I saw a piece of film footage that looked the same with different speaker on TV in the past week, I think the show was called In Search of.........

They said that a laser of some kind was shot from Earth at this ship. It seems that a few people are looking at this as true since this is the second piece I have seen in a short period of time and they are coming to the same conclusion.

I don't think there is a secret war going on but I do agree that that looks like somthing leaving the earth,and to do that it would have to be propelled by somthing or have an engine.

It is not an ice crystal or weewee from the shuttle either.

We really need stereo imaaging to make any clear statements.

I would really like to know where the claim that the object was 350 miles away comes from. Where was that fact established and how?


If NASA wants UFO freaks to shut up, then the parallax determining object distance would be sufficient to do so,... so demand that NASA start using pairs of cameras separated by 10 meters or so.

[edit on 10-8-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]

Very interesting. and the way that UFO suddenly 1- changes directly abrubtly and 2- speeds away so quickly in the opposite direction in which it was originally travelling proves the following:
1- it wasn't a meteor, space debris, or ice
2- it wasn't a man made vehicle

Originally posted by Purgatory
Very interesting. and the way that UFO suddenly 1- changes directly abrubtly and 2- speeds away so quickly in the opposite direction in which it was originally travelling proves the following:
1- it wasn't a meteor, space debris, or ice
2- it wasn't a man made vehicle

I disagree. It only proves those things if we agree that the object is 350 miles away. We need to establish that as fact. If it is 350 miles away, then I would agree with you. But I want to know where the 350 claim comes from.

[edit on 10-8-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]

I think way too many people have stared at this particular bit of video for way too long until they've lost their minds. Also, people have seen way too much Star Trek, where you can see a phaser beam start and stop. A particle beam weapon would look like a big flashlight being turned off and on.

And I don't see the connection between these floating bits of ice (350 miles? 7000 miles an hour? Where did they get those figures?) and Corso and his disinformation book.

But go ahead and believe it all, even though it makes no sense.

1- I don't watch star trek. perhaps other people like to watch it...
2- I watched this video once.
3- The object (whatever it is- clearly not ice) stops and changes direction, then speeds off. Let me know when you're done explaining what type of "ice" does that. thanks.

On the May 21, 2005 edition of "Dreamland" (www.unknowncountry.com), in a conversation with Greg Bishop, the subject of STS 48 came up. Whitley Strieber said that at the time that piece of video was shot, the shuttle was over Australia, and that "bolt of light" originated from Pine Gap.

Personally, I have my doubts that what we see there is a laser; you wouldn't see the beginning and end of the shot if it was, the speed of light being just a little faster than our eyes could perceive.

But some sort of Tesla-style electrical discharge super weapon? To my mind, that might be a little more plausible than Star Trek-style beam weaponry.

It is a compelling piece of video, isn't it?

Baack

Originally posted by Purgatory
1- I don't watch star trek. perhaps other people like to watch it...
2- I watched this video once.
3- The object (whatever it is- clearly not ice) stops and changes direction, then speeds off. Let me know when you're done explaining what type of "ice" does that. thanks.

Darn it! Even I am I'm losing my patience a bit. I'm fairly open minded. I defend the potential that Lazar is not a liar. I consider ways to test Lear's claims. I listen to Star Nations. I go frame by frame through UFO footage, but these STS claims just drive me nuts!!!!

Purgatory, the other possibilty is that a small object close to the space shuttle would change its motion relative to the camera as the space shuttle changes velocity following a thruster firing as follows:
Space shuttle is going on one vector (1) then the thruster fires (2) then the space shuttle is on another vector, making its motion relative to the small object change linearly (2) then another small object comes into the viewscreen.

That is a possible solution. And we get from there to a UFO and a TESLA plasma weapon? Occam's razor anyone?

To justify your claims of 'proof' you need to demonstrate that the object is 350 miles away. Does NASA say it is 350 miles away? Who says it? Where did that figure come from that conveniently pops up in the video?

