gravity waves found

[david lambright]

what is it??

can any one tell what it is around Eds machine... concrete? is there any thing else IN it?...just curious.....i cant tell from video or pix....maybe some oxide of metal or mineral ???does Ed mention any thing about minerals in his work??? .....david

[Harvey]

no,sorry.....but not to worry i can do a demo there too, just not the 29th of may....this will be....i dont know .....fun i hope......david

Ah . . . Ok, this is it then

River Road City Park - Google Maps

(16 Hours from LA Non-Stop - I don't think I'll be there )

[sucahyo]

(. Hopefully your computer problems are not so clandestine but I can tell you that '98 has some very serious security holes in it. You may want to look into Ubuntu.

Windows 98 is actually safer now because most attack using newer windows architecture. Disable file sharing or printer sharing or netbios.

This YouTube may be of assistance as it gives a set up for viewing aura's with a Fresnel lens at the 5 minute 40 second mark.

The author presented an idea that not all eyeballs are the same and they can diffract light differently and that may expalin why some can see aura's and some can't.

Learn to see the human aura in 10 seconds!
YouTube - Learn to see the human aura in 10 seconds!

I do not agree that aura can be seen with eyes.

Theory from 150 years ago:
- Karl Reichenbach: sensitive can see through wall, see through things. Some people can see aura because of traumatic even in the past or present. They trough forehead, stomach pit or hand palm.

First hand experience:
- watching a friend walking blindfoldedly during summer camp.
- watching a man reading blindfoldedly on presentation.

Explanation from psychic:
- see with third eye which is cakra location at the forehead.


For me, it is a branch science that can be learn without having to learn psychic. I think seeing aura is different from seeing ghost. I know people who can see ghost but can not see aura. Unfortunately, I don't think it is easy to find a teacher that only teach you how to look aura and not the rest unneeded knowledge.

[david lambright]

harvey..

no,sorry.....but not to worry i can do a demo there too, just not the 29th of may....this will be....i dont know .....fun i hope......david

[Harvey]

Is that this place?

Keizer Little League Park - Google Maps

[david lambright]

keizer demo

<iframe width="425" height="350" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" src="http://maps.google.com/maps?view=text&amp;q=parks&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;radius= 0.17&amp;sll=44.968282,-123.031206&amp;sspn=0.002258,0.005659&amp;split=1& amp;rq=1&amp;ev=p&amp;hq=parks&amp;hnear=&amp;ll=4 4.970146,-123.031527&amp;spn=0.006295,0.006295&amp;t=h&amp;o utput=embed"></iframe><br /><small><a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?view=text&amp;q=parks&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;radius= 0.17&amp;sll=44.968282,-123.031206&amp;sspn=0.002258,0.005659&amp;split=1& amp;rq=1&amp;ev=p&amp;hq=parks&amp;hnear=&amp;ll=4 4.970146,-123.031527&amp;spn=0.006295,0.006295&amp;t=h&amp;s ource=embed" style="color:#0000FF;text-align:left">View Larger Map</a></small>

[witsend]

Witsend,

Help us all better understand what your take is on aura's and what Dave is seeing as you seem to have an interest in this area as well.

Best regards,

IndianBoys

Thanks for the explanation. I'm afraid I have no strong beliefs about this one way or another. I have really poor eyesight and this was never picked up until I was 11 years old. As I result I always saw things in chiaroscuro. Was always captivated by artistic representations of anything at all - until I got to the impressionists. Then it made perfect sense. And I've always seen auras. But there too, I also assumed that everyone did. Now, of course, I have corrected lenses and - predictably - I see things as I presume we all do. Bit boring but where it lacks its former charm it hopefully compensates by being a marginally closer representation of reality. Whatever that is. LOL

[FuzzyTomCat]

awesome work!......where i live is actually at 44.827457, -123.060229 - Google Maps was hoping you could `re-do the line and see just how close it is!!......also,look at the times of your post and the time of the next post,[mine]....at that moment i was talking with a friend about shutter speed...when i hit the submit button your post came up.......talk about being on the same page!!...........thanks........david

Hi David,

I'm sorry for the slow request for a new map showing your location to the W 77 30' 00" "negative" Flux line, it's been totally unavoidable because of a unexpected death in my immediate family. But here it is showing your location (green thumb tack) just .70 miles from the proposed 6679.19 Km radius centered on the earths equator.

The interesting thing is that Jetijs lives approximately 1.78 miles from his location near E 49 30' 00" in Latvia, although he personally couldn't see any anomaly it appears a sensitive person he knows looking at the device did from one of his earlier postings.

