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

[jpappl]

Merka,

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

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

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

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

 

[phlogistician]

Stay on topic please.

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

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

 

[phlogistician]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Captain Kremmen]

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

Is it a very small spaceship?

 

[electrafixtion]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[EndLightEnd]

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

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

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

 

[phlogistician]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[EndLightEnd]

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

I would LOVE to see that video.

 

[electrafixtion]

I would LOVE to see that video.

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

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

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

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

 

[merkababozo]

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

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

 

[jpappl]

Merka,

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

 

[merkababozo]

Merka,

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

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

 

[jpappl]

Let me try again.

You are an ass.

 

[merkababozo]

Let me try again.

You are an ass.

:bawl:

 

[jpappl]

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

 

[merkababozo]

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

- no worries bud.

 

[phlogistician]

I would LOVE to see that video.

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

 

[phlogistician]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK, this is the guy I met;

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

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

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

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

 

[electrafixtion]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK, this is the guy I met;

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

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

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

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

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

 

[phlogistician]

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

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

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

As am I with Sereda's claim about Jesus!

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

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

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

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

OK, try this;

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

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

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

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

Or you could read his book;

'Face to face with Jesus Christ'

http://www.amazon.com/Face-Jesus-Ch...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227195420&sr=8-1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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