Ed,
I disagree in that the premise requires 2 HV fields and there
isn't likely to be that many airborne HV fields to set up the lens at
the far end -also the focal point on our end may be different for time
displacement. As far as ground based observations of HV installations
from the future we may be up against the distance to the horizon and
intervening structures that haven't even been built yet.
Fran
-----Original Message-----
From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 3:27 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
Fran, in proposing your explanation, you conveniently ignore a large
amount of the evidence. In addition, a temporal lens effect should
show a lot more than just a few UFOs. We should see a variety of
objects and events, which is clearly not the case. A theory is not
worth considering if it is so rigid that it is applied to everything
by making ad hoc assumption and using selective evidence.
Ed
On Jul 30, 2009, at 1:11 PM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:
> Snip: Of course, people with imagination will
> suggest all kinds of explanations. The number of crazy ideas should
> not distract serious investigators from seeing the most obvious
> conclusion, i.e. that life has evolved on many planets and some of
> this life is more advanced than we are..
>
> Reply:
> Ed, I have to say that my temporal lens idea better fits the
> known facts regarding electromagnetic observations, be they visual or
> radar and may even allow some physical contact although the lack of
> physical evidence suggests otherwise. There is already a corollary in
> place called gravitational lensing so my proposal attempts to explain
> the observations with the fewest assumptions possible. I see the
> spacecraft reports and radar returns as evidence of our own future
> spacecraft probably interacting with HV fields in the present to
> create
> focal points where the observer views across time lines. The NASA
> shuttle controversy where the charged tether broke and UFO like
> objects
> appear behind the miles of still charged tether line viewed by the
> shuttle camera filming down the axis of the charged line suggest
> temporal lensing is real. It is also a fact that many photos and
> reports
> are near HV lines which would act as a single lens, I would presume
> the
> UFO propulsion supplies a second lens and then it is just a matter of
> the observer to be at the correct coordinates where the focal point
> resolves. Maybe this hypothesis can be tested with the appropriate
> selection of an observation point near a HV nexus
> Fran
>
