PDA

View Full Version : NASA UFO's



Darth Maestro
2004-Nov-22, 12:15 AM
Check this link out ...http://www.ufonasa.com (http://www.ufonasa.com/) ... watch the video if you can get a hold of it, the website doesn't do it justice ... if you can't watch the video read the news/events page

"Waterballs" that shouldn't be there entering the earth's atmosphere ... caught on NASA camera's that see higher than the visible spectrum (meaning we can't see this light with our eyes). The footage was piggybacked by a signal transmitted from NASA back to earth by a dude running a small time cable station in B.C. Then he broadcasted it. Millions of these things enter our atmosphere every year. They look exactly like Dropa stones.

Has anyone else seen this ... if so ...comments

astromark
2004-Nov-22, 02:01 AM
:rolleyes: Why do you think that every thing you cant explain is aliens. I will agree with you that some strange things have been seen, but NOT one of these things is evadance of alien beings visating this planet. Is'ent it posible that ice could fall into our atmosphear. Stick to the science. Not the fiction.

Darth Maestro
2004-Nov-22, 04:51 AM
This is not fiction. NASA admits to these things being there. Obviously you didn't read the physics on the webpage (last time i checked physics is a science) . Also, how do bundles of ice pulse wavelegths, and how do bundles of ice exit and move at extremely high speeds within our atmosphere, and why can't they be seen in the visible spectrum? You say it's fiction ... prove it :)


Why do you think that every thing you cant explain is aliens.
Thats a pretty bold statement ... I can't explain alot of things ... my belief that we are not alone doesn't stem from a lack of explanation... it's more ingrained into the fibre of my being ... i'm still just a stupid flesh monkey like the rest of the people on Earth :huh:


evadance -evidence ... atmosphear* -atmosphere ... visating -visiting ... Is'ent -Isn't or is not ... and no it's not possible that ice could fall into our atmosphere at the amount of impacts we are seeing ... not even close ... where is it coming from?

I come on these Forums to learn and discuss topics... i'm not on here to teach anybody or tell anyone what to think (although i could teach you how to spell if you want)
you want science ... like i said read the links under the news/events page

astromark
2004-Nov-22, 10:13 PM
:unsure: Your langage is not mine,...
You are being unwise and insulting.
I strugle to use english. I am sorry you cant be less judgmantal.
:rolleyes: back to the topic,... I have seen this bit of film showing things moving at great speed through the atmosphear. I dont know what it/they are, but nore do you. Just becouse I dont agree with you you dont need to get personal.
:unsure: What have NASA said about this? Do they image on raidar? has Norad tracked them? Have other high altadude aircraft seen them?.. and if they are not visable, What is that on the NASA film. Ask the ISS if they see or detect this stuff.? Dont be so quick to insult me for all I have done is question your 'facts'.
This is a forum. isťnt it? At the end of your first post you ask for coment.. so I did. Your langage is not easy for an older person from china to master. I hope you understand my mesage, and find me attempting to comunicate with you in this exalent forum. :) :P :D :lol: lighten up a bit...

ulgah
2004-Nov-22, 10:37 PM
Darth, you seem a little sensitive. Hope my remarks donít make you more so. When there is something we donít understand, seems we give credit to the aliens or god. LOL. If we donít understand it, we should be patient. Weíll probably have the answers in due time. Now, about ice or water entering the atmosphere. Arenít comets made mostly of ice. Over the years, I have heard several news stories of ice falling onto streets and breaking through the roofs of houses. Where did it come from?? (A clear, blue sky, no airplanes??) Just recently, less than 2 weeks ago, a piece of ice broke through someones roof in the Seattle area. It was not blue or green (toilet ice from airplanes!) Clear clean ice! Most likely came from space. I added that.
I feel that over the eons, ice falling from space had much to do with building our oceans! Most of the time it will vaporize in the atmosphere. Making our atmosphere more humid.

Tom2Mars
2004-Nov-22, 10:39 PM
TONS of material drops into the atmosphere every day. It heats up when it does, that would show up in the Infrared part of the spectrum.

In fact, we just passed through a fairly fresh debris trail(from the late 90's) this week with the Leonids, I believe. Comet material. Probably some ice in there.

That, or the stuff is lots of waste water (Blue Ice) dumped from the Alien tourist ships. :P :lol:

Darth Maestro
2004-Nov-22, 10:48 PM
My intentions were not to insult ... I apologize
I don't really know what these things are ... as far as i can tell nobody has yet to give an accepted explanation ... the link i gave at the top of this forum is the best explanation I have found ... i don't know if it's right or not

My thoughts were that this would be a good forum topic ... to discuss and learn more about this phenomenon ... These things have been looked at by people at NASA ... Department of Defense and numerous other qualafied sources ... they are there

(I thought that this topic would be juicy seeing as how it's so contoroversial)

From what I understand ... all known space debris (space dust ... comets ... asteroids etc.) can be ruled out if you see the way these things move ... they are not just falling into our atmosphere but leaving it and moving around in it as well ... also they never seem to burn up ... just dissapear ... these images are not fabricated ... they were recieved from actual NASA transmissions ...

