posted by RRRGroup at
Wednesday, February 02, 2011
It really is something, eh?
By Frank Stalter, at Wednesday, February 02, 2011
Indeed, Frank, and rather exciting.RR
By RRRGroup, at Wednesday, February 02, 2011
http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/widget.cfmKeep track of the latestplanet discoveries on yourdesktop!
Off topic, but I'm curious about the Iconoclast(s)' thoughts on the recent "UFO" over Jerusalem. For my part, I think it's an impressive video: multiple recorded views from disparate witnesses of something that doesn't seem to conform well to terrestrial technology. For these same reasons, I find CGI manipulation to be unlikely as well. I'm usually a hard-ass when it comes to UFO videos, but this stands among the few that have really captured my imagination.This doesn't mean a well-coordinated hoax is afoot. But I'm not certain it's the FIRST explanation I would reach for.Now, I want to know what this esteemed conglomeration of UFO aficionados thinks. Do you have any explanations for what has been recorded? THIS is the observable I've spoken about in other comments. I can only hope that rational, well-equipped men and women are on the scene investigating this mystery before it becomes more fodder for academic discussions from armchair experts. Of these, we have many. Answers? Not so much.
By Cullan Hudson, at Thursday, February 03, 2011
Cullan:I was able to view the videos via the Anomalist link.But the issue gets mucked up by UFO Disclosure's rants about secret agents covering up or distorting the videos with voice- overs and the insertion of a hoaxed video.From what I saw, I wasn't overly impressed by the video(s) or the alleged UFO.What do others think?RR
By RRRGroup, at Thursday, February 03, 2011
This has the best video I have seen. You can note a couple of things: It's not actually over the temple itself, but rather to the side. And that the flash is only seen in 2 of the 3 videos, and seems to emanate from one side of the object.http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3386430/UFO-mystery-over-holy-Jerusalem.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FFfUuM21P4It really wouldn't be all that difficult to fake. We don't have, as far as I know, independent witnesses who didn't just happen to be videoing the site at the right time in the middle of the night.
By Frank Stalter, at Friday, February 04, 2011
Paul Kimball thinks they're fakes, as he states at Cullan Hudson's "Strange State" blog.And as an astute film-maker he should know.Regardless, the videos intrigue, fake or not, as Cullan sees it,mostly because of the disinterest in the things from a research standpoint.Ufology doesn't give a damn, which points to the sad state of UFO investigation nowadays.RR
By RRRGroup, at Friday, February 04, 2011
Part 1 of 2:Oh, Cullan. Citing the British tabloid, "The Sun"? That yellow rag is very well known as a quite disreputable source for hoaxed UFO photos and fabricated UFO stories. And Rich? Saying "...the videos intrigue, fake or not, as Cullan sees it, mostly because of the disinterest in the things from a research standpoint."Ufology doesn't give a damn, which points to the sad state of UFO investigation nowadays."Are you kidding? There are so many ufo websites right now noting the "Temple Mount" UFO videos (all four of 'em) as obvious fakes, hoaxes, and fraud that I have to ask if you've tried to Google around, as I have, to see what's being said, and the digital tools being employed to show very clearly just how these fakes were done, before you beat up good old "ufology" (yeah, I know you hate the term, but how exactly do you define it, and what do you hate about it?) once again. I mean, ...really?! Now you got my dander up. Maybe it's my gander. I'll have to ask that goose over there. Ahem.I and other "old geezers" posted to UpDates a day or two ago about these videos being hoaxes, and no one who's serious, and able to discriminate the obvious, supports these videos as genuine UFO recordings of any kind. The damn foreground is masked using digital editing software, moves independently of the background, which has a false, static horizon with the CGI "UFO" superimposed on it, there are self-evident problems with a complete lack of real parallax, etc., etc. This has nothing to do with "ufology" per se, and all you need to do to confirm what I've said here is to check out the plethora of even semi-objective UFO sites that show just how absurdly fake these "Jerusalem UFO" or "Dome of the Rock UFO" videos are by combining those terms above with the words fake or hoax via Google. I'd like to see just exactly how you think "ufology" has failed to investigate, in view of the vast majority of evidence showing otherwise. I'm reminded of parallel esoteric areas of interest and research, such as ghosts, bigfoot, and psychic phenomena. There's the charlatans, exploiters, and delusional fakers, and then there are the genuine and sincere grounded folk who have the honesty and acumen, credentials, objective chops to do good research. The tow should not be confused, nor the former used to smear and mis-catagorize the latter. This is Logic 101, IMHO.Of course, there are also a bunch of supposedly legit UFO websites and blogs who simply posted the videos, expressed excited hyperbole, and the subsequent comment threads have drawn out the nutty fundamentalists and credulous believers, but what else is not new? Welcome to the human circus, with all its variables. Just avoid that alley over there where they have the freak show, OK? That is where the dreams and nightmares of delusion and insidious frauds reside. We all have a choice as to which path, or alley, we opt to walk down, right?
