4705 replies to this topic

[Chrlzs]

quillius, on 10 July 2012 - 11:50 AM, said:

plasma?

Plasma at speed.... wouldn't the bow wave be that scary cracking sound you hear when you are very close to a lightning strike?  

[quillius]

Chrlzs, on 10 July 2012 - 12:28 PM, said:

Plasma at speed.... wouldn't the bow wave be that scary cracking sound you hear when you are very close to a lightning strike?  

however would the distance not be a factor?

[Chrlzs]

Yup, I'm just bein' a devilled avocado....  


It's all a bit meaningless unless you have an actual case to consider where an analysis of such things might be possible - are there any?  I confess I haven't been keeping up with the thread.

Zoser, can you point us to the very best tantalisers you have, so they can be put through the harsh wringer of proper analysis?

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

quillius, on 10 July 2012 - 11:50 AM, said:

plasma?

Chrlzs, on 10 July 2012 - 12:28 PM, said:

Plasma at speed.... wouldn't the bow wave be that scary cracking sound you hear when you are very close to a lightning strike?  

The interesting thing is though, that Plasma [if that is what it is] is often reported not to make any sound ..... See, this is the problem. People do report lights and apaprent objects in the sky, that move, often very quickly, and don't make a Sound. None of our scientific explanations seem able to explain this, but it does seem to happen. If it is Plasma, then Plasma would seem to be able to do that. If Plasma can do it, then other things (perhaps things that function in a similar way to plasma) might be able to as well. Just because our scientific knowledge cannot explain something yet, as I often say, doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.

[TheMacGuffin]

Chrlzs, on 10 July 2012 - 12:25 PM, said:

Like psyche, ...

Q.1  I'd ask you to give us a couple of examples of such 'splashing'.  Eg cases where Jim actually gave a '100%' claim and was 'far from being 100% right'.   After all, MacG, we all know you aren't one to vaguely handwave, right..?

Further:

Q.2  What's the difference between 'splashing' an explanation and simply OFFERING one?

Q.3 Is there some problem with offering possible explanations?  Please elaborate on what that problem is.


Depending on the answers, I may need to reconsider my approach to investigation...

There's nothing "vague" about me, if you read any of my posts.  Read the ones I just made above in answer to Psyche and you will have your answer.  As Jerry Cohen pointed out, Oberg's "explanations" for Sky Thing and Gordon Cooper's UFO sighting left something to be desired, to put it mildly.

[quillius]

Chrlzs, on 10 July 2012 - 12:58 PM, said:

Yup, I'm just bein' a devilled avocado....  


It's all a bit meaningless unless you have an actual case to consider where an analysis of such things might be possible - are there any?  I confess I haven't been keeping up with the thread.

Zoser, can you point us to the very best tantalisers you have, so they can be put through the harsh wringer of proper analysis?

always important to have an avacado join the thread

oh....'harsh wringer' is putting it mildly

747400, on 10 July 2012 - 01:34 PM, said:

The interesting thing is though, that Plasma [if that is what it is] is often reported not to make any sound ..... See, this is the problem. People do report lights and apaprent objects in the sky, that move, often very quickly, and don't make a Sound. None of our scientific explanations seem able to explain this, but it does seem to happen. If it is Plasma, then Plasma would seem to be able to do that. If Plasma can do it, then other things (perhaps things that function in a similar way to plasma) might be able to as well. Just because our scientific knowledge cannot explain something yet, as I often say, doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.

Hey 747 this was my point when I said Plasma....amazing speed but yet no sound. Although I have come across some interesting bits in this regard.

will find and post

[quillius]

As for some interesting comments made by some prominent figures, here are quotes from Ben Rich:

“We now have the technology to take ET back home”
(source: UCLA School of Engineering Alumni speech 3/23/93)

I admit this doesnt mean ET is here to start with but could just be a figure of speach

“We now know how to travel to the stars”
(source: UCLA School of Engineering Alumni speech 3/23/93)

ok relatively self explanatory

“There is an error in the equations, and we have figured it out, and now know how to travel to the stars, and it won’t take a lifetime to do it”
(source: UCLA School of Engineering Alumni speech 3/23/93)

this a little more interesting and open to interpretation....what equations I wonder? are we getting into laws of physics?

“It is time to end all secrecy on this, as it no longer poses a national security threat, and make the technology available for use in the private sector”.
(source: UCLA School of Engineering Alumni speech 3/23/93)


my favourite......especially ' as it no longer poses a threat'........interesting use of the word 'it' rather than 'they'.... also does this mean it did pose a threat at one time or was it just perceived to be a threat???

Edited by quillius, 10 July 2012 - 02:55 PM.

[zoser]

psyche101, on 09 July 2012 - 10:49 PM, said:

Zoser

This is where you and I part ways in every conceivable fashion. I worship nobody. I have faith in nobody, I do not believe people with tales, I believe people with evidence. Empirical evidence means repeatability. That is right, you cannot just "say something" scientifically, you have to pass a rigid muster from all conceivable angles. Every other scientist, including those one might consider close friends will take any claim put forth and ritually dissect it to see if it is true, and has the right to stand in a hall of fact. Once you get to this stage, there is no negotiation of the truth. Fact is undeniable.
Faith seems to be all you require to achieve the level of believability that you do and to be satisfied with an answer. I guess that is why you draw my attention so often, you have no respect for fact, but allow faith to guide you. I see that as a large mistake with regards to research because faith will let you down, facts will not. Faith has led people to believe in an old book with a omnipotent being who has cats an dogs living together on a big boat to save drowning in a water covered earth, on 40 days and night no less, and who is vengeful to an extreme in the first half of his book, and nice in the second half. I just have difficulty with faith in a giant schizophrenic bearded superman as the creator of the Universe. And to put it mildly, most of the alien stories that have you so mystified make this tall tale pale by comparison.
Personal belief is another story. If one is happy in oneself and one is happy to keep such musings to oneslf and not try to force them on others, or lie about them to seem more mysterious, that's fine with me. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, biut nobody is entitled to their own facts. Facts say not a shred of proof exists to support the ETH. People's ideals disagree with this, not a single person alive has a fact to challenge this conclusion. But fact is, every single UFO answer to date has come from beneath out feet. As such, the trend is likely to continue, no matter how hard one might wish otherwise.




