Thursday, February 18, 2016

Odd Observation #8




...And still they flew. Almost invisible, the dimmest of dim white stars, it took 15 seconds to travel three degrees around 04:20 central one morning in an unvarying track and speed... 

Noticed at about 60 degrees elevation due North, it was observed with and without field-glasses to fly from the angered North to the troubled South down to an elevation of about 30 degrees before it got too dim to see... even with off-center viewing. It traveled about 90 degrees total, then, passing directly overhead. 


It was seemingly oblivious to the teapot tempests occurring beneath it on the ground: short-term affronts and petty jealousies carousing like plankton or a gene swarm in a tepid tide poolbeneath the over flyer's concern, consideration, or even contempt.  

Ouch.  



It will fly without regard to its denial and dismissal.  It would have other "fish to fry." A digression.

The satellite tracking data I use via NASA is an attempt to separate the ufological wheat from prosaic chaffathere is a desire to reference as incontrovertible as possibleand has already been mentioned in this series of observations.  It remains that J-Pass  may use some indeterminate, suggestive, and  manipulative inside language which might be a hurdle to the lay interested.  

This piece regards the perhaps purposed cant of that language to a degree.  Where is authority ever benign?

Alternatively, I suggest the employment of some imaginative and very clever JAVA applications one's otherwise advised they can use for personal sighting predictions. These applications can presently give a God's eye view of hundreds of man-made objects in orbit around the Earth.



Back to NASA, it asked, and rather disingenuously: "...Ever see a light moving across the night sky and wonder if it's an airplane or a spacecraft (or even a UFO)?"

OK, full stop. Words are the very fabric of our aggregate intellectual capacity and civilization, the reproducible stuff of dreams past and present, and equally employable as paintbrush, tool, and weapon. Mere words are, truly, the tap-root of real  magic to come... consider the "words" are "said"... and technological powers of a demi-god can manifest for anyone in the existential real world! But I digress... 

As an interested employer of words, I wonder what is really being communicated in the, certainly, dulcet if stealthy tones from space-poppa NASA. Do the words ask the reader if they think they're seeing UFOs? Do they offer a more agreeable and parsimonious suggestion for what the observer must *really* be seeing?  In Other Words. The benign. The prosaic. ...Stuff WE put up there, exclusively?!

Does NASA language hide a tiny misdirecting smirk with its mention of UFOs, or does it leave the possibility open?  I'd opt for the smirk.



I offer that NASA would be predictedbased on its observed past performanceto employ that former. Left to consider; however, is the latter, which the reader can benefit from if the reader so chooses.  NASA continued in their site narrative:



"Many people enjoy satellite watching as a fun hobby, and you can join them using J-Pass. Using your location and the latest available tracking data, J-Pass can predict the times a satellite will pass overhead, and even give you a chart showing the path of the craft through your sky. Whether you're interested in seeing the International Space Station, Mir, a favorite category of satellites such as Amateur craft, or just any manmade craft, J-Pass can help you plan your viewing." [sic]

What's going on here, really? Are we being protected by our 'doting' institutions or are they protecting themselves, insuring themselves, or profiting themselves at our expense... this goes as deep and as high as one wants to look, I suspect. Things are not as they appear. This becomes clearer as we continue.

I had been using this "J-Pass" satellite data program for around 18 months, and I had yet to see but the odd predicted satellite, shuttle, or station fly-over. This is not to say that it is impossible, just that satellites, shuttles, and stations can be very difficult to see. 

On the flip side, this is how the reader can use the J-Pass program to cut through some of the "official" smoke and fog (...that's "smog" isn't it...). The reader can pretty quickly survey the data and get an idea what they *could* be seeing, and then check that against what they have been seeing. Do the sets match? I'd bet NOT, more than so. 



Mine certainly didn't.

If the reader spends significant time outside trying to match these two data sets, two things are likely to happen. One, they are going to see some passingly and highly strange sh-t in the sky, guaranteed, and two, they are not going to be able to pronounce it all away as "object de' man-made"! 

That's the best use of NASA's program, ironically: to dismantle the ignorance that our institutions publicly decry but must privately foment for undisclosed reasons of their own. Data owes no allegiance, see. It is truly a sword cutting both ways. Data provided to "dismiss" can many times be turned, righteously, into data able to "prove."

Am I seeing UFOs? I'd have to say, "probably." 



Satellites, shuttles, and stations don't fly in formation. Satellites, shuttles, and stations don't vary their speed and track. Satellites, shuttles, and stations don't vary their color and brightness (not like ~I've~ witnessed) and shoot wide dim rays of colored light. Satellites, shuttles, and stations don't make 90-degree turns, spit red glitter, or flit and strobe in one location.  Satellites, shuttles, and stations won't astonish my mouth incredulously open, pique my rational (even scientific) interest, or provoke these essays. No!  UFOs are doing that.

That's enough. I know it's tough to swallow any of this when there are a thousand natural shocks contrived in our everyday lives to vex and confuse us and one specious distraction after another to muddle and confuse, but watch the skies if you've time and inclination. It's ongoing and nightly evidence of the certainty of the wider reality, the reality we're being so assiduously "protected from." My intuition is that it is the protectors from which one might be protected.


You might as well watch it.  It's watching you. That admission that it's watching changes everything, and that's why it's so hard to admit.  Still, every child must admit to growth and changing experience. No child expects to remain in an overcrowded crib... No child expects to be a child in a protected space indefinitely forever.  Who would want to?  Childhood sucked for the vast, vast majority, and I say this assuring the reader that I had a passably good one.  Do read on!

0 comments: