|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Lowls
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 19
1
« on: June 11, 2024, 17:32 »
....
I'm afraid you'll have to forgive me but Wikipedia has been provably corrupted with false information and tactical omissions in an organised campaign by Susan Gerbic and her gorilla skeptics group. Who have behaved in an unethical way and have already been investigated prior to this latest scandle. Wikipedia was always a hit and miss affair but now anything of a paranormal or ufo nature within Wiki has been damaged beyond repair. This has been quite a public issue I'm surprised you've not come across it. She and her cohorts have committed a terrible act and they have hurt ufo history and the skeptical fraternity alike. ....
the 2 links i showed weren't from Wikipedia . i didnt know about the incidents you mentioned as i rarely use wiki since i agree it too often unreliable (it is useful for details on sports {eg rules of cricket}, specific historical events such as battles, overviews of architectural styles, etc)
wiki does get it right when they've listed my early online multiplayer games https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sniper!_(video_game)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitman:_SniperOne of my favourite games. But if we are talking favourites it has to be Myst for me. I completed it in 4 days with my younger brother. It was a beautifully built game with puzzles and code breaking in jaw dropping landscapes. Regarding genetic anomalies in humans like Nina I knew a guy many years ago that couod stick anything up to the weight of a spoon on his face. We were talking one day and he just mentioned it. I said BS so he took my lightet and just pushed it to his cheak and it stuck. He did it with several things. He showed it to a Dr and they believed he has a specilal skin that was able to grip more readly than normal skin. I did watch an interview with a gentleman who was part of the experiments regarding special powers and remote viewing research. He said that there were some promising results but what he found astonishing was that some of the people they researched were capable of seeing infra red and ultraviolet spectrums of light quite clearly. That most subjects were normal but the odd one now and then could see in other spectrums. I can see auras lol. Well specifically what I can see is when I hold my hand up against a grey sky I can see a fringe round my fingers or someone's head or hand. Not chromatic aberration. This fringe is about an inch around things. It wickers like a flame. A friend at school asked what was I doing holding up my hand looking at it and this drew attention. I said what is that fringe like a glow and no one else said they could see it. And once a few years ago an old man wearing a flat cap and a trench coat was hobbling along and he crossed the road in front of me. Nothing unusual but as he crossed there was a ... I guess a billowing brown cloud that he left behind and it trailed away from him. Like someone smoking but it came from his whole body. He wasn't smoking that I could see and it was a brown fog. No idea what I saw and ive never seen anything like it before or since. For some reason I assumed it meant he was dying but obviously it could be a few things. Dust on his coat even though it was in a city. Don't know. I wonder what will come along in tye UAP world next. Hopefully something brutally blatant so we can just get one with learning.
2
« on: June 10, 2024, 16:32 »
...
btw, no one has been able to demonstrate telekinesis under controlled conditions
It is much better to chat than battle. Ahhhhh now Steven - telekinesis has been shown under controlled circumstances but were they rigorous enough. Certainly at the time but by tidays standards 🤔 or skeptics 🤨. I'll avoid Randi he was an insufferable clot and he was also disingenuous and was not very rigorous. There was also a whiff he refused to pay up and moved the goal posts.
...
you'll be surprised to know Randi was one of my heroes - along with the foundation that publishes Skeptical Inquirer to which i've subscribed since the late 70s. many of their articles are free to all https://skepticalinquirer.org/volume/no-3-vol-48/ It's been an ongoing master class in critical thinking on any subject
Nobody ever claimed Randi’s prize because no one ever demonstrated paranormal powers under the testing protocols. (That they agreed to.)
Randi never claimed to be a scientist he was a magician who used his knowledge of magic to expose faith healers & other quacks - detailing how they performed their tricks "The only difference between magic and astrology or feng shiu et al is that magicians tell you up front that they'll trick you"
regarding Nina, i went on a brief googe ramble again:
Some people and groups, like the James Randi Educational Foundation and the Italian Committee for the Investigation of Claims on the Paranormal (CICAP), doubt claims about psychokinesis. Massimo Polidoro believes that the experiments with Kulagina had long preparation times and uncontrolled settings, like hotel rooms, which made it easy for tricks to happen. Magicians and skeptics think Kulagina’s abilities could be done by someone skilled in sleight of hand, using things like hidden threads, small pieces of magnetic metal, or mirrors. They also suggest that during the Cold War, the Soviet Union might have had reasons to fake or exaggerate results for propaganda purposes, similar to the Space Race or arms race.
https://www.unrevealedfiles.com/nina-kulagina-woman-with-ability-to-move-objects-using-mind/
and from Martin gardner whose column in Scientifc American first led me to SI:
These criticisms appear to be mainly based on assertions by career sceptic Martin Gardner in works criticizing parapsychology and paranormal claims. Gardner describes Kulagina as ‘a pretty, plump, dark-eyed little charlatan who took the stage name of Ninel because it is Lenin spelled backward … and is pure showbiz’. He further states that ‘Soviet establishment psychologists caught her cheating using techniques familiar to all magicians’. This relates to remarks in a separate article on ‘demo-optical perception’, in which he reports an early demonstration by Kulagina of eyeless sight, as reported by the Leningrad newspaper Smena (16 January 1664) at the Psychoneurological Institute in the Lenin-Kirovsk district. In this demonstration Kulagina is said to have, while blindfolded, ‘read from a magazine and performed other sensational feats’. Gardner attributes such successes to the inability of a simple blindfold to prevent seeing, and argues that no test that does not encase the entire head in a covering is adquate. He further quotes from another research institute in Leningrad in which she was given tasks under two conditions, one in which lax controls would allow her to peek and the other in which peeking would be impossible. ‘Phenomenal ability’ was shown in the first condition, but none at all in the second, from which it was inferred that the claim was an ‘ordinary hoax’.
