When is absence of evidence, evidence of absence?

[manxman]

what if they are not solid, just plasma.

then i suggest you look again, and just answer this one question, how does debri come to a halt, and stay there, plus you like oberg have exaggerated the debri situation, i link to nasa reports about debri to oberg, they clearly showing that expansion and contraction released debri is cleared of the shuttle within 36 hours, also there is no liquid in space, only solid [ice] or gas, you also obviously do not know how long debris can survive in the shuttles vicinity, small debri ice crystal size can only survive in orbit with the shuttle no more than 10 minutes before gravity takes its toll, this is why when tracked individually ice crystals from a pressurised dump travel in parabolic arcs, also and most significantly you are/have to ignore the fact that any loosened debri falls away down and infront of the shuttle, as it is still travelling at the same speed as the shuttle, and in the same direction.

how long do you think sublimation of a water dump takes paul once it is in direct sunlight?, i will tell you, it takes minutes at most, its the reason ice crystals rotate as they gas out..

so watch the debri again paul and tell me how it come to a fullstop and falls away behind the shuttle, theres no drag in space, as stated, if it comes of the shuttle it travels with the shuttle, and starts dropping back to earth the second it parts company from the shuttle, therefore falling into a shorter orbit than the shuttle at the same speed.

2 flies on a 14'' inch pizza, one walks around the edge, the other walks around at the same speed only 1'' deeper [13''] which fly completes a full circiut first the one walking 14 inches at the same speed as the one walking 13'', no the shorter orbit finishes first, it would nose out infront of the 14'' inch walker, shuttle debris is no different.

you cant sell those of us who have research nasa's data,that dummy.



PS i didnt ask you to regurgitate obergs shyte, i asked for YOUR opinion, i have already spent weeks having this out with oberg directly.

 

[PCarr]

then i suggest you look again, and just answer this one question, how does debri come to a halt, and stay there, plus you like oberg have exaggerated the debri situation, i link to nasa reports about debri to oberg, they clearly showing that expansion and contraction released debri is cleared of the shuttle within 36 hours, also there is no liquid in space, only solid [ice] or gas, you also obviously do not know how long debris can survive in the shuttles vicinity, small debri ice crystal size can only survive in orbit with the shuttle no more than 10 minutes before gravity takes its toll, this is why when tracked individually ice crystals from a pressurised dump travel in parabolic arcs, also and most significantly you are/have to ignore the fact that any loosened debri falls away down and infront of the shuttle, as it is still travelling at the same speed as the shuttle, and in the same direction.

how long do you think sublimation of a water dump takes paul once it is in direct sunlight?, i will tell you, it takes minutes at most, its the reason ice crystals rotate as they gas out..

so watch the debri again paul and tell me how it come to a fullstop and falls away behind the shuttle, theres no drag in space, as stated, if it comes of the shuttle it travels with the shuttle, and starts dropping back to earth the second it parts company from the shuttle, therefore falling into a shorter orbit than the shuttle at the same speed.

2 flies on a 14'' inch pizza, one walks around the edge, the other walks around at the same speed only 1'' deeper [13''] which fly completes a full circiut first the one walking 14 inches at the same speed as the one walking 13'', shuttle debris is no different.

you cant sell those of us who have research nasa's data,that dummy.

As I've said, as a professional who has been working around this stuff for more than 30 years, I don't see anything that requires a new explanation. Nothing in your post makes an argument otherwise.

I could type a lecture on orbit mechanics here, but all that information is already widely available.

Sure, all liquids in space will either volatize into gas pretty quickly or freeze, or some of both, and we see in this video is probably ice. In eclipse it could endure for much longer than the duration of this video, which is just a few minutes.

Clearly the video starts out in eclipse and then moves into sun. On the more modern color cameras this is much easier to see than on these cameras. Oberg explains all about the cameras, the lighting and the experiment they were doing. BTW, there is a little drag in Low Earth Orbit, but the major force here is probably the orbiter's ACS.

I really wish people would stop getting so excited about such lame stuff. It's a huge distraction.

 

[trainedobserver]

We've known since 1905 that simultaneity is relative. This understanding is born out very well by experiment and observation. There is a lot of really interesting work going now about what the true nature of time is, but it's not about human perception of time. We can objectively measure time, but a more nuanced view might lead us down a new path.

Well, what I'm saying is that it could all be about frame of reference. Ours vs. theirs (whoever that is).

 

[manxman]

As I've said, as a professional who has been working around this stuff for more than 30 years, I don't see anything that requires a new explanation. Nothing in your post makes an argument otherwise.

I could type a lecture on orbit mechanics here, but all that information is already widely available.

Sure, all liquids in space will either volatize into gas pretty quickly or freeze, or some of both, and we see in this video is probably ice. In eclipse it could endure for much longer than the duration of this video, which is just a few minutes.

Clearly the video starts out in eclipse and then moves into sun. On the more modern color cameras this is much easier to see than on these cameras. Oberg explains all about the cameras, the lighting and the experiment they were doing. BTW, there is a little drag in Low Earth Orbit, but the major force here is probably the orbiter's ACS.

I really wish people would stop getting so excited about such lame stuff. It's a huge distraction.

you are no more than copping out, i can assure you ive spent years on this one, so because you wont even go there, and i dont blame you, because lets be honest you nor oberg can explain the physic's contradictions in obergs yarn, so why dont we go to another thread and disect obergs tosh, you being the lawyer for the defence, only i really hope you are the man of integrity i have you marked as, because oberg is a snake, and is a stranger to integrity, its like pulling teeth to get him to admit he is wrong even about the tiniest detail, i felt you would be honest enough to acknowledge his mistakes when presented with the correct nasa data, compiled and written by eminently better qualified people than oberg...

 

[Jeff Davis]

Well, what I'm saying is that it could all be about frame of reference. Ours vs. theirs (whoever that is).

Or, how to control, or adapt to that frame of reference. Much like we would with a submarine in the ocean.

 

[PCarr]

you are no more than copping out, i can assure you ive spent years on this one, so because you wont even go there, and i dont blame you, because lets be honest you nor oberg can explain the physic's contradictions, so why dont we go to another thread and disect obergs tosh, you being the lawyer for the defence, only i really hope you are the man of integrity i have you marked as, because oberg is a snake.

I don't think Oberg needs me to defend him. I don't know him personally, and it doesn't matter. I am only saying he is right about this one thing, and you have written nothing to even approach convincing me otherwise. It doesn't matter how many years you've spend on analyzing the video - I rejected the labor theory of value before my chin hairs started to grow. Your arguments don't hold up under cursory examination, and ad hominem fallacies only hurt your case.

 

[manxman]

care to tell me how the object didnt really slow to a stop as it appears to, or how it doesnt really lower itself into the electrical storm as it appears to, and hold its position, and get dimmer as it receeds into the distance at 300 miles a minute, or will you just keep handwaving the 'its not worth it' flag.

is it all really imagination paul, atleast tell me what you see, wouldnt that be easier than dancing around it, and genuine thanks for replying, i have no grudge with you, i respect your knowledge this is why i wanted you to tell me what YOU see.

perhaps a better question would be is there anybody else here who does not see an object track in at speed, slow to a standstill and descend into the electrical storm ?, whether its an illusion or not.


full screen

and just to be clear paul i do not know what it is i am looking at, i certainly do not think it is alien crafts or probes, i do have a theory after all this time, but really i just want to KNOW what i am seeing, to my satisfaction.

when oberg thought i was a little green men merchant whilst thrashing the sts75 footage out with him, he ridiculed, he chameleoned, he argued black was white, but in the end when i revealed my true thoughts of what we were looking at, after kicking the foundation stones of his story out one by one, he said I was probably right, and that's the kind of tireless research that was needed on that forum of believers, PROBABLY right, no probably about it i was right, a micro-meteor strike, right at an unfortunate momment, but a strike all the same, wasnt hard, it was the only real way the debri could be propelled upwards, and survive being in direct sunlight that long, but once jim has his answer, and has built his prosiac explanation, no matter how many pieces he has had to ''force fit'' he is virtually imovable from that position, and despite acknowledging , i was PROBABLY right, he hasnt altered one word on his site about it, still peddling ''his version''.

you learn alot about expert's integrity and will to win, when you debate the likes of oberg, especially if he thinks you think the polar opposite to him, which i didnt, i just wanted the true picture, only i didnt reveal that until the end, it was fun kicking the foundation stones of his explanation away one by one, and staying firmly fixed on one stone at a time, showing him one nasa expert after another who proved him wrong, infact it took around 6 weeks.

then it was, 'i was PROBABLY right' and if only more people around here would do the kind of research manxman has done etc etc, all the ridicule and ad homiens forgotten, the mans a snake.

 

[trainedobserver]

Or, how to control, or adapt to that frame of reference. Much like we would with a submarine in the ocean.

You would essentially have to create instruments that you could map the non-human detectable bits to human senses. One poor example of this sort of thing is thermal imaging. Another example would be a "fish finder" on a bass boat.

 

[Jeff Davis]

You would essentially have to create instruments that you could map the non-human detectable bits to human senses. One poor example of this sort of thing is thermal imaging. Another example would be a "fish finder" on a bass boat.

I am thinking that this may be a constant throughout the universe and that the interference patterns humans create when interacting with this zero point field energy creates the finger print that you are referring to. I have even managed to come up with something halfway sensible with respect for the "how" that we interact with such a medium. The Russians have been experimenting with this same propensity for at least 25 years now and in fact are stated to have submitted some roughly 10, 000 papers on the matter in the 1990s.

We are so much further along with this stuff than many realize. They have even figured out how to store raw information (not binary) as being naturally memorized signatures in water with ionized salts. Some of the heaviest theoretical stuff I have ever read. All of this revolves around the science and applied understandings that experimental torsion field research is yielding.

According to them, consciousness and the theory of everything do not revolve around Quantum Wave activity, but rather Scalar (torsion) Wave activity.

 

[trainedobserver]

According to them, consciousness and the theory of everything do not revolve around Quantum Wave activity, but rather Scalar (torsion) Wave activity.

As far as I can tell, the whole scalar wave thing is pure pseudo-science.

 

[PCarr]

As far as I can tell, the whole scalar wave thing is pure pseudo-science.

Yeah. There is plenty of quantum physics abuse to go around.....

 

[Burnt State]

Vallee may well be right about that, but I think that such a broad pronouncement is premature. What UFOs may be teaching us is that we don't understand our own memories and perceptions.

I have long argued about the human limitations of memory and perception, especially in heightened states of drama and trauma which are the colours of most up close UFO experiences. So I'm curious to know why you think that Vallee's statement may be a premature statement. Whatever UFO's are they seem to both defy and expose our limited technological capacities. Is there any difference between these two statements? After all is not memory our experience of time & perception our experience of space?

 

[Randall]

I really don't think there's any meaningful difference between the IDH and the ETH, although in both cases the "H" is pure arrogance. I'll talk about that in the upcoming API Case Files, EPisode 2 coming out in a few days.

There's a huge difference between the Interdimensional Hypothesis ( IDH ) and the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis ( ETH ). The former is logically impossible while the latter is scientifically possible, not merely from an abstract theoretical perspective, but from a material real-world perspective. These are also "meaningful differences" as the only other commonality between these hypotheses is that they both relate to the same subject matter.

 

[Randall]

We've known since 1905 that simultaneity is relative.

References please.

This understanding is born out very well by experiment and observation.

References please.

There is a lot of really interesting work going now about what the true nature of time is, but it's not about human perception of time. We can objectively measure time, but a more nuanced view might lead us down a new path.

References please.

In the meantime, defining the true nature of time first requires a clear statement of context. Are you referring to the human perception of time, the physical attributes in the real world that gave rise to our concept of time, or to abstract mathematical models that may have no bearing on reality?

 

[PCarr]

I have long argued about the human limitations of memory and perception, especially in heightened states of drama and trauma which are the colours of most up close UFO experiences. So I'm curious to know why you think that Vallee's statement may be a premature statement. Whatever UFO's are they seem to both defy and expose our limited technological capacities. Is there any difference between these two statements? After all is not memory our experience of time & perception our experience of space?

It's because I don't think we have yet learned to separate the phenomena from our experience of them. In fact, I think THAT is where the scientific enterprise should focus, since there are questions we can hope to answer.

 

[Tony B.]

I really don't think there's any meaningful difference between the IDH and the ETH, although in both cases the "H" is pure arrogance.

Paul:

Um. Not sure why it's arrogant to have a hypothesis...

However, thank you for the intriguing posts, and I'm happy to make your acquaintance, sir.

 

[Tony B.]

What if our environment *is* the very medium of human experience known as consciousness?

What if our environment is the result of several complex interactive combinations all relative to a universal zero point constant?

Good heavens, don't forget the shared archetypes... and also the collective unconscious.

Carl Jung - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nice to see my BA in psych being useful for once.

 

[PCarr]

Paul:

Um. Not sure why it's arrogant to have a hypothesis...

Because a hypothesis is serious business. A Hypothesis is not a wild guess, a conjecture or a speculation. It has to be INFORMED. You have to be able to reasonably estimate the likelihood ratio for it. If you can't it doesn't qualify.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Good heavens, don't forget the shared archetypes... and also the collective unconscious.

Carl Jung - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nice to see my BA in psych being useful for once.

Tony,
How synchronous! I literally started watching this doc. last night prior to reading your post. I have three of four other docs on him as well that I obtained last year. One is on dream interpretation and is my favorite so far.

 

[boomerang]

I'm probably not qualified to make this statement. But it rings so intuitively true: Until we mathematically and experimentally enjoin gravity with other known and quantifiable forces in our universe, out understanding of time and space is, to say the least, utterly immature. With the exception the recent confirmation of frame dragging, we know little more about the phenomenon of gravity than has been verified by experiments confirming Einstein's theories of relativity formulated in the early 1900s.