Drwayne 6/23/2009 [S18438]
“imagine what advanced civilisations might achieve over thousands of years, never mind just one hundred.”
Yep, imagine the new and creative ways they will have found to destroy themselves!
OK – I’m kidding. Kind of. Or just being cynical.
It is possible however than in thousands of years, one might not advance much as one runs into
“mother nature” laws. I hope not, but there it is.
Aphh 6/23/2009 [s18438]
If there can be a government cover up, there can just aswell be government disinformation about something that does not exist or is not scientifically true.
Also, it pays off to take real science courses instead of trying to stitch up something from very limited evidence.
It’s just that real science tends to be a little hard.
ET_earth 6/23/2009 [s18438]
I don’t remember the time requirement before an item or document can go to the next lower classification. I do know it’s a long time between Top Secret and Secret, not quite so long a time between Secret to Confidential and so on. I think there are special rules allowing for a more rapid declassification but I don’t know exactly what they are.
Smersh 6/24/2009 [s18438]
As I understand it, the general public can’t get any closer than about half a mile from the entrance without being stopped by guards, who are under orders to use “deadly force” if neccessary to stop people getting any closer! It’s been said that even those who work there can only gain access to the project they are involved with and are not allowed to go anywhere else!
Et_earth 6/24/2009 [s18438]
“Doesn’t the Air Force have a responsibility to those who pay the bills to be honest? Or are they above the law? I repeat my challenge:
“USAF officers McAndrew and Weaver, do you have the courage of your convictions? Name the date and place. Perhaps Larry King or Walter Cronkite or Ted Koppel would be willing to act as moderator.”
Archer17 6/25/2009 [s18438]
I would think that if it was the real ET deal it would have had a life of it’s own and not needed a book to jump-start it… but that’s just me.
Archer17 6/26/2009 [s18438]
Public statements made by the Air Force of this nature aren’t made frivolously or lightly. They go through a review process before getting approval by a high ranking officer or officers for release. One lone lieutenant sitting in a back office doesn’t make those kinds of decisions. More likely than not, the approval to release the offical postion of the Air Force concerning the Roswell incident came from the top echelon in the chain of command.
Archer17 6/26/2009 [s18438]
Smersh is right. Many UFO debunkers use an unprincipled approach to their debunking. Using innuendo as their evidence.
Maybe some do but the burden of “evidence” isn’t their exclusive province, is it?
Et_earth 6/26/2009 [s18438]
The flaw in that argument, outside of the unrealistic prospect of a omnipotent global cabal of suppression, is that ET would have to play along as well. Tell me that ain’t just a tad convenient.
Smersh 6/26/2009 [s18438]
When the U.S. won’t release their UFO files, telling pilots to keep quiet, keeping UFO reports and discussions by the astronauts off the shuttle voice transmissions, then people become suspicious. Causing people to reasonable think the government is hiding something.
Et_earth 6/26/2009 [s18438]
et, the government will silence whoever they can by keeping witnesses from speaking about it.
Archer17 6/27/2009 [s18438]
It’s a convenient way of avoiding the burden of evidence when making innuendos of an extraordinary nature.
Jim48 6/27/2009 [s18438]
What possible reason would the US government have of still trying to hide technology from 52 years ago?
ET_earth 6/27/2009 [s18438]
To me it sounds like big brother was using disinformation to try and discredit
Smersh 6/27/2009 [s18438]
it seems a pretty reasonable assumption to me that files are still being hidden.
Meteorwayne 6/27/2009 [s18438]
Perhaps you don’t like it when your assertions are discussed with logical arguments
Onesmallstep 6/28/2009 [s18438]
As for the “no evidence” claim, skeptics love to toss that out with reckless abandon, apparently only because the existence of ET piloted UFOs has not been reported on CNN yet. I only ask that you go to the 1952 Washington National Sightings thread and knock that one down before you make any further claims of “no evidence”
Onesmallstep 6/28/2009 [s18438]
Considering whether or not ET would be a willing participant in any coverup by TPTB, I offer the following:
Suppose 200 years from now we are setting off on a voyage to an earthlike world populated with intelligent humanoid beings. We instantly land on the lawn of their highest leader, jump out and say “hello, we are here”.
