We Should Have Some Theory By Now

originally posted by: standingwave
a reply to: dug88

I dont have a "conclusive" theory, but maybe a loosely held together one. It does go down the path of demonic entities. I see no good coming from what they are doing. This is subject to change though. I will however tell you everything I have experienced with these things. You can have all the info and put together your own ideas about what is going on.

These strange lights in the sky, the ones that imitate stars and other ember-orb types were really active about the time of my brothers death which before he died in a auto accident told me all sorts of things that made me think he was crazy. Now I just think he may have been abducted or had some sort of visions. But I no longer think he was crazy, but maybe didnt understand all he was trying to tell me.

I would actually like to hear your theory. I wasn't trying to be a dick about it. I am genuinely curious. I really have no idea what to think about these kinds of things myself. And honeatly enjoy hearing what kinds of things others think about them.

One of the problems is that there are too MANY, at the least plausible, explanations... it's gets difficult to find the truth... perhaps by design?

One thing many who've read the better evidence say is that there seems to be more than one thing being experienced.

Some see what looks like human tech, just too advanced from what we know in public discourse.

Some see amorphous blobs of plasma... that seem alive from some reports, and can interact on a mental level.

I've seen both.

Then there are the rarer, truly exotic reports that may indicate exotic life, or intelligence at least, from elsewhere.

The only thing I'd be comfortable saying is certain, though, is that unknowns are seen, and some seem to truly be unknown to the general population.

Speculation, though, is fun and will likely be the only way we stumble onto any truth of the matter, as it at least seems like a nearly incomprehensible secrecy covers the whole subject.

The idea that some instances are demons (or something similar, but lacking a modern nomenclature) does not appeal to me at a visceral level... it seems reactionary and cowardly. I admit that I don't have much else to refute it with, tho, and admit that intrusions and scare/shock tactics can at least seem "demonic" ... but what if such actions were necessary for survival, or something like that? Would that still be "demonic?"

a reply to: Ophiuchus 13

It's not that I never wondered why my encounter of the third kind happened in a place between life and death. It all develops in a place that is usually covered by "god", or spirituality.
But what I think is crucial about it is nobody really knows what a soul is. Much of it, once you are in the "flow" of that story your brain develops to deal with it, is conjecture and leaves room for a lot of interpretations but we fall usually for what we heard before. Even if it explains nothing but puts a nice label on it so we can pretend we understood something.
Like demons. What is that? Where does it live? Does it eat something?
It all happens on the periphery of your perception. You see it. That's not what I mean my first ziggzagging lights UFO I saw together with a friend on a mountain. It was there but we were both weird about it.
" Did you see that?"
"Yes", that's all we ever talked about with it. For me it set off a string of events that changed everything in my life including me, for my friend, nothing, just a curiousity. Why is this thing that develops so often in a "religious experience" just picking some and completely ignoring others?
Besides what my main point is even if you are going through any kind of encounter personally you never get enough of it to really say what it is. We have to assume it is on purpose.
But beyond that... all conjecture. Empty labels which make you feel you know something, but they don't really mean anything, like god, demon, alien,....

originally posted by: standingwave
There have been some really good opportunities for the best minds out there to come up with something on this UFO stuff. Locations like Skinwalker, Marley Woods, Hessdalen. These are re-occuring where test equipment has been set up and video has been taken for years. Some of the biggest names have been to all three from what I read. How much more data is needed to start putting together some sort of theory as to why they are here and acting in this manner?

Is the activity really just that random and meaningless that no one can get a grip on some kind of theory? So far all I have read is these entities are some sort of "tricksters". What does that mean? There has to be more to it.

Here's you answer, pure and simple:

ken
The noun ken means "range of vision or comprehension." If quantum mechanics is beyond your ken, you don't understand it, or it is beyond your scope of knowledge.

We are not evolved to the mental level needed to understand or comprehend the intelligence behind the phenomena. "They" would have to step down (similar to a transformer) to communicate with us. We cannot step up, we're primitive.

originally posted by: standingwave
There have been some really good opportunities for the best minds out there to come up with something on this UFO stuff. Locations like Skinwalker, Marley Woods, Hessdalen. These are re-occuring where test equipment has been set up and video has been taken for years. Some of the biggest names have been to all three from what I read. How much more data is needed to start putting together some sort of theory as to why they are here and acting in this manner?

