Hi all,

Perhaps some of you will find this Preliminary Report on UFO phenomena by Massimo Teodorani of interest....

http://www.surfin.com.au/mtreport.html

At least these aliens had the common courtesy to put running lights on their spaceships and to travel slowly through the atmosphere. I'm sure they wouldn't want any Earth aircraft (using similar running lights traveling at similar speeds) to have any collissions with their expensive rides.


And I used to think Massimo Teodorani was a serious researcher among the UFO/ETI Movement.

Just what is your deficiency Chris? Can't work the focus on your camcorder? Notice how NONE of the light sources are pin sharp? Not even the lights from the city? So what we have here, is a couple of out of focus aircraft coming in to land, with running lights, and the occasional flash of tail lights visible too. At one point, another aircraft in a different air lane is briefly visible.

It's nothing mysterious, it's just badly recorded air liners coming in to land. Living near an airport myself, I could take such footage. Well, if I suddenly became incapable of using my camcorder correctly, that is.

i saw a photo once where a guy used the sun flare effect to make what he claimed was a space ship comming into land. it looked the shape of an apollo capsule coming in, but was obviously a flare, i hate when people do that crap

We have to keep in mind that Chris is the guy that sells pictures of airliner contrails on a cd of ufo "evidence." Interestingly enough, these pics come from the one ufo researcher that I thought was doing some genuine research. I guess he grew tired of waiting for contact and moved his gear to the local airport approach.

Is this meant to be serious? I never saw anything more clearly "planes coming into land at an airport between some buildings" in my entire life!

I don't live near an airport, but just last week I had occasion to visit a house in the Heathrow flightpath. I could hardly believe it myself, but they just queued up in the sky and came over one by one, about once a minute. At night it looked exactly like those stupid film clips.

They start living in a fantasy world, eventually they get a duplex there......

If anyone reading thread has any information about Mercury being used as any kind of light source on any kind of aircraft/helicopter, would you please email me: cbeacham@tig.com.au

Many thanks...chris

http://speedmods.com/Boom_Beam/boom_beam_systems.htm

I'm hesitant to email someone so capitalistic, so I'll post it here instead. I wouldn't want my email address put on some kind of list you sell to some spammer :)

http://speedmods.com/Boom_Beam/boom_beam_systems.htm

I'm hesitant to email someone so capitalistic, so I'll post it here instead. I wouldn't want my email address put on some kind of list you sell to some spammer :)

Well, thank you for that link skinwalker. I honestly didn't think you could ever suggest anything of interest to me, but I guess I was wrong. While it still doesn't explain the fact that there is no airport nearby, the scope stills, the nature of 'arrival', or the fact that the objects appear to be going into the water at Sydney Harbour, it is worth following up....

No, I'm not a capitalist and no, none of my images are airliners....

<img src=http://www.surfin.com.au/mov5.jpg>

Did you check this clip of a craft hovering over the Ocean about 100 yards out from the beach......?

http://www.surfin.com.au/rotating.html

I see no reason why it cannot be a boat or even a helocopter. It certainly is anthropogenic in its use of lights and a flashing or RAWLS (Rotating Amber Warning Light). The absence of reflection between the lights and the water surface could as easily be the dead zone between them and the water created by the hull.

But for WooWoo value, it would seem strange to someone who expects to see aliens. And perhaps hopes to profit from them... not a capitalist, eh? Not selling CDs anymore? :cool:

Is this meant to be serious? I never saw anything more clearly "planes coming into land at an airport between some buildings" in my entire life!

I don't live near an airport, but just last week I had occasion to visit a house in the Heathrow flightpath. I could hardly believe it myself, but they just queued up in the sky and came over one by one, about once a minute. At night it looked exactly like those stupid film clips.

They start living in a fantasy world, eventually they get a duplex there......

This is a close up of the subject, and it does not look like a plane to me...

<img src=http://www.surfin.com.au/rpt.16.jpg>

skinwalker: " And perhaps hopes to profit from them... not a capitalist, eh? Not selling CDs anymore?" :cool:

Well, thank you for your continued interest in my products. If you go to this link:https://host194.ipowerweb.com/~surfinco/cgi-bin/ecommerce/ac/agora.cgi
you will see that I have Beacham Surfboards, a removable surfboard fin system (with which I won a medal at the Geneva Inventions Exhibition), instructive surfboard design videos, and a ufo cd. However the ufo cd is last year's product (you will be pleased to know that the response has been very encouraging and that no one has wanted their money back....), and so to include the further information I have gathered from various sources, I have begun work on the new UFO DVD (Director's cut of course...) I also hope to have the CD available for broadband download shortly for about $9.95.

