Link

By: David Sereda WWW.UFONASA.COM

In 1994, I was approached by a professional photographer named Michael Boyle and Martyn Stubbs, a program manager of a cable TV station in Vancouver, Canada, to conduct a scientific investigation into NASA UFO phenomena. Stubbs had recorded and archived thousands of hours of space shuttle mission video during live broadcasts throughout the 1990s at his cable TV station. He started to catalog scenes of what appeared to be UFOs flying in close proximity to Earth during the missions. I saw the tapes and started a dialog at NASA with many of their top scientists.

I have always believed in the UFO debate because as a small boy, at 7 years old, while I was on my way home from School in Berkeley, California in 1968, I stood with a friend and a crowded street in awe of a large UFO clearly visible at about 3,000 feet. There was not a cloud in the sky. Everyone was amazed. We watched this thing for 20 minutes or so and then it just blinked out, disappeared, as if into another dimension. Where it went would perplex me my whole life. How could a spacecraft just disappear? I was a big StarTrek fan in those days, and so were my brothers. I used to watch it every day after school. But even the Star Ship Enterprise could not just disappear in the blink of an eye.

In 1989, I had along conversation about nuclear fusion powered spacecraft with NASA Head of Propulsion, Power & Energy, Dr. Earl VanLandingham. He then went on to become NASAís head of Space Access and Technology under Dan Goldin. At the end of the conversation, I asked Dr. VanLandingham if NASA has ever made contact with an extraterrestrial civilization. He said ìNo, when you consider the amount of energy it would take for a spacecraft to attain near to the speed of light and to travel to Earth from one of our nearest star systems (Alpha Centauri 4.3 light years) in a reasonable amount of time, the energy signal emanating from the craft would be so massive, we would detect the signal well in advance of the arrival of the spacecraft. And we havenít seen anything (a signal) like that yet.î

Einsteinís postulate that the speed of light cannot be attained or broken by mass or spacecraft is that as a spacecraft tries to accelerate, it encounters resistance in the form of inertia. That inertia increases the mass of the spacecraft the faster it tries to go, so we have to increase the amount of energy in the form of propulsion to try and overcome the inertia. Mass can never attain the speed of light. This is because it takes an infinite amount of energy in the form of propulsion to increase any mass object or spacecraft to the speed of light because as it accelerates, its mass keeps on increasing. As it mass increases, the amount of energy needed to go faster increases as well; thus mass or spacecraft can never attain light speed.

Particle physicists accelerate subatomic particles like muons and protons in particle accelerators (FERMI LAB in Illinois) with energies over 1 trillion electron volts (1TeV - 1 Terra electron Volts) to allow these particles to attain 99.99% the speed of light. How much energy is 1 Terra Electron Volt? A nuclear explosion using plutonium releases a total energy intensity of 200 Million electron Volts (200 MeV). 1 Trillion electron Volts is 5,000 times the energy intensity released in a nuclear explosion.

If a spacecraft were to be doing 99% the speed of light, it would have a massive energy signal at least 5,000 times stronger than the energy released in a nuclear explosion (1TeV). A massive 1 TeV signal would get picked up on every radio telescope and possibly radar on the planet. We would all now it was coming. And we all know we have not seen an energy signal like that yet. There are also other serious problems with a mass spacecraft doing near light speed such as severe g-force on subtle turns, heat and resistance, dodging planets, asteroids and even meteorites. So how are the alleged ETís propelling their craft at light speed and beyond visiting Earth from other star systems?