Is the activity really just that random and meaningless that no one can get a grip on some kind of theory? So far all I have read is these entities are some sort of "tricksters". What does that mean? There has to be more to it.

Here's you answer, pure and simple:

ken
The noun ken means "range of vision or comprehension." If quantum mechanics is beyond your ken, you don't understand it, or it is beyond your scope of knowledge.

We are not evolved to the mental level needed to understand or comprehend the intelligence behind the phenomena. "They" would have to step down (similar to a transformer) to communicate with us. We cannot step up, we're primitive.

a reply to: Lathroper


So there is science behind "QC", but you would rather say that these events are completely from a living breathing being?
A feather falling in the wind will seem like it's alive, even though all it is was falling down through the wind. In your notion, the feather is alive as it falls.


It's just pieces of other dead realities floating through ours.
These dead realities were created from the collapse of two other realities, and the remaining mass formed our reality. During the collapse of the older realities, pockets of the reality that suffered the Vacuum collapse still exist in these bobbles of reality. A crude model of this was taking two pieces of plastic wrap and lay one on top of the other, then look at them. Those little bubbles in-between the sheets of plastic wrap are the pockets of the dead reality, the formation of the two sheets into one piece is our reality, and the act of you placing one piece of plastic wrap on top of the other is the vacuum collapse taking place in the older reality.


Strangely, this science can be scaled up indefinitely.

originally posted by: Guyfriday
a reply to: Lathroper


So there is science behind "QC", but you would rather say that these events are completely from a living breathing being?

Since your words are not mine, therefore you're not quoting me, you've misunderstood. My reply went above your ken.

a reply to: Lathroper

We are not evolved to the mental level needed to understand or comprehend the intelligence behind the phenomena. "They" would have to step down (similar to a transformer) to communicate with us. We cannot step up, we're primitive.

You're assigning the pronoun "They", which would indicate a living creature, and you're ascribing the notion that we can't understand what might be going on. My reply explains how this event can be happening, as well as give a crude example of what is going on through the use of a model.

Saying that it went over my head (or ken in your words), disregards scientific theory, and process of problem solving.

originally posted by: Guyfriday
a reply to: Lathroper

We are not evolved to the mental level needed to understand or comprehend the intelligence behind the phenomena. "They" would have to step down (similar to a transformer) to communicate with us. We cannot step up, we're primitive.

You're assigning the pronoun "They", which would indicate a living creature, and you're ascribing the notion that we can't understand what might be going on. My reply explains how this event can be happening, as well as give a crude example of what is going on through the use of a model.

Saying that it went over my head (or ken in your words), disregards scientific theory, and process of problem solving.

Nothing of the sort. There are strange, non-human "craft" flitting around the skies, no one knows anything about them and the popular theory is that they're piloted. Whoever may be piloting them, if they are being piloted, "they" are way above our ken and there is no way that presently anyone understands "their" mentality as our brains are not as developed as "theirs" may be. IOW, we are not as mentally developed to understand their reality.

a reply to: Lathroper


Wait, are you talking about areal phenomena, or are you talking about issues at the Skinwalker Ranch? Those are two different issues, that have two different answers.

originally posted by: Guyfriday
a reply to: Lathroper


Wait, are you talking about areal phenomena, or are you talking about issues at the Skinwalker Ranch? Those are two different issues, that have two different answers.

No they aren't and no they don't. UFOs are part of the Skinwalker ranch, a big issue that was first in reported phenomena in region starting in the '50s. And UFOs have allegedly landed on the ranch.

a reply to: Lathroper


They are two different issue. The Native Americans have reportedly avoided that area for generations due to the weirdness that happens there. The UFO thing could be real, or it could be myth, if I were to suppose it is true, then it doesn't lay outside the realm of possibilities that some alien race came here to look at the weird distortions that take place there.

If we are to assume that the UFO angle is the one true answer to the events that take place at the ranch, then we have to discount the generations of Native American reports.

a reply to: standingwave

Is the activity really just that random and meaningless that no one can get a grip on some kind of theory? So far all I have read is these entities are some sort of "tricksters". What does that mean? There has to be more to it.

Does there need be more to it?

Maybe that is it, and will be it for a very very long time from now. Till then, you can always watch politics and baseball, should keep people occupied for a few hundred thousands of years more. In fact that should be and could keep many people occupied for ages and ages to come.