I was going to ask you what you do for a living skinwalker, but frankly I'm not really interested. :cool:

Awesome chris! forget about the naysayers... they'll always be last! What I saw was entirely different. I was cruising into a campground at about 3 am looking for a place to camp in the Missouri riverbotoms when a bright light fell towards earth. It was a huge ball the size of the full moon that I first took to be a falling star or meteor with greenish flames trailing behind it. it was about a mile distant and I figured I was a goner for sure! it came streaking down very fast and then slowed visibly fairly quick. It then hovered above the treetops and the flames went out.. it then slowly settled into the trees. I stayed in the area for about an hour before leaving.

Of course Chris, streetlights often use Mercury vapour, so are you sure you didn't measure the spectra of the hundreds of lights in Sydney Harbour, and not the two or three on this aircraft?

The camera used, a Nikon 5000, only has a 3x optical zoom, so the tele converter (how was that attached as the Coolpix doesn't have a bayonet mount, does it?) could ony have made this 6x, meaning lots of other light sources were in the frame. Was the object tracked, or a a fixed picture taken, with the object streaked? Why no inclusion of the picture in the .pdf?

How did you calculate the wavelength of the light from the image captured, I'm having a hard time seeing how you could make sense of the information. When I've used diffraction gratings to measure spectra, it's been from a single point source, passed through a diffraction grating, projected onto a screen, and measured there. Multiple sources, some moving and some static relative to each other passing through a diffraction grating, then through camera optics, and then being captured, seems like a bit of a feat. Care to tell us how you separated your sources, and managed to measure the spectra? And please show us the image you worked on.

Did you check this clip of a craft hovering over the Ocean about 100 yards out from the beach......?

http://www.surfin.com.au/rotating.html
Uh, I think that's a boat, dude....

um.. lets see, I'm HOLDING a Nikon Coolpix 5400 Digital camera.... umm.. Why YES it DOES have a BAYONET MOUNT.. hmmm. its also got.. lens = 4 x Zoom Nikkor F=5.8-24mm (35-mm {135} camera format equivalent: 28-116mm), f/2.8-f4.6 (nine elements in eight groups) Plus Digital zoom = 4 x (35- mm {135mm} camera format equivalent: 460mm)

Autofocus(AF) = contrast-detect-through-the-lense (TTL)
Focus range = 50 cm (1.8)- macro mode 1cm/o.4 (w)
Focus-area slection = Five area AF and spot AF available
Frame coverage shooting = Approximately 97% horizondal and 97% vertical.
File formats Uncompressed: TIFF-RGB (Hi-quality images) , Compressed JEPG-baseline-compliant (1:4, !:8 , 1:16).
Movies = Quick time.

Effective pixels = 5.1 million
CCD = 1/1.8" high-density CCD; total pixels 526 million
image size (pixels) .2,592x1,944 .1,280x960 .640x480 .1,600x1,200
1,024x768 .2,592x1,728 (3:2)

and it does have a built in flash too.... and it does some excellent movies.. and the software is awesome! no need to cheat on the zoom... I have taken pictures of pictures in old books and you can magnify the words and pics up to seeing the Fuzz on the paper! a really cool little camera.. yep!

what else do you want to know Phlog? Do you work for the Government or the Aliens? You DON"T know your cameras very well dude!... I have several ..

um.. lets see, I'm HOLDING a Nikon Coolpix 5400 Digital camera....

Good for you, the .pdf on the linked web page stated a Nikon 5000 was used to take the shots, and I didn't think the 5000 had a bayonet. I was _asking_ Chris if it did. I've since found the teleconverter he used, although the pics aren't clear on how it's mounted.

You DON"T know your cameras very well dude!... I have several ..

I don't know Nikon. I've got a Minolta DiMAGE.

You seem to be Very closed-minded on the validity of his pics! I only wish I had this camera when I saw what I saw in those riverbottoms in Missouri.. it was facinating and I'll never forget it! No one can debunk or erase the reality of that flaming ball that was controlled by SOMETHING other than? The dang thing streaked down and then floated below radar and then slowly went down into the woods not far from where I was driving to. I wanted to approach it, but I was totally alone.. No one else was in this camp ground but me. there were literally dozens of empty camp spots in this very remote area..and I want to go back.


