FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
The Disclosure Project - The Smoking Gun
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Ormond



Joined: 14 Apr 2006
Posts: 1556
Location: Belly of the Beast, Texas

PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 6:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meteor fragments routinely impact the earth. Small fragments lose mass and velocity while ploughing through the atmosphere, which is why they don't do the extraordinary damage that large meteors are known to do on impact.

These objects are obviously not common meteorites. What we know about them from the article is that they are about the size of a golf ball, weigh as much as a can of soup, and are metallic.

My hypothesis is that they are the debris of man-made 'space junk' which falls to earth every day. Such orbital 'space litter' is well documented. I've read articles of concern about it, since there's so much of it now. Old satellites, whose orbits have decayed until ultimately they cannot maintain another orbit and gravity pulls them down through the atmosphere. Most 'burn up'. Larger ones don't entirely disintgrate before reaching the ground.
A large satellite would break up in re-rentry, the chunks become molten metal, and some reach the ground.

http://www.myfoxcolorado.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=1961501&version=24&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1
Quote:
Space Junk Bursts Into Flames NORAD- 'Meteor' really a rocket


A scientist wouldn't assume that's what they are without having the alloy tested first. In this article, the scientists said the objects will be tested to determine what they consist of, but the test hadn't been performed yet.

It will be of interest to see if there's any follow up.

One has to consider that so many MSM articles are intentionally skewed and slanted to make the topic more interesting. The article is written to emphasize that the scientists are 'trying to figure out' what the object is.
It gives the impression that they are 'mystified'.
What I really read here is that they've found another clump of metal that's fallen through the atmosphere, and have sent it off for testing.

Speculation is futile, without the test results detailing what metals the 'rock' consists of.

_________________
The anticipated never happens. The unexpected constantly occurs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jerry Fletcher



Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS

PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 6:49 pm    Post subject: NASA 'UFO' Footage Reply with quote

I wrote:
Am I correct so far?


Yep, that appears to be Sereda's premise, and this is exactly why I was immediately skeptical, even before examining the NASA 'evidence'.

Granted, I'm no scientist, but I am interested in the quantum wave / particle relationship of matter and try, in as far as I can understand, to familiarize myself with the various theories dealing with quantum conundrums and the nature of reality.

This discussion regarding the work of Milo Wolff and Gabriel LaFrenier is a good example. No, we're not physicists, but we've got some understanding of the basics.

So, focusing on the content, and comparing it to other researchers in this field, the following theory appears rather, uh, revolutionary...

David Sereda wrote:


[...]

Suddenly I realized that the difference between mass and photons in the particle-wave relationship was that ordinary mass was in a state of very low-frequency waves. Planets and stars travel in very long and low-frequency waves, with such slow oscillations per second that they cannot even be measured -- perhaps the secret to identifying the mystery of gravity.

Contrary to most physicists, I believe that mass has an ultra-low charge, which I might be able to identify with a new wave-particle model I invented called a Galaxy Clock. The Galaxy Clock measure waves differently than an oscilloscope in that it only looks at waves in the way they actually appear -- in spirals or 3D. Oscilloscopes look at the number of peaks in a wave per second, a two-dimensional model that is not a reality. A Galaxy Clock measure light waves in oscillations or revolutions around the clock. Smaller oscillating waves orbit the Galaxy Clock faster per second than larger orbiting waves do; thus we determine frequency as it really appears in the wave-particle relationship.

Mass is in an ultra-low-frequency wave state. Light is in an ultrahigh-frequency wave state. Therefore it dawned on me: What if mass -- or a spacecraft -- could be converted into light by raising its frequency to a state equal to light? What would happen then? On a Quantum level, photons (light waves) are born when electrons (lowest mass particle) start to oscillate at higher frequencies. This is easily demonstrated in Tesla coils, where we send electric current into a coil at 60 waves per second (hertz). When it goes through the coil, it oscillates at a much higher frequency, and light in the form of radio waves, TV waves and microwaves is born.

CONVERTING MASS INTO LIGHT

Watching the video of NASA mission number STS-75 (the 1996 mission), I was able to determine that many of the UFOs observed on that video were pulsing with energy waves. I studied the waves frame by frame and was able to see clear wave formations that I could measure on my Galaxy Clock. I found that the ETs were progressively pulsing their craft with a series of low-, medium- and ultrahigh-frequency waves of electro-magnetic energy. I could clearly see a progression of waves from low to high, the very signature I needed to identify to support my theory; that mass could be converted to light by raising its frequency. No thruster rocket engines of fire and fuel were propelling these UFOs, just these waves.

In theory, I could see what was happening: Essentially, the ETs were converting the mass of their spacecraft into light. Here was the very answer I was looking for and the only way for a spacecraft to attain light speed without proving Einstein wrong; mass cannot attain light speed, but zero mass can.

[...]

ATTAINING THE SPEED OF LIGHT

If giant UFOs are able to convert their heavy mass into light and it takes little energy in the form of propulsion to get it to light speed, NASA's mystery could be solved and the question of why we have a legitimate UFO phenomenon with no high-energy signal could be answered.

The UFOs are converting their mass into light by using high-frequency wave induction. Once these giant spacecraft are converted into light, they weigh nothing, and the energy required to go light speed now yields a very low Einsteinian energy signal.

From: UFOexperiences: August 2006
http://ufoexperiences.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_ufoexperiences_archive.html


Since there is no empirical data offered to support these claims, they appear to be conclusions based on subjective hypotheses, or personal opinion. Therefore, I subjectively hypothesize that this is total and utter bullshit that mangles the basic concepts of quantum physics.

Wouldn't the scientific community be the least interested in this phenomenal discovery of "converting mass into light by using high frequency wave induction."? I've heard no other mention of the theory, personally. Sounds kewl, though.

Ultimately, I have nothing against Mr. Sereda, and am in fact a huge fan of some of the man's other important discoveries. I'm just saying, his introductory science is so sketchy, I was skeptical before the video even started.

