Wacky idea about aliens & "dark matter".

[voggmo]

From reputable sources?

Yep, loads of em.

[voggmo]

Even Adamski's photos from the 50's have never been successfully debunked. Modern film stuff is even better with Airline pilots as eyewitnesses combined. Cops, military personnell etc have all come forward. The days of swamp gas & flocks of geese that dingos like Phillip Klass forward are over.




Jim Dilettoso is a well known and respected expert in the field, his specialty is photograhic and video analysis. Mr.
Dilettoso had this to say on the matter of Adamski's work, what follows are his own words, written by himself in
response to questions concerning the Adamski photos.
Jim has this to say on the matter, this is a direct quote. FRJ
BH,JD, K et al, Regarding the Adamski photos. There is no 'proof' of a hoax. In fact, there is no photogrametric or
computer analysis of the Adamski case indicating a small object or a HOAX. People say what they say, quoting a
rumour as truth, or convert their opinion to scientific fact.

Issues in image analysis are very precise. Small objects have very different properties from large objects. In
particular, the edges and the light distribution on the surface.

I have examined over 1000 photographs (unknowns) in 25 plus years, including over 50 control objects (models). I
use advanced tools, extract data from the unknown and compare it to data of knowns. If you get a match- it's called
a "known". No match- it's an "unknown" The properties of the Adamski craft do not match those of a small model, an
optical overlay, or a hoax. Technically speaking, there is no indication of a hoax. It is an unknown.

http://www.eyepod.org/Video-Adamski.html

[scotthm]

voggmo wrote:

---

There are hours of film of craft doing things impossible for our current aviation technology level to do.

voggmo wrote:

---

Jim Dilettoso is a well known and respected expert in the field, his specialty is photograhic and video analysis. Mr.
Dilettoso had this to say on the matter of Adamski's work... "It is an unknown."

http://www.eyepod.org/Video-Adamski.html

You tell us about 'impossible' aircraft, and then proceed to say that a leading 'expert' says they are "unknown". In fact, that's what they are - unknown to the reporting observer. If they are craft, they are doing things that are possible with our current technology.

---------------

[voggmo]

Not according to the aviation experts who view the film.

[scotthm]

^ Who don't even know what they're looking at, hence the term "UFO".

---------------

[voggmo]

Nonetheless, they are obviously not natural phenomena. Shooting stars don't make u-turns, nor does space ice & junk. This one is obviously intelligently controlled, & is shot official NASA footage shot from the space shuttle. The earth's curved shape is in background.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y5fn...eature=related

[scotthm]

^ It's not obvious at all either what it is or what is responsible for its motion. It is merely an unidentified speck that travels across the field of view in a manner open to interpretation.

---------------

[voggmo]

Actually no. It is not open to interpret it as a natural phenomena as our scientists currently know enough about shooting stars, space junk & all other known aireal phenomena to rule out it being interpreted as being any of those known quantities.

& again, as it accelarates MORE rapidly than any current earth based technology A/C, one cannot be open to interpret it as being an earth based technological craft.

[TerriO]

You're trusting a grainy video posted on YouTube by someone who admits to being an "artist" in their own profile and has no overt connection to NASA to legitimize this video to back your argument? That's not exactly stellar (you'll pardon the expression) evidence in your favor, voggmo.

There are holes big enough to drive a Mack truck through in this one.


Personally, if it is video from the shuttle, of which I'm not convinced, it looks like a small meteorite that was deflected by a layer of atmosphere more than anything else.

And I say that as someone who thinks it's statistically impossible for us to be alone in the universe. This one just doesn't work as evidence for me.

[scotthm]

voggmo wrote:

---

Actually no. ...one cannot be open to interpret it as being an earth based technological craft.

I wasn't thinking it was any sort of spacecraft at all, so its identity is definately open to interpretation.

---------------

[voggmo]

It leaves earths atmostphere, therefore technically it is a spacecraft.

& I have seen this film at conventions,& on FOX tv. It is NASA film no doubt. Not trusting any artists.

[voggmo]

Kasher states they are intelligently controlled spacecraft. He's not an artist.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/Researchers/Detail82.htm


John C. 'Jack' Kasher , Ph.D.
John C. "Jack" Kasher, PhD, is an authority on UFOs and a professor of physics and astronomy at the U of Nebraska at Omaha (UNO). One of his research projects has been to analyze the UFOs appearing on video footage taken by NASA during Discovery Space Shuttle Mission STS-48.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFpGFEFvXBQ


[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3] Dr. Jack Kasher a PHD in physics and many other experts have questioned NASA's forth rightness in explaining the anomalous objects as ice crystals or camera lens smudges. Sam writes: I am a longtime film producer recently working on documentary films, I have had cooperation from various divisions of NASA and I can tell you that this entire subject has not been thrown away by them as being of no importance. Furthermore, I also have D-2 Digital Video clones of the NASA Master tapes of the STS-48 event which I have taken to a high end video studio for analysis. I can report that our initial study reveals that the subject cannot be easily explained away. Physicist Dr. Jack Kasher has written a book on the STS-48 events, which has his scientific analysis and is quite compelling. [/SIZE][/FONT]

[TerriO]

Can we get a source that isn't taking the word of some anonymous person on YouTube?

voggmo wrote:

---

It leaves earths atmostphere, therefore technically it is a spacecraft.

& I have seen this film at conventions,& on FOX tv. It is NASA film no doubt. Not trusting any artists.

Could you please give a definition of spacecraft for us to work from? Because if something leaving Earth's atmosphere is your criterion, a spacial body (meteor, small asteroid, etc.) bouncing off of the Earth's atmosphere inherently meets that requirement, as it would have to enter part of the atmosphere in order to be deflected.

I, however, have not seen this film. Therefore, I need some evidence that it is what you say it is. Could you please provide some evidence other than us taking your word for it that it is in fact a NASA film? The graininess of the YouTube links makes it difficult to tell with any kind of certainty.

[voggmo]

Jack Kashers word is offered above.

This footage is a bit clearer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9AFs...eature=related

[voggmo]

Nasa employee James Oberg does not discount the fact that the footage is NASA footage.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc519.htm

Several years ago, NASA employee James Oberg apparently wrote via E-mail an extensive rebuttal of Richard C. Hoagland's analysis of the STS-48 video.












STS-48


Mission: UARS
Space Shuttle: Discovery
Launch Pad: 39A
Launch Weight: 240,062 pounds
Launched: September 12, 1991, 7:11:04 p.m. EDT
Landing Site: Edwards Air Force Base, Calif.
Landing: September 18, 1991, 12:38:42 a.m. PDT
Landing Weight: 192,780 pounds
Runway: 22
Rollout Distance: 9,513 feet
Rollout Time: 50 seconds
Revolution: 81
Mission Duration: 5 days, 8 hours, 27 minutes, 38 seconds
Returned to KSC: September 26, 1991
Orbit Altitude: 313 nautical miles
Orbit Inclination: 57 degrees
Miles Traveled: 2.2 million