A unique combination to say the least .....



Glen

[IndianaBoys]

IndianaBoys

I am at a complete loss. The dialectic introduced in all those excerpts go to some lengths to explain that there is NO SUCH THING as an aura. Thomas' hopes in this regard are DASHED. Any evidence of auras is argued to be fallacious and based on a kind of reckless optimism that is somehow inappropriate to the scientific evidence. It is argued that our view of reality is restricted to physical light waves and the eye's abilities to interpret those waves. And our photographic constraints move in step with just those restrictions. Why therefore do you assume that the text argues in favour of the existence of auras? It specifically refutes this.

Are you proposing that Dave's rig somehow puts paid to 'Ben's' arguments? Then I can understand the relevance. Else it seems that Ben is intended to represent a 'sage and scientific' reasonable account of things and his sole object here is to disabuse Thomas of his hopes in believing in such things as 'third eyes' and whatever else is required to see 'auras'.

Could you perhaps explain the relevance of these writings and this argument. It seems to fly in the face of what you are proposing here.

Edited. BTW I believe that kirlian photography rather puts paid to the idea that these energies cannot be exposed through the use of a camera. And if this evidence is consistent with 'sensitives' ' abilities to see auras then I'd suggest that their eyesight is perhaps genetically predisposed to see such forces. IMHO I think the science of genetics has still some way to go before we can conclusively determine what is is that any of us actually see.

Witsend,

First off, the area of aura's is subjective and is full of many opinions without a lot of science to back it up as far as I can tell.

After Davids experience seeing waves eminating from his device I became more interested why some were seeing waves/aura's and some did not.

Coming across the pdf posed a possible reason why some do and don't see aura's. You assumed I took a side or conflicting sides/confusing sides in the story being told.

I did not drill down into the story line, only scanned for the word aura. The relevance is, I was more interested in one of the concepts proposed that the eye is like a prism and can scatter light. Not all eyeballs are exactly the same so some may diffract light so an aura would be seen. So from a mechanical perspective that may account for why some can see them and some can't.

Your earlier feedback was that:
"I skimmed through all 300 pages and saw nothing related to auras."

So with that, I posted all the instances of the pages that had the word aura without thinking that it would create a confusion.

I do understand your contusion now and will adjust the 2 post having all the attachments with the word aura.

Help us all better understand what your take is on aura's and what Dave is seeing as you seem to have an interest in this area as well.

Best regards,

IndianBoys

[Harvey]

Thanx David,

I don't know if my choice of words made any sense regarding the walk around - what I was trying to convey there that if we change the viewpoint of the camera while always keeping it focused on the rig, then we will separate the effect into one of two dimensions. It will either stay with the camera as it moves around, or it will stay with the surroundings or even perhaps a mix between the two.

Whatever the outcome of such a test, it will help us determine if the distortion is in the camera or in the environment.

I'll check around to see if there is any other photo images with a similar distortion.

Sorry to here about your computer troubles - I can sympathize I had to rebuild my system last week. What ever it was, it targeted my email file (good thing I have a backup) - I have the guys in charge of that back tracing the source and so far it looks like they have done a good job of framing certain systems out of South Africa by using those computers to send out the viruses. Hopefully we can get a heuristic profile on the internet traffic distribution and pin down the specific origins. Bad people do bad things. Hopefully your computer problems are not so clandestine but I can tell you that '98 has some very serious security holes in it. You may want to look into Ubuntu. I think its free to download and install and those I have talked to say it works great. Since most viral attacks target windows based systems that may be the way to go for you, I don't know.

Cheers,

[david lambright]

keizer demo...

the address is River Road City Park
River Road City Park, Salem, Oregon 97303, United States, 97301
...i believe it is in the 2900 block of river road......david

[david lambright]

Something like a Fresnel Lens perhaps?

ETA:
YouTube - potatoheadist's Channel

I'd like to know what is causing this also.

One suggestion earlier on the snapshot indicated that it may have to do with the sequential addressing of the CCD imaging. If that is true, then walking around the device while taking the video would would keep the distortion in the same place in the picture but move it geographically. If the distortion stays fixed geographically, then I would say we need to look at this closer.