Or maybe they are all tricksters, and you should never trust what tricksters say and or do. Especially when they do a disappearing trick.

But in this case since all these incidents and UFOs did and said nothing? Well, they cant be to good at being tricksters if there is no trick here. In fact no pictures of said magic trick either. Are we to believe a magician who's only trick is brought on by word of mouth only somebody who knew somebody said that his sisters cousin saw something?

Seems preposterous does it not?

Or maybe the trick is on a whole new level not very many are able to understand and grasp. What you got here is a real life bonnafide magic trick. One that has a very simple answer to it.

Kind of like this one. Sure its cute, but poor dog just wants a treat. Is it the left hand or the right hand? Or maybe...Its on the floor flicked behind the guy. So maybe your asking the wrong question. Or maybe you should never watch what the hands do, because there just a distraction.

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

Tricksters and magicians...inded they seem to be.
The "strange light" in the sky may well be a distraction from what the other hand is doing.

originally posted by: standingwave
What is special about it is I have first hand experience with the same thing. Fake stars.

How do you know they are "fake"? I'm guessing you have done the due diligence, and photographed them with the aim of identifying them? If so, care to post an image/your findings?

originally posted by: standingwave
The colors are the same. Another give away is they do not track the same as the rest of the stars. The ones I was dealing with not only would turn deep red, they would come down and cruise along the treeline.

Funny you should say that, since at mid-northern latitudes (roughly 45-55 N, which is where I'm guessing you are?), what you describe is exactly how Sirius (and other stars) would behave during the latter part of the year/early in the year, in the Northern hemisphere.

originally posted by: standingwave
Im not eager to write people off who have taken the time to video these things, as Im sure we all know that stars do scintillate, but the fake ones have a more pronounced color change, more like a strobe or blinking action.

Can you provide a trustworthy source (eg. educational establishment, astronomer/astronomical observatory) for the claim which I've bolded in your quote above? Or somewhere that says real stars can't produce very pronounced colour when scintillating? In my 20 years or so of observing/researching the night sky, it's the first I've heard of this as far as reliable sources go.

You do realize that how much colour change/blinking there is depends on a number of factors, but mainly on how much turbulence there is and the presence of temperature gradients, so the strength of the effect (and colours) can vary greatly depending on your observing conditions?

originally posted by: standingwave
Throw in differing movement from the rest of the stars and you have yourself a fake star, or "pseudo-star" as Harley Rutledge might have said.

"Differing movement"? What software/images you took are you using which confirms this "differing movement" of stars, or are you not? If not, then how do you know that there is "differing movement"?

I get the impression the subject of UFOs/"fake stars" means a lot to you. Would that be fair to say?

originally posted by: FireballStorm

originally posted by: standingwave
What is special about it is I have first hand experience with the same thing. Fake stars.

How do you know they are "fake"? I'm guessing you have done the due diligence, and photographed them with the aim of identifying them? If so, care to post an image/your findings?
snip
I get the impression the subject of UFOs/"fake stars" means a lot to you. Would that be fair to say?

I need to jump in and address "fake stars". It may not be that standingwave is really saying fake stars. Using my example he may be saying "UFOs disguised as stars" which do not shimmer. But to the naked eyes, they are points of lights that trick some minds into identifying the points of light, 'cause they're seen in the heavens, without a knowledge of basic astronomy.

My example: resting on a lounge at the building's darkened pool (North Hollywood, L.A.), I scanned the heavens with my 7-15X zoom binoculars. 3 vertical "stars", equally spaced, caught my attention but that's a common view so I started to look away. But before I moved my eyes too far, the top star took off at a high rate of speed towards San Diego. Surprised, a second or two later the middle star followed suit, then the 3rd or bottom "star". I had just had the sighting of a lifetime.

a reply to: dug88

I honestly dont know what to think at this time. That is why I am searching for more input.

originally posted by: Lathroper

originally posted by: standingwave
There have been some really good opportunities for the best minds out there to come up with something on this UFO stuff. Locations like Skinwalker, Marley Woods, Hessdalen. These are re-occuring where test equipment has been set up and video has been taken for years. Some of the biggest names have been to all three from what I read. How much more data is needed to start putting together some sort of theory as to why they are here and acting in this manner?

