If it did that than a missile launch wouldn't be possible (Or maybe I've just been playing too much Command & Conquer).

Sounds interesting , ill watch it tomorrow as ive had too much guiness tonight lol

JeremyGTS i think your egg is infertile

EMP was just an example of something that happens that you dont see

Great video!

Looking forward to seeing the debunkers. Come on, you know you want to give this a go. They are dust particals, right? oh wait, it faulty wiring!

Thanks for the vid

i have posted this video on other websites...

all the people "trying" to be scientific keep talking about out of focus'd cameras....
and cropped video footage...etc...lmao....its ridiculous at what some ppl will stoop to in order to prove something isnt real. or vice versa.

hehehe, it's amazing what they try just to "prove" their PoV

Any luck finding the part 2 of that video?

I would like to know who it was that voted that the US government is not withholding information regarding UFO's. That is a ridiculous assumption and proves the lack of knowledge on the subject matter. Whoever voted no for that question needs to do some more research because it has already been proven time and time again that the government IS in fact withholding information. That shouldn't even be a question at this point in time, but apparently some people are extremely poorly educated on the subject.

The SST is going to be phased out by 2013, and the ISS will not be in NASA's budget
beyond 2016. That could mean a plan for gathering clear data on atmospheric UV
phenomena may not be implemented.

The fact is, projects geared toward upper atmosphere research of airshowers from cosmic rays have met with serious delays. One failure after launch, of a baseline study certainly did not help the chances of those meant to follow. They have attempted to proceed to secure funding, but have been told that they are not priorities at this time, etc.

These were under ESA and NASA, but it may have been that IF any unusual spectacles were revealed, those researchers might have whispered about it.

I am not implying anything, but here is how things stand on monitoring the atmosphere in UV.

First, as I said, reaction UV chemistry is well studied in dayglow terms.

Second, nightglow is not well studied. That is the mostly UV background on the nightside.
It results from solar induced ionizing on the dayside, which seeks the "lesser", or cool regions on the night side. There, the electrons cascade down, releasing IR and lyman alpha UV, etc. There is also moonlight and starlight. There was a sounding taken decades ago of that UV spectrum, but it would be useful to update that. The project designed to do that ended a few hours after launch when the balloon deflated.

There were two follow-on projects to look for high energy cosmic ray events, which was the reason behind all this. The have since been told they are no longer a priority, and were stopped in 2004. They only completed Stage A, or actually presenting their plans.

Those plans were NASA or ESA/NASA funded. One plans to use dual satellites at the same altitude as the ISS, and have extreme cosmic ray threshold triggers (10^19 eV). If something like a "ufo" radiated somehow in the UV, it would not trigger the photomultipliers/camera, since such events only occur about once per sq km per century.

In reality, two detectors at 600 km, seperated by 15 km, with 45 degree fov would be looking at a "texas-sized area", and identify a several thousand airshowers over two years. I see no reason to suspect they would from time to time, "just look around", if things are supposed to be pre-set on their 7 meter telescope.

The other interesting thing is that they would frequently scan the fov with a YAG laser that is tuned for 3500 angstroms. They could get 10^19 pulses over that area, to read the clouds, etc. In that case, they would be looking and examining for returns which are near UV- 3500 angstroms.


Then there is EUSO, which would install a detector on the ISS. It would look down, as well.
But, instead of a trigger at 10^19 eV, they would just record everything, and figure it out with a program. That means they would see meteors, space debris, etc. As I said, they were cancelled after they delivered their design to be approved by ESA.

OK. I am going way overboard if it sounds like I think it seems odd that balloons fail and projects are cancelled (it is over the top, and fringe sounding, I admit). After all, whatever Sirada said would have to be true. I mean, just because these objects show up over the top of the mesosphere, in UV- not in Gamma, or X which might be construed as an accidental nuclear airburst by Keyhole DOD satellites; and just because they don't cause the emmision of IR, which could be construed as the plume of a hostile short range ballistic, or a rogue ICBM; none of this means that NORAD or others have considered if ET shows up once in a blue moon.


OK. It puts my last image first.

There is an illustration of the pumpkin balloon experiment in 2003, that lost helium; and a picture of it in a lake in Alice Springs, Australia. It has not yet been reflown.

The other image represents a project that would have used the data from the balloon's mission. It was to be dual satellite, high energy cosmic ray locator, at 600 km. It is not going forward at this time, perhaps because of the failure of the UV baseline project. Or, just because of general budget shortfalls. I don't know.

