208 replies to this topic

[Arbitran]

psyche101, on 29 March 2012 - 05:13 AM, said:

And what have they been doing?

Read the ancient texts--they detail immense amounts of activities.

[Arbitran]

psyche101, on 29 March 2012 - 05:22 AM, said:

Yes, I read the entire thing, did you? That very sentance that you quoted is immediately followed by:

The best age for the Earth (4.54 Ga) is based on old, presumed single-stage leads coupled with the Pb ratios in troilite from iron meteorites, specifically the Canyon Diablo meteorite. In addition, mineral grains (zircon) with U-Pb ages of 4.4 Ga have recently been reported from sedimentary rocks in west-central Australia. The Moon is a more primitive planet than Earth because it has not been disturbed by plate tectonics; thus, some of its more ancient rocks are more plentiful. Only a small number of rocks were returned to Earth by the six Apollo and three Luna missions. These rocks vary greatly in age, a reflection of their different ages of formation and their subsequent histories. The oldest dated moon rocks, however, have ages between 4.4 and 4.5 billion years and provide a minimum age for the formation of our nearest planetary neighbor. Thousands of meteorites, which are fragments of asteroids that fall to Earth, have been recovered. These primitive objects provide the best ages for the time of formation of the Solar System. There are more than 70 meteorites, of different types, whose ages have been measured using radiometric dating techniques. The results show that the meteorites, and therefore the Solar System, formed between 4.53 and 4.58 billion years ago.

Perhaps you did not read the entire passage? It is not very long. But then again, your response was super quick as well (a whole 2 minutes), I wondered if you had time to read it already.

That's only .03 not .22.

I read the whole thing. You'll notice that the above passage deals almost exclusively with the age of the Solar System. At best, the article you cited can place the age of the Earth between 4.3 and 4.5 billion years. In any case (and I should have noted it earlier--I thought I did... I'm not as observant as I once was), the Hindu figure can vary slightly as well (between 4.3 and 4.5 billion as well; hmm... interesting...). In either matter, the Hindu figure still plainly represents an accurate measure of the age of our world--knowledge which of course they shouldn't have had. And of course the source of their knowledge is also quite plain in their writings... A culture with such sophisticated knowledge... well, I for one am inclined to believe what they say. They've earned my trust.

[psyche101]

Arbitran, on 29 March 2012 - 05:28 AM, said:

Read the ancient texts--they detail immense amounts of activities.

Gee, thanks.

[psyche101]

Arbitran, on 29 March 2012 - 05:35 AM, said:

I read the whole thing. You'll notice that the above passage deals almost exclusively with the age of the Solar System. At best, the article you cited can place the age of the Earth between 4.3 and 4.5 billion years. In any case (and I should have noted it earlier--I thought I did... I'm not as observant as I once was), the Hindu figure can vary slightly as well (between 4.3 and 4.5 billion as well; hmm... interesting...). In either matter, the Hindu figure still plainly represents an accurate measure of the age of our world--knowledge which of course they shouldn't have had. And of course the source of their knowledge is also quite plain in their writings... A culture with such sophisticated knowledge... well, I for one am inclined to believe what they say. They've earned my trust.

The part I quoted first up again.

Scientists have used this approach to determine the time required for the isotopes in the Earth's oldest lead ores, of which there are only a few, to evolve from its primordial composition, as measured in uranium-free phases of iron meteorites, to its compositions at the time these lead ores separated from their mantle reservoirs. These calculations result in an age for the Earth and meteorites, and hence the Solar System, of 4.54 billion years with an uncertainty of less than 1 percent.

The whole picture always tells more of the story. Agin the other link offers a multitude of age ranges, it is not more than throwing a whole bunch of numbers at an equation and having some stick. That is chance, not calculation.

Edited by psyche101, 29 March 2012 - 05:58 AM.

[Arbitran]

psyche101, on 29 March 2012 - 05:42 AM, said:

The part I quoted first up again.

Scientists have used this approach to determine the time required for the isotopes in the Earth's oldest lead ores, of which there are only a few, to evolve from its primordial composition, as measured in uranium-free phases of iron meteorites, to its compositions at the time these lead ores separated from their mantle reservoirs. These calculations result in an age for the Earth and meteorites, and hence the Solar System, of 4.54 billion years with an uncertainty of less than 1 percent.