Stallion4 wrote:

So far I haven't seen a convincing enough argument suggesting that all of the actual video evidence in the Sereda video was faked (e.g. STS-75 tether incident)

Try to concentrate on the actual video evidence without injecting any preconceived notions about why the NASA video was or was not faked.


I am not suggesting anything was 'faked' by NASA or anybody - I'm saying the images in the NASA footage are photographic anomalies due to the way light and water appear to behave in the vacuum of space, and the extreme aperture settings necessary to photograph in the darkness of space.

These 'things' on the video are tiny specks of ice and dust reflecting light up close to an extremely far focused wide angle lens. They appear to be giant and ghosty because they're really close and out of focus.

Stallion4 wrote:
The video evidence is complelling, because it proves one of two things. NASA either faked the videos, or there's some really big frigging spaceships floating around in Earth's orbit.


It proves neither of those two things. In fact, it doesn't even hint at either suggestion.

IMO, it proves one of these two things - Either Sereda is misguided and scientifically challenged, or he's a scammer.

Now, as far as explaining these images, this description by James Oberg seems to be the popular non-UFO explanation for the ghosty images in the NASA shuttle feeds. Oberg is definitely a NASA / MIC career guy, nevertheless, his explanation of these phenomena seem more plausible to me than zero mass light ships.

Quote:


STS-75 Shuttle 'Tether'
Video Analysis


The STS-75 tether videos are remarkable scenes and convey a powerful impression of large, distant circular unknowns. The video is visually striking.
 
What possible prosaic explanations are there?
 
While any serious analysis of what these scenes really show should require knowledge of the operating characteristics of the camera and of the illumination environment of these scenes, none of these steps appear to have been taken in previously published versions. There's still misinformation about whether the camera was a CCD or vidicon (it was a vidicon, with an image intensifier circuit). There's still confusion over the timing of the scenes of the "swarm" (it's advertised as having occurred immediately after the tether break, but actually it occurred three days later) and the illumination (the tether image is said to be self-luminous, but it's actually sunlit near sunset).
 
But even without technical analysis of these features, the video itself contains internal features which can help assess what is actually "seen" on it. Also, there are video scenes NOT broadcast, but known to be in the possession of producers of these shows, that also can cast a truer light on the events.
 
Two features stand out for appraisal: the thickness of the tether image, and the notched circles which cross the field-of-view (FOV). In both cases, we can assess the question of whether these are REAL objects or are camera artifacts, based solely on the scenes broadcast.
 
The tether thickness must be an illusion, because the tether itself is less than a centimeter in diameter. Yet on the scenes of the free-flying tether, its full 20-kilometer length is matched by a scaled width, in angular terms (or in pixels), on the order of hundreds of meters. At the tether range (140-180 km), a pixel is only about 100-meters across, so an image several hundred meters in size has "spilled over" several pixels (five or so) beyond the actual pixels illuminated directly by the bright reflecting tether.
 
This effect is evident when the camera zooms in on the tether. Although the length increases by a factor of two, the width remains the same. On other scenes, not shown in these broadcasts, the tether length varies even more, by a factor of ten. The tether image width does not vary at all. This is clear indication that the "width" is a false artifact of the camera optics.
 
The true visual nature of the tether can be determined from observations made around the world at the time of the break, Feb-March 1996. See the "see-sat" archives for messages from that time period. I personally also witnessed the tether, sunlit and NOT self-illuminated (one sequence in front of my eyes involved it actually climbing out of Earth's shadow and becoming pink, then white along its length).
 
Other videos from shuttle transmissions -- bright cities, lightning bursts, even stars -- show another ordinary feature of the camera system. It "dims out" the center of bright images. This creates "do-nut stars" and bright rims around ground lights on the dark side of Earth. On water dumps, brighter ice particles also exhibit the "hollow center" optical effect. It does the same with the shuttle image, creating a dim centerline on the bright pseudo-image. This is self-evidently a feature of the camera optics, not a visual feature of the observed objects. In one scene I recall watching, a dot moved across a bright city at night, and the dot disappeared as it transitted the dark core of the city lights -- not burrowing UNDER the city, obviously, but its own light being lost in the glare of the city itself.
 
The prosaic explanation of the impression of moving "behind" a phantom "fat tether" is that the dots -- of whatever nature -- crossed the FOV until they merged with the tether image. That image was ALREADY so bright the local pixels had defaulted to "overbright protect" dimming. The addition of the brightness of the dots made no difference, the center of the visual field was still dimmed out. The crossing dot APPEARED to vanish, presumably (but incorrectly) due to physical occultation. Some observers even describe the illusion of a shadow being cast by the tether image on the disks -- a physical impossibility given the tether's actual physical thickness.
 
Now, the notched circles -- these are very unusual images, not common on other shuttle videos. But a careful analysis of the many cases of notched circles crossing the STS-75 screen shows a tell-tale pattern: the position of the notch clocked around the rim is a direct function of the position of the circle on the FOV. As a circle moves, at different points on the FOV, the notch is in different positions. But as the circle moves across the screen, it repeats the notch position of circles that had previously been at the new position it reaches.
 
Map this out, and you can see this consistent pattern. So, if the notch position is a function of the position on the FOV, we are talking about a camera-related factor here, an artifact of the optical system, and not a "REAL" image of some object.
 
Other video scenes , known to be in the possession of some researchers but not included in the released productions, show these notched circles independent of the tether. One sequence shows a pattern of notched circles crossing the FOV, then a camera refocus activity that results in -- a star field.
 
The hypothesis that the notched circles are out-of-focus point sources -- either star fields when the camera is focused close, or nearby debris when the camera is focused to infinity -- is further supported by the f-stop state of the camera system. Typically, these famous shuttle scenes of moving dots occur only under very specific and rare lighting conditions. A B&W CCTV is viewing the dark earth (usually monitoring for lightning bursts), set to infinity with f-stop fully open. I am advised by camera experts that this reduces the depth of field and leads to nearby small objects being out of focus at ranges of several meters, even as great as 5-8 meters.
 
