Session 23 November 2024

[mkrnhr]

On the subject of phantom photography (energy imprints or other), I haven't read Jane Tripps's book. However, if it may serve as an analogy, I've read some time ago (don't recall where) that for audio recording of paranormal voices, it is preferable to have a recording device that produces some "random" noise, with no active filtering. Whatever manifests does through the noise's "randomness", which similar to what Dean Radin's experiments show: mental phenomena influence the electro-photons in an light interference experiment. It is as if these phenomena would introduce some order/structure to a structureless (random) process. Then perhaps for photography, what is needed is low light/low signal to noise ratio photography with no active filtering or compression. Also, these phenomena may have ambiguity as an intrinsic property since they are anomalies. In other words, a photo of a ghostly apparition will always be ghostly, and a photo of a trans-dimensional being like a bigfoot will always be blurry will low quality.

 

[987baz]

After looking at more of Jane's photography, it looks like a lot of her photos are shot on a long shutter (hence the blurriness)

What is Shutter Speed?​

Shutter speed is the length of time the camera’s shutter is open, exposing light from the outside world onto the camera sensor (or film). In other words, it’s how long your camera spends taking a photo. It is one of the most important camera settings that you need to know.

Shutter speed is measured in seconds, or fractions of a second. For example, your shutter speed may be 10 seconds long, meaning that the camera sensor is exposed to the outside world for a full ten seconds. Or, it could be much faster, even something like 1/1000th of a second! At this shutter speed, the camera sensor is exposed for less time than the blink of an eye.

Your shutter speed has a few important effects on how your photos will appear. The first big effect is motion blur. If you expose your photo for a long enough period of time, and something in the photo moves (like a person walking past), that subject will be blurry along the direction of motion. This effect is used quite often in advertisements of cars and motorbikes, where a sense of speed and motion is communicated to the viewer by intentionally blurring the moving wheels.

I used to use ths all the time when I was shooting music shows and it gives a great sense of movement, maybe I will go back through my archive and see if I can see anything interesting in those old shots!?

Also she seems to be shooting on a high ISO setting which results in more grain and abnormalities (especially when you zoom in) Again i had to shoot very high ISO when shooting in music venues.

What is ISO?​

In very basic terms, ISO is simply a camera setting that will brighten or darken a photo. As you increase your ISO number, your photos will grow progressively brighter. For that reason, ISO can help you capture images in darker environments, or be more flexible about your aperture and shutter speed settings.

However, raising your ISO has consequences. A photo taken at too high of an ISO will show a lot of grain, also known as noise, and might not be usable. So, brightening a photo via ISO is always a trade-off. You should only raise your ISO when you are unable to brighten the photo via shutter speed or aperture instead (for example, if using a longer shutter speed would cause your subject to be blurry).

Another thought occurred to me, since Jane Tripp uses a digital camera for her photos, I don't see why there would be any reason that a digiatl film camera could not be used in the same way? It uses the same sensor (lets take a DSLR for example which does both photo and video) and the same lenses. So in theory, could you not use the same editing tricks on the video footage?

I guess the downside would be that dependig on what you're shooting HD, 4K, 8K etc the files would be larger and take longer to go through. When I get some time off work I may experiment with this and the photography.

 

[John G]

"The problem never was with the correct scientific theory, but with getting dangerously close to The Truth!"


I was shocked that Boyd dared to go this far. We all know what happened to Einstein, why he got very afraid, then silenced.

That's the crux of the problem, I think that Einstein realized. Its not the solution at all as the problem never was with the correct theory, but with threats to personal safety, unfortunately, as the C's already confirmed remarking the operation of *quantum computers under surveillance by 4thD STS (IIRC). See the dangerous idea basis of these* in the Penning trap, discovered by Hans Dehmelt of Germany on whom Boyd's work is claimed is based. And how C's remarked IIRC that any AI acquiring any sentience by chance will be controlled. Also we know the Clinton Body Count and similar lists. Only Deep State anointed scientists are allowed to work on this, I think. Everybody else is ridiculed. Then if the scientist is still forcing it, I think, that heroic person gets The Dr. John Mack Treatment™. .

Indeed! And he probably realized the inherent dangers of it all, judging from his page:

His participation in the probably Deep State linked BP Aerospace project was just bruising with danger, I think.
What saved him, I think, he was ejected from politically correct academia because of his views. Tried to find his peer reviewed papers in journals, which should be several this late in his life, but failed. I tried to track him down, he is leaving groups frequently. The last group he was listed in is:

Though he is not listed in any of Gariaev's publications as contributor.
I was chilled especially by this one from Gariaev:

PCR Amplification of Phantom DNA Recorded as Potential Quantum Equivalent of Material DNA

My hairs were raised reading it! I didn't know, scientists were experimenting with the same subject matter that I'm currently actively carrying out live experiments in. Using the C's info and the PSI Enhancer I built from FOTCM tech.

Yeah in Ark's conversation with Boyd, Ark mentions Pertti Lounesto who was alive at the time but Lounesto was one of the suspicious deaths mentioned by Ark in the 3/4/2012 session:

Q: (Ark) Well, once we are on this subject, I want to ask about these mathematicians. Yesterday I learned that from my mathematician friend in Poland about the death of - in our Kairos club - a young mathematician Branson. And apparently he was quite young and for no reason suddenly he died driving a car. (L) In an accident? (Ark) No, while he was driving. Now, he was a friend of the German mathematician who worked with Irving Segal, the young guy that drowned in Clausthal in the lake. There was a conference, and they went for a swim in the lake. People were on the shore watching, and he just sank in seconds and that was all. He was also like 20-some years old. Then we had this Pertti Lounesto, the same club, related to the same area of mathematics, who drowned in the sea a few months after we saw him at the conference {in Cookville, Tennessee}. Okay, and then we had the Russian mathematician who was doing also similar work, and he went to the Black sea for vacation and he drowned. All these young people died, and they are all mathematicians doing very abstract work. It's too many of them to have drowned just by accident. I mean, what kind of coincidence is it? Any comment?

A: It is not a coincidence. It is too bad that so many who are on the right track in so many ways do not have the advantage of knowing about those things that would shield them from frequency driven attacks; such things as diet changes that would protect them from direct manipulation; things such as awareness of other densities. But, of course this last item would have come to their notice.

 

[Bernardo GA]

Thank you Laura, Andromeda, Pronoiaea, the team, and all the members present in this new session.

You were wonderfully inspired in the creation of the questions.