David Sereda

Ecological Concerns, UFOs, UFO Propulsion, NASA UFOs, David Sereda Films, Art, Photography, Books, and Papers

Thursday, June 22, 2006

NASA's Black & White Space Shuttle Video Cameras See into the Invisible?

Dear Jim Oberg, AT first, you said the video camera on STS-75 had no CCD, then when I proved to you that with no CCD, when the camera zooms in towards a closer look at the tether, and focuses on infinity, near-field debris disappears from the focal plane all together and cannot produce an "Airy Disc." Then you said the camera does have a CCD, hoping that would help your theory. With a CCD video camera, near-field small debris (I tested this with a metal tac hanging 6 inches from my video camera) also disappears when the camera zooms towards a distant object. In fact, you cant see anything less a soft blur if that. So how does your theory hold at all either way that the objects are dust bunnies that got too close to the video camera? Either way, on a long zoom, they disappear from the focal plane.

This means that in NASA STS-75, when the video camera zooms in to get a closer look at the tether, we see the tether getting thicker, not due to the camera going out of focus as NASA Reported that the thickness of the tether is due to sunlight reflecting off of the ionized nitrogen gas surrounding the tether and or the energy field surrounding the tether itself. The discs of light would not be there at all if they were illuminated pieces of dust near the camera lens; having not been able to visually survive in the focal plane of the video camera on the long zoom inwards. The only way they would survive would be if they were truly distant objects. The fact that the camera is in focus all the way, means they are not distant stars in an out-of-focus state.

To help clarify certain issues about the NASA UFOs in both of my films, "Dan Aykroyd, Unplugged on UFOs" and "Evidence, the Case for NASA UFOs."

These are excerpts from my book, "Evidence, the Case for NASA UFOs" which I hope will help clarify some of the arguments about UFOs captured on Space Shuttle Video cameras, which I postulate are in the invisible. I firstly base this upon my own seeing a UFO clear as day in Berkeley, 1967-68 with several other agitated witnesses. We all watched in utter amazement as this metallic, disc-shaped UFO hovered at about 3,500 feet in the clear blue sky not far from the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. After about twenty minutes, the UFO just blinked out and went invisible. I have been interested in invisibility with regards to UFOs ever since.

With regards to NASA's video cameras peering into the invisible? NASA knows all this and they have video cameras aboard the Space Shuttles and aboard satellites that can see into invisible spectra of light, such as the infrared and the near ultraviolet. I confirmed the wavelengths of the shuttles video cameras with NASA scientists back in 1998, Dr. Joseph Nuth, III, Head of Astrochemistry at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD. He said that the shuttle’s video cameras could see near UV photons in a letter to me dated April 3, 2000: “Although the camera itself may respond to x-rays and gamma rays (usually as noise), the optics do not serve to focus on anything but visible and near-UV photons. I would be amazed if the optics were not quartz so that the UV cut-off wavelength would be ~ 180 nm. If sapphire the cut-off drops to 160 nm and for CaF2 the cut-off is ~ 135 nm.” UV is divided into near, far and extreme. The near UV is higher in wavelengths frequency than the color violet. It is also invisible to the human eye and spans almost as wide as the visible light spectrum in wavelengths. Many of NASAs video cameras see well into the invisible Infra-red also. Infrared is lower in wavelength frequency than the color red. Infrared is even easier than UV detection.

By definition, what Dr. Nuth is saying that the video cameras can see not only Near UV wavelengths of invisible light, but also Far UV defined here: Ultraviolet (UV) light is electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength shorter than that of visible light, but longer than soft X-rays. It can be subdivided into near UV (380–200 nm wavelength), far or vacuum UV (200–10 nm; abbrev. FUV or VUV), and extreme UV (1–31 nm; abbrev. EUV or XUV). It appears he made a mistake 135 - 180 Nano-meters is into the Far UV, even deeper into this invisible spectra than previously thought.

