Getting the evidence

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpoq47
I spotted a couple of errors in my last post above past the time limit for editing. Sorry. EDH should have been IDH (interdimensional hypothesis), and those figures of 0.00476 and 0.476 were factors, not percentages. As percentages they should be 0.476% and 47.6%, respectively--a huge difference.

But I just had another thought about the interdimensional hypothesis, which is that in a few cases shadows cast on the ground have been mentioned, and an interdimensional object shouldn't be able to do that, at least not in the normal configuration. A vessel that had traveled back in time or from an alternate universe I suppose should be able to cast a normal shadow. Shadows have been seen in some photos, but picking out even one genuine photo from the mountain of hoaxes/unclear images is virtually impossible.


I have a question. This interdimmentionality you speak of....is it in one Universal Constant...or many?
Split Infinity




posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 03:57 AM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


I'm the wrong person to ask about details on interdimensional beings/material. I'm not advocating the IDH, and I was trying to show that the problems with the ETH that seem to give rise to the IDH might be overcome with advances in science and technology.



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpoq47
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


I'm the wrong person to ask about details on interdimensional beings/material. I'm not advocating the IDH, and I was trying to show that the problems with the ETH that seem to give rise to the IDH might be overcome with advances in science and technology.



Ah...sorry. I was just wondering where the numbers you were posting were coming from. If from someone else...I don't think they have the slightest idea about what they are talking about. Split Infinity



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 05:59 AM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


Going back to my explanation that goes through the numbers, which part looks wrong? Certainly, even without suffering through the math from which it's derived, approximately 5 tons for a 50-foot disc doesn't seem unreasonable, and the Wikipedia article on the Casimir effect gives the same figure from experimental results as I used. So the question was, "What would it take the make a 50-foot, 5-ton saucer hover, expresssed as a percentage of one direction of the Casimir force for two 50-foot polished discs 10 nanometers apart?" The math for that came out to 0.476%, where it's no longer simple Casimir effect but manipulation of the same so-called "virtual particles" or "vacuum fluctuations," or whatever you want to call them by some exotic means.

It's simply 5.154/1180 (weight of saucer per square foot / half of Casimir effect (at 10 nm) per square foot)

I must have mistyped that on my calculator before. It should be 0.00477 (0.477% rather than 0.476%, a small difference but less than 5%, hard to accomplish but not requiring ghosts, time travel, or interdimensionality.

Any way you look at it, the Casimir effect is many times greater than the weight of any test discs used in the experiment, and the idea is to try to capture a little of that force by means other than simply slapping two plates together as one possible solution to the question of how UFOs fly.



edit on 25-12-2011 by xpoq47 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 06:05 AM
link   
reply to post by xpoq47
 


I was not questioning the numbers in that way rather the reason for the logic behind thinking that FORCE of any kind is involved here.

These craft use a one or another specific type of Gravitic Drive. Without this ability....their movements are impossible via normal propultion or any action of force. Contrary to popular belief....GRAVITY IS NOT A FORCE....it is simply space/time geometry.

So...I hope you can see why I am questioning why the numbers based upon force. Split Infinity



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 08:29 AM
link   
Back to the topic of setting up such a system. Let's stop talking about it and set up a system like this. But instead do it on a global scale. Let's all get together and do it. I don't know about you but I'm tired of people finding evidence and the truth just being covered up. Who cares if one government shuts off the project. It will still happen all over the world. They can't stop every operating machine. Then we'll know for sure they're hiding something and well have all the evidence we need to sue the government (that would be a major laugh). Oh and for all those governments watching what I'm writing. I apologies readers for the vulgar language. Up yours!..... Back to what I was saying, if we can get this happening on a global scale without any government influence. We stand a good chance of actually finding something. I know SETI probably already does this and they've come up empty. But they probably have donations from various governments with the promise that they'll send any findings straight to them and not just releasing it to the public.



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Truthseeker45
 


I'm working on it. The camera-control software is key, to ensure that three cameras are smoothly and simultaneously panned and then zoomed on an object, which, as I mentioned, can be controlled on-screen by moving the point where three red lines on the screen intersect to align the object within the three on-screen viewports (in downgraded resolution and color depth on the control computer for faster data transfer). That operator will be able to zoom all three cameras as necessary (in to capture good pictures, out to follow if it moves out of the viewports). And each frame will be saved on the computer at the location of the camera with the appropriate data to accompany that frame, thus requiring no on-line transfer of the high-resolution image data. So any UFO captured will have triangulation data, as well as good pictures. That's much better than trying to analyze pictures of the same object taken by three or more people at about the same time without knowing the exact location, time, azimuth, and elevation of each camera, not to mention centering in the frame. And since there is triangulation, it's not necessary to have houses, trees, etc. in frame for reference.

