Bill Clinton, not surprised if aliens visit

[seeder]

Merc14....I'm not trying to convince you of anything...as it is painfully obvious that would be an impossible

task...whatever I said - unless it was anti UFO/ET

I am merely sharing some info...about the different wording of the Ben rich famous statement...

http://occupywallst....nd-transparenc/

edit..the above website took the info from GLP forum...link to that at bottom of article...

.

Rich also spoke of handheld scanners that cured cancer. Guess what he died of?

Bummer

[Myles]

Certainly fun reading. Could just be the ramblings of an old man (69-70 years old in 1993). Could also just be misunderstood. Since he completed his slides with the following quote: `The U. S. Air Force has just given us a contract to take E. T. back home, he could be referring to a number of things. Just a contract so large and vast that they will feel they have the resources to build a spaceship. Most likely just a figure of speech added for "shock value" as many people do that when their presentation is over.

[Merc14]

Merc14....I'm not trying to convince you of anything...as it is painfully obvious that would be an impossible

task...whatever I said - unless it was anti UFO/ET

I am merely sharing some info...about the different wording of the Ben rich famous statement...

http://occupywallst....nd-transparenc/

edit..the above website took the info from GLP forum...link to that at bottom of article...

.

GLP isn't a big help, I am thinking more like Aviation and Space Weekly.

Doesn't even more versions of the same quote just muddy the waters even further? Are you convinced what he said has been accurately portrayed? If so, please select your choice of wording as there are now 5 versions, none of which are on a transcript or a recording. You get upset that I am not accepting of this but look at the case I make and tell me it is a strong one. The speech he gave at UCLA was to 200 engineering students and not one found this an astounding revelation?

Edited May 13, 2014 by Merc14

[bee]

You get upset that I am not accepting of this

You think I'm upset....lol

Don't flatter yourself....sceptics and their entrenched views are so common on this forum...

that your point of view is hardly a surprise or earth shattering....

.

[Merc14]

You think I'm upset....lol

Don't flatter yourself....sceptics and their entrenched views are so common on this forum...

that your point of view is hardly a surprise or earth shattering....

.

No answers so I guess that answers my question and you aren't buying it either.

Edited May 13, 2014 by Merc14

[S2F]

I suppose it is simple semantics but it depends on what is meant by "among the stars" or "to the stars". To me "stars" (plural) indicates an area where there would be many stars, which isn't much of a difference than saying 'space'. Does it mean outside our solar system? I don't know, someone would have to ask Ben Rich that. We can travel in space already, and have on many occasions. We could conceivably put a man on Mars within a short period of time if money and politics weren't an issue. We do have the capability to travel beyond Earth. Unfortunately it takes a government(s) to enable something of that caliber and that introduces many more problems than just the technological know-how. If it weren't for the roadblocks of money and politics we'd probably already know what's under the ice of Europa.

[badeskov]

Merc14....I'm not trying to convince you of anything...as it is painfully obvious that would be an impossible

task...whatever I said - unless it was anti UFO/ET

I am merely sharing some info...about the different wording of the Ben rich famous statement...

http://occupywallst....nd-transparenc/

edit..the above website took the info from GLP forum...link to that at bottom of article...

.

I'll take information that can be independently verified anytime over codswallop like this. By all means of respect.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[psyche101]

Would an example of intellectual curiosity be, for example, accepting without question the events at Roswell?

Not at all, not by a long shot, what that be is supporting the source that you constantly say is unreliable and controlled by nefarious sections of Government. You are promoting MSM without seeing where their information came from, who reported it, or if it is at all valid - that is blind acceptance of Mainstream Media, nothing more.

And to say that offers every piece of necessary information to come to a sound conclusions is but a fools blathering.

That is, that first the military acknowledged it had been a 'flying saucer', and a day or two later changed it to a 'weather balloon',

Just like that very same source said Dewey beat Truman in the elections, and by the same token. Anticipation of the expected outcome of an event. You FTB's do not even realise that UFO's and Flying Saucers were a hot topic in the press, and at the time of the Roswell incident, the associated press had a $3,000.00 reward for the recovery of a Flying Saucer, which back in 1947 was enough to buy a house. What's the equivalent today - $500,000.00 or thereabouts? And you are trying to tell me that is not worth trying to hoax a source like MSM for?