In my newly released film and book, ìEvidence, The Case for NASA UFOs,î I introduce a new theory in quantum physics that reveals a way to allow spacecraft to attain light speed and beyond without breaking Einsteinís law. Essentially, the initial idea is quite simple, then it gets more complex. The only thing we know that can do light speed is ìlightî (photons). There had to be a quality, I thought, that photons possessed that could tell us how to get spacecraft to emulate photons and attain the same quality. Photons are supposed to be called mass-less particles. Because they have no mass, and mass cannot attain light speed, an object or spacecraft with no mass could attain light speed also. But how could a spacecraft attain a state of zero mass? Mass is equal to an atomís mass-charge or mass-energy. Each element on the atomic scale has its own charge or mass equivalent. Plutonium has a much greater mass or charge than hydrogen. Therefore, in Einsteinís equation, plutonium has more energy because it has more mass.

It was in the middle of my 6-year investigation into NASA Space Shuttle UFO phenomena when I realized that all of the NASA UFOs appeared to be made of light. They had attained the kind of state that I knew was the only way to do light speed and beyond. Spacecraft made of light. How did they do it?

Suddenly I realized the quality that light possessed that was distinctly unique over ordinary mass or matter. Physicists have discovered long ago that mass is both a particle and a wave all in the same breadth of observation. Particles are just moments of a waveís existence. Everything we know is both in a particle/wave relationship. Planets are like giant particles that follow along in waves (gravity orbits) that reveal the motion of the waves they travel in. Electrons spin around protons inside of atoms the same way that planets spin around stars and suns on a particle gravity wave relationship. On a small scale, light (photons/particles) travel in waves also and yet as Einstein revealed photons are both waves and particles at the same time. When subatomic particle physicists peer into component particles of atoms, the particles appear as squiggly waves with no apparent particle appearance at all. This would mean that everything on a subatomic scale is just waves. Waves have frequency.

All waves have frequency, meaning how frequently a wave vibrates per second. We measure light waves in Hertz, named after the physicist Heinreich Hertz. Light waves start as radio waves vibrating in the thousands of times per second, going into the billions of times per second in very high frequency radio. Going even higher we have light vibrating as TV waves, then higher in Microwaves, then Infrared radiation waves, then the visible light spectrum (the colors the human eye and brain can see) the color red (vibrating beyond a quadrillion waves per second), to orange, to yellow, to green, to blue, to purple, to violet, and then into ultraviolet, the spectrum the human brain cannot see. Further, we go to x-ray to gamma rays far beyond the frequency that the human brain and eye can see. In Gammas, waves go far beyond an Octillion waves per second all the way towards a google, a googleplex and to infinity.

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

Most physicists believe that mass has a zero frequency charge. I believe it has an ultra-low charge, which I may be able to identify with a new wave-particle model I invented called a ìGalaxy Clockî (Copyright 2001). The Galaxy Clock measures waves differently than an oscilloscope in that it only looks at waves in the way they actually appear, in spirals or 3-d spinning waves. Oscilloscopes look at the number of peaks in a wave per second, a 2-dimensional model that is not a reality. A Galaxy Clock measures 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 a very high frequency wave state. Then it dawned on me that what if mass or spacecraft could be converted into light by raising the frequency of a spacecraft or mass 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) out of the wall socket, and when it goes through the coil, it oscillates in a much higher frequency, and light in the form of radio waves, TV waves and Microwaves are born.

I was able to determine on a NASA mission number STS-75 (1996 mission) video that many of the UFOs captured on video were pulsing with energy waves. I studied the waves frame by frame. I could see clear wave formations that I could measure on my Galaxy Clock. I found that they were progressively pulsing their craft with a series of Low, medium and ultra-high frequency waves of electromagnetic energy. Thus, 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. There were no thruster rocket engines or fire and fuel propelling these UFOs, just these waves.

In theory, I could see what was happening: The ETís were transforming the low frequency of mass or spacecraft into a higher frequency state of light. In essence, the spacecraft were converting the mass of their spacecraft into light, 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.