The whole picture always tells more of the story. Agin the other link offers a multitude of age ranges, it is not more than throwing a whole bunch of numbers at an equation and having some stick. That is chance, not calculation.

So you brush it all off as coincidence that the ancient texts had this knowledge? That some caveman just happened to decide that the world was 4.3 billion years old one day? Or that there are 8.4 million species alive on our planet today?

[psyche101]

Arbitran, on 29 March 2012 - 07:19 PM, said:

So you brush it all off as coincidence that the ancient texts had this knowledge? That some caveman just happened to decide that the world was 4.3 billion years old one day? Or that there are 8.4 million species alive on our planet today?

Not sure how many times I need to say this.

YES.

There is not one specific number, there is a whole bunch of them and some of them seem to loosely co-incide with some fats that have been discovered. That is not insight, that is random chance.

It is just like I said earlier. If you said to me:

I am thinking of a number between one and then, what is it?

and I answered with

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9

one of them will hit the mark.

From the link I provided:

Quote

The smallest cycle is called a maha yuga. A maha yuga is 4,320,000 human years. Each maha yuga is subdivided into the following four ages, whose lengths follow a ratio of 4:3:2:1:

Satya Yuga (also called Krita Yuga)
This first age is 1,728,000 human years. Also known as the Golden Age or age of Truth. The qualities of this age are: virtue reigns supreme; human stature is 21 cubits; lifespan is a lakh of years, and death occurs only when willed.
Treta Yuga
This second age is 1,296,000 human years. Also known as the Silver Age. The qualities of this age are: the climate is three quarters virtue and one quarter sin; human stature is 14 cubits; lifespan is 10,000 years.
Dvapara Yuga
This third age is 864,000 human years. Also known as the Bronze Age. The qualities of this age are: the climate is one half virtue and one half sin; lifespan is 1,000 years.
Kali Yuga
The fourth and last age is 432,000 human years. Also known as the Iron Age. This is the age in which we are presently living. The qualities of this age are: the climate is one quarter virtue and three quarters sin; human stature is 3.5 cubits; lifespan is 100 or 120 years.

Each kalpa is composed of 1,000 maha yugas. A kalpa is thus equal to 4.32 billion human years.

The Vishnu Purana states that at the end of the daytime period of Brahma, a dreadful drought occurs that lasts 100 years, and all the waters are dried up.

Then mighty clouds form and the three worlds are completely flooded with water. The lord Vishnu reposes on the waters in meditative rest for another whole kalpa (4.32 billion years) before renewing the creation.

A year of Brahma is composed of 360 day/night cycles of Brahma, or 720 kalpas, or 8.64 billion human years.

The lifespan of Brahma is 100 Brahma years, or 72,000 kalpas, or 311.04 trillion human years.

Each kalpa is reigned over by a succession of 14 Manus, and the reign of each Manu is called a manvantara. A single manvantara is approximately 71 maha yugas.

Within that Brahma day, we are in the seventh manvantara, and in the 28th maha yuga of that manvantara. This would place us at about the 454th maha yuga of the 1,000 maha yugas that comprise this day of Brahma.

Within this maha yuga, we are in Kali Yuga. The 5100th year of Kali Yuga will correspond to the year 2,000 A.D. That means that we are fairly early in Kali Yuga and this age will continue more than 426,000 more years.

The length of the yugas is: Satya Yuga, 4800 years; Treta Yuga, 3600 years; Dwapara Yuga, 2400 years; and Kali Yuga, 1200 years. The yugas during the approach to Vishnunabhi he calls 'ascending' yugas; those during the retreat from Vishnunabhi he calls 'descending' yugas. The most recent ascending Kali Yuga began in 499 A.D.

Regarding the "much longer universal cycle" that Yogananda describes, he states that a Day of Creation is 4,300,560,000 years. This is close but not identical to the traditional number, which is 4,320,000,000 years. Similarly, Yogananda gives 314,159,000,000,000 years the the life of Brahma, whereas traditionally the number is slightly different: 311,040,000,000,000 years.

By Danielou's reckoning, Kali Yuga began in 3012 B.C. and will end in 2442 A.D. By that point, the last traces of the present human race will have disappeared. We are supposed to be the seventh manifestation of the human race; the previous ones appeared in 419,964 B.C.; 359,477 B.C.; 298,990 B.C.; 238,503 B.C.; 178,016 B.C.; and 118,529 B.C. Our race appeared in 58,042 B.C., which according to Danielou corresponds to the advent of Cro-Magnon man.

