Alien Creatures In Space! , page 6

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by ArMaP
But I don't think they are "critters", just out of focus bright objects, like this one.

Well THIS one is behind the Tether at 81 nautical miles away from the camera

No it's not. ArMaP is correct. You have to understand how the video camera NASA used works to see this is just an optical illusion due to oversaturated pixels. This was all explained by James Oberg last year right here on ATS…

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The technical reason behind the illusion is the overbright protect logic of the camera, that pixels that reach maximum-scale bright white then 'gray out' to avoid burning out. You see that effect in shuttle night-time views when viewing a lightning-lit thundercloud or a bright city at night -- the center of the bright-white mass appears gray, not pure white. There should be dozens of examples of that effect on the videos if you watch for it. Even stars sometimes (depending on focus and other settings) tend to look like cheerios, smeared circles or ovals with the centers punched out.

So when the pixels that are triggered by the tether itself (and these pixels are smeared out over a much wider angle than the actual telephone-cord-thick tether), when these pixels are at maximum brightness, they will -- like they are designed to - 'gray out'. So then, when a bright white moving light crosses the tether image zone, it just adds its brightness to the already overbright-protected pixels, which stay gray like they are supposed to. Yes, it does LOOK like the white blip is passing behind the gray line, but you have to realize that the gray line itself is an artifact of the pixel logic.

Notice also the notches along the rims of the moving disks. These are artifacts of the camera lens assembly and you can verify that by noting that as each disk moves the notch configuration changes, but for any of the disks, when it moves through a certain position in the field-of-view, the notch configuration is the same as any other disk that had previously been in that position. This is evidence that the notch configuration is a function of the camera apparatus, not of the objects being viewed.

How soon we forget.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Chorlton

---

To me, this statement is most telling:

Neither can you make wild assuptions about the unknown

Replace "assumptions" with "speculations" and the sentence has quite a different meaning? Does this offend you a little less? I think that what you see are speculations, not assumptions.

I see where you are coming from and appreciate your explanations
However, I see a world of difference between someone who posts stuff and says "What if" and someone who posts stuff and says "It Is".
Several posters here, and even you must admit it, make quilte wild assumptions based on the teeniest bit of vague information. And then when stopped on a point simply retorts with a thinly veiled insult, as if they know everything and everyone else knows nothing.
That attitude and the act of pontificating about something in a pseudo scientific way, without having the slightest bit of scientific knowledge is what is bringing serious research into doubt. In effect, idiots talking babble and before a mod jumps at me, THAT point isnt aimed at anyone.

If you want to sway the opinion of someone, try leading them to another answer. In business we have a saying: "It is easier to pull the string than to push the string." Just some advice on how to deal with us unruly Yanks.

Have you thought about the diplomatic Corps? Theres a place for you there Im sure

Originally posted by zorgon
Well THIS one is behind the Tether at 81 nautical miles away from the camera

I am that sure that that one is behind the tether, in the same way I do not think that the dark area on the right side of the tether is the shadow of the tether on the bottom of the ocean, although that is was it looks like, if we do not know what we are seeing.

As I was not sure of the way it would look an out of focus bright area over a bright, thin and long object I made an experiment.

The only thing I changed on the video bellow was making it black and white because the red light looked too different from the ones on the tether video.

Out-of-focus-test

This was made with a string, a flash-light, a pocket PC (the only thing with a LED that I could find), a Panasonic camera and less hands than those needed.

As you see, it is difficult to say if the light is in front or behind the string.

I know it does not look much like the tether video, but it was the best I could do in half an hour with the available materials, and I hope it shows why I think an out of focus object in front of the tether could look like those objects that we see on the NASA video.

reply to post by Chorlton

---

I manage half of a 300-400 seat call center. Politic is a way of life, although i don't like it.

Keep in mind that "serious research" seems to amount to little more than stabbing in the dark. If prior research were actually looked at (instead of allowing research grant money to lure you conveniently away from concepts such as Tesla's) current "serious research" would have already yielded much improved results.

