Here is a guy named Randy that captured two waves on camera as they traveled past the moon this past March 27th. Randy and Crrow777 are trying to figure out what it could be. Could these be the energy waves that Corey Goode is talking about that are moving through our Solar System?
They show the moon shots at the 11:58 mark in the video:
I can clearly see what this alleged "moon wave" is, but can't figure out what they are CLAIMING it is. It's clearly just an out of sync scan line in the camera - but what are folks claiming it is?
You can see the same thing when the vertical hold in a TV goes just a wee bit wonky.
As for the "pulsating moon that moves around", that's just atmospheric interference. It's the same thing that makes stars appear to twinkle.
Here is a guy named Randy that captured two waves on camera as they traveled past the moon this past March 27th. Randy and Crrow777 are trying to figure out what it could be. Could these be the energy waves that Corey Goode is talking about that are moving through our Solar System?
They show the moon shots at the 11:58 mark in the video:
I can clearly see what this alleged "moon wave" is, but can't figure out what they are CLAIMING it is. It's clearly just an out of sync scan line in the camera - but what are folks claiming it is?
You can see the same thing when the vertical hold in a TV goes just a wee bit wonky.
As for the "pulsating moon that moves around", that's just atmospheric interference. It's the same thing that makes stars appear to twinkle.
I think what has them perplexed is that this doesn't happen every time they film (with the same camera), but only at certain times of "conditions" pertaining to alignments, or something. I forget now what he said about it without going back, but he had a reason for thinking it was not what you're talking about.
I have no idea. You could be right, or he could be right. Or you could both be wrong, and it's something that we have NO explanation for yet, not realizing what we are seeing. Who the heck knows anything for sure these days?
I'm waiting on CERN to open a new era for time travel. No telling what kind of new "truths" will be discovered just around the corner.
I don't follow CERN - aren't they already supposed to have blown up the universe?
It may be something that "we" have no explanation for, but I have one, from observing the video and putting it together with years of other experience and observation, so I'm content with it.
Of course it's only an intermittent problem with the camera, rather than a constant one - if your TV was constantly losing it's horizontal hold, how long would it take you to replace it?
I've seen the same thing in digital video. Some times one has to step through it frame by frame to catch it, but it's there. The subject moves slightly as the frame is being recorded to the chip, causing a discontinuity in the image. It's in a slightly different place at the end of the recording of that frame from at the beginning of it, causing the discontinuity. That's not a problem with the camera, it's a problem with the frame rate setting. It comes out in the video as a "ripple". If the motion is fast enough, it shows as a blur or elongation of the subject.
I don't follow CERN - aren't they already supposed to have blown up the universe?
It may be something that "we" have no explanation for, but I have one, from observing the video and putting it together with years of other experience and observation, so I'm content with it.
Of course it's only an intermittent problem with the camera, rather than a constant one - if your TV was constantly losing it's horizontal hold, how long would it take you to replace it?
I've seen the same thing in digital video. Some times one has to step through it frame by frame to catch it, but it's there. The subject moves slightly as the frame is being recorded to the chip, causing a discontinuity in the image. It's in a slightly different place at the end of the recording of that frame from at the beginning of it, causing the discontinuity. That's not a problem with the camera, it's a problem with the frame rate setting. It comes out in the video as a "ripple". If the motion is fast enough, it shows as a blur or elongation of the subject.
@ninurta, I agree with you in this instance. There does seem to be a logical explanation for the waves, as you described. And that was my first thought, as well. But, after hearing what he said, I just stopped and wondered, 'what if there is a different explanation?' I am open-minded that way, sometimes maybe a little tooooooooooo open-minded.
Post by Mystic Wanderer on Sept 24, 2015 8:02:38 GMT -6
@ninurta,
I don't follow CERN - aren't they already supposed to have blown up the universe?
They were supposed to have it reaching it's highest speed yesterday. "Blowing up the universe" was a "fear" that some people had put out there as a possibility, but no one knew for sure what would happen. And who knows? Maybe it DID open a portal that allowed certain "Beings" into our world that we haven't realized yet? It's only been 24 hours. I still feel like something major was discovered, or open, yesterday, but I think it will be some time before it is made known to the general public.
@ninurta, I agree with you in this instance. There does seem to be a logical explanation for the waves, as you described. And that was my first thought, as well. But, after hearing what he said, I just stopped and wondered, 'what if there is a different explanation?' I am open-minded that way, sometimes maybe a little tooooooooooo open-minded.
You're absolutely right - there is ALWAYS a different explanation for everything. That is at the heart of how science works. It does not deal in absolutes, only probabilities. I'm getting ready to go to town right now, but will treat that subject more fully when I return. This post is mostly just a placeholder and a reminder to do so.
@ninurta, I agree with you in this instance. There does seem to be a logical explanation for the waves, as you described. And that was my first thought, as well. But, after hearing what he said, I just stopped and wondered, 'what if there is a different explanation?' I am open-minded that way, sometimes maybe a little tooooooooooo open-minded.
You're absolutely right - there is ALWAYS a different explanation for everything. That is at the heart of how science works. It does not deal in absolutes, only probabilities. I'm getting ready to go to town right now, but will treat that subject more fully when I return. This post is mostly just a placeholder and a reminder to do so.
@ninurta, sorry. This is the video where he explains why these waves are NOT a camera malfunction. I thought it was posted here, but I was thinking of a different thread. Watch it before giving your answer, if you can.
By the way, he isn't saying the moon is a hologram, just that there is a hologram wave covering it so we can't see what's really going on up there.
OK, a bit about science, and how it works.. You walk along through life in this world, and you see things ("observation"). Some of those things make you think "how?" or "why?". Then you come up with a potential explanation for those things ("hypothesis"). You examine that explanation through repeated observations ("testing" or "validation"), and when you are satisfied that explanation covers all the observed facts, you rest on that as the most likely explanation. Science has been done.