By steve sawyer, at Friday, February 04, 2011
Part 2 of 2:Real ufology and serious UFO researchers do indeed give a good goddamn, and both say so and show the evidence. Don't allow your cynicism to get caught up in the side-show aspects of this field of endeavor. Just ignore it, as it ain't going away--in fact it's gotten worse, with the internet and social networking and computers because it's now so much easier to do effectively and spread the bad memes out to the credulous consumer market. People love sensationalism, and hoaxes. Why do you think tabloids outsell mainstream newspapers like the NY Times and Washington Post? Because there's a willing, gullible, sucker born every nano-second, and they eat this crap up with a salad spoon with dubious croutons on top. This relates to what is called "Sturgeon's Law," about how 90% of everything could be considered crap, depending on one's point of view. And I think that is at least part of the problem--perspective, ideology, confirmation bias, and point of view. In the UFO scene, the percentage has been determined to be 5% higher, I have on good authority. Concentrate on what's really most exciting and intriguing--the remaining 5%!!My sermon for today is over. You may bless the sacrament. Oh, and don't forget to tip your waiter.Now, let's get back to the topic of this post, the over 1000 new exo-planets Kepler has detected. I will note none are both Earth sized and in the "Goldilocks" zone of not too hot or cold. Of course, this new announcement of Kepler's success is only after 3 months of online operation. There's still over three years left in Kepler's mission to observe 156,000 stars rather intently, which is only 1/400th of the night sky that could be surveyed eventually by successor satellite-borne telescope systems. The next 10 to 20 years of such real science is very exciting, as I think we will not only find Earth size and type planets in Goldilocks zones, but will also within the next decade or two employ spectrographic tools of such exquisite sensitivity that we will also detect signs of organic life in the gaseous ratios of such in their atmospheres. Only, they'll be hundreds and thousands of light years away, most likely. Time to recursively self-leverage via bio-genetic engineering the human species to create beyond Darwinian evolutionary acceleration in order to gain the posthuman intelligence required to invent warp drives to just... go there and see who or what we need to find. Only, by giving technological rise to our own species successor, we will no longer be human. Hopefully, we will be better than human.
Steve:I think I get a little crazy with the “ufology” epithet because of my bouts with graphology back in college.I did a paper, Handwriting Analysis as a Diagnostic Tool (in Psychotherapy), which got encomiums from the Psychology department.But it was also saddled with the bad feelings that graphology (as a generic “discipline”) and Bunker’s “Graphoanalysis” had generated among psychiatrists and therapists because of the quacks who were spouting “facts” based on handwriting that were totally bogus.This is how I see ufology too, a “discipline” of sorts that requires no education or training, and is filled with quacks of all kinds as you know, with only a few serious researchers.So I should be less wrathful I suppose but it’s hard to be lamb-like amongst a brood of crazy foxes.That aside, you are always the perennial optimist, and would do well to get your hands on Lecomte du Nouy’s Human Destiny, which is not as materialistic as Darwin’s evolution hypotheses, but follows the methodology for the spiritual realm of humanity.The book is right up your alley…And I agree the Jerusalem videos have gotten much play by UFO hobbyists – there I go again! – but not to the point of destroying the thrusts of believers who think the videos are real and portentous.The case against the validity of the videos is all over the place, with no central, respected repository where sensible persons can find rational analysis of the videos.That’s my beef with ufology – it hasn’t formed itself into a respected discipline with a respected venue.UFO UpDates and we too open the door to every conjecture and comment no matter how loony, just to fill our blogs and web-sites with material that makes it seem we are relevant.I’m done rating (for now) – it’s a Starbucks frappuccino that’s gotten me riled up.RR
Just a side note on the Dome of the Rock footage pieces: There's no contact with any of the shooters, nor has any raw footage or direct dubs been forthcoming. That already puts it in suspicious waters.They look suspiciously like bad camera matched CGI composites, especially the one where were have a man in front of a wall - when you stabilize the horizon, the foreground is bouncing all over the place while the horizon stays still. Like the 1997 Mexico City daylight disc footage, the camera match to the CG components is inaccurately done.Never mind that the flash looks conspicuously like an After-Effects flash, and there is no reflected light on the surroundings whatsoever (foreground nor cityscape, nor lens flare of any kind).
