AREA 51 (the thread)

[mentholated]

Originally Posted by sc1ence

The eye does not work like a digital device. It does not have global refresh rate, nor does it have a local refresh rate for individual photoreceptors. The concept of "frame" simply does not apply to the eye. The eyes/brain system is analog and complex as hell.

as for the vid in the OP the ufos are camera artifacts of ice and stars. It is VERY obvious to me. the aura around the objects shrink as the approach the tether then enlarge. this is an artifact of the brightness control of the camera. the auras themselves are as well. the tether is like 2 inches wide, yet from 80 miles, it looks like it is hundreds of feet wide. because of the bleeding pixels.

I do however believe that intelligent life exists outside of our planet. But I do not think "they" have been here. it is more of a probabilistic argument given infinite space, and intelligent life here, there must be some somewhere else.

Still.. they might not come themselves, but I think we all know they send avatars here.

(jesus christ for instance)

(and since some people are ignorant I have to include buddha also)

[sc1ence]

Originally Posted by mentholated

Still.. they might not come themselves, but I think we all know they send avatars here.

(jesus christ for instance)

(and since some people are ignorant I have to include buddha also)

Please tell me you are not being serious.

[UnDeaD77]

If there is other life out there, its probably exactly like us, and doing what we're doing, and trying to figure out if there is life out there beside them. Other than that, all those planets, and space are kinda a waste of ..well space.

[Axis of Eeevil]

Originally Posted by mentholated

Still.. they might not come themselves, but I think we all know they send avatars here.

(jesus christ for instance)

(and since some people are ignorant I have to include buddha also)

I just couldn't figure out why you are the way you are. It all makes sense now, and I appreciate you clearing this up for me. Being honest and revealing your highly unorthodox beliefs was a gutsy thing to do, and although I reject the ideas utterly, I honor your intent to seek truth. Your conviction and reverence deserve better. Keep looking.

[Bodofooko]

Originally Posted by sordavie

www.timecube.com

My life is changed forever.

[TheSkudDestroyer]

Originally Posted by sc1ence

Please tell me you are not being serious.

No, he's just assuming that we all have that same belief as he does. I don't know why he threw in buddha. It's easier to believe his existence than Jesus' IMO. (Not to offend)

[Anospa]

Originally Posted by mentholated

Camera artifacts don't pulsate hundreds of times between frames.

Uhmmm, if they were between the frames, how exactly could you tell that something like that happened?

[Guardianx11x]

Hey guys, I was turned on to this tread because well...it's hilarious. I'll ignore the religious part of all this and get down to what I know (Oh and I'm an engineering grad. student).

First off, any of you that thought it would be more expensive to simulate this than build a craft and that does it...complete nonsense. Effects like this would be easy to simulate because you could generate the raw data flat out. That is of course assuming that you need to SIMULATE anything. You could just make the video without simulating any sort of simulation step in there. Which would explain why these object “don’t obey the laws of physics” but I still don’t see which laws they are breaking.

I've worked with raw image data processing and compression for high speed optics soooo I know a little about what is there and what isn't. Mentholated is right, you can tell if something is pulsating faster that your frame rate by measuring the brightness and fitting it with a Fourier series. However, your margin of error is massive; you are essentially polling data at given intervals. Basically mentholated, what this boils down to is that strictly speaking...you can't make the claim they pulsate 100 times between frames because I can make an equally factual claim that they pulsate twice. In fact there is no way to tell that even after making the huge assumption that these "ufos" have a static frequency or amplitude. So yes I’d also like to go on record and say that yes it is possible to fake a light source that dynamically pulsates hundreds of times between frames. I can do it without even having to think up anything clever.

Did anyone else find it funny that all the orb objects have a constant trajectory and velocity as well as no organization?

Ummm…the terms “super luminal velocity” is odd. True it is theoretically possible to traverse distances faster than the speed of light…still impossible to have a velocity greater than the speed of light unless you have infinite energy to combat your infinite mass.

I’d like you to explain why their propulsion engines couldn’t operate in our magnetosphere.

When an electric coil is electrified by a magnetic field, you get electricity.

Actually when you subject a conductive material to a magnetic flux you get a current. The difference being that the field must be dynamic to cause a current.

[mentholated]

Originally Posted by Guardianx11x

Hey guys, I was turned on to this tread because well...it's hilarious. I'll ignore the religious part of all this and get down to what I know (Oh and I'm an engineering grad. student).

First off, any of you that thought it would be more expensive to simulate this than build a craft and that does it...complete nonsense. Effects like this would be easy to simulate because you could generate the raw data flat out. That is of course assuming that you need to SIMULATE anything. You could just make the video without simulating any sort of simulation step in there. Which would explain why these object “don’t obey the laws of physics” but I still don’t see which laws they are breaking.

I've worked with raw image data processing and compression for high speed optics soooo I know a little about what is there and what isn't. Mentholated is right, you can tell if something is pulsating faster that your frame rate by measuring the brightness and fitting it with a Fourier series. However, your margin of error is massive; you are essentially polling data at given intervals. Basically mentholated, what this boils down to is that strictly speaking...you can't make the claim they pulsate 100 times between frames because I can make an equally factual claim that they pulsate twice. In fact there is no way to tell that even after making the huge assumption that these "ufos" have a static frequency or amplitude. So yes I’d also like to go on record and say that yes it is possible to fake a light source that dynamically pulsates hundreds of times between frames. I can do it without even having to think up anything clever.

Did anyone else find it funny that all the orb objects have a constant trajectory and velocity as well as no organization?

Ummm…the terms “super luminal velocity” is odd. True it is theoretically possible to traverse distances faster than the speed of light…still impossible to have a velocity greater than the speed of light unless you have infinite energy to combat your infinite mass.

