1
2
3
4
Next

Read Discussion
Reply to All

1

What IF the "war" is really a trick--a RUSE?

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Distractions, distractions ... What's "real" ?
----------------------------------------------
Maybe the war is really just a ruse.

Edit (moderator): Link removed.

Look for yourself, and see what's real.

They're not talking about it.

The press has blindfolds on.

Who's gonna win--the NWO or the prophets?

Who's gonna live on--the ones underground in their luxurious digs, or the ones left to
fend for themselves on the surface?

Time will tell, no doubt.

: )

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 6,042 • Replies: 68

No top replies

What's real ?
Good question.

I think that the rest of the physics community will be behind me when I say : no one knows.

0 Replies

There it is! The belief that repudiates ALL PAST Wisdom!
You've just nailed--WHY IT IS--that this generation is obsessed with processes and completely ignored results, effects and outcomes.

No wonder, "Justice" is an unknown and "Fairness" is an illusive goal.

Nobody thinks ANY outcome is "real."

My college-age kids are infected with this sickness, too.

Except for my youngest son who is going through military training and sees the benefit of prior-conditioning as the way to avoid bad EFFECTS caused by poor decision-making, all my other children only believe in relative Truth.

This means, they are not conditioned to make decisions according to any form of Wisdom; no, they decide everything on the spur of the moment.

What a load of suffering they have accepted, for throwing out the Wisdom of the Past that actually worked.

Gone are the precepts of public health, nutrition, group consensus and cohesiveness, public morality and common sense. None of that is "real" to this generation.

Pitiful.

0 Replies

Re: What IF the "war" is really a trick--a RUSE?

chaiyah wrote:

http://www.abidemiracles.com/9089052.htm

Look for yourself, and see what's real.

Based on the time/date stamp on the photo's, the moon's crescent would be waning crescent 5% visible on Aug 25'th and waning crescent with 16% visible on May 25'th.

Accurate information on moon phases can be found here: http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneDay.html

These photo's show an overexposure of a normal rising lunar crescent. The overexposure is also evident by the lovely crescent lens flare which appears slightly below and to the right of each image (though much fainter in the Aug images). Lens flare and overexposure are common conditions which occur in images of these type, and can be seen in many other examples (most notably, lens flares of the Sun, which look like companion objects, but are obviously not).

Horizon views from various geographic locations can be generated here: http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/uncgi/Yourhorizon

The images are somewhat crude, but at least you can use them to find out what objects are supposed to be in what locations in the sky at given times.

Best Regards,

0 Replies

I'm not talking about the cresent moon.
Oh yes. And--

What about the great big WHITE DOT? That's my concern here.

Did you not find that very noticeable?

: )

0 Replies

Yeh, that's what I'm talking about; the white dot.

That's the moon. It's an overexposure of the crescent.

Look below the white dot, down and to the right and you'll see the crescent lens flare.

The lens flare shows a clearer shape because it's reflecting less of the light, and is therefor, not overexposed.

0 Replies

Evidence that it is a lens flare is particularly obvious in the photo stamped: May 26 03 04:44:27

In this photo, the crescent shape is in *front* of the clouds. Whereas those *same* clouds in previous images obscured the (even brighter) white object (the actual crescent moon).

Pretty cool huh Smile

Smile

0 Replies

lens flares.
What photo are you looking at?

The photos I have from Mt Wilson Observatory show the large white dot against a field of black sky until finally there is a blast of sunlight off to the left.

Your photo is from where?????

0 Replies

Who's on First, What's on Second and I don't Know's on Third
Uhm, this posting has to do with a url showing photos from Southern California.

What do they have to do with photos from Boston, Massachusetts?

I'm lost, here.

: ) chai

0 Replies

Hi Chai,

Yeh, I'm looking at the same photo's you are. The Mt. Wilson ones. The ones you posted on your web link: http://www.abidemiracles.com/9089052.htm

http://www.abidemiracles.com/images/9091MtWilson526_0444.jpg

Look closely at the one (above) with the date/time stamp I mentioned (May 26 03 04:44:27). See how the little crescent image is in *front* of the cloud? That proves that it's a lens flare.

That big white dot you are looking at in those photo's is actually a crescent moon. But it looks like a big white blob simply because it's so overexposed.

0 Replies

No way. I won't buy that for a minute. Unh huh.

You're messing with me. This is one of fourteen photos, nearly all dark, with that large white dot prominently moving upward.

No. It's not an overexposure. And that's not the moon.

Believe what you want.

0 Replies

Body one hour in front of the sun.
The very same day--within four hours--I caught that same "body" an hour in front of the Sun--again--on Turnhout, Begium's cam.

See abidemiracles.com/9089053.htm

0 Replies

Hey, I'm not the one who found the photo's, you are. All I'm doing is looking at them with a critical eye toward understanding what they show.

I'm not messing with you. Just look at the photo. The crescent is in front of the cloud. It's obviously a lens flare. In addition, that white blob is right were the moon is supposed to be in the charts, and the other images all indicate overexposure. Everything is consistent.

If the photo's are fake then they're fake. But then they don't mean a thing. If they are real, then they are clearly showing a lens flare, and a very nice one at that. They should be used in a photography class.

Take care,

0 Replies

Debunking for the sake of debunking
1. The photos are off the unretouched Mt. Wilson Observatory cam--all 18 of them. The subsequent Belgian photos are off a city-cam in Turnhout, Belgium. Go argue with them too.

2. The moon was approaching New Moon close enough, that might be the moon and it might not. It might be a cresent-shaped aberration; and I don't give a ****, whether it is or it ain't. It's a little thing--probably harmless.

