What about empirical evidence?

so you are comparing te shuttle--entering earth's atmosphere with UFOs. and from there assuming that because of the incredible speed of the engineless shuttle, that UFOs also could be explained by such navigation?

doesn't make sense what you say!

has anyone here ever seen a shuttle? if so has anyone ever seen a UFO? would you say they have the same trajectory?

as far as i am aware reported caes of UFOs, and what i have seen in footage, they do all kinds of strange manouvres, ncluding just being still. hovering still in one place. i have also seen a group of tem fprm a formation and just hover still

can a shuttle do tis? dont shuttles just shoot right down to the sea?
 
Mr Anonymous said:
A vehicle entering the atmosphere from orbit needs some means of preserving and altering altitude....

I didn't say a UFO was like a space shuttle. I'm pointing out a space shuttle flies faster than a UFO is supposed to, and doesn't use an engine to do it because NOTHING entering the atmosphere from space needs a bladdy engine to enter the earths atmosphere from the sky down.

I didn't say a space shuttle behaves like UFO is supposed to.

I said all a UFO needs is some means of staying up in the damn air!

Look - You park a satelight in a geo-stationary orbit. From the point of view of ground based observation the satelight appears to be perfectly stationary. Point a radar tower at the thing and radar tracking says the same thing.

However - you're dealing with an object parked in orbit. Despite how it appears to eye or radar that object is actually travelling at anything from many, many hundreds, to many thousands of mph depending on its altitude.

So. There your satelight is, perfectly "stationary" not appearing to move anywhere until it slows down in its actual speed.

Then the satelight appears to move.

The slower it actually travels - the faster it appears to be travelling. Tracking it with radar tells you the same thing.

Simply by slowing down from a far higher velocity, travelling under inertia already applied by whatever means it was that parked it in orbit in the first place, the satelight gains all the benefits of moving as if acting under constant propulsion without expending energy constantly to do it.

Providing it has some means of staying up.

Patently, since a UFO behaves quite distinctly from a space shuttle and doesn't possess wings and a tail or an airframe configured for flight, if it stays up in the air long enough for anyone to observe the blessed thing it possesses some other means of maintaining altitude.

But that's ALL it has to do in order to behave in the manner people who claim to have observed UFO's relay.

Including what you just described.

Just simply utilise some means other than atmosphere to stay in the sky.

Exactly as I said the first time round, only using considerably more words to do it...

Again. :rolleyes:

Oh and -
dont shuttles just shoot right down to the sea?[/

No. Once in side the atmosphere the pilot flies the shuttle like a glider and lands the thing perfectly safely on the ground, after which it gets fixed up and used again...

What your thinking of is the command capsule from rocket.

The difference in the behaviour of a space shuttle and a UFO is that a space shuttle has an air frame configured for atmospheric flight and used air to remain airborne.

A UFO doesn't have those sorts of characteristics. When it comes to the ability to fly your average UFO is designed for flight to about the same extent a baby grand piano is designed for competitive Grand Prix motor racing...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ahh, but some UFOs supposedly hover and then climb very rapidly, that presupposes a power plant/ engine, no?
 
UFO's sightings commonly describe the object in question as displaying the capacity to move through the air (at various apparent rates of speed and manoeuvrability) but at the same time as so doing display apparently nothing whatsoever by means of any conventionally understood means of bringing that about - basically, no sign of any apparent means of propulsion.
Oh, well NOW I understand what you are trying to say! So you can’t fathom it either do you?
Well, I guess you never heard of an interesting effect of ionising gases that form when the flow of electrons is redirected to a specific point. Here: read all about it (view attachment)



If you need more info,…don’t hesitate to ask.


without possessing an airframe configured for flight in the slightest.
What do you mean by “airframe” ? And should this too be any more special than modern-day-21ts century physics?

So I contest your opinion, that a UFO hasn’t got ANY means of propulsion, you –censored–
 
apparently the attachment function doesn't seem to function,...hmm,

okay,...wait a min here you go:



UFO's sightings commonly describe the object in
question as displaying the capacity to move through the air (at various
apparent rates of speed and manoeuvrability) <b>but</b> at the same time as so doing
display apparently nothing whatsoever by means of any conventionally understood
means of bringing that about - basically, no sign of any apparent means of
propulsion.

Oh, well NOW I understand what you are trying to say! So
you can’t fathom it do you?