Gardner quotes a New York Times story of 21 May 1968 that 'Ninel, now using the pseudonymn of Nelya Mikhailova, had been caught again. She was found employing concealed magnets to fool ‘Soviet scientists and newsmen into thinking she possessed the ability to move objects by staring at them .'.
https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/ninel-kulagina
that was more than 50 years ago - what evidence of the paranormal has been verified since then? at least w UFO there is a (very slight) chance there are extraterrestrials.. claims of the paranormal would require major changes to the laws of physics
That's interesting but there are a few errors. She was tested many many times by a lot of scientists both military and civilian. She was also watched over by a master magician to try and catch her out. She herself was not a magician but a soldier where the claim that her story was for propaganda persposes. That's said she was later accused of being a fake and despite her failing health decided to once again perform her abilities to deny the claims from the Russian newspaper. A legal case was launched and all the scientific data which was extensive was handed over to the courts. She didn't just get tested in a hotel room so although that is reported she was extensively tested for years by various scientific institutions and claimed over a hundred scientists. She eventually finished her legal case against the newspaper and the court in a landmark decision due to the weight of evidence and scientific witnesses and the magician all testifying on her behalf - when all the evidence was re-examined the court awarded her the case and forced the newspaper to retract their deplorable claims which included that she wasn't even in the military despite the fact that she was in fact a very good soldier who saved many lives. I'm afraid you'll have to forgive me but Wikipedia has been provably corrupted with false information and tactical omissions in an organised campaign by Susan Gerbic and her gorilla skeptics group. Who have behaved in an unethical way and have already been investigated prior to this latest scandle. Wikipedia was always a hit and miss affair but now anything of a paranormal or ufo nature within Wiki has been damaged beyond repair. This has been quite a public issue I'm surprised you've not come across it. She and her cohorts have committed a terrible act and they have hurt ufo history and the skeptical fraternity alike. I'm guessing you didn't watch the video either? It details Ninas history including the accusations very neutrally but it also reports the list of those organisations that investigated her claims. I used to love James Randi and I loved how he caught Uri Geller but he was a terrible egoist as time went on and he wasn't objective from that moment on. He became smug and superior and mocking and these qualities are not how one should objectively investigate cases. He was clearly biased. So he lost me. I remember watching a doc on utube exposing him or about a scandle he was part of. If I find it ill edit the link in.
3
« on: June 10, 2024, 00:14 »
My thinking does not make it so. Nope it doesn't but it doesn't hurt to explore the concept. More and more the rumours that uap were able to be partially controlled with thought which can already be done thanks to Elon but it was around long before. So I'm curious as to how that discovery was made if true. What type of person ignorred dogma that its impossible to just do it.
Why do I waste my time. One my ask you the same question. Why ifnits such a load of old whaledreck I post- do you constantly go out of your way to Google the information, come back here, and in a detailed long post go through each comment to correct my rambling thoughts. It's a bit odd because youde think you could ignore it like I ignore Karen's losing their crap on utube. It doesn't occur to me to go and look up laws to post a tomb of accuracy to teach them. But the information you posted was interesting thank you. .,.
...
thanks for taking the time to discuss, while we'll still disagree.
when i respond it's mostly because i know the answer but do a quick google search (listing source if useful) rather than post misinformation. the internet is plagued by false info, so its my tiny contribution to accuracy
btw, no one has been able to demonstrate telekinesis under controlled conditions
It is much better to chat than battle. Ahhhhh now Steven - telekinesis has been shown under controlled circumstances but were they rigorous enough. Certainly at the time but by tidays standards 🤔 or skeptics 🤨. I'll avoid Randi he was an insufferable clot and he was also disingenuous and was not very rigorous. There was also a whiff he refused to pay up and moved the goal posts.
Famously - well in our circles - Nina Kulagina. Was extensively tested and died in I think 1990. https://youtu.be/1cr_BS1TrRo?feature=shared
1.
A very reliable source Youtube video. In your circles, the facts don't matter. Grow Up!
🤔 Thank you for being rude that allows me to respond in kind. I didn't ask for your opinion of me, you chose to give it. I am grown up. Clearly you were so eager to mash your moronic claws into the keyboard and pass on your detailed response you didn't have chance to watch the video. That was spectacularly idiotic. If only you had. Oh well.
4
« on: June 09, 2024, 14:44 »
My thinking does not make it so. Nope it doesn't but it doesn't hurt to explore the concept. More and more the rumours that uap were able to be partially controlled with thought which can already be done thanks to Elon but it was around long before. So I'm curious as to how that discovery was made if true. What type of person ignorred dogma that its impossible to just do it.
Why do I waste my time. One my ask you the same question. Why ifnits such a load of old whaledreck I post- do you constantly go out of your way to Google the information, come back here, and in a detailed long post go through each comment to correct my rambling thoughts. It's a bit odd because youde think you could ignore it like I ignore Karen's losing their crap on utube. It doesn't occur to me to go and look up laws to post a tomb of accuracy to teach them. But the information you posted was interesting thank you. .,.
...
thanks for taking the time to discuss, while we'll still disagree.
when i respond it's mostly because i know the answer but do a quick google search (listing source if useful) rather than post misinformation. the internet is plagued by false info, so its my tiny contribution to accuracy
btw, no one has been able to demonstrate telekinesis under controlled conditions
It is much better to chat than battle. Ahhhhh now Steven - telekinesis has been shown under controlled circumstances but were they rigorous enough. Certainly at the time but by tidays standards 🤔 or skeptics 🤨. I'll avoid Randi he was an insufferable clot and he was also disingenuous and was not very rigorous. There was also a whiff he refused to pay up and moved the goal posts. Famously - well in our circles - Nina Kulagina. Was extensively tested and died in I think 1990. https://youtu.be/1cr_BS1TrRo?feature=shared1.
5
« on: June 08, 2024, 17:14 »
...
Thought. Thought travels faster than light. Shine a light from the highest mountain to a ship at see and measure how fast the light got there. But your thoughts can take you there instantly. Memory can take you back in time. You can't seem to effect the past but how would we know. If time is changed in the past and changed events collapse foreward would we jave a memory of the past or a new memory of the past. ...
whaledreck! you're confusing the physical with the mental - thought relies on transport among neurons which are significantly below the speed of light! if i think about the moon am i walking on it? recalling the past is not time travel
besides the nit-picking fact that it is impossible to 'Shine a light from the highest mountain to a ship at see ' unless you think the earth is flat. i've been among the highest mountains & i confirm the absence of sightings of oil tankers
I never said the highest mountain on Earth.
your exact words were " Shine a light from the highest mountain to a ship "
Does it take you to these places physically? I don't think so. Never the less our consciousness does travel to an impression we have of these places and memories certainly do allow you to travel back in time. That's a form of time travel in strict terms.
Now think of a landscape on Mars. Did you manage that in under three minutes. Faster than light steven as stated even in physiological terms.
nonsense - thought is not travel except in a metaphorical sense - and though t does not occur faster than light - it's a physical process bound by the same physical rules; measured in milliseconds.
it's not a quibble - you jumped into a to a discussion of actual travel at lightspeed, not metaphor. we have no actual example of travel faster than light - under our current knowledge it is impossible - BUT unlike UFO-cultists, real scientists are always open to new information
But it isnt nonsense. And it isnt a metaphor. I think neutrinos travel faster than light no? Sure I read that somewhere 🤔 maybe not.
So is it a travel mentally or a bit more? I think there is a bit more to it. When we dream we experience the locational experiences as physical experiences. To our minds an bodies these things are real events. Shaking. Crying. Screaming. Wetting the bed. Fear, love and happiness. You can say they are simulations (never mind what causes them or their function), but are they or does a part of our consciousness extend beyond our physical bodies to those locations or realities where these events play out.
your thinking doesn't make it so - why do you waste our time in what was a serious conversation with your rambling 'thoughts'
NO neutrinos do not travel F TL - which took only a simple google search to find out a preliminary CERN report was disproven & the world stopped shaking.
and physical responses to dreams are not the same as being in a different location - do you get wet when it rains in your dreams? do you get blisters when you hike in a dream?
Time travel forwards in time is possible but by cheating and playing semantics. Earthbound you age faster than someone on the space station (5 minutes older per week is it, or month) something like that. But those on earth experience nothing and the event is only perceived from the perspective of those on the space station...
again, have you heard of google? you're off by 3 orders of magnitude just for the number - and it's SIX months
"Astronauts on the ISS experience both weaker gravity and higher velocity, resulting in slightly slower ageing compared to people on Earth. The European Space Agency (ESA) explained in a tweet that “after spending six months on the ISS, astronauts have aged about 0.005 seconds less than the rest of us.”
and that's measured by those of us on earth who do the measurement and experience the time change
Memories are just captured photons like photographs. Stored and can be revisited and suddenly memories of the event trigger more information and enlarge the memory. So you do return in your mind to re-experience those events. And in fact I'm able to remember in detail the photo being taken even though I didn't even know I went to a location until I was shown the photo after many years....
wrong again - you're describing a medieval concept of vision - there is no homunculus in the brain's theater,, photons cannot be 'stored' and in fact what we perceive as a view is actually processed in different parts of the brain - this takes more than a simple google search but the info is there for those who are interested in real science.
Now what is travelling back in time? Is it returning mentally and being able to illicit a physical experience which in turn create new memories which change the original memory by remembering more so that my perception of the world around me is very different but you experience nothing. Or do you want but to be all Tardis and scarfs darling
no it's not ' returning mentally' - you can't make up your own definitions like Humpty Dumpty
Huh cool. Yes you do get blisters in your sleep if you walk and your teeth can fall put, you fly, etc ... but physical things don't appear to remain on your body when you wake up but emotional states do. I said the highest mountain and after I typed that and pressed submit I began googling the answers, screen grabbed them ready for what I assumed would be you, rapidly posting objections lol. So I already had responses the day before you posted. I'm not gonna call you predictable but ya know ... only having fun. Wow the space station time frame was a memory recalled from a programme from years ago. I wasn't off time wise but the information was incorrect then. I'm afraid that as I get older the many things learned and remembered are now disproven and better science has been done to correct past errors. I've lived that part of my life I don't particularly want to drag myself through that entire part again looking up everything to edit useless factoids so I am better prepared on a forum in the arse end of the Internet. Happy to be corrected by those who enjoy that more. Its conversational learning from each others areas of enjoyment but missing a beer. You need to stop taking things so literally because you won't win any medals here. Stored memories are light we have seen so does it matter the mechanism, conversationally? My thinking does not make it so. Nope it doesn't but it doesn't hurt to explore the concept. More and more the rumours that uap were able to be partially controlled with thought which can already be done thanks to Elon but it was around long before. So I'm curious as to how that discovery was made if true. What type of person ignorred dogma that its impossible to just do it. Why do I waste my time. One my ask you the same question. Why ifnits such a load of old whaledreck I post- do you constantly go out of your way to Google the information, come back here, and in a detailed long post go through each comment to correct my rambling thoughts. It's a bit odd because youde think you could ignore it like I ignore Karen's losing their crap on utube. It doesn't occur to me to go and look up laws to post a tomb of accuracy to teach them. But the information you posted was interesting thank you. Frodo 🤣- no but when you read a book you build the landscapes and characters. You construct their entire face, height, hair colour and voice and mannerisms. Yes the writer does create some of these aspects for you but you do most of it and almost instantly. Then you have memories of being one of the characters that you most associated with. These memories are as real as those you experience in real life. Only being rigid means one is real and the other fantasy. What I mean is obviously one is real and the other is fantasy but what if your perception. of both can have an effect on the reality you move through. Because people do take on traits from characters in books they enjoy. They might be more kind. Be braver. Try to swing on a Web etc. Does the fact that these are from a book make them any leas real. God for instance. So I wonder if our rigidness to dogmatic science is now actually a small cave with only one way in and out. What's interesting is that I experienced an event. An event so stupid that I actually missed it and my other half witnessed it happening to us. Had they said nothing I would have never known anything had happened. But they did and now everything has changed. Thanks Steve.