Since the STS-75 flight records show that the famous "swarm/tether" scene was made three days after the tether break (and not immediately afterwards, as many viewers were led to misconstrue), then it is possible that the shuttle crew had returned to normal shuttle operations. And indeed they had. A check (by me) of shuttle crew activities show that the "swarm/tether" scene was preceded a few hours earlier by a routine water dump, a process that is known to create clouds of debris particles, many of which linger around the shuttle for several hours before drifting off.
 
Understanding the phenomenon which created these STS-75 scenes thus requires an appreciation of what was really going on, and when, on this flight, as well as a knowledge of similar scenes which arguably had similar causes. It requires technical knowledge of the hardware, its operating characteristics and limitations, and the illumination situation of the scenes. It would be helped by explanatory narratives from the actual eyewitnesses, the astronauts aboard the shuttle and the flight controllers in Mission Control in Houston.
 
Sadly, that information is not present in the produced/released videos which have been seen to date. Consequently, viewers can be expected to jump to erroneous conclusions regarding the nature of these videos, based on the pre-selected data shown them versus the data withheld from them.
 
Other issues remain with the interpretation of the scene as showing genuine kilometers-wide circles in space near the shuttle. Such hypothesized objects would be on the same angular size and brightness of a full moon as viewed from Earth's surface. It is not a matter of a handful of amateur astronomers viewing and not seeing such immensely impressive apparitions -- these are images which would have been visible in the daytime sky to anybody on Earth, on the ground or on ships or in aircraft, along the track of the shuttle (they would also have been visible in satellite imagery, including weather satellite views). Not a single report of fast-moving moon-like circles in the sky has been found from anywhere on Earth during this period when the videos were showing the images that have been thus interpreted. The mandatory deduction from this is that such objects never existed.

From: STS-75 Shuttle 'Tether' Video Analysis
http://www.rense.com/general/stsd.htm


And here's a bit more detail in a response to a reader...

Quote:
*I worked at NASA’s Johnson Space Center from 1975 to 1997, in various Mission Control Center specializations, including propulsion and rendezvous. In fact, I was on a different shift on STS-48, running a tracking radar test on a deployed payload. But I’ve watched hundreds and hundreds of hours of downlink TV on the big screen. I got a good impression of what was ‘ordinary’ in terms of the shuttle cameras and the space environment.

“Secret” clearances were standard until the early 1990’s, mostly just to protect physical access. For DoD payloads, it covered mission design and payload characteristics, nothing higher than ‘Secret’. And even that’s all gone now, the control hardware’s been torn out.

Nobody tells me or advises me in any way what to say or not say, I’m a lifelong UFO nut who wanted to apply his professional expertise to ‘classic’ cases within my area of specialization. And that’s what I’ve been doing. Nobody’s agenda but my own: find out, and tell about. I’ve upset people at all ends of ideology, politics, and every other ‘=ism’ on the planet. 
What are we seeing in the video? It looks to me like small nearby sunlit shuttle-generated debris, usually ice (off the water dump nozzles or any of 100 valves in the thrusters, or even the flash evaporator, and sometimes from the post-MECO SSME feed line purge), sometimes junk from inside the payload bay, or fragments of insulation blankets, or strips of tile gap filler that are manually inserted during pre-flight processing -- there are many sources of such debris.


The small stuff is around a lot, but usually doesn’t even show up in the full sunlight TV scenes, the camera’s iris is auto-stopped way down against background glare and brightness. But when viewing the dark Earth, the CCTVs -- especially the old-model B&W cameras with higher low-light sensitivity -- open way up, and set auto gain control really high, so dim dots show up. This is most spectacular just after sunrise, when the background Earth is still dark but the shuttle is flying through space bathed in sunlight that’s invisible until some object enters it.

A compelling pattern, in my view, is that the most famous ‘UFO videos’ all occur during these brief intervals just after sunrise when the camera remains viewing the dark Earth, but the shuttle has risen into sunlight. Within a few minutes, the field-of-view encompasses a sunlit surface, and the camera sensitivity drops drastically. But STS-48, STS-63, STS-75, STS-80, all the ‘famous’ UFO sequences, ALL happen to occur in these unique illumination conditions. This fact is withheld from you by the promoters of these stories, and understandably so -- you might see a different interpretation than the one they’re trying to sell. 
Two correlations support the prosaic explanation for this sequence. First, sunrise occurs, and some dots ‘appear’. Eighty seconds later, a flare appears, exactly during the 1.2 second firing of a pair of attitude-control thrusters. Several dots change motion during -- and, I must stress - ONLY during, this interval. And nothing changes direction at any other time in the sequence. That strikes me as pretty hard to explain as only ‘random coincidence’.
The course changes of the dots are all AWAY from the flare, and are consistent with having their initial linear motions pushed by an expanding effluent cloud from the thruster. The particular thruster, L5D, is an aft-left pod down-pointing jet, but all the down-pointing jets are notorious for plume impingement on shuttle structure (wing elevon, body flap, even one of the main engines) that creates substantial ’bounce-back’ that reduces thruster efficiency (compared to other jets in other directions) by a large fraction. 
In 1982-1983, in preparation for shuttle maneuvering near close-in payloads, I drew up the reference charts used in Mission Control about exactly this effect. So it’s not at all strange to me to see these dots move away from the plume front.
Even after a shuttle moves into sunlight, dots sometimes still ‘appear’ as the debris moves out of the shuttle’s shadow (don’t forget, the camera view is ‘down sun’ towards the dark Earth).

There’s a spectacular sequence of a water dump on STS-75 where a wide stream of dots ‘appears’ in mid-field, and there are so many ice particles you can actually make out the three-D shape of the shuttle shadow. But don’t expect to see that kind of explanatory video on any UFO show or conference.



*Streaks are caused by any fast-moving objects, even stars when the camera pans fast. I interpret the streaks to be two pieces of debris closer to the thruster that are more highly accelerated by its firing. 
There are lots of videos that show dots changing course during a thruster firing. It’s just that the promoter-programs aren’t going to show you them, so you don’t get confused from their intended spin.


