jeremyjr

I was expecting that since we have the same background(Math) maybe we could understand each other better, it looks like that is not the case, somehow it appears that you had missed my points. I never said threat in that literal sense, even when I was somehow implying that, I was talking more in an "strategic point of view", we assume that we as humans are the "hegemonic force" on earth, in principle anything alive that is right here in our backyard and we do not fully know or understand is in principle a challenge to us. Also "I don't think that there is necessarily anything we should or could do.", we could do plenty without expending a dime of public money, some people expect everything to come from public money or funded by public money, I really do not share that view. The very fact that now you are more aware of anomalies is not due to any public funding. I do not share passive attitudes, I do not expect anybody to do for me what I can do, if I have questions I do not expect anybody to answer them for me.

Your words: "Look. I agree. It does look weird. They are anomalies. I don't know what they are either. But, I'm not jumping to the conclusion that they show intelligence simply because they happened to be in the same area as one another." The first part "Look. I agree. It does look weird. They are anomalies. I don't know what they are either" is really everything that I expect from anybody that have actually watched some of the footage presented here, after that we really are "in the same team", but now "But, I'm not jumping to the conclusion that they show intelligence simply because they happened to be in the same area as one another." I had never mentioned here the word "intelligence"(only in reference to flying patterns), and I really believe that what is seen in that footage do not have anything to do with "intelligence", but it is a clear example to me of two things showing a behavior that indicate "aliveness", as simple as that, being alive do not imply being intelligent obviously. Now that we agree on this: "I agree. It does look weird. They are anomalies. I don't know what they are either", that automatically should place you in "red alert", at least I am in "red alert", because there are things above in the sky where my family, friends live that I do not know what they are, from a simple survival point of view finding what they are is really critical, not to mention from a pure scientific point of view. Knowing now that these anomalies are pervasive in the atmosphere place that pressing need in absolute first priority.

I agree that this is a "controversial" case, I had tried here not to present these first for obvious reasons, simply because you are not ready yet, now going out of the footage that I had presented here and making an "easy pick" is really not a very good "debunking" approach, why did you not pick a "hard one"? Like this one that I had posted here many times: Anomalies interacting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PqqW4kMrz0, please, I challenge you to really make a serious analysis of that one, simplistic generalizations and dismissals only strengthen my point. I came here in good faith, to the "lion dens" figuratively, I knew that my ideas were not going to be "popular" in a place like this, I am used to that, actually I expect that, you can not expect something else when what you are claiming is shattering many of established ideas about the world, accepting that you really are wrong about almost anything is really hard, very hard. But I came here armed with hard facts and proposing simple means to verify almost everything that I had claimed, anybody with just enough independent thinking and technically savvy enough to build a dual optical system can be a witness of similar anomalies that I had recorded, and you can improve on that, you will be able to "interact" with anomalies, going beyond what I had reported here, using a radar in a dual system will be really awesome with the "new" things that you will see, as I said before this is one thing that you do not need to take on faith, you do not have to "believe" anything that I had claimed, but be consistent and do not "believe" either the simplistic debunking arguments, verify by yourself who really is right, you can do it. As a glimpse of what is expecting us in that unknown world of anomalies I just uploaded a footage taken from the spotter camera in IR on 10/05/14 just from 4:41 pm to 4:45 pm, the footage is time stamped in real time and is played at 2 FPS( frame per seconds ) watch it at 1080p and full screen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K517w-nQGWw

I had said that anomalies behave in a way that strongly suggest that they are living beings, that is really nothing out of the ordinary, in many cases new species of living beings on earth are observed at a distance first, the assumed aliveness of that being is implicit in its observed behavior, further study of the specimen will confirm that implicit assumption, but the assumption was there anyway. Exactly the same case is with anomalies, the only thing that remains to be done is the "further study" part to determine if anomalies are really living beings or not and what makes them tick. These are some examples of that "aliveness" in anomalies: 1- Anomalies "interacting": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PqqW4kMrz0 2- Two anomalies merged together and then split in two anomalies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEJK8KsoM-c 3- Two anomalies moving in perfect synchronization, like two "entangled" particles: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvfjfDioOJg 4- Ring of about five anomalies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpeA8euS8i0 5- Two anomalies that appear to be joined(tethered) by very fine filaments and appeared to be merging/separating: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DGpb8Wcb8w http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NMXVYPkf5A 6- Flock of anomalies around a "main" anomaly on 10/05/14: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6RRdKkV_Fs Addition: The notion, or idea that maybe there are some living beings lurking in the atmosphere upper levels or near space is really not new, the USAF official release of April 27 1949, stated this: "The possible existence of some sort of strange extra-terrestrial animals has also been remotely considered, as many of the objects described acted more like animals than anything else. However, there are few reliable reports on extra-terrestrial animals."(http://www.project1947.com/fig/projsauc.htm, also mentioned in Trevor J Constable's book: The Cosmic Pulse of Life.)

