# The reality of atmospheric/near space anomalies

## Recommended Posts

you keep saying they look like plasma. that's hardly an explanation. your posts are just conjectures with these videos.

there is nothing dogmatic about not accepting your explanation when it comes with no evidence.

how is it that you can conclude that they are plasma? i'm not looking for "because they are plasma like." i don't even know what that's supposed to mean or how these videos show that.

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:

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:

2- Spotted on 09/28/14 and tracked from 5:14 pm to 5:48 pm:

3- Spotted on 08/01/14 4:11 pm:

4- 07/25/14 4:52 pm:

5- 04/27/14 3:46 pm:

and at 4:08 pm this anomaly responded to light signals:

the same anomaly at 4:32pm:

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.

##### Share on other sites

they are not any "standard" mundane object

How do you know that?

##### Share on other sites

How do you know that?

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.

Sirius in daylight, cross check with star map.

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:

Edited by jeremyjr

##### Share on other sites

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.

!

Moderator Note

That's not how it works at SFN, ever, and especially in the Speculations sub-forum. You're making extraordinary claims, which need to be backed up with extraordinary evidence. The questions being asked of you aren't dogmatic, they're the very basis of the scientific method.

The "homework" needs to be done by you. You need to show more rigor in your approach to this phenomenon, otherwise your explanations for it can't be taken seriously. Step by step, the methodology allows us to trust our conclusions about our observations.

No need to respond to this modnote, since that would be off-topic. If you disagree with it, report it.

##### Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

That's not how it works at SFN, ever, and especially in the Speculations sub-forum. You're making extraordinary claims, which need to be backed up with extraordinary evidence. The questions being asked of you aren't dogmatic, they're the very basis of the scientific method.

The "homework" needs to be done by you. You need to show more rigor in your approach to this phenomenon, otherwise your explanations for it can't be taken seriously. Step by step, the methodology allows us to trust our conclusions about our observations.

No need to respond to this modnote, since that would be off-topic. If you disagree with it, report it.

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.

##### Share on other sites

I could see a discussion of possibilities(ball lightning and thermal inversion mirages) spring to mind, but jumping to living plasma is a bit much.

Without applying the scientific method all you have is literally speculation and you cannot advance beyond that point. Someone else can speculate otherwise and the two or more speculations cancel each other out as neither is backed by facts.

##### Share on other sites

Personally, I welcome our new squiggle-blob overlords.

All hail the squiggle-blobs.

##### Share on other sites

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.

!

Moderator Note

The situation you're in right now is that you need to provide extraordinary evidence to back up your extraordinary claims or your thread will be closed. Nobody wants to listen to you preach about your ideas, they want to discuss your ideas in a scientific manner, most likely because this is a science discussion forum.

Please. Do not respond to modnotes. You're objections to using the scientific method are off-topic for this thread.

##### Share on other sites

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.

##### Share on other sites

you haven't presented any evidence to conclude this is "plasma, plasma like, alive, responsive to light" etc, what do you expect everyone else to do? these videos are the only evidence you have presented, and your explanations of them are not explanations; they are merely statements of belief followed by tangents about the scientific method. do you want discussion about the validity of your claims or do you want to have a discussion about all the possible fictitious properties of our little ufo friends?

this can only be said so many times before it becomes redundant. surely you have somehow tested to conclude these are not merely balloons, or birds, or rc vehicles, how did you do this?

##### Share on other sites

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.

##### Share on other sites

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:

##### Share on other sites

Mmmmm... Having flown kites for decades I know that even when you know what an aerial object is it can take on appearances far different than what you know it to be. I also know that multiple aerial objects may appear to be near one another and in reality be far distant. I also know that finding the altitude of an aerial object is no middling feat.

Mind you I'm not saying you have video-recorded kites, only that whatever you have recorded is not well described in regards to shape & location. I would suggest trying to triangulate by using multiple cameras at locations with significant separation.

If the anomalies are plasma then I would expect them to show an indication that they are under the influence of Earth's magnetic field much as we see with aurorae.

##### Share on other sites

Mmmmm... Having flown kites for decades I know that even when you know what an aerial object is it can take on appearances far different than what you know it to be. I also know that multiple aerial objects may appear to be near one another and in reality be far distant. I also know that finding the altitude of an aerial object is no middling feat.

Mind you I'm not saying you have video-recorded kites, only that whatever you have recorded is not well described in regards to shape & location. I would suggest trying to triangulate by using multiple cameras at locations with significant separation.

If the anomalies are plasma then I would expect them to show an indication that they are under the influence of Earth's magnetic field much as we see with aurorae.

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.

##### Share on other sites

What equipment is needed to create this "dual optical system" you used to spot and film these anomalies ?

##### Share on other sites

What equipment is needed to create this "dual optical system" you used to spot and film these anomalies ?

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:

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

Edited by jeremyjr

##### Share on other sites

Anomalies are real, whether you agree with that or not

I don't think that anyone is arguing that there aren't anomalous things seen in the sky. Because there are. No one is claiming that every single video is faked, and people do indeed see weird things in the sky.

But, we're questioning whether the conclusion that they are living 'plasma-based' creatures is truly supported by the evidence as well as all the other probable candidates eliminated by the evidence. 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 do wish you good luck in making your devices to gather more evidence, because that it was it needed to discuss this in a scientific manner. You need to show how your idea is undoubtedly the most probable because all other ideas are eliminated with solid, objective, clear-cut, statistically significant evidence.

##### Share on other sites

I don't think that anyone is arguing that there aren't anomalous things seen in the sky. Because there are. No one is claiming that every single video is faked, and people do indeed see weird things in the sky.

But, we're questioning whether the conclusion that they are living 'plasma-based' creatures is truly supported by the evidence as well as all the other probable candidates eliminated by the evidence. 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 do wish you good luck in making your devices to gather more evidence, because that it was it needed to discuss this in a scientific manner. You need to show how your idea is undoubtedly the most probable because all other ideas are eliminated with solid, objective, clear-cut, statistically significant evidence.

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.

##### Share on other sites

I am not looking for any validation and or verification,

If you're going to be this standoffish, why are you bothering to come to a science forum, then? Where, despite your claims that your evidence is god enough, and that verifications have occurred many times over -- you cannot cite any clear-cut, objective, statistically significant evidence that unequivocally supports your idea?

This thread was started as a report for you

Maybe even more than the above, I don't get this attitude at all. Because I didn't ask for this thread to be open.

And that's fine if you're convinced. But on a science forum, we're not just going to accept grainy videos. (And yes, despite your claim that you didn't even bother to ask me about, I did watch through a good number of them.) I stick with my previous assessment, that a blob on a grainy video isn't convincing to me. You haven't presented any objective evidence that clearly shows us that they are plasma beings and not anything else. You've presented plenty of evidence that there is something there; again, I'm not objecting to that. I want to have more clear cut objective evidence before I can make a determination.

And that's ultimately why I thought you came to a science forum. To talk science. To talk about the evidence you've compiled, and how meaningful it was to science -- which is naturally skeptical by the way. If you weren't open to critiques of your presentation, your evidence, or anything else, then you probably shouldn't have come to a science forum.

So, ultimately, no, you did not make this thread for me. Because I am not all that interested. I just thought I'd try to be polite and talk to you in a rational way about the issues I thought would try to make your presentation more meaningful to others of a scientific bent. But, if you just want to snap at me and treat me like a chump, then I just won't bother anymore. I'm not sure why anyone else would, either.

##### Share on other sites

jeremy,

I opened with a series of questions many of which you provided some answers to. I intended to follow up with more probing questions, but in the interim you had reacted to some other posts in what had all the appearance of a close-minded approach.

I remain interested in discussing this phenomenon with you in an open manner, but not if you are unwilling to consider the possibility that you are mistaken.Bignose has spoken, I suspect, for most of us who have contributed to this thread. So, are you, or are you not, interested in pursuing an open discussion? (Please note I am not interested in a response that focuses on the alleged close-minded behaviour of your questioners. Use that approach and I am gone.)

##### Share on other sites

jeremy,

I opened with a series of questions many of which you provided some answers to. I intended to follow up with more probing questions, but in the interim you had reacted to some other posts in what had all the appearance of a close-minded approach.

I remain interested in discussing this phenomenon with you in an open manner, but not if you are unwilling to consider the possibility that you are mistaken.Bignose has spoken, I suspect, for most of us who have contributed to this thread. So, are you, or are you not, interested in pursuing an open discussion? (Please note I am not interested in a response that focuses on the alleged close-minded behaviour of your questioners. Use that approach and I am gone.)

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):

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.

Edited by jeremyjr

##### Share on other sites

I must admit I like to take a look at the strange and unexplaned videos etc on youtube once in a while - it's like switching-off to me, some of the graphics in those videos are like big-budget movie standard. I've seen a couple of these anomaly videos before and probably the most famous is the Dark Knight and the Ark. 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. And this being the case youtube is probably the best place for them where a youngster may have his imagination stired that leads him down a path to become a great scientist.

I watched the video you linked (same link above), I'm no camera man or photographer so please would you tell me why the "anomaly" seems to get stuck top of frame at about 1m31s?, it looks odd to me.

##### Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×