Difference between revisions of "Talk:Beamship Spectrogram Comparison"

m
(Comment provided by Hawaiian - via ArticleComments extension)
 
Line 98: Line 98:
  
 
--[[User:Alive|-- M --]] 15:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 
--[[User:Alive|-- M --]] 15:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 +
</div>
 +
== Hawaiian said ... ==
 +
 +
<div class='commentBlock'>
 +
Hi Zameen,
 +
 +
While in college, I went to a presentation on the sound frequency spectrum analysis of UFO's and it showed how wide range of individual frequencies separating into their distinct peak values and later merging into one and repeating this process.
 +
 +
What was unusual was that it did not produce harmonics or cancelation of adjacent frequencies which will normally occur if these frequencies were being produced by some synthezier. Wasn't sure if this presentation was of Plejaren origin or some other UFO craft because at that time I had no idea about Billy?
 +
 +
It would have been interesting if they did a 3-dimensional representation to see if these sounds also expands beyond the X or Y axis? It was much more descriptive than the Vogel's o-scope video tape, unfortunately I forgot who made this presentation.
 +
 +
--[[User:Barbarian216|Hawaiian]] 01:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 
</div>
 
</div>

Latest revision as of 01:41, 24 February 2012

Comments on Beamship Spectrogram Comparison <comments />


Alive said ...

Duplicating something does not make the genuine thing loses its charm. Duplication is a flattery.

---- M -- 17:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Hawaiian said ...

Silly people trying to duplicate the sounds of a beamship which is very complex, yet distinctly unique that "rotates" with other equally unique frequencies, besides Billy recorded it MORE than 35 years ago!

Such electronic equipment did not exist and still cannot produce the exact sound frequencies. Phil Langdon should be commended in his vain attempt; however the resonant frequency of a nylon fishing line is not compatible to a metal beamship model. Just the sheer length of the line will not produce the high frequencies of a guitar string, which is under severe tension, if applied to his long fishing line will certainly snap it off! He also FAILS to mention that the reason why a guitar string resonates is because the nylon string is SURROUNDED by brass wound wire!

Maybe he should put better use of that fishing line and floss his teeth more often!


--Hawaiian 18:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Kyle1212 said ...

Thanks for doing this, James. I have recently been exchanging messages with Phil pointing out his flaws with his supposed debunking, which never acknowledges with both his photos and sounds.

Salome

--Kyle1212 01:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Zameen said ...

Agreed on all points

--Zameen 03:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Jamesm said ...

Kyle, you're welcome. Feel free to blog it or post an article here and link it from the Articles by others page.

--Jamesm 13:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Kyle1212 said ...

I will be doing both, James. I just realized an error in my previous posting. I meant to say "which he never acknowledges. :)

--Kyle1212 04:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Zameen said ...

By trade I am a sound engineer. And I have to measure frequencies through sound system's as a general daily practice. Many of us have looked at a stereo system with an equalizer. equalizers show up on different system models with 3 eq's, some come with 5eq's and even 7. they represent frequency ranges. in the sound world its expanded a bit to 31 discreet separate frequencies. which I am willing to bet that this is what the original sound engineer were also analyzing. in the original beamship recording, you can clearly here all of the outside ambient environmental noise. this in it's self represents a credible foundation for calculating a decibel range of over 110db or more. I have looked at both of these videos in the past and came to similar conclusions. In a way it could be looked at like the crepuscular rays of semjase's ship that can only be viewed from a specific distance.

--Zameen 05:24, 30 August 2011 (BST)

Radarsweep47 said ...

If we could download the entire 48 min original recorded tapes of the sound and then digitize them directly into this or any other computer and then subject it to analysis with a program like Oscillometer (from Russia), or Spectrumview (written by a U.S. ham), we might be able to learn quite a bit. I believe that an excellent program to use would be Oscillometer but it runs $500. Out of reach for us here at Spectronix right now but it is being worked on.

--Radarsweep47 03:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Radarsweep47 said ...

Contrary to what Hawaiian said, a long line under tension can in fact resonate at a large number of frequencies ....the longer the line, the larger the number of audible harmonics and it does not have to be sheathed in coiled wire to do it although that does help.

And by sliding a weight up and down this line near one end of it, you can produce the pulsating frequency modulation so prominent in this sound.

However, to create a complex tone such as that in the Meier tapes by using long, tight fishing line or whatever and rapidly sliding weights and produce a spectrum such as the ones we have created here in this lab would be quite a feat. Besides, by sliding a weight back and forth as described above, near one end of the taut line, each harmonic frequency produced would have to change by the same percentage and this would show up on the spectrogram...it would be unmistakable. The spectral tracks on the Meier tape, that much of it that we had to work with, clearly show INDEPENDENTLY varying frequency shifts. I don't believe that kind of synthesizer technology existed 35 years ago. Do you?

--Radarsweep47 03:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I said ...

I wonder why Earth human life forms keep scrutinizing beamship photos, audios, and movies, while Contact Reports are the most challenging objects to be probed and imitated. The duplication of Contact Reports will dwarf all controversies on the duplication of photos, audios, and movies.

---- M -- 05:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Radarsweep47 said ...

It is for the same reason that people will burn rubber all over the streets getting to a reported crop formation but would not even walk across the street to investigate an hour-old report of a small white light moving erratically in the night sky. It is because a crop formation furnishes raw material that one can roll their sleeves up and get their hands dirty with. A contactee report is almost invariably anecdotal and all too oft times bankrupt of any hard evidence whatsoever; the literature became so obscenely glutted and saturated with such as far back as the 1950s courtesy of royalty-freakers that it almost killed in the cradle the public interest in the entire subject of ET life. Those versed in or addicted to psychology or other behavioral "sciences" would be the first to gravitate toward reports of contacts. The remainder of us would have nothing to work with and where would be the motivation to replicate? Of recent, there have been far too many accounts of contacts in the form of abductions that were anything but pleasant for the earthbound contactee and so not likely to be revisited with any zest.

--Radarsweep47 12:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I said ...

That is an interesting opinion. It makes me think that Contact Reports are not intended to be read by every Earth human life forms, although no one is forbidden to read them, and that some informations I found on Contact Reports are somekind of baits. Mister Billy and the Pleiarens wanted to know Earth human life forms who would react to the things they were talking about, and what exactly their opinions would be. In that case, it is understandable that for most Earth human life forms Contact Reports will always be unimportant and boring.

---- M -- 15:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hawaiian said ...

Hi Zameen,

While in college, I went to a presentation on the sound frequency spectrum analysis of UFO's and it showed how wide range of individual frequencies separating into their distinct peak values and later merging into one and repeating this process.

What was unusual was that it did not produce harmonics or cancelation of adjacent frequencies which will normally occur if these frequencies were being produced by some synthezier. Wasn't sure if this presentation was of Plejaren origin or some other UFO craft because at that time I had no idea about Billy?

It would have been interesting if they did a 3-dimensional representation to see if these sounds also expands beyond the X or Y axis? It was much more descriptive than the Vogel's o-scope video tape, unfortunately I forgot who made this presentation.

--Hawaiian 01:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)