Gerwal goes on to give the traditional lengths for the Satya, Treta, Dvapara, and Kali Yugas. He then states that the present Kali yuga has 210,000 years to go. He also states that 22,394,880,000,000,000,000,000,000 years have already passed since the start of the kalpa. Since this number is the same one he gave as the length of a kalpa, we are presumably at the very end of this present kalpa.

Oddly enough, if you multiply maha yugas of 4,320,000 years times 71 to make a manvantara and then times 2 to make a kalpa, the result is only 613,440,000 years rather than the 22 septillion Gerwal states as his total.

The 22 septillion number is far greater than the traditional length of a kalpa, and the statement that 2 manvantaras make a kalpa is far fewer than the traditional number of 14.

Beginning about 3,894,000 years ago, there is supposed to have been a great civilisation in which people were happier, taller, and much longer lived than they are today.

By contrast, scientists currently believe that homo sapiens evolved from more primitive forbears about 300,000 to 400,000 years ago. Humanity is supposed to have domesticated plants about 12,000 years ago, and animals shortly thereafter.

At the end of each Kali Yuga, some type of destruction takes place. The most recent instance would be a bit under 4 million years ago. Other instances should be found every 4,320,000 years before that.

At the end of each manvantara, a great flood wipes out most life on earth. The most recent occurrence would be 120,534,000 years ago. Other instances would occur at intervals of 306,720,000 years.

At the end of the kalpa, all life on earth is destroyed. The most recent instance would be 2,267,574,000 years ago.

At the end of a life of Brahma, the entire universe and all its heavens and hells are destroyed. The current universe would have come into existence more than 150 billion years ago.

It might be easier to ask what has not been listed as a date, and who to listen to?

Hell, lets just throw the number 42 in there as well for completeness


Ever read about Betty Hills star map? Same thing. Random chance.

Edited by psyche101, 30 March 2012 - 04:07 AM.

[psyche101]

Arbitran, on 29 March 2012 - 07:19 PM, said:

So you brush it all off as coincidence that the ancient texts had this knowledge? That some caveman just happened to decide that the world was 4.3 billion years old one day? Or that there are 8.4 million species alive on our planet today?

Though humans have shared the planet with millions of other creatures for thousands of years, we know surprisingly little about our neighbors—we don’t even know exactly how many flora and fauna call Earth home.

The National Science Foundation’s “Tree of Life” project estimates that there could be anywhere from 5 million to 100 million species on the planet, but science has only identified about 2 million.

“We’ve only touched the surface of understanding animal life,” said entomologist Brian Fisher of the California Academy of Sciences. “We’ve discovered just 10 percent of all living things on this planet.”


LINK - Live Science

[Arbitran]

psyche101, on 30 March 2012 - 04:04 AM, said:

Though humans have shared the planet with millions of other creatures for thousands of years, we know surprisingly little about our neighbors—we don’t even know exactly how many flora and fauna call Earth home.

The National Science Foundation’s “Tree of Life” project estimates that there could be anywhere from 5 million to 100 million species on the planet, but science has only identified about 2 million.

“We’ve only touched the surface of understanding animal life,” said entomologist Brian Fisher of the California Academy of Sciences. “We’ve discovered just 10 percent of all living things on this planet.”


LINK - Live Science

Have you actually looked at a more recent study? It says clearly that the best estimate which can be reached today is about 8.4 - 8.5 billion species. The fact you have here relied on obsolete sources in your attempt to disprove me shows that you are either:

1 ~ Intentionally looking for sources which appear to disprove me, and ignoring the latest evidence, which I utilize in my theses.

2 ~ Simply using outdated information as sources--perhaps causing the multiple errors which I have noticed in your posts.

In any case, we aren't dealing with a 1-10 ratio here: I'm not just asking you to guess a number between 1 and 10. There, you might have a chance of guessing it correctly. We're dealing with billions and trillions. Care to guess the number I'm thinking of? It's somewhere between 1 and infinity. To make it easier, let's let you just guess in the billions. I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 10 billion. Care to guess it?

And you're trying to suggest that the ancients got lucky? About the age of the universe, the age of the Earth, the number of species on our planet, the exact speed of light, etc.? Have you actually studied high school level statistics? The odds of them guessing and getting multiple answers correct (and answers dealing with billions and trillions) are infinitesimal.