Tom ... these camera's were viewing not in the Infrared ... they pick up the high visible and into the ultraviolet parts of the spectrum...

eburacum45
2004-Nov-23, 12:47 AM
This footage has been reasonably well explained as ice particles as seen by an out of focus camera; these ice particles are often found near manned space craft, and are generally associated with the craft's waste systems and other onboard fluids-

they are not really anything to do with comets, or meteoroids, or UFOs;
except technically, as they are not positively identified as ice particles, they can be labelled unidentified to be entirely accurate.
.

astromark
2004-Nov-23, 02:05 AM
:rolleyes: Thanks... and now I agree, :) these dont behave like ice having been ejected from or fallen of space craft. They do look like they are under control. The explanations seen here do not fit the images I have seen in the link. I still dont know.... but one day I will. :P :blink: List as another mistery yet to be solved.

Darth Maestro
2004-Nov-23, 05:13 AM
eburacum45 ... I still don't think that the objects on that video tape were ice ... could you please explain to me from whom and how this footage has been reasonably well explained as ice particles as seen by an out of focus camera

I'm always writing these posts with a smile on my face and a lefty in my hand ---
David Suzuki is the Greatest Canadian!

Cheers

eburacum45
2004-Nov-23, 01:59 PM
As I said, these things are only reasonably well explained, rather than completely explained.
This link has a relatively full explanation by Jim Oberg; it seems that spacecraft are often surrounded by particles of uncertain origin acting in a bizarre fashion, but they come from the craft itself, not another world.
http://www.100megsfree4.com/farshores/nasatape.htm


"If you look at enough video, you see this as a standard out-of-focus effect,'' he said. "This particular camera system isn't designed for low light levels and it's being pushed beyond its specifications in order to zoom in on the tether. Under these conditions, the tether itself looks bizarre, because it's only as thick as a phone cord, maybe an eighth of an inch. But because the image intensifier is turned all the way up, what we see is a phantom thickness that's not real.

"So, in addition to recording all the debris floating around, we see all these discs out there, too. Big circles with dots in the middle and all of them notched at about 7 o'clock. These notched discs are a feature of the camera.''

Consequently, Oberg said the discs passing behind the tether are an illusion blooming in an extreme environment. As for the sudden light flashes and streaks that Stubbs said are visible at some point on every mission, Oberg is less certain. "It's very interesting,'' he said. "Streaks probably occur when you're out there in the radiation belts.''

As he reviewed the voluminous mission tapes, Stubbs kept seeing orange streaking action, captured by payload bay cameras and interior cams as well. Freezing the images took some effort; Stubbs said they flashed at one-thirtieth of a second.

astromark
2004-Nov-25, 09:32 PM
:huh: I tried this with my digital camera and was moved to inform you all of the conclousion... As the resolts suprised me. I focused the camera on a distant object, looking through a curved window ( car's ) The window had a few droplets of water on it. The end resolt was that in the images taken the droplets movement was recorded as strecks across the image. Not all straight, not all the same, and imposible to 'see' that they were within inches of the camera. "they" looked like space ships flying out of the distance. I then adjusted the camera to film mode and the space ships looked prity convincing. :blink: The camera can be made to lie., and the eye can be fooled. easy. :unsure: :P when I started this I had thought the image would be so unfocused that the droplets would not be seen at all. I was wrong. :( The camera can see things quicker than we can, but is not able to formulate a logical explanation of the image taken. Only the human mind can do that. :rolleyes:

Darth Maestro
2004-Dec-06, 12:54 AM
eburacum45,
I have investigated this "out of focus effect", and now I'm more convinced that what I'm seeing is not ice. In fact, if you watch the tether sequence on the video, it clearly shows 1 object (out of hundreds) moving directly behind the tether. This object should have completely disapeared when it went fully behind the tether for at least an instance since it could not be visible. In the sequence, at 1 point both sides of the object were showing on either side of the tether. How is this possible unless the object was actually massive, if it were a chunk of ice wouldn't it have completely disapeared or even become slightly more distorted while passing behind?

Bobunf
2004-Dec-06, 05:43 AM
I thought it might be fun to look at the source you are quoting dealing with NASA's latest UFO "admission."

By the way, I don't think loaded words, like "admit," have any place in a search for facts. It's an old jounalistic trick to make the guy you've decided to make the bad guy look bad.

The website recounts an incident, identified only as occurring “in approximately 1968” in which David Sereda recounts “a large, classic disc-shaped UFO hovering in a clear blue sky with hun-dreds of witnesses shouting with excitement in the streets all pointing upwards in utter amazement. After 20 minutes to a half an hour of witnessing this UFO, David said he saw it literally disappear in one second into another invisible dimension.”