6
« on: June 08, 2024, 13:50 »
...
Thought. Thought travels faster than light. Shine a light from the highest mountain to a ship at see and measure how fast the light got there. But your thoughts can take you there instantly. Memory can take you back in time. You can't seem to effect the past but how would we know. If time is changed in the past and changed events collapse foreward would we jave a memory of the past or a new memory of the past. ...
whaledreck! you're confusing the physical with the mental - thought relies on transport among neurons which are significantly below the speed of light! if i think about the moon am i walking on it? recalling the past is not time travel
besides the nit-picking fact that it is impossible to 'Shine a light from the highest mountain to a ship at see ' unless you think the earth is flat. i've been among the highest mountains & i confirm the absence of sightings of oil tankers
I never said the highest mountain on Earth.
your exact words were " Shine a light from the highest mountain to a ship "
Does it take you to these places physically? I don't think so. Never the less our consciousness does travel to an impression we have of these places and memories certainly do allow you to travel back in time. That's a form of time travel in strict terms.
Now think of a landscape on Mars. Did you manage that in under three minutes. Faster than light steven as stated even in physiological terms.
nonsense - thought is not travel except in a metaphorical sense - and though t does not occur faster than light - it's a physical process bound by the same physical rules; measured in milliseconds.
it's not a quibble - you jumped into a to a discussion of actual travel at lightspeed, not metaphor. we have no actual example of travel faster than light - under our current knowledge it is impossible - BUT unlike UFO-cultists, real scientists are always open to new information
But it isnt nonsense. And it isnt a metaphor. I think neutrinos travel faster than light no? Sure I read that somewhere 🤔 maybe not. So is it a travel mentally or a bit more? I think there is a bit more to it. When we dream we experience the locational experiences as physical experiences. To our minds an bodies these things are real events. Shaking. Crying. Screaming. Wetting the bed. Fear, love and happiness. You can say they are simulations (never mind what causes them or their function), but are they or does a part of our consciousness extend beyond our physical bodies to those locations or realities where these events play out. Time travel forwards in time is possible but by cheating and playing semantics. Earthbound you age faster than someone on the space station (5 minutes older per week is it, or month) something like that. But those on earth experience nothing and the event is only perceived from the perspective of those on the space station. From our perspective rive we left them in the past. But it isnt really travelling it's more like sitting on a side line as events play out and you join back in. Memories are just captured photons like photographs. Stored and can be revisited and suddenly memories of the event trigger more information and enlarge the memory. So you do return in your mind to re-experience those events. And in fact I'm able to remember in detail the photo being taken even though I didn't even know I went to a location until I was shown the photo after many years. I can expand it and replay events leading up to it. Smells, sounds, the mood, who was there. What the texture of that shirt was or bedding. Every surface I can remember what it felt like. Even the temperature that day. When this happens or when I do that I'm not aware of my surroundings and am fully there. It's an odd sensation that I only realised I did this past 3 months or so. This isn't like a memory. but much more vivid. Now what is travelling back in time? Is it returning mentally and being able to illicit a physical experience which in turn create new memories which change the original memory by remembering more so that my perception of the world around me is very different but you experience nothing. Or do you want but to be all Tardis and scarfs darling 😆. I think perhaps time travel might not be what we think it should be but rather a perception shift of events that may mean my time line bifocates and I drag an unaware copy of the world with me. In this world you in theory wouldn't die. You would continue about your business and one day a car runs you over... You survive and your perception is that you survived but you travel on with your world copy in a new branch but the one you left behind mourns your death.
7
« on: June 07, 2024, 16:33 »
...
Thought. Thought travels faster than light. Shine a light from the highest mountain to a ship at see and measure how fast the light got there. But your thoughts can take you there instantly. Memory can take you back in time. You can't seem to effect the past but how would we know. If time is changed in the past and changed events collapse foreward would we jave a memory of the past or a new memory of the past. ...
whaledreck! you're confusing the physical with the mental - thought relies on transport among neurons which are significantly below the speed of light! if i think about the moon am i walking on it? recalling the past is not time travel
besides the nit-picking fact that it is impossible to 'Shine a light from the highest mountain to a ship at see ' unless you think the earth is flat. i've been among the highest mountains & i confirm the absence of sightings of oil tankers
I never said the highest mountain on Earth. Not very imaginative of you lol. Besides you're confusing physiological with well whatever you're confusing it with Steven. Does it take you to these places physically? I don't think so. Never the less our consciousness does travel to an impression we have of these places and memories certainly do allow you to travel back in time. That's a form of time travel in strict terms. Now think of a landscape on Mars. Did you manage that in under three minutes. Faster than light steven as stated even in physiological terms.
8
« on: June 07, 2024, 05:08 »
Since a warp drive is unfortunatly impossible, aliens would have to travel at sublight speed, so it would take them more than 26,000 years to cover the distance.
Now, this is the Himalayas of arrogance or ignorance. Random dude on a microstock forum declaring what is possible and what not in the Universe and the wider reality.
Random dude has some knowledge of physics.
People dealing with the subject matter professionally think otherwise:
https://www.uni-goettingen.de/en/3240.html?id=6192
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20240506270015/en/New-Study-Achieves-Breakthrough-in-Warp-Drive-Design
First ot the second link: If you read this carefully, you will notice that ths is about a hypothetical drive that shares some common principles with the warp drive from Star Trek, but works only at velocities below the speed of light:
"The team introduced the concept of a "constant-velocity subluminal warp drive" aligned with the principles of relativity. "
Therefor, I would say that warp drive is a misnomer here, because usually warp speed is considered to be a speed greater than the speed of light. In any case, it does not solve the problem to cover large distances during space travel in a reasonable time.
