jeremyjr Posted October 6, 2014 Author Posted October 6, 2014 (edited) I must admit I like to take a look at the strange and unexplaned videos etc on youtube once in a while - it's like switching-off to me, some of the graphics in those videos are like big-budget movie standard. I've seen a couple of these anomaly videos before and probably the most famous is the Dark Knight and the Ark. These videos do stir the imagination and that's good, but other than show images/video and the individuals own take on what they've filmed there's nothing else. And this being the case youtube is probably the best place for them where a youngster may have his imagination stired that leads him down a path to become a great scientist. I watched the video you linked (same link above), I'm no camera man or photographer so please would you tell me why the "anomaly" seems to get stuck top of frame at about 1m31s?, it looks odd to me. This phrase "These videos do stir the imagination and that's good, but other than show images/video and the individuals own take on what they've filmed there's nothing else" actually said it all, this approach is the one that perpetuate the ignorance about an extraordinary phenomenon from the general population, the same attitude that is pervasive in almost all scientific circles, with these preconceptions it is not surprising that this have been going on for more than 50 years. We are really very lucky to have people that think independently, have no preconceptions and never take for granted anything that is coming from any "expert". Assuming that the only "valid" facts or science is coming from "organized science" is one of the reasons why this situation had lasted for more than 50 years. The extraordinary work of active observers all around the world is a lasting example of that, they have been the pioneers on this for years using their very own resources and always under the constant dismissal and sometimes personal attacks of self-appointed debunkers/inquisitors. Raw video footage from any video shown here or in my channel is available to anyone, usually the video was taken with more than one camera simultaneously, time stamped in real time and station PC was synchronized used Dimension 4. The particular video in this post was recorded simultaneously by three cameras, anybody with real interest in doing a serious analysis is welcome to receive it. But again the only serious option in this "problem" of the reality of anomalies is to make direct observations, I am providing simple procedures to duplicate the observation of similar objects reported by almost all active observers that normally use naked eye spotting but when using dual optical systems many more anomalies are spotted and their constant presence in our planet is becoming crystal clear. As a mentioned in my last entry, just yesterday 10/05/14 multiple anomalies were spotted and recorded, all of them not visible to the naked eye, but spotted easily with a dual optical system, as I already said dual optical systems are to anomalies what microscopes are to microorganisms, that is a fact that anybody with real interest will be able to check. Building a dual optical system with a radar, an infrared spotter and a medium sized telescope on the same rigid base will be almost the "ultimate" dual optical system because it will allow to detect a lot more anomalies, distance will be determined for all anomalies that return a radar echo, and it will be determined if some anomalies spotted on infrared are returning any radar echo. This is a case of a real phenomenon that is literally almost in the face of everybody and its being ignored and continue to be ignored by the "scientific circles". Edited October 6, 2014 by jeremyjr
Strange Posted October 6, 2014 Posted October 6, 2014 This is a case of a real phenomenon that is literally almost in the face of everybody and its being ignored and continue to be ignored by the "scientific circles". When you can produce some evidence beyond "it looks like" ...
Bignose Posted October 7, 2014 Posted October 7, 2014 (edited) This phrase "These videos do stir the imagination and that's good, but other than show images/video and the individuals own take on what they've filmed there's nothing else" actually said it all, this approach is the one that perpetuate the ignorance about an extraordinary phenomenon from the general population, the same attitude that is pervasive in almost all scientific circles, with these preconceptions it is not surprising that this have been going on for more than 50 years. Oh come off it. All scientific circles pervade ignorance? This is utterly ridiculous. Just thousands and thousands of pages of ignorance being published every month in the journals, eh? One could really rather easily turn this around on you. Because you haven't been able to produce anything more than a bunch of videos with blobs on them and you're accusing us of being ignorant when we don't accept simply your word that these are plasma beings?!? All we're asking is to discuss this scientifically. For you to provide more and stronger and more conclusive and better evidence than what you have. If this is real, then this evidence can be gathered. It isn't on all of science to do this for you. There are limited resources, and I'm sorry that no one else seems all that interested in spending their money on doing this for you. But that doesn't give you any right to call scientific circles ignorant. You don't get to force anyone to spend their resources on something else. You are free to spend your resources on whatever you want. If anything, us asking you for more evidence is trying to remove ignorance. Because we're trying to remove our ignorance by asking for more evidence that will clearly eliminate any other possibility. You are perpetuating ignorance by railing at us for not accepting your idea on what these are. So, let's get back to discussing this rationally, or quit discussing it altogether. Again, you are the one that joined a science forum, and the strictures of science are going to govern this conversation. Strange's point that so far all your evidence seems to boil down to "these look like plasma to me, ergo they are plasma" is valid. If these were really plasma, then we know all sorts of stuff about how plasma interacts. EM waves and interactions, for example, by definition. All we're asking for is more evidence before we just take your idea as more likely. This isn't meant to be taken personally; science is skeptical and conservative by nature. Your extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence to back it up. Edited October 7, 2014 by Bignose 2