We go on to inform them that they are not alone in the universe. However, most of their religious dogma tells them just the opposite, that they have a special place in God’s creation and that they are made in God’s image, (never mind they are 4 ft tall with three eyes and silver skin).
We may even tell them there is no scientific evidence for a God.
We tell them we would like to conduct some scientific research on them for the purposes of better understanding their physiology, psychology, and any other “ologys” we can think of. We tell them it will be for our mutual benefit, we will know more about them and we may be able to eliminate some of their diseases, any volunteers can step forward.
We tell them how inefficiently they are running their planet and how we can help them change that, and that fossil fuels are no longer necessary with our discovery of Vladtonium X33 which powers our spaceships.
We go on and rattle off a long list of things we can “help” them with, they listen intently and instantly give up a resounding hip-hip-hooray for the “saviors from afar” that have come to help them.
Two weeks later, their economy collapses. It seems more than half of their population failed to report for work, awaiting arrival of a better way of life. Most of their businesses, corporations, and research institutions have closed pending implementation of the saviors divine plan for change and improvement of their world. Their religious institutions have all closed for lack of followers. As a result of these things and the fear that some of them will be carved up like a roast for medical experimentation, their towns and cities quickly degenerate into a state of anarchy.
Zengalacticore 6/29/2009 [s18438]
Is it possible that you are engaging in what psychiatrists call “projection”?
Jim48 6/29/2009 [s18563]
Here’s something I didn’t expect to find in a World War II book: It seems that in November of 1941, the German submarine U-331, operating in the Mediterranean Sea, torpedoed and sank the British battleship H.M.S. Barham, killing 862 of her 1,256-strong crew. The U-boat skipper wasn’t sure if the ship had sunk, as he was busy fleeing. When he communicated that to home base, the British intercepted it. They decided to take their time releasing the news. Weeks went by before families were notified, and several more before they were allowed to talk about it.
“Some, however, were given premature notification. Holding a seance in Portsmouth only days after the sinking, the famous spiritualist Helen Duncan made contact with one of the battleship’s dead sailors. A displeased Admiralty made every effort to discredit her, but the facts, when they did emerge, only added to her reputation. In the long run even the authorities must have decided she had the gift, because early in 1944 they arrested, tried and locked her up for nine months under the 1735 Witchcraft Act. Someone was afraid she would tell Hitler where and when the D-Day landings were scheduled to take place.”–From Sealing Their Fate: The Twenty-Two Days That Decided World War II, by David Downing.
Quantumnumber 6/29/2009 [s18563]
Making contact with someone dead is rather odd. I wonder, how is that possible???
Calliarcale 6/29/2009 [s18563]
the method appears to generally be an elaboration of cold reading.
Jim48 7/2/2009 [s18563]
regarding Helen Duncan, if this were a trial and I was a juror in an American court and Helen’s prosecutors had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was a witch, reasonable doubt would cause me to weigh in her favor. If the British authorities back in World War II were so afraid of what she might reveal, why didn’t they just try her as a spy, rather than as a witch?
Figure8 7/2/2009 [s18563]
Interesting story. Scary that basically a witch trial took place in the 20th century!
Those who see spirits say they are seeing the present or sometimes the past
seeing spirits could be explained in a similar way to dogs hearing sounds we cannot hear and insects seeing ultraviolet aspects of nectar. Which would technically be defined as Extra Sensory Perception. Seeing and hearing beyond our spectrum is, of course, not impossible. Whether the “other world” of the afterlife exists is a personal opinion at this point.
Aphh 7/20/2009 [s18563]
When your brain works at full power, the power input can be as much as 40 watts. If the output was in the form of electromagnetic waves, it would be a pretty capable radio emitter.