Here’s another ‘inconvenient fact’ that’s always omitted from the pro-UFO descriptions. 
The event occurred just after the crew had awakened, and were preparing breakfast and taking their turns in the ‘head’. This hardly strikes me as the timing for a pre-arranged demonstration.


*I’m struck by the fact that none of the pro-UFO researchers seem to have bothered to ask the primary witnesses, the flight crew and the mission control operators. Instead they make a posteriori arguments why people shouldn’t pay attention to what they might say. I interpret this to mean the UFO promoters know the testimony will be contrary to the images they intend to present.


*NASA’s official response to a congresswoman’s inquiry, on behalf of Don Ratsch, was a November 1991 letter signed by Joe Loftus, Bill Pitts, and astronaut Karl Henize: “The objects seen are Orbiter-generated debris, illuminated by the sun. . . .The flicker of light is the result of the firing of the attitude thrusters on the Orbiter, and the abrupt motions of the particles result from the impact of gas jets from the thrusters.”

*STS-48 co-pilot Ken Reightler: “We saw lots of this on STS-48 because we had a dump nozzle that was leaking.” The same nozzle leaked on the shuttle’s next mission and “created the same shower of ice particles -- but this time apparently no one misinterpreted them as UFOs.

From: James Oberg - Page Title Here
http://www.jamesoberg.com/12012000barareply_ufo.html


Ice crystals floating around a leaky shuttle appear to be a common culprit...

Quote:
NASA STS-48 "UFO" VIDEO
By: James Oberg, Rt 2 Box 35O, Dickinson, Texas 77539
June 28, 1992
Subject: Actual explanation for the notorious STS-48 "UFOs" on videotape


After the HardCopy interview with Don Ecker (June 5), and my appearance with him on Larry King Live June 26, I've gotten an appreciation of where this UFO connection has come from. When I saw the original incoherent letters from [xxxxxxx], I dismissed it as complete looney-tunes, but subsequently I've found out what fundamental misunderstanding and ignorance has led to the fuss.

Lights on the shuttle TV cameras can be many things, and on these scenes in question they are stars, cities, lens spots, and nearby shuttle-generated debris (they are rarely if ever other satellites). Especially with the low-light cameras used for the nighttime mesoscale lightning surveys, the horizon is deceptive because the glowing line is the airglow and the actual edge of the earth is somewhat below it. With poor contrast; this means that stars can cross the glowing "horizon" and still be visible a bit further before actually setting.

There are more than 50 sources of ice on the shuttle, plus a steady source of debris such as insulation flakes from inside the payload bay. This includes 38 primary RCS jets and 6 vernier jets (which burn the hypergolic [self-igniting] propellants of nitrogen tetroxide and hydrazine), an air dump line, a waste water dump line, a supply water dump line, two fuel cell purge lines (the hydrogen one is always leaking water), two flash evaporators, a water spray boiler, and so forth. No surprise, then, that floating debris near the shuttle is a common sight. The particles usually (not always) spin, and depending on the axis of spin they may or may not flash, and depending on the speed of spin their flicker may or may not be picked up by the camera CCD scanner.

The RCS jets usually fire in 80-millisecond pulses to keep the shuttle pointed in a desired direction, under autopilot control (usually once every few minutes). These jets may flash when they ignite if the mixture ratio is not quite right. Propellant also tends to seep out the feed lines into the nozzle, where it accumulates, freezes through evaporative cooling, and flakes off during the next firing. The ejected burn byproducts travel at about 1000 ft/sec. One pulse usually emits about a quarter pound of propellant in a fan-shaped plume.

When small, drifting debris particles are hit by this RCS plume they are violently accelerated away from the jet. This is what is seen in the infamous "Case 2" sequence, where a flash (the jet firing) is immediately followed by all nearby particles being pushed away from the jet, followed shortly later by a fast moving object (evidently RCS fuel ice) departing from the direction of the jet (the streak is caused by the slow camera speed). If one plotted all the departure lines of the pushed debris and the expelled ice, they would converge at the jet's location.

These ice particles, in particular, form slowly inside the jets and elsewhere, as the fluid (water or propellant) seeps out and spreads over the surface, They take on the shape of the structure they form on. They can thus have just about any shape, usually flat. They have been seen and photographed for thirty years, about as long as UFOlogists have mistaken them for flying saucers.

From: NASA STS-48 "UFO"
http://www.debunker.com/texts/sts48_ufo.html


In fact, regarding the infamous 'tether' incident which began on day 4 of mission STS-75, I found this report from the shuttle crew. Look what else they did on day four...
Quote:

Another investigation of Columbia's surroundings made use of the orbiter's Flash Evaporator System (FES). To accomplish this experiment, the crew participated in activating and deactivating the orbiter's water release systems and manually operating the Shuttle's attitude control system jets. This provided a controlled means of studying the distribution of neutral and charged particles in the vicinity of the payload bay during Shuttle water dumps.

From: STS-75 Day 4 Highlights
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/sts-75/sts-75-day-04-highlights.html


They dumped a bunch of water out of the shuttle, then blew the ice crystals around with the thruster jets to see what they'd do. Apparently, they impersonate Dropa stones.

Mr. Oberg publishes an overall explanation of shuttle footage anomalies, stating that they are not uncommon, and completely dependent on camera relationship to various sources of light in space.

Quote:

Strange Shuttle Sights: Unearthly and Mundane
By Jim Oberg

Special to SPACE.com
posted: 07:34 pm ET
13 December 1999

When the astronauts of STS 103 finally blast off for their Hubble Repair Mission, they will be extremely busy the entire flight. But there will be interludes when they can gaze out the windows, or play their TV cameras across the emptiness of surrounding space. And if past space flights are any indication, there will be moments of surprise when strange dots of light cross their view.

