Non topologically equivalent orientable surfaces in R3.

[jeremyjr]

 

 

Non topologically equivalent orientable surfaces in R3

 

The classification of all closed orientable smooth surfaces in R3 is a very well known result, the genus

(or equivalently its Euler characteristic EC) of the smooth surface determine completely the equivalent class, the very first cases for that classification are:

the sphere (EC 2), the torus (EC 0) and the double torus (EC -2), this is an image representing the three: image-01-non-equivalent-surfaces.jpg

 

 

The fact that these closed surfaces are not topologically equivalent means that there is no homeomorphism

( a one-to-one smooth application(transformation) ) in R3 that can transform or map one into the other,

in particular as rotations, dilations/contractions are particular cases of homeomorphims no finite composition of rotations with dilations/contractions will be able to transform one into the other.

 

For illustration purposes if these surfaces are "elastic", like rubber, then no local expansion or contraction of that elastic material without

tear will transform one surface into the other.

 

Lets see then some examples of surfaces that are equivalent to each one of these classes:

 

- Surfaces topologically equivalent to the sphere: a cylinder with end caps and a three dimensional model of digit 3, like in this

illustration: image-02-sphere-equivalent.jpg

 

- Surfaces topologically equivalent to the torus: a deformed torus with a glued deformed sphere, like this illustration:image-03-torus-equivalent.jpg

 

- Surfaces topologically equivalent to the double torus: two deformed double torus, like this illustration:

image-04-double-torus-equivalent.jpg

 

 

This may look like a "trivial" remedial that can be found anywhere online, and you are right up to this point.

 

The surface of a latex balloon, or a foil balloon can be considered to be subject to homeomorphic transformations while the balloon is in fly and had not burst, then how can we explain that an observed "balloon" took the last shapes in each one of the images 2, 3 and 4 that are not topologically equivalent?, the ones in this illustration: image-05-non-equivalent-surfaces.jpg

 

 

 

This object can not be a "balloon" it is something else.

[Bignose]

Yep. 'Cause they don't make any balloons with holes in them. http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/314xBg9CFFL.jpg

 

I mean, just none at all. http://thumbs1.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/mlSKtTBrH7x3fJhbi-B-zSA.jpg

 

The thought is just ludicrous, really. https://www.balloonhq.com/column/dewey/nov09/UFO6.JPG

 

And, obviously, a balloon could never ever ever get a rip in them, ever, either. Just an unfathomable impossibility really.

 

Nor could a balloon with one hole in it fold over itself and appear in a 2-D picture like it has two holes. Also a possibility that deserves zero consideration.

 

(pssst. If you can't tell, I'm being pretty sarcastic.)

 

jeremyjr, I'm still at the point where if you want to support your claim of plasma beings, extraterrestrial beings, whatever you want to call them... I still need something better than some blurry pictures.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

If you want to discuss homeomorphism and topological surfaces then go ahead - if this thread verges into the aliens caught on infra-red/normal paired cameras it is getting locked.

[jeremyjr]

You are absolutely right Bignose, I am trying to understand the topological properties of the surfaces of balloons in fly, this is not even "speculative", but I posted in this section of the forum to be on the "safe side", no need to be "defensive".

 

As an extra illustration of the transformations that a "balloon" can have in fly, these are sequences of frames with fraction of seconds between them, and by the way this was taken with a standard Nikon p600 camera that anybody can have.

 

Sequence #1:

 

Sequence #2:

 

Sequence #3:

 

Sequence#4:

 

 

Let me add that all of these images are from the same "balloon" in a recording of a few minutes.

Edited May 27, 2015 by jeremyjr

[Strange]

There doesn't seem to be anything topologically implausible in those images. As complex-shaped objects rotate, different aspects will be visible which may include a varying number of holes. This is especially true if they are flexible and can twist, thereby changing the number of holes.

 

(There is a scene in Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark where Indie is caught up and can only have escaped by defying topology. Or creating a hyperdimensional spacewarp.)

[jeremyjr]

There doesn't seem to be anything topologically implausible in those images. As complex-shaped objects rotate, different aspects will be visible which may include a varying number of holes. This is especially true if they are flexible and can twist, thereby changing the number of holes.

 

(There is a scene in Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark where Indie is caught up and can only have escaped by defying topology. Or creating a hyperdimensional spacewarp.)

