where is the evidence for alien visitation?

[glenn239]

I concede that it may be possible to demonstrate macro features compatible with stealth, but the quality of photographic evidence would absolutely preclude identification of the micro features...Thus, the best you could do with the analysis you propose is to show that some UFOs possess a smattering of the gross features associated with stealth technology, yet not exclusively limited to it.

"Macro" features, as you call them, may be enough. Don't forget that there are two types of UFO photographs - known fakes and everything else. By comparing the stealthy qualities of the known fakes to that of everything that has not yet been proven a forgery, then it might be possible to demonstrate a strong correlation between "macro"-stealth and objects still in the unidentified category. And if that were the case, acerbic protests from Mr. A aside, it would constitute evidence (though not conclusive) that UFO's were alien. Which is the topic of the thread.

Slick? Well, it is more diplomatic than greasy.
Composed? Yet, your arguments are so much compost....Senior management? I think not. Selling stolen property in a Saturday market stall perhaps.

I don't think it necessary to get too worked up about a hypothetical test that doesn't exist.

Now, your contention that a Flying Saucer is an extraterrestrial vehicle with an airframe designed to effect stealth characteristics is your contention.

Kudos. Another amusing debating technique is to assign to the opponent false opinions, then bash the crap out of these substituted proxies. Do be advised that it is often seen as a weakness to have to alter the substance of a debate.

My position is as follows:

IFF (if, and only if) there can be shown to be a link between stealth characteristics and UFO's pictured before 1975, then it may constitute evidence, (though not necessarily conclusive) that the objects recorded were alien in origin.

No Glenn, Issue No 2 is neither irrelevant, nor its it issue No 2 - it's actually issue No 1 and its several posts down the line now and you're still sidestepping the original question "How can disc fly?" ...So, provide an acceptable aeronautical explanation of how the disc shaped Flying Saucer flies without the wings, tail and engines and you've made your case for a UFO being a stealth craft.

This matter has already been dismissed. Your point is irrelevant within the context of the test I suppose.

And I'll ask the most important question once again: do you actually believe that all the tens of thousands of government/military people that would have to have been involved in such a cover-up for over 50 years could still keep it all a secret?

Cover-up what? The evidence seems to consist mainly of personal accounts of strange events. Without hard evidence (such as a smoking crater with little green dudes in it), there's not really much to cover up. Within the industry, there is presumably a well-developed lore of "ghost stories" handed down over the years in different units and bases - but that hardly can be seen as evidence, or in need of a cover-up.

 

[Gustav]

light

explain why you assert that it is impossible to keep secrets in the military for extended periods of time

then find a way to assert the contrary

 

[Light]

light

explain why you assert that it is impossible to keep secrets in the military for extended periods of time

then find a way to assert the contrary

Your second request is an exercise in futility and thus needs not be addressed.

The answer to the first part is really quite simple - because the military is made up of people.

And you've yet to tell me what your personal experience with military culture has been. Any at all?

 

[Gustav]

none
i personally think i can engage in a coverup, limit to a "need to know basis", inform the "new guy" ...etc

chances of success?
fairly high

an observation of society shows mostly "team players" and a few "rugged individuals"
it would be more so in military culture

 

[Mr Anonymous]

oh?
how does..say... a 2 liter asshole be more "unhygenic" than a 1 liter asshole

Y'know old man, I simply haven't the first clue. You're the one that brought the subject up, why don't you just simply tell us instead of keeping us all on tenderhooks?

Cover-up what?

... An astute point. I must confess, I've never really been able to fathom all this business concerning such things as the so-called "cover-up" at Roswell, or the "cover-up" concerning all the alleged downed UFO's formally being retro-engineered at Groom Lake - considering the world and his dog seems to now everything there is to know about the affair, the singular element missing seems to be only the actual cover-up.

Oh, and by the by:

This matter has already been dismissed. Your point is irrelevant within the context of the test I suppose.

Well, I know that Glenn. As soon as I brought the subject up, you immediately wanted to steer the discussion away from the matter.

I also relayed my thorough anticipation of you seeking to do exactly that and why. Hardly proving me wrong, is it...?

 

[Light]

none
i personally think i can engage in a coverup, limit to a "need to know basis", inform the "new guy" ...etc

chances of success?
fairly high

an observation of society shows mostly "team players" and a few "rugged individuals"
it would be more so in military culture

Right. Try it in the real military world and you'd be in for a big shock. People are not very good at keeping secrets, especially for long periods of time. Thay naturally like to talk. They often confide in their wives/husbands. Get drunk. Want to impress someone with what they know. Like telling that they are "on the inside." I could go on and on.

I don't want to sound condensending in the least, but your lack of experience with large masses of people is clearly showing.

 

[Thomas Lee Taylor]

According to mythology the planet Mars came so close to the earth that the moons of Mars were visible. The moons are known by their Egyptian names as the right and left eye of Horus. The left eye of Horus was lost in 11,000 BC. The left eye of Horus was also noted by the Classic Greeks as the planet Athena. The right eye of Mars can only be seen now by telescope as two rocks lying close together. Unusually close conjunctions between Earth and Mars occur every 26,000 years. One of these conjunctions occurred in 12,000 BC and another is suspected for 38,000 BC because of the loss of mammoths and other tundra animals occurred then. This conjunction was repeated in 12,000 BC again with the loss of mammoths, etc. These mammoths lie in herds beneth the ice around the North Pole, apparently frozen to death. One of them has been dug up, but no cause of death identified. This event is described in Egptian mythology as the "first fight between Horus and Set. Set is bettern known as Janweh and the constellation Draco. During this fight the Little Dipper became separated from Set and the Earth began spinning faster by one hour. Etc.

 

[Thomas Lee Taylor]

According to mythology the planet Mars came so close to the earth that the moons of Mars were visible. The moons are known by their Egyptian names as the right and left eye of Horus. The left eye of Horus was lost in 11,000 BC. The left eye of Horus was also noted by the Classic Greeks as the planet Athena. The right eye of Mars can only be seen now by telescope as two rocks lying close together. Unusually close conjunctions between Earth and Mars occur every 26,000 years. One of these conjunctions occurred in 12,000 BC and another is suspected for 38,000 BC because of the loss of mammoths and other tundra animals occurred then. This conjunction was repeated in 12,000 BC again with the loss of mammoths, etc. These mammoths lie in herds beneth the ice around the North Pole, apparently frozen to death. One of them has been dug up, but no cause of death identified. This event is described in Egptian mythology as the "first fight between Horus and Set. Set is better known as Jahweh and the constellation Draco. During this fight the Little Dipper became separated from Set and the Earth began spinning faster by one hour. Etc.

 

[Gustav]

I don't want to sound condensending in the least, but your lack of experience with large masses of people is clearly showing.

well perhaps

 

[Light]

According to mythology the planet Mars came so close to the earth that the moons of Mars were visible. The moons are known by their Egyptian names as the right and left eye of Horus. The left eye of Horus was lost in 11,000 BC. The left eye of Horus was also noted by the Classic Greeks as the planet Athena. The right eye of Mars can only be seen now by telescope as two rocks lying close together. Unusually close conjunctions between Earth and Mars occur every 26,000 years. One of these conjunctions occurred in 12,000 BC and another is suspected for 38,000 BC because of the loss of mammoths and other tundra animals occurred then. This conjunction was repeated in 12,000 BC again with the loss of mammoths, etc. These mammoths lie in herds beneth the ice around the North Pole, apparently frozen to death. One of them has been dug up, but no cause of death identified. This event is described in Egptian mythology as the "first fight between Horus and Set. Set is bettern known as Janweh and the constellation Draco. During this fight the Little Dipper became separated from Set and the Earth began spinning faster by one hour. Etc.

It's a good thing you began all this by clearly stating it was a myth.

But then you go on to present other "facts" that are in direct conflict with what established science holds to be true.

The orbits of both planets can be calculated with fairly high accuracy and clearly show that your claimed "conjunctions" never happened, nor do they occur at the intervals you say.

