electrafixtion
Registered Senior Member
So you are running away and admit to complete unsubstantiated nonsense with respect to your claims?
10,000 clams to the first skeptic to debunk...
- Thread starter electrafixtion
- Start date
So you are running away and admit to complete unsubstantiated nonsense with respect to your claims?
Phlogistician (and others) have demonstrated:
* The original claims to be false.
* A strong correspondence between all para / pseudo / divine claims.
* That despite evidence to the contrary you personally accept the para / pseudo / divine to be true (making you delusional).
* That despite evidence to the contrary you tell people that the para / pseudo / divine are true (making you a liar).
* The original claims to be false.
* A strong correspondence between all para / pseudo / divine claims.
* That despite evidence to the contrary you personally accept the para / pseudo / divine to be true (making you delusional).
* That despite evidence to the contrary you tell people that the para / pseudo / divine are true (making you a liar).
electrafixtion
Registered Senior Member
Total Bullshit
all that and 4.00 will get you a great cup of joe at Starbucks. He and no one else have DEMONSTRATED anything.
What they have done is offer suggested explanations that have in NO WAY been proved any more so than Sereda's Claims.
Oh, it's been demonstrated. But you would not accept any evidence.
You would not accept the expert testimony of people familiar with general optics and the principles of CCD cameras.
You would not accept the expert testimony of people involved in space flight.
You would not accept the documented experience of other people with similar cameras.
You would not accept the contemporaneous eyewitness reports of nothing extraordinary despite the record being from a hand-held camera.
You would not accept the experience of scientists that it is easy to mislead oneself and others by using subjective fits to actual data.
As a result you have not responded constructively to any input. You believe things because you feel their truth and are not operating from a reasonable, or even communicable basis. Many of the terms you use are misleading and/or undefined, which complicates the business of entering into dialogue with you. Finally, you make everything personal, because by disagreeing with you, we make you feel insecure.
Your personal obsession with this issue has no bearing on my life. Your contribution to human knowledge of the non-human universe has been zero. Your fairness has yet to be demonstrated.
I'm sorry it comes to this, but the first time I saw a claim of a large cash prize for a "proof" (outside of mathematics) I immediately thought of the empty rhetoric of the shrill creationist. You have done little to distinguish yourself from their general tactics.
You would not accept the expert testimony of people familiar with general optics and the principles of CCD cameras.
You would not accept the expert testimony of people involved in space flight.
You would not accept the documented experience of other people with similar cameras.
You would not accept the contemporaneous eyewitness reports of nothing extraordinary despite the record being from a hand-held camera.
You would not accept the experience of scientists that it is easy to mislead oneself and others by using subjective fits to actual data.
As a result you have not responded constructively to any input. You believe things because you feel their truth and are not operating from a reasonable, or even communicable basis. Many of the terms you use are misleading and/or undefined, which complicates the business of entering into dialogue with you. Finally, you make everything personal, because by disagreeing with you, we make you feel insecure.
Your personal obsession with this issue has no bearing on my life. Your contribution to human knowledge of the non-human universe has been zero. Your fairness has yet to be demonstrated.
I'm sorry it comes to this, but the first time I saw a claim of a large cash prize for a "proof" (outside of mathematics) I immediately thought of the empty rhetoric of the shrill creationist. You have done little to distinguish yourself from their general tactics.
This may seem a bit silly. But there was an old anomally that happened way back in the days of sailing ships. Many of the armored ones had metal around parts of the mast. Sometimes crewmen saw ghosts, little green sparks of light around the mast. This is some weird effect in physics with metalic objects and lots of static. I mean couldit be possible with this tether that i guess had a current running through it that it produced a similar phenomenon, creating these strange lights?
Actually, metal wasn't even required - wet wood works just fine.
It was called "St. Elmo's Fire" and wasn't all that uncommon because practically every sailor had seen it at one time or another.While I suppose it could be possible that's what some of the observations are, I rather doubt it. It doesn't actually become detached from the conductor. Ice is still THE most likely explaination. It's very common in that setting.
Nope. Because the lights aren't associated with the tether.
electrafixtion believes them to be large, intelligently-piloted things beyond the tether (a thin cord which is about 100 km distant).
People I actually talk to face-to-face think it's clear that they are out-of-focus near-field objects, less than 2m distant from the camera. They suspect they might be water-ice associated with the Shuttle itself, but can't rule out other fine materials.
// Another reason it couldn't St. Elmo's Fire is that these shapes have a structure to them, which electrafixtion believes to be space-design or intelligent markings and Read-Only and I believe to be artifacts of lens design, like the lens flare of a camera taking a picture too close to the sun. My own optics are seven diopters out-of-whack and Christmas tree lights are a fine display of structure, which isn't real.