Needless to mention relatively large amount of resources have been poured into research of possible brain waves, that could be emitted and read wirelessly.
Not sure what the current consensus is regarding brain waves and their readability. However, I’m pretty sure this research has not been completely abandoned.
Cpickens89 7/21/2009 [s18563]
maybe these people just have extreme cases of heightend brain function its there we just got to figure out how to tap into it
smersh 7/3/2009 [s18616]
However, he has now lodged a new case against extradition on the grounds that he has been diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome, (a form of autism.) The case will be heard in the High Court on July 14th.
His detractors say that he was wrong to hack into classified computers, compromised US security by doing so and caused about $1 million in damage.
His supporters say that he did not cause any real damage and in fact the US Government should allow him to face trial in Britain and if found guilty he should serve whatever sentence he’s given in the UK. They say that NASA and the US Government should be grateful that the dreadfully inadequate security on their computers has been exposed, so that they can take measures to fix it, and that that comments from some US officials that they “wanted to see him fry” are unhelpful because we do not have the death penalty in the UK.
Jasonchapman 7/3/2009 [s18616]
I think the US government is hiding behind laws created after 9/11. The use of the word terrorist is used far too casually these days. This man has been labelled as a terrorist by US government officials which is absolutely rubbish.
It’s a great shame that the US government is using terrorism as an excuse to lock this man away, when all he was doing was looking for the truth.
Aphh 7/3/2009 [s18616]
This may be one of those cases that the U.S. government uses on purpose to maintain mysticism
He may or may not have seen something relevant, but that is not the main issue.
This incident is part of the global New Age push by the U.S. masonic government.
Jasonchapman 7/4/2009 [s18616]
if you had the opportunity how far would you go to expose a UFO cover up?
Meteorwayne 7/4/2009 [s18616]
You hack into any goverment’s computer system, you are going to get nailed as hard as they can nail you. I don’t necessarily think that’s a bad thing in today’s world.
Aphh 7/4/2009 [s18616]
As was the case in this case, there were computers that were not at all protected from being read from outside. Hence there was practically no hacking involved, as there was no security to bypass.
The content was readily available to anybody interested.
Smersh 7/29/2009 [s18616]
Gary McKinnon gave an interview to BBC Radio 5 Live yesterday. Amongst other things, he said:
… “I’m not blind to criminality but I was on a moral crusade at the time.
“There was good evidence to show that certain secretive parts of the American government intelligence agencies did have access to crashed extra terrestrial technology which could… save us as a form of free, clean, pollution-free energy.
“I thought if someone was holding on to that, that was actually unconstitutional under American law.” …
Archer17 7/31/2009 [s18616]
It’s a shame he has Asperger’s Syndrome but that shouldn’t be a license to skate when breaking the law.
If it was up to me, instead of jail time I’d offer him a job with the “good guys” to utilize his talents
Meteorwayne 7/12/2009 [s18766]
FWIW, one of my hobbies is military aviation and I can tell you that there’s nothing I’m aware of that looks like that, but the thing that really stands out -besides it looking like it didn’t belong in the sky – was it’s speed and total silence. To me that makes this impossible to rationalize. It’s speed rules out a balloon, it’s appearance and speed rules out a bird, and it’s silence and speed makes it hard to accept the exotic aircraft angle… something that goes that fast should make some noise.
So few people (in fact NO casual obersvers) understand the physics of what they are seeing.
Onesmallstep 7/12/2009 [s18766]
You need to lighten up on the browbeating, dude. You should read what the poster actually says and respond to that, not some theory of what you think it is and imply the poster is stupid or uneducated for not recognizing what you think it to be.