The recent close approach of earth and mars (Aug. 2003) was the closest they've been in about 60,000 years. And astronomers say that they will not be closer than that until 2287. That is all quite contrary to your claims of every 26,000 years.

Also, I've never before heard of any claimed correlation between such "conjunctions" and the loss of any mammals. What justification do you have for all of this?

 

[Gustav]

Y'know old man, I simply haven't the first clue. You're the one that brought the subject up, why don't you just simply tell us instead of keeping us all on tenderhooks?

"us all?
your butt buddies still around?
or tell me
are you really playing to the gallery?
how fucking needy
troll

alright
allow me to give you a lesson in critical thinking

i engaged with a simple question
you respond with large capacity assholes with unhygenic qualities

Curiously, no. We can't all have an anus with capacities equal to yours y'know old man, that would be just... unhygienic.

do you see the fucking implication?

now
i ask you again
would lesser capacities translate to increased hygiene?

it is what you brought up

your attempt at misrepresenting events and distorting the historical record is noted.

 

[Ophiolite]

Gustav, you may have asked a simple question, but you phrased it crudely. It bore all the hallmarks of an ad hominem attack.

did you have a bedpost stuck up your ass when you wrote that post?

Mr Anonymous merely responded in kind, but with more good humour than has been evident in any of your own posts.
It is clear that you are not British. When you have understood the significance of that remark you may feel inclinded to apologise to Mr A for the aggressive tenor of your remarks.

 

[Gustav]

hush friend
i am trying to solve a technical problem here

 

[Mr Anonymous]

Gustav, you may have asked a simple question, but you phrased it crudely. It bore all the hallmarks of an ad hominem attack.
Mr Anonymous merely responded in kind, but with more good humour than has been evident in any of your own posts.
It is clear that you are not British. When you have understood the significance of that remark you may feel inclinded to apologise to Mr A for the aggressive tenor of your remarks.

Ophiolite, as always, you're terribly kind. Frankly it hadn't occurred to me that Gustav may not have English as a first language. Obviously some degree of confusion has arisen from the matter.

Not to worry. Perhaps I can remedy the situation....

Gustav?

I believe you're actual question as put to me was thus:

did you have a bedpost stuck up your ass when you wrote that post?

Patently, I had mistook the phrasing of this to signify some form of perverse attack, but I can quite now see how my response may have confounded matters.

My unreserved apologies dear boy, please. Do forgive me.

It's patently obvious to me now that rather than attacking, Gustav was infact making a suggestion based, presumably, on personal experience.

Therefore, allow me to qualify my original response:

did you have a bedpost stuck up your ass when you wrote that post?

No Gustav I afraid I didn't. Why, do you find that it helps at all?

 

[glenn239]

An astute point. I must confess, I've never really been able to fathom all this business concerning such things as the so-called "cover-up" at Roswell, or the "cover-up" concerning all the alleged downed UFO's formally being retro-engineered at Groom Lake - considering the world and his dog seems to now everything there is to know about the affair, the singular element missing seems to be only the actual cover-up.

That's the feature that I think the pro-UFO faction is most unwilling to acknowledge - that, should aliens be buzzing around filming porno movies with cows, they won't have been in the habit of leaving ships or technology, or anything at all behind for us to study. It seems most difficult for some to accept that even the government might truly have little/nothing hidden in the cupboard. Maybe radar and video tapes. Unit reports, etc.

But a working UFO in a hanger out in the desert somewhere? Not a chance. ET would flatten Nevada rather than accept that...

Well, I know that Glenn. As soon as I brought the subject up, you immediately wanted to steer the discussion away from the matter.

Because it has nothing to do with what I'm suggesting.

You say it's hard to fly a disc through the atmosphere.... and this is difficult in comparison to rest of the implications behind an alien hypothesis? Flying 3,000 light years to get here? Unleashing truly stupid torrents of energy in a safe and controlled fashion to get close to the speed of light? Somehow arriving just at the right time - the dawn of the atomic era (which would imply the impossibility of breaking the light barrier)? Somehow decelerating near or in the solar system - that is, kicking out gluttonous amounts of radiation and other emissions to slow down - right on the doorstep of a plethora of sensitive detectors here? Pulling air-show maneuvers such as another poster indicated witnessing on this thread - which could easily require 5,000 G's.

