appear to be flashing like a piece of ice that would be spinning and therefore only reflecting from certain surfaces and not others as it rotated. This one just stays solid bright the whole time.

The one thing that I wish we had available would be a view from the space shuttle looking down toward earth in the similar fashion of all the NASA UFO vids and see another space shuttle or the like far off in the distance and have the camera zoom in and out, it might clear things up once and for all. Anyone have 10 million on hand to fund the experiment ?

http://netmar.com/~maat/archive/mar3/sereda.htm

Hilarious. He calls himself a scientist when he's had no training or education.

Forgive me Q, but I did not read where Sereda's education was renounced in the link you provided.

Einstein had ZERO formal training and in fact failed his liberal arts examine to the university he applied to.

More useless yakking if you ask me. Course, I fully realize it's me that's doing the asking here.

Oh, I just found out Sereda is wrong on a few little technical facts. In an interview 'Breaking the Light Speed Barrier' he stated;

"Our nearest stars are Alpha Centauri A and B. They are 4.2 and 4.3 light years from earth. " (http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/mar3/sereda.htm)

Er, no, the nearest star, is Proxima Centauri. Every schoolboy knows that.

Er, WRONG <loud buzzer> The nearest star is...the Sun. Every schoolgirl knows that.

So, you are both saying Sereda is LYING. Thank you.

Given the lack of consensus in this thread it's hardly 'obvious'. Many highly likely explanations have been provided to you already.

Truthfully, I don't remember any valid explanations so I am giving ANYONE the chance to refute these photos as being explained by either some common place technology or other explainable phenomenon mistaken for technology.

http://i468.photobucket.com/albums/rr50/electrafixtion/scotland2002.jpg

http://i468.photobucket.com/albums/rr50/electrafixtion/tr3bbelgium89300-1.jpg

http://i468.photobucket.com/albums/rr50/electrafixtion/wallonia061590b.jpg


And did you read my previous post about why that galaxy clock or spiral or whatever was nonsense? It appears to be deliberately written to mislead people who don't know about relativity and quantum mechanics.

I did read it and will take this opportunity to THANK you sincerely for it. In fact I have read it about 4 times. Everyone knows here that I don't claim to have ANY expertise in the field of physics. When it comes to math, I am about as inclined as a cinder block.

Synthesizer Patel also helped me out GREATLY in this thread.

You see, I have a very rebellious streak. I DO NOT believe that cutting edge physics or scientific understanding and discovery can come from within the safe walls of some university or college library somewhere as Phlog suggested.

Tell me where to read about the Hutchinson Effect, Zero Point Energy and Anti Gravity/Gravity Manipulation in university.

All these things exist beyond question and yet because of the narrow minded empiricist's cliques that rule these institutions, these more the credible sciences are denied. Why!?

So, you are both saying Sereda is LYING. Thank you.

Or possibly miss quoted. rpenner, I have lost serious faith in MR. Sereda today, but I am not prepared to call him a liar. Possibly a dreamer, but not a liar. To me, the jury is still out however.

Er, WRONG <loud buzzer> The nearest star is...the Sun. Every schoolgirl knows that.

Pathetic. You know what I meant. Is that all you have?

Forgive me Q, but I did not read where Sereda's education was renounced in the link you provided.

Einstein had ZERO formal training and in fact failed his liberal arts examine to the university he applied to.

Einstein had a frikking degree in Physics. He published papers in peer reviewed journals. So he did not pursue his research via the usual route of a PhD. You do not have to, anyone can submit a thesis privately.

Maybe if you'd spent some time at a University, you'd know this?

So admittedly, you both (Phlog & Read-Only) don't have a lick of proof or refute, you're just stuck on "judge books by their covers.

Do you believe in the resurrected body of Jesus Christ? Do you believe it is made of light?

Sereda does. Do you agree with him?

http://netmar.com/~maat/archive/mar3/sereda.htm

Hilarious. He calls himself a scientist when he's had no training or education.

rofl, From that site;

"David

Literally they are massive things. If they became visible down on Earth, they'd block out the entire sky. But if they are only detectable in the infrared or ultraviolet ranges, than no one on Earth would even know they were there."

Hmm, odd, cos I'd have thought this would have seen the Ultra Violet signature;

http://heasarc.nasa.gov/docs/euve/euve.html

and this would see the IR;

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/wise-20061013.html

Like I said in an earlier post to Eletrafixtion, there are many, many telescopes and satellites performing all sky surveys, and mapping the Earth, at all wavelengths, right now, so the fact that Sereda claims they are not visible in optical wavelengths means nothing.

High energy events, such as accretion systems are far more interesting that events that show themselves in optical wavelengths, and EUVE, ROSAT, Exosat, XMM, and the Japanese ASCA missions (all of which I had some involvement with when I worked in Academia) are looking in non-optical wavelengths. I guess Sereda just doesn't know this, having zero academic credentials or experience.

And of course, if these UFOs 'blocked out the entire sky' we might notice the stars wink out as they passed. You know, astronomers tend to notice these things! And as occultation is one way we aim to detect distant planets. It's a well understood method. Except to Sereda.

Tell me where to read about the Hutchinson Effect, Zero Point Energy and Anti Gravity/Gravity Manipulation in university. Mostly in the science fiction sections of their libraries.

Zero point energy is actual science but it's nothing like the kind of thing you see on Stargate Atlantis with their ZPMs and 'free energy'. Anti-gravity is entirely science fiction other than some extremely technical sections of string theory which you would not understand unless you've done a lot of maths and physics. I have only come across it because my supervisor happens to be one of the few people working on it.

The Hutchison effect appears to be little more than a short entry on Hutchison's Wiki page and plenty of paranoid conspiracy theorist websites. Unless you can point me to a few published papers showing careful investigation of such phenomena I question whether it even exists.

/edit

Einstein had a PhD in physics when he was working in that patent office. It's a complete urban myth that he had no formal physics education. A physics PhD puts you a long way ahead of Joe Public and back then a year or two of work in a PhD would put you at the bleeding edge of research. It takes a little longer now. Einstein took the job in the patent office because it was so easy and gave him loads of time to read the latest papers in physics and loads of text books. Cranks now-a-days citing Einstein having no formal training to excuse why they have no physics knowledge don't read papers or textbooks. They want an excuse for their ignorance and stupidity. Einstein doesn't provide one.

Forgive me Q, but I did not read where Sereda's education was renounced in the link you provided.

It wasn't renounced. He and others call Sereda a scientist, but he is nothing but a photographer with NO education in science. Do you get it now?

Einstein had ZERO formal training and in fact failed his liberal arts examine to the university he applied to.

Now that you've chosen to lie to support your argument, it makes no sense to continue this discussion.

More useless yakking if you ask me.

What about lying? Why have you resorted to that? You've lost all credibility, just like Sereda did when he sold out.

"Later, they moved to Italy and Albert continued his education at Aarau, Switzerland and in 1896 he entered the Swiss Federal Polytechnic School in Zurich to be trained as a teacher in physics and mathematics. In 1901, the year he gained his diploma, he acquired Swiss citizenship and, as he was unable to find a teaching post, he accepted a position as technical assistant in the Swiss Patent Office. In 1905 he obtained his doctor's degree."

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-bio.html

Truthfully, I don't remember...

It has now been established that you are lying to support your argument, hence it stands to reason you wouldn't remember anything truthfully.

Mostly in the science fiction sections of their libraries.

Zero point energy is actual science but it's nothing like the kind of thing you see on Stargate Atlantis with their ZPMs and 'free energy'. Anti-gravity is entirely science fiction other than some extremely technical sections of string theory which you would not understand unless you've done a lot of maths and physics. I have only come across it because my supervisor happens to be one of the few people working on it.

The Hutchison effect appears to be little more than a short entry on Hutchison's Wiki page and plenty of paranoid conspiracy theorist websites. Unless you can point me to a few published papers showing careful investigation of such phenomena I question whether it even exists.

/edit

Einstein had a PhD in physics when he was working in that patent office. It's a complete urban myth that he had no formal physics education. A physics PhD puts you a long way ahead of Joe Public and back then a year or two of work in a PhD would put you at the bleeding edge of research. It takes a little longer now. Einstein took the job in the patent office because it was so easy and gave him loads of time to read the latest papers in physics and loads of text books. Cranks now-a-days citing Einstein having no formal training to excuse why they have no physics knowledge don't read papers or textbooks. They want an excuse for their ignorance and stupidity. Einstein doesn't provide one.


Naturally you deemphasize what you yourself do not understand. All three are as real as any aspect of science you yourself have studied.

Naturally you deemphasize what you yourself do not understand. All three are as real as any aspect of science you yourself have studied.

What a DUMB statement!!! Please show us some indisputable PROOF that anti-gravity technology exists!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You believe in pure fantasy!

Pathetic. You know what I meant. Is that all you have?


Doesn't stop the FACT that you were WRONG does it?

Incidentally, I watched a part of the DVD again last night and guess what? Sereda was misquoted and NEVER claims himself that ACA & ACB are the closest technically. Naturally it's whacked out of context by pathetic minds that troll for their own entertainment.

What a DUMB statement!!! Please show us some indisputable PROOF that anti-gravity technology exists!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You believe in pure fantasy!


Please explain to me exactly what is dumb about my statement and why I need to provide indisputable proof for the existence of anti gravity, for it to exist. I wasn't aware that I am responsible for all things that exist.

Please explain to me exactly what is dumb about my statement and why I need to provide indisputable proof for the existence of anti gravity, for it to exist. I wasn't aware that I am responsible for all things that exist.

You ARE responsible for CLAIMING it exists - that's what was dumb. And now that you've claimed it, it's up to you to either put up or shut up!!:bugeye: In other words, proove it exists or admit that you made a very stupid mistake in believeing it. (Are you man enough to do that??)

It has now been established that you are lying to support your argument, hence it stands to reason you wouldn't remember anything truthfully.

And, until you have provided proof, you are in fact lying with respect to your discrediting of David Sereda.


Einstein had no formal training that in any way shaped or defined his theory of relativity. His LATER obtained "PhD" was a technical requirement to validate his papers and NOT a precursor to his understanding.

"Education is what remains after one has forgotten what one has learned in school."

Albert Einstein

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education."

Albert Einstein


He wrote his most potential renderings at a very early age and later needed his wife's help to articulate these early writings. Yes, on my behalf, it was a very poorly put "Einstein had ZERO formal education" (in fact, I don't remember writing that as it makes no sense. I mean him going to kindergarten is a "formal education" of sorts, but whether my post was manipulated or not, I can admit I am wrong a MILLION time if needed.)

The bottom line is that Einstein was borderline autistic and did HORRIBLY throughout school as well as the fact that he did fail his entrance examine.

He HATED school and made that extremely clear. He had ZERO use for it and NEVER promoted it.

Thank you very much.

Electrafixtion - I feel pity for you that you have to resort to lying. Sad indeed.

Naturally you deemphasize what you yourself do not understand. All three are as real as any aspect of science you yourself have studied.Actually, I know a decent amount (not much compared to professors, **** loads compared to you) about zero point energy, quantum vacuums, vacuum energy and their phenomenology. Multidimensional string singularities and their antigravity effects in higher dimensions is something I do research on (not much but it's a working understanding). I also do research into 10 and 11 dimensional supergravity models. So there isn't much you mention which I'd have any need to deemphasize.

Given Hutchinson cannot even 'reproduce' the effects he claims there is, almost by definition, no scientific work I can deemphasize. Despite decades since his initial claims and actually a great deal of funding into various quantum effects in exotic materials, nothing has come of his claims.

Can you point to scientific work into those things which prove them to be real? Given AdS/CFT gravity models are a conjecture even in terms of their mathematical concepts, never mind physical phenomena and GR doesn't give anti-gravity systems for anything but some extreme situations (the immediate region around rotating charged singularities for instance), antigravity isn't supported by evidence. Extraction of zero point energy is possible but not in a way which makes it a power source. You can extract energy from the vacuum via photon generation by using two mirrors very close to one another (micrometres) and then oscillating them slightly. Except the frequency of the oscillations cannot be constant (or even it's derivative be constant if memory serves) and the forces required to produce enough acceleration for the effect to be measurable would pretty much liquify the mirrors due to stress.

But feel free to prove me wrong. Given you admit you don't know quantum mechanics and even the nonsense in the 'galaxy spiral' or whatever it was not obvious to you, I think it's a little silly of you to claim that there's certain results or phenomena in physics which not only fly in the face of all current physics but are also entirely outside your range of knowledge.
Einstein had no formal training that in any way shaped or defined his theory of relativity. His LATER obtained "PhD" was a technical requirement to validate his papers and NOT a precursor to his understanding.Actually, Einstein had considerable correspondence with people like Lorentz and Minkowski, both of whom made huge contributions to special relativity. Special relativity was published in 1905, along with several other ground breaking papers on Brownian motion, the photoelectric effect (which got him a Nobel prize) and the relationship between mass, energy and momentum. In the 10 years which followed, up to 1915 when he published general relativity, Einstein worked closely with Hilbert, one of the greatest mathematicians ever (certainly the best mathematician on the planet in terms of maths relating to what was to become GR).

Before 1905 Einstein had done a physics degree. He was part of a 'journal club', who did considerable reading of the major physicists and philosophers of the day, including Poincare (who also was to be a major player in relativity) and Mach. He'd studied electromagnetism too.

I'll admit I was incorrect about him having a PhD while in the patent office, he obtained it during his time at the patent office. None the less, he had considerable formal education into the physics of the day, put in a lot of time keeping up with the latest developments and certainly general relativity was the culmination of working with the best and brightest mathematicians and physicists of the day.

Just look at the Wikipedia page on Einstein and you'll see he had plenty of physics education.

You do not require a PhD to publish a paper. Speaking as someone who doesn't have a PhD, part of getting a PhD is to write papers which add to scientific knowledge. If I couldn't publish a paper till I had a PhD I'd have serious trouble getting the PhD due to lack of contribution to science. A sort of Catch 22. And as a shameless pat on my own back, my first paper went online today!
"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education."

Albert Einstein
If Einstein were alive I'm sure he'd say that he wouldn't have done what he did if he had zero education in maths and physics. After all, another quote of his is "Whatever your problems in maths, I can assure you mine are greater." because he was wrestling with a level of mathematics which even now is something a lot of universities don't teach in any depth to undergraduates, only to postgraduates. As I said, he worked with Hilbert.

Education can get in your way, I don't deny that, but I would say it's because if you have a teacher who has a particularly eclectic way of looking at something you might end up having a bad understanding of a topic because the lesson didn't make much sense. More than once I've been reading a textbook and said outloud "So that is what that means!!" and thought "Why did Professor [Something] teach it in such a convoluted way". Doesn't mean I would have been better off not going to his classes at all. It would be cutting off your nose to spite your face.

But cranks, nuts, conspiracy theorists and idiots (feel free to wonder which I might associate you with) use quotes of Einstein saying "Imagination is more important than knowledge" to give them an excuse for having no knowledge. All imagination and no knowledge is worse than having no imagination and tons of knowledge because at least the person lacking imagination can be given a problem and told "Apply this method, give me the results". Someone with no knowledge won't even understand the problem. I'm sure you don't understand zero point energy in quantum field theory, nor would you understand the AdS/CFT description of repelling singularities. Yet you're happy to claim ZPE and antigravity are within our ability to prove exist. When was the last time you read a physics textbook or a physics journal? For me it's been however long this post has taken me to type.

You ARE responsible for CLAIMING it exists - that's what was dumb. And now that you've claimed it, it's up to you to either put up or shut up!!:bugeye: In other words, proove it exists or admit that you made a very stupid mistake in believeing it. (Are you man enough to do that??)

Yes, I am man enough to do that as I have done so many time prior. However I believe, or rather am convicted, to give these cutting edge "claims" a fair shot. I do not believe that just because I personally as a lay person choose to champion these claims that I should be required to "prove" them.

I mean, is that my place? Did I invent them?

It's a strange world we are living in Read-Only. This being when what we cannot see for ourselves is proved on paper and yet we still don't accept it as proved. At the same time what we can see for ourselves also has to be proved on paper, and even though we can see it, and yet are not carrying around written proof in our breast pocket, it must not exist.:confused:

Remember what Planck said about the door to the temple of science?

This would be a great time for us not to forget.

But cranks, nuts, conspiracy theorists and idiots (feel free to wonder which I might associate you with) use quotes of Einstein saying "Imagination is more important than knowledge" to give them an excuse for having no knowledge. All imagination and no knowledge is worse than having no imagination and tons of knowledge because at least the person lacking imagination can be given a problem and told "Apply this method, give me the results". Someone with no knowledge won't even understand the problem. I'm sure you don't understand zero point energy in quantum field theory, nor would you understand the AdS/CFT description of repelling singularities. Yet you're happy to claim ZPE and antigravity are within our ability to prove exist. When was the last time you read a physics textbook or a physics journal? For me it's been however long this post has taken me to type.

Now listen here your ass holiness:

I was REALLY admiring you and all the time that you have (graciously?) taken in this post considering the vast amount of information and experience you contain and have contributed. That was until the above condescending BS stunk the general atmosphere up. I WILL NOT stand for this type of unjustified arrogance and ASSumption from you or anyone else.

You have ZERO idea about who and what I am, but I will say this my well assured friend, before this very day is over you could well REQUIRE a man of my expertise. Your world is no more or less pathetic than my own. Not one bit. The knowledge I possess is something you would not have a clue about I am certain. In fact, without men such as myself, your pathetic scholastic bound humdrum would come to a screeching halt before this week ended.

You may possess a working knowledge, a lifetime achievement of undaunted worthiness, but don't you EVER assume you can sum me or my capabilities up like some microbe in a petri dish.

You apparently have learned NOTHING from Einstein for you do not have a clue what relativity even means.

Dwell on this.

Electrafixtion - I feel pity for you that you have to resort to lying. Sad indeed.


I do not feel bad for you, for as certain as your pretend world is filled with joy, it MUST be accompanied by as much sorrow.

No, you are not pathetic, but you are delusional.

Er, WRONG <loud buzzer> The nearest star is...the Sun. Every schoolgirl knows that.

Er? ..... no, it actually has the appellation "Sol" :bugeye: - please don't slander school-girl intellect, as your criminally deficient worthless excuse for a brain is more kindred to menstruation seepage on the aforementioned ladies undergarments.

;)

Er? ..... no, it actually has the appellation "Sol" :bugeye: - please don't slander school-girl intellect, as your criminally deficient worthless excuse for a brain is more kindred to menstruation seepage on the aforementioned ladies undergarments.

;)


If this is not the most blatant example of someone signing in under a new screen name to keep from being "found out" (oh, naughty, naughty) I don't know what is.

ROTFLOL...i think

Truthfully, I don't remember any valid explanations so I am giving ANYONE the chance to refute these photos as being explained by either some common place technology or other explainable phenomenon mistaken for technology.

http://i468.photobucket.com/albums/rr50/electrafixtion/scotland2002.jpg

http://i468.photobucket.com/albums/rr50/electrafixtion/tr3bbelgium89300-1.jpg

http://i468.photobucket.com/albums/rr50/electrafixtion/wallonia061590b.jpg



I'm not going to comment on the validity of the photos here because photoshopping is just too easy and accessible these days, but one looks like one of the shots from the belgian 'incident' - if memory serves me that was shot on slide film which is VERY hard to tamper with without it being immediately obvious.

Personally I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the BFTs (or is it FBTs?) are real - not because I have seen them but for another reason which I cannot go into here (and not by PM either so don't ask EF - sorry).

However I'm not about to jump to the conclusion that they are either alien or derived from alien tech - my opinion is its military hardware

I'm not going to comment on the validity of the photos here because photoshopping is just too easy and accessible these days, but one looks like one of the shots from the belgian 'incident' - if memory serves me that was shot on slide film which is VERY hard to tamper with without it being immediately obvious.

Personally I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the BFTs (or is it FBTs?) are real - not because I have seen them but for another reason which I cannot go into here (and not by PM either so don't ask EF - sorry).

However I'm not about to jump to the conclusion that they are either alien or derived from alien tech - my opinion is its military hardware

Yes Synthesizer-Patel, the classic BFT is in the middle position. I too believe these are most likely of human origin, just as I believe what happened in Phoenix was of human origin.

There is most definitely a high degree of integrity to be found within the Belgium investigations. That whole investigation was very well organized and conducted.

MANY possibilities are possible, some are incredibly unlikely, but non the less possible.

There have been MANY reports from around the globe of these objects both entering, and leaving the water.

Yes, I am man enough to do that as I have done so many time prior. However I believe, or rather am convicted, to give these cutting edge "claims" a fair shot. I do not believe that just because I personally as a lay person choose to champion these claims that I should be required to "prove" them.

I mean, is that my place? Did I invent them?

It's a strange world we are living in Read-Only. This being when what we cannot see for ourselves is proved on paper and yet we still don't accept it as proved. At the same time what we can see for ourselves also has to be proved on paper, and even though we can see it, and yet are not carrying around written proof in our breast pocket, it must not exist.:confused:

Remember what Planck said about the door to the temple of science?

This would be a great time for us not to forget.

That was noting but a vain attempt to skirt the issue.

It was you who introduced the idea of anti-gravity existing - yet there is absolutely no evidence of ANY kind that it does. In fact, for it to do so, would violate several of the basic laws of physics.

You continually demonstrate to us that you leap at any chance to believe in fantastic technology! What's next, time travel????

I take it that you believe in anti-gravity based on the apparent motion of "objects" in these grainy videos and eyewitness's unreliable accounts of the motions these "things" make. Correct? If those "craft" could actually make sharp turns at the speeds that it's claimed they are traveling at, no living substance would be able to withstand the tremendous amount of inertia involved in such turns. That's even more basic science for you. It wouldn't matter if it were Earthlings aboard the craft or some amoeba-like blob from a distant galaxy, the g-forces involved would reduce them to a thin smear of protoplasm.

But of course in order to maintain your grand fantasy, you cannot allow such minor things as physical laws to get in the way...

That was noting but a vain attempt to skirt the issue.

It was you who introduced the idea of anti-gravity existing - yet there is absolutely no evidence of ANY kind that it does. In fact, for it to do so, would violate several of the basic laws of physics.

