Full Version: UFO activity in the night sky
about 8 days ago a friend of mine asked me if I had seen anything unususal in the night sky, as he knows I have this thing for searching for sattelites at night moving through the heavans. I told him that I had'nt, and that was that, untill that ight while I was staring upwards at the stars, a thought came to me to look very closely at the dimmer scale of light in the sky, and what I found was more than I had expected. At first I only saw the one, but within minutes I was looking at what can be described as multiple craft manuvering in a certain section of the night sky, most likely above the atmoshphere. over the space of the last several days I have noticed that there seems to be at least 3 craft manuvering in random pattern in a particular zone in the sky, and periodically a seemingly new arrival will come from somewhere, be met by one of the patrolling craft, and is then escorted off in a certain direction. This is still going on every night, and can be seen with the naked eye carefully focused on this particular zone in the sky. If I knew more about the stars I would share the constelation with you guys, because I am sure I can show any who are interested this night time activity. Guys, this is a very active location, and the movements of these high flying craft are beyond the technology we as a race have, and if any of you out there live near placerville california I am willing to personally show you this activity. It would take a very good film camera with a wide field lens and some system to enhance the lower light spectrum, but I CAN point a photographer to the proper area in the sky to capture this activity on film. With a quality camera we could get quite litterally a whole nights footage of UFO activity. I do know this, that something is going on up there, and the sky is more active than I had ever imagined. E-mail me personally at captaingreenthumb@hotmail.com for anything more, I will continue to moniter this as the weather permits.
Are you seeing this in the North, West, South or East while looking at the sky? I'm in Sacramento for a few more days. Is there a certain time you see these objects? Use the big dipper as a reference point if you can or use the locations of citys around you to point out the objects. Like I'm looking towards Tahoe or Nevada City etc.
I am currently viewing this activity virtually straight up from my location, so for you it would be like you were lookin towards tahoe, not quite straight up but like about an 80 degree angle. Tonight I will take note of the big dipper and get back to you through this forum with some easier to understand directions. Be prepared to look for the dimer scale of light, I would say these objects are about 5 times dimmer than a sattelite, but are still easily descernable to the concentrated eye, and can be viewd easily if you know where to look. I'll get back to this post about 10 pm tonight, I usually start viewing about 9 pm....BUDFORCE.
Thanks, I'll try to see if I can capture it on film. I'll post my results.
No problem. I have tried to use my Hi-8 function on my handicam, but I find that the image capturing ability is extremely limited when trying to film these objects. You will probably need a high quality film coupled with a wide field telephoto lens and a light filter for the lower end of the spectrum. These objects are extremely dim, but yet still descernable with the naked eye. You will need to start visually, relaxing your eyes just enough to register the dimmest stars. Concentrating on the whole picture of this specific area, the movement of these craft will stand out...that will be the area to focus the camera on, and just let it record as long as possible...it is not a huge area of space, if I held up a ruler to the sky, it would be about a foot and a half wide swath of sky this is taking place in, except for the craft that will come in from varying directions of the sky to be met by one of the "stationed" craft. I will try to get good directions for you tonight...
im in baltimore, the location of the big dipper or any other constellation in regard to the area youre lookin at would really help me see what youre lookin at
sounds like youre right under a 'toll booth' for earth i would really like to see this
sounds like youre right under a 'toll booth' for earth i would really like to see this
Sorry I did not get back last night, I got stuck at a kegger in the national forrest. Anyways, there were high clouds last night hindering my view of this area, but I did happen to catch a glimpse of the activity still ongoing. This area is now directly above my home in placerville, it seems to be moving as the constelations move. I noted that when standing facing "sacremento", the moon was just slightly off to my left and foreward of this area, I did not however see the big dipper in my proximity. Tonight Iam going to drive to a high point in my county and take note of the position of the big dipper. One more thing, if you live in or near a big city, you may not be able to see this because of the light pollution, you neeed to be away from the city lights, somewhere where it is really dark. I can not stress enough that these objects are very dim and a challenge to see, but once you got 'em in sight you will notice the particularly impossible movements these objects make.
