one more is a Golden and navy blue on the side anomali Spining!~?
- AI IA
- ALAN BUMAC
- BRAD MORRIS
- CAREFUL CONSIDERATION
- DAVID FEOLA
- ERIC ERASMO RENDON
- FAUSTO PEREZ
- FRANNY HUDSON
- JASON BALES
- JAY LEE
- JEFF McDUFFIE
- JEFFREY HARRISON
- JEREMY THOMAS
- JOHN GRAF
- LUPYLLO LEDEZMA
- MEMBERS YOUTUBE CHANNELS
- RICHARD GEORGE
- ROB FREEMAN
- RONALDO RICARDO
- SOME BRIEF CONSIDERATIONS
- ZAID HERNANDEZ
Some brief considerations about
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Sunday, June 19, 2016
This morning I went out to my patio to perform a summoning three mimics biological entities appeared I was able to capture two, here's The video to the second mimic entity everyone is different with me every time the entities appear my right ear buzzes almost a vibration sensation, thank you enjoy the video my friends .... ✌️
Here's another mimic biological entity that appeared after summoning this morning there were three of them that appeared but I was only able to capture two ... I'll post video next thank you and enjoy..✌️
Here's a video of the biological entity mimic that appeared after summoning in my patio this morning, which looks to maybe be a heart ...✌️
This morning the sky look pretty clear so I summoned in my patio a few seconds later I got to mimic biological entity hovering over head ... I'll post a video next ... ✌️
The (in)famous flying saucer shape
Almost anybody that pretend to be interested or claim to have some knowledge in the area of Ufology had used the flying saucer/disc image one way or another, as part of a logo, as a thumbnail image for a footage(many times misleading), etc. By doing that consciously or unconsciously they had been part of the perpetuation of a myth and maybe one of the better known cases of media induced delusion.
Many people know that this phrase: flying saucer gained social fame in 1947 when Kenneth Arnold made his famous sighting report.
But what not many do know, or maybe don’t want to know, and the UFO folklore conveniently ignore or belittle is that Kenneth Arnold did not reported in 1947 seeing exactly any saucer or disc shape objects, but the objects that he saw were of “crescent” shape(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Arnold), but since the press used the phrase “flying saucer” that was the term that was used almost universally to denote these objects.
Curiously then after this famous report people all over started reporting flying saucers, disc shaped objects. Media induced sightings reports you may say.
But we know today, at least the people that regularly are observing anomalies and also was known to pioneers as Trevor J. Constable and Kenneth Arnold, that these objects are intrinsic shape shifters, polymorphic, they can adopt many shapes, many times taking shapes from their surrounding environment, as for example the following one in boomerang like shape that from afar will look like a bird:
Then since these objects can take multiple shapes at will, no particular shape will be more relevant than any other, the relevance given to the saucer shape is super inflated and the result of a clear social self perpetuation, is that shape used as a logo anywhere in this site?
That do not implies that anomalies can’t take disc or elliptic shapes, they definitely had been reported, but similarly anomalies can take pyramid shapes or many others human recognizable shapes or not defined/amorphous shape too, as the following one that responded to direct light signals:
As in any other area only a clinical objective approach is the proven method that will give solid actionable knowledge. And obviously that implies making serious and systematic atmospheric observations to begin an understanding of what these anomalies really are.
Nobody is stopping you from making these observations.
I received and already installed on the telescope this usb camera that provides 4632x3488 video frame resolution, that is twice as 4k, waiting now for good weather to test it on anomalies, automatically it provides a lot better bitrate than the 5mp IP camera that I was using that give a max of 8 megabit/s bit rate, this camera can give more than 20 mb/s in mp4 format and 10 times more in raw format.
Ufology experts comfort zone
With extremely rare exceptions Ufology experts are "armchair experts", that simple fact is like an epiphany that makes a lot of things very clear.
Since these experts are really armchair experts that implies that their "comfort zone" is the area around, in the vicinity of their chairs, today that includes, but is not limited to, the area around their pc/laptop keyboards, or around their smartphones, etc. Anything that may take them away from that zone will make them uncomfortable and in general will be disliked by them.
That automatically makes clear a lot of things:
1- Making direct atmospheric observations may take them away from that comfort zone, that is one reason why in general they dislike that activity. But today these observations can be done from the comfort of your computer desktop if you have the proper equipment, as I do.
2- Any "activity" that can be done in their comfort zone will be given an "inflated" relevance like for example: the "analysis" of documents, or the "analysis" of sightings reports, the "exploration" of connections between ancient writings and possible ancient UFO sightings, etc.
3- Since they don't have a working knowledge of how to make serious atmospheric observations and because of that they don't have a proper experience, or "context", of how to interpret properly any sighting report they need extra "help" in trying to do that, so they need: tutorials of how to make a fake UFO footage, a "useful resource" for "experts"; they also need lists of blacklisted sites or YT channels where "bad" information is provided, etc.
4- They really do not know that is millions of times easier witnessing/recording an authentic UFO/Anomaly than actually faking one, for people like myself that only uses Avidemux and Windows Movie Maker, the best that we can do is cutting, pasting and make some brightness/contrast adjustments to the video footage. Many times that very simple video "processing" will take too much time and many valid anomalies recordings never are posted by lack of time.
The people that are actually making fake UFO videos had not really "discovered" that "simple" truth.
But we know that these fake videos have an specific target audience: the nuts and bolts UFO/ET believers, that is why you will never see a fake anomaly footage simply because people making these fake videos are looking for traffic and they know exactly what to do to get the believers attention. It is very well known that believers "hate" authentic anomalies footage.
So if you want the Ufology experts attention give them things that will keep them in their comfort zone, if you try to"force" them out of that zone them you will be persona non grata.
It is well known that the meaning of words depend on "context", it is also very well known that human perception depends on the knowledge and worldviews of the given person, we can say that that particular person knowledge and worldviews gives a "context" for his/her perception of any given event.
If we show to a non-trained person pictures or videos of microorganisms asking for some kind of "identification" we will receive back things like: geometric figures, monsters, even balloons(microorganisms with cilia). But a trained microbiologist will be able to give correct answers most of the time. The "context" of the a trained professional is different from the untrained one.
Now for anomalous autonomous flying objects, anomalies for short, it is exactly the same. For experienced observers the "context" with what anomalies are seen is different from the one used by any other person with no direct experience observing anomalies.
But the big difference between these two cases of microorganisms and anomalies is that inexperienced people in microorganisms usually do not try to delve into any kind of "identification" of pictures or footage of microorganisms but almost anybody think that by watching just a couple of videos with supposedlyanomalous objects they can make identifications or correct analysis of the anomalous nature or not of these objects. Simply they do not have the proper "context".
To be considered a trained microbiologist you need experience using the instruments needed to study microorganisms and observing these microorganisms, that can not be avoided.
To be considered an experienced observer of anomalies you need experience using instruments needed to be able to observe these anomalies in detail and directly observing anomalies, that experience provides a level of knowledge that can not obtained in any other way.
There are multiple examples of anomalies where only the "context" was the criteria to know that the given object was anomalous. For people without that context that conclusion very likely will be wrong, but their opinion is really irrelevant as will be their opinion about microorganisms if they are not trained microbiologists.
So armchair "experts" and "analysts" without a working experience making direct atmospheric observations with high optical magnification equipment stop talking and start making these observations, without that "context" any "evaluation" that you may do or you had done of any sighting reports had been meaningless. Very likely you had been rejecting many valid anomalous objects and we had seen that plenty of times.