Post has attachment
Like Alchemy before Chemistry.

The people doing active atmospheric observations have been inspired and continue to be inspired by the great men of science. These men of science had teach us not to take on faith anything that is claimed by any "expert", they have teach us not to accept as rock solid "common sense" or "common wisdom", many great discoveries have been done by questioning what was accepted for almost the totality of humanity.

That constant inquiry is at the core of the scientific thinking. Actually history teach us that as a rule in questions of science the majority is almost always wrong, that is one of the reasons why science is not done by "democratic" means.  

Now any person with not preconceived ideas when presented with the "problem" of the reality of anomalies is faced with a dichotomy: 

1- On one side that person will find that some people like Gabriela Decall of Argentina, with keen observational skills and armed with a digital camera, she had video captured amazing objects(https://www.youtube.com/user/GabyDecall/videos), with extraordinary mental clarity and pure curiosity she had documented many anomalies, using just a digital camera that you can get for less than $50 in Ebay. 

2- On the other hand that person with no preconceptions, will have the "scientific community/experts/analysts" with "cutting edge" scientific methods, this scientific community is claiming that there is not such a thing, that these anomalies are "mirages", "camera artifacts", "balloons", "plastic bags trapped in thermal air currents", etc.  

But this person with no preconceived ideas, will go to other places and will realize that there is an amazing consistency on many of the video footage presented by active observers like Gabriela Decall, this person then will realize that there is something real behind these recordings. Then the only thing that this person with not preconceived ideas is left to do is just to try and verify by himself what all these people around the world are reporting, that is what I did and that is what I am reporting here.

I had learned a lot since I started doing active observations almost two years ago and I have validated/confirmed many of the recordings done by people like Gabriela Decall and they have done that using just naked eye observations, by using now infrared in a dual optical system their observations can be systematized, but in essence is a confirmation of what they already have been recording for years using just digital cameras and naked eye spotting, what they have done is really amazing and they have been dismissed/ignored for years.

Many of these same anomalies were reported by Trevor J Constable in the 1950's, I learned that well after I already had watched many of the same anomalies that he had already described, so a cycle of rediscovery have been going on since the 1950's where people starting active atmospheric observations rediscover the same things over and over.  

There have been little systematization, zero classification of anomalies, many misconceptions and myths are common, just like Alchemy before Chemistry. 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85807-the-reality-of-atmosphericnear-space-anomalies/page-2#entry829738

Humans had lost their hunter's perception.

Living in society creates a buffer between humans and nature that with time had been degrading the natural faculties that made posible humans to survive in the wild, one of these faculties is the intuitive ability to identify when something is autonomous/alive. The pervasive incapacity of almost anybody to perceive anomalies could be linked to that degrading of human perceptive abilities.

Your instruments define your views.

It is really curious that by asking anybody making observations just what are the instruments that they regularly use you can imply with high level of confidence the views of that person in this area of interest.

If the person mostly use night vision equipment at night then that person will be a hardcore UFO believer.

If the person also uses some low magnification equipment in daylight then that person still will be unaware of anomalies and will be also a believer most likely.

The higher the magnification used the closer and closer that the person will be more "prepared" to accept anomalies.

But on the other extreme of people that do not make any observations and only "talk" as the so called Ufologists and their army of believers that overwhelmingly dominate the online UFO sites then they will be hardcore UFO believers.

So we have like a "scale" that goes from zero instruments to better and better instruments and in close correlation to that scale we have people views/opinions.

Obviously this has some exceptions for people that closely follows the observations made by others etc. But in general is a very good approximation to what is out there.

People will always recognize an independent "voice".

The existence of a few channels, perhaps only two, out there in this area of interest that openly reject Traditional Views and still are increasing their subscriber base clearly shows that there are people that can recognize an independent opinion that do not follow the "flow" that anybody else is following.

This subscriber base that is not bounded by the very old and narrow expectations and preconceptions give these channels an independence back that will be impossible to get in any other way.

Going against the flow is always "socially painful" but that always is the price to pay for going against "mainstream" , consensus works very well in politics but not in science or reality.

Preconceptions/beliefs are also filters for learning.

We had seen how preconceptions and beliefs are filters for perception but also they are filters that block the acquisition of "new" knowledge and we had seen that multiple times.

Usually direct observations of reality are a way to learn new facts or ideas, science like biology is a perfect example of that learning process.

But if you make observations with preconceived ideas of what you will find you will never discover new things and you will never make the right connections because you explicitly or implicitly assumed that you already knew what was going to be observed.

We had seen that lack of learning with people insisting in "cloaking" or in people unable to realize that the dynamic character of anomalies geometry makes any particular shape not more relevant than any other.

But as in many other mistakes preconceptions/assumptions/beliefs are the root cause over and over again. It is just amazing to see the same mistakes made in a recurrent way and people falling in the same trap multiple times.

Post has attachment
Message being sent to Marine Biologists.

Subject: Dynamic camouflage is being observed regularly on atmospheric organism-like autonomous objects.

Dear Dr. X.

We recently learned of work done on dynamic camouflage by marine biologists on some cephalopods and the existence of the "mimic octopus", this is really very fortunate to us because it shows that what we had been observing in some autonomous living-like objects in the atmosphere already exist on some underwater organisms. Marine biologists studying dynamic camouflage on cephalopods are ideally trained to "perceive" the reality of morphing anomalies.

These autonomous objects in the atmosphere, that we had called Anomalies for short, exhibit exactly the same kind of dynamic camouflage seen in the mimic octopus for example.

