Very Interesting....

M

moementum7

~^~You First~^~
Registered Senior Member
Personaly this is some of the most interesting footage I have seen in some time.
Where else to share it than good ol Sci-forums.
I suggest watching these when you have some time.
Aprox 3 hours in total.

Part 1
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5070476612863849446&q=Nasa+smoking+gun

Part 2
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8524267568796529301

Enjoy, and I hope you appreciate and enjoy this footage as much as I did.

Peace :)


Since this is my thread I want to put what I think is some of the most important footage on this subject all in one place.

"Out of the Blue"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5594744703753734741&q=out+of+the+blue

The "Disclosure Project".
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1166743665260900218&q=disclosure+project

Added August 11th 2006
"Smoking Gun NASA Footage"....Martyn Stubbs
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2993802767166351279&q=smoking+gun
Any discussion welcome....... :)
 
Last edited:
Just skmimmed the last of those videos;
wow, a succession of talking heads and no hard evidence. Even the ex-skunk works guy doesn't know what he's talking about when discussing stuff he claims to have worked on. A guy who says he worked on SR-71 and its predecessors gets basic facts wrong, hardly credible.
I was immediately put off by the actor misquoting Shakespeare - it sort of speaks volumes for the integrity of overall research.
So Greer has over 400 "witnesses"? From the entire US military-industrial complex. What's that as a percentage? Negligible.
 
After just watching it i'm not going to dignify this with a response. Its all bullcrap

lol
 
There are alot of videos which pollute the UFO field by claiming the aliens are here while using real footage of topsecret flying machines, its just too bad.
 
Thanks for the interest and responses.
Keep em comin.
Preferably from those who watched the entire first 2 videos, but all are of course welcome.
 
Yawn... this video goes on a bit, however I'm sure you'll read this as a debunking statement, quite frankly the "evidence" that is supposedly collected really does lack any forms of indepth analysis, it's just "Assumed" to be the way the guy preposes it to be.

Firstly it opens with Terra Entertainment's screen to identify that it's a video made for "Entertainment" funnily enough.

It then breaks down into lecture about objects in space, however it lacks certain evidence finding. Like for instance footage should be timestamped and dated which can then be used to identify satellite orbit paths and altitudes.

An explaination on frequency and mathematic examples to express the possibilities of high speed travel lacks certain depth, for instance he talks of a spectrum of waveformations and assumes the viewer knows the correlation of a waveform with a photon.

I liked the bit where he's discussing "waterballs", why not ask an astronaut "When you go for a whizz in space, do you bring it home in a doggy bag or eject it?".

Later on the guy starts going on about "Secret Space Programs", well for years there was alot of controversy over the "Star Wars program". Which although secret, was not so secret, yet not one mention.

There is then a point where he speculates about Nuclear powered craft, and suggests there must be nuclear powered systems in far advance of what you see in todays craft. However he doesn't analyse already known nuclear powered craft like Submarines or look at the nature of nuclear powers coolant systems, which is why sub's are powered that way (as they tend to be surrounded by water ) and to my knowledge other craft aren't.

Anyhow these are my observations, although it's actually pretty difficult to watch it, perhaps I have an attention disorder or perhaps it's hard to be attentive of something thats so full of.... Spacemansteve's quote "Bullcrap".

None the less don't let my post spoil watching, or attempting to watch the video, just settle down to it with some popcorn, so you have something to flick at your PC screen when you become disgruntled.
 
Well, you can have my notes for the second piece, thats bound to attract your attention . (okay thats sarcasm)

The only thing worth mentioning there was the piece on Hutchison's effect, but thats only because thats actually science as apposed to all this dogon-Sirius fishy dogmen is just too much BS.


I would state that the video in its full 2 parts should have the words "NO REFUNDS" placed upon it, because once you are robbed of three hours of your life, you should at least be told you can't reclaim them.
 
Actually I feel the same should be mentioned at the begining of most of your posts ;)
Ya, the fish/man thing was the only part that threw me off, however I remain pragmatic and am neither here nor there on the subject.

