Everything is space debris isn't it...oh and ice crystals too right?

I guess its also that nacho and cheese the astronaut's flushed out of the shuttle..

sh**, I guess it's over now. Hey everybody, it's over...

bmk1245 has solved the mystery....Pack up and close shop

Everything around Earth in those video's are space debris or ice crystals.

I guess that's why NASA doesn't know what it is either right?

And I'm sure NASA knows alot more about space debris than you.

Stop trying to debunk stuff, because you suck at it.

The evidence shows that this could be life, this I agree on partially, however the fact that the narrator uses the terms 'human driven'(part2) and 'intelligent life'(part1) as fact for these anomolies just pisses me off.

The reason why is because all the signs show that these objects could be 1 of 2 things...

1. UV space bugs: (I know how bloody stupid that sounds but hear me out) bugs that are only visible in the uv spectrum since their ocillating mass consists of this light (athough can adjust its ocillation to go out of the uv spectrum and out of our technological visual ability as they can control thier form by speeding up their structure's frequency). The reason for calling them bugs as I have done is because of thier irratic behavour this is not necessarily intelligent behavour or at least not to the extent that our presenter was trying to get across. The reason why they are at the atmosphere and take interest in eletrical and lit objects can be explained as either it's their food source (as in they absorb uv and elerical radiation as food) and/or the same way a bug is attracted to light (anther reason for my calling of bugs). This disproves the statment of this movment the presenter claims as 'unnatural' especially since there is far less atmosphere to slow these already 'close to 0 weight' objects.

2. Nanoscopic black holes: this goes along with the galactic clock the presenter goes in very slow (and agonisingly slow at that) detail in part 2 (for about 30-40 minutes). I don't believe it to be this nano-blackhole theory I conjoured however due to the fact that the anomolies act rather peculiarly and the fact that they do not seem to have the devastational gravational forces that black holes are usually ascociated with.


Other bits that got on my nerves:

"They are either unidentified flying objects or UFO's" his ending statement in the 1st part, my thoughts were that he makes George Bush look intelligent in saying this.

"Wheels are wheel shaped" 20 minutes and 20 seconds into the 2nd part - A true genuis' quote that one.

The smart arse quotes between scenes and for them to be read out, asides filling in more time to make the video longer it only resulted in me thinking less of the production on a whole.

He fails to explain nor see the fact that a camera when ZOOMED in on an object could actually cause blurring on objects that are even a little bit away from the camera and doesn't even practice this with his own camera and key. (Displays the presenter's narrow mindedness upon not even contemplating to see it from a skeptic's point of view)

He says the objects make a perfect circle, it might have looked like a circle had their not been a rouge 6th anomoly being out of place of the other 5 rendering his perfect circle as crap, they did formate to a certian extent mind you, I'll give him that.

The history part:

The ending of the 2nd part is very far fetched but plausible, It seems a little off the way he manipulates histories already vaugely recorded past yet there are connections there he has made which im 50/50 about. The fact that sirius' formation with our sky would be slightly different from the 12000bc asian findings than it is today and his assumptions that these anomolies are infact full on water spacecraft containing merpeople water manipulating alien gods from sirius was concerned my skeptical side was beggining to do overtime tho I heard him out on both parts of his videos. His jumping to assumptions as fact or retorical questions was very dull and repetative.

All in all the solid evidence/proof: There are strange moving anomolies floating around our planet that can appear and dissapear in the uv range of light showing the signature of a galaxy clock. This possibly proves life from outer space, this does not prove intelligence.

P.S. That was mind-dribblingly dull but I tried to keep an open mind through it all none the less.

he was just saying UFO's unidentified flying objects, he knows they are the same things...

He said "either unidentified flying objects or ufos"
So... its either ufos or ufos eh? Nicely worded conclusion

uhm...ok.....

People often say "UFO" and really mean alien space ship when they don't realize it, even when they know exactly what the term UFO means. No reason to get so uptight.

I didn't call David Sereda a "dumb ass" - he's not (and I dont want to insult believers).
However I tried to find more info about his scientific skills and didn't find anything apart
"..His interest in space, religion, philosophy, astronomy and science led him on his career in related fields. He has worked deeply in high technology, on environmental and humanitarian issues and as a professional photographer for over 20 years. He has studied world religion, science, physics and paranormal psychology for over 25 years..."
About credibility - being a head of some departament, doesn't mean a deep understanding of everything.
I just want you (believers) be more censorious about facts.
And - I'm sorry if I've insult someone.

Rude individual!

I think it's clear than many in these topics use the word UFO but mean to say alien craft. I believe in UFO's, I'd be mad not to, the world is full of stories of unidentified flying objects and other aerial phenomena, but the clue is in the description, they are unidentified.