In 2001, I came across the work of Canadian Scientist and Engineer, John Hutchison, who was doing work with pulsing steel and other mass objects with a series of low, medium and high frequency radio waves generated by the use of Tesla coils. Astoundingly, a 75 lb steel canon ball started to levitate very easily as it was pulsed by these waves. This was the answer to how so many UFOs could silently hover with no signs of propulsion systems using thrust propulsion and high energy levels. John Hutchison had the answer. I made the connection. The UFOs were doing the same thing. The answer to their propulsion system was staring me in right square the face. We could do the same thing and propel ourselves to the stars at light speed with so little energy.

If giant UFOs were able to convert their heavy mass into light (if the Space shuttle could be made into an energy as light as a photon - zero mass), it would take so little energy in the form of propulsion to get it to go light speed. NASAís mystery could be answered: why did we have a legitimate UFO phenomenon with no high energy signal, just as Dr. VanLandingham expected in the Einstein mass energy equivalent in regards to attaining 99% the speed of light? Because the UFOs had reduced their mass to zero. With Zero mass, you donít get an Einsteinian energy signal. You get a different kind of signal.

The answer was that the UFOs were converting their mass into light by using high frequency wave induction. Once their giant spacecraft were converted into light, they weighed in at nothing. The energy required to go light speed would now yield a very low Einsteinian energy signal (because it has no mass charge), yet a very high Max Planck energy signal (E = hf), in that it would be a high frequency wave signal with no mass energy equivalent. The signal would be detected as a high frequency light energy signal with no mass because the whole spacecraft would be made of light. These craft have figured out how to attain light speed and beyond (note that Dr. Raymond Chiao, UC Berkeley physicist got photons to break light speed in 1989).

Once a spacecraft is made of light, it could also appear or disappear into the invisible light spectrum (to the human eye and many cameras). The answer to how the UFO I saw in Berkely, in 1968, disappeared was now crystal clear. It transformed its mass into light and disappeared into an invisible spectra of light. So easy?

But 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 shuttleís video cameras could see near UV photons in a letter to me dated April 3, 2000: ìAlthough 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.î 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.

NASA astronauts were looking where human eyes could not see and that is where the UFOs were showing up. Astronauts didnít know why they were seeing things that they could not see with their eyes. They may have thought nothing was there. The astronauts donít know that I have discovered yet.

Now, in regards to UFOs showing up in invisible spectra of light such as the Near UV or infrared (the wavelength capacity of some of the shuttleís video cameras), the answer as to why no one saw them with their naked eyes was crystal clear. Their craft are transformed into high frequency energy mass (light). They can then attain higher frequencies of light than the human eye can see. These craft or objects must be highly quantized light craft.

NASA now has many cameras and satellites that can peer into the invisible infrared, and ultraviolet near, far and extreme, x-rays and gamma ray wavelengths of light. It is here that our ET encounters can be found hidden from our eyes. It is here that higher dimensions of our universe lie.

Why is NASA looking into higher frequencies of light? Why are so many UFOs visible in these higher frequencies? Because the only way to attain light speed is to transform mass (spacecraft) into light. Now we know where to look and we are finding answers.

As mass objects start to appear in invisible spectra of light, and we find evidence of quantized mass, the answer to where the missing mass of our universe is starts to arise as a distinct possibility. After the Big Bang, the universe started expanding with a mass-energy relationship (Einstein). But at the current rate of expansion, there should be 95% more mass than we can see . Our universe is a very strange cosmic cocktail," said lead author Max Tegmark, an astrophysicist at the University of Pennsylvania, in a prepared statement. "The 95 percent of the universe thatís not matter like we see around us is matter that canít be seen at all - matter of a type that still mystifies astronomers and cosmologists."

Could this new theory and analysis of UfOs help to explain the missing mass problem? By photographing invisible mass and invisible UFOs, we start to unveil one of the greatest mysteries of all time: is there a parallel universe? If there is, how can we access it?

In his book ìFlying Saucer Conspiracy,î published by Henry Holt and Company of New York, Major Donald Keyhoe (US Navy) recounted what is probably the most significant of all wartime radar detections of UFOs. There were between 200 to 300 objects involved. All of them were invisible to the naked eye. It was called the Nansei-shoto case because of its occurrence near the islands south of Okinawa, Japan.

