Author Topic: Ty Photo Observation  (Read 15346 times)

Offline EVS

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #2
  • **********
  • Posts: 538
  • Karma: +26/-0
Re: Ty Photo Observation
« Reply #15 on: March 03, 2010, 11:46:34 PM »
It's much like a car factory line, several models are issued. But even though 2 cars are from the same assembly line, there will be small differencies, toleration measures etc. Not two cars are exactly alike.

These tiny differencies should occur on the drones, if they are the same "model" and of same origin. (If it's assumed they are built the traditional way, and not as HPO made his model, because if it was made this way, it's virtually impossible to find out if they are fake or not, and with the limited evidence we have, very hard to prove).

EVS
« Last Edit: March 04, 2010, 11:36:53 AM by EVS »

Offline black-lodge

  • Newbie Dronie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: Ty Photo Observation
« Reply #16 on: October 29, 2012, 02:22:36 AM »
Hi,

This is my first post here and I must say that I'm french and I don't really know how good is my english, so, I promess I'll do my best but all apologies if I made some mistakes and if I don't express myself very clearly sometimes.

I just wanted to give my opinion about what is said here. Well, there is an obvious similarity between the to objects on the pictures, but all allong my reading of this thread I wanted to say more or less what algae said to EVS, I didn't really undestood why this similarities proved that one of the pictures is a fake.

And then EVS talk about tiny differencies occuring during factory line. I agree, two cars from the same assembly line aren't exactly the same, but these differencies could be so small, I really doubt that you could see the diffrence just looking to the pictures of two cars.

And then I looked at the pictures and I saw that, finally, there was differencies between the two. I dont know if that's very intersting but I made this picture to show where :



Parts 5 and 6 are missing on the CARET's picture.

In my opinion these similarities are more a kind of evidence that both pictures are true (or both fake), but I really doubt that someone would have create the Ty's picture from the CARET's one...
« Last Edit: October 29, 2012, 02:26:56 AM by black-lodge »

Offline EVS

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #2
  • **********
  • Posts: 538
  • Karma: +26/-0
Re: Ty Photo Observation
« Reply #17 on: October 29, 2012, 11:10:02 PM »
Hi black-lodge!

Welcome to the forum  :)

Very interesting details you're pointing out. Sure there are many differencies between the two photos, very
good work!

EVS

PS: No problem about being French, we are many nationalities here, and your English is fine  ;)

Offline 10538

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #2
  • **********
  • Posts: 826
  • Karma: +33/-0
Re: Ty Photo Observation
« Reply #18 on: October 30, 2012, 10:01:14 PM »
And then I looked at the pictures and I saw that, finally, there was differencies between the two. I dont know if that's very intersting but I made this picture to show where :

Parts 5 and 6 are missing on the CARET's picture.
The Isaac "tarmac" picture shows various drone parts with some that have visible damage like missing parts.  Isaac detailed on his website posting that "we" were given technology that could bring a drone down.  I can imagine that a drone with it's force field deactivated and crashing to the earth would sustain some damage. 
Quote
The technology itself isn't ours, or at least it wasn't in the 80's. Much like the technology in these crafts themselves, the device capable of remotely hijacking a vehicle's clacking comes from a non-human source too. Why we were given this technology has never been clear to me, but it's responsible for a lot. Our having access to this kind of device, along with our occasionally haphazard experimentation on them, has lead to everything from cloaking malfunctions like this to full-blown crashes.

Offline EVS

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #2
  • **********
  • Posts: 538
  • Karma: +26/-0
Re: Ty Photo Observation
« Reply #19 on: October 31, 2012, 10:36:49 PM »
And then I looked at the pictures and I saw that, finally, there was differencies between the two. I dont know if that's very intersting but I made this picture to show where :

Parts 5 and 6 are missing on the CARET's picture.
The Isaac "tarmac" picture shows various drone parts with some that have visible damage like missing parts.  Isaac detailed on his website posting that "we" were given technology that could bring a drone down.  I can imagine that a drone with it's force field deactivated and crashing to the earth would sustain some damage. 
Quote
The technology itself isn't ours, or at least it wasn't in the 80's. Much like the technology in these crafts themselves, the device capable of remotely hijacking a vehicle's clacking comes from a non-human source too. Why we were given this technology has never been clear to me, but it's responsible for a lot. Our having access to this kind of device, along with our occasionally haphazard experimentation on them, has lead to everything from cloaking malfunctions like this to full-blown crashes.

