Evidence: The Case for NASA UFOs

Objects referenced by cover illustration have been completely debunked

I am not a traditional skeptic, nor am I a traditional believer. I am a truth-seeker, neither wanting nor not wanting to believe one thing or another. I like to solve puzzles and the UFO phenomenon is a fascinating puzzle. One cannot approach it as a whole and either dismiss nor embrace the subject, but rather examine each incident and report on a case by case basis.

I am dubious that *all* objects captured by Space Shuttle cameras can be explained as ice, dust or debris, because some of them change velocity, change direction, or illuminate and pulsate with light that's far too bright to be explained by sunlight (especially when the sun is on the other side of the planet). It is also very interesting that NASA cameras tend to avoid or hide objects that pass into view that are less obviously ice or debris by steering the cameras away or masking them with static.

However, the illustration on this product is one of the "objects" that has been completely debunked on History Channel's UFO Hunters, which features some very pro-extraterrestrial believers. It was demonstrated in a lab that a particle floating through the view of a camera in close range, while the depth of field (where the camera is focused) is more distant, produces a wide circle (this is called a circle of confusion, we've all seen those) -- with a hole in the middle and a little notch on one side. The particle drifts in front of the objects in the background, but appears to drift behind them because the circle of confusion is translucent and the objects far in the distance, which are in focus, are brighter. It was completely reproduced in a lab, and wasn't too difficult either.

It was a slam-dunk on this type of object. It is a small particle of ice, dust or debris that is floating by the camera at extremely close range, and therefore very out of focus. It is not a giant super-saucer.

I think it's very embarrassing for this particular researcher to base an entire study on this type of object, as there are far more interesting objects for examination. June 17, 2008

Interesting and questionable?

A great deal of time and effort went into 'Evidence - The Case for NASA UFO's, however, the DVD reminded me of why I couldn't sit still for over 2 hours in a classroom. Although the information was fascinating, it was pretty dry at times, especially when I was looking for definitive visual proof of UFO's.
Some great theories and video captures, but proof was lacking even though I saw with my own two eyes objects hurtling through the air. Now, if what these objects were could have been discussed by opponents with their opinions - THAT would have been the ticket - not just a one way argument. The DVD was worth it just to get this possibility of little green men off of my mind, even though I myself have witnessed a UFO, and the theory of the speed required to space travel was mind boggling in itself, but even though I am a fan I can't get past Dan Akroyd joshing us as a Conehead in Saturday Night Live. April 13, 2008

Idiotic

This is absolutely, positively, impressively pathetic. David Sereda is not an expert on anything, let alone physics or space science. It's dust, people. Dust and ice. The shuttle is a very dirty object once it gets into space. Note that EVERY item he points to (save one) moves in a straight line at a constant velocity. I would be much more impressed if any of these things moved in changing trajectories. The most ludicrous is the "swarm" around the "tether." March 31, 2008

Absolutely Tedious

David Sereda is fanatically sincere and wants us all to believe his theories regarding these NASA films. I didn't need convincing, I know there is an alien agenda of some sort. I just don't believe Sereda's scenerio. If you are looking to buy a UFO video for enlightenment and entertainment, this is not for you. He should pay the public to sit through this video. Sereda spends several hours trying to scientifically convince us that these huge round blurs are gigantic ufos. I watched this portion multiple times and they just don't behave intellentlly controlled, and that was really the bottom line for me. They do not make right angles or go backwards,they just seem to drift like dust in a vaccuum. He could talk till he's blue in the face but these round 'blurs' do not behave intelligently. I wish David Sereda well, he is SO sincere. I hope he gets it right sooner or later. He just didn't get it right with this one (YAWN).

Addendem: (03/08) I have alot of respect for David Sereda, he is brilliant, and a great champion for UFO Reality (we should not need that anymore, given all the physical proof that exists in this 'Age of Information').I feel rotten for having written such a poor review on his project. But in retrospect I still don't buy it. And to sit through almost 4 hours of Sereda's calculations is just BORING! March 19, 2008

How NOT to spend 3 hours of your time!

Most of this video (95%) is the presenter (Sereda) giving a high school level lecture on basic physics. Once in awhile, he will present a NASA video of what appears to be bright objects flying in space. This is easily explained by ice particles or debris floating in space, many of which are out of focus. There is no intelligence behind the motion of these flying partices. In the last hour, Sereda rambles on and on with his strange theories about his "galaxy clock" and how it relates to galaxies, black holes, faster than light travel, and then about ancient tribes in Asia and Africa and Egyptian mythology. Don't waste your time or money on this boring video. February 2, 2008

More reviews at Amazon.com ...