By JR, at Friday, February 04, 2011
RR wrote: "The case against the validity of the videos is all over the place, with no central, respected repository where sensible persons can find rational analysis of the videos."Sensible persons wouldn't bother. And next? There are a million more videos lined up behind it. Probably an underestimate. Welcome to virtuality, folks."Lecomte du Nouy’s Human Destiny...follows the methodology for the spiritual realm of humanity."The spiritual is just the beta of virtual.Regards,Don
By Sourcerer, at Friday, February 04, 2011
Don:This is Friday, not metaphorical Monday.RR
Forgot to include this in my post. To see the lightened, and stabilized video that illustrates the poor camera matching see this:http://tinyurl.com/4uz84tbThere is also audio issues, available there, as well as a reconstruction of the scene using a table and wall that illustrates more.
Thanks for the links JR.This should help those who want to get at the truth of things.RR
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i19AA3d8fcYet another angle. This one has me scratching my head. Looks very authentic.
A very Freudian clip, Frank.Thanks?RR
By RRRGroup, at Saturday, February 05, 2011
As we have digressed from new planets and got onto UFO videos, I wonder what point there is in submitting photographic evidence for UFOs any more. Why does anyone accept such evidence now?It was useful in the early days, but now...? Look at all that camcorder stuff from Mexico in the 1990s, especially that one (allegedly) over Mexico City in 1997. Computer graphics software, easy-to-do fakery and such are available to virtually anyone who has the slightest interest in UFOs or photography. I believe we have reached the stage where it is up to the producer of such videos, films etc to demonstrate their pics are genuine. It is no longer up to skeptics to prove them false. What I am saying is that photographic evidence of any kind is useless now, unless it is corroborated in detail by a number of proven independent witnesses to the same sighting. What we need is the real goods, the real hardware. Nothing less will do. Does anyone think otherwise?
By cda, at Saturday, February 05, 2011
CDA:You are absolutely right: videos of UFOs (and photographs) can so easily be faked, that they don't, prima facie, prove anything.If the Trent's could fake a UFO (McMinnville) photo in 1951, how much more easily is it to do the same in 2001, with all the tech advances extant?There has to be another approach to determining what UFOs are (or indicate).RR
I wouldn't believe scientists or politicians if they offered hard evidence. How would I determine its "hardness"? I'd have to believe them. I'd have to take it on faith. If it is not now possible it soon will be to produce real fakes (including videos).It is up to the alien to reveal itself. Until then, enjoy the show.Regards,Don
By Sourcerer, at Saturday, February 05, 2011
It's nice to see what many of us have known all along to be true. Unfortunately, the more we learn, and the more discoveries we make that legitimize the likelihood of intelligent life outside of Earth, the more likely we'll see an increase of people looking to profit.
By Perry, at Sunday, February 06, 2011
Perry, as you note at your site, there are a lot of buffoons and charlatans in the UFO world, greedy for fortune and/or 15 minutes of fame.RR
By RRRGroup, at Sunday, February 06, 2011
Post a Comment
A group of media guys
View my complete profile