A camera wouldn't do it any justice anyway.. you simply have to see these things for yourself! I KNOW they exist now...

some ancient artwork UFO links.

http://www.seekers.100megs6.com/UFOs-Aliens-History.htm

http://www.ufoartwork.com/

http://www.crystalinks.com/ufohistory.html

You seem to be Very closed-minded on the validity of his pics!
Check his pics out, they are obviously aircraft contrails. I see those every day living not far from an airport. I'm not closed minded at all, if I see a quality image depicting something which warrants further invstigation, I'll admit it. The quality of Chris's pictures is sadly lacking though.

I do have some very real questions about how he measured the spectra of the light from his images though, and what method he used. I can't see an easy way to do it, so I'm very interested in his method and data.


No one can debunk or erase the reality of that flaming ball that was controlled by SOMETHING other than?

I know you said the ball appeared to 'hover', but this is often the case when meteors pass clean over head and away from you. They appear really fast as they go overhead (because they are travelling _really_ fast) but as they head towards the horizon, appear to slow, and this also accounts for the loss of intensity.

I've seen a fair few meteor showers. Seen meteors 'flash' as they burn off different materials, and look as if they change direction, when two co-incidental meteors cross paths, one starting as flare as the other winks out.


A camera wouldn't do it any justice anyway.. you simply have to see these things for yourself! I KNOW they exist now...

Nobody is saying that bright lights in the sky don't exist. I've seen them too. What we are skeptical about, are the claims they are piloted, and to accept that, we need quality proof, which nobody has brought to the table yet.

"I know you said the ball appeared to 'hover', but this is often the case when meteors pass clean over head and away from you. They appear really fast as they go overhead (because they are travelling _really_ fast) but as they head towards the horizon, appear to slow, and this also accounts for the loss of intensity."


No, I said it Hovered .. which means it sat there the size of a full moon for at least ten seconds and then decended the same size slowly... slowly.... into the trees..

Besides, I'm 51 years old and have seen literally hundreds of falling stars, per se. My whole family saw several UFOs in the mid 60's at dusk one evening. they looked like smal stars that could cover the horizon in a blink of the eye and stop, or do a complete left or right turn without slowing. we watched the SAME stars play or fight for about fifteen minutes, then disappear AWAY from Earth!.. my Dad, mom, sister and about ten cousins saw them.. we all saw the same thing.

I live in Rural East Texas where there are NO city lights, the sky is clear a lot and many friends of mine have some awesome experiences they share candidly... recently one of my friends and others were on a dirt road riding around and saw what appeared to be a white blimp with unknown markings that was there (about 300 feet off the ground), and when they approached it by car, it literally FLASHED out of sight..

use a search engine to find the space shuttle video titled STS 48, a notorious shuttle video of a mission that filmed a blinking UFO at the edge of the earths atmosphere advancing and firing a spray of something at a smaller UFO that reversed course and fled out of sight.

Awesome chris! forget about the naysayers... they'll always be last! What I saw was entirely different. I was cruising into a campground at about 3 am looking for a place to camp in the Missouri riverbotoms when a bright light fell towards earth. It was a huge ball the size of the full moon that I first took to be a falling star or meteor with greenish flames trailing behind it. it was about a mile distant and I figured I was a goner for sure! it came streaking down very fast and then slowed visibly fairly quick. It then hovered above the treetops and the flames went out.. it then slowly settled into the trees. I stayed in the area for about an hour before leaving.

Hi slim,
Thank you for your post.Your sighting sounds very interesting. Too few people people who actually witness the 'ufo events' actually get to discuss their sightings on the forums I've visited (and it's the same here...). It's either 'ufo researchers' or so called sceptics fostering their viewpoints on whoever they think cares. I think they do that a lot.

Just what is your deficiency Chris? Can't work the focus on your camcorder? Notice how NONE of the light sources are pin sharp? Not even the lights from the city? So what we have here, is a couple of out of focus aircraft coming in to land, with running lights, and the occasional flash of tail lights visible too. At one point, another aircraft in a different air lane is briefly visible.

It's nothing mysterious, it's just badly recorded air liners coming in to land. Living near an airport myself, I could take such footage. Well, if I suddenly became incapable of using my camcorder correctly, that is.

I find you quite rude, and will not be responding to any of your posts.

Uh, I think that's a boat, dude....

Uh, I think your wrong again, dude.

Hi all,

Perhaps some of you will find this Preliminary Report on UFO phenomena by Massimo Teodorani of interest....

http://www.surfin.com.au/mtreport.html

Well, that was fun, but I won't be responding to any more posts on this thread. I think the pdf report and I have said all I want to on this particular subject.Thanks again for the link skinwalker.....