"there would also be large numbers of pieces of plastic that are in the upper atmosphere as well". The existence of large numbers of pieces of plastic in the upper atmosphere is really new to me, one small piece of plastic sheet could be moved by the wind long distances, but sooner or latter, since plastic is denser than air this particular piece will fall, even very light weather balloons, and I have personal experience with weather balloons, will fall also, party foil balloons also will loose the helium and will fall, but now claiming that "large numbers of pieces of plastic are in the upper atmosphere" is really beyond any reasonable and consistent explanation. Not to mention that observational data do not support that at all. This is a "classic" simplistic debunking argument that can easily be debunked, it is the "bending" of simple physical ideas, "contorting" the argument, sometimes in more extraordinary ways than the actual case that is being debunked, plenty of examples of this simplistic debunking mentality is out there, some people "do not have any trouble accepting that kind of explanations" just to keep them in the comfort zone of their preconceptions and world view , that really is very telling to me. Addition: I am very much aware that in any given moment large quantities of "dust" are present in the upper level of the atmosphere, even dust coming from space, but that is something entirely different to "large numbers of pieces of plastic that are in the upper atmosphere". Now let me repeat again that when I say plasma-like I want to convey an image, that is not a statement of composition of anomalies, like amorphous is, or variable geometry/topology. For example these are examples of anomalies that look like an "electric plasma ball"(http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/P/plasma.html): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drCX3hwD57w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jAa1GiDlOk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSQW-dwuc_E

You said: "For example, there is a rather large garbage island in the Pacific ocean. I have no trouble accepting that there would also be large numbers of pieces of plastic that are in the upper atmosphere as well." And you are a "resident expert" here in this forum, that really shows your almost absolute lack of grasp on basic physics, that statement clearly place you very far away from being really any kind of expert. That is why taking on faith whatever any "expert" say is really a big mistake. Your are bending the physics laws just to keep your preconceptions in place, you are really giving a fantastic and clearly wrong "explanation" for the many video recording that I had done, and many others have done, your posts clearly show your absolute lack of minimal observational experience. I even provided a very simple procedure that even people with absolute lack of observational skills can do, to verify by yourself the existence of objects that are not mundane, you can do it, it will be really an eye-opening experience.