Now, it may happen that a few years down the road (or even an hour from now), either yourself or someone else sees something in that phenomena that your explanation or hypothesis does not cover. Then a new explanation must be developed that accounts for what has already been observed, plus the new facts. That explanation then goes through the same testing and validation process until it either appears more likely, or has to be trashed. Science is still being done.
Scientists know there is no such thing as "settled science" - that's just a term used by politicians and leftists. That's why I get so exasperated with kids who scream something is "settled science", like the theory of evolution or this current "climate change" fad, as if they have some clue about "science". Thy don't. They're just political idjits. Science has no politics - it's just the search for explanations, whatever the most likely one may be. Science is never "settled" - it's only what is currently believed given the observations, to be the most likely explanation. It is subject to change tomorrow, with new observations. Science does not deal in absolutes, only probabilities.
Just because one explanation appears to cover the observations, that does not mean it is the only possibility, nor does it mean it is the objectively "true" one. It could be entirely overturned an hour from now, with a new observation.
Last Edit: Sept 24, 2015 16:43:49 GMT -6 by Deleted
I finally got to watch the video. I had to download it, and was sorely disappointed. I could see nothing much that he was claiming - I saw no "red circle", nor did I see any shadow, either bird or UFO. All I could see was the alleged "wave", a total of twice - once at the beginning of the video, once at the end of it. I saw no new evidence that would lead me to consider it was anything other than a camera glitch. The "wave", for example, is a straight line, and does not appear to be moving across the surface of a spherical moon at all. Has anyone informed this fellow that the moon is spherical? Maybe he can take that into account during his next production attempt.
Humm... Well, I don't know what to say. I thought he made a pretty good case, but I'm not a mathematician, or an astronomer, so I'm remaining neutral on this one.
Yes ma'am, that video. I didn't catch any plausible reason that it couldn't be the camera, but admit I might have missed something crucial while I was trying to find red circles and shadows - which I never saw.
I also never heard a reason that a straight line would move along a spherical surface with no detectable distortion. To understand what I mean, lay a ball in the floor, and shine a flashlight on it, also laid in the floor. Then walk around it, and watch how the "straight" line between the dark side and the light side curves to follow the surface depending on the angle you view it from. The same thing happens if you are stationary, but the line is moving.
The only place the line should be straight is at the equator, when you are viewing it straight on. The more it goes towards either pole, the more it will appear to curve. It's the same principle that makes a crescent moon a crescent rather than a bigger or smaller straight-edged slice.
(Sorry about the underlining in the quoted text. I tired, but no matter what I did, it kept coming back. If a MOD can get rid of it, please do!)
“The time to pull the curtain back on this subject is long overdue. We have statements from the most credible sources – those in a position to know – about a fascinating phenomenon, the nature of which is yet to be determined.”
The statement above comes from John Podesta (you can find the source for this quote, and more from Podesta on UFOs in this article), Chief of Staff for Bill Clinton and Counsellor to Barack Obama. It’s a powerful statement, because it’s true. We now have witness testimony from hundreds upon hundreds of high ranking, very credible people from within politics and government, military, and intelligence agencies saying that the UFO and extraterrestrial phenomenon is indeed real and deserves serious attention.
To view some of these statements from just a few of these ‘credible’ people, you can click here.
We also have official, declassified documentation to back up these statements, you can view some of those here.
If you put two and two together, it’s clear that:
“There is abundant evidence that we are being contacted, that civilizations have been contacting us for a very long time.” – Dr. Brian O’Leary, Former NASA astronaut and Princeton Physics Professor (source)
But it’s not just the UFO/extraterrestrial phenomenon that seems to be gaining more transparency. Strange things have been observed in space. Perhaps this is why the Russian government recently called for an international investigation regarding the missing film footage of the U.S. moon landings, or why a U.S. Defence physicist and the Deputy Manager of the Clemintine Mission to the moon recently blew the whistle on what’s really up there.
Major General Albert Stubblebine can be added to the long list. Although he did not participate in the Citizens Hearing On UFO disclsoure (where a number of military, political, academic, and government personnel testified to several former congressional members), his credentials speak for themselves.
Major General Albert Stubblebine!! Did you all get that?! I think there will be more and more coming out to expose the truth, now that the doors have opened up on this subject!
General Stubblebine is a retired United States Major General. He was also the Commanding General of the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM), and one of America’s most distinguished soldiers and chief of U.S. Army Intelligence, with 16,000 soldiers under his command.
He was a major proponent of “psychic” warfare and a key player in the “Stargate” project, which was a remote vewing program. Remote viewing can be defined in multiple ways. It’s the ability of individuals to describe a remote geographical location up to several hundred thousand kilometers away (sometimes even more) from their physical location.
The results of this project were declassified and published in the peer reviewed Journal of Scientific Exploration. (source) In this program, individuals successfully described physical objects that were nowhere near their physical location.
These programs were the inspiration behind the movie “Men Who Stare At Goats.”
Below is a statement from General Stubblebine about Mars: “There are structures on the surface of Mars. I will tell you for the record that there are structures underneath the surface of Mars that cannot be seen by the Voyager cameras that went by in 1976. I will also tell you that there are machines on the surface of Mars and there are machines under the surface of Mars that you can look at, you can find out in detail, you can see what they are, where they are, who they are and a lot of detail about them.”
There you have it! An official statement from a Major General disclosing structures on, and below, Mars.
Are your eyes opening just a little now?
Need more?
Last Edit: Oct 3, 2015 20:48:05 GMT -6 by Deleted: Attempt to remove underlining per request