Interdimensional UFO's Explained By David Sereda (NASA Tapes)

By the way, is this the video where Sereda claims to have discovered Pamela Anderson,
and to have met Jesus 3 times and the Virgin Mary once? . .Amzing guy!! .

reply to post by JimOberg


Actually I personally find Sereda very informative...Since I know absolutely nothing or even looked into before interdimentional UFO's, this is completely new to me....I thought it was interesting so I threw it on here for review....

Did you watch his presentation at the UFO conference?? It was quite amazing I must say....

right. this bloke in the video looks no more than 40 years old.
he looks mid-30's to me.
so how come he seen a ufo in 1968???
he clearly states it a couple of times.
i dont know anything about this sereda guy but imho, he's a crock of crap

That's my favourite video of bright objects filmed from the Space Shuttle.

Not because of "UFOs coming from a different dimension" or "energy level", but because of the bright object that is moving from the lower right corner to the middle of the screen and that appears to get "stuck" to the high atmosphere.

For some reason, David Sereda finds the other object (probably a small piece of ice) more interesting, as do most of the people that say that this video shows alien crafts.

Interesting, but Sereda's explanation doesn't explain a thing.

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
I'll wait for Phage or Chadwickus to clarify what we're seeing in these.

Was going to say JimOberg and thought it was strange if he hadn't posted yet as I was scrolling down. Made me laugh when I saw he was already here at the bottom of the page.

Reply to post by dannotz

70 YEARS?? A lot longer than that I am afraid. The other beings that were banished here have been working with the human leaders all along. Soon enough they will make theirselves known, TPTB know this and are pulling the band-aid off very slowly. If a mothership landed on the White House lawn tomorrow only the idiots would panic, and since they are idiots they will panic no matter when disclosure happens. The idiots are nothing to worry about though, they will be to busy eating crow to be a bother to anyone.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Interdimensional jumping would be what this looks like to me:

Originally posted by robhines

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
I'll wait for Phage or Chadwickus to clarify what we're seeing in these.

Was going to say JimOberg and thought it was strange if he hadn't posted yet as I was scrolling down. Made me laugh when I saw he was already here at the bottom of the page.

I'm putting the finishing touches on my expanded 'UFO' section of my
home page, largely in response to the misconceptions and misunderstandings
that I've encountered on these threads from intelligent, sincere people who really DO
want to understand this stuff but haven't been shown crucial information --

and I'll have a lot of source material re Sereda's claims there.

Here it is as of now:

www.jamesoberg.com/ufo.html

Originally posted by ArMaP
That's my favourite video of bright objects filmed from the Space Shuttle.

Not because of "UFOs coming from a different dimension" or "energy level", but because of the bright object that is moving from the lower right corner to the middle of the screen and that appears to get "stuck" to the high atmosphere.

For some reason, David Sereda finds the other object (probably a small piece of ice) more interesting, as do most of the people that say that this video shows alien crafts.

Interesting, but Sereda's explanation doesn't explain a thing.

So if you think that the "other object" could be a small piece of ice, how about the object that "appears to get 'stuck' to the high atmosphere" do you also think it is ice?

I find that using terms such as "ice (crystals)", shuttle debris, water dumps, etc., to be explanations that insult intelligence. Why would astronauts manning cameras find it necessary to use ultra-zooms to close in on ice crystals if they're in the vicinity of the shuttle where there is no need to videograph ice particles and if there is a need, an ultra-zoom is unnecessary since an ultra-zoom is employed for a far away object. And to top it all, when the zoom is brought back to normal and one sees the side of the shuttle and the camera has to refocus 'cause now it is filming a real nearby surface, this whole ice thing gets silly.

I say the above not necessarily because of your comments but because you used "ice" as an explanation and "ice" is the bane of out space UFOs enthusiasts. Oberg's favorite term, BTW.

There have been shuttle documentaries shown on TV that include scenes of water dumps, ice crystals, shuttle debris, etc., and none of them look or behave like the white, round objects seen in various NASA videos and shown at distance, and at speed.

Originally posted by BeforeTheHangmansNoose
Also i find the legitimacy of videos explaining the nature of ufos hard to grasp when they use overly dramatic music

Youtube ufo/conspiracy theory video with added music = fake.

intriguing vid/explanation

so, for each 'dimension' per say, theres a lower and upper limit of vibrational energy levels

like on a radio we may be tuned into one fQ but it doesnt mean others aren't also there on rest of bandwidth?

awesome!

Originally posted by JimOberg
I'm putting the finishing touches on my expanded 'UFO' section of my
home page, largely in response to the misconceptions and misunderstandings
that I've encountered on these threads from intelligent, sincere people who really DO
want to understand this stuff but haven't been shown crucial information --

and I'll have a lot of source material re Sereda's claims there.

Here it is as of now:

www.jamesoberg.com/ufo.html

Awesome, thanks, will make sure to have a read.

Originally posted by The Shrike

I find that using terms such as "ice (crystals)", shuttle debris, water dumps, etc., to be explanations that insult intelligence.

You've shown sharp intelligence that strikes me as deservedly immune from petty insults, so please don't think you have any reasons to have your feelings hurt. The explanations that insult all of our intelligence are the mocking ones like 'swamp gas' provided here by posters trying to argue non-rationally against ANY prosaic explanations.

Why would astronauts manning cameras find it necessary to use ultra-zooms to close in on ice crystals if they're in the vicinity of the shuttle where there is no need to videograph ice particles and if there is a need, an ultra-zoom is unnecessary since an ultra-zoom is employed for a far away object.

As has been explained before, astronauts aren't doing the zooming usually -- it's most often the INCO console in Mission Control -- but the reason is obvious: unidentified stuff outside the shuttle could be a hazard that requires thorough checking. This has been recognized by NASA for fifty years. Most of the stuff is quickly recognized as dandruff, like ice or jettisoned materials during spacewalks, but some have been pieces of heat shielding or other mechanical parts. The greatest 'missed' opportunity was on 'Columbia' when the broke-off portion of the left wing leading edge shielding drifted away a day after launch, leaving a hole that would kill the entire crew -- but nobody noticed, and missed a chance for rescue or repair efforts to save their lives. The departure was only detected AFTER the accident by a careful examination of raw radar sweeps.

And to top it all, when the zoom is brought back to normal and one sees the side of the shuttle and the camera has to refocus 'cause now it is filming a real nearby surface, this whole ice thing gets silly.

Most often what people misinterpret as 'zooming' -- or manual focus control -- is actually the cameras automatic gain control [AGC] adjusting the vidicon pixel sensitivity in the tremendous brightness changes that characterize sunlit space scenes. It would be silly to assume without actually finding out, how the cameras actually work.

I say the above not necessarily because of your comments but because you used "ice" as an explanation and "ice" is the bane of out space UFOs enthusiasts. Oberg's favorite term, BTW.

And actually the source of >95% of the videos and other visual records of 'stuff' outside -- do you dispute that? Not ALL -- that's why you've got to check -- but overwhelmingly "most".

Tere have been shuttle documentaries shown on TV that include scenes of water dumps, ice crystals, shuttle debris, etc., and none of them look or behave like the white, round objects seen in various NASA videos and shown at distance, and at speed.

Don't be so foolish as to trust that these documentaries -- which sell commercial time by promising customers a guaranteed hyper-credible audience with a propensity for believing anything they see on TV-- will fairly portray the visual environment of space. Small flashing dots that change course have often been shown to originate with fluid dumps or leaks. Please don't equate what you are allowed to be shown by producers and editors with an interest in promoting one point of view, to be the same as 'all evidence'.

Originally posted by The Shrike
So if you think that the "other object" could be a small piece of ice, how about the object that "appears to get 'stuck' to the high atmosphere" do you also think it is ice?

No, that's what makes it more interesting.
I don't have an idea of what it could have been, but it looks like it was attracted (or did it move on it's own?) to a specific point above Earth.

I find that using terms such as "ice (crystals)", shuttle debris, water dumps, etc., to be explanations that insult intelligence.

To me, there aren't any attempts at explaining any thing that insult intelligence, just explanations that are more or less likely to really explain some event.

Why would astronauts manning cameras find it necessary to use ultra-zooms to close in on ice crystals if they're in the vicinity of the shuttle where there is no need to videograph ice particles and if there is a need, an ultra-zoom is unnecessary since an ultra-zoom is employed for a far away object.

I think that, most of the times, the cameras are operated from the ground and not by the astronauts, so they can have their own schedule without being interrupted by things like looking around with the cameras.

I also don't see (or remember ever seeing) a video in which they zoom in on the ice/debris.

And to top it all, when the zoom is brought back to normal and one sees the side of the shuttle and the camera has to refocus 'cause now it is filming a real nearby surface, this whole ice thing gets silly.

The ice/debris explanation is based on the fact that a bright, out of focus object, will appear as a disc, so for some piece of ice/debris to appear as a disc it just has to be out of focus, something that can happen when zooming all the way in or out.

There have been shuttle documentaries shown on TV that include scenes of water dumps, ice crystals, shuttle debris, etc., and none of them look or behave like the white, round objects seen in various NASA videos and shown at distance, and at speed.

They were probably not out of focus.

This crazy ice explanation by skeptics & David Sereda's weird dimension stuff
... re: what the NASA tape Sereda is explaining shows,
are both more than can be determined by this, or any of the NASA tapes.