Last edited:
All very good points.
And yes, I forgot to mention that St. Elmo's Fire has NO definitive shape to it - it's simply a wispy aurora that fades in and out of existence around a conductor under special atmospheric circumstances.
electrafixtion
Registered Senior Member
What a load of milarchy!
Let me break it down for you:
1) "familiar" GIVE ME A BREAK! "familiar" does not translate to expert in any way. What an idiotic thing to base ANY absolute information on.
2) Funny, the last time I attempted to use the expert testimony routine, my argument based on expert testimony was dismissed. Gordon Cooper was 10 times the astronaut and over all expert in space flight, design and technology as compared to the gentleman that phlog is up holding.
3) Could I see these documents please?
4) As I have stated, the "contemporaneous eyewitness reports" are in direct conflict with photo and film analysis EXPERTS which your contemporaneous eyewitness's are NOT. Why all of a sudden the overt credence paid to "eyewitness accounts" when you have FAR MORE eye witness accounts coming from proved experts and exceptionally credible witness bearing out the irrefutable reality of UFOs?
5) What the heck is this? A plea bargain to my powers of reason? How can you honestly make such an incredibly obvious nod to scientific curiosity's surrender as if it pardons the human element of error on part of the pursuer?
Wake up man! Take a REAL look at the facts and do as I am doing. QUESTION them without having your mind made up first.
Last edited:
electrafixtion
Registered Senior Member
Again, it's VERY important to repeat here that people at NASA has seen and tracked objects that it claims are house size pieces of matter that they first believed were water, then ice. This is a fact and not BS.
I am simply presenting the notion that these objects are the same objects that NASA saw. This is TOTAL speculation but I believe that Sereda makes a good case for the hypothesis. I also believe that unless you watch this presentation, you can't possibly agree or disagree. I mean, how could you?
Then there is the fact that various imagery and photo analysis experts claim that what Phlog states are ice crystals being effected by the the thrusters of the shuttle are in fact represent of maneuvers made by intelligently controlled craft.
I BELIEVE that these facts alone constitute a more careful element of consideration that what quick dismissal might render.
I actually took close to an hour to make sure I understood what I was seeing. I took extra care to make sure I could see what you were seeing as well. I researched the Shuttle flight and the geometry of the tether. I used my decades of experience with lens systems, optics, still and motion picture compression and artifacts and physics to interpret what I saw. I have spent 30 hours with a Shuttle Astronaut and did not find that person to be evasive or secretive.
What you call a quick dismissal is nothing of the sort. Your other videos and uncited sources do nothing to encourage me to reconsider.
1) All experts are familiar with their subject matter. I don't even know why you would try to argue this point. The correct way to show that somewhat is not an expert is to demonstrate that they are unfamiliar with the subject matter, such as in physics, demonstrate that they cannot back their claims of predictions of the subject matter with calculation.
2) Gordon Cooper's reputation is not what you have it as. I don't recall you bringing Cooper up until now. Based on reviews of the autobiography of his NASA days, it would seem the Cooper's views are not in fact the views of most people involved in space flight.
3) The documentation (not "documents") are linked to on this thread, and not all of them by me. If you can avoid personal attacks in your next post(s), then I might feel inclined to repeat them to you.
4) Your "photo and film analysis EXPERTS" are uncited. The "contemporaneous eyewitness reports" are a matter of public record, and linked to on my first post.. Dozens of professional reporters covered the February 1996 flight of Columbia and the tether (which is about 20 miles long but less than 0.1 inch thick) but they did not and do not think NASA was filming UFOs.
5) I am no expert in psychology, but in the narrow area of researcher bias, I have had years of instruction and experience. Never trust an analysis without error bars (although some error bars are implied). Without the details of the camera system, you don't know how much image stabilization, parallax or camera motion has distorted what you are seeing. As the angle that they call "a right angle" is not in fact a right angle, I came to the conclusion that they were not proceeding in a sound manner.
What you call a quick dismissal is nothing of the sort. Your other videos and uncited sources do nothing to encourage me to reconsider.
1) All experts are familiar with their subject matter. I don't even know why you would try to argue this point. The correct way to show that somewhat is not an expert is to demonstrate that they are unfamiliar with the subject matter, such as in physics, demonstrate that they cannot back their claims of predictions of the subject matter with calculation.
2) Gordon Cooper's reputation is not what you have it as. I don't recall you bringing Cooper up until now. Based on reviews of the autobiography of his NASA days, it would seem the Cooper's views are not in fact the views of most people involved in space flight.
3) The documentation (not "documents") are linked to on this thread, and not all of them by me. If you can avoid personal attacks in your next post(s), then I might feel inclined to repeat them to you.
