The reality of atmospheric/near space anomalies

[jeremyjr]

This topic have been taboo in academic circles, and always have been surrounded by lots of misconceptions and myths, until recently. But now we have the tools to observe systematically anomalies available to almost anyone. With this post I am trying to report what I had found in the last two years after systematically observing them.

 

Anomalies usually are autonomous plasma-like/amorphous objects that can be observed almost in any clear day in daylight at any location in our planet. They usually move at high altitude, since they are small and usually bright they are masked by the sky scattering of visible light like the stars are in daylight. But we know that the sky scattering of visible light is lower in the infrared portion of the spectrum and even lower in the short radio wave segment, this basic knowledge is the key idea behind a "dual optical system", that essentially is a spotter/searching system that works in the short radio wave(radar) or in the infrared portion of the spectrum, this spotter section is the one used to scan the sky in daylight searching for anomalies, since we want to optically observe these objects aligned and centered with the spotter system a medium sized telescope is placed in the same way that a finderscope and a telescope are calibrated. In this way any object centered on the spotter/searching system will be visible on the telescope field of view and that way close-ups of this object will be possible.

 

Anybody using systematically dual optical systems will realize that anomalies are a constant presence in our planet. They behave like living beings and have many amazing characteristics.

 

This footage explain in a little more detail dual optical systems: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEG8oWl5hy4, you can say that dual optical systems are to anomalies like microscopes are to microorganisms.

 

After two years of systematic observing anomalies I can say that anomalies behave in a way that strongly suggest that they are living

beings and they usually have a plasma-like appearance, sometimes they are self-luminous. I had observed hundreds of them in many
configurations and groups.

 

For example, yesterday 09/28/14 I tracked a plasma-like self-luminous anomaly from 5:14pm to 5:48pm, not visible to the naked
eye but spotted and tracked in infrared, also close-ups footage was taken with the telescope portion of the dual optical system, you can watch that here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEFLxOw28a0

 

And today 09/29/14 I tracked another anomaly, a blue plasma-like self-luminous anomaly, tracked from 10:59am to
11:40am when it crossed the field of another anomaly that then I tracked, you can watch that here:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFnVVY8WWZk

 

The second anomaly spotted today 09/29/14 at 11:41 am can be watched here, in this footage you will be able to see two anomalies in the same field of view of the spotter camera and in the telescope field of view of the dual system:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TV7Ny_lMmk8

 

 

In these cases you will notice their plasma-like/amorphous appearance, these anomalies are pervasive in our planet, even when there is almost absolute ignorance about them in academic circles. But some people have been aware of this reality since the 1950s. Now we have very objective and systematic procedures to spot them and track them using dual optical systems. They are pervasive in our atmosphere, for example in consecutive days 06/05/14 and 06/06/14, 21 anomalies were recorded these two days. You can see a report of that here:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNL0X84KJVE

 

It is not difficult to estimate that if in a very limited amount of time, searching a very limited portion of the sky 21 anomalies where spotted, then their number have to be astronomical all over the atmosphere, and if they move freely in empty space, and many things suggest that then they may have a cosmological presence and influence. They could be a cosmological factor.

 

Another extraordinary property that some anomalies have is that they respond to light signals sent in their direction. Usually anomalies are not visible to the naked eye in daylight, but sometimes when a light signal is sent in their direction they will increase their brightness in such a way that they become visible to the naked eye, this response is unequivocal correlated to the light signals sent. Of the 21 anomalies spotted on days 06/05/14 and 06/06/14 three of them responded to light signals. There are even more details but I guess this is enough for now.

 

I know that the generalized reaction to reports like this is a "typical" dismissal, initially that was shocking to me, I always wonder how people can have such a lack of basic curiosity, this is very easy and simple to duplicate. This is an observational claim and as any observational claim it should be independently confirmed, anybody using a dual optical system in daylight in a clear day at any location will be able to spot and track anomalies. Not doing that will delay the general knowledge about this reality, it will only delay it, because this is real and nobody can stop the acknowledgement of a real phenomenon.

 

Thanks.

Edited September 29, 2014 by jeremyjr

[Ophiolite]

You rightly point out that the key to confirmation or rejection of this phenomenon lies with repeated observation. However, I have no intent - at this time - of investing the money or time to obtain the equipment and carry out the observations. What I should like to do is consider a couple of points you raise in your post.

 

This topic have been taboo in academic circles, and always have been surrounded by lots of misconceptions and myths, until recently. But now we have the tools to observe systematically anomalies available to almost anyone. With this post I am trying to report what I had found in the last two years after systematically observing them.

Would you expand on this a little please. Claiming that it is taboo implies a systematic effort to suppress discussion, or investigation of the phenomenon. It seems much more likely that what you are seeing is disinterest, based upon the suspicion that there is a mundane explanation for the observations. No researcher is going to waste time and funds investigating something that is not cutting edge. Please clarify why you believe the subject to actually be taboo.

 

 

Anomalies usually are autonomous plasma-like/amorphous objects that can be observed almost in any clear day in daylight at any location in our planet.

