David Sereda discusses the Lake Erie UFO footage - and why it is not a plane

David Sereda discusses the Lake Erie UFO footage - and why it is not a plane as some at ATS has claimed.

www.youtube.com...

Also, Check out this other video I found at his youtube page, it is the same type of double orb object but it get's even closer, it is travelling from left to right until the end of the video where it changes direction and heads to the left without changing the orientation of it's two light's, it can't be a plane becasue if it was, the lights would have to change there positions if it turned and then went in the opposite direction.

What do you think? Here is a link to that clip
www.youtube.com...





[edit on 16-10-2007 by area512012]

Sereda/MLH is willfully using an intentionally skewed sense of perspective to further bolster an already ridiculous claim.

He wants people to see these lights as 100-300 yards over the lake instead of 15-20 miles, to see these lights as 30-40 feet above each other instead of far away and inline following each other, to wrongfully misrepresent video of aircraft flying in to land from the perspective of someone at the end of a runway wheras MLH was in Eastlake and not on the Cleveland shores, to show video of open lake without any shoreline giving the impression that the video was taken from that vantage point when MLH nightshots clearly show shoreline on the LHS of his shot, to illogically show the scintillating lights of a far distant aircraft being recorded through the heated evaporating waters of Lake Erie as being incorrect.

Of course he wants all of these things, anything else (the truth) doesnt fit his sales model very well.

He wants these things because he has an agenda and to hell with the truth for it. If he doesnt sell to the blithering masses he has available to him he has to get a real job. So he will say anything or do anything he has to to continue his quest in becoming the next JC in Ufology.

Nothing he has said in the vid rationally refutes the planes explanation, especially by using the videos he did.

Or they are not planes?

How about the video's of his that show just one ball of light?

Not a pair as in this video but they appear to be the same type of objects and it is clear to see they are pretty close
www.youtube.com...

Are those video's of planes flying around with just one huge ball of pulsating light?

I don't think so. Isn't it FAA rules that all planes must have seperate blinking lights?



[edit on 16-10-2007 by area512012]

Originally posted by area512012
How about the video's of his that show just one ball of light?

Granted as the data available becomes less and less discernable, the explanation being planes becomes harder to use as a conclusion, but in the same breath it also makes it very much harder to come to ANY rational conclusion at all, especially alien spacecraft or "orbs" - whatever the hell an "orb" is.

The lessening of data drives any or all discussions of what we are seeing into the realm of rabid speculation and fantasy as the amount of data becomes less and less available or pertinent, and that drive us further and further from the truth. Without good data people start to make stuff up to fit what they are seeing in their heads and then make the horrible mistake of starting to believe their own speculation as the truth or real. There IS a line that can be drawn in collecting data where the outcome will be nothing more than a wild guess.

Could a single source of light be alien spacecraft - not likely but its minutely possible. But see thats where MHL, Sereda, apparently you and those who "believe" like you are very different from me. I am at least in the minimum willing to admit that there is a very REMOTE chance these could be something more spectacular than what they most probably are. People in the "believing" they are ET camp flat out refuse to see anything terrestrial about these lights, period. Bias, agenda and willfull ignorance will kill any chance you have at getting to the truth on crap like this, everytime.

Odds being what they are ET is the most unlikely explanation. There is nothing non-terrestrial about how these behave. Anyway, the less data you have to work with the harder it is to come to a firm determination.

Possible? Sure, but it could also be a pair of granny panties caught in a summer breeze, geese, the ever so evil floating lanterns, OR still be an aircraft from a different perspective, light, angle, humidity, camera focus or the image could have been purposely or inadvertantly messed with. You have to look ALL angles when looking for answers, not just the ones you like.



[edit on 16-10-2007 by Lost_Mind]

whoever said anything about aliens?

If they are not planes, yet they flying, and are unidentified, that would make it a unidentified Flying Object, A UFO?

Oh, And about what a "ORB" is...

orb n. A sphere or spherical object.

Originally posted by area512012
whoever said anything about aliens?

If they are not planes, yet they flying, and are unidentified, that would make it a unidentified Flying Object, A UFO?

Oh, And about what a "ORB" is...

orb n. A sphere or spherical object.

Lets not be coy here, we all know what the underlying innuendo of these buzzwords are, especially when Sereda is using them as a descriptive so lets not pretend that these words are being used in their strictest Websters incarnation.