I have confirmed by letter that the above letter from NASA is true and documented. later, James Oberg tried to say that the video cameras on the shuttle were ordinary video cameras. He was uninformed or lying to protect his UFO debunking theories. He was also firstly an employee at NASA working under John F. Schuessler, whom is today the head of MUFON. John F. Schuessler keeps accurate files of astronaut encounters of UFOs and is a believer while Oberg is a debunker. Can you figure this one out now?

David Sereda


At 9:23 AM, Blogger Cassio said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 9:23 AM, Blogger Cassio said...

You should think seriously to have a cable channel dedicated to the UFO's and antigravity technology.
There are too much material everywhere.
I am sure that it would have members from all over the world.
You could start small for instance in Canada which people are more open minded and spread out the signatures through other cable carries from other countries.
Cable TV business does not require big investments and it can grow little by little .
I am sure Dan has many connections which could make it happen. This could be the best way to spread out the idea of the reality of the UFO phenomenon.

Think about it

At 5:42 PM, Blogger David Sereda said...

Great Idea Cassio!

At 6:32 PM, Blogger Cassio said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 2:50 PM, Blogger CompleXz said...

Evidence: The Case For Nasa
is a masterpiece.

If what you say is true, then we are being visited by thousands of E.T.´s. This has to be the biggest thing since..........

But why does´nt anyone news network or goverment take the documentary seriously ???
It´s seems like Nasa does not feel affraide about you!.

Are these E.T.´s good ??

Has anyone triede to use UV on
earth ?

Best regards & good luck

At 9:47 PM, Blogger fIXjACK said...

Remember, they can only be seen by these advanced cameras, so they need to develope cameras that can
"see more aliens"

Also, think of the possibility that one, these things dont want us to see them.

Or two, they see us as we see them, barely, Perhaps they are beings of energy as we are beings of light time and mass, or perhaps we are on the verge of bridging the gap between two "dimensions"!!!

At 9:47 PM, Blogger fIXjACK said...

Remember, they can only be seen by these advanced cameras, so they need to develope cameras that can
"see more aliens"

Also, think of the possibility that one, these things dont want us to see them.

Or two, they see us as we see them, barely, Perhaps they are beings of energy as we are beings of light time and mass, or perhaps we are on the verge of bridging the gap between two "dimensions"!!!

At 9:48 PM, Blogger fIXjACK said...

"Has anyone triede to use UV on
earth ?"

Now that is a DAMN good question!

At 7:05 PM, Blogger aminjr said...

we need access to cameras with this UV and infrared filtering, so the public can catch their own invaluable footage...
any info on the sales of these cameras please contact me at aminjr@yahoo.com

At 10:47 AM, Blogger socr78 said...

yes, we definitely need access to purchase these cameras with Uv and infrared capabilities.... any links would be excellent

At 9:45 PM, Blogger Kricke said...

Hello. I just watched "Evidence: The Case For Nasa" and have a fiew comments. First about the "key and the three"-demonstration. You can actually get a narrow depth of field with a standard CCD video camera. The bigger the CCD, the narrower the DOF. Perhaps Nasa has bigger CCD's than consumer or prosumer cameras (which usually has about 1/6" or 1/3" CCDs)? And if you put special lenses to the cam you can change the DOF considerably. This is used by independent film makers that want to make film with "cheap" video cameras and still make it look more like a 35mm camera. Perhaps the Nasa cam had a special lens?

Another comment is about the "blob" moving behind the tether. Sometimes, when items is overexposed, they can appear to be in front of things they are not. One example is the crosshair on Nasas (Hasselblad) cameras used on the Moon. Sometimes they appear to go behind objects even though the crosshair is inside the camera. Here is a small example.

I also think the Von Däniken stuff (eg. Dropa) shold be dropped. :-)

Still very intresting movie. :)

"Has anyone triede to use UV on Earth?"

The answer is: Of course. On ordinary (still) 135 film analog SLRs, you often put UV-filter on to block UV out, especially in high altitudes (mountains) because UV can make the picture "hazy" and dim - 135 film is sensitive to UV. Digital SLRs (with CCDs) is most often not and require no filter. Police use special film (often Kodak T-Max 400 black and white - no sens in color when photoing UV) and a special UV-filter (usually KODAK WRATTEN 18A) to filter visible light out and only photo UV-light in crime scenes (eg. the oposit of a normal UV-filter).