jeremyjr Posted October 7, 2014 Author Posted October 7, 2014 (edited) Oh come off it. All scientific circles pervade ignorance? This is utterly ridiculous. Just thousands and thousands of pages of ignorance being published every month in the journals, eh? One could really rather easily turn this around on you. Because you haven't been able to produce anything more than a bunch of videos with blobs on them and you're accusing us of being ignorant when we don't accept simply your word that these are plasma beings?!? All we're asking is to discuss this scientifically. For you to provide more and stronger and more conclusive and better evidence than what you have. If this is real, then this evidence can be gathered. It isn't on all of science to do this for you. There are limited resources, and I'm sorry that no one else seems all that interested in spending their money on doing this for you. But that doesn't give you any right to call scientific circles ignorant. You don't get to force anyone to spend their resources on something else. You are free to spend your resources on whatever you want. If anything, us asking you for more evidence is trying to remove ignorance. Because we're trying to remove our ignorance by asking for more evidence that will clearly eliminate any other possibility. You are perpetuating ignorance by railing at us for not accepting your idea on what these are. So, let's get back to discussing this rationally, or quit discussing it altogether. Again, you are the one that joined a science forum, and the strictures of science are going to govern this conversation. Strange's point that so far all your evidence seems to boil down to "these look like plasma to me, ergo they are plasma" is valid. If these were really plasma, then we know all sorts of stuff about how plasma interacts. EM waves and interactions, for example, by definition. All we're asking for is more evidence before we just take your idea as more likely. This isn't meant to be taken personally; science is skeptical and conservative by nature. Your extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence to back it up. Again people are putting words in my mouth that I had never said, I said that some anomalies are plasma-like but I really did not say that they are made of plasma, and also based on recent results of research on complex plasmas I speculate in the possibility of anomalies being a manifestation of life based on plasma, but it should be clear that the ultimate nature of anomalies is unknown, at least to me. But also is crystal clear to me that anomalies are not mundane objects, at least not in the general sense of that word, they are "mundane" in the sense that they are a constant presence in our planet and it looks like around it(near space at least), very likely they always have been here. Now talking about resources, I already mentioned that the resources available to independently and individually to verify this are really very modest. It will be great if some of the almost unlimited resources commanded by the scientific community are dedicated to a problem that can be considered as the biggest problem ever faced by humanity, a pooling of resources from all the major Universities in the world will really be necessary to tackle this "problem". But for some very weird coincidences in human history we are now in this "social deadlock" where the "scientific community" is unable to handle a very concrete problem with really concrete indications of its reality because a "social taboo" have been erected around this complex topic, that usually is associated with the very discredit UFOs, but that should not be a real problem for really inquisitive minds, we should be able to discern between "noise" and real meaning and the mythology/inconsistencies/preconceptions/expectations associated with that word: UFO really place brakes in the possible efforts of many. I kind of agree that sometimes "science" is "conservative", but the science that I really admire is the science of pioneers that opened new fields of study, these pioneers always had to "fight" the overwhelming resistance of the "establishment" that always offered that to anything that could place in danger the accepted structures or ideas, that have always been the fight between the old ideas and the new ones. But again the very simple thing in here are observational facts, observational facts that can be independently verified by almost anyone, no multi million dollars project is needed(for now) to make that verification. In essence we have these anomalies that are a constant presence in the sky, that usually have an amorphous shape(usually a variable geometry that is why some people call them Variable anomalies), these anomalies can be easily spotted using a dual optical system. A key/simple point that many people do not really internalize is that one of the reasons why they have been "missed" until now is that they usually move at high altitude and since they appear to be in general "small" and "bright" then the sky scattering of visible light mask them in the same way that it mask the stars, that very simple verifiable fact creates the illusion in almost anyone that in a clear blue portion of the sky if nothing is seen is because nothing is there, "common sense" many will say, but as in many other cases "common sense" is wrong. Also and this aspect of this phenomenon have really more deeper implications(or a different phenomenon mixed with this one, we have to be aware that maybe we are in the presence of something really complex) some anomalies had responded to light signals sent in their direction, this have been witnessed multiple times and is very simple to verify too. Anomalies are seen in daylight or at night, the ones seen at night are the ones that are self-luminous and or reflect the ambient light(sun or cities light), this is a simple experience that can be done by anyone armed with just a relative focused and bright flashlight, in a dark setting at night in a clear sky, maybe outside of the contaminated city skies, just after sunset, or before sunrise, you will be able to spot with naked eye many satellites, the more common ones are the polar satellites that move in the north-south line, others will move west-east. When you spot one of these satellites send in its direction light flashes, I usually sent prime numbers of flashes: 3, 5, 3, 5, 3, 5. In many cases nothing will happen, but sooner or latter one of these "satellites" will flash back to you( this is something different to satellite iridium flares that can easily be verified in sites like heavens-above.com), or some of these "satellites" will change the trajectory, some even will stop or slow down clearly, these of course are not satellites. The same reaction of flashing back at you have been witnessed in daylight as I had mentioned several times. Edited October 7, 2014 by jeremyjr