In 1968 Sereda was six or seven years old. I don’t think adult recollections of incidents that occurred when the individual was six or seven years old are likely to be very reliable. For instance, how does a six year old determine that there were “hundreds of witnesses?” How much reliance would you put on a six year old child’s estimate of the number of people at a Little League game? How good are you at estimating the number of people in a shopping mall with unconstrained ac-cess and egress? Adults will usually be off by more than 50%. One has to have a lot of doubt about the accuracy of such a statement.

How did the six year old determine the time (“20 minutes to half an hour”)? Children’s knowledge of time at that age is usually fairly sketchy, and children’s estimates of elapsed time is frequently off by an order of magnitude. One has to have a lot of doubt about the accuracy of such a determination.

How did the six year old later determine that the UFO disappeared “in one second?” Maybe he looked away, was distracted by noisy adults, his playmate Tommy, was looking the wrong way, or maybe he, like most children, is really bad at estimated time intervals. There is considerable double about this determination.

And lastly, what observation of the six year old enabled the adult to state that the UFO disappeared " into another invisible dimension.” This determination, to me, seems rather off the wall.

Sorry, but all in all, it sounds completely ludicous.

Bob

Darth Maestro
2004-Dec-07, 03:22 AM
Bobunf,
I'm unsure of your post? The topic Sereda is talking about is footage taped from NASA transmitions sent to earth from numerous space shuttle missions over the 90's. The link I gave is in regards to this. Sereda did have a UFO experience as a child.

Bobunf
2004-Dec-07, 05:44 AM
“I'm unsure of your post? The topic Sereda is talking about is footage taped from…The link I gave is in regards to this.”

You should investigate your link, and your sources, more carefully. Just click on the icon “David Sereda” at the top left of your link and you’ll be treated to a six year old counting into the hundreds, estimating time periods, and observing an “invisible dimension.”

You might also think about the credentials of your sources. David’s, for instance, the purveyor of “NASA’s UFO admissions;” has this to say about himself:

“studied world religion, science, physics and paranormal psychology for over 25 years on virtu-ally hundreds of issues”

Well, where? What educational institutions are we talking about. It's easy to read and book and imagine from there. Also, this seems a rather broad and unrelated set of subjects to become expert in. We might think, “Jack of all trades, master of none.”

“From 1979 to 2001, in part-time reforestation work… worked with oil spill clean-up… promoted breakthroughs in non-radioactive nuclear energy”

And, of course, the government and the private sector have conspired, plotted, and been stupid, corrupt, and just plain mean. “refused to fund,” “none of them decided to invest,” “was turned down for private funding,” “turned down…due to lack of interest in building better National Security systems by the FAA, the Army, and the Military,” “lack of interest in organic, non-toxic oil spill clean-up technology.”

Also, Sereda co-founded, “The Native Elders Video Library Archives.” How did he have time to get to be an expert on that; what with all the devotion to reforestation, oil clean-up and UFOs?

I won’t pick on the guy any further. It’s not nice.

Darth Maestro
2004-Dec-10, 12:37 AM
Bobunf, thanks for the info. I guess I looked at his childhood incident and his "broad and unrelated set of subjects to become expert in" as possibly being Sereda's inspiration and motiviating factor.

On the other hand it could be a detriment to his credentials. Thanks for responding, yours is the first post where I learn't something about this topic.

Cheers

-einstein's credentials when he had given us the beginnings of his theory of relativity ---technical examiner in the Swiss patent office in Bern.
-to compare Sereda with Einstein would be ignorant and assuming .... although Einstein proves that credentials are relative as well

misha2dope
2004-Dec-10, 05:21 AM
i agree, we're not alone. there's a whole universe out there that we probably will never be able to explore. there is some proof on these aliens. ex: like the crop symbols. every year there are weird things going on. there are lots of fake photos and movies that look real. i have read lots of books on this and so far i believe in every single story. there is some proof on these UFO's. in the books i've read it explained that the military noticed something unusial flying near their territory. they said it could move in every direction at any time at super fast speed. the military base send out 2 jets to fire at that object. once they came close to it, their radio signal was gone and they never returned. there's also that area 51 that makes lots of fake things. so, i don't think no one knows for sure :)

Bobunf
2004-Dec-10, 06:20 AM
"in the books i've read..."

You should try reading different books.

Here are a couple:

"Becoming Human" by Ian Tattersall
"After the Ice" by Steven Mithin.

