10,000 clams to the first skeptic to debunk...

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by electrafixtion, Nov 11, 2008.

  1. electrafixtion Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    949
    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
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. cato less hate, more science Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,959
    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?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. electrafixtion Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    949

    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.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. cato less hate, more science Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,959
    does watching a video or reading a book constitute research?
     
  8. electrafixtion Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    949

    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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    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.
     
  9. cato less hate, more science Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,959
    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.
     
  10. electrafixtion Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    949
    So you are basically apathetic. Incidentally, you are absolutely wrong about science and UFOs. Typical skeptic.
     
  11. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    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.
     
  12. electrafixtion Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    949
    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.
     
  13. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,267
    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.
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2008
  14. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    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).
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2008
  15. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
  16. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,267
    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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2008
  17. electrafixtion Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    949


    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.
     
  18. electrafixtion Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    949
    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?
     
  19. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    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.
     
  20. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    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.
     
  21. clusteringflux Version 1. OH! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,766

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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    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.
     
  23. electrafixtion Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    949

    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.
     

Share This Page