Aren't you shooting a little bit, shall we say, low? Get ambitious! Raise that aim - there's all sorts of "impossibilities" inherent to any alien thesis beyond the fact that it's hard to make a disc fly.

But all of that stuff is outside the scope of the test I suppose - which would only try to measure some characteristics in old photographs.

 

[Oli]

Glenn239

That’s viable. When was that practice introduced in the USAF?

try http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/codenames.html.
and

Rich indicated in Skunk Works that calculating radar returns off of curved surfaces is a mind-bogglingly complex thing – outside the capabilities of any nation in the 1970’s. You’ll forgive me if I point out that, since we don’t have access to a few supercomputers to run tests with, I’ll decline the argument

True it is mind bogglingly complex except that a circular section (or spherical) will always have some portion of itself square-on to the emitter - that's basic. What is complicated is getting a total picture of the entire return - that's why a supercomputer is needed. Try Allen E Tuhs, Radar Cross-Section Lectures, or Radar Cross-Section Handbook.

 

[Gustav]

Ophiolite, as always, ......................................................Why, do you find that it helps at all?

nice
amateurish but still nice
yet i did mean to insult you (as you well know)
why?
your font annoys
that and your acerbism, condescension and overall priggishness

oh
you also called my good buddy a "fucking crackpot"

Norval! Dear chap how are you? Released and back in the community so soon - and completely un-supervised if I'm not mistaken.

rude boy. i must send you to your room with no supper

 

[glenn239]

True it is mind bogglingly complex except that a circular section (or spherical) will always have some portion of itself square-on to the emitter - that's basic. What is complicated is getting a total picture of the entire return - that's why a supercomputer is needed.

Interesting stuff. I think, for the purposes of the thread, the method of googling pictures of modern stealth designs is sufficient for our purposes.

 

[Mr Anonymous]

That's the feature that I think the pro-UFO faction is most unwilling to acknowledge - that, should aliens be buzzing around filming porno movies with cows, they won't have been in the habit of leaving ships or technology, or anything at all behind for us to study. It seems most difficult for some to accept that even the government might truly have little/nothing hidden in the cupboard. Maybe radar and video tapes. Unit reports, etc.

But a working UFO in a hanger out in the desert somewhere? Not a chance. ET would flatten Nevada rather than accept that...

Oh, I strenuously couldn't agree with you more - the whole notion that the billions spent on developing the technologies we do use is simply a means of covering up the "advanced alien" technology They don't want you to know about is frankly farcical beyond belief...

Besides, even if there we're such a thing as retrievals, downed craft operating on principals hitherto not yet imagined (yet the rabidly pro-UFO lobby seem, again, perfectly cognisant of every last little detail) the value in simply the material content of such finds would be incalculable.

And yet, for some obscure reason, squirrelled away somewhere never to come into contact with the rest of scientific knowledge and technological development.

Take the notion of High Temperature Stable Super Conductive material for example - in terms of its uses technology wise the development of such materials constitutes almost literally the Holy Grail - in no detail of modern day life would materials demonstrating such properties have a profound effect on life as we live it - everything from micro-processors, electronics, electrical power generation and transmition...

The basic technological developments of the whole of the 20th Century could be revolutionised almost beyond recognition within a decade if only just a relatively tiny amount of the stuff could be found to be viably doing its stuff - and if UFO's truly encompass genuinely advanced technology one would not unreasonably expect such exact materials as HTS-SS materials to be present in appreciable quantities at the very least...

Yet despite possessing exactly as such and more, presumably our respective Governments, Military and Intelligence Services would rather develop substandard technologies just to keep the world ignorant of The Troof!

... Mind, speaking of which, they always did start every episode of the X-Files with some sentiment or other regarding The Truth being well and truly up there....

