Zeke Newbold
Carbon based biped.
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2015
- Messages
- 1,249
A lot of questions are begged.
I know nothing of video technology, but if zooming on a star/planet creates this sort of visual effect then why aren't there a plethora of such shots (or are there?) Also is the guy a complete nincompoop who doesn't know what his camera can do - or is it a conscious jolly jape on his part?
I used to think Venus as an explanation of some UFO accounts to be very lame - until that is I once saw Venus in a clear early evening summers sky in a rural part of the south of France. Under the right conditions Venus can appear much bigger, brighter and more spectacular than those of us in the more northerly, and/or light polluted regions, get to see. I do, however, find it hard to believe that a New Yorker would be nonplussed by seeing Venus out of his bedroom window - unless the object really did look stranger than just a very bright and prominent star!
As regards biological UFOs: it seems to me that any civilisation capable of creating something which many UFO reports suggest (in terms of their movements and speed) would also be one in which there is considerable interface between biology and technology - almost to the point where the distinction between the two has become blurred. Thus the UFOs would be neither machine nor animal, but specially bred cyborgs that had elements of both, and which would interact directly with their occupants (if indeed, it would need any).
This idea, after all, does appear in our own science fiction. see Vonda McIntyre's Superluminal, for example. From memory there was also a Pertwee era WHO episode (`Ambassadors of Death -?) in which the aliens pilot a large vegetable like craft. Likewise the underrated Earth: final conflict had the Taelons growing their own crystalline intelligent spacecraft.
But I digress, and suspect that Rynner's right. Either that New Yorker was a bit of a dumbo...or thinks that we must be.
I know nothing of video technology, but if zooming on a star/planet creates this sort of visual effect then why aren't there a plethora of such shots (or are there?) Also is the guy a complete nincompoop who doesn't know what his camera can do - or is it a conscious jolly jape on his part?
I used to think Venus as an explanation of some UFO accounts to be very lame - until that is I once saw Venus in a clear early evening summers sky in a rural part of the south of France. Under the right conditions Venus can appear much bigger, brighter and more spectacular than those of us in the more northerly, and/or light polluted regions, get to see. I do, however, find it hard to believe that a New Yorker would be nonplussed by seeing Venus out of his bedroom window - unless the object really did look stranger than just a very bright and prominent star!
As regards biological UFOs: it seems to me that any civilisation capable of creating something which many UFO reports suggest (in terms of their movements and speed) would also be one in which there is considerable interface between biology and technology - almost to the point where the distinction between the two has become blurred. Thus the UFOs would be neither machine nor animal, but specially bred cyborgs that had elements of both, and which would interact directly with their occupants (if indeed, it would need any).
This idea, after all, does appear in our own science fiction. see Vonda McIntyre's Superluminal, for example. From memory there was also a Pertwee era WHO episode (`Ambassadors of Death -?) in which the aliens pilot a large vegetable like craft. Likewise the underrated Earth: final conflict had the Taelons growing their own crystalline intelligent spacecraft.
But I digress, and suspect that Rynner's right. Either that New Yorker was a bit of a dumbo...or thinks that we must be.