Posted on 03/12/2025 6:44:03 AM PDT by airdalechief
(Back to the Art Bell show from the (Kingdom of Nye)
AUSTIN, Texas — The documentary The Age of Disclosure sets out to do what countless films have done before: present proof that humans on Earth are not alone in the universe. What’s different this time is that 34 senior members of the government, military and intelligence community went on camera to talk about it.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
I came up with a theory last night concerning those who try to trash these UFO threads. If you don’t actually understand the more highly intelligent topic discussions on the board then go argue against UFOs. It only requires about three repetitive Squirrel narratives and very little thinking effort...
That makes sense. To my “skeered” theory I need to add “intellectually lazy” (or just “stoopid”).
lol...
We are either alone in the universe or we are in a crowded universe but cannot ever come in contact with our neighbors which is virtually the same thing.
Speed of light has nothing to do with kinetic, physical physics. It would also take more rocket fuel than a spaceship could carry.
There’s only one way to achieve FTL. Spatial displacement.
Its not been reported publicly. I’ve seen unknown craft ‘working out’ on military ranges with this technology. Transiting across the sky in an instant. Not normal physics but spatial displacement. I’m not really worried about disclosure, validation, etc. People who’ve blabbed about this usually end up disappearing. Not gonna blabb.
Studying actual physics and math in college ruined sci-fi forever, at least for me. The math doesn’t work.
“...in violation of several laws of physics?”
Uhh, doesn’t the solution have to be in violation of current physics?
Have you ever taken a real physics class at the university level?
Based on our CURRENT knowledge of physics. Which is likely in the infant stage compared to what will be discovered within the next 500 to 1000 years.
“Nah, just common everyday ETs. What is so difficult about that?”
Too easy, Carl Sagen thought the distances were too far. I tend to agree.
Three days ago, physicists announced that they had made a solid out of light. I bet Sagen never saw that coming. What else will pop up over the next few years? Sagen, and the balance of scientists on this planet, do not know the whole of physics.
It makes very little sense to me to see something that is outside of our capabilities, and then declare it non-existent in order to preserve clearly inadequate viewpoints. It seems a great deal more learned to see those things, and then assume we have a lot more to learn.
My personal take on this is that they are fear driven. Many have a religious perspective that is disturbed by the notion that God's Creation is bigger than this tiny little planet of ours. It very much like the first child resenting the second child because Daddy's attention seems divided. It is also common to find people who don't like the idea of ETs because they don't want anyone to worship the ET. I can't image why they think people would worship an entity just because they arrived in exotic craft. Blind trust in those entities also seems like a bad idea.
All of Creation tends to discount the Genesis story in my humble opinion. Throwing ETs into the mix really blurs that issue. It has been clear to me since early child that the Genesis story was an explanation for those who couldn't understand the Creation process ... that would be us.
You are absolutely correct. As long-time photographer, I will list just a few:
Atmospheric haze due to distance
Camera vibration, aggravated by distance to the object, excited photographer, failure to use a tripod
Camera and media resolution
Motion blur to subject and camera motion
Shutter speed vs speed of subject
Auto-focus and auto-aperature mistakes
Reciprocity failures due to exposure latitude
Lens quality. (Not high in casual use cameras)
Now, show me a collection of razor sharp images of automobile accidents at the moment of impact, a bank robbery in progress, a helicopter colliding with an airliner, an airliner crashing into the Potomac, and a book falling from the teacher's desk.
The point is, events happening in a short time give very little setup time, and unsupported non-telescopic cameras taken by pedestrians give crappy photos of distant objects.
Thank you for the breakdown... I have done some photography myself, Started in High School and took four years because photography was an easy A elective class... So I’m personally hip to all the factors that affect imaging.
I have also laid all that out a few times here to no avail, so I just no longer go to the trouble to explain it all. Thank you for taking the time to do it. It is all right on the money and important. I hope you don’t mind me adding one ever so important keyword as a wrapper to all that... DIGITAL. :)
DIGITAL... It is the #1 problem with images now days. Digital absolutely sucks, especially at zoomed distances, especially on a phone. Even the best of digital cameras still require software to blend and smooth Pixelation as the camera is focusing and capturing the image, and it is constantly changing and adjusting it’ self. It is not just old school stable 2D light capture. It is almost impossible to accurately convert rectangle pixels into very fine quality microdots like old school photography. Digital is absolute garbage imaging compared to old school film and paper. Aiming, camera light gathering, software, software delay, pixelation, speed and accuracy of focus, lenses are always dirty or scratched, these are all a set back in imaging. What you end up with is not at all what you are seeing with your eyes or can capture with a real camera. I absolutely hate digital... But it is “convenient” and less work for the lazy right?
But with all these factors combined, digital imaging is the main reason for this fuzzy imaging... There is no way to fix this... It just cannot be gathered precisely in the first place. and if you try to repair it after the fact then it is debunked because it was “manipulated”.
Then there is the “half here/half there” theory. I think it is a very viable theory too. If these craft are “inter-dimensional” and exiting from or entering other dimensions or space/time portals they may not always be fully manifested physically solid here and are still half where they came from or are going to. This would also support transportation by harnessing Quantum Entanglement.
So just like a Startrek transporter, as their particles scramble to/from the other locations they are going to be fuzzy because some of the particles are already at the destination. They are half in this world location and half in the other world location. They are only partially manifested in our time/space dimension hence they are fuzzy.
In some images they even appear to be semi-transparent and/or translucent which would support this theory. The effect would be similar to peering down through water at a fish from a boat. You are just not going to get a good clear view no matter how hard you try. You would have to stick the camera under the water with the fish to see it clearly.
Thanks again for sharing those important points. You should sticky note that for future use when this comes up. It is a very good succinct explanation... :)
P.S. There is one more factor I forgot to mention that could also be affecting images... Propulsion of the craft. It has also been proposed that the “wrapper” around the crafts caused by the propulsion system distorts light gathering especially on digital equipment. I think this is a very big factor. The images I grabbed from Google Earth that were taken by digital satellite cameras strongly suggest this could be a factor. They are very distorted and pixelated when they were captured while moving while everything around them is very clear. But the ones hovering static and not moving are clear.
There are some UFOs and restricted info about them.
Nothing at Roswell - no aliens, nor tech.
A “black hole” in space, is an exit (vector), caused by some object traveling faster than the speed of light relative to, and leaving, our time frame of reference.
“All of Creation tends to discount the Genesis story in my humble opinion. Throwing ETs into the mix really blurs that issue. It has been clear to me since early child that the Genesis story was an explanation for those who couldn’t understand the Creation process ... that would be us.”
I have also studied this in depth with objectivity. And it too is a hot taboo topic around here to even suggest alternative concepts of origin. But a lot is starting to make sense to me. And the Bible it’s self is starting to support it. I find more nuggets every time I go back and recap books and chapters with objective “UFO” mind... We did not “evolve” either.
The stories as literally written are just too illogical and irrational knowing what we now know is possible and what is not. Unless... they are metaphorical and are describing something they did not understand or could not explain at the time it was written. This would would make the words and concepts much more logical.
For myself it all now points towards Terraforming and GMO hybridization. And it is very possible it could all be a simulation... A dimension that was created by higher advanced intelligence. One of many universes and dimensions. When you read Genesis it reads exactly to the tee how a game developer would create a game world simulation... The steps to build it are absolutely in the same order.
Rumors are Sagan was a government disinformation agent on this topic.
It is a fascinating rabbit hole worth a look.
But alas, we are still stuck in the 12th century an denying all science as taboo. When science could actually prove the Bible correct.
One example...
Metaphoric explanation:
“And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”
Scientific reality:
Table of Elements in the Human Body by Mass
oxygen 43 kg (61%, 2700 mol)
carbon 16 kg (23%, 1300 mol)
hydrogen 7 kg (10%, 6900 mol)
nitrogen 1.8 kg (2.5%, 129 mol)
calcium 1.0 kg (1.4%, 25 mol)
phosphorus 780 g (1.1%, 25 mol)
potassium 140 g (0.20%, 3.6 mol)
sulfur 140 g (0.20%, 4.4 mol)
sodium 100 g (0.14%, 4.3 mol)
chlorine 95 g (0.14%, 2.7 mol)
magnesium 19 g (0.03%, 0.78 mol)
iron 4.2 g
fluorine 2.6 g
zinc 2.3 g
silicon 1.0 g
rubidium 0.68 g
strontium 0.32 g
bromine 0.26 g
lead 0.12 g
copper 72 mg
aluminum 60 mg
cadmium 50 mg
cerium 40 mg
barium 22 mg
iodine 20 mg
tin 20 mg
titanium 20 mg
boron 18 mg
nickel 15 mg
selenium 15 mg
chromium 14 mg
manganese 12 mg
arsenic 7 mg
lithium 7 mg
cesium 6 mg
mercury 6 mg
germanium 5 mg
molybdenum 5 mg
cobalt 3 mg
antimony 2 mg
silver 2 mg
niobium 1.5 mg
zirconium 1 mg
lanthanum 0.8 mg
gallium 0.7 mg
tellurium 0.7 mg
yttrium 0.6 mg
bismuth 0.5 mg
thallium 0.5 mg
indium 0.4 mg
gold 0.2 mg
scandium 0.2 mg
tantalum 0.2 mg
vanadium 0.11 mg
thorium 0.1 mg
uranium 0.1 mg
samarium 50 µg
beryllium 36 µg
tungsten 20 µg
AIR AND DIRT...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.