|
Around 8:30 pm on January 14, 2012, I went onto my back deck to let the dogs out for a few minutes. The temperature was around -15 C and the sky wa...
more
Around 8:30 pm on January 14, 2012, I went onto my back deck to let the dogs out for a few minutes. The temperature was around -15 C and the sky was very clear and bright. We have very little "light pollution" here and on nights like this you can see every star in the sky. It's quite beautiful.
Immediately, I notice an extremely bright object low in the south-east horizon. The object appeared to be "flickering" a little and I could detect the presense of various colors. At first, I thought it might be a conventional aircraft--a plane--although for being so far off it was very bright and the colors seemed a bit off. I watched the object for a couple of minutes while the dogs attended to their business. The object was not moving, but instead simply "hanging" in the sky maintaining its' position. The brightness of the object and the color-changing nature of it was very odd.
I went back into my apartment and told my wife, "I think there's a UFO out there right now." She's been a bit of a skeptic and is just recently coming around. There's an interesting aspect to this which I'll touch on later.
Outside, I could see a definate reaction from her. Among the many stars in the sky, this object was by far the brightest and very easy for me to point out to her. She said, "it's a plane, Will. It's nothing more than a plane." She went back inside...I stayed outside and continued to watch this object for another five minutes. It wasn't moving and it continued to flicker with various colors being visible to the naked eye.
I went inside and grabbed my camera (Panasonic DMC LC5) and my iPod touch (1080p video without the ability to zoom). She asked me what I was doing. I said, "It's still there--just hanging in the sky." She replied, "it's a god damn plane...that's all it is." I pointed out that planes do not hover and if it were a plane, it would have moved off by now.
I went back outside and the object was still there. Maybe ten minutes had passed since I originally noticed the object.
I have had great difficulty photographing anything in the sky--despite the fact that my camera is quite capable. However, I recently took the time to attempt to adjust all the settings to allow me to do this. With my camera set up for night shots and my zoom pushed to its' maximum level, I took a series of photos. I was actually able to take a handful of half-way decent pictures of the object. I then activated the video on my iPod and took about 30 seconds of footage. Normally, despite the iPod's high resolution, objects in the sky do not appear...yet, this object being so bright and dominant, I was able to capture it on video.
I watched the object for another five minutes before returning inside to tell my wife that the object was STILL in the same position. She maintained her insistance that it was a plane. About 15 minutes had gone by now and the object was still in place...just as bright and "flickery" as it was the first time I saw it. When I pointed this fact out to her, it almost seemed to make her angry. Anger is an emotion that is always generated from another emotion. I feel like her anger is coming from fear. I am aware that there are many people who are afraid of the possibilties of UFOs and ET-intelligence and I think she is one of them.
I returned my camera and my iPod to the office and grabbed my binoculars.
I was being a bit sarcastic on my way back out and said, "You don't mind if I stand outside in the snow and watch this thing for a little while--do you?"
Through the binoculars, the object was quite spectacular. Although it was far-off (I think), I could see the multi-colored lights blinking and changing quite clearly. Despite the fact that it was quite cold and I was standing in snow with nothing more than slippers, flannel pajama bottoms, no gloves and my jacket, I watched this object for another half-hour--only going back inside when the cold became too much.
The object was still there--in the same place, low on the horizon--going on 45 minutes. Whatever it was, it definately was NOT a plane and was NOT a star or a planet.
My wife was agitated when I informed her that her "plane" was still hovering in the sky. I suggested she come out and use the binoculars to view it. She refused. We actually got into a bit of a disagreement to the point that I could see her becoming very agitated. I think she's afraid.
I understand.
"Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."
less
|
|
|
|
jrev37 liked a video
(2 weeks ago)
William Lane Craig likes to think of himself as an academic, an intellectual and if you believe his fans, 'is regarded by many as one of the worlds...
more
William Lane Craig likes to think of himself as an academic, an intellectual and if you believe his fans, 'is regarded by many as one of the worlds leading in Christian Apologetics'. Well that's all fine and dandy until you actually check out William Lane Craigs track record in the peer review literature. See it turns out that William Lane Craig is a champion in academic circles only in the category of publishing 'uncitable junk'.
In academia 'the size of your balls' is largely determined how many papers you've written, and how many citations they pick up: basically how many interesting papers you've written. Turns out William Lane Craigs papers pull in on average about 2 citations, with his top citated work pulling something like a dozen citations. That's an absolutely farcical track record. Personally I find it difficult to see how the man can have such a high opinion of himself when his citations record is so poor. Indeed, by this metric, I've know people who have surpassed the entire contribution of WLCs academic career merely a couple of years after getting a PhD.
Normally I would let this sort of thing slide, apart from the man is such a professional slimeball in his dealings with the likes of Richard Dawkins that I figure his dirty little secret needs a little exposure. I mean with an ego like Craigs, you know the one thing that will cut his ego deeper than any insult is rubbing his nose in his utterly lack-luster citations record.
Personally I think he should hereafter be referred to as William Lane 'Two Citations' Craig, or he gets antsy about his credentials, Dr 'Two Citations' Craig.
less
|
|
Peace On!
sorry I forgot it said Guatemala
sup atheist as well