These anomalies many times had been observed doing rapid shape shifting, mimicking ordinary looking objects that usually are seen in the lower atmosphere like balloons or flying debris. Before knowing of the existence of animals using dynamic camouflage explaining the reality of morphing anomalies had been extremely difficult. Perception as you already had noted is a critical element when observing sophisticated camouflage.

Even more the reality of these marvelous living animals also shows that more sophisticated and dynamic camouflage is harder to uncover and perceive, and Anomalies are a manifestation of that higher level of camouflage that is harder to perceive. Amazingly people studying camouflage had also noted the relevance of perception, something that we also had noted. 

We had been observing regularly these anomalies in daylight for more than three years now using telescopes mounted in custom basis to be able to track these objects.

These are some examples of recordings showing Anomalies mimicry in action: Just be aware that usually these anomalies were spotted using infrared cameras to bypass the sky scattering of visible light in daylight and the closeups were taken with a relatively high magnification telescope, as marine biologists already know and many divers looking for octopus keenly know when observing sophisticated camouflage attention to details are critical, a "keen/sharp eye/perception" is needed.

- Dynamic camouflage in Anomaly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4fAxDyQ2vE

- Anomaly morphing into digits: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpEM1wLUvOQ

- String Anomaly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PN__nFHOMc 

- Anomaly mimicking a "balloon": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_ig4218xjI

The validation of these observations by independent observers should be relatively easy to do as similar objects are being observed regularly around the world.

Many times new phenomena/species had been observed/spotted first by people outside academia: the mimic octopus was spotted first by Indonesian fishermen, the lighting sprites were reported many times by pilots, rocks falling from the sky(meteorites) also were reported by people. In some of these cases these reports were received with disdain and dismissed actively as the case with meteorites by the great French scientist Lavoisier.

This appear to be a discovery/phenomena of very high importance compounded by the fact that some anomalies respond to direct signals by flaring and sometimes by changing their geometry.

We are the equivalent of the Indonesian fishermen reporting a new kind of octopus, or a better analogy will be that we are the equivalent of the people reporting rocks falling from the sky(meteorites) just because the reports on these marvelous objects in the atmosphere had been received so far with the same kind of irrationality, lack of perspective and disdain that Lavoisier received reports of the reality of meteorites. History many times repeat itself over and over again.

Just as a disclaimer this do not have to do with anything related to UFOs, we take these studies very seriously and we use a very strict objective approach to this subject.

Thanks for your time and serious consideration.


Post has attachment
Dynamic camouflage in Biology a Key element.

It is really a breakthrough in Anomalies Studies the knowledge of existence in living animals of Dynamic camouflage.

Before the reality of objects with dynamic geometry mimicking normal looking objects was very shocking to many, but now any presentation of morphing anomalies can be preceded by introducing sequences of octopus showing Dynamic camouflage, morphing.

The reality of these marvelous living animals also shows that more sophisticated and dynamic camouflage is harder to uncover and perceive, and Anomalies are a manifestation of that higher level of camouflage that is harder to perceive. Amazingly people studying camouflage had also noted the relevance of perception, something that we also had noticed.

As a way to stress the "connection" I created a new playlist with the title: "Dynamic camouflage, morphing in Biology" and added it to my channel homepage.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLbzV9MUgJjV_FAQNwx3SYDsR38qBa9lTl&v=oDvvVOlyaLI

Post has attachment
Dynamic camouflage video, at mark 0:45 the morphing done by an octopus is simply amazing. The reality of animals with dynamic camouflage actually takes away uniqueness from morphing anomalies, morphing anomalies are now not that "extraordinary" since living animals are doing exactly the same, this reality also is another blow to people that jump to the "extraterrestrial" idea when they see something weird or hard to explain:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDvvVOlyaLI

Post has attachment
Camouflage is used extensively in the animal kingdom as a defense or predatory mechanism, and some underwater animals had been documented scientifically to be able to morph/shape shift almost instantaneously, exactly as some Anomalies, as for example the "mimic octopus":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-LTWFnGmeg

Objectivity vs Subjectivity.

Subjectivity is sometimes very hard to see, but a clear indication of its presence is the direct reference to the observer "internal" states; these internal states are non observable hence impossible to validate independently.

Like "I asked them to come".

- To "objectivize" these experiences instruments are used, like cameras, binoculars, telescopes, etc.

Some had claimed that when a "call" is made Anomalies will come for "everyone to see", why then instruments are needed? Why infrared spotting is orders of magnitude far superior to naked eye spotting?

All Anomalies observations are done in open spaces with a clear view of the sky, if you can see the sky then the "sky can see you" back.

The simple fact of you being outside looking up is a clear indication to any "observer" in the sky or elsewhere looking at you that you are looking for something in the sky, in the same way that we can "tag" animals for tracking and study we also can be tagged.

Subjectivity is a clouded road that many times is an obstacle for making progress in observations, like assuming that Anomalies will come to naked eye distances implying that no extra tools are needed for spotting them which is objectively wrong.

Experience clearly shows that subjective approaches on a given subject usually have an underlying lack of information/knowledge that many times is dispelled when a more comprehensive study is done on the given subject.

The novelty and intrinsic weirdness in Anomalies manifestations with very little known objectively about them is a very fertile ground for subjective approaches, but as more data is collected that veil will be uncovered and objectivity will prevail as in many other branches of scientific studies.




Wait while more posts are being loaded