Why is there a UFO cover-up anyway??//Here's WHY!!
Sir Arthur CB Wholeflaffers ASA
1) Possibility of world-wide economic collapse due to introduction of
free energy and anti-gravity technologies.
2) Mass shock and world-wide panic.
3) Public unprepared for interaction with an alien species.
4) Trepidation from fundamental sects of Christianity and other
religions which strongly believe extraterrestrial life impossible. Any
such encounter with alien life forms would be considered contact with
"demons and satanic influences" since some Biblical authorities teach
that Satan is "prince of the air." Influential religious groups could
ignite a religious war.
5) Apprehension of invasion. Concern of human slavery, especially by
the upper class elites, and subsequent imprisonment by the colonizing
alien races.
6) The Military wants to figure out how the crafts and accompanying
technologies work, for weapons development. They would make
top-of-the-line weapons and delivery systems.
7) The Military needs to know how to defend against the same systems if
some other country's military figures it out before "we" do.
8) Mistrust and lack of confidence in the military might of the United
States, especially after spending $15 trillion dollars over the past 50
years. The greatest military force in the world would have to admit it
cannot prevent "abductions" since the aliens that pilot the
extraterrestrial crafts have superior flight and weapons technology.
9) New technology to prevent disease and increase aging would further
harm environment due to rapid overpopulation.
10) Debunkers would have to find real work, plus the "egg-on-the-face"
syndrome might adversely affect them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Why UFO Cover-up/10 Major Reasons
From: "Frank W. Zammetti" <fzam...@fpsserv.com>
Art Wholeflaffer wrote:
> 1) Possibility of world-wide economic collapse due to introduction of free
> energy and anti-gravity technologies.
Making the assumption that the aliens would be willing to share their
technology, or that we could get the technology in some other way,
neither of which can be assumed. In any case, many times in history, a
new invention has been seen as the thing that will collapse the economy
of all of mankind (the steam engine, the internal combustion engine,
the
advent of automated production facilities, just to name a few). And
each time, new, sometimes related areas of economic growth have grown
from these advances. It's simply not a valid argument.
> 2) Mass shock and world-wide panic.
The human race as a whole has been so conditioned through the popular
media to accept the possible existence of aliens that such a revelation
would not shock nearly as many people as you think. True, there would
be some incidents of mass shock and world-wide panic, but they would be
small pockets in the whole of our species. Some would say that this
conditioning part of a master plan. I don't know, but it's there none
the less.
> 3) Public unprepared for interaction with an alien species.
In some ways, this is true. In our own history, any time two separate
groups of people have met, there is usually hardships in the beginning
while both sides tries to learn the others' ways. But we've gotten
past
MOST of them (not enough unfortunately). We would do the same with an
alien species, MOST LIKELY. It could also be that they would be so
vastly different from ourselves in terms of their culture that we could
not overcome the differences. This would be, obviously, a very bad
circumstance.
> 4) Trepidation from fundamental sects of Christianity and other goofy religions
> which strongly believe extraterrestrial life impossible. Any such encounter
> with alien life forms would be considered contact with "demons and satanic
> influences" since some Biblical authorities teach that Satan is "prince of the
> air." Influential religious groups could ignite a religious war.
This is a very valid argument, although I don't like the way you use
the
term "goofy religions". No religion should ever be called goofy as it
is just a system of beliefs for certain people. We need to be more
accepting of people that believe differently than we do, but I'm not on
some crusade to change anyone's opinion. There probably would be some
problems for the established religions of the world, however, would
they
have any choice but to accept the existence of aliens when they land on
their own front lawns? As is the case throughout our history, things
will be interpreted by religions in the context of their beliefs. Yes,
some people would view aliens as demons, or even the opposite, angels.
Would there be religious wars? Perhaps, from some of the more radical
groups around the world, but again, I think your overstating a
reasonably small problem in terms of holy wars. We have them now, I
don't think they'd increase to any measurable degree.
> 5) Apprehension of invasion. Concern of human slavery, especially by the upper
> class elites, and subsequent imprisonment by the colonizing alien races.
This is a reasonable concern. If aliens exist, and if the are visiting
earth, they obviously are at least as advanced technologically as we
are,
most likely more so. If their purpose was hostile, we would be in some
trouble, and I think it's reasonable to look at various scenarios for
defending ourselves seriously. They also may come down and be a bunch
of ET's, eating Reeses Pieces and talking funny, being no threat to us
at all. Invasion is a valid concern, but why is that a reason for a
cover-up? Indeed, if the government new there was an invasion
imminent,
or even possible, they would do well to tell us. Unless they have some
sinister plan for world domination by taking advantage of a marauding
alien race, but that is quite far-fetched, and also highly stupid on
their part, and as much as I distrust any government, I don't think
very
many are stupid outright!
> 6) The Military wants to figure out how the crafts and accompanying technologies
> work, for weapons development. They would make top-of-the-line weapons and
> delivery systems.
Could be, but again, why cover it up? There is so much talent and
knowledge in the private sector they would again be well served to tell
us the truth and let us all try and figure it out. In fact, it would
very likely be a boom for the economy, since the defense industry would
again be a hot-bed of employment as it was in years past.
> 7) The Military needs to know how to defend against the same systems if some
> other country's military figures it out before "we" do.
Again, could be, but see my argument from above. It applies here as
well.
> 8) Mistrust and lack of confidence in the military might of the United States,
> especially after spending $15 trillion dollars over the past 50 years. The
> greatest military force in the world would have to admit it cannot prevent
> "abductions" since the aliens that pilot the extraterrestrial crafts have
> superior flight and weapons technology.
This could be. Embarrassment is often a reason for lying, especially
for
the government.
> 9) New technology to prevent disease and increase aging would further harm
> environment due to rapid overpopulation.
It also would allow us to keep more livestock alive, probably give us
biological engineering capabilities to grow more food, etc., so world
hunger could potentially be reduced. So, the government is potentially
withholding knowledge that would save lives, which is the same thing as
murder to many people? Man, I HOPE your wrong about that one!
> 10) Debunkers would have to find real work, plus the "egg-on-the-face" syndrome
> might adversely affect them.
A joke, no doubt, but, I kind of agree!
Re: Why UFO Cover-up/10 Major Reasons
From: Wil Mobberley <moby...@mobydick.demon.co.uk>
In article <5nlg2j$tf0$1...@host-3.cyberhighway.net>, "Art
Wholeflaffer" <smq...@cyberhighway.net> writes
(SNIP 10 reasons)
You missed out number 11: Shame
The authorities handled our first major contact with visitors from
another world so appallingly badly that there would be a major outcry
if
it were revealed just how crass the behavior of the military had been.
Perhaps it may be a miracle that we are not engaged in a major
interplanetary war of our own making.
or number 12: Greed
The authorities have been so self seeking that the public would be
baying for blood if it knew how such a major event as contact with ETs
had been subverted for the selfish desires of a minority unfit to act
on
our behalf.
or number 13: New religions
Idiots would worship the ETs thinking them divine.
or number 14: Extremist racial groups etc.
Aspects of the ET behavior might be "politically incorrect". For
example, what if they abducted a statistically significantly lower
number of Afro Caribbean's or red heads, people from Belgium or any
other
group you care to think of? Are there statistics which could be used to
further the aims of extremist groups? Hard to argue with a superior
technology. If they don't think it worth abducting a certain group,
maybe that group is inferior after all...
or number 15: The Shangri La syndrome
The ET way of life is gentler, kinder, less selfish and therefore not
to
be placed before the public for comparison with our own governments.
or number 16: Nightmare
The truth is so awful, so terrifying and so inevitable that a high
level
decision was made to allow the human race a couple more generations of
"happiness/blissful ignorance" before all hell is let loose, on the
basis that if we are powerless anyway why burden people with something
awful for which they can do nothing to prepare? One example could be
the
need for ETs to acclimatize and assimilate our germs before they can
live down here. Perhaps the authorities know that the clock is ticking
and when the alarm bell goes off it's bad news for everybody.
or number 17: Incompetence.
Nobody will shoulder the responsibility of letting the information out.
It is so compartmentalized that nobody knows enough to act and would
lack the gumption if they did.
or number 18: Embarrassment to world press.
Disclosure of what many of us have suspected for so long, a final
admission, would show our media up as the spineless, witless bunch of
hypocritical cowards they really are. How on Earth did the powers that
be manage to hide everything and either secure the cooperation of (or
manage to outwit) for so long our politicians, our newspapers, TV news
stations, eminent scientists etc etc etc? When the truth finally comes
out, if I am still around, I will enjoy smirking in the faces of every
pompous Tom Dick and Harry who was so superior looking down on those of
us who knew that there was something going on. The worry for the
authorities would be that nobody would ever trust a newspaper headline
or government statement ever again. Almost certainly a movement would
begin demanding greater freedom of the press.
--
Wil Mobberley - 3D graphic artist
Web site: http://www.mobydick.demon.co.uk
almi...@hotmail.com wrote on 10/7/98
On Thu, 01 Oct 1998 13:10:52 -0500, Mike Combs
<mike...@nospam.comchangenospam2ti> wrote:
>Art Wholeflaffer A. S. A. wrote:
>>
>> Why UFO Cover-up/10 Major Reasons
>>
>> 1) Possibility of world-wide economic collapse due to
>>introduction of free energy and anti-gravity technologies.
>Hmmmmm... no one would be able to figure out how to make money off of
>free energy and anti-gravity? Granted some companies would have to
>change what they do, but really now!
Who needs UFOs for that? Nikola Tesla essentially discovered
free-energy at the turn of the century, or at least he believed he
did. In any event, once JP Morgan discovered that the research he had
been bankrolling would potentially lead to a free source of
electricity (at Wardenclyffe), he pulled the plug, so to speak, on
Tesla's research funding. That cost Tesla his reputation (which
would have easily exceeded Edison's just on the strength of AC
electricity, radio (patent taken from Marconi in Supreme Court
decision of 1947 because it was proven Tesla had invented radio before
his radio rival), bladeless turbine, discovery of plasma, invention of
a precursor of the fax machine, etc...Morgan's fear of free
electricity also may have cost the world the benefit of at least a
renewable source of electricity derived from thin air. No one to date
has ever challenged the well-documented Tesla experiments at Colorado
Springs in which he lit an entire mile of street lamps without wires
merely by converting the earth's natural magnetic field into
electo-magnetic waves in the form of radio waves, then converting them
back into electricity through the use of his Tesla Coils. In fact, he
outlined the principle in a famous series of lectures to the IEEE at
Columbia University in 1898. Indeed, if this principle is false, then
radios would not work. There are literally hundreds of persons,
including Edison, Mark Twain, several statesmen and other scientists
who witnessed Tesla's famous Ball of Plasma, which apparently was able
to stay intact in a box for several decades.
Roswell may be a wash, but even if there were a cover-up, it compares
nothing to the cover-up of the FBIs raid of Tesla's New York apartment
the day after he died. In fact, as recently as 1996, the United
States Congressional Committee on the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass
Destruction was unable to have the seized Tesla papers released. They
were concerned about the fact that the Aum Shinrikyo sect had access
to EMP weapons which they learned were based on Tesla's research. The
Soviets had access to Tesla's papers in his native Belgrade and
extensively used this research. The US did not officially take up EMP
weapons until SDI was proposed in the early 80s. Aum Shinrikyo had a
brilliant scientist working for them, one Taddeo Murai, who was
working on microwave beams used for cold-welding at the Kobi Steel
Works...anyway, the US Congressional Committee found out about Murai's
research and discovered that the US was also working on similar
weapons so they wanted to know just what the threat was; they
subpoened Tesla's papers from the FBI, but they claimed a National
Security privilege on these 50 year old papers. Think about that...a
Congressional Committee investigating perhaps the most significant
security threat at the turn of the millennium--terrorist access to
weapons of mass destruction--being unable to even look at Tesla's
papers (you see, he tended not to patent most of his stuff and most of
his research remained in note-form).
Anyway...who needs UFOs and Roswell to explain free energy and other
fancy shmancy shtuff when Humans had Nikola Tesla all along?
>> 3) Public unprepared for interaction with an alien species.
>All these movies and TV shows have left us totally unprepared for the
>concept of alien species? You must avoid SF pretty well.
really now...if aliens do exist and ever made an undeniable
appearance, it would perhaps be the most significant event in recorded
human history. the theological ramifications for the great world
religions would be enormous, as would geo-political after effects.
Movies and TV cannot even come close to a scintilla of the real effect
of a public alien arrival.
>> 4) Trepidation from fundamental sects of Christianity and
>>other religions which >>would be considered contact with
>>"demons and satanic influences" since some Biblical
>>authorities teach that Satan is "prince of the air."
>> Influential religious groups could
>>ignite a religious war.
>You might be on to something here, although I wouldn't worry about a
>Jihad myself. Christianity was finally able to accomodate a round
>Earth, and a sun-centered solar system. I think they would be able to
>adjust.
But those other beliefs never were fundamental to the religion itself,
but were outgrowths of Xtianity's dependence upon Aristotelean
philosophy after Thomas. Alien life raises crucial questions about
the soul, the nature of salvation, and the afterlife that geocentrism
and flat-earth (never really a Xtian idea, btw) never did.
>> 5) Apprehension of invasion. Concern of human slavery,
>>especially by the upper class elites, and subsequent
>>imprisonment by the colonizing alien races.
>I think aliens capable of crossing interstellar distances could build
>artificial servants who would be far more efficient than mere human
>beings. Alien enslavement is an SF notion.
why say this? slavery has, historically speaking, almost always been
economically stupid, yet that hasn't stopped people from taking
slaves. Slavery is about power and control, not production or
economics. Who's to say that aliens wouldn't be tyrannical?
>> 6) The Military wants to figure out how the crafts and
>>accompanying technologies work, for weapons development.
>>They would make top-of-the-line weapons and delivery systems.
>This is a bit more reasonable. So when can we expect quantum leaps in
>our weapons capabilities? Or are they so secret that they can never be
>used?
always a problem with the "alien-technology" argument. However, see
above discussion of Tesla--again, we don't need aliens to give us
superior technology. humans are quite capable without that.
>> 9) New technology to prevent disease and increase
>>aging would further harm environment
>>due to rapid overpopulation.
>So we couldn't learn enough about space travel to colonize space from
>beings who had come to us from another star system? Do you have any
>notion how many people would fit into our solar system alone?
overpopulation is a hoax anyway. the problem is overpopulation in
industrial economies. otherwise the world can get a hundred times
more populous and the resources are there to use--its the global
distribution system and the waste in rich countries that is the
problem, not overpopulation per se that is the problem. Alien
visitation would have no effect on that, as far as i can see.
>Let's face facts. The rationales we keep getting for the Massive
>Government Coverup are seriously weak on logic.
>--
agreed to a point. massive coverup is simply implausible on its face
as an impossibility to anyone who works in any large organization can
tell you. news travels really really fast, especially within a gov't.
the problem, though, is lack of communication and general ignorance
which can effectively work as an unintentional cover-up. the vast
majority of documented sightings are actually made by military
personnel (or so i am led to believe by the evidence out there), but
if their superiors think the sighters were just drunk or doped up (a
common reason why so many Vietnam sightings were dismissed out of
hand), that isn't a cover up, but it is a failure to investigate out
of ignorance and/or a lack of communication about the sighting to the
proper channels.
-lfr
From: sph...@world.std.com (SPHINX Technologies)
TYGHOCK <tyg...@aol.com> wrote:
>>They kept it pretty DAMNED quiet for several years. It could just as well
>>have been several decades, except that they decided to USE the thing.
>>
>Very unlikely. Secrets of great urgent nature will get out, especially if there
>are very interested and determined parties after them, and they have the
>potential for huge human interest and big bucks.
>If you think the a-bomb would have been secret for decades, I suggest you and I
>have a very different viewpoint of human nature - and mine is supported by
>history (people DO find out the big and important things).
I think it WAS kept rather secret, from the American public anyway,
until it was time to use it. True, a lot of neighbors must have seen
weird flashes of light in the sky when they tested it (neighbors being
500 miles away or whatever). And true, there was some speculation in
the press, at least in sci-fi magazines and whatnot, about atomic
bombs,
but just as with the UFO today, the mainstream press was clueless about
the deadly serious classified project that was going on.
>>>Chinese got our nukes.
>>Not surprising
>But HUGE, important, heavily in need of guarding...and it got out.
Bad security practices. Basic idea of nukes not classified at all.
Casual attitudes. Scientists not properly inculcated with the idea
that
security was important. Etc. etc.
> And UFOs
>(by believer's definition) fit this bill too. Face it, it's a match.
Nope. Very existence of UFOs classified. Fact of gummint's interest
in them denied. Fact of govt's intense and highly classified interest
in 'em highly classified "higher even than the H-Bomb", according to
one document.
>>Dumb comments department. NASA is not (overtly, at least) the military.
>
>Not dumb, on point. Unless you're now saying that
>NASA has NOTHING to do with
>hiding UFOs? If they do, then bingo
>- their security is seriously breached.
My guess is that one part of NASA is in pretty deep. Astronauts have
had
firsthand sightings, some of 'em at least. Ground support staffs have
seen anomalies on radar, in photos, and quite probably in classified
comms link chatter. There was that NASA artist for example who
reported
that one of her jobs was to air-brush out UFOs from photos. (There
was
even an "anomaly" in the first Moon landing mission, Apollo 9 was it?
I remember seeing a large luminous object hanging motionless just above
the crater rim, to the right of the TV image. Nobody ever mentioned
it.
I wondered if it was a camera artifact or a real object. Looked sort
of
saucer-shaped, and I remember joking to my wife that "look, there's a
UFO
hovering there in the background, watching..." Seems to me it HAS been
airbrushed out of the modern "file tapes" from that broadcast, 'cuz I
looked for it and didn't see it in there when they were doing the
re-runs
in '94 for the twenty-fifth anniversary. :^)
Then there are doubtless a whole lot of honest people working for NASA
and
for contractors who really don't have any knowledge of any UFO
information,
and truthfully say so when asked. Just as there are a lot of people at
NASA who aren't in the loop for the classified mission payloads.
>But no saucers. Either you say NASA has no hand in
>'The GReat UFO Coverup' or you admit such a coverup
>through NASA would be impossible (oh, I know, the old
>'compartmentalization' argument is coming again...
>didn't work for the nukes,
>or the a-bomb, or NASA, but HEY, works great for UFOs!!).
NASA is compartmented. They do have a hand in the protection of
classified
information about UFOs. Just as with protection of classified
information
pertaining to classified payloads, presumably sp00k satellites and
whatnot.
What they are charged with protecting, they do a fairly good job of,
apparently. Various things leak, the leaks are denied with a straight
face,
and the media either believe the lies or play along. The leaks have
been
"discredited", so as far as the public is concerned, no "official" leak
has occurred.
I don't suppose foreign counterintelligence organizations are always
fooled,
however. Maybe some of the time.
I really don't follow your version of "logic" here. No, I assert that
a "coverup" as you call it, really the protection of classified
information
from NASA's point of view, is ongoing. A lot of things have leaked.
Most likely some other things have BEEN leaked, the more ridiculous
the merrier. Very possibly Hoagland and Bell and others are on staff,
gleefully and ambiguously doing the mixing so the "opposition"
hopefully
won't figure out which is real and which is bogus. Along with Twit and
the inimitable Dean Adams of recent memory, etc. As a result there is
a certain amount of residual ambiguity about exactly what is true, but
actually not very much in the minds of those that matter.
>>NASA's problem is that it's a mix
>>of two cultures -- wide open Earth Science,
>>and the inner sanctum that
>>deals with much more sensitive matters.
>
>I agree with you here. It's just another reason
>the security breaches within are so dangerous.
Evidently not all that dangerous. I don't see any evidence yet that
any serious adversary has figured out any really IMPORTANT secrets.
Then again, they might well not advertise it. And they might well not
be able to DO much about it. Although there were some cryptic remarks
in the news when the Cox report was about to come out which made me
wonder
if the Chinese had not gotten secrets relating to UFOs and UFO-derived
technology while they were not getting any of our nuclear secrets (to
hear them tell it).
>I don't know if the government is hiding info on UFOs -
I can see that. Yes, they are.
>but I suspect if they
>are, the info they have is either inconclusive or pretty small.
Your suspicions are childishly naive.
>Any large scale
>coverup (underground cities, etc) of something
>that newsworthy, would get out
>under its own weight.
Yeah, right. Like the bunker under the Greenbriar Resort Hotel? How
long
did THAT remain so to speak buried before it became known to the
public?
Of course, as Twit has pointed out in the parallel post that I read
before starting this one, that's different from HFI agencies (Hostile
Foreign Intelligence) finding out.
>It's one thing to be a scientist working on guided
>missile tech, and not clue the media or sell it -
>it's quite another to be sitting on something as grand
>and newsworthy as aliens.
Not if your ability to earn a living and stay out of prison are at
stake.
Anybody in on that sort of thing, with a clearance, would think twice
before leaking it in a traceable way. There have been all kinds of
leaks,
but also lots of intentional leaks designed to spread confusion and
disbelief. The only problem is deciding which is which! Which is what
makes the whole UFO scene such a FUN puzzle to try to decipher.