Bignose Posted October 7, 2014 Posted October 7, 2014 Again people are putting words in my mouth that I had never said, I said that some anomalies are plasma-like but I really did not say that they are made of plasma, and also based on recent results of research on complex plasmas I speculate in the possibility of anomalies being a manifestation of life based on plasma, but it should be clear that the ultimate nature of anomalies is unknown, at least to me.I guess I don't draw much of a distinction between "plasma" and "plasma-like". What is more "like" a plasma than plasma? But also is crystal clear to me that anomalies are not mundane objects, at least not in the general sense of that word, they are "mundane" in the sense that they are a constant presence in our planet and it looks like around it(near space at least), very likely they always have been here. So here is where you lose me. It is not 'crystal clear' to me that these aren't mundane. Again, several of the ones I looked through I was easily struck by how much is looked like a piece of plastic in the wind. That seems very mundane to me. And mankind has made a lot of trash that we haven't kept very good hold of. For example, there is a rather large garbage island in the Pacific ocean. I have no trouble accepting that there would also be large numbers of pieces of plastic that are in the upper atmosphere as well. The onus us on you to present overwhelming, extraordinary, clear cut, objective, statistically significant evidence that these aren't mundane objects. Just your saying so and showing some grainy videos isn't enough to convince me (and apparently many others). Now talking about resources, I already mentioned that the resources available to independently and individually to verify this are really very modest. It will be great if some of the almost unlimited resources commanded by the scientific community are dedicated to a problem that can be considered as the biggest problem ever faced by humanity, a pooling of resources from all the major Universities in the world will really be necessary to tackle this "problem". But for some very weird coincidences in human history we are now in this "social deadlock" where the "scientific community" is unable to handle a very concrete problem with really concrete indications of its reality because a "social taboo" have been erected around this complex topic, that usually is associated with the very discredit UFOs, but that should not be a real problem for really inquisitive minds, we should be able to discern between "noise" and real meaning and the mythology/inconsistencies/preconceptions/expectations associated with that word: UFO really place brakes in the possible efforts of many. Please cite evidence of this "social deadlock" and its inability to handle a concrete problem. Because I would argue against this by pointing to the significant number of technological and scientific achievements that we've made in the very recent past. A very prevalent example, the ability for you and I to communicate from different parts in the world, via a storage medium sitting in a 3rd part of the world, in basically real time and using a tool that is now commonly available to many people in the 1st world. I kind of agree that sometimes "science" is "conservative", but the science that I really admire is the science of pioneers that opened new fields of study, these pioneers always had to "fight" the overwhelming resistance of the "establishment" that always offered that to anything that could place in danger the accepted structures or ideas, that have always been the fight between the old ideas and the new ones. You know how they won these "fights" (a debatable term, BTW, but...)? They had evidence on their side. Good scientists, when presented with evidence, readily change their mind. The 'resistance' you are facing is because your evidence is not very strong. More and better evidence is needed. You even concede that science is conservative in the face of poor evidence, as it should be. But again the very simple thing in here are observational facts, observational facts that can be independently verified by almost anyone, no multi million dollars project is needed(for now) to make that verification. In essence we have these anomalies that are a constant presence in the sky, that usually have an amorphous shape(usually a variable geometry that is why some people call them Variable anomalies), these anomalies can be easily spotted using a dual optical system. A key/simple point that many people do not really internalize is that one of the reasons why they have been "missed" until now is that they usually move at high altitude and since they appear to be in general "small" and "bright" then the sky scattering of visible light mask them in the same way that it mask the stars, that very simple verifiable fact creates the illusion in almost anyone that in a clear blue portion of the sky if nothing is seen is because nothing is there, "common sense" many will say, but as in many other cases "common sense" is wrong. Also and this aspect of this phenomenon have really more deeper implications(or a different phenomenon mixed with this one, we have to be aware that maybe we are in the presence of something really complex) some anomalies had responded to light signals sent in their direction, this have been witnessed multiple times and is very simple to verify too. Anomalies are seen in daylight or at night, the ones seen at night are the ones that are self-luminous and or reflect the ambient light(sun or cities light), this is a simple experience that can be done by anyone armed with just a relative focused and bright flashlight, in a dark setting at night in a clear sky, maybe outside of the contaminated city skies, just after sunset, or before sunrise, you will be able to spot with naked eye many satellites, the more common ones are the polar satellites that move in the north-south line, others will move west-east. When you spot one of these satellites send in its direction light flashes, I usually sent prime numbers of flashes: 3, 5, 3, 5, 3, 5. In many cases nothing will happen, but sooner or latter one of these "satellites" will flash back to you( this is something different to satellite iridium flares that can easily be verified in sites like heavens-above.com), or some of these "satellites" will change the trajectory, some even will stop or slow down clearly, these of course are not satellites. The same reaction of flashing back at you have been witnessed in daylight as I had mentioned several times. All this seems very unsubstantiated to me and largely opinion. If you want to claim that there are 'deeper implications' then this too needs evidence to support it. But let's focus on the 1st part so far, which is demonstrating unequivocally that these objects are not just mundane. 1