[psyche101]

Arbitran, on 30 March 2012 - 04:21 AM, said:

Have you actually looked at a more recent study? It says clearly that the best estimate which can be reached today is about 8.4 - 8.5 billion species. The fact you have here relied on obsolete sources in your attempt to disprove me shows that you are either:

Have you jumped from millions to billions? Yes, here is one from 2011, the number is slightly smaller.


LINK - How Many Species? A Study Says 8.7 Million, but It’s Tricky

Quote

Each year, researchers report more than 15,000 new species, and their workload shows no sign of letting up. “Ask any taxonomist in a museum, and they’ll tell you they have hundreds of species waiting to be described,” says Camilo Mora, a marine ecologist at the University of Hawaii.

Scientists have named and cataloged 1.3 million species. How many more species there are left to discover is a question that has hovered like a cloud over the heads of taxonomists for two centuries.

“It’s astounding that we don’t know the most basic thing about life,” said Boris Worm, a marine biologist at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia.

On Tuesday, Dr. Worm, Dr. Mora and their colleagues presented the latest estimate of how many species there are, based on a new method they have developed. They estimate there are 8.7 million species on the planet, plus or minus 1.3 million.

Which means it could be 8.7, it could also be 7.4, it could be 10 million. You consider that "close enough" I don't. When science says there are exactly 8.4 million catalogued, get back to me. Half measures and guesses don't mean all that much to me.

Arbitran, on 30 March 2012 - 04:21 AM, said:

1 ~ Intentionally looking for sources which appear to disprove me, and ignoring the latest evidence, which I utilize in my theses.

2 ~ Simply using outdated information as sources--perhaps causing the multiple errors which I have noticed in your posts.

What changed?

What sources have you provided? I am only seeing your personal interpretations and assurances. Again, not good enough.

Arbitran, on 30 March 2012 - 04:21 AM, said:

In any case, we aren't dealing with a 1-10 ratio here: I'm not just asking you to guess a number between 1 and 10. There, you might have a chance of guessing it correctly. We're dealing with billions and trillions. Care to guess the number I'm thinking of? It's somewhere between 1 and infinity. To make it easier, let's let you just guess in the billions. I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 10 billion. Care to guess it?

Care to guess how Betty Hill drew that "Star Map"?

Arbitran, on 30 March 2012 - 04:21 AM, said:

And you're trying to suggest that the ancients got lucky? About the age of the universe, the age of the Earth, the number of species on our planet, the exact speed of light, etc.? Have you actually studied high school level statistics? The odds of them guessing and getting multiple answers correct (and answers dealing with billions and trillions) are infinitesimal.

I am not suggesting it, I outlined it for you with the many dates, and peoples interpretations of them. They were not accurate, they were close. Where have you pulled up the texts themselves and shown them to be accurate? The vicinity of accuracy in some cases is impressive I grant. Yes the Vedas were very smart people. But like the Egyptians, they did not have to rely upon aliens to be smart, just their heads. I maintain that chance has a lot to do with some of the figures sticking, but so does math. Some basic astronomical observations could give the Vedas the requirements to calculate something close the the speed of light. Yes, they beat the western world by what 200 years? Yes, Sayana was a brilliant Vedic scholar as well as the prime minister in the court of Emperor Bukka I. That is not "ancient" to me, thats just old. I consider BC ancient. Particularly as you put it earlier, in geological time.

Age of the universe - unknown
Age of the earth - close, but no cigar.
Speed of light - impressively close, but no aliens helped Ole Roemer so I do not understand why they are necessary for Sayana. And by the way, Ole Roemer was exactly right. Not close. Also, didn't Sayana call this the speed of the Sun? That is completely different again. I guess it depends on how one interprets these things?

This does not prove an outside influence, it proves that man is smarter than alien propagandists try to make out. Did you know Galileo tried to measure the speed of light? He would have been successful if he had more to work with. Unfortunately he tried to measure the speed of light over one mile, which was too short to provide an answer to his method.

Edited by psyche101, 30 March 2012 - 05:46 AM.

[Arbitran]

psyche101, on 30 March 2012 - 05:34 AM, said:

Have you jumped from millions to billions? Yes, here is one from 2011, the number is slightly smaller.