Hi Numbers,

Sure, damage may have taken some turn on the debries on the hanger floor, but there are several other differencies, just as the new member black-lodge is pointing out. Sure this isn't new, but sure it says that there are obvious changes between the two photo's, right?

Sure Isaac tells us that we "control" these alien "mashinery" or "creatures". Do we really trust this? Did Isaac? Or, was this part of an experiment the public never should know of? Do we really know? I think not...but if true or not it sure has made waves in the pond of the Internet...be it con or pro, don't you think? Somehow I miss the ending...either it's a "hoax" or it's true..to my mind a "hoaxer" sure would enjoy his 15 minutes of fame, and as this has not happened, there's a good chance that this case is real, and the violently response on other forums saying it's fake, failing to come up with a factual answer, actually sustains the idea of this case being real.


Please give me reason not to believe, I want to believe!  ;D And I just might deliver the scientific answer to this, just give me time to do it!  ;)

EVS 

Offline 10538

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #2
  • **********
  • Posts: 826
  • Karma: +33/-0
Re: Ty Photo Observation
« Reply #20 on: November 01, 2012, 08:54:55 PM »
Hi EVS,

Just so we are on the same page, isn't Black-Lodge pointing out that the part in the Ty pic seems to be complete and in the Isaac Tarmac pic it's missing parts?  Doesn't it seem obvious that the missing parts are probably the result of crash damage that Isaac spoke about?  Is there something else that Black-Lodge is pointing out that I am overlooking?

Also, I don't think Isaac said we control the drones but that we disrupt the control, whether that be autonomous or remote control.  The disruption seems to be at the more basic, elemental level.  It begins by making the unit visible progressing onto disruption of it's anti-gravity ability.  Could it be these two functions are somehow related?
« Last Edit: November 01, 2012, 08:55:59 PM by 10538 »

Offline EVS

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #2
  • **********
  • Posts: 538
  • Karma: +26/-0
Re: Ty Photo Observation
« Reply #21 on: November 02, 2012, 10:16:30 AM »
Hi EVS,

Just so we are on the same page, isn't Black-Lodge pointing out that the part in the Ty pic seems to be complete and in the Isaac Tarmac pic it's missing parts?  Doesn't it seem obvious that the missing parts are probably the result of crash damage that Isaac spoke about?  Is there something else that Black-Lodge is pointing out that I am overlooking?

Also, I don't think Isaac said we control the drones but that we disrupt the control, whether that be autonomous or remote control.  The disruption seems to be at the more basic, elemental level.  It begins by making the unit visible progressing onto disruption of it's anti-gravity ability.  Could it be these two functions are somehow related?

Exactly! Maybe the antigravity/cloaking device is integrated - and - maybe using the same resources, so if "we" try to control either one it disrupt/damages the other?

I think we are on the same page  :D

Sure, the story Isaac told still haven't been challenged enough to say it doesn't hold water still. I seriously doubt that we ever will find out, unless more information or other new evidence surfaces about this case.

EVS
« Last Edit: November 02, 2012, 10:18:17 AM by EVS »

Offline 10538

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #2
  • **********
  • Posts: 826
  • Karma: +33/-0
Re: Ty Photo Observation
« Reply #22 on: November 02, 2012, 08:27:08 PM »
Maybe the antigravity/cloaking device is integrated - and - maybe using the same resources, so if "we" try to control either one it disrupt/damages the other?

Yes, it could be.  Could also be that the jamming device does not interfere directly with cloaking or antigravity but that it interferes with the drone's systems.  Like stopping a car's engine.  You don't need to directly interfere with the combustion process.  Only need to disrupt a small part of the ignition system. 

About the Isaac story, even though  it did not last long I believe there are many things to be learned from it.  I think we need to further disect the story to find all of the hidden meanings from between the lines.  I can't help but to be seriously disappointed by what might hve been.  This sentence from the Isaac story continues to haunt me:
Quote
What I've shared so far is only a very small portion of what I have, and what I know.


Offline algae

  • Senior Dronie
  • ****
  • Posts: 65
  • Karma: +4/-0
Re: Ty Photo Observation
« Reply #23 on: November 02, 2012, 09:20:58 PM »
Could it be these two functions are somehow related?

According to Aquino, as the mass of a particle decreases, its detectability also decreases due to the uncertainty principle. If the mass of an object could be reduced to 0.159 of its rest mass it would become undetectable by any means. It would not simply be invisible but imaginary.

