Jim Oberg's "99 FAQs About Space UFO Videos"

[ArMaP]

Well put something together to prove they are in front ArMap. You have a keen interest in this thread so I'm sure the work involved wouldn't be too hard.

There's no way of proving something like that (or the opposite) without knowing what we are seeing.

Obviously, a small object could never be behind the tether, while a huge object could. As we don't really know the size of the objects we cannot really know if they pass behind or in front.

[Amaterasu]

Why are we caring about the thickness. Is that your theme here?
Because behind is behind.
And those animate forms were there. Behind the tether on NASA camera.
However you spin it .
And they look alive to me.
Why can't you conceive that.
Because it's space?
And nothing lives in space?
Why not Jim?
Tell me the math why no living organism cannot evolve anywhere.
Like sulphur pits in the Mariana Trench 6 miles down in the Pacific Ocean.
Life is everywhere. The sky and the sea are all made of the same building blocks.
Carbon and oxygen buddy... There's no stopping it...

I giveth Thee gelt.

[Amaterasu]

I feel like slamming my head against my firewall 

I agree with Flux....ArMap, Jim, prove US wrong.

And Thee.  [smile]

[Amaterasu]

You will never Convince Jim ....

I guess Jim is just trying to do his job ?       

And Thee, as well.  [grin]

[Amaterasu]

There's no way of proving something like that (or the opposite) without knowing what we are seeing.

Obviously, a small object could never be behind the tether, while a huge object could. As we don't really know the size of the objects we cannot really know if they pass behind or in front.

Well, it looks (quite clearly) to be objects passing behind.  Occum's Razor would suggest that the image shows critters/objects quite big, but an astounding effort is put forth to assure Us that what We are witnessing is NOT life, Jim, but not as We (presently) know it.

You state the obvious, ArMaP, when You say "We cannot know," given that if We did, there would be little here to discuss.  [smile]  But given the vehemence and the Razor...  I'm saying They are out there.  I wonder if They communicate... Would love to chat.

[Flux]

There's no way of proving something like that (or the opposite) without knowing what we are seeing.

Obviously, a small object could never be behind the tether, while a huge object could. As we don't really know the size of the objects we cannot really know if they pass behind or in front.

Jim is that you?

[Sinny]

There's no way of proving something like that (or the opposite) without knowing what we are seeing.

Obviously, a small object could never be behind the tether, while a huge object could. As we don't really know the size of the objects we cannot really know if they pass behind or in front.

Your are dismissing our perception of the recorded visual data, and also ignoring Deuems input.

[The Matrix Traveller]

"Deuem Process" does appear to show the order of Layers ... 

and thus extremely useful in this case.

And after all Identifying the layers, does tell us which object passes in front of which,
viewed from a given location.

[ArMaP]

Well, it looks (quite clearly) to be objects passing behind.

Funny how nobody tells me why do they think the objects pass behind the tether. Isn't one person here that is capable of analysing their perceptions and understand why they see what they see?

Interesting.

Occum's Razor would suggest that the image shows critters/objects quite big, but an astounding effort is put forth to assure Us that what We are witnessing is NOT life, Jim, but not as We (presently) know it.

No Occam's Razor says that from two hypothesis, the one with less assumptions is probably the right one, but which one has the less assumptions in this case, the one that states that we are seeing previously unknown huge, spherical live forms or small bright objects out of focus?

You state the obvious, ArMaP, when You say "We cannot know," given that if We did, there would be little here to discuss.  [smile]

People asked, I answered.

But given the vehemence and the Razor...  I'm saying They are out there.

I'm not saying "they" (who or whatever they are) are not there, I'm just saying that I think these are small bright objects closer to the camera than the tether, in the same way I don't think that's the case of the STS-80 video.

I wonder if They communicate... Would love to chat.

Why, to bore them with your abundance paradigm? 

[ArMaP]

Your are dismissing our perception of the recorded visual data, and also ignoring Deuems input.

I am dismissing your perception because you do not explain it to me. If your perception is wrong but you don't understand why then why should I follow it?

And what Deuem input are you talking about?

[ArMaP]

"Deuem Process" does appear to show the order of Layers ... 

What layers?

Deuem's process enhances the difference between the several steps in gradients.

[Sinny]

I am dismissing your perception because you do not explain it to me. If your perception is wrong but you don't understand why then why should I follow it?

Perception is in the eye of the beholder.
How about you explain to me why it is my perception that is wrong.   

And what Deuem input are you talking about?

Deuems reply to my question..Keep up ArMap.

[ArMaP]

Perception is in the eye of the beholder.

In the eye and in the brain.

How about you explain to me why it is my perception that is wrong.   

I didn't say your perception is wrong.

Deuems reply to my question..Keep up ArMap.

It's hard to keep up when you just say "Deuem's input" and he has several posts in this thread.

Now that you explained what you're talking about I see what you mean, but if you read what Deuem wrote it looks like he doesn't really know how his process would work in a situation like this (or at least that's my interpretation of what he wrote).

[Amaterasu]

Funny how nobody tells me why do they think the objects pass behind the tether. Isn't one person here that is capable of analysing their perceptions and understand why they see what they see?

Um, the tether stays clear while something moves past it, and the delineation is on the tether.  If something passed in front of this delineation, it would vanish.  It holds completely steady.  Does that help?

Why, to bore them with your abundance paradigm? 

Why do You assume They would be bored? [smile]

[The Matrix Traveller]

TMT  Quote;

"Deuem Process" does appear to show the order of Layers ... 

What layers?

Deuem's process enhances the difference between the several steps in gradients.

Its hidden in the Shape of the Contours .....

Here is an abstract ....