UFOs, are they real

I'll bet you choked that little bit of information out of the last mouse you caught, didn't you!

"...A sudden influx of a consistent and persistent stimuli might very well facilitate that quicker or conversely, hinder..."

Unfortunately, this is not how evolution works. Mutations don't just pop in response to an external natural selection pressure, or 'stimuli' as you nicely put it.

This venue of thought, called "Lamarckism" was abandoned, then abolished in the early nineteenth century, once proven wrong under controlled laboratory conditions, with the mice experiments carried by German evolutionist August Wiseman, later by Meyer in practice, Darwin in theory and others in practice and theory.

See the post above (1, 2, 3,...) for a brief description of how it is thought to be, for the last two centuries of scientific agreement, and re-affirmation.

Kindly, so if I understand you:

A woman is adversely effected by, say, radiation and her offspring demonstrate some physical anomaly, and that child is continually affected so that its offspring show similar trait and so on for many generations. Meanwhile others are experiencing same. So now percentage of gene pool has similar genetic anomaly, thus increasing the opportunities for interbreeding.

However, the removal of the stimulus, or agent, or effector or what ever you wish to call it, will cause the anomaly to recede?

Developments leading up to the modern synthesis:

The new synthesis is based to a some extent on an earlier attempt at synthesis which was called neo-Darwinism. George John Romanes coined the term to refer to the version of evolution preferred by August Weismann (Romanes published a book-length review of this German professor, whom many thought the most important bridge between Darwin and modern biology). Like Alfred Russel Wallace^[1] (though Wallace is a special case because of his views on the evolution of the human brain), Weismann rejected the Lamarckian idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics, something that Darwin didn't rule out. Weismann's key idea was that the relationship between the hereditary material, which he called the germ plasm, and the rest of the body (the soma) was a one-way relationship: the germ-plasm formed the body, but the body did not influence the germ-plasm, except indirectly in its participation in a population subject to natural selection. Weismann was translated into English, and though he was influential, it took many years for the full significance of his work to be appreciated.

To begin with, it's not that certain type of radiation, affect certain set of genes to mutate in a given specific, pre-determined way.

It's more like the energy present radiation, may affect the 3D twist of a molecule, to a random degree dependant on the direction, dispersion and other such variants, thus changing the molecule's chemical behaviour.

As mentioned before: Mutations accrue in random manner.

This will only pass to next generations, if the affected molecule is a part of the DNA content, packaged as a chromosome, in a gamete, a matured sex-cell such as sperm or an egg.

Later, as fertilisation accrue, and both gametes' DNA unite, the defected molecule may chemically influence the process to a degree of recombinant gene pairing, and one or more of these alleles, are likely to be new in function or placement, thus called a mutation.

This is a completely random un-determined occurrence.

You cannot determine that long enough exposure to radiation may lead to a specific trait, whatever it may be, only that it may affect individuals, each with a random occurrence of mutation.

If we could determine what you suggest, we would be millennia ahead, in genetic knowledge, a spot we are obliviously not in.

"...However, the removal of the stimulus, or agent, or effector or what ever you wish to call it, will cause the anomaly to recede?..."

This must be a mismatch of cause and effect. First we have to establish that a selective pressure is long and persistent enough, to have suitable mutants the traits to resist, and propagate, giving their offspring the same ability.

Then once the pressure removed, it was usually shown that the trait remains, since it's enough for a gene or a set of genes, not to cause the demise of it's carrier or it's degradation in fertility, to remain in the genome, hence all the present junk-segments accumulated in the genome, for this reason alone.

If I place a breeding colony of pygmy giraffes in a dark cave and return to find them 1000 generations later what might I suppose? Perhaps a change in the usefulness of the radiation receptors?

Only a prediction mind you we can, to some degree, predict what will be affected, its the how part that gives the wrinkle.

Such predictions is not in my set of talents. I'm better in predictions regarding less wild-cards in the equation.

Take a few millions monkeys, enclose them in an ambiance of sulphuric-acid for fifteen hundred years. What do you predict be their metabolic rate or cycle develop like? Will they develop the ability to digest cellulose? Will they evolve to see in the dark, or levitate upside down?

How should I know?

They will die. But in small doses? Who knows.

I have been having a bit of fun with this. I most graciously thank you for engaging the comments and offering your time.

There is much speculation as we rub about the fringe.

Somethings science has yet to prove. Others yet to disprove. And so it will always be. But it is the eternal quest for truth that attracts the likes of, dare I say, us.

Humbly,

CR3

They aren't just in the belfry!

They are here too!

CR3

My point exactly.

About evolution and telepathy:

Evolutionary theory says that useful mutations will be retained and harmful mutations will not. I wonder - would telepathy be useful? Suppose you could hear everybody's thoughts. What a cacophony inside your head! Could you stay sane?

If everyone developed telepathy at once, perhaps we could learn to control it. But that's not the way evolution seems to happen. If only SOME people had the power, would the rest of us associate with them, or would we be too freaked out?

Maybe telepathy DID occur in the past, but was promptly squelched!

I personally cannot see the real essential difference between spoken language and telepathy, in zoological terms:

Spoken language is a direct expression of thought, and telepathy is what? a direct transmission of the same?

Just because one in seemingly silent and the other is vocal, how would you order sign-language?

Other animals don't understand it anyway, in case we are about evolutional or survival advantage.

What gives?

It's like "I wish I could fly..." - Take a helicopter and fly.

What's the practical difference?

I think the main difference between speech and telepathy is a matter of control. We don't speak every thought aloud - we choose which thoughts to express.

Also, spoken language is not a direct expression of thought, it is more a translation of thought. The same thought can be expressed in myriad ways, with varying degrees of emotion, and with varying degrees of truth!

I wonder - could a telepath learn to lie? Could a telepath apply "spin" before sending a thought? Good material for a Sci-Fi story, there.

Self-indoctrination of thought, is not impossible IMHO. Lecturers and debators, train themselves to control their train of thought, to a beneficial, single, track. So do chess players.

We may 'filter' specific thoughts out of speech, but eventually it's subject to the type of audience we have. We may let it completely loose with trusted friends, or our beloved pet...

It is all very sci-fi.

I find it nitriguing that so many 'abductees' comment that their 'captors' seemed to communicate with one another silently. Statements like this can be parralled to evolutionary possibility and further paired with the statemnts on the first pages of this thread. Statements such as we are them from the future. We are tearing the space time continuum and such.

Comments that oddly received much less comment than I would expect from my very learned fellows, such as yourself.

Evolution is not an upward path, it's a twisted ball of fishing line!!! What makes you think that telepathy is an upward step? The dinosaurs were all telepathic and look what happened to them.

"Little arms? Little arms?! why you little bastards, I'm going to rip you a new pie-hole!!!"

"Hey! who thinks my neck is too long?!"

So sad.

And yes, I'm with you on that. I wouldn't like living in an environment where my thoughts are not private. Our last refuge, the last little space where we can ponder on our own, without active participants.

My only problem is that even this last refuge, is populated by the multiple personalities, occupying my mental space, all calling themselves "I", and offering their merchandise for consideration...

It's like the inside of a modern head sounds like a washing-machine in the good case, or some grind-factory, in the worst case.

Lucky we can sleep, every once in a while.

Center your chi Yuval. Serenity is sound of silence whispering in your ear. Gentle thoughts are coaxed away. Silence. Now you may proceed, your journey awaits.

Greetings Yuval, et. al.,

"It's like the inside of a modern head sounds like a washing-machine in the good case, or some grind-factory, in the worst case".

Actually no. It's a little more like this: "What we found is that signals pass through brain areas like progressive waves, back and forth, a little bit like what fans do at baseball games,"

"Neuroscientists have long believed that vision is processed in the brain along circuits made up of neurons, similar to the way telephone signals are transferred through separate wires from one station to another. But scientists at Georgetown University Medical Center discovered that visual information is also processed in a different way, like propagating waves oscillating back and forth among brain areas".