Well, I guess you never heard of an interesting effect
of ionising gases that form when the flow of electrons is redirected to a
specific point. Here: read all about it http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ufophysics/electrokineticufo.htm
And while you’re at it:
http://soteria.com/brown/pictures/index.htm
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/lifters.htm
http://www.americanantigravity.com/
http://www.100megsfree4.com/farshores/tesla_2.htm
(Nikola Tesla's EM Field Lift experiments)
http://www.sacred-texts.com/ufo/ufo4.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/ufo/ufo6.htm
http://www.lostech.net/antigravity_catalogue.html
http://www.think-aboutit.com/ufo/antigravity_antimatter.htm
http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/electrograviticsystems.htm
http://www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/bp/16/hameltech4.htm
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/time_travel.html
http://www.ufoartwork.com/
http://www.mufon.com/
http://www.bvalphaserver.com/
http://www.ufoevidence.org/
http://www.4dreamland.com/Mambo/index.php
http://www.unknowncountry.com/
http://www.disclosureproject.org/
http://www.greatdreams.com/
http://www.ufotv.com/aspages/gettypes.asp?schtype=cropcircle
http://www.ufocity.com/
http://www.ufoinfo.com/contents.shtml
http://ovnis.esoterica.pt/ingles/antarctingl/VRIL6ingl.htm
http://www.alien.de/alien/
http://www.alien-ufos.com/
http://www.aaaa.demon.nl/military.html
http://www.todobr.com.br/cgi-bin/redirect.cgi?query=ufo
http://www.ufocenter.com/
http://www.fsreview.net/spi/nazinth.htm
http://www.cco.net/~trufax/trans/lammer.html
http://www.dreamlandresort.com/index_en.html
http://www.veling.nl/anne/templars/ancientaircraft_nf.html
http://www.geocities.com/aliens_ufos_videos/
http://alienidentities.com/ai_ie4.html
http://www.ufomag.co.uk/LatestIssueINDEX.htm
http://www.ufoconspiracy.com/
http://www.cufos.org/cometa.html
http://www.drboylan.com/
http://www.efodon.de/html/publik/do/edo25.htm
http://www.naziufos.com/dischi/saucers1-ie.htm
http://geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/2301/military.html
http://www.magonia.demon.co.uk/arc/00/newmag.htm
http://www.geocities.com/r_ayana/FreeWheel.html
http://www.ufo.no/english/articles/afu.html
http://www.martiansgohome.com/smear/v46/ss991010.htm
http://www.jp-petit.com/Site_Anglais/Ummo_Book/Ummo_Book1/Ummo_Book1.htm
http://wintersteel.homestead.com/files/JamesArticles/Silver_Bug.htm
http://www.thewhyfiles.co.uk/combat-diaries/diary14chapter_6.htm
http://www.afu.info/
http://d.webring.com/hub?ring=ufoalliance&amp;id=26&amp;hub
http://www.caus.org/home.shtml
http://www.aliensonearth.com/
http://www.fsr.org.uk/FSRMain.htm
http://www.think-aboutit.com/ufo/
http://www.ufoarea.com/
http://users.erols.com/feanor17/Ufo.html

If you need more info,…don’t hesitate to ask
 
Last edited:
ok....can someone plase explain/speculate how reverse engineering might work?

how is it connected with the idea of free energy?

at the mo i am not particularly after sceptical reponses...justa speculative idea of how a craft would utilize free energy from environment?
 
Oli said:
Ahh, but some UFOs supposedly hover and then climb very rapidly, that presupposes a power plant/ engine, no?

No. It all comes down to what a vehicle operating in this way uses to maintain altitude...

I've taken the liberty of preparing this with illustrated content. It's not terribly long, about 8 screens all told, 50% of each page being made up of animation showing the manner the physics discussed work and should be applied.

Perhaps if you get a few spare minutes you might want to give it the once over, it answers your questions and more besides... ;)

Fukushi, duendy? Boys, same goes with you. Follow the link bellow, even if you don't follow the writing entirely the illustrations show you the gist of what it is I'm talking about and, it's nothing at all like either of you seem to think it is....

It isn't science that demands UFO's be explained exclusively in terms of fantastic idea's with little in the way of actual science to support them - it's people who believe in UFO's that demand this and seem hell bent on continuing to pursue the topic in incredible terms only.

Ufologists are forever declaring that science is incapable of explaining UFO phenomena - that simply isn't true, never has been. Science has always had plenty to say about the matter, its just generally science doesn't tell UFO believers exactly what it is they want to hear, so they ignore it.

Now, I'm not a person who actually gives a flying crap about the subject. I never have been, and I plan on continuing to live a very long and blissfully happy life continuing in that exact same vein.

However, its never ceased to amaze me how people who claim the matter is significant insist on investing time and effort in looking for answers to the things they, despite all reason to the contrary, insist on believing to be true in all the places least most likely to actually provide a single answer to what it is they claim to be seeking.

One of these days, maybe, it's going to occur to someone out there that, rather than trying to drum up theories and ideas which seek to address everything pertaining to UFO phenomena and doing it poorly, perhaps time and effort might be better served just setting out to explain just the one key, critical issue well in the sorts of terms science doesn't have a problem with.

Proving the existence of UFO's is impossible. But prove that a vehicle which conforms to UFO Classification and behaviour is not only possible but feasable...

No one can ever persist in the claim that UFO's simply don't exist.

Try taking it onboard chaps. After all, I'm not the one that's supposed to care about this silly business - you are.

Now, Fukushi - since you seem to have developed the belief that you're in some way entitled to respond to me in terms which require censorship when I have at no time offered the slightest insult to you, I believe now is a good time to leave the pair of you to it.

All the best with it,

A ;)

Try reading... Y'never know. Y'might actually learn something.

(Oli? I think it fair to say the title of the link addressed isn't aimed at you... ;)
 
hmmmmmm mr annonymous, your tone seems somehwhat patronizing to me...maybe i might be imagining it...but i dont think so

as for your source, my system cant see the images your words are referring to

i tend to summarize your whole view tus...nd it is same as other 'solutions' to tis this issue:

you attempt to homogenize the WHOLE subject of UFOs etc into te narror confines of your 'superior' theory.

although, yeah, it might have some truth in it....it most certainly aint te WHOLE truth
 
Mr. Anonymous

I remember that link posted before and looking at it this time, I realize that I have the same question, though I didn't ask it the last time you gave us the link. What about the cloud behind the object. The second page of the site seems to imply that the object is at a great distance and the apparent speed is due to the earth's rotation, but I still don't see how the object could fit that model and still have a cloud in the foreground.

