Jsut watched it...
great stuff really, I couldn't really follow the science part of it (duh), but still really interesting

never heard the theory of the "fish aliens" before, hehe

Good work Cinders

I must say I was a bit "disappointed we didn't see any pictures of the skulls they had found in the "Dropa caves", nor any pictures of the people as they look today.

Looking forward to seeing "Chinas Roswell", I take it "someone" will upload it to google video? (I don't have history channel)

Sorry if this turns out to be a double post, but here's some images:
Dropa stone (supposedly):

Just to clarify something real quick, that picture does not depict a dropa stone but rather a plate found in Nepal estimated to have been created around 7,000 B.C.

"7,000 B.C. - The Lolladoff plate, discovered in Nepal, appears to show a hovering disk-shaped object in the center and a small being, resembling an alien resembling an alien gray, beside it. The circular pattern is reminescent of the spiraling movement of consciousness - Golden Ratio - Sacred Geometry of creation."

Excellent video! Watched all 1 hour 38 minutes of it. I was fascinated by the speed & size of the objects (UFO's) in question. On one illustration he estimated that the speed of the spacecraft was moving an astounding 900,000 + miles per second. That's freakin' unbelievable! He also pointed out the size of these objects are 2 maybe 3 miles in diameter if not larger. Again, another fascinating stat!

When it comes to UFO mumbo jumbo, I am a believer! But then again, I always knew that there are beings/civilizations more highly advanced than our own. I also believe most, if not all, of our advanced technology are passed down by these "Visitors" if you can call them that!

Whenever such debates arise, I am always taken aback of the naitivity of some. George Bernard Shaw summed it up quite eloquently "The power of observation is commonly called cynism by those who have not got it".

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5...46&q=nasa+video

Watch the full video before you go posting. ALL OF IT, not 5 minutes of it.

WOW! what an interesting video !!! i watched it all. i'm starting to believe in UFOs now.

The guy says that the temperature in space is is -273C...in other words he claims that space is 0k (zero degrees kelvin, absolute zero). This is completely wrong for a number of reasons. He says that the reason these balls of ice get hot in such a cold enviroment is from intense solar radiation.

1. Temperature is a very poorly defined thing, I can think of several instances where this is the case.
2. Achieving a temperature of 0k is IMPOSSIBLE…you can get close but sorry, it wont actually happen. Even trying to observe such phenomenon would produce an increase in temperature. Most definitions (there are many out there…) put 0k to be the point where all particle movement ceases. According to quantum mechanics this is impossible…zero point motion remains even at very low temperatures.
3. The temperature in space is NOT 0k, due to cosmic background radiation, 3k is about as low a temperature as one might find in space…anywhere in space, let alone the space right above a planet with an atmosphere, next to a huge f***ing star radiating an enormous amount of energy. The space shuttle does not orbit in a vacuum…it is a near vacuum yes, but not a complete vacuum. The region of Earth’s atmosphere that the shuttle orbits in is known as the thermosphere, here temperatures of gasses can easily be over 2273 K which is the result of the absorption of solar radiation by the small amounts of residual oxygen present.
4. From what he says, if I were to construct a thermos with perfect insulation (conduction, convection, and radiation) and then I made the inside of that thermos a vacuum, the temperature inside the thermos is now 0k. This is simply not the case. Again temperature is very ill defined here, secondly it is impossible to build such a thermos, even if you could block all electromagnetic radiation from passing through, you would still encounter particles like neutrinos…which you just can’t stop (a neutrino can pass through planets with no problems). On top of all this you would encounter black body radiation from the walls of the thermos! Then from what he implies, if I were to have a volume of gas at 500 k with a very low specific heat, magically and instantly fill the chamber (poof) with a psi of say… 14…one would expect as a result of the introduction of such a gas into such a “cold” environment, to be a great drop in temperature for the gas…this is not the case.

Also his use of the equation E = MC2 bugs me, it’s one of my pet peeves. The equation really ought to be stated (especially in his example) as E = γ MC2 (which is correct when the body isn’t moving anyway (something that you can’t ever prove)…so why throw away the γ?).

He then talks about how what we are looking at is a “very high energy quantized object…so possibly we are looking at some sort of extraterrestrial intelligence.” This is a total load of bull which just goes to show how this guy doesn’t know jack sh** about what he’s talking about. His diction shows that he is just throwing around “big words” to make himself sound smart, and lead the audience to think of him as a credible source. A very high energy quantized object eh…my f***ing shoes are a very high energy quantized object…THIS MUST BE A SIGN OF EXTRATERRESTRIAL INTELLIGENCE, CALL THE f***ing NEW YORK TIMES!!!