Once it's set up and tested in one location, then more people will hopefully be interested in setting up the same system with the same software and same type of equipment in other locations. But each setup will require cooperation of a group of people.



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   
want to take this opportunity to wish everyone a merry xmas



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by xpoq47
 


xpoq47 --- May I suggest that you trick out you camera system, with some kind of lure or decoy that would stoke the space alien's curiosity into coming closer. No... not some pretty blonde tied on top of a wall, like in the movie King Kong; nor either laser pointer's, which are against the law.

One lure, could be a giant stone or dirt petroglyph, of an ET, visible enough to be seen from a very high altitude.
Can't say for sure, but I believe I was successful with this process, causing a foofighter to land one week later, less than six miles away from the petroglyph in a field; with eyewitness reports and tripod landing marks with slight radioactivity on the ground. Location: USA, in the mid --- 1970's

Another trick would be to order a Japanese Admiralty Signaling Searchlight. from Deutsche Optic. {$2,599}
The pride of Tojo. The signal shutters work, of course, in case you want to have a conversation with ET across the bay. These are 12" daylight signaling lamps, using 1,000 watt bulbs, with moveable mirror reflector in order to obtain parallel, diverged or crossed beams.


Cheers,

Erno86





edit on 25-12-2011 by Erno86 because: typo
edit on 25-12-2011 by Erno86 because: typo
edit on 25-12-2011 by Erno86 because: spelling



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 




That might bring out some MIBs in Bluesmobiles.



What about strawberry ice cream?




posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by xpoq47
 


Just tell me what equipment to use and how to set it up and I'll convinced friends to help out in Australia. Set up a network or something where the pictures are looked at and a copy of all the important ones is kept. Then get some sponsors and get some money from there. You'll Need money to keep this system going. You could sell little UFO shaped cookies to get donations from the public. After all this is run to expose the truth.



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Truthseeker45
 


The project overall doesn't need money. And development of the software should come first, starting with Simulation mode, where nothing is connected and one can get a feel for how one operator can control three cameras simultaneously as the computer simulates a UFO event and the user controls the framing as I described in the OP, so that once in operation for real every shot is a set of three from different angles, each with a data stamp for time, azimuth, and elevation to allow solid triangulation, and after a real event the results, once verified, should trigger a request for radar and weather data from the appropriate local sources. The software will be supplied free to team members, but each member who operates a camera station will have to have the proper equipment, and each operator will only need a computer with the free control program installed and commit to occasional one-hour shifts.

I've written up the proposal in detail to present to MUFON, who will have first crack at it.

edit on 25-12-2011 by xpoq47 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by xpoq47
 


Just let me know if I can help. I'll do what I can and once I learn how to programe I'll help out with adding extra tools to the software. You should do it so it can detect ultraviolet light, detect heat signatures, and switch to infrared. Those will come in handy



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Truthseeker45
 


Thanks. I downloaded Sony's VISCA camera-control library, and I should be able to handle the rest of the programming.



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by xpoq47
 


I'm going offline for a few days. I'll be back online in a week with more ideas. Let me know what I missed



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Once visual contact is made with an alien starship, its occupants, will possibly try to establish telepathic contact with anybody in the vicinity of the starship; so as to be made aware of your intentions, whether peaceful or violent.

You probably won't hear any voices in your mind from the telepathic contact; more likely, you will possibly sense the presense of an other-worlder by telepathic contact. They could possibly catalog your brain wave patterns, as your identification for future contact at a later date.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by xpoq47
 

Oh, smoking man....
....otherwise known as Hal Puthoff [Thanks for the, fascinating, coincidental, connection Zorgon]....


I have looked at the work of Puthoff et al. before and it is interesting.

Their observation that, "the linked ZPF-inertia[ZPF is zero point field] and ZPF-gravity concepts open the conceptual possibility of manipulation of inertia and gravitation, since both are postulated to be electromagnetic phenomena," made my ears prick.

In a UFO sighting of my own, as I approached the object, a strong charged feeling to the air could be felt along with a humming sound exactly like that felt when near to a powerful electromagnetic field. Far from being a unique experience this has been reported in many UFO sightings. Puthoff et al. will be well aware of this fact as will other people involved with advanced propulsion research.



So we have Lockheed-Martin and McDonnell-Douglas both hot on this trail. I also don't think the paper we are discussing would NOT have been published as soon as they reached that point in their research, but would only have been released AFTER their rivals were known to have got there - for competitive reasons.

Unlike what many members believe, ALL of the UFOs are NOT ours. That is why the guys working on the most advanced human craft have studied them. Guys like Robert Wood and even "little old me" are NOT the idiots some of you would like the world to think we are.

Think about it...


