http://www.theuniversalseduction.com

1977, a long time ago since the USSR admitted superweapon capability. Maybe there is a clearer understanding on Nasa mission failures in 1077, that someone can link me to?


With the new anti riot heat rays owned by police forces in Europe today, it is possible to believe that we have had scalar weapons for some time. Is there a grater weapon on earth held in secret?

I also heard that for a long time, including WW2, RUSSIA AND THE US SECRET SOCIETIES WERE THE BEST OF ALLIES WITH THE NAZIS. BUT THAT IS WHAT FRATERNITIES DO ISN'T IT. mANIPULATE THE RULES TO HELP CLUB MEMBERS POCKET A BENEFIT?

sO THE COLD WAR SCALAR WEAPONRY COULD BE EITHER A LIE OR A PARTIALLY AGREED PACKED BETWEEN THE US AND USSR albeit in secret. Speculation of course. nline articles are usually missinformation, and I was not there to see Russian beam weapons. But I have seen footage of beam technology...A military video clip showed me the reality is no hoax.

No kidding:
This piece of idiotic "misinformation" is claiming that the USSR shut down US space shuttles 4 years before they first flew. I really don't think any thing else needs to be added to that.

Waspie -- the idea of weapons that fire BACKWARDS IN TIME doesn't terrify you?!

--Jaylemurph

The idea that people could take this nonsense seriously, that does terrify me.

Pardon?

Now that's why I come here, to decipher the bull from the crap...The history and number of lost US orbits is not my subject. Good someone caught this out.







yes easily, by checking the facts. A GOOD POINT ABOUT SHUTTLES




CAN YOU FOLLOW WITH SATALLITE DATA 1977 ANYONE?

I WANT TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THE SCALAR WEAPONS MYTH OR NOT?

And what exactly is a scalar weapon in your interpretation?!

Cheers,
Badeskov

I am not sure if I am referring here to a Scalar Beam Weapon but it just very well may be...

This a bit off topic but not, as in 1979 in my having read the Book "Out of the Body Experiences", I recall having read a book though several times that was based upon the Journals of Robert Allen Monroe, he wrote in his books “Out of the Body Esperance’s” in one of his ODE he had traveled to either a present or future parallel world but one seemly of future in description of, and he had mentioned in his descriptive details of his visit, that they the Humans had a Device for which they were governed by a Beam device keeping them from acting out of “Line” and the society therefore was kept as peaceful, and as I had just watch 60 minutes tonight and they were demonstrating a sonic Heat beam that penetrate the flesh to the depth of three sheets of paper, it connected with the nerves’ and gave the very unpleasant feeling of being scalded with Hot Water until the target moved back from the reaches of the beam, it will be implemented in Iraq as a means of weapons and crowd control later this summer…I read the book in 1979…

In his Book Monroe had documented in his journals of his many years of ODE’s and I am seeing some very interesting correlations’ that time and again come up here upon UM, it was a very well wrote journal book of his own OBE, he later went on and founded an institute and his book was published way before OBE became known as an Acronym…but I believe the Creature you are seeking here is within the pages of that book…I would give more information but I don’t wish to be plugging any books or institutes, as I believe there are participation research studies ongoing from there at present moment…Pavot

The beam weapon you are talking about is called The "ADS" Active Denial System, and can be seen here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVsH88jVNmU

Oh well. If it's on a Youtube video...

--Jaylemurph

http://www.satlist.nl/

Actually it was on the military channel, T.V. show called future weapons, or weaponology.


http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/07...ap_ray_gun.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20497575/

better yet..

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=2822

Are those more reliable sources of information?

Super. Thanks for the sat data. may take a while to work out what it means, but I will. And return with a summary for 1977.

With a real world understanding, we may all be abale to agree that secret science is years ahead of public science?

As an example, may I remind you of the scientific journals that last year supported the idea that we can now build computers 100 times faster than a dual cores, at the size of an ant's head.



At the time of release, the data was already three years old. The fact has been boasted that every years, we can build a pc 100 times faster, and 100 times smaller. That is the front line of underground science, compared to what we are struggling to know in the public domain.


So a heat ray of human size can be moderated to melt steel perhaps?

With the Hutchinson Effect already accepted as for real. Heat rays are really capable of a lot more than we are reading?

That is if we assume common sense with extreme prudence. Yes?

Maybe at some point when we master the production technique. But that is still some way out in the future.



This is just plain out wrong. Sometimes I wonder where you obtain your "facts", as they tend to be derived from the use of potent hallucinogens rather than the real world. 100 times faster and 100 times smaller every year?! Ever heard of Moore's law to start with (stating that the amount of transistor double roughly every 18 months)?! Right now the smallest features on a chip is ~45 nanometers, with research in 32 nanometers in progress, meaning that 32 nanometers will probably be viable in another couple of years. That is a reduction in feature size of 25%, not exactly the 100 times you got from somewhere completely unknown.

But just for the fun of it, lets just assume that you are right and that every year computer chips is reduced in size by a factor of 100 and increases processing power by the same factor. So how many years would this have been going on?!

Lets say that at Year 0 our chip is 1cm^2 (1*10^-4 m^2) and 1 IPS (Instructions Per Second). That is a big and a slow processor. Then we get:
Year 1: 1*10^-4 m^2 and 100IPS
Year 2: 1*10^-6 m^2 and 10000IPS
Year 3: 1*10^-8 m^2 and 1000000IPS (1MIPS)
Year 4: 1*10^-10 m^2 and 1000000IPS (100MIPS)
Year 5: 1*10^-12 m^2 and 1000000IPS (10000MIPS) Fastest PCs currently available

And so on. If you continue the math you will get computers that we haven't even dreamt about yet. It is simply a fantasy, sorry. Computer development is actually a rather tedious process and certainly comes nowhere near what you think?!