Since the first piloted U.S. space flights 40 years ago, astronauts and their cameras have been "seeing things" outside their space vehicles. Obviously they are unearthly -- it's why we leave Earth. They also are obviously extraterrestrial -- they come from beyond the known world.

But what are they really?

Astronauts on a moon mission joked about flashing lights pacing their spacecraft, and concluded, "Well, we'll assume they're friendly." Gemini astronauts reported a "wingman" on one flight, and a "bogey" on another. Shuttle exterior TV cameras have shown white blips maneuvering nearby, occasionally zigzagging in a way reminiscent of intelligently piloted craft.

STS 41-D (1984) has views of the meter-long "space icicle" that had tobe knocked loose from the shuttle's water dump port. The footage also shows a deployed payload firing its engine, a bright glare that crosses from the earth background into space. Because of a common video focusing problem, even the stars appear as tiny donuts even though the rocket flies through the easily-recognizable constellation Orion.

STS 75 (1996) has great views of the broken tether that led to the loss of a satellite, but the weirdest sequence shows a cloud of ice crystals floating ahead of and below the shuttle in the dark, flickering randomly in the moonlight.

"Anomalies" are relative

In outer space, even "ordinary" things seem so alien that Earthlings back home can get their minds blown by what veteran space voyagers find routine and boring. So we have to acquire a thorough knowledge of what is ordinary -- in terms of space flight -- so that the genuinely extraordinary can be filtered out.

And that's been the problem with so many false alarms and blind alleys in the quest to identify truly alien phenomena viewed by Earth's emissaries into the universe. Sightings, photographs, descriptions and videos of space phenomena can be found in hundreds of magazines, books and websites -- but what, if anything, do they really signify?

People back on Earth must remember that the first principle of space travel is that objects coming off a vehicle tend to fly along with it. They appear to move in straight lines unless they encounter some force, such as the atmosphere or an exhaust plume from a rocket thruster. They don't need propulsion or power sources, just natural inertia.

The second poorly-appreciated principle of space travel is that things are always coming off -- or out of -- a piloted space vehicle.

Space missions dump excess propellant from engines after the vehicle reaches orbit.


Unused propellant may leak past a hundred different valves in small steering rockets. When the jets fire, bits of propellant can get caught in the exhaust and shoot off at great speeds, while other pieces floating nearby are blasted away by expanding rocket plumes.

Another common culprit is ice. Some vehicles discard waste heat by evaporating water against coolant panels, resulting in blizzards of ice crystals. (These were John Glenn's "fireflies" on his first flight.) Piloted missions periodically purge both liquid waste ("the constellation Urion," astronauts joked) and surplus water from fuel cells. These valves can leak or get stopped up with ice which later flakes away.
Insulation blankets may shed fragments, or lose buttons and clips. Latex-based "gap filler," inserted between shuttle tiles, sometimes peels loose in long strips. There's also junk carelessly left behind in the shuttle's payload bay -- washers, clipped wires, dust covers and the like. When payloads separate from their launch platforms, it often is by means of small explosive charges that leave fragments, metal shavings and even entire straps tumbling violently through space.

The moon pigeons

From stray particles, to snowflakes, to meter-long icicles -- all of this "space dandruff" can fill spacecraft windows and TV fields-of-view.
Some are flat, some are round, some are long and curved. Some catch the light, flickering as they tumble, others don't. Some appear suddenly as they drift out of the spacecraft's shadow into the bright sun. It is a visual kaleidoscope of unearthly -- but to experienced spacefarers, entirely prosaic -- apparitions.

NASA has always been interested in understanding how such objects are created because they might be dangerous. Apollo astronauts called them "moon pigeons" in their post-flight debriefings, and regularly described seeing them during their radio conversations with Earth.

On-board viewing methods changed over the decades. Gemini astronauts literally sat by their windows because their cabin was too small to move away. The Apollo era saw larger vehicles in which busy astronauts spent less time actually looking out windows.

"Unexplainable" shuttle sights

By the time the space shuttles came along, their magnificent windows were frequently used for astronaut sightseeing. But the craft also sported an impressive array of television cameras in their payload bays and on their robot arms.
Once nearly-continuous communications coverage was established in 1989, via relay satellites in 24-hour orbits, these cameras were usually left on continuously, providing material for the live broadcasts of NASA TV.

Many clearly unusual scenes of moving objects from these broadcasts have become famous, particularly sequences from STS 48 (1992) and STS 80 (1996). White dots crisscross the earth, horizon and star-filled sky. Some appear out of nowhere, or abruptly change direction. Investigators with more enthusiasm than expertise have deemed these apparitions "unexplainable in earthly terms," and indeed they are.
The notorious STS 48 and STS 80 videos, for example, share some common factors not known to amateur investigators, and these factors provide convincing proof of their routine nature. In both cases, the shuttle has just emerged from Earth's shadow and the camera is peering backwards toward the still-dark Earth to spot lightning bursts.

The shuttle is bathed in bright sunlight, but since it's in vacuum, this light is invisible except as it illuminates nearby particles. Some particles that happen to be closer to the camera drift away and pass out of the shuttle's shadow, making them suddenly visible.

Even bigger pieces of "space junk" can appear mysterious. On the STS 61 (December 1993) mission to service the Hubble Space Telescope, there's a flashing object off to the side of the telescope as the shuttle pulls away. Although some enthusiasts proclaim this is an alien observer, it's actually just a worn-out solar panel that was manually jettisoned a few days earlier.

[...]

From: Strange Shuttle Sights: Unearthly and Mundane
http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/phenomena/shuttle_ufos_991213.html


Here he gives a list of various mission 'anomalies', and his opinion of the cause.

Quote:
Some Notorious 'Anomalous' Shuttle Events
By Jim Oberg

Special to space.com
posted: 07:34 pm ET
13 December 1999

For prominent examples of the types of normal "anomalous" space images that NASA space shuttles have recorded, interested observers may wish to familiarize themselves with the video taken by the following shuttle missions.