Is Twit just a dumb geeky scientist who slings factoids around without
benefit of a right brain to interpret what they REALLY mean? Or is he
a paid Gummint Dissinfo Agent, nefariously trying to discredit all
those
who pose a danger of revealing the True Nature of the Grand Conspiracy?
Are you just a half-hearted Skeptik, or are you the "Good Cop" to
Twit's "Bad Cop"? And am *I* really a True Believer, or am I really
part of the Disinformation Conspiracy, pulling people further and
further
out on a limb of plausibility, until finally we saw it off behind you?
:^)
Ah, that's what makes it all so much FUN, eh Bre'r Blue? Heheheh...
:^)
-John S.
Acting Deputy Director for Propaganda, MAJESTIC/PI-40
- - - - -
Author: Frog <FrogRe...@bigfoot.com>
Right. My two cents, the UFO cover-up needs to be understood in a
larger
context. If it turns out to be the case that our 'elected leaders'
are not, in fact, serving the people, but the interests of an
elite 'cabal', and that bloodlines and genetics plays an important
role in this, the cover-up is in fact part of a larger agenda of
control
and manipulation. It may be off-topic, but you
might want to check out David Icke's 'Alice in Wonderland and the
World Trade Center Disaster (Why the official story of 9/11 is a
monumental
lie) Bridge of Love publications.
My point is this. The UFO question is a can of worms for the
government,
or more precisely, the globalist elite that control the government,
because it is
an open door to TRUTH; Free energy, which brings to mind Art's
excellent
post on the 10 questions of why a cover-up and 'Ben' who brings up the
question
of Nicola Tesla - i.e., why did the military obtain, through dubious
legal means,
a trunkload of documents relating to Tesla's inventions, (supposedly
'lost'
in the 'system', duh,) which they now utilize as longitudinal wave
(scalar) covert weaponry while suppressing the important benefits to
humanity that zero point energy would have provided. And, if it weren't
for those same suppressing interests, might still provide... (Check out
www.cheniere.org for the crucial work of Thomas Bearden and his
Motionless
Electromagnetic Generator which may like others before it, disappear
down a
black hole)
It's part of the agenda to isolate and disempower humanity. Reconnect
to
your true spiritual potential, and, knowledge of humanity's true
(extremely ancient))
origins, means exposing the truth about our 'visitors' some of whom may
be good
for us, and some definitely ain't. Either way our DNA has been
manipulated from day one; but this question of a cover-up is a complex
one and needs to be understood from
the point of view of who currently controls the planet.
Hagar
"Sir Arthur CB Wholeflaffers ASA" <sci...@zzz.com> wrote in message
news:1139213578.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Why UFO Cover-up/10 Major Reasons
>
HEADLINE: Air Force jets in hot pursuit of UFOs. Missiles fired by them
are easily outmaneuvered by UFOs.
Even if Aliens were to arrive here on a friendly mission, the Military (not
just ours) would make sure that the arriving space ships would be met by a
barrage of unfriendly fire. The Aliens may well recognize us for the
ill-tempered savages we are and act accordingly, by eradicating us. If they
have the technology to cross light years of space, surely they would come
prepared for the event of such a hostile welcome gesture.
Amanda Angelika
Sir Arthur CB Wholeflaffers ASA <sci...@zzz.com> typed:
> This is a very valid argument, although I don't like the way you use
> the
> term "goofy religions". No religion should ever be called goofy as it
> is just a system of beliefs for certain people. We need to be more
> accepting of people that believe differently than we do,
That's a totally contradictory statement. I mean you can't accept that
people have different ideas and have a right to have different ideas and at
the same time make a statement or rule like "No religion should ever be
called goofy" because by accepting people have different ideas you are
accepting that every one has a right to think the next person's religion is
"goofy" LOL
> but I'm not
> on some crusade to change anyone's opinion.
Just as well :)
>There probably would be
> some problems for the established religions of the world, however,
> would they
have any choice but to accept the existence of aliens when they land
> on their own front lawns? As is the case throughout our history,
> things will be interpreted by religions in the context of their
> beliefs. Yes, some people would view aliens as demons, or even the
> opposite, angels. Would there be religious wars? Perhaps, from some
> of the more radical groups around the world, but again, I think your
> overstating a reasonably small problem in terms of holy wars. We
> have them now, I don't think they'd increase to any measurable degree.
Well I think disputes over religion would be easier to solve if there was a
super intelligent "alien" available to take the blame for everything :) I
mean look at this Muhammad cartoons controversy. If we could blame an
"alien" for drawing them it would take a lot of people off the hook. Of
course you then have to crucify the alien and the rest is history :)
--
Amanda
Sir Gilligan Horry
<sci...@zzz.com> wrote:
>Why UFO Cover-up/10 Major Reasons
>
There is no UFO cover-up.
It's all there on the internet.
And if clueless people ever ask me "well what is the conclusion?"...
I'll say, sit down and read alien newsgroups for five years.
Hang on, no, I can't say that, or they will all be here.
Even the anti-carto0ns people.
Trillions of them !!
Danger. Sir Artie. Danger. Danger.
http://www.splitfocus.org/pics/lis-robot.jpg
mitchel...@yahoo.com
existence of UFOs or any paranormal activity it would mean the "kooks"
win, and we can't have that.
Sir Gilligan Horry
Note : Ko0ks are people that study UFOs.
(not so kooky after all, in some scenarios, aye)
'Respect'
-Ali G.
Your Name Here=Harvey
manic...@hotmail.com says...
I think the whole issue is about a presentation that is not correct, nor true.
That religions do this, the governments, and all insitutions of one type
or another, have done it too.
Present something not true, as being true, and tried to get away with it.
We are being manipulated all the time, to keep us from seeing/realising
the real issues involved.
The news has nothing better to do, than to report people being offended
by satirist cartoons. And the reporting of this has merely added to the
anger. This is playing to the 'war' between Islam and the rest of the world.
That people are willing to kill other people, all for the sake of a
silly joke (the cartoons) - illustrate how silly it has all become.
While exporting companies worry about the millions of dollars at stake,
should their exports stop or decrease.
Harvey
Sir Gilligan Horry
<sp...@PasoSchweiz.de> wrote:
>On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 13:17:18 +1300, Sir Gilligan Horry <G...@ga7rm5er.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 7 Feb 2006 16:01:14 -0800, mitchel...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>Why the UFO cover-up? That's an easy one: if Uncle admitted the
>>>existence of UFOs or any paranormal activity it would mean the "kooks"
>>>win, and we can't have that.
>>
>Looks like the "land of the free and the brave" has but two problems
>____________________________________________________
>...> to deal with the FREE (=Liberals) and the BRAVE (=Kooks).
>____________________________________________________
Well, some of the professional people that got close to the Mothman
situations and the Kecksburg situation, were/are very brave and
intelligent.
Top marks all round.
__________________
Disclaimer:
I don't think wee hippies could cut that wasabi.
>C.
Amanda Angelika
Your Name Here=Harvey <ki...@ing.notin.aus> typed:
Well I don't think we should ever forget it is Islamic Fascism/extremism and
Terrorism that is perpetrating violence and murder in the name of the
prophet Muhammad. In the West we have a largely secular society and tend not
to perpetrate acts of violence in the name of Jesus. In fact if anything we
keep religion separate in order to keep it holy and special.
The Muhammad cartoons particularly the one showing Muhammad with a bomb on
his head simply points out in a graphic form what Islamic extremists are
actually doing in the name of Muhammad and how they are dragging the name of
their prophet down be perpetrating some of the most evil and depraved acts
of savagery and violence against others in the name of Islam.
I think this is why there is so much fury over these cartoons, the problem
is they are a *true* representation and a fair comment on how extremism has
perverted both the name and image of Muhammad unfortunately people often
find the truth offensive. But the truth is never evil or wrong it is simply
the truth. I dare say some of these images will go down in history as
cultural icons in a similar way to the John Heartfield images of the 1930s
that satirised Adolf Hitler because the truth will always prevail.
--
Amanda
Your Name Here=Harvey
In past times in history - the Christians were as bad as the Muslims or
worse with their fanatical beliefs, and have held the world back from
advancing forward - such as that of Galileo's ideas, which he could not
freely express, and you should know full well of the religious wars
Christianity was involved in --- and how it has decimated indigenous
cultures when it invaded new territories where Christianity was not
present before.
Acts of violence has been made, in the name of Jesus - it may not be
in our most recent history, but nonetheless it should be recognised.
Should we be concerned about the minority Muslim fundamentalists?
at all? They are not the majority of the mainstream muslims.
It should be noted that the events of 9-11 is something we should know
the truth of - about it. That the official story of 9-11 does not
add up to the facts about 9-11, and that the whole series of events,
that we are told, does not add up to the official story.
We are not told the truth about this so-called pivotal event in recent
history.
The truth can be evil - when we know exactly who are behind this and
that. They are the ones who manipulated the events all along.
I wonder if we will ever know?
Harvey
Amanda Angelika
Your Name Here=Harvey <ki...@ing.notin.aus> typed:
> In past times in history - the Christians were as bad as the Muslims
> or
> worse with their fanatical beliefs, and have held the world back from
> advancing forward - such as that of Galileo's ideas, which he could
> not freely express,
I wouldn't deny that violence has been done in the name of Chritianity, and
Christianity has in some cases tried to hold back progress by attemting to
surpress ideas at varience with sriptural teachings. Galileo is one and
obvioisly a lot of Christian groups are still ranting on about evolution.
But on the other hand it is difficult to seperate the development and
advances of Western society from the influence of Christianity and although
Christianity is not the only religion that has worked to establish
sophisticated societies. I don't think one could argue Islam has encouraged
much progress, considering Muslim societies are entirely reliant on Western
and indeed Far Eastern Technology.
and you should know full well of the religious
> wars Christianity was involved in --- and how it has decimated
> indigenous
> cultures when it invaded new territories where Christianity was not
> present before.
> Acts of violence has been made, in the name of Jesus - it may not be
> in our most recent history, but nonetheless it should be recognised.
Well yes I realise there was Slavery and people from the West didn't go into
these places to give away refrigerators and Chevrolets But OTOH though
disease and starvation have always existed and many of these so called
indigenous societies were little more than savages, performing things like
human sactifice and eating their own children. Things that are now illegal
in every country of the World and it was the West that put a stop to such
things.
> Should we be concerned about the minority Muslim fundamentalists?
> at all? They are not the majority of the mainstream muslims.
Well that is true. I have Muslim friends myself and they are not like the
lunatics shown in the media.
> It should be noted that the events of 9-11 is something we should know
> the truth of - about it. That the official story of 9-11 does not
> add up to the facts about 9-11, and that the whole series of events,
> that we are told, does not add up to the official story.
> We are not told the truth about this so-called pivotal event in recent
> history.
Well one thing I can tell you is some Mosques in the UK were under
surveillance a long time before 9/11 and in fact this has not only been
confirmed by the BBC I used to live a street down from a Mosque in an end of
terrace house with net curtains and could observe activities in the street
without detection. I noted there were people hanging about in cars at
certain times of the day and there were shift changes one could practically
set your watch by and like one saw the same people in the same positions on
a daily basis even on weekends. At the time I came to the conclusion these
people were plain clothes Police MI5 etc I also pointed it out to some of my
friends (in case I was going Mad) what seemed to be going on, and yes even
some of my friends at least one of whom is ex-security forces also noticed
these activities and agreed with my suspicions. Well actually they were
plain clothes police it wasn't paranoia we weren't seeing things and this
has now more or less been confirmed by something said by the BBC. Though
best not to say too much as to the location or what this was connected with,
because there are good reasons for such covert activities, though they could
be a bit more covert, bearing in mind people are quite observant. :)
> The truth can be evil - when we know exactly who are behind this and
> that. They are the ones who manipulated the events all along.
> I wonder if we will ever know?
I have taken a look at the conspiracy theories but when you actually see
what these extremist are like and have seen with your own eyes the fact that
some of these people have been kept under survailence by the police for a
decade or more. I do believe the terrorists actually exist and were capable
of perpetrating 9/11 and I'm not getting my information entirely from the
media or the Internet I have made my own observations.
--
Amanda
Amanda Angelika
Charles D. BohneT <m...@PasoSchweiz.de> typed:
> On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 14:44:57 GMT, "Amanda Angelika"
> <manic...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't think one could argue Islam has encouraged
>> much progress, considering Muslim societies are entirely reliant on
>> Western and indeed Far Eastern Technology.
>
> http://www.cyberistan.org/
>
> History goes a little more back than the existence of the USA....
> try 1000 years and learn.
>
> C.
Actually I was thinking more in terms of 2000+ years since I live in the UK.
--
Amanda
Amanda Angelika
Charles D. Bohne <sp...@PasoSchweiz.de> typed:
> On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 20:05:55 GMT, "Amanda Angelika"
> <manic...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Extend your word view:
>>> http://www.cyberistan.org/
>>>
>>> History goes a little more back than the existence of the USA....
>>> try 1000 years and learn.
>>>
>>> C.
>>
>> Actually I was thinking more in terms of 2000+ years since I live in
>> the UK. --
>> Amanda
>
> nevertheless, there is a lot to learn about the Mauritanian influence
> on culture and science on today's civiliz/sation.
> C.
Well I did have a look at the site you mentioned but to be honest I thought
what I read was nonsense. Like for example the claim that the Anglo-Saxon
King Offa converted to Islam. Well considering this is based on some gold
coins found in Rome showing a misspelled Arabic inscription something to the
effect of Allah being the only God and having no associate in the World
along with lettering in Latin saying Offa is King (a contradiction if ever
there was one) and like this was sent to the Pope in lieu of taxes it has
all the hallmarks of a practical joke obviously didn't like paying his Taxes
but this must have had the Pope rolling on the floor. It's interesting to
note that one's ancestors also had a sense of Humour :)
--
Amanda
Your Name Here=Harvey
says...
>
>In news:dse7vn$h1i$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz,
>Your Name Here=Harvey <ki...@ing.notin.aus> typed:
>
>> In past times in history - the Christians were as bad as the Muslims
>> or
>> worse with their fanatical beliefs, and have held the world back from
>> advancing forward - such as that of Galileo's ideas, which he could
>> not freely express,
>
>I wouldn't deny that violence has been done in the name of Chritianity, and
>Christianity has in some cases tried to hold back progress by attemting to
>surpress ideas at varience with sriptural teachings. Galileo is one and
>obvioisly a lot of Christian groups are still ranting on about evolution.
>
>But on the other hand it is difficult to seperate the development and
>advances of Western society from the influence of Christianity and although
>Christianity is not the only religion that has worked to establish
>sophisticated societies. I don't think one could argue Islam has encouraged
>much progress, considering Muslim societies are entirely reliant on Western
>and indeed Far Eastern Technology.
>
I don't think it is solely the western world/countries that has contributed
towards the industrialisation and modernisation of this world.
In that every country has played it's part, and we borrow or steal
from other societies - key ideas. In mathematics, historians will
say that our numeric system came from... and that the zero from..
etc etc with key inventions too...
And all Islamic countries have embraced western technology and development.
They had no choice, I guess - same for any country not wanting isolation
and the benefits of modern living (better health care and a better standard
of living). Western technology isn't entirely western though.
We know that Asia has played a significant hand in technological advances.
>and you should know full well of the religious
>> wars Christianity was involved in --- and how it has decimated
>> indigenous
>> cultures when it invaded new territories where Christianity was not
>> present before.
>> Acts of violence has been made, in the name of Jesus - it may not be
>> in our most recent history, but nonetheless it should be recognised.
>
>Well yes I realise there was Slavery and people from the West didn't go into
>these places to give away refrigerators and Chevrolets But OTOH though
>disease and starvation have always existed and many of these so called
>indigenous societies were little more than savages, performing things like
>human sactifice and eating their own children. Things that are now illegal
>in every country of the World and it was the West that put a stop to such
>things.
>
One form of slavery has changed from one form to another.
One set of injustices, swapped for another set.
Slavery and injustices still remain.
There are definitely information about the whole 9-11 official story,
that does not add up, particularly the Pentagon strike being not what we
are told about it.
One excellent video about it, summing it up, is Barrie Zwicker's
"The Great Conspiracy - The 9-11 News Special You Never Saw" presents
a history of the US Government past conspiracies and coverups, leading up
to 9-11, to show that the US Government does resort to lying and misleading
the public, when it suits them.
A key note about the Twin Towers, is how the US Government would not allow
independent engineers/analysts onto the twin towers site, to inspect the debris,
and how the debris was always off limits to them.
There was never an open investigation into the whole 9-11 incident.
No independent studies were allowed.
There is a key point mentioned, that the fire caused by the jet fuel burning
was not enough to cause the collapse of the twin towers, at the steel columns.
Harvey
Sir Gilligan Horry
<sp...@PasoSchweiz.de> wrote:
>On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 14:39:32 +1300, Sir Gilligan Horry <G...@ga7rm5er.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>Looks like the "land of the free and the brave" has but two problems
>>>____________________________________________________
>>>...> to deal with the FREE (=Liberals) and the BRAVE (=Kooks).
>>>____________________________________________________
>>
>>Well, some of the professional people that got close to the Mothman
>>situations and the Kecksburg situation, were/are very brave and
>>intelligent.
>>
>Yes - three cheers to the KOOK!
>
>>Top marks all round.
>>__________________
>>Disclaimer:
>>I don't think wee hippies could cut that wasabi.
>>
>Hip, hip ... huraaaaah
No matter what they say,
you are a hero in our town.
Charles, much respect to you matey.
P.S.
Ahoy!
Space is Ours !!
__________
Disclaimer:
Especially if we are fairly good folks.
Amanda Angelika
Your Name Here=Harvey <ki...@ing.notin.aus> typed:
> In article <JzIGf.35529$494....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>,
> manic...@hotmail.com says...
>>
>> In news:dse7vn$h1i$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz,
>> Your Name Here=Harvey <ki...@ing.notin.aus> typed:
>>
>>> In past times in history - the Christians were as bad as the Muslims
>>> or
>>> worse with their fanatical beliefs, and have held the world back
>>> from advancing forward - such as that of Galileo's ideas, which he
>>> could not freely express,
>>
>> I wouldn't deny that violence has been done in the name of
>> Chritianity, and Christianity has in some cases tried to hold back
>> progress by attemting to surpress ideas at varience with sriptural
>> teachings. Galileo is one and obvioisly a lot of Christian groups
>> are still ranting on about evolution.
>>
>> But on the other hand it is difficult to seperate the development and
>> advances of Western society from the influence of Christianity and
>> although Christianity is not the only religion that has worked to
>> establish sophisticated societies. I don't think one could argue
>> Islam has encouraged much progress, considering Muslim societies are
>> entirely reliant on Western and indeed Far Eastern Technology.
>>
>
> I don't think it is solely the western world/countries that has
> contributed towards the industrialisation and modernisation of this
> world.
Actually the Industrial revolution first began in Britain with the
Introduction of steam in the late 18th Century and was mostly powered by
coal
> In that every country has played it's part, and we borrow or steal
> from other societies - key ideas. In mathematics, historians will
> say that our numeric system came from... and that the zero from..
> etc etc with key inventions too...
Well I wouldn't dispute that the Ancients may have had technologies that
were later forgotten.
> And all Islamic countries have embraced western technology and
> development. They had no choice, I guess - same for any country not
> wanting isolation
> and the benefits of modern living (better health care and a better
> standard
> of living). Western technology isn't entirely western though.
> We know that Asia has played a significant hand in technological
> advances.
There doesn't seem to be a great deal of development in the Middle East
since the introduction of Islam
>> and you should know full well of the religious
>>> wars Christianity was involved in --- and how it has decimated
>>> indigenous
>>> cultures when it invaded new territories where Christianity was not
>>> present before.
>>> Acts of violence has been made, in the name of Jesus - it may not be
>>> in our most recent history, but nonetheless it should be recognised.
>>
>> Well yes I realise there was Slavery and people from the West didn't
>> go into these places to give away refrigerators and Chevrolets But
>> OTOH though disease and starvation have always existed and many of
>> these so called indigenous societies were little more than savages,
>> performing things like human sactifice and eating their own
>> children. Things that are now illegal in every country of the World
>> and it was the West that put a stop to such things.
>>
>
> One form of slavery has changed from one form to another.
> One set of injustices, swapped for another set.
> Slavery and injustices still remain.
True
Terrorists do exist strangely enough. My main problem with the conspiracy
theories is there would have been no need, and secondly if it had been
staged it would have been a lot more convincing. The Pentagon is perhaps the
most odd incident the hole did look to small, that said planes are made of
aluminium and aluminium burns under intense heat. The wings would have been
completely vaporised on impact because the fuel is stored in the wings and
it would have consumed the wings in a fireball in seconds. Actually before
the Falklands war Warships were being made of Aluminium, until it was
realised that once they catch fire they simply melt and offered no defence
against Exocet missiles.
--
Amanda
Your Name Here=Harvey
There is that device referred to as the Antikythera mechanism which
was found in the Mediterranean sea, which was from a sunken ship of
Greek times, it was some gearing mechanism, and only through x-rays
could the whole of it could be seen.
The reconstruction of it, revealed that it showed planetary motions,
and was in fact the earliest computing device - knocking Babbage's
engine off the #1 spot. It has featured in 'Modern Marvel's -
Ancient Discoveries series, Part 1' and in the 'Xtreme Mysteries -
Ancient Discoveries' television programs. Now we have only to wait
until a second such device to be found, to show it was not a one off?
invention.
Yeah well, the US Government has resorted to it's own brand of covert
terrorism when it has suited them.
Not being a structural engineer or an explosive expert - I can't form
an opinion over whether the Twin Towers could have withstood the burning
jet fuel longer than it did, or know whether it was blown up to cause the
collapse of the buildings - this is hard to believe in itself.
But so is the claim that the Israelis who normally worked in the Twin Towers
were given a telephone warning not to turn up at work that fateful day,
strongly hinting that the Israeli intelligence were involved?
You have only to remember that France thought nothing of bombing the
Rainbow Warrior in Auckland, New Zealand - to know this is not so fanciful to
contemplate.
Barrie Zwicker did point out however, that George Bush lied - when he said
that he saw it on the news, at the time - when in fact it was shown, until the
next day, regarding the plane striking the building.
And if he was told by an aide, when he was visiting a primary school ---
why didn't he excuse himself, to deal with this catastrophe of the highest
order, but no, he continued on with reading from a children's book, as
if nothing momentous had just happened.
Harvey
>Amanda
>
>
ianpa...@gmail.com
military want to keep UFOs secret.
THE UFOS ARE PRODUCED BY THEM
According to Janes 38% of military research "does not exist". Little
green men were invoked by the CIA when the F117 or B2 which did not
then exist were seen over Phoenix.
The idea of UFOs being alien spececraft does not stand up to any kind
of logical scrutiny. It is inconcievablethat anyone would make an
interstellar journey without AI. This is discussed in the two threads
here. The first is on how we might develop AI
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.ai.nat-lang/browse_frm/thread/a...
The second is on our probable development of Von Neumann machines and
the problems of interstellar flight. It cannot be done without AI.
What ET would do is the following.A CDROM would be handed out
(possibly by an android) at a hacking conference and the Web would
monitor what the human race did. Possibly the Web might even generate
responses of its own. I can see you are human, an alien would have
responded differently.
Incidentally there can never be a 4th July like that shown in the film.
President Houston will simply let them in. In the film "The Bodyguard"
Whitney Houston played the part of a singer who was being protected by
an ex secret service agent. The secret service agent said that she
looked and sang better than the President. Now you get elected by being
ttelegenic and having pots of money to spend on the media. AI would
ensure that its person became president and did what it said.
Incidentally a study of AI indicates that extraterrestrial craft are
impossible as an explanation of UFOs as ET is going to act totally
differently. Military involvement is a certain, hence Why the secrecy?
ET involvement is simply not possible.
Part of the anger I have about alien abduction, UFOs and black flight
stems from the fact that black projects by and large are completely
irrelevant to our real needs. 38% of R&D expenditure goes on them
according to Janes. Black money has no democratic oversight, if the
public had some say it would either say "Lets cut expenditure and try
to balance the books" or "research should go towards low intensity
warfare".
ianpa...@gmail.com
roughly $4m per annum. This is risable when set against black spending.
Earl Dombroski
Your post makes 100% perfect sense except for the parts are about Al.
Are you referring to Al Gore, Al Franken, or Al Einstein?
Thanks.
Your fan,
Pearl
"Singing, Dear Abby, Dear Abby since 1992."
ianpa...@gmail.com
Earl Dombroski
OK, I get that this Al may be short on intelligence, but now you're
calling him a fake or something?
I think you must really hate this Al guy to flame him like that. Maybe
you're talking about Al Veolar, the Spanish pop singer? I guess he's
short, and not too bright, but my friends tell me he puts on one hell
of a floor show.
Are you in show business, too? Is this some kind of inside joke?
Thanks.
Your fan,
Pearl
Sir Gilligan Horry
<m...@PasoSchweiz.de> wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 15:35:39 +1300, Sir Gilligan Horry <G...@ga7rm5er.com>
>wrote:
>
>>No matter what they say,
>>you are a hero in our town.
>>
>
> :-) I am? What town is that?
>I'd like to send greetings to the major.
>
>>Charles, much respect to you matey.
>>
>Same to you, Master of Ufology.
>
>>P.S.
>>
>>Ahoy!
>>
>Aloha!
>
>>Space is Ours !!
>>
>Let's save some space for everyone :-)
>
>>__________
>>Disclaimer:
>>Especially if we are fairly good folks.
>
>You are? Send pics!
>
>C.
Love and Respect.
Art is Groovy.
Intelligence is Perfect.
Amanda Angelika
A lot of these things were one off inventions unfortunately. The problem is
technological advances rely heavily on communications. In some ways the
Industrial revolution could only have happened in a place like the UK which
is relatively small, and of course there had always been plenty of Roads
because the Romans built them. Which of course leads on to the other reason
it happened in the UK it was at the time the centre of an enormous empire
and there was a need to put telegraph poles and railways everywhere in order
to govern and control such a huge empire.
Of course the legend of Atlantis is interesting because it does make sense
that a relatively small sea faring Island nation in the Atlantic that was
the centre of an empire could have developed in a similar way for exactly
the same reasons. But the seed had obviously not spread far enough and been
consolidated enough to sustain the catastrophic destruction of Atlantis
itself.
Well actually here in the UK the events of 9/11 were shown live on BBC News
24 and it all happened around lunch time because Western Europe is 5 to 6
hours ahead of NY. Actually I don't have a Television myself but I was still
able to watch the events of 9/11 unfold live on a 150k streaming live news
video feed on the BBC website. I therefore saw the second plane hit within
seconds of the actual event and I also saw the first tower collapse more or
less as it happened (accounting for satellite delay of course)
It would have been possible for George Bush to have seen the events in the
news because they were seen live across Europe and indeed the Middle East as
well. Of course half the American people would have still been in bed
because the West Coast is 4 hours behind NY. But actually most of the rest
of the World saw 9/11 as it happened and many of us here knew about it
before George Bush was actually informed. It was probably the most shocking
news event I have ever seen.
> why didn't he excuse himself, to deal with this catastrophe of the
> highest order, but no, he continued on with reading from a children's
> book, as
> if nothing momentous had just happened.
True, but shock is like that, I don't think anyone can take in and
assimilate shocking events like 9/11 in the first second of being told or
seeing it happen. I don't think George Bush's immediate reaction was in the
slightest bit unusual under the circumstances. You can look at something
like that and be so over awed by it you think it's all fantasy and you might
even laugh, but when the shock actually hits it makes you cry.
I think most of the conspiracy theories are being spread by traitors and
Islamic-Fascist apologists, it's called revisionism and of course people try
to do it in regard to the Holocaust as well. Such people are traitors.
--
Amanda
ianpa...@gmail.com
origin for UFOs is simply not possible. There are a great many
abbreviations around and not everyone is familiar with them. AI, SSME
(Space Shuttle Main Engine), SSTO (Single Stage to Orbit) We probably
use them far too much.
Ian Parker
Earl Dombroski
The SSME and SSTO you told Al about were really useful.
Thanks!
Pearl
Holly
much also. As for AI ... well ... most of the koOks over use that, so
I try to keep it real. I think AI is somewhat akin to mental
masturbation ... and I'm still trying to figure out how to get my
tongue to go up through my nostrils. The best advice I ever got about
that was from Pearl who suggested I wait several hours after eating BBQ
before I try. Pays to listen to your friends.
Your Name Here=Harvey
In that television program - it mentioned about the Odometer that the
Romans used to put milestones down on their roads - that this device
could not be reconstructed into a working model. da Vinci tried to solve
how did it work? But couldn't. Someone who did solve the riddle found out that
the cogs used, had sharp points, instead of square teeth to the gearing.
You can download any kind of television programme you like, via file sharing
programs such as eMule or Xolox, if you have a cheap broadband connection,
unlimited download option (I have one only at 256K speed - it usually takes
days of leaving your computer online, to download the one programme, so it's
best to download several together. I have been downloading various UFO
programmes and ones about Free Energy are interesting too.) Having the
fastest broadband speed doesn't help because most downloads occur at very slow
broadband speeds.
You have to be realistic. That the US Government has spent millions on
a secure radar network, which says it can track foreign objects in it's
airspace - and in todays electronic world, that must mean it can track
it's domestic air traffic even more easily.
What is little known about 9-11 is that there were simulation exercises
going on with the military at that time, which suggest even more the whole
9-11 was rigged by the US government. And when someone rung up the authorities
about this 9-11 event, they asked "Real World or simulation?" It is mentioned
in detail in that 9-11 news that you never saw.
A reasonable person cannot believe that the US President got the immediate
news via the television news feed. Why do they have a military? And their
security forces for? You can't say they don't have a fast and efficient
communications system, that keeps track of everything.
>> why didn't he excuse himself, to deal with this catastrophe of the
>> highest order, but no, he continued on with reading from a children's
>> book, as
>> if nothing momentous had just happened.
>
>True, but shock is like that, I don't think anyone can take in and
>assimilate shocking events like 9/11 in the first second of being told or
>seeing it happen. I don't think George Bush's immediate reaction was in the
>slightest bit unusual under the circumstances. You can look at something
>like that and be so over awed by it you think it's all fantasy and you might
>even laugh, but when the shock actually hits it makes you cry.
>
What was going through President Bush's mind, as he was reading a
children's story to children?
Maybe he wasn't playing dumb, and he was really dumb or struck dumb?
After his aide gave him some unexpected news?
He appears to be more of a puppet, than a player in the events.
>I think most of the conspiracy theories are being spread by traitors and
>Islamic-Fascist apologists, it's called revisionism and of course people try
>to do it in regard to the Holocaust as well. Such people are traitors.
>--
>Amanda
>
Conspiracy theories will only take hold, if there is some substance and
reason to them. If they add up to something sensible.
If Kuwait had no oil - the first gulf war would not have happened...
Iraq would not have been invaded, if they had no oil.
Just look at Afghanistan - which has nothing for the US to profit from,
and how long did it take before they came to the aid of that country.
If there is no truth to the conspiracy theories, there would be no fuel
for them to burn with.
Harvey
Amanda Angelika
Your Name Here=Harvey <ki...@ing.notin.aus> typed:
>
> In that television program - it mentioned about the Odometer that the
> Romans used to put milestones down on their roads - that this device
> could not be reconstructed into a working model. da Vinci tried to
> solve
> how did it work? But couldn't. Someone who did solve the riddle found
> out that the cogs used, had sharp points, instead of square teeth to
> the gearing.
Intersting, probably more accurate with sharp points.
> You can download any kind of television programme you like, via file
> sharing programs such as eMule or Xolox, if you have a cheap
> broadband connection, unlimited download option (I have one only at
> 256K speed - it usually takes days of leaving your computer online,
> to download the one programme, so it's best to download several
> together. I have been downloading various UFO programmes and ones
> about Free Energy are interesting too.) Having the fastest broadband
> speed doesn't help because most downloads occur at very slow
> broadband speeds.
Yes I should probaly do that. I have 2 mbs unlimited cable broadband now. I
used to download the occassional film when I had 600k I should download more
stuff really make it worth the money I spend on it :)
> You have to be realistic. That the US Government has spent millions on
> a secure radar network, which says it can track foreign objects in
> it's airspace - and in todays electronic world, that must mean it can
> track
> it's domestic air traffic even more easily.
> What is little known about 9-11 is that there were simulation
> exercises
> going on with the military at that time, which suggest even more the
> whole 9-11 was rigged by the US government. And when someone rung up
> the authorities about this 9-11 event, they asked "Real World or
> simulation?" It is mentioned in detail in that 9-11 news that you
> never saw.
> A reasonable person cannot believe that the US President got the
> immediate news via the television news feed. Why do they have a
> military? And their security forces for? You can't say they don't
> have a fast and efficient communications system, that keeps track of
> everything.
Well when the first plane hit people tended to think it was simply an
accident, I mean terrorism was being mentioned but generally it was
uncertain, of course when the second plane hit, there could be no doubt it
was a terrorist attack. But I don't suppose it was deemed necessary to tell
the president right away although I dare say he would have been vaguely
aware that something had happened. Of course considering how long it took
the Bush administration to respond to Hurricane Katrina and the near total
destruction of New Orleans back last year the fact it took a few hours to
respond to 9/11 wasn't particularly unusual. Actually the World news media
has better resources and more personnel available on the ground than the
military, and to some extent is part of military intelligence.
>>> why didn't he excuse himself, to deal with this catastrophe of the
>>> highest order, but no, he continued on with reading from a
>>> children's book, as
>>> if nothing momentous had just happened.
>>
>> True, but shock is like that, I don't think anyone can take in and
>> assimilate shocking events like 9/11 in the first second of being
>> told or seeing it happen. I don't think George Bush's immediate
>> reaction was in the slightest bit unusual under the circumstances.
>> You can look at something like that and be so over awed by it you
>> think it's all fantasy and you might even laugh, but when the shock
>> actually hits it makes you cry.
>>
>
> What was going through President Bush's mind, as he was reading a
> children's story to children?
> Maybe he wasn't playing dumb, and he was really dumb or struck dumb?
> After his aide gave him some unexpected news?
> He appears to be more of a puppet, than a player in the events.
Well a President is a head of state, someone who signs bits of paper, and
makes the occassional speech in order to create the illussion that democracy
is a reality. It's the government itself that does all the work and of
course that never really changes.
>> I think most of the conspiracy theories are being spread by traitors
>> and Islamic-Fascist apologists, it's called revisionism and of
>> course people try to do it in regard to the Holocaust as well. Such
>> people are traitors. --
>> Amanda
>>
>
> Conspiracy theories will only take hold, if there is some substance
> and reason to them. If they add up to something sensible.
> If Kuwait had no oil - the first gulf war would not have happened...
> Iraq would not have been invaded, if they had no oil.
> Just look at Afghanistan - which has nothing for the US to profit
> from,
> and how long did it take before they came to the aid of that country.
> If there is no truth to the conspiracy theories, there would be no
> fuel
> for them to burn with.
Well but OTOH people really do strange things. I mean I was reading an
article the other day about the theory the Hitler was actually a British
agent set in place by the Illuminatie to destroy most of Europe and thin the
population down a bit. Of course if one looks at the events. Hitler did some
very strange things and of course it is mind blowing that the Nazis actually
thought they could win, when the whole thing was an absolute suicide
mission. But it's easy to reinterpret events with the advantage of
hindsight. Fanaticism does make people do crazy things almost as an act of
faith and I think the reality is he was just a fanatic.
--
Amanda
ufoeconomy
<ianpa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139763696.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Given the age of the universe and what is knows about planetary evolution,
how old can the oldest intelligent civilization in the universe be? There
could easily be one a million years more advanced than earth civilization.
What about a billion years more advanced? Given the rapid progress of earth
technology I don't think it is possible to make any assumptions about what
an alien civilization would be capable of.
http://peaceinspace.com
<sci...@zzz.com> wrote:
>Why UFO Cover-up/10 Major Reasons
10. money
9. greed
8. power
7. money
6. greed
5. power
4. money
3. greed
2. power
<and drum roll, while the NAZI flag flies over the NSA!>
1. Money!!!
Your Name Here=Harvey
manic...@hotmail.com says...
>
>In news:dso80f$5ih$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz,
>Your Name Here=Harvey <ki...@ing.notin.aus> typed:
>
>>
>> In that television program - it mentioned about the Odometer that the
>> Romans used to put milestones down on their roads - that this device
>> could not be reconstructed into a working model. da Vinci tried to
>> solve
>> how did it work? But couldn't. Someone who did solve the riddle found
>> out that the cogs used, had sharp points, instead of square teeth to
>> the gearing.
>
>Intersting, probably more accurate with sharp points.
I'm not an engineer or mechanically minded to know what is the
difference between square and sharp teeth? With cogs...
>
>> You can download any kind of television programme you like, via file
>> sharing programs such as eMule or Xolox, if you have a cheap
>> broadband connection, unlimited download option (I have one only at
>> 256K speed - it usually takes days of leaving your computer online,
>> to download the one programme, so it's best to download several
>> together. I have been downloading various UFO programmes and ones
>> about Free Energy are interesting too.) Having the fastest broadband
>> speed doesn't help because most downloads occur at very slow
>> broadband speeds.
>
>Yes I should probaly do that. I have 2 mbs unlimited cable broadband now. I
>used to download the occassional film when I had 600k I should download more
>stuff really make it worth the money I spend on it :)
>
With those filesharing programs, you're dependent on how fast is the
connection with the computer you're downloading from, and I would guess most
are from slow access points, so that's why it takes days to download the
one programme.
I've managed to locate 4 programs about Nikola Tesla - who is a very
interesting person to know more about. The unsung genius, more brilliant
than Einstein or Edison, etc. Whom we depend everyday of our lives on.
John Lear said on one of those Art Bell radio programs, that even he,
an experienced airline pilot couldn't have hit so precisely the twin
towers - and for someone to do it, who never had previous experience on
a jetliner, would be unheard of, unless they have clocked up enough hours
on one of the official training simulators for that particular jet.
And on hindsight, when you really look at it, the precision of both
planes is truly uncanny. You would have expected part of the plane
and debris to have split apart and fallen down the building, or some
such catastrophic crash effect.
And the Pentagon strike is even more harder to believe, and harder too
for the pilot to have scored a direct accurate strike, as it did.
For the 3 strikes to be so accurate, looks beyond the capabilities
and accuracy of Bin Laden's terrorists.
You may not place much creditability upon the source of the Plejarens,
the ETs who have contact with Billy Meier.
They said that Hitler was 'used' and his inner circle controlled, ie.
he was a puppet. There isn't any kind of evidence to back this up, unlike
the hoaxing of moon landings.
They also mention about the hoaxing of Apollo 11.
There is certainly a lot which weighs in favour of Nasa hoaxing Apollo 11.
I guess we'll have to wait until Man goes to the moon again?
We may be in for a very long wait on this one?
I guess no one thinks of sending a rover to the moon, to see if Nasa did
hoax the moon landings?
Harvey
>--
>Amanda
>
>
ianpa...@gmail.com
not exist. My argument is that UFO reports are very much geared to the
state of technological understyansing of the people who make them. The
aruments are these.
1) No one is going to attempt an interstellar journey without
Artificial Intelligence. The ability to repair a craft that is damaged
by dust/malfunction etc. will be vital. An unmanned expedition is
likely to proceed a manned one. This being the case exploration will be
by AI. Any humanoids getting out of a spacecraft MUST be wrong. Only
possibility - Androids going to a hacking convention.
2) Atmospheric craft will be extremely reliable. No crashes.
3) Best place the Web. President Houston as I said before will simply
let them in.
If FTL (Faster Than Light) is not possible, and I believe it isn't,
then we can make the assumption that even in a billion years no one
will do it. They could travel at 0.9c possibly even 0.99 if you really
stretch a point but no more. With FTL you do not absolutely need AI,
although you do with a vengeance for anything slower. On FTL
gives the basic arguments. A better theoretical physicist would
probably have presented them differently but the bare bones is there.
If their AI is beyond what we can imagine then this reinforces rather
than contradicts my arguments.
Earl Dombroski
> I think AI is somewhat akin to mental masturbation ...
Al Veolar, famous Spanish pop singer, did not ever - to the best of my
knowledge - ever do this.
Although I've heard of f*cking with someone's mind, I don't know why
someone would want to do it with their own - even Al knows better than
this.
> Pays to listen to your friends.
Also pays to advertise; that's why I've stopped wearing pants.
Pearl
"Breezy ... really breezy, since 1992."
Amanda Angelika
Your Name Here=Harvey <ki...@ing.notin.aus> typed:
> In article <nCPHf.40017$494....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>,
> manic...@hotmail.com says...
>>
>> In news:dso80f$5ih$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz,
>> Your Name Here=Harvey <ki...@ing.notin.aus> typed:
>>
>>>
>>> In that television program - it mentioned about the Odometer that
>>> the Romans used to put milestones down on their roads - that this
>>> device could not be reconstructed into a working model. da Vinci
>>> tried to solve
>>> how did it work? But couldn't. Someone who did solve the riddle
>>> found out that the cogs used, had sharp points, instead of square
>>> teeth to the gearing.
>>
>> Intersting, probably more accurate with sharp points.
>
> I'm not an engineer or mechanically minded to know what is the
> difference between square and sharp teeth? With cogs...
Well no neither am I, I was just thinking there might be less play, but I
doubt that would make a lot of difference, unless they wanted to measure to
the inch.
>>> You can download any kind of television programme you like, via file
>>> sharing programs such as eMule or Xolox, if you have a cheap
>>> broadband connection, unlimited download option (I have one only at
>>> 256K speed - it usually takes days of leaving your computer online,
>>> to download the one programme, so it's best to download several
>>> together. I have been downloading various UFO programmes and ones
>>> about Free Energy are interesting too.) Having the fastest broadband
>>> speed doesn't help because most downloads occur at very slow
>>> broadband speeds.