WOW dan just dosent shut up
Sorry I couldent watch It first dan then that OOOOOOaaaaaaaa......OOOOOOOaaaaaaa crap all read and findo ut what it's about from some of the posts.

These are illustrations of EUSO, which would have go on the ISS, at 600 km altitude, if it had not been turned down after Stage A presentation. It would have seen most UV events
in so-called mid and near UV, about 1900-4000 angstroms. That is the range of the flourescence they were looking for.

amen to that guru....you'd have to be blind to not see the coverup.

wow that a great videro it takes aparat every little detai to help his calis on that the ings that are viewd coudl be ufo, and not metorites, or anything, he breaks down every little detail from the speed and the distanced at which the object traveled.

Great video, good post, good job

Very interesting...Where is part 2?...Got my attention now

I bet the NSAs going nuts over this one...haha

Jesus people, of course we've been 'visited' by UFO's. UFO= unidentified flying object and that doesn't mean the thing you see in the sky is an alien spacecraft.

While that statement is true, many of the well documented cases in the UFO phenomenon suggest an extremely high probability of extraterrestrial intervention whether you like it or not. Even though there is no particular account that proves irrefutably to be extraterrestrial, the probability is tremendously high in many of the select few cases. You must realize that most of which we know about science for example, atoms, black holes, formations of planets and solar systems etc., most of what we know are simply theories based on circumstantial evidence accumulated by experiments, observations and investigations but are not proven to be 100% scientifically correct. Now does that mean what we know about these vague areas of science is all wrong? There is always that possibility, however, the probability of it being wrong is extremely low based on the evidence accumulated and that is why it is widely accepted so the same should be true about many of the cases regarding the UFO phenomenon but it's not. The reason for this being because of the stereotypic portrayal of extraterrestrials in pop culture leads people to believe that it is nothing but science fiction and shouldn't be taken seriously because it is simply impossible and/or interferes with ones religion.

That was a good post. I agree for the most part.
But I must say... People do tend to jump the gun to claim that they saw an alien spacecraft. Not all people, of course, but people in general. An experimental aircraft the military is testing would look awfully "alien" to someone that isn't clued in. Now of course, i'm not claiming that all UFOs people see are experimental military craft, or black projects, but I would imagine a lot of the sightings could be accounted for using this explanation.

The evidence available in support of the hypothesis UFOs = ET space craft is mostly anecdotal and circumstantial. This is why mainstream science does not support the conclusion that ET is paying a us a visit. There's a great deal of evidence (no argument there) but it falls into just about all catagories; the good, the bad, and the ugly (ie, ridiculous).

The bottom line is that the burden of proof falls upon those making the statement that UFOs are ET space craft . See my post here. Until such time as irrefutable evidence comes to the forefront, the UFOs = ET space craft hypothesis is likely to remain just that...only a hypothesis. Inconclusive photos and video, eyewitness accounts, belief in a global cover up, these things don't offer the type of *proof* science is interested in.

Lilly,

In all honesty, much of the ufo world is folk tales and folk art, and some commercial interests. Nonetheless, scientists are seldom called upon as ambassadors, and visa versa.

In the case of this world being the recipient of a much different order of life, I would expect stealth, stealth, and more stealth. Then, it would be up to our scientists to keep applying themselves as best they can, and to deal with the lack of AWACS recordings, the absence of NORAD studies, and other world military industrial opportunities.

Can you imagine traveling to another world, only to discover it armed to the teeth, with radar and satellites everywhere? You might trigger a serious problem. I would thus tend to observe, and figure out how best to avoid disrupting anything.

I appreciate your ideas, as always. I feel SETI is pointless, but not real radio astronomy! Our clock is running, and no discovery of other quasi-advanced souls will change anything. And, no "aliens" have come forward to say- "here is what you need to do..." I base my ideas on astronomical and geological concepts. We need to get the richness of this life, and I for one hope that is more rewarding than hoping for 15,000 years of unabated progress.

Just my 2 cents.

nice post...stealth stealth and more stealth like you said....

Wow Great Vid! I am not big into science so the way he broke it all down and expalined it was perfect. I wish I could see part 2! Any luck anybody?

What's the burden of proof, Lilly?
I should start a "Lilly's burden of proof thread"... 20 pages of explaining what the burden of proof is...