You could be right, but in sequences #1 and #2, for example, the "balloon" does not appear to be turning. Thanks for your feedback. Edited May 27, 2015 by jeremyjr

[Strange]

You could be right, but in sequences #1 and #2, for example, the "balloon" does not appear to be turning.

 

#1 looks very obviously as if it is rotating.

 

#2 looks as if it is unfolding/twisting.

 

Of course, it is impossible to discern much from images like these. Especially given how easy it is for the visual system to be fooled into seeing things that aren't there.

[jeremyjr]

Strange this is another sequence of frames with fractions of seconds between each frame where no turning is present:

 

Sequence#5:

 

 

Of course watching the footage in slow motion all of this will be very clear.

Let me repeat that all of these frames are from the same "balloon", in the following sequense of "near" frames(frames with fractions of seconds between them) a "clear" change in topology can be seen when the balloon open in a fluid way a closed "loop".

Sequence#6:

Edited May 27, 2015 by jeremyjr

[Strange]

Strange this is another sequence of frames with fractions of seconds between each frame where no turning is present:

 

It looks very obviously like rotation to me.

 

What this highlights is that it is pretty pointless trying to form any conclusion from subjective judgments of poor quality images / videos. That is why science doesn't work that way.

[Bignose]

You are absolutely right Bignose, I am trying to understand the topological properties of the surfaces of balloons in fly, this is not even "speculative", but I posted in this section of the forum to be on the "safe side", no need to be "defensive".

I wasn't trying to be defensive. I was being sarcastic. I guess I don't know what you're really aiming for, here. Because it does looks like pieces of trash in the wind. In the high turbulence, high velocity upper atmosphere, the pictures look typical to me of the shapes a flexible shape could easily take. I imagine there is quite a variety there.

[jeremyjr]

I wasn't trying to be defensive. I was being sarcastic. I guess I don't know what you're really aiming for, here. Because it does looks like pieces of trash in the wind. In the high turbulence, high velocity upper atmosphere, the pictures look typical to me of the shapes a flexible shape could easily take. I imagine there is quite a variety there.

It is really relevant my "endgame"? Why not try to understand what is presented in these pictures?

 

This "balloon" was visible to naked eye moving below cloud level, definitely not trash.

But this "balloon" took many shapes always in a cycle, curiously ( and fascinating by the way ) the shapes of digits 3 and 5 were always present, the whole changes in shapes appear to be in function of presenting these two shapes in a fluid way, and the running footage clearly shows that.

It looks very obviously like rotation to me.

 

What this highlights is that it is pretty pointless trying to form any conclusion from subjective judgments of poor quality images / videos. That is why science doesn't work that way.

Science is full of examples where video and images are used in a constant way. Many new elementary particles were discovered just as a shadow of a path in a film emulsion. I think that you should update your ideas about science and history of science before giving such final "judgmental" statements.

Edited May 28, 2015 by jeremyjr

[Strange]

Science is full of examples where video and images are used in a constant way. Many new elementary particles were discovered just as a shadow of a path in a film emulsion.

 

These paths were captured, measured and analysed mathematically to derive objective parameters such as mass, charge, velocity, etc. That is why it is science.

 

People didn't look at the picture and say, "does that look like a balloon/alien/plasma to you".

 

 

I think that you should update your ideas about science and history of science before giving such final "judgmental" statements.

 

Thanks for making me literally laugh out loud.

[swansont]

 

Science is full of examples where video and images are used in a constant way. Many new elementary particles were discovered just as a shadow of a path in a film emulsion. I think that you should update your ideas about science and history of science before giving such final "judgmental" statements.

 

Yes, videos and images are used. Properly calibrated.

 

And compared with a model that was used to interpret what the images meant. Until you can compare your images to a comprehensive study of what semi-inflated balloons look like under various wind and illumination conditions (and different degrees of focus quality), you have no basis for drawing any other conclusion.

[tar]

Jeremyjr,

 

 

Saw a show a few weeks ago where the host blew up a "diaper bag", a long plastic tube, closed at one end, with a single breath, using air pressure.

 

The bag was white, but perhaps they are made in black or brown, as well.

 

Tell me the EC number of these(this) figures(figure.)

 

Regards, TAR

 

or maybe the white bag used to be full of it

[jeremyjr]

 

These paths were captured, measured and analysed mathematically to derive objective parameters such as mass, charge, velocity, etc. That is why it is science.

 

People didn't look at the picture and say, "does that look like a balloon/alien/plasma to you".

 

 

Thanks for making me literally laugh out loud.

 

Certainly science never was done by trying to set the boundaries in the "methods" to "correctly" do science. Reality is so rich and unpredictable that restricting or defining the methods to understand it will only hampers the efforts to do that.

Ironically people that took upon themselves the role of judging the correctness of methods to do science usually never did any actual science themselves, "talking" about science is a far cry from the very act of actually doing it.

 

The active dismissal of repeatable and verifiable observational claims without even a try to repeat these observations is very far from being scientific, many people here are doing exactly that and later say that they are following a "scientific" approach, it is clear then that there is a "gap" between what they say and what they do. But historically that "reaction" was always the one took by people that were "defending" in retreat the established worldview when confronted by new facts and ideas that put in danger their cherished worldview, that is always an irrational reaction to the incomprehensible and a reflection of fear to the unknown or new.

 

Oficial science and Academia will be FORCED to acknowledge the reality of these manifestations sooner or later even if that is not of the liking of some people. The name used to label these manifestations is really irrelevant. Oficial science and Academia had placed themselves in this area in exactly the same retrograde position that the Church placed itself when the heliocentric ideas were spreading in some scientific groups.

 

But many of these people that today are irrationally and actively denying this reality that they had not even try to witness will inmediately change their "positions" respect to it if some of the "high priests of science" make statements acknowledging this reality, that is because they always "follow" the lead of others, act on "cue" or follow what is "fashionable".

[tar]

Jeremyjr,

 

You are defending your thesis, and I understand that, but you are being too hard on the science that has already been done on this planet and shared with others and tested and retested to the point of being established science.

 

If the object you saw was not a diaper bag, it would have shown itself before or since and been noticed and investigated.

 

I did do science, I built a model of a diaperbag and formed it into the shape in one of your frames. I saw this same shape in all your frames and could have made any of those shapes, with that single length of clay.

 

I titled my pictures "obvious spaceship" and "obvious worm" and I thought you would see that it actually was an obvious diaperbag, that you photographed.

 

Even if it is not a diaperbag, my theory fits the facts, more closely than your theory does, and you should at least get a length of clay and twist it into all the shapes, of every frame, and see that it would be possible for a long tube of plastic, floating on the breeze, to create the display that you saw.

 

True things, are true in more than one way, and usually for more than one time.

 

That being said, I would not negate the possibility of Russian crafts or government experiments, or hoax planning teenagers, or travelers from Atlantis, or from a moon of Jupiter appearing in our skies. I even saw some unexplained lights fueling up over a high tension power line in the country in PA when I was 18, so I am not adverse to the possibility of UFOs being identified in surprising ways. But in this case, I think we can explain your sighting, as floating garbage, and we need not impugn the whole scientific community to back a far fetched figuring.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited May 30, 2015 by tar

[Mordred]

@Tar I read sometime ago one of your posts in regards to deviding a ball into 12 equally geometric shapes. Excellent work on that subject. You obviously have a strong interest in geometry. The reason for mentioning this involves a method of style in posting responses.( lol diaper bags don't quite cut it)

 

Many readers don't study previous posts. When you reference a subject try to include supporting articles and previous posts.

One cannot think of every possibility or thought process of every individual.

 

When you step into the try and teach mode, do some supporting research. Supply articles with metric examples.

 

In this case geometry based articles are particularly handy.

 

Side note teach non personal mathematics and models. Those should properly remain seperate threads.

 

Just some word of advise to all responders to posts.

(Also be patient, knowledge has many directions and forms)

PS I posted the above also for other regular forum members. Always try to supply study guidance and material

(It has nothing to do with looking like a genius, it's about supplying teaching aids and direction)

Jeremyjr,

 

 

Saw a show a few weeks ago where the host blew up a "diaper bag", a long plastic tube, closed at one end, with a single breath, using air pressure.

 

The bag was white, but perhaps they are made in black or brown, as well.

 

Tell me the EC number of these(this) figures(figure.) obvious_spacecrafts.jpg obvious_worms.jpg

 

Regards, TAR

 

 

or maybe the white bag used to be full of it

Now this post is synonymous of the mobius strip.

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%B6bius_strip

 

 

However the posts by the OP may be better suited by other complex geometry shapes. Some examples here

 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CDYQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.maths.ed.ac.uk%2F~aar%2Fsurgery%2Fzeeman.pdf&rct=j&q=mobius%20strip%20mathenatics%20pdf&ei=bFRpVYbRHIilgwSc6IH4CQ&usg=AFQjCNGVCp3NzO1ajnFEx8PkDtxD6DzVZQ&sig2=JJemu3wWcoDLkF1n9FPxNA

Edited May 30, 2015 by Mordred

[tar]

Mordred,

 

I don't know enough to slip into teaching mode. I was more slipping into sarcastic, see for yourself, debunk mode.

 

Just saying, "look, I can make those shapes with a single shaft of clay", so it is possible that a tube of plastic, floating in the wind could make those shapes and no laws of physics or geometry would need to be broken.

 

And I was trying to be informally helpful, like making a little discreet motion to inform somebody that they had toilet paper on their shoe, and hoping they would just see it and remove it.

 

Regards, TAR

[jeremyjr]

Tar, I am not "attacking" science in any way, I am questioning the approach of many people that had claimed to follow a scientific method and that is something completely different. Many times I had mentioned the ideas and struggles of the great men of science, that had always been an inspiration. But "Science" and "Oficial science" are also two different things.

The continual dismissal of "manifestations" observed consistently around the word and easily verifiable is just a manifestation of that attitude taken by many people that claimed to be following a scientific approach, which clearly is far from that. In the eyes of people that had witnessed this many times, in my eyes, these people are just retrograde because they are dismissing out of hand something extraordinary that their formation and way of thinking is unable to accept as real, but it is very real.

 

Continuing with the subject at hand, these are more frames of this "balloon" that during fly appears to change its surface topology, always in a fluid way:

 

 

 

 

Some people will try very hard to provide "contorted" arguments trying for a "way out" or "explaining away" what is seen in the frames. But no balloon in fly will be able to that.

Edited May 30, 2015 by jeremyjr

[Bignose]

The continual dismissal of "manifestations" observed consistently around the word and easily verifiable is just a manifestation of that attitude taken by many people that claimed to be following a scientific approach, which clearly is far from that.

This statement is factually untrue. This forum (I assume that's who you are talking about) has always acknowledged the observations. It is your leap toward interpreting them as some 'plasma beings' or 'extraterrestrials' or 'serious threat' that we've been skeptical of. Simply put, you've never presented evidence to support any contention that these are something other than trash in the wind. This attempt to show that something is amiss in the topology of these items has been, frankly, trivially shown in error.

 

This railing against science seems misplaced. Science is naturally skeptical. It behooves the supporters of an idea to gather more and better evidence to support their contentions. Being angry at 'science' for this request doesn't really help; the scientific method as practiced today has served us pretty well.

Edited May 30, 2015 by Bignose

[tar]

Jeremyjr,

 

"But no balloon in fly will be able to that."

 

So have you tried to falsify this claim? Being unable to falsify it would increase its chances of being a workable statement, but if you could falsify it, how would you go about falsifying it?

 

Have you taken a long shaft of clay of constant length and diameter and seen if you could simulate frame 5,6 and 19 from post #19?

 

 

Have you considered if there is any example of a plastic tube of the right length and diameter and color to be consistent with your sighting, manufactured for any purpose on the Earth that could have gotten loose and floated in the sky like a balloon?

 

 

If you could obtain such a length of plastic Bernoulli bag that was consistent with the diameter and color and length of your sighting, you could release it, at the appropriate altitude on a similar weather day, as your sighting, at the same time of day, and photograph it from the same angle, and see if it acts anything like what you saw. If it did look something like what you saw, you might have found a way to falsify your claim.

 

Just making the claim is not enough. You have to give falsifying the claim an honest effort.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited May 30, 2015 by tar

[tar]

Jeremyjr,

 

Your additional frames in post 19 are misleading.

 

Are they intentionally misleading? Did you select them to give the “appearance” of fantastic, impossible transition?

 

There are three different backgrounds, a dark blue, a light blue and a gray. The object is largest in the dark blue frames and smallest in the light blue frames and medium size in the gray background pictures. This indicates, that if we are looking at a mundane plastic tube, floating away in the breeze, the order of the frames should be dark blue, grey, light blue.