Admittedly, I haven't had time to actually read word for word the site and I only skimmed it.... I'll give it a closer look later, but I didn't see any reference to the cloud problem.
 
Squeak22 said:
Great "How does it work" site.

:) .... Why thank you very much Squeak, very kind of you to say.


SkinWalker said:
Mr. Anonymous

I remember that link posted before and looking at it this time, I realise that I have the same question, though I didn't ask it the last time you gave us the link. What about the cloud behind the object. The second page of the site seems to imply that the object is at a great distance and the apparent speed is due to the earth's rotation, but I still don't see how the object could fit that model and still have a cloud in the foreground.

Admittedly, I haven't had time to actually read word for word the site and I only skimmed it.... I'll give it a closer look later, but I didn't see any reference to the cloud problem.

... It could possibly be accounted for by the reference to the UFO "footage" shown on the first page being written in inverted coma's...

Hello Skin, nice to see you around again old man.

It isn't actually UFO footage at all - nor does it actually claim to be.

On the second page in you'll see the same clip reduced in size with a larger animated wireframe CGI running simultaneously with the "original" showing a "UFO" starting off in a geosynchronous orbit around the earth for one full rotation and then decreasing its original velocity after that point.

At that corresponding point the "UFO" in the camcorder "footage" peels off West...

Well, actually in the clip it curves, but that's just a consequence of the way the CGI simulation is rigged up.

What your actually seeing in both clips is the same event just "filmed" from two separate positions. One where the observer (the virtual camera) is looking down at the earth from space, completely free from the rotational motion of the earth.

The other is shot at the same time where the observer (the virtual camera) is placed on the surface of the earths surface looking up at the CGI model of the UFO, part of its rotational motion of the earth.

You see the general idea of the thing is that if you park an object in a geostationary orbit, from the point of view of observation from the ground looking up, the object appears to be perfectly stationary - even though in fact the object itself would actually have to be travelling at a speed of anything between many hundreds to many thousands of miles per hour - as far as one can see the thing remains perfectly stationary.

The instant it slows down however, from the point of view of observation from bellow, it appears to move in a given direction at a rate of speed directly proportional to its actual degree of deceleration.

The slower it actually travels, the faster it appears to move.

In setting out to illustrate the physical principal involved it was important to do it in such a way as to convey both what what one actually see's and, at the same time, what actually is happening and to only use the physical principal being discussed in order to do it.

So, in order to best convey how the principal would appear in observation from the ground I integrated the frames shot of the UFO model from that position in the simulation into a background clip of camcorder footage of just empty sky - hence why the UFO curves off in a Westerly direction and not in a straight line as would happen if that were really an actual physical object being filmed acting in this way.

There was just no way of setting up the simulation any other way without cheating when it came to the physics, so pleasing aesthetics simply had to go on the back burner in exchange physical accuracey...

I can assure you Skin, if I was passing of fake UFO footage as real - it would be perfection. I have an eyeball for the particular y'know...


duendy said:
although, yeah, it might have some truth in it....it most certainly aint te WHOLE truth

... well I know that y'nanna - that's exactly how I described it in my own words in my own previous post... :p

Rather than set out to explain everything concerning UFO Phenomena in one all encompassing theory and doing it poorly, set out instead to just explain one single aspect that actually matters but do it well - the rest can take care of itself later.

If UFO's exist they only do so because there exist underlying physical principals which allow them to.

Not theoretical physical principals, but real ones.

And unless those real world physical principals exist you don't have to worry about all the rest of it because the UFO's ain't happening to begin with.

Now I fully realise that real world physics are a bore to you, that you have no interest in them and not the slightest intention of taking them on board and bothering to understand how they work. I get that.

But at the end of the day duendy, all I'm doing is pointing out the fact that actually there do exist real world, already very well established and accepted physical principals, which do actually exist and do, therefore, allow for the existence of a vehicular means which conforms to UFO classification.

I'm not taking away any of your toys here duendy - I'm giving you them, with my compliments, for gratis and with no strings attatched...

And this, to you, is a problem?! :bugeye:

Give the actual science stuff a try one of these days duendy, you might surprise your self and actually come to realise you do actually understand quite a lot of it probably far better than you yourself actually believe...

And if that's patronising, I can live with myself.
 
well i cant see the blummin pics....so, shoot me...already

you have heard of earth lights right? do tese fit in with what yer ona bout?

what is your view of crop circles.

lets keep it simple with 2 quesys

and dont underestimate me dude

i Am interested in physics...tho cant understand the technical lingo math o'course.....nd science in genral

so thereeeee
 
duendy said:
well i cant see the blummin pics....so, shoot me...already

you have heard of earth lights right? do tese fit in with what yer ona bout?

what is your view of crop circles.

lets keep it simple with 2 quesys

and dont underestimate me dude

i Am interested in physics...tho cant understand the technical lingo math o'course.....nd science in genral

so thereeeee

:) ... I wouldn't doubt it for an instant old man.....

Sorry the animations aren't playing - there in shockwave format. Surprised your trawling on the net haven't forced the thing to be installed on your computer already. If you're interested, follow the link you can download the player for your browser here - it's a common media format, so it will also let you watch material your missing out on elsewhere - Flash Player.