I couldn't possibly imagine what Chris Carter would have been meaning by that, can you?

Because it has nothing to do with what I'm suggesting.

You say it's hard to fly a disc through the atmosphere.... and this is difficult in comparison to rest of the implications behind an alien hypothesis? Flying 3,000 light years to get here? Unleashing truly stupid torrents of energy in a safe and controlled fashion to get close to the speed of light? Somehow arriving just at the right time - the dawn of the atomic era (which would imply the impossibility of breaking the light barrier)? Somehow decelerating near or in the solar system - that is, kicking out gluttonous amounts of radiation and other emissions to slow down - right on the doorstep of a plethora of sensitive detectors here? Pulling air-show maneuvers such as another poster indicated witnessing on this thread - which could easily require 5,000 G's.

Aren't you shooting a little bit, shall we say, low? Get ambitious! Raise that aim - there's all sorts of "impossibilities" inherent to any alien thesis beyond the fact that it's hard to make a disc fly.

Ah, well... herein lies the rub of it all essentially, doesn't it?

All that Interstellar Travel business in regard to eyewitness reports of UFO's - assumptive, not based in anyway on what eyewitness claim to have actually witnessed, just merely presumed to be the case on the part of everyone else.

If you're average UFO report relayed the witness first observing the object in question taking off from the Saucer Ports around Zeta Reticuli or where ever, winging its way across the cosmos to then descend into the atmosphere merely to hang around long enough to discern some startled individual with a camcorder handy and enough presence of mind to actually film the thing before winglessing its way back to Zeta Reticuli in time for afternoon tea - then we absolutely must consider the actual UFO itself to be possessive of the sorts of physical and technological means which can accommodate and accomplish such feats and capable of undertaking what is observed.

But even the obvious put up jobs don't go that far... Never actually have.

Consequently, speculations regarding the sorts of physical principals merely presumed to be part and parcel of whatever actually constitutes an actual UFO itself remains a somewhat curious tack to take.

Getting to and from one part of the galaxy and another on a viable basis is one thing and requires certain very definite issues be addressed - but once such a thing has been accomplished, and presumably resulting in placing whatever made that incredible journey in the vicinity of our quaint little ball of rock in orbit around it - getting down from orbit into the atmosphere bellow physically only requires two things of the vehicle undertaking that particular trip:

1: That it physically possess the ability to be able to drop like a rock and 2: At some point during the time intervening between, first, dropping like a rock and, lastly, going >splat!< some time later, possessing some means available to hand which can effectively off-set the inevitability of the >splat!< part of the equation indefinately...

And that's actually all a UFO physically speaking actually has to be able to do in order to conform with eyewitness observation. Drop and stay up in the process.

The world is a ball and continually spins and from space a vehicle can exploit that - what's the point in vacuously expending energy in constant propulsion in order to facilitate ones arrival over any given point on the surface bellow when each and every point on that surface is constrained to be in constant motion in the first place?

Factor in the fact that anything deployed from orbit around the Earth physically speaking has to be travelling enormously fast to begin with and you've got the makings of a vehicle that fundamentally speaking wouldn't require a propulsion system of any kind except the possession of possibly a few moderately forceful manoeuvring thrusters.

Inertia already applied too such a thing by whatever means parks it in orbit to begin with would be of itself wholly sufficient for its mass to been seen to be capable of travelling at quite remarkable speeds providing it has a means of altering and maintain various altitudes in the process - and it would take for such a thing to decrease altitude from orbit would be to simply reduce initial orbital inertia.

That old chestnut of UFO "Science" regarding designing an electromagnetic or ionising field generating vehicle capable of using resistance between the Earths magnetic field and its own giving rise to some form of upward lift and modulated froward propulsion, from the ground up, simply never could actually work for anything with a mass greater than your average piece of paper - the Earths magnetic field is simply too enormous and relatively speaking diffuse and gravitational force too strong to bring about any possibility of UFO "flight" in the sorts of ways UFO theorists insist on looking at the problem.