STS 41-D (1984) has views of the meter-long "space icicle" that had to be knocked loose from the shuttle's water dump port. The footage also shows a deployed payload firing its engine, a bright glare that crosses from the earth background into space. Because of a common video focusing problem, even the stars appear as tiny donuts, though the rocket flies through the easily-recognizable constellation Orion.

STS 39 (1991) has terrific views of thrusters firing as observed from a deployed platform with its own television camera. Other video shows the orbital maneuvering engine starting and stopping.

STS 48 (1991) has good views of snowflakes spraying out of a leaking nozzle, with a few actual bouncing back and drifting around the camera.

STS 63 (1995) was the first rendezvous with the Mir space station, almost cancelled due to a leaky thruster that forms a space blizzard on camera. There's another view with Mir in the distance just at sunrise when a storm of nearby particles appear, including some which "pop up" against a star background right in the middle of the screen as they emerge from the shuttle's shadow. Fast-moving particles leave a streak because of the latency of the camera optics. NASA erroneously called these streaks "meteors."

STS 75 (1996) has great views of the broken tether that led to the loss of a satellite, but the weirdest sequence shows a cloud of ice crystals floating ahead of and below the shuttle in the dark, flickering randomly in the moonlight.


From: Some Notorious 'Anomalous' Shuttle Events
http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/phenomena/shuttle_ufos_examples_991213.html


Sure, these descriptions are complicated, and no, I don't know diddly about space photography, but these explanations strike me as more plausible than alien craft.

That, combined with Mr. Seredas lack of both empirical evidence for his theories and experience in scientific endeavors, makes me strongly doubt his conclusions that these images are alien craft.

Here, my thoughts are echoed by a skeptical post on an alien message-board.

Quote:
This is old stuff. The guy who made this video, David Sereda, is a former photographer who claims to have discovered Pamela Anderson and subsequently has pretended to be a scientific investigator. (He's actually just a publicity hound in my opinion.)

Sedera has dug up considerable NASA video footage shot out the window of the Space Shuttle. These videos frequently contain incidental images of paint chips, dust and other specs of shuttle debris orbiting alongside the Space Shuttle. Since the camera lenses were usually focused on infinity, the close-up dust specs just outside the shuttle appear as blurry moving objects. The harsh, direct light of space illuminates these dust specs against the blackness of the background, and they appear as bright, moving, blurry blobs.

Instead of dismissing these blurry, out-of-focus video artifacts for what they are (dust and paint chips), Sereda claims that these specs are actually huge alien spacecrafts in the distance that are moving at incredible speeds and violating the known laws of physics.

From: The Skeptics Society Forum :: View topic - Phil Schneider's Lectures: UNDERGROUND BASES
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=69725&highlight=sereda#69725


Finally, another poster offered this - distortions caused by an out of focus 'mirror lens'.


A bit like a gigantic, zero mass alien vehicle after 'high-frequency wave induction', huh?

I realized you requested I steer clear of the Dan Aykroyd involvement, but I simply can't. Why? Other than sheer entertainment value, IMO it reveals the motives behind Sereda's quest to 'enlighten humanity'.

Quote:


Credits:
Directed by: David B. Sereda
Produced by: David B. Sereda
Edited by: David B. Sereda
Camera Operator: David B. Sereda

Featuring: Dan Aykroyd, David Sereda, Stephen Bassett.

From:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0470994/fullcredits


Think Sereda gets any back end on this flick?

The user reviews appear to be overwhelmingly entertaining, er, I mean negative.


Quote:
Part fawning celebrity interview, part UFO agitprop Dan Aykroyd Unplugged on UFOs is yet another one-sided documentary on the existence of UFOs. It is always interesting to note how documentaries such as these complain about how the media ignores the supposed existence of UFOs, but you’ve got to ask yourself: have you ever seen a TV documentary which wanted to disprove the existence of flying saucers? No, I haven’t either.

Not one dissenting voice is to be heard or presented on Dan Aykroyd Unplugged. Not once is a scientist or aviation expert brought on camera to say “what we have in this photograph here folks is indeed a weather balloon” or “this photograph is very clearly doctored.” To be honest, you’ll probably be thinking those thoughts yourself as this documentary overuses the same stock footage and photographs over and over again until you’re sick of them. Heavily pixellated blobs and objects that really do look like hot air balloons do not make for convincing evidence for the existence of UFOs and it is unlikely that Dan Aykroyd Unplugged will convince you otherwise.

Halfway through Dan Aykroyd Unplugged I was seriously questioning the makers’ sanity as they brought up the whole “Ronald Reagan believed in UFOS” thing — come on guys, we’re talking here of a guy whose wife actively believed in astrology and who probably made his own policy decisions based on that belief. (Hitler by the way also believed in astrology.)

But the worst thing about Unplugged is the brown nose interview aspect. (The entire documentary — I use the word in only the loosest terms here — is structured round a one-on-one interview with the comedic star of Ghostbusters.) At one point supposed UFO expert David Serada who is conducting the interview actually asks Aykroyd which celebrity he’d meet if he could travel back in time!

As if that doesn’t have you gagging wait till you hear the line about Aykroyd being “one of the greatest minds of our time” . . .

From:
http://www.scifimoviepage.com/dvd/danaykroyd-dvd.html


Finally, where have I heard of Stephen Basset? Hmm.. Basset, Basset... OH YEAH!

That Stephen Basset!

It's a small universe after all...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
stallion4



Joined: 26 May 2006
Posts: 692

PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So if I understand you correctly (and I think I do) you believe that the "anomalies" as you refer to them, are really only paint chips, ice particles, dust, space junk, etc.. -- anything but spacecraft or intelligent life -- correct?

Oh come on now, Jerry, you're beginning to sound like that NASA shill Edgar Mitchell...lol (@ 02:20). Sorry, but I'm not buying the paint chip/ice particles excuse, because if you watch the STS-75 video again closely, you can clearly see the "anomalies" passing BEHIND the tether, which is some 70 miles away from the shuttle.