4) Your "photo and film analysis EXPERTS" are uncited. The "contemporaneous eyewitness reports" are a matter of public record, and linked to on my first post.. Dozens of professional reporters covered the February 1996 flight of Columbia and the tether (which is about 20 miles long but less than 0.1 inch thick) but they did not and do not think NASA was filming UFOs.
5) I am no expert in psychology, but in the narrow area of researcher bias, I have had years of instruction and experience. Never trust an analysis without error bars (although some error bars are implied). Without the details of the camera system, you don't know how much image stabilization, parallax or camera motion has distorted what you are seeing. As the angle that they call "a right angle" is not in fact a right angle, I came to the conclusion that they were not proceeding in a sound manner.
What, the claim I once met an astronaut? Did you read the article I linked about him? I can prove I worked at one of the places he worked at. I didn't get a picture with him, because I didn't realise I was going to need one to prove I met him to some UFO nutter many years later!
So, let's look at the facts, shall we?
Edgar Mitchell, Astronaut, has studied this footage, and sees nothing odd about it.
Jeff Hoffman, Astronaut took some of this footage, and didn't see anything odd about it.
Whichever Astronaut rpenner met, has seen this, and again, not seen anything out of the ordinary.
David Sereda, Space Cadet, between meetings with various mythological religious icons, reckons he sees alien spacecraft.
You've had image artefacts explained to you. You have offered no explanation of why the tether appears so wide, when the dimensions have been given to you. You cling to the fact that artefacts are alien spacecraft, when they have been shown to you from a terrestrial source. Sereda has been shown to be a fantasist.
Why do you want to believe this so much? I want there to be alien civilisations. I would love for us to contact them somehow, but you know what? That contact will be made through rigorous scientific exploration, so if you truly want to contact aliens, get with science and scientists and stop fighting.
Odd you should hold one guy higher in esteem than another, when you have never met either?
I don't doubt Cooper saw things he couldn't explain. Many pilots saw 'Foo Fighters' on missions, but oddly, despite the air being far busier with commercial flights now, than it was back then, we don't get anywhere near the number of reported sightings. I suspect this is something to do with the stress of combat missions.
Also, Cooper was stationed at the Fighter Section of the Experimental Flight Test Engineering Division at Edwards Air Force Base in California. If you are going to see strange, experimental aircraft, that's a good place to start looking.
Cooper and Hoffman have something in common, as it happens, they both set records for their flight time, but with Hoffman logging six times as many hours in the shuttle, compared to the Mercury and Gemini missions of Cooper. I'm not diminishing the feats of Cooper, he was a pioneer, but you can't dismiss Hoffman so easily, as you seem to be attempting. I should think Hoffman was rather more comfortable in Space, with his flight time, than Cooper was, paving the way. and Hoffman, therefore, was less prone to stress and misinterpretation.
Bull !!! You are NOT looking at facts - you're looking only at nonsense and and not QUESTIONING any of it!!!! You fully accept any old fantasy without a single question - in fact, you just eat it up!!!
This will be my final attempt to try and show you why you keep failing to convince anyone of your nonsense.
The basic problem you have is a lack of scientific education. That places you on exactly the same level as a hermit living in a cave remote from humanity. Both you and the hermit are susceptible to believing any fantasy that passes your way simply because both of you lack the knowledge that would allow you to separate fact from fiction. That's precisely the condition that allows for the development of superstitions and other very stupid notions!!!!!!!!!
You will never escape this fantasy world you live in without ceasing to look for every outrageous claim you can find and instead, devote some serious energy into learning REAL science! Otherwise, you will remain deluded forever.
But I care not what becomes of you - primarily because I don't believe you WANT to learn the real truth. It's much, much more interesting and exciting (in your mind and opinion) to keep on believing the garbage that you currently do.
So do whatever you wish with your life. I'm firmly convinced that it will wind up having been nothing but a total waste.
The end!
Well ummm here's another possibility. Ice can often refract light sometimes in different colors. Could these little ice chunks be picking up light from the sun and glowing up because they are probably frosted ice versus clear (frosted being that it is snowy looking and non transparant). Also im just wondering why would UFO's visit earth?
electrafixtion
Registered Senior Member
Please take time to read the following:
http://www.nicap.org/muj_kasher_sts48.htm
If you can honestly state that this man is unqualified, or incorrect, in any of the 5 proofs that he places forward, I would be very interested in reading what you reciprocate.
Are you aware that Sereda has publicly debated his theories with those who officially back up the ice particle perspective? Namely NASA's debunker, Jim Oberg. Sereda tore him a new one in public.
The following is for context purposes only:
By definition, what Dr. Nuth is saying that the video cameras can see not only Near UV wavelengths of invisible light, but also Far UV defined here: Ultraviolet (UV) light is electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength shorter than that of visible light, but longer than soft X-rays. It can be subdivided into near UV (380–200 nm wavelength), far or vacuum UV (200–10 nm; abbrev. FUV or VUV), and extreme UV (1–31 nm; abbrev. EUV or XUV). It appears he made a mistake 135 - 180 Nano-meters is into the Far UV, even deeper into this invisible spectra than previously thought.
These are where & how these abjects are being "seen" rpenner. They are not even visible in the IR spectrum because they represent too high an energy source to be seen making such signatures.
Are you familiar with the Polaris Satellite? This is the satellite that first detected the objects in question. It's strange those at NASA have no problem admitting that 40 foot wide/40 Ton objects are being observed, they just don't know what they are because of everything they consider not conforming to the conventional laws of physics. Yet those here claim that the objects in question are minute in size.
Possibly understanding that the cameras being used on the shuttle are not conventional video cameras, but rather cameras designed to see into the UV spectrum, will illuminate why these abjects are not readily visible to the naked eye or standard camcorders. It is also what makes the tether appear to be so large when in fact it's roughly 75 miles away from the shuttle when the film was taken.
I can and I do. J.C. Kasher's publication record is weak in optics, experimental design, and space engineering. Although he has a Ph.D. and a couple dozen articles published, he is clearly out of his depth. But his claims are about different footage (from STS-48) than the tether (STS-75).
Just as the STS-75 "analysis" ignores the motion of the hand-held camera, so does even Prof. Kasher's analysis ignores the motions of the "fixed" camera on the Shuttle. I obviously refer to the motions of the Shuttle itself.
http://www.igs.net/~hwt/zigzag.html
So the "proofs" (what is this, catechism?) are no such things -- and why would you need more than one?
is a rapist of the truth?
I call "bullshit" on this. UV optics, when in focus and properly exposed, give sharper images than visible light.
electrafixtion
Registered Senior Member
I am fully aware that his paper is in reference to STS-48. We have been discussing both right along. Could you please elaborate with some degree of factual basis for the above emboldened sentence? Just to state that the Doctor is weak in this or that is no demonstration in and of itself. It seems more so akin to basic hearsay. Can you cite specific inaccuracies for the sake of exemplifying your position as to DR. Kasher's ill depth of field concerning his refutation of the ice particle explanation?
When examining the uncertain, which is assuredly the case for the proposed ice particle explanation, as many perspective proofs as is possible add to the credibility of a counter explanation rather than serve to diminish it. Why would this seem odd to you?
It would seem that Kasher's explanation more than takes into account the stationary or fixed camera consideration, but I am NOT as learned as yourself. If you would be kind enough to provide me a layman's comprehensible capitulation of the zig zag video refute, I would certainly be inclined to listen carefully. Just to say that this is a case for "Kasher's analysis ignores the motions of the "fixed" camera on the Shuttle. I obviously refer to the motions of the Shuttle itself." is "nice" but really means little specifically. The link you provided me is WAY over my head so I am completely at your mercy. I am hoping that you might possibly provide a brief elucidation of your point.
This is brutal to be sure. How is the truth raped? Are you attempting to state that Sereda is guilty of forcing himself on the truth? If so, please get specific and drop the rhetoric. Thanks.
STS-75 relevant: (incidentally STS-80 is REALLY interesting)
What you are stating as BS is ridiculously obvious and I didn't mean to imply differently. Now what about that which is possibly not revealed by visible light such as the objects in question in the video?
Also, why haven't you addressed the real meat of what I questioned? Namely that NASA agrees that there are these huge ET objects that are only visible in light frequencies higher than what IR heat signatures can exemplify, that are bombarding our immediate space all the time, and yet they don't have have a clue what they are.
Read-Only it gets a bit old listening to an old hypocrite ramble on. You sit there and accuse others of being bias without even considering your own pre-dispositions. Its obvious from the above statement that for you REAL science will NEVER include the study of UFOs. It is glaringly obvious you will never even consider the possibility of UFOs, making your fantasy world no different than someone who believes blindly in UFOs. But you are far to stubborn to realize this simple fact, and continue to accuse others of being deluded.
If you dont care for the topic nor the person, why are you here? To provide insight? We already know what your gonna say; Go read a book! Learn some REAL science!
Can you provide a link where NASA claims what these objects are (on a NASA web site, please)
Also, you seem confused. 'Higher than what IR heat signatures can exemplify'
What do you mean by that? We look upward in various wavelengths, we have terrestrial telescopes that look in Infra Red, plus satellites like IRAS. If there were objects to be seen in Infra Red, astronomers would see them. If you mean 'higher frequencies than Infra Red' that's the optical spectrum, ....
So, maybe you should stop talking techno-babble, cite some sources, and see if you can make some sense?