 

In addition, some of the configurations found on the first row, are repeated on the second row. For instance look at frame 1 and frame 10, frame 3 and frame 11, frame 4 and frame 12.

 

I just noticed another indication that this evidence is rigged.

 

Look at frame 6 and frame 16. The “diaperbag” is in the same configuration in each of these shots. (and the background is a different color and the size is different)

 

So Jeremyjr, please give us some frames, in order, with the time between the frames, so we can properly see how this object changed its configuration, in the sky.

 

Regards, TAR

A defined sequence of unmodified shots from the same device would be preferred.

either that, or retract your claim

Jeremyjr.

 

It just occurred to me, that you are a child, that thinks he is so smart, that he can "fool" his parents.

 

You are not smarter than me. (well you may be smarter, but you are not "fooling" me in this case)And there are plenty of folks on this board, smarter than me, and there are plenty of folks throughout the history of science that are smarter, or certainly as smart as the smartest on this board.

 

Take your garbage sighting and...

 

Regards, TAR

At least, if you want to be a scientist, make an attempt to be an honest scientist. That is an absolute requirement. Falsifying the evidence is a no no.

Perhaps your misdirection is not intentional and you still think you saw some fantastic display in the sky. In that case I apologize for calling you a liar, but I would strongly encourage you to reevaluate what it is, you think you saw. When I see your evidence, I see floating garbage, when you see your evidence you see a fanstastic, impossible happening. One of us is wrong about what the evidence shows, and more things about what we consider reality to be like, would have to change inorder for your take to be correct, than for my take to be correct, so please consider that and open your mind to the mundane explanation we have presented.

Edited May 31, 2015 by tar

[jeremyjr]

Jeremyjr,

 

Your additional frames in post 19 are misleading.

 

Are they intentionally misleading? Did you select them to give the appearance of fantastic, impossible transition?

 

There are three different backgrounds, a dark blue, a light blue and a gray. The object is largest in the dark blue frames and smallest in the light blue frames and medium size in the gray background pictures. This indicates, that if we are looking at a mundane plastic tube, floating away in the breeze, the order of the frames should be dark blue, grey, light blue.

 

In addition, some of the configurations found on the first row, are repeated on the second row. For instance look at frame 1 and frame 10, frame 3 and frame 11, frame 4 and frame 12.

 

I just noticed another indication that this evidence is rigged.

 

Look at frame 6 and frame 16. The diaperbag is in the same configuration in each of these shots. (and the background is a different color and the size is different)

 

So Jeremyjr, please give us some frames, in order, with the time between the frames, so we can properly see how this object changed its configuration, in the sky.

 

Regards, TAR

A defined sequence of unmodified shots from the same device would be preferred.

either that, or retract your claim

Jeremyjr.

 

It just occurred to me, that you are a child, that thinks he is so smart, that he can "fool" his parents.

 

You are not smarter than me. (well you may be smarter, but you are not "fooling" me in this case)And there are plenty of folks on this board, smarter than me, and there are plenty of folks throughout the history of science that are smarter, or certainly as smart as the smartest on this board.

 

Take your garbage sighting and...

 

Regards, TAR

At least, if you want to be a scientist, make an attempt to be an honest scientist. That is an absolute requirement. Falsifying the evidence is a no no.

Perhaps your misdirection is not intentional and you still think you saw some fantastic display in the sky. In that case I apologize for calling you a liar, but I would strongly encourage you to reevaluate what it is, you think you saw. When I see your evidence, I see floating garbage, when you see your evidence you see a fanstastic, impossible happening. One of us is wrong about what the evidence shows, and more things about what we consider reality to be like, would have to change inorder for your take to be correct, than for my take to be correct, so please consider that and open your mind to the mundane explanation we have presented.

This was an object in fly, and just for your information in our sky there clouds and when an object moves in such sky with the sun shining the lighting conditions will change. A "balloon" in fly will never behave like "clay" modeled by hand, your "scientific method" is a mockery of reality.

 

Many anomalies have dynamic geometry, they show amorphous configurations, in this particular case the changes in geometry are generating also changes in the object topology.