 

P.S. For anyone interested the UFO sighting was myself along with two other people. The object, which we got relatively close to, was NOT a saucer or a triangle. It was also definitely no plane (it was hovering and rotating, noiselessly at very low altitude for a start!) but was geometrically prism like with lights. It was years before the cameras on phone era, unfortunately. Interestingly, I cannot remember the point when we would have been closest to the object, possibly due to the intensity of the electromagnetic field. Anyone who thinks we had a group hallucination - I'd prefer you didn't insult my intelligence!
edit on 26/12/11 by Pimander because: added italics
edit on 26/12/11 by Pimander because: (no reason given)
edit on 26/12/11 by Pimander because: (no reason given)
edit on 26/12/11 by Pimander because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Okay, there's a resemblance, but in the Wikipedia article on the Smoking Man there's no mention of Harold or Hal Puthoff. And the chief proponents of that theory Bernard Haisch and Alfonso Rueda do describe the virtural particles as being electromagnetic in nature, and that whole theory is sometimes referred to as stochastic electrodynamics.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by xpoq47
 

Back to your original topic. You might be interested in this paper by Dr Massimo Teodorani.


Abstract

A research project on the UFO phenomenon is proposed in which UFO targets are treated on a par with astronomical objects having no fixed coordinates. Specifically oriented monitoring techniques and strategies involving small telescopes which are connected to CCD detectors, spectrographs and photon-counting photometers are presented. Expected exposure-times for acquiring a good S/N ratio of the target using all the proposed instruments is also evaluated. Finally, physical informations which are expected to come out from data analysis are presented and discussed in detail.
SOURCE: Physics from UFO Data

It looks as though you might be on the same wavelength.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 05:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Pimander
 


Thanks. Read & bookmarked. Of course, what he proposed is scientifically valid and interesting, but politically not doable. I could have remarked earlier that observatories would be well equipped if they would cooperate in such a venture to not only provide triangulation data but also various spectral data. Suppose a group of ground observers who had cell phones with GPS capability and an app with a one-touch function that allowed an observer to alert participating observatories and simultaneously supply the location according to GPS so they could each turn the telescope to the proper azimuth and expected elevation quickly when a sighting occurred. Great, but it's not going to happen.

Dr. Hynek starting carrying a stereoscopic camera when he traveled. He got one shot from an airplane of something. It's not clear what it was, and the two camera lenses on his gadget were really not far enough apart to even determine distance very well. If you set three cameras on long arms in your backyard and rig a device to trip all three shutters at once, then sit out there skywatching full time, perhaps for a few years, you might get the best UFO pictures in history, but what it really takes is three cameras miles apart all aimed at the object and capturing it simultaneously from three angles, hopefully centered in frame and zoomed. Infrared and other data also obtained falls into the would-be-nice-but-nobody's-going-to-do-it category. In setting up Project Twinkle they were very clear about the need to capture a target on film from three substantially distant locations and have azimuth and elevation stamped on every frame. And they already had the equipment and trained operators to do it back in 1950, since they had been used for tracking missiles being tested

Yes, there was a guy who appeared once on UFO Hunters with a white truck loaded with various UFO tracking equipment and various cameras. But it would take three of those (because you really need the triangulation) to do the job, and aiming would have to be precisely coordinated in real time. And I don't even want to guess the cost of his setup.

By the way, there's a case described in one of the NICAP free online books in which a crewman aboard a USAF plane used the equipment at this station to obtain microwave data on the object during a sighting event and some speculation on how the finding may relate to its propulsion system.

Anyway, what I proposed is not as grandiose as some schemes yet even then perhaps too much to ask, even though the project overall doesn’t require money, since it’s strictly BOOB. Either there will enough interest for it to happen or there won’t. Insufficient interest is the big barrier, even though what I described is far easier to implement than previous similar proposals, because of the software control that I suggested, where each operator works for an hour at a time and can coordinate three cameras via the Internet once something is spotted. And if it takes a year or more, that’s okay.

I restrained myself from mentioning this before, but a debunker who has harsh words for even the most serious published ufologists, not to mention witnesses, remarked earlier this year that none of them would want to do a civilian version of Project Twinkle because it would put an end to their cash-cow book sales and lecture fees. I don’t remember his exact words, but that’s the gist of it. Maybe I was interpreting it the wrong way. Maybe he thinks they believe it’s all a bunch of hogwash, not that actually finding something would put them out of business.

But what I suggested is a pretty scaled-down approach, and just a few seconds of video zoomed, synchronized, and shot from three angles, should make history. But it comes down to whether or not people are interested in doing it for real. If I write a demo program for people to try out, maybe that will spark some interest. But it should be administered by a major UFO group. If ufologists have doubts and think maybe all those pilots and their corroborating eyewitnesses and radar operators, plus all other witnesses, are full of beans, well, so be it. But if they agree with the official statements already made by a few governments that there really is something going on up there, then why not try to prove it in a way that’s not all that difficult?

edit on 27-12-2011 by xpoq47 because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join