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

[phlogistician]

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.

 

[electrafixtion]

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.

 

[(Q)]

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

Just like David Sereda.

 

[electrafixtion]

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.

 

[(Q)]

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:

 

[synthesizer-patel]

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.

 

[jpappl]

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.

 

[jpappl]

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

 

[electrafixtion]

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.

 

[electrafixtion]

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.

 

[jpappl]

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

 

[jpappl]

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.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

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 ) - 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)

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).

 

[AlphaNumeric]

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.

 

[electrafixtion]

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!

 

[electrafixtion]

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 ) - 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)

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.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

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:

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

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.

 

[jpappl]

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.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

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

 

[electrafixtion]

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?