But in initialising such a method from space the process is being undertaken in an environment where gravitational force is virtually negligible and can be introduced in a perfectly controlled manner simply by the vehicle decreasing its orbital inertia in a careful and precise manner.

Getting two magnetic fields of similar polarity to repel each other with any degree of physical resistance requires that physical force be applied by physically pushing the two magnets producing the repellent fields physically closer together - at the onset resistance between two such magnets is negligible, it only increases as physical force being applied equally increases also.

Any "force" being felt in that interaction between two such repellent magnets isn't being produced by the magnetic fields in question - its being produced by you in that physical action of forcing the two fields together and getting them to compress.

In the context the same physical principal could be seen to be at work except in context it is gravity which supplies the physical force necessary to being about a relative degree of resistance the magnetic field being produced by the vehicle and that of the Earths.

Make the principal of the vehicles mass out of conductive material and simply spin it and not only should that provide all the inertial guidance a vehicle travelling under inertia would require, by applying Faraday's Laws of Electrical Induction there's principally no reason why the thing couldn't actively induce all the electrical charge it could possibly require in order to both produce its own electromagnetic field and effectively operate.

Basically leaving you with a vehicle capable of "travelling" at quite appreciable speeds, extraordinary manoeuvrability and unlimited range - not having to carry and burn fuel in constant propulsion places no limits on how long the craft can stay "airborne". Couple that with the fact that without having to expend energy in constant propulsion you've got essentially what could be described effectively as a Cold Plane - an electromagnetic glider, no propulsion means no thermal out-put. No thermal out-put, nothing for an A-A or STA missile to get a thermal lock on.

Other than flying an F-18 right up such a things non-existent tail-pipe and letting rip with everything you've got, very tough little bird to shoot out of the sky...

Difficult to actually get to do that. Something of a physical characteristic of a mass that's spinning is that it tends to conserve its initial inertia - getting it to change direction from its initial heading requires considerably little force compared to a non-spinning mass acting under constant propulsion.

Moreover, we can know that the underlying principals at work here remain germane to the subject of UFO observation by considering the oft relayed observation that UFO's apparently, when changing course and heading, apparently possess the ability to break the laws of physics - specifically Newtons 1st Law of Mass & Motion:

force= mass x acceleration

An object will continue to travel in a state or rest or uniform motion in a straight line unless an external force acts upon it.

How that translates to a conventional aircraft acting under constant propulsion means that, when the aircraft needs to change direction it has to continue froward in its initial heading and gradually bank and turn into its new heading, brining its engines to bear so they can push it in its new direction as it does so.

As this takes place, froward momentum gradually decreases and an increase in the planes velocity in its new heading only increases after its engines have provided sufficient thrust to over come the planes tendency to want to continue travelling in the direction of its original heading.

According to eyewitness' UFO's appear not to give a stuff about boring old physics and apparently break that very fundamental physical law by not only entering into a new heading at comparatively high speed, but actively accelerating in the direction of its initial heading whilst changing course - impossible to explain for a propulsed object and physically impossible to do if that were actually the case.

But by simply applying the same physical law to the observed behaviour of a non-propulsed vehicle where its apparent velocity is actually a consequence of it's deceleration from a previously far, far higher speed - in being observed to behave in this manner as eyewitness describe the UFO, rather than actually breaking Newtons 1st Law of Mass & Motion, is actually conforming to it -

In being deployed from a geo-stationary orbit, when seen from the ground or tracked by radar, though actually physically travelling at many, many thousands of miles per hour, from the point of view of observation the object in question, whilst maintaining its actual initial velocity, appears in observation to be perfectly stationary.

Conversely, the instant it reduces speed, in observation that same object appears to move - its observed speed directly proportional to its actual decrease in initial inertia.

The slower the object actually travels, the faster it appears to move. Altitude makes absolutely no difference to this same, very basic physical principal. Why we can know this to be the case regarding UFO behaviour comes to the fore when we consider your average UFO's reckless disregard for the opinions of Issac Newton.