Originally posted by Lost_Mind

Originally posted by area512012
whoever said anything about aliens?

If they are not planes, yet they flying, and are unidentified, that would make it a unidentified Flying Object, A UFO?

Oh, And about what a "ORB" is...

orb n. A sphere or spherical object.

Lets not be coy here, we all know what the underlying innuendo of these buzzwords are, especially when Sereda is using them as a descriptive so lets not pretend that these words are being used in their strictest Websters incarnation.

The guy even says in the video....."I really don't know what they are"

It doesn't get much clearer than that, The only thing I seen being made up is idea's such as "intentionally skewed sense of perspective to further bolster an already ridiculous claim" and "Of course he wants all of these things, anything else (the truth) doesnt fit his sales model very well."

and

"He wants these things because he has an agenda and to hell with the truth for it. If he doesnt sell to the blithering masses he has available to him he has to get a real job. So he will say anything or do anything he has to to continue his quest in becoming the next JC in Ufology."


These are only your opinions and they are also the only thing that scream of underlying innuendo.





[edit on 16-10-2007 by area512012]

Also, I posted this in another thread but it might shed some more light onto whatever is being seen over Lake Erie, More and more people are reporting seeing these objects over Lake Erie

www.freetimes.com...

Published September 26th, 2007

That's No Moon
Many Uncrazy Clevelanders Have Seen Strange Lights In The Sky. Who - Or What - Is Buzzing Northeast Ohio?
By John Lasker

keep watching the skies - A UFO hovers over downtown in March. To suggest that Northeast Ohio could be witness to the next mass UFO sighting does not officially make you a member of the tin-foil hat crowd. If you believe even just a few of the witnesses, Cleveland and its surrounding communities might already be a hotspot.

During the previous two years, the Cleveland UFOlogy Project, considered the oldest of its kind on this side of the globe, has documented 20 credible sightings. The 2005 documentary Dan Akroyd: Unplugged on UFOs highlighted the peculiar lights over Lake Erie near Eastlake, where witnesses reported their latest sighting just this past June. Earlier this year, an "orb" was videotaped over the Key Bank Tower during a peace rally, and the incident made it on the CBS nightly news.

Mod Edit: New External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 16-10-2007 by elevatedone]

[edit on 16-10-2007 by area512012]

Originally posted by area512012
The guy even says in the video....."I really don't know what they are"

I never said that MLH/Sereda said they were ET craft, but the innuendo that they are is there. What he should have said was "I really dont WANT to know what they are". These two and others have gone 100 miles out of their way to explain these planes off as something they are not, unidentified. Can you find me an example anywhere where these two, the two making money from this charade have even accidently given the possibility that these could be planes? Bueller, bueller?

It doesn't get much clearer than that, The only thing I seen being made up is idea's such as "intentionally skewed sense of perspective to further bolster an already ridiculous claim" and "Of course he wants all of these things, anything else (the truth) doesnt fit his sales model very well."

These are only your opinions and they are also the only thing that scream of underlying innuendo.

Boy, pretty sharp there. Yep they are my opinions, I certainly didnt construe them as someone elses. Its up to you to take them for whatever you want, they are free and not on a DVD.

[edit on 16-10-2007 by Lost_Mind]

I don't know, you seem to be not making much sense, first you said...


"Granted as the data available becomes less and less discernable, the explanation being planes becomes harder to use as a conclusion, but in the same breath it also makes it very much harder to come to ANY rational conclusion at all"

Then you say later...

"These two and others have gone 100 miles out of their way to explain these planes off as something they are not, unidentified."

Uh, so you are saying that it is harder to come to the conclusion that these objects are planes as more data becomes available, but also you condemn these two for putting forth the idea that these objects do not appear to be planes?







[edit on 16-10-2007 by area512012]

reply to post by area512012


What a lame set of arguments Sereda uses. First the aircraft did not come from the sides they entered a circular landing pattern from the west.

His next argument is that they would not appear as close as they do, yet any fool that has ever looked at a photograph taken of a highway that runs straight will ALWAYS appear to get narrower the farther out it is. (The same applies to aircraft nearby they will appear father apart yet at a distance they will appear closer) Thus he is shooting his own argument in the foot from the get go because it is a simple optical illusion and the distance/width remains constant.

Originally posted by shots
reply to post by area512012

 

What a lame set of arguments Sereda uses. First the aircraft did not come from the sides they entered a circular landing pattern from the west.

His next argument is that they would not appear as close as they do, yet any fool that has ever looked at a photograph taken of a highway that runs straight will ALWAYS appear to get narrower the farther out it is. (The same applies to aircraft nearby they will appear father apart yet at a distance they will appear closer) Thus he is shooting his own argument in the foot from the get go because it is a simple optical illusion and the distance/width remains constant.

Skeptical Guardian of the World Indeed. At least you wave your Skeptic flag high and proud.

reply to post by area512012


Don't blame me for his or your ignorance that is your own fault for not understanding the rules of viewing things in perspective.

reply to post by area512012


No, I am saying that as the quality of the data becomes poorer and poorer it naturally becomes more difficult to use that data/info as a good source to use as an explanation, no matter what someones conclusion ends up being - its a guess, even for me. How could it be anything else, there is nothing there to work with. A light in the sky. I see one all day long if I'm lucky.

Yes, these latest vids, the 2007 ones, are even unidentifiable to me they are so bad in quality. It almost seems that they are going out of their way as of late to get video that is harder and harder to use as evidence due to poor quality. They seem to have learned their lesson form the 2006 videos. These videos are nothing more than poorly shot lights in the sky stuffed onto a crappy video hosting service, period. The bonus is, most of them still act like planes act from a great distance. Nothing spectacular there....funny how Strauss immeadiately tossed out the local police depts. investigations and findings like so much used toilet paper in favor of a personal opinion.

I condem these two for what they are doing simply because they are taking advantage of lazy peoples blind acceptance of bad data to create personal income. They are immeadiately tossing out the most probable and at least appearing to be accepting hook, line and sinker speculation as their version of the truth to do it.

No, Im not the Ignorance police, but what they and others who use their formula for what they consider success is simply shysterism. They are the new televangelists and snake oil salesmen of our era. They make money on the back of ignorance.


[edit on 16-10-2007 by Lost_Mind]

Originally posted by shots
reply to post by area512012

 

Don't blame me for his or your ignorance that is your own fault for not understanding the rules of viewing things in perspective.

What are you talking about? I didn't blame you for anything? As a matter of fact, You can believe whatever you want, I really don't care, As long as we can have a adult conversation about it, but that doesn't seem likely now does it.


And as far as you calling me ignorant, again, I really don't care what you think of me, it has nothing to do with anything really, attacking another reflects more on the attacker ya know, kinda shows the true colors shining through.

Peace!

reply to post by area512012


Since when is pointing out someones ignorancce an attack??? Oh wait it isn't because it is the sites motto too deny the ignornance of others.

[edit on 10/16/2007 by shots]

Originally posted by shots
reply to post by area512012

 

Since when is pointing out someones ignorancce an attack??? Oh wait it isn't because it is the sites motto too deny the ignornance of others.

[edit on 10/16/2007 by shots]

I guess it is not really an attack, just the arrogance of your thinking that only your views are correct and that any others that might happen to have a different viewpoint from your own, well they must be ignorant.

That is a very un-evolved way at looking at the world and real truth will never be achieved using that rational and that my friend is true ignorance.


How about we get back to the theme of this Thread, why they are not Planes....Here is what I have found.

1. The 2nd video of one of these double "orb" objects shows it change direction near the end of that clip without changing it's orientation, something no plane or helicopter can do.

2. The first video David is talking about shows two of these same craft, if clip #2 prooves it can't be a plane, then it follows that the objects in clip#1 are not planes as well.

3. They "seem" to meet up and the 2nd object flies very close ontop of the 1st object. The it's just an illusion theory is some fancifull thinking, I'll stick to what the film shows and not make up things to try and explain what it is showing.

4. The lights do not match standard FAA lights at all

5. The Objects appear to be able to hover

6. The objects are very close to the lake, something no large airliner would do unless they are out to scare the hell out of their passengers.

7. The single orb objects are shown to disappear and then re-illuminate, something no plane would do, what are the pilot's doing, flicking there lights on & Off? I don't think so.

8. It has been proven that these objects are traveling away from Cleveland Airport, don't make much sense for the.... they are coming into land at the airport theory.

9. Many other people are now reporting seeing these same objects over the lake, including actual Pilots, one would think they would know if they were looking at another plane, and Police officers and some of these sightings have been mass sightings such as the Orb that flew off the lake and hovered over a Peace rally for 20 minutes over Downtown Cleveland which had 100's of witnesses and was on CBS news.