I'll have to look more into the Hutchinsons effect.
Thanks
 
Well funny enough Moementum7, my attention span for reading posts in the forums has somewhat depleted over the years. It's probably the number of the same repetative mental divergants that frequent the forums outputting the same rhetoric.

I tried to be fair with these people, allowed them to voice their thoughts and well some of them took advantage of that fact all to often, exploiting it with ludicrous claims just because they liked winding all the people in the forums up. In certain respect their high jinx has soured the milk for all those that might have witnessed something or might have concluded something different.

Admittedly my own personal experiences have undermined most of the claims that people make here, my understanding of whats going on is far different and I frankly don't need to explain what I know or see here.
 
Thats one of the most balanced comments I think I have ever seen from you.
I absolutely understand what you are saying.
Some of the regulars here do indeed begin to get emotionaly carried away.
It seems that many on here, pro and anti ufo believers are more interested in being heard and convincing others that they are right and that the others are wrong, instead of an open and ongoing line of "pragmatic" communication on the subject.

I now feel like were communicating to some extent.
The parts I found most interesting on the first two videos was the footage of the satelite and the 12 mile long tether.
Showing the objects undisbutably moving begind the tether, giving there approximate size.
As well as the object that makes a right angle turn at an incredibly high velocity.

Not trying to convince you of anything Stryder, just sharing what I found interesting.

No, you don't have to explain anything, I can respect that.
I do remember some of your posts explaining your thoughts on what might be considered some serious issues.

You have to admit, the human perspective is incredibly diverse.

Thanks for sharing.
 
manmadeflyingsaucer said:
There are alot of videos which pollute the UFO field by claiming the aliens are here while using real footage of topsecret flying machines, its just too bad.
Click to expand...
What methods or observations have you developed to distinguish the two?
Man made craft (top secret) from actual alien craft?
As I also believe that theres a very high probability that man has also been able to develop very advanced craft.
 
spacemansteve said:
After just watching it i'm not going to dignify this with a response. Its all bullcrap

lol
Click to expand...
Thanks for not wasting too much space.
And your right, it's all bullcrap.
 
Oli said:
Just skmimmed the last of those videos;
wow, a succession of talking heads and no hard evidence. Even the ex-skunk works guy doesn't know what he's talking about when discussing stuff he claims to have worked on. A guy who says he worked on SR-71 and its predecessors gets basic facts wrong, hardly credible.
I was immediately put off by the actor misquoting Shakespeare - it sort of speaks volumes for the integrity of overall research.
So Greer has over 400 "witnesses"? From the entire US military-industrial complex. What's that as a percentage? Negligible.
Click to expand...
Wow.
No hard evidence?
Recorded radar tracking, video, photos, very credible eye witnesses, etc.
Your just wierd.
Ya, your right, anyone associated with someone who cant do good shakespeare nowadays.....lol
Your funny.

As for the percentage of military personal, I can't beleive that you would not be able to figure out that situation for yourself unless you were already blinded by your own biases.
Think about it.
What percentage of people do you think would actually be willing to put their carreers, reputation, and social value at stake to involve themselves in the most ridiculed subject of our time?
Not many.
These are just the people who amazingly enough DID come forward.
And besides, you only need one credible witness.
But let me guess,....theres no such thing.
 
Ultimately i believe that there are aliens out there, i mean its hard to believe that with the Universe roughly 14 Billion years old, and 28 Billion Light Years side to side we are the only lifeforms.

My only scepticism comes at whether said Aliens are able to make the leap into faster than light travel, and open communications with earth. Ultimately i think if they were around and wanted to communcate with earth they would have done so by now, and not just the occasional person living in the country side. Alternatively if they wanted to be secretive, why do they let said people see the ships etc etc... Thats basically why i'm a skeptic. Few other reasons but i won't waste space...

I hope there are aliens out there, and one day they contact earth. I truly do
 
spacemansteve said:
Ultimately i believe that there are aliens out there, i mean its hard to believe that with the Universe roughly 14 Billion years old, and 28 Billion Light Years side to side we are the only lifeforms.