(you should know I'm kidding)

The burden of proof... While useful, obviously doesn't rule out the possibility that some UFOs are indeed alien spacecraft. That doesn't mean that some are, it just means that they could possibly be. Now the reason some people lean towards the alien craft scenario, is because of the seemingly impossible maneuvers executed by said objects... Also the alien sightings/abductions/alien "experiences" tie in with the ufos for obvious reasons. If the abductions people report are in fact, true, then that would mean that they would need to come here in some kind of ship. So why not the unbelievable flying objects people witness daily? If this aliens visiting earth thing is true, it would be common sense to look to the sky and try to witness them coming in. That would explain the thousands, probably even millions of UFO photographs taken yearly. Also, a lot of skeptics dismiss abductions because of the more easy to fathum explanation of "sleep paralysis". Even I conclude that some-most of the abduction reports, just might be sleep paralysis cases. It is the most plausible answer. Or is it? Some abductions don't even happen while people are sleeping... It can happen in the middle of the day, in some cases... Do you really think the media fabrication of aliens has really implanted itself into millions of americans, russians, africans, the british, etc. etc. to the point that almost all of the descriptions of the encounters match quite eerily? Maybe, but I think that is a bit of a reach. I haven't made up my mind on what I believe. There are many factors, and it is very easy to miss the key ones. Or any for that matter. So one needs to really get involved in every aspect of the phenomena to understand the big picture. Whether it is all a huge misinterpretation, or hoax. Or if it is all- for the most part, real.

What I have just said in no way proves that aliens are visiting earth, or that some UFOs are their craft, but it does show that it's not all that crazy to tie in aliens to the seemingly uncountable number of UFO reports.

No argument here. However, one must admit there's quite a big difference between possible, probable, and proven.




Of course it's not crazy. The UFOs = ET space craft hypothesis isn't in and of itself *crazy*. But, jumping to the conclusion that UFOs absolutely have to be alien space craft is certainly unsubstantiated, and does strike many people as being a tad wacky.

As for my *fixation* on the burden of proof aspect when talking about unknowns; if people would stop trying to shift the burden of proof, I'd stop bringing up the subject...fair enough?

Agreed. Big difference. But then one would also have to admit the connections are inevitable.

Definately. It's not the only possibility, but one of a few. Some make more sense than others.

I don't mind your 'fixation', Lilly... It's quite nice. I will give it to you, some do try to shift it a lot, huh?
You know I was pulling you leg, though.. right?

I know you're just giving me the business...

I do trot out the invisible pink unicorn, and the burden of proof info quite a bit. But, I think it's important in understanding why the scientific types don't accept some of the conclusions people arrive at regarding UFOs. Critical thinking is something that's useful for everyone, really.

Sure is...

You know, what Lily has been trying to convey does get to the heart of the matter.
People are not the most reliable witnesses. Instruments for recording data are.
People can perceive the wind is up, but satellites will convey a storm approaching.

It was at one time, the government appeared more accessible as a clearing house for such matters, being the eyes and ears of the nation. For national security reasons, they do not discuss certain things, because they have to do with ballistic missile early warning, etc. And another thing is the mileage you get from keeping your enemies guessing...

The british conceded to a public liason for ufo reports. People began calling for infomation, as much as anything elses, and so it was shut down when it was overwhelmed.

I wish we could winnow out the nonsense. As for ET-not ET, the most compelling concept is that of earth lights, like Marfa, Texas. I have never gone there, but have seen close up pics, and they look like what some people report elsewhere. I doubt those alone could account for other matters.

Charlie Hickson (Pascagoula Incident, 1973) visited my relatives a year after his sighting. Their place was about twenty minutes outside of town. One night, when they were outside talking, a bright orange light showed up under the low clouds, but just in front of and near the top of a wooded ridge.

Charlie just said, "Well, I'll be". About 5,000 feet away, hovered a very brilliant object resembling either a disc on edge or a sphere. Since they were knowledgeable about amateur astronomy, they estimated it subtended about 17 to 23 minutes of arc, or 60 to 80 per cent the angular full moon.

The object emitted a strange orange color all over its surface. One of the party was an artist, and he described it as 70 per cent cadmium orange medium, combined with about 30 per cent of the yellow-orange seen in the light emission of sodium vapor lamps.
Beneath the object, light seemed to be more intense, forming a slightly downward-spreading shaft or beam. The over-all emitted light was intense enough to illuminate the entire hillside beneath it in orange-yellow.

It was only a few feet above a large tree and short distance in front of a wooded ridge. As the object began slowly moving parallel with the ridge, the shifting tree shadows on all sides of the moving object clearly defined its position.