jeremyjr Posted October 7, 2014 Author Posted October 7, 2014 I guess I don't draw much of a distinction between "plasma" and "plasma-like". What is more "like" a plasma than plasma? So here is where you lose me. It is not 'crystal clear' to me that these aren't mundane. Again, several of the ones I looked through I was easily struck by how much is looked like a piece of plastic in the wind. That seems very mundane to me. And mankind has made a lot of trash that we haven't kept very good hold of. For example, there is a rather large garbage island in the Pacific ocean. I have no trouble accepting that there would also be large numbers of pieces of plastic that are in the upper atmosphere as well. The onus us on you to present overwhelming, extraordinary, clear cut, objective, statistically significant evidence that these aren't mundane objects. Just your saying so and showing some grainy videos isn't enough to convince me (and apparently many others). Please cite evidence of this "social deadlock" and its inability to handle a concrete problem. Because I would argue against this by pointing to the significant number of technological and scientific achievements that we've made in the very recent past. A very prevalent example, the ability for you and I to communicate from different parts in the world, via a storage medium sitting in a 3rd part of the world, in basically real time and using a tool that is now commonly available to many people in the 1st world. You know how they won these "fights" (a debatable term, BTW, but...)? They had evidence on their side. Good scientists, when presented with evidence, readily change their mind. The 'resistance' you are facing is because your evidence is not very strong. More and better evidence is needed. You even concede that science is conservative in the face of poor evidence, as it should be. All this seems very unsubstantiated to me and largely opinion. If you want to claim that there are 'deeper implications' then this too needs evidence to support it. But let's focus on the 1st part so far, which is demonstrating unequivocally that these objects are not just mundane. You said: "For example, there is a rather large garbage island in the Pacific ocean. I have no trouble accepting that there would also be large numbers of pieces of plastic that are in the upper atmosphere as well." And you are a "resident expert" here in this forum, that really shows your almost absolute lack of grasp on basic physics, that statement clearly place you very far away from being really any kind of expert. That is why taking on faith whatever any "expert" say is really a big mistake. Your are bending the physics laws just to keep your preconceptions in place, you are really giving a fantastic and clearly wrong "explanation" for the many video recording that I had done, and many others have done, your posts clearly show your absolute lack of minimal observational experience. I even provided a very simple procedure that even people with absolute lack of observational skills can do, to verify by yourself the existence of objects that are not mundane, you can do it, it will be really an eye-opening experience. -3
Phi for All Posted October 7, 2014 Posted October 7, 2014 You said: "For example, there is a rather large garbage island in the Pacific ocean. I have no trouble accepting that there would also be large numbers of pieces of plastic that are in the upper atmosphere as well." And you are a "resident expert" here in this forum, that really shows your almost absolute lack of grasp on basic physics, that statement clearly place you very far away from being really any kind of expert. Explain what you mean. What basic physics is being ignored here?
jeremyjr Posted October 7, 2014 Author Posted October 7, 2014 (edited) Explain what you mean. What basic physics is being ignored here? "there would also be large numbers of pieces of plastic that are in the upper atmosphere as well". The existence of large numbers of pieces of plastic in the upper atmosphere is really new to me, one small piece of plastic sheet could be moved by the wind long distances, but sooner or latter, since plastic is denser than air this particular piece will fall, even very light weather balloons, and I have personal experience with weather balloons, will fall also, party foil balloons also will loose the helium and will fall, but now claiming that "large numbers of pieces of plastic are in the upper atmosphere" is really beyond any reasonable and consistent explanation. Not to mention that observational data do not support that at all. This is a "classic" simplistic debunking argument that can easily be debunked, it is the "bending" of simple physical ideas, "contorting" the argument, sometimes in more extraordinary ways than the actual case that is being debunked, plenty of examples of this simplistic debunking mentality is out there, some people "do not have any trouble accepting that kind of explanations" just to keep them in the comfort zone of their preconceptions and world view , that really is very telling to me. Addition: I am very much aware that in any given moment large quantities of "dust" are present in the upper level of the atmosphere, even dust coming from space, but that is something entirely different to "large numbers of pieces of plastic that are in the upper atmosphere". Now let me repeat again that when I say plasma-like I want to convey an image, that is not a statement of composition of anomalies, like amorphous is, or variable geometry/topology. For example these are examples of anomalies that look like an "electric plasma ball"(http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/P/plasma.html): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drCX3hwD57w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jAa1GiDlOk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSQW-dwuc_E Edited October 7, 2014 by jeremyjr