Yeah chris, I agree.. So much time and energy is wasted on the debunkers who very quickly discount and pick away at anybody who can or will step forward with their accounts of something VERY Real. You'd think they would at least remain optomistic enough to ponder the thought instead of briskly poking holes in what the viewer HONESTLY Saw... like as in REALLY Saw Something Spectacular. I've seen the strings and wire Shit and it does a disservice to science and the pursuit of the truth. those people ought to be castrated and fed their own nuts...

I find you quite rude, and will not be responding to any of your posts.

Because you are incapable of answering my questions.

If you were, you'd be happy to demonstrate how you managed to get spectra from a diffraction grating.

Usual woo woo tactic, as soon as you are asked for proof, you flounce.

On the one hand it's very well to analyse something from a skeptical position based upon your own views, understanding and perception, but on the other hand to do so by starting a post with "Just what is your deficiency Chris?" isn't exactly going to have the person you are responding to about their claims wanting to interact with you at the level you would suggest they should (namely supplying evidence or being receptive of contradicting evidence).

I would suggest Phlogistician and other hardline skeptics to refrain from the personal attacks that are so often noted when replying to posts. I know pseudoscience is filled with falsities, uneducated people and jokers but it doesn't mean that such an aggressive stance is deemed necessary.

I would also suggest being more tactile in discussion, stating someone is a "woo woo" isn't aiding them in their development of Logical progression (Namely if they have manifested some delusion, the only way to prove to them they have a delusion is to produce supporting evidence with any contradictions put fowards).

Namely it's fine saying "It could have been a plane coming into land on approach, because planes have to approach runways unlike helicopters that could potentially land vertically", but it's not to say "It's a plane, you woo woo".

Just note that UFO stands for "Unidentified Flying Object", it doesn't mean it's an alien space craft it just means it's something that hasn't been identified that was percievably flying. (Of course Flight zones, approach paths and even when the Ground control sends craft out in different vectors to avoid collisions is not just possible but something that would also be documented [if commercial]. I believe their is also the possibility of "Offshore" going helicopters, however thats depending on if a "UFO" is within about 200km inland of a shoreline.)

Thanks Stryder! Very well put! The subject is at least interesting enough to wonder about. with the Earth being home to many species It is even more practical to assume that the universe is home to many races that would visit it than believing the earth is inhabited by Ghosts, which is another subject that could be concidered Woo Woo..

Uh, I think that's a boat, dude.... Uh, I think your wrong again, dude.
Taking into account Stryderunknown's comments, I will concede that my post could be interpreted as rudeness. I am totally in agreement with Stryderunknown's caution against arrogance in post responses.

slim, that movie of the STS48 UFO was debunked by James Oberg, but I think he went into far too much detail in trying to counter Richard Hoagland's analysis. We're looking at dot moving slowly in one direction - scale is impossible to determine, it could be a large object very far away or a tiny object close up. Then the shuttle's RCS fires up, and the dot suddenly changes direction and shoots out of screen. A large object at the distance claimed by Hoagland (1713 miles, since he believes it appears from over the horizon) could not possibly by means we know now behave in such a way - added to which, why on earth would it move like that just when the shuttle fired its engine (probably not even visible from that distance)? On the other hand a tiny scrap of debris or sunlit dust not only would be much more capable of such a shift in momentum, being right next to the shuttle it's more likely to be affected by the rocket firing.

You can "analyse" the film till the cows come home, Occam's Razor enjoins us to explain it in the simplest manner possible: given an unexplained occurrence which in one interpretation is moving in a superhuman or super-natural manner, and in another interpretation is moving exactly as one would expect in the circumstances, we are forced to the latter, rational explanation.

Same goes for this movie of Mr Beacham's. I've seen all sorts of films of airliners coming down apparently strange places, and dropping out of sight between buildings - are they crashing on a high street? No, there's an airport you can't see. There's no better way of learning the problems with perspective than watching aircraft come in.

With nothing more than his map and an apparent flight plan, it may appear that the objects are flying into the water of Sydney Harbour, but experience suggests that they are simply landing on an airstrip. Experience also suggests that a film taken in daylight at the same place would reveal a lot more - specifically airliners coming in to land. One of the lights starts off moving in the "wrong" direction, and then stopped, and the camera operator focussed in on it while it was "hovering". It definitely looks like it's hovering in one spot. But an aircraft making a long turn during approach in which it spent a while moving right at the camera position would have the same effect. Lo and behold it begins to move to the right again and follows the same line as the other lights.

Stryder, it's hard to stay polite when pseud's are wantonly trying to dupe people, and make money off it.

