Joined: 09 Oct 2007 Posts: 11 Location: UK Midlands
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 6:02 pm Post subject: Shuttle - ET/ET or ET vs Terrestrial Black Project Wars?
If anyone has not seen these video out-takes which discuss the loss of the Columbia space shuttle you may be interested in taking a peek.
David Sereda and guests go through the substantial evidence for the shuttle being zapped by a plasma beam from one or two UFOs seen by witnesses and caught on camera [but then the NASA intel/security boys arrived!].
These out-takes were released and later moved to a popular UFO oriented Youtube account where they've now done over 125,000 views in a month.
Videos and article, including a piece by UK author Timothy Good and Michael Salla's piece on this event for his Exopolitics website here:
Photographic Analysis Confirms that Space Shuttle Columbia was Destroyed by a Plasma Beam Weapon - Exopolitics Comment #59
Further photographic analysis has recently been completed on a series of five photos taken by an amateur astronomer on a San Francisco hill at 5:53 am on February 1, 2003, showing the Space Shuttle Columbia being hit by what appears to be a lighting bolt shortly before it crashed seven minutes later. According to David Sereda, who conducted the photographic analysis, the length of the five exposures conclusively show that it was not a form of 'super' lightning that hit the Columbia, but an advanced plasma beam weapon of some kind. Sereda documented his analysis in a recently released video, From Here to Andromeda, extracts of which were uploaded this week to YouTube. The series of five photos were originally submitted to NASA to help it in its investigation of the Columbia tragedy by the astronomer who chose to remain anonymous. His submission of the photos to NASA was covered by a reporter from the San Francisco Chronicle and appeared in a story on February 5, 2003. The reporter claimed: "In the critical shot, a glowing purple rope of light corkscrews down toward the plasma trail, appears to pass behind it, then cuts sharply toward it from below. As it merges with the plasma trail, the streak itself brightens for a distance, then fades."
NASA responded to the photographs by claiming that the lightning was an artifact from camera wobble despite the camera being on a tripod and showing features of the shuttle clearly. According to one researcher:
The explanation left critics aghast, since the Columbia trail in the photo is crisp with no evidence of camera movement. Nor is any wobble evident in other similar photographs taken at the time. The explanation relegates to "coincidence" the fact that the Columbia trail brightens precisely at its juncture with the corkscrew trail. This brightening is an electrically predictable occurrence when two plasma channels merge (click for source).
The apparent lighting strike did not figure in NASA's official explanation that the Columbia crash was due to a tile being dislodged at launch that damaged the leading edge of the left wing and the thermal insulation system, causing the Columbia to disintegrate during re-entry.
The photos were also privately circulated to scientists and appeared on a few websites before being taken down for copyright reasons. One scientist argued that the lighting hitting the Columbia was an electrical discharge from the ionosphere, proving the existence of 'mega lightning' in the ionosphere. This is a phenomenon that conventional models of electrical activity in the upper atmosphere do not support. The scientist nevertheless concluded:
"conditions in the ionosphere led to a powerful lightning discharge to Columbia - a rare "bolt from the blue" - which may have damaged a critical component or surface of the space shuttle. The lightning would be practically silent in the thin atmosphere and it would burn like a plasma torch. And insulating material, like the shuttle tiles or their adhesive, may shatter or explode when struck by lightning." (click for source).
While such an explanation enjoys support from a few scientists promoting an electrical model of the universe, it is not supported by NASA or most scientists who view lightning as being discharged from the upper atmosphere downwards towards the Earth, rather than in the ionosphere which was the altitude (63 kms) where the Columbia was photographed. Furthermore, there was no lightning activity appearing below the Columbia as it was descending, helping to eliminate mainstream scientific support for the theory that a rare form of mega-lightning hit the Columbia.