Recall the Philadelphia Experiment. They were trying to render a ship invisible to radar with the use of low-frequency AC. Disturbing rumors described crewmen becoming embedded in steel bulkheads. They didn't just bump into an invisible wall, they fell through a temporarily-missing wall which then rematerialized.

I think a lot of things are beginning to appear on the same page.
- algae

Offline 10538

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #2
  • **********
  • Posts: 826
  • Karma: +33/-0
Re: Ty Photo Observation
« Reply #24 on: November 02, 2012, 10:43:31 PM »
According to Aquino, as the mass of a particle decreases, its detectability also decreases due to the uncertainty principle. If the mass of an object could be reduced to 0.159 of its rest mass it would become undetectable by any means. It would not simply be invisible but imaginary.
I have always been uneasy with thinking about the cloaking as only a function of light.  I thought it actually went beyond that to a point where the object was not really part of our reality or our perceived reality.   Perhaps there are other "dimensions" that we are unaware of like star trek's sub-space.

Offline majicbar

  • Major Dronie
  • ******
  • Posts: 226
  • Karma: +24/-3
Re: Ty Photo Observation
« Reply #25 on: November 09, 2012, 03:30:37 PM »
According to Aquino, as the mass of a particle decreases, its detectability also decreases due to the uncertainty principle. If the mass of an object could be reduced to 0.159 of its rest mass it would become undetectable by any means. It would not simply be invisible but imaginary.
I have always been uneasy with thinking about the cloaking as only a function of light.  I thought it actually went beyond that to a point where the object was not really part of our reality or our perceived reality.   Perhaps there are other "dimensions" that we are unaware of like star trek's sub-space.

I have been researching the experiments on the nature of light. It turns out that A. A. Michelson made a profound error in the design of his interferometer (1881). He did not include the Doppler Effect in its design. Michelson wrongly believed that the wavelength of light was a standard he could use to measure the movement of the Earth through space and thus look for a slight difference in light's pathlengths to detect the "ether wind'.

Had Michelson properly considered the Doppler Effect, he would have expected hundreds of wavelengths of change as the instrument was rotated, not a fraction of a single wavelength, which is what he found, but only a fraction at that.

When Michelson did his experiment, most people thought the Sun was the center of the Universe. The great Milky Way was not recognized as a galaxy. Then, other galaxies were thought to be just "nebula" within the vast complex of the Universe's stars. As far as one could prove, the Earth only revolved around the Sun at 30 kilometers per hour, that was our absolute motion through space. Michelson looked for the Earth to be traveling at that speed, not the hundreds of kilometer per hour that we now understand as our motion through space. Michelson knew nothing of a "Big Bang", his cosmology was far more primitive than what we know today.

When Michelson did his experiments he went there by horse, there were no telephones, no radio, no electric lights but gaslights and whaleoil lamps: Michelson's day was in what amounts to the dark ages. The Doppler Effect was known as a novelty; it was not ingrained into modern technology and science as it is now. The Doppler Effect was being just introduced into photographic astronomy. Michelson probably never knew it's importance, even if he knew it existed.

That Michelson should have found the Doppler Effect in his results, but that he did not, shows that there is indeed an ether, which is what he was looking for. But the ether Michelson found is not anchored in the foundation of the Universe, although there must also be an ether anchored to that foundation. What Michelson found is an ether that travels with the motion of the Earth. Michelson believed that such might be the case, but he could not find a way to "prove" it experimentally, not realizing that he already had. Had Michelson figured the ether experiment as having to show the Doppler Effect, the failure to show hundreds of "fringes" of interference would have proven an entrained ether.

So,

What then does an "ether" have to do with this discussion? As ether is necessary for there to be transmission of light and other electromagnetic radiation, anything that separates atoms from this "ether" will cloak those atoms from transmitting that electromagnetic radiation and light. If gravity and inertia are also electromagnetic effects, cloaking atoms from the ether might also profoundly affect the physics that rule gravity and inertia.

Offline EVS

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #2
  • **********
  • Posts: 538
  • Karma: +26/-0
Re: Ty Photo Observation
« Reply #26 on: November 10, 2012, 02:30:27 AM »
Hi majicbar, great post! Here's something to support it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect

http://www.exploratorium.edu/hubble/tools/doppler.html

What is the Universe Expanding Into?

I hope I reach your thoughts, if not, I'm sure you'll tell me..