So please, you alien craft lovers, to avoid future confusion, refer to them as alien craft if that's what you mean, UFO is not the correct term when speaking about aliens.



Tongue twisters, don't ya just love em!

Indeed, the reason for my uptight reply upon this (sorry, Zero) is the fact that this guy cannot grasp the concept of it being anything else (hats off to him for his determination) but advanced humaniod life. If he is to look at this logically and decisively he needs to approch this subject with a more neutral attitude.

Yes it's a nice piece of evidence, granted and to a productive skeptic (for example: not to just jump at it right off by labelling it with unthought debunk explanations outright without taking into consideration the concept of the believers opinion or without full explanation of why they are debunking it in this way) it is indeed hard to deny, due to the solid facts that it
shows, however it's presented with this buzz of an absolution that there is undoubtedly intelligent life cabable of interstellar travel, where its actually only showing ground proof of possible life outside our planet and not actually giving any solid proof of intelligent life cabable of interstellar travel.

So... as the title for the subject went "Here's Your Proof." no, when your supposed merpeople from Sirius pop out of the water based interstellar craft and say hiya by the way we were Jesus, the Pharaoh gods and so on... then you'll have your proof of intelligent ET life.



If this uv emmiting matter was of almost 0 weight and in space it can be stopped as fast as it can be propelled, and how is it going to be effected by the g-forces if its not effected by gravitational pulls, how is it's amazing movement so impossible?

Objects can bolt out of our atmosphere easily if the weight of the surrounding atmosphere is heavier than that of the object.

Naive? If you say so.

Great proof of life, badly presented with mountains being made out of mole hills.

How about 'flying saucers' instead? After all, many UFOs have been visually identified as such after initial radar contacts recorded those objects conducting right-angled maneuvers that would destroy any conventional aircraft.

Perhaps, we shouldn't refer them UFOs as UFOs after they have been visually identified.
The following senario is a typical encounter.

Typical UFO Encounter

1. Radar detects a UFO speeding along at mach 7+ in controlled airspace at FL 250 (25,000 feet) without permission from ground controllers.

2. Controllers then check the radar system, which is found to be operating normally.

3. Since the UFO is now confirmed and knowing that the UFO presents a safety-of-flight hazard to commercial air traffic, two military interceptors are scrambled and guided toward the direction of the UFO by ground controllers to where the aircraft’s own radars begin tracking the UFO in tracking mode. Minutes later, the airborne radar jumps from tracking mode to STT-mode, now all kinds of data is being collected on that UFO, from heading, altitude, bearing, velocity and much more, which now confirms ground-based radar contact as a real physical object.

4. Shortly thereafter, visual contact is made of the object by the pilots and the lead pilot reports back to the ground controllers that the UFO that is now being tracked on both ground-based and airborne radars, is a metallic saucer-shaped flying object about 100 meters in diameter.


So much for that UFO's initial ‘unidentified’ classification status. Now, it's an IFO (a metallic flying saucer).

When I see conclusive proof I will upgrade what I believe are UFO's to something more substantial.

"Flying Saucers" is a term I feel even those with a tendency to believe in Alien craft probably find unflattering. The merest mention of a flying saucer and I get visions of some silver-plated bread plate hovering above the Eiffel Tower. How about Alien Craft?

Perhaps my stereotypical attitude towards them is as biassed as that of the believers?

Personally, I've already been there so the question as to whether we are alone or not has been answered for me.



I can go for that but only in certain cases. One only has to go back many years and ask the question, did mankind have such advanced, exotic technology during the time that no supersonic fighter aircraft existed?

As I meantioned earlier if they are manipulated to the point to near zero/absolute zero weight then will the object suffer from g-force?

I agree with you - such incidents are strange and hardly explainable, but the misinterpretation of the observed results, false radar readings, human factor, can't be refused.
Misinterpretation of the results you can find in D. Sereda's movie (post topic) - high-speed turn of an object and high-speed motion beyond the horizon. It's just changes in the zooming length:
1. 35 mins 44 secs - almost static view.
2. 35 mins 46 secs - zooming out starts, stars on the background faints, object on the right side increases speed and dissapears beyond horizon, horizon moves to the left.
3. 35 mins 47 secs - zooming out continues, fast mooving object on the left appears.
4. 35 mins 48 secs - zooming out stops - this moment coincide with high-speed turn.
So, its very simple explanation:)
If you have any video editing software, just cut this short moment (few seconds) and loop it.
PS
If this will not convince you, take a camera and try zoom in and out while filming moving small objects.

I do not understand the technology involved but I do know that we can't mimic such performance characteristics in conventional aircraft.