As for earthlights, the stuff I'm banging on about doesn't explain a single damn thing about them. It doesn't touch on crop circles at all.

You were however interested in "anti-gravitational propulsion" and "free energy" - the stuff I'm banging on about doesn't explain those either - (though the proper term your looking for with the "free energy" thing is called Zero Point Energy and frankly it is a myth...)

But what I do bang on about does give you something which does a seriously good impersonation of both - close enough possibly for some one to think that "anti-gravitation" was taking place and "free energy" was what might be powering it.

It isn't and in practice wouldn't be, but it at least puts things in terms of how real stuff works and might give you some useful pointers in your research so as, as you continue it it which I should hope you will, you can determine for yourself when someone is telling your something actual or just spinning you a line by just telling you what you want to hear.

Y'never know, might actually be useful... ;)

All the best,

A
 
m
Mr Anonymous said:
:) ... I wouldn't doubt it for an instant old man.....

Sorry the animations aren't playing - there in shockwave format. Surprised your trawling on the net haven't forced the thing to be installed on your computer already. If you're interested, follow the link you can download the player for your browser here - it's a common media format, so it will also let you watch material your missing out on elsewhere - Flash Player.

me:::no you donna understand. my system is veryt simple digital set-top box. it dont do flasah, or any moving images. a drag but true

As for earthlights, the stuff I'm banging on about doesn't explain a single damn thing about them. It doesn't touch on crop circles at all.

me::: hmmmm a shame, because i like to keep this subject as expansive as possible.
I was looking at a website tother day, and someof the crop circles were really impressive and detailed, an i wondered.....wo would do a crop circle like tht....overnight in sme caes.
ONE was of the Illuminati symbol of the pyramid withte all seeing eye on tp, you knowlike th one prtrayed on the American one dollar bill?.....
As for earthlights, i tink it was Paul Devereux -the author--ho presented ll about this phenomena.
the reason i mntion them is that -again-some people presume that THAT is what it al is, nd try nd fit ALL into THEIR theory.....!

You were however interested in "anti-gravitational propulsion" and "free energy" - the stuff I'm banging on about doesn't explain those either - (though the proper term your looking for with the "free energy" thing is called Zero Point Energy and frankly it is a myth...)

m:::frankly how do you KNOW?

But what I do bang on about does give you something which does a seriously good impersonation of both - close enough possibly for some one to think that "anti-gravitation" was taking place and "free energy" was what might be powering it.

me::: do any 'entities' come OUT of thie things you are talking about?

It isn't and in practice wouldn't be, but it at least puts things in terms of how real stuff works and might give you some useful pointers in your research so as, as you continue it it which I should hope you will, you can determine for yourself when someone is telling your something actual or just spinning you a line by just telling you what you want to hear.

me::: yes. itis handy. i look foreward to one day seeing the images you are talking about. you should try and get about this in TV.

Y'never know, might actually be useful... ;)

All the best,

A

@@@@@@@@@@@@lllllllloooooooooooooo
 
Ah... right. Now I understand. Good god man, you must have the patience of a saint typing things out on one of those set top jobs...

Y'know, maybe your local library might be a better deal. Damn sight less frustrating working on a PC. Keep your eyes peeled round computer repair shops, computer rallies, even the small pages in your local newspaper - an old 300 MHz PC will set you back around £50-60 quid if y'know how to haggle.

O'course, you'd have to make your own arrangements ISP wise for going on line, but trust me. Home computers. All the rage amongst the young folk these days, I expect great things to come of them in the future... ;)

duendy said:
me::: hmmmm a shame, because i like to keep this subject as expansive as possible.
I was looking at a website tother day, and someof the crop circles were really impressive and detailed, an i wondered.....wo would do a crop circle like tht....overnight in sme caes.
ONE was of the Illuminati symbol of the pyramid withte all seeing eye on tp, you knowlike th one prtrayed on the American one dollar bill?.....
As for earthlights, i tink it was Paul Devereux -the author--ho presented ll about this phenomena.
the reason i mntion them is that -again-some people presume that THAT is what it al is, nd try nd fit ALL into THEIR theory.....!

Well, I'm more a nuts and bolts sort of a chap m'self, so I don't tend to deal terribly much in the too exotic, but indeed. They are gorgeous whatever the hell they are...

But yes, as you say. People tend to want to look for some sort of all governing, all encompassing grand theory linking everything to everything else and expecting it all to tie up neatly and make sense. trouble is, it's where a lot of the thinking tends to fall down - instead of looking closely at all the individual bits and examining them thoroughly, the eye tends to be on the Grand Scheme and so details tend to get missed.

In the context of Crop Circles and Earth Lights, really one is far better off just noodling out the one or the other, rather than trying to explain the correlation between the too in terms of something bigger, grander and all the rest.

The truth tends to be what it is, not necessarily at all what people merely think or simply believe it to be. Simply what it actually is. Trick is to find out what it is, not tell it what it should be...

duendy said:
m:::frankly how do you KNOW?

Regarding Zero Point Energy? No ones ever seen it. There are plenty of people who claim they've discovered it and have pointed to various contraptions of their making and declared it true. However, not a one of them, other than being prepared to switch the thing on and let it do its stuff, has ever been prepared to let anyone else have a poke around inside and see how it works.

