It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What has NASA said about this video?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Telos

Originally posted by Denied

But you can not say ice crystals with this one, nor meteorite.


Of course my friend we can't buy this. Since when a ice particle or crystal senses a missile being fired upon? Since when a ice crystal seems to move in a inteligent way, change direction and increase the speed in that way?
They think we're stupid?


Well there are theories about the flash, not sure how that would make an object deviate at the same time?




posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 12:32 PM
link   
As far fetched as it looks when you see this footage one can't stop thinking about those stories that came up few years ago about the SDI program and a possible conflict that is taking place above our skies between "good and evil", or stories about secret governement and greys firing at other civilisation's crafts...

Just a thought



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Telos

Of course my friend we can't buy this. Since when a ice particle or crystal senses a missile being fired upon? Since when a ice crystal seems to move in a inteligent way, change direction and increase the speed in that way?
They think we're stupid?


A missile? Do we humans have missiles that can reach the heghts of the shuttle? Missiles mind you, not rockets is what I am talking about. The "missile" in the video appears to be travelling straight out from Earth. All rockets and missiles gain altitude by entering into orbit, as this takes much less energy to achieve than to fight gravity and go straight up. The shuttle itself uses this trajectory to acheive orbit. Consider also that in the time it would take a missile if it were designed to go straight up to that height would the target even be anywhere nearby? It would take minutes to get there, and people that llege that these objects are intelligently controlled craft (a la Sereda) also allege that the velocity and maneuverability are extreme to say the least.

Google some sprite videos and you will see what looks exactly like the "missile" in the video.

I would like to add, that I consider myself extremely open minded to the possibility that we are not alone as far as intelligent technological life in the universe or the possibility that such intelligent life has visited Earth. It's what keeps me reading ATS.

Unfortunately for this segment of what I like to call modern folklore, too many people can profit from book and video sales with extreme and completely unfounded theories stated as fact and jumped to conclusions.

Almost any scientist will admit in the first thirty seconds of their special field of study that there are many unknown phenomena, which is one of the reasons they study their field. I am very wary of the whole "we don't know how to explain it, so it must be alien, buy my book" crowd. There are some good scientists out there studying many of these phenomena (Dr Bruce Maccabbee for example). The book-sellers always claim that their supposed smoking guns are dismissed or ignored by science.

They lie. And they lie mostly to people that want to believe the lies.

Ever hear of Roswell Rods? Google it. People claiming that previously undiscovered life forms exist on earth, and only since the invention of the modern camcorder have they been discovered. Optical experts have immediately explained them for what they are, insects. Insects that because the way a camcorder records a frame of visual data, are distorted by motion blur. Yet, go on a site promoting Roswell Rods and the "phenomena" is alive and kicking!

Keep in mind when viewing any evidence that the instruments that record the evidence must be taken into account. Modern video equipment will cause items to appear to be pulsating in colors when under extreme magnification, such as when amateurs try to analyze UFO footage. The recording equipment was simply not designed to be of such a high resolution as to distinguish glare from actual object at high magnification.

A good example is the ridiculous belief that dropa stone shaped craft are flying around the space shuttle. What are the odds that:

A) Dropa shaped craft from Sirius are flying around the shuttle, and have NEVER been seen at different angles, always center hole pointed directly at the camera

or

B) Some characteristic of the video recording equipment has created artifacts that take that shape, whether through some software or hardware related process?

Keep in mind that video is not film. Film is used by reconnaissance aircraft and satellites so that it can be magnified and viewed. Video and digital cameras capture light and then make a representation onto a magnetic tape or other digital media. It this translation of actual images into representative ones, all kinds of wierdness can happen.

As for the rest of this video, what credibility does Mr. Sereda have left?



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Well your explanation make sens and I agree that not everything flying in space is a ufo. But what are the odds that a object changes its trajectory or direction exactly when another unknwon object is about to hit it or collide with it?
I've wrote missile in my post but I think that's irrilevant. At this point is not important what kind of weapon it is. I don't think there are naive members in this forum to think that the government says everything and makes public every new weapon
As for Bruce Maccabbee you should check more and you'll see that he is not the brilliant scientist that he claimes to be.
He pretendes to be and expert in photography even though doesn't have the right education and most of his claimes about certain UFO related photos are pure BS. He (and William Moore) was part of the counter intelligence operation played upon Linda Molton Howe and Paul Bennewitz back in the 80-s and has been debunked since.