You continually demonstrate to us that you leap at any chance to believe in fantastic technology! What's next, time travel????

I take it that you believe in anti-gravity based on the apparent motion of "objects" in these grainy videos and eyewitness's unreliable accounts of the motions these "things" make. Correct? If those "craft" could actually make sharp turns at the speeds that it's claimed they are traveling at, no living substance would be able to withstand the tremendous amount of inertia involved in such turns. That's even more basic science for you. It wouldn't matter if it were Earthlings aboard the craft or some amoeba-like blob from a distant galaxy, the g-forces involved would reduce them to a thin smear of protoplasm.

But of course in order to maintain your grand fantasy, you cannot allow such minor things as physical laws to get in the way...

Apparently you have not read one of Stryder's latest posts? ;)

Read-Only, you know that I do respect you. I REALLY don't know if anti-gravity exists, so I cannot say firmly that I believe in anti gravity, but I do however believe that it represents an area of science that few understand. I will however elucidate the point that I BELIEVE there are those that do.

The Hutchinson Effect is in fact a demonstration that is clearly exemplary of "anti-gravity" and most scientists that are TRULY "in the know" will admit as much. The honest ones however will step right up and admit that they do not even begin to understand the sciences that fundamentally support and represent the manipulation of matter or the sound wave influence over gravity that alter it's effect on mass.

It's they that are not cowards however Read. They know the effect exists because they themselves have been witness to it. This is the type of scientist that Planck referred to as the necessary proprietors of the temples of science that will insure it's advancement into and through new paradigms.

You see Read-Only, the more time I spend here in the pseudoscience section of this forum, the wiser and the less emotional I get with respect to my quests of understanding.

Many years ago a VERY wise philosophy teacher taught me that if I wanted to learn, go to the men that know.

Let me ask you something in a very reverent fashion: Do you think that this gentlemen was attempting to cultivate the quality of trust within me? Or do you believe he was ascribing the habit of not casting my pearls of curiosity before unknowing swine?

I believe I have glimpsed through, and indeed past, the normally opaque and reflective veils of pride and ego. But just a few fleeting luxurious glimpses I'm afraid. I'm only human and the typical impulsive & quick snort retort to me is no stranger.

You really have no clue how much I value you and everyone else here. You simply do not, because honestly and truthfully, you under estimate your priceless value.

Doesn't stop the FACT that you were WRONG does it?

Incidentally, I watched a part of the DVD again last night and guess what? Sereda was misquoted and NEVER claims himself that ACA & ACB are the closest technically. Naturally it's whacked out of context by pathetic minds that troll for their own entertainment.

You know, I worked with a bunch of Astronomers for four years, and it was a given that when we talked about 'nearest stars' we needn't include the Sun.

That interview I linked clearly has Sereda however, getting it wrong. I don't care what's on your DVD. That interview was clear. Sereda gets it wrong.

Meanwhile, he also claims that Jesus Christ can travel anywhere because his resurrected body is made from light. You dodged this question, but do you believe Sereda on this point?

Einstein had no formal training that in any way shaped or defined his theory of relativity....


Lies. He studied physics to degree level. He needed to know classic models to know what facts didn't fit them. You can't just leap to relativity without understanding classical physics. If you truly want to learn something, try 'Mr Tompkins in Paperback' by George Gamow. It will explain some tricky concepts in easy terms. I picked up a copy for myself again recently actually, as I enjoyed reading it as a teenager.


He HATED school and made that extremely clear. He had ZERO use for it and NEVER promoted it.

So why did he 1, take a degree, and 2, submit a thesis to gain a PhD? Why not just publish the thesis in 'The Fortean Times'? Because he recognised the necessity for peer review, and the intellectual capital inside academia, perhaps?

Why is it woo woos try and make out that Einstein was uneducated? Oh, I know, it's because they can't make themselves like Einstein, so they try and tell us Einstein was like them!

Apparently you have not read one of Stryder's latest posts? ;)

Read-Only, you know that I do respect you. I REALLY don't know if anti-gravity exists, so I cannot say firmly that I believe in anti gravity, but I do however believe that it represents an area of science that few understand. I will however elucidate the point that I BELIEVE there are those that do.

The Hutchinson Effect is in fact a demonstration that is clearly exemplary of "anti-gravity" and most scientists that are TRULY "in the know" will admit as much. The honest ones however will step right up and admit that they do not even begin to understand the sciences that fundamentally support and represent the manipulation of matter or the sound wave influence over gravity that alter it's effect on mass.

It's they that are not cowards however Read. They know the effect exists because they themselves have been witness to it. This is the type of scientist that Planck referred to as the necessary proprietors of the temples of science that will insure it's advancement into and through new paradigms.

You see Read-Only, the more time I spend here in the pseudoscience section of this forum, the wiser and the less emotional I get with respect to my quests of understanding.

Many years ago a VERY wise philosophy teacher taught me that if I wanted to learn, go to the men that know.

Let me ask you something in a very reverent fashion: Do you think that this gentlemen was attempting to cultivate the quality of trust within me? Or do you believe he was ascribing the habit of not casting my pearls of curiosity before unknowing swine?

I believe I have glimpsed through, and indeed past, the normally opaque and reflective veils of pride and ego. But just a few fleeting luxurious glimpses I'm afraid. I'm only human and the typical impulsive & quick snort retort to me is no stranger.

You really have no clue how much I value you and everyone else here. You simply do not, because honestly and truthfully, you under estimate your priceless value.

That was a very respectful post and I shall attempt to maintain the same demeanor.

Seriously, I honestly think that the biggest problem you have with a lot of things is accepting them and their supporters without doing enough research into the people involved. As I've said before, THE most important thing in researching other people's claims is to determine their integrity and honesty.

Hutchion is a good example of what I - and many others! - believe to be an outright fraud. Not only that but he is seriously delusional. When anyone - like Hutchion - starts making claims of working WITH the government and also says the government has made efforts to destroy his work and efforts, red warning flags should pop up all over the place.

You really should carefully read the Wiki article on him here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hutchison

And then spend another couple of hours checking out the links provided in and with the main article. It's my sincere opinion that the man is a delusional fool who has proven absolutely nothing beyond the fact that he's both demented and delusional - oh, and also has a severe case of persecution complex. In short, a crazy idiot. (And I think even that is being too kind to him.)

That was until the above condescending BS stunk the general atmosphere up. I WILL NOT stand for this type of unjustified arrogance and ASSumption from you or anyone else.Then I suggest you stop making claims or assumptions as if they are fact. The fact is you don't know about our current understanding of gravity and quantum mechanics, yet you see no hypocrisy in telling me to not make assumptions after you've claimed that ZPE and antigravity are proven facts. Good one.
You have ZERO idea about who and what I am, but I will say this my well assured friend, before this very day is over you could well REQUIRE a man of my expertiseWell I didn't. And short of things like some health emergency or the house I live in collapsing or being the victim of crime (ie immediate need for one of the emergency services) I don't generally have an immediate requirement for other people. And given this thread is about physics and you aren't showing much 'expertise' in it, I don't think I'd have much requirement for a man of your 'expertise' if I had a problem with physics.
The knowledge I possess is something you would not have a clue about I am certain. In fact, without men such as myself, your pathetic scholastic bound humdrum would come to a screeching halt before this week ended.None of which is relevant for a discussion on physics and me calling into question the validity of your claims or assumptions about physics. I wouldn't call a doctor's medical training into question if he didn't know about quantum mechanics but I would call into question the validity of any of his statements about quantum mechanics.

See the connection there?
You apparently have learned NOTHING from Einstein for you do not have a clue what relativity even means.Ah, the call of the crank. You cannot actually do relativity but you think reading Wikipedia, a few crank websites and maybe thumbing through a biography of Einstein (so you know he wasn't working in a university when he published SR) that you've got some amazing intuitive, conceptual grasp of his work which escapes people who can actually do relativity. You aren't the first and I'm sure you won't be the last.

I'm still waiting for you to link to a reputable paper investigating and corroborating the Hutchinson effect.

Then I suggest you stop making claims or assumptions as if they are fact. The fact is you don't know about our current understanding of gravity and quantum mechanics, yet you see no hypocrisy in telling me to not make assumptions after you've claimed that ZPE and antigravity are proven facts. Good one.
Well I didn't. And short of things like some health emergency or the house I live in collapsing or being the victim of crime (ie immediate need for one of the emergency services) I don't generally have an immediate requirement for other people. And given this thread is about physics and you aren't showing much 'expertise' in it, I don't think I'd have much requirement for a man of your 'expertise' if I had a problem with physics.
None of which is relevant for a discussion on physics and me calling into question the validity of your claims or assumptions about physics. I wouldn't call a doctor's medical training into question if he didn't know about quantum mechanics but I would call into question the validity of any of his statements about quantum mechanics.

See the connection there?
Ah, the call of the crank. You cannot actually do relativity but you think reading Wikipedia, a few crank websites and maybe thumbing through a biography of Einstein (so you know he wasn't working in a university when he published SR) that you've got some amazing intuitive, conceptual grasp of his work which escapes people who can actually do relativity. You aren't the first and I'm sure you won't be the last.

I'm still waiting for you to link to a reputable paper investigating and corroborating the Hutchinson effect.

AlphaNumeric
For the sake of brevity I'll cut through the chase here.

First of all, Thank You. You do elucidate some very good and important points as per usual.

I think you will agree that context is VERY important with respect for an over all understanding of what constitutes the weight of obligation in any situation.

Did you forget that this is the "pseudoscience" section of the SciForums' message board system?

When someone such as yourself, who is obviously extremely learned and specific with respect to expertise, responds in such a fashion as to EXPECT legitimacy or careful research on exacting issues, I do believe you have forgotten where you are at.

This is NOT a formal debate. This is NOT the legitimate physics section of the board (where I wouldn't even be inclined to start a thread), this is the PSEUDOSCIENCE section of the forum.

I have come here KNOWING of my likely ignorance and asking questions subsequently. Naturally as someone lower in real knowledge than many members that make up the SciForum's populous, I will have innocent delusions that come equipped with a healthy dose of enthusiasm.

So in short deep down, I EXPECT to be beat on here a bit. But when you as an advanced SciForums' member feel as the pseudoscience section is a place where you expect to engage well prepared propagators of brilliant cutting edge insight, who's made the mistake?

It's up to YOU to refute here in this section of the forum, with facts you yourself are armed with that underline that which is not pseudo science but rather legitimate science, to back up your disagreements. Not just to place the burden of enlightenment on the enthusiastic pseudoscience section goer.

You gotta be real here AlphaNumeric. We are both on a mission but your mission should NEVER be to intimidate and ridicule members "MR. Stand Alone - I don't need anybody" (which incidentally is a laugh)

Now for instance: I mentioned that fact that I believe Hutchinson's effect is represent of some esoteric new science. I provided a link to a video that clearly exemplifies "The Hutchinson Effect"

I'm done. Now the ball is now in your court. Refute this video with your present understanding and that which constitutes a strong case for non reality of the pseudoscience in question. You cannot do this by asking more questions or by pointing to the philosophical illegitimacy of my "scientific stance" or anyone else's.