Entire article here.

The point is that with further research it may be entirely possible to amplify these waves. Then if we can develop a means for a particular brain to focus its waves on another particular brain, or brains in the case of communicating with a crowd, etc.

As you indicated in #617, such a development would usher in a host of thorny problems. You said "how would you order sign-language?" This is one problem we would not have, since "hearing" is bypassed.

A major problem would be the one suggested by Astronut in #616 concerning the cacophony of NOISE. Unchecked, it would drive everyone mad. Not me though, I'm already there.

Quite obviously, there would need to be a great many precautions taken, including failsafe mechanisms and the ability to block unwanted waves, etc.

As far as what CR3 said in #620, who knows what communication was used with "abductees", but advanced development of brain wave technology sounds like a pretty good guess (sorry Yuval. Didn't mean to break the ground rules ).

The discoveries mentioned in the above article will change a lot of thinking in the field of neurology, etc. Lets not rule it out as just another routine piece of info.

I too, have to deal with all those multiple "I" people trying to constantly vie for my attention.

Regards...

JJ - Assuming that telepathy were a conscious and focused activity, as you describe, it would be a lot like normal speech. The speaker can choose what to say, but the listener can't choose what to hear.

We already have rules about this. We don't allow shouting in a courtroom or library. There are some anti-noise laws, but it's usually a matter of social control. Annoyingly loud people are shunned by other people. Maybe annoying "thinkers" would be ostracized, too!

Thinking "FIRE!" in a crowded theater is against the law.

I think thinkers that don't think thoughtfully before they think should be taught that thoughtful thought is thought of highly by thoughtful thikers.

Telapathy is real, my cat and I communicate without words on a daily basis.

I am not a fan of microwaves gone awry and I do not believe that wireless technology over the next several thousand years will somehow mysteriously create telepathic humans.

We can "evolve" naturally and improve our position as biological beings. Once we are nuked to oblivion by radiation, carcinogenic microwaves and other devices, there is no guarantee that our species will continue to exist at all, much less as evolved telepathic beings using all of our brain power.

If we were truly using all of our brainpower we might unify now to take better care our personal home planet so that later, we might evolve to become truly telepathic beings, minus the multitude of carcinogens.

Jules

[telepathy is real...]

And now this is where I want make some left handed comment about empirical evidence and an absence of scientific procedure as it was presented previously. But rather, I do feel we are a light hearted bunch in forum.

Aren't we?

CR3

"my cat and I communicate without words on a daily basis."

Jules, does Del know that there is another cat before him?

Shhhh, you know how territorial cats can be....I won't tell if you don't.

Let's try a psychic experiment, shall we...

What finger am I holding up right now?

Uh, this is meant for Johnjohn, by the way. Notice no indentation!

The twentieth of, lets see, how many do verminese have? I forget...

Sorry forgot to tell you. From previous posts, you may remember that we all have three left hands. And we're born with silver feet in our mouths.

Gentlemen, let's look at this article in Wireless Technology that discusses mind reading, telepathy, or shall we call it mind survelliance?

Let's just say I was there.

I regret that the link is no longer available for the news release as the article is several months old. If someone *really* wants to read more about this, I will gladly research the subject again and get back to you.

Mind Reading Machine Control

Since it's now being posted as illegal to "joke" about being checked over at the airport, when will it become illegal to think about joking about being checked over at the airport? A special type of functional magnetic resonance imaging allows scientists to "see" human thoughts using computers under controlled conditions. Once developed and marketed, there are endless applications for this new technology. Busy executives need only think thoughts to their computers to open folders and write memos. Perhaps industrial control systems and algorithms can be tested and modified by mind control. Will this lead to humans and machines becoming more transparent, more trackable, more connected, and more controllable?

Hi Jules,

"Busy executives need only think thoughts to their computers to open folders and write memos".

Guardian Angel can allow one to open folders too.

Have you read David Brin's excellent novel "Earth"? Among many other things, it discusses using thoughts to control a computer. The hard part, says Brin, is learning to control one's own thoughts! The intrusion of a random, unrelated thought could cause havoc.

"...The hard part, says Brin, is learning to control one's own thoughts..."

As we can all testify I'm sure, this is so very true, regardless of any book whatsoever...

None of the above, is able to tell us, positively, that we have any specific clue as to how the electro-chemical neural messaging work, in regard to their encoding patterns, and if that indeed is the case.

If positive, is it digital? Multi or single hierarchy analogue? another scheme which we haven't even thought of?

Such speculation , is so 'out-there', so far beyond any of our given knowledge, that even our most educated extrapolation here is more of a 'shot-in-the-dark' than anything else.

Comparing neural resonance imaging in order to deduce specific mental functionality, is something like photographing the earth's surface from space, in order to deduce personal access-codes of ATM machines, placed in street-corners.

It's like that idea of telepathy,based on our knowledge of AM or FM wave modulation schemes. Just because the nervous system uses electrical pulsing system does not mean it's wired like an FM transmitter, or that the receiving party is wired like a quartz tuner.

All this is plain silly. Even the simplistic Dolphin/Bat Sonar analogy is in a way silly, because it doesn't mean that the Dolphin brain decodes the returned signals in any manner similar t that of a Sonar. This analogy is simply a ploy, to inspire children's imagination to the general concept of Eco-Location.

Let's give ourselves a break here fellas, and split what's what!

Are we some kindergarten teacher indulged in some over-simplistic fantasy?

for your perusal esteemed Kindergarten teacher.

1973 - Sharp and Grove transmit audible words via microwaves [EW: That is, voice to SKULL] (See "Synthetic Telepathy" in this issue of Resonance

The only work out there that I find even remotely plausible is the University group that calmed when you consciously think of something, you unconsciously flex the muscles of your throat and mouth as if speaking it. These researchers surmised that by creating a muscular map for the formation of words, they could by measuring your muscles potentially read your mind.

So, the next time you key in a password, pay particular attention to your mouth and throat. As you recite your password, are your muscles moving and if so, by how much.

Yes, I too have read this research. Much like what is collected for a polygraph test, our physiology gives us away. Oh to have the Poker Face sought by professional gamblers. We could retain our innermost thoughts ... and play a better game.

And your point being... what?

That someone already decoded specific thoughts from a neural pulse-train?

Cool video!

According to the commentary, it was an amateur astronomer with a C8 - I'm impressed by the quality of the video itself. However, I don't think it was aliens on the moon; it would have to be a HUGE ship, moving incredibly fast, which neither reflects sunlight nor casts a shadow. Also, the dark spot's size & speed stay constant, even when it reaches the moon's limb, so it isn't traveling on or around the moon. Also, the moon's surface shows random shifting and wavering, caused by the earth's atmosphere, but the dark spot does not. This says to me that the spot is caused by something much closer, within the earth's atmosphere. Some commentators said it could be a bug on the lens - if so, it's a REALLY TINY bug! As far as I'm concerned, it's an unidentified object somewhere between the camera's lens and the lower earth atmosphere.

That was just me looking for my car keys.

Cool Video, no doubt.

A hoax? Video editing?

(As a video editor you don't have to show their faces, veins, genitalia, whatever. All you have to do, is to seed some remarkable doubt, and you get to stir up innocent folks for months).

Not?

So, why are they hiding? And if they do, Why so clumsy so that every amateur would be able to capture it? Not hiding?

Show yourself, be counted for.

A word or two about DV editing, CGI, and the lot:

When in 1996 BBC News showcased the issue of visual news manipulated by modern VFX and bitmap manipulation, the gave an example of grumpy-faced top politician made to smile, by mere use of 'morphing' editing tool, pioneered on a Michael Jackson video back in 1992. Here, an example of the same, where both versions were made from the same origin:

This of course, is a joke. A clumsy caricature made on a desktop in minutes, but the point I believe is clear. It was just to illustrate the awesome power of a humble graphic tool called 'warp', widely used in video 'morphing'.

Current video editing tools and effect libraries, do much more than that. so creating the video we've seen on Google Video, is peanuts, for any professional editor.

Adding CGI to the equation, may blast away anything we thought we can trust in visual terms, which is probably why veteran hoax makers, shy away from, in order not to snuff, the little naivety we collectively have, towards so called 'visual evidence'

How come? Look at any Sci-Fi movie from the last five years and answer yourself.

Maybe it's for the best. This way, we'll no longer be satisfied with 'edited' or even 'handled' video or photo evidence. This time, having been fooled so much lately, we'll demand "Let me see them in person, or don't bother me with video, which I know for fact, can be doctored, ever so smoothly"

If you go out in the woods taday... Let me start over.

If you go outside on a clear night about an hour after sunset, and get into one of those reclining patio chairs and watch the sky directly over head, you will see something amazing! As you watch, you'll see one of the stars slowly start to move! As you watch it, it'll start to speed up, and then suddenly hook a turn and move in a different direction. As it does, you'll see it slow down and fade from view. You have just seen a satellite. The characteristic motion is a result of the motion of the satellite in orbit and the turning of the Earth on it's axis.

Of course, a pair of binoculars helps. But, even with your eyes alone, you can see several of these pass overhead at the zenith. It's really amazing to think the these man-made pieces of metal are so far away, yet are visible because the Sun (below the horizon) is reflecting so brightly from these little guys.

So, what does this have to do with the UFO pictures? If you watch the film again, you'll see the spot move exactly like one of these satellites. My guess is (if not fake) he caught the shadow cast by a lunar satellite (natural or man-made) moving through its orbit around the moon. The motion is very distinct to that type of occurrence.

So, you think it's an actual object captured there, based on it's trajectory, and (I can only guess) it's image blending with the shimmering background. Well, for it to be so (relatively) sharp, the source if light would have to be very strong, very small, and very un-defused, in short, the sun (reflected from earth), illuminating the scene, no clouds, no refraction. Yes, I can see it happen. As a matter of fact, it was one of my first assumptions, like the sucker is blocking the reflected path of light, coming from the moon's surface.

My only problem is this:

A. The sun alone, is a small enough and strong enough light source, for the take. The sun reflected from earth isn't. It's much closer, much bigger, much more diffused light-source for this sharp in-between shadow.

B. If the light-source is at the back, illuminating the moon's surface, and the little sucker hovering in between, shouldn't it have it's back illuminated as well, just as the moon's surface, given that the light-source is coming from the same direction?

According to this, it should look like a crescent shadow, or a bright blot with somewhat darker rim.

Not necessarily. I'm assuming that the actual object is not in view of the telescope or is too small to be resolved. What we're seeing is a micro-lunar eclipse caused by the satellite, some distance away from the surface of the Moon, moving between the Sun and the Moon.

If we knew the size of the object and measured its shadow, we could calculate its relative distance from the Moon.

Of course, all of this is dependent on whether the video is a fake or not.

Back to square one. If so, what would your bet be?

(No strings attached, just a casual hip shot)

Before we bet, it might be a good idea to do some sort of web search and see if anyone (including NASA) is currently operating an orbital probe around the moon.

Here we go! And it's a big sucker!!! It launched this month and it only takes three days to get to the Moon. (?) It has a polar orbit, which is just the way one sees the path of a satellite in polar orbit around the Earth. This guy may have been the first to spot its shadow!

Measuring 5 x 2 meters, it's as big as a truck. It is big for an observation satellite. I remember reading couple of days ago about the Japs' intensive efforts over the last five years or so.

I can only guess it's a show of capability to wave mainly at the north Koreans who tried to intimidate the Japanese with their fly-over missiles landing in Pacific waters, east of Japan

Vermin - I'm trying to read the fuzzy text above the video, and I think it says the date was April 29, 2007. Is that what it looks like to you? If so, the Japanese craft wasn't there yet.