The tether was 12 miles long. The craft passing BEHIND the tether measure 2-3 miles in diameter. There ain't no paint chip that big. So I'm sorry to say it, but your (predictable?) "anomalie" excuse falls flat. Wink

You also failed to address the several other "anomolies" in the Sereda video, such as:
STS-80 Formation Over Africa (@1:32:25)
The High Speed Turn Incident (@35:25)
The Fire Ball Escapes Gravity Sequence (@36:40)
The Russian Space Station Mir Sequence (@57:50)
The Inter-Dimensional Shift Sequence (@1:00:45)

But thanks for playing, Jerry. It was a noble effort, except for the character assassination attempts on Serada, such as the Pam Anderson discovery you threw out there, which I too am a fan of by the way. IF you keep digging, perhaps you'll find a photo of him wearing one of Pam's thongs to further discredit him. Laughing


NEXT!

Fintan, care to throw your two cents in?

_________________
"Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets." ~Travis Bickle
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Phil Howe



Joined: 30 Jan 2006
Posts: 49

PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 7:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm something of a ufo enthusiast myself, one of the more fluffy of the dark chapters of conspirational Earth me thinks.


Of all the study I have done over the years I think the NASA footage, to which previous posters allude, is by far one of the most compelling pieces of video/photographic evidence to date; at least attesting to the fact that a. Either someone, or some group, have incredible technology up there which they don't speak about or b. This universe is a lot more crowded than we have been led to believe. Either way that Nasa footage,which is not faked and does belong to NASA, is very very interesting and I usually do not support photographic imagery or video footage.


Also I think the best book on the subject of UFo's is:-

UFOs and the National Security State
Volume One: 1941 to 1973 by Richard M. Dolan


Which, even for those who do not believe or care about UFO's, is an excellent insight into coldwar strategy, propaganda and deception. Cool

_________________
www.strangeisnotafruit.blogs.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Phil Howe



Joined: 30 Jan 2006
Posts: 49

PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 7:25 am    Post subject: Re: The Disclosure Project - The Smoking Gun Reply with quote

hendu wrote:
I would be interested on what Fintan and others have to say about The Disclosure Project headed by Dr. Steven Greer.

http://www.disclosureproject.org/

A video recording of The National Press Club Conference on May 9 2001 can been downloaded at

http://www.topsecrettestimony.com or download now directly from this link http://www.topsecrettestimony.com/npcc_full.wmv (70.7MB)

I also suggest listening to "Steven Greer - ET Contact and Disclosure (C2C - June 1, 2006)" via torrent download at

http://www.conspiracycentral.net:6969 (search "Steven Greer")



Have you read the book?

It is interesting, problem is most the testimony comes from former agents of 'da man' though there are some very interesting testimonies from radar engineers and commercial pilots. The later frequently telling how the 'da man' tried to slap a secrecy pact on the commercial aviation industry which only applies to military pilots. Many airlines pilots actually went on strike over this proposition (or threatened too, was a while since I read the book). I do not think the disclosure project is in any way an orchestrated distraction, that is just an easy label to throw at things that people have neither the time or inclination to study or research. Plus when dealing with matters of government terrorism you often find many sites, and gatekeepers thereof, very careful about appearing to endorse any 'little green men' stories for fear of having this damage their credibility. Fair enough I suppose. Smile

_________________
www.strangeisnotafruit.blogs.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Phil Howe



Joined: 30 Jan 2006
Posts: 49

PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 7:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rumpl4skn wrote:
What he said. Wink

I have (short) UFO debates on some other message boards I frequent. In my world, anything to do with aliens is a deliberate construct to create an alternate reality to associate with anyone who believes in state-sponsored conspiracies. E.g., one of the first shill denials I always get regarding 9/11 is that "anyone who thinks it was not what the 9/11 Commission said it was, also probably claims they've been abducted by aliens."

There's a very good reason that the U.S. miltary acts so suspiciously around Area 51, and it has little to do with alien spacecraft. It serves a definitive psy-op purpose.



Just read this, see my previous post. Like I said, I understand why those in circles such as the circle we are in right now, would wish to dissasociate themselves from alien/ufo conspiracy.


I think the irony may well be governments like the US would be more desperate to keep the UFo topic from ever truly opening up than the issues of state sponsored terrorism; which seems to be gaining an air of unspoken acceptability amongst the subconscious mind of the human race.

_________________
www.strangeisnotafruit.blogs.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
atm



Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 3861

PostPosted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 1:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Forumites

I'm not one to upset the applecart as you well know Wink but, Jeezuz!

I can NOT believe we are going all Ickey-Pikey.

UFOs? WTF!?!

Come ON!

The same voices saying "we're losing the 9/11 rearguard action" are in parallel plugging aliens.

FFS! Am I the only one reaching for the rech bag here?

This is meant to be The Intelligent Alternative.

I await your bile-fueled biteback with baited breath.

atm Shocked Crying or Very sad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ormond



Joined: 14 Apr 2006
Posts: 1556
Location: Belly of the Beast, Texas

PostPosted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 1:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I think the irony may well be governments like the US would be more desperate to keep the UFo topic from ever truly opening up than the issues of state sponsored terrorism; which seems to be gaining an air of unspoken acceptability amongst the subconscious mind of the human race.


Oh, I think something different. I think governments are interested enough in keeping State terrorism disbelieved that they just love it when the public gets distracted by chasing UFO 'conspiracies'.

To keep it simple, compare the collateral damage. How about body bag count?

State False Flag Terror.
Body count

USA Roughly 3,000

Wars of Occupation.

USA Troops - roughly 5000 + (Include Afghanistan)

Civilians in occupied nations 500,000 +

UFOs ___________________?

How about cost?

USA War on Terror -- over 300 Billion

UFOs ____________________?

_________________
The anticipated never happens. The unexpected constantly occurs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stallion4



Joined: 26 May 2006
Posts: 692

PostPosted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 4:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Oh NOZE, they're talking about UFOs"

Laughing You're hilarious, atm. One day you're defending talk about space beams at the WTC on this forum, and another you're outraged because people are discussing an issue that you feel doesn't meet your "Intelligent Alternative" criteria?