I cannot see anything on your examples that suggests plasma like. Amorphous is an excellent description, but to compare with a plasma suggests you are making an unwarranted jump towards what you think they may be. So, what other evidence do you have to justify the claim "plasma like"?

 

Please provide evidence to support your contention that they can be observed "at any location in (sic) our planet". Do we have confirmed observations from all continents, high and low latitudes, high and low altitudes, coastal regions and inland, etc.

 

How many other investigators are using the dual system you describe?

 

After two years of systematic observing anomalies I can say that anomalies behave in a way that strongly suggest that they are living

beings and they usually have a plasma-like appearance, sometimes they are self-luminous.

Please specify the criteria by which you are led to believe they are living beings.

Please specify, as noted previously, the criteria by which you assess them to be plasma-like.

Please specify what leads you to think they are self-luminous rather than reflective.

 

Anomalies usually are autonomous plasma-like/amorphous objects that can be observed almost in any clear day in daylight at any location in our planet.

I cannot see anything on your examples that suggests plasma like. Amorphous is an excellent description, but to compare with a plasma suggests you are making an unwarranted jump towards what you think they may be. So, what other evidence do you have to justify the claim "plasma like"?

 

Please provide evidence to support your contention that they can be observed "at any location in (sic) our planet". Do we have confirmed observations from all continents, high and low latitudes, high and low altitudes, coastal regions and inland, etc.

 

 

In these cases you will notice their plasma-like/amorphous appearance, these anomalies are pervasive in our planet, even when there is almost absolute ignorance about them in academic circles.

Which academic circles do you think should be aware of, or take an interest in, them? Keep in mind that science is generally compartmentalised. (A palaeontologist interested in Ordovician ostracods will probably have to fake an interest in a colleague's studies of sexual dimorphism in ammonites.)

 

 

But some people have been aware of this reality since the 1950s.

Who? Citations please.

 

It is not difficult to estimate that if in a very limited amount of time, searching a very limited portion of the sky 21 anomalies where spotted, then their number have to be astronomical all over the atmosphere, and if they move freely in empty space, and many things suggest that then they may have a cosmological presence and influence. They could be a cosmological factor.

What evidence do you have that they move freely in empty space?

 

You are using cosmology in a completely alien way to my understanding of the term. Please explain what you mean.

 

Another extraordinary property that some anomalies have is that they respond to light signals sent in their direction. Usually anomalies are not visible to the naked eye in daylight, but sometimes when a light signal is sent in their direction they will increase their brightness in such a way that they become visible to the naked eye, this response is unequivocal correlated to the light signals sent.

Are you stating, therefore, that there no instances in which their brightness has increased independently of any light signals? In other words are these objects always of constant brightness unless you send a light signal towards them? Is there a delay between sending a signal and their reaction? If so, what are the characteristics of this delay?

 

 

I know that the generalized reaction to reports like this is a "typical" dismissal, initially that was shocking to me,

Objective observations will almost always be welcomed. Radical - some might say bizarre - provisional speculations, presented with a higher level of confidence than merited will set of alarm bells. That should not shock you.

 

In regard to your first example form 28/09/2014, what, approximately was the elevation of the camera, in degrees, throughout the filming?

 

I look forward to your responses.

[jeremyjr]

These are very fair questions, I will try to answer each one of them.

 

"Would you expand on this a little please. Claiming that it is taboo implies a systematic effort to suppress discussion, or investigation of the phenomenon. It seems much more likely that what you are seeing is disinterest, based upon the suspicion that there is a mundane explanation for the observations. No researcher is going to waste time and funds investigating something that is not cutting edge. Please clarify why you believe the subject to actually be taboo."

 

I said that this topic is taboo because usually is associated with UFOs and that is a very discredited topic(with very good reasons) in scientific circles.

 

"I cannot see anything on your examples that suggests plasma like. Amorphous is an excellent description, but to compare with a plasma suggests you are making an unwarranted jump towards what you think they may be. So, what other evidence do you have to justify the claim "plasma like"?

 

I said plasma-like to convey an image, because usually they are like a localized cloud, that change shape continuously, but you are right amorphous is maybe a more descriptive term. Sometimes they appear as very bright localized areas of light that moves autonomously.

 

"Please provide evidence to support your contention that they can be observed "at any location in (sic) our planet". Do we have confirmed observations from all continents, high and low latitudes, high and low altitudes, coastal regions and inland, etc.

How many other investigators are using the dual system you describe?"

 

I follow closely many reported sightings all around the world, anybody doing that will be able to note that these type of objects are being reported all around the planet, since these reports come usually from people with no technical and/or scientific training the reports are usually cluttered with imprecision and subjective interpretations, but many of these reports have video footage that is the basic raw data that I use to make that claim.

 

Even when the basic ideas behind the design of a dual optical system have been around for a while now, I am not aware of anybody else using dual optical systems to systematic make atmospheric observations, but I have been promoting the idea and it will be not long before more people star using it. The idea behind it is so simple that anybody with just a basic understanding of atmospheric observations will realize its usefulness. It is really not an exaggeration to claim that dual optical systems are to anomalies what microscopes are to microorganisms. I had build several dual systems now, each new one an improvement over the previous one, the one that I use now have a spotter section that works in the infrared portion of the spectrum using a 950nm IR pass filter and two aligned telescopes, one a refractor and one a reflector, each one with different camera models, that way I am very protected against camera/firmware artifacts. Recently I learned that in the 1950s an Army UFO research group: Project Blue Book proposed to place telescopes aligned with radars, the same idea used in a dual optical system, it is reported that their proposal was never approved, but then the original idea of a dual optical system is theirs, I am the one that had implemented that idea independently using infrared cameras instead of radars and it is very effective, using radars will be even more effective for the explained reasons. The anomalies spotted so far are "macroscopic", but is not difficult to imagine that there are small, or very small ones that have not been observed until now, since they look alive, it is also not difficult to imagine that there are many different "types/species" of anomalies, I had observed many different configurations, but it is clear that I had touched just the very tip of the iceberg.

 

"Please specify the criteria by which you are led to believe they are living beings.

Please specify, as noted previously, the criteria by which you assess them to be plasma-like.

Please specify what leads you to think they are self-luminous rather than reflective."

 

After watching hundred of these anomalies, the conclusion that they are living beings is a natural one, anybody observing them will be lead to believe that. Now I have several cases where this "aliveness" is very clear:

 

- For example when you see more than one anomaly "interacting" with the other then that idea is more clear, for example as in this footage:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PqqW4kMrz0

 

In here you will see a footage taken with the spotter camera in infrared of two anomalies circling each other. Be aware that the spotter footage is time stamped in real time and the elevation. azimuth data always is in the footage( that answer another question ). Also be aware that this footage was done at a 160mm focal length in the lens using a 1/3 CCD camera( 6 mm CCD sensor size ) that level of optical magnification is usually enough to "resolve" almost any mundane object in the atmosphere( this was done in daylight ), but even more close-up footage of these anomalies is also available taken with the aligned telescope that have a 1000mm focal length and was using a 1/3 CCD HD camera, a link to the close-up footage is available in spotter footage.

 

Now there are more examples of this "aliveness" characteristics of anomalies, I put together a footage a while ago where I argued why anomalies can be considered living beings, you can watch that here:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBZqWHt74_c

 

Now when I said that some anomalies are self-luminous and or have sections that emit light is because I had recorded in many occasions anomalies that are bright with light behind a cloud or because the bright that they emit do not correspond to any reflections, and as I mentioned before some anomalies had responded to light signals increasing its brightness, is very simple: if you look in daylight to a clear portion of the sky and you see the clear sky with nothing there and then after you sent mirror reflections in that direction you see in that spot a very bright point of light you will know that whatever is there is emitting light and whatever is there is "responding" to your signals, is that simple.

 

For example the following anomaly clearly shows portions of it that are self-luminous, this also have the extra feature of a second anomaly seen moving "close" to the one being tracked, another example of the presence of anomalies in our skies:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLO-0bgqs_A

 

 

"Which academic circles do you think should be aware of, or take an interest in, them? Keep in mind that science is generally compartmentalised. (A palaeontologist interested in Ordovician ostracods will probably have to fake an interest in a colleague's studies of sexual dimorphism in ammonites.)"

 

I believe that this phenomenon or manifestations should be studied by multidisciplinary research groups openly, in any major University in the world this should be studied, very likely these studies will need the input of almost any major branch of science.

 

"Who? Citations please."

 

Anomalies where already observed systematically in the 1950s by Trevor J Constable, read his 1958 book "They live in the sky", even when he mixed many subjective and maybe mystic ideas on this book, his observations were very objective. I am now observing almost the same anomalies that he described in his book, with better technology I am able to spot a lot more variations that he described, but essentially he was the pioneer in this field.

 

"What evidence do you have that they move freely in empty space?

You are using cosmology in a completely alien way to my understanding of the term. Please explain what you mean."

 

To claim that I am using some "unofficial" NASA videos where the same type of anomalies that I had observed can be seen from the space station. I am fully aware that this point is very speculative compared with almost all others that are based in direct observations, but if these anomalies can move freely in empty space and they are living beings then the conclusion follows almost directly: they will be pervasive in almost all Universe, since they will have some mass, this mass have never been taken in count in any model of the Universe, also their presence in great scale in empty space can alter the electromagnetic radiation that pass through them and we receive, that can alter a lot of conclusions that we have taken ignoring their presence.

 

"Are you stating, therefore, that there no instances in which their brightness has increased independently of any light signals? In other words are these objects always of constant brightness unless you send a light signal towards them? Is there a delay between sending a signal and their reaction? If so, what are the characteristics of this delay?"

 

As I explained in another answer, if you see a clear portion of the blue sky in daylight with nothing there and after you sent mirror reflection in that direction you see a very bright point of light, is pure common sense to think that whatever is in that spot is self-luminous and whatever is in that spot is "responding" to your signals, if that happen then in the spot that you know that one anomaly is located( because the telescope and cameras are pointing in that direction ) then is not rocket science to assume that is the anomaly responding to your signals, this had happened multiple times now.

 

But as it happens in some occasions the "response" have really been more spectacular, but we can let that for another post.

 

 

"Objective observations will almost always be welcomed. Radical - some might say bizarre - provisional speculations, presented with a higher level of confidence than merited will set of alarm bells. That should not shock you.

In regard to your first example form 28/09/2014, what, approximately was the elevation of the camera, in degrees, throughout the filming?"

 

What always shock me is the pervasive simplistic debunking mentality with zero open-mindedness, I truly valued scientific inquiry and precision, my Mathematics background compel me to do so. But again all of these are observational claims and I hope that people just do not do what the folklore tell us about what the Cardinals did when Galileo tried to show them what can be seen through a telescope, in this case what can be observed via a dual optical system. As I mentioned in another answer all footage is time stamped in real time and the spotter footage contains also azimuth, elevation data.

 

Thanks.

 

Addition: Let me add here that even when it was not your intention when you used "bizarre" I will take that as a compliment, many of the ideas and theories that are now at the core of our current scientific worldview started as "bizarre" ideas, can we imagine anything more "bizarre" for a "classical" formed mind than Quantum Mechanics? It is really not surprising than one of the most brightest "classical" minds of all time( Einstein ) never accepted the statistical interpretation of it, even when he himself made outstanding contributions to that area.

 

Let me point out that I am not claiming any priority here, simply I am synthetizing in a "clear" way what was already out there but in disconnected ways, maybe the realization of the significance of dual optical systems for the optical detection and tracking of anomalies can be considered as a contribution, but even that idea can be considered as a simple extension of ideas that were already exposed in the 1950s. One thing is crystal clear to me, independently of the ultimate nature of anomalies, they are real and they can be detected and tracked using dual optical systems.

 

Also I consider the prevalent simplistic debunking mentality as unscientific and dogmatic and very frequently people that are the exponents of that approach do not have a really intimate knowledge of the problems at hand, that attitude is really a very superficial approach to something really extraordinary that demands very acute analytical skills.

 

Addition #2: Regarding your phrase "No researcher is going to waste time and funds investigating something that is not cutting edge", I can say that this is a very "safe" approach for the given researcher, also when something is known to be "cutting edge" is something that already have been identified as such "socially", that means that usually the researcher entering such a cutting edge field will not be a pioneer, the pioneers are the ones that created the "cutting edge" field, the ones that took the risk and leap of mind to enter an usually "virgin" territory, then after advances were done by these pioneers, then the army of "researchers" that moves with the flow of fashion will enter then the cutting edge field.

 

And actually this is an huge opportunity for people that do not mind taking some risks, this is clearly still in the pioneering phase, but it will definitely get to the "cutting edge" phase it is just a matter of time. I can not imagine any topic more interesting and fascinating than this one, it is the co-fluency of many old and new ideas and very likely its detailed study will change many of our currently accepted scientific views of the world.

Edited September 30, 2014 by jeremyjr

[swansont]

How to use the quote function

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/82164-the-quote-function-a-tutorial-in-several-parts/

[jeremyjr]

As I already posted elsewhere here:

 

"If no independent verification is done this will continue to be known for just a very limited number of people and the knowledge gained by this reduced number of people may be lost due to this generalized "social dismissal" of an extraordinary phenomenon.

 

But I am convinced that since the number of people aware of the reality of these plasma-like/amorphous objects is growing it will lead to a point were the academic circles that have been blind to this until now will be forced to acknowledge something that have already been confirmed by multiple people all around the world. This is a clear cut case where the documentation and study of something extraordinary is being done by people outside academia and it is not the first time that this had happened, but is really extraordinary that is happening in the 21th century. We are very lucky to have still people that act and think independently even in the age of "organized science"."

 

Let me add here that the reality of anomalies is independent of the acknowledgment of it by the scientific/academic circles in the same way that the reality of Jupiter's moons was independent of the Cardinals's acknowledgement on Galileo's time, it will be just a matter of time, but this reality have been known for some people since the 1950s and it have been dismissed/ignored by the scientific circles, this actually can be considered as the biggest blunder ever done by "science" in human history, and I placed science in quotations marks because even on these conditions real science have been done by the individuals that have been documenting this even in the face of something that can be considered as a "social inquisition", the very human inner curiosity always have been present.

 

Again this is an observational claim and I urge people with independent thinking to confirm the reality of anomalies by systematically scanning the atmosphere in a clear day in daylight using dual optical systems(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irtLjxe2Si4).

[jeremyjr]

As I already mentioned I usually sent light signals to anomalies using a mirror in daylight, some anomalies have "responded" in the way that I already have described by increasing their brightness.

 

Let me describe then the cases when their "response" have been spectacular/dramatic and really mind blowing:

 

Now I do not sent random light signals, I always sent a prime number of reflections followed by a pause, I sent 3 reflections, then pause, then 5 reflections, pause, 7 reflections, etc. Since mirror reflections can be considered as electromagnetic pulses, recently I started to experiment an automatic way of sending these signals using a 2.54Ghz short radio wave transmitter build cheaply using an used microwave ovens( microwave ovens have internally a relatively powerful 2.54Ghz transmitter), by using now an Arduino board and a switch I can then send prime sequences of electromagnetic pulses using a parabolic satellite antenna, all cost less than $50.

 

Now going back to the dramatic anomalies responses, as I said I sent them signals in sequences of prime numbers, well the mind blowing part is that some anomalies had responded by "forming" digit shapes in the sky that correspond to digits "3" and digit "5". As I already mentioned anomalies are usually amorphous autonomous objects, they change shape in a continuous way, in several occasions anomalies have been observed forming "recognizable" shapes.

 

 

1- Well on 03/30/14 3:40pm EST anomalies formed digits "3" and "5" together, watch that here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeDxtC_glI4

 

2- In several occasions anomalies have formed digit "3", on 04/12/14 1:14pm EST:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYNiA_D_ZIs

 

3- In one occasion anomalies formed digit "5", 09/01/14 6:44pm EST:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoJH1vVM2Xs

 

This type of "response" really have very deep implications, I know that many people will be shocked in disbelief, etc. But again this is real and this is happening, it is up to you to witness something similar or just continue to be ignorant of this extraordinary reality, I am perfectly aware of that initial reaction, I did had that too, but nothing can replace direct experience, nothing.

 

I am planning to extend the level of observations that I currently do, I will be upgrading the system to allow triangulation, that way distance estimation will be possible and with that speed and anomalies dimensions will be more easily estimated.

 

Also the different methods to "interact" with anomalies will be expanded. Everything that we have done have been done using our resources and ideas and in our own time. It will be really great that more people with more resources, new ideas and better equipment start doing the same. There are many people in the world already very aware of this reality and doing systematic observations on their own, as far as I know all of them are outside of "academic circles", perhaps that have been a "blessing", we are not bound by the chains of academic dogmatism and formality, it is a fact that we are way ahead of them, they still are pondering about the reality of this, many do not even know about this, some are reading about this for the first time after these posts, you have to wonder why?

Edited October 1, 2014 by jeremyjr

[andrewcellini]

i'm going with balloons, but from those videos it is hard to tell.

 

edit: this video of yours is probably also a balloon -

Edited October 1, 2014 by andrewcellini

[Strange]

edit: this video of yours is probably also a balloon -

 

And that video is probably why no one will take this stuff seriously.

[andrewcellini]

OP, you claim that there is continuous change in shape. could it be a deflated foil balloon, or are you dead set on plasma life? it's movements seem more at the hands of the wind and gravity than orchestrated from it's internal processes.

 

this video is linked through annotation on yours showing similar objects. looks like a deflated foil balloon.

Edited October 1, 2014 by andrewcellini

[jeremyjr]

OP, you claim that there is continuous change in shape. could it be a deflated foil balloon, or are you dead set on plasma life? it's movements seem more at the hands of the wind and gravity than orchestrated from it's internal processes.

 

this video is linked through annotation on yours showing similar objects. looks like a deflated foil balloon.

 

 

Similarity do not implies identity, making simplistic generalizations is one of the common mistakes that people without experience make. As I mentioned before there is a lot assumptions, and one of the generalized ones is the logic mistake of using similarity to imply identity.

 

Let me put some examples:

 

1- The footage that I posted earlier about two anomalies "interacting", this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PqqW4kMrz0

By your simplistic implication these will be "balloons" interacting, simplistic debunking arguments are easily debunked because usually the person doing it do not really have an intimate knowledge of the subject at hand.

 

2- The footage where an anomaly is making a digit "5", this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoJH1vVM2Xs

The detail that people making the "ballons-explain-everything" argument fail to observe in this case is the "flying pattern" of this object, any observant person will realize that this object do not move like a balloon, not to mention the apparent movement of this object against the wind, that analysis can be watched here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1zh2ZapweE, or the apparent fact that this object is self-luminous, analysis here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5vnTscZajg

 

3- Or cases where anomalies show "extreme morphing", changes of shape that can not explained by a "foil balloon" moving in the wind, and usually many of these objects do not "respect" wind direction:

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNg7n9k2klY

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGovWKiOY7o

 

But I have many, many more cases where your "easy pick" to analyze will not hold. I fully understand how hard is for some people to accept that there are objects that have variable geometry/morphology/topology, even more to accept that some anomalies show very sophisticated mimicry, but that is really not surprising if you accept that they are living beings and many living beings on earth exhibit also very sophisticated mimicry.