The Pseudoscience section of this over all GREAT message board system is for the enthusiastic discussion of speculative pseudo scientific curiosities. And for the refutation of those propositions, be they unexplained anomalies and phenomenons, or be they claims by other scientists with very questionable supporting evidence.

This is NOT a lazy man's shooting gallery where in the legitimate credential seeking bullets of your flag waving scientific sharp shooting expertise may take aim and fire at will. This military exercise can only be triumphed over via that covert intelligence operations of legitimate scientific knowledge put forward to conquer and win out over the pseudo science enthusiasts.

Don't get me wrong. Credentials are CRUCIAL as Read-Only has been teaching me and has pointed out in one of his last posts in this thread. But I would like to state for the record that the way he did that was incredible. It actually pierced the tough hide of my obstinacy. Seems stupid doesn't it? Candidly, and admittedly, so are many people that champion the specific type of pseudo scientific enthusiasm that is put forward in this section of the form. Get used to it.

I await your factual fiery arrows of refutation. May they plunge deep enough into the flesh of MY pseudo scientific fascination as to pierce the foolish heart of my enthusiastic folly.

If there were that many ice particles/space junk floating around the tether as the astronauts observed, the astronauts wouldnt be observing they would be dead. Even the smallest dust particle can kill you in space if its moving fast enough.

So until someone can explain to me how the STS astronauts managed to dodge all of this debris around them without some sophisticated navigation system then I will have to assume intelligent control because no collisions happened.

If there were that many ice particles/space junk floating around the tether as the astronauts observed, the astronauts wouldnt be observing they would be dead. Even the smallest dust particle can kill you in space if its moving fast enough.

So until someone can explain to me how the STS astronauts managed to dodge all of this debris around them without some sophisticated navigation system then I will have to assume intelligent control because no collisions happened.


The other issue that always trips me up when trying my best to dismiss this whole thing as explainable, is the consistency of the shape that these objects possess. If it was dust or random ice particles, I wouldn't think there would not be this type of consistency.

I really do "get" and have subsequently looked into these hex, diamond & airy disc anomalies. One of the biggest problems with this type of thing is the fact that almost always the rest of the frames in the film are poorly focused. That is not the case with this footage. Some of the film is very resolute where these pulsating/rotating objects appear.

Another issue for me is that the tether is not the only object that these uniform (in shape) objects pass behind either. There is a shot where a single object passes behind a satellite or space station as well.

Electrafixtion, do you also agree with Sereda that the resurrected body of Jesus Christ can appear anywhere because it is made of light?

Electrafixtion, do you also agree with Sereda that the resurrected body of Jesus Christ can appear anywhere because it is made of light?

Stay on topic please.

Hmmm how does this ice particle make a 90 degree turn?

http://www.maya12-21-2012.com/ufoNASA3.gif

Easy, this ice particle was relatively close to the camera compared to others in the frame. It only appears to veer to the right; a simple illusion created by camera movement to the left - designed to fool complete and utter muttonheaded pinnacles of retardation.

"Seeing is believing" apparently means "Seeing(x) <-> Believing(y)"

So far science explains:
1) why hand-held CCD video images look grainy and unsteady
2) why out-of-focus features seem to maintain "details" in the same "orientation"
3) why dim, out of focus features seem to "pass behind" over-exposed background features 100km distant
4) why space around the Shuttle is not debris-free
5) parallax
6) the lack of eyewitnesses making any extraordinary claims about this video at all
7) the need for error-bars in the most humble analysis of data

Merka,

I am far from convinced that these are alien craft. They may be just debris and probably are a mixture of debris and camera focus issues. The camera issue is obvious because of the distortion to the width of the tether.

However, your response to Endlight is not adequate. The camera does not move to the left or the right or any other direction, so we have one that makes a turn, they also don't run into each other at any point that I can tell. Explain that while your at it.

"designed to fool complete and utter muttonheaded pinnacles of retardation."

With all due respect, why don't you come up with a better explanation for the reason it turned at 90 degrees, as your explanation was foolish at best.

Stay on topic please.

It is on topic, you brought up Sereda as an 'expert' in the field, I'm asking you if you agree with Sereda that the resurrected body of Jesus Christ is made from light and that's why he can appear anywhere on Earth at will.

Now, if you don't answer, I'll have to assume you don't agree, and this assertion of Sereda's is deeply embarrassing to you, and that you perhaps weren't aware he was such a whack job.

The other issue that always trips me up when trying my best to dismiss this whole thing as explainable, is the consistency of the shape that these objects possess. If it was dust or random ice particles, I wouldn't think there would not be this type of consistency.

They all look the same, because they are all causing the same image artefact inside the camera, .... Synthesiser Patel already provided a video where the very same image is seen from a terrestrial source. Do you not notice that whatever the orientation of the camera, the image is the same? That it's a 2D shape, not 3D?

I really do "get" and have subsequently looked into these hex, diamond & airy disc anomalies. One of the biggest problems with this type of thing is the fact that almost always the rest of the frames in the film are poorly focused. That is not the case with this footage. Some of the film is very resolute where these pulsating/rotating objects appear.

Focus depends on a couple of things, the actual focus of the lenses, AND the f-stop. This is the size of the aperture. If the subject is bright, the aperture is smaller, as less light is needed to fall onto the film or CCD. This has the added effect of being a secondary 'pinhole lens' so brightly lit scenes have a 'better depth of field'. If the subject is dim, the aperture wider, so there is no focussing effect from the aperture, so only the specific distance in in focus. Of course, for the tether, which is so far away, the camera is effectively focussed at \infty ie, it is focussing light that is effectively coming in parallel from the source, so anything closer will be out of focus, ie, the ice particles, close to the camera.

Of course, some think these things are moving quickly, and would pose a threat to the shuttle, due to their kinetic energy, but not at all. They are tiny, and moving at small relative velocities to the Shuttle, and are floating around, effectively being dragged along by the mass of the shuttle, and following the same trajectory, only being disturbed by thruster activity.

Another issue for me is that the tether is not the only object that these uniform (in shape) objects pass behind either. There is a shot where a single object passes behind a satellite or space station as well.

'A satellite OR space station' uh, please point this event out?

Hmmm how does this ice particle make a 90 degree turn?


Is it a very small spaceship?

They all look the same, because they are all causing the same image artefact inside the camera, .... Synthesiser Patel already provided a video where the very same image is seen from a terrestrial source. Do you not notice that whatever the orientation of the camera, the image is the same? That it's a 2D shape, not 3D?

Forgive me but these don't look ANYTHING like the examples that SP provided. Those examples are absolutes and stationary. These random objects are nothing like that whatsoever.

Clearly these abjects when focused in on are pulsating. I don't remember the objects pulsating without going out of focus in the material that SP provided. I will go back and CAREFULLY look at everything provided by Synthesizer-Patel again. I promise.

I also made clear that my above curiosity is based on the dust or debris OUTSIDE the camera hypothesis, not internal artifact hypothesis. There are several hypothesis being bandied about here.



Focus depends on a couple of things, the actual focus of the lenses, AND the f-stop. This is the size of the aperture. If the subject is bright, the aperture is smaller, as less light is needed to fall onto the film or CCD. This has the added effect of being a secondary 'pinhole lens' so brightly lit scenes have a 'better depth of field'. If the subject is dim, the aperture wider, so there is no focussing effect from the aperture, so only the specific distance in in focus. Of course, for the tether, which is so far away, the camera is effectively focussed at \infty ie, it is focussing light that is effectively coming in parallel from the source, so anything closer will be out of focus, ie, the ice particles, close to the camera.

...and appear to pass behind the tether? That's silly and in fact I find those that claim of whatever anomalous effect to be "reaching" as much as they claim Sereda is "reaching" to explain the case for UFOs. The point is that in real time film you and the other scientists at NASA cannot duplicate this anomaly and therefore this "anomaly" is in reality a phenomenon.

Of course, some think these things are moving quickly, and would pose a threat to the shuttle, due to their kinetic energy, but not at all. They are tiny, and moving at small relative velocities to the Shuttle, and are floating around, effectively being dragged along by the mass of the shuttle, and following the same trajectory, only being disturbed by thruster activity.

One thing that REALLY makes me curious about the act of attempting a photographic explanation for the discs is that NASA FIRST, LONG before Sereda arrived on the scene claimed that this phenomenon were in fact house sized masses of ice or water. As soon as that hypothesis was kicked out of reality because of the other factors making it virtually impossible, NASA admitted that the OBJECTS were in fact large and that they could NOT explain what they were. This was all observed via equipment other than the cameras on the shuttle. So how does this weigh into the explanation for blaming the internals of those camera's on the shuttle which were merely seeing the same objects that NASA had previously observed in lesser detail. So, you find yourselves walking all over yourselves with this tiny particle routine. It would seem like it's honestly too late for such an assertion. NASA already confirmed the object's size.



'A satellite OR space station' uh, please point this event out?

For the umpteenth time, PLEASE WATCH THE DVD. Pretty much everyone here has attacked the issue without sincerely weighing Sereda's claims via this presentation. Bits and pieces of this presentation are not enough to base any sound judgments on.

I admit and will NEVER run from the fact that Sereda (to me) as an individual seems like a nut job as far as the new age stuff, but that's just a personal perception. I am attempting to get this figured out and if we allow ourselves to repeatedly return to the entertainment factor, no one is REALLY going to be the wiser for it. Please join me and others in an honest skeptical approach to dispelling the reality for Sereda's claims. The ABSOLUTE prerequisite for such an undertaking is to obtain and watch the presentation.

Of course, some think these things are moving quickly, and would pose a threat to the shuttle, due to their kinetic energy, but not at all. They are tiny, and moving at small relative velocities to the Shuttle, and are floating around, effectively being dragged along by the mass of the shuttle

How do you know these objects are moving at small velocities relative to the shuttle? The objects that move behind the tether are farther away and thus would have to be moving faster to cover the same ground than an object which is closer. Since distance is impossible to determine (other than to the tether) how can you possibly claim their velocities are similar to the shuttle? (furthermore this would only be applicable if ALL the particles were moving in the same general direction, but since the object's appear to come from all directions this would actually INCREASE the possible relative velocities if a particle were moving toward the shuttle)

Also if the mass of the shuttle had ANY effect whatsoever the trajectories of all the objects would not be straight lines in ALL directions. One would expect a slight bend in the trajectory as it got closer to the shuttle, but all we see in the video is straight line trajectories, with an occasional 90 degree turn which is NOT a result of the shuttle.

Guys, these objects do not 'move behind the tether' that is an effect caused by relative brightness, the tether is far brighter (being caught in Sunlight) than the tiny speck of dust, so the specks only appear against a dark backround, and therefore appear to move behind the tether, but actually are just swamped by the light coming from it, and so 'disappear'.

If you study more footage from the shuttle, you'll see these objects come into, and go out of focus, from little dots, to the image artefacts that appear to have defined edges.

Oh, and Eletrafixtion, quit making claims about what NASA have claimed these things to be, you forget I met the guy that took some of this footage, and explained it was ice and dust particles! NASA have never claimed it was 'house sized' and I challenge you to back that claim up with a reputable source.

Are you also distancing yourself from that whack job Sereda now? I don't need to watch his presentation, I've read transcripts of his interviews. The guy is a new age bullshitter.

