jeremyjr

These are some frames of a long tracking to a polymorphic anomaly on 8/6/15 at 6:59pm that lasted more than 30 minutes. Polymorphic anomalies are a very common occurence in the sky. This was taken with a 1000mm telephoto lens and a 1/2.5 sensor size 5 megapixel IP board camera, given an optical magnification of at least 140x.

It appears that my threads are a "magnet" for you, that is crystal clear. I had never mentioned "aliens" but people like you insist in making that implication. The reality of anomalies can be validated by anyone, precise, objective, repeatable procedures had been given for that, that you choose to ignore that or that you are technically incapable of following simple procedures that is something else. But I had said before that for many people like you will be enough that the high priests of science acknowledge that reality and many will run to follow that, very likely you will be trampling to acknowledge that. Many people are unable to act and think independently they need authority figures to reaffirm their beliefs. But just for your information there are independent thinking persons out there that have their very own ideas and make their very own conclusions without anybody assistance.

As I already mentioned before I do not follow "commands" even less from people that lack basic knoeledge on the topic at hand and please stop making direct offensive personal remarks. People without arguments always relay to that tactics. We see here the "usual" contempt for many people documenting extraordinary phenomena using their very own resources and time. But who is really worthy of contempt? These amateurs that almost daily document extraordinary phenomena or "salaried scientists" that many times are paid by public funding commanding basically unlimited resources and are unable/unwilling/incapable of acknowledging a reality that can be witnessing for almost anybody with very limited resources? Who are the real "idiots"?? You are blinded by your ignorance and you still are unable to see it. So stop the personal insults that was uncalled. But I see that the "enlightened" people of these forum very much like that, the "group mentality" at play.

The "mechanicist expectation" or view is really superficial and "weak" if you do some analysis, and the reasons for that have been given before: It is really almost impossible to "imagine" the kind of "technology", if we could use that word at all in this context, that intelligent beings capable of moving between the stars may have. These beings, if they exist at all, may be able to "alter reality", "change physical laws locally", they will be indistinguishable literally from gods. They will be able to "alter themselves at will", they will not need any vessel to move in empty space, etc. The "mechanicist expectation" always use our own level of technology to "imagine" what "they" may have and that is why you still see many Ufologists mentioning the "metallic" looking appearance of some "anomalies" as a way to stress their "mechanical" nature, but that view is already outdated because our more advanced airplanes do not use metals in many parts of the fuselage, composite materials may replace completely metals. So Ufologists are even "behind" of our own technology and that always will happen when you use that kind of "approach" as the "mechanicist" approach.

Many people assume that they will be able to identify a non human build artifact, but very likely they will be wrong. Assuming that shuch artifacts are real, their very existence will challenge many of our current ideas, any intelligent being capable of moving between stars by any means will have a level of technology that we really can't imagine, the shock will be greater than the one received by a human Neanderthal confronted by current technology. Many people use current human technology as a "guide" to imagine how an alien technology may look like, but that is a very narrow way of seeing things and automatically introduce preconceptions in the interpretation of possible "evidence". We had seen that preconceptions are blinders/filters for perception. That narrow minded approach is the one that had dominated Ufology, it is what some had called the "mechanicist expectation". We really can't have a clear idea of what we may encounter. But that kind of technology, if it really exist, it will manifest to our perception as "anomalies", occurences or objects that behaves in ways that appear to defy our current understanding of the world.

If you had followed the whole set of discussions you will had realized by now that your assumptions about the un-likelihood of "suppression" of new ideas by the scientific community is really an assumption that is not supported at all by the history of science, sadly the Lavoisier's case is not uncommon and your initial statement points exactly to that direction: when in doubt you will "side" with the "official" position. But any independent thinking person, and true scientists are supposed to be independent thinkers, will "evaluate" a given claim on their own. If somebody needs to look for a "parental figure or authority" to form an opinion can we even say that that given person have any real opinion? And the reactions in this forum at any presentation of the reality of anomalies have always encountered almost absolute dismissal/denial/belittling. But we have seen, for example with the case of the scanning tunneling microscope, that this type of reaction is really pervasive in science, and even more is a common social reaction in any group when presented with "facts" that place questions marks in their belief system.

"To what end?" Well let me say simple curiosity, to "what end?" do you give a Wal-Mart telescope to a kid? To stimulate his/her curiosity, very likely that kid will not make immediate contributions to science with that telescope, but he/she will see wonderful things and at a personal level that feeling of discovery is not different than any other. But do not dismiss what can be done with cheap equipment, today many active observers of anomalies around the world are witnessing extraordinary things with second hand equipment, things that are still denied by active scientists that have access to very expensive equipment. So belittling what can be done by these brave observers is really unproductive and unfair. Let me give you a very well documented case that since you had not followed all discussions you appear to had missed: Lavoisier denial of the reality of meteorites and that denial backed by the full force of the French Academy of Sciences that stubbornly denied the evidence for the fall of meteorites. So your inference rule may have exceptions.

"The existence of the phenomenon is not in question". Well that contradict many of your previous statements, but I definitely welcome it. So you are admitting the reality of anomalies, the existency of autonomous amorphous/polymorphic objects that behave like living beings, some of them responding unequivocally to direct light signals and some others making their response appear to be correlated to the signals sent to them. Now why do we need more independent observers? The answer should be clear to anybody with just a little understanding of simple logic, not even scientific training. More independent active and prepared observers will bring more data, with that more quality on some of that data, since these efforts are done with individual funding and time, the way that many people with intrinsic scientific curiosity operate, some of these people will have better instrumentation for observations, new ideas, new insights. Precisely the fact that anomalies are being reported today only for people with no connections to Official Science shows that scientific curiosity is very much alive and not the exclusivity of "scientists", science is not the exclusivity of anybody or any group and the search for the truth and understanding is also going on outside academia or research laboratories.

Do I have to laugh or cry now? Let me repeat again: the reality of anomalies is an observational claim, as many other observational claims their "scientific validation", is to get as many independent observers to duplicate these observations as possible, that is the next step that "scientific inquire" require at this juncture. I am accumulating evidence and data on anomalies as many other active observers around the world. The aim of these posts is to spread the knowledge about this reality or even better to make people curious enough to star making observations of their own, more people making observations will imply more data accumulating and hopefully regularities will emerge, classifications etc., no different than in many other established sciences. Errors will be made as in any other human endeavor, like for example trying to "classify" anomalies based in their shapes, but since they are usually polymorphic, of variable geometry that will not make any sense. That these new people making observations of their own be in an "official capacity" or not is irrelevant. But they will be witnessing extraordinary, marvelous things.

Answering a previous question: I still here because even when it is hard for you to imagine "dissenters" are in your group, my posts are directed to them, to people with real curiosity and not blocked by preconceptions. Now how do we differentiate things that are legitimate from things that are not? The answer is clear: scientific inquire have been very successful in doing that, but simply placing a wall in front of things that appear to contradict established ideas or worldviews is a sure way to stop progress in science.

The striking behavior of people with preconceptions is that they will ignore/dismiss/belittle any evidence that do not reaffirm their preconceptions or beliefs, you can see that everywhere: in closeminded scientists, in skeptics, in religious people, in UFO believers. Usually evidence will be "cherry picked" to "accomodate" the appearance of consistency in their belief systems. The group of scientists stand out because of their self proclaimed "open mindeness". But the monolithic structure of today's "scientific truth" makes actually this group to be very far from being really open to new ideas or facts. History of science is full with examples showing that. Ludwik Fleck noted in his book "The Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact": "What we are faced with here is not so much simple passivity or mistrust of new ideas as an active approach which can be divided into several stages. (1) A contradiction to the system appears unthinkable (2) What does not fit into the system remains unseen; (3) alternatively, if it is noticed, either it is kept secret, or (4) laborious efforts are made to explain an exception in terms that do not contradict the system. (5) Despite the legitimate claims of contradictory views, one only tends to see, describe, or even illustrate those circumstances which corroborate current views and thereby give them substance."

Again dogmatism and narrow mindeness are clearly shown here. The very first step in finding a new species is observation, in many cases observation from a distance, pictures or video many times are taken to "document" a possible finding, that is the very first step. Regarding anomalies we are in that very first step. Many people that call themselves scientists are nagating themselves of the possibility of witnessing, possibly, the more extraordinary manifestations that can be observed from your backyard in a clear sky in daylight at any location in our planet. They are missing that opportunity and then call themselves scientists, but they do not loose any opportunity to throw roadblocks in the way of something truly marvelous. Extremely detailed footage exist of anomalies, using the quality of some footage as an excuse to dismiss the whole phenomenon is really inconsistent. Objetive procedures to duplicate these observations that will allow anybody to witness the presence of these amorphous/polymorphic autonomous objects in our planet have been provided in this forum. The reality of anomalies is an observational claim that have been confirmed by multiple independent observers, it is a reality that I observe now in almost any clear day in daylight. These objects are extraordinary, only you in your way to witness the more extraordinary manifestations that can be observed without the use of very expensive equipment. Curiosity is the key.

If anybody read with detachment the many posts related to anomalies in this forum one thing will be very clear: the almost absolute lack of simple curiosity, the "natural" curiosity and sense of wonder that any "scientist" should have, that do not imply not to have a healthy dose of skepticism, but simple curiosity when presented with something apparently "new". But what is pervasive throughout almost all postings, some done by self proclaimed scientists, is a complete rejection to even consider that apparent new facts. That had let me to look through the history of science and see that this is really a common reaction to anything new, and it is actually a common reaction in any organized group. The real scientific spirit appear to be a very rare commodity at least in this forum, the same can be said for truly independent thinking. That is a very uninformed statement, many animal species are first observed from afar, today is common to "video" capture these new species first and video footage is used extensively as "evidence" in this context, before any actual "physical" capture and examination. "it doesn't take a biology degree to recognize that."

In this we need to think like biologists not as physicists. New species of animals are being discovered by field investigators/researchers, if we relay in the opinions of "armchair experts" for validating these new discoveries will get exactly what we are witnessing here at this forum. And pretending to use your "scientific" credentials or titles for giving more weigh to your arguments is really irrelevant, again Lavoisier comes to mind. And by the way I am very proud to be considered "outside" of what you think to be a "scientist", our views in that regard can not be more opposed. Quoting: ! Moderator Note The text at the weblink given includes a reservation of rights which precludes the use of short quotes by insisting that only the entire text may be posted As the selective quotes do not comply with those claimed rights I have removed the quote. Daniel Drasin, ZEN. . . AND THE ART OF DEBUNKERY, http://amasci.com/pathskep.html

That is new to me "armchair" people with no observational experience pretending to know better than the person actually doing the observations, the "Lavoisier's effect" all over again. You are not looking through any telescope, you are deluding yourself in pretending that. The reality of these manifestations is supported by the strongest possible evidence that is recurrent and consistent observational results across multiple independent observers. Just in yesterday's observations I observed several of these amorphous autonomous objects that behave like living beings, their presence is pervasive and they are being observed all around the world by active observers. The continual denial of this easily verifiable reality is really ridiculous and can be considered as the biggest blunder ever done by "Official Science" in its history.

Please read/study the mentioned article again and that will be clear. The spontaneous formation of helical structures on complex plasma could be a "template" for dna formation. And regarding "evidence" for that from my point of view there is plenty of evidence for at the very least Life that do not appear to be based on carbon, that many people had opted to ignore that evidence that is something else, but we know now that ignoring/dismissing/belittling new ideas and facts is extremely common in "scientific circles" as it is in any human organization. Quoting: ! Moderator Note The text at the weblink given includes a reservation of rights which precludes the use of short quotes by insisting that only the entire text may be posted As the selective quotes do not comply with those claimed rights I have removed the quote. ZEN. . . AND THE ART OF DEBUNKERY, Daniel Drasin, http://amasci.com/pathskep.html

If Life based on plasma is a reality then that Life is very old, almost as old as the Universe itself. In comparison carbon based Life is very young and very rare. Life based on plasma had plenty of time to evolve and expand everywhere, very likely being the "seeds" that give rise to Life in planets like earth.

The Scanning tunneling microscope invented in 1981 earned its inventors, Gerd Binnig and Heinrich Rohrer, the Novel Prize in Physics in 1986, that is a well known fact( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scanning_tunneling_microscope), but what is less known and hidden from public eye is that: "when James K. Gimzewski spoke at a 1985 surface-physics meeting about viewing a single molecule with a new type of instrument-the scanning tunneling microscope. "They laughed me off the stage. It was new and they hated it," he says. This new amazing discovery encountered similar reactions from "experts" in the field of surface physics. So what we are witnessing in a small scale in this very forum about the reality of anomalies had happened multiple times in science when "new" ideas or facts are presented, scientists and "science types" many times behave not different than immature teenagers and very far from any scientific spirit.

It is a well known fact that when apparently different phenomena in different areas of reality are subject to similar "laws" then similar occurences can be expected in these areas. One example of that is resonance that manifest in many areas where oscillations are present, from mechanical structures, electronic circuits to. wave matter. So by the mentioned article and many others around the area of complex plasma there are many striking similarities between complex plasma and complex organic compounds. It is widely believed that complex organic compounds in very special conditions give rise to Life based on carbon, there is absolutely no evidence for that, but it is very "plausible". Now we know that complex plasma have similar properties to complex organic compounds, it follows naturally then to assume that under very special conditions complex plasma will give rise to Life, an inorganic Life. There is plenty of evidence for carbon based Life, this is an almost redundant statement, but many claim that there is absolutely no evidence for Life based on plasma, some people, a minority, will claim that there is plenty of evidence of Life that appear not to be based in carbon and appear to move freely in the high levels of our atmosphere and near space. "New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled, the humiliating question arises, 'Why then are you not taking part in them?' " - H. G. Wells

So even when we have not "defined" what is exactly the meaning of being "advanced" ( "resonating" with previous post in a certain sense ), the mentioned paper provides at least by the results of numerical simulation a "plausibility" for the "spontaneous" evolution of Life in certain regions of space where complex plasma is present. But if for the sake of argument we disregard the obvious truth that Life based on carbon is a reality, experimentally we really have not gone beyond the "level" that is presented in papers like the one mentioned in regard to have a "clear path" that will lead from complex organic compounds to Life. The fact that we have plenty of observational and experimental data backing the reality of Life based on carbon is an obvious plus. But pretending that Life can only be based on carbon is a narrow way of thinking. This paper and many others around complex plasma show many striking similarities between complex carbon based compounds and complex plasma. The only "detail" missing for Life based on plasma is the apparent lack of observational/experimental data "supporting" that claim.

I really do not need any "help" to start threads and even less using that very "bad" selected title. This is completely off topic.

You really don't get it. I had never claimed that "many people claim that butterflies are not animate objects", go back and read my post, the "semantics" of your statements is all wrong, but that is not surprising. I do not act on "command", I will touch the topic in the way that I mentioned, very likely you will not be aware that I am touching the topic as this post from you clearly show. This will be my only post in your failed try.

That will be off topic and somehow we already know what will be presented, the "fun" will be spoiled. But that could be a perfect topic for a separate thread, if I am not suspended again for "bad behavior", people with "authority" are bound to use that "authority" and will not tolerate other people that appear not to "respect" such "authority", the "human" component is inescapable.

I am 100% sure that if some images from a certain distance are provided many "experts" in this forum will provide cartoon-like models "explaining" that as some inanimated object caught in some thermal air current. That already had happened.

From my point of view there is a very clear "conflict" of interest on moderators making posts in a thread using their "authority" to press for a point. Answering a post about the complex character of the flying pattern of a plastic bag mentioning that the flying pattern of some butterflies may look similar to the flying pattern of some inanimated objects is very much on topic.