Archer17 7/13/2009 [s18766]
You’re way wrong. I’m kinda surprised to read this from you MW. This kind of lame knee-jerk attempt at debunkery is one of the reasons I have repeatedly pointed out the difference between “skeptics” and “debunkers” in my back-and-forths with various ‘UFO=ET’ advocates here. If one is going to attempt to “debunk” a sighting the same burden of evidence applies as with those that push the ET angle and this flip “explanation” of yours is not even well thought out. Maybe, as the previous poster pointed out, you didn’t bother reading everything I posted but to infer that I can’t tell the difference between a distant high-flying plane and the closer, lower triangular UFO I saw yesterday is something I would expect from Phil Klass, not you
Meteorwayne 7/13/2009 [s18766]
I’m not convinced yet
Archer17 7/14/2009 [s18766]
“convinced” of what Wayne? That your off-the-cuff “explanation” is bull-crap? If you initially payed attention to what I actually wrote instead of being so eager to play “Mr. Rational” you wouldn’t be stuck trying to polish a turd with that asinine “plane” malarkey that requires me to forget what I know about aircraft.
Mee_and_mac 7/14/2009 [s18766]
I won’t repeat my prior experience with a (temporary) UFO other than to remind that the eyes and brain aren’t like a video camera. You see what your brain interprets. In my case, a missile engineer with over 2 decades of watching various planes get nailed, mis-identified seagulls perhaps a few thousand feet away as very odd silver aircraft/UFOs flying impossible patterns around a mountain miles away. If if wasn’t for the light shifting some 10 minutes later I would never have believed the more prosaic (and true) explanation.
MisterET 7/14/2009 [s18727]
Without a doubt, the NASA space program has always been a front for US Military involvement and its development for highly advanced spacecraft, and like any great magician by means of the fine art of distraction and obfuscation, the real exploitation of space could be carried out away from the scrutiny of most terrestrial eyes. Should the curtain be pulled back suddenly to reveal who is hiding and manipulating the controls behind the scene, then it’s “deny, deny, deny!!! or ridicule the subject matter as conspiratorial or discredit the person as a nut job and when all else fails, say absolutely nothing and quietly take the offender outside to some remote area and shoot him!!!
NASA, the US Military, and the US government are nothing more than the hired employees and contractors who are ultimately answerable for the actions to their employer, the PUBLIC. It time to turn off the financial taps and fire these liars, these criminals, and wars mongers and bring them down onto their knees. It’s time for some intense questioning and to mete out some well deserved justice.
Onenation23 7/19/2009 [s18925]
Question: If galactic rotation curves need dark matter/energy to be explained then we may as well try and measure the rotational curves of electrons, protons, and neutrons around the neucleus of an atom. Can these quantium movements be properly observed? Do galactic rotational curves match up, is it even possible to attempt such a thing and if so, what physics do these tiny movements obey?
-Andrew just a thought.
Meteorwayne 7/19/2009 [s18925]
Dark matter is needed to explain galactic rotation curves; dark energy is unrelated and is a different subject.
Protons and neutrons don’t do around the nucleus of an atom; they are the nucleus.
Electrons don’t “orbit” in the sense that a planet orbits a star. Rather they exist somewhere within a cloud of various shapes around at atom, at a point that we can’t measure at any individual time.
Vodka_resupply_mission 7/21/2009 [s18977]
Are these divisions of physics and metaphysics illusions, matters of convention? To the extent we do not understand our universe, is this the extent we do not understand ourselves, and vice versa? Forget about defining “quantum level.”
Cpumasterwv 7/23/2009 [s18977]
Ah, the mixing of physics and philosophy. If you ha dasked this question five years ago, I would have found you and not nice things would have happened. The thing is though, the more we delve into quantum mechanics and GUT, the more we have to open our minds up. I don’t think there is a person on this planet that could answer any of these questions with absolutle certainty. String theory requires anywhere from 6 to 26 dimensions, your body loses .026 grams of weight at the exact moment of death. To ask wheither consciousness has a quantifiable number attached to it would require it to be something more than the ordered firing of electronic impulses in our brains. If it is an elementary force, what and how does it act on? What are the particles associated with consciousness?
Can of worms? More like oceans on worms…
But I do respect the question.