EndlightEnd, "How do you know these objects are moving at small velocities relative to the shuttle?", because I've seen footage taken by one of the crew from that mission on his personal camcorder, where the shuttle fired it's thrusters, and dislodged some ice, and it made more particles, ..... They get blown around by the thrust, and change direction.

Please guys, stop seeing what you want to see, and actually look for the real explanation. When you grasp at straws, you really do look like drowning men.

EndlightEnd, "How do you know these objects are moving at small velocities relative to the shuttle?", because I've seen footage taken by one of the crew from that mission on his personal camcorder, where the shuttle fired it's thrusters, and dislodged some ice, and it made more particles, ..... They get blown around by the thrust, and change direction.

I would LOVE to see that video.

I would LOVE to see that video.


See, this *is* the problem. All I asked phlog to do is to get REAL and watch the feckin video/dvd. Phlog hasn't and yet chooses to be the official spokes person for NASA as well as the psycho analyst for David Sereda while making all these unsubstantiated claims. For all we know, phlog is more questionable than David Sereda is.

Phlog, right now, as Read-Only posts from time to time, put up or shut up.

I want PROOF of your claimed qualifications and I want PROOF of these great counsel sessions with your astronaut buddies.

That, or I contend that you very well may be just as big a nut job as you are claiming David Sereda to be.

With all due respect, why don't you come up with a better explanation for the reason it turned at 90 degrees, as your explanation was foolish at best.

That's quite simply because it was aimed @ stupendous idiots such as yourself.

:)

Merka,

Even if I was a stupendous idiot as you suggest, it doesn't change the fact that your explanation isn't valid. There may be a good reason for it, but you are simply talking out your arse.

Merka,

Even if I was a stupendous idiot as you suggest, it doesn't change the fact that your explanation isn't valid. There may be a good reason for it, but you are simply talking out your arse.

Talking? ...... so you're completely ignorant of the difference between verbal communication and the reading of text; so the "even if I was", relating to being a stupendous idiot, has now cleary been transformed into a factual "I'm".

:)

Let me try again.

You are an ass.

Let me try again.

You are an ass.


:bawl:

Now I feel bad. Sorry I called you an ass Merka.

Now I feel bad. Sorry I called you an ass Merka.
:D- no worries bud.

I would LOVE to see that video.

It's probably available somewhere, although it was personal camcorder footage, not official NASA stuff, the astronaut who took it played it to audiences, like us, so perhaps uploaded it.

See, this *is* the problem. All I asked phlog to do is to get REAL and watch the feckin video/dvd.

Buy a DVD off a charlatan? I don't think so. I'll happily engage in discourse over anything you can link to, but I'm not giving any woowoo my money.

Phlog hasn't and yet chooses to be the official spokes person for NASA

Lies. YOU were speaking for NASA. I merely said, the one astronaut I met, did not agree with your assertions!

as well as the psycho analyst for David Sereda while making all these unsubstantiated claims.

I linked to the site where the interview with Sereda was. In that interview he made the claim about the resurrected body of Jesus Christ being made from light. I haven't made any claim, I'm debunking the support you are trying to use for your claims, .....

For all we know, phlog is more questionable than David Sereda is.

Do you agree with Sereda that the resurrected body of Jesus Christ os made from light and so can travel to any part of the Earth? Because he claims that in the interview 'Breaking the lightspeed barrier' (http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/mar3/sereda.htm) go argue with Sereda, he said those things, not me!

Phlog, right now, as Read-Only posts from time to time, put up or shut up.

Put up what? I'm not the one making wild claims that image artefacts are UFOs! You had camera focus explained to you. You've had relative brightness explained to you. You've been shown the very same artefact from a terrestrial source courtesy of Synthesize Patel. You don't believe I've seen footage that shows thruster activity moving dust and ice particles near the shuttle. OK, so here's some questions for you? Does the Shuttle have thrusters? YES. IS ice and dust dislodged when they fire? YES. Are these invisible to the camera? NO. Would they be caught on camera? YES. What do they look like, ... oh, your youtube video! Do the research yourself. Look. Don't bring preconceptions.

I want PROOF of your claimed qualifications and I want PROOF of these great counsel sessions with your astronaut buddies.

It was just one astronaut, please, try and keep this on the level.

OK, this is the guy I met;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_A._Hoffman

He'd previously studied where I worked, and came back to visit, and brought his shuttle vids with him. I think I still have an ID card for the place somewhere, if I need to supply that.

That, or I contend that you very well may be just as big a nut job as you are claiming David Sereda to be.

I'm a nut job for not believing Sereda's claims that the resurrected body of Jesus Christ is made from light? Do you believe that? You haven't actually said yes or no.

Buy a DVD off a charlatan? I don't think so. I'll happily engage in discourse over anything you can link to, but I'm not giving any woowoo my money.

Charlatan is a CLAIM that you are making. PROVE IT. That is logically up to YOU.


Lies. YOU were speaking for NASA. I merely said, the one astronaut I met, did not agree with your assertions!

I am merely reporting what is clearly claimed in Sereda's presentation. You are dodging the real issue as usual. You have TOUTED your association with this astronaut as being your official stance have you not? PROVE it, or admit yourself a quack.




I linked to the site where the interview with Sereda was. In that interview he made the claim about the resurrected body of Jesus Christ being made from light. I haven't made any claim, I'm debunking the support you are trying to use for your claims, .....

Objection: Hearsay. An unsubstantiated Internet link is meaningless without you providing proof of it's legitimacy.



Do you agree with Sereda that the resurrected body of Jesus Christ os made from light and so can travel to any part of the Earth? Because he claims that in the interview 'Breaking the lightspeed barrier' (http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/mar3/sereda.htm) go argue with Sereda, he said those things, not me!

Again, this is based on website hearsay. Completely and totally irrelevant to the discussion we are engaging. You are attempting to deviate and distract as per usual.


Put up what? I'm not the one making wild claims that image artefacts are UFOs! You had camera focus explained to you. You've had relative brightness explained to you. You've been shown the very same artefact from a terrestrial source courtesy of Synthesize Patel. You don't believe I've seen footage that shows thruster activity moving dust and ice particles near the shuttle. OK, so here's some questions for you? Does the Shuttle have thrusters? YES. IS ice and dust dislodged when they fire? YES. Are these invisible to the camera? NO. Would they be caught on camera? YES. What do they look like, ... oh, your youtube video! Do the research yourself. Look. Don't bring preconceptions.

If you cannot PROVE what you are CLAIMING, no matter what it is that you are claiming within this specific context, you are in FACT guilty of precisely what you are accusing others of. I DO NOT make any such claims. Despite your pathetic efforts to make me out to be some accomplice of David Sereda, I have come here asking questions concerning HIS claims. I am reporting HIS claims. You have refuted those claims without any substantiation of your sources. Until you provide substantiation of your sources, you will be just as much a charlatan and quack as you are accusing Sereda of being. You will also HAVE TO PROVE you claims as being legitimate once your sources are substantiated (if you can in fact substantiate them) in order for your claims to resolve anything. This is science. This is logic. This is YOUR obligation.



It was just one astronaut, please, try and keep this on the level.

OK, this is the guy I met;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_A._Hoffman

He'd previously studied where I worked, and came back to visit, and brought his shuttle vids with him. I think I still have an ID card for the place somewhere, if I need to supply that.

See the above paragraph. I am only reciprocating exactly what you yourself have projected. How does it feel?



I'm a nut job for not believing Sereda's claims that the resurrected body of Jesus Christ is made from light? Do you believe that? You haven't actually said yes or no.

PLEASE, do NOT ask me that again. This maneuver that you are repeating is a distraction from the real issue that is the driving force of this discussion, it bears ZERO relevance to the assessment of the shuttle films ranging from 1991 to 1997. Sereda is FAR from the only photographic and film analysis expert to make the claims that what we observing is in fact not represent of ice particles and is in fact evidence of intelligently controlled space craft.

Charlatan is a CLAIM that you are making. PROVE IT. That is logically up to YOU.

I did prove he's a charlatan. As did Read Only. He's got no scientific credentials, and believes the resurrected body of Jesus Christ is made from light.

I am merely reporting what is clearly claimed in Sereda's presentation.

As am I with Sereda's claim about Jesus!


You have TOUTED your association with this astronaut as being your official stance have you not? PROVE it, or admit yourself a quack.

Official? No. Personal? Yes. I met the guy. He showed us some video. We went for a few beers. So what? You have no association with anyone scientific, Universities, scientists, NASA, or astronauts. I have met these people. I'm not a quack, because I'm not peddling anything here, YOU ARE. It's not up to me to prove a contrary point, but up to you to substantiate your claims. Your lack of education wrt photography has been put before you and explained, but still you cling to the falsehood that what you see in the video is what was happening, even though you know the tether is not as wide as it appears!

In "Evidence, The Case For NASA UFOs."pt II on Youtube, Sereda tell a blatant lie about camera focus, btw. Lenses are lenses, and apertures apertures, it matters not whether the light falls onto a CCD or fillm. He's allegedly a photographer, but he LIES about this?


Objection: Hearsay. An unsubstantiated Internet link is meaningless without you providing proof of it's legitimacy.

OK, try this;

http://www.scribd.com/doc/4681546/Sereda-Advanced-Aerospace-Propulsion-2005

pseudo scientific paper by Sereda peppered with quotes from the bible, references to Jesus etc.

Again, this is based on website hearsay. Completely and totally irrelevant to the discussion we are engaging. You are attempting to deviate and distract as per usual.

It's not hearsay, it's an interview Sereda gave. If you don't believe he said those things, you take that up with the Web Site, or ask Sereda himself.

Or you could read his book;

'Face to face with Jesus Christ'

http://www.amazon.com/Face-Jesus-Christ-Apparitions-Visionary/dp/1577330323/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227195420&sr=8-1

Where Sereda claims to not only have met Jesus, but the Virgin Mary Also!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hell, and you have trouble with the fact that I used to work in Aerospace and met a frikking astronaut once!


If you cannot PROVE what you are CLAIMING, no matter what it is that you are claiming within this specific context, you are in FACT guilty of precisely what you are accusing others of. I DO NOT make any such claims. Despite your pathetic efforts to make me out to be some accomplice of David Sereda, I have come here asking questions concerning HIS claims. I am reporting HIS claims. You have refuted those claims without any substantiation of your sources. Until you provide substantiation of your sources, you will be just as much a charlatan and quack as you are accusing Sereda of being. You will also HAVE TO PROVE you claims as being legitimate once your sources are substantiated (if you can in fact substantiate them) in order for your claims to resolve anything. This is science. This is logic. This is YOUR obligation.

No, you used Sereda to bolster your own claims, and now I guess, if you have a shred of decency, will admit Sereda is a frikking loon. He sees alien space craft and the Virgin Mary! WOOWOOO! WOOO WOOO! Nutter alert!



PLEASE, do NOT ask me that again. This maneuver that you are repeating is a distraction from the real issue that is the driving force of this discussion, it bears ZERO relevance to the assessment of the shuttle films ranging from 1991 to 1997. Sereda is FAR from the only photographic and film analysis expert to make the claims that what we observing is in fact not represent of ice particles and is in fact evidence of intelligently controlled space craft.