LINK - How Many Species? A Study Says 8.7 Million, but It’s Tricky






Which means it could be 8.7, it could also be 7.4, it could be 10 million. You consider that "close enough" I don't. When science says there are exactly 8.4 million catalogued, get back to me. Half measures and guesses don't mean all that much to me.




What changed?

What sources have you provided? I am only seeing your personal interpretations and assurances. Again, not good enough.



Care to guess how Betty Hill drew that "Star Map"?



I am not suggesting it, I outlined it for you with the many dates, and peoples interpretations of them. They were not accurate, they were close. Where have you pulled up the texts themselves and shown them to be accurate? The vicinity of accuracy in some cases is impressive I grant. Yes the Vedas were very smart people. But like the Egyptians, they did not have to rely upon aliens to be smart, just their heads. I maintain that chance has a lot to do with some of the figures sticking, but so does math. Some basic astronomical observations could give the Vedas the requirements to calculate something close the the speed of light. Yes, they beat the western world by what 200 years? Yes, Sayana was a brilliant Vedic scholar as well as the prime minister in the court of Emperor Bukka I. That is not "ancient" to me, thats just old. I consider BC ancient. Particularly as you put it earlier, in geological time.

Age of the universe - unknown
Age of the earth - close, but no cigar.
Speed of light - impressively close, but no aliens helped Ole Roemer so I do not understand why they are necessary for Sayana. And by the way, Ole Roemer was exactly right. Not close. Also, didn't Sayana call this the speed of the Sun? That is completely different again. I guess it depends on how one interprets these things?

This does not prove an outside influence, it proves that man is smarter than alien propagandists try to make out. Did you know Galileo tried to measure the speed of light? He would have been successful if he had more to work with. Unfortunately he tried to measure the speed of light over one mile, which was too short to provide an answer to his method.

Why do you continue to leave out the most important detail? You now grant that the ancient were smart at least--had knowledge (though you seem to be under the impression theirs was somehow incorrect; it wasn't). And yet at the same time you act as though the ancients were somehow vague as to how they acquired that information. Indeed, they could have learned it on their own. This, however, in not what they say happened.

And yes, I meant to say million in regards to the species number, not billion. Thank you for noting it. I apologize for the typo.

Edited by Arbitran, 30 March 2012 - 06:19 AM.

[psyche101]

Arbitran, on 30 March 2012 - 06:18 AM, said:

Why do you continue to leave out the most important detail? You now grant that the ancient were smart at least--had knowledge (though you seem to be under the impression theirs was somehow incorrect; it wasn't). And yet at the same time you act as though the ancients were somehow vague as to how they acquired that information. Indeed, they could have learned it on their own. This, however, in not what they say happened.

And yes, I meant to say million in regards to the species number, not billion. Thank you for noting it. I apologize for the typo.

I never said they were not smart, I said the figures are many, not as accurate as you say, and that Aliens are not required. There is much "wiggle room" before pronouncing absolute accuracy as you have done. It's not. It's close, and in some cases impressive, but so were many others around the same time period. You are also a bit hard to follow, your "ancients" terminology seems to broach quite a time span. If you could be a bit more specific, it would help.

Where does it say the speed of light was given to Sayana? He provided calculations.

[thewonderman]

Great read guys keep it going even though you will never come to the same conclusion as you both have different ideas fixed in your head.

back to the original topic that was started have a look at this card why is the Chinese man who is giving out money to US, UK, EU an alien ?

[Arbitran]

psyche101, on 30 March 2012 - 06:34 AM, said:

I never said they were not smart, I said the figures are many, not as accurate as you say, and that Aliens are not required. There is much "wiggle room" before pronouncing absolute accuracy as you have done. It's not. It's close, and in some cases impressive, but so were many others around the same time period. You are also a bit hard to follow, your "ancients" terminology seems to broach quite a time span. If you could be a bit more specific, it would help.

Where does it say the speed of light was given to Sayana? He provided calculations.

Regardless of whether calculations were provided, it is still plain where they said they learned the knowledge from: the gods. Indeed, scientifically speaking, there is a small amount of "wiggle room"--however, as I have said, they have proven their accuracy and I prefer to take their figures (which are merely being rediscovered today, and seemingly be different means). You seem to be under the impression that somehow we have absolute accuracy: we don't. Our figures, as well as our inability to adequately translate their figures precisely at this time, is enough to show that there is indeed an objective answer to these questions--and that both civilizations will likely have it right in the end.

You also stated that it spoke of the speed of the sun--it does, but in a different passage (where of course their figure is correct once again). The passage to which you are referring would be better-read as stating the "speed of sunlight".

Edited by Arbitran, 30 March 2012 - 08:28 PM.

[psyche101]

Arbitran, on 30 March 2012 - 08:27 PM, said:

Regardless of whether calculations were provided, it is still plain where they said they learned the knowledge from: the gods. Indeed, scientifically speaking, there is a small amount of "wiggle room"--however, as I have said, they have proven their accuracy and I prefer to take their figures (which are merely being rediscovered today, and seemingly be different means). You seem to be under the impression that somehow we have absolute accuracy: we don't. Our figures, as well as our inability to adequately translate their figures precisely at this time, is enough to show that there is indeed an objective answer to these questions--and that both civilizations will likely have it right in the end.

You also stated that it spoke of the speed of the sun--it does, but in a different passage (where of course their figure is correct once again). The passage to which you are referring would be better-read as stating the "speed of sunlight".

It is not plain at all that this was knowledge from the Gods, the calculations prove that. It was not what we are discovering today, the speed of light was correctly measured (I mentioned this already) by Ole Rømer in 1675, without the benefits of modern instruments. He did not get this from the Gods but from studies revolving around astronomical observations. Man was smarter than you make out. No aliens are required to measure the speed of light.
What we do have with regards to accuracy is that Ole Rømer is closer to todays accepted measurements than the figure given by Sayana. In that Ole Rømer appears to be closer to the mark in his 1675 conclusions. This completely negates the need for outside influence.


Roemer, working at the Paris Observatory, was not looking for the speed of light when he found it. Instead, he was compiling extensive observations of the orbit of Io, the innermost of the four big satellites of Jupiter discovered by Galileo in 1610. By timing the eclipses of Io by Jupiter, Roemer hoped to determine a more accurate value for the satellite’s orbital period. Such observations had a practical importance in the seventeenth century. Galileo himself had suggested that tables of the orbital motion of Jupiter’s satellites would provide a kind of “clock” in the sky. Navigators and mapmakers anywhere in the world might use this clock to read the absolute time (the standard time at a place of known longitude, like the Paris Observatory). Then, by determining the local solar time, they could calculate their longitude from the time difference. This method of finding longitude eventually turned out to be impractical and was abandoned after the development of accurate seagoing timepieces. But the Io eclipse data unexpectedly solved another important scientific problem—the speed of light.

LINK


And as I have pointed out before, Sayana was not the only one looking at this conundrum. Galileo tried to measure the speed of light as well, refusing to accept that it travelled at infinite velocity. Had he been able to measure over a greater distance, he would have beaten Ole Rømer to the punch.

1667 Galileo: at least 10 times faster than sound.  

In 1667, Galileo is often credited with being the first scientist to try to determine the speed of light. His method was quite simple. He and an assistant each had lamps which could be covered and uncovered at will. Galileo would uncover his lamp, and as soon as his assistant saw the light he would uncover his. By measuring the elapsed time until Galileo saw his assistant's light and knowing how far apart the lamps were, Galileo reasoned he should be able to determine the speed of the light. His conclusion: "If not instantaneous, it is extraordinarily rapid". Most likely he used a water clock, where the amount of water that empties from a container represents the amount of time that has passed. Galileo just deduced that light travels at least ten times faster than sound.


Now can you explain how Sayana had to rely on the gods, yet these men required only their brains?  

Sayanas calc were followed 200 years later by Rømer  and then 200 years after Rømer 's observations, Heinrich Hertz generated some electromagnetic waves in his laboratory. He measured their speed and came up with that familiar number, 300,000 kilometers per second. Like everything it is a learning process. And man has the equipment necessary in his head to make these determinations. No Aliens required.

[psyche101]

thewonderman, on 30 March 2012 - 10:31 AM, said:

Great read guys keep it going even though you will never come to the same conclusion as you both have different ideas fixed in your head.

back to the original topic that was started have a look at this card why is the Chinese man who is giving out money to US, UK, EU an alien ?

I am trying to stick with facts and leave the ideas for the moment

You card makes a good point, if Governments cannot agree on a thing today, what makes people think they all work together with ET?