psyche101 Posted July 11, 2012 #601 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Hey Psyche, I didnt think Ed was rude at all on the show, I thought that Bill Nye's tone and apporach was very condesending and promopted the response from Ed. I think the comments you made regarding Jim and his career at NASA should also extend to Ed in the same way. IMO. You are entitled to your opinion there mate, but I disagree. The comments I made toward Jim do extend to Ed, why do you think I have indicated otherwise? As far as piloting a spacecraft goes, and what is involved in getting to the moon and back, I would take Ed's advice in a heartbeat, just not on an unknown that he has second hand information on - being the alien bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted July 11, 2012 #602 Share Posted July 11, 2012 I feel it is a little harsh to place those names in the same sentence as McKinnon. Anyhow I am curious about a couple of points you have raised, when you say his ISPs hold no record of his wild claims, surely they have the record of him breaking and entering, right? Also the intent to vandalise part....can you elaborate on why you think this intent was there. They are all criminals right? I do not see the problem, you are the second one to say it is harsh to call criminals criminals, the examples were individual, I just do not understand where you are coming from there Quillius. A criminal should be in jail, if that person vandalises or murders, punishment is part of society. Yep, they did have a record, the FBI tracked him back to his house that way. With intent to vandalise, he left nasty messages on peoples terminals just for the fun of it, and he made this very statement: US foreign policy is akin to Government-sponsored terrorism these days … It was not a mistake that there was a huge security stand down on September 11 last year … I am SOLO. I will continue to disrupt at the highest levels … He is a petty thief and a vandal, mate I am shocked that you would give him the time of day, it is quite obvious that his ET/Anti grav claims were spur of the moment and designed to gather sympathy, which he knew if he said the words "Anti Gravity" and "Cover Up" he would gain in volumes with all the people wanting to hear what he was saying. He took the community for a bunch of fools the way I see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted July 11, 2012 #603 Share Posted July 11, 2012 that's because they wouldn't be using propulsion......they would probably be using magnetic/gravitational fields....and just zip to where they want to go. kind of instant (ish) relocation...teleportation....? And an object that big creates absolutely no air displacement? What's thunder Bee? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DONTEATUS Posted July 11, 2012 #604 Share Posted July 11, 2012 HEres one for the grey matter ! propulsion of a different kind. Lay back,think about the surface of the moon, THink about what it looks like standing by one of the LM`s on the surface ,Look around. Look back at the earth ! THen Think about being back on earth laying down. All in less than a few seconds. I didnt hear any sonic,wave or disruption !Or any thing for that matter ! Could be just air space in between the left and right ear lobes ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted July 11, 2012 #605 Share Posted July 11, 2012 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. Of course I would like to reply, good to be having a straight conversation with you. Humans have a thing called human error. We are the common denominator, I find testimony and indicator and can indicate if an investigation is warranted, and that is where things start to get interesting. If it is warranted then I feel there is another set of hurdles to jump as some people will call an apparition alien, others will call the same thing a Leprechaun, and as I pointed out with the Fatima event, some call an event religious, and some feel this can be interpreted as ET. It's human interpretation, which brings us back to that common denominator, human error. As such, many people will mean corroboration, but we need to stop taking witness statements at face value, because they all have different interpretations. If we all thought the same way, that might be a more viable possibility, but as these very boards prove, that is far from the case. One mans alien is another mans angel. It subjective and is steered by ones upbringing and culture. These factors muddy testimony waters to a point that makes the conclusion indecipherable. With empirical evidence, there is no question. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DONTEATUS Posted July 11, 2012 #606 Share Posted July 11, 2012 DOnt you just Love that part "Human Error " We seem to have a lot of that on this world ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMacGuffin Posted July 11, 2012 #607 Share Posted July 11, 2012 In Aliens From Space, Maj. Donald Keyhoe (USMC ret) mentioned an incident where an Eastern Airlines DC-3 was flying from Boston to Hartford, CT, in 1953. The Hartford tower put the DC-3 into a holding pattern with two other airliners, and when the captain asked why, the tower replied "ADC scramble." The captain was also a Major in the Mass. Air National Guard, and he turned his radio to the ADC channel, while the copilot monitored the tower freq on his radio. Just as the captain switched freqs. a large orange-red fireball eurupted, above and ahead of the DC-3, and the captain heard a fighter pilot screaming "I got him! I got him!" The copilot tapped the captain's shoulder, telling him to get back on the tower freq. Hartford tower was screaming into their radio; they thought the airliners had a mid-air. The captain told Keyhoe, who had friends at the Pentagon who didn't like how the USAF and CIA were treating the UFO subject, and they did verify that a high-speed unknown radar contact was tracked over CT that night, and fighters were scrambled. The sources would not say whether anyone fired, though. One source told Keyhoe: "If they shot down a UFO, that's Above Top Secret, and I'm not cleared for that." Maybe some F-86D or F-94 pilot was lucky and got a kill that night, but given security, wouldn't be able to paint a saucer kill on his aircraft.... http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php?topic=14463.0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMacGuffin Posted July 11, 2012 #608 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Shoot 'em down when they're up and shoot 'em up when they're down! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DingoLingo Posted July 11, 2012 #609 Share Posted July 11, 2012 plasma? Plasma would still cause disturbance in the atomsphere.. and it still wouldnt explain it.. when your talking something so damn huge it would dispace a large amount of air as it moves.. the higher the speed the more of a shockwave.. Take when a jet flies and breaks the sound barrier.. there are enough vid's around showing the shockwave it causes.. sorry guys.. there is no way you could get around that.. the theoretical inertial dampeners that someone will end up thinking off.. only stops the G force squashing you.. Ok someone will say Shields.. Yes.. shields will stop the hull of the craft from getting a buffering from the air because its the sheilds that react to it.. It is simply not possible to bypass this guys.. you would only bypass it by going slow.. then there will be a very small displacement of air.. but when you have huge saucer shaped craft, or giant cylinders.. no way around it.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMacGuffin Posted July 11, 2012 #610 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texaskat Posted July 11, 2012 #611 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Wonder if any of these people have been hypnotized in the hope of remembering more details? Course not all people can be hypnotized and whoever tried would say they don't remember anything else and not get anywhere. I was once told that I cannot be hypnotized that my sub conscious is too strong? Don't know about that haven't tried in over 30 years. Wish I could find that car title though. texaskat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMacGuffin Posted July 11, 2012 #612 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Wouldn't you like to know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted July 11, 2012 #613 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Wonder if any of these people have been hypnotized in the hope of remembering more details? Course not all people can be hypnotized and whoever tried would say they don't remember anything else and not get anywhere. I was once told that I cannot be hypnotized that my sub conscious is too strong? Don't know about that haven't tried in over 30 years. Wish I could find that car title though. texaskat I reckon hypnotism is a crock. In most cases it seems pretty obvious that the hypnotist puts the images and experiences into another person and they come out thinking it was their subconscious, when it was the hypnotists imagination all along. Maybe your brain is BS resistant http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xShWMgVKJuQ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DingoLingo Posted July 11, 2012 #614 Share Posted July 11, 2012 dont worry texaskat. .I am the same.. I can go into the trance.. but as soon as the hypnotist starts to talk.. the brain kicks in and wakes me.. its a bugger. was going to try it to quit smoking LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted July 11, 2012 #615 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Plasma would still cause disturbance in the atomsphere.. and it still wouldnt explain it.. when your talking something so damn huge it would dispace a large amount of air as it moves.. the higher the speed the more of a shockwave.. Take when a jet flies and breaks the sound barrier.. there are enough vid's around showing the shockwave it causes.. sorry guys.. there is no way you could get around that.. the theoretical inertial dampeners that someone will end up thinking off.. only stops the G force squashing you.. Ok someone will say Shields.. Yes.. shields will stop the hull of the craft from getting a buffering from the air because its the sheilds that react to it.. It is simply not possible to bypass this guys.. you would only bypass it by going slow.. then there will be a very small displacement of air.. but when you have huge saucer shaped craft, or giant cylinders.. no way around it.. But as i remarked previously, that is what seems to happen with Plasma; how is that explained? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DingoLingo Posted July 11, 2012 #616 Share Posted July 11, 2012 plasma moving through the air? ie.. very similar to lightning.. it basically flash burns the air that is what causes the thunder.. and some how.. I dont think you are going to find a ball of plamsa the size of a aircraft carrier flying at a high velocity.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quillius Posted July 11, 2012 #617 Share Posted July 11, 2012 You are entitled to your opinion there mate, but I disagree. The comments I made toward Jim do extend to Ed, why do you think I have indicated otherwise? As far as piloting a spacecraft goes, and what is involved in getting to the moon and back, I would take Ed's advice in a heartbeat, just not on an unknown that he has second hand information on - being the alien bit. I am glad you disagree......tis what makes the forum interesting. I never said you indicated otherwise, however I am just pointing out that Nye came across as one of those dogs snapping away with a condesending attitude and I could therefore see similarities to both Ed and Jim in that respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quillius Posted July 11, 2012 #618 Share Posted July 11, 2012 They are all criminals right? I do not see the problem, you are the second one to say it is harsh to call criminals criminals, the examples were individual, I just do not understand where you are coming from there Quillius. A criminal should be in jail, if that person vandalises or murders, punishment is part of society. Yep, they did have a record, the FBI tracked him back to his house that way. With intent to vandalise, he left nasty messages on peoples terminals just for the fun of it, and he made this very statement: US foreign policy is akin to Government-sponsored terrorism these days … It was not a mistake that there was a huge security stand down on September 11 last year … I am SOLO. I will continue to disrupt at the highest levels … He is a petty thief and a vandal, mate I am shocked that you would give him the time of day, it is quite obvious that his ET/Anti grav claims were spur of the moment and designed to gather sympathy, which he knew if he said the words "Anti Gravity" and "Cover Up" he would gain in volumes with all the people wanting to hear what he was saying. He took the community for a bunch of fools the way I see it. Hey Psyche, basically I dont think murderers and peodaphiles can even be labelled as criminals, I personally dont think they should have any human rights. I dont think the same of