Have any of these other "photographic and film analysis expert(s)" met Jesus or the Virgin Mary? LOL!

Wow, you are funny. Say, have you met Jesus? Is Jesus an alien? WOO WOO!`

I did prove he's a charlatan. As did Read Only. He's got no scientific credentials, and believes the resurrected body of Jesus Christ is made from light.



As am I with Sereda's claim about Jesus!




Official? No. Personal? Yes. I met the guy. He showed us some video. We went for a few beers. So what? You have no association with anyone scientific, Universities, scientists, NASA, or astronauts. I have met these people. I'm not a quack, because I'm not peddling anything here, YOU ARE. It's not up to me to prove a contrary point, but up to you to substantiate your claims. Your lack of education wrt photography has been put before you and explained, but still you cling to the falsehood that what you see in the video is what was happening, even though you know the tether is not as wide as it appears!

In "Evidence, The Case For NASA UFOs."pt II on Youtube, Sereda tell a blatant lie about camera focus, btw. Lenses are lenses, and apertures apertures, it matters not whether the light falls onto a CCD or fillm. He's allegedly a photographer, but he LIES about this?




OK, try this;

http://www.scribd.com/doc/4681546/Sereda-Advanced-Aerospace-Propulsion-2005

pseudo scientific paper by Sereda peppered with quotes from the bible, references to Jesus etc.



It's not hearsay, it's an interview Sereda gave. If you don't believe he said those things, you take that up with the Web Site, or ask Sereda himself.

Or you could read his book;

'Face to face with Jesus Christ'

http://www.amazon.com/Face-Jesus-Christ-Apparitions-Visionary/dp/1577330323/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227195420&sr=8-1

Where Sereda claims to not only have met Jesus, but the Virgin Mary Also!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hell, and you have trouble with the fact that I used to work in Aerospace and met a frikking astronaut once!




No, you used Sereda to bolster your own claims, and now I guess, if you have a shred of decency, will admit Sereda is a frikking loon. He sees alien space craft and the Virgin Mary! WOOWOOO! WOOO WOOO! Nutter alert!





Have any of these other "photographic and film analysis expert(s)" met Jesus or the Virgin Mary? LOL!

Wow, you are funny. Say, have you met Jesus? Is Jesus an alien? WOO WOO!`

So you are running away and admit to complete unsubstantiated nonsense with respect to your claims?

Phlogistician (and others) have demonstrated:

* The original claims to be false.
* A strong correspondence between all para / pseudo / divine claims.
* That despite evidence to the contrary you personally accept the para / pseudo / divine to be true (making you delusional).
* That despite evidence to the contrary you tell people that the para / pseudo / divine are true (making you a liar).

Phlogistician (and others) have demonstrated:

* The original claims to be false.
* A strong correspondence between all para / pseudo / divine claims.
* That despite evidence to the contrary you personally accept the para / pseudo / divine to be true (making you delusional).
* That despite evidence to the contrary you tell people that the para / pseudo / divine are true (making you a liar).

Total Bullshit

all that and 4.00 will get you a great cup of joe at Starbucks. He and no one else have DEMONSTRATED anything.

What they have done is offer suggested explanations that have in NO WAY been proved any more so than Sereda's Claims.

Oh, it's been demonstrated. But you would not accept any evidence.

You would not accept the expert testimony of people familiar with general optics and the principles of CCD cameras.
You would not accept the expert testimony of people involved in space flight.
You would not accept the documented experience of other people with similar cameras.
You would not accept the contemporaneous eyewitness reports of nothing extraordinary despite the record being from a hand-held camera.
You would not accept the experience of scientists that it is easy to mislead oneself and others by using subjective fits to actual data.

As a result you have not responded constructively to any input. You believe things because you feel their truth and are not operating from a reasonable, or even communicable basis. Many of the terms you use are misleading and/or undefined, which complicates the business of entering into dialogue with you. Finally, you make everything personal, because by disagreeing with you, we make you feel insecure.

Your personal obsession with this issue has no bearing on my life. Your contribution to human knowledge of the non-human universe has been zero. Your fairness has yet to be demonstrated.

I'm sorry it comes to this, but the first time I saw a claim of a large cash prize for a "proof" (outside of mathematics) I immediately thought of the empty rhetoric of the shrill creationist. You have done little to distinguish yourself from their general tactics.

This may seem a bit silly. But there was an old anomally that happened way back in the days of sailing ships. Many of the armored ones had metal around parts of the mast. Sometimes crewmen saw ghosts, little green sparks of light around the mast. This is some weird effect in physics with metalic objects and lots of static. I mean couldit be possible with this tether that i guess had a current running through it that it produced a similar phenomenon, creating these strange lights?

This may seem a bit silly. But there was an old anomally that happened way back in the days of sailing ships. Many of the armored ones had metal around parts of the mast. Sometimes crewmen saw ghosts, little green sparks of light around the mast. This is some weird effect in physics with metalic objects and lots of static. I mean couldit be possible with this tether that i guess had a current running through it that it produced a similar phenomenon, creating these strange lights?

Actually, metal wasn't even required - wet wood works just fine.:) It was called "St. Elmo's Fire" and wasn't all that uncommon because practically every sailor had seen it at one time or another.

While I suppose it could be possible that's what some of the observations are, I rather doubt it. It doesn't actually become detached from the conductor. Ice is still THE most likely explaination. It's very common in that setting.

I mean couldit be possible with this tether that i guess had a current running through it that it produced a similar phenomenon, creating these strange lights? Nope. Because the lights aren't associated with the tether.

electrafixtion believes them to be large, intelligently-piloted things beyond the tether (a thin cord which is about 100 km distant).

People I actually talk to face-to-face think it's clear that they are out-of-focus near-field objects, less than 2m distant from the camera. They suspect they might be water-ice associated with the Shuttle itself, but can't rule out other fine materials.

// Another reason it couldn't St. Elmo's Fire is that these shapes have a structure to them, which electrafixtion believes to be space-design or intelligent markings and Read-Only and I believe to be artifacts of lens design, like the lens flare of a camera taking a picture too close to the sun. My own optics are seven diopters out-of-whack and Christmas tree lights are a fine display of structure, which isn't real.

Nope. Because the lights aren't associated with the tether.

electrafixtion believes them to be large, intelligently-piloted things beyond the tether (a thin cord which is about 100 km distant).

People I actually talk to face-to-face think it's clear that they are out-of-focus near-field objects, less than 2m distant from the camera. They suspect they might be water-ice associated with the Shuttle itself, but can't rule out other fine materials.

// Another reason it couldn't St. Elmo's Fire is that these shapes have a structure to them, which electrafixtion believes to be space-design or intelligent markings and Read-Only and I believe to be artifacts of lens design, like the lens flare of a camera taking a picture too close to the sun. My own optics are seven diopters out-of-whack and Christmas tree lights are a fine display of structure, which isn't real.

All very good points.

And yes, I forgot to mention that St. Elmo's Fire has NO definitive shape to it - it's simply a wispy aurora that fades in and out of existence around a conductor under special atmospheric circumstances.

Oh, it's been demonstrated. But you would not accept any evidence.

You would not accept the expert testimony of people 1) familiar with general optics and the principles of CCD cameras.
You would not accept 2) the expert testimony of people involved in space flight.
You would not accept the 3) documented experience of other people with similar cameras.
You would not 4) accept the contemporaneous eyewitness reports of nothing extraordinary despite the record being from a hand-held camera.
5) You would not accept the experience of scientists that it is easy to mislead oneself and others by using subjective fits to actual data.

As a result you have not responded constructively to any input. You believe things because you feel their truth and are not operating from a reasonable, or even communicable basis. Many of the terms you use are misleading and/or undefined, which complicates the business of entering into dialogue with you. Finally, you make everything personal, because by disagreeing with you, we make you feel insecure.

Your personal obsession with this issue has no bearing on my life. Your contribution to human knowledge of the non-human universe has been zero. Your fairness has yet to be demonstrated.

I'm sorry it comes to this, but the first time I saw a claim of a large cash prize for a "proof" (outside of mathematics) I immediately thought of the empty rhetoric of the shrill creationist. You have done little to distinguish yourself from their general tactics.

What a load of milarchy!

Let me break it down for you:

1) "familiar" GIVE ME A BREAK! "familiar" does not translate to expert in any way. What an idiotic thing to base ANY absolute information on.

2) Funny, the last time I attempted to use the expert testimony routine, my argument based on expert testimony was dismissed. Gordon Cooper was 10 times the astronaut and over all expert in space flight, design and technology as compared to the gentleman that phlog is up holding.

3) Could I see these documents please?

4) As I have stated, the "contemporaneous eyewitness reports" are in direct conflict with photo and film analysis EXPERTS which your contemporaneous eyewitness's are NOT. Why all of a sudden the overt credence paid to "eyewitness accounts" when you have FAR MORE eye witness accounts coming from proved experts and exceptionally credible witness bearing out the irrefutable reality of UFOs?

5) What the heck is this? A plea bargain to my powers of reason? How can you honestly make such an incredibly obvious nod to scientific curiosity's surrender as if it pardons the human element of error on part of the pursuer?

Wake up man! Take a REAL look at the facts and do as I am doing. QUESTION them without having your mind made up first.

Nope. Because the lights aren't associated with the tether.

electrafixtion believes them to be large, intelligently-piloted things beyond the tether (a thin cord which is about 100 km distant).

People I actually talk to face-to-face think it's clear that they are out-of-focus near-field objects, less than 2m distant from the camera. They suspect they might be water-ice associated with the Shuttle itself, but can't rule out other fine materials.

// Another reason it couldn't St. Elmo's Fire is that these shapes have a structure to them, which electrafixtion believes to be space-design or intelligent markings and Read-Only and I believe to be artifacts of lens design, like the lens flare of a camera taking a picture too close to the sun. My own optics are seven diopters out-of-whack and Christmas tree lights are a fine display of structure, which isn't real.

Again, it's VERY important to repeat here that people at NASA has seen and tracked objects that it claims are house size pieces of matter that they first believed were water, then ice. This is a fact and not BS.

I am simply presenting the notion that these objects are the same objects that NASA saw. This is TOTAL speculation but I believe that Sereda makes a good case for the hypothesis. I also believe that unless you watch this presentation, you can't possibly agree or disagree. I mean, how could you?

Then there is the fact that various imagery and photo analysis experts claim that what Phlog states are ice crystals being effected by the the thrusters of the shuttle are in fact represent of maneuvers made by intelligently controlled craft.

I BELIEVE that these facts alone constitute a more careful element of consideration that what quick dismissal might render.

I actually took close to an hour to make sure I understood what I was seeing. I took extra care to make sure I could see what you were seeing as well. I researched the Shuttle flight and the geometry of the tether. I used my decades of experience with lens systems, optics, still and motion picture compression and artifacts and physics to interpret what I saw. I have spent 30 hours with a Shuttle Astronaut and did not find that person to be evasive or secretive.

What you call a quick dismissal is nothing of the sort. Your other videos and uncited sources do nothing to encourage me to reconsider.