My only scepticism comes at whether said Aliens are able to make the leap into faster than light travel, and open communications with earth. Ultimately i think if they were around and wanted to communcate with earth they would have done so by now, and not just the occasional person living in the country side. Alternatively if they wanted to be secretive, why do they let said people see the ships etc etc... Thats basically why i'm a skeptic. Few other reasons but i won't waste space...

I hope there are aliens out there, and one day they contact earth. I truly do
Click to expand...
I have never really had a problem believing that space travel will indeed be possible, giving our technological advancements even within the last 50 years, who knows where we will be in another 1000 years.
And with your comment "i mean its hard to believe that with the Universe roughly 14 Billion years old, and 28 Billion Light Years side to side we are the only lifeforms." I can tell that you could understand that the possibility for another race to have been able to begin its technological advancement 1000 years earlier than us is relatively a blink of an eye in time scale, let alone 100,000 years in advancement which is still relatively small difference in time overall.

As for why they are interacting the way they are, good question. :confused:
I have a few thoughts on the subject but definitely nothing all encompasing.

Thanks for your intelligent reply Steve.
 
My take on those disc's really looked like an aura generated by a high concentration of radiology around a dust particle, at one point during the captured footage you even see the camera's "focus" change either due to someone zooming in on the tether or a thruster being fired.

The aura wouldn't go behind the tether, but if the tether was in the line of the light for the particle it might lower it's radiance making it look like it's gone behind a tether.

At one point in the video the guy also mentions about the astronaut using some "Keyword" involving "Wake", I can't remember the whole term off hand but it just involved the thrusters being fired and generating disturbance in the close dust/debris.

It's possible that the astronauts do this on occasion to identify the difference between identifiable bodies like starts which are static and the floating junk in space, as mention in the video such small movements by a shuttle in space is amplified on the camera and gives way to moving artifacts. To spot a "Ufo" in space you would have to identify that it wasn't a satellite (there are programs you can download on the internet that follow satellite paths, however they won't include classified DoD satellites built by any countries DoD), you'd have to identify that their was no X-Prize contestants doing field tests, no amatuer rocket enthusiasts test firing either, there is then High Altitude jets which again with probably be classified, On top of that there is then old decommissioned satellites that make up space debris (I bet a few old solar dishes/discs? are floating around out there), along with small bits of shuttle that occasionally fall off.

The one thing that really undermined the guys explaination about "Sirius" vistors was the fact that the Dogon's were supposedly on about a crashed craft 12,000 years ago and his conclusion that the flashing disc he see's in his video is one of those craft. I don't think any self-respecting space travelling alien is going to be seen dead floating around in "Last years model" let alone a model from 12,000 years ago.
(admittedly I model this on how aircraft, car's and other "consumerable forms of transport" are remodelled here on earth)
 
As a alien "beliver" as some on here would have liked to have labled me - I DID find those videos informative and interesting. It's very important to remember why the battle lines have been drawn, and how the sides operate. Debunkers, which some also call skeptics will continue to debunk and be sketpical about aliens or ufos - until an alien body is found.

So, you can show them testimony from President Bush on Aliens and they'd still debunk it. They can't ever seem to get their head around the idea that if such aliens did exist, they would have to have incredible technology to get here. And - if they have such incredible technology and any Government recovered it they would be obligated to hide it form their enemies for our own advancement.

It's so important to understand the M.O. of those who seek to debunk, and why they do it. It's also important to understand nothing you provide will satisfy their need for evidence for no evidence is enough. They want physical proof - something that in this medium (the internet) is simply not possible.

Unusual theories are always attacked by skeptics and debunkers, and in fair levels can be a good thing. But what typically happens is most of the skeptics die off, mean-while more open minded people/scientists take their place and by that time the theory is no longer seen as so strange and the theory begins to take hold.

Sorry for the essay, but what can I say? You provide people with some great video's (that sure as hell beat TV) and they just ignore it? Guess we'll just have to wait and let time bring fourth more subtle truths and eventually the reality of this issue will be done.

I hope so..
 