Huh?! This is becoming delusional...



Now it is delusional. The Hutchinson effect has been accepted for what it is, a fraud. And if you took the time to read some physics you would know this as well.



By all means of respect, but if I were you I'd read up on the meaning of common sense and then try to learn how to apply it. What you have stated above is completely devoid of any common sense, indeed, any sense whatsoever - it is ludicrous on so many levels it isn't even funny anymore.

Cheers,
Badeskov

I don't think Jet is too into legitimate science. Just, you know, Big Scary Evil Science, as practised by Doctor Frankenstein at the behest of the Vague Society of Nebulous Meanies. It's almost not sporting to answer his concerns with the real numbers.

--Jaylemurph

In think you are right, Jayle, although his avoidance of scientific facts are actually as meticulous as science itself - amazing...

Cheers,
Badeskov

I could easily sue that idiot for slander...are you accusing me of taking drugs???? Mybe we should accuse the forum mods of the same for allowing barbaric attacks on charaters in the publi domain..I could do with cursing a few souls online again..

To argue against your point. these figures you pluck out of the air relate to what types of chip. The original transitors or the modern approach? How does it relate to the above image and computer in concern?

Can you corrolate your data to what you know about this particular design?

Maybe you know about the technology that created the size of computer.

With allthis data on this page you still can't slander me without me sending you curses...Self presevation against slander..too right!!!

So how are you so sure that my data is incorrect. Do you actually understand the figures you stated?

Year 1: 1*10^-4 m^2 and 100IPS
Year 2: 1*10^-6 m^2 and 10000IPS
Year 3: 1*10^-8 m^2 and 1000000IPS (1MIPS)
Year 4: 1*10^-10 m^2 and 1000000IPS (100MIPS)
Year 5: 1*10^-12 m^2 and 1000000IPS (10000MIPS) Fastest PCs currently available

Are you aware how often scientific facts are broken every week.


I could go on, but this lame ganging up style is fun to watch a while.

I prefer intelligent responses though, got any?

QUOTE
As they tend to be derived from the use of potent hallucinogens rather than the real world. 100 times faster and 100 times smaller every year?!

Maybe a little civility and asking you would get YOU PLACES, OTHERWISE WATCH YOUR BACK.

Laws of reality are bent constantly, Laws of science are broken every day? Comeclearer with your arguement or stop wasting UM space.

Does that make us even now, or can I continue slagging the slack slaggers..lol.

Well, the first part of prosecuting slander is prove it's not true...

Although I'm sure the mods are as ready to swoop down with justice just as quickly as you can press the "Report" button...

...OR ARE THEY IN ON IT, TOO?!

--Jaylemurph

Nope, I am not accusing you of taking drugs or the like - I don't know you. But your detachment from reality are on occurrences similar to that seen by misuse of some rather potent drugs.



Actually, they don't refer to any chip known to man, and that was the whole point. Your 100 times faster and 100 times smaller per year simply so wrong it screams to the skies. Those numbers refer to your postulates and illustrate why it is wrong. If your numbers were right, we would now live in a world of science fiction, all having artifical intelligence to help us. However, size doesn't shrink that fast and computers don't increase their computation times so significantly - they are actually rather slower.

Lets take a simple example. An 8086 processor had a MIPS count of ~0.33 when introduced in 1978 [ref]. Jump 30 years to 2008 and an opteron processor easily surpasses 125,000MIPS. That is an impressive increase in computing power over 30 years of ~400,000 times. Not too bad. However, according to your numbers that increase should have been an astounding 1*10^60 (1 followed by 60 zeros).

Using the same math, processor features should have shrunk by the same amount, which they clear have not. Right now some of the smallest transistors are 1.024*10^-15m2, which by your reckoning should have started out with a size of ~1*10^45m2. That is immensely big. The surface area of the earth is 510,065,600km2 or 510,065,600,000m2. That is many, many times smaller than the first transistor if your alleged math was to be correct.

Honestly, it is very simply math. If you actually did a little work on the garbage you are spewing out, you would easily recognize that. But I guess that would ruin your beliefs.



You spoke in general terms and I responded in general terms.



What computer exactly?! Do you have a reference?! Specifications?! How fast is it, how small is it?!



I am not sending you curses, I don't need to.



Yes, but apparently you didn't as you utterly failed to address them. I restate them here, so maybe you can tell me what is wrong with them?!

Year 1: 1*10^-4 m^2 and 100IPS
Year 2: 1*10^-6 m^2 and 10000IPS
Year 3: 1*10^-8 m^2 and 1000000IPS (1MIPS)
Year 4: 1*10^-10 m^2 and 1000000IPS (100MIPS)
Year 5: 1*10^-12 m^2 and 1000000IPS (10000MIPS) Fastest PCs currently available



Science is prgression and every single day we cross barriers we couldn't cross yesterday. So what?! That doesn't make your statements any more valid - they are still utterly ludicrous.



Apparently none you like to hear or have the means to respond to.



The laws of science are not broken. As stated above, it is a question of progress. If you don't understand my arguments, I guess I would recommend a simply math/physics course as it is really very, very simple, sorry for being so blunt.



It is not a question of being even, it is a question of addressing arguments, which you have an uncanny ability to avoid.

Cheers,
Badeskov