You'll find the usual excuse to be that they are awaiting patent protection on their idea's to be finalised before being prepared to reveal to the scientific community how their devices work - which on the face of it sounds reasonable enough...

But then you find, 10, 15, 20 years later. Still no sign of their Zero Point Energy devices on the market and though securing patent protection is certainly neither cheap or quick, it doesn't take that long and after a while the excuse begins to wear rather thin...

Y'see, you can go to a stage show and watch a magician saw a young lady in half and stick the bits back together...

It's a trick, y'know it, because its called magic.

Just because someone flips a switch on what purports to be a hyper efficient fuel cell and something appears to happen as a consequence, doesn't make it any less of a simple mechanical trick.

Especially when the magician doesn't want anyone poking around the back or the inside.

Besides, I know my physics and the sums on these things never actually add up.


duendy said:
me::: do any 'entities' come OUT of thie things you are talking about?

Oh, I make it a point of never discussing entities on a first date... It's just vulgar, and slightly boorish.

First line on the first page reads in bold: This isn't about Aliens...

me::: yes. itis handy. i look foreward to one day seeing the images you are talking about. you should try and get about this in TV.

Well, I don't know about that... But, if you know anyone who's a subscriber to BUFORA's monthly publication I believe they're currently running it as a two parter in the September and October editions of The UFO Times, or whatever the duce it is they call it these days....

The pictures don't exactly move, but at least they're clear and understandable.

Best I can do I'm afraid.

But, like I say, try your local library or internet café.


Anyway, all the best with it.

A ;)
 
Mr Anonymous said:
You were however interested in "anti-gravitational propulsion" and "free energy" - the stuff I'm banging on about doesn't explain those either - (though the proper term your looking for with the "free energy" thing is called Zero Point Energy and frankly it is a myth...)

Perhaps you should look for References of the "Poltergeist Laboratory" and "John Hutchison".

From what I understand John Hutchison was looking for "Free Energy" and was doing experiments with alot of electromagnetic/radiological equipment. The experiments he conducted involved matricing an entire room and with the network of processed data, it was possible for him to mainpulate vectors of space around objects to enduce the same sort of reaction on an electromagnetic level as a person moving an object by hand. (namely the name "Poltergeist lab")

He continued his experiments and found occasionally to have some odd events occur where metals would react weirdly with the stiffened Spacetime, so much so alot of people mentioned "The Philadelphia Project" as the metals (and other materials) had supposed melted areas, even though no heat source was ever present.

I did present a case to him via e-mail that his effects and why they were so difficult to reproduce was down to the Particle/Waveduality of "particles".
My theory being (I say "my" as I haven't studied into if others share the same view) that a wave formation would react differently with a particle that in a singular motion (like an orbit) in comparison to one thats oscillating to the point of being a wave form.

(Such duality I suggest is down to The Uncertainty Principle and why people might view particle or waveforms)

I was intrigued in his work because of the use of the potential use of antenna matrices creating electromagnetically aligned molecules within the atmosphere that could be used to generate weight displacement for "Unpowered Objects" and even the creation of "Unpowered flight paths". (Unpowered meaning that an object or craft wouldn't need an engine on board, since the matrice of systems surrounding it would do all the work/vector mathematics)
 
Mr Anonymous said:
Ah... right. Now I understand. Good god man, you must have the patience of a saint typing things out on one of those set top jobs...

me::::Ahhhhhhhhhh at LAST! someone who understands my plight an perseverence...much thanks sir

Y'know, maybe your local library might be a better deal. Damn sight less frustrating working on a PC. Keep your eyes peeled round computer repair shops, computer rallies, even the small pages in your local newspaper - an old 300 MHz PC will set you back around £50-60 quid if y'know how to haggle.

O'course, you'd have to make your own arrangements ISP wise for going on line, but trust me. Home computers. All the rage amongst the young folk these days, I expect great things to come of them in the future... ;)



Well, I'm more a nuts and bolts sort of a chap m'self, so I don't tend to deal terribly much in the too exotic, but indeed. They are gorgeous whatever the hell they are...
me::: Yes. some seem very complex. quite hard to imagine how some yokels or students might a dont it over night

But yes, as you say. People tend to want to look for some sort of all governing, all encompassing grand theory linking everything to everything else and expecting it all to tie up neatly and make sense. trouble is, it's where a lot of the thinking tends to fall down - instead of looking closely at all the individual bits and examining them thoroughly, the eye tends to be on the Grand Scheme and so details tend to get missed.

me::: yes. details

In the context of Crop Circles and Earth Lights, really one is far better off just noodling out the one or the other, rather than trying to explain the correlation between the too in terms of something bigger, grander and all the rest.
me::: not sure whatyou mean here..ie., 'noodling out'? also i wasn't connecting te two as such---s in earth light mke crop circles

The truth tends to be what it is, not necessarily at all what people merely think or simply believe it to be. Simply what it actually is. Trick is to find out what it is, not tell it what it should be...

me:::quite


Regarding Zero Point Energy? No ones ever seen it. There are plenty of people who claim they've discovered it and have pointed to various contraptions of their making and declared it true. However, not a one of them, other than being prepared to switch the thing on and let it do its stuff, has ever been prepared to let anyone else have a poke around inside and see how it works.

me:::well IF it did exist it would be THe most revolutionary event we have ever experenced, and would change everything. dont you think?

You'll find the usual excuse to be that they are awaiting patent protection on their idea's to be finalised before being prepared to reveal to the scientific community how their devices work - which on the face of it sounds reasonable enough...