Again people are putting words in my mouth that I had never said, I said that some anomalies are plasma-like but I really did not say that they are made of plasma, and also based on recent results of research on complex plasmas I speculate in the possibility of anomalies being a manifestation of life based on plasma, but it should be clear that the ultimate nature of anomalies is unknown, at least to me. But also is crystal clear to me that anomalies are not mundane objects, at least not in the general sense of that word, they are "mundane" in the sense that they are a constant presence in our planet and it looks like around it(near space at least), very likely they always have been here. Now talking about resources, I already mentioned that the resources available to independently and individually to verify this are really very modest. It will be great if some of the almost unlimited resources commanded by the scientific community are dedicated to a problem that can be considered as the biggest problem ever faced by humanity, a pooling of resources from all the major Universities in the world will really be necessary to tackle this "problem". But for some very weird coincidences in human history we are now in this "social deadlock" where the "scientific community" is unable to handle a very concrete problem with really concrete indications of its reality because a "social taboo" have been erected around this complex topic, that usually is associated with the very discredit UFOs, but that should not be a real problem for really inquisitive minds, we should be able to discern between "noise" and real meaning and the mythology/inconsistencies/preconceptions/expectations associated with that word: UFO really place brakes in the possible efforts of many. I kind of agree that sometimes "science" is "conservative", but the science that I really admire is the science of pioneers that opened new fields of study, these pioneers always had to "fight" the overwhelming resistance of the "establishment" that always offered that to anything that could place in danger the accepted structures or ideas, that have always been the fight between the old ideas and the new ones. But again the very simple thing in here are observational facts, observational facts that can be independently verified by almost anyone, no multi million dollars project is needed(for now) to make that verification. In essence we have these anomalies that are a constant presence in the sky, that usually have an amorphous shape(usually a variable geometry that is why some people call them Variable anomalies), these anomalies can be easily spotted using a dual optical system. A key/simple point that many people do not really internalize is that one of the reasons why they have been "missed" until now is that they usually move at high altitude and since they appear to be in general "small" and "bright" then the sky scattering of visible light mask them in the same way that it mask the stars, that very simple verifiable fact creates the illusion in almost anyone that in a clear blue portion of the sky if nothing is seen is because nothing is there, "common sense" many will say, but as in many other cases "common sense" is wrong. Also and this aspect of this phenomenon have really more deeper implications(or a different phenomenon mixed with this one, we have to be aware that maybe we are in the presence of something really complex) some anomalies had responded to light signals sent in their direction, this have been witnessed multiple times and is very simple to verify too. Anomalies are seen in daylight or at night, the ones seen at night are the ones that are self-luminous and or reflect the ambient light(sun or cities light), this is a simple experience that can be done by anyone armed with just a relative focused and bright flashlight, in a dark setting at night in a clear sky, maybe outside of the contaminated city skies, just after sunset, or before sunrise, you will be able to spot with naked eye many satellites, the more common ones are the polar satellites that move in the north-south line, others will move west-east. When you spot one of these satellites send in its direction light flashes, I usually sent prime numbers of flashes: 3, 5, 3, 5, 3, 5. In many cases nothing will happen, but sooner or latter one of these "satellites" will flash back to you( this is something different to satellite iridium flares that can easily be verified in sites like heavens-above.com), or some of these "satellites" will change the trajectory, some even will stop or slow down clearly, these of course are not satellites. The same reaction of flashing back at you have been witnessed in daylight as I had mentioned several times.

This phrase "These videos do stir the imagination and that's good, but other than show images/video and the individuals own take on what they've filmed there's nothing else" actually said it all, this approach is the one that perpetuate the ignorance about an extraordinary phenomenon from the general population, the same attitude that is pervasive in almost all scientific circles, with these preconceptions it is not surprising that this have been going on for more than 50 years. We are really very lucky to have people that think independently, have no preconceptions and never take for granted anything that is coming from any "expert". Assuming that the only "valid" facts or science is coming from "organized science" is one of the reasons why this situation had lasted for more than 50 years. The extraordinary work of active observers all around the world is a lasting example of that, they have been the pioneers on this for years using their very own resources and always under the constant dismissal and sometimes personal attacks of self-appointed debunkers/inquisitors. Raw video footage from any video shown here or in my channel is available to anyone, usually the video was taken with more than one camera simultaneously, time stamped in real time and station PC was synchronized used Dimension 4. The particular video in this post was recorded simultaneously by three cameras, anybody with real interest in doing a serious analysis is welcome to receive it. But again the only serious option in this "problem" of the reality of anomalies is to make direct observations, I am providing simple procedures to duplicate the observation of similar objects reported by almost all active observers that normally use naked eye spotting but when using dual optical systems many more anomalies are spotted and their constant presence in our planet is becoming crystal clear. As a mentioned in my last entry, just yesterday 10/05/14 multiple anomalies were spotted and recorded, all of them not visible to the naked eye, but spotted easily with a dual optical system, as I already said dual optical systems are to anomalies what microscopes are to microorganisms, that is a fact that anybody with real interest will be able to check. Building a dual optical system with a radar, an infrared spotter and a medium sized telescope on the same rigid base will be almost the "ultimate" dual optical system because it will allow to detect a lot more anomalies, distance will be determined for all anomalies that return a radar echo, and it will be determined if some anomalies spotted on infrared are returning any radar echo. This is a case of a real phenomenon that is literally almost in the face of everybody and its being ignored and continue to be ignored by the "scientific circles".

Of course I am open to discuss this in an open manner, but I also assume that people give just more than a cursory look at this. It is my experience that many people think that they really can make a quick analysis of a footage without really "making an analysis", that implies knowing the optical magnification used in each camera and what that optical magnification implies, basic geometric concepts are enough here, of course a minimal observational experience is required, if you had never used a telescope and/or video cameras it will be very likely that you will miss a lot, as anything else in human activity a level of specialization takes place, it will be like somebody with just a basic knowledge of arithmetic pretending to understand right away the fine points of Number Theory. Anomalies are pervasive in our atmosphere, for example yesterday 10/05/14 from 4:22 pm to 6:56 pm multiple anomalies were spotted and recorded. The following footage shows a self-luminous anomaly tracked from 5:17 pm to 5:20 pm when another anomaly was spotted close by and I tracked that then, this was one observation session where I knew that I have only a few minutes to track each anomaly, otherwise I will miss other anomalies that were lurking in the sky. Also this footage shows multiple unknowns moving around this anomaly, seeing these self-luminous unknowns John Glenn's space fireflies come to mind(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury-Atlas_6): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6RRdKkV_Fs And as I already posted here the case of lightning sprites is a perfect example that set the standard for a similar situation regarding a confirmation/validation that will be accepted by the scientific community.

That is why we need more people actively and independently making observations of the sky. Independently of that I will continue doing active observations as many people around the world are doing as well. When you say "A video tape of something shiny and wiggly in the sky could be a plasma being, or it could just be a piece of reflective plastic moving in the air currents. Grainy videos alone cannot distinguish between them." I really doubt that you really have watched them when you made that "assessment", superficial "analysis" really are not serious. A lot of people do not take in count perspective, optical magnification used, attention to details, etc. Also "You need to show how your idea is undoubtedly the most probable", again this is wrong. My main claim is an observational claim that only can be verified by independent observations, but really that claim, as I already had said is being verified in a daily basis around the world and my observations are an independent effort to get that verification. The fact that the "scientific circles" have been "unaware" of that is really irrelevant, the verification have already been done multiple times. This thread was started as a report for you, I am not looking for any validation and or verification, the reality of anomalies have already been verified, in a limited way you may say, but it have been done anyway. Nobody have exclusivity on science, no even the scientific community. Now since this of course is really far reaching in its implications it need the participation of any people really interested in science and the scientific community should be part of that quest obviously.

I had created several How-Tos videos explaining them, these are some of these references videos, in each one detailed technical description is provided, enough to duplicate them: 1- The general idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEG8oWl5hy4 2- Details of several dual optical systems that I have build and used to record multiple anomalies with link to detailed description of each one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irtLjxe2Si4 3- A simple dual optical system that requires around $100 in materials: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL5w8MOihhQ&list=PLbzV9MUgJjV-W92lY0FwWJtpoJukU2__S And this is a playlist containing several footage related to dual optical systems: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irtLjxe2Si4&list=PLbzV9MUgJjV-W92lY0FwWJtpoJukU2__S

In a previous post in this thread I said: "I am planning to extend the level of observations that I currently do, I will be upgrading the system to allow triangulation, that way distance estimation will be possible and with that speed and anomalies dimensions will be more easily estimated." Your observations of course are well taken, any person doing atmospheric observation needs to take in count that and more, the critical detail bypassed by many is the masking effect of the sky scattering of visible light on small objects, the same effect masking stars in daylight.

Anomalies are real, whether you agree with that or not, I am trying to provide some possible explanation for what I am observing almost in a daily basis, I said "some speculative ideas". As I mentioned already with real curiosity, no preconceptions and armed with a digital camera with high optical zoom that may cost less than $50 in Ebay you may get a glimpse of anomalies, using a dual optical system as described above you will be able to spot them easily. But of course that is up to you: you can continue posting excuses or you can actually go outside and observe the real world, real science always start by doing that.