They figured it was 30+ feet across, using17-23 minutes of arc, at 5,000 feet, plus a scaled aerial photo.

They had a camera, but by the time they got to it, and peeked through a telephoto lens, it was disappearing up and over the ridge (drat!) It never showed again. One of those present was a PhD from Mississippi. He said it was far too bright for a hot air balloon, among other things.

This is not "Lilly quality data", but it sure made that night interesting. The illustration shows the details through the telephoto. The pictures are of Charlie and Calvin in 1973, Charlie in 1974 visiting my relatives, and in 2001, before he passed on.

havent air traffic controllers seen things on thier instruments they couldnt explain ?

seems they have

I see debunkers

too bad none of them comments on the actuall topic, just UFOs in general. tsk tsk tsk, you can do better!
Let's stay on topic, shall we?

Neirther I, nor ET's Daddy, have steered this topic away. I am just commenting on things.
Thanks, anyway.

As for the Pascagoula incident, Charlie passed numerous polygraphs. And he had an area
"scooped out" on his leg. He only showed a few people, because he did not know what it was (yes, I know...but, it was before it was mentioned all the time). That adds dimension
to the ET hypothesis, no doubt.

And, where radar is concerned, air traffic radars keep records of what they "paint' in the sky. Military radars concerned with defense look further, at plasma, to distinguish either the booster stage, but especially the warhead deployment. Chaff and decoys burn up, but the last chance to get the warheads means you need to penetrate the hot plasma around them.

Just after boosting, a missile nose gets so hot, an acetylene torch would cool it. By using various radar signals, you can find those targets (ABM treaties are supposed to limit such defences). Low aperture UHF, VHF, and L-band returns is how they do it. Send up a neutron rich explosive, and ruin the incoming warhead.

So, even major airport radar divisions have been aware of its uses, but not openly, because of defense reasons. After all of those sightings, an older fellow I know, who was with a scientific research dept., used his credentials and called to get some radar data. The airport (DFW) radar division mistook him for someone else, and asked him if he wanted the ufo "plasma penetration records, or just the paints". He was on a recorded line (his).

This is a really good video. Thanks for posting it.

The fellow with the chalk has interesting ideas, but I don't buy it.

I wanna poke it with a stick. ©

The topic being, *proof*. The problem being, there is none.

Doesn't really make for much of a discussion, IMO. Might be wise to broaden the topic to include inconclusive evidence and speculation, as this is where things really stand right now. Remember, just because one labels speculative analysis as *proof* doesn't make it so....same goes for personal beliefs.

I have seen this before. I downloaded it from bit torrent. It is an amazing video, and leaves me with no doubt of the UFO cover-up. Thanks for the Google video.

The topic being the video, it is off topic to "debunk" things that has little or nothing to do with what's in the video

The title of this thread is: "Here's Your Proof, you want proof?...here". I'm on topic as I'm the stating that the video (I saw it awhile ago on another site) alone can not be considered to be *proof* of alien visitation. Photos or video of something unknown do not prove that said, "unknowns" have to be alien space craft at the exclusion of all other possible explanations. It's simply not enough to just have a photographic image of something questionable...one has to have evidence that what was photographed was indeed alien space craft.

Well, in many of the NASA video's David Sereda successfully eliminates many possibilities such as ice particles, space junk, asteroids/comets, satellites, and secret government projects. A few of the video's show massive objects making near right angle turns and even leaving earths gravity which is impossible unless an object has internal energy and if it isn't one of our craft, what is it? I do agree that it cannot be accepted as absolute proof, however, after thorough scientific analysis of the NASA videos there seems to be an extremely high probability of extraterrestrial intervention.

Ok first of I'm going to apologize, because I've misunderstood something.
"Proof" and "evidence" in norwegian is the same word, I didn't think of it having different meanins in english

But I still think it is quite evident that 99% of the "official statements" has been proved wrong.
Swamp gas? no
Space Debris? no
Comets? no
Shooting stars? no
Satelites? no
Asteroids? no
Secret man-made aircraft? no
Ice particles? no
Lighthouse? no
Ball lightnings? No
Unidentified Flying Object? yes

I'm not saying UFO = Extra Terrestrial, but these particular incidents sure don't seem terrestrial to me

I will watch it, although I don't need proof, as I know they are real and have been visiting Earth for several centuries, even during the dawn of man.