I also had problems with the clouds and haze. I'll keep checking the night skys.
in case you are wonderig how space ships can make high speed right angle manoueveres, it is because they dont use propulsion as a means to move. It is more like a matter transporter, where the atomic structure of the entire ship and contents are deconstructed and then reconstructed along a path of dark matter, so it looks like it is moving, just like a regular craft.
....and your evidence for this is located......where, exactly ?
Chris Low.
Chris Low.
| QUOTE (Athlon64 @ Oct 10 2003, 10:45 AM) |
| ....and your evidence for this is located......where, exactly ? Chris Low. |
if you take a look in the mirror you will see sitting on top of your shoulders, a roundish looking thing, this is called a head. Inside the head is a thing called the brain. The brain performs a function called thinking, (at least in some people it does), thinking is what enables ideas to form, and from there, they eventually end up in books. So before an idea can become part of a book, there has to be a time when it is only inside a persons head. This isnt too difficult for you, or would you like me to find a reference for you somewhere, if you cant recognize simple logic, and think for yourself?
What makes you think something is true, just because it is in a book? It is in my book that is coming out next year, so when you see it in print, will it make any more sense?
Diamond Jo - no need for insulting someone for being critical.
Athlon64 wasn't asking for an idea, he was asking for evidence.
I am looking forward to that in your book, where will it be published?
Athlon64 wasn't asking for an idea, he was asking for evidence.
I am looking forward to that in your book, where will it be published?
Diamond jo, evidence is not in the brain, or in thinking, thats called theories. What athalon is looking for is hard evidence heres a example:
Joe: i just saw a dead man!
Jim: Where i don't believe you?
Joe walks to a bush and uncovers a corpse.
Jim: Wow now i believe you, now thats what i call HARD EVIDENCE.
heres a example of a theory:
Joe: I think polar bears live in the pentagon.
Jim: How can you prove this?
Joe: I can't, Its just a THEORY.
so Diamond, where is you evidence to suggest that "spacecraft, flying saucers, flying egg mothership" dematerialise themselves, to move along dark matter? (bear in mind that dark matter is also a scientific theory, they can't prove it exists yet, unless they have already came out with evidence to support dark matter.) If you have no evidence, and just your book, we would just have to take your word for it, thus it would be a theory.
Joe: i just saw a dead man!
Jim: Where i don't believe you?
Joe walks to a bush and uncovers a corpse.
Jim: Wow now i believe you, now thats what i call HARD EVIDENCE.
heres a example of a theory:
Joe: I think polar bears live in the pentagon.
Jim: How can you prove this?
Joe: I can't, Its just a THEORY.
so Diamond, where is you evidence to suggest that "spacecraft, flying saucers, flying egg mothership" dematerialise themselves, to move along dark matter? (bear in mind that dark matter is also a scientific theory, they can't prove it exists yet, unless they have already came out with evidence to support dark matter.) If you have no evidence, and just your book, we would just have to take your word for it, thus it would be a theory.
you are getting evidence and proof mixed up. Proof is the intellectual property, evidence is the physical property.
If you drop an egg it will break. You dont have to actually drop the egg, to know this as a fact, you know this because you add up all the factors such as the force of gravity, the knowlege of baby chickens having to break out of them etc etc. You add all this up in your mind and it creates proof.
actually droping the egg is evidence, without the proof it is meaningless; the egg could have anything happen to it, it could be bad, it could have been tampered with etc. Evidence cant create proof.
The proof is that, it is the only way possible to achieve those results. Whether dark matter exists is not relevant, (recent evidence suggests it does)but as it does, that is how it is done.
If someone wants to try to insult me then they should expect whatever is dished up to them, cant stand the heat get out of the kitchen but it is a good way to test those that hold grudges. Maybe I am a bit touchy having dealt with some real head cases on another forum.
The major part of proof, is the ability to accept it.
I was only trying to create a bit of a basis in reality to show how these vessels could be since the current understanding of space flight is too primitive. Although what is seen is just as likely to be NASA doing secret tests, but they are using borrowed technology, so havent got the cloaking down pat yet.
If you drop an egg it will break. You dont have to actually drop the egg, to know this as a fact, you know this because you add up all the factors such as the force of gravity, the knowlege of baby chickens having to break out of them etc etc. You add all this up in your mind and it creates proof.
actually droping the egg is evidence, without the proof it is meaningless; the egg could have anything happen to it, it could be bad, it could have been tampered with etc. Evidence cant create proof.