>>
>> Yes I should probaly do that. I have 2 mbs unlimited cable broadband
>> now. I used to download the occassional film when I had 600k I
>> should download more stuff really make it worth the money I spend on
>> it :)
>>
>
> With those filesharing programs, you're dependent on how fast is the
> connection with the computer you're downloading from, and I would
> guess most are from slow access points, so that's why it takes days
> to download the one programme.
It depends how popular something is, I have found with some files if a lot
of people have it it can come in at 2mb then it only takes a few seconds to
download the avearge mp3 or 15mins for a video. I find Sharaza to be about
the best file sharing program I've used it uses about 3 different networks,
and seems to be good at finding stuff and pulling in connections so you can
download bit of the file from about 50 different people at the same time. I
think I had to do some adjustments in the preferences to make it do that
though
> I've managed to locate 4 programs about Nikola Tesla - who is a very
> interesting person to know more about. The unsung genius, more
> brilliant than Einstein or Edison, etc. Whom we depend everyday of
> our lives on.
Yes I've read some stuff about Tesla
Well it is difficult to comment on that really I've never flown a real
aircraft. But there is the issue that all pilots learn how to land a plane
on a very small runway, but I dare say modern jets have aids which help
pilots do that. My only experience of piloting if one can call it that has
been on WarBirds III and obviously with that only being a computer game
flight sim it is difficult to know how accurately it simulates the real
thing. I must admit I'm not very good at landing the small fighter aircraft
Spitfires and such like that, but I don't have much problems landing the big
stuff B27s and such like, and if that's anything to go by I don't think a
novice pilot would have had any great difficulty crashing into the twin
towers. Of course one thing one doesn't have the advantage of in a computer
flight simulator is any real physical sense of inertia, gravity, g-forces
acting on the body itself, which if anything makes flying a Sim quite
difficult, of course it's easy in some ways because you can have spectacular
crashes and live to fly another day LOL Of course I suppose one could argue
flight simulators are actually better at teaching people how to crash than
they are at teaching people how to fly, so are perhaps the ideal terrorist
Kamikaze pilot training tool.
> And on hindsight, when you really look at it, the precision of both
> planes is truly uncanny. You would have expected part of the plane
> and debris to have split apart and fallen down the building, or some
> such catastrophic crash effect.
> And the Pentagon strike is even more harder to believe, and harder too
> for the pilot to have scored a direct accurate strike, as it did.
> For the 3 strikes to be so accurate, looks beyond the capabilities
> and accuracy of Bin Laden's terrorists.
Well planes may look solid but they are mainly constructed out of relatively
thin aluminium, they are also full of fuel, you hit a building at 300 to 400
mph or even at 100mph for that matter, the plane is going to explode in a
fireball and the wings are most likely going to completely disintegrate and
more or less vaporise because aluminium melts at a relatively low
temperature. Of course at the WTC there was a plane shaped hole almost like
something out of a cartoon, but then the WTC facade was built of glass and
concrete. OTOH in a building like the Pentagon which is built of stone and
concrete you wouldn't really expect the wings to make much of a dent before
they disintegrated and they would disintegrate and burn so quickly I would
doubt one would see much scorching on the grass either. Personally I think
the hole was totally consistent with what is supposed to have happened. The
missile theory is IMO nonsense. Missiles are generally made to pierce armour
and a missile would have created a very small entry hole but more
destruction inside. That said I don't have much direct experience of this
stuff, but then neither do most of these conspiracy theorists LOL
What I can't understand with space exploration is why does it need cost so
much these days. I mean my PDA mobile phone has more computing technology in
it than the entire Apollo 11 moon mission and yet will fit easily into a
pocket. It is feasible therefore that we could be sending robots to the moon
quite cheaply and with the miniaturisation of technology today one could do
quite a lot with a space ship little larger than a plastic 2lt Coke bottle.
In fact it is getting to the point where private companies are talking about
space tourism and yet NASA seems to go out of it's way to make it all sound
so incredibly difficult and hideously expensive, but it isn't hideously
expensive to send small payloads into space.
OK it is expensive to develop new cutting edge technology, but I don't think
we actually need new cutting edge technology. Why don't we have live Webcams
on the moon? I mean one can buy a Webcam for less than 20USD and you only
need a digital camera a satellite dish and some solar panels and one could
have a camera on the moon for like less than 1000USD at that price they
could afford to lose the occasional craft and we could literally be sending
hundreds of then up there. So why aren't they? If there is something in the
conspiracy theories this is the one that really does make me wonder, because
the arguments simply don't hold water.
--
Amanda
Your Name Here=Harvey
I like to see a major hollywood movie about Tesla - maybe
several movies, as I don't think we can ever see enough of Tesla's
inventions and visions.
It would spark childrens' imaginations more than the Harry Potter
books, perhaps raising some young Tesla enthusiasts for tomorrow...
The Pentagon strike would be much more difficult to achieve, being at
ground level.
Maybe a conspiracy game that recreates these incidents would illustrate
how difficult it would be? With forcefeedback to illustrate how much you
have to fight the controls. And giving you the options of several aircraft
to illustrate the effectiveness or noneffectiveness of a small to light
aircraft versus the passenger jetliners used. And testing the missile idea,
of how a missile would explode in the same circumstances.
No doubt the would be and wannabe terrorists would also purchase the game,
as a training device. The FBI could trace all purchasers of the game, so as to
build up a database of likely suspects in future?
Maybe someone can convince the European space agency to do something
interesting for once - or foot their bill for sending something to the
moon.. can they do it? I don't really know about their capabilities...
But the Russians will do anything for a price, no doubt they'll send something
to the moon for us, if we would foot the bill for it all.
>
>OK it is expensive to develop new cutting edge technology, but I don't think
>we actually need new cutting edge technology. Why don't we have live Webcams
>on the moon? I mean one can buy a Webcam for less than 20USD and you only
>need a digital camera a satellite dish and some solar panels and one could
>have a camera on the moon for like less than 1000USD at that price they
>could afford to lose the occasional craft and we could literally be sending
>hundreds of then up there. So why aren't they? If there is something in the
>conspiracy theories this is the one that really does make me wonder, because
>the arguments simply don't hold water.
>--
NASA of course, doesn't see the marketing opportunity to exploit, with
interest in the face on Mars, and martian cities waiting to be explored
(as detailed in www.enterprisemission.com) and likewise with the possibility
of alien moon bases on the far side of the moon - why not? let people
become explorers themselves as they search through the raw data feeds from
rovers which can deliver extremely high resolution pictures, which can
convince people of what they'll find there.
But we have only very limited censored photographic material with which to
work with, which serves only to illustrate that the moon and mars are off
limits to mankind because NASA doesn't encourage any kind of lateral thinking
of whatever experiments and missions designed by individuals here on earth.
The Russians should know if NASA is being honest with us or not?
Maybe it will be up to the Chinese to prove that NASA was right all along,
and the doubters wrong...
Harvey
>Amanda
>
>
Holly
Hehe....
Your Name Here=Harvey
ianpa...@gmail.com says...
>
>That is NOT my argument. I am NOT saying that alien life cannot or does
>not exist. My argument is that UFO reports are very much geared to the
>state of technological understyansing of the people who make them. The
>aruments are these.
>
>1) No one is going to attempt an interstellar journey without
>Artificial Intelligence. The ability to repair a craft that is damaged
>by dust/malfunction etc. will be vital. An unmanned expedition is
>likely to proceed a manned one. This being the case exploration will be
>by AI. Any humanoids getting out of a spacecraft MUST be wrong. Only
>possibility - Androids going to a hacking convention.
I don't think it is a given, that AI is necessary, unless you are
going to make other such statements too?
That computers are necessary - and any number of other projections,
other than the obvious - a craft capable of travelling great distances,
substainable with their own atmosphere and other requirements for the
occupants to live.
>
>2) Atmospheric craft will be extremely reliable. No crashes.
>
I don't think this is a given. ie. No crashes.
The more complicated a technology is, the more likely that it can
go wrong, unless you say that Murphy's Law only applies to earthmen and
women.
>3) Best place the Web. President Houston as I said before will simply
>let them in.
>
>If FTL (Faster Than Light) is not possible, and I believe it isn't,
>then we can make the assumption that even in a billion years no one
>will do it. They could travel at 0.9c possibly even 0.99 if you really
>stretch a point but no more. With FTL you do not absolutely need AI,
>although you do with a vengeance for anything slower. On FTL
>
>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/83c
b28043cc5b2e8/1caa29f1be4ba16c?lnk=st&q=group%3Asci.physics.rel
>
>gives the basic arguments. A better theoretical physicist would
>probably have presented them differently but the bare bones is there.
>
>If their AI is beyond what we can imagine then this reinforces rather
>than contradicts my arguments.
>
The common basic arguments for disbelief in UFOs, has generally been ---
1. Faster than light travel is impossible, therefore they don't exist.
Never mind the possibility of hyperspace and hyperjumping.
They don't say - Oh, because UFOs are here and observed, therefore
we are inadequate with our knowledge, therefore there is some way
to traverse the great distances with some method of travel.
2. UFOs don't exist - especially ETs, because if they were intelligent
enough they would have landed on the White House lawn by now.
Never mind that Washington was indeed buzzed by UFOs sometime in the
50s'. They probably didn't land because they saw no intelligence
in the White House. ie. the US Government is no world government,
nor is it peaceful and understanding with it's dealings with the
governments of the world.
3. If UFOs were real, then our scientists would have observed them by
now, especially our astronomers who keep regular watch on the night
sky. The same could be said for amateur astronomers, some who photograph
the night sky regularly.
The reason why, would be the same for pilots and other such people
(who observe the sky regularly) why they don't make UFO reportings?
The obvious answer would be - they'll hesitate making any public
announcements because they'll look foolish making such a statement,
especially because it could drastically harm their career and future
advancements.
I am only spectulating here, but I think it's valid.
(This is mirrored in the scientific archaeology community when someone
finds something that doesn't fit in with current dating and expectations
of dating that particular object. That loss of career can result, when
they find something of no precedent. See the video/program "Forbidden
Archaeology" - which is also a book?).
Everyone generally thinks, ie. reasons that - if UFOs were valid,
they would be a respectable field of research by now, instead of
remaining as Page 3 fodder for tabloid magazines and the like.
The subject of Hollywood movies but not that for serious scientific
research and study.
Of course we are dealing with a subject that has enormous implications
for mankind, that no doubt upsets a lot of religious views and beliefs.
That it is best for the public to not speculate upon this, because it is
too controversial to deal with.
But we must deal with this subject - because it is in our best interests
to do so, and all of it's implications and ramifications.
To grow up as a modern unified society, we must deal with it.
That no secrets about them (the UFOs) should be kept secret.
Harvey
ianpa...@gmail.com
>going to make other such statements too?
>That computers are necessary - and any number of other projections,
>other than the obvious - a craft capable of travelling great distances,
>substainable with their own atmosphere and other requirements for the
>occupants to live.
Who says the first expedition will be manned. In fact ET will be
unmanned relying on AI except when actual colonization is planned. This
has not hapenned yet. The path to interstellar travel (without FTL) has
been reasonably well researched.
Basically you have a Von Neumann machine. You then have a dielectric
sail and you propel the craft by means of an array of lasers. Stopping
is done either with the Forward proposal of a second sail, or by
antimatter.
As was shown in my discussion with George Dishman AI represents one of
the main barriers to interstellar flight. I had more or less pat
answers to everything except that. Now the path to VN too is starting
to become clearer. A VN machine would not in fact be a single machine
but a swarm. A robust swarm that can repair itself with any robot out
of action.
I myself believe that we should be actively researching in these
fields, the fact that we can see this now is a great cause for
disbelief. ET will of course have trodden this path lon, long long ago.
>I don't think this is a given. ie. No crashes.
>The more complicated a technology is, the more likely that it can
>go wrong, unless you say that Murphy's Law only applies to earthmen and
>women.
Murphys law does happen. However they will be using robust redundant
swarms. A strike of a piece of dust in interstellar space (nuclear
force if at relativistic speed) could be curtains. However wrekage will
be scattered over light years. UFOs will almost certainly be built in
the solar system using VN machines, they will NOT have traversed
interstellar space. They will be constructed according to established
(from their stand point) technology. Their control systems will be
fully redundant. Autopilots for modern aircraft are built in
triplicate. To land in fog (Cat 3 ILS) you are required to have a
triplex system. This has a voter. It is not hard to imagine a true Reed
Soloman type of computer system where there are no critical parts.
Anyway our civil aviastion has a good safety record.
>Everyone generally thinks, ie. reasons that - if UFOs were valid,
>they would be a respectable field of research by now, instead of
>remaining as Page 3 fodder for tabloid magazines and the like.
>The subject of Hollywood movies but not that for serious scientific
>research and study.
>Of course we are dealing with a subject that has enormous implications
>for mankind, that no doubt upsets a lot of religious views and beliefs.
>That it is best for the public to not speculate upon this, because it is
>too controversial to deal with.
I don't believe that at all. The arguments I have put forward are not
religious ones, they are primerally "gedanken engineering". SETI has
been seriusly discussed (see below)
>But we must deal with this subject - because it is in our best interests
>to do so, and all of it's implications and ramifications.
>To grow up as a modern unified society, we must deal with it.
>That no secrets about them (the UFOs) should be kept secret.
I absolutely agree. I think we should also recall that Woo Suk Huang
has recently falsified results on cloning. Science takes a very dim
view of this. If UFOs are military, and I feel that this is the only
possible explanation, then the military (and also NASA and SETI) are
guilty of falsifying their results. There is to me a question mark over
the integrity of the SETI team.
As I keep on saying the motivatrion for this falsification is the
preservation of a Cold War force structure. Aurora, a hypersonic
aircraft, is NOT going to help the effort in Iraq. Indeed it might even
get us into wars. The main Iraq lie is the lie that victory would be
easy.
Your Name Here=Harvey
ianpa...@gmail.com says...
>
>>I don't think it is a given, that AI is necessary, unless you are
>>going to make other such statements too?
>>That computers are necessary - and any number of other projections,
>>other than the obvious - a craft capable of travelling great distances,
>>substainable with their own atmosphere and other requirements for the
>>occupants to live.
>
>Who says the first expedition will be manned. In fact ET will be
>unmanned relying on AI except when actual colonization is planned. This
>has not hapenned yet. The path to interstellar travel (without FTL) has
>been reasonably well researched.
>
>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/1d7c010855caf1
dd/074a60610c4da1bb?lnk=st&q=group%3Asci.physics+insubject%3AVo
>
Anyone looking at the history of UFOs - knows point blank,
that secrets are being kept, especially the US Government are involved.
And if you look at the types of UFOs seen over the years, certain
designs fall into the terrestrial earth variety, others noted for
their Pleiadian/Plejaren origin, etc etc.
And at the beginning of a certain UFO lecture concerning Billy Meier,
a Mr Green showed what he believed may be used in the Wedding Cake UFO -
a simple magnetic device capable of producing free energy.
Whether this is in fact used in that design, is a matter of debate
however.
Mr Green zipped on and then off, as a bonus for the audience. I don't
think that much of his free book, however - as regards an alternative
view of the world.
Harvey
http://peaceinspace.com
ElRon XChile
"Earl Dombroski" <earl.do...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139752991....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Alien Al Fresco? (sliced fresh Galactic Federation Grey and tomatoes with
basil and the house vinaigrette)
- ya need alot of fresh Basil!
ElRon XChile
now, that seems like a mind phuck of immense proportions... Depends on what
part of town you go to party in and how big your ears are....
Void where inhibited by law, subject to change without focus, you fill in
the rest 'cause I'm holding a Surf Green Stratocaster and I need a refill
for my Margarita..
Earl Dombroski
I'm once again en route to Taiwan, but just had time to SMS Al Veolar -
and a good thing, too!
Turns out he's very chummy with Al Fresco. Al Fresco, as you may
already know, comes from a family known for its famous lineage of
fine-art painters. In fact, much of their work survives to this day in
the form of renaissance and medieval church paintings, Rafael Fresco
being better known from those days.
As it turns out, the Fresco family keeps an archive of copies of their
best work, and it's recently been cataloged and cross-referenced. Both
Als are planning to meet up with me this next week, carrying copies of
big ear works on their iPods - Al Fresco's will be visual, whereas Al
Veolar's will be audio.
We're planning to put the combination of BBQ, pantsless, big-eared,
big-eared phenomena together to see if we can't find some synchronic
exposure regarding all of this UFO coverup that everyone's on about.
Being naked from the waist down (at least) myself, I am uniquely
qualified to report on our findings as I'm a priori certified as not
being part of any coverup.
I think these other people talking about these other strange Als and
not stating who in particular they're referring to - as in constantly
giving one of these Al guys some spacecraft piloting jobs - must all be
part of some grandiose disinformation plot.
In fact, Madame Thelma has channelled for me that they may be part of
the government as they all seem to have some kind of number for their
society's security, and regularly donate money to these governments
directly from their paychecks. Plus, I don't think that they can get
dates with the really hot babes because they don't advertise.
I don't have to tell you that name-dropping (I still haven't heard Al
who), sexual repression, and dissembling about their true motives are
perfect ingredients for identifying candidates as to who may be
propagating this so-called UFO coverup.
In any case, Holly and I are having avocados upon my return - you
should call Mark and Jesus and join us. We'll be easy to find - we're
always on the wrong side of town. We *are* the wrong crowd your mother
warned you about.
Best regards,
The Pearl
"The wrong attitude completely since 1992."
Holly
Earl Dombroski wrote:
> Ser XChile,
>
> I'm once again en route to Taiwan, but just had time to SMS Al Veolar -
> and a good thing, too!
>
> Turns out he's very chummy with Al Fresco. Al Fresco, as you may
> already know, comes from a family known for its famous lineage of
> fine-art painters. In fact, much of their work survives to this day in
> the form of renaissance and medieval church paintings, Rafael Fresco
> being better known from those days.
A very famous finger painter ... I'm told.
>
> As it turns out, the Fresco family keeps an archive of copies of their
> best work, and it's recently been cataloged and cross-referenced. Both
> Als are planning to meet up with me this next week, carrying copies of
> big ear works on their iPods - Al Fresco's will be visual, whereas Al
> Veolar's will be audio.
>
> We're planning to put the combination of BBQ, pantsless, big-eared,
> big-eared phenomena together to see if we can't find some synchronic
> exposure regarding all of this UFO coverup that everyone's on about.
> Being naked from the waist down (at least) myself, I am uniquely
> qualified to report on our findings as I'm a priori certified as not
> being part of any coverup.
Indeed!!
>
> I think these other people talking about these other strange Als and
> not stating who in particular they're referring to - as in constantly
> giving one of these Al guys some spacecraft piloting jobs - must all be
> part of some grandiose disinformation plot.
>
> In fact, Madame Thelma has channelled for me that they may be part of
> the government as they all seem to have some kind of number for their
> society's security, and regularly donate money to these governments
> directly from their paychecks. Plus, I don't think that they can get
> dates with the really hot babes because they don't advertise.
Not so much the lack of advertising as the suits.
>
> I don't have to tell you that name-dropping (I still haven't heard Al
> who), sexual repression, and dissembling about their true motives are
> perfect ingredients for identifying candidates as to who may be
> propagating this so-called UFO coverup.
They say it's Hoover. But I think that's a stretch.
>
> In any case, Holly and I are having avocados upon my return - you
> should call Mark and Jesus and join us. We'll be easy to find - we're
> always on the wrong side of town. We *are* the wrong crowd your mother
> warned you about.
So true ... ah ... the pleasure.
Amanda Angelika
ianpa...@gmail.com <ianpa...@gmail.com> typed:
> The idea of UFOs being alien spececraft does not stand up to any kind
> of logical scrutiny.
What logical scrutiny? It's only logical in the context of the absence of
evidence to call such scrutiny "logical". e.g. believing in Santa Clause can
be quite logical for a child until he/she realises that a big fat old man
would have some physical difficulty coming down the average chimney and many
modern homes no longer have chimneys. So the factual evidence then dispels
the myth. It's never logical to come to a conclusion based on limited
evidence. It is more logical to keep an open mind in regard to the
possibility that some UFOs are of ET origin, particularly since what we
actually know about the universe we live in is infinitesimal and a Trillion
stars bear witness to that fact, we don't even know about all the bodies in
our own Solar system.
--
Amanda
Sir Gilligan Horry
Thanks, Amanda.
Earth and Sky ...
I just got back from a holiday there.
When I look up and realize that those millions of stars are actually
suns.... I come to the conclusion that some person/s (creator/s)
like/s a huge Disney Land.
Trillions X massive Disney Land.
"Like most of you, we are in the quest of the Supreme Being."
ianpa...@gmail.com
>that secrets are being kept, especially the US Government are involved.
Then it is certainly Black Flight. No other explanation would demand
secrecy. It CANNOT be aliens as their modus operandi would be totaaly
different. I base this on studies of AI.