I’d like you to explain why their propulsion engines couldn’t operate in our magnetosphere.



Actually when you subject a conductive material to a magnetic flux you get a current. The difference being that the field must be dynamic to cause a current.

Not so if the conductive material is oscillating in and out of phase with a static field very fast. But, that doesn't really matter anyway because the earth's magnetosphere as well as ionosphere are dynamic, as well as solar radiation.

The reason I mentioned the "pulsating 100s of times between each frame" is because upon close examination of the videos, on those little orbs you can see a swirling vortex moving out towards the exterior of the shell of the orb from the center black/non luminal dot and even when viewed at very slow frame rates (1-4 frames a second) that vortex appears to change quite dramatically given the fact that if it was recorded at around 60fps.

I don't know how to fake that, but maybe you do.

By the way as the speed of an object increases, its relative mass decreases.. so its really just a matter of achieving super luminal speeds in the first place, as well as slowing down (which would require the same amount of force used to propel the object in the first place).

One way I thought of doing this was to create thousands of overlapping AC fields and modulating them in real time (and by real time, I mean REAL time.. much faster than even our own brains could react to anything) to weave electrons through the fields creating an amount of electromotive force that could be induced in the field's generator and recycled to power the fields. Though, I'm wondering how one can "charge" a magnetic field... I suppose solar dust from CMEs would be charged positively?

[mentholated]

You guys should glance over this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon

[Crux]

Originally Posted by mentholated

Not so if the conductive material is oscillating in and out of phase with a static field very fast. But, that doesn't really matter anyway because the earth's magnetosphere as well as ionosphere are dynamic, as well as solar radiation.

So if we hold a conductive material stationary in a magnetosphere we'll get usable levels of current?

By the way as the speed of an object increases, its relative mass decreases.. so its really just a matter of achieving super luminal speeds in the first place, as well as slowing down (which would require the same amount of force used to propel the object in the first place).

As an object travels faster, its relative mass increases, not decreases. This is one of the basic tenets of the Theory of Relativity. And frankly if I have to choose between your version and Albert Einstein's version... I'm afraid I'm going to have to go with Einstein.

[TheSkudDestroyer]

It's an easy mistake to make when every "source" in this thread has come from wikipedia.

I cannot stress enough that wikipedia is not a credible source. If you cannot use it for a paper in highschool or college, stay away from it. I don't care if this is a "lol internetz arguementsz," if you're going to make a claim and cite any sources, try to find something better than wiki. Wiki is good for quick look ups or boredom. Nothing more.

On a funny side note, one can get from the 9/11 page to "Jews" in 9 clicks on wiki (According to my friend). Now that's a conspiracy!

[mentholated]

Originally Posted by Crux

So if we hold a conductive material stationary in a magnetosphere we'll get usable levels of current?



As an object travels faster, its relative mass increases, not decreases. This is one of the basic tenets of the Theory of Relativity. And frankly if I have to choose between your version and Albert Einstein's version... I'm afraid I'm going to have to go with Einstein.

It increases to an outside observer. If you yourself are travelling at that speed, your relative mass decreases after you exceed the speed of photons, because photons are massless. There exists a point beyond the speed of light where an object achieves what is called "negative mass". There is a point far beyond the speed of light where an object can exist at every possible point in the universe at any given moment because its vibrational frequency is symmetric to that of the cosmological constant.

And no, as the tether demonstrated the conductive material would have to be free moving and rather large. I was thinking instead of making a lot of variable length/diameter cables with different conductive properties to take full advantage of all of the various magnetic fields that can induce motion in the conductor.

Also, skud, I only used the wikipedia link so you could google it and do some looking about this guy. Just because its on wikipedia doesn't mean thats the only place that says it.

Have a look: http://freegary.org.uk/

[sc1ence]

Originally Posted by TheSkudDestroyer

It's an easy mistake to make when every "source" in this thread has come from wikipedia.

I cannot stress enough that wikipedia is not a credible source. If you cannot use it for a paper in highschool or college, stay away from it. I don't care if this is a "lol internetz arguementsz," if you're going to make a claim and cite any sources, try to find something better than wiki. Wiki is good for quick look ups or boredom. Nothing more.

I tell my college intro students to check wiki first for any paper. It is a very credible source of factual info that is free and easy to use. Take it with a grain of salt of course, but I am more than happy to trust it as a resource for most things. Like any information source, you should look around for back up opinions.

To use it as a main source in a college paper would be a bad move, but not terrible. To use it as a main source in high school seems ok to me. to use it to steer your thoughts and learn new info is great. I have read huge amounts of wikipedia pages and contributed to a few as well. I have read peer reviewed journals with more flaws than wikipedia.

I think citing wikipedia in an Internet argument makes perfect sense. It is unrealistic to have a cogent discussion with citations of scholarly journals etc here in the TG sandbox.

Even in academic mail lists I see wikipedia referenced for a quick read on a topic. This is coming from leaders in the field of cognition and perception.

[Crux]

Originally Posted by mentholated

It increases to an outside observer. If you yourself are travelling at that speed, your relative mass decreases after you exceed the speed of photons, because photons are massless. There exists a point beyond the speed of light where an object achieves what is called "negative mass". There is a point far beyond the speed of light where an object can exist at every possible point in the universe at any given moment because its vibrational frequency is symmetric to that of the cosmological constant.

mentholated, you shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet. Negative mass is pure conjecture. It hasn't been found, observed or proven in any way. So in essence, you're using a made-up concept to argue with a scientific theory that has withstood over 90 years of close scrutiny.

I'm really not going to sit here and discuss this with you any more because you can't argue with web pages. I'll just conclude with this simple statement:

Einstein > mentholated