To the second link: This guy claims to have found some loophole in Einsteins field equations that enable travel at speed greater than the speed of light. As this goes totally against the whole point of relativity, you will forgive me, if I remain sceptical.
I think, one of the reasons that physists deal with this kind of speculations is that theoretical physics seems to have reached a bit of a dead end.
String theory is still unproven, we are no closer to solving the mystery of dark matter than we were 20 years ago and we have still no idea how to develop a quantum theory of gravitation.
Therefore, quite a few theoretical phyisists are desperate enough to develop more fancyful theories and make outlandish claims. Even if it comes to nothing in the end, it is still a possibility to get yourself a name.
Thought. Thought travels faster than light. Shine a light from the highest mountain to a ship at see and measure how fast the light got there. But your thoughts can take you there instantly. Memory can take you back in time. You can't seem to effect the past but how would we know. If time is changed in the past and changed events collapse foreward would we jave a memory of the past or a new memory of the past. Or if you believe in branch theory does the new branch carry your changes and you remain in the present having seemingly changed nothing. But because Thought has no mass it can move anywhere instantaneously. Can we use that ability somehow or do we already know how and do it already but can't prove we do. How much do you know ow about time travel. If you're really heavily up on it I'd like to ask question.
9
« on: June 07, 2024, 04:44 »
Play a larger role in the government-wide effort to understand UAP, using an evidence-based approach rooted in science AARO already did this and found broadly speaking "nothing to see here. He was specifically selected because he is a scientist. You've offered AAROs report part 1 as proof of your opinion as fact manifested. This is false. Kirkpatrick refuses to release the data for peer review even within the ICIG. Further he is now working for one of the very companies which were part of his investigations which is not permitted by federal law for a period of I think 2 years (could be shorter), but he walked straight into it. He also retains an unpaid consultancy within AARO. This isn't science but it is extremely inappropriate and is being addressed by congressional means. You would have known that if you refrained from generalising.
Utilise its existing Earth observation tools, such as satellites, to investigate whether there are environmental conditions associated with UAP
This is already done. As Christopher Mellon explained "there is 4k satelite footage which is not classified showing very clearly a vehicle which isn't ours and he doesn't know why it hasn't been released but he sees no reason including national security reasons, why it can be released to the public"
Enhance collaborations with the private US space industry, which offer powerful constellations of satellites, to look out for UAPs so we are less reliant on grainy camera footage for potential sightings
Well do you want an app that you can submit data via or don't know you're going to have to stop killing your own children here. Again already done but Lockhead wanted to pass it on and extricate themselves from this research in order to expedite quicker back engineering. The CIA said no. Laws were drafted to assist Lockhead Martin and Honeywell (schumer rounds) Mike J & Co said no. This is the problem. You wave it around like proof but you're killing your own baby again. It's proof that Congress has lost control of the agencies it governs. Which unfortunately means that a democracy tier system is just for show. What should happen. is that the President steps in and overrides these people with executive orders with zero restraint and with the full weight of his office grabs the agencies by the throat and a lot of people get sacked. But he can't take steps without stumbling over his own feet, it's an election year, and this can't happen without a bloodbath which undermines the whole government facade. So it will rely on the likes of Danny Sheehan and David Grusch to come at it from another angle. Which takes precious time, small leaks to help push things along and hope enough leaks that the President is deferred to. Sheehan will expose it, allowing the president the power and dignity to come in and save the day. But UAP won't be the only dirty secret that's under that rock and Biden has his own filthy secrets under there too. Bit of a messy situation all round.
Consider how AI and machine learning can be leveraged to help detect UAP and gather more data around sightings
Already happening through various sources.
Improve public engagement, perhaps by looking into the development of a smartphone app to gather imaging data from citizen observers
This is why it's just not possible to debate Peter on this subject. Doesn't learn, accept or research but does proclaim. Falsely. I don't care about ad hominem arm waving it is a very silly statement and is a weak argument. The information Peter has is outdated and rather simplistic and that is attacking the issue which is Peter proving he isn't up to speed. This already exists. It's existed for decades and is only being enhanced by A.I. but the organisation known as Enigma Labs has more information that can be researched and unfortunately I fear there is an impending scandle regarding their organisation that hints at this being a more sophisticated Blue Book 3. Time will tell. But Peter proves that the wider public has made their mind up and will use all their poorly researched energy to defend that decision or opinion.
Better leverage the existing reporting system for commercial pilots who believe they have witnessed a UAP
Already exists. Laws passed requiring reporting of UAP in fact pretty much world wide. America als has Americans for Safe Aerospace where they will take reports from pilots and collate the information and provide legal frameworks to support those reporting. In fact because AARO became so unreliable Ryan Grave of AFSA who also count David Fraver among their organisation have been surprised by the extreme uptick in contact from pilots. Phillips who now runs AARO has rumoured to be deferring to Kirkpatrick already and Gullibrand has also defended AARO.
What they said couldn't happen is happening- that crap is being pushed back up into that horse. The last three hopes are
1. Sheehan blowing it up. He has the explosives and the trigger but will he push the button.
2. A leaker goes full tonto like Snowdon and dumps it out there. Very likely.
3. Another country does it and gets it over with. Mexico is looking likely but also rumours are China is also a possibility or Japan. Maybe Brazil because they're getting concerned.
