gravity waves found

[IndianaBoys]

David Lambright? Where is the coil?? Anyway dude,,, Slow down a bit... is it a gravity field? or a magnetic field? Do u believe in gravity? OR could it be a magnetic field? What is the speed of magnetism? What is the speed of gravity?
Do birds understand gravity? or insects, or oxygen, or the Wright Brothers.
Again Brother E=MC2. And I told u previously that u have an inverted magnetron. And that is exactly what u have. If u cant recognize it ....slow down ...forget what u think u know and use basic human common sense to rationalize it... then will u see the absolute beauty of what u have created.

Morita of Sony fame said 'Never break another man's rice bowl'

[Aromaz]

Video animations to explain

Sharing an experience. Sorry, this might sound like a promotion, in a way it might be; but be assured I do not get anything for this - except EASE and PRACTICAL use of this fabulous software. This software isn a VERY powerful tool and cheap to use in our research here.

I had a problem of how to explain my theory of Gravity in understandable language - without mathematics. So an easy way is video. But how can I explain a concept without practical examples? By using drawings, but that is not so easy to do.

Recently I used the freeware version of WebPLUS from SERIF to do my Web designs with. I was surprised to see for the first time in my life a computer program that stands up to it promotion: "Your website will be on line in matter of minutes". I was so surprised and impressed, I tried PhotoPLUS and DrawPLUS.
Now I am the proud owner of full legal AND PAID FOR DrawPLUS, PhotoPLUS, WebPLUS and MoviePLUS. (Hey I am in Thailand, here very difficult to even get a legal copy of anything!). I even bought full licenses for all computers in my factory. Why am I saying this?

I recommend all who wants to do nice explanations to have a look at these programs - real POWERFUL software all for less than US$ 110 each and excellent supporting structure on top. I suggest: Try the FREEWARE version first and then buy the full software with much more features. Often the FREEWARE is an version or two prior to current version.

Presently I am using the ANIMATION feature in DrawPLUS to make my presentation on GRAVITY - and I am really getting VERY excited. The best investment I made for sharing concepts ever - in both marine and Alternative research! I have NEVER worked with animations or GIF files, as far as making them myself. Now I did some nice examples in less than 30 minutes since started reading "What Animation is about" in the DrawPLUS "Help".

See: Web Design, Photo Editing and DTP software | Serif – Inspiring Creativity

My proper expalined GRAVITY goming soon.

[Harvey]

Aromaz,

That sounds Interesting - thanks for giving us the heads up on it.

Looking forward to seeing your images

[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

[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,

[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.

[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

[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

[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,

[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

[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

[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

[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>

[Harvey]

Is that this place?

Keizer Little League Park - Google Maps

[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