But then you find, 10, 15, 20 years later. Still no sign of their Zero Point Energy devices on the market and though securing patent protection is certainly neither cheap or quick, it doesn't take that long and after a while the excuse begins to wear rather thin...

me:::Well...like i keep saying. such as tis would could NOT just 'appear on the market'....it is much too revolutionary. surely this adds to te plausibility of its possible existence being suppressed...?

Y'see, you can go to a stage show and watch a magician saw a young lady in half and stick the bits back together...

me:::Absolutely. we can be really messed with by professional manpulators...same goes with psycholgical techniques like neuro linguistic programming etc

It's a trick, y'know it, because its called magic.

Just because someone flips a switch on what purports to be a hyper efficient fuel cell and something appears to happen as a consequence, doesn't make it any less of a simple mechanical trick.

me::i suppose it depends whose doing the switching i spose

Especially when the magician doesn't want anyone poking around the back or the inside.

me::: some are atrating to reveal their tricks.....of course a major trick of forces who dont wish us to get near the truth is same as magicican..ie., DIVERSION

Besides, I know my physics and the sums on these things never actually add up.

me::: well i know that even some scientists can get stuck in a rut...otewise herer wuldn't be 'breakthroughs'....also there is the problem of over-specialization of course

Oh, I make it a point of never discussing entities on a first date... It's just vulgar, and slightly boorish.

me:::i know....but it has to be faced sometime!

First line on the first page reads in bold: This isn't about Aliens...

me::: have lost track what tha means for a mo



Well, I don't know about that... But, if you know anyone who's a subscriber to BUFORA's monthly publication I believe they're currently running it as a two parter in the September and October editions of The UFO Times, or whatever the duce it is they call it these days....

me::: not sure i understand the relevance?

The pictures don't exactly move, but at least they're clear and understandable.

me:::eek:h right..........it just seems a good part of The Puzzle...anote string an all tat

Best I can do I'm afraid.

But, like I say, try your local library or internet café.

me::ting is with them is the time limit....dont like to be rushed


Anyway, all the best with it.

A ;)

Ta.......and tidly on pon ton..........
 
In the context of Flying Saucers, or UFO's if you prefer, one could ascribe that particular means as being the Mothership from Zeta Reticuli, if one simply must. However, equally, it's actually no less difficult to park an artificial satelight in orbit above the Earth via means of conventional, dull, tired old 20th Century Rocket technology if one simply doesn't happen to have a Zeta Reticulan Mothership ready to hand...
You see, there is a very definite reason why your average UFO or Flying Saucer, presuming such are in fact real of course, actually has to be an engineless vehicle traveling under its own inertia...
Not simply because it's a nifty observation and perfectly obvious to boot, but actually because, when eye-witnesses have described the way in which UFO's can appear to alter course and heading, what they appear to be describing seems to be suggesting the impossible:
That UFO's apparently possess the ability to break the Laws of Physic's.
And the reason that would be important is because, in physically conforming to eye-witness description, such a vehicle as this really wouldn't be doing anything of the sort at all ...

Well Mister Frank Anonymous Marshall,

Have you ever even bothered to look at some footage of the space-shuttle re-entering the atmosphere? I guess not, cause if you had, you wouldn’t in your WILDEST dreams come up with an explanation of this sort of the WHOLE phenomenon of ufo’s.

“Gee, it flies: it must be a space shuttle entering the atmosphere!”

I’m very sorry but: have you no brains at all? You can’t even SEE things parked in LOW earth orbit by the naked eye, let alone see some clearly metallic object, with a spherical round body, or some other design (we earthlings drive a whole heap of car’s all with different design, so what was that point about? I’m supposing their design is very pragmatic, but >I could be wrong off course).

The only time you MIGHT see SOMETHING in low earth orbit is at night with the sun illuminating the satellite or ISS in question. Man! Every one of those damn ufo bufs should be working as a intelligence officer on the battlefield, they can easily replace our satellites: they have much better eyes by far!!!!

So I’m actually confirming my side of point: your point was NEVER ever even meant to be an objective response to my paradime, you just wanted to proliferate your own damn illusions, without even checking their validity on a scientific basis,….CGI simulations,…

CGI simulations MY -sensored-!

Not theoretical physical principals, but real ones.
So have you read about those 21st century physics already? Be careful not to dismiss a working theory! :D
Now I fully realise that real world physics are a bore to you, that you have no interest in them and not the slightest intention of taking them on board and bothering to understand how they work. I get that.
oh, now mister ANOyedNIMUS, you will try to accuse me too of being the non technical-minded one, because I just set the record straight? I’m not hearing much from this thread lately? It’s very quietly inhere suddenly! Or you must still be reading that is,…

Give the actual science stuff a try one of these days duendy, you might surprise your self and actually come to realise you do actually understand quite a lot of it probably far better than you yourself actually believe...
Who are you to be patronizing others onto what they are supposed to belief when they actually had their first hand experience?
Who are you to believe that you know best what science is all about?
Who are you? Mr. Frank Anonymous Marshall??? You could easily have used the name John Smith, all the same,….

But yes, as you say. People tend to want to look for some sort of all governing, all encompassing grand theory linking everything to everything else and expecting it all to tie up neatly and make sense. trouble is, it's where a lot of the thinking tends to fall down - instead of looking closely at all the individual bits and examining them thoroughly, the eye tends to be on the Grand Scheme and so details tend to get missed.