P.S. As for the Roswell Rods that's totally different thing. We're talking about huge objects in size (miles long. I'm refering to Sereda's video).



[edit on 7-6-2006 by Telos]



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Hmm, I will certainly look into Dr Maccabee's credibility. I base my respect for scientists in this are on how they treat evidence and what conclusions they draw. It was Dr M that helped to resolve the Ros Rods. But I will certainly look into it. Thanks.

As far as the size of the objects in question, there is no way to determine the distance from the shuttle based on the video. It could be three feet or three thousand miles for all we know. I do know that Mr Sereda is fuzzy on his Newtonian physics to say the least.

But to me the real smoking gun in that video is the sudden acceleration of the Earth's rotation which coincides with changes in movement of these objects. Something is wrong here. It indicates that there is no reliable time reference as well. So, how can Sereda conclude things like distance travelled when he can't conclude distance to the object(s) and therefore distance travelled and the timeframe itself? Basic Kinematics (Newtonain physics of motion) is d=vt, or distance = velocity times time. Solve for velocity is v=d/t. Well there is no way to solve for v when you can't come close to estimating d and t. Also, the video ends with the object appearing to be at the horizon, this is not proof that the object did indeed curve around the earth at 100 miles altitude.

I don't fault Dan Aykroyd for believing in the ET visits, I just wish he didn't associate himself with Sereda. Sereda imo is a kook or an opportunist, and at $24.95 for his video and $14.95 for his book I am leaning towards the latter.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Spock

But to me the real smoking gun in that video is the sudden acceleration of the Earth's rotation which coincides with changes in movement of these objects. Something is wrong here.


Right you mean on the Video " Evidence: The Case for NASA UFO's Part one" at 35:24 on the video and 41:15.

Just like I pointed out two days ago on this thread here...

Dan Akroyds new video and his personal experiences



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 03:23 PM
link   
yeah lost_shaman, that's what I mean. I like the refocusing or camera zooming. so plausable when you see it all together.

I don't respect "researchers" who jump to such ridiculous claims because they already know where they want their research to end up. Isn't it possible that ET/EDs could both have visited us in the past and also NOT be buzzing around the shuttle?



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 03:25 PM
link   


Isn't it possible that ET/EDs could both have visited us in the past and also NOT be buzzing around the shuttle?



How does that make sense, i dont see.

Are you of the opinion we are not being visited?



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 03:37 PM
link   
I actually believe something is going on. Believe, yes. Have any kind of proof? No, unfortunately. I truly believe that if you look at the kind of people that won WW2 for us, people like Maj Jesse Marcel, these people would not want to be remembered as pranksters for all eternity. This was not how their generation lived. Today we go on fear factor and eat crap and make fools of ourselves for the five minutes of fame. But not then. not people like Jesse Marcel and the multitude of people that came out of the Roswell story.

Was Marcel a hoaxer or an idiot that didn't know what a paper radar target was? I don't buy hoaxer as too many people came out to support him. And as far as idiot, he was the Air Intelligence Officer for the freakin 509th bomb group, the only nuclear-capable bomber wing in the entire world. It was his job to know what us and any other nation could put into the air. There is no way that he would mistake balsa wood and foil covered paper for any kind of craft, terrestrial or otherwise.

I believe something happened there. But what happened we may never really know.

But along the way I don't want to jump in and believe every Dave Sereda that comes along with his snake oil. It is unfortunate imo that spewing crap as "evidence" can be profitable.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 03:41 PM
link   


I actually believe something is going on. Believe, yes. Have any kind of proof?


Thats all this thread is all about, NASA deny these things, they exist!.
Explain some, explain 90%, that still leaves trhe 10% that is true.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by eaglewingz
There are a lot of references to the "official NASA explanation", but I haven't been able to find a link yet. But yes, I believe NASA has commented on the videos somewhere.


Originally posted by ADVISOR
Is the flash at 7 sec what is thought of to be lightning?


No, actually the flash is thought to be a jet from the Reaction Control System.
Here is the info from James Oberg, including the flash explanation.


Second, the optical appearance of RCS jet firings is well known
and familiar to experienced observers, and they look just like
the flash in question. These have been observed and videotaped on
every shuttle mission, from the crew cabin, from payload bay and
RMS cameras, and from cameras on nearby free-flying satellites,
and from ground optical tracking cameras as well.




then what is the object moving away?


[edit on 7-6-2006 by Denied]



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Spock

I truly believe that if you look at the kind of people that won WW2 for us, people like Maj Jesse Marcel, these people would not want to be remembered as pranksters for all eternity. This was not how their generation lived.


I don't think Maj. Jesse Marcel will go down in History as a prankster, the Air Force has already publically admitted the "Weather Balloon" story was a "Cover" for something. And that by itself clears Maj. Marcel of any wrong doing.

I do also think there is something going on in space , but that David Sereda obviously misinterpreted some of his analysis.

I am rather fond of www.projectprove.com... though , and I think there are many "unexplained events" present on NASA Select T.V. footage.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 03:59 PM
link   


I do also think there is something going on in space , but that David Sereda obviously misinterpreted some of his analysis.


I definitely agree, after listening to everyone i see what your saying, but the original video posted was a object, something going in a direction, a flash, then it shooting off in a different direction?

[edit on 7-6-2006 by Denied]



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 04:16 PM
link   
I think ppl may be mixing up the flash with the sprite. the thing referred to as a missile earlier sure looks a lot like sprites in the upper atmosphere.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Denied,

As to your original question on this thread you asked had NASA said anything about this?

The Answer is yes , this I believe would be the STS-48 Mission and NASA would have you believe your looking at an "ice crystal" being blown into space by one of the RCS attitude control thrusters. Of course the perspective and angles for that are all wrong and awkward to even imagine , but thats what they would have you believe.

I find that explanation very much lacking myself.







[edit on 7-6-2006 by lost_shaman]



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 04:25 PM
link   
nasa is told to keep their mouths shut about the alien presense and is sworn to secrecy under the terms of national security



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   
"Well there are theories about the flash, not sure how that would make an object deviate at the same time?"

If the flash was an explosion that created a shock wave and the obnject i question was hit with a shockwave it would make it deviate from it's course.

It does not defy the laws of physics although I am inclined to agree that the object does not appear to be an ice crystal and the question begs to differ where and how did an explosion occur especially on that creates a large shockwave.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 05:48 PM
link   
The_Doctor,

I'd have to ask , how do you have a shock wave in space?

You would need to be describing a local explosion of gas to even have a limited shock wave in the vacuum of space.




[edit on 7-6-2006 by lost_shaman]



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ayleon
nasa is told to keep their mouths shut about the alien presense and is sworn to secrecy under the terms of national security


Ayleon, thats it? Can you tell us whether this is your opinion or if it can be backed up by anything?

Also, you can have shock waves in space. You can have waves in any medium. There is scientific evidence that the spiral arms in our milky way and other galaxies are actually shock waves.

As far as this video, I don't think a shock wave is at work here, since the original object changes trajectory before the sprite (flash?) even comes in to view.

The big problem is there is no way to determine how large and how far away these objects are.

Can anyone point to a good source for this video? the one I have is short and tiny.

tia



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Mr Spock,

That seriously depends on what your calling a "Shock Wave". Here on Earth we are constantly surrounded by gases under pressure, and a "Shock Wave" that would exert force on an object such as an "explosion" , causes the gases to compress forming a "pressure wave" A.K.A. "Shock Wave" that will exert force on surrounding objects as the "pressure wave" travels through the gas.

There is no "gas" Per Se in "space" , therefore no "pressure waves" and no "traveling" , as in a vacuum the "gas" from an "explosion" would simply disperse because there is no surrounding "gases" to compress.

So in space there would not be any "Shock Waves" that are exerting force on objects in space capable of reversing an objects trajectory as seen on the video.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join