Black flight is about super/hypersonic weapons such as Aurora. Aurora
is there to persuade us to back an invasion of Iran because "we would
win easily". WE WILL NOT.
Earl Dombroski
the corner. Nice folks, no trouble, remember everyone for the summer
barbeques.
I'll give them your greetings and felicitations - although I don't
think they've personally had anything to do with Black Power, much less
Black Flight.
Others had thought that Aurora was still there because Al failed
miserably with Readonda, the black bird, but evidently, those others
haven't had enough doughnuts to say six from green what they're talking
about.
Glad you cleared that up.
Pearl
"X'ing, Only mach 3, with a mean snicker since 1992."
ElRon XChile
Senor Dombroski,
Funny thing about my Mother, she always taught me to be kind to all people
(as did my father Louis) and question authority and the reality handed to us
all on a silver platter. Marion Baldwin Stokes. Part English, part Scot,
part Northwest native American. She was the person who brought my attention
to the UFO cults that sprang up in the 50s, cults of Satan, witchcraft and
bigfoot. She was the one who would look me in the eye and tell me about
Jesus and The Way and how the churches of the world were going in the
opposite direction. She never warned me about joining the wrong crowd, but
would sometimes discuss with me about how it is not best to be part of any
crowd. I grew up in El Paso, Texas and spent a lot of my youth in either the
adjacent desert or drinking across the border in Juarez. No wonder I like
you and your gang so much....
You should call me sometime. I promise not to get you in too much trouble...
We'll cruise on the backroads and keep out of sight. Drinks are on me!
One more thing, I would never propagate a UFO cover-up on this planet or any
other... I have no choice in the matter.
ElRon XChile
"Holly" <noon_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140820324.9...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
"I just want to get my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames",
Jim Morrison.
ElRon XChile
...Carne Asada Al Chipotle. My favorite fajita... Wait a minute!
ianpa...@gmail.com
to reduce drag the fusilage is merged into the wing. Like the B2.
Because of the high kinetic energy it can deliver bombs a long distance
away from the target. You can drop bombs on Iran without entering
Iranian airspace. mind the boms are as expensive as normal cruise
missiles so what is the point?
Earl Dombroski
Haven't followed it in a while, but IIRC, Aurora was not confirmed
(other than doughnuts on rope sightings verifyig engine design), but my
expectation was that it was a lift body design, not a flying wing and
that it was expected to be used for surveillance. Aurora's inception
coincides with the withdrawal of the SR-71.
There are also, IIRC again, some treaties in place that are in our
interest to not break regarding deployment of space-based weapons, and
one might question the envelope of Aurora to see if it might not meet
that criteria.
Further, President Clinton delivered quite a few cruise missiles to
Irag after the attempt on George Sr, so that pretty much sums up the
reluctance of the US to paste someone without entering airspace.
I don't even want to go into the engineering difficulties of delivering
a package from an extremely high orbit and what aeroheating would do it
and what measures would be required to make it an effective delivery
method.
Basically, Ian, my friendly advice is to stick with theory and not
weapons ideas, as you've not worked in the field before, and you seem
to be somewhat misinformed about the whole subject. (Not a flame at
all, just a straightforward observation from my POV.) I think your
other ideas about deep space flight are a good read, but I'd suggest
you relax about weapons rumors. Just my 2 cents.
Watch the Science or Discovery channel sometime - all you have to do
from space is drop a big rock on someone and it could be game over. On
that account, you're right - we already have sufficient technology to
attack anywhere, anytime from above already, so what would the point
be?
As far as Aurora going Mach 15, the number I recall was 5 and the
target range was 4 to 8. If there's some new project following Aurora,
please cite references for your info. You can google up plenty with
"aurora aircraft" to prolly see some correct references.
I still think artificial telepathy and telekenesis (AT&T) and
intelligent telepathy and telekinesis (IT&T) are more interesting that
artificial intelligence and so do Al Veolar and Al Fresco - but that's
just us.
The Pearl
"Going so fast my hair's on fire since 1992."
ianpa...@gmail.com
>weapons ideas, as you've not worked in the field before, and you seem
>to be somewhat misinformed about the whole subject. (Not a flame at
>all, just a straightforward observation from my POV.) I think your
>other ideas about deep space flight are a good read, but I'd suggest
>you relax about weapons rumors. Just my 2 cents.
Please don't blame me. I am as skeptical as you are. I DID say that a
bomb was likely to be as expensive as a normal cruise missile. There is
however an underlying serious strategic point. We won easily in Iraq -
against Sadaam Hussein, but we are facing an insurgency which we don't
quite know how to deal with. AURORA EVEN IF IT WORKED WOULD NOT HELP
US. We need to develop new weapons, that is true but they should be
associated with intelligence, Psi ops and surveillance not hypersonic
delivery.
The SR71 was retired because it cost too much, the fuel tanks leaked
during fill up, it could ONLY fly at Mach 3 when kinetic heating would
seal its tanks. At subsonic speeds there was a real danger of it
catching fire. The rationale was that satellite surveilance would
replace the need for Blackbird. Aurora you claim was conceived as a
replacement for Blackbird. That is news to me. It "did not exist" till
recently. This serrvs to confirm everything I ever wrote about UFOs.
The pity of it is that Aurora is a complete waste of resources.
Hypersonic survellance is not in fact as good as that provided by
satellites. Better survellance/strike is provided by Predators. A
10-20Kg cheap aircraft would be the order of the day for insurgency.
Could Aurora replace the Shuttle and provide an SSTO? When I first
heard about it I thought it might but the characteristics are all
wrong. At hypersonic speed the airframe and engines are a single
entity. All engines from your automobile spark ignition engine to a
hypersonic scramjet work by compressing air, burning fuel and then
extracting energy as the compressed gas rarifies. Aurora has a
lift/frag of 5:1, this means, in effect, that its scramjets are sub
optimal for LEO inertion. For LEO insertion you want ACCELERATION/DRAG
not LIFT/DRAG.
Your Name Here=Harvey
manic...@hotmail.com says...
You can't say that UFOs come from one source.
Because the evidence/information says otherwise.
ie.
UFOs can be divided into 3 main sources ...
1. Extraterrestrial - ie. visitors from outer space or other
dimensions.
ie. Physical and non-physical dimensions
2. Terrestrial
eg. from US Government secret projects or 'black budget'
sources.
from Nazi Flying Saucer technology (Note: this is of
a specific UFO type).
Any other possible earth built origin?
3. Other - This would be the category of mistaken identity
of normal aircraft seen at unusual angles to be mistaken
for a 'UFO' or that of astronomical sightings mistaken
for a UFO, however if the object shows the abnormal
characteristics of a UFO (very high speed and erratic
maneuvers) then it would be of 1. or 2. above.
Exterrrestrial UFOs tend to fall into specific UFO types,
such as the beamship and wedding cake designs photographed by
Billy Meier - and others...
The truth is where the evidence is...
and not trying to explain it away after the fact.
Harvey
ianpa...@gmail.com
1 can't. The fundamental reason is that an advanced civilzation would
go about observing us in a very different way.
Your Name Here=Harvey
ianpa...@gmail.com says...
>
>2 and 3 certainly exist.
>
>1 can't. The fundamental reason is that an advanced civilzation would
>go about observing us in a very different way.
>
Oh sure, you can predict exactly how an advanced civilization would
behave, as to their edicts and rules they live by....
Only that we are not talking about one ET species/race.
It is arguable what those edicts and rules may be.
For instance it is reasonable to assume that most advanced civilisations
would behave in a certain way, generally, then again there can be other
advanced civilisations that would act differently, with less moral
motives in mind, or with none. Who are less advanced, but may have
superior technology to ours.
Do not let your own mind (being your current values and reasoning only
at this time in your life) stop you from seeing the truth.
The truth contains the information that is out there - but we see our
own truth (understanding) in all of that.
And in trying to get to the truth, you have to realise what is exactly
truthful? And what isn't...
In that governments (particularly the US) have been lying to us, about
UFOs. There must be a body of information gathered about UFOs by now,
if you go by the number of indisputable sightings and crashes.
Someone has been gathering up all this intelligence and data.
You can work out who has been lying - by the body of evidence, and
what the official story/response has been.
You use the same method to determine what other big story (stories)
that have been withheld from the public, when the evidence points
to a different story from the official version -
ie. JFK assassination, NASA moonlandings a hoax?, TWA800 brought
down by a missile, 9-11 perpertrated not by Bin Laden, etc etc.
The evidence/information remains the same, eyewitness testimonies
remain the same. The official story gets to be repeated time and time
again, in trying to persuade the public to accept this official story,
attempting to rewrite history.
Religion has used this method, to force the public to accept it's
official version of events of that religion - whether it be Jewish,
Christian or Muslim. Repeat it often enough and long enough, and the
public has no choice but to believe the official version - even though
it remains nonsense and unbelievable.
You have to use reason and logic to sort out which is more likely to
be the truth, and go with the information/evidence - and the most likely
story to colloborate that evidence. In other words, to use very
basic detective work, to work out who is killing the truth, and who gets
the benefit from that acceptance, explaining the motive.
Terrestrial UFOs do exist. You need to look at secret Nazi projects
during WWII.
One type is already recognised, no doubt others
do fall into this category too.
Harvey
Amanda Angelika
Your Name Here=Harvey <y...@somehost.somedomain.aus> typed:
I agree but there is also
4. Fake UFOs. People do fake up UFO images and claim to be in contact with
Aliens, there are charlatans about. Persoanally I would place Billy Meier in
that catogory.
--
Amanda
Your Name Here=Harvey
If you read only the negative press/media about Meier, then you will
easily get the impression that he is some kind of nut contactee, alongside
the others, that have appeared over the years.
But however, if you read through the serious investigations into him,
I think you'll find he is somewhat valid.
Take for instance the video lecture by Wendelle Stevens, who was one of
the earliest investigators into Billy Meier. He gives a thorough recount
of his investigation at that time - and he is a credible investigator,
unlike others who have never met Billy Meier, nor been to the sites where
the original photographs were taken.
If you want the truth, you have to be able to take on board, what that
implies. Sadly - normal people have no idea what the truth is, and cannot
easily grasp it - because we are so far from it, in popular ideas and
acceptance. Our religions certainly don't tell us the truth - because
they disagree with each other, and with our sciences.
Fake UFO reports and such like do not stand up to intense scrutiny,
and likewise such photographs.
Kinda like original and faked crop circles.
Detailed investigation reveals which is which...
Harvey
ianpa...@gmail.com
>UFOs. There must be a body of information gathered about UFOs by now,
>if you go by the number of indisputable sightings and crashes.
>Someone has been gathering up all this intelligence and data.
Yes of couse. UFOs are ours, but we are not telling you! On the
question of ET I do indeed try to keep an open mind, although an open
mind is not an uncritical one.
I think we should take the issue of crashes first of all. If UFOs are
black they will crash from time to time. They will in fact crash quite
frequently because:-
1) They are trying to do something difficult eg. Blackstar was trying
to get into orbit.
2) Being secret they lack the vital safety valve of peer group review.
ET spacecraft if they are so technologically advanced will be safer
than our current generation of civil airliners and will not crash. Any
crash will therefore make hypothesis "1" untenable.
I am not really talking about morality when I refer to AI. If you have
AI the way to take over the world is simple. You simply download onto
the Web and you get your candidate elected. In presidential elections
the candidate who spends the most on TV advertising ususally wins. You
need money to becaome President of the United States.
Now the President is going to add a new star to the flag, Venus. The
Web will produce a design of Von Neumann machine which will be used to
terraform. When the terraforming is complete and a sunshield built
(together with lasers for interstellar sail probes) ET is simply going
to come and brake with what has been built. No need for Forward's twin
sails if you have a laser system built for you. You can take over the
world from that point. I stated that the mechanisms for interstellar
travel were already quite well known. That would bean immoral
civilization. It is what I might do myself. I don't think I would
actually want to conquer, but that would be the quickest way to bet the
Von Neumann probe working.
A more moral civilization might be content to observe. There again the
prime target would be the Web. Flying around in the atmosphere is
unnecessary anyway.
Amanda Angelika
I think that's one of the biggest myths in the UFO and paranormal community,
i.e the assumption that "image experts" can't be fooled. The problem is an
expert can only go on the information an image presents and although with
pretty much all of Billy Meier's images there are some indications of fakery
and known methods of creating fake UFO images that are particularly
effective on fairly simple film cameras of the 1960s and 70s. Those kind of
fixed focus cameras, or 35mm cameras that rely on preset focus settings such
as the old Olympus compact camera of that era e.g the "Olympus Trip" rely on
"Depth of field" to achieve depth of focus.
Of course "depth of fields" is a kind of virtual focus and is by it's very
nature very good for loosing certain details such as pieces of fine nylon
fishing twine possibly used to suspend models. That said it isn't even
necessary to use fishing twine, another method of suspending models in front
of a camera is to use clear flexi-glass which was quite popular with DIY
enthusiasts when it first came out in the late 1960s/early 1970s. Being made
of clear plastic It is easy to cut and can even be drilled and cut with a
fret-saw so it would be for example feasible to embed a model into a sheet
of flexi-glass and eradicate any possibility that cords could show up in an
image. With that method one could fake practically anything in fact using
glass in front of the lens was used to produce those famous Victorian Fairy
pictures using the most primative photographic equipment see
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/doyle.htm
Using methods of that kind it would be fairly easy to fool even "image
experts" because it is possible to fake up UFO images with quite basic 35mm
cameras even fixed focus snap shot cameras, and most of the time any
evidence of fakery is going to be inconclusive, even Victorian children
could do it and the fairy images even fooled so called image experts.
That said anyone who sets out to do trick photography is going to produce
the occasional image where the trickery fails and in this Billy Meier is IMO
no exception. For example...
http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/ufo/weddingcake+camper_highrL.jpg
The biggest problem for me and the biggest give away with this image is the
"UFO" is "out of focus" when compared to other objects supposedly at the
same distance from the camera e.g. the VW Camper van which reveals the fact
that it is an obvious model no larger than a car hub cap, around 13ins in
diameter held or suspended on a string in front of the camera. Of course if
the focus issue were not in itself sufficient to prove fakery you also have
the fact that the Camper Van is throwing a shadow, whereas the "UFO" does
not, also given the VW van is parked next to a tree and quite close to it.
How is it possible that the "UFO" is not physically embedded in and
interfering with the tree. I mean this should be an example of really bad ET
parking LOL but given the position the craft is supposed to be and the fact
that no part of it is touching the trees makes it very clear this is a model
and nowhere near the trees.
The above image is perhaps the most obvious fake but there are other Images
by Billy Meier that have been shown to be fake. There is a section including
an examination of the images on this page
http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/ufo_et.htm
Actually I would tend to go a long with the owner of that Webpage many UFO
images are 100% authentic and are either terrestrial craft of possibly of ET
origin and there is in some instances fairly conclusive evidence. But
although the Billy Meier case is intriguing the fact that some of his images
have been revealed to be fake and indeed obviously and inequitably so, does
cast doubt on the whole story and people like Billy Meier probably do more
harm than good in terms of getting to the bottom of all this. And one could
argue that such charlatanism displays a level of psychopathic evil, where a
person uses their above average intelligence and talents as a means to
pervert the truth inorder to deceive others for their own personal gain, to
gain notariaty, power over others and or wealth is IMO evil and is exactly
the sort of thing one would expect of a Nazi IMO it is evil and disgusting
because it is a misuse of talent and if their is such a thing as Karma we
can rest assured Billy Meier will be punished for his evil doing.
--
Amanda
http://peaceinspace.com
<manic...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
Let's make this REAL simple so even the mon(k)eys can understand:
THE TOP 10 SUPER DUPER COSMIC TOP SECRET REASON WHY THERE'S A UFO COVER UP
10. GREED
9. MONEY
8. GREEN
7. MONEY
6. GREED
5. MONEY
4. GREED
3. MONEY
2. GREED
<DRUM ROLL .....>
The Numero Uno, Numbah One Reason...
1. ^M^O^N^E^Y^
Earl Dombroski
there are no UFOs, therefore, no coverups, yet still, you get it wrong.
You give me an Aleve headache.
Pearl
"The blues since 1992."
http://peaceinspace.com
wrote:
>Jeez Larry, if there were UFOs and coverups you'd still be wrong. But
>there are no UFOs, therefore, no coverups, yet still, you get it wrong.
>
>You give me an Aleve headache.
Try not squinting while posting to alt.aliens.visitors.
Here's have a cookie:
Message-ID: <02t61219u1rv8ieuu...@4ax.com>
ROFLMAO
Dumbasses!
<snip>
http://peaceinspace.com
wrote:
>You give me an Aleve headache.
Stop whining. It's tiresome!
It's sing-a-long time, pearly!
Brickyard Blues
Well, I tried to run my game
She said "Man, that's the same old thing I've heard before"
And I'm too tired to go for your show (again and again)
And she started to explain
She said "Man, I ain't sayin' what you're playin' just can't make it
But I just can't take it anymore"
Play somethin' sweet, play somethin' mellow
Play somethin' I can sink my teeth in like Jello
Play something I can understand
Play me some Brickyard Blues
Play somethin' sweet and make it funky
Just let me lay back and grin like a monkey
Play something I can understand
Play me some Brickyard Blues
Well, I started to sweat
She said "Don't get upset 'cause you just might break a string
And that won't do a thing for your show
So I said to myself
I said "Self, do you see what is sailin' through my soul?"
And I gotta have some more, don't ya know
Play somethin' sweet, play somethin' mellow
Play somethin' I can sink my teeth in like Jello
Play something I can understand
Play me some Brickyard Blues
Play somethin' sweet and make it funky
Just let me lay back and grin like a monkey
Play something I can understand
Play me some Brickyard Blues
It's enough to make it light in the dark
It's enough to make a bite just a bark
It's enough to make a body move around
It's enough to make a rabbit hug a dog
Play somethin' sweet
------ instrumental break ------
Well, I tried to run my game
She said "Man, that's the same old thing I've heard before"
And I'm too tired to go for your show (again and again)
And she started to explain
She said "Man, I ain't sayin' what you're playin' just can't make it
But I just can't take it anymore"
Play somethin' sweet, play somethin' mellow
Play somethin' I can sink my teeth in like Jello
Play something I can understand
Play me some Brickyard Blues
Play somethin' sweet and make it funky
Just let me lay back and grin like a monkey
Play something I can understand
Play me some Brickyard Blues
Play somethin' sweet, play somethin' mellow
Play somethin' I can sink my teeth in like Jello
Play something I can understand
Play me some Brickyard Blues
Play somethin' sweet and make it funky
Just let me lay back and grin like a monkey
Play something I can understand
Play me some Brickyard Blues
- written by Allen Toussaint
- as recorded by Three Dog Night (released September 28, 1974)
- entered the Billboard Top 40 the week of November 2, 1974 and
stayed for 3 weeks, peaking at #33 the week of November 16, 1974.
- also recorded by Maria Muldaur in 1974 on her album "Waitress in a Donut
Shop"
**********************************
"How fortunate for governments
that the people they administer
don't think" (Adolf Hitler)
Addendum:
And the people who don't think are now
running goverments.
***********************************
Message-ID: <02t61219u1rv8ieuu...@4ax.com>
Earl Dombroski
http://peaceinspace.com wrote:
> On 11 Mar 2006 17:12:31 -0800, "Earl Dombroski" <earl.do...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >You give me an Aleve headache.
>
> Stop whining. It's tiresome!
OK, but only if you stop posting, it's boring. Deal?
> It's sing-a-long time, pearly!
What do you do with a drunken sailor,
what do you do with a drunken sailor,
what do you do with a drunken sailor ....
Earl eye in the morning?
Put 'im in a box and nail it shut now,
put 'im in a box and nail it shut now,
put 'im in a box and nail it shut now,
Earl eye in the morning.
Pearl
"Bringing you another episode of Sing Along with Mitch since 1992."
http://peaceinspace.com
wrote:
>
>http://peaceinspace.com wrote:
>> On 11 Mar 2006 17:12:31 -0800, "Earl Dombroski" <earl.do...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >You give me an Aleve headache.
>>
>> Stop whining. It's tiresome!
>
>OK, but only if you stop posting, it's boring. Deal?
WHINER!
Use your kill file, dumbass.
It's my party and I'm having a good time.
<snip>
Earl Dombroski
http://peaceinspace.com wrote:
> WHINER!
Misspelled winner.
> Use your kill file, dumbass.
You seem content to have one that works for all of reality - impressive
technology, Larry. Useless, dangerous, and counter-productive to
having a full life, but impressive technology nonetheless.
> It's my party and I'm having a good time.
Translation, gang - Larry is really singing:
It's my my party and I'll cry if want to, cry if I want to,
cry if I want to,
You would cry too, if it happened to you.
> <snip>
Yes, do snip everything that gets the better of you.
Hey Larry, when you're told that you're a stupid cow or a boy in a
man's body, you need to understand - no one is calling you cowboy.
Pearl
"Ride 'em in, move 'em out since 1992."
http://peaceinspace.com
wrote:
>Misspelled winner.
lamer
Your Name Here=Harvey
Please note: That it was a 35ECR camera and not the trip 35 model.
That it was damaged so that it could not focus on close up objects (not
that it could anyway - ie. small objects, typically you would use a
close up lens to enable closer photographs to be taken.)
>Of course "depth of fields" is a kind of virtual focus and is by it's very
>nature very good for loosing certain details such as pieces of fine nylon
>fishing twine possibly used to suspend models. That said it isn't even
>necessary to use fishing twine, another method of suspending models in front
>of a camera is to use clear flexi-glass which was quite popular with DIY
>enthusiasts when it first came out in the late 1960s/early 1970s. Being made
>of clear plastic It is easy to cut and can even be drilled and cut with a
>fret-saw so it would be for example feasible to embed a model into a sheet
>of flexi-glass and eradicate any possibility that cords could show up in an
>image. With that method one could fake practically anything in fact using
>glass in front of the lens was used to produce those famous Victorian Fairy
>pictures using the most primative photographic equipment see
>http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/doyle.htm
>
Just go ahead and reproduce your experiment, as you say - and I
very much doubt you would produce anything that comes remotely close
to the quality of the Billy Meier photographs. Seriously I doubt you
can.
ie. The fishing line would be seen, and the models would look like
models, and you simmply can't have a model on a fishing line to get it
looking like it is up in the sky - far away.
With the Cottingley photographs - I read some years ago, that the
original negatives being examined, revealed that they were retouched.
ie. not by the girls as such, because they did not have the skill to,
but that the photographs would have to be retouched via airbrush,
producing those prints we
are familiar with. That the original photographs unretouched, would be
of paper figures supported by hatpins, and would not have been suitable
for reproduction. Hence those in the industry at that time, had the
photographs retouched.
Thinking about it now, it would mean that the first prints were
retouched, as retouching negatives would not have been possible.
And the girls still claimed that they did see fairies - and wanted
to photograph them, but could not.
>Using methods of that kind it would be fairly easy to fool even "image
>experts" because it is possible to fake up UFO images with quite basic 35mm
>cameras even fixed focus snap shot cameras, and most of the time any
>evidence of fakery is going to be inconclusive, even Victorian children
>could do it and the fairy images even fooled so called image experts.
>
>That said anyone who sets out to do trick photography is going to produce
>the occasional image where the trickery fails and in this Billy Meier is IMO
>no exception. For example...
>
>http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/ufo/weddingcake+camper_highrL.jpg
>The biggest problem for me and the biggest give away with this image is the
>"UFO" is "out of focus" when compared to other objects supposedly at the
>same distance from the camera e.g. the VW Camper van which reveals the fact
>that it is an obvious model no larger than a car hub cap, around 13ins in
>diameter held or suspended on a string in front of the camera. Of course if
>the focus issue were not in itself sufficient to prove fakery you also have
>the fact that the Camper Van is throwing a shadow, whereas the "UFO" does
>not, also given the VW van is parked next to a tree and quite close to it.
>How is it possible that the "UFO" is not physically embedded in and
>interfering with the tree. I mean this should be an example of really bad ET
>parking LOL but given the position the craft is supposed to be and the fact
>that no part of it is touching the trees makes it very clear this is a model
>and nowhere near the trees.
>
I really can't see the Meier photographs being faked as such.
If it was that easy to fake them, then someone ought to do their
version - and then say "Ha, Ha - I've done it, and it was that easy too...."
Also note, that Wendelle Stevens would have to be in on it too ---
and I don't see that being possible, when he says clearly that Billy
always took a series of photographs in sequence. He had the rolls of
films to prove that.
Also note - that the famous beamship photographs were taken at
remote locations - and if he took along with him, the stuff to enable
him to fake the photographs with, he would be seen with that apparatus,
as well as a tripod - and he was not.
Please explain how a one-armed man could have faked the photographs
without the necessary equipment.
And I seriously doubt if anyone could have faked the photographs,
and ended up with photographs of that quality, he took.
No one has come forward with 'their' photographs, and claimed - here you
are - I faked these, and look at this amazing quality!
Being somewhat knowledgeable about still photography (and being an
enthusiast in that time frame, in which the photographs were taken) -
I can say plainly, you can't fake those photographs using the method(s)
you describe. Please note - Billy Meier was seen going to and from the
location in which he took the photographs by the owner of the land. And
he did not have any extra equipment with him.
>
>The above image is perhaps the most obvious fake but there are other Images
>by Billy Meier that have been shown to be fake. There is a section including
>an examination of the images on this page
>http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/ufo_et.htm
>
>
>Actually I would tend to go a long with the owner of that Webpage many UFO
>images are 100% authentic and are either terrestrial craft of possibly of ET
>origin and there is in some instances fairly conclusive evidence. But
>although the Billy Meier case is intriguing the fact that some of his images
>have been revealed to be fake and indeed obviously and inequitably so, does
>cast doubt on the whole story and people like Billy Meier probably do more
>harm than good in terms of getting to the bottom of all this. And one could
>argue that such charlatanism displays a level of psychopathic evil, where a
>person uses their above average intelligence and talents as a means to
>pervert the truth inorder to deceive others for their own personal gain, to
>gain notariaty, power over others and or wealth is IMO evil and is exactly
>the sort of thing one would expect of a Nazi IMO it is evil and disgusting
>because it is a misuse of talent and if their is such a thing as Karma we
>can rest assured Billy Meier will be punished for his evil doing.
>--
>Amanda
Billy Meier doesn't have the kind of personality that seeks fame or
fortune from this publicity/etc stuff. He hasn't shown an interest
in money or materialism, nor for power and control over people/followers,
etc.
You should check out the video JFK2 by Alex Jones, which presents
plainly the story about the assassination of JFK.
He presents the information plainly, which shows that the official story
does not line up with the information about the case.
This is also the case with UFOs and the official government story.
Also note - that 9-11 does not conform to the official story.
The information (ie. the details) about 9-11 show that the official story
we are told, is not true.
What this means is that the government is corrupt - and evil.
Now know the reason why there will be no official contact with UFOs/ETs
with a government so corrupt that would lie to it's people.
Harvey
Amanda Angelika
It wouldn't matter. Because even if the focusing was stuck on the infinity
setting depth of field would allow objects from around 4ft to infinity to
appear in focus. In fact that fault would make it easier to hid cords
because depth of field is a kind of virtual focus.
>> Of course "depth of fields" is a kind of virtual focus and is by
>> it's very nature very good for loosing certain details such as
>> pieces of fine nylon fishing twine possibly used to suspend models.
>> That said it isn't even necessary to use fishing twine, another
>> method of suspending models in front of a camera is to use clear
>> flexi-glass which was quite popular with DIY enthusiasts when it
>> first came out in the late 1960s/early 1970s. Being made of clear
>> plastic It is easy to cut and can even be drilled and cut with a
>> fret-saw so it would be for example feasible to embed a model into a
>> sheet of flexi-glass and eradicate any possibility that cords could
>> show up in an image. With that method one could fake practically
>> anything in fact using glass in front of the lens was used to
>> produce those famous Victorian Fairy pictures using the most
>> primative photographic equipment see
>> http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/doyle.htm
>>
>
> Just go ahead and reproduce your experiment, as you say - and I
> very much doubt you would produce anything that comes remotely close
> to the quality of the Billy Meier photographs. Seriously I doubt you
> can.
I don't need to prove it to myself I know I could do it. Some of Billy
Meiers images are quite believable but some are so obviously faked it is
clear they are all fake.
> ie. The fishing line would be seen, and the models would look like
> models, and you simmply can't have a model on a fishing line to get it
> looking like it is up in the sky - far away.
They do look like models and people have found the strings
> With the Cottingley photographs - I read some years ago, that the
> original negatives being examined, revealed that they were retouched.
> ie. not by the girls as such, because they did not have the skill to,
> but that the photographs would have to be retouched via airbrush,
> producing those prints we
> are familiar with. That the original photographs unretouched, would be
> of paper figures supported by hatpins, and would not have been
> suitable
> for reproduction. Hence those in the industry at that time, had the
> photographs retouched.
> Thinking about it now, it would mean that the first prints were
> retouched, as retouching negatives would not have been possible.
> And the girls still claimed that they did see fairies - and wanted
> to photograph them, but could not.
Well actually they were taken in 1917. Actually from what I have read
previously the figures were painted onto glass
Well apparantly this is one of Meiers pictures of an alien ray gun
http://mudskipper.supereva.it/lsrgn.jpg
Here's one which clearly demostrates Meirers camera could focus real close,
either that or that's giant grass
http://www.tjresearch.info/no_843.jpg
Note in this shot of the Wedding Cake craft there are handles on the side of
the craft
http://www.tjresearch.info/no_799.jpg
A visitor (Philip McAiney) at Meier's
residence holding up garbage-can lid, circa 1998. Note they have the exact
same design and handles LOL
http://www.tjresearch.info/garbage-lid.jpg
There is also one which shows a tripod in shot which I can't find at the
moment.
> Please explain how a one-armed man could have faked the photographs
> without the necessary equipment.
> And I seriously doubt if anyone could have faked the photographs,
> and ended up with photographs of that quality, he took.
I don't see any reason why a one arm man couldn't make fake UFO images with
a basic 35mm camera. Or make models. It might take longer and require the
use of clamps and vices to hold things, but I don't see as there would be
anything that would prevent him from doing that, particulalry if he was born
that way he would have learned to adapt
> No one has come forward with 'their' photographs, and claimed - here
> you are - I faked these, and look at this amazing quality!
> Being somewhat knowledgeable about still photography (and being an
> enthusiast in that time frame, in which the photographs were taken) -
> I can say plainly, you can't fake those photographs using the
> method(s)
> you describe. Please note - Billy Meier was seen going to and from the
> location in which he took the photographs by the owner of the land.
> And
> he did not have any extra equipment with him.
One wonders therfore why there are no third party photographs of these
events
That's what Jesus said :)
> You should check out the video JFK2 by Alex Jones, which presents
> plainly the story about the assassination of JFK.
> He presents the information plainly, which shows that the official
> story does not line up with the information about the case.
>
> This is also the case with UFOs and the official government story.
>
> Also note - that 9-11 does not conform to the official story.
> The information (ie. the details) about 9-11 show that the official
> story we are told, is not true.
>
> What this means is that the government is corrupt - and evil.
> Now know the reason why there will be no official contact with
> UFOs/ETs with a government so corrupt that would lie to it's people.
Well Billy Meier is just someone who claims to be a contactee. One doesn't
have to believe in the Billy Meier case to examine and consider other ideas
with an open mind and IMO there are many far more credible witnesses. If
anything I think Billy Meier might even be part of the conspiracy a means of
drawing people's attention away from the truth.
--
Amanda
http://peaceinspace.com
<manic...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Well Billy Meier is just someone who claims to be a contactee. One doesn't
>have to believe in the Billy Meier case to examine and consider other ideas
>with an open mind and IMO there are many far more credible witnesses.
Oh plueeze. You don't need witnesses, you've got an extraterrestrial saucer
at Groom Lake. And there's one in China too.
Amanda Angelika
http://peaceinspace.com <tr...@R.us> typed:
Well I haven't personally I'm not even American LOL :)
--
Amanda
http://peaceinspace.com
<manic...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In news:cph912phodubet6i7...@4ax.com,
>http://peaceinspace.com <tr...@R.us> typed:
>> On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 00:26:54 GMT, "Amanda Angelika"
>> <manic...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Well Billy Meier is just someone who claims to be a contactee. One
>>> doesn't have to believe in the Billy Meier case to examine and
>>> consider other ideas with an open mind and IMO there are many far
>>> more credible witnesses.
>>
>> Oh plueeze. You don't need witnesses, you've got an extraterrestrial
>> saucer at Groom Lake. And there's one in China too.
>
>Well I haven't personally I'm not even American LOL :)
It belongs to you as much as it belongs to anyone.
Your Name Here=Harvey
It does matter, if you are using depth of field.
A very basic knowledge of still photography says that if you had to
stop down the lens to use depth of field to get the objects in focus,
then you also have had to use a very slow shutter speed to do so.
And considering the film speed at that time, it would have had to be
around 100 ASA or slower.
What this means in effect, he couldn't have taken any of a craft at
speed. Please also note, if foreground objects are sharp or not?
If they're not sharp, then depth of field was not used.
Please look at all the photographs available.
And just because there is a tripod shown in the picture, of one
picture, does not say that he used a tripod for all the photographs.
Please note that Billy took hundreds of photographs over a period of
years. He did not just take one photograph at a scene, but many,
in a series.
I don't know if there was any claim that Billy Meier used a tripod...
Anyway - it all boils down to who do you believe?
An investigator who was at the scene the photographs were took,
who actually did his own investigation into how the photographs
were taken, from Billy himself, and the owner of the properties,
in which the photographs were taken. While that person was not
present at the exact time the photographs were taken - he was
present before and after. This investigator being Wendelle Stevens.
Or the person you are relying upon solely for your expert
opinion. Someone who never went to the scene, nor interviewed
Billy and other witnesses, who only used photoshop to reveal
something where string would be (I'm not convinced it was string/etc
he found there - did it actually go all the way up the frame? And
did he find this in all the photographs of that beamship? Why not?)
And note - this person did his investigation - when?
Anyway I would place my credibility on the first investigator -
who did his homework and scene analysis. Witness testimonies, etc.
Which eliminate a tripod present at the scene.
And note the time frame Billy spent there, did not allow him time
to set up models, etc.
From the early accounts about all this, I never recall the mention of
figures painted onto glass as being used.
The problem becomes - how could the glass be positioned? Who could be
holding it up? And there's the problem of how is the glass supported
to be in the right position? And the problem of reflections...
There is a movie footage that is very similiar to this photograph -
it appears to be the same tree, but from a slightly different angle.
It is dated April 3, 1981.
Anyway it is shown far away, then it is zoomed upon.
It does not appear to be a minature.
If the tree is still present there, at that location - a new photograph
taken there, where the movie footage was taken from, would authenticate
the movie footage. How much does a tree grow in 25 years?
I think there is a discredit campaign going on, as regards Billy Meier.
It is sad that at the time of the events - Billy was a trusting person,
who gave away his photographs - and he would have lost (probably through
people stealing his photographs) a lot as well.
As always with this kind of subject, it is up to the individual -
as to who do you believe?
The photographs are only just one aspect to the whole Billy Meier question.
There is a whole lot more to it, than just the photographs.
Please note - there has been present, very early on, a lot of negative
press/media/publicity concerning Billy Meier - in which Billy Meier
was shot down by people who didn't even do the most basic of
investigating into the question of Billy Meier.
They simply came to their conclusions long distance and did not do any
thorough investigation. Much of what you prefer to take as being
evidence.
You have to look at everything, to get to the truth of the matter.
Harvey
Amanda Angelika
http://peaceinspace.com <tr...@R.us> typed:
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 02:33:11 GMT, "Amanda Angelika"
> <manic...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In news:cph912phodubet6i7...@4ax.com,
>> http://peaceinspace.com <tr...@R.us> typed:
>>> On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 00:26:54 GMT, "Amanda Angelika"
>>> <manic...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well Billy Meier is just someone who claims to be a contactee. One
>>>> doesn't have to believe in the Billy Meier case to examine and
>>>> consider other ideas with an open mind and IMO there are many far
>>>> more credible witnesses.
>>>
>>> Oh plueeze. You don't need witnesses, you've got an
>>> extraterrestrial saucer at Groom Lake. And there's one in China
>>> too.
>>
>> Well I haven't personally I'm not even American LOL :)
>
> It belongs to you as much as it belongs to anyone.
You mean as in...
"This land is your land, this land is my land
From California, to the New York Island
From the redwood forest, to the gulf stream waters
This land was made for you and me"
(Woody Guthrie)
Well actually like most places it did used to belong to the British Empire
but I think there was something called "The War of Independence" :)
--
Amanda
http://peaceinspace.com
<manic...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Pretty soon people will be able to walk into Groom Lake and see the saucer
for themselves. It belongs to the world, not a bunch of fascist Nazis who
kill little kids because they're cowards hiding behind the remains of what
used to be a great country, now in ruin.
Besides the Chinese and the Russians are vastly ahead of the game, they're
just waiting to pick up the pieces of what's left of the USA.
dre
>
> I think there is a discredit campaign going on, as regards Billy Meier.
> It is sad that at the time of the events - Billy was a trusting person,
> who gave away his photographs - and he would have lost (probably through
> people stealing his photographs) a lot as well.
> As always with this kind of subject, it is up to the individual -
> as to who do you believe?
>
> The photographs are only just one aspect to the whole Billy Meier question.
> There is a whole lot more to it, than just the photographs.
you mean the ufo shaped disks seen by journalists
in his house?
and why followed the ufo's meier to his new house
in germany?
they visited him in switzerland and later on in
germany...strange...
wich is ofcourse explained by his good contacts
with the aliens...
how convincing.
he is traveling to jupiter with them but he can't
take any camera's...lol...
Amanda Angelika
It's certainly gone down hill since the 1950s and is getting progressively
worse. But I suppose it's like any Empire or World power they tend to
collaps in the end.
> Besides the Chinese and the Russians are vastly ahead of the game,
> they're just waiting to pick up the pieces of what's left of the USA.
That said if you trace history back far enough one finds the US is a legacy
of the Roman Empire. Developments in the World Domination stakes have been a
linear progression out of Europe for the last 2000 years or more. I can't
see that changing. I mean the main thing that enables Empires to stand and
dominate the World are communications, roads, railways, telegraph wires, the
Navy, Satellites, the Internet etc etc. They used to say "all roads lead to
Rome" If you own the Roads the World is yours and no one can stand against
you. Of course the biggest weakness the US has is it's reliance on the means
to travel those roads i.e Oil
--
Amanda
Amanda Angelika
Your Name Here=Harvey <y...@somehost.somedomain.aus> typed:
>> infinity setting depth of field would allow objects from around 4ft
>> to infinity to appear in focus. In fact that fault would make it
>> easier to hid cords because depth of field is a kind of virtual
>> focus.
>
> It does matter, if you are using depth of field.
> A very basic knowledge of still photography says that if you had to
> stop down the lens to use depth of field to get the objects in focus,
> then you also have had to use a very slow shutter speed to do so.
> And considering the film speed at that time, it would have had to be
> around 100 ASA or slower.
Yes but in bright sunlight that's 1/125 at f11, compact cameras such as the
Olympus ECR had lenses of around 43mm this gives quite good depth of field
at anything over F8. Even with 64ASA slide film which was popular in the
1970s you would be able to use 1/60th at f11 in bright sunlight or 1/60 f 8
in bright overcast conditions.
> What this means in effect, he couldn't have taken any of a craft at
> speed.
He wouldn't need to if they were static models. And of couse the fact none
of them show any form of blur is suspect in itself.
Actually there is information about the old Olympus 35ECR here
http://www.geocities.com/heidoscop/olympus_35_ecr.htm
It's clear from how this guy describes it was Aperture priority auto only
exposure which means it would have been impossible to take sharp photographs
of fast moving air vehicles in poor light conditions using slow ASA/DIN film
Please also note, if foreground objects are sharp or not?
> If they're not sharp, then depth of field was not used.
> Please look at all the photographs available.
> And just because there is a tripod shown in the picture, of one
> picture, does not say that he used a tripod for all the photographs.
> Please note that Billy took hundreds of photographs over a period of
> years. He did not just take one photograph at a scene, but many,
> in a series.
> I don't know if there was any claim that Billy Meier used a tripod...
Well considering he has one arm it would make sense to use a tripod and
there is evidence that he used a tripod because it is shown in some of his
images.
> Anyway - it all boils down to who do you believe?
Only on the basis of evidence. There's plenty of evidence to suggest some
UFOs may be of ET origin and given the size of the Universe it would just be
plain stupid to rule that out because the possibility is almost infinite. To
state that *no* UFOs are of ET origin would simply be close mindedness and
isn't a rational or logical argument.
> An investigator who was at the scene the photographs were took,
> who actually did his own investigation into how the photographs
> were taken, from Billy himself, and the owner of the properties,
> in which the photographs were taken. While that person was not
> present at the exact time the photographs were taken - he was
> present before and after. This investigator being Wendelle Stevens.
>
> Or the person you are relying upon solely for your expert
> opinion. Someone who never went to the scene, nor interviewed
> Billy and other witnesses, who only used photoshop to reveal
> something where string would be (I'm not convinced it was string/etc
> he found there - did it actually go all the way up the frame? And
> did he find this in all the photographs of that beamship? Why not?)
> And note - this person did his investigation - when?
>
> Anyway I would place my credibility on the first investigator -
> who did his homework and scene analysis. Witness testimonies, etc.
> Which eliminate a tripod present at the scene.
> And note the time frame Billy spent there, did not allow him time
> to set up models, etc.
But they do look like models, in fact in the majority of Meier's pictures
the craft is shown tilted toward the camera IOW you rarely see the underside
of the UFO as one would expect when something is flying above the "eye
level" of the viewer or camera. That in itself looks contrived since it
simply would not happen time after time with a real air craft of any kind
moving dynamically and under the control of a real pilot in real 3d space.