And this is such an outright mis-un-der-stan-ding! Thing ARE connected in this universe man! Look at the Big picture if you will? Think about the theory for everything? The snare theory and all?

Regarding Zero Point Energy? No ones ever seen it. There are plenty of people who claim they've discovered it and have pointed to various contraptions of their making and declared it true. However, not a one of them, other than being prepared to switch the thing on and let it do its stuff, has ever been prepared to let anyone else have a poke around inside and see how it works.

You'll find the usual excuse to be that they are awaiting patent protection on their idea's to be finalised before being prepared to reveal to the scientific community how their devices work - which on the face of it sounds reasonable enough...

But then you find, 10, 15, 20 years later. Still no sign of their Zero Point Energy devices on the market and though securing patent protection is certainly neither cheap or quick, it doesn't take that long and after a while the excuse begins to wear rather thin...

Man! You should see the patent store immediately! I can guarantee you that your eyeballs will fall right out of their sockets!!! You wouldn’t believe all those rare and exotic patents that are out there!!!
Oh, I make it a point of never discussing entities on a first date... It's just vulgar, and slightly boorish.

First line on the first page reads in bold: This isn't about Aliens...

This is so goddamn typical: I start a thread and someone hijacks the shit out of it to proclaim their own little revolution, damn this thread isn’t about Alien no! this thread is about THE VIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE for once and for all! Go start your own threads about your low earth orbits debris stuff like that damn it !!

And duendy: you don’t have to
Ta.......and tidly on pon ton..........& @@@@@@@@@@@@lllllllloooooooooooooo
copy-paste an entire msg without relaying any point, just to make shure Mr. Frank Anonimus Marshall’s post holds the last place in this thread!

No way Goszay! I’m ruling this thead! It’s mine!

Perhaps if you get a few spare minutes you might want to give it the once over, it answers your questions and more besides...
No, it doesn’t.

Ufologists are forever declaring that science is incapable of explaining UFO phenomena - that simply isn't true, never has been. Science has always had plenty to say about the matter, its just generally science doesn't tell UFO believers exactly what it is they want to hear, so they ignore it.
And that is an outright lie and you know it! Science has been telling us exactly what we DO want to hear and it’s the debunkers like yourself that look the other way and go off and try to find OTHER explanations because it is YOU who are not satisfied by the explanations ‘conventional’ science delivers to the subject!

Now, I'm not a person who actually gives a flying crap about the subject. I never have been, and I plan on continuing to live a very long and blissfully happy life continuing in that exact same vein.
Well exuse me, but looks can be indeed deceiving,….looks like you care a whole lot to me,…mentioning all your reply’s and the effort it must have taken to build that website alone,…and why? BECAUSE YOU DO CARE. swindler!


PartII is still not applicable here, so I’m withholding it.

Greetz
Fukushi

Ps: don’t be offended, I’m not either. It’s nothing personal: the cursing is just to express my being upset by such stupidity: I might be stupid too sometimes,…but at least I know when I’m stretching it !!! WHA HA HA !
 
Fukushi? Do be a good chap and grow up.

I've not the slightest idea quite why you're feeling so aggrieved as to be making such a rambling, incoherent attack but it would be awfully nice if you could find your way of giving it a skip - or at the very least make your objects comprehensible so as they might possibly be addressed rationally. I mean -

Fukushi said:
CGI simulations MY -sensored-!

What on earth is that all about? In the clip your referring to you're clearly looking at a computer generated animation, I have not the slightest idea how anyone could possibly look at it any other way, and yet your reaction to it seems somewhat... peculiar.

I'm sorry old man but until you can find some way of calming down a bit and not biting at me, there's really very little percentage in continuing any further.

Well Mister Frank Anonymous Marshall

Ooo, and by the by. Have you ever heard the term Pen Name before and, if y'have, at least have the sense to spell it right - it's Marshal. One L, not two...

Toodles,

A ;)

* * * * *​


duendy said:
me::::Ahhhhhhhhhh at LAST! someone who understands my plight an perseverence...much thanks sir

:) ... Indeed, indeed I do. People easily forget not everyone actually uses a PC on the internet or, in those that do, not everyone finds typing a physically easy or painless thing to do - A chap I used to converse with regularly here in this very forum back in the day had a truly awful condition affecting the tendons - sharp as a button he was, funny too, but people would just take one look at his typing an presume some deficiency on his part not at all the case fact.

I admire tenacity in anyone, and having to pick your letters one by one takes more tenacity than most people possess - I congratulate your stick-with-it-ness. It's a fine trait to possess.


duendy (regarding Crop Circles) said:
me::: Yes. some seem very complex. quite hard to imagine how some yokels or students might a don't it over night

If indeed they happen overnight, indeed it is. Always fascinated me how they started as just relatively plain, simple geometric forms and they rapidly progressed into ever increasing complexity... One could almost be forgiven for seeing it as being an almost competitive kind of "sport" with rival teams each trying to out do the other.

Quite human really, isn't it..?


duendy (regarding Zero Point Energy) said:
me:::well IF it did exist it would be THe most revolutionary event we have ever experenced, and would change everything. dont you think?