1) All experts are familiar with their subject matter. I don't even know why you would try to argue this point. The correct way to show that somewhat is not an expert is to demonstrate that they are unfamiliar with the subject matter, such as in physics, demonstrate that they cannot back their claims of predictions of the subject matter with calculation.
2) Gordon Cooper's reputation is not what you have it as. I don't recall you bringing Cooper up until now. Based on reviews of the autobiography of his NASA days, it would seem the Cooper's views are not in fact the views of most people involved in space flight.
3) The documentation (not "documents") are linked to on this thread, and not all of them by me. If you can avoid personal attacks in your next post(s), then I might feel inclined to repeat them to you.
4) Your "photo and film analysis EXPERTS" are uncited. The "contemporaneous eyewitness reports" are a matter of public record, and linked to on my first post. (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2086771#2086771). Dozens of professional reporters covered the February 1996 flight of Columbia and the tether (which is about 20 miles long but less than 0.1 inch thick (http://www.asnt.org/publications/materialseval/basics/decbasics/decbasic.htm)) but they did not and do not think NASA was filming UFOs.
5) I am no expert in psychology, but in the narrow area of researcher bias, I have had years of instruction and experience. Never trust an analysis without error bars (although some error bars are implied). Without the details of the camera system, you don't know how much image stabilization, parallax or camera motion has distorted what you are seeing. As the angle that they call "a right angle" is not in fact a right angle, I came to the conclusion that they were not proceeding in a sound manner.

So you are running away and admit to complete unsubstantiated nonsense with respect to your claims?

What, the claim I once met an astronaut? Did you read the article I linked about him? I can prove I worked at one of the places he worked at. I didn't get a picture with him, because I didn't realise I was going to need one to prove I met him to some UFO nutter many years later! :-)

So, let's look at the facts, shall we?

Edgar Mitchell, Astronaut, has studied this footage, and sees nothing odd about it.

Jeff Hoffman, Astronaut took some of this footage, and didn't see anything odd about it.

Whichever Astronaut rpenner met, has seen this, and again, not seen anything out of the ordinary.

David Sereda, Space Cadet, between meetings with various mythological religious icons, reckons he sees alien spacecraft.

You've had image artefacts explained to you. You have offered no explanation of why the tether appears so wide, when the dimensions have been given to you. You cling to the fact that artefacts are alien spacecraft, when they have been shown to you from a terrestrial source. Sereda has been shown to be a fantasist.

Why do you want to believe this so much? I want there to be alien civilisations. I would love for us to contact them somehow, but you know what? That contact will be made through rigorous scientific exploration, so if you truly want to contact aliens, get with science and scientists and stop fighting.

2) Funny, the last time I attempted to use the expert testimony routine, my argument based on expert testimony was dismissed. Gordon Cooper was 10 times the astronaut and over all expert in space flight, design and technology as compared to the gentleman that phlog is up holding.



Odd you should hold one guy higher in esteem than another, when you have never met either?

I don't doubt Cooper saw things he couldn't explain. Many pilots saw 'Foo Fighters' on missions, but oddly, despite the air being far busier with commercial flights now, than it was back then, we don't get anywhere near the number of reported sightings. I suspect this is something to do with the stress of combat missions.

Also, Cooper was stationed at the Fighter Section of the Experimental Flight Test Engineering Division at Edwards Air Force Base in California. If you are going to see strange, experimental aircraft, that's a good place to start looking.

Cooper and Hoffman have something in common, as it happens, they both set records for their flight time, but with Hoffman logging six times as many hours in the shuttle, compared to the Mercury and Gemini missions of Cooper. I'm not diminishing the feats of Cooper, he was a pioneer, but you can't dismiss Hoffman so easily, as you seem to be attempting. I should think Hoffman was rather more comfortable in Space, with his flight time, than Cooper was, paving the way. and Hoffman, therefore, was less prone to stress and misinterpretation.

Wake up man! Take a REAL look at the facts and do as I am doing. QUESTION them without having your mind made up first.

Bull !!! You are NOT looking at facts - you're looking only at nonsense and and not QUESTIONING any of it!!!! You fully accept any old fantasy without a single question - in fact, you just eat it up!!!

This will be my final attempt to try and show you why you keep failing to convince anyone of your nonsense.

The basic problem you have is a lack of scientific education. That places you on exactly the same level as a hermit living in a cave remote from humanity. Both you and the hermit are susceptible to believing any fantasy that passes your way simply because both of you lack the knowledge that would allow you to separate fact from fiction. That's precisely the condition that allows for the development of superstitions and other very stupid notions!!!!!!!!!

You will never escape this fantasy world you live in without ceasing to look for every outrageous claim you can find and instead, devote some serious energy into learning REAL science! Otherwise, you will remain deluded forever.

But I care not what becomes of you - primarily because I don't believe you WANT to learn the real truth. It's much, much more interesting and exciting (in your mind and opinion) to keep on believing the garbage that you currently do.

So do whatever you wish with your life. I'm firmly convinced that it will wind up having been nothing but a total waste.

The end!

Well ummm here's another possibility. Ice can often refract light sometimes in different colors. Could these little ice chunks be picking up light from the sun and glowing up because they are probably frosted ice versus clear (frosted being that it is snowy looking and non transparant). Also im just wondering why would UFO's visit earth?

I actually took close to an hour to make sure I understood what I was seeing. I took extra care to make sure I could see what you were seeing as well. I researched the Shuttle flight and the geometry of the tether. I used my decades of experience with lens systems, optics, still and motion picture compression and artifacts and physics to interpret what I saw. I have spent 30 hours with a Shuttle Astronaut and did not find that person to be evasive or secretive.

What you call a quick dismissal is nothing of the sort. Your other videos and uncited sources do nothing to encourage me to reconsider.

1) All experts are familiar with their subject matter. I don't even know why you would try to argue this point. The correct way to show that somewhat is not an expert is to demonstrate that they are unfamiliar with the subject matter, such as in physics, demonstrate that they cannot back their claims of predictions of the subject matter with calculation.
2) Gordon Cooper's reputation is not what you have it as. I don't recall you bringing Cooper up until now. Based on reviews of the autobiography of his NASA days, it would seem the Cooper's views are not in fact the views of most people involved in space flight.
3) The documentation (not "documents") are linked to on this thread, and not all of them by me. If you can avoid personal attacks in your next post(s), then I might feel inclined to repeat them to you.
4) Your "photo and film analysis EXPERTS" are uncited. The "contemporaneous eyewitness reports" are a matter of public record, and linked to on my first post. (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2086771#2086771). Dozens of professional reporters covered the February 1996 flight of Columbia and the tether (which is about 20 miles long but less than 0.1 inch thick (http://www.asnt.org/publications/materialseval/basics/decbasics/decbasic.htm)) but they did not and do not think NASA was filming UFOs.
5) I am no expert in psychology, but in the narrow area of researcher bias, I have had years of instruction and experience. Never trust an analysis without error bars (although some error bars are implied). Without the details of the camera system, you don't know how much image stabilization, parallax or camera motion has distorted what you are seeing. As the angle that they call "a right angle" is not in fact a right angle, I came to the conclusion that they were not proceeding in a sound manner.


Please take time to read the following:

http://www.nicap.org/muj_kasher_sts48.htm

If you can honestly state that this man is unqualified, or incorrect, in any of the 5 proofs that he places forward, I would be very interested in reading what you reciprocate.

Are you aware that Sereda has publicly debated his theories with those who officially back up the ice particle perspective? Namely NASA's debunker, Jim Oberg. Sereda tore him a new one in public.

The following is for context purposes only:

By definition, what Dr. Nuth is saying that the video cameras can see not only Near UV wavelengths of invisible light, but also Far UV defined here: Ultraviolet (UV) light is electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength shorter than that of visible light, but longer than soft X-rays. It can be subdivided into near UV (380–200 nm wavelength), far or vacuum UV (200–10 nm; abbrev. FUV or VUV), and extreme UV (1–31 nm; abbrev. EUV or XUV). It appears he made a mistake 135 - 180 Nano-meters is into the Far UV, even deeper into this invisible spectra than previously thought.

These are where & how these abjects are being "seen" rpenner. They are not even visible in the IR spectrum because they represent too high an energy source to be seen making such signatures.

Are you familiar with the Polaris Satellite? This is the satellite that first detected the objects in question. It's strange those at NASA have no problem admitting that 40 foot wide/40 Ton objects are being observed, they just don't know what they are because of everything they consider not conforming to the conventional laws of physics. Yet those here claim that the objects in question are minute in size.

Possibly understanding that the cameras being used on the shuttle are not conventional video cameras, but rather cameras designed to see into the UV spectrum, will illuminate why these abjects are not readily visible to the naked eye or standard camcorders. It is also what makes the tether appear to be so large when in fact it's roughly 75 miles away from the shuttle when the film was taken.

If you can honestly state that this man is unqualifiedI can and I do. J.C. Kasher's publication record is weak in optics, experimental design, and space engineering. Although he has a Ph.D. and a couple dozen articles published, he is clearly out of his depth. But his claims are about different footage (from STS-48) than the tether (STS-75). or incorrect, in any of the 5 proofs that he places forward, I would be very interested in reading what you reciprocate. Just as the STS-75 "analysis" ignores the motion of the hand-held camera, so does even Prof. Kasher's analysis ignores the motions of the "fixed" camera on the Shuttle. I obviously refer to the motions of the Shuttle itself.
http://www.igs.net/~hwt/zigzag.html

So the "proofs" (what is this, catechism?) are no such things -- and why would you need more than one?

Are you aware that Sereda is a rapist of the truth?

Possibly understanding that the cameras being used on the shuttle are not conventional video cameras, but rather cameras designed to see into the UV spectrum, will illuminate why these abjects are not readily visible to the naked eye or standard camcorders. It is also what makes the tether appear to be so large when in fact it's roughly 75 miles away from the shuttle when the film was taken. I call "bullshit" on this. UV optics, when in focus and properly exposed, give sharper images than visible light.

I can and I do. J.C. Kasher's publication record is weak in optics, experimental design, and space engineering. Although he has a Ph.D. and a couple dozen articles published, he is clearly out of his depth. But his claims are about different footage (from STS-48) than the tether (STS-75). Just as the STS-75 "analysis" ignores the motion of the hand-held camera, so does even Prof. Kasher's analysis ignores the motions of the "fixed" camera on the Shuttle. I obviously refer to the motions of the Shuttle itself.
http://www.igs.net/~hwt/zigzag.html

I am fully aware that his paper is in reference to STS-48. We have been discussing both right along. Could you please elaborate with some degree of factual basis for the above emboldened sentence? Just to state that the Doctor is weak in this or that is no demonstration in and of itself. It seems more so akin to basic hearsay. Can you cite specific inaccuracies for the sake of exemplifying your position as to DR. Kasher's ill depth of field concerning his refutation of the ice particle explanation?

So the "proofs" (what is this, catechism?) are no such things -- and why would you need more than one?

When examining the uncertain, which is assuredly the case for the proposed ice particle explanation, as many perspective proofs as is possible add to the credibility of a counter explanation rather than serve to diminish it. Why would this seem odd to you?