Greetings my friend,

EVS

Ps: Sorry to dissapoint you, please see this as a challenge:

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Ether.html
« Last Edit: November 10, 2012, 04:54:52 AM by EVS »

Offline 10538

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #2
  • **********
  • Posts: 826
  • Karma: +33/-0
Re: Ty Photo Observation
« Reply #27 on: November 10, 2012, 06:58:29 PM »
What then does an "ether" have to do with this discussion? As ether is necessary for there to be transmission of light and other electromagnetic radiation, anything that separates atoms from this "ether" will cloak those atoms from transmitting that electromagnetic radiation and light. If gravity and inertia are also electromagnetic effects, cloaking atoms from the ether might also profoundly affect the physics that rule gravity and inertia.
Hi Majicbar.  Yes that's a very thought provoking theory you have.  I'm impressed.  My question, if the drone is blocked from the electromagnet universal firmament (my term for the aether) then how does it do what it's here to do?  If removed from the firmament does it exist in our reality?

Offline majicbar

  • Major Dronie
  • ******
  • Posts: 226
  • Karma: +24/-3
Re: Ty Photo Observation
« Reply #28 on: November 12, 2012, 09:03:59 PM »
What then does an "ether" have to do with this discussion? As ether is necessary for there to be transmission of light and other electromagnetic radiation, anything that separates atoms from this "ether" will cloak those atoms from transmitting that electromagnetic radiation and light. If gravity and inertia are also electromagnetic effects, cloaking atoms from the ether might also profoundly affect the physics that rule gravity and inertia.
Hi Majicbar.  Yes that's a very thought provoking theory you have.  I'm impressed.  My question, if the drone is blocked from the electromagnet universal firmament (my term for the aether) then how does it do what it's here to do?  If removed from the firmament does it exist in our reality?

My guess is that it is a matter of timing, for every 10~ beats where it is cloaked, during one beat it is not and that allows it to see and operate in the open. If we only saw it once every 11 beats and only for that one beat, it would be rather like a chimera and a mirage, or shadow of itself. On the otherhand it may be that on higher frequencies that it might still be uncloaked, that cloaking could be a matter of frequency. Interaction with the "ether" might be frequency dependent.

When aliens are able to pass through walls and have abductees also be taken through walls, the only thing I can think of to allow this is that they are able to polarize the atoms and boost frequencies to the point where matter so changed can slip through the atoms in the walls. So we have a lot to learn yet about the real world and the real physics.

Offline majicbar

  • Major Dronie
  • ******
  • Posts: 226
  • Karma: +24/-3
Re: Ty Photo Observation
« Reply #29 on: November 12, 2012, 09:46:11 PM »
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Ether.html

As you see, science has yet to catch up to my analysis, which I published in a letter to Infinite Energy. Michelson thought that he was looking for a fraction of a wavelength of change in his interferometer. He did not consider the Doppler Effect: had he considered this he would have realized that he should have seen 200 wavelengths through 90 degrees of rotation and 400 wavelengths through 180 degrees of rotation. And this if the Earth were only traveling through space at 30 kilometers per second! We are traveling much faster than that, so where are the missing wavelengths of change?

When Lorentz and Fitzgerald came up with the fix to find Michelson's missing fraction of a wavelength of change, they missed that Michelson had not considered the Doppler Effect. They thought that one only had to shorten the length of a measuring bar, interferometer, to correct for that missing wavelength. There is no way once one considers the Doppler Effect to shorten it by hundreds, or thousands, of wavelengths to make experiment work right.

The only way to understand the behavior of Michelson's interferometer is that there is indeed an "ether" and that the "ether" is fully entrained to the motion and the rotation of the Earth. "Ether" is real and crucial to understanding the actual behavior of light. Relativity and Einstein were wrong because the results of this experiment were misunderstood, all because Michelson did not properly consider the Doppler Effect.

One experiment that still has been causing fits for those studying these experiments is the Michelson-Gale-Peterson which seemed to show that the "ether" traveled with the Earth, but not in it's rotation. There are many problems with that experiment: so, were the perceived results correct? Again Michelson did not consider the Doppler Effect. A better check on the issue of  the "ether' rotating with the Earth is to consider the 1887 Michelson-Morley interferometer, which was far more sensitive an instrument.

The interferometerromenter should have shown about 5 wavelengths of change if the "ether" DID NOT rotate with the Earth. Again the interferometer showed only a fraction of a wavelength's of change: the "ether" must rotate with the Earth.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2012, 09:48:34 PM by majicbar »