As the UFO changes course from its initial heading that change in direction physically brings about a further decrease in that vehicles actual speed in the direction of that initial heading - for a vehicle acting under constant propulsion that would indeed give rise to the appearance of a decrease in speed. But for vehicle travelling exclusively under inertia already applied and where the appearance of its speed is actually a consequence of its physical deceleration from a previously far higher velocity, the subsequent further decrease in speed changing course actually physically brings about (exactly in accordance with Newton) the appearance of that craft actively accelerating in its initial heading whilst at the same time continuing to travel in its new heading with no apparent loss of speed.

Exactly as eyewitnesses relay however, more importantly, by simply applying the exact same physical law that appears to be being broken that same physical law actually dictates that, in these precise circumstances as described, a vehicle operating under the sorts of principals outlined will, in simply conforming to dull old terrestrial physics give rise to the observation of this precisely "impossible" physical behaviour.

This remains precisely why one can know a UFO in reality would be essentially an engineless craft - its the only physical way an object gets to behave in this sort of manner and the only reason why a person observing as such gets to witness it taking place.

One doesn't actually need the reliability of witnesses to know this to be the case. Simple common or garden physics not only dictates it, it also predicts it to be the case.

Anything else really would be the undertaking of the impossible. That's the nice thing about physical laws. You don't have to worry about them being broken, all you have to worry about is simply applying them correctly....

Wasn't some one here at some point asking about evidence?

oh
you also called my good buddy a "fucking crackpot"

Em... Actually old boy, I rather think you'll find I actually referred to your "buddy" Norval rather more colourfully as being a "dip-shit know-nothing sack of crap" - a recourse I reserve to the likes of even God Almighty Her Very Self if even considering the very notion of addressing my most excellent self in the wholly insulting terms dear Norval quite obviously felt he had the right to do so in the manner in which he did, even though I've never at any point previously issued the slightest whiff of rebuke his way about any matter at all whatsoever.

The post to which he took it upon himself to respond to was addressed in no way shape or form either directly, or indirectly, at him - yet nevertheless he seemed of the opinion to feel in some way personally insulted and chose to butt into an otherwise perfectly amiable conversation with no other agenda but to insult.

Mostly me.

Consequently, with no actual want or reason to feel so insulted as to warrant such an action on Norvals part in the first place I thought it only civilised of me and fair to, at the very least, provide him with a selection for future reference.

Mind, that's just me all over that is. I'm awfully considerate like that, generous to fault...

Toodles.

 

[Balerion]

Can I pose a couple of questions? No, wait...before I do, let me first thank Mr. A for finally slamming the door on Norval in a way that was...phew...perhaps the most eloquent and complete verbal ass whoopings I've ever encountered. I could never in my life aspire to cut to the bone so completely as you did in your undressing of Gustav and Norval. It was magnificent to read, and while I spent most of it crying from laughter, I managed to take a few notes, sir, and I thank you for the education.

Now...on to my questions...

They are very simple, and very important, and I believe they warrants an immediate response:

1) If there is this amazing cover-up by the American government regarding the existance of alien UFOs/technology...how do you people know so damn much about it?

2) What would be the reason behind hiding evidence of alien interaction with the Human race? What is the benefit of doing so?

3) Why would these aliens allow us to keep their ship rather than wiping us off the face of the universe? If they are trying to be as stealthy as you all seem to believe, why would they allow such a compromise to their mission?

4) Since when did Norval have "good buddies?"

and finally...

5) Why has no other government in the world come clean on this matter? Surely America isn't the only place they've been?

I pose these because I personally believe that had aliens crashed here, they would have made sure there was no evidence, and surely not a nearly intact ship for us to play with. If they have landed and interacted with us, then the benefit to our lives would be immediately measureable, and would have been a welcome event.

Imagine the possibilities for government spending! NASA would be drowning in cash, and every respectable politician would be cashing in with phony causes in order to rake in illegal dough. Everybody would benefit, even the crooked government we supposedly live under!

I just ask for common sense among my peers here at Sciforums, and since I can find very little, I wanted to force those of you lacking to re-up on it with these questions. Enjoy.

JD