Also apart from some drawings there are no convincing photographs of
supposed occupants of these craft, whom Billy Meier claims to be in close
contact with. Clearly this is because pictures of beings would be far more
difficult to fake up, you would have to employ actors which apart from
costing money you would also have people who would be in the know in regard
to the hoax and would have to be paid off or kept on the payroll to keep
them quiet.
That is true. But you could construct a box with a glass front and an
opening for the camera lens at the back which would largely eradicate
reflections. You could light the paintings on the glass using oblique
lighting from above. But I don't know if they did it that way, it may be
that the fairies were painted in afterwards and the whole thing
re-photographed. They didn't have Photoshop, but practically everything that
can be done in Photoshop can be done by conventional means and of course
retouched prints can be re-photographed and thus eradicate signs of manual
retouching.
It's strange how they always seem to appear in the same tree and the craft
often seems to be attached to it in some way.
>
> I think there is a discredit campaign going on, as regards Billy
> Meier.
> It is sad that at the time of the events - Billy was a trusting
> person,
> who gave away his photographs - and he would have lost (probably
> through people stealing his photographs) a lot as well.
> As always with this kind of subject, it is up to the individual -
> as to who do you believe?
>
> The photographs are only just one aspect to the whole Billy Meier
> question. There is a whole lot more to it, than just the photographs.
>
> Please note - there has been present, very early on, a lot of negative
> press/media/publicity concerning Billy Meier - in which Billy Meier
> was shot down by people who didn't even do the most basic of
> investigating into the question of Billy Meier.
> They simply came to their conclusions long distance and did not do any
> thorough investigation. Much of what you prefer to take as being
> evidence.
>
> You have to look at everything, to get to the truth of the matter.
Well I realise a lot of people would *like* to believe the Billy Meier case.
But IMO there is so much about it that doesn't ring true. I don't find it
convincing. That said there are aspects of the Billy Meier case that are
intriguing, for example some of his prophecies and predictions. Which does
lead one to consider on another level that it could be some form of social
experiment possibly by some earthly agency such as the Catholic Church,
Freemasons or even by genuine ETs. But there is little hard evidence to
support such conspiracy theories.
Personally I find the testimony of many of the ex-US and British service
people who have spoken out in regard to UFOs and ET contact by the US
government far more convincing. The fact you have hundreds of credible
witnesses including one guy who used to be head of the British MOD prepared
to testify before congress in regard to what they have seen heard and
experienced should be enough to convince people there is some truth in all
this, after all people have been sentenced to death on the basis of far less
convincing evidence.
--
Amanda
Your Name Here=Harvey
says...
Even if people accept that UFOs come from outer space - it can also mean
they come from different outer space origins, in which case they will be
of all varieties - not only from different solar systems, galaxies, but
also that of dimension - ie. some non physical. And others could be unmanned,
ie. remote controlled or robotic.
But seriously terrestrial origin is involved as well, which can add
more confusion --- but these will fall into certain specific 'types' of
craft, narrowing down the field a lot.
Nazi Flying Saucers is to be seriously believed - I've managed to locate
a few clips/references to them in video/television program material, most
of which has rarely aired.
The other major terrestrial source, would be black budget US government
craft, which pops up in the Disclosure Project witness testimonies.
References to this, comes from Phil Schneider/Dulce Report/etc material.
To get an idea of how messed up the US goverment is, you need only to look
at Alex Jones "JFK2" documentary and Barrie
Zwicker's "The Great Conspiracy - The 9-11 News Special You Never Saw".
There are inconsistancies with the official story not lining up with the
facts about 9-11 he points out much the same information as above.
We all know the US Government's credibility is on the line, with how they
used the 9-11 tragedy to push through the policies of the US Government.
Also with the Apollo 11 Moon Landing
and other moon landings. Did they in fact take place? As in what we are
told about them?
Bart Sibrel has directed the documentary "A Funny Thing Happened On the
Way to the Moon" in which an original footage was shown which shows the
astronauts faking their position in space, to the public. They were in
low earth orbit, and they wanted us to believe they were halfway to the
moon.
It isn't just one piece of information which builds up a believable
picture that all of it was faked. The program presents an abundance of
information as to why it was not possible for astronauts to have
travelled to the moon.
It would be simple for NASA to discredit the above, simply by releasing
every footage and roll of film that was shot, during the Apollo moon
landings. I wonder what is the % that has been released to the public
so far? (Note - what was said in one of the witness testimonies for
the Disclosure Project - which strongly hinted that NASA airbushed out
what was unsuitable for public eyes).
Of course - people are wondering? Why haven't we been back to the moon
since? Why don't we have a moonbase up and running by now?
Or at the very least remote controlled vehicles running around the moon,
conducting various scientific and geological tests?
>
>> An investigator who was at the scene the photographs were took,
>> who actually did his own investigation into how the photographs
>> were taken, from Billy himself, and the owner of the properties,
>> in which the photographs were taken. While that person was not
>> present at the exact time the photographs were taken - he was
>> present before and after. This investigator being Wendelle Stevens.
>>
>> Or the person you are relying upon solely for your expert
>> opinion. Someone who never went to the scene, nor interviewed
>> Billy and other witnesses, who only used photoshop to reveal
>> something where string would be (I'm not convinced it was string/etc
>> he found there - did it actually go all the way up the frame? And
>> did he find this in all the photographs of that beamship? Why not?)
>> And note - this person did his investigation - when?
>>
>> Anyway I would place my credibility on the first investigator -
>> who did his homework and scene analysis. Witness testimonies, etc.
>> Which eliminate a tripod present at the scene.
>> And note the time frame Billy spent there, did not allow him time
>> to set up models, etc.
>
>But they do look like models, in fact in the majority of Meier's pictures
>the craft is shown tilted toward the camera IOW you rarely see the underside
>of the UFO as one would expect when something is flying above the "eye
>level" of the viewer or camera. That in itself looks contrived since it
>simply would not happen time after time with a real air craft of any kind
>moving dynamically and under the control of a real pilot in real 3d space.
>
I wish that the coffee table book of Billy Meier's photographs were openly
available to the public - that someone would release that version onto the
web so that we can all see why Billy Meier's UFO photographs caused a
sensation at that time.
Please note - that photograph purported to have the string present -
did undergo a special photographic process, that was very expensive at the
time, so that no details were lost when it was blown up to poster size.
Although no Photoshop was available at this time - no one noticed any
likelihood of a string being present with this particular photograph at that
time.
>Also apart from some drawings there are no convincing photographs of
>supposed occupants of these craft, whom Billy Meier claims to be in close
>contact with. Clearly this is because pictures of beings would be far more
>difficult to fake up, you would have to employ actors which apart from
>costing money you would also have people who would be in the know in regard
>to the hoax and would have to be paid off or kept on the payroll to keep
>them quiet.
>
It should be noted, that the flying vehicles photographed by Billy Meier
knew they were being photographed, and in some particular incidents
choregraphed their movement as to how they wish to be recorded -
like the movement as if they can be discounted because it looked like it
was supported by string, in that movie footage.
Giving an excuse for the viewer to discount the image, if they wish to.
Billy Meier has attracted a large following/interest by now - and always
there has been ample opportunity for anything he has presented, to be shot
down by experts, etc. He is the only contactee who has presented so much to
be examined - not only the clearest photographs to date (why his photographs
were noticed at the time) but movie footage, sound recording, physical
samples given to him, and the body of information he has transcribed.
If any of these are in serious doubt, many of his believers/followers
would not continue their interest in him, and what he has to say.
I don't think you can make an assessment about Billy Meier in the short
term, because there is so much to take in, regarding all of it.
You have to remember these are young girls involved with taking the
photographs, by themselves - so any technique they would have used,
would have been very simple and cheap. Cutting paper figures out and
standing them up using hat pins, is the only plausible explanation.
And photographs of them doing this, would plainly show them to be so.
An editor looking at these original unretouched photographs would see
how unconvincing they are. And what is said to have happened, is that
an airbrush artist was brought in, to make the photographs appear to
support the story they are told. Made the photographs appear to support
the story fully and convincingly.
I can't recall the details for it being stuck to the tree.
It was some years ago that I first read about it.
For anything that is truthful, there is evidence for it.
Information exists to support it.
Some Astronomer saying --- "Oh, if UFOs were real, I would have seen one
by now...." is hardly an authorative definitive truthful statement.
Although it is an excellent question - how come those people who look at
the night sky regularly, have not come forward with any sightings or
photographic evidence?
We know pilots have come forward and said they have seen UFOs.
Are astronomers holding their information back for fear of ridicule and
for fear of their career? You have only to look into "Forbidden Archaeology"
to see the implications, if they came forward with any evidence.
That to present something which goes against their colleagues acceptance,
is to put their career prospects on the line, and to risk failing their
career promotions in the future.
Very few people would be willing to do that - be someone of integrity and
honesty, to stand out from the crowd, and see what happens...
Billy Meier is such a person.
He may not have had a career at risk - but to stand up to be ridiculed,
and called a liar, fake, etc is no easy task. He hasn't written any book
to be sold to the masses, etc. He has not made the effort to be on any
money train, but the opposite...
Harvey
Your Name Here=Harvey
I was impressed by the book "Light Years" by Gary Kinder
in the early 90s? that I read it. [it may have been the
late 80s?].
Then I saw some UFO programmes - documentaries, which
always pooh poohed Billy Meier.
One in particular made the point that it was forced perspective
techniques that would have made the photographs possible.
I know that initially that this is possible, if you go
about using that technique, and have a model to do so.
So I was turned off Billy Meier and did not seek to
verify the claims he was a fake.
But around 3? years ago I was getting access to more and
more Billy Meier information.
I was especially impressed by the videoed lecture by
Wendelle Stevens in which he recounts his investigation
into Billy Meier so many years ago. Note - there is a
slideshow presentation with this, in which clearly it
shows the series of photographs Billy Meier usually takes.
Please note, there is a verification that he had no
tripod with him, nor other equipment, and he was there, at
the site for a short period of time.
And so - a lone one-armed cameraman, faking the photographs
does not sound plausible or possible.
I tend to be skeptical of what information Billy Meier
provides, and I will always seek verification of that
information.
And through verification, we'll know if what he was
telling us, was truthful or not?
Harvey
Amanda Angelika
Agreed. There's a whole universe of possibility out there. Which is why it
can be difficult to understand some sceptics who attempt to rule out
entirely ET origins for UFOs and attempt to portray that as a rational
argument, when in fact it is an argument based on close minded ignorance.
> But seriously terrestrial origin is involved as well, which can add
> more confusion --- but these will fall into certain specific 'types'
> of craft, narrowing down the field a lot.
> Nazi Flying Saucers is to be seriously believed - I've managed to
> locate
> a few clips/references to them in video/television program material,
> most
> of which has rarely aired.
Well yes there's the Battle of LA in 1942 the craft in the pictures appears
to be identical to some of the images of the Nazi Disks. The Nazis did have
plans to develop long range weapons in order attack the US, for example they
were attempting to launch V2 rockets from their U-boats
> The other major terrestrial source, would be black budget US
> government craft, which pops up in the Disclosure Project witness
> testimonies. References to this, comes from Phil Schneider/Dulce
> Report/etc material.
> To get an idea of how messed up the US goverment is, you need only to
> look at Alex Jones "JFK2" documentary and Barrie
> Zwicker's "The Great Conspiracy - The 9-11 News Special You Never
> Saw". There are inconsistancies with the official story not lining up
> with the facts about 9-11 he points out much the same information as
> above.
> We all know the US Government's credibility is on the line, with how
> they used the 9-11 tragedy to push through the policies of the US
> Government.
Of course the other side of the coin is there are highly organised Islamic
terror groups that would seek to undermine confidence in the US Government
and one of the ways to do that is through propaganda. I'd be very wary of
some of that material because these people will stop at nothing and it is
very easy to be taken in by such propaganda.
> Also with the Apollo 11 Moon Landing
> and other moon landings. Did they in fact take place? As in what we
> are
> told about them?
Well that's most likely propaganda funded by the religious right in the US.
There are people in this World who would prefer to propagate ignorance.
>
> Bart Sibrel has directed the documentary "A Funny Thing Happened On
> the
> Way to the Moon" in which an original footage was shown which shows
> the astronauts faking their position in space, to the public. They
> were in
> low earth orbit, and they wanted us to believe they were halfway to
> the moon.
> It isn't just one piece of information which builds up a believable
> picture that all of it was faked. The program presents an abundance of
> information as to why it was not possible for astronauts to have
> travelled to the moon.
There is the Van-allen belt and the claim the astronauts could not have
passed through it. But I'm old enough to remember the moon landings and saw
it all live on TV. It was definitely real IMO. In fact if I remember rightly
you could watch them walking about up there with a powerful enough
telescope, after all the moon isn't all that far away and one of the news
papers included a whole double page spread free map of the moon so you could
see the area they landed. I believe the area where the landing took place
and the lander and lunar rover that was left behind can still be seen
through a powerful telescope. That could not have been faked, and could be
verified to this day :)
I have little doubt some images were taken in a studio. In fact I remember
they set up a whole lunar landscape in an aircraft hanger or something in
order to train the astronauts, that was openly shown on the Television to,
so the fact there are some studio shots floating about of astronauts posing
is not evidence that the whole thing was staged, it simply means they did
some studio shots for publicity purposes and over the years people have
forgotten which were the studio shots and which were the real ones. And
considering this took place in the Cold War when there was the "Space Race"
I'm sure there would ahve been an element of propogandising and releasing
staged studio shots for publicity purposes, but that doesn't prove the whole
thing was staged.
>
> It would be simple for NASA to discredit the above, simply by
> releasing every footage and roll of film that was shot, during the
> Apollo moon landings. I wonder what is the % that has been released
> to the public
> so far? (Note - what was said in one of the witness testimonies for
> the Disclosure Project - which strongly hinted that NASA airbushed out
> what was unsuitable for public eyes).
Well bearing in mind everything was filmed with fairly primative analogue
B/W TV cameras and everything was beamed back to earth I wonder if they
still have all the footage. Video technology was in it's infacy in those
days and some things have been lost forever. In fact in the UK and much of
Europe the TV pictures had to be converted from US NSTC video standard to
the European PAL 625 line standard (in fact it may even have been 405 line),
in those days the technolgy for doing this was very ropey, actually all
pictures from the US used to look like they were shot on the Moon back in
the 1960s LOL and it's only since the invention of digital technology that
it has been possible to to view NSTC video on PAL TV with any clarity. Which
is why the old US TV programs such as The Fugative, Dallas etc used to be
shot on 35mm film for World distribution.
> Of course - people are wondering? Why haven't we been back to the moon
> since? Why don't we have a moonbase up and running by now?
> Or at the very least remote controlled vehicles running around the
> moon, conducting various scientific and geological tests?
That's an interesting point. I dare say it's because it is very expensive.
Well at least that's a valid excuse if one is using rockets. That said a
modern PDA has more computing power than the entire Apollo 11 Moon Mission
and like my Mororola A1000 mobile phone shoots better videos than were
available in 1969 (Gosh I can film my missions to the Supermarket to buy
more cheese) and costs about 400 UKP brand new (you can pick them up on eBay
S/H for about 100 UKP). Given the sophistication of the technology available
to the public and the fact it is relatively inexpensive you do wonder why
there aren't thousands of Web cams on the moon not to mention robots, after
all we could send space probes to the moon around the size of a 2 litre Coke
bottle capable of sending an incredible amount of data. It is strange, we
know they have the technology yet they are not using it, in fact NASA seem
to go out of their way to keep up a pretence that these things are not
possible, as if it's still 1969 and they are still making things with valves
LOL Gosh even the ESA pictures of Mars were better than NASA's and the
European craft was in orbit, and I dare say there will come a point when
private individuals are sending rockets to the moon, I think NASA really
needs to wake up sometimes.
--
Amanda
ianpa...@gmail.com
>can be difficult to understand some sceptics who attempt to rule out
>entirely ET origins for UFOs and attempt to portray that as a rational
>argument, when in fact it is an argument based on close minded ignorance.
How do you meet the argument that.
1) They would have placed AI on the Web and therefore not need to
observe by any other means. From the stand - point of the Web they can
effectively get us to do all their observing for them
2) The accepted means of interstellasr travel is by means of laser
acceleration and Von Neumann probes. They may (or as I would prefer to
say may NOT) have warp drives now but the first probe will be a VN
laser almost certainly.
3) Why are thedre crashes?
No one has yet managed to give me a satisfactory answer on any of these
points.
Incidentally following point 1. They could make us build their laser
decelerator!
Your Name Here=Harvey
To get to the truth of the matter - one should not put blinders on,
which will screen out information that is truthful.
But many people put on these blinders themselves (sticking to only
their beliefs and ideas, and not willing to entertain ideas outside
of their box of limited understanding) - not realising that
truth is not limited to anything at all, that truthful information
simply exists, and the more information you can absorb the
more you'll understand.
I will simply go where the information takes me, and to especially
not ignore the same kind of information that keeps on coming up
again and again, from different sources.
There is the matter of urban legends, and myths - whereby
something does keep popping up again and again, but no facts
are forthcoming about it, only information which points to it
being only a myth, and purely a legend with no factual
confirmation(s).
I am undecided about the 'Philadelphia Experiment' - though
a History Channel presentation about the truth of it, says that
Carl Allen was a kooky individual, crazy enough to make up stuff.
While Al Beliek makes a brief appearance in it, they neglect to
interview him in depth, the only person who has said more
technically about the project, than any other individual.
And so why did the History Channel not also examined Al Beliek
in depth, and much of what he has to say?
Another example is that of 'The Hollow Earth' and inhabitants
living inside - an advanced race.
This seems to be that of myth - however this should not be lumped
together with people living underground, of an advanced
technology.
>> But seriously terrestrial origin is involved as well, which can add
>> more confusion --- but these will fall into certain specific 'types'
>> of craft, narrowing down the field a lot.
>> Nazi Flying Saucers is to be seriously believed - I've managed to
>> locate
>> a few clips/references to them in video/television program material,
>> most
>> of which has rarely aired.
>
>Well yes there's the Battle of LA in 1942 the craft in the pictures appears
>to be identical to some of the images of the Nazi Disks. The Nazis did have
>plans to develop long range weapons in order attack the US, for example they
>were attempting to launch V2 rockets from their U-boats
>
There has been some wild Nazi ideas, that never got beyond a preliminary
planning stage. There are some documentaries about these - they were all
dropped because conventional technology was thought to be way they'll
win, and not using weird untried undeveloped advanced technology.
And when they were losing badly, it was too late to bring onstream their
advanced technology ideas, they lacked the resources, and most importantly
the time - to bring them to fruitution.
>> The other major terrestrial source, would be black budget US
>> government craft, which pops up in the Disclosure Project witness
>> testimonies. References to this, comes from Phil Schneider/Dulce
>> Report/etc material.
>> To get an idea of how messed up the US goverment is, you need only to
>> look at Alex Jones "JFK2" documentary and Barrie
>> Zwicker's "The Great Conspiracy - The 9-11 News Special You Never
>> Saw". There are inconsistancies with the official story not lining up
>> with the facts about 9-11 he points out much the same information as
>> above.
>> We all know the US Government's credibility is on the line, with how
>> they used the 9-11 tragedy to push through the policies of the US
>> Government.
>
>Of course the other side of the coin is there are highly organised Islamic
>terror groups that would seek to undermine confidence in the US Government
>and one of the ways to do that is through propaganda. I'd be very wary of
>some of that material because these people will stop at nothing and it is
>very easy to be taken in by such propaganda.
>
You should watch Barrie Zwicker's "The Great Conspiracy -
The 9-11 News Special you never saw" - he gives a run down of the
various US convert operations - basically CIA operations which used
terrorist tactics to bring down governments the US did not agree with.
These are US foreign policies they like to keep secret.
And Alex Jones documentary, mentioned above - describes the whole
Bay of Pigs fiasco. Basically why Kennedy was assassinated, supplying
the motive and exposing who were behind it?
>> Also with the Apollo 11 Moon Landing
>> and other moon landings. Did they in fact take place? As in what we
>> are
>> told about them?
>
>Well that's most likely propaganda funded by the religious right in the US.
>There are people in this World who would prefer to propagate ignorance.
>
Well which propanganda do you believe?
Any religious dogma and rhetoric? US government official propanganda?
NASA publicity propanganda?
The truth is outside of all this, and is merely a no-nonsense
retelling of the events that actually happened - accurately told.
>>
>> Bart Sibrel has directed the documentary "A Funny Thing Happened On
>> the
>> Way to the Moon" in which an original footage was shown which shows
>> the astronauts faking their position in space, to the public. They
>> were in
>> low earth orbit, and they wanted us to believe they were halfway to
>> the moon.
>> It isn't just one piece of information which builds up a believable
>> picture that all of it was faked. The program presents an abundance of
>> information as to why it was not possible for astronauts to have
>> travelled to the moon.