But we are way beyond Grusch now and have been since April. The issue isn't are we alone (we arent), the issue isn't are they coming here (they're here) the issue isn't why (who cares) the issue is that the existence of aliens isn't worrying anyone and that should worry us all. Hints and comments that I've been catching are that it's the least of our worries and that the issue is any attempt to engage these beings can be stopped before it was even attempted. Zero success rate will be the outcome. Not due to superior fire power but because they know how to go back and kill Hitler. So we'll take our lumps and move on. That's why apparently- everyone is backing off and moving on. Stand up to it and bye bye. How true that is, is probably BS on a grand scale. 😆 🤣 Ok then.
10
« on: June 07, 2024, 03:45 »
An intelligent gathering of data from reliable sources and means. Why are you against that?
What are you talking about???!!! Of course, I am for gathering of reliable data!!! You're building your strawman again and burning it???
The Pentagon released 3 cases with sensor data in 2017. But it was admitted that it was just the tip of an iceberg. They had many more truly unexplained cases that were not released. "Truly unexplained" means military experts tended to rule out prosaic explanations.
Grusch's accusations have no evidence behind them. He knows someone who says something, he claims to have been told, but he can't say who or what.
That statement is factually, extensively false and poorly made. Any mention of 'bokeh' regarding the triangle in the night vision video is false, inaccurate and poorly researched. If you refer to Mick West you aren't going to win that debate.
11
« on: May 22, 2024, 02:39 »
Constantly. Click on the link and it hangs and barely loads. However if you're using a vpn changing countries for a faster can work on other sites to stop the hanging but it doesn't work on this site.
12
« on: April 22, 2024, 18:18 »
Last post to bring this to a close.
Blackvault is a repository for freedom requests and responses. Sean Kirkpatrick it transpires used signal (like whatsapp) for speaking about David Grusch to Chris Mellon. Soon Sean did so in an official capacity so the signal messages have been logged and can be FOIR'd
But he has doubled down and has been running around basically saying things that aren't accurate. So Chris Mellon was quite surprised that his conversation was recorded by Kirkpatrick and came out via twitter.
Clearly Chris Mellon is done with the secrecy any more so decided to post his own signal messages. And it's done. So the purpose of this thread has been achieved. Enjoy.
13
« on: April 17, 2024, 00:37 »
Yes AI should get paid less for each image. And this will happen anyway. Already it cannot be copywritten.
But A.I. is not photography. At best it is digital artwork and the creator isn't buying a paint brush and paints and using talent to create a painting. Just typing a sentence and pressing go.
And the legal cases that are coming regarding A.I. are going to be rather painful. So yeah real photography should get more simply because it's called "Stock Photography". Selling A.i. images isn't anything but the work of an algorithm. I can see the A.i. owners suddenly appropriating all of your digital imagery as their property.
14
« on: April 15, 2024, 16:23 »
I think society is not being told a lot. I see this in the example of Ukraine. There is zero information about Ukraine on US TV channels. But in Ukraine there is war and genocide. The same can be said about UFOs and aliens. The media of mass disinformation simply do not talk about it and everyone thinks that it means none of this. It's simple. This is a massive deception of the masses through the media.
Less than 0.1% of the population, or 1 in 1,000 people, has been diagnosed with gender dysphoria. We read about the people with a psychological disorder and the other alphabet people, making the news as they force their personal choice issues on us. You brought up something more important to the world, where an entire country is being taken over, at war, people dying. Genocide, civilians murdered, the Russian government lying on a daily basis. UFOs and aliens are not news or important, they are just sensational stories to sell tabloids or fantasy books.
Our gender is not debatable, labeled as assigned at birth, it is our genetics. We don't get to pick, based on some emotion or psychological disorder. People being murdered in the Ukraine is more important. If you don't see enough honest news, you aren't looking in the right places. If you are depending on news that comes out of Russia, of course it's all lies and coverup. The rest of the world is showing us the truth.
The moderators on this forum chose to remove certain posts and leave the slur "Alphabet People".
I will not debate this subject further.
However I also cannot prevent others doing so with a moderation team who feel it appropriate to allow such slurs to remain. Of course that means your unpleasant statements are in the public domain where your customers exist who will of course contain "Alphabet People". Good luck with that.
You have no problem calling anyone who disagrees with you a racist and a bigot. When someone disagrees you want them censored, to block their free opinion and thoughts. When anyone disagrees with your nutty UFO and alien crap, you come out slinging personal attacks and ignoring the facts that don't fit. Maybe it's you who should be blocked because of your unpleasant statements. You don't get to trample my thought and free speech with your close minded woke agenda, that doesn't allow anyone saying any different than what you believe.
The moderation team lets you get away with lies and personal attacks, why should they be censoring a word or phrase that defines the many fringe groups?
quoted.
16
« on: April 15, 2024, 01:56 »
I think society is not being told a lot. I see this in the example of Ukraine. There is zero information about Ukraine on US TV channels. But in Ukraine there is war and genocide. The same can be said about UFOs and aliens. The media of mass disinformation simply do not talk about it and everyone thinks that it means none of this. It's simple. This is a massive deception of the masses through the media.
Less than 0.1% of the population, or 1 in 1,000 people, has been diagnosed with gender dysphoria. We read about the people with a psychological disorder and the other alphabet people, making the news as they force their personal choice issues on us. You brought up something more important to the world, where an entire country is being taken over, at war, people dying. Genocide, civilians murdered, the Russian government lying on a daily basis. UFOs and aliens are not news or important, they are just sensational stories to sell tabloids or fantasy books.
Our gender is not debatable, labeled as assigned at birth, it is our genetics. We don't get to pick, based on some emotion or psychological disorder. People being murdered in the Ukraine is more important. If you don't see enough honest news, you aren't looking in the right places. If you are depending on news that comes out of Russia, of course it's all lies and coverup. The rest of the world is showing us the truth.
The moderators on this forum chose to remove certain posts and leave the slur "Alphabet People". I will not debate this subject further. However I also cannot prevent others doing so with a moderation team who feel it appropriate to allow such slurs to remain. Of course that means your unpleasant statements are in the public domain where your customers exist who will of course contain "Alphabet People". Good luck with that.