10. The Objects are also silent

My Conclusion is that they are not planes and the idea that they are now seems very ignorant to me.





[edit on 16-10-2007 by area512012]

Originally posted by area512012

That is a very un-evolved way at looking at the world and real truth will never be achieved using that rational and that my friend is true ignorance.

So you are using arrogance to decry someone elses arrogance? Hehe, too funny. Your stance of evolutionary superiority is a stance of arrogance I would say. Hmmm...

1. The 2nd video of one of these double "orb" objects shows it change direction near the end of that clip without changing it's orientation, something no plane or helicopter can do.

This clip shows an aircraft doing a descending right hand bank into an approach lane in Cleveland. When in a bank a plane will dip one wing in the direction of the turn to accomplish the turn. Sorry about being overtly simplistic here but you seem to not be able to understand how an aircraft looks when making a turn at night. Funny how that nightvision only works when there is distance and blinding landing lights in the cameras lens. Did it break during the turn? Oh forgot, cant use it then because if you did it would show the nav lights and strobes and we cant have that now can we?

2. The first video David is talking about shows two of these same craft, if clip #2 prooves it can't be a plane, then it follows that the objects in clip#1 are not planes as well.

No point in discussing this one since it is very apparent this is a plane.

3. They "seem" to meet up and the 2nd object flies very close ontop of the 1st object. The it's just an illusion theory is some fancifull thinking, I'll stick to what the film shows and not make up things to try and explain what it is showing.

There are threads already here at ATS about this snippet. BTW, where are the 20-30 minute videos that have been repeatedly requested? They might go a long way to clearing up some inconsistencies, eh?

4. The lights do not match standard FAA lights at all

I'll let someone with some expertise handle this one. I'm a bit ignorant in this area...

5. The Objects appear to be able to hover

Glad you used "appear". You know if you just looked at the moon for 2-4-6 minutes at a time, it too would appear to "hover". Perspective baby....

6. The objects are very close to the lake, something no large airliner would do unless they are out to scare the hell out of their passengers.

The certainly wouldnt do anything like THIS would they? Ever been on a North approch in LA? They nearly scrape the tops of buildings. Take a look at the landings in Hong Kong too. Yeah they get low, and yeah they do scare the crap out of passengers sometimes.

8. It has been proven that these objects are traveling away from Cleveland Airport, don't make much sense for the.... they are coming into land at the airport theory.

Linky linky to the proofy proofy.

9. Many other people are now reporting seeing these same objects over the lake, including actual Pilots, one would think they would know if they were looking at another plane, and Police officers and some of these sightings have been mass sightings such as the Orb that flew off the lake and hovered over a Peace rally for 20 minutes over Downtown Cleveland which had 100's of witnesses and was on CBS news.

I have only seen with my eyes ONE transcript of pilots comms seeing something they could readily explain over Lake Erie and that was in 1996 and its probably what started all of this tripe in the first place. Are there others? Let us see them...

10. The Objects are also silent

Planes usually always are when coming straight at you. Doppler effect anyone? The sound follows the direction of the trust from the engines. How do you think fighter pilots scare the lint off of people at airshows with the back plane manuever? Some atmospheric conditions will actually mute the sound of engines as well.



[edit on 16-10-2007 by Lost_Mind]

Always entertaining to see skeptics claim someone elses opinion must be false while making several statements without proof themselfs.

Good video OP, thanks for posting it. Its not a airplane and anyone who knows what a airplane looks like in the dark knows this. Not to mention this would have to be 2 airplanes... forget it.

Also continue to observe how every skeptic post in this thread has blue stars... this is something you can see in other threads as well.

I gave every one of your posts a blue star just to play "skeptic" for a while. I must say it didnt do much for me...

Carry on.

Oh, and by the way... I most certainly dont agree with Sereda that there is a war for this planet by the ET's. Its the US government shooting them down.


[edit on 16-10-2007 by Copernicus]

I can almost bet you that one of the Moderators or even one of the owners likes what Lostmind posted and applauded him for it. Or maybe people who just came in and read it but didn't post. That's just my guess. Knowing Lostmind, I bet he can care less about the stars. His post makes more sense then any of the OP.
When I get home after work I'm giving him a star for Denying Ignorance.

Edit to respell a word.

[edit on 10/16/2007 by Solarskye]