Even with the MSM promotion you are wrong!!! Better check your facts BR, the Army NEVER reported a Flying Saucer, the papers did that, Walter Haut issued a press release stating that personnel from the field's 509th Operations Group had recovered a "flying disk", local military jargon for the equipment suspended beneath a balloon train.

when nothing about the facts at hand suggest a weather balloon?

What facts - you mean that which MSM reported? How about I go pull all the quotes you have made about MSM from the CT section and illustrate what a hypocrite you are??

And yet again, you are unaware of the original facts, and spout nonsense trotted out by modern charlatans raping this tale via MSM - Brazel told the Roswell Daily Record that he and his son saw a "large area of bright wreckage made up of rubber strips, tinfoil, a rather tough paper and sticks. Check it up for yourself, I dare you to actually research something with regards to this tall tale.

What does not suggest a Weather Balloon - in particular from the original documents from the time frame? Not some novel written decades after the event, what documentation supports your notion? It's MSM isn't it. You have become that which you despise.

Is accepting that story an example of intellectual curiosity, or acceptance of nonsense?

Neither. Gullibility coupled with credulity is required to accept any extraordinary Newspaper story at face value. And to refer to MSM shows extreme inexperience and knowledge regarding the subject. You have not the foggiest notion of intellectual curiosity, reading fringe websites that promote garbage, and then swallowing that whole is not by any stretch of the imagination "Intellectual Curiosity" Nor is the hypocritical promotion of MSM sources after spending years saying that very source is untrustworthy.

You guys think that turning from God to Aliens makes you intellectuals, it most certainly does not. You are still pushing fables instead of facing facts.

Edited May 13, 2014 by psyche101

[psyche101]

Sorry Merc. By reading the posts here I came to the exact opposite conclusion--most posters here, the majority, come across as absolutely rejecting ANY reports of strange craft and events. They always explain it as swamp gas, weather balloons, and such.

Please show one post where a UFO has been explained as swamp gas here at UM by any poster. I can show you many that show how the term originated, and what a fool believers look everytime they use the term in this inane fashion, would you like me to link you to them?

What this revelation has shown is that you are again, 100% wrong, and you do not offer the courtesy of reading others posts in full, which is downright rude BR. and not conduct one expects in what is a discussion forum. But you are not particularly big on rules are you, that is what makes you see red. Too good to believe someone else might know something you have not read on MSM or come up with in your head, and might just show that someone knows something you don't. Get used to that.

I think it is reasonable to infer that such a blanket rejection suggests that the persons making the statements do not believe there are others in the cosmos who are able to travel through time or great distances. Perhaps not.

Ohh, starting to finally catch on, now begin to understand that some of us here actually dabble in astronomy, and actually have a clue about what is out there. Reading Sci Fi novels with concepts of warp travel does not solve these problems nor get us across space, not matter how inspired you feel after reading or watching such entertainment. What's your background in astronomy BR? What makes you think these astounding distances that can take as long as this world has had hominids just for starlight to travel here can be overcome with the turn of a page, or snap of the fingers?

Perhaps you guys absolutely believe that there are others out there, but you just need a personal visit and explanation from such a creature before you will believe it to be real.

And this is where the step backwards comes in.

You think space is like an Ocean don't you? That anyone can cross it with enough determination and courage. It's not an Ocean. Courage and determination just won't get you to another star, you will die along the way, if you can gather enough resources, and pack them tightly enough to begin with. What you do not have is an understanding os space at all, but what is rude is that you try to tell others WHO DO have such an understanding that their years of experience, observing, calculations and devotion is all wrong - and why? Because you read this really cool novel that makes it sound uber realistic. When you do that, you deserve no more than contempt, and I struggle to understand why you feel you deserve better.

Is that close?

For every step forward you take, you take two steps back, and that is entirely because you have a certain picture in your head that you are working towards. You have even dumped your own values to attain it, by promoting MSM and becoming that which you have always said you despise. And I know that you really hate me putting that mirror in front of you. But BR, things are what they are.

[psyche101]

Ok.....I suppose the numbers were way over what they should have been when I made my initial post....

and didn't tally with the overall post count...

.

You thought the forum was conspiring to keep posted number a secret.........

God love ya Bee, nothing like a bit of classic Bee to start the day in a mirthful note....... that is deadset hilarious.