I'm open minded about all of this and if it is 350 miles away, all you have to do is demosntrate that fact. Then the deal is sealed. If in fact the object is 350 miles away, then this is a BIG DEAL. Because, if the object is 350 miles away, then there is no way that the relative motion of the lit up object could be caused by the shuttle suddenly changing its velocity vector. The shuttle is simply far too massive to produce that kind of acceleration. (Look at me, I have to write everything like a sound bite to be self encapsulated, because someone will take this out of context. Why not? It appears to be standard practice in the UFO community...!! )

But to my knowlege, we have no information about the objects size or position, that I am aware of, other than some video with a guy with an authoritarian sounding Enligh reporter-man accent with spooky music in the background claims that it is so.

There is no way that 'shot' is a laser either. Its probably just another particle.

But assuming the first object IS 350 miles away, then it is more likely that it is a ball of plasma or just a big chunk of enriched uranium. You can't see a lasar in a vacuum. This is not the movie Star Wars or the "phasors' on star trek.

Now I'm going to go take a chill pill and do some meditating.

[edit on 10-8-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]

[edit on 10-8-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]

The skeptics will always be right in there own mindset. You can't find enough proof for a skeptic before they meet an alien themself.

Originally posted by InSaneTK
The skeptics will always be right in there own mindset. You can't find enough proof for a skeptic before they meet an alien themself.

Why, InsaneTK! You almost make it sound sinful and socially degrading to require proof that is based on more than, "someone said so", or just because it may feel that way. Or because someone channeled it from the Galactic Empire Representative to Earth Sector... Or someone saw reptilian aliens below the airport in Denver.

Ectoterrestrial has it right. There are far too many vagueries involving this tape, which has been around for alot of years, to be taken at face value. For the mission tape to be considered valid or factual, one must, simply, make far too many unverifiable assumptions.

It crosses my mind that we might ought to quit trying to chase UFOs around the sky, knowing that we will never catch them, unless they want to be caught, and start looking further afield for answers. Everything else that is evaluated, investigated, and eventually held as verity by someon in UFOlogy, too often, smacks of bad sci-fi authorship. Either that, or in the end, it is only truth if someone is able to suspend their rational side, and assume validity based on assumption (Is that last part a valid assumption? )

And before anyone gets their knickers in a twist, I am one of those fence sitters who would love for it all to come out the "right" way. I'd like to wake one morning, and find that the government finally broke down and confessed. I think it would be cool to actually uncover an alien reptilian plot to take us over and make us food, which we vanquish through honest effort and gallant battle.

Alas ... There is no real evidence other than generally subjective observation, surmise, and guesstimation that makes little sense to the outcome.

explain to me.. what are the chances that a flash of light occurs.. then almost immediately causing this 'object' to go in a totally different direction then which it was flying. THEN a weird shot of light streaming past this object as it quickly reverses on out.


350 miles away or not, denying these abnormal coincidences is ridiculous..


i understand your theory on the rockets causing a thrust to make the object appear as if it moved backwards, but really being something natural and just an illusion portrayed by the camera... but too many coincidences take place, which lead me to believe something of different origin is being interfered with. my two cents

Originally posted by Malakai
explain to me.. what are the chances that a flash of light occurs.. then almost immediately causing this 'object' to go in a totally different direction then which it was flying. THEN a weird shot of light streaming past this object as it quickly reverses on out.

350 miles away or not, denying these abnormal coincidences is ridiculous..

I respect your opinion, but if there is a lot of junk floating around then it definitely isn't too many coincidences. In a fish bowl full or particles, you could find a similar occurance froma moving camera perspective consistently.

The first object is moving relative to the shuttle very close by (it is a small piece of something) then the shuttle fires its thrusters. The new changes the velocity of the shuttle and thus the object changes apparent motion. The second object, which is closer to the shuttle and was relativelyt stationary relative to the shuttle before, now goes flying by the shuttle. That's the scenario that does not involve ETs, alien space ships, tesla guns, orsecret government wars.

350 miles? Lets prove it. I want to prove it. It would change the world.

What these video producers do is take advantage of people's inability to distinguish relative motion of objects due to the relatively stationary image of the large planet earth in the background. They prey on that.

