From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul> Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2011 13:48:53 -0400 Archived: Wed, 08 Jun 2011 14:01:38 -0400 Subject: Re: A Haunebu II Photo Feature >From: Gerald O'Connell<goc.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 13:39:22 +0100 >Subject: Re: A Haunebu II Photo Feature >>From: William Treurniet<wtreurniet.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Sun, 05 Jun 2011 20:36:52 -0400 >>Subject: Re: A Haunebu II Photo Feature >>When the same shape is seen over and over in different contexts, >>then it's time to start thinking it's more than a figment of the >>imagination. >Or, alternatively, William, it's time to start thinking in terms >of an obsessive condition - one that interprets visual >information over and over again in a certain way. Then we should all be labeled obsessive, Gerald. I'm sure every time you walk into someone's dining room, there is a high probability that you will see a table of some kind. You might even call it a table. >Martin has demonstrated quite elegantly how easy it is to 'find' >particular geometrical shapes in randomised visual data. The >simple fact is that if you go looking for toroids you are going >to find shapes that suggest them. Not because they are there, >but rather because that is what you are looking for. I guess you missed my rebuttal of Martin's demonstration. The quadrilateral shapes he found were just that, whereas the toroidal shapes require one oval shape nested inside another. If Martin applied this criterion to his quadrilaterals, he would be left with nothing. If you chose an even simpler shape than a quadrilateral, such as a white pixel, I'm sure you would find even more examples. This extreme case clearly shows why Martin's demonstration is inadequate. You have to specify constraints that at least match that of a donut shape. From my experience, I can also say that proximity to a UFO is another criterion. Notice that this tightens rather than loosens the constraints on the observations. >Instead of attempting to 'explain' your discoveries in terms of >speculative physics you might take some time over a little >honest introspection. Look for answers to these questions: >- When did I first start to notice toroids? >- What was I actually looking for at the time? >- Does finding toroids help me to come to terms with events and > artefacts that would otherwise be troubling? >- Why does finding toroids give me a warm feeling? >- What inner needs does the search for toroids satisfy? >- How much of my own self-esteem is wrapped up in finding > toroids and arguing for their reality? >- How would I feel if it could be shown that my apparently > successful search for toroids is actually delusional? >In parallel with this activity you might also take a look at the >work of Viktor Frankl and others in the field of Logotherapy. >Consider how the drive to assign meaning to random events and >data is central to the working of the human mind. Speculative psychology is ok, but speculative physics is not? I've heard it said that attacking the messenger is a sign of desperation. >My earlier suggestion that Rorschach rather than optics might >offer a more satisfactory explanatory route was not intended as >a derogatory comment. It was, rather, a somewhat terse effort to >redirect discussion to what I regard as a more fruitful avenue >of explanation. I'm sure that Martin didn't need my prompting to >discover his 'mysterious' rectangles, but in doing so he >illustrated my point quite perfectly. The physics that I am suggesting is not as speculative as you would have people believe. For most of us, it's at the stage of rocks falling out of the sky before we knew about meteors. We have seen the 'rocks' but they are so much a mystery that they are ignored. The idea that there is a new physics we don't understand is supported by physical evidence, some of which I've summarized in the following link. http://www.treurniet.ca/physics/mbftech.htm It has to do with a technology that disrupts the cohesion of matter. To begin with, according to a US Air Defense general, many aircraft have been lost in pursuit of UFOs. Wilbert B. Smith was told via contact with the aliens that the saucer craft are surrounded by a field that disrupts nearby matter, especially when it is under stress. This explains why pursuing aircraft broke up when they got too close. This data is reliable or not, depending on what you think about the word of a US general and of that particular engineer/scientist. But there is real physical evidence too. The article talks about a sharply bent car radio antenna in the Val Johnson case, the smoothly crumpled side of a car in the Northbrook car case and the metal distortion in the relatively low wattage Hutchison effect. Then a 2 cm diameter ferrite rod was accidentally bent by Sarg in a lab experiment using only an estimated 30 watts of energy over 3 sec. These effects all imply a new physics. Also, a residual magnetic field effect after a UFO appearance was documented by Bruce Maccabee. This is consistent with some kind of field generated by the passing UFO. The mystery is why the effect would linger in a non-ferromagnetic environment. Perhaps the nature of the inducing field is something we don't know much about yet, but it must have existed and may have accompanied the UFO. There is evidence that light is deflected and refracted when it passes near a circular or toroidal distortion near a UFO. This indicates further that the toroidal pattern is not just my imagination. http://www.treurniet.ca/tori/toriphys/toriphys.htm http://www.treurniet.ca/torifract/torifract.htm There is also a suggestion that the Hutchison effect is accompanied by optical distortions consistent with a toroidal pattern. http://www.treurniet.ca/physics/hutch.htm To summarize, the observed mysterious effects appear to be caused by a new kind of field that may generate a displacement force, affects light propagation, and interferes with the cohesion of matter. Gerald, speculating about the data is a normal procedure for understanding new physical effects. It's also called creating an hypothesis. William Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp