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 3
seeder

Bill Clinton, not surprised if aliens visit

830 posts in this topic

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?

according to the quote (from your link to the book) he says we have the 'the tech to take ET home' then he says 'we have to devise new propulsion tech' ....I dont see this as contradictory, but again I would say the actual words would be important and sadly we do not have this at the moment

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would mentioning ET in an earlier piece work against the impact the last slide was supposed to have?

There was the movie, ET. In that movie, ET was stuck here...and needed to get home right? So perhaps it was just a humorous reference to the movie idea, now taken out of context

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was the movie, ET. In that movie, ET was stuck here...and needed to get home right? So perhaps it was just a humorous reference to the movie idea, now taken out of context

quite possibly...in fact I may even lean that way myself. I was highlighting that the ET part was on the last slide-for impact. However if the otehr quote is correct, then he mentions ET in that so my argument is wouldnt that reduce the impact of the last slide? if so the chances are the earlier sentence in its entirety may not be as quoted and may be more of a combination of things he said during speech.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

underlined......genius idea S2F...I shall organise a séance forthwith..... :yes:

;)

.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :)

according to the quote (from your link to the book) he says we have the 'the tech to take ET home' then he says 'we have to devise new propulsion tech' ....I dont see this as contradictory, but again I would say the actual words would be important and sadly we do not have this at the moment

I am unsure how we can have the tech, but need to build it, are you hinting at reverse engineering or something? If that was the case, how can one put a time frame on reverse engineering an unknown technology?

The book seems to have the quote fairly well transcribed, what do you feel might be re-organised in his quotes? And to what extent?

I would run with the movie as the ET reference too. I hadn't realised at first how late in life he made that comment, which was indeed well after the movie was made, he also made it a mere two years before he passed on. That is a trend I am gingerly stepping around to have a closer look at. Older people used to turn to God in their final years, some become extraordinarily devout with the reality of mortality bearing down on them, I am noticing this seem to be a bit of a trend with ET lately as well. Like the noobs who swap God for ET and consider themselves intellectuals, I think it's something in the same line of thinking.

1 person likes this

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 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.