There is even an STS video where the change in motion of an object is clearly due to camera zoom. But the editor of videos does a pan and scan on the image so that you can't see the zoom (you have to look at the original footage.) Its down right flim flam sometimes and it is a terrible tragedy for the field.

The real question that needs to be answered is about the distance to the object.

Is it at 350 miles difference. If it is, that changes everything.

So I will ask again, where did the number 350 miles come from?

I'll try to find this answer myself, and if I discover anything I will post it here. Until then, I'm not convinced by arguments that claim that there is clearly a war act here.

I'm flattered to be called a skeptic. Most of the time I am accused of being too lenient. I shoudl stop sticking with evidentiality and benefit of the doubt and start being a partisan like everyone else here Not being a partisan is tough in the modern world.

[edit on 10-8-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]

it said it was a plasma beam. i used to work with plasma beams for intel corporation and my roomate still does. i can tell you this:

a plasma beam that sustains a half a million volt equivilant will...

burn a hole in paper over seconds. so....

i can honestly say that to fire a plasma weapon capable of taking down even a fighter jet...

would be theoretically possible, but require an insane amount of energy.

that being said, it can be magnetic energy or electricity used to manipulate the plasma. here on earth it is usually both.

also, even under the best conditions on earth, plasma isnt so great of a weapon becasue it needs a vacuum to prosper. so i doubt that is a plasma beam shot from earth.

soooo, if they have an insane amount of energy it could very well be a plasma beam being shot. maybe thats how gravity drives work, converting gravity to magnetic force and vice versa.

Its true, this footage has been shown in many contexts, some better than others. Lets just say the format presented in this link is one of my least favorites.

But I have never been conviced by this footage precisely because it is the scale of the obejcts that is never distinguished.

It is interesting that NASA could very quickly end all speculation simply by placing a couple of cameras in parallax and DEMONSTRATING that the particles are close by. But they do not. Instead, they take ants to space to see how they spin around, take worms to space, take crystals to space, etc, etc, etc.

It seems to me they could do A GREAT PUBLIC service by verifying their claim of ice crystals with a VERY VERY SIMPLE PARALLAX Experiment.

Now, they would claim that they already know they are. But so what? We are paying for this equipment. I say we ask for a simple set of parallax cameras. And we can argue it would improve their data for watching foam fall off the tanks.

Anyways, anyone who likes this video, I would appreciate if you would also dig into the 350 mile claim whenever you get the chance.

Plasma weapons were the original claim, yes, and I can't think of any reason to be ablke to refute that claim. Wouldn't it be a hell of a lot less expensive to just throw a high veolicty mass at them, though? I mean, the shearing containment forces required to build up that much plasma and accelerate it....

.... well, maybe that 'collider' in texas was completed after all

Anyways, lets keep up the investigative end of this stuff.

350 miles? Lets find out.

As far as the secret war theory, we have to be careful not to assume that our potential 'opponents' are fighting a war back. They might not be. It might not even make sense to them to do so. It might not even be important to them. Think of a beehive keeper. The bees might be fighting a 'secret war' with the beekeeper, but the beekeeper doesn't see it that way. He just extracts the honey he wants and then walks away, laughing about the stings.

[edit on 11-8-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]

[edit on 11-8-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]

I think those quotes are very interesting. I'm not going to try to explain what they saw. But that's entirely independent of what this video contains.

The question here is how far away is the object that 'is being shot at'?

There is NO QUESTION, in my mind, that astronauts have seen Bogeys up there that they have been told to shut up about. But that is a different issue from the video in question here.

Also, the quoute about the "Alien spacecraft under observance" was later recanted by the person who originally recorded it, because he said he heard the same voice say the same thing a year later when there was a different shuttle crew, for what thats worth.

(p.s. thanks for the link to those quotes)

[edit on 11-8-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]

Originally posted by Purgatory

2- it wasn't a man made vehicle

What suggest's to you that man can not or has not developed such craft? Just interested since it does not seem at all obvious to me..

Stellar