In reply to Vibrator !'s message of Fri, 16 Sep 2022 00:40:31 +0100: Hi, [snip] >Multiple independent captures in HD and 60 Hz, using fixed focal length >phone cams with fixed apertures, showing macroscopic quantum effects at >ranges down to a few centimetres, are all out of focus butterflies? And >this is just one type of mini-UAP - there's others indexed in the list that >don't look anything like this. Bit of a weak theory, no? Either you're >being facetious or the MiB have got to you, but get yer specs on.. worth >putting your 'serious' hat on, for this..
My comment was directed to that specific video, not others. > >Moving swiftly on, a capture was recently posted of box-orbs entering the >atmosphere over the great pyramids in the form of a giant cross-shaped >construction that dissociates into multiple independent units upon reaching >lower altitude: > > https://youtu.be/uDx-S8TqDOo?t=2371 (part of a compilation, i'm just >referencing that one short scene) > >..prior to this, i'd only seen captures of box-orbs being released or >recovered by saucers / related craft, apparently as probes or drones, so >was assuming that was their principle means of arrival. What that video >above shows however is some kind of ferrying / transport configuration for >en masse insertions, perhaps crossing interstellar space like that, or else >released by one of the larger craft closer nearby. Now, if you search the >list for the keyword "fleet", you'll see that there's packs of hundreds of >these things being seen at a time, and moreso the higher in altitude you >go. This obviously raises serious red flags over just how many may now be >here, not just in our atmosphere and oceans but throughout the system - we >see them actually on the moon, for instance, and not just high in the sky >silhouetted against it (though there's plenty of such shots too); given >how fast they can move - and besides, given that they can teleport and >hyperspace - they obviously don't need to be in 24 hr visual range to pose >an implicit potential threat, yet they're still increasing in number at an >alarming rate.. arrivals like the one above could be going on daily, yet >mostly dismissed as meteors, if even seen; most of the planet's surface is >desolate open water - how many such insertions are simply never witnessed? > >Or are they perhaps also returning home, if unseen, with basically stable >numbers doing short tours on rotation? But what if there's millions deep >in our oceans, each able to suddenly radiate megawatts for sustained >periods - they could just boil up a load of water and steam us overnight, There are simpler ways to kill people. >or swoop down in legions deploying chemical or biological agents, or just >remote-controlling or incapacitating everyone remotely etc. etc. (all >capabilities they've claimed or demonstrated) Oh really? I'm not aware of them ever having claimed anything, let alone committing mass murder. >- again, there's no question >we're being invaded by any reasonable definition of the word - this is an >interstellar extraterrestrial civilisation making an outpost of our system >with apparent impunity at the very least - the only question is whether >it's malign or benign in intent. If it's the latter, why on earth would >they need such numbers? Why do humans need millions of TV sets? >I mean, if they're not here to physically >interfere in some way, why so many of them? If they're uncrewed then that >would seem to eliminate innocent tourism. On the contrary uncrewed TV cameras is the best way to be a tourist. It saves having to go in person, and is much safer. >So why the big shift of >materiels here? They're obviously prepping for something, some task that >requires large numbers of them. 'Surveillance' alone doesn't seem to cut >it - the smaller cubes and related probes would seem more than sufficient, >not to mention stealthier. These larger units are obviously far more >capable and numerous than a mere cartography or scouting expedition would >require. Not to mention brazen. Perhaps they are helping us by mitigating the worst effects of climate change? Such an effort may well require millions of devices distributed all across the globe. > >And they're obviously not merely passing through, en route to some other >star, if deploying such a dedicated insertion system; it would seem most >unlikely they'll later reform that 'cross' structure and move on to Alpha >Centauri or whatevs; that was some serious, here-to-stay unpacking going >on there. Even if they came right out and said "nope, no invasion planned >here, uh, we're just on exercises?" - remember how that worked out last >time: first rule of invasion - keep schtum and misdirect, even while >amassing forces in plain sight.. Unlike narrow minded humans, they have no need to "invade" or "conquer". We have done so since time immemorial in order to acquire resources, because our technology was limited. This situation will not last much ,longer, as we are making our own technological breakthroughs now, which will put us in essentially the same position, and consequently will lead to the "golden age" of mankind. A major sociological shift will accompany the technological shift. They have no such need because:- 1) They clearly have access to essentially unlimited energy. 2) That gives them the ability to recycle essentially everything. 3) There are vast numbers of dead planets, moons, asteroids, gas clouds etc. in the Universe that they could tap for resources if they had the need, without needing to deprive us of anything. In short any concern that they might be a threat is frankly silly, so stop trying to engender fear in the population, which may cause people to attack our visitors, who may then find it necessary to defend themselves. (This has apparently happened occasionally when military jets have threatened them.) A consequence of our childish militaristic mentality. > >The sheer scale of the incursions, together with the near-absence of wider >cognisance and not least the denialism demonstrated above, I don't deny at all that they are "around". I have seen such a craft myself, first hand, in broad daylight. My "butterfly" comment was specific to that particular movie, and you have simply falsely assumed that it was symptomatic of wider denial. All I'm saying it that you need to separate the wheat from the chaff. [snip] Cloud storage:- Unsafe, Slow, Expensive ...pick any three.