>
>There is the Van-allen belt and the claim the astronauts could not have
>passed through it. But I'm old enough to remember the moon landings and saw
>it all live on TV. It was definitely real IMO. In fact if I remember rightly
>you could watch them walking about up there with a powerful enough
>telescope, after all the moon isn't all that far away and one of the news
>papers included a whole double page spread free map of the moon so you could
>see the area they landed. I believe the area where the landing took place
>and the lander and lunar rover that was left behind can still be seen
>through a powerful telescope. That could not have been faked, and could be
>verified to this day :)
The knockout punch in Sibrel's documentary is that original footage
supposedly uncovered. I do wonder if it is authentic footage?
Without it, the whole programme is simply a series of logical
deductions based on how NASA is ignoring our closest neighbour.
>
>I have little doubt some images were taken in a studio. In fact I remember
>they set up a whole lunar landscape in an aircraft hanger or something in
>order to train the astronauts, that was openly shown on the Television to,
>so the fact there are some studio shots floating about of astronauts posing
>is not evidence that the whole thing was staged, it simply means they did
>some studio shots for publicity purposes and over the years people have
>forgotten which were the studio shots and which were the real ones. And
>considering this took place in the Cold War when there was the "Space Race"
>I'm sure there would ahve been an element of propogandising and releasing
>staged studio shots for publicity purposes, but that doesn't prove the whole
>thing was staged.
>
I am simply not familiar with how much photographic data NASA has released
into the public domain. It would take a moon buff to know how many
books do contain extensive photographic evidence that NASA has been to the
moon, and not hidden any kind of information from us?
>>
>> It would be simple for NASA to discredit the above, simply by
>> releasing every footage and roll of film that was shot, during the
>> Apollo moon landings. I wonder what is the % that has been released
>> to the public
>> so far? (Note - what was said in one of the witness testimonies for
>> the Disclosure Project - which strongly hinted that NASA airbushed out
>> what was unsuitable for public eyes).
>
>Well bearing in mind everything was filmed with fairly primative analogue
>B/W TV cameras and everything was beamed back to earth I wonder if they
>still have all the footage. Video technology was in it's infacy in those
>days and some things have been lost forever. In fact in the UK and much of
>Europe the TV pictures had to be converted from US NSTC video standard to
>the European PAL 625 line standard (in fact it may even have been 405 line),
>in those days the technolgy for doing this was very ropey, actually all
>pictures from the US used to look like they were shot on the Moon back in
>the 1960s LOL and it's only since the invention of digital technology that
>it has been possible to to view NSTC video on PAL TV with any clarity. Which
>is why the old US TV programs such as The Fugative, Dallas etc used to be
>shot on 35mm film for World distribution.
>
I was always pretty horrified at the very poor quality of the
'live' television pictures of the moon landing.
Only a person with the technical background, will have any idea whether
the quality should have been much much better - and exactly how many
minutes was transmitted live to us? And how much footage was achived
by NASA - and shouldn't all of the footage be accessible to the public?
The same for all footage ever shot on the moon - shouldn't NASA release
it's archives to the public - which the US taxpayer paid for?
But the American public don't have access to it, do they? That which
they paid for.
The kind of censorship/stupidity is exhibited by the US government
(and other governments too) - that THEY are there to serve the
people, who elected them into office - and not for they to dictate
to the people their policies. They should not lie to the people and
be self centred and selfish fulfilling their wants and desires.
>
>> Of course - people are wondering? Why haven't we been back to the moon
>> since? Why don't we have a moonbase up and running by now?
>> Or at the very least remote controlled vehicles running around the
>> moon, conducting various scientific and geological tests?
>
>That's an interesting point. I dare say it's because it is very expensive.
>Well at least that's a valid excuse if one is using rockets. That said a
>modern PDA has more computing power than the entire Apollo 11 Moon Mission
>and like my Mororola A1000 mobile phone shoots better videos than were
>available in 1969 (Gosh I can film my missions to the Supermarket to buy
>more cheese) and costs about 400 UKP brand new (you can pick them up on eBay
>S/H for about 100 UKP). Given the sophistication of the technology available
>to the public and the fact it is relatively inexpensive you do wonder why
>there aren't thousands of Web cams on the moon not to mention robots, after
>all we could send space probes to the moon around the size of a 2 litre Coke
>bottle capable of sending an incredible amount of data. It is strange, we
>know they have the technology yet they are not using it, in fact NASA seem
>to go out of their way to keep up a pretence that these things are not
>possible, as if it's still 1969 and they are still making things with valves
>LOL Gosh even the ESA pictures of Mars were better than NASA's and the
>European craft was in orbit, and I dare say there will come a point when
>private individuals are sending rockets to the moon, I think NASA really
>needs to wake up sometimes.
>
>--
>Amanda
>
>
Sending robotic rovers to the moon should be easy peasy for NASA, as
they used Titan rockets to launch unmanned probes to the planets - although
they were modified. You would think it would be possible to recycle
ICBM rockets towards peaceful endeavours, instead of completely trashing
them in disarmament treaties.
We have the technology - so why aren't the current generation of
children encouraged to go lunar lander surfing via the Internet, controlling
a robotic camera on the moon? To get them interested in science and
technology, so that their generation can land on Mars within their
generation?
I think it shows more - that the Moon is offlimits to humans (for whatever
reason, mainly one of conspiracy - to keep humans grounded here) and that
NASA is being very very slow towards any advances in space travel, etc. etc.
It's almost as if NASA's mission is slow mankind's advances into
space travel and associated technology.
And that the Apollo moon landings were just a one-off never to happen
again...
Harvey
ianpa...@gmail.com
children encouraged to go lunar lander surfing via the Internet,
controlling
>a robotic camera on the moon? To get them interested in science and
>technology, so that their generation can land on Mars within their
>generation?
>I think it shows more - that the Moon is offlimits to humans (for whatever
>reason, mainly one of conspiracy - to keep humans grounded here) and that
>NASA is being very very slow towards any advances in space travel, etc. etc.
>It's almost as if NASA's mission is slow mankind's advances into
>space travel and associated technology.
>And that the Apollo moon landings were just a one-off never to happen again...
I agree that NASA is slowing down space exploration but not for the
resons you suggest. I do not believe there is a great conspiracy,
simply that NASA scientists and engineers are not really competant.
The key enabling technology for large scale space exploration is the
Von Neumann machine, the self replicating robotic system. Not ISS, not
manned luinar landings. Any set of half cometant scientists keen on
grandiose space projects would be developing such a machine as the No 1
priority.
Amanda Angelika
ianpa...@gmail.com <ianpa...@gmail.com> typed:
> We have the technology - so why aren't the current generation of
> children encouraged to go lunar lander surfing via the Internet,
> controlling
Actually I was listening to a Nasa podcast last night and one point they
mentioned is it's actually quite difficult to use conventional consumer
computer chips in space because of the radiation issue. So I guess this
explains why the technology they can send into space which has to have
special circuits (I dare say they may even use valves) is actually quite
primitive and large, when compared to consumer electronics on earth. Like we
are talking less than 1/5th the power of the average home computer which
these days would mean most of the computers Nasa have been able to send into
space are at best no more powerful than a Pentium 1 or 2 and even then we
are taking multi-processor units. The other problem they mentioned was
bandwidth apparently many of the computers they have in space have no more
available communication bandwidth than a relatively primitive dial-up modem,
so faster processors have not been a priority
Actually though the commentator said NASA are working on ways of adapting
consumer market chips for use in space particularly for less essential
applications, (obviously they couldn't use them for things like navigation
at this stage). But if they can find ways of adapting these chips for Space
it should improve the speed of the computers they can send up by a factor of
5 and cut costs enormously because they could use relatively inexpensive
consumer chips that are considerably more powerful than anything NASA can at
present send into space.
So I guess this explains why there aren't millions of little robo-cams
walking about the moon, since a 2 ghtz computer that would work on the moon
would have to be quite large and heavy
>> a robotic camera on the moon? To get them interested in science and
>> technology, so that their generation can land on Mars within their
>> generation?
>
>> I think it shows more - that the Moon is offlimits to humans (for
>> whatever reason, mainly one of conspiracy - to keep humans grounded
>> here) and that NASA is being very very slow towards any advances in
>> space travel, etc. etc. It's almost as if NASA's mission is slow
>> mankind's advances into
>> space travel and associated technology.
>> And that the Apollo moon landings were just a one-off never to
>> happen again...
>
> I agree that NASA is slowing down space exploration but not for the
> resons you suggest. I do not believe there is a great conspiracy,
> simply that NASA scientists and engineers are not really competent.
Up to a point that's probably true. We are talking cutting edge new
technology and most scientists and engineers are not of that calibre and if
they are, are probably working in the private sector. Though in all fairness
there are radiation issues in space so I dare say NASA scientists are doing
their best to overcome those issues
> The key enabling technology for large scale space exploration is the
> Von Neumann machine, the self replicating robotic system. Not ISS, not
> manned luinar landings. Any set of half cometant scientists keen on
> grandiose space projects would be developing such a machine as the No
> 1 priority.
Well one would think as home consumer electronics are continually increasing
in power and shrinking in size the more inches of Lead one could conceivably
wrap them in in order to adapt them for space whilst keeping the size and
weight feasible for launching :)
--
Amanda
Your Name Here=Harvey
says...
>
>In news:1142428000....@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com,
>ianpa...@gmail.com <ianpa...@gmail.com> typed:
>> We have the technology - so why aren't the current generation of
>> children encouraged to go lunar lander surfing via the Internet,
>> controlling
>
>Actually I was listening to a Nasa podcast last night and one point they
>mentioned is it's actually quite difficult to use conventional consumer
>computer chips in space because of the radiation issue. So I guess this
>explains why the technology they can send into space which has to have
>special circuits (I dare say they may even use valves) is actually quite
>primitive and large, when compared to consumer electronics on earth. Like we
>are talking less than 1/5th the power of the average home computer which
>these days would mean most of the computers Nasa have been able to send into
>space are at best no more powerful than a Pentium 1 or 2 and even then we
>are taking multi-processor units. The other problem they mentioned was
>bandwidth apparently many of the computers they have in space have no more
>available communication bandwidth than a relatively primitive dial-up modem,
>so faster processors have not been a priority
>
One has to be aware of what time period you are talking about, and how
that period relates to the computer technology of that time.
Computers used in the military, and that of the space environment do
require them to be very robust and reliable - if they used the latest
available
at that time? They don't wish to find out at a critical moment, an
unexpected and unforseen error/fault which would jeopardize the mission,
etc.
To use the very latest would not be practical for them.
And then they have to design it for use with their requirements in mind -
which takes time (X years?) in doing so.
One would then guess, they'll end up using older technology because it
has been tried and tested (and therefore unlikely to develop new faults
in space).
They of course, wouldn't be using computers 10 years old - there would be
no logic to that.
>Actually though the commentator said NASA are working on ways of adapting
>consumer market chips for use in space particularly for less essential
>applications, (obviously they couldn't use them for things like navigation
>at this stage). But if they can find ways of adapting these chips for Space
>it should improve the speed of the computers they can send up by a factor of
>5 and cut costs enormously because they could use relatively inexpensive
>consumer chips that are considerably more powerful than anything NASA can at
>present send into space.
>
>So I guess this explains why there aren't millions of little robo-cams
>walking about the moon, since a 2 ghtz computer that would work on the moon
>would have to be quite large and heavy
>
With robotics involved, we're talking about non-human environment for the
hardware to work in, which is more hostile than a human environment.
One would guess they still require shielding, of course, but how much
shielding is adequate for it?
>
>>> a robotic camera on the moon? To get them interested in science and
>>> technology, so that their generation can land on Mars within their
>>> generation?
>>
>>> I think it shows more - that the Moon is offlimits to humans (for
>>> whatever reason, mainly one of conspiracy - to keep humans grounded
>>> here) and that NASA is being very very slow towards any advances in
>>> space travel, etc. etc. It's almost as if NASA's mission is slow
>>> mankind's advances into
>>> space travel and associated technology.
>>> And that the Apollo moon landings were just a one-off never to
>>> happen again...
>>
>> I agree that NASA is slowing down space exploration but not for the
>> resons you suggest. I do not believe there is a great conspiracy,
>> simply that NASA scientists and engineers are not really competent.
>
>Up to a point that's probably true. We are talking cutting edge new
>technology and most scientists and engineers are not of that calibre and if
>they are, are probably working in the private sector. Though in all fairness
>there are radiation issues in space so I dare say NASA scientists are doing
>their best to overcome those issues
>
One would think that NASA would be using the latest technology, that is
of interest/use to them, that they can use without compromising on
the effectiveness on the mission.
>> The key enabling technology for large scale space exploration is the
>> Von Neumann machine, the self replicating robotic system. Not ISS, not
>> manned luinar landings. Any set of half cometant scientists keen on
>> grandiose space projects would be developing such a machine as the No
>> 1 priority.
>
>Well one would think as home consumer electronics are continually increasing
>in power and shrinking in size the more inches of Lead one could conceivably
>wrap them in in order to adapt them for space whilst keeping the size and
>weight feasible for launching :)
>--
>Amanda
>
>
I don't think I've written clearly about the timeline of events,
regarding the criticism of the Billy Meier photographs.
I can't say that I can quote it exactly as such, but I think I know
the sequence of events regarding this.
In that when the first Billy Meier photographs appeared - they appeared to
be too good to be true - and so the first criticisms against the photographs
were made, without doing any basic research into the matter.
And when someone did go to the time and trouble - to research properly
as to how the photographs were taken (ie. Wendelle Stevens) - the public
media has already been saturated with the hasty negative criticisms (in
which the claims against Meier were not accurate, because they didn't do
any basic research). People are reluctant to admit to their mistakes -
ie. they will not own up to them in public.
I am not that well versed with the Billy Meier information, to know whether
he still has original negatives available or not. I would guess he still has,
because he took other photographs, before those ones he is world renown
for, and he took literally rolls of films - but how many he lost (never
got returned) or stolen (from his home) - I wouldn't know.
I am all for exposing Billy Meier, if he has indeed faked his UFO photographs.
And note - if string was used, then this should evident in not just one of the
photographs, but also others as well. Remember there was a specially large
format book, published of his photographs in that early time period - referred
to as a coffee table book. So, I would guess, that all those photographs
could be rescanned, and any string present, could be made visible -
via photoshop? It need only be shown that one photograph has the tell tale
sign of a string going right up to the edge of the frame, to be convincing
enough, and not merely a very small segment, where it could be merely
part of the ship design.
The stuff that appeared at the time of his breakup with his wife - may have
been just 'her' way of getting back at Billy. That it may be a disgruntled
ex-wife's comments and actions.
I don't know too much about the Gulf Breeze UFO photographs. Whether those
photographs are genuine or not? It is the same sort of situation as
Billy Meier. How do you know if they are genuine or not?
You have one expert saying something, and another expert saying something
different altogether - the opposite.
And someone could plant a 'model' on the photographer's property - which
will give rise to the idea, that he used that model all along.
Very much like 9-11, where a flight instruction manual of some kind,
is found conveniently in a car parked, left at the airport. It would have
been more logical, that the manual should have been taken with them?
And not so conveniently left to be found, after the event.
I say you have to collect up as much information as you can, and
enough information will weigh up as to what is more clearer than the other.
The one with less inconsistancies, is closer to the truth.
Harvey
Amanda Angelika
Your Name Here=Harvey <y...@somehost.somedomain.aus> typed:
>
> I don't think I've written clearly about the timeline of events,
> regarding the criticism of the Billy Meier photographs.
> I can't say that I can quote it exactly as such, but I think I know
> the sequence of events regarding this.
> In that when the first Billy Meier photographs appeared - they
> appeared to
> be too good to be true - and so the first criticisms against the
> photographs were made, without doing any basic research into the
> matter.
> And when someone did go to the time and trouble - to research properly
> as to how the photographs were taken (ie. Wendelle Stevens) - the
> public media has already been saturated with the hasty negative
> criticisms (in
> which the claims against Meier were not accurate, because they didn't
> do
> any basic research). People are reluctant to admit to their mistakes -
> ie. they will not own up to them in public.
> I am not that well versed with the Billy Meier information, to know
> whether he still has original negatives available or not. I would
> guess he still has, because he took other photographs, before those
> ones he is world renown
> for, and he took literally rolls of films - but how many he lost
> (never
> got returned) or stolen (from his home) - I wouldn't know.
I could be wrong but I get the idea he used colour transparency film. The
colours and tonal contrast do look a bit reminicent of either Agfa film or
Kodachrome to me. I took a lot of pictures on a Russian Zenith E SLR back in
the 1970s so I'm quite familiar with those old film stocks :)
> I am all for exposing Billy Meier, if he has indeed faked his UFO
> photographs. And note - if string was used, then this should evident
> in not just one of the photographs, but also others as well. Remember
> there was a specially large format book, published of his photographs
> in that early time period - referred to as a coffee table book. So, I
> would guess, that all those photographs could be rescanned, and any
> string present, could be made visible -
> via photoshop? It need only be shown that one photograph has the tell
> tale sign of a string going right up to the edge of the frame, to be
> convincing enough, and not merely a very small segment, where it
> could be merely
> part of the ship design.
Well if he used cord it would most likely be either fine nylon fishing line
or the type of cord developed for televised puppet shows which would be
remarkably strong and thin enough to be invisible to a movie or TV camera or
indeed to the eyes of a live audience.
Given the camera he was using was an Olympus ECR whilst Olympus Zuiko lenses
are very good (In fact my digital camera is an Olympus) it is never the less
quite possible particularly relying on depth of field for focus that such a
cord would be totally invisible and outside the resolution capability of the
lens. Well lets face it a lens on a good 35mm SLR Camera of that era under
ideal conditions with fine grain film would be capable of a resolution of
about 100 lines per millimetre at f5.6, obviously in practice with the
camera he was using (I think you mentioned the focusing was faulty) under
average conditions we would be talking anything from 40 to 70 lines per
millimetre at best. It's highly likely therefore that thin puppetry cord
would be totally invisible to camera unless it picked up light reflection
and in that case you would still not necessarily see the whole cord.
So I think it's quite possible he used cord and if the models are about 12
to 15 ins in diameter though fairly light e.g made of plastic dinner plates,
various bits of Tupperware or waste plastic packaging, sprayed with
something like mirror car spray paint such cord should IMO be quite adequate
to hold the models and the cord would be quite difficult to see with the
naked eye let alone a camera.
> The stuff that appeared at the time of his breakup with his wife -
> may have been just 'her' way of getting back at Billy. That it may be
> a disgruntled ex-wife's comments and actions.
>
> I don't know too much about the Gulf Breeze UFO photographs. Whether
> those photographs are genuine or not? It is the same sort of
> situation as
> Billy Meier. How do you know if they are genuine or not?
> You have one expert saying something, and another expert saying
> something different altogether - the opposite.
> And someone could plant a 'model' on the photographer's property -
> which
> will give rise to the idea, that he used that model all along.
> Very much like 9-11, where a flight instruction manual of some kind,
> is found conveniently in a car parked, left at the airport. It would
> have been more logical, that the manual should have been taken with
> them?
> And not so conveniently left to be found, after the event.
Well most evidence is convienient :)
> I say you have to collect up as much information as you can, and
> enough information will weigh up as to what is more clearer than the
> other. The one with less inconsistancies, is closer to the truth.
True :)
--
Amanda
Your Name Here=Harvey
says...
Colour slide film, would be I think, slower in film speed,
at that time. Maybe 80 ASA?
>> I am all for exposing Billy Meier, if he has indeed faked his UFO
>> photographs. And note - if string was used, then this should evident
>> in not just one of the photographs, but also others as well. Remember
>> there was a specially large format book, published of his photographs
>> in that early time period - referred to as a coffee table book. So, I
>> would guess, that all those photographs could be rescanned, and any
>> string present, could be made visible -
>> via photoshop? It need only be shown that one photograph has the tell
>> tale sign of a string going right up to the edge of the frame, to be
>> convincing enough, and not merely a very small segment, where it
>> could be merely
>> part of the ship design.
>
>Well if he used cord it would most likely be either fine nylon fishing line
>or the type of cord developed for televised puppet shows which would be
>remarkably strong and thin enough to be invisible to a movie or TV camera or
>indeed to the eyes of a live audience.
>
Fishing line has a tendency to reflect some light, especially in sunlight.
I was a window dresser at some time, so I know what it's like to hang
thick fishing line, though the smaller strand are certainly harder to
see. Of course the thinner line would be used - but I still think that
because of the wide angle of the standard lens, to have a fishing pole
extending that far into the picture/frame would make the pole visible,
remember the amount of angle/view that is covered by the lens.
You should really view that Wendelle Stevens videoed lecture, because
he does take into account these kind of things, for possible faking,
and he can't see it being done, at those remote locations.
Even if you did carry all the apparatus you needed, he says it simply
couldn't be done there, because it's on a hill, and the view drops
off into space.
>Given the camera he was using was an Olympus ECR whilst Olympus Zuiko lenses
>are very good (In fact my digital camera is an Olympus) it is never the less
>quite possible particularly relying on depth of field