The proof is that, it is the only way possible to achieve those results. Whether dark matter exists is not relevant, (recent evidence suggests it does)but as it does, that is how it is done.
If someone wants to try to insult me then they should expect whatever is dished up to them, cant stand the heat get out of the kitchen but it is a good way to test those that hold grudges. Maybe I am a bit touchy having dealt with some real head cases on another forum.
The major part of proof, is the ability to accept it.
I was only trying to create a bit of a basis in reality to show how these vessels could be since the current understanding of space flight is too primitive. Although what is seen is just as likely to be NASA doing secret tests, but they are using borrowed technology, so havent got the cloaking down pat yet.
[QUOTE]
Joe: i just saw a dead man!
Jim: Where i don't believe you?
Joe walks to a bush and uncovers a corpse.
Jim: Wow now i believe you, now thats what i call HARD EVIDENCE.
heres a example of a theory:
Joe: I think polar bears live in the pentagon.
Jim: How can you prove this?
Joe: I can't, Its just a THEORY.
The corpse could be a model, it could be someone given a drug, it could be a clone, it could be a hologram, it could be a synthetic human, it could be.......
so what is evidence going to give you
wrong use of word theory, theory doesnt mean unsubstantiated idea. Theory is simply refering to an intellectual property and is proof in itself.
Joe: i just saw a dead man!
Jim: Where i don't believe you?
Joe walks to a bush and uncovers a corpse.
Jim: Wow now i believe you, now thats what i call HARD EVIDENCE.
heres a example of a theory:
Joe: I think polar bears live in the pentagon.
Jim: How can you prove this?
Joe: I can't, Its just a THEORY.
The corpse could be a model, it could be someone given a drug, it could be a clone, it could be a hologram, it could be a synthetic human, it could be.......
so what is evidence going to give you
wrong use of word theory, theory doesnt mean unsubstantiated idea. Theory is simply refering to an intellectual property and is proof in itself.
No a theory is not proof, theorys need evidence to back it up as proof, hard evidence is just what i stated in my little story, the corpse is there, you see it, you can smell its putrid rottoness, its a corpse. READ it carefully, did i say synthetic human? did i say hologram of a corpse? NO i said a CORPSE. it isn't a grudge as you put it, and you still did anser my last question, you said this
| QUOTE |
| Diamond JO Posted on Oct 10 2003, 04:59 AM in case you are wonderig how space ships can make high speed right angle manoueveres, it is because they dont use propulsion as a means to move. It is more like a matter transporter, where the atomic structure of the entire ship and contents are deconstructed and then reconstructed along a path of dark matter, so it looks like it is moving, just like a regular craft. |
You stated that in a way that suggests you know this for a fact now here is the question again:
| QUOTE |
so Diamond, where is you evidence to suggest that "spacecraft, flying saucers, flying egg mothership" dematerialise themselves, to move along dark matter? (bear in mind that dark matter is also a scientific theory, they can't prove it exists yet, unless they have already came out with evidence to support dark matter.) |
then you said this:
| QUOTE |
| Although what is seen is just as likely to be NASA doing secret tests, but they are using borrowed technology, so havent got the cloaking down pat yet. |
and i'll ask again since you stated it like you knew this for a fact. Where is the evidence?
Do not see this as "hate mail" just see this as someone trying to see if you have any evidence to back up your statements, seeing as i see it as you know these things for fact, by the way you worded it. all i'm asking is for evidence, if it was a theory (don't be afraid to use this word) then say its "just a theory" instead of wording it matter-of-factualy.
| QUOTE (Diamond JO @ Oct 10 2003, 03:59 AM) |
| in case you are wonderig how space ships can make high speed right angle manoueveres, it is because they dont use propulsion as a means to move. It is more like a matter transporter, where the atomic structure of the entire ship and contents are deconstructed and then reconstructed along a path of dark matter, so it looks like it is moving, just like a regular craft. |
OK, let's take a look at the problems with your theory here.
Beginning with dark matter, are you talking about baryonic matter, or non-baryonic particles?
Baryonic dark matter is considered to be massive, non-luminous objects such as brown dwarfs and black holes. You can see the problem of trying to use this to create a matter stream guide ("path" as you call it), because even a tiny black hole is capable of absorbing and destroying any matter that falls beneath it's event horizon.
Non-baryonic dark matter is considered to have a mass that is 100, 000 times smaller than a single electron. The amount of energy required to gather enough non-baryonic matter to have enough gravitational effect to guide a matter stream would be ridiculously unfeasible. It would be the equivalent of needing several nuclear power plants to operate a single flash light bulb.
Also, regarding the two examples above, there is no way to "bend" a beam of dark matter at will to form a 90 degree curve, since dark matter is also governed by the rules of Special Relativity.
Deconstructing a ship at the atomic level (glad you didn't say subatomic) might not be too difficult. All that would be required is to alter the electric forces that bind atoms together. However, doing this "instantaneously" would result in the release of huge amounts of energy: i.e. an explosion.
But...
Assuming the "aliens" have found a way of doing this without blowing themselves up, I see another problem with your explanation. Since the ship has been converted into a matter stream consisting of particles traveling near the speed of light, there is no way the human eye will be able to perceive this as a spaceship.
Finally, the biggest snag you've hit is reconstructing the ship back into it's original form. The coordinates of every single atom would have to be mapped, as well as whether the atom was part of a molecule, what the molecule was doing, etc. The information would be staggering. And even if they had a means to record all this, there is no way any computer would be able to read all this information fast enough to "instantaneously" reconstruct a ship.
To give you an example from Lawrence M. Krauss, if all the atoms of a single human being (about 10 trillion, trillion) were stored in memory, it would take a computer running at 2 gig per second 100 times the age of the universe to read it all. This is just for a single human being.
There are a few other problems, but I thought I'd only point out the glaring ones.
Just my 2 cents.
And if any of my data is faulty, I'd appreciate any corrections.
matter transporters have already been succesfully tested at melbourne uiversity.
While dark matter was shown to exist by evidence of particles increasing in energy after having left a galaxy, instead of losing enrgy as they would have had there been nothing there.
Black holes are not dark matter, in fact black holes are only dead stars that have lost the capacity to react with light. the world will catch up soon enough
it isnt really deconstructed so much as absorbed into the dark matter, but of course you would have to understand that light doesnt travel the way people believe, so that particle accelerators are actually crude matter transporters.
you could see the vessel if it was traveling at a regular speed, and no one is bending anything, simply redirecting which can be done at any angle since you are projecting from inside so wherever you are is a straight line.
Todays computers are nothing to judge computing power on what are we up to know, last time I heard it was about 50 trillion calculations per second, within the next 10 years or so it was about the number of atoms in the universe per second.
the point was that it is the only way possible to achieve faster than light speed travel, whether it is true is irrelevant.
I think it is a bit premature to say what the future can or cant do when it was only a hundred years ago people were laughing at the wright bros
While dark matter was shown to exist by evidence of particles increasing in energy after having left a galaxy, instead of losing enrgy as they would have had there been nothing there.
Black holes are not dark matter, in fact black holes are only dead stars that have lost the capacity to react with light. the world will catch up soon enough
it isnt really deconstructed so much as absorbed into the dark matter, but of course you would have to understand that light doesnt travel the way people believe, so that particle accelerators are actually crude matter transporters.
you could see the vessel if it was traveling at a regular speed, and no one is bending anything, simply redirecting which can be done at any angle since you are projecting from inside so wherever you are is a straight line.
Todays computers are nothing to judge computing power on what are we up to know, last time I heard it was about 50 trillion calculations per second, within the next 10 years or so it was about the number of atoms in the universe per second.
the point was that it is the only way possible to achieve faster than light speed travel, whether it is true is irrelevant.
I think it is a bit premature to say what the future can or cant do when it was only a hundred years ago people were laughing at the wright bros
| QUOTE (Diamond JO @ Oct 12 2003, 09:21 AM) |
| the point was that it is the only way possible to achieve faster than light speed travel, whether it is true is irrelevant. |
Ohh...I get it. The book you're writing is a science fiction novel.
I look forward to reading it.
Dark matter 1
Dark matter 2
Me too, so to quote myself on an earlier occasion:
| QUOTE |
| I am looking forward to that in your book, where will it be published? |
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.