Bob

Molecular
2004-Dec-10, 06:21 AM
I would think that these particles of ice, since they are small enough and light enough, are simply being caught up in a whirlwind of forces........between space and the gravitational pull of earth and it's atmosphere. Much like a leaf being swept up and tossed about in the swirl of a gust of wind here on earth. ;)

Darth Maestro
2004-Dec-12, 07:37 PM
Molecular, interesting take. In space, how would something even light enough get caught up in a whirlwind of forces? When Joe Kittenger jumped off his gondola after leaving the earths lower atmosphere, he said it was a weightless fall. Until he hit the atmosphere and had the air resisting on his spacesuit, he didn't even know he was falling. In fact he entered the earths atmosphere moving at the speed of sound( i think this has already been mentioned somewhere on this forum).
Doesn't gravity rule mass, in the sense that the Earth is bigger and heavier than all these objects. So shouldn't they just fall down given their distance from the earth? Unless they were to collide(a collision would be a familiar occurance from objects with mass in space -- which never seems to happen by the way on the video -strange) ... how would they be tossed about with no other source of propulsion internally or in space?

Cheers

Molecular
2004-Dec-14, 03:34 PM
Hello Darth, thanks for your response. :)

From what I observe, and I'd like to use another example of how if a small pebble, if thrown at the surface of a body of water, given the correct angle, would skip several times off of, and across it, til it finally sinks. This sort of thing could also be compared to the firing of a bullitt. Given the angle at which it is fired, and given what it strikes, it may ricochet, and thereby, change it's course, strike something else.......and.......depending on how hard or soft the object is that it interacts with, continue on to take several changes in direction, until it's energy has become exhausted.

So, I would think, that these displays of what appear to be intelligent objects, darting around in and out of space, are merely inanimate particles, simply being flung around by invisible natural forces that exist around earth and just beyond the limits of it's atmosphere. ;)

eburacum45
2004-Dec-21, 11:44 AM
The forces that are propelling these ice particles are most likely to be associated with the NASA spacecraft concerned; they will be subject to electrostatic forces and the minute gravity of Shuttle itself , and are likely to continue in random orbits around the ship for hours or days. The electrostatic forces produced by the deployment of the tether will have stirred the ice flotilla into chaotic movement.

And yes, at least one particle does appear to go behind the tether; but remember both tether and ice crystal are out of focus and appear much larger that they really are- if not for the bright sunlight and the focussing effects the tether woiuld be an invisible line, and the crystals invisible dots. In such a case an out of focus small object in front of an out of focus thin tether looks identical to a large one behind the tether.

Darth Maestro
2004-Dec-22, 12:30 AM
The NASA tether that appears in the video is huge, 14km long i think. My assumption was that any small ice particle distorted or not would loose complete visibility if passing behind something so much larger, at least for a second. The tether has to be wider than any ice particle that would be floating around it.

When i watch the video, the camera operator spends a significant amount of time trying to re-focus, and is verbal about what he is doing to try and make the image more clear. Neither the tether nor the objects change in appearance dramaticly. I'm not sure how out of focus the camera actually was. The tether looked normal to me for being videotaped 75 miles away and using a camera that sees visible + high energy spectra. Also i have never seen any other video from this type of camera taped from space to compare. What would the video look like if the camera wasn't "out of focus". (seems redundant that NASA would schedule a video recording of something with an out of focus camera)

eburacum45,
thanks for the response, I don't know enough about electrostatic forces or minute gravity to accurately reply. I'll get back to you on that one.

MOJOPIN
2006-Dec-09, 03:53 PM
Some of these objects are not ice crystal! ice crystals dont form a circle above the earth and one by one light up, then, for one in the middle to light up. I listened to james oberg on coast to coast with david sereda too.
Oberg, is nothing but a be-bunker, and some of his explainations are just wrong!! Sereda pointed this out in the interview. Because Oberg said its ice-crystals, that does not mean its true. I suggest you watch the video, and make your own mind up before listening to one of the worst Arrogant and ignorant de-bunkers out there!

R.A.F.
2006-Dec-09, 04:27 PM
I suggest you watch the video, and make your own mind up before listening to one of the worst Arrogant and ignorant de-bunkers out there!

Realize that you are posting to a science board, and that most members here (who are interested in this sort of "thing") have watched this video.

...and we are not impressed...

It would also be a good idea if you were to read the rules of this board before proceeding as "name calling" is simply not allowed.

N C More
2006-Dec-09, 09:50 PM
I suggest you watch the video, and make your own mind up before listening to one of the worst Arrogant and ignorant de-bunkers out there!

No problem, just about everyone around here makes up their own minds quite well, and I might add, very politely.
http://www.cosgan.de/images/midi/froehlich/d025.gif

01101001
2006-Dec-09, 10:31 PM
I suggest you watch the video, and make your own mind up before listening to one of the worst Arrogant and ignorant de-bunkers out there!

I watched the video of ice crystals in action.

What do you want me to think I saw?

Why?

MOJOPIN
2006-Dec-10, 05:32 AM
Explain the objects forming a circle, then lighting up one by one, followed by the one in the middle light up too???

Serenitude
2006-Dec-10, 08:12 AM
Explain the objects forming a circle, then lighting up one by one, followed by the one in the middle light up too???

Actually, you don't realize how this works. If you want to take pictures of film or ice crystals and claim they're proof of aliens, the onus is on you to provide evidence.

Also, calling others names is unacceptable here. It will earn you a ban as quick as anything, although since you are new I would suspect you would get a warning first. Regardless, please realize that not only is it impolite and hurtful, but in intelligent circles resorting to name-calling is a clear sign your arguement has been beaten.

eburacum45
2006-Dec-10, 08:54 AM
James Oberg is certainly confident that he is right, and I am confident that he is right too. As he points out, there are more than 50 sources of ice on a Shuttle, and the spacecraft often is surrounded by a small cloud of ice particles. Trying to find alien spacecraft among this cloud of snow is an interesting hobby, but it is essentially pointless.

Try filming a cloud of snow in artificial light on a dark night, then account for the movement of each particle; you will probably find some anomalous behaviour there too. Does that mean that snow flurries are full of little spacecraft? I dont think so.

MOJOPIN
2006-Dec-10, 11:38 AM
The reason i say this about Oberg is becaause he was like this to an email he sent me, as simple as that. Someone who is so confident that some of these are ice crystals, he was pretty nervous when he came up against Sereda in a interview on coast to coast. Sereda had an answer for every stupid explaination that Oberg was throwing at in, it was quite perfectic really. Its not just sereda, there have been many people who have viewed this evidence and have come away from it pretty confused.

You still did not answer my question. I f you have seen the footage, tell me how objects can light up one after the other, then for one in the middle light up, while being filmed by nasa's own cameras? I would really like to read your views, and as you all seem to know what you are talking about, it should be interesting.

eburacum45
2006-Dec-10, 11:49 AM
Ice particles at different distances will light up at different times as they come into and go out of shadow. The fact that they might appear to be in a circle is pure chance.

To really identify the location of each and every ice particle would require stereoscopic cameras; this might be worth doing, but I doubt that it is a high priority, as it seems quite unlikely that there are alien spacecraft up there flashing their lights at the Shuttle.

MOJOPIN
2006-Dec-10, 11:54 AM
No, the way they lit up does not hold up. And that was one of the things Oberg could not anwser in the interview, so he decided to insult sereda on his wacko theories instead. Its funny that the things Oberg said has all u lot believing, but when he came up to someone who studied the nasa transmissions, he was a mess

eburacum45
2006-Dec-10, 12:06 PM
No, the way they lit up does not hold up.
You may be right, but I would prefer much clearer images (and preferably stereoscopic ones) before eliminating the very high likelyhood that these were ice particles and not alien spacecraft. Depending on the exact distance of each particle, and the shape and dimensions of the occluding shadow, almost any permutation of light effects could be produced by illuminated ice; and that remains the most likely explanation.

MOJOPIN
2006-Dec-10, 12:09 PM
Here is what sereda wrote after that interview with Oberg. I have heard Oberg some some pretty stupid stuff when it comes to explanations, not just nasa transmissions but other cases too.

Dear Jim Oberg, AT first, you said the video camera on STS-75 had no CCD, then when I proved to you that with no CCD, when the camera zooms in towards a closer look at the tether, and focuses on infinity, near-field debris disappears from the focal plane all together and cannot produce an "Airy Disc." Then you said the camera does have a CCD, hoping that would help your theory. With a CCD video camera, near-field small debris (I tested this with a metal tac hanging 6 inches from my video camera) also disappears when the camera zooms towards a distant object. In fact, you cant see anything less a soft blur if that. So how does your theory hold at all either way that the objects are dust bunnies that got too close to the video camera? Either way, on a long zoom, they disappear from the focal plane.

This means that in NASA STS-75, when the video camera zooms in to get a closer look at the tether, we see the tether getting thicker, not due to the camera going out of focus as NASA Reported that the thickness of the tether is due to sunlight reflecting off of the ionized nitrogen gas surrounding the tether and or the energy field surrounding the tether itself. The discs of light would not be there at all if they were illuminated pieces of dust near the camera lens; having not been able to visually survive in the focal plane of the video camera on the long zoom inwards. The only way they would survive would be if they were truly distant objects. The fact that the camera is in focus all the way, means they are not distant stars in an out-of-focus state.

To help clarify certain issues about the NASA UFOs in both of my films, "Dan Aykroyd, Unplugged on UFOs" and "Evidence, the Case for NASA UFOs."

These are excerpts from my book, "Evidence, the Case for NASA UFOs" which I hope will help clarify some of the arguments about UFOs captured on Space Shuttle Video cameras, which I postulate are in the invisible. I firstly base this upon my own seeing a UFO clear as day in Berkeley, 1967-68 with several other agitated witnesses. We all watched in utter amazement as this metallic, disc-shaped UFO hovered at about 3,500 feet in the clear blue sky not far from the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. After about twenty minutes, the UFO just blinked out and went invisible. I have been interested in invisibility with regards to UFOs ever since.

With regards to NASA's video cameras peering into the invisible? NASA knows all this and they have video cameras aboard the Space Shuttles and aboard satellites that can see into invisible spectra of light, such as the infrared and the near ultraviolet. I confirmed the wavelengths of the shuttles video cameras with NASA scientists back in 1998, Dr. Joseph Nuth, III, Head of Astrochemistry at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD. He said that the shuttle’s video cameras could see near UV photons in a letter to me dated April 3, 2000: “Although the camera itself may respond to x-rays and gamma rays (usually as noise), the optics do not serve to focus on anything but visible and near-UV photons. I would be amazed if the optics were not quartz so that the UV cut-off wavelength would be ~ 180 nm. If sapphire the cut-off drops to 160 nm and for CaF2 the cut-off is ~ 135 nm.” UV is divided into near, far and extreme. The near UV is higher in wavelengths frequency than the color violet. It is also invisible to the human eye and spans almost as wide as the visible light spectrum in wavelengths. Many of NASAs video cameras see well into the invisible Infra-red also. Infrared is lower in wavelength frequency than the color red. Infrared is even easier than UV detection.

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.

I have confirmed by letter that the above letter from NASA is true and documented. later, James Oberg tried to say that the video cameras on the shuttle were ordinary video cameras. He was uninformed or lying to protect his UFO debunking theories. He was also firstly an employee at NASA working under John F. Schuessler, whom is today the head of MUFON. John F. Schuessler keeps accurate files of astronaut encounters of UFOs and is a believer while Oberg is a debunker. Can you figure this one out now?

eburacum45
2006-Dec-10, 12:26 PM
The only part of that message that is relevant is the 'test' that Serada did with the camera and a suspended disk six inches from the camera. He was trying to reproduce the characteristics of ice particles several mertres from the camera outside the Shuttle in full daylight; congratulations to him for trying his hand at an experiment, but he should have also filmed particles in full sunlight against a black background at distances up to several metres, using the exact same camera as used in the original mission. One might think that he had a vested interest in trying to disprove the ice theory.

MOJOPIN
2006-Dec-10, 12:32 PM
he basiclly disproved the ice theories in the interview, thats why Oberg made himself look a bit stupid, because he simply could not back it up with someone who new about the case, as simple as that. Sereda has showed this to a number of people, who have been just as impressed. Oberg explanations are just not logical, when they come up to someone who has studied the footage. Unlike what other people say, this is still open and not explained at all

antoniseb
2006-Dec-10, 12:51 PM
thats why Oberg made himself look a bit stupid

Hi MOJOPIN, welcome to the BAUT forum.

You have only been here a short time, but we've been getting comments from other members that you don't seem to understand our community's rules. You ARE very welcome to attack people's ideas, including people like James Oberg who are (as far as I know) not members here, but you really can't attack them as people, as you have above. You also can't use the term 'debunker' as a pejorative, since doing so would insult most of the members here.

I note that from what I've read of your writings so far, you'll need to back up claims when people ask you to.

You are fairly new, so this is not an official warning, but if you persist, you'll end up getting warned again which may start you down the path toward getting suspended and perhaps ultimately banned.

R.A.F.
2006-Dec-10, 01:03 PM
...including people like James Oberg who are (as far as I know) not members here...

Actually, Mr. Oberg is a member here, although at the moment I can't recall exactly what his user name "is".

eburacum45
2006-Dec-10, 01:54 PM
He has not been active for a couple of years, as far as I know.

Small illuminated objects do become visible, even when well outside a video camera's plane of focus. On the outside of the building I work in, there is a CCTV camera which has a spider's web over the lens; this web is entirely invisible -except on the few occasions when sunlight falls directly on the web.
Then it positively glows in the image on the screen, despite being
1/incredibly thin, and
2/incredibly close to the camera lens.
The sheer amount of light reflected by the web makes its presence felt on the screen, just as ice particles illuminated by the Sun in space would also form an image on the Shuttle's cameras.

galacsi
2006-Dec-10, 10:20 PM
Hi

It make me remember two things :

From time to time there are some massive fall of ice from the sky. it is not well explained even if some pretends it come from planes . I am not convinced.

A guy said small comets hit the earth every day because some infra red pictures of earth were doted with water vapor.

So may be we take the problem by the wrong end . These objects may come from Earth (Sorry for the aliens !) ,IMO they can come from the top of stormy clouds where they are formed and ejected in near space by electrical forces , kind of tornadoes. I think there is enough energy in any tropical strato cumulus to propel some ice one or two hundred Km high. Entering the void of space they can sublimate and disperse as water clouds or if they are solid and big enough go back to the ground. In this view The earth is a little like the sun having eruptions.
May be this idea is good for panspermia , even if here it is the earth which is seeding space and not the contrary.