[psyche101]

That quote appears only on fringe sights and is completely unsourced. "My friend heard a freind who heard Rich say this to some people he was talking to." is about as close as anyone can get to citing this quote. Sorry, but that isn't even hearsay.

I have seen that quote used a great deal. Mostly at woo sites, where I feel it is misconstrued.

“We already have the means to travel among the stars, but these technologies are locked up in black projects and it would take an act of God to ever get them out to benefit humanity….. anything you can imagine we already know how to do.”

Ben Rich, former Head of the Lockheed Skunk Works

How does that not apply to the original Orion Program with Nuclear Propulsion as well as imaginative woo one might ask? It does not seem to at all from what I can tell.

LINK - Project Orion Nuclear Propulsion.

Project Orion could carry people to the stars. The projects motto was "Saturn By 1970". Models projected may have attained up to 12% the speed of light, making trips to places like Alpha Centauri and Barnards star seem somewhat feasible. Large scale Orion ships were touted to take up to 800 people, weigh 8 million tonnes and would need 3000 tonne of explosives to complete a local star journey. A slow cruise in this generational behemoth would see Alpha Centauri in about 133 years.

And today it is still the best solution we have for interstellar travel.

Project Orion was ended by the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty which held grave concerns for the people with regard to the US Rainbow Bomb program, which was essentially detonating nuclear devices in low orbit. Scientists held grave concerns that nuclear fallout back to earth could potentially be extremely harmful to significant portions of the global population It is widely recognised that this test ban treaty ended the Project.

As such, we indeed have had the "means" to travel to the stars, if ET be at the ones we can reach be anyone's guess even if not likely, and it would take "An Act Of God" to overturn the Nuclear Test Ban which was put in place as life on the planet was considered to be in danger if the ban was not put in place. Making the statement valid by conventional means, with no help from ET whatsoever. In fact, we do not even need a downed EY craft to back engineer, little old man worked this one out for himself.

We have had the "means" since the late 50's we just never took the final step because it endangered life on earth. Thus the statement can remain entirely accurate without relying on woo.

[psyche101]

Snipped some good stuff for space...*

In your reply to Merc14 you again expressed a false dichotomy - '... do not believe there are others in the cosmos who are able to travel through time or great distances' is not mutually exclusive to '... believe that there are others out there, but you just need a personal visit ...'.

I personally believe there is a possibility of life elsewhere in the universe; but I do not believe we have been visited. I am unsure about the possibility of ET life visiting us; but I do not believe it is feasible for ET to visit us. I believe the vast distance is too prohibitive. For all intents and purposes we are alone.

I hope you can understand this position.

Nicely put mate, this is more a second "like" than a comment on your post. I could not add to that.

[psyche101]

“We now have the technology to take ET home. No, it won’t take someone’s lifetime to do it. There is an error in the equations. We know what it is. We now have the capability to travel to the stars. First, you have to understand that we will not get to the stars using chemical propulsion. Second, we have to devise a new propulsion technology.

And that is what they did, moved from conventional rockets to Nuclear Propulsion. Which like he said was locked up by black projects, being the rainbow bombs, and would take an act of god to release, being the nuclear test ban treaty.

What we have to do is find out where Einstein went wrong.”

Better fission would give more power and greater speeds, if we resolved GR and QM, perhaps we might attain 20% the speed of light with better fission techniques and energy extraction methods.

Ben Rich allegedly said that. So, we have the 'capability', but...we need to 'devise the technology'

I do believe that he was being a little generous in his descriptions, but pretty much explaining R & D projects form the 50/60's era in a cryptic way.

Edited May 14, 2014 by psyche101

[badeskov]

And that is what they did, moved from conventional rockets to Nuclear Propulsion. Which like he said was locked up by black projects, being the rainbow bombs, and would take an act of god to release, being the nuclear test ban treaty.

Something like that, yeah.

Better fission would give more power and greater speeds, if we resolved GR and QM, perhaps we might attain 20% the speed of light with better fission techniques and energy extraction methods.

I personally doubt it'll make the difference. Looking to nuclear fusion tech

I do believe that he was being a little generous in his descriptions, but pretty much explaining R & D projects form the 50/60's era in a cryptic way.

I think a little generous is an understatement.....

Cheers,

Badeskov

[psyche101]

????

dont know what you mean.

He is said to have said the 'travel the stars part' as per my quote.

The quote seeder said is another quote he is said to have made. They are two different quotes altogether. Not twisted at all, just two quotes.

If you are refering to my comments about 'ours and theirs'? then this is seperate to the two quotes mentioned above, and he is not said to have said this during speech but instead it is in a letter exchange with someone (name escapes me)

Do you mean the quotes were made separately as a whole, or what seeder posted is two separate quotes stitched together, according to sources, I believe the former is correct. He did make that quote in it's entirety

See this link

You will note after making the quote, the interviewer questions him on how UFO propulsion works (not leading the witness or anything there, I expect that from some half assed drunk like Joe ) and Ben Rich replies that their propulsion works - get this

Like ESP.

Nuff said mate. That's the remainder of credibility associated with these interviews flushed well and truly down the toilet. Now we are in the realm of Unicorns who live on the dark side of the moon. I do not care how distinguished or accomplished a person is, at the end of the day they remain people, and all people have the ability to make themselves appear quite the horses behind.

[psyche101]

Something like that, yeah.

I have a feeling it's too closely connected to dismiss, but not only that, it's a tangible "thing" that can be attached to his quote, not a wild speculation that cannot be proven to exist at all.

Just putting one's feet on the ground really

I personally doubt it'll make the difference. Looking to nuclear fusion tech

I'd say your right, to my mind the advances might be in better containment and delivery, perhaps a way to utilize the waste. Even a 2% increase in power would be highly significant to the Orion concept.

I think a little generous is an understatement.....

Cheers,

Badeskov

Again, I'd say you're right, but doing my absolute level best to show as much respect as is possible to a smart man, who said some strange things that many take in every different direction that seems possible!

You know, I get the feeling these guys had some personal chuckles at confabulating others with enigmatic statements. I think they had some fun with the press and their enthusiasm for a great headline. Some comments seem deliberately vague when they really should not be.

Cheers

Always good to her from you Bade, nice to see you around more often again.

[psyche101]

it is not -

He says

We have the technology

but then says

We need to devise the technology to make that happen

Is that not contradictory? He says "we have the tech" and then he says we have to build it. Surely he is saying the technology we have is what he believes is needed to take us to the stars, we have just not built it into the right configuration yet and it needs more development?

Sort of like how Steve Jobs allegedly left Apple ten years of future invention based on technology that he sees emerging based on current technology and it's development?

[psyche101]

Now that puts a different slant on it, eh?

I do not believe so, that's an open statement that cannot possibly ring true, where is the alleged ET from? He was not getting to another galaxy, that much is certain.

I believe he was still talking about "the means". Which was indeed within his grasp. As it turn out, it looks like Barnards star does not have a life supporting planet orbiting it.

[psyche101]

2. They say that Rich said we can travel amongst the stars and we have technology that is 50 years in the future. Are we to think that in 50 years we will have the ability to travel to different star systems? Really? Fusion power is still 50 years away and that woud be a prerequisite wouldn't it?

Actually, many prominent people made claims about the future, and we know how that turned out. That avrocar was supposed to give us all flying saucers, flying ambulances, everything, yet here we are with our feet still on the ground.

[psyche101]

Don't flatter yourself....sceptics and their entrenched views are so common on this forum...

The ones who consider more than ET as an option you mean........?

[Merc14]

I have seen that quote used a great deal. Mostly at woo sites, where I feel it is misconstrued.

“We already have the means to travel among the stars, but these technologies are locked up in black projects and it would take an act of God to ever get them out to benefit humanity….. anything you can imagine we already know how to do.”

Ben Rich, former Head of the Lockheed Skunk Works

How does that not apply to the original Orion Program with Nuclear Propulsion as well as imaginative woo one might ask? It does not seem to at all from what I can tell.

LINK - Project Orion Nuclear Propulsion.

Project Orion could carry people to the stars. The projects motto was "Saturn By 1970". Models projected may have attained up to 12% the speed of light, making trips to places like Alpha Centauri and Barnards star seem somewhat feasible. Large scale Orion ships were touted to take up to 800 people, weigh 8 million tonnes and would need 3000 tonne of explosives to complete a local star journey. A slow cruise in this generational behemoth would see Alpha Centauri in about 133 years.

And today it is still the best solution we have for interstellar travel.

Project Orion was ended by the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty which held grave concerns for the people with regard to the US Rainbow Bomb program, which was essentially detonating nuclear devices in low orbit. Scientists held grave concerns that nuclear fallout back to earth could potentially be extremely harmful to significant portions of the global population It is widely recognised that this test ban treaty ended the Project.

As such, we indeed have had the "means" to travel to the stars, if ET be at the ones we can reach be anyone's guess even if not likely, and it would take "An Act Of God" to overturn the Nuclear Test Ban which was put in place as life on the planet was considered to be in danger if the ban was not put in place. Making the statement valid by conventional means, with no help from ET whatsoever. In fact, we do not even need a downed EY craft to back engineer, little old man worked this one out for himself.

We have had the "means" since the late 50's we just never took the final step because it endangered life on earth. Thus the statement can remain entirely accurate without relying on woo.

Thanks mate. Brilliant as usual and I had forgotten that chapter. Thanks.

[psyche101]

Thanks mate. Brilliant as usual and I had forgotten that chapter. Thanks.

Cheers Brah.

There were so many programs after WWII, it's darn near impossible to retain and keep a handle on them all, but there was a great deal of secrecy involved in some valiant attempt to break new ground, which has survived on the form of UFO stories, I would say largely from observers who hadn't the foggiest what they were looking at.

And some who just want a bit of attention to fill out a lonely retired existence.

[badeskov]

I have a feeling it's too closely connected to dismiss, but not only that, it's a tangible "thing" that can be attached to his quote, not a wild speculation that cannot be proven to exist at all.

Just putting one's feet on the ground really

I guess so

I'd say your right, to my mind the advances might be in better containment and delivery, perhaps a way to utilize the waste. Even a 2% increase in power would be highly significant to the Orion concept.

I agree with you, even a few percent worth of utilization increase helps. But I still see the quantum leap with fusion (or something else).

Again, I'd say you're right, but doing my absolute level best to show as much respect as is possible to a smart man, who said some strange things that many take in every different direction that seems possible!

You know, I get the feeling these guys had some personal chuckles at confabulating others with enigmatic statements. I think they had some fun with the press and their enthusiasm for a great headline. Some comments seem deliberately vague when they really should not be.

I have a nagging suspicion that you are right. Heck, knowing a few of such characters they have pulled some pranks, albeit to none that have ever made to the press to the best of my knowledge.

Cheers

Always good to her from you Bade, nice to see you around more often again.

Likewise, old buddy. Trying to be more around these days

Cheers,

Badeskov

[quillius]

Ive been in and out (home) since I wrote that, didnt save the page...had a few open at the time! BUT.... this phrase from the above

"No, but hasn't been proven either. So far, it's nothing more than hearsay that he said these things. There are numerous people who claim to have been at the locations, and heard it, but no recordings of Ben to support it"

Anything to counter this?

not sure what I am meant to counter? a random strapline from an unknown source?

I havent seen a video, heard an audio or seen any of the slides. Could it all be a lie? well yes I guess it could, do I think he said it, yes I am quite sure he gave a speech which included comments that are inline with what has been posted.

[quillius]

Do you mean the quotes were made separately as a whole, or what seeder posted is two separate quotes stitched together, according to sources, I believe the former is correct. He did make that quote in it's entirety

See this link

You will note after making the quote, the interviewer questions him on how UFO propulsion works (not leading the witness or anything there, I expect that from some half assed drunk like Joe ) and Ben Rich replies that their propulsion works - get this

Like ESP.

Nuff said mate. That's the remainder of credibility associated with these interviews flushed well and truly down the toilet. Now we are in the realm of Unicorns who live on the dark side of the moon. I do not care how distinguished or accomplished a person is, at the end of the day they remain people, and all people have the ability to make themselves appear quite the horses behind.

to be honest until we can see first hand the wording then I am not sure the order of what was said, I mean there is the comment about 'we have been given a contract by USAF to take ET home' this in part is in the main 'sentences' but it is also said to have been in the last slide at the end of the talk.

could these have been mixed together? Would mentioning ET in an earlier piece work against the impact the last slide was supposed to have?

I guess the discussion grinds to a halt without seeing/hearing the exact words used, context may also help quite a bit