Oh yeah...and he said at ~27:12 that this is "something that defies all the laws of physics" Um...yeah...right. He then said that "we are looking at a highly quantized object, which means a highly energized object" explain to me how something can be "highly quantized" and how that has any coorelation to it being "highly energized" again. Oh wait...it doesn't.

He also says in one of the letters he sent to some random guy at NASA, which he read aloud, "How could any object made of liquid water survive over any great distances in space without some phenomenal membrane to protect it, wouldn’t the H2O as you observe obsorb the intense radiation from the sun and produce heat so much that it would dissolve the H and the O?” Blah blah blah, more inaccurate stuff. So yeah…there’s a sh**load of water floating around in space. Have you ever heard of a comet? Those are typically made up of a bunch of ice and rock and they travel millions of miles (ok so the water on them isn’t always in liquid form but who gives a sh**). So ok, if I were to drop a bunch of ice (say 1m3) out of a space shuttle, it should go poof! And turn into a bunch of free oxygen and hydrogen? Eh, whatever…I didn’t buy this at all, so I asked one of my friends and he said that while yeah, some molecules would split up like this, many of them would also likely reform into water, the net effect being negligible. This is akin to the fact that in our space, particles of matter and antimatter randomly form, and then practically instantly annihilate one another, producing a net effect that can be disregarded. (This is how Hawking radiation works.)

Also just because this guy claims to have corresponded with someone at NASA doesn’t mean anything. I went to JPL with a few of my physics professors from Cal Tech, and we talked to a bunch of JPL employees (a divison of NASA/Cal Tech) while we were there (including people in the Spirit control room) and I walked away with the impression that most of them were idiots. Afterwards the guys I was with pretty much made the same comments…although not explicitly. They said it was ironic how they had so much trouble getting into JPL (they were born in what are now former soviet states) considering that not only did they work at Cal Tech, but the work they did, let alone the knowledge they had, was so much more advanced than anyone we met there even had any understanding of.

If I can find this much wrong with what he says (I've talked about his flawed science here, but don't even get me started on how his arguments are logically invalid) in such a short period of time (and this stuff is pretty fundamental), don't you think that MAYBE...just MAYBE the rest of this movie isn't so great, and whatever conclusions they draw, whether from fact or fiction, will be deeply flawed? This video just takes advantage of the ignorance of the people who watch it to plant ideas in their heads.

Regardless of all this, do I think that somewhere out there in our universe there might be some other life forms, perhaps ones that are intelligent? Definatly! Does this mean there is some sort of god? No. Does this mean that we have some profound connection and need to connect with these beings? No. Does this mean that tomorrow they will show up to say Hi? No. Does this mean they may ever? No

It just shows a bunch of junk we dumped in space floating around

and a guy with a ruler and cd trying to say he has the answers to space flight

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5...46&q=nasa+video

Watch the full video before you go posting. ALL OF IT, not 5 minutes of it.

...not gonig to watch it, to me its a waste of my time.
lets all wait till someone tells us what happens, but no one gonna watch it...WHY SO LONG?

anyways, I BELIVE IN ALIENS
no not the grey , huge heads, but i call aliens other life forms in other planets, i don't think they have visited us..yet, then again, we don't know, since we havent asked them, and why would they be more advanced than us? then again why wouldnt they? if they keep peace with all , and dont have greed in them like we do, they would share technology and so on. so its us that keep us from beign betters...ok ill stop since im going off topic...

anyone else gonna watch it or not?

I've watched many UFO footages already including Dan Arkyod's (sp?).

I've also watched the case of NASA's UFO's by David Sereda and many more.

I've also seen one by myself when I was at a beach around sunset when I suddenly saw an object which looks like a shooting star but it shoots upwards from Earth to Space. First time I've seen a shooting star which shoots upwards.

My take: I don't know what these things are. For me, better to say I don't know, rather than speculate. We just don't have enough information here.

If anyone finds PART 2 to the video Sidel posted which was Part 1 , please let me know. I really liked the presentation, what the speaker talks about, and reviewing the various videos he presented.

Well, if you can't believe an X NASA astronaut who can you believe? I myself have seen one with my own eyes at very close range (about 150 yds). Yes they are real!

anyone else gonna watch it or not?

here is Nasa's explanation of the tether footage tether

STS-75 'Tether Footage'

Probably the most controversial of all NASA mystery object footage would be the STS-75 'Tether Footage' of 1995. Claims by UFO researchers that the footage shows UFO Discs up to 3 miles in diameter moving BEHIND the broken tether satellite cable caused a stir among researchers around the world. Hundreds of the mystery illuminated objects were captured in this footage. Larger 'discs' move through the field of view while the broken Tether is being video taped by the shuttle crew.