Things I noticed between the two images is that the distortion has flipped sides but the sunlight is on the same relative side. I think you used different cameras for those didn't you? Or did you use the snapshot feature of the HD camera?

i used the same camera on both shots and i took some snaps at mikes that same day ...i will try and get them up ASAP... computer problems [using a friends right now]...so any hoo ....i am also curious ..i just shot a vid + snaps of a bicycle wheel spining but no sunshine....at mikes, i could see the distortion on the screen??...the camera is a small Aiptek camera, 720p HD, 8 megapixel......i do not know what causes this....i am not using any thing elee to modify these vid / snaps.......the Keizer,Oregon demo,this saturday should be......interesting!.....i will do whatever i can to explore this furthur....david

[witsend]

IndianaBoys

I am at a complete loss. The dialectic introduced in all those excerpts go to some lengths to explain that there is NO SUCH THING as an aura. Thomas' hopes in this regard are DASHED. Any evidence of auras is argued to be fallacious and based on a kind of reckless optimism that is somehow inappropriate to the scientific evidence. It is argued that our view of reality is restricted to physical light waves and the eye's abilities to interpret those waves. And our photographic constraints move in step with just those restrictions. Why therefore do you assume that the text argues in favour of the existence of auras? It specifically refutes this.

Are you proposing that Dave's rig somehow puts paid to 'Ben's' arguments? Then I can understand the relevance. Else it seems that Ben is intended to represent a 'sage and scientific' reasonable account of things and his sole object here is to disabuse Thomas of his hopes in believing in such things as 'third eyes' and whatever else is required to see 'auras'.

Could you perhaps explain the relevance of these writings and this argument. It seems to fly in the face of what you are proposing here.

Edited. BTW I believe that kirlian photography rather puts paid to the idea that these energies cannot be exposed through the use of a camera. And if this evidence is consistent with 'sensitives' ' abilities to see auras then I'd suggest that their eyesight is perhaps genetically predisposed to see such forces. IMHO I think the science of genetics has still some way to go before we can conclusively determine what is is that any of us actually see.

[Harvey]

I've been thinking about this in between other things I have been doing and began wondering why humans are seeing things the CCD is not.

It struck me that the Persistance of Vision in the human sensors (rods and cones) in our eyes is much different than that of the CCD imaging common to modern digital equipment. In addition to that, our eyes and brain work in tandem to 'fill in the gaps'

Now we call those optical illusions, but in reality it is our brain telling us that something should be there even though we cannot see it. But in some cases, it can be a build up in energy in our sensors that overwhelms the persistence of vision mechanism. We can only see 3 distinct colors, Red, Green and Blue. For instance, we do not have any sensors for Magneta. So how do we determine that a color is Magenta? Suppose we have a laser that only produces that specific single wavelength of light - how does our eyes and brain interpret that? It does so because the sensors are not digital, they are sensitive to their respective frequencies and a band of frequencies on either side. When Magnenta light strikes a zone in the eye, the Red and Blue sensors each react to the energy equally. This tells the brain that it is in between those two and it associates that color with it.

In the case of David's Rig, there may be POV reactions occurring and even empty spots that he and his friends have learned to fill in (like the green dot in the above link only different) because of experiences they have had. For example; when I was very young, about 5 or 6, I recall looking at a black and white photo and asking my dad why only the grass was green and everything else was gray. He told me to look again, over and over I saw green and argued that the photo must have been painted green or something. "Your eyes are playing tricks on you", he said. But really, what a wonderful trick it is because the only reason I could see the green is because I had already experienced the reality beforehand.

My thought, is that if David is seeing something there when his visitor did not, perhaps it is because he has already experienced the reality beforehand. It may be the only way those sensors can interpret what he is experiencing.

So how can we apply POV to recorded media? Two ways I can think of. One is to use very fast frame rates like 1/25,000 seconds which require a tremendous amount of lux to create the image in such short time. This is also the principle in slow motion filming. The other is to use time lapse over exposure. In this case a low speed film is used with a filter and the shutter is held on for a long duration. The photographic image becomes the accumulated energy for those points over the elapsed period.

In the first example, we are trying to catch really fast events that may be completely missed by normal shutter action. However, if those events are low energy - they could be missed entirely anyway. The second example is more like the real POV because it holds onto the previous impressions and mixes them together. Unfortunately, this is not very practical for moving objects because they will just blur.

Well, that is just some of the stuff I have been pondering - well that and the spatial distortions associated with those vortex locations.

Cheers,

[david lambright]

hi

as far as i can tell so far,my device generates an energy vortex similar to natural vortices on our planet. my device is portable ...i believe that nick will be able to shed some light ....hopefully....it seems to have all of the same effects ....i hope that saturday will good weather for keizer regardless....i will be there on Saturday,May 29 from 10:00am till 2:00pm at the park in Keizer,Oregon...not sure of the address ...i will find it and let you know...david