In his analysis, Sereda dismisses the explanation offered by the few scientists arguing that it was a form of super or 'mega' lightning that hit the Columbia. Sereda argues that the five still photographs span a total of thirty seconds showing the purple lighting strike corkscrewing as it zeroes in on the tail end of the Columbia for the final dramatic hit. A graphic depicting the trajectory of the Columbia when it was hit by a 'lightning bolt' with an accompanying analysis on right (click for source). According to Sereda, lighting typically discharges in a fraction of a second. It does not span the thirty second period observed in the five photos shortly before the Columbia crashed. Consequently, Sereda concludes that it was not 'super' lightning that hit the Columbia in a freak collision, but an advanced plasma weapon.
Sereda (and other researchers in a second video clip) then go on to discuss whether the plasma weapon was fired by extraterrestrial vehicles engaging in some kind of ET vs. ET, or ET vs. secret governmental conflict. In either case, the Columbia was the victim in an undisclosed war by space faring entities with advanced plasma weapons.
In my very first Exopolitics Comment on Feb 2, 2003, I had proposed that the Columbia was shot down as a result of a conflict between different factions of the secret government over the Bush administration's Iraq policy. This is what I wrote at the time:
It is very possible that the Space shuttle Columbia was a high profile victim in a proxy war being conducted by clandestine government organizations over hidden extraterrestrial technology. The destruction of Columbia may well be a signal to US based clandestine organizations by their European counterparts, not to launch a preemptive attack against Iraq. If Columbia was destroyed, rather than breaking up due to some mechanical failure, then it would be clear that the responsible organizations possess a weapons technology far beyond anything possessed by terrorist organizations and most states.
Given the photographic evidence conclusively showing that Columbia was hit by a bolt of lighting, the real question is whether the lighting bolt was a freak plasma discharge from the ionosphere, as supporters of the electrical universe model claim, or resulted from a plasma beam weapon. Since there was no thunderstorm activity observed below Columbia, and due to the long 30 second period of the plasma discharge, the evidence supports Sereda's conclusion. As to the question of whether plasma beam weapons are real, research conducted by Dr Douglas Beason shows the feasibility and practicality of Directed Energy Weapons in open source literature. Furthermore, video analysis of the 1991 STS-48 mission, shows what appears to be a plasma beam weapon targeted at a UFO.
In conclusion, if a plasma beam weapon was used to shoot down Columbia, then the timing appears to justify my original speculation that the destruction of the Columbia was related to the Bush administration's plans to start a war against Iraq. The war began six weeks later on March 20, and was preceded by intense international opposition to the Bush administration's plans. The ultimate source of the destruction of Columbia may have been a competing faction of the global governmental system that monitors extraterrestrial affairs and has deployed advanced space weapons. Alternatively, it may be between extraterrestrials and secret governmental entities, or extraterrestrials themselves. Whatever the ultimate explanation, it is important for the general public to learn about the capabilities of weapons deployed in space, the presence of secret space fleets possessed by different national governments, and how these may be being used in a clandestine manner by governmental and/or extraterrestrial forces. The idea of space based wars is no longer a fiction, but is an undisclosed reality of the early 21st Century.
Joined: 09 Oct 2007 Posts: 11 Location: UK Midlands
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 6:15 pm Post subject:
Either my network needs another hamster in the generating wheel or this site's host/database is doing spooky things today - this post arrived never at first then 3 times.
Joined: 25 Oct 2007 Posts: 28 Location: Galveston County, Texas, USA
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:08 pm Post subject:
Sereda maintains his 1000 batting average regarding space themes -- howlingly, relentlessly, resolutely wrong.
The pictures show exactly what the Columbia Accident Investigation Board decided -- a time exposure
with initial jitter that quickly damped out.
But there's one additional feature of what a shuttle fireball LOOKS like, that Sereda didn't know (item number 4,508 on the list of 'things Sereda doesn't know about spaceflight, that he doesn't know he doesn't know).
I've got a FAQ somewhere about it -- let me look it up and post it.
Is there anything ELSE, at all, about spaceflight that anybody thinks Sereda correctly 'knows', or just a long list of 'thinks he knows'?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