The story was given to Major Keyhoe by a U.S. Navy officer, pseudonymously identified as James Dawson, who had served as a Combat Information Center Officer aboard an aircraft carrier during the incident. Patrolling the area south of Okinawa in company with another aircraft carrier, Dawsonís ship detected with radar (Microwaves) a huge force of enemy aircraft approaching from the northeast. Initial radar contact was 120 miles. The blip or echo returning from in incoming force was very large, supporting an estimate of 200-300 aircraft in formation. But it could also be one huge craft, an idea that was impossible to think about in those days for an enemy aircraft. At 100 mile range, their speed was determined to be 650 knotts - nearly 700 mph. No known aircraft I the world at that time could attain such speed. At eighty miles and at an altitude of 12,000 feet, the incoming force of aircraft began to spread out in two formations from the main body, as though preparing to assault the whole American task force. Only twelve available US aircraft were scrambled to intercept. In bright weather, with only scattered clouds at 5,000 feet, the American pilots were in clear skies. At 15,000 feet on interception with the radar signal, they never did see a single incoming craft, ;et alone 200-300 of them. The fighter director on another aircraft carrier also picked up the radar of the alleged enemy craft. But the pilots could not see anything there. According to Major Keyhoe, the U.S. Navy acknowledged after the war that there had been this inexplicable ìGhost of Nansei-shoto.î Thre are countless examples of ìGhost Aircraftî that show up on radar and remain invisible to pilots.

It was Trevor James Constable who wrote the book ìThe Cosmic Pulse of Lifeî published in 1976. He was aware of the invisible ìGhost Aircraftî and wanted an answer. He was the first great pioneer of the invisible detection of UFOs. In the 1950s, he and his research team took photographs into alternate spectra of light in the late 1950s and 60s and lone behold, UFOs were showing up on film that were invisible to the naked eye. These UFOs or living entities as he believes many of them are, travel through higher dimensions of the ether.

The most amazing thing about many of the UFOs in Trevor James Constableís photographs, was that they appear identical to many of the UFOs that show up on the NASA shuttle video cameras. They are disc-shaped, made of light, and have dark or black holes appearing in the center of them. The black hole in the center is the point where wavelengths are too high in frequency for the camera to see; thus a black or void signal appears.

After seeing my film, ìEvidence, The Case for NASA UFOsî he wrote me in October, 2002, that ìGentlemen: Greetings. I have reviewed your NASA UFOS video EVIDENCES, which is probably the most important public domain presentation on UFOs to date.î

You can find out more about the book and 3-hour video, ìEvidence, The Case for NASA UFOsî at: www.UFONASA.com You can also read the full commentary by Trevor James Constable there. You may also order direct by calling toll free at 1-877-UFO-NASA.

David Sereda E-Mail: NASAUFOS@Yahoo.com

You can read more about the Huthchison Effect here

Great...I enjoyed that
I posted here on the STS75 Nasa video before or as it's commonly called "the tether incident ufo".
There was no way i bought the debris story.....those baby's are huge.Estimated 15 miles diameter !!!!!!!!
Yep i'll buy this but hey who am i to argue physics !!!!
All i know is that that video is the real deal

bla bla bla

Hang on a minute
How can light travel to the source....the source is the source right ?

Can i have the big writing with pictures version please

bla bla ba

Perhaps you should get rid of your sources and read this:


SOURCE

bla bla bla

But hang on now

If something gets hot it gives off light ...right ?
So the rays are travelling AWAY from the heat source ,at least thats my understanding of it......and it makes sense.l
Like the Sun only gives heat when we can see it or more accurately when our side of the planet faces it ....

If light travelled TO the source, how would we see it? The light has to come FROM the source so that the photons can hit our retinas and enable us to see the object.