I have my own photographs, which I use to support those who claim to have seen something, but lack proof and hope that the photos that I have been able to take of the starships could help those who don't have the evidence to support their claims. I know what it feels like to have an experience with no proof and hope my evidence supports their case, as does this documentary.

love, light and peace

I watched the full thing, although I do believe aliens have never been anywhere near Earth. I have to admit that most of it was well constructed and convincing, although in the last twenty minutes or so he made some really weak points.

Call me close minded, but I'd still have to see something conclusive with my own eyes before I believe aliens have been to Earth; for all I know the entire video could have been based on fake footage.

There are some scientists who think alien visitation is probable, but there are others who don't think it's probable at all. Most of them (that I've read, or had contact with) fall somewhere in the middle, usually saying that there's no way to tell with the inconclusive evidence we have right now. Remember, science needs conclusive *proof* (in as much as anything is actually proven in science) for the existence of something before it's universally accepted.

I thought it was a great video. The man in the video certainly makes a strong case. I think Dan Akroyd needed to wear his Conehead suit. That's the only thing missing.

As for proof, I would say that Mr. Sereda's book has a hook, which is attached to a line about the tether incident, and a sinker called the Dropa Stone. This is more analogy, than
the weight of direct evidence.

This does not mean other parts are not interesting. But, showmanship is sometimes
just part of the mixed performance that any UFO research is prone to.

I want to make what I hope is comparison, and not analogy, either. For that, I will mention
the somewhat harsh or high-contrast UV imaging, and other, related effects in astronomic images.

Mr. Sereda waxes on about the field of depth, and the extraordinary resolution throughout
the SST Hasselbrad (sp) camera recordings. He states that if a cosmic sand dollar wavy thing seems to go behind an object, then "make it so!". I say "it ain't necessarily so..."

From the beginning-

The experiment to extend 12 miles (20 km) of electrically inductive ribbon to generate .5 amps of current, as it courses the ionosphere.

Too many ohms cause the ribbon to over heat, become brittle and break near the
release boom. I propose that caused any magnetic field around the line to collapse. That would heat any ions and stir the mix of dust from the shredded ribbon. In addition, the event may have released ice on the shuttle vents. A veritable mix of "orbs".

Now, why do they appear to be miles behind the tether, even when the tether is dozens of miles away? Why do they, thus, seem as large as 2 miles in diameter?

For this, I use the prosaic answers above, plus what I will call for now, the "nebular effect". I think the same reason why planetary nebulas appear transparent and bubble-like in their central areas, is all light and perspective. The brighest area is in the middle,
and that affords us a view through the dust and gas surrounding the aging star.

We simply "see the light", where it penetrates most. So it is with the filmy dust globs.
As they go in front of the tether, the reflected UV light is so strong, that the tether's
illuminated surface shines right through the various dust particles. And so we are led to believe, in disingenuos fashion, that these are the johnny-on-the-spot massive ufos, out having a get-together with a piece of cord attached to a failed satellite.


Images-

First, an aging star shedding its layers. This planetary nebula is more transparent to infrared, but it is evident in the visible-red image of 6300 angstroms. As the wavelengths
tend toward the blue 4686 angstroms, it appears more dense. We can infer the same
holds true for the ultraviolet, beginning around 4000 angstroms. Unless we have a light source that is much more evident by comparison. I will compare this effect to the objects seen.


Next, the video frames. I say these are small bits, spinning around, and that he added
his own spin, as well.

Two other images which show him rejecting my type of viewpoint.

But, in the last double contrast frame, I say it is an illusion that fails considerably,
yet succeeds to tantalizse us into thinking space is a completely empty vacuum.

Interesting theory, I don't think that's the answer, but still interesting

maybe you should email Serada about it and hope for his view of your idea?

For an interesting look into the STS-75 tether UFO, take a look at this exchange between Hoagland's writer, Mike Bara, and science writer, James Oberg.

I'm just not convinced that 2 mile wide UFOs were really present during this event.

Interesting. As I recall, there were more than one of these circular ‘objects’ and yet they all looked exactly the same; circular in shape, pulsating, hole in the centre with a cut out groove on the side. My question is; what are the chances of more than one dust particle looking like this, exactly the same in appearance? I can understand the smaller dot like ‘objects’ actually being dust particles but the circular shaped one are intriguing.

[attachmentid=24269]

[attachmentid=24268]

[attachmentid=24270]

Part II of "EVIDENCE: The Case For Nasa UFOs" is now accessible on Google videos: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=85...01&q=nasa+video

-Enjoy

thanks!
Will watch it very very soon (waiting for it to load)

OH YEA!!! Part 2! thank you soooooo much Guru!