That is a narrow paranoid view.

Real criminals? Like curing Polio? Fighting cancer? My wife suffered cancer in recent times, D knows about it, he was pretty supportive through it actually, and when he meets her finally he will see two big scars on her neck that she has kept a a reminder. She was saved because of these people you call evil. My baby sister is back at the moment from the Netherlands to receive her qualifications and she is on the breast cancer team in the Netherlands, and making some breakthroughs she tells me. Is that the evil you speak of, or the evil you use to log onto UM?

The entire globe does not fit into one narrow minded paranoid view. There are simply far too many of us to do so. I would say the people you call criminals are not criminals, Charles Manson is a criminal, Wayne Gacy was a criminal, Gary McKinnon is a criminal. Saving lives is not criminal. That you would suppress real world science for some silly alien fantasy is criminal though. I really do not know where you get such inane suggestions from, but I think you watch a bit too much TV, or Youtube whatever your individual case might be. It seems you need to spend some time in the real world. The people you call snakes will put their own lives on te line for the likes of you and I. That you hold such a dim view of real world heroes is disheartening. I would really like to see you make such an accusation to a marines face, but I do not think you would have the guts to do so.

Try to remember that a scientist is a person like you and I, who has favourite foods, falls in love and perhaps enjoys a good book. They are not automatons designed by the machine to keep you in the dark. That is fantasy.





Probably the wisest thing you have said here ever without realising it. I truly find it a great pity that you refuse your own single piece of good advice. I see no reasoning as to why you consider a policed, transparent and triple checked process nefarious. That Zoser, is fantasy.

Thanks for the response psyche; earnest and straight.  I know where you stand.  Just one little point though and that is that if one has faith in human testimony is that such a bad thing?  When so many people are involved.  You don't have to reply;see you soon.

[bee]

.


Re. Ben Rich.....I also like this quote from the below link...


http://www.ufo-blogg...heed-skunk.html



Dr. Ben R. Rich former Lockheed Skunk Works director confirmed:

1. There are 2 types of UFOs -- the ones we build and ones 'they' build. We learned from both crash retrievals and actual "hand-me-downs." The Government knew and until 1969 took an active hand in the administration of that information. After a 1969 Nixon "purge", administration was handled by an international board of directors in the private sector…

2. Nearly all "biomorphic" aerospace designs were inspired by the Roswell spacecraft -- from Kelly's SR-71 Blackbird onward to today's drones, UCAVs, and aerospace craft…

3. It was Ben Rich's opinion that the public should not be told [about UFOs and extraterrestrials] . He believed they could not handle the truth -- ever. Only in the last months of his decline did he begin to feel that the "international corporate board of directors" dealing with the "Subject" could represent a bigger problem to citizens' personal freedoms under the United States Constitution than the presence of off-world visitors themselves.”




edit....the print went small....


.

Edited by bee, 10 July 2012 - 03:19 PM.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

What is a "biomorphic" aerospace design, and how did the SR-71 fit into that description?

[zoser]

Chrlzs, on 10 July 2012 - 12:58 PM, said:

Yup, I'm just bein' a devilled avocado....  


It's all a bit meaningless unless you have an actual case to consider where an analysis of such things might be possible - are there any?  I confess I haven't been keeping up with the thread.

Zoser, can you point us to the very best tantalisers you have, so they can be put through the harsh wringer of proper analysis?

OK Chris.  Here we Go.  Yukon.  Canada 1996.  More than 30 people witness a huge craft travelling slowly across Canada's sparsely populated wilderness.  No satisfactory explanation has ever been offered.

[bee]

747400, on 10 July 2012 - 03:27 PM, said:

What is a "biomorphic" aerospace design, and how did the SR-71 fit into that description?

http://www.thefreedi....com/biomorphic

http://isearch.avg.c...sap=dsp&q=sr-71


(I remember you asking the same question a couple (ish) of years ago)


.

[TheMacGuffin]

Concerning the 1964 Zamora case, has anyone ever seen this picture?  No record of Capt. Kruzel or his photograph on the Internet.  

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 10 July 2012 - 04:28 PM.

[quillius]

TheMacGuffin, on 10 July 2012 - 04:23 PM, said:

Concerning the 1964 Zamora case, has anyone ever seen this picture?

no, but I notice it was addressed to the Major Q......the letter finishes with 'please return the slide when you have finished your evaluation....lol like the evaluation stood a chance of throwing out an answer that wasnt venus

(that ones for you Psyche, you know how much I love the Major. )

[TheMacGuffin]

quillius, on 10 July 2012 - 04:26 PM, said:

no, but I notice it was addressed to the Major Q......the letter finishes with 'please return the slide when you have finished your evaluation....lol like the evaluation stood a chance of throwing out an answer that wasnt venus

(that ones for you Psyche, you know how much I love the Major. )

Yes, I think that one is long gone.

That's just for the benefit of those who claim that nothing has ever been covered up.

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 10 July 2012 - 04:42 PM.