I have undertaken extensive video enhancements and analysis of this particular footage and here are some of my findings;

1. When the NASA camera is zoomed back to wide angle, many small illuminated objects are 'swimming' around in view. They are ALL small 'dots' of light. They are all in focus due to the long depth-of-field of the low light lux of the camera. There are NO large 'discs' in the scene.

2. When the camera zooms into the Tether, the camera zooms THROUGH many of the small objects, meaning they are between the tether and camera. (There could well be some beyond the tether if that whole area of space contains these objects) Here you see the smaller objects actually enlarging into the so called 'UFO Discs'. These are actually now out-of-focus small objects.

3. Now zoomed into the tether, the depth-of-field of the powerful zoom is very narrow. Meaning that focus is critical and anything outside this narrow focus field would be out-of-focus. The larger 'discs' now have notches in their rim. This is an in camera zoom lens feature. Not an actual notch on the object.

4. When some larger 'discs' move from one side of the frame to the other, this notch changes position from top of the 'disc' to the bottom of the 'disc'. This is caused by the convex shape of the lens in the zoom, not rotation of the 'disc'.

5. These out-of-focus 'discs' are called Airy Discs and are a common feature when filming a small illumination if way out-of-focus.

6. When zoomed into the tether and the 'discs' are large, the camera zooms back. The large 'discs' now revert back to small points of light. Where did the large 'discs' go too? They are just the small objects now in focus.

7. The large 'disc' that is said to move BEHIND the top of the tether, in fact moves INFRONT of the tether. Image enhancements show the tether top is partially covered as the 'disc' moves past. Airy Discs are semi-transparent due to the out-of-focus effect, and some of the tether is seen, but is reduced in clarity when seen through the Airy Disc passing INFRONT. As the 'notch' passes the tether, more of the tether is exposed. Tether is again covered as the rest of the 'disc' passes. Further proof of passing INFRONT.

8. What this means is, that the large disc is actually a small out-of-focus object much closer to the camera than the tether. It is not a UFO disc as claimed by many. You do not see any of these 'discs' in a side-on or other angle view, they are all round Airy Discs.

10. The pulsing of the object is less easily explained, unless the object is spinning or actually pulsing.

11. These objects could also be the mysterious "Space Critter". They move in all directions at various speeds. I have not seen any that actually change direction in flight.

12. The most conclusive test during my analysis was when I stabilized the top of the tether. On the video clip, I drew a line from the center of the 'disc' to the now steady top of the tether. When the camera jolted up and down in this section, any variation in movement between the 'disc' and tether would be seen. The principle used is that closer objects move more then distant objects in the field of view. Test this by bending at the knees while video taping a scene containing close and distant objects. The closer object moves more than the distant objects.

The test would show NO movement variation if the large 'disc' was at or behind the tether at the 100 mile distance of the tether. If the 'large disc' was INFRONT of the tether, than some variation in relative movement would be seen. And this is exactly what the test showed. This is proof that the large 'disc' actually moves INFRONT of the tether by quite some distance. Otherwise the movement difference would not have occurred.

If all these objects are space junk or disposed water from the shuttle turned to ice, then NASA should be fined for Space pollution. But I do not consider this to be the case.

name='GanjaGuru' date='Aug 3 2006, 06:19 PM' post='1293787']
Well here's the thing my opinion on this matter is null and void as a skeptic of ET visiting Earth. Why? you might ask well did you tak a look at the poll. We are clearly the minority on these boards and everything we say will be ridiculed which will quickly turn into to personal attacks on us. It has happened several times already.

You call us out to give our opinions then when we do we get nailed to the wall with name calling and obsessive accusation. You have been taught by the beleivers such as Stanton Friedman and Steven Greer among'st others that those who do not agree with your theories are a part of the problem and are to be ridiculed. There is no such thing as reasonable debate and as such there is then no reason for me to post.

here is Nasa's explanation of the tether footage tether
11. These objects could also be the mysterious "Space Critter". They move in all directions at various speeds. I have not seen any that actually change direction in flight.

"Space critter" what the hell are these?

The reason I posted the Nasa explanation is while trying there best to debunk the incident they in there own way admitted they are not sure what they are, they had no explanation for the pulsing objects other than to call them critters, and they didnt have anything to say about the anomolies that are clearly moving behind the tether. Silence to me says volumes.

Yep, and even in the video's when David Sereda emailed the head biochemist at NASA they had didn't know what they were.

Asking biochemist about optical phenomena is the same if you ask geologist about giraffe's stomach... David Sereda should find real scientist working in the field of optics.