In many cases, radar trackings from multiple radars were confirmed though visual contacts as well so there was no error in what the radar screens were depicting in those cases. One famous case had controllers looking at the flying objects on their screens and identifying the same objects by looking out of their windows, which were also confirmed by pilots flying in the general area and by eyewitnesses on the ground, a multitude of sources corroborating one another on the physical entites in the local area and their performance characteristics.

Can you post few links on this case?

To name a few.


* The 1952 Washington D.C. UFO encounters

* The 1976 Iranian UFO encounters where two Iranian F-4 Phantoms were disabled in flight.

* The Minot AFB, B-52 Encounter

* The Malmstrom AFB incidents of 1967 and 1975.

* The 1956 Lakenheath aerial encounter

* The American West B-757 encounter

* The Bariloch, Argentina encounter that interfered with airline traffic.

* The Belgian incidents of 1989-90

* The Japan Airlines, Flt 1628 encounter over Alaska

* The incidents in Vietnam of 1966 and 1968

* The RB-47 encounter

I just asked for links:)

Washington Incidents of 1952

http://www.ufocasebook.com/washingtondc1952.html

http://www.altereddimensions.net/aliens/UFOWashington.htm

http://www.project1947.com/fig/1952d.htm

http://www.ufologie.net/htm/usa1952.htm


Malmstrom AFB Incidents

http://www.nicap.org/malmstrom67dir.htm

http://www.nicap.org/malmstrom75dir.htm


Belgian Incidents

http://www.ufoarea.com/events_belgium.html


1976 Iranian Incidents

http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case200.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Tehran_UFO_Incident


Minot AFB, B-52 Encounter

http://www.ufocasebook.com/minotafbufo1968.html


Japan Airlines Encounter Over Alaska

http://www.topsecrettestimony.com/demo/

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1321.htm

http://www.ufocasebook.com/jal1628.html


1956 Lakenheath Encounter

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc629.htm


RB-47 Encounter

http://www.ufocasebook.com/rb47.html



Vietnam Incidents


http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/nhatrang.htm

http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case60.htm


Bariloche, Argentina Encounter

http://www.ufocom.org/UfocomS/usbariloche.htm

Thank you, skyeagle409!

You're welcome and those are just a few of thousands upon thousands of similar reports worldwide.

Even if some UFOs would be proven to be alien craft, that doesn't in anyway imply that other UFOs are nothing but. If alien craft flying in our skies was a common knowledge type of thing, would people just dismiss all UFOs as ET craft? I sure hope not.

And BTW, if there's proof, there's is no belief involved.

source: http://www.nineplanets.org/hypo.html

Another unexplained uv emitting object.

I've reviewed your links, but... i'm still incredulous... I agree, the evidences are quite curious, though to make a real conclusion you must have the whole picture - exact time tags, audio conversation between pilots (not printed), exact locations, etc. Most web published evidences just hoaxes. You can call me dumb, but I like to analyse the data by myself (trust but check).

I was going to vote but couldn't give an honest answer to the second question. Are ther UFOs? Unquestionably. Are they "visiting"? I don't personally think so.

There are masses of evidence of UFOs. To doubt their existance isn't logical. It's the leap from UFO to alien that I don't personally make.

Be my guess! To furtrher add, if you've got the time and money, you can also make an inquiry under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).


http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mjpowell/Nellis/Part3/fig2.JPG


Nellis UFO Shows Up Over Brazil

http://www.roswellproof.com/files/SaoPaulo.avi


Nellis audio

http://www.freewebz.com/aenigmatis/Nellis/Soundtrack.htm


Where Did It Come From?

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mjpowell/Nellis/Part1/Part1.htm


Data

http://www.roswellproof.com/files/traject.gif

http://www.roswellproof.com/Nellis_Ground_Topo.html

http://www.roswellproof.com/files/Altitude.gif

http://www.roswellproof.com/files/VELOCITY.gif






Those cases are well documented and are not hoaxes. For instance, go to your local library and pull out publications between August and October 1952 and find that the Washington incidents alone made big headlines that year. You can begin with;

LIFE Magazine, August 4, 1952, pages 39-40.

Clearly, those incidents are well-documented and were not the result of hoaxes.

It's already well-known and undeniable that 'flying saucers" are a reality so the question is, are they ours or theirs?

I lean away from "ours." There is practically nothing about their behavior that is consistent with the idea that they are secret experimental aircraft.

I agree! The objects tend to violate numerous FAA flight regulations and they have done so recklessly time and again, to where they have now become of safe-of-flight issue in the world of aviation and besides, that is not indicative of the way the military conducts its secret experimental flight operations by any means.

I also want to add that there are cases where objects have traveled in groups over foreign lands in full daylight and in full violation of those country's own airspace so I don't know why some folks think that they are secret flight operations conducted by the United States. The flight profiles do not fit any flight patterns of secret test opeations of the past. Before we even conducted the flight test of our first supersonic fighter, the F-100, those objects were already operating at hypersonic velocities much faster than the X-15, which came in on the scene years later.