jeremyjr Posted October 7, 2014 Author Posted October 7, 2014 (edited) I had said that anomalies behave in a way that strongly suggest that they are living beings, that is really nothing out of the ordinary,in many cases new species of living beings on earth are observed at a distance first, the assumed aliveness of that being is implicit in its observed behavior, further study of the specimen will confirm that implicit assumption, but the assumption was there anyway. Exactly the same case is with anomalies, the only thing that remains to be done is the "further study" part to determine if anomalies are really living beings or not and what makes them tick. These are some examples of that "aliveness" in anomalies: 1- Anomalies "interacting":http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PqqW4kMrz02- Two anomalies merged together and then split in two anomalies:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEJK8KsoM-c3- Two anomalies moving in perfect synchronization, like two "entangled" particles:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvfjfDioOJg4- Ring of about five anomalies:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpeA8euS8i05- Two anomalies that appear to be joined(tethered) by very fine filaments and appeared to be merging/separating:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DGpb8Wcb8whttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NMXVYPkf5A6- Flock of anomalies around a "main" anomaly on 10/05/14:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6RRdKkV_Fs Addition: The notion, or idea that maybe there are some living beings lurking in the atmosphere upper levels or near space is really not new, the USAF official release of April 27 1949, stated this: "The possible existence of some sort of strange extra-terrestrial animals has also been remotely considered, as many of the objects described acted more like animals than anything else. However, there are few reliable reports on extra-terrestrial animals."(http://www.project1947.com/fig/projsauc.htm, also mentioned in Trevor J Constable's book: The Cosmic Pulse of Life.) Edited October 7, 2014 by jeremyjr
imatfaal Posted October 7, 2014 Posted October 7, 2014 surely the null hypothesis must be that these are simple everyday phenomena that are merely difficult to pickout at a great distance - even though you have done a good job of documentation and recording. I looked through several of your videos on youtube. This video demonstrates what I mean about the null hypothesis Morphing anomaly, balloon-cluster style, perception test 10/05/14 6:46pm EST https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=l36Hs4bpEKA#t=26 Anomaly spotted at 6:46 pm and tracked up to 6:56 pm. It is becoming clear and clear that some anomalies can take "human" recognizable shapes, the evidence for that is continuously accumulating, I know that this is very hard to accept for some people but reality is independent of anybody expectations. I agree it looks like a cluster of balloons (the helium foil sort - which have been known to float off) - but why should I hypothesize any further than that? Especially to a extension that this is something taking a human recognizable form. To be honest in the frames around 26-28 seconds I can even see the string. These videos do not show the alternative hypothesis to be significantly more likely than the null. If it were doing mach 1 against the prevailing wind - that would dispel the hypothesis they are balloons - and be significant evidence on the route to dispel the null hypothesis that they are just ordinary stuff. But the mere existence of videos showing what could be perfectly ordinary stuff cannot, in and of itself, be evidence of extra-ordinary stuff 2
Bignose Posted October 7, 2014 Posted October 7, 2014 (edited) You said: "For example, there is a rather large garbage island in the Pacific ocean. I have no trouble accepting that there would also be large numbers of pieces of plastic that are in the upper atmosphere as well." And you are a "resident expert" here in this forum, that really shows your almost absolute lack of grasp on basic physics, that statement clearly place you very far away from being really any kind of expert. That is why taking on faith whatever any "expert" say is really a big mistake. Your are bending the physics laws just to keep your preconceptions in place, you are really giving a fantastic and clearly wrong "explanation" for the many video recording that I had done, and many others have done, your posts clearly show your absolute lack of minimal observational experience. I even provided a very simple procedure that even people with absolute lack of observational skills can do, to verify by yourself the existence of objects that are not mundane, you can do it, it will be really an eye-opening experience. My whole point in mentioning garbage island is that there is trash pretty much everywhere on this planet now. And that it doesn't take a great leap of imagination to envisions lightweight scraps of plastic lifted up by wind currents and being tossed around in the atmosphere. Here is the full quote: And mankind has made a lot of trash that we haven't kept very good hold of. For example, there is a rather large garbage island in the Pacific ocean. I have no trouble accepting that there would also be large numbers of pieces of plastic that are in the upper atmosphere as well. Note how by dropping the sentence "And mankind has made a lot of trash..." you change my whole quote into one where it looks like because there is trash in the water there must be trash in the sky, too. However, with the first sentence, my point about there being trash most everywhere makes a lot more sense. I'm hopeful you just missed that first sentence rather than deliberately cut it out to try to make me look like a fool. As a meta comment I notice that you've taken to the tactic of attacking me instead of, you know, actually trying to improve your quality of evidence. Pernicious name calling and thinly veiled insults don't change the fact that your grainy videos aren't very strong evidence. That's all I'm asking for, better evidence. I really don't care overall -- I don't have any preconceived notion. All I am asking for is better evidence before my mind is made up. Sheesh. Edited October 7, 2014 by Bignose
imatfaal Posted October 7, 2014 Posted October 7, 2014 ! Moderator Note Jeremy This is as a moderator - attacking those members who criticise your ideas is completely unacceptable. Attack their arguments to your heart's content - but not them; nor should you characterise those who disagree with you as unable to make observations, labouring under preconceptions, or blinkered. Do not respond to this moderation within the thread Everyone Else - what is sauce for the goose... We have, I believe, made it through the thread without any disparaging and unscientific terminology (and the consequent argumentum ad hominem that follows either explicitly or implicitly) for those who propound fringe theories with scant evidence - please can we keep it that way.
jeremyjr Posted October 8, 2014 Author Posted October 8, 2014 (edited) surely the null hypothesis must be that these are simple everyday phenomena that are merely difficult to pickout at a great distance - even though you have done a good job of documentation and recording. I looked through several of your videos on youtube. This video demonstrates what I mean about the null hypothesis Morphing anomaly, balloon-cluster style, perception test 10/05/14 6:46pm EST https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=l36Hs4bpEKA#t=26 I agree it looks like a cluster of balloons (the helium foil sort - which have been known to float off) - but why should I hypothesize any further than that? Especially to a extension that this is something taking a human recognizable form. To be honest in the frames around 26-28 seconds I can even see the string. These videos do not show the alternative hypothesis to be significantly more likely than the null. If it were doing mach 1 against the prevailing wind - that would dispel the hypothesis they are balloons - and be significant evidence on the route to dispel the null hypothesis that they are just ordinary stuff. But the mere existence of videos showing what could be perfectly ordinary stuff cannot, in and of itself, be evidence of extra-ordinary stuff I agree that this is a "controversial" case, I had tried here not to present these first for obvious reasons, simply because you are not ready yet, now going out of the footage that I had presented here and making an "easy pick" is really not a very good "debunking" approach, why did you not pick a "hard one"? Like this one that I had posted here many times: Anomalies interacting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PqqW4kMrz0, please, I challenge you to really make a serious analysis of that one, simplistic generalizations and dismissals only strengthen my point. I came here in good faith, to the "lion dens" figuratively, I knew that my ideas were not going to be "popular" in a place like this, I am used to that, actually I expect that, you can not expect something else when what you are claiming is shattering many of established ideas about the world, accepting that you really are wrong about almost anything is really hard, very hard. But I came here armed with hard facts and proposing simple means to verify almost everything that I had claimed, anybody with just enough independent thinking and technically savvy enough to build a dual optical system can be a witness of similar anomalies that I had recorded, and you can improve on that, you will be able to "interact" with anomalies, going beyond what I had reported here, using a radar in a dual system will be really awesome with the "new" things that you will see, as I said before this is one thing that you do not need to take on faith, you do not have to "believe" anything that I had claimed, but be consistent and do not "believe" either the simplistic debunking arguments, verify by yourself who really is right, you can do it. As a glimpse of what is expecting us in that unknown world of anomalies I just uploaded a footage taken from the spotter camera in IR on 10/05/14 just from 4:41 pm to 4:45 pm, the footage is time stamped in real time and is played at 2 FPS( frame per seconds ) watch it at 1080p and full screen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K517w-nQGWw Edited October 8, 2014 by jeremyjr
Bignose Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 (edited) Anomalies interacting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PqqW4kMrz0, With no perspective and a grainy bouncing around video, how can I know that these aren't just two different pieces of reflective trash in two different air currents? Or two of these things just seen from far away: http://www.uapreporting.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/weatherballoon2.jpg There are just too many other things they could be that can't be eliminated from your video there. please, I challenge you to really make a serious analysis of that one, simplistic generalizations and dismissals only strengthen my point. Define serious. You seem to take it to mean "agrees with my point of view". What would really strengthen your point is better evidence. Telling me to be serious about it but not allowing me to reject it really hinders any opportunity to actually look at it objectively, doesn't it? As you worded it here, it's the ultimate "heads I win, tails you lose". If I am serious about it and agree with you, then your point is strengthened. But if I reject it, then your point is also strengthened. Spoiler alert: this is about a far away from actual (dare I say serious) science as possible. Look. I agree. It does look weird. They are anomalies. I don't know what they are either. But, I'm not jumping to the conclusion that they show intelligence simply because they happened to be in the same area as one another. But I came here armed with hard facts Again, your definition of hard facts must be different than mine. I guess, as I recommended above, I'd like to see more and better evidence. If that can be provided, I'll be first one to publicly tell you that you were right and was totally wrong. I'm not just willing to make the same leap you are based on what you've presented here. Edited October 8, 2014 by Bignose
jeremyjr Posted October 8, 2014 Author Posted October 8, 2014 (edited) With no perspective and a grainy bouncing around video, how can I know that these aren't just two different pieces of reflective trash in two different air currents? Or two of these things just seen from far away: http://www.uapreporting.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/weatherballoon2.jpg There are just too many other things they could be that can't be eliminated from your video there. Define serious. You seem to take it to mean "agrees with my point of view". What would really strengthen your point is better evidence. Telling me to be serious about it but not allowing me to reject it really hinders any opportunity to actually look at it objectively, doesn't it? As you worded it here, it's the ultimate "heads I win, tails you lose". If I am serious about it and agree with you, then your point is strengthened. But if I reject it, then your point is also strengthened. Spoiler alert: this is about a far away from actual (dare I say serious) science as possible. Look. I agree. It does look weird. They are anomalies. I don't know what they are either. But, I'm not jumping to the conclusion that they show intelligence simply because they happened to be in the same area as one another. Again, your definition of hard facts must be different than mine. I guess, as I recommended above, I'd like to see more and better evidence. If that can be provided, I'll be first one to publicly tell you that you were right and was totally wrong. I'm not just willing to make the same leap you are based on what you've presented here. Your words: "Look. I agree. It does look weird. They are anomalies. I don't know what they are either. But, I'm not jumping to the conclusion that they show intelligence simply because they happened to be in the same area as one another." The first part "Look. I agree. It does look weird. They are anomalies. I don't know what they are either" is really everything that I expect from anybody that have actually watched some of the footage presented here, after that we really are "in the same team", but now "But, I'm not jumping to the conclusion that they show intelligence simply because they happened to be in the same area as one another." I had never mentioned here the word "intelligence"(only in reference to flying patterns), and I really believe that what is seen in that footage do not have anything to do with "intelligence", but it is a clear example to me of two things showing a behavior that indicate "aliveness", as simple as that, being alive do not imply being intelligent obviously. Now that we agree on this: "I agree. It does look weird. They are anomalies. I don't know what they are either", that automatically should place you in "red alert", at least I am in "red alert", because there are things above in the sky where my family, friends live that I do not know what they are, from a simple survival point of view finding what they are is really critical, not to mention from a pure scientific point of view. Knowing now that these anomalies are pervasive in the atmosphere place that pressing need in absolute first priority. Edited October 8, 2014 by jeremyjr
Bignose Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 Knowing now that these anomalies are pervasive in the atmosphere place that pressing need in absolute first priority. I don't agree with this either. There are a lot of things I don't know about that I don't worry about. I don't know about terrorist plots. I don't know how many venomous spiders live on my block. I don't know how many drunk drivers I pass on my daily commute. Just like I am not assuming that the objects in the sky have intelligence, animal like behavior, or anything like that without more evidence, I am also not going to just assume they are a threat without more evidence. Any evidence that they are? Otherwise, why be on "red alert"? Not to put a label on it, but this sounds rather paranoid to me. You could very well be right, and they could be a threat, but without more evidence, I don't think that there is necessarily anything we should or could do. I also would rather spend public money on investigating terrorist threats and preventing drunk driving, to be honest. Unless there is more conclusive evidence on what these things are and what threat they are.
jeremyjr Posted October 8, 2014 Author Posted October 8, 2014 (edited) I don't agree with this either. There are a lot of things I don't know about that I don't worry about. I don't know about terrorist plots. I don't know how many venomous spiders live on my block. I don't know how many drunk drivers I pass on my daily commute. Just like I am not assuming that the objects in the sky have intelligence, animal like behavior, or anything like that without more evidence, I am also not going to just assume they are a threat without more evidence. Any evidence that they are? Otherwise, why be on "red alert"? Not to put a label on it, but this sounds rather paranoid to me. You could very well be right, and they could be a threat, but without more evidence, I don't think that there is necessarily anything we should or could do. I also would rather spend public money on investigating terrorist threats and preventing drunk driving, to be honest. Unless there is more conclusive evidence on what these things are and what threat they are. I was expecting that since we have the same background(Math) maybe we could understand each other better, it looks like that is not the case, somehow it appears that you had missed my points. I never said threat in that literal sense, even when I was somehow implying that, I was talking more in an "strategic point of view", we assume that we as humans are the "hegemonic force" on earth, in principle anything alive that is right here in our backyard and we do not fully know or understand is in principle a challenge to us. Also "I don't think that there is necessarily anything we should or could do.", we could do plenty without expending a dime of public money, some people expect everything to come from public money or funded by public money, I really do not share that view. The very fact that now you are more aware of anomalies is not due to any public funding. I do not share passive attitudes, I do not expect anybody to do for me what I can do, if I have questions I do not expect anybody to answer them for me. Edited October 8, 2014 by jeremyjr
Strange Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 I agree that this is a "controversial" case, I had tried here not to present these first for obvious reasons, simply because you are not ready yet, now going out of the footage that I had presented here and making an "easy pick" is really not a very good "debunking" approach, why did you not pick a "hard one"? This is part of the problem. Why lump "easily debunked" ones in with "hard to debunk" ones. YOU should be eliminating those that have (or could plausibly have) a mundane explanation. This is just one of the [many] things that undermine your credibility and will make it hard for people to take you seriously. (Right behind starting the presentation of your ideas by insulting your audience.) Now that we agree on this: "I agree. It does look weird. They are anomalies. I don't know what they are either", that automatically should place you in "red alert", at least I am in "red alert", because there are things above in the sky where my family, friends live that I do not know what they are, from a simple survival point of view finding what they are is really critical, not to mention from a pure scientific point of view. Knowing now that these anomalies are pervasive in the atmosphere place that pressing need in absolute first priority. And this is another problem. You leap, with absolutely no reasons, from "unknown" to implying that they are dangerous (as here) or alive or plasma (elsewhere). And then, when questioned on any of these things you say "I never said that". And true, you very carefully use weasel words so that you can deny what you very strongly imply. Yes, people see unidentified and unidentifiable objects in the sky. They always have. In the past people said "angels. Then they said UFOs/aliens. Now you saying that they are "not plasma, living, intelligent, dangerous" things. Yet there is zero evidence for any of these conclusions because they are unidentified. If we don't know what they are then then the only conclusion we can draw, without more data (and I don't mean more videos) is that we don't know what they are. You have filmed some things that I cannot identify. You have also filmed some things that look trivially identifiable. I see no reason to assume that the currently unidentified ones are also not ordinary objects. 2
imatfaal Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 You have filmed some things that I cannot identify. You have also filmed some things that look trivially identifiable. I see no reason to assume that the currently unidentified ones are also not ordinary objects. I am not going to be able to say what I think better than this - so I will just repeat it for emphasis
jeremyjr Posted October 8, 2014 Author Posted October 8, 2014 (edited) I am not going to be able to say what I think better than this - so I will just repeat it for emphasis I am sorry but without even analyzing your arguments, the basic logic is wrong: You are saying if you clearly made a mistake in this case, then very likely you are wrong in all cases. When you use this kind of inference rule in your arguments, as good trained inquisitive minds that we are, you have to be consistent using it, Logic is Universal, so by applying now this inference rule Universally we are going to get in real trouble, for example this inference rule will disqualify any result from anybody that ever made a mistake, that basically will disqualify the results of everybody. Debunking is not easy when done properly, so far, I am sorry to say it bluntly, I have not found here any serious debunking, nobody so far have been up to the task. Again, please stay on topic and lets concentrate with the cases that I had presented here. If you want to be in the "debunker role" that is really fine, and I am really looking for "good opponents", but you should do better than what you have offered so far. Even when I enjoy good arguments and debates, that is not my goal here, my goal here is to motivate enough at least one person in such a way, than that person will pass from the "talking" phase and move to the "doing" phase. Let me repeat again that this is something that you do not need to take on faith. Endless talking will really not make anomalies go away. I already mentioned that observational data is king, and consistent observational data across multiple independent observers reign supreme. If your ideas, theories or world view are in contradiction with this consistent observational data you need to start thinking in changing your ideas, theories or world view. In here, to independent thinking people, only one scientific option is available: Independent observation of anomalies. Anybody doing that independent observations will verify the reality of anomalies and that will be an eye-opening experience. All other people that continue making "academic excuses" simply are taking the same attitude as the Cardinals in Galileo's time. Edited October 8, 2014 by jeremyjr