It would seem that Kasher's explanation more than takes into account the stationary or fixed camera consideration, but I am NOT as learned as yourself. If you would be kind enough to provide me a layman's comprehensible capitulation of the zig zag video refute, I would certainly be inclined to listen carefully. Just to say that this is a case for "Kasher's analysis ignores the motions of the "fixed" camera on the Shuttle. I obviously refer to the motions of the Shuttle itself." is "nice" but really means little specifically. The link you provided me is WAY over my head so I am completely at your mercy. I am hoping that you might possibly provide a brief elucidation of your point.



is a rapist of the truth?

This is brutal to be sure. How is the truth raped? Are you attempting to state that Sereda is guilty of forcing himself on the truth? If so, please get specific and drop the rhetoric. Thanks.

I call "bullshit" on this. UV optics, when in focus and properly exposed, give sharper images than visible light.

STS-75 relevant: (incidentally STS-80 is REALLY interesting)

What you are stating as BS is ridiculously obvious and I didn't mean to imply differently. Now what about that which is possibly not revealed by visible light such as the objects in question in the video?

Also, why haven't you addressed the real meat of what I questioned? Namely that NASA agrees that there are these huge ET objects that are only visible in light frequencies higher than what IR heat signatures can exemplify, that are bombarding our immediate space all the time, and yet they don't have have a clue what they are.

You will never escape this fantasy world you live in without ceasing to look for every outrageous claim you can find and instead, devote some serious energy into learning REAL science! Otherwise, you will remain deluded forever.

Read-Only it gets a bit old listening to an old hypocrite ramble on. You sit there and accuse others of being bias without even considering your own pre-dispositions. Its obvious from the above statement that for you REAL science will NEVER include the study of UFOs. It is glaringly obvious you will never even consider the possibility of UFOs, making your fantasy world no different than someone who believes blindly in UFOs. But you are far to stubborn to realize this simple fact, and continue to accuse others of being deluded.


But I care not what becomes of you - primarily because I don't believe you WANT to learn the real truth.

If you dont care for the topic nor the person, why are you here? To provide insight? We already know what your gonna say; Go read a book! Learn some REAL science!

I
Also, why haven't you addressed the real meat of what I questioned? Namely that NASA agrees that there are these huge ET objects that are only visible in light frequencies higher than what IR heat signatures can exemplify, that are bombarding our immediate space all the time, and yet they don't have have a clue what they are.

Can you provide a link where NASA claims what these objects are (on a NASA web site, please)

Also, you seem confused. 'Higher than what IR heat signatures can exemplify'

What do you mean by that? We look upward in various wavelengths, we have terrestrial telescopes that look in Infra Red, plus satellites like IRAS. If there were objects to be seen in Infra Red, astronomers would see them. If you mean 'higher frequencies than Infra Red' that's the optical spectrum, ....

So, maybe you should stop talking techno-babble, cite some sources, and see if you can make some sense?

Please take time to read the following:

http://www.nicap.org/muj_kasher_sts48.htm

If you can honestly state that this man is unqualified, or incorrect, in any of the 5 proofs that he places forward, I would be very interested in reading what you reciprocate.



He takes measurements from a TV screen, that represent 3D movement, but are displayed in 2D, and makes too many assumptions about what he is seeing. It's a flawed approach.

Are you aware that Sereda has publicly debated his theories with those who officially back up the ice particle perspective? Namely NASA's debunker, Jim Oberg. Sereda tore him a new one in public.

On the 'Art Bell' show? Riiiiiight. Got a transcript of that?


Are you familiar with the Polaris Satellite? This is the satellite that first detected the objects in question. It's strange those at NASA have no problem admitting that 40 foot wide/40 Ton objects are being observed, they just don't know what they are because of everything they consider not conforming to the conventional laws of physics. Yet those here claim that the objects in question are minute in size.

No, I am not familiar with that satellite. In fact, searching NASA for that name, yielded ZERO results;

http://search.nasa.gov/search/search.jsp?nasaInclude=polaris

Do you have a link to information about this satellite? Who built it, who launched it? Who operarates it? What instruments it carries?

Do you mean the TecSAR satellite, launched and operated by Israel? What does that have to do with NASA?


Possibly understanding that the cameras being used on the shuttle are not conventional video cameras, but rather cameras designed to see into the UV spectrum, will illuminate why these abjects are not readily visible to the naked eye or standard camcorders.

Except I saw them on standard camcorder footage, although without the same degree of image artefacts, ....

It is also what makes the tether appear to be so large when in fact it's roughly 75 miles away from the shuttle when the film was taken.

Why? Why do you think the tether appears wider when shot in the alleged UV wavelength?

Do you have any specs that prove the Shuttle cameras can see in UV, btw?

Can you provide a link where NASA claims what these objects are (on a NASA web site, please)

Also, you seem confused. 'Higher than what IR heat signatures can exemplify'

What do you mean by that? We look upward in various wavelengths, we have terrestrial telescopes that look in Infra Red, plus satellites like IRAS. If there were objects to be seen in Infra Red, astronomers would see them. If you mean 'higher frequencies than Infra Red' that's the optical spectrum, ....

So, maybe you should stop talking techno-babble, cite some sources, and see if you can make some sense?

Have you watched Evidence: The Case For NASA UFOs?

Your honor, move to strike as unresponsive!

Have you watched Evidence: The Case For NASA UFOs?

Yeah, Sereda tells lies about depth of field in ptII (his 'test' is in broad daylight, I already explained that in bright conditions, the aperture closes, and this acts like a pin hole lens, increasing depth of field. Sereda dishonestly shows us keys held up in front of a tree, in broad daylight), and the focussing properties of Film Cameras vs Digital camera. He's supposed to be a photographer, but he gets so much wrong, or deliberately misleads people.

Also it is interesting how he dismisses Edgar Mitchell.

Let Sereda drop, you do your credibility no good by referring to that charlatan. Do you really swallow that Sereda met Jesus, and the Virgn Mary?

If not, why not? If he can lie about that, what else?

Your honor, move to strike as unresponsive!


Have either of you watched the DVD?

From post#105 of this thread.

For the umpteenth time, PLEASE WATCH THE DVD. Pretty much everyone here has attacked the issue without sincerely weighing Sereda's claims via this presentation. Bits and pieces of this presentation are not enough to base any sound judgments on.

I admit and will NEVER run from the fact that Sereda (to me) as an individual seems like a nut job as far as the new age stuff, but that's just a personal perception. I am attempting to get this figured out and if we allow ourselves to repeatedly return to the entertainment factor, no one is REALLY going to be the wiser for it. Please join me and others in an honest skeptical approach to dispelling the reality for Sereda's claims. The ABSOLUTE prerequisite for such an undertaking is to obtain and watch the presentation.

I have requoted myself here for the LAST time. If you will not at very least invest yourselves to view my ALREADY FULLY ADMITTED sources for all claims relating to David Sereda's presentation within this thread, your replies are a WASTE of everyone's time concerning this matter.

STOP WASTING TIME.

Thanks

Yeah, Sereda tells lies about depth of field in ptII (his 'test' is in broad daylight, I already explained that in bright conditions, the aperture closes, and this acts like a pin hole lens, increasing depth of field. Sereda dishonestly shows us keys held up in front of a tree, in broad daylight), and the focussing properties of Film Cameras vs Digital camera. He's supposed to be a photographer, but he gets so much wrong, or deliberately misleads people.

Also it is interesting how he dismisses Edgar Mitchell.

Let Sereda drop, you do your credibility no good by referring to that charlatan. Do you really swallow that Sereda met Jesus, and the Virgn Mary?

If not, why not? If he can lie about that, what else?

OK! So you HAVE watched a little of the DVD. :) GREAT. Now PLEASE get specific about MORE. I await your legitimate, knowledgeable, assessments.

edit: Incidentally, I did look for the Polaris satellite and could find NOTHING. Could there be any alternate explanations? I know he was not referring to the Israeli satellite because it's too new for when the DVD was released.

BTW. DR. Louis Frank from NASA is the one that made the initial observations of the supposed polaris based observations.

OK! So you HAVE watched a little of the DVD. :) GREAT. Now PLEASE get specific about MORE. I await your legitimate, knowledgeable, assessments.

That will have to wait until the weekend. I'll be making a fairly long train journey, so will try and download it in it's entirety to my laptop, and watch it en route. I'll take notes, and get back to you.

OK! So you HAVE watched a little of the DVD. :) GREAT. Now PLEASE get specific about MORE. I await your legitimate, knowledgeable, assessments.

That will have to wait until the weekend. I'll be making a fairly long train journey, so will try and download it in it's entirety to my laptop, and watch it en route. I'll take notes, and get back to you.

That will have to wait until the weekend. I'll be making a fairly long train journey, so will try and download it in it's entirety to my laptop, and watch it en route. I'll take notes, and get back to you.


That's EXCELLENT!! I will happily & patiently wait. This is ALL I EVER WANTED. You see, it's impossible for me not to be fascinated by this stuff. The ONLY way that I can truly dismiss MR. Sereda's presentation is to have in effect a guide, or better, a number of guides.

Imagine if you can a GREAT reward or trophy. That reward specifically being the truth.

I have no problem whatsoever admitting and in fact dealing with my inadequacies with respect to the great hunt.

To go after a specific ideal of truth one must first identify the jungle or geographic range that the object of the quest resides within.

I may be in fact from the other side of the planet, but it is the quality of my determination that mandates my need for accurate native assessments of the surroundings in which the truthful prey is found.

That "geography" is this video. Plain & simple.

I.E. Yesterday. The specific about the keys contained in the three minutes (or so) of video jungle that you guided a short but powerful hunt through. Within this location the truth resided. The truth in this case was the probable inaccuracy of Sereda's example concerning "daylight depth of field" as used in his presentation to create an accurate refute for possible near field objects/debris in the dark of space. This being while said debris is juxtaposed along with the tether. At this point without a guide by the truth hunter's sides, mine and others subsequent perceptions can only rely on a.) The film as it "visibly appears" & b.) how Sereda is presenting his claims as a VERY attractive (to myself & others) seemingly obvious truth. A proposed GRAND trophy of UFO truth, if you will.

Do you know what the old game/practical joke of "snipe hunting" is? I remember you once made reference to your grandfather and his accumulative wisdom and experience. If you don't know what a snipe is, ask him. I am doing my best "here" to avoid being caught up in a snipe hunt.

The ONLY way for me to do that is to incorporate fact for fact knowledge as an exacting guide within an exacting geography. There is no other way because of how keen Sereda's presentation appears to the ignorant enthusiast.

In this case, the "hunt" requires surgical precision. No matter how eager and enthusiastic I am to hunt with a troop of shotgun wielding native guides, it's only the guide/s that will draw skillfully and exactingly on their scalpel on a case by case basis, that will ultimately get the job done.

I would rather have a single modest glass case that clearly displayed the ultimate truth, than I would have a posh and luxurious den filled with all manner of attractive stuffed fakes. So I thank you for your exacting guidance and I would ask the other "knowledge natives" for their specific help as well.

My plea is this: Lay down the shotguns boys and pick up your scalpels, put your time in watching the presentation, there's just no easy going of this.

I still haven't honestly grasped what it was the SkinWalker had said about "significance junkies" (I think that is what he called it). Even though effectively the statement rings of a rhetorical shotgun like blast accompanied by a cold and elevated tone to the remark, I don't really doubt that there is SOME truth to the phrased assessment and it's application.