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

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!)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

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

 

Sir, if you were to even begin to consider the REAL issue, which you have not, (surprise!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) 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

 

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

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!

 

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:

 

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.

 

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!!

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

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

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 ?

 

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.