To photo IR (infrared), you only need a digital camera with the ability to mount an IR-filter. The IR-filters are quite cheap, depending on quality. Google for it.

At 8:12 PM, Blogger Joakim Christiansen said...

I modified my webcam to see into the infrared by removing the infrared light filter inside the lens. So now i'm often scanning the sky with it to capture invisible UFO's, but no luck yet.

And btw, you're my hero David Sereda!
Keep up the great work!

At 6:11 PM, Blogger Greg said...

ultraviolet will give you a better view of them. Just infra red alone lowers your chance of success.

At 10:06 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Do you know of any commercially available CCD cameras that will film in the UV. I have looked in my astronomy sources and have not found anything. I would like to turn my telescopes on the moon as just let them film and see what I get. Any ideas??

At 1:36 PM, Blogger Kricke said...

Sony XCD-SX910UV can film in the NUV, i.e ~380 to ~200nm. But it is expensive.

At 12:00 PM, Blogger Filipok said...


I viewed your Nasa "Evidence" series. I am really impressed with your thorough research and postulations.

One thing you didn't mention about the Drop, is an interesting find by the Russians whilst examining the discs. I quote from wikipedia:

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dropa

"Russian research:

Russian scientists asked to see the discs and several were sent to Moscow for examination. They were scraped free of rock particles which had stuck to them and then put through chemical analysis.

To the surprise of the scientists, the disks contained large amounts of cobalt and other metallic substances. What is more, when placed on a special turntable—according to Dr. Vyatcheslav Saizev, who described the experiments in the Soviet magazine Sputnik—they vibrate or "hum" in an unusual rhythm as though an electric charge is passing through them. Or as one scientist suggested, "as if they formed some part of an electrical circuit." At some time, they have clearly been exposed to extraordinarily high voltages and extreme temperature fluxuations. The inscriptions have been said to have read out like the roman numerals of all the prime numbers."

At 10:07 PM, Blogger Cookiesncreme said...

Believe you me- THere's a lot of people out there who have never sighted a UFO and I would TRULY LOVE to launch them into space.

At 9:37 PM, Blogger DND said...

Just saw Evidence: The case for NASA UFO's. Very good documentary.

Not sure if this has been addressed, however the high speed turn video is misinterpretated. The camera actually zooms out fairly rapidly making the object appearing its moving toward the earth. Once the camera stops zooming out the object is seen normally continuing on its upward track. I myself thought this video was interesting in terms of the turning capability of this aircraft. I only noticed it when the earth appeared to turn rapidly during the high velocity object sequence.

Overall I like the documentary and, for the sake of keeping this post on topic, the tether incident explaination is very well done. :-)


At 1:31 AM, Blogger Simon said...

another "just saw your NASA vid" commenter here, and i can only echo comments from others, with words like "amazing!", "fantastic work!" and so on. seriously, david, thanks for the time you've spent on this, your work is up there with dr. greer's. i particularly enjoyed you pointing out that meteors when not in the earth's atmosphere really shouldn't be luminescing, quite hard to get away from that when one thinks about it, and there are loads of "meteors" on these vids that aren't in the atmosphere.

cassio's comment about the cable channel...if such a thing existed, it's about the only reason i could find to buy a TV. but please webcast, too!

thanks again,


At 6:37 AM, Blogger interstellar overdrive said...

dear david,im a big fan of yours and i think that nasa missed having you as a great mind and asset to work for them,a loss im sure they will come to regret in the not too distant future.
they say great minds are always ahead of thier time,well maybe you were born 50 years too soon,judging from the reaction of the'big guns'to your revolutionary ideas,which has many precedents in history im sure!and revolutionary they are as im sure you are aware.
established systems,despite all the known pitfalls they inherently have,are extremely afraid of revolutionary change,because they bring uncertainty about the future,and one thing we know about established regimes is that any uncertainty about the future will be trumpeted by them as a very bad thing for everyone concerned,especially those who might lose the power they already have,so it should come as no great surprise to find out that multinational conglomerates and worldwide financial interests owners are trying to block and ridicule you at every opportunity,but i would take that as a sign that you are on the right road,for if your ideas had no viability whatsoever i doubt even a fraction of the people in and about this subject or relative to it somehow would have even heard your name,never mind corresponding with and meeting with you as seems to be the case.
from my point of view you are on the right track,so i hope you wont give up the good fight,because humanity and its future needs strong minded individuals like you who are not afraid to speak out,even if what they are saying seems to be the opposite of what the powers that be want.
keep up the inspiring work david,you are a real trooper!ED

At 7:52 AM, Blogger interstellar overdrive said...

David,i am a great admirer of yours,and would like to say keep up the good work,you will get there in the end,because humanity needs rare people like yourself to survive,so dont give up just yet,things have a funny way of working themselves out,so have faith in the science and all else will follow!anyway on with the subject at hand!ive tried to get this letter to you in various ways all of which failed for some reason,hence the reason for finding my way to this blog!here is the original,somewhat revised for this blog comment.
David,whilst rewatching your brilliant 'evidence 2'video,i noticed an anomaly in one scene that there was no mention of in the video,and i wanted to bring it to your attention to ask you if you were aware of this anomaly previously,or if anyone else has written to you in regards to it?and if so could you forward any links to previously released material relating to it?the anomaly in question is on the 'evidence 2'video,and when watched in google video player,is found at timer mark 01:12:56seconds,and lasts for three to four seconds,and shows what appears to be a 'manmade?'object,which must be very large,seeing as the ufo discs were behind the tether,over 70 miles away,which is black in colour and is seen cutting across the face of the disc that is on screen at that moment on the tape,and moves from about the 1 o'clock position across the face of the disc,to about the 10 to 11 o'clock position before moving out of sight as it no longer has the disc behind it to make it stand out from the blackness of space.when i first found this scene i played it again and again,and there is no mistaking the object for anything other than a physically present real object,which in view of the debunkers claim that the ufos are optical illusions,and are really close to the camera and not far away,might i believe have some bearing on helping to prove that the objects could not possibly have been close to the camera,otherwise how could a far off object appear silhouetted against a nearby light source?if you ask me this scene itself is video proof positive that the objects in question,i.e.the ufo's must indeed be as far away if not further than the video claims,and that you were right all along!i hope that you find this letter david,and that you can find the time to take a look at the video,probably best in google video player because thats where i watched it and used the timer there to mark position of the aforementioned scene,and if you can get any decent images of the object in question,could you please spare a thought for a fan and spare one for me?that would be beyond my wildest dreams!p.s.if you were aware of this object prior to this,which i feel positive you must have been,could you please post any info you have regarding this particular object,that your fans can have access to it also?that would be much appreciated david,thanks again for the great videos and the good work you are trying to achieve!i wish you every success in the future!ED(interstellar overdrive)

At 6:16 PM, Blogger Blueray said...

When the first George Bush who was head of the CIA was running for president and was asked about the UFO situation his reply was "You don't know the half of it". After watching your DVD, Evidence-NASA UFO I am starting to understand what he meant.

At 12:31 PM, Blogger Throwaway said...

Regarding the blurry objects on STS-75 Shuttle mission.

I don't know how anyone can accept a claim that those blurry objects are UFOs or further more, aggressively and rather arrognatly pursue this claim like you did on your video @ http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8524267568796529301&q=ufo

Just for the record here, I do not believe in the existance of alien spacecraft, I KNOW of it, since I've been a witnes to a half dozen craft/formation sightings myself. Yet, the Tether incident" is simply ridiculous.

If you have seen the whole footage of the event (not just the closeups) you should know what I'm going to talk about.

When the camera is showing unzoomed going-ons (or even the zoomed ones) you can see small dots moving around. The important thing here to note is, that all these bits are moving in the same direction. More acurately, they are all moving on just TWO directional axes. Majority of dots is moving up/down on the same axis, some are moving from left to right. This clearly makes them dust particles.