thieves/vandals etc, the seperation I think happens when people break the law of the land/country etc they are classed as criminals...fair enough.....but the acts of the first two types mentioned go beyond law hence why I think there is a distinct difference. I suppose this is quite a thread derailer with no scope of any progress so best to leave there.... cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quillius Posted July 11, 2012 #619 Share Posted July 11, 2012 (edited) plasma moving through the air? ie.. very similar to lightning.. it basically flash burns the air that is what causes the thunder.. and some how.. I dont think you are going to find a ball of plamsa the size of a aircraft carrier flying at a high velocity.. Hello dingolingo, ok granted maybe not the size of an aircraft carrier but surely the size of a house at 'breakneck' speeds would still cause the 'boom'. Such has been witnessed in Hessdalen but with no noise. edit to add: Lost Shaman is very well versed in UAP's and can maybe help shed some insight into this discussion.... For generations mysterious lights have been observed in the remote valley of Hessdalen, Norway. On several occasions flying beneath treetops at varying speeds. The phenomenon has been reported as large as a house or as small as a soccerball. Often executing breakneck manouvers, or heading for outer space with speeds up to 20.000 mph. Both Norwegian and international researchers have been involved in trying to reveal the true nature of the mystery. There are many theories, from unknown natural energy phenomena to extra-terrestrial visitors. The film gives a comprehensive overview of the situation, with amazing picture documentation and eye-witness testimonials Edited July 11, 2012 by quillius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DingoLingo Posted July 11, 2012 #620 Share Posted July 11, 2012 you wont get the boom without the noise as well quil.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrLzs Posted July 11, 2012 #621 Share Posted July 11, 2012 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. 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. Readers will make their own judgments here, but I would point out the following.. My questions, were, I think, pretty clear and pretty ontopic. But rather than actually answer them directly (or un-"vaguely"), MacG ironically handwaves me back a couple of pages and invites me to go find and read a hideously formatted website, and again handwaves that Jim's explanations 'left something to be desired'. Well, yes, they probably did... As did/will any offerings of explanations for cases that are not documented well enough to make any definitive explanation. And what should then happen is that those very weak cases be relegated into the mists of obscurity, rather than getting endlessly and uselessly recycled OVER and OVER - until any genuine investigators' eyes glaze over... THAT was my point. Did Jim give a 100% claim that his proffered explanation was 100% correct? - for that is what MacG stated... The point is, and let's cut to the chase: MacG and others pushing the UFO=ET/cover-up/conspiracy position *don't like* it when explanations are offered that do not support their desired world-view. They also don't like it when testimony/memories/stories are (correctly) given very low priority on any scale of potential evidence, or when event sequences are questioned in detail and found to be wanting. That's why my questions were left unanswered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMacGuffin Posted July 11, 2012 #622 Share Posted July 11, 2012 (edited) MacG and others pushing the UFO=ET/cover-up/conspiracy position *don't like* it when explanations are offered that do not support their desired world-view. They also don't like it when testimony/memories/stories are (correctly) given very low priority on any scale of potential evidence, or when event sequences are questioned in detail and found to be wanting. That's why my questions were left unanswered. ?????????? I think everyone will forgive me if I don't respond to this distortion and caricature of myself, because it is so blatantly untrue. In fact, there are a couple of threads on here right now where I pointed out that a number of UFO pictures were fake. I was also trying to be nice when I said that Oberg's explanations left something to be desired because in the two cases I mentioned, they were blatantly wrong, if not downright deceptive. You do not even seem to be aware that the Sky Thing of 1960 and the Edwards case of 1957 were hardly poorly-documented cases. By the way, what was this UFO flying around Edwards AFB in 1957, which looks very similar to the one that Cooper saw landing in the dry lake bed? Explanation please. James Oberg says that it didn't happen, but I say he's wrong. Edited July 11, 2012 by TheMacGuffin 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMacGuffin Posted July 11, 2012 #623 Share Posted July 11, 2012 This is one of my favorites. Wouldn't you like to know more about this? People have been trying for years and have run into a brick wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMacGuffin Posted July 11, 2012 #624 Share Posted July 11, 2012 (edited) And wouldn't you like to know more about the Army's Interplanetary Phenomenon Unit, which is one of the most secret UFO investigations of all, and also the oldest? Here again, people have been getting stonewalled for decades about these records. None of this units records are in the Blue Book or OSI files, at least NONE that have ever been declassified. I have good reason to believe that the IPU has at least 50-100,000 pages of UFO documents, and perhaps much more, but nobody in the general public has ever seen even one of them. I have, though. Edited July 11, 2012 by TheMacGuffin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMacGuffin Posted July 11, 2012 #625 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Here's something interesting, from Senator Robert Byrd, who was one of the most powerful people in Washington: 1991 Senator Robert Byrd through his National Security Specialist Dick D’Amato – At Byrd’s request D’Amato investigated the UFO cover-up and concluded “UFO information should be released, but that an incredibly powerful black arm of the government has been keeping it secret, and spending enormous sums of money illegally in this operation.” He was unable to flush them out even though he had a Top Secret clearance and subpoena power. http://presidentialufo.com/articles-a-papers/415-senators-and-congressman-in-ufo-disclosure 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now