Did you read that 'paper' on the linked website covering the spectra from this aircraft? A few technical truths, some glaring omissions, over use of technical terms, very little actual content, and absolutely no data or method shown. Scientific papers describe method, and show data.

Now, I asked Chris how he managed to extract the data from his image, and he's dodged. If he doesn't put up his data and method, I was right to be rude. If he shows us how he did it, and the method is sound, I'll apologise. I can't be fairer than that.

Silas, there are two dots, not one. both are blinking, the larger one is moving slowly and the spray is coming from the larger blinking Dot. the other smaller dot reverses course and races away. I downloaded it and watched it scores of times. there is nothing coming from the shuttle at the time. Naturally people wish to debunk that video, but it cannot logically be done.

I just did it, quite logically. If there's one dust particle, there are likely to be others, I was dealing with the one that moves anomalously. Since the others don't move anomalously I didn't worry about them.

Ok, I'm looking at this: http://www.ufoevidence.org/VideoClips/STS48main.mpg

First of all, you can see a flash reflecting off nearby surfaces - that's the rocket motor firing, so there is something coming from the shuttle at the time - motion and probably expulsive particulate matter. As soon as the flash happens, stuff starts moving - in particular our star piece of debris rapidly reverses direction. The other dot moves slightly faster. Then there's another piece that streaks across the screen, moving even faster than the other two. Is this your spray? Again, not surprising if they're tiny lumps of matter being forced away from the shuttle during a maneouvre. During the last close up on this particular film, you can quite clearly see that the third object moving fastest (the "spray") does not emanate from the second object.

They're three lumps of matter floating around the Shuttle amidst a whole other load of stuff. Nothing seems to me to be blinking, but if there is variation in reflectivity it's because they're irregular objects which are rotating - this would apply to a chip of paint from the Shuttle as much as to a distant spaceship.

Silas, spot on in your explanation. I used to work where a guy who became a Shuttle crew member got his PhD. He used to come back and bring his home movies taken on board the shuttle to show us every now and again (which was a nice thing to do considering how busy he was).

He pointed out the debris glittering in the sunshine, and showed us the manouvering motors being fired in his vids. Cool stuff. The shuttle is shrouded in debris, flecks of paint, dust from the cargo bay, stuff it picks up on ascent, they've lost nuts and bolts during repair missions, a screwdriver, a glove from an Apollo mission once. Mir dropped 300 pieces of debris after EVAs! All glittering in the sun, all following the same path, all waiting to be pushed out by thrusters.

From what I can see, the dots are pulsating and moving independently. the one approaching makes a "Circular" turn and races away.. why would only one paint chip out of many do this, while the slower one never speeds up also? the spray appears to come from a Black Cloud of matter just below the slow dot to the lower left. like there is a large darker vessel .. Your explaination is feasable, yet it doesn't address other videos that were caught by individuals monitoring those cameras also.. NASA has every reason to hide and debunk those movies, so any spokesman for them is trained in his answers. Obviously the fears of the Governments are well founded in Hiding the truth from its citizens. Mentioning UFOs brings redicule and anger from many people, like we shouldn't dare to go there.. I would welcome the truth no matter what! The past Russian Cosmonauts on Mir speak of viewing hundreds of accounts of spaceships speeding past them, many acting curious, like they know its inhabited by Earthlings. I think they view us with mistrust because we do seem to kill each other off quite viciously! It would be hard to fault a supierior race for hiding from us, but its harder to understand the outright lies our officials tell us. NASA has a long record dating back to the sixties of "Don't ask, Don't tell" like one of our first Astronauts stated when he saw a UFO: Be advised, There IS a Santa claus!

Slim sez:

The past Russian Cosmonauts on Mir speak of viewing hundreds of accounts of spaceships speeding past them, many acting curious, like they know its inhabited by Earthlings.

It would be hard to fault a supierior race for hiding from us

So, these so-called "superior races" werre hiding from us yet hundreds of them were speeding past a manned space station in plain view?

:rolleyes:

Slim, why are these spaceships visible to Cosmonauts on Mir, but not earth bound astronomers? I used to work with professional post Doctorate researchers, and _none_ of them ever caught a UFO, or significant anomoly, at any wavelength, from Infra Red through optical, to Extreme Ultra Violet, to X-Ray. Interesting no amateur has ever snagged an image or movie either. Odd that even with Mir and the ISS being visible to the _naked_ eye, ... you'd have thought if craft were buzzing Mir all the time, some spotter would have caught one in his telescope!