They can be dust particles released by mechanical operations of the Shuttle, they can be ice crystals ... The fact that they are moving in the same directions tells everything. When Shuttle is launching (or retreiving) a satellite, crew will fire Shuttle's engines and first rotate Shuttle in proper position, then thrust it laterally either to:
- push the craft away from the newly placed satellite
- push the craft closer to the satellite they are retreiving

In our case, when they bay doors opened an ammount of dust was releases but that dust floated along with the shuttle. When shuttle starts moving away from the satellite, it changes its velocity vector a few times but the dust particles are still floating with their previous direction. That is why you see some dust particles overtaking or falling behind in some direction (but generally very few directions) depending on in which directions shuttle accelerated or decelerated slightly just before that. You can see such particles on a lot of shuttle movies, you can even see them ALL change direction at once but still move along the same axis - because shuttle thrusted in the opposite direction at that moment.

Point 2:
When camera is zooming in on tether, these particles become blurry. Indeed they look like discs, which they are in fact not.
Did you notice that slice all these discs have? Strangely, ALL these discs have this slice at the bottom or at the top of them. They never rotate, and this slice even appears or disappears when the dics moves around. That big disc you showed so many times, did you notice it had a slice on the top of it and on the bottom, then the top one slowly faded away and it was just circular with a slice at the bottom? Looks very much like a lensflare effect to me. All discs have slice at precisely the same location ... like all lens flares in some cameras can be pentagonal with the SAME orientation, or hexagonal or whatever.

Next thing. When you so vehemently state that the disc is moving behind the tether cable and that this is the proof the discs are huuuge. Did you notice that this large disc, you are zooming on and is your crown evidence, is moving over some shiny points in the background and that IT APPEARS TRANSPARENT? That large disc, you say is a solid and not a blurry fuzzy object, actually lets that star -doubt it is a star but anyway- shine through it. And that shiny point that shines through your UFO disc is stationary.

Third thing, if tether cable is glowing, tell me how can it have a sharp edge? Now, you say you occupy yourself with fliming or so, tell me, how does a very glowy emitting object appear on the camera with a very dark background? How does great contrast effect the final picture? I did my share of studying light for high intensity lighting situation for computer graphics and I can tell you that highly emitting object on dark background WILL NOT have a sharp edge. Even more, it will cast shadows or cause illumination drops in the pixels right next to it, or cause vertical or horisontal spillovers. But it definetely will not have a sharp edge. And having a sharp edge is very important for this situation.

A dust particle that is blurred in camera field of view will have a low light intensity of its blurred outer areas. When such object moves over highly illuminated line, and more - this line is also blurred because of intensity, tell me how do intensities add up? Tell me, how can you see if an object that has a few magnitudes lower brightness than the cable, is moving in front of it or behind it? You can't. If the dust particle is moving in front of it, the intensity increase because of it is so slight you will not notice it because of the much brighter object behind it. And why did you think the disc is moving behind the tether cable? Misconception. You saw the dark edge the brightly lit cable is throwing on the pixels to the right side and took it as an edge of an object. In fact, as you say cable is very thin and should not be visible at such distance. What we see on the movie is the glow of the ionised gas. In this case you really can't tell if the disc is moving behind the ionised gas glow or in front of it. It can either be solid disc moving behind it, or it can be a blurred dust particle moving in front and not adding up enough brightness to have a noticable difference. But as I said before, your disc seems transparent to the stars or whatever stationary background, so ...

In your google movie you show those apartment keys in front of some trees in the background stating how they are not blurred even if they are out of focus. Wrong. They are blurred. The only difference is, they are so big and the detail on them is so small human brain does not percieve the loss of detail on the because of it. You can hold two object on the same distance from camera, both out of focus. One can be a 1 meter large cube which will seem in focus, the other one can be a pin, which will be so blurred you will not see it. Blurryiness is important in regard to the minimal object size, in our case the diameter of the needle is smaller than the blur radius so it will be blurred out in the movie, while the cube is so large that 1mm blur radius has no effect on its 1m size - indeed its edge will be 1mm blurred but it will not be noticable since minimal detail on it is 1m large.
Same thing applies to dust particles and your apartment keys. Your keys indeed do have a blurred edge, take a look at it. But in general the shape of them is still easily recognisable so they appear not to loose any detail even though they are out of focus. Whiledust particles are so small and only visible because they are bright, because their reflective brightness is out of focus they will be highly distorted on the picture.
You should know that.