To have everything related to anomalies consolidated in one place let me add here some speculative ideas that I had posted elsewhere: Life based on carbon needs very especial conditions to thrive, life on earth is a clear example of that. Lots of time and research have been dedicated trying to find carbon based life elsewhere on the Universe, but that search may be too narrow because that search assumes that life can only be based on carbon. In the 2008 book: "Elementary Physics of Complex Plasmas", by authors V. N. Tsytovich et al.(http://en.bookfi.org/book/455683) It is mentioned the "self-organization tendency of complex plasma" and the following striking fact: "that the description of electrostatics of DNA is surprisingly similar to that used in complex plasmas". That lead immediately to think that maybe the spontaneous genesis of Life is not the exclusivity of complex organic chemical soups but also that could be shared by complex plasmas. If plasma based life is a reality, then that kind of life may have been present in our Universe since very early after the Big Ban( if we accept that the Big Ban is a solid knowledge, the reality of anomalies place a big question mark in almost everything that we assume that we know about the Universe ), and if plasma based life follows more or less the same principles that carbon based life, then plasma based life forms had plenty of time to expand all over the Universe. Carbon based life forms could have not emerged very early in our Universe because the basic elements for carbon based life forms are created inside stars, so that implies that several billions years have to pass before these elements are abundant enough for carbon based life forms to be a reality. It could be argued( The Anthropic Principle ) that for us to be here the Universe needs to be as old as it is, but that argument do not applies to plasma based life forms. Anomalies could be a manifestation of that type of life forms and they could be pervasive all over the Universe. If that is the case then ironically carbon based life forms could be the rarest/anomalous occurrence in the Universe. Then in a very accurate sense anomalies could name us "anomalies" and that will reflect more accurately the actual situation. Since plasma based life forms can move freely in empty space we have immediately the following: •In the same way that we have macroscopic and microscopic life forms here on earth it is very likely that we will find also microscopic anomalies, the anomalies observed until now have been macroscopic. •The fact that anomalies are life forms and they can move freely in empty space implies that they will be pervasive, at least in almost the totality of the solar system, very likely beyond that. •Space is then "non empty" as was though before, but it have to be considered as a vast "ecosystem" with an astronomical number of different types/species of anomalies. •If anomalies are life forms and they are pervasive at least in all the solar system is evident then that they will have a very deep relationship with any life forms in the solar system, including all life forms on earth, that relationship will be one of the aspects that any research of anomalies will have to study. •Since anomalies are pervasive in all the solar system and very likely beyond that their numbers are really astronomical and maybe their possible presence in all the Universe will have a "Cosmological effect" that have not been taken in count before. •Life is present/pervasive through the Universe.

The people doing active atmospheric observations have been inspired and continue to be inspired by the great men of science. These men of science had teach us not to take on faith anything that is claimed by any "expert", they have teach us not to accept as rock solid "common sense" or "common wisdom", many great discoveries have been done by questioning what was accepted for almost the totality of humanity. That constant inquiry is at the core of the scientific thinking. Actually history teach us that as a rule in questions of science the majority is almost always wrong, that is one of the reasons why science is not done by "democratic" means. Now any person with not preconceived ideas when presented with the "problem" of the reality of anomalies is faced with a dichotomy: 1- On one side that person will find that some people like Gabriela Decall of Argentina, with keen observational skills and armed with a digital camera, she had video captured amazing objects(https://www.youtube.com/user/GabyDecall/videos), with extraordinary mental clarity and pure curiosity she had documented many anomalies, using just a digital camera that you can get for less than $50 in Ebay. 2- On the other hand that person with no preconceptions, will have the "scientific community/experts/analysts" with "cutting edge" scientific methods, this scientific community is claiming that there is not such a thing, that these anomalies are "mirages", "camera artifacts", "balloons", "plastic bags trapped in thermal air currents", etc. But this person with no preconceived ideas, will go to other places and will realize that there is an amazing consistency on many of the video footage presented by active observers like Gabriela Decall, this person then will realize that there is something real behind these recordings. Then the only thing that this person with not preconceived ideas is left to do is just to try and verify by himself what all these people around the world are reporting, that is what I did and that is what I am reporting here. I had learned a lot since I started doing active observations almost two years ago and I have validated/confirmed many of the recordings done by people like Gabriela Decall and they have done that using just naked eye observations, by using now infrared in a dual optical system their observations can be systematized, but in essence is a confirmation of what they already have been recording for years using just digital cameras and naked eye spotting, what they have done is really amazing and they have been dismissed/ignored for years. Many of these same anomalies were reported by Trevor J Constable in the 1950's, I learned that well after I already had watched many of the same anomalies that he had already described, so a cycle of rediscovery have been going on since the 1950's where people starting active atmospheric observations rediscover the same things over and over. There have been little systematization, zero classification of anomalies, many misconceptions and myths are common, just like alchemy before chemistry.