 

I spotted this anomaly, that at first sight may look like a balloon to many, but you need to observe it for a little while and see that this object is not constant to realize that it is not a balloon. Let me tell you that after two years of making atmospheric systematic observations I have watched my share of mundane objects, and as in any human activity people doing one activity for a while develop some "fine tuning" that we may call "experience". This footage I called "perception test" because it is a perception test. Be also aware that I was very much aware of the expected reaction of casual viewers of this footage, but I have to present what I am observing, many people doing active observations are aware of this type of anomaly but they are "afraid" of people reaction and opt for not publishing it. The simplistic analysis to witch I am responding is one of the "responses" that they fear, but we have to be honest first to ourselves.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmK73JEsJW8

 

Also let me add a recent example of an anomaly flying at low altitude, one that some people will try to "explain away" as a foil balloon, in three parts:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUBuQbHfBm4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1eqA6PZN20

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIAPJGEVENY

 

One characteristic that these "variable anomalies" have is that their change of shape goes through a cycle, if you observe the footage in detail you will notice that.

 

But again, nothing can replace direct experience. The ultimate validation is to observe these objects in first person, if you do not do that, then you will be repeating the same assumptions made by many or accepting your own preconceptions/assumptions without really having the experience to really tell, this "social deadlock" have been going on now for more than 60 years, almost everybody is accepting on faith the simplistic arguments, but as a rule these arguments are exposed by people with zero experience doing atmospheric observations, even more for people that have never made optical atmospheric observations with high optical magnification as you can do using a dual optical system.

 

The ultimate crystallization for anybody of the reality of anomalies is when you witness, you, the response of one anomaly to your signals, when you witness something like that, well nothing can change that. I am not a "believer", far from it, I only believe what I can verify independently with my own equipment doing direct observations, that is at the core of the scientific method, but many people today are very happy accepting on faith many things, even some things that are considered "scientific" and things that they will never be able to verify by themselves. But the reality of anomalies is one of the things that is in almost anybody hands to verify by themselves, that is one thing that you do not need to take on faith.

[andrewcellini]

i don't know what to tell you. maybe someone had a 35th or 53rd birthday, that seems more rational than claiming they are plasma beings interacting. i don't even know how you could possibly conclude that from this video.

frankly they all look like foil balloons. even the ones which "morph," which looks like multiple balloons tied together bumping around. but hey if they're plasma aliens...

 

and this looks like a deflated foil balloon

ps it's your video Edited October 2, 2014 by andrewcellini

[jeremyjr]

i don't know what to tell you. maybe someone had a 35th or 53rd birthday, that seems more rational than claiming they are plasma beings interacting. i don't even know how you could possibly conclude that from this video.

frankly they all look like foil balloons. even the ones which "morph," which looks like multiple balloons tied together bumping around. but hey if they're plasma aliens...

 

and this looks like a deflated foil balloon

ps it's your video

 

The lack of serious consideration in your post is crystal clear, nothing serious of course can be expected from that approach, simplistic and cover all generalizations are also not serious, the lack of attention to details is pervasive in your post, but of course you are entitled to that.

 

By the way I never mentioned "alien" in any of my posts, but some people continue to make that inference without really any basis. For some people is really hard to imagine that maybe we are witnessing earth based phenomena, in the same way that we now know of the existence of organisms that are adapted to extreme conditions very deep in the ocean etc. it is not hard to imagine organisms that had adapted to the conditions in the high levels of the atmosphere, pretending that we know everything that happen in the vastness of the atmosphere is really very naive.

 

This is another example of an anomaly that responded to light signals, spotted on 08/19/14 and tracked from 5:58pm to 7:14pm, I have several footage about this case, the next one shows a comparison between the aspect of this anomaly at different times:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldo62v2uuIU

 

In this case also the flying pattern is another detail that people with lack of attention to details will miss.

[Strange]

The lack of serious consideration in your post is crystal clear, nothing serious of course can be expected from that approach, simplistic and cover all generalizations are also not serious, the lack of attention to details is pervasive in your post, but of course you are entitled to that.

Sorry, but unless you can eliminate obvious mundane explanations (such as balloons) there is nothing to consider.

 

There is no point saying "this is an anomalous plasma lifeform" (or whatever) when there are dozens of other possible explanations. You need to prove that these other explanations are impossible before anyone would consider something extraordinary.

[jeremyjr]

Or this case of another plasma-like/amorphous self-luminous anomaly that responded to light signals, in this footage you can watch segments taken from three cameras and a bird is seen below the anomaly level from the three cameras:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_V5FAf_F4o

 

Let me just add that it will be enough to have just one case( and I have already a few ) where all possible explanations using mundane objects are not possible to have a compelling case that merit further study and that is what many people around the world are doing already, if after you witnessed something like that you do not have a compelling need to know more about the phenomenon by yourself (without having to wait for answers from third parties that may never come or you have to take on faith) then you really do not have a natural scientific curiosity. After that anybody with that burning fire of inner curiosity will not stop trying to find out what that really is.