To, to summarize this up:
- dust particles are out of focus and blurred because of the ratio of their reflective radius to the focus-blurr radius
- tether cable is not visible
- ionised gas is visible but also not sharp edged because of the contrast
- discs are transparent to the stationary light sources in the background (and not solid)
- all discs have the same features (it is just the horisontal flip and size that differs amongst all of them) making them lens flare images over blurry light sources
- they all move on two axes, making them dust particles moving relatively to the shuttle because of shuttle's lateral movements

That is all.

The only good thing I noticed about all of this fiasco is, that you managed to write a book on a simple misconception and milk a few bucks out of uneducated mob.

At 12:42 PM, Blogger Throwaway said...

Edit to the summary points above:
- ... vertical flip ...


Bookwriting FTW!

At 2:31 PM, Blogger Throwaway said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

At 2:34 PM, Blogger Throwaway said...

OK, so I watched that video of yours mentioned above 1/2 through it till the "24 seconds of galaxy clock".

Seriously mister, a friendly advice (it's not a flame) from my side: don't waste any more of your time on galaxy clock and similar brainstorming. It is a total waste of time, for you (you will regret in when you will start running out of it), for other viewers and readers, it is based on your poor understanding of physics (not quantum physics, but basic physical quantities and principles), simply said you are raping the science with your ideas and polluting the minds of those who know not what they are reading and are believing you what you say. Please stop. For the sake of science and knowledge.

Zero knowledge on a given subject is less damaging and dangerous than SOME (pseudo)knowledge. Sorry, I'm a bit harsh but you got it all wrong (if you yourself got it all wrong it doesn't concern me, but you are spreading your hokus-pokus abrakadabra to other people's minds and that I object to).

I would appreciate if you stand firmly enough on the ground like a mand and leave these comments I posted here. Thanks.


At 3:41 PM, Blogger dieterjan said...

I am very glad that I read the previous post by throwaway.
I feel supported by my own theories which are exactly as throwaway describes them.

I have put some 100 ufo video's on youtube, my 'alias' is dieterjan, I live in Holland and with all the evidence I have on my pc's hard drive, about 100 hrs, I became a strong believer of the ufo phenomenon and extraterrestrial presence on and above earth.
The disc footage however seems strongly discredible to me.

when I looked at this nasa footage, I put on youtube myself, more closely, added with some details which occurred to me while watching sereda's speech, I discovered the following 3 facts that do not ad up.

1. When the disc, sereda refers to, is passing 'underneath' the tether, that part of the tether becomes a little less visible.
It seemed to me that the disc is transparent and flying in front of the tether of which most part shines through so the disc only appears to be behind it.
I scratched the back of my when I saw that.

2. When the tether shot is zoomed out, all the discs certainly become ordinary solid objects.
That was my second scratch, starting to get a little bold now.
It appeared to me that the discs were just particles out of focus.

I decided to do a little experiment with my own digital slr to see what an out of focus particle looked like.
Do try this at home.

I took a pin with a plastic sphere and pinned it into a cushion of my couch.
I focussed my camera and then slowly turned the sharpening ring.

To my surprise and joy I noticed that the little sphere turned into disc with a hole in the middle!!
The cushion shined right through, just a little discoloured by the vague, blurry sphere in front which very much supports what I describe above in point 1.

On the pictures, the holes were less obvious compared with the look through the lens however.
The lighting, proportional and equipmental circumstances were not anything compared to those, the space shuttle footage was shot under of course but I started to think that Sereda’s theories were based on one big misunderstanding.