Dang!

Wait! Unless in the next several days the craft disappears into a space/time anomaly and goes back in time...

NAH!!!

OK, still not willing to give up on the possibility that this video might be real, are there any other known probes currently orbiting the Moon?

If you remember, Prospector was orbiting the Moon for several years before they decided to crash it into the surface.

Okay folks. At 20.5 hrs CST the video was not accessible. The gov't does not want me to see it.

cr3

They know what I could do with that info. Oh yeah. I could cartoon!

Let me know if you need crayons. I have the full box of 64, including silver and gold, and the box has a crayon sharpener!!!

Google to the rescue!

Text here:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread305625/pg1

Video here:
http://81.72.14.47/Astro/UFO-April-29-2007/070429-Unidentified-Object.avi

Oh vermin, I just had to rate that good ! Have they infiltrated your mind ? I've never seen you post such a long comment. PMSL !!

It may be to late to do anything, they have started to infiltrate further.

Do you have 'double-deckers' in the states ? It's all a bit disturbing. There' a pub in Durban that has a London double-decker bus inside it.

You freaking kill me. hahahahahahaaahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaa cough, gasp call 911 I am having a pain in my chest...... psysch

Late to the party, but coming with gifts... Do UFOs exist? By definition (as already mentioned), yes; any flying object that is not identified is one. That does not make it immediately mysterious, it could be a herring gull seen at an odd angle, an airplane viewed from the rear 3/4, a cloud of swamp gas, or any of a thousand other things before it might be an 'alien spacecraft'. Could it be an alien spacecraft?

Well, the technology we have available would not lend itself to long-range interplanetary, much less interstellar travel with any degree of efficiency. Could there be other technology that would make such travel convenient? Keeping in mind that the distance to the nearest star at the speed of light would take years, and it requires technology that we can only barely imagine. Doesn't mean it's impossible, though. Only means we ain't got some of it.

Well, could there even be aliens? Someone mentioned Sagan saying the likelihood of life is remote. I beg to differ with that. Sagan himself pointed out that there are billions and billions of stars, each potentially with encircling planets. To accept this makes it impossible for me to believe that there are not many planets capable of supporting life.

If even only 1% of the stars are suns with planets, there are hundreds of millions of them. If even only 1% of those could support life, there are millions of them. And if you understand the physics and chemistry of life as we know it, the fact that there IS life is due to the fact that there MUST be life. An atom of oxygen combines with two of hydrogen to form water because they MUST do so - hydrogen monoxide is a non-starter. Carbon bonds with hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, a bit of sulfur, some iron, a trace of potassium, etc., to form the molecules of life, not by some mysterious plan for this planet, but because there is no other way for them to react.

And OBTW, yes, I have seen UFOs twice, never alone, always with reliable co-witnesses. Once while on watch during service in the US Navy. Crossing from Hawaii to the Philipines, the aft, port, and starboard lookouts (latter was me), officer and petty officer of the watch, duty signalman and radioman, and duty radarman all saw the same thing. It did not register on radar, it did not make any noise, although it was estimated to be only a few hundred yards away, and it went from horizon to horizon in a matter of a couple of minutes. And, oh, yes, the cockpit was flooded with a bright yellow light. So, no, it was NOT any aircraft known in the inventory for several obvious reasons.

The other instance was years later, in company with a former USAF Thunderbird, and consisted of a high-altitude red light moving as fast as a meteor, but with a steady glow, no flash, no apparent change in altitude, and moving from northeast to southwest, far from the orbit of any satellite of the day. We watched it from about the 1:00 position relative to us, until we lost sight of it, a matter of several minutes. Neither of these were at all threatening, but they sure couldn't be explained readily either.

You sap! I waved at you both times, but you were too busy wetting yourself to notice!!!

What'd ya want?! One of those banner thingys being towed behind?!!

You were driving those buses? Damn! That would explain a lot...

Well, since I missed your wave (hey, they were at night, OK, kinda hard to see ya!) then, here's back atcha now!