Strange Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 I am sorry but without even analyzing your arguments, the basic logic is wrong: You are saying if you clearly made a mistake in this case, then very likely you are wrong in all cases. No. That is not the argument. If you can't be bothered to filter your own evidence to remove the obvious, why should I consider your evidence to be credible. This comes back to the often repeated question: how are you eliminating mundane explanations? In most cases it is by assertion. In which case your arguments can be simply dismissed. You need better evidence. You need to demonstrate that alternatives are impossible or less likely than the unknown. You need to do this with an array of different tests producing different forms of objective evidence. You need to stop relying on "it looks like" as an argument. This is about the worst sort of evidence you could provide. Most people in this thread are trying to help you understand that what you have is not compelling. You need to cross the chasm from "unknown" to some plausible alternative.
jeremyjr Posted October 8, 2014 Author Posted October 8, 2014 No. That is not the argument. If you can't be bothered to filter your own evidence to remove the obvious, why should I consider your evidence to be credible. This comes back to the often repeated question: how are you eliminating mundane explanations? In most cases it is by assertion. In which case your arguments can be simply dismissed. You need better evidence. You need to demonstrate that alternatives are impossible or less likely than the unknown. You need to do this with an array of different tests producing different forms of objective evidence. You need to stop relying on "it looks like" as an argument. This is about the worst sort of evidence you could provide. Most people in this thread are trying to help you understand that what you have is not compelling. You need to cross the chasm from "unknown" to some plausible alternative. What your non-existent experience doing atmospheric observation and analyzing video footage makes you believe as an "obvious" misinterpretation is really not the case to me, again, concentrate on the footage that I had presented here, going out of these cases for the "easy picks" is really not a very compelling or honest inquiring approach. But let me tell you that even on these "easy picks" you really are falling on your own trap, but I do not want to go off-topic, so again: stick to the footage that I had presented here. I had already mentioned that it will be enough to have one case, just one, to have a compelling reason to make further studies, at least I see it that way at a personal level, once I witnessed one case that I can not really explain to myself using mundane explanations, that automatically compel me to make further studies, but I already have many, many cases like that. As I already mentioned here too, the anomalies seen at night are the same ones observed in daylight, but the ones seen at night are the ones that are self-luminous or reflect ambient light. To get the best images of anomalies daylight is obviously the best option , but at night you can get a really quick glimpse of their presence, as I already mentioned, for that you do not need any sophisticated equipment, just a relatively strong and focused flashlight, no public funding is needed for that. And regarding "help", I really believe that I am giving you the biggest help that you ever had received in an academic general sense, even when you do not see it that way now. -1
Strange Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 (edited) What your non-existent experience doing atmospheric observation and analyzing video footage makes you believe You really don't get it, do you. It is not about what I "believe". It is about the quality of the evidence. Belief should not come into it. I don't have any particularly strong beliefs on the issue. Obviously any old footage is going to be convincing to those who "believe". This is what we find with people who believe in ghosts or UFOs. Show them a fuzzy blob and they will be convinced. But you are not trying to convince people who already "believe". You are, I hope, trying to produce credible, objective evidence of something that might warrant further investigation. This you are failing to do in a spectacular fashion. Edited October 8, 2014 by Strange
Phi for All Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 ! Moderator Note jeremyjr, per the rules of the Speculations section, I'm closing this thread because you've failed to provide evidence that matches your extraordinary assertions. Further, you fail to actually discuss this topic with other members, and are resorting to soapboxing, which is also against the rules. Members have brought up excellent points in trying to help you shore up some shoddy methodology and you've rejected every single one. The best point made recently by Bignose really says it all. You've set up a situation of "heads I win, tails you lose" by only accepting posts that agree with you, and dismissing those that don't as being hidebound or non-rigorous. In point of fact, it's your arguments that lack rigor, especially when your speculations are made with such assertiveness yet lack appropriate supportive evidence. I'm closing the thread. You had your chance and chose to pursue a non-productive approach. Don't open this subject again, unless you're prepared to provide the appropriate support. 1
Recommended Posts