3. What I didn't manage to see were sliced edges on the defocused pin sphere.
I tried different lighting angles, shutter speeds, diaphragm settings, etc, but I didn't succeed.
Maybe some side effect of the out of focus phenomena in space which I couldn't achieve under room circumstances I thought.

I decided to watch them more closely on the nasa footage, paying attention to the position of the slices.

I couldn't believe what I Immediately noticed!!
Do watch this at home!
My head becoming bolder and bolder.

The position of the slices changed while the discs were moving from the top to the bottom of the screen and visa versa!!
At the upper part of the screen, above a certain line, they all had one slice at 7 o'clock.
When moving below this virtual line, in all visible cases, the bottom slice disappears, and two become visible at the top.
In one case not two but one top-slice appears possibly due to the difference in brightness (being more clear).
Being an engineer myself and having ploughed through statistical mathematics, I immediately knew that this was simply not a coincidence.
The screen positions on the moment the slice changes set in are so very much the same for all the discs that I have to support throwaways theory that this is just due to a lens flare.

David, I very much like you to take a close look at these issues while watching the fragments and comment on this if you like.
I would very much like to know what you have to say about this.

Looking forward to your answer.

Regards, dieterjan

At 5:10 PM, Blogger dieterjan said...

After publishing my reaction above I watched the remaining part of the movie and heard your answer to 2 of the items.
You assume that people who do not believe your disc theory are disbelievers and arrogant.

Well you are not thinking very grey here.

As I said I am a believer, have read theories and stories about energy-mass interchange, our soul even being a vibrating energy, about frequency dimensions, how human memory works and that for instance cancer is an effect of body and mind not being in resonance with each other.
A Dr. Castellani had an extraterrestrial originated cure for this back in the ‘40’s, based on energy ‘therapy’ which worked but was not acknowledged.

It’s all based on quantum mechanic’s I believe and not very hard to understand ones you have an open mind and forget Newton and Einstein.

In fact, I think it’s an outrage that all these many advanced alien technologies are kept from us.

What I mean is that I just do not believe this particular example of the nasa discs from which you claim 100% that they are ufo’s.
You simply can not be so sure about this because the image quality is too poor and you were not there. There might be a chance that you’re right but you must admit that you could have it wrong.
I was wildly enthusiastic when I saw it for the first time in martyn stubbs’s film and put in on youtube.
But I came back from it.

I think that the objects that suddenly change speed and direction are absolute evidence because man-engineered vehicles couldn’t simply do this (as far as the upper ground science is concerned).

Considering the answers you gave, I must agree with the photographer expert who came up with the question that your photo’s were not convincing. One of them even showed a thicker centre area instead of a hole and watching your body language (that never lies) you didn’t feel very comfortable when he didn’t believe you.

In fact I feel that your arrogance of disbelievers claim was my sign that you felt cornered somehow and that it became time for an emergency statement that might sound powerful but only showed your impotence in not being able to be convincing.

I liked your Roswell time –delay theory, hadn’t heard it form that point of view before.
I hope the hard truth will see daylight some day.

Regards, dieterjan

At 9:49 AM, Blogger Orbs Energy and Mists said...


At 4:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's face it, the video is accurate, arguing if it is or not isn't going to change what's up, what's important now is figuring out who's flying them and what their intent is. David your an asset to humanity. Keep going man!

At 9:21 AM, Blogger Husband said...

Hey David,
Steve Floyd here, I met you through Chai in NM 2003-2004. I just happen to be web surfing and came across your blog. Awesome!!

At 8:53 PM, Blogger nigel r said...

Hi David completely new to this blog i watched your lecture while traveling through vietnam found it very interesting i was wondering have you seen the painting described as "A contemporary painting records dramatic haloes seen over Stockholm Sweden, in April 1535" in the time life book Mysteries Of The Unknown The UFO Phenomenon, Published 1987 the Painting shows transparent Compact Disc shaped objects very similar to those seen in the nasa footage aprox 2 miles in diameter hovering over stockholm. i can follow this post up with a picture if needed thanks


Post a Comment

<< Home