STS-75 like UFO videotaped from the ground

This is what I would call astounding footage. I have no doubts this is the same type of object, which can be seen in the "Smoking Gun" video.

www.rense.com...









[edit on 12-5-2006 by Leevi]

It seems illogical to me to admit that the "notch and fluff" effect is a camera artefact and yet to claim that the exact same image appearing on the STS video is not an artefact.

When rense claims that the exact same effect observed on the STS video must be entirely different, they are essentially making as an absurd a statement as that stpid MOD report, and in my opinion, doing the community a grave disservice.

Lets stay scientific here. If the notch and fuzz effect is a camera effect, lets be adults and admit it. This doesn't detract from the question of "What the hell are those things floating in eliptical patterns around the length of the tether?"

Admit it: The objects are point like. Say it to yourself a few times. They are 70 km away from the camera, it seems, as they interact with the tether (they aren't near field dust) and they are point like from this distance. The fluffy nothced disk efect is a camera effect. Suck it up. Its ok.

Lets focus on te real mysteries instead of our desires. These supposedly boring "ice particles" were floating AROUND the length of the tether. So what were they?

Could ice particles be so charged as to circle the highly charged tether and its potential current? Or are they somjething more exotic, even ET? This is the question, and if the fluffy disks don't trn out to be fluffy disks, well then, welcome to my world, the world of professional science. The one where we have to learn things the hard way.

[edit on 12-5-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]

If i could reproduce that exact effect, would it be an effective debunk?

Better yet, i will tell you how to do it, so you can witness it yourself...

get a video camera...(higher resolutions dont work as well as lower)
video tape a bright star, and digitally zoom in on it... wait until the picture fills the frame.

You have just tricked the digital zoom of a camera to "interpret" all those concentric "waves" into being...
all from a simple single star...

neat huh?
now you know for when you see the next "perfect round fuzzy (sometimes with a "pie cut" into it) ufo.

I am sorry to remove this kind of sighting from the UFO mainstream, but they should be...
they are just zoomed stars...

LazarusTheLong

You haven't watched the videos. Please watch, then comment.

Is this a star ?

www.rense.com...

No, to me it probably isn't.










[edit on 12-5-2006 by Leevi]

doesn't have to be a star...
just a bright light...

the artifact effect is merely thru the zoom of a light object against a dark background.
the film was too short to see any movement, just the object, and a very bright light closer to us.

If a ufo was zoomed and videotaped at night, it might very well look exactly the same, but would be making erratic movements that could not be done by conventional craft.
(otherwise there would be nothing setting it apart from a star anyway- hence, not effective proof)

I beleive that some of the NASA footage is that type of artifact...
true UFO's in orbit, but fuzzed by a zoom to be unrecognizable as what they are (spacecraft)
the ones that fly very close to the shuttle are most likely the other type, fuzzy zoomed pics of dust/debris from the shuttle itself IMO.

I dont comment lightly, but after many hours of studying these and others...
I also have done a fair amount of night time video taping, and can tell you, that you wont beleive how easy this effect is to produce (with and without the pie cut/contrary to rense promoted fact)

but dont take my word for it, try it yourself... seeing is beleiving...

LazarusTheLong

I really appreciate your UFO watching experience but to me your comments only bear a striking similarity to famous James Oberg's down-to-earth and not so convincing explanations of such events. This object is not a star or a bright light, as you call it.
You don't like it during the night ? It was also captured in the daytime..

www.rense.com...

I also have done a fair amount of night time video taping, and can tell you, that you wont beleive how easy this effect is to produce

Please produce if you can.

If a ufo was zoomed and videotaped at night, it might very well look exactly the same, but would be making erratic movements that could not be done by conventional craft. (otherwise there would be nothing setting it apart from a star anyway- hence, not effective proof)

Well, this is an incredible conclusion. Thank you.







[edit on 12-5-2006 by Leevi]

I think it's fake personally it could be the moon or a lamp post for all i know. not to mention the extremely short length of the video and no voices in the audio. If i seen a UFO i would be like whoa! and freakin out as most would.

It may also be a reflection from the light on a peice of glass as well. this video is sketchy at best. The light source in front of the camera, no movement, no voices etc. I personally think it's either a camera trick, lamp post, moon or some other type of fakery.

the second video is pretty cool however the one thing that kinda bugs me about it is how did the camera man know exactly when and where to film it. As if he/she knew it was going to be there. The video just did not seem spontaneus enough for me. The videos I think have credability are the ones that start filming after they see something emerge not before or right as soon as it happens. Again in this video to you can hear the audio yet no voice...

I have seen some pretty bogus things on rense before....

I think it's fake personally it could be the moon or a lamp post for all i know

The moon is the reference on some of the videos. The object isn't a moon.

The light source in front of the camera, no movement, no voices etc. I personally think it's either a camera trick, lamp post, moon or some other type of fakery.

Please check out the site, a link to which I provided in my first post on this forum. It's right above. There is a lot more for you there and not only videos.

one thing that kinda bugs me about it is how did the camera man know exactly when and where to film it. As if he/she knew it was going to be there.

We may associate such comments with any UFO video, which exists, don't we. Go on.

to ALL

Please don't be lazy and check out the link in the first post. It is indispensable in order to make reputable comments in this thread.



[edit on 12-5-2006 by Leevi]

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Check this NASA video out..
deny.ignorance.perso.cegetel.net...

They appear to be living beings.

Although I haven’t checked out the video link in the first post, I have seen the footage of STS-75 in David Sereda Evidence: The Case for NASA UFOs .

LazarusTheLong If you watch the video you will see some of the “UFO’s” move behind the tether wire. This discounts the floating dust particle. Would the zoom effect you describe do this?

I encourage everyone to find and check Evidence: The Case for NASA UFO, I just watched the first part (which ends with the STS-75 footage). I’m about to watch the second part now.

Has David Sereda’s work been debunked? I searched his name on ATS, and it doesn’t appear that it has. (the video is available on his site here. Haven’t seen it on google video, but it’s available on many file sharing programs. (lecture is 4 hour long)

I came accross video while looking for all 5 segments of the STS-48 videos. (recorded from NASA Direct TV)

I agree with you that it appears some of the objects move behind the tether. But the 'shadows' on the tether may not actually be shadows. The could just be saturation on the CCD. As a result, it will appear that the objects move beind the tether as they pass over the saturated elements that are completely black. At least that is NASA's explanation.

Now, I tried to look this up on the Internet and could not find any reference to saturation causing black features. But it is what some officials report happens with those cameras.

This would inolve CCD saturation. I am going to try this with my digital camera in an otherwise low-light setting and see what happens.

If I can't reproduce the effect, or otherwise find documented instances of this effect, then I may choose to view their explanation skeptically.

This is the case of british contactee Abby Parker from Bedhampton, Havant. I followed her stories and images back in 2002-2003. Great encounters with ufo crafts and entities. Also known as Bambi she became famous in the Internet.

Abby Parker's official researcher is mexican ufologist Santiago Yturria who presented her case at the International UFO Congress in Laughin, Nevada.

Some links with more information about Abby Parker.

www.rense.com...

www.qtm.net...