I think I've put up some very compelling evidence for the existence of UFOs (unidentified flying objects) using the NASA footage. And so far I haven't seen an argument that adequately debunks or dismisses it.

I haven't made up my mind whether or not some of the tapes were faked, although at this point I don't believe all of them were, if any. And I also don't believe that all of the NASA footage I presented can be dismissed as being "paint chips, or "ice particles", etc.. For example, the size of the objects moving BEHIND the tether during the STS-75 shuttle mission are far too large to be dismissed as such.

Atm, you haven't explained what you think those objects could be. Believe it or not, I'd still like to hear your take on this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDEDlWeDkzw

Do you think those big ass objects are "paint chips"?

_________________
"Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets." ~Travis Bickle
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Phil Howe



Joined: 30 Jan 2006
Posts: 49

PostPosted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 5:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ormond wrote:
Quote:
I think the irony may well be governments like the US would be more desperate to keep the UFo topic from ever truly opening up than the issues of state sponsored terrorism; which seems to be gaining an air of unspoken acceptability amongst the subconscious mind of the human race.


Oh, I think something different. I think governments are interested enough in keeping State terrorism disbelieved that they just love it when the public gets distracted by chasing UFO 'conspiracies'.

To keep it simple, compare the collateral damage. How about body bag count?

State False Flag Terror.
Body count

USA Roughly 3,000

Wars of Occupation.

USA Troops - roughly 5000 + (Include Afghanistan)

Civilians in occupied nations 500,000 +

UFOs ___________________?

How about cost?

USA War on Terror -- over 300 Billion

UFOs ____________________?




There was a time, mainly during the height of the coldwar, where UFO stories were wonderful tools of distraction, whether real, imagined, or fabricated, they did indeed work as great distractions nonetheless; but that was then. Today their is little appeal or interest in UFO/Alien stories in mainstream media so its use as a distraction tool is quite minimum. Following the Clinton days, where UFO interest had been at something of a high amongst pop culture and was quite frankly flogged to death, there was a noticable shift amongst most people away from the subject altogether, mainly I think due to the complete overkill of the subject matter in tv series, movies, culture, media, etc,etc....

Today most people are bored of the subject, the UFO subject is no longer an effective tool of distraction in any measurable way.

Humans are fickle. We get bored very easily and then move on to the next circus ride.

So in conclusion the idea that UFO/Alien mythology is still being pandered about for the purpose of distracting people is demonstratably false yet I agree that once upon a time it was an incredible effective tool whether intended or not and could well be again, but at the moment, nope.

_________________
www.strangeisnotafruit.blogs.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Phil Howe



Joined: 30 Jan 2006
Posts: 49

PostPosted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 5:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

atm wrote:
Forumites

I'm not one to upset the applecart as you well know Wink but, Jeezuz!

I can NOT believe we are going all Ickey-Pikey.

UFOs? WTF!?!

Come ON!

The same voices saying "we're losing the 9/11 rearguard action" are in parallel plugging aliens.

FFS! Am I the only one reaching for the rech bag here?

This is meant to be The Intelligent Alternative.

I await your bile-fueled biteback with baited breath.

atm Shocked Crying or Very sad



I see no reason to bite back at you atm, your a little irrational but no one is perfect Wink


Arguably if there is any truth to ufo mythology it is a far greater conspiracy, come potential earth shattering reveleation, than any form of state sponsored terrorism; which has been with us for centuries and is widely known and accepted as happening - though only ever spoken of by da man and his media parrots in greatly delayed retrospect.

Furthermore the collective body of evidence for the case of UFO visitation far outweights the collective evidence that 911 was an inside job- though that said little evidence suffices to demonstrate it was an inside job nonetheless.

Still I appreciate why this topic bothers you and would assure you that as long as the topic is handled respectfully, honestly, and rationally, little damage can come of the placement of this thread upon threads of more down to earth issues, so to speak Wink

_________________
www.strangeisnotafruit.blogs.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
atm



Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 3861

PostPosted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 5:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Phil

there has ALWAYS been this UFO-ology lurking in The Twilight Fake Zone, like a memetic time bomb.

Someone has primed the fuse: UFOs are now making a major reappearance as the 911 'Truth Movement' goes into Decline Phase, to coin a marketing phrase.

Do not fall for it.

UFOs are being RE-MARKETED to catalyse the Decline Phase.

Please, do not buy it, pleeease!

I could not care less if Homo Sapiens landed on the moon.

I don't believe in Santa Claus nor do I believe in the Loch Ness monster.

stallion4, I respect you but I will not waste valuable time trying to prove or disprove Little Green Persons in, allegedly, silver spheres / tubes / whatever.

Sorry chum but I am with Ormond on this, 100%.

As for scalar technology and associated weaponry, well, that IS within the realm of human technological ingenuity -- no need to equate the latter with Little Green Persons.

The BFN 911 3i Inquiry allows -- invites, welcomes -- unfettered discussion of the means, motives and method (s) behind, arguably, the First Henious Crime of the Century.

To dismiss the potential, probable, improbable use of scalar technology would be, from an objective investigator's viewpoint, a dereliction of duty, IMHO.

Who would have thought, in 1943, that atomic weaponry existed?

Who would have thought, in 1944, that the same weaponry might soon be deployed?

Anyone expressing such a thought would have been derided as a conspiracy theorist Embarassed .

Then came 1945.

The rest, as they say, is history.

Scalar does NOT equal aliens.

Period.

Let the debate continue: This is not an ad hominem attack on my part [I'm more grown up than that Wink ], it's just my BS detector is going haywire due to this thread [apologies to Continuity for the lousy plaigarism].

I have not, nor will not, investigate this. It is a distractor. Classic psyop tactic.

FRIENDS! DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME ON THIS CLAPTRAP!

Peace brothers.

atm Neutral
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.