Oh. absolutely. No two ways about it - you crack Zero Point Energy, you never have to buy yourself lunch for the rest of ever... Kind of why people are so keen to make the claim they've done it. If true, it would be great and one could stuff the scientific establishment - one could just put it on the open market and, as long as it works, business wouldn't give a stuff about the how's, whys and wherefores, just that it it turns a buck.

Business is a great leveller of all things.

duendy (regarding Zero Point Energy) said:
me:::Absolutely. we can be really messed with by professional manpulators...same goes with psycholgical techniques like neuro linguistic programming etc

Precisely. If you've ever watch a chap like Darren whats-his-face working - I can never remember that mans name, Day or Brown or something - you get to see psychological manipulation at work and even when told the trick of it, y'still don't get to see it happening even though y'know it is...

Frankly, funky looking machines and pages and pages of techno-babble look the crude ploys they are in comparison to someone actually using a talent in an informative and entertaining way.

me::i suppose it depends whose doing the switching i spose

lol ... Yeah, could make a fair bit of difference that.

me::: well i know that even some scientists can get stuck in a rut...otewise herer wuldn't be 'breakthroughs'....also there is the problem of over-specialization of course

Oh, it happens. I mean, if you've ever heard the story of the chap who discovered those bacteria which cause stomach ulcers - these days most ulcers can be treated with a simple prescription of penicillin - my better half suffered unnecessarily for ten years being fobbed off with ineffectual treatments for the symptoms as have hundreds of thousands of people world wide all because the established thinking in gastroenterology simply never bothered to consider the idea that bacteria could not only survive in the acidic environment of the stomach but actually thrive on the stuff...

Thing is though these breakthroughs from counter-established thinking come not just because someone says they're possible - the proponent proves it.

Einstein, proposing his idea's of Relativity where the established view of the Universe remained that of it being "Solid State" (perpetual, constantly renewed), didn't just get accepted just because Einstein said it was so - he provided proofs, observational criteria which, if applied, allowed prediction to be able to be made regarding astronomical events - It was only through observing these actually at work that the establishment was forced to accepted his idea's as being correct.

Really, when you get down to it, todays established idea's are yesterdays counter-culture idea's. These are the idea's which usurped those that proceeded them - and so it was with the idea's that became replaced...

The only things throughout which have remained constant are the Physical Laws. These have carried on, not so much because anyone likes them, but simply because they irrefutably work.

It's one of the criteria which makes a Physical Law an actual Law in the first place, and when y'get's right down to it, there really aren't all that many...

Probably still room yet for a couple more I shouldn't wonder.

dueny (regarding the issue of Aliens) said:
me:::i know....but it has to be faced sometime!

I'm sure it does old man, but not by me it don't...


duendy (regarding library computers) said:
me::ting is with them is the time limit....dont like to be rushed

... Well, then the only thing for it is to look around for a cheap, functioning second hander. As long as you set yourself a reasonable budget, really they're worth the investment. Y'can do so much more with a computer than just trawl the internet y'knows. Plus, proper key board. Must be worth its weight in gold after 1000 plus worth of posts doing it the pick and mix way...
Anyway, must dash. Hope the day finds you well, regards,

A ;)


* * * * *​


Stryder said:
Perhaps you should look for References of the "Poltergeist Laboratory" and "John Hutchison".

Hello Stryder, nice to see you swinging by.

I have indeed read something of Hutchinson's work. Have to be honest, a lot of his explanations loose me at various turns - I'm not entirely certain if its the science or the terminology. Does have a thing for using occasionally odd terms which I'm not entirely sure clearly relay what he's actually saying - but at least he never refers to everyone, irrespective of race, gender or creed, as "old chap"...

So, I suppose he's got something going for him there.

It's certainly an interesting proposition - I mean, perhaps if one was looking for a method of space travel, I've certainly heard worse idea's and most I've had the benefit of writing. It's just...

Let me explain m'thinking here. If we're going for the extraterrestrial angle of UFO's I can't help seeing that as envolving two quite distinct things.

1: Interstellar travel - Presumably, if you've got to get from Zeta Reticuli to here and back again and a UFO is your preferred mode of transport, your UFO physically needs to employ some means or other of going about that, preferably on a viable basis.

And that, however it works, gets the UFO to here - presumably orbit around the Earth at least. But then you've got the next bit -

2: Entry into the Earths atmosphere from Space - This is where things differ. If your UFO genuinely is extraterrestrial in origin, it's a physical necessity that it possesses some technological means of travelling whatever the distance is. There's no two ways about that. That remains an absolute.

Getting into the atmosphere however only requires the UFO to physically possess two abilities - a: the ability to be able to drop like a rock. b: the ability to find something it can use to stop it going splat after it starts making like a rock.

But these remain the only physical characteristics necessary for the UFO to possess....

Do you kind of follow here why I'm seeing these as two separate things? It comes down basically to looking at a UFO in terms of what it physically needs in order simply to exist long enough for someone to actually see one, less so much in terms of what a UFO theorist needs in order to explain them.

Not that it isn't at all an admirable idea, I just can't help but seeing it in terms more to do with the space travel part of the equation, should that prove to be the case, rather than the stuff underlying what goes on at lower, earthlier altitudes...

If y'follow m'drift.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Let me throw this question to you'll.......

i personally am awre of mant evidencs of UFOs. I have see many convincingphotos, video footage, witness testimy that seem autentic--from all walksoflife

from sceptic i hear their want of 'evidence'

so, let me ask you this. a simple question: what evidencewould really satisfy you?
 
Back
Top