Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Still Waters

Alien life could be discovered within 40 yrs

203 posts in this topic

It would be nice if it started to slow down Now that would open a few eyes,and ears !

:tu::gun: Get met a camera !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just going by what he said on the video. Let other people watch it and they'll see what I mean. They had no idea what it was and were just guessing about some kind of asteroid collision.

[...]

They made a hypothesis, and then run with observations/calculations. With pre-discovery observations it makes clear - asteroid.

[...]They didn't even have the date right for THAT, as I have proven.

Dude, I'd love to have that fairy dust you are snorting. What date you are talking about? Discovery of already impacted asteroid, or the date of the impact?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ITs the air in here bmk, ITs makes the grey matter do strange things ! just Look at me ! :whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude, I'd love to have that fairy dust you are snorting. What date you are talking about? Discovery of already impacted asteroid, or the date of the impact?

You said that the alleged "collision" occurred on February 10, 2010, then backtracked when I pointed out that they already had pictures of this UFO flying around a month before that. Of course, you were just citing one of your "scientific" sources.

Go back and look at your own posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every article I've looked at gives the same speed for the alleged "asteroid collision" and I have seen no other numbers given. I can tell that they really had no idea what it was and they were just guessing, which is really what Kaku was doing in the video.

[...]

The same way astronomers come up with approx. time of supernovaes explosions - you have only aftermath picture.

[...]

Given the history of UFOs, there are excellent reasons to be skeptical of all "official explanations" of the type regularly repeated on here, and that's what I do. You didn't even have the right date for the supposed "asteroid collision" but I have never seen you admit that.

[...]

You do squat. You browse for any case on the net and put here... And the date of collision... Boy, your personality really encompass every "wrong" what is flooded nowadays (and past) UFOlogy. Do you understand difference between "time of discovery" and "time of collision"? Obviously, not.

[...]

Indeed, it's the "skeptics" on here who NEVER admit they are wrong, not even on one single UFO case. I don't blame them because they do not dare to concede that we may be correct even on a single one of these, which puts them in an impossible position. So just go ahead and keep doing what you usually do, but we shall let others make up their minds about what the real evidence indicates.

Wrong? Hah, you twisted M.Kaku's words for your own benefit. Are you really that desperate?

Edit: missing word

Edited by bmk1245

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You said that the alleged "collision" occurred on February 10, 2010, then backtracked when I pointed out that they already had pictures of this UFO flying around a month before that. Of course, you were just citing one of your "scientific" sources.

Go back and look at your own posts.

And another mishap/misreading on your side: the quote/link says February 10, 2009. Problems with numericals, huh? But hey, you always can put links to my posts to prove your points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just going by what he said on the video. Let other people watch it and they'll see what I mean. They had no idea what it was and were just guessing about some kind of asteroid collision.

...

Patently false. You, as usual, overlaid it your own biased and flawed interpretation.

<snip>

In the video, Kaku denied it was an asteroid or comet. Why did he say that? Didn't he say that speed was too slow for an asteroid or comet? That's why I posted the video, so Prof. Kaku could tell us that it wasn't a natural object.

Bolding mine. You put words in Michiu Kaku's mouth based on your own beliefs and lack of knowledge. You cannot get around that. You have AGAIN shown your bias and ability to overlay your own beliefs onto unknowns.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For someone who claims to know a great deal about UFOs and ETs, you always end up saying very little.

Because I don't say what you like to hear, sure.

If you really know something, why don't you tell them about the small humanoids--the ones we came across first.

Because they are non-existent outside of your rather vivid imagination.

If you don't even know where it all started, then how can you claim to have a great deal of knowledge about this subject?

Oh, but I do...

Even I know about those, if not all the other types.

What are you smoking?

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And another mishap/misreading on your side: the quote/link says February 10, 2009. Problems with numericals, huh? But hey, you always can put links to my posts to prove your points.

Great posts, BMK. Thanks for the info.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ITs the air in here bmk, ITs makes the grey matter do strange things ! just Look at me ! :whistle:

Nah, it looks purplish to me... Of course, having in mind red wine consumed (beer-verbotten). OK, I see Big D... where is the cooker?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We know. You have more than adequately demonstrated an abhorrence towards anything factual and/or rational that tends to go against your ET belief.

There are far more facts on our side than yours, and also far more declassified documents, which you are reluctant to discuss at any time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are far more facts on our side than yours, and also far more declassified documents, which you are reluctant to discuss at any time.

Plenty of facts, no, your "side" is just very prone to over-interpretation. That much is obvious. The fact is that you are so prone to say something is not a natural object once a scientist thinks that it may not be a couple of natural objects. Same with that retrograde object that you could not decide whether had a predictable or unpredictable orbit (depending on what argument you were trying to counter).

Frankly, you know nowhere near enough as you would like to, however, your imagination is working much more than you claim it to be. You have demonstrated this over and over again, whether you like it or not...

Cheers,

Badeskov

Edited by badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Patently false. You, as usual, overlaid it your own biased and flawed interpretation.