Zorgon has posted information somewhere (an article entitled something like "We had our chance and blew it") discussing the seeming vacuum intellectually that has occured since WWII. Does it not seem possible (or even probable) that anyone capable of "serious research" is shuttled away to work in a lab sitting 20 stories below ground level?

This research is only evident to us through the shadows it casts on the wall. Zorgon gets information, but cannot share it all. I understand this quite well. But he CAN go back and try to "reverse engineer" some stuff that might lead to the conclusion that has been shared with him. That is what gets shared with everyone else. This is only an example, as much of what he has researched has actually been him running down his own hunches and leads. Regardless, to not consider what he says as possible is to call him dishonest. I don't think that is fair, since all you are basing it on is your own skepticism.

On a similar note, a friend of my father created some sort of valve fitting for a carb that would improve gas mileage into the triple digits. He kept one on his car, but would not share it with anyone else. He was given 200k in 1974 and told that if he DID share the concept, he would be killed. I, being a kid at the time my dad shared the story, believed him. My dad believed it, too (and he didn't beliee much). Only a few people were even told because he was fearful. He died of bladder cancer when i was a teenager. He was well known in the area for building VERY fast racers. He always said the secret is in the fuel lines. I heard this again years later watching a drag race on TV.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Chorlton

---

Regardless, to not consider what he says as possible is to call him dishonest.

Oh I consider everything possible. I just dont consider a lot of things probable

I don't think that is fair, since all you are basing it on is your own skepticism.

And logic and common sense!,
Yet all zorgon is basing a lot of his speculation on are totally disparate publications and little quotes made 50 years ago and totally irrational ideas and leaps of logic. I agree some of his stuff is thought provoking but some of it is utter rubbish and warrants nothing but contempt. Soul Catchers?? PLEEEEEEZE

He always said the secret is in the fuel lines. I heard this again years later watching a drag race on TV.

Sorry but I cant believe that. all fuels have a known burn rate which can be increased by additives, compression ratios turbos and exhausts/headers. Fuel lines have little to do with it as all a fuel line does is allows transportation of said fuel from tank to pump to carb/injector.

Weve got nutcases over here that sell supposed pellets that will convert unleaded petrol to leaded petrol by 'catalytic action' however, they havent the faintes idea what taht catalytic action is and why there should even be one by plonking something into your fuel tank.

reply to post by Chorlton

---

You misattribute a concept to Zorgon. He has not laid claim to soul catchers. That is Mr. Lear. What Zorgon says is that anything is possible, and it is easier to work with someone on similarities than it is to work against them on differences. Ok, so he doesn't say that exactly....

What is meant by "fuel lines" is that the delivery system is critical. What you say may be true. Under classical measurements it would seem that fuel has a specific burn rate, et al. The same as water having a specific boiling temperature. But, if you increase pressure the whole thing changes. Fried chicken cooks in 2/3 the time (they do have fried chicken in the UK, don't they?). Pressure fryers changed fast food (possibly for the worst) drastically.

There are constants of specific properties. But if you change the environment variables you can achieve vastly different results. I know very little about internal combustion, but can tell you that it seems obvious that if you can maximize air pressure, oxygen levels, fuel delivery, and air pressure, you can likely see marked increase in energy output.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Chorlton

---

You misattribute a concept to Zorgon. He has not laid claim to soul catchers. That is Mr. Lear.

But I havent seen him deny the suggestion? A person is judged by the company they keep!

What Zorgon says is that anything is possible, and it is easier to work with someone on similarities than it is to work against them on differences. Ok, so he doesn't say that exactly....

HMM Z says a lot of things, most of which I consider to be ridiculous. Note I said 'most' not all.

There are constants of specific properties. But if you change the environment variables you can achieve vastly different results. I know very little about internal combustion, but can tell you that it seems obvious that if you can maximize air pressure, oxygen levels, fuel delivery, and air pressure, you can likely see marked increase in energy output.

