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

Chai started another thread on the subject over here: If this photo is real, what does that say about Media?

Re: oh my!


There is just a tiny chance that the problem might just be that chaiyah doesnt know what "overexposed" means.

Chaiyah, have you ever used a non-automatic camera, or seen anyone use it?

A non-automatic camera has time controls. You have to choose yourself whether you leave the lense of the camera open for 1/1000th of a second, for 1/60th of a second, or even for 1/2 a second, when you take the picture.

The longer you leave the lense open, the more light flows in, and onto your film.

If I point my camera at a daylight street scene, I have to put it at 1/250th second. If I put it at too long a time, too much light comes in, and the picture will be "overexposed" - it will be too light. Everything in it will appear too light. You'll have seen pictures like that, I'm sure - you just think, oh, this one didnt work, and you throw it away.

Same thing in the evening. If I take a picture when its dark, you gotta take a longer time - say, 1/30th or 1/15th of a second if its still dusk, even longer in the night - to get the picture to look like what my bare eyes saw. If I leave the lense open for too short a time, too little light will get in, and the picture will be too dark, black even. If I leave it open too long a time, every point of light in reality will turn into a big blot of light on the picture.

Thats what rosborne is talking about. The full circular, lit orb in the sky you see in the picture is what happens when you point a camera at a much smaller point of light, a 5% crescent moon for example, and leave the lense open for too long. You can try it out if you want, just ask around if anyone's got an old-fashioned camera and see - then you wouldnt have to be scared of this orb anymore.

Remember, a camera is not a miracle machine, it doesn't automatically register what you see - it's a technical appliance. To get what your bare eyes see onto a picture, the camera has to do things. Only by allowing just enough light in, for example, does the film get to "catch" what you see with your eyes. If too much light gets in, things start looking very differently from what you would see with your own eyes. The sun, that coin-sized disk you see in the sky, would end up a huge, sky-covering ball of light. The moon, that dime-sized crescent, would end up looking like a big white blot. What rosborne is explaining you is thats exactly what happend in these here pictures.

(nimh, an aside, there a great article in the new Spiegel, partly only the printed edition or through 'pay by view':Dem Schwachsinn eine Schneise

Interesting article, thanks.

Chaiyah - I'm just wondering, Walter's article gave me an idea - do you believe man ever was on the moon, or do you believe the moonlanding footage was a forgery?

o no. not that.

The Truth Is Fear
Chaiyah,

Face value apparently means nothing. Every debunker knows a real anomaly would have a Neon sign stating " this is an alien spaceship please alert your media". And until such event happens the slew of uninformed debunksters will over shadow any theories.

I copied this from my Post and hope you think it's relevant.

When the Truth comes out ?

http://www.topsecrettestimony.com/npcc_full.wmv

1) Sun Lasco/Soho satellite photos of UFO's in nasa's own released photo's. (research Euro seti) video found on Kazaa

2) Cattle mutilations Approx 30,000 cases or 30,000,000 dollars worth of cattle . Not one arrest. hmmmmmm Did detectives forget how to detect ?

3) Crop circles/landing sites bearing radiation and other odd characteristics
Crop circles have appeared in over 40 countries worldwide. Must be a conspiracy to fool who ?
(must be those crazy british boyz with their ropes and boards they surely get around.)

4) Mars - Pyramids Face tubes etc. anything interesting found is surely an area avoided with nasa probes.. why ?

5) Witnesses public - Betty and Barney hill The famous case of Betty and Barney Hill was a first for the UFO phenomenon for many reasons. Although it wasn't the first reported abduction, it was the first to be formally investigated and also marked the entrance of hypnosis into UFOlogy. It wasn't however the first mysterious happening in New Hampshire.
also see Betty's Star Map- Marjorie Fish

The allagash 4 "Undeniable Evidence of Alien Intervention." The account of the 1996 abduction of four men while on a canoe trip in the Allagash Wilderness in Maine. This incident ranks as one of the most compelling abduction accounts because it is supported by multiple witnesses

6) Government Witnesses - project disclosure and it's 450 witnesses in Government Cia FBI NSA Army Navy Marines AirForce
as well as Corporate Testimony

7) Moon Landing or hoax or something in between just a few high resolution pictures of the moons light and darkside would have stamped this out 30 years ago. We can go to the moon but we apparently can't photograph it very well why ?. Think maybe by apollo 16 we would have brought the appropriate camera ? Why do Some beleive .. If we went to the moon it wasn't in a rocket. (do the research)

8) Things for debunkers to read Friedman versus Klass (Klass = Klueless Ass (just my personal opinion)

9) An average of 70,000 ufo sightings reported each year!

10) reported crash sites
Rosewell, New Mexico 4 July 1947
Spitzenbergen, Norway 1952
and many many more ( do the research)

11) Famous Landings
Rendlesham Forest will always be remembered as the UK's answer to Roswell, being as it is the only other UFO incident that has received official recognition from the government and military. It is the most significant UFO incident ever to have occurred in the UK and one of the most significant anywhere in the world.

Debunkers =Dont they need more swamps ? for their swamp gas theories?

Fluid,

Each of your points are very important
in that if even one of them turned up a geniune UFO or artifact
then millions of skeptics would change their attitude!

All we have to do is prove one of them.

Each of your points deserves real investigation,
so why not post some references for each of them
so that people who *want* to agree with you can find the evidence they need?

References, documentation, whatever links may add credibility
to each point.



For people who refuse to believe their very own eyes, the following
comes from a stunning set of pictures you can research further at:
http://www.vionline.com/main/gallery3.html

*Chaiyha's "wisdom of the past " - is exactly that,
the wisdom of the past - for the past.
*There must be a wisdom of today, FOR the children
of today and the future.
*As it is so beautifully stated in "The Prophet" - Kahlil
Gibran makes it so clear (in the selection where the
prophet is asked to speak on the subject of CHILDREN)
that WE can not give our thoughts to our children - for
they will have "their own thoughts", and he also adds that
they (and their thoughts) will forever be very far beyond
anything that you or I could ever hope to attain or to
comprehend. That their thoughts dwell in the land of
tomorrow, where you and I can never go, nor can we
understand these thoughts.
*Why is it there are ever present misunderstandings
between the "older" generation and the generation
they have helped to create, but never understand?
*Why is it that Bob Dylan, as an example here (now
that he is about 60 years old) was remarking to a
reporter the fact that he simply could not understand
the kind of music that his daughter listens to today.
His kind of music - told a story. This is what he is
conditioned to expect music to be, always. But his
daughter hears something different - and that
difference is something that he may never be able
to fully hear or understand.

truth
Chai, you accuse Rosborne of not wanting to deal with reality. That's the kettle calling the pot black. Perhaps if we all stopped taking our medicine some of us might agree with you. Your avatar looks so sane.