• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Jenny Randles' Images From The Past

Mattattattatt

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Sep 17, 2001
Messages
511
Now that would be a good name for a TV series...

I remember about a decade ago, Jenny Randles was on This Morning with richard and Judy, and at the end, as a bit of an aside, said that she knew of a technology, or someone, that was very close to being able to receive images of the past...

That was all I really know... did any of this come to light? Was it linked to the Chronovisor?
 
Mattattattatt said:
Now that would be a good name for a TV series...

I remember about a decade ago, Jenny Randles was on This Morning with richard and Judy, and at the end, as a bit of an aside, said that she knew of a technology, or someone, that was very close to being able to receive images of the past...

That was all I really know... did any of this come to light? Was it linked to the Chronovisor?

If it was the CHronovisor that was a bit more than 10 years ago so presumably it was something else.

Gordon
 
I think Randles referred to it "like watching television", which sounds similar, so I'm wondering if someone else was trying to resurrect the ideas in some form...
 
Could someone from the mag perhaps contact her on our behalf and ask about it?
 
Found this stuff about a guy called Henry Silanov, a Russian geologist who claims he has invented a camera that can take pictures of the past. He says he has a collection of 80 photographs of aliens, paranormal activities, dinosaurs, and people from the past whose pictures were taken many years after they died.

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3
The webpage is MIA. An archived version can be accessed via the Wayback Machine:


https://web.archive.org/web/20070101072154/http://ufoarea.com/technology_taking_photo.html

Can't find any of these photos though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wasn't one of them printed in FT a while back? It was supposedly a picture of Jesus but you couldn't see anything to prove it wasn't just a guy with a beard.
 
Ahh... it's all pravda.ru stuff... would we expect to see any actual photos? The stuff they report tends to be pretty unbelievable...
 
hokum6 said:
Wasn't one of them printed in FT a while back? It was supposedly a picture of Jesus but you couldn't see anything to prove it wasn't just a guy with a beard.

I think that was a Chronovisor pic?...
 
I've always had a great respect for Jenny Randles.

The fascinating-but-improbable capability of somehow seeing back into the past has been a dream probably ever since humanity became sentient.

Does anyone have any further awareness as to exactly what it was that Jenny believed she had been able to see, as allegedly reported 20 years ago?
 
Found this stuff about a guy called Henry Silanov, a Russian geologist who claims he has invented a camera that can take pictures of the past. He says he has a collection of 80 photographs of aliens, paranormal activities, dinosaurs, and people from the past whose pictures were taken many years after they died.

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3
The webpage is MIA. An archived version can be accessed via the Wayback Machine:


https://web.archive.org/web/20070101072154/http://ufoarea.com/technology_taking_photo.html

Can't find any of these photos though.
thanks , enjoyed the above links
 
How would this technology work?

Images are composed of light waves. And obviously light waves move at the speed of light.

So was the idea that someone could somehow chase after and catch up with light waves emitted in the past?

That seems to posit two requisites. Firstly that faster than light travel is possible. And secondly that light waves don't dissipate or fade.

Are either of these assumptions credible? If so, why? If not, why not?
 
Now that would be a good name for a TV series...

I remember about a decade ago, Jenny Randles was on This Morning with richard and Judy, and at the end, as a bit of an aside, said that she knew of a technology, or someone, that was very close to being able to receive images of the past...

That was all I really know... did any of this come to light? Was it linked to the Chronovisor?
I recollect meeting Jenny Randles at her Manchester home many years ago.

It was quite spectacular because she knew about me and all about the UFO groups that I was mixing with at the time.

The evening was pleasant as she offered me tea and biscuits. We were well into UFO discussions when her phone rang and it was Patrick Moore the astronomer.

The atmosphere felt tense as an argument erupted on why she used his name on a television program?

Apparently UFOs and astronomy do not mix!

I will never forget how Mr Moore had spoilt our evening discussion..lol

George
 
And secondly that light waves don't dissipate or fade.
The light spreads out though, following an inverse-square law.

So even if it was possible to 'get ahead' of the light, to capture an image of (say) a 1m wide circular object in the kind of detail you might get at (say) 10m with a 1cm lens diameter, from a distance of 110m, i.e. 100m from the first vantage point, you'd need to capture the same amount of light reflecting from the object as you would at 10m.

This light diverges following the inverse-square, so you'd require a camera with an approximate lens diameter of 100m... (100 * 100 * 1cm).

(I think I got that right...feel free to correct, I'm only on my first coffee)
 
The light spreads out though, following an inverse-square law.
Yes- this was another aspect of misconceptualisation I was grappling with in the context of the apparent point-sources of light that are stars (cf suns).

I'd declared my puzzlement earlier on the forum as to how/why it is that despite the multi-axial rotations and precessions affecting our Earth and the entire solar system within the universe (and the respective gyrations of remote astronomical entities) we can actually manage observe anything at all?

I reconcile this inside my conception-set as being an almost-infinitely complex combination of vast scales, enormous energies, and relativity (well, my relative inability to comprehend cosmology).

But it doesn't sit properly in my head.

Perhaps one day I will understand this all (eg how precisely the same inverse-square law dissipation effect that you make utterly-appropriate mention of here still permits the bidirectional RF datacoms interconnectivity between Voyager 1 and Earth).

At a distance of 21billion kilometres and counting, reportedly we will lose contact with it in 2027: apparently not because of inverse-square dissipation (a cited 20W signal back from Voyager, and a 20kW signal from the Earth's DSN)....but because the nuclear TPG electrical power-source on the Voyager probe can only run for 50yrs.

I can attempt to crunch numbers on this myself, but I find it utterly mind-boggling that a 150 bits-per-second bidirectional datarate can be sustained over a distance of more than 20 light-hours away, which increases at a rate of 61,000km/hr

The Earth-arriving signal power-level is quoted in the video as being just 0.000000000000000000722W (whether this is an actual W/m^2 spherical trigged value for field power at the Earth's surface or something else, I don't know).

But all these challenges would apply too, in respect of visible light spectrum resolution (ie a time-machine viewer).

So with distances / powers / perturbations / intervisibility paths...I have a comprehension gap of huge proportions in myself. I would love to have this properly explained to me. Because I can do that. Stand for 24hrs+, understanding small parts of complex things, and then comprehend puzzles and mysteries.

But this is really beyond me- and I don't want it to be.


 
Last edited:
Back
Top