Space, it seems to go on forever. But then you get to the end and the gorilla starts throwin’ barrels at you.
Tanstaafl76 7/22/2009 [s17269]
Black holes are very oppressive. FREE LIGHT!!!
Derekmcd 7/22/2009 [s17269]
This may or may not be true. What is true is that they are not dangerous due to their size. They would be so small that they could pass through the nucleus of an atom without interacting with it. They would be several orders of magnitude smaller than neutrinos of which you have billions passing right through you every second.
Quantumnumber 7/24/2009 [s17269]
ok, how do these really tiny black holes form if large ones are formed from collapsed stars?
Speedfreek 7/24/2009 [s17269]
dangineer 7/24/2009 [s17269]
Thank goodness Wikipedia is around, or else how would anyone know anything about anything?
Perhaps if Wikipedia were destroyed by a blackhole, Nigeria would turn to ash. And if Twitter were to go as well, a new blackhole would form that would gobble up the whole planet and then would proceed to eat Venus entirely out of spite.
Zengalacticore 7/22/2009 [s18983]
To a person born 100% blind…
How would you describe the color ‘blue’?
Junkheap 7/22/2009 [s18983]
The problem is that this is an impossible question to answer. It’s like asking, “What color are microwaves?”
Calliarcale 7/22/2009 [s18983]
It’s probably a bit like asking Daniel Tammet to describe the “feel” of a prime number. He has synaesthesia, and perceives numbers as having different feels. He can intuitively classify a number as prime or not based on this, but cannot explain how it works. It just does.
Cpickens89 7/22/2009 [s18983]
this is literaly an impossible question … How can they describe color if they have never experenced it
Kinda like asking what i did before wich we cant get a real answer whats the universe expanding in and whats outside of it …
Kicklabuka 7/23/2009 [s18983]
You should have seen the guy with that disorder had to go through.
Zengalacticore 7/23/2009 [s18983]
Well, I guess I posted the question in the right forum! “Will Never Be Explained” would be more accurate!
Sounds maybe. Or odors, or shapes that they’ve felt. But it seems to me that, even though they never had optical vision, that the brain would still produce images during REM sleep. Probably very surrealistic images of some kind
[insert prisoner escape]
Zengalacticore 7/25/2009 [s18373]
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?
Doc_m 7/26/2009 [s19045]
Synopsis: a man named Number Six inexplicably wakes up one morning in a mysterious prison-like desert resort, retaining shadowy memories of a place called New York. The inhabitants have no knowledge of a world outside of this village, nor do they seem concerned that they go by numbers instead of names. Number Two is the prime minister/security chief of the desert town.
Six and Two are portrayed as being opposing players in a dangerous & twisted game of chess. At one point Number Six proclaims,”I am not a number, I am a free man.” Number Two responds,”You only think you’re free…”
Number Six: Jim Caviezel (William Tell (201?), Passion Of The Christ, Deja Vu, Final Cut)
Number Two: Ian McKellen (a list too long to list)
Kicklabuka 7/26/2009 [s19045]
pays the bills.
Calliarcale 7/27/2009 [s19045]
it has the very real potential to be awesome. Indeed, muddling the nationalities may actually help, since in the old series, the identity of #6s captors was deliberately obfuscated. (For those not familiar, a major part of #6s quandry is that he doesn’t know who runs the Village or which side they represent — and therefore cannot judge whether or not he should give them information. Therefore, he doesn’t.)
gunsandrockets 8/7/2009 [s19045]
I’d heard they were remaking The Prisoner. The original show only makes sense in the context and conditions of the bygone Bi-polar world of the Cold War. As in the classic line, “Whose side are you on?”
The synopsis of the new show confirms to me that a remake is a mistake. Ugh.
Doc_m 8/7/2009 [s19045]
You object saying the original was a bi-polar world and today is not, but in reality today is even worse: a multi-polar world….the US, Russia (by intent if not as strong as before), China and other the emerging technocracies, not all of which are friendly.
Truth be told it was easier before.
Emperor_of_localgroup 7/27/2009 [s19047]
I wonder what took physicists this long to realize ‘matters (mass) compress space’. Einstein’s curved space is not the ‘total picture’ of what mass does to space. There may also be a relationship between Einstein’s curved space and Newton’s gravity, AFAIK, no physicist tried to connect this two.
Bjarne777 7/27/2009 [s19047]
Exactly, here is the root to all evil…..
Emperor_of_localgroup 7/27/2009 [s19047]
Physicists become so defensive of their works, no one can point out their weaknesses and not being ridiculed.
Dangineer 7/27/2009 [s19047]
In systems where there is not a large concentration of energy and relativistic effects are negligable, Einstein’s field equations actually reduce to Newton’s gravity formula. Newton’s gravity is really just a special case of General Relativity.
Bjarne777 7/27/2009 [s19047]
The decisive factor between Einstein and Newton is that Newton claimed that gravity was a force, Einstein not.
Newton was right. Space is bending by a force. Matter pulls space. Really understanding this point will open all doors.
Bjarne777 8/3/2009 [s19047]
we know that lightning connect up to the ionosphere (nearly 1000 km) altitude.
BUT we do not know how this is possible.
In the same way we know the ice cold planet: Neptune has hurricanes.
BUT we don’t know what drives these.
The interesting point is that the decelerating and accelerating forces that affected many space probes equalize each other.
Booban 7/25/2009 [s19034]
Space cadets, astronauts all you brilliantly smart engineers and whatever else you do on the tax payers dime, you are all engaged in a very expensive hobby being paid by other people. Its nice that it’s exciting and fun, but the bill is not being paid by the ‘gov’t’ or ‘Congress’, its being paid by ordinary hard working people, many who do not have a respectable cushy high status job.
People expect a return in their investment. And not just microwaves ovens. We all expect our money back plus profit! Roads and schools are all paid and shared by everyone. Joy riding into space, only you guys get the benefits of that.
Radarredux 7/28/2009 [s19034]
Another issue is property rights. Lots of people think no one should “own” property on the Moon, that it should be for everyone. But exclusionary access is important to investors. If they find “gold” (or whatever) on the Moon, they want to protect access to that gold so they can profit from it. If the world governments decide they cannot do that, then there will not be a lot of incentive for private investment.
Frodo1008 8/9/2009 [s19034]
all the environmental programs such as conservation, recycling, and alternate fuels are very good in themselves, and may just give us the time needed to truly save ourselves. But any engineer worth his/her degree knows that there is NO perfect system. There is ALWAYS some leakage, regardless of what you do. So all of those programs will indeed slow the rot, but eventually the human race is doomed anyways!!
However, if (and without the space programs of all the people of the Earth, and those of private industry also) we of humanity CAN at the very least get the thrust of our industrial civilization out into the relatively unlimited resources of the entire solar system, we might just leave our decedents a fair chance at not only survival, but even a far better life than we ourselves have!
That IS what man in space is really all about! Simple survival of our human race!
Frodo1008 8/11/2009 [s19034]
Dr Zubrin’s excellent words:
” Pax Terrestris yes. Pax Mundana no. Humanity does not need war, death, disease, decay, superstition, national or racial cults, belief structures or despotisms, or any number of other other residues of out primitive past against which many noble people have struggled through the ages. But humanity does need challenge. A humanity without challenge would be a humanity without change, without innovation, which fundamentally means a humanity without meaningful freedom. A humanity without challenge would be a humanity without humanity.”
Netarch 7/26/2009 [s19054]
When it comes to scientific proof, the preferred definition is the one we’re looking for – technicalities are not optional. The whole of the scientific method depends on “technicalities”.
If you continue to sidestep direct questions, then we’ll just have to reach the conclusion – however “unscientific” it is – that you have no other proof other than blind faith in the opinions of others
│ Home │ Timeline │Back to Discovery │