17
« on: April 11, 2024, 18:21 »
18
« on: April 11, 2024, 18:19 »
Space aliens are a minority group? Pete was right, you have no sense of humor and can't recognize a joke.
it is illegal to be LGBT in 64 UN member States. In Brunei, Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, the death penalty is imposed across the county. That's a point of humour for you? Not something youde say to my face.
19
« on: April 11, 2024, 05:33 »
UAP are real, they just aren't aliens.
Who are they? 
That's a politically correct term for non-gender, non-racial, unidentified objects, which are as a collection, "they". Otherwise the answer might be, people see something but IT isn't aliens? 
wow
It would take a sense of humor to understand the politically correct language and current gender terms police. We aren't males or female anymore, the PC crowd wants us to be called "They". And since we don't know what gender aliens might be, we'd probably want to call them "It" instead of they? Or maybe that's rude and the unknown life forms are they and not it? 
First problem is, no one has proof that "they" exist, or that "they" are visiting us, lights in the sky are not they, lights are an IT. As in It Came From Outer Space
Beware of the giant eyeball alien in the mine.
Anyone think any of this sounds familiar and like modern alien stories? Crashed ship, in the desert, 1953, Arizona, abductions... "Putnam finally discovers the spaceship and learns from the alien leader that they crashed on Earth by accident; the aliens appear benign and only plan to stay on Earth just long enough to repair their damaged craft and then continue on their voyage. The aliens' real appearance, when finally revealed to Putnam, is entirely non-human: they are large, single-eyed, almost jellyfish-like beings that seem to glide across the ground, leaving a glistening trail that soon vanishes. They are also able to shape shift into human form in order to appear human and move around Sand Rock, unobserved, in order to collect their much needed repair materials. To do this, they copy the human forms of the local townspeople that they have abducted. In doing so, however, they fail to reproduce the townspeople's exact personalities, leading to suspicion and eventually to the deaths of two of the aliens. "
There was no intention on the part of the poster to imply a gender issue. No you took it upon your self to turn it into that because of "the politically correct language and current gender terms police. We aren't males or female anymore, the PC crowd wants us to be called "They". You bigot, nothing of the sort is happening in the slightest. A political movement decided to neutralise pronouns to strengthen weakening equality based on gender and gender pay gaps, rights a freedoms on a global setting. This then seeped over and into other areas of society and was taken up by various minority groups and lumped in the LGBTQ+ blah blah gang as a way of thwarting discriminatory legislation. A noble cause given that it is illegal to be LGBT in 64 UN member States. In Brunei, Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, the death penalty is imposed across the county.
The latest was Uganda last year who cried in the streets with joy that a god that was forced violently on them by missionaries was now saved by this new law.
Whilst attempting to enforce the pronoun "they" is imo a nonsese when speaking to an individual I do respect their right to identify as non gender if they wish. And contrary to the popular trope that there are only two genders there are three and has been for as long as there have been humans and is increasing. Male, female and intersex formally hermaphrodite. Which is often quoted as rare but is anything but. It is however a minority classification and isn't a fixed percentage yet they do carry both reproductive organs, internally and externally to varying degrees as well as variations from the XX and XY formats as well as wide ranging hormone levels as do we all. Finally this was a thread about UAP and it should NOT stray from that and into your personal feelings regarding that or for that matter any minority group in a derogatory tone again, mocking or otherwise.
20
« on: April 11, 2024, 05:32 »
I think society is not being told a lot. I see this in the example of Ukraine. There is zero information about Ukraine on US TV channels. But in Ukraine there is war and genocide. The same can be said about UFOs and aliens. The media of mass disinformation simply do not talk about it and everyone thinks that it means none of this. It's simple. This is a massive deception of the masses through the media.
I'm not sure now without looking but prior to the end of the year there were riots in Russia protesting the war, riots on France protesting the proposed increase in state pension age pushing many out of its payment window and into retired poverty, riots in Greece, riots in Spain and Germany and Turkey. There have been protests in Hong Kong too. So there are a LOT of public outcomes to the feral leaderships dragging each country into poverty, discrimination, removal of freedoms, heavy taxation and wars. And yet major news channels report on Princess Kate and Harry and Megan. It is shambolic bought and paid for radio silence across news platforms. I've only followed these things via other social media. But we are on the brink of something quite significantly bad and these feral governments are being aged out by technology and social media and the speed with which information is making it out there. Is this process being used to hush up UAP - categorically fact. Will there be a so called catastrophic disclosure. I hope so but I am surprised it hasn't happened already and some of the main players who would are saying things like "yeah but could the human race cope with such a disclosure given what could be revealed as the outcome" and "what if by revealing what is happening it pushes forward a schedule that we are just not ready to defend ourselves against but by revealing it, it forces that schedule to rapidly speed up" Clearly those people know or have been told much more detail and are backing off. So it is weirdly hanging there ready to pop but it hasn't. And that doesn't seem very good.
21
« on: April 06, 2024, 10:16 »
22
« on: April 06, 2024, 10:07 »
23
« on: March 30, 2024, 05:02 »
One of my pasttimes is to go to book shops and flick through the first page after the cover to see where the image was taken.
I do see plenty of SS image used on covers (as well as Getty, less so AS), but it's usually as some part of composite with another image or more from the larger and more artistic agencies, Arcangel/Trevillion.
I don't think any serious publisher would use a SS or microstock image on its own knowing full well a competitor or even random business could start using it on let's say a toothpaste ad (or much worse) thus diminishing its uniqueness.
So, I think for a simple image it's OK to be paid little even for a book cover as it may not be strong enough to be used on its own. Plus it's RF subs and probably already sold 100s of times anyway (and buyers know this).
I find it difficult to justify it that way.