It is kind of ironic, but the same type of people, that with an extraordinary lack of perception are unable to accept what many video footage show consistently as no ordinary phenomena, is frequently the same type of people that accepted on faith the reality of the ether as an ac-hoc fantastic substance "necessary" to "explain" the propagation of electromagnetic radiation in empty space in the 1900s, the existence of that fantastic substance ether was accepted by the scientific circles of the time, even costly experiments were done to show the movement of earth through that ether (The Michelson Morley experiments), but it took the mental clarity and acute analysis of an Einstein to show that the ether existence was really a collective pipe dream shared by almost all scientific circles.

 

I mentioned the ether because that is not an isolated case where the scientific community fully embrace an ac-hoc fantastic substance, today we have a sister for the ether, we have dark matter another ac-hoc substance that is fully accepted by the scientific circles as real even when there is absolutely zero direct evidence of its existence, but many have taken that on faith, without really any deep inquiry, many posts in this forum show that view, my guess is that dark matter will have the same fate that the ether had.

 

This kind of sociological "duplicity" is also behind the impasse on the acceptance of the reality of anomalies, but that impasse is already weaving, with the wonders of the internet the communication between the very selected group of people fully aware of this reality is possible and the sharing of ideas and experiences is almost immediate. I am not implying that we are free of mistakes, far from it, but we learn from our mistakes and we do not take anything for granted and we try very hard not to assume and be blinded by our preconceptions and expectations, or by what some people have said here as "more rational", that phrase actually mean "what should be expected", but that is right there a preconception, you expect something and then that something is what you should observe or what is observed, no honest and real observer can have that kind of view, any observer of the atmosphere is really like an observer of cosmic rays, the observer of cosmic rays can not assume to expect something "more rational" otherwise he will miss that exotic particle that is present on the evidence, doing serious systematic atmospheric observations needs the same kind of attitude.

[andrewcellini]

how are they self luminous? they look quite reflective like they are made of a foil, and the videos are taken during sunlight correct?

 

how did you confirm the response of this supposed entity to reflected light from a mirror?

[jeremyjr]

Lets analyze this footage of the "morphing" anomaly spotted 04/12/14 at 1:55 pm EST and recorded from three independent cameras, these are frames taken from a Telephoto lens set at 900mm and an optical magnification around 130x:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mH8esorQx4M

 

Anybody that really watch that will realize that all these configurations can not be produced by the same balloon configuration, these are just some samples of the same object at different times:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anybody with a minimal of observational experience will know that.

 

The scientific method teach us that observational data is king, observational data consistent across multiple independent observers reign supreme, if your ideas, theories, worldview is in contradiction with consistent observational data, then you need to consider modifying these ideas, theories and/or worldview.

 

On this there is only one scientific option: the independent confirmation of these observations, failing to do so it will be basically to ignored what is being reported consistently all across the planet just because your preconceived ideas tell you that that is not what is "suppose" to be observed, but you really never had done any of these observations yourself, you really do not know what really should be expected, you are just assuming nothing more and that obviously is far from being scientific and that is exactly what had happened until now: the scientific community as a whole have been assuming and have been really very far from being really scientific.

[andrewcellini]

have you tested to seem if the balloon explanation is insufficient? how about any other more rational explanations?

 

with such low resolution photographs i don't know how you could conclude really anything. they still appear to be like a bunch of balloons at least in the first two frames.

 

i'm not saying they are, i'm saying they look like. i don't think from these videos you could conclude this is a plasma based life form. i'm really interested in how you could have concluded this. you have a bunch of videos of something you claim is plasma anomaly and zero experiments to test if you actually see what you think you've seen.

[Strange]

 

we have dark matter another ac-hoc substance that is fully accepted by the scientific circles as real even when there is absolutely zero direct evidence of its existence

 

There are multiple lines of evidence for dark matter. Why would anyone have invented it without evidence?

[jeremyjr]

Or for example this "dramatic" transformation of an anomaly, spotted on 02/17/14 and tracked from 10:55 am to 11:15 am EST, recorded too with three cameras simultaneously:

 

1- Footage taken with the telescope part of the dual optical system, watch it carefully, in HD and full screen:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3uJL8gPd-8

 

2- These are the last three minutes from the tracking/spotter camera, as seen from a relatively optical wide view, almost anybody will claim that this is a bird:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLmUm9D1Rrs

 

3- And this is the full tracking/spotter camera footage:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZX5i2aML1w

 

Another point that I want to add is that many people "assume" that they know how to differentiate a "drifting/uncontrolled" flying pattern from a "controlled" flying pattern, already some replies here indicate that. Let me just say that this area contains many open scientific problems and it is not a trivial thing to differentiate from each one, I am not even talking about "intelligently" controlled flying pattern, that contains the concept of "intelligence" and that is a concept for which there is no universal agreement.