That's why a black hole is invisible, because its gravity is so strong that light cannot escape it.

bla bla bla

bla bla bla

You seem to think that there's this single thread of light coming from (sorry going to) everything. Light DOES bounce around a billion times before it hits your eye, but we're not talking about a single photon, we're talking about an amazingly, mind-boggingly huge amount of photons zipping through the universe.

The fact that there are things we CAN'T see is the real dilemma... lol

Oh, and you're suggesting that a black hole is a kind of cosmic dog whistle? ROFL...

Again, I ask how could we see something if the photons are travelling FROM our eyes to the source? It's nonsensical.

Mark47, your theory is hilarious! So you theorise that "light" is actually discrete particles that moves from point to point, following the path of some form of "photonic" induction? Specifically the vector of the path is actually into the source which we percieve as the source? What experiment have you performed to shame Einstein.

On the topic, i never notice my tv dinner floating in my microwave. Resonance of objects to a higher frequency only heats it up, no mass decrease or any levitating properties whatever.

bla bla bla

bla bla bla

Do you have nothing better to reply with than insults? i note that you indicate photons, photons are discrete particles and according to your theory, photon comes out from our eyes when a light source is switched on. Your failure to understand my question is more proof that you cannot even understand your "theory" when I phrase it in more scientific terms. I challenge you again show us the results of your experiment, some form of theoretical proof or cease your foolish blathering.

erm, yes you did:



By the way, I don't think insulting anybody who disagrees with you is very clever, do you?

By the way, black holes are invisible because they do not allow ANY electromagnetic waves to escape - that includes the various spectra of light from IR to UV. The only way to detect them is to see their interactions upon nearby objects. The emmissions from any disc of debris that has formed around the singularity can be detected, as can violent outbursts of energy from, say, a star as it is reduced to its component atoms and some of those escape in the form of a gaseous jet.

Back to the drawing board, my friend...

bla bla bla

bla bla bla

bla bla bla

ridiculous

ri·dic·u·lous
adj.
Deserving or inspiring ridicule; absurd, preposterous, or silly. See Synonyms at foolish.
[From Latin rdiculus, laughable, from rdre, to laugh.]
ri·dicu·lous·ly adv.
ri·dicu·lous·ness n.

Adj. 1. ridiculous - inspiring scornful pity; "how silly an ardent and unsuccessful wooer can be especially if he is getting on in years"- Dashiell Hammett
pathetic, silly
undignified - lacking dignity
2. ridiculous - completely devoid of wisdom or good sense; "the absurd excuse that the dog ate his homework"; "that's a cockeyed idea"; "ask a nonsensical question and get a nonsensical answer"; "a contribution so small as to be laughable"; "it is ludicrous to call a cottage a mansion"; "a preposterous attempt to turn back the pages of history"; "her conceited assumption of universal interest in her rather dull children was ridiculous"
derisory, laughable, nonsensical, preposterous, ludicrous, idiotic, absurd, cockeyed
foolish - devoid of good sense or judgment; "foolish remarks"; "a foolish decision"
3. ridiculous - broadly or extravagantly humorous; resembling farce; "the wild farcical exuberance of a clown"; "ludicrous green hair"
farcical, ludicrous
humorous, humourous - full of or characterized by humor; "humorous stories"; "humorous cartoons"; "in a humorous vein"

I know this is going to look like (and probably claimed to be by Mark47) as me just arguing with Mark47 again for the hell of it but mate you need to get a BIG grip of yourself.

You post a few lines about your "theory" of what light does and state that it travels to the source.



You are asked to elaborate and you don't you just get abusive and insulting.

You also state:



As with anyone who experiments and theorises, they make mistakes BUT Albert Einstein is one of the most important minds of the 20th Century and perhaps more.

Many eminent scientists, physicists etc have said the same! But they will just be wrong won’t they.

If your have proven that our (the rest of the human race) knowledge of light is wrong then why have you not published your finding with your experiments so that the rest of mankind can benefit from your findings?

