Peter Davenport

[nameless]

/\exactly

 

[storge]

Yeah, whatever...

Except repeatability of experimental results doesn't really work in quantum physics, which is all about probabilities. No one is really doing experiments with UFOs except Steven Greer, shining flashlights in the sky, and maybe Bigelow and the people behind him (leaving cattle tied up to get mauled by "intruders"). Everything else is observation.

My first real UFO sighting, I saw an arc-like thing directly above me, and it faded out, just like the cloaking device on a Romulan Bird-of-Prey ship. I thought it was a seagull at first. Your description of the "quantum leaps" taken by the craft filmed by your colleague reminds me of that, but if you're going to get snooty, I won't post here anymore.

 

[Jeff Crowell]

May I ask what the question was, specifically? Here's why I ask: I can see irritation, or a lack of patience with a question, perhaps, he's answered so many times it's nauseating. Totally get that. However, unwarranted anger is a "tell" in my opinion.

I'm intensely interested in the context, the question and his response. If you don't feel like it, no worries!

Thanks

Its in this thread...back a few posts. Let me know if you can't find it.

Sent from my BNTV600 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Chris@ You know of 'Dorothy Izzat'... Can you tell me has Ray any footage similar to that? Especially with the lighting and flashing?

I should revisit Izzat... some interesting elements, if I remember...As to Ray: No big bangs or billy meir beamships. The secrets lie within the subtleties. He has a boat load of analyzed data. Including several film frames (analog) that show an object looming up to the airliner window he was shooting out of and the affect of some sort of grav/mag field that optically collapses the mountaintops on the horizon. We're talking incredible field-strength! To a physicist, this data should be way better than the any lightening storm or 4th of July—regardless if a UFoe showed up. This event occurs w/in (approximately) a fifth of a second—4 frames, if memory serves me correct.

Most UFOs DO NOT look like something outta a 50s sci-fi movie and observable ionization and/or plasma emitter effects around the object is a good rule-of-thumb to consider when analyzing and photos or videos of AAPs. f it looks like a hubcap of vacuum cleaner cover---it probably is...I agree with Ray's analysis that there appearto be clues —inside the real optical data. Like subtle ghost images of re-occurring object types.

I was very fortunate to spend some quality time w/ Ray for the first time in 6+ years... IMHO, no one else I've met (or heard of) comes close to his amazing analytical genius. As above, so below. He can track ancient dino trackways better than anyone. But his real passion are pondering the aerial pathways and the trace evidence the so-called "visitors appear to leave behind.

He's a man on a mission... and I'm proud to be one of his supporters...

 

[Randall]

... He has a boat load of analyzed data. Including several film frames (analog) that show an object looming up to the airliner window he was shooting out of and the affect of some sort of grav/mag field that optically collapses the mountaintops on the horizon. We're talking incredible field-strength! To a physicist, this data should be way better than the any lightening storm or 4th of July—regardless if a UFoe showed up ...

These are some of the issues you'll have to contend with:

Are there witnesses who can corroborate this "looming" object near the airliner he was in. Surely he couldn't have been the only one who saw it. What about the crew and pilots? Did he get any statements? Were there any news reports of this incident? Did he try to get any radar reports? Can he even prove he was on that plane and that he took the film while on that plane ( airline tickets, travel companions etc. ).

Does the independent analysis you mention rule out the apparent visual collapse of the mountain tops as being the result of the combined optics of the camera and the window glass and the variables associated with the aircraft? For example, if I'm not mistaken, airliner passenger windows are more than one pane thick, and therefore able to cause a whole variety of optical effects, not to mention that a manufacturing aberration could result in a window pane with glass that causes unusual lensing. Plus if the background was being shot through jet exhaust, there could be distortion from that as well. In order to rule out these possibilities the analyst would require a control test that includes a shot through a checked airliner window at the exact same angle, altitude, temperature and cabin pressure, and then another shot through the same window Ray supposedly took the UFO film through for comparison. Somehow I doubt that such tests were ever done. Plus there are probably a bunch of other factors to consider that an expert analyst would have to take into consideration, and in the absence of such definitive tests, assigning the effect to an exotic propulsion system is premature.

Then there is the question of whether or not a "grav/mag" field could even produce such an effect in the first place. So far as physics is concerned, we can rule out magnetic fields because they don't affect the path of light. On the other hand, in theory, an artificial gravitational field could affect the path of light, but you'll need to get a real physicist to do the math to determine the values required to produce the phenomenon.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

These are some of the issues you'll have to contend with:

Are there witnesses who can corroborate this "looming" object near the airliner he was in. Surely he couldn't have been the only one who saw it. What about the crew and pilots? Did he get any statements? Were there any news reports of this incident? Did he try to get any radar reports? Can he even prove he was on that plane and that he took the film while on that plane ( airline tickets, travel companions etc. ).

Does the independent analysis you mention rule out the apparent visual collapse of the mountain tops as being the result of the combined optics of the camera and the window glass and the variables associated with the aircraft? For example, if I'm not mistaken, airliner passenger windows are more than one pane thick, and therefore able to cause a whole variety of optical effects, not to mention that a manufacturing aberration could result in a window pane with glass that causes unusual lensing. Plus if the background was being shot through jet exhaust, there could be distortion from that as well. In order to rule out these possibilities the analyst would require a control test that includes a shot through a checked airliner window at the exact same angle, altitude, temperature and cabin pressure, and then another shot through the same window Ray supposedly took the UFO film through for comparison. Somehow I doubt that such tests were ever done. Plus there are probably a bunch of other factors to consider that an expert analyst would have to take into consideration, and in the absence of such definitive tests, assigning the effect to an exotic propulsion system is premature.

Then there is the question of whether or not a "grav/mag" field could even produce such an effect in the first place. So far as physics is concerned, we can rule out magnetic fields because they don't affect the path of light. On the other hand, in theory, an artificial gravitational field could affect the path of light, but you'll need to get a real physicist to do the math to determine the values required to produce the phenomenon.

Yes, Yes, Yes I understand all that, you are preaching to a fellow preacher. But don't forget this particular field effect occurs in 4 frames @24 framers per second and is only one of many amazing sequences in the footage. Did anyone see the object loom up to the craft. No. But the camera did. Yes the pilots other passengers saw the sighting event which lasted several minutes. If you are more interested in his work, introduce yourself and talk to the horse— talk to Ray.

 

[Randall]

Yes, Yes, Yes I understand all that, you are preaching to a fellow preacher. But don't forget this particular field effect occurs in 4 frames @24 framers per second and is only one of many amazing sequences in the footage. Did anyone see the object loom up to the craft. No. But the camera did. Yes the pilots other passengers saw the sighting event which lasted several minutes. If you are more interested in his work, introduce yourself and talk to the horse— talk to Ray.

Actually, setting aside all the analysis and skepticism, there's still something to be said for casual in-person impressions, and Ray sounds like he would be a really interesting guy just to sit and talk with. Perhaps, as you suggest, someday I'll have the good fortune of meeting him. I'd like that very much.