The case of lightning sprites is really very similar(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprite_(lightning). After it was reported several times by pilots an independent verification was done from the space station and that verification confirmed the reality of lightning sprites. And sprites are a really very hard to spot phenomena. Now if that very sporadic and hard to spot phenomena was independently verified by doing consistent observations trying to witness it, it will be easy and simple to understand by almost anybody that anomalies, that have been reported almost in a daily basis should be subject to the same standard and be independently verified by doing systematic atmospheric observations, it is really that simple.

Part of the evidence have been presented. Lets me repeat here these are observational claims, many of these anomalies have been observed for more than one hour, no "mirage" or "ball lightning" can explain that, using that as an "explanation" is syntactic, there is no semantics behind that "explanation", is the "classical" dismissal by the people that usually are assuming and they are taking for granted their preconceptions/expectations as the "reality" that is out there. Anybody with the right tools can duplicate that( and the tools needed by the way are readily available to anyone ), having something verifiable independently is at the core of the scientific method, now bogging down in endless discussions( very similar discussions have been around for more than 50 years ) without doing the very basic verification of independent observations some people may call that "scientific" I call that something else.

Even when somehow I will respect this forum rules, I want to make a point regarding what I will call formal/dogmatic/rigid methods that some people call "scientific", but other people, like me, do not share that view. Making a little history about the problem at hand, as I mentioned before the reality of anomalies have been known to some people since the 1950's( read Trevor J Constable book: "They Live in the Sky" ), ever since that time some organizations have dedicated themselves to the collection of what is known as "sightings", there are still a few of these organizations around, but have you hear any breakthrough or insight from them? Whatever methods they were/are using (some of the methods used by these organizations are not different to the ones proposed from some people here), are a completely and utterly failure, they failed to recognize the evidence that they were collecting, and they failed in the more basic scientific step that you can make to verify any of these sightings: making active observations yourself. They analyzed, and over analyzed "evidence" coming from somebody else, but somehow they were unable to realize that just making active observations they will be able to duplicate many of these "sightings" and that is the ultimate verification that is needed. They were too concerned applying "scientific rigid methods", so if these methods failed, and they had failed now for more than 50 years, that means that there is something wrong with the methods used, if people with just very limited resources can make systematic observations of non mundane anomalies and some organizations with almost unlimited resources have not reported anything of that sort, if that is not an indication of a systemic failure on the methods used by these organizations I really do not know what it is. So even when I really believe in the scientific method, I am very wary of using any of the "methods" that these organizations were using because these methods are in great part the cause of the situation that we are right now.

Ok, let me spell out some trivial things for you: Why do I know that they are not any "standard" mundane objects, well let me enumerate these standard mundane objects for you: 1- Astronomical objects, besides the obvious Sun and Moon, in daylight you can spot in daylight some other bright astronomical objects in daylight( remember this is always in daylight ) a simple check to any star chart of the day giving the azimuth, elevation of the objects spotted will be enough for you to determine if any of these objects is an astronomical object, but anybody with a minimal level of daylight astronomy will know that these objects are not astronomical objects, mainly for the area of the sky where they are moving and the direction/apparent speed of their movement 2- Satellites are really out of the picture. 3- Airplanes/drones, man made flying objects also outside of the picture. 4- Balloons, none of this objects resembles, even remotely a balloon, if you have never seen footage of a balloon taken from a high optical magnification scope I have a whole section in my YT channel titled: "Visual references" where I post many recording of "standard" mundane objects, as a reference, in there you will find many examples of balloons, right now as a coincidence I am uploading a reference of Sirius in daylight, maybe when you read this that footage will be already online. 5- Birds, bugs: also out of the picture. 6- Floating debris: easily identifiable with the equipment used. Now if you have any new "suggestion" to which mundane object any of these plasma-like/amorphous self-luminous objects can be I am eager to hear it. Also, as I have explained before, one of these plasma-like objects responded unequivocally to light signals sent in its direction, no mundane object that I know of will do that. Addition: Sirius in daylight, cross check with star map. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhyeAwOe00s Identifying correctly the brightest astronomical objects in daylight(besides the obvious sun and the moon) is necessary to avoid false positives, after some practice identifying these bright astronomical objects is really not difficult( after learning from some mistakes ), their "signature" is their almost constant brightness, their very smooth and "ballistic" trajectory and of course going to a star map will confirm your suspicions. Sirius is very bright, magnitude -1.46, a lot more at this moment than Mars, magnitude 0.86, and Mars is also easily spotted in IR in daylight as can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4iv_W5QwfI

Example of plasma-like anomalies, please watch the footage, if you do not watch it, you really will not know what I mean by plasma-like, I said plasma-like to convey an image, of a self-luminous localized, amorphous object(anomaly), examples follow:( All footage is time stamped in real time and the spotter footage contains azimuth, elevation data, all time is EST ) 1- Spotted on 09/29/14 and tracked from 10:59 am to 11:40 am when its path was close to a second anomaly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFnVVY8WWZk The second anomaly that was spotted the same day at 11:41 am when its path was "close" to the one that was being tracked since 10:59am: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TV7Ny_lMmk8 2- Spotted on 09/28/14 and tracked from 5:14 pm to 5:48 pm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEFLxOw28a0 3- Spotted on 08/01/14 4:11 pm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmHseUuXBG4 4- 07/25/14 4:52 pm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ahcpm5BSZ8 5- 04/27/14 3:46 pm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMOuApnOO6I and at 4:08 pm this anomaly responded to light signals: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CAp1CdGR7Y the same anomaly at 4:32pm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_V5FAf_F4o And many, many more ... These plasma-like anomalies are a constant presence in our atmosphere, it is up to you to verify that or not. I am not claiming what they are, but as I already said previously, independently of what they are, they are real and they are not any "standard" mundane object, whatever they are it is something "new", unknown to many, but many people around the world are already aware of this, some people have been aware of this since the 1950's.

Again your dogmatic approach is crystal clear, if you have read my posts and you have watched the footage you will have the answers to your questions, but it looks like you want everything spell out for you, again do your homework I am not going to do it for you. I am not looking for "your" approval by the way, I do not need it.

I have never refer to anomalies as "intelligent" you are putting words in my mouth, by your comments I can infer that you will never understand my position, you are "attacking" the "problem" from a dogmatic point of view. This is really extraordinary simple and the result of direct observations, if you do not have any experience doing atmospheric observations, all your "conclusions" are assumptions as simple as that. Let me just make clear that the "plasma" idea is a hypothesis, based in the plasma-like/amorphous appearance of these objects, that very likely by all accumulated experience that I have are not carbon based, but that need to be verified directly of course. One thing, again is crystal clear, many of the footage presented here do not have a known mundane explanation, at least not one that I know of, assuming that there is one is just another assumption based on nothing. That is the "classical" simplistic( and wrong ) debunking approach: We have just a list of possible "explanations"( a very short list by the way ) and then by a "interpolation" process we "pick" the "closest" explanation possible then we "claim" by "Occam razor" than that is the more "likely" explanation. Far from being anything close to be scientific. I recommend you to really watch the footage presented and read what I had posted, then when you present here something that resembles anything close to a serious analysis then I will consider your input, just be aware that there are a lot of time and effort behind any footage presented here and I have done my homework, I expect that you do yours.

Or for example this "dramatic" transformation of an anomaly, spotted on 02/17/14 and tracked from 10:55 am to 11:15 am EST, recorded too with three cameras simultaneously: 1- Footage taken with the telescope part of the dual optical system, watch it carefully, in HD and full screen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3uJL8gPd-8 2- These are the last three minutes from the tracking/spotter camera, as seen from a relatively optical wide view, almost anybody will claim that this is a bird: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLmUm9D1Rrs 3- And this is the full tracking/spotter camera footage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZX5i2aML1w Another point that I want to add is that many people "assume" that they know how to differentiate a "drifting/uncontrolled" flying pattern from a "controlled" flying pattern, already some replies here indicate that. Let me just say that this area contains many open scientific problems and it is not a trivial thing to differentiate from each one, I am not even talking about "intelligently" controlled flying pattern, that contains the concept of "intelligence" and that is a concept for which there is no universal agreement. To make this last point more clear, let me just mention one case of a footage where one elongated object, axially symmetric was moving consistently along its axis, well many people claimed that that object was a balloon, even some "specialists", it can be proved that no balloon drifting in a uniform air current will ever move that way, you can even make some simple trial runs with balloons and see it for yourself. The basic physics principle to use here is that any homogeneous object "floating" in a uniform fluid will always tend to offer to the fluid flow an area of maximal drag, for an homogeneous elongated axially symmetric balloon drifting in the wind that implies that the balloon almost always will "tend" to place itself traversal to the wind current(with its axis perpendicular to the wind direction), anybody that have been in a boat in a smooth current very likely have noted that "tendency" when the boat is left "drifting", this is a "tendency", that is why balloons "tumble". This simple case was missed by specialists with supposedly great experience. So do not assume that you can right away differentiate one from the other without making a proper analysis.

Lets analyze this footage of the "morphing" anomaly spotted 04/12/14 at 1:55 pm EST and recorded from three independent cameras, these are frames taken from a Telephoto lens set at 900mm and an optical magnification around 130x: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mH8esorQx4M Anybody that really watch that will realize that all these configurations can not be produced by the same balloon configuration, these are just some samples of the same object at different times: Anybody with a minimal of observational experience will know that. The scientific method teach us that observational data is king, observational data consistent across multiple independent observers reign supreme, if your ideas, theories, worldview is in contradiction with consistent observational data, then you need to consider modifying these ideas, theories and/or worldview. On this there is only one scientific option: the independent confirmation of these observations, failing to do so it will be basically to ignored what is being reported consistently all across the planet just because your preconceived ideas tell you that that is not what is "suppose" to be observed, but you really never had done any of these observations yourself, you really do not know what really should be expected, you are just assuming nothing more and that obviously is far from being scientific and that is exactly what had happened until now: the scientific community as a whole have been assuming and have been really very far from being really scientific.

Or this case of another plasma-like/amorphous self-luminous anomaly that responded to light signals, in this footage you can watch segments taken from three cameras and a bird is seen below the anomaly level from the three cameras: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_V5FAf_F4o Let me just add that it will be enough to have just one case( and I have already a few ) where all possible explanations using mundane objects are not possible to have a compelling case that merit further study and that is what many people around the world are doing already, if after you witnessed something like that you do not have a compelling need to know more about the phenomenon by yourself (without having to wait for answers from third parties that may never come or you have to take on faith) then you really do not have a natural scientific curiosity. After that anybody with that burning fire of inner curiosity will not stop trying to find out what that really is. It is kind of ironic, but the same type of people, that with an extraordinary lack of perception are unable to accept what many video footage show consistently as no ordinary phenomena, is frequently the same type of people that accepted on faith the reality of the ether as an ac-hoc fantastic substance "necessary" to "explain" the propagation of electromagnetic radiation in empty space in the 1900s, the existence of that fantastic substance ether was accepted by the scientific circles of the time, even costly experiments were done to show the movement of earth through that ether (The Michelson Morley experiments), but it took the mental clarity and acute analysis of an Einstein to show that the ether existence was really a collective pipe dream shared by almost all scientific circles. I mentioned the ether because that is not an isolated case where the scientific community fully embrace an ac-hoc fantastic substance, today we have a sister for the ether, we have dark matter another ac-hoc substance that is fully accepted by the scientific circles as real even when there is absolutely zero direct evidence of its existence, but many have taken that on faith, without really any deep inquiry, many posts in this forum show that view, my guess is that dark matter will have the same fate that the ether had. This kind of sociological "duplicity" is also behind the impasse on the acceptance of the reality of anomalies, but that impasse is already weaving, with the wonders of the internet the communication between the very selected group of people fully aware of this reality is possible and the sharing of ideas and experiences is almost immediate. I am not implying that we are free of mistakes, far from it, but we learn from our mistakes and we do not take anything for granted and we try very hard not to assume and be blinded by our preconceptions and expectations, or by what some people have said here as "more rational", that phrase actually mean "what should be expected", but that is right there a preconception, you expect something and then that something is what you should observe or what is observed, no honest and real observer can have that kind of view, any observer of the atmosphere is really like an observer of cosmic rays, the observer of cosmic rays can not assume to expect something "more rational" otherwise he will miss that exotic particle that is present on the evidence, doing serious systematic atmospheric observations needs the same kind of attitude.