You can.. and its called a Turbo, or supercharger but it doesnt use less fuel, it uses more!. Around 5 years ago a friend and I tried many many things to improve engine performance and economy, and found as we suspected, that when performance increases, so does the fuel well it doesnt up to a point but then it goes up. We tried water injection, in fact everything injection including orange juice injection (which actually works incredibly well but burns out spark plugs.) We gave up in the end after burning out 2 engines.
Now with diesel at £1 a litre (thats $2) I potter around in my VW T4 van running on Veg oil at 50p a litre during the week then burn up the roads in the V8 at weekends. Sod Global warming

reply to post by Chorlton

---

OK...this should like start another thread....

but along these same lines, have you considered other "technology"?

There is a guy that I have visited with that tries some strange stuff. It is based on the "explosion/implosion" concepts created by that German scientist in the 30's and 40's (i cannot recall his name right now). This guy found what he thinks is encoded information regarding this concept in the ancient Dogu statues. yeah, pretty far fetched....but he has some results.

The reason i bring this up? I have watched him research this for about 4 years. He drove a van around with his Ram Implosion Wing on it, for crying out loud. A big V8 chevy van (a Good Times conversion van, for those of you Americans who are familiar). And he got results (i.e., fuel efficiency improvements).

here is his site:

ancientgravitics.tripod.com...

Yeah, it can easily be dismissed as "woo", but if you look at his rationale, you see a pattern emerge.

This is similar to what we see done in this forum, too.

Keep in mind, Zorgon does not refute Johns claims. I rarely do, either. This is not the old "silence is consent", but more a case of what i described above: He works on similarities, not differences. This allows for greater synergy.

Perhaps this attitude is what has caused the current rut that modern intellectualism finds itself in? Bear in mind that the greatest minds that science has memorialized are from before the modern scientific structure was established. There is little to say for man's progression outside of "approved" scientific circles. It is an exclusionary club, and it should be hardly surprising that many others wish to buck the system.

[edit on 9-10-2007 by bigfatfurrytexan]

Originally posted by mikesingh
Now if someone says it’s reflection, it’s not.

It's a reflection.

Because the same object has been photographed from two different locations, but it remains at the same spot in reference to the Moon.

It is not exactly on the same place, in the first photo (AS13-60-8608) half of the "object" is covering part of the Moon, in the second photo (AS13-60-8609) the "object" is a little further "out", covering a little less area than on the first photo.

The object may be made of solid material, ie, constructed, or it could be amorphous as apparent due to the lack of definitive edges. If so, then it could be a bio entity emitting plasma!

Or it can be a reflection, it looks like one on the photos from the Apollo Image Atlas.



Although those photos are not that good, it can be seen that the "solid" look of the "object" on the photo from that site only exists because the photo was probably passed through some filters, increasing its contrast, making it loose the finer detail.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Chorlton

---

Keep in mind, Zorgon does not refute Johns claims. I rarely do, either. This is not the old "silence is consent", but more a case of what i described above: He works on similarities, not differences. This allows for greater synergy.

Ill take a look at the site mentioned.
Re: your statements above. Im afraid that myself and others see the 'Silence is consent' as just that. I would suspect Zorgon would get more assistance/understanding by standing up to certain ridiculous claims.
If Z doesnt refute those claims, and indeed, he encouarges some madcap claims and helps embellish them, he can hardly get narked when people dont even bother examining in detail some of the stuff he posts.
I was once friends with a UK politician, this chap could have easily gone on to be PM or very high in the Cabinet, but he had a good friend who espoused some incredibly radical socialist ideas. My friend was told the old adage about being judged by the friends they keep, he ignored it and months later was totally passed over for promotion and a cabinet position.
He had his chance and he chose his corner and was judged by the decisions he made.
Same with Z. If he chooses to support, by silence, someone who posts the most ridiculously impossible scenarios then he will be judged on that criteria.
Is a shame as I think Z has some good stuff which could raise a lot of questions, but he's made his bed, and now has to sleep in it.

Great thread mike, I am extremely interested in the prospect of plasma based life forms. It's a subject I've been following for some time, as of late some scientists are also considering this, even tying it to the origins of life on earth.

I think most members here are familiar with the plasma helix's that show characteristics of biology.
space.newscientist.com...

This is the original paper on the subject.
www.iop.org...