Chris Beacham, I ran a few questions past a friend of mine who is a professional scientist, and asked him if he thought it was feasible you attained spectra from a digital camera with the apparatus you describe. His response was that I was wasting my time talking to you.

So, you can prove two people wrong, one a Govt Defense Researcher, if you post your method and data. Go on, show us both up.

Actually, I think he was suggesting that Dr. Massimo Teodorani was the one who did the spectra analyses. Beacham didn't write the report, he just copied it from another site on the internet (giving Teodorani full citation, of course).

The images were taken by Chris Beacham though weren't they? The 'you' was a plural, meaning Chris and this Teodorani guy. I don't care who allegedly got these spectra (during a two second exposure of a moving object), I want to know how they did it!

I assume were all fairly well versed in how diffraction gratings work, and the wavelength of the light source being determined by;

nλ = d sin θ

to work out the sin θ part, the distance between the first maxima and the central axis must be measured, as well as the distance from the grating to the CCD. All this while tracking a moving object perfectly, so the maxima don't blur.

I want to know how, given that the camera optics give a magnification of 6x, all this was measured accurately enough to calculate the observed spectrum was from mercury. That's all. Should be simple, because they must think it's so obvious they skipped over that part in the 'paper'!!

For the obvious reasons No one whats to go through the Bullshit like we have here.. So they keep their mouths shut about what they see. I am beginning to understand that much better now! I'll be Damned if I ever try to share an experience or proof with any of you people again.. Remain nieve forever if you can, I don't really give a fuck!

We're crushed.

Easy there Slim, lighten up a bit and take this heads up. For some it is their JOB to create havoc and disinformation in the threads. Others just enjoy ruffling peoples feathers, a kind of sadistic thrill like slam dancing. Check out Phlogers site. They even give instructions on how to annoy and provoke people for fun. :(

It’s an interesting experience trying to identify who is really who in these forums. Generally just trying to identify what their real motives are for being here and posting as they do.

There are some of us that accept that there are ETI here on earth and have been for thousands of years interacting with mankind in one form or another. Today we have the technological understanding to question many old myths and legends of their interactions and KNOW that it is PROBABLE.

SO where do you go from here with what you are learning? :m:

I'll be Damned if I ever try to share an experience or proof with any of you people again..

"again"? I've never seen a 'proof' posted yet! I'm being a scientist, I'm enquiring, asking for this guy's method. He's not offering it. When you don't put the science in, all we end up with is 'pseudo'

Do you understand the technical difficulties doing what Chris and his chum have claimed to have done? Not curious if/how they overcame them? Not the slightest bit interested how they derived their answers? I am, because I'm a scientist. We're interested. We ask questions. If you don't like us asking questions, don't post questionable material!

Dude,...if you have a fine working, high quality camera of the kind you have in your possesion,...

And STILL fale to shoot a nice, clean tidy picture of some fisher-boat,...!

...go figgure...


LOL:)

A true Scientist is open-minded, which too many people give false claims to be... Go figure that one out! I don't give a hoot about the light spectrum of Chris's movies or photos nor do I care if he makes a Billion dollars from his efforts! If it weren't for the sad fact that people, supposedly intellegent ones, Debunk and Destroy the knowledge of and the fact of True Visitors from other planets, other people may come forward with Better info and better pics to share and grow with the Knowledge that I and others Seek so desparately. It is Juvenile to "Be Crushed". I'd rather "Be Informed"

Knowledge that I and others Seek so desparately.

Desparation will only lead you to believe what you want to believe.

"Desparation will only lead you to believe what you want to believe."

For you maybe, but I'm old enough to know the Difference between a Cow and a "Bull"

A true Scientist is open-minded,

Not so open your brains fall out, however. Science can be "open-minded" but it still relies on evidence. Those that run around making wild claims without evidence degrade a society rather than add to it. Indeed, much time and money becomes wasted by those that buy into fanciful claims that have no real merit, but appear credible to the lay-person due to the language the pseudoscientist uses.

I'd rather "Be Informed"

And yet, your preferred source of information is biased to the paranormal and outright fabrications of those that have only the wish to impress others with fanciful tales. Why not truly be informed and read a good book on critical thinking. Casti, Sagan, Shermer, and Dawkins would be good places to start getting informed.

But then, advice from someone who is critical and skeptical only infuriates those that are believers in the fanciful, so I don't expect you to take me serious. In spite of the fact that I'm giving genuine, heartfelt advice.

I'm old enough to know the Difference between a Cow and a "Bull"

So does a pre-teen, what's your point?

From what I can see, the dots are pulsating and moving independently. the one approaching makes a "Circular" turn and races away.. why would only one paint chip out of many do this, while the slower one never speeds up also? the spray appears to come from a Black Cloud of matter just below the slow dot to the lower left. like there is a large darker vesselThe basic problem here is that vessels are being seen where no vessel is necessary. "Spray" which isn't spray "appears to come from" - well does it or doesn't it? It's clearly a subjective view - "a Black Cloud of matter .... like there is a large darker vessel". Why would a rational person leap straight to the "vessel" theory? A shadow on the picture could well be anything, like for instance, a shadow. .. Your explaination is feasable, yet it doesn't address other videos that were caught by individuals monitoring those cameras also.. I wasn't reviewing other videos, I was reviewing that one. If I was reviewing other videos I would say the same sorts of things. This is the "mystery" video that is so unexplainable, otherwise people would be poring over those other videos, not this one. NASA has every reason to hide and debunk those moviesNot particularly. Nothing would please Nasa more than to meet extraterrestrials with better technology - might save Nasa from Congress budget cuts. so any spokesman for them is trained in his answers.Trained in science and skeptical thinking, I would hope. Obviously the fears of the Governments are well founded in Hiding the truth from its citizens. Mentioning UFOs brings redicule and anger from many people, like we shouldn't dare to go there.. I would welcome the truth no matter what! But the fact is that you have predetermined what the truth supposedly is, and consequently are closing your eyes to the real truth. Which is that the government is incapable of hiding the most embarrassing secrets it has, like the absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or the peccadilloes of Bill and Monica. What evidence can you provide that 10 successive Administrations have succeeded in keeping this secret which would have to be known to hundreds of people 1947? People who know Washington know that this simply is not possible.The past Russian Cosmonauts on Mir speak of viewing hundreds of accounts of spaceships speeding past them, many acting curious, like they know its inhabited by Earthlings. Be clear - did they see spaceships or did they see hundreds of accounts of spaceships? Assuming you mean that cosmonauts made hundreds of flying saucer sightings, I'm going to need a reference for that. I think it's quite likely that they actually had a prosaic explanation for what they saw (like the famous Constellation of Urine). If the Mir cosmonauts all came down and said, "We saw hundreds of aliens" do you not think there'd be a bit more of a buzz about it? I think they view us with mistrust because we do seem to kill each other off quite viciously! It would be hard to fault a supierior race for hiding from us, but its harder to understand the outright lies our officials tell us. You've been watching too much Star Trek. Your mind is filled with superior races for which there simply is no evidence whatsoever.NASA has a long record dating back to the sixties of "Don't ask, Don't tell" like one of our first Astronauts stated when he saw a UFO: Be advised, There IS a Santa claus!
The astronauts saw UFOs throughout the Space Race - Unidentified Flying Objects, that is. If you mean John Glenn's "fireflies", please be reassured, they seem to have not presaged a large scale alien invasion, and it has been 42 years.

It is Juvenile to "Be Crushed". I'd rather "Be Informed"

Is that what is called a Bitch Slap? If so, it is a good one.
:D

Silas, it is obvious why any intellegent being would hide from you...

I would give a fortune to wittness the facial expressions of the skeptics of this forum when they do Finally OPEN their EYES and see what I've seen.. I feel so superior to you all!

Wow! maybe thats your hangup? lol... :D Jealous armchair scientists who have been Jaded and not allowed to play in the sandbox of intellegent thinking? No UFO for you too? awwww....I'll see what I can do for ya, Otae?

:rolleyes:

Be patient, one day you will all shit your boxers and feel very foolish for your posts here..

Slim,
Seeing might be believing but I've seen too many parlour tricks to know to believe my own eyes (let alone yours).

If a street gambler can "Hide the queen" from you through the slide of hand, why should you believe anything you see?

Ah, Slim, and now we get the core of it, your EGO! Believers are often academic underachievers with a tenuous (at best) grasp of Science. But they have huge egos which they need to satisfy, which they cannot through mental prowess, so instead, implicate themselves in massive conspiracies, or claim to know intricate details of such conspiracies that others don't.

Scientists however, have to be prepared to abandon a pet theory, and let their ego slip, when evidence proves their pet theory wrong.

So, simply, to preserve your ego, you just never let people see your 'evidence'.

You are a textbook case of this, Slim. Not special, not clever, just ego.

I feel so superior to you all!

Herein lies the difference, I don't feel to superior to you at all.

You've been offered the opportunity to provide input based on being intellectually equivalent to the rest of us and have chosen not to exploit that position, but instead you debase our position and demand we pay you attention.

Be patient, one day you will all shit your boxers and feel very foolish for your posts here..

Perhaps, but in the meantime, you should probably be feeling rather foolish for your posts here and now.

Styder, I never play cards, gamble or roll dice. I was born in 1953 and have had a very full life. I take chances but they are thought out to the extreme.



Q: "You've been offered the opportunity to provide input based on being intellectually equivalent to the rest of us and have chosen not to exploit that position, but instead you debase our position and demand we pay you attention."



No Q, I have offered you all a look into what I have seen with my own eyes, you are obviously full of yourself, you have offered me a chance to agree with you.. intellectually? if this is a show of intellegence I prefer to stay enlightened. I could care less if any of you believe me.. I post for the believers only, then the Rats come running all in a pack to tear up the truth with some extremely outlandish senerios.. you are the Woo Woo ones. you already know it all, so why bother with me?

Phlog started the ball to rolling with insults of his own... the pace was set early on and it continues.. Stryder is the least offensive with his posts.

Silas, it is obvious why any intellegent being would hide from you...
Which is why I'm left discussing this matter with you, then....

Here's a prediction for you, regarding alien intelligences. When and if they do come visit and make themselves known to us, it is to the rational scientists, the logical and skeptical thinkers that they will be making their communications to. UFOlogists and people who jump straight to the "it must be aliens" explanataions for any and all anomalies, will not be given the time of day by them.

Oh, and so you know - I am fully aware of how egotistical and pompous I sound!

Ah. Slim, so you won't offer proof of your claims because you think I'm insulting?

You don't think that making unsubstantiated claims is an insult to everyone's intelligence then?

Chris Beacham makes wild claims, and doesn't back them up. Sorry, but that's a red flag to a bull here. If he just posted odd pictures, and didn't draw conclusions, that would be fine, but he does draw conclusions, and doesn't say how he got there. And that cannot be tolerated.

If you have a conclusion, you should share how you arrived at it. Assuming stuff though, isn't going to cut it. Just because things are strange, doesn't mean they are piloted by extra terrestrials.

Silas
"Oh, and so you know - I am fully aware of how egotistical and pompous I sound!"

You seem to be making progress. the first step to full recovery is acknowledging ones inflated inner sanctum and although downsizing would seem painfuly accute, once new habits become ingrained with daily reflex fuctions, I'm certain you will aquire that warm and fuzzy feeling of utopia, followed by outstanding revelations of utter bliss. I'm excited that you are excited posthumously.

I watched MASSIMO TEODORANI's clips when this thread was first started, not the report as yet. What keeps coming to mind is those lower lights not the groupings. It resembles turbulence, shinning a light on the turbulence below the object. Turbulence simular to the circular movement of the atmosphere seen with a tornado or hurricane.
Interesting
http://www.surfin.com.au/mov5.jpg
:D

I hadn't really check out any of the film clips previously however:

http://www.surfin.com.au/rotating.html

From Chris's site looks as if someone was either night fishing or smuggling using a "boat" with spotlights. If you look carefully enough you can see that the lights that are obviously on the boat are reflecting on the waters surface and that the actual bow of the vessel blocks some of the reflection.

Heck even it's movement as a whole generates the shape of a boat you might Charter.

Also note boats like Catamarans and Yachts have lights at the top of their mast to aid in locating their position, especially if you happen to fly.

I know the following isn't an Australian source however the basis ruleset should still kind of apply:
http://www.auxetrain.org/navhelp.html

As I live on a boat and have lived aboard off and on for many years. I am totally familiar with all kinds of navigation and work boat lights on many vessels. Although these could be high powered sodium work lights on a vessel, I tend to doubt it as they are not in the correct positions for any types I am familiar with. They are in a pattern that is often filmed of UFO’s from all the pictures I have seen.

Just my opinion.

They are in a pattern that is often filmed of UFO’s from all the pictures I have seen.

That would indicate the aliens are from the same planet since it unlikely two alien species would have the exact same lighting pattern. We can conclude that of all the various pictures of aliens, only one might be valid while all the others are faked.

That would indicate the aliens are from the same planet since it unlikely two alien species would have the exact same lighting pattern. We can conclude that of all the various pictures of aliens, only one might be valid while all the others are faked.

You're making some broad assumptions.
STDD

You're not adding to the discussion.

FOAD

FOAD = Flying Object Active Duty
Good one Q especially in the Analysis of UFO Spectrum thread.
:D