Bolding mine. You put words in Michiu Kaku's mouth based on your own beliefs and lack of knowledge. You cannot get around that. You have AGAIN shown your bias and ability to overlay your own beliefs onto unknowns.

No, you are patently false. The first words out of Kaku's mouth when were "We don't know. We are stumped", and the scientists around the world didn't know what it was.

"Our jaws hit the floor"

"We are clueless".

"What is it?" "We're scratching our heads". That is what he really said on this video, although I don't blame you for not mentioning any of that. Only then did he say it might be a "once in a lifetime" event of two asteroids colliding, and then he went on about how the dinosaurs were wiped out.

Those are his exact words on this video, but you posted none of them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeAsHGfmMCc&feature=player_detailpage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plenty of facts, no, your "side" is just very prone to over-interpretation. That much is obvious. The fact is that you are so prone to say something is not a natural object once a scientist thinks that it may not be a couple of natural objects. Same with that retrograde object that you could not decide whether had a predictable or unpredictable orbit (depending on what argument you were trying to counter).

Frankly, you know nowhere near enough as you would like to, however, your imagination is working much more than you claim it to be. You have demonstrated this over and over again, whether you like it or not...

Yes, all these documents and UFO cases I post are just things out of my own imagination, just like the words that Kaku used on that video--none of which you mentioned--were all in my imagination too! LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And another mishap/misreading on your side: the quote/link says February 10, 2009. Problems with numericals, huh? But hey, you always can put links to my posts to prove your points.

I will have to concede that; I thought you wrote 2010.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great posts, BMK. Thanks for the info.

Cheers,

Badeskov

My plesure. Just one last bit for this non ET event (PRE-DISCOVERY OBSERVATIONS OF DISRUPTING ASTEROID P/2010 A2, David Jewitt et al. 2011 The Astronomical Journal 142 28), i.e. summary

4. SUMMARY

We searched for pre-discovery observations of recently disrupted

asteroid P/2010 A2 to try to understand the long interval

between its disruption (in 2009 February/March) and discovery

(2010 January 6), with the following results.

1. The disruption event in early 2009 occurred at a small solar

elongation (<30◦). The elongation remained <60◦ as seen

from Earth until about 2009 August, explaining the nondetection

of P/2010 A2 by night-time telescopes in this

early period.

2. Observations in the daytime sky using the SOHO and

STEREO solar satellites placed only upper limits on the allowable

brightness. The non-detections require that the differential

size distribution index, extended down to 0.1μm

particle sizes, should be q < 4.1. This is consistent with

the value q = 3.3 ± 0.2 measured in the millimeter-to-centimeter

size range (Jewitt et al. 2010b).

3. The date of eventual discovery, UT 2010 January 6, coincides

with the date of peak apparent brightness as seen

from Earth, showing the importance of observational selection

effects in the discovery.

4. Pre-discovery observations of P/2010 A2 by the LINEAR

survey telescope were identified on UT 2009 November

22 and December 10, 15, and 16. These and later observations

show an object whose integrated brightness varies

primarily in response to the changing observing geometry,

meaning that the total scattering cross-section remained

approximately constant after 2009 November. The absolute

magnitude and its formal uncertainty are V (1, 1, 0) =

14.49 ± 0.04 mag.

5. The fraction of the time spent by P/2010 A2 above the

LINEAR detection threshold is <6%, while intrinsically

fainter analogs of this object would be even less likely to

be detected.We conclude that similar examples of recently

impacted asteroids are common, and will be revealed by

future all-sky surveys in large numbers.

(emphasis mine)

Anyway, thanks to McG.... Seriously, because, probably, I wouldn't be looking for that material.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you are patently false. The first words out of Kaku's mouth when were "We don't know. We are stumped", and the scientists around the world didn't know what it was.

"Our jaws hit the floor"

"We are clueless".

"What is it?" "We're scratching our heads". That is what he really said on this video, although I don't blame you for not mentioning any of that. Only then did he say it might be a "once in a lifetime" event of two asteroids colliding, and then he went on about how the dinosaurs were wiped out.

Those are his exact words on this video, but you posted none of them.

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeAsHGfmMCc&feature=player_detailpage[/media]

No, I am not patently false, and it is the flawed interpretation you always make and then you try and weasel your way out of it. Typical believer nonsense. Let me repeat, please - if nothing else, for the newcomer, as I am sure you do not understand. This is what you said:

<snip>

In the video, Kaku denied it was an asteroid or comet. Why did he say that? Didn't he say that speed was too slow for an asteroid or comet? That's why I posted the video, so Prof. Kaku could tell us that it wasn't a natural object.

Michiu Kaku said no such thing. He merely said that they did not know what it was.

You are the one making the interpretation, so please do not pretend otherwise and make yourself the pathetic victim again. Frankly, your means or argumentation is pathetic.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I am not patently false, and it is the flawed interpretation you always make and then you try and weasel your way out of it. Typical believer nonsense. Let me repeat, please - if nothing else, for the newcomer, as I am sure you do not understand. This is what you said:

Michiu Kaku said no such thing. He merely said that they did not know what it was.

You are the one making the interpretation, so please do not pretend otherwise and make yourself the pathetic victim again. Frankly, your means or argumentation is pathetic.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Once I again, I have posted this video twice, and he said that it was not a star, planet, galaxy or comet. He says this very clearly, in plain English, and anyone who bothers to listen to the video can hear it.

I have quoted exactly what he said, which you did not.

Only then does he go on the speculate about a possible asteroid collision that has never been seen before. Nobody has to take my word for that, just listen to the video. You're the one who is omitting all this information just to prove your point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once I again, I have posted this video twice, and he said that it was not a star, planet, galaxy or comet. He says this very clearly, in plain English, and anyone who bothers to listen to the video can hear it.

I have quoted exactly what he said, which you did not.

Only then does he go on the speculate about a possible asteroid collision that has never been seen before. Nobody has to take my word for that, just listen to the video. You're the one who is omitting all this information just to prove your point.

Sigh. You are really that daft, are you?

I have nowhere denied that he stated that he did not know what it was. Did I?

No, what I have pointed out is your flawed interpretation. Let me do it again, for those not able to read:

<snip>

That's why I posted the video, so Prof. Kaku could tell us that it wasn't a natural object.

Now, please tell me exactly where Michiu Kaku stated that it was not a natural object. He didn't period. That was your interpretation.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Edited by badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh. You are really that daft, are you?

Now, please tell me exactly where Michiu Kaku stated that it was not a natural object. He didn't period. That was your interpretation.

I'm sure you'd prefer to think that and have others think the same thing about me, but it's false. I noted that Kaku ran out of possible natural explanations for what it could be, except the one that you and BMK are pushing. That's very predictable, of course, and I would except nothing else.

That's seems to be your job on here, especially when it comes to any UFOs photographed in space.

In fact, this UFO was not like ANY natural object ever seen before, although Kaku deflected the question about whether it was ET and mentioned some theory about colliding asteroids. That of course became the gospel truth on this case, although as even BMK admits no one ever saw such a collision and they are only guessing about the date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you are patently false. The first words out of Kaku's mouth when were "We don't know. We are stumped", and the scientists around the world didn't know what it was.[...]

When he said that, and what paper he had read at that time? If he and some other scientists stumbbled upon event, that doesn't mean other scientists weren't working on that and having some explanations. M.Kaku is theoretician with high math mind winded. Is he an expert on asteroids? Sure he know a lot, but not any near in comparison of those who are working in that field.
[...] Only then did he say it might be a "once in a lifetime" event of two asteroids colliding, and then he went on about how the dinosaurs were wiped out.[...]

Hmmm... What would happen nowadays with such scenario? Extinct...

Edit: goddamn, edit features are frustratingly annoying and stupid...

Edited by bmk1245

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure you'd prefer to think that and have others think the same thing about me, but it's false. I noted that Kaku ran out of possible natural explanations for what it could be, except the one that you and BMK are pushing. That's very predictable, of course, and I would except nothing else.

That's seems to be your job on here, especially when it comes to any UFOs photographed in space.

In fact, this UFO was not like ANY natural object ever seen before, although Kaku deflected the question about whether it was ET and mentioned some theory about colliding asteroids. That of course became the gospel truth on this case, although as even BMK admits no one ever saw such a collision and they are only guessing about the date.

So naturally then, that would also mean that you are guessing that it is ET?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kaku says in this video: "It doesn't fit any profiles of the usual suspects". He says it is not stars, galaxies, meteors, planets, but that it is about the size of the Rosebowl Stadium.

Then he says again:

"It's not a comet"

"It's not a meteor"

Does he not say these things, or am I just imagining it all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure you'd prefer to think that and have others think the same thing about me, but it's false.

I don't really care.

I noted that Kaku ran out of possible natural explanations for what it could be,

Did he now? He gave his opinion on two options. That's it.

except the one that you and BMK are pushing.

I am not pushing anything. I have not offered anything in terms of any explanation, have I? But that said, I do find what BMK is offering is plausible.

That's very predictable, of course, and I would except nothing else.

Of course, those evil people that actually offer something rational.

That's seems to be your job on here, especially when it comes to any UFOs photographed in space.

Utter nonsense. When countered and you cannot offer anything in return, pull the pathetic debunker card. Even though I have offered no explanation, just pointed out the flaws in your interpretation.

In fact, this UFO was not like ANY natural object ever seen before, although Kaku deflected the question about whether it was ET and mentioned some theory about colliding asteroids. That of course became the gospel truth on this case, although as even BMK admits no one ever saw such a collision and they are only guessing about the date.

So? We continuously discover new stuff in space. And he certainly knows that.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So naturally then, that would also mean that you are guessing that it is ET?

They didn't make a broadcast telling me that it was an ET, but even these scientists thought it was something very unique--something that they claimed had never been seen before.

Of course I don't believe the usual debunkers and deniers who will never concede anything on any UFO case, nor do I believe their ridiculous assertions that all facts and science are on their side, while anyone who dares to disagree with them is a lunatic or religious fanatic. Those are just the usual things they pull out of their little debating bag of tricks, but it doesn't make them right.

Never has and never will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.