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

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.

He takes measurements from a TV screen, that represent 3D movement, but are displayed in 2D, and makes too many assumptions about what he is seeing. It's a flawed approach.

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.

On the 'Art Bell' show? Riiiiiight. Got a transcript of that?


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.

No, I am not familiar with that satellite. In fact, searching NASA for that name, yielded ZERO results;

http://search.nasa.gov/search/search.jsp?nasaInclude=polaris

Do you have a link to information about this satellite? Who built it, who launched it? Who operarates it? What instruments it carries?

Do you mean the TecSAR satellite, launched and operated by Israel? What does that have to do with NASA?


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.

Except I saw them on standard camcorder footage, although without the same degree of image artefacts, ....

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.

Why? Why do you think the tether appears wider when shot in the alleged UV wavelength?

Do you have any specs that prove the Shuttle cameras can see in UV, btw?
 
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?

Have you watched Evidence: The Case For NASA UFOs?
 
Have you watched Evidence: The Case For NASA UFOs?

Yeah, Sereda tells lies about depth of field in ptII (his 'test' is in broad daylight, I already explained that in bright conditions, the aperture closes, and this acts like a pin hole lens, increasing depth of field. Sereda dishonestly shows us keys held up in front of a tree, in broad daylight), and the focussing properties of Film Cameras vs Digital camera. He's supposed to be a photographer, but he gets so much wrong, or deliberately misleads people.

Also it is interesting how he dismisses Edgar Mitchell.

Let Sereda drop, you do your credibility no good by referring to that charlatan. Do you really swallow that Sereda met Jesus, and the Virgn Mary?

If not, why not? If he can lie about that, what else?
 
Your honor, move to strike as unresponsive!


Have either of you watched the DVD?

From post#105 of this thread.

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.

I have requoted myself here for the LAST time. If you will not at very least invest yourselves to view my ALREADY FULLY ADMITTED sources for all claims relating to David Sereda's presentation within this thread, your replies are a WASTE of everyone's time concerning this matter.

STOP WASTING TIME.

Thanks
 
Yeah, Sereda tells lies about depth of field in ptII (his 'test' is in broad daylight, I already explained that in bright conditions, the aperture closes, and this acts like a pin hole lens, increasing depth of field. Sereda dishonestly shows us keys held up in front of a tree, in broad daylight), and the focussing properties of Film Cameras vs Digital camera. He's supposed to be a photographer, but he gets so much wrong, or deliberately misleads people.

Also it is interesting how he dismisses Edgar Mitchell.

Let Sereda drop, you do your credibility no good by referring to that charlatan. Do you really swallow that Sereda met Jesus, and the Virgn Mary?

If not, why not? If he can lie about that, what else?

OK! So you HAVE watched a little of the DVD. :) GREAT. Now PLEASE get specific about MORE. I await your legitimate, knowledgeable, assessments.

edit: Incidentally, I did look for the Polaris satellite and could find NOTHING. Could there be any alternate explanations? I know he was not referring to the Israeli satellite because it's too new for when the DVD was released.

BTW. DR. Louis Frank from NASA is the one that made the initial observations of the supposed polaris based observations.
 
OK! So you HAVE watched a little of the DVD. :) GREAT. Now PLEASE get specific about MORE. I await your legitimate, knowledgeable, assessments.

That will have to wait until the weekend. I'll be making a fairly long train journey, so will try and download it in it's entirety to my laptop, and watch it en route. I'll take notes, and get back to you.
 
OK! So you HAVE watched a little of the DVD. :) GREAT. Now PLEASE get specific about MORE. I await your legitimate, knowledgeable, assessments.

That will have to wait until the weekend. I'll be making a fairly long train journey, so will try and download it in it's entirety to my laptop, and watch it en route. I'll take notes, and get back to you.
 
That will have to wait until the weekend. I'll be making a fairly long train journey, so will try and download it in it's entirety to my laptop, and watch it en route. I'll take notes, and get back to you.


That's EXCELLENT!! I will happily & patiently wait. This is ALL I EVER WANTED. You see, it's impossible for me not to be fascinated by this stuff. The ONLY way that I can truly dismiss MR. Sereda's presentation is to have in effect a guide, or better, a number of guides.

Imagine if you can a GREAT reward or trophy. That reward specifically being the truth.

I have no problem whatsoever admitting and in fact dealing with my inadequacies with respect to the great hunt.

To go after a specific ideal of truth one must first identify the jungle or geographic range that the object of the quest resides within.

I may be in fact from the other side of the planet, but it is the quality of my determination that mandates my need for accurate native assessments of the surroundings in which the truthful prey is found.

That "geography" is this video. Plain & simple.

I.E. Yesterday. The specific about the keys contained in the three minutes (or so) of video jungle that you guided a short but powerful hunt through. Within this location the truth resided. The truth in this case was the probable inaccuracy of Sereda's example concerning "daylight depth of field" as used in his presentation to create an accurate refute for possible near field objects/debris in the dark of space. This being while said debris is juxtaposed along with the tether. At this point without a guide by the truth hunter's sides, mine and others subsequent perceptions can only rely on a.) The film as it "visibly appears" & b.) how Sereda is presenting his claims as a VERY attractive (to myself & others) seemingly obvious truth. A proposed GRAND trophy of UFO truth, if you will.

Do you know what the old game/practical joke of "snipe hunting" is? I remember you once made reference to your grandfather and his accumulative wisdom and experience. If you don't know what a snipe is, ask him. I am doing my best "here" to avoid being caught up in a snipe hunt.

The ONLY way for me to do that is to incorporate fact for fact knowledge as an exacting guide within an exacting geography. There is no other way because of how keen Sereda's presentation appears to the ignorant enthusiast.

In this case, the "hunt" requires surgical precision. No matter how eager and enthusiastic I am to hunt with a troop of shotgun wielding native guides, it's only the guide/s that will draw skillfully and exactingly on their scalpel on a case by case basis, that will ultimately get the job done.

I would rather have a single modest glass case that clearly displayed the ultimate truth, than I would have a posh and luxurious den filled with all manner of attractive stuffed fakes. So I thank you for your exacting guidance and I would ask the other "knowledge natives" for their specific help as well.

My plea is this: Lay down the shotguns boys and pick up your scalpels, put your time in watching the presentation, there's just no easy going of this.

I still haven't honestly grasped what it was the SkinWalker had said about "significance junkies" (I think that is what he called it). Even though effectively the statement rings of a rhetorical shotgun like blast accompanied by a cold and elevated tone to the remark, I don't really doubt that there is SOME truth to the phrased assessment and it's application.
 
Back
Top