It is a UFO & it is something other than ice! The movement of the objects is not like ice
& the object that is coming from nowhere is also not dimension jumping...in my opinion.
Just like the NASA tapes so called 'tether incident'.
On that one too there is also no chance of an ice swarm..
( just ask yourself why the shuttle camera is only swarmed by ice, when the tether is at 90 miles & farther from the shuttle, yet no ice crystals appear to be swarming the camera in all the "tether is breaking" videos, when the tether is 1 ft. to even 1 mile.??) After all, there were no water dumps released before the tether breaks... and re: Sereda..
...leaping to a dimensional explanation of the NASA clip is also a stretch, although I do believe that some UFOs have a dimensional source... (but) This NASA tape is showing an enigma...a UFO... It can not be explained away as ice by Oberg or be used as a smoking gun for dimension jumping by Sereda! It is unknown...& a killer space video. Great topic..

Originally posted by buzzEmiller
This crazy ice explanation by skeptics ....
It is a UFO & it is something other than ice! The movement of the objects is not like ice...

I'm curious about how you've learned how ice SHOULD behave in space, near a spacecraft. Please explain to all of us on what experience or study basis you are an authority to proclaim this.

Just like the NASA tapes so called 'tether incident'.
On that one too there is also no chance of an ice swarm..
( just ask yourself why the shuttle camera is only swarmed by ice, when the tether is at 90 miles & farther from the shuttle, yet no ice crystals appear to be swarming the camera in all the "tether is breaking" videos, when the tether is 1 ft. to even 1 mile.??) After all, there were no water dumps released before the tether breaks... .

This clears a lot up regarding the source of your confusion.

When looking for an expert opinion, your plan is to ask yourself.

That certainly makes it easy to reach confident conclusions.

Had you asked somebody familiar with space shuttle operations -- anybody at all -- you might have been told that the video with the swarm is long, long after the initial break, and the shuttle has returned to routine operations.

Do you happen to KNOW how long after the break, these videos were made?

Please, what is your belief regarding that significant question?

Just ask yourself. What does that tell you?

This NASA tape is showing an enigma...a UFO... It can not be explained away as ice by Oberg or be used as a smoking gun for dimension jumping by Sereda! It is unknown...& a killer space video. Great topic..

Below is the video response of the TV cameras in the shuttle payload bay. Sereda insists, based only on his own powerful imagination, that they are ultraviolet cameras. Since they are not, as shown below, everything he bases on that fallacy, collapses.





Source: Technical specs on file at NASA-JSC, Houston.

Instead of guessing – wrong – about how the cameras operate, you can actually read the operating manual for them, here:

From INCO Console handbook, 1987 edition [Castle and Moolchan, authors]

CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION OVERVIEW

www.jamesoberg.com... (34 pages)

www.jamesoberg.com... (42 pages)

Originally posted by buzzEmiller
This crazy ice explanation by skeptics & David Sereda's weird dimension stuff
... re: what the NASA tape Sereda is explaining shows,
are both more than can be determined by this, or any of the NASA tapes.

It is a UFO & it is something other than ice! The movement of the objects is not like ice
& the object that is coming from nowhere is also not dimension jumping...in my opinion.
Just like the NASA tapes so called 'tether incident'.
On that one too there is also no chance of an ice swarm..
( just ask yourself why the shuttle camera is only swarmed by ice, when the tether is at 90 miles & farther from the shuttle, yet no ice crystals appear to be swarming the camera in all the "tether is breaking" videos, when the tether is 1 ft. to even 1 mile.??) After all, there were no water dumps released before the tether breaks... and re: Sereda..
...leaping to a dimensional explanation of the NASA clip is also a stretch, although I do believe that some UFOs have a dimensional source... (but) This NASA tape is showing an enigma...a UFO... It can not be explained away as ice by Oberg or be used as a smoking gun for dimension jumping by Sereda! It is unknown...& a killer space video. Great topic..

Amen!

As I mentioned, we have been shown water dumps, ice crystals, etc., and they have definite shapes, behave as expected, in reality are rarely seen. And then we have these objects that do not behave as ice crystals nor look like them. Prosaic explanations don't always cut the cake.

When it comes to this topic, there's them and there's us. I'm with us. If I was with them and didn't realize that there was something wrong with me I'd sound like them! Lordy, lordy, lordy, spare me!

Originally posted by The Shrike
And then we have these objects that do not behave as ice crystals nor look like them.

A small bright object out of focus will always look round, regardless of it's real shape.

Could you please tell us what's the difference in the behaviour of those objects and ice crystals? What do the objects do that ice crystals cannot do?

Originally posted by ArMaP
A small bright object out of focus will always look round, regardless of it's real shape.

Not true. The shape depends on the aperture. If the aperture is round, then the out of focus highlight will be too.