With an extended license, e.g. for print, the degree of commercial use is usually higher.
You have to distinguisch between an use for some random news / blog article as a gap filler or an use for print like a book cover.
A good book cover contributes significantly to a higher revenue amount, the commercial use aspect is much higher.
The same applies to print on demand stuff like t-shirts, etc.
So 10 cents are just extremely ridicilous low because the buyer will earn for sure thousand times more.
Ideally the extendend license would guarantee that the image is not used hundred of times but only the one buyer owns all rights.
The main problem is that no one is tracking the copyrights or the use restrictions (just like a half million prints, lol!), so such agencies just sell everything for some cents.
I agree that the licensing terms are too broad and vague for micros RF. Once we upload our images to microstock it's almost impossible then to track the usages and go after infrigement. The cost outweights any potential benefit except for a few rare cases.
We don't have to upload our images to these micros, there's always the option of going Alamy RM exclusive, that way we get a nice report everytime there is a usage and a clear procedure to go through to tackle infrigements (where the contributor can also earn from claims).
I'm happy at Arcangel as I know that the minimum I'll earn from a book cover is $75 net and as high as 4 figures. Once there is a sale I receive a report with type of license, the book title and author.
Archangel were a fail for me. It was a little difficult to understand what they wanted you to send them. In one part of the process they asked for 20 images to be sent and then in another they asked for 10. I decided to leave it for that time and although book covers would be very much my wheelhouse I preferred doing what I was doing. But I could easily churn out book covers and to demand given criteria to follow. Personally I find that process quite easy. However last year I thought because personal circumstances had changed, that I would try harder to understand what Archangel wanted. And entry has changed. They just want your link to your portfolio now. Easier to understand. So I sent them the link and received a curt thanks but no thanks. Odd because a good chunk of my port look very book coverlike. But no idea who or what looks at the portfolio link. I just wasn't for them. It's a strange world ms. I have one photo that sells over and over to the same company as well as elsewhere. I assume they must use a limited license (not actually sure) but when we had the map it showed the same location each time. Its hilarious because its an item that isn't at all what they use it for on their website. Not even close and doesn't look like it at all but they keep purchasing it and they use it to sell their product.
24
« on: March 30, 2024, 04:52 »
Congratulations on getting $1.88. I once got paid 10 cents for an image that ended up on a classical music CD cover. Furthermore, it was an image that was classified as editorial, because it had IP content. Understandably, I was very unhappy about this and contacted SS complaining that an editorial image had been used for commercial purposes. They politely told me to sling my hook.
The legal decision whether an image is Editorial or can be used as commercial is up to the buyer.
A STANDARD IMAGE LICENSE grants you the right to use Images:
Printed in physical form as part of product packaging and labeling, letterhead and business cards, point of sale advertising, CD and DVD cover art, or in the advertising and copy of tangible media, including magazines, newspapers, and books provided no Image is reproduced more than 500,000 times in the aggregate
https://www.shutterstock.com/license
Alright, stupid question, but nevertheless, here I go.: what is considered as reproduction of an image. Less than 500.000 prints seems plausible. But what about views on webshops like Amazon? Every time someone sees your image (web page gets loaded) it's a reproduction? Every time a webshop adds the book it's a reproduction? More or less the same question for newspapers or magazines. Everytime someone reads the online article it's a "reproduction"?
Views are not printed impressions. But no surprise how the limitations have gone out the window and instead of 50,000 like the early years, it's 500,000 which is nearly impossible to reach in normal commercial use.
I still say, nice sale Lowls at least for bragging rights and someone appreciating your work, and if it was me, I wouldn't buy the book, but I'd try to find it on sale at a bookstore and take a photo of that. I have many book covers, and I don't own any of them, plus I've never seen one on sale anyplace except Amazon. Somewhere I sold a double wide, center image, double truck, for a magazine, and since it's just listed as sold, and where, I wonder who bought that one?
Just a slight correction. The law states it is a reproduction. A downloadable reproduction as it happens. Annoyingly.
25
« on: March 25, 2024, 05:09 »
Here are the facts.
A newly published government report states that not only is there no proof of any secret effort by the U.S. government to cooperate with aliens or research alien technology, there is no proof that UFO sightings are the result of extraterrestrial visitations to Earth. The “Report on the Historical Record of U.S. Government Involvement with Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP),” written by the All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office, denies all claims regarding the U.S. government and UFOs, stating that they are the result of decreased public trust in government, the prevalence of UFOs in public culture, and unnecessary government secrecy.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a60165911/pentagon-ufo-report/
Incorrect. The report was written by Sean Kirkpatrick and Sean Kirpatrick has lied demonstrably. He states that the narrative has been led by a core of ufologists who have deveieved Congress for its own ends. This is not true. Danny Sheehan represents 45 whistle blowers who contacted AARO and gave evidence under extremely unscientific and non-evidentiary conditions (phone interview with no recordings made of the interview just notes taken by a interviewer). These interviews produced no further investigation of the details given. This has also been revealed. Sean Kirkpatrick called some organisations within the ICIG framework and asked if they had anything and he was told no. This concluded his investigations. To post what you have and hold it up as evidence is frankly hilarious, disingenuous, and patently wrong. It is widely known across the ICIG, Congress and the wider inteliegence world and ufology that the report is only good for wiping your arse with. That's not a hope, a belief, a claim or anything else. It is factually, provably incorrect containing demonstrably false statements. It was late, it was rushed and it has a get out of jail free clause that states " if any of the information contained here is incorrect we reserve the right to amend it at a future date". Claims that UFOlogists attempted to break into Kirkpatricks home and caused great alarm have been debunked and were fact checked to show that 'a' ufologist knocked at his door to speak to him. You should research more and stop posting biased, contextually incorrect statements which are anything but "the facts" You can claim otherwise if you wish and call Danny Sheehan a liar publicly ...
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 19
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