MOJOPIN
2006-Dec-11, 05:01 AM
He has not been active for a couple of years, as far as I know.

Small illuminated objects do become visible, even when well outside a video camera's plane of focus. On the outside of the building I work in, there is a CCTV camera which has a spider's web over the lens; this web is entirely invisible -except on the few occasions when sunlight falls directly on the web.
Then it positively glows in the image on the screen, despite being
1/incredibly thin, and
2/incredibly close to the camera lens.
The sheer amount of light reflected by the web makes its presence felt on the screen, just as ice particles illuminated by the Sun in space would also form an image on the Shuttle's cameras.


Maybe watch THE DAVID SEREDA programe again. Do you remember the part i am talking about?

Van Rijn
2006-Dec-11, 05:42 AM
He has not been active for a couple of years, as far as I know.


Not since May 2004 (http://www.bautforum.com/member.php?u=956).

MOJOPIN
2006-Dec-11, 05:54 AM
Well, maybe you should :)

eburacum45
2006-Dec-11, 07:15 AM
Hi Galacsi;

One moving light which is occasionally seen in these videos is a meteor entering the atmosphere; the Shuttle orbits at about 300 km; while meteors are about 250 km lower than that. So a bright meteor would be visible below the shuttle on the dark side of the Earth on occasion.

MOJOPIN
2006-Dec-11, 07:58 AM
Im living in china at the moment, so cant download it or watch google video. But i am going home in a month, so then i am going to go through the whole dvd again

Ostria
2006-Dec-11, 10:30 AM
Here is the full raw footage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8LI_-rgm-c&mode=related&search=

And if you still cant see the video, check some still images here
http://www.rense.com/nasaufo/nasaufo.htm

These objects cant be extra-terrestrial ufos, as they are too many. Their appearance is a bit strange (what about the hole in the middle and the missing part?) They are probably space junk but not sure if they are ice crystal.

galacsi
2006-Dec-11, 11:48 AM
Hi Galacsi;

One moving light which is occasionally seen in these videos is a meteor entering the atmosphere; the Shuttle orbits at about 300 km; while meteors are about 250 km lower than that. So a bright meteor would be visible below the shuttle on the dark side of the Earth on occasion.

You are quite right it is a possible , a may be , explanation in some ocurrence, but it cannot be an explanation for all the object that we can see moving. In this video and other I have seen in the past . So as I dont believe in the alien expanation , i try a rational hypothesis a product of my fertile imagination.

galacsi
2006-Dec-11, 03:04 PM
To Eburacum45

In fact i believe the earth is non stop ejecting objects in near space. The mecanism must be electic tornadoes from the storm clouds. Some of these objects can be just loose clouds , agregate of ice cristals or plain solid ice. They can just disolve in space , come back down to Earth or maybe escape Earth gravity ? In this case we may find some trace on the moon. I think all planets are able to do that so it is an argument for Panspermia.

eburacum45
2006-Dec-11, 04:02 PM
Sounds like a good Fortean phenomenon;
http://www.blather.net/blather/2003/12/fortean_falls_ice_from_the_sky.html

galacsi
2006-Dec-11, 04:22 PM
Yes definitively. Thank you for the url.

So these blocks of ice must come from somewhere , as they are falling from the sky , logically they can come from 2 origins : out of this world or from this world.

If they come from out of this world , from deep space , they are some kind of comets ,but no analysis comfirm it .

If they are from this world they are some kind of hail , but as they can fall from perfect clear sky they must have been ejected like cannon ball from distant clouds . It would be interesting to analyse their micro contaminants.

I dont buy the aircraft loo origin , it is ** IMO.Kind of rationalisation , lazzy thinking.

Bearded One
2006-Dec-11, 08:42 PM
Why would NASA try to cover up any actual potential alien UFO incidents? It would probably get them the biggest funding increase since Apollo. Same goes for the government as a whole, money for defense -- No Problem! Here's a blank check -- protect us from those evil aliens!

galacsi
2006-Dec-12, 11:06 AM
Why would NASA try to cover up any actual potential alien UFO incidents? It would probably get them the biggest funding increase since Apollo. Same goes for the government as a whole, money for defense -- No Problem! Here's a blank check -- protect us from those evil aliens!

Nasa they just follow orders. But what i believe is that they just don't know what to do with these videos as they have no explantions for them. it is an embarrassement and they prefer forget about it.It is just a very humane reaction.

R.A.F.
2006-Dec-12, 12:32 PM
...what i believe is that they just don't know what to do with these videos...

So they release them to everyone in the world? Yeah, that's a reasonable explanation.


...as they have no explantions for them.