Debunkers, which some also call skeptics will continue to debunk and be sketpical about aliens or ufos - until an alien body is found.
Click to expand...
Or any other real evidence.
So, you can show them testimony from President Bush on Aliens and they'd still debunk it.
Click to expand...
Err, the same way we had evidence of WMDs in Iraq? Or any other thing that politicians present as proof?
They can't ever seem to get their head around the idea that if such aliens did exist, they would have to have incredible technology to get here.
Click to expand...
We can't get it round our head? It's sine qua non. It's a major bone of contention that every "explanation" given of the "technology" so far presented fails to stand up in court.
And - if they have such incredible technology and any Government recovered it they would be obligated to hide it form their enemies for our own advancement.
Click to expand...
Or use it, overpower the enemies (remember how SDI ruined the USSR?), and then productionise it. Sub-sections of advanced technologies (if they existed) could be released gradually - no problem. What's the point of having a technology if you don't use it?
It's so important to understand the M.O. of those who seek to debunk, and why they do it.
Click to expand...
Nearly as important as understanding why people feel a need to believe unprovable junk. We have an M.O? Oh, yeah, we ask for some support to the allegations? Hardly difficult.
It's also important to understand nothing you provide will satisfy their need for evidence for no evidence is enough. They want physical proof - something that in this medium (the internet) is simply not possible.
Click to expand...
Straw man. Of course you can't present physical evidence over the 'net. But you can at press conferences. The believers have those regularly. They have group (national and international) meetings. They have magazines, they have access to TVs and phone books. All it takes is a call to a university science/ tech department, present the evidence and whoah - instant conversion of the debunkers. And that happens how often?
Unusual theories are always attacked by skeptics and debunkers, and in fair levels can be a good thing. But what typically happens is most of the skeptics die off, mean-while more open minded people/scientists take their place and by that time the theory is no longer seen as so strange and the theory begins to take hold.
Click to expand...
That's correct except for for two things. It's not "typical" that unusual theories are accepted, most science is a building on what is previously understood, and the other slight problem is in the word "theory" - believers don't have a theory, they have speculation. A theory must explain the observations, and make prediction possible. And suggest experiments to disprove that theory.
Sorry for the essay, but what can I say? You provide people with some great video's (that sure as hell beat TV) and they just ignore it?
Click to expand...
Any nerd in a basement can create video.
Guess we'll just have to wait and let time bring fourth more subtle truths and eventually the reality of this issue will be done.
Click to expand...
Then you're probably in for a long wait, guy. People have been seeing things in the sky for thousands of years and there's still no hard facts...
 
Oli said:
Or any other real evidence.

Err, the same way we had evidence of WMDs in Iraq? Or any other thing that politicians present as proof?

We can't get it round our head? It's sine qua non. It's a major bone of contention that every "explanation" given of the "technology" so far presented fails to stand up in court.

Or use it, overpower the enemies (remember how SDI ruined the USSR?), and then productionise it. Sub-sections of advanced technologies (if they existed) could be released gradually - no problem. What's the point of having a technology if you don't use it?

Nearly as important as understanding why people feel a need to believe unprovable junk. We have an M.O? Oh, yeah, we ask for some support to the allegations? Hardly difficult.

Straw man. Of course you can't present physical evidence over the 'net. But you can at press conferences. The believers have those regularly. They have group (national and international) meetings. They have magazines, they have access to TVs and phone books. All it takes is a call to a university science/ tech department, present the evidence and whoah - instant conversion of the debunkers. And that happens how often?

That's correct except for for two things. It's not "typical" that unusual theories are accepted, most science is a building on what is previously understood, and the other slight problem is in the word "theory" - believers don't have a theory, they have speculation. A theory must explain the observations, and make prediction possible. And suggest experiments to disprove that theory.
Any nerd in a basement can create video.
Then you're probably in for a long wait, guy. People have been seeing things in the sky for thousands of years and there's still no hard facts...
Click to expand...

There is no need for me to argue with a non-believer anymore. I've done that before, and we won't get anywhere. Although I did find your remark about WMD amusing. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213

That would be a report on the WMD found in Iraq. Of course, I don't think you (or any anti-war democrat) will conceed they really found WMD, or enough to justify anything. But, needless to say - that's a whole different topic!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top