Posting a couple of paragraphs and then arguing and insulting everyone who questions it is totally wrong!

At least "the moron" that is Einstein didn't just say "this is what I think and f*** the lot of you if you want me to substantiate my claims".

Mark47 read back through your posting history on these boards and see how many times you have been aggressive and insulting in your replies to others who question you.

Then ask yourself this question "What is the constant here?"

bla bla bla

I DID quote you directly. If you can't even remember what you wrote, I see no point in continuing.

When I see you hoisting the Nobel Prize, then I'll be happy to say that you were right and I was wrong...

bla bla bla

Go up 8 posts and you'll see that I quoted you directly.

bla bla bla

I know I said there was no point in continuing, but I just have to know...lol

If photons only travel to the source (i.e. the tree at the bottom of my garden), how is it that I am able to see it? Photons MUST travel from the tree to my eyes so that I can see it. Or am I seeing it psychically? lol

Please post your experiments and findings to substantiate your claims.

Straight forward, grown up request from one interested party to Mark47.

I do totally disagree with the statement:



Unless of course it was an opinion and not a statement?

bla bla bla

Obviously I'm thick, cos I don't understand.

sorry...

We have a light source - the Sun. Its light hits the tree and is reflected back to your eyes (and everywhere else for that matter). Your eyes are simply designed to 'capture' the image and your brains interprets the information.

Yes, human eyes only see in what we call visible light, but other animals can see in higher and lower wavelengths.

I can't understand how a light source can make how the light entering your eye changes so that you can see the tree (where you said: "The beam from the torch however increases the amount of energy by applying a magnetic attraction to the light in front of your eye."), unless I'm misinterpreting what you mean. How does the light source know where your eye is to change the properties of the light as it enters your eye?

I'll be in the car...

bla bla bla

you're not seeing the light from the torch, you're seeing the particles in the atmosphere that the photons are striking.

If you lit a torch in a vacuum, you wouldn't be able to see the beam.

bla bla bla

Fair enough...lol

bla bla bla

Maybe you "shouldn't have to" but I have asked if you could and as you said yourself it would substatiate your theory. After all that is what experiments are for to a certain degree is it not?

bla bla bla

bla bla bla

Ah... guns engine and burns out of Dodge! lol

I get the theory but please allow me to be the judge of whether I get the experiment or not.

Al least give us the opportunity and please do not assume what I can and can't "get".

Yes I do have an SLR camera and I also get how it, its lenses, the pentaprism and the film or CCD work (hmm that opens another can of word the Charge Coupled Device).

bla bla bla

bla bla bla

Do i have to explain myself why I find your theory ridiculous? You make astounding claims that are unsubstantiated, claims that you personally holds the truth of electromagnetic wave theories. Lets see about your experiment, the viewfinder is the window which you compose an image before you take your shot right? You are not viewing it through the film as that would expose the film prematurely. Actually it is more accurately that light passes through the viewfinder first before the film. A teleconverter magnifies the central image of the viewfinder at the expense of lesser light, you could also change the focal length of the lenes with such an installation,hence you screwed up the second image by installing it onto the camera. I am not a camera afficiando as such, but a few minutes on the net provided me with enough information to debunk your experiment. Whatever it is, try harder next time.

bla bla bla

Someone is immature arent we.

Mark do you have a source for all of your theories?



Come back here....You forgot me!

bla bla bla

Mark47, what is that you argue with and insult people here. Is your theory correct? who knows? I don't, you don't, we don't, so really its just an opinion. Whatever it is your saying about light is probably already know by the scientific community. So what about them ufo's he's talking about? If you follow his link and watch the short clip on the ufo's you will see them appearing out of nowhere and moving very quickly. perhaps the discussion should shift towards them.

He's right- your the only ignoramus here. Give him a proper refutation or shut up. Oh, by the way Mark47- at least he can spell.