Of course NASA has explained them. You might not agree with the explanation...that doesn't change the fact that they have been explained.


it is an embarrassement and they prefer forget about it.

Cite where NASA is "embarrassed". Show us where NASA would "prefer to forget about it".

If you are going to ascribe "motives" to NASA, you will be required to prove that those "motives" are actually true...

"Handwaving" about it is not good enough.

galacsi
2006-Dec-12, 12:38 PM
So they release them to everyone in the world? Yeah, that's a reasonable explanation.



Of course NASA has explained them. You might not agree with the explanation...that doesn't change the fact that they have been explained.



Cite where NASA is "embarrassed". Show us where NASA would "prefer to forget about it".

If you are going to ascribe "motives" to NASA, you will be required to prove that those "motives" are actually true...

"Handwaving" about it is not good enough.

How can you prove a motive ?

And before everything in the first post I can read this :
The footage was piggybacked by a signal transmitted from NASA back to earth by a dude running a small time cable station in B.C.

And you assume NASA release it to the world ? It is the contrary .

R.A.F.
2006-Dec-12, 12:55 PM
So it was a "secret" transmission that some "dude" intercepted???

Prove it...

galacsi
2006-Dec-12, 02:44 PM
So it was a "secret" transmission that some "dude" intercepted???

Prove it...

If is was not to be released there were some kind if secrety , no ? I dont know what you mean by "dude" , but the meaning is here , it has been intercepted yes .

And about proving it : i think you want to be funny !

Anyway it's been over six years since Martin Stubbs released his DVD entitled The Secret NASA Transmission: 'The Smoking Gun'. So why dont you do a little googling ?

R.A.F.
2006-Dec-12, 02:58 PM
I dont know what you mean by "dude"...

Re-read the quote in your last post...


And about proving it : i think you want to be funny !

Not at all. You've stated that this was an intercepted NASA transmission. I'm saying that you have provided no evidence that what you say is true. The next step is...you provide the evidence that it is true.


Anyway it's been over six years since Martin Stubbs released his DVD entitled The Secret NASA Transmission: 'The Smoking Gun'. i read about it in the defunct magazine UFO

Your evidence is a "woo" video? Are we suppose to consider that objective evidence??

eburacum45
2006-Dec-12, 05:36 PM
Stubbs claims to have intercepted the transmission himself; he may well have done. Transmitting such film unscrambled (if it in fact did show numerous UFO's as claimed) would be incredibly unwise.

But the film certainly does show nothing more than ice crystals, as a minute's thought would show; these objects (if they really were disks that passed behind the tether, rather than in front of the tether) would be at least two kilometers in diameter each; that is to say more than ten times as big as the Shuttle. And there were not one, but many of them.
Don't you think that the numerous amateur astronomers who watched the tether experiment and the Shuttle flight on this occasion woulkd have seen the flight of brilliant, kilometers wide discs in orbit with the Shuttle? Of course they would. No-one did, so the disks are obviously small and close to the craft.

MOJOPIN
2006-Dec-13, 03:40 AM
So they release them to everyone in the world? Yeah, that's a reasonable explanation.


Look at how they come about! there is no secret over it! if you take the time to look into the cases, rather than de-bunking something that you have not looked into, then you might learn something.


Not at all. You've stated that this was an intercepted NASA transmission. I'm saying that you have provided no evidence that what you say is true. The next step is...you provide the evidence that it is true.

This just really proves how much you know about the case!

Martin Stubbs is a former cable TV station manager from Vancouver in Canada who, over a period of five years, used his station’s satellite array to record 2,500 hours of space shuttle transmissions via NASA’s downlink. Since March 11th, 2000.

desertmonk
2006-Dec-13, 10:41 AM
[QUOTE=MOJOPIN;882965

Martin Stubbs is a former cable TV station manager from Vancouver in Canada who, over a period of five years, used his stationís satellite array to record 2,500 hours of space shuttle transmissions via NASAís downlink. Since March 11th, 2000.[/QUOTE]

Are you implying that one would need a lot of exotic equipment and knowledge to intercept NASA transmissions of any kind? If this Stubbs fellow could do it, I could do it, no problem.
Here is a link...http://eu.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=21489

Assuming of course that they didn't encrypt it.

R.A.F.
2006-Dec-13, 03:06 PM
if you take the time to look into the cases, rather than de-bunking something that you have not looked into, then you might learn something.

Would I "learn something" that is fundementally different than...


...the film certainly does show nothing more than ice crystals, as a minute's thought would show...

I doubt it. Meaning that I'm not going to bother looking "further" into a "solved" mystery.

You're welcome to though...

MOJOPIN
2006-Dec-13, 04:04 PM
I would not say its solved. Like i said before. I heard the debate between Oberg and Sereda, and Oberg was really struggling with the ice-crystal theory. Sereda really has done his homework on the nasa transmissions, and it really showed in that interview.