After viewing the video,what concerned me most was the object(though i think its definitely an UFO) that was flying at immensely high speed and took an almost 180 degree turn on the surface of the atmosphere and vanished.

And as stated by the scientist, "the fact that we can view the object from 200 miles away suggests its enormous in size approximately about 1/2 km long."

so i wonder how the object will look like when we will look at it from a close range!

and more importantly with such highly advanced and enormous UFO's(lets admit it) moving around and the governments are still tight-lipped regarding their occurence,is their some mutual "alliances" developing?

If yes then for what reason?co-existance?

Nice Link! verry interesting!

Poll: U.S. hiding knowledge of aliens

Web posted at: 12:00 p.m. EDT

(CNN) -- Nearly 50 years since an alleged UFO was sighted at Roswell, New Mexico, a new CNN/Time poll released Sunday shows that 80 percent of Americans think the government is hiding knowledge of the existence of extraterrestrial life forms.
VXtreme logo VXtreme streaming video of interview with Elaine Douglas, UFO believer




80% is alot...

Source: http://www.cnn.com/US/9706/15/ufo.poll/

i love this video

Yes indeed, 80% is a lot and millions of people worldwide have witnessed UFOs firsthand and by UFOs, I am implying artificial flying vehicles whose recorded performance characteristics exclude conventional aircraft of mankind.

Perhaps nations have craft we don't know about and have developed such things as magnetic manipulation. All discoveries of the last 35 to 50 years have been by secret government projects. The Internet is a perfect example likewise with nuclear fission. It is very possible that somewhere in a lab someone discovered gravatons and figured out how to manipulate them.

We also now know that aircraft can be flown unmanned like the JSF which throws the whole it can't be human because humans can't withstand......

Conventional aircraft we know about I agree but as I recall it was Lockheed Martin who filed the patent for multi passenger flying saucers and said if it can be done they would do it. There have been people working on these types of vehicles for years. It is not at all impossible that someone somewhere has had a break through.

Then, what happened over Los Angeles in 1942 and Washington D. C. in 1952 could be considered acts of war if those UFOs were those of another nation but were they? No, because some UFOs have been tracked by NORAD flying in from deep space.




'Antigravity' Propulsion System Proposed

By Bill Christensen

An 'antigravity' propulsion system was proposed at the Space Technology and Applications International Forum (STAIF) in Albuquerque on Febuary 14 by Dr. Franklin Felber. His new exact solution to Einstein's gravitational field equation gives hope to space enthusiasts that it might be possible to accelerate space craft to speeds approaching that of light without crushing the contents of the craft. If it works, it could be even better than apergy, as described by science fiction writer Percy Greg in 1880.

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/06...ntigravity.html


Anti-gravity propulsion comes ‘out of the closet’

By Nick Cook, JDW Aerospace Consultant, London

Boeing, the world’s largest aircraft manufacturer, has admitted it is working on experimental anti-gravity projects that could overturn a century of conventional aerospace propulsion technology if the science underpinning them can be engineered into hardware.


http://www.janes.com/aerospace/civil/news/...20729_1_n.shtml

i <3 this video thx

hmm 2nd video was good too

Im originally from the uk, but have been living in beijing china for 2 months. I remember through the 90's, i used to buy the monthly ufo mag. I remember them saying that something was going to come out and it will change everything about the ufo subject. I could not wait. It was called the secret nasa transmissions. I brought the dvd straight away. After a watched it a i was amazed and i thought this would be it, this would be the evidence needed, but like all ufo evidence it just disapeared. Now come David Sereda. I have only watched the first half, but what he says makes perfect sense. I was always amazed by the tether sequence and you could tell that some of these objects were going behind the tether. What we need is to have a live debate with james oberg and other skeptics and have David Sereda and other credible ufologists. I would love that. Also, as i live in china we are not aloud to view google here, so i cant use the links. I have checked you tube and theres bits and pieces on there. Is there anyother place i can view these links

jay

i originally created this post but my sidel name was banned. can anyone post a link to both videos for David Sereda's Case for NASA UFO's?

Thanks

there is no doubt in my mind that there are Flying objects that are unidentified, and also the possibility of ETs existing is more likely than not (somewhere in the universe)

the two being linked is a major possibility I mean if the Government would offer up some info or at least quit denying all the sittings and evidence than more of the general populous (the close minded folk that only believe official Government stories) would be open to the idea

the Government has not only been denying the sittings but withholding and distorting their own proof (this has been going on since before the Roswell incident)

That reminded me of the CNN poll.



http://www.cnn.com/US/9706/15/ufo.poll/