Is the activity really just that random and meaningless that no one can get a grip on some kind of theory? So far all I have read is these entities are some sort of "tricksters". What does that mean? There has to be more to it.

Here's you answer, pure and simple:

ken
The noun ken means "range of vision or comprehension." If quantum mechanics is beyond your ken, you don't understand it, or it is beyond your scope of knowledge.

We are not evolved to the mental level needed to understand or comprehend the intelligence behind the phenomena. "They" would have to step down (similar to a transformer) to communicate with us. We cannot step up, we're primitive.

Quite possibly the truth. Therefore any searching would be in vain.

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird
a reply to: standingwave

Is the activity really just that random and meaningless that no one can get a grip on some kind of theory? So far all I have read is these entities are some sort of "tricksters". What does that mean? There has to be more to it.

Does there need be more to it?

Maybe that is it, and will be it for a very very long time from now. Till then, you can always watch politics and baseball, should keep people occupied for a few hundred thousands of years more. In fact that should be and could keep many people occupied for ages and ages to come.

Or maybe they are all tricksters, and you should never trust what tricksters say and or do. Especially when they do a disappearing trick.

But in this case since all these incidents and UFOs did and said nothing? Well, they cant be to good at being tricksters if there is no trick here. In fact no pictures of said magic trick either. Are we to believe a magician who's only trick is brought on by word of mouth only somebody who knew somebody said that his sisters cousin saw something?

Seems preposterous does it not?

Or maybe the trick is on a whole new level not very many are able to understand and grasp. What you got here is a real life bonnafide magic trick. One that has a very simple answer to it.

Kind of like this one. Sure its cute, but poor dog just wants a treat. Is it the left hand or the right hand? Or maybe...Its on the floor flicked behind the guy. So maybe your asking the wrong question. Or maybe you should never watch what the hands do, because there just a distraction.

I do like to find the solution to a good trick.

originally posted by: FireballStorm

originally posted by: standingwave
What is special about it is I have first hand experience with the same thing. Fake stars.

How do you know they are "fake"? I'm guessing you have done the due diligence, and photographed them with the aim of identifying them? If so, care to post an image/your findings?

originally posted by: standingwave
The colors are the same. Another give away is they do not track the same as the rest of the stars. The ones I was dealing with not only would turn deep red, they would come down and cruise along the treeline.

Funny you should say that, since at mid-northern latitudes (roughly 45-55 N, which is where I'm guessing you are?), what you describe is exactly how Sirius (and other stars) would behave during the latter part of the year/early in the year, in the Northern hemisphere.

originally posted by: standingwave
Im not eager to write people off who have taken the time to video these things, as Im sure we all know that stars do scintillate, but the fake ones have a more pronounced color change, more like a strobe or blinking action.

Can you provide a trustworthy source (eg. educational establishment, astronomer/astronomical observatory) for the claim which I've bolded in your quote above? Or somewhere that says real stars can't produce very pronounced colour when scintillating? In my 20 years or so of observing/researching the night sky, it's the first I've heard of this as far as reliable sources go.

You do realize that how much colour change/blinking there is depends on a number of factors, but mainly on how much turbulence there is and the presence of temperature gradients, so the strength of the effect (and colours) can vary greatly depending on your observing conditions?

originally posted by: standingwave
Throw in differing movement from the rest of the stars and you have yourself a fake star, or "pseudo-star" as Harley Rutledge might have said.

"Differing movement"? What software/images you took are you using which confirms this "differing movement" of stars, or are you not? If not, then how do you know that there is "differing movement"?

I get the impression the subject of UFOs/"fake stars" means a lot to you. Would that be fair to say?

Several things , not just the scintillation, give away an imitation. Although that seems to draw attention to them the most. When you combine that with being in a location in the sky where there is usually nothing to see, and also the fact they can take off moving around, stop, then start strobing again, it is kind of a dead giveaway.

I refer you to this man: en.wikipedia.org...

And his book, if you can find one reasonably priced:
www.amazon.com...

When you see what I described above with your own eyes, there really is nothing else left to prove that they are in fact real. Of course I wouldnt have believed it myself had I not seen it.

Sorry I do not have footage or scientific data, this happened back in the 80's early 90's and I did not have the means to document it , although I feel confident I could search out and find this phenomena again, I prefer not to.