3. But, sixteen of the eighteen photos that I copied off the Observatory site had that very large white orb about an hour ahead of the Sunrise.

You want to call the UCLA Observatory a bunch of amateurs or liars or mis-informationalists, and I don't think you are going to get very far.

If you're really an honest person, you'll look for other validation, as I did; and you'll keep on looking for it without saying a whole lot, until you have ALL the facts at hand.

But, the way you're just tossing ideas around, this isn't getting anywhere at all. Maybe this and maybe that just doesn't prove anything, does it?

I don't know exactly what IS going on--except to say--we are absolutely not being informed. Solar anomalies and extra bodies are flying around off-course, and the professionals who call themselves "astronomers" are silent.

That is my issue--not--what the perfect truth happens to be. The perfect Truth is kinda difficult to glean from *HERE*.

0 Replies

Here's an example where lens flare was used intentionally to capture a solar eclipse: http://www.tombrunet.com/images/summer.html

http://www.tombrunet.com/images/summertrip/eclipse.jpg

Notice how the sun is over exposed, but the lens flare shows the partial eclipse. The same thing occurs in night pictures with bright objects like the moon.

This link is an overexposed crescent moon with Hale Bopp beside it: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2217/LandsEnd.htm

Another example of an overexposed crescent moon is here: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/klwalker/personal/halebopp.html

As you can see, it's common for overexposed crescents to show up as white blobs, just like in your photo's. Not only that, but it's a known effect of cameras, which is quite predictable with certain exposure and luminosity conditions.

Best Regards,

0 Replies

Could someone explain in laymans terms what the premise is here?

Chaiyah's first post seems to be from a discussion already in progress. What's the background? No links please. Just a simple explaination.

0 Replies

Re: Debunking for the sake of debunking

chaiyah wrote:

1. The photos are off the unretouched Mt. Wilson Observatory cam--all 18 of them. The subsequent Belgian photos are off a city-cam in Turnhout, Belgium. Go argue with them too.

I have no argument with them. All they are doing is showing photo's, and all I'm doing is looking at what they are showing us.

chaiyah wrote:

2. The moon was approaching New Moon close enough, that might be the moon and it might not. It might be a cresent-shaped aberration; and I don't give a ****, whether it is or it ain't. It's a little thing--probably harmless.

But I thought you posted the pictures as evidence. If you don't know what they show, and don't care, then why post them? I don't get it.

chaiyah wrote:

3. But, sixteen of the eighteen photos that I copied off the Observatory site had that very large white orb about an hour ahead of the Sunrise.

Of course they did. It's the moon, rising exactly where it's supposed to be.

chaiyah wrote:

You want to call the UCLA Observatory a bunch of amateurs or liars or mis-informationalists, and I don't think you are going to get very far.

Again, they are not making claims, only showing pictures. I'm sure they would agree with me on what those pictures show. You are the only one who disagrees.

chaiyah wrote:

If you're really an honest person, you'll look for other validation, as I did; and you'll keep on looking for it without saying a whole lot, until you have ALL the facts at hand.

I have given a range of corroborating evidence and examples to support my explanations. All of which is consistent and well understood by even amateur photographers.

chaiyah wrote:

But, the way you're just tossing ideas around, this isn't getting anywhere at all. Maybe this and maybe that just doesn't prove anything, does it?

It's just an explanation of the photo's. It's not proof of anything, any more than the pictures are proof of anything else.

chaiyah wrote:

I don't know exactly what IS going on--except to say--we are absolutely not being informed. Solar anomalies and extra bodies are flying around off-course, and the professionals who call themselves "astronomers" are silent.

That is my issue--not--what the perfect truth happens to be. The perfect Truth is kinda difficult to glean from *HERE*.

If you don't know what's going on, and you don't know what the pictures show, then why offer them to us as evidence?

If you want to believe something just because you want to believe it, or because you have a "feeling" or something, that's fine, but why then bother to try to present evidence, when you yourself don't recognize the validity of it?

Take care,

0 Replies

What do the photos have to do with war?

Why/when would someone live luxuriously underground?

If the press doesn't talk about something,
would that more likely indicate the issue doesn't exist for them, the readership doesn't exist, or the issue exists and they deliberately ignore it?

So many questions, so little time! It may take all the time I have and then some ...

0 Replies

Like I said, Codeburg:

fealola wrote:

Could someone explain in laymans terms what the premise is here?

Chaiyah's first post seems to be from a discussion already in progress. What's the background? No links please. Just a simple explaination.

0 Replies

All the examples you have shown are COMPLETELY different from the ones that I archived.

The photos that I have archived at abidemiracles.com/9089052 and 9089053 are of a BLACK FIELD OF STARS with a single large white orb.

There is nothing to overexpose. I am already aware of the problem of lens flares. Since there is no Sun showing in the pictures, there is nothing to be overexposed.

You're just jerking me around, here. Stop it.

for fealola, the pictures archive is at

abidemiracles.com/9089052.htm --Photos from the UCLA Mt. Wilson Observatory web-cam, of a lit body that showed up yesterday pre-dawn about an hour before the sun came up--too large and too white to be Mars, and in the wrong sector of the sky, to be Mars--as you can see for yourself.

0 Replies

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho

Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave

The Void and the Absolute Oneness of the Universe - Discussion by Relinquish

can we reconcile darkness in man with madness(lunacy) ? - Question by studentnorway

Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas

Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus

Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus

In the GRAND scheme of things, what matters? - Question by komr98

Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King

How can something come from nothing? - Question by ripple

Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz

Forums
» What IF the "war" is really a trick--a RUSE?

1
2
3
4
Next

Read Discussion
Reply to All

Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/15/2025 at 03:36:02

▲ ▼