 

Some "explanations" exposed here show the characteristic contorted way of trying to explain fundamentaly new facts and show clearly to people that know beyond any doubts this reality how flawed are these "methods", when these methods fail even to recognize the reality of something easily verifiable then such methods can not be scientific.

 

Still people here wants to identify "oficial science" with science, they are not the same. Science is not "owned" by any group or institution. The failing of many of these organizations to acknowledge something that many people with no academic formation have been observing in a regular basis should be an indication of a systemic failure.

I am defending science, the real one, the one that will try unconditionally to study reality even if new facts contradict established worldviews and ideas.

 

Footage for this recording can be easily found online, curious people will have not trouble finding it, it was published in three separate parts.

 

The reality of anomalies can be confirmed easily, and let me repeat that we do not know what they are, some people here are making inferences that I never did. One of my posts in this forum explain a repeatable, objetive way to do it and is based in the many times observed reaction of anomalies to direct light signals, that kind of reaction is an unequivocal indication of their "anomalous" character. If you want to witness something extraordinary nothing is stopping you from that, only preconceptions and mental paralysis are stopping you.

Edited June 1, 2015 by jeremyjr

[tar]

jeremyjr,

 

I do not think clay moves in the same way hollow plastic tubes, filled with air to a near circular cross section do, but if I touch the ends of the one together, or the ends of the other together, I can make a torus, in both cases.

 

This thread is primarily about topographical configuration. I have challenged you to provide a frame that shows the object in a configuration that I can not duplicate with the same shaft of clay, without changing its surface's integrity. In each of my figures, you can follow the simulated tube, from one end to the other. In each of your frames, you can follow an imaginary tube from its one end to its other end, making the appropriate loops and twists. You can tie a long rubber/plastic tube into the same knots and twist it into the same configurations as you can a clay shaft of the same length and diameter, without breaking the surface of either one.

 

This thread is secondarily about established science being unable to recognize reality, when it is staring established science in the face, so established science should look at the world instead through the eyes of "real science", which states that impossible things are happening in the sky, all the time, and everybody but Jeremyjr and his band of outlaws, are too scared and stupid to notice.

 

Does demanding that impossible things be recognized as possible, make any kind of sense to you? If all us misguided folk, that demand that impossible stuff not happen, by definition, were to suddenly all become outlaws, then who would you rail against? Who then could you point at, to be wrong, and you right?

 

Your position on the secondary (but underlying) theme of this thread is changeable, because it is only in your take of what appeared in the sky, that we differ. I could come to your take, and say "Oh yeah Jeremyjr. I see it now. That is a fantastic and weird, impossible, unexplainable thing we've got here, that no physics, material science, meteorological knowledge, geometry or human observation ever comes even close to being able to explain.

" Or you could come to my take, and say "oh, yeah, its probably a piece of garbage, that would explain what I saw."

 

Really Jeremyjr, you are going to go the "you're stupid" route, just to avoid going the "oops" route?

 

If your fly is open, or you have a piece of toilet paper on your shoe, or a big hunk of food stuck in your teeth and somebody points it out, the usual response is that you correct the situation.

Odd to say that its the new style and everybody else is stupid not to pull down their fly, stick some toilet paper on their shoe and wedge some hunk of food between their teeth.

 

I know you cannot respond to me, like you would want because it would instantly lock this thread, so I am sort of like a boy, teasing a dog on a chain here, but I think you still have a small chance to redeem yourself, if you can provide an honest sequence of the sighting that I can not simulate with the clay.

 

By the way, did you see this thing, or did you get the frames off a site, to where you cannot provide an honest, untampered with sequence?

 

I did not go looking for your other thread. I would rather you just respond to my particular objections, here.

 

I am calling you out to the street, for a frame by frame showdown. You show me what you saw, and I will show you how a tube of clay can get into the same geometrical shape, without breaking the laws of physics.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited June 1, 2015 by tar

[Strange]

The reality of anomalies can be confirmed easily, and let me repeat that we do not know what they are, some people here are making inferences that I never did.

 

People on the forum have also suggested (testable) hypotheses for what these "anomalies" are, and why they might look the way they do. You have rejected any mundane explanations in favour of plasma-based aliens (or something equally unsupported). The reason people may have made inferences about what you claim these anomalies are, is because you are repeatedly and consistently evasive. You say something and when asked about it, deny that is what you meant. (There may be a future for you in politics.)