http://www.ufologie.net/indexe.htm
Friday, January 30, 2009
Spaceman Photo
I remembered this photo as the "Spaceman Photo". I don't know much about this episode, other than the photo. And that it is a rather perplexing photo. Strange enough to be true??
http://www.ufologie.net/indexe.htm
http://www.ufologie.net/indexe.htm
Friday, January 23, 2009
The Universe and the Need for Life
We live in a day and age where theoretical physics is indistinguishible from nonsense. Wormholes, alternative universes, string theory, M-Brane theory, quantum theory, etc. It seems the world around us at the simplest levels is quite simply beyond reason. Beyond comprehension, beyond even basic logic. We keep searching for, and have done for decades, particles that we don't know exist. We don't even understand light, gravity, and the birth of the universe in any satisfying way.
Perhaps I'm being too critical. These problems are quite complex and we have basically only begun. I admire the scientific endeavors. Maybe it is surprising to some, the amount of bizzare diversity we find when looking for explanations to seemingly simplistic problems. One question I have internally pondered recently is the existence of life. And I suppose I'm assuming there is life throughout the universe, but it doesn't matter much in the consideration.
What is it about the universe that life needed to develop?? Would it not be a functional universe if life had not developed?? Did life need to develop?? It seems the only answer is yes, because it indeed did manifest. So while we look at possible reasons how life sprouted: RNA configurations to DNA molecules, evolution, primordal soup, simple to complex, it doesn't answer the why. WHY??
Why is it that mass (atoms, physical stuff) developed into something that could move around, look for sustenence, replicate, observe and adapt?? The whole idea of non-living stuff somehow turning into useful, living stuff is spellbinding. It seems to me that there is a reason why this came to be. Randomness doesn't answer the why question. Is there, at the most basic level, any difference between life and non-life?? Quite possibly they are the same thing. But people distinguish the two because they appear and act quite differently. Rocks are not alive. People are. Plants are. Crystals are not.
Some new agers like to say how the universe is becoming aware of itself. I am decidedly not a crystal rubber, but they may actually be on to something. Because the thought also occurs to me that a universe where observations are made are among the aspects we find. We make plenty of experimental observations. Light changes depending on what an observer is doing. Time changes based on observer speed. Perhaps the whole point of the universe is that self awareness is a pervasive growing spectrum through space and time. A sort of seed, dormant in some areas and firmly rooted in others. Maybe the universe is one big organism that has become transformed. And is continually growing, .. and learning.
And while we recently find that observations may indicate a holographic nature to the universe, however ridiculous that might sound, those observations might be clues into the true working of what we experience. Call it randomness, call it god, but the apparent NEED for life among the cosmos is more than we can comprehend at this time.
Perhaps I'm being too critical. These problems are quite complex and we have basically only begun. I admire the scientific endeavors. Maybe it is surprising to some, the amount of bizzare diversity we find when looking for explanations to seemingly simplistic problems. One question I have internally pondered recently is the existence of life. And I suppose I'm assuming there is life throughout the universe, but it doesn't matter much in the consideration.
What is it about the universe that life needed to develop?? Would it not be a functional universe if life had not developed?? Did life need to develop?? It seems the only answer is yes, because it indeed did manifest. So while we look at possible reasons how life sprouted: RNA configurations to DNA molecules, evolution, primordal soup, simple to complex, it doesn't answer the why. WHY??
Why is it that mass (atoms, physical stuff) developed into something that could move around, look for sustenence, replicate, observe and adapt?? The whole idea of non-living stuff somehow turning into useful, living stuff is spellbinding. It seems to me that there is a reason why this came to be. Randomness doesn't answer the why question. Is there, at the most basic level, any difference between life and non-life?? Quite possibly they are the same thing. But people distinguish the two because they appear and act quite differently. Rocks are not alive. People are. Plants are. Crystals are not.
Some new agers like to say how the universe is becoming aware of itself. I am decidedly not a crystal rubber, but they may actually be on to something. Because the thought also occurs to me that a universe where observations are made are among the aspects we find. We make plenty of experimental observations. Light changes depending on what an observer is doing. Time changes based on observer speed. Perhaps the whole point of the universe is that self awareness is a pervasive growing spectrum through space and time. A sort of seed, dormant in some areas and firmly rooted in others. Maybe the universe is one big organism that has become transformed. And is continually growing, .. and learning.
And while we recently find that observations may indicate a holographic nature to the universe, however ridiculous that might sound, those observations might be clues into the true working of what we experience. Call it randomness, call it god, but the apparent NEED for life among the cosmos is more than we can comprehend at this time.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
What did Lonnie Zamora see??
There are a few things about this case that don't seem to be in question.
1. Lonnie Zamora is of the highest caliber of witness. He was a police officer, rather quiet, and performed his job well. To nearly all investigators, his credibility is impeccable.
2. Lonnie Zamora saw something. Taking into account his credibility and the evidence left behind, it has become increasinly clear that, indeed, the incident did happen as Zamora described.
The first two videos give a synopsis of the case.
Zamora Part 1
Zamora Part 2
This last video has three parts. One attempts to explain what might have been seen by looking into technologies that were being tested at the time the sighting occurred. The next part of the video shows clips from principal investigators including Hynek. And some classic Rod Serling as well. The last part includes excerps from Unsolved Mysteries seen in the above two videos.
I can't say what he might have seen. A lunar module seems unlikely given the morphology of craft described and sketched. A very interesting case indeed. Especially interesting is the sound and propulsion. At least when the craft lifted off the ground. After that, Zamora describes the sound stopping. Apparently complete silence. So, while I look further into this, my questions:
1. If it were a lunar lander wouldn't the sound be continuous??
2. By this time, couldn't we measure the dimensions of lunar landers or other known craft being tested and compare them with the landing feet dimensions of the Zamora craft?
3. Was such known craft operated with and tested with two people??
3.
1. Lonnie Zamora is of the highest caliber of witness. He was a police officer, rather quiet, and performed his job well. To nearly all investigators, his credibility is impeccable.
2. Lonnie Zamora saw something. Taking into account his credibility and the evidence left behind, it has become increasinly clear that, indeed, the incident did happen as Zamora described.
The first two videos give a synopsis of the case.
Zamora Part 1
Zamora Part 2
This last video has three parts. One attempts to explain what might have been seen by looking into technologies that were being tested at the time the sighting occurred. The next part of the video shows clips from principal investigators including Hynek. And some classic Rod Serling as well. The last part includes excerps from Unsolved Mysteries seen in the above two videos.
I can't say what he might have seen. A lunar module seems unlikely given the morphology of craft described and sketched. A very interesting case indeed. Especially interesting is the sound and propulsion. At least when the craft lifted off the ground. After that, Zamora describes the sound stopping. Apparently complete silence. So, while I look further into this, my questions:
1. If it were a lunar lander wouldn't the sound be continuous??
2. By this time, couldn't we measure the dimensions of lunar landers or other known craft being tested and compare them with the landing feet dimensions of the Zamora craft?
3. Was such known craft operated with and tested with two people??
3.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