 

To make this last point more clear, let me just mention one case of a footage where one elongated object, axially symmetric was moving consistently along its axis, well many people claimed that that object was a balloon, even some "specialists", it can be proved that no balloon drifting in a uniform air current will ever move that way, you can even make some simple trial runs with balloons and see it for yourself. The basic physics principle to use here is that any homogeneous object "floating" in a uniform fluid will always tend to offer to the fluid flow an area of maximal drag, for an homogeneous elongated axially symmetric balloon drifting in the wind that implies that the balloon almost always will "tend" to place itself traversal to the wind current(with its axis perpendicular to the wind direction), anybody that have been in a boat in a smooth current very likely have noted that "tendency" when the boat is left "drifting", this is a "tendency", that is why balloons "tumble". This simple case was missed by specialists with supposedly great experience. So do not assume that you can right away differentiate one from the other without making a proper analysis.

Edited October 2, 2014 by jeremyjr

[Strange]

 

Let me just say that this area contains many open scientific problems and it is not a trivial thing to differentiate from each one

 

And yet you are jumping straight from "unidentified but with possible mundane explanation" to "controlled!! intelligent!!! plasma!!1!"

 

Please list all the alternative causes you have considered and the precise steps you have taken to rule them out.

[jeremyjr]

 

And yet you are jumping straight from "unidentified but with possible mundane explanation" to "controlled!! intelligent!!! plasma!!1!"

 

Please list all the alternative causes you have considered and the precise steps you have taken to rule them out.

I have never refer to anomalies as "intelligent" you are putting words in my mouth, by your comments I can infer that you will never understand my position, you are "attacking" the "problem" from a dogmatic point of view. This is really extraordinary simple and the result of direct observations, if you do not have any experience doing atmospheric observations, all your "conclusions" are assumptions as simple as that.

Let me just make clear that the "plasma" idea is a hypothesis, based in the plasma-like/amorphous appearance of these objects, that very likely by all accumulated experience that I have are not carbon based, but that need to be verified directly of course.

 

One thing, again is crystal clear, many of the footage presented here do not have a known mundane explanation, at least not one that I know of, assuming that there is one is just another assumption based on nothing.

 

That is the "classical" simplistic( and wrong ) debunking approach: We have just a list of possible "explanations"( a very short list by the way ) and then by a "interpolation" process we "pick" the "closest" explanation possible then we "claim" by "Occam razor" than that is the more "likely" explanation. Far from being anything close to be scientific.

 

I recommend you to really watch the footage presented and read what I had posted, then when you present here something that resembles anything close to a serious analysis then I will consider your input, just be aware that there are a lot of time and effort behind any footage presented here and I have done my homework, I expect that you do yours.

Edited October 2, 2014 by jeremyjr

[Strange]

I have never refer to anomalies as "intelligent" you are putting words in my mouth, by your comments I can infer that you will never understand my position, you are "attacking" the "problem" from a dogmatic point of view.

 

I am not "attacking the problem" whatever that means. I am commenting on your apparent lack of critical thinking. But feel free to prove me wrong:

Please list all the alternative causes you have considered and the precise steps you have taken to rule them out.

 

 

assuming that there is [a mundane explanation] is just another assumption based on nothing.

 

It is the obvious default assumption. The null hypothesis. It is up to you to provide evidence (beyond "hey look at this") that the reasonable assumption is invalid. Making the assertion "do not have a known mundane explanation" is unconvincing unless you provide details of which mundane explanations have been considered and what exact steps have been taken to eliminate them.

[jeremyjr]

 

I am not "attacking the problem" whatever that means. I am commenting on your apparent lack of critical thinking. But feel free to prove me wrong:

Please list all the alternative causes you have considered and the precise steps you have taken to rule them out.

 

 

It is the obvious default assumption. The null hypothesis. It is up to you to provide evidence (beyond "hey look at this") that the reasonable assumption is invalid. Making the assertion "do not have a known mundane explanation" is unconvincing unless you provide details of which mundane explanations have been considered and what exact steps have been taken to eliminate them.

 

Again your dogmatic approach is crystal clear, if you have read my posts and you have watched the footage you will have the answers to your questions, but it looks like you want everything spell out for you, again do your homework I am not going to do it for you. I am not looking for "your" approval by the way, I do not need it.

[andrewcellini]

you keep saying they look like plasma. that's hardly an explanation. your posts are just conjectures with these videos.

 

there is nothing dogmatic about not accepting your explanation when it comes with no evidence.

 

how is it that you can conclude that they are plasma? i'm not looking for "because they are plasma like." i don't even know what that's supposed to mean or how these videos show that.

Edited October 2, 2014 by andrewcellini

[Strange]

 

Again your dogmatic approach is crystal clear

 

I have read your posts. The only thing I am being "dogmatic" about is that you have not explained how you have eliminated mundane causes. You have just asserted they are not possible.

 

Your reluctance to answer this very simple question suggests you have made no such effort. You have just decided, arbitrarily, that there can't be one. Sorry, not convincing.

 

And it is this lack of rigour in your approach that will cause people to be sceptical, not any sort of dogma or taboo.

 

Insulting your audience is not really going to help, either.

 

Also, "watch the video" is not a good argument as there is nothing to judge size, distance, speed or to separate camera movement from movement of the object. Plus, human perception is a notoriously unreliable tool (as has been demonstrated by Actual Science).

Edited October 2, 2014 by Strange