Biology shows all the benchmarks of electrical properties, cellular structure is synonymous with things like conductors, capacitors, double layers etc...
This paper suggests how plasma physics can be used to better understand biology.
scitation.aip.org...

A few more related links.
Plasma blobs hint at new life form
A flame ball named kelly

As for the tether incident, I honestly cannot rationalize NASA's airy disc explanation for a number of reasons.

1. Some change direction irrespective of the others, I've noticed one that appears out of nowhere.
2. They are pulsating, some of the clearer ones show a distinct vortex pulsing through them, another characteristic of plasma in a magnetic field.
3. The parallax distortion when the camera zooms in and out is consistent with the objects being at a distance.
4. Some other NASA clips clearly show the airy disc effect and it looks nothing like these objects.

Also not everything is forced away from the sun from the solar wind, I really hate that terminology, there is no wind in space, it conjures up thoughts that are totally at odds with reality, it's solar plasma and behaves as such in the suns electrical field. Any negatively charged object will be attracted to the positively charged sun.
NASA are currently working on ion drives I believe, quite simply it's electrostatic propulsion that utilizes this effect. (from my understanding of it.)

I'm sure some people here just like to argue regardless of facts, of course we shouldn't jump to conclusions, but some of the negative arguments posted are clearly more personally inclined.

Anyway, nice work. I always enjoy your posts even if I don't agree with some of them.

reply to post by Chorlton

---

I'd agree with that to a certain extent, without many facts what's left but speculation? I'd also say that there's some pseudo science and false facts regarding space from both sides of the fence.
Actually I'm not sure what your referring to as pseudo science?
In my opinion they are still teaching astronomical pseudo science in schools throughout the world. Please don't get me started on that one.

I don't think it's laughable to suggest that plasma lifeforms may exist in space, after all it's only speculation and some working researchers are now "suggesting" this also. The history of science has been full of great suggestions that led to great discoveries that were laughed at by their contemporaries.

There very well may be a logical more mundane explanation for the worms and tether objects, I'm yet to here it though. Perhaps they are plasma effects that only appear to mimic life? Unfortunately we won't be able to check for a pulse, find droppings or sample their DNA.

For the moment I'll dare to consider the possibility that they may exist, until I get a better explanation.

reply to post by squiz

---

Excellent post squiz! Those links made fascinating reading! This part I particularly liked....

"Claiming that something is (or is not) alive is almost pointless because there is no mathematically rigorous definition of life."

David Grier of New York University in New York City, US.

Now perhaps that would be a revelation to some here! We base our concept of 'life' on what we feel is and what it should be within established paradigms that have been drummed into us from the primary school level. We generally accept a generic definition of life.

In the search for a deeper understanding of the nature of life, some scientists have recently focused their research on developing self-replicating cells assembled from nonliving organic and inorganic matter.

In his laboratory, Steen Rasmussen, team leader of the Self-Organizing Systems section at Los Alamos National Laboratory, combines organic and inorganic materials in an attempt to develop such protocells. These basic units show very little resemblance to modern life. For example, the current protocell design does not have a single biomolecule in common with a modern living cell and exists on the nano-scale, about a million times smaller than a bacterium.
www.aaas.org...

Cheers!

Did Carl Sagan know something?
  Posted 17 days ago with 276 member flags

The Devil\'s Chord: The conspiracy to open the portal of consciousness and mystery of the octave
  Posted 2 days ago with 150 member flags

The Coca Cola Conspiracy: The secret cause for the U.S. obesity epidemic
  Posted 13 days ago with 138 member flags

Earthly coincidences...or not.
  Posted 13 days ago with 122 member flags

STOP....Take a STEP BACK....and look at the BIG PICTURE!!
  Posted 19 days ago with 115 member flags

Was this the real reason why Megaupload was closed down?
  Posted 18 days ago with 96 member flags

The Mysterious Death of Marilyn Monroe
  Posted 16 days ago with 85 member flags

Bank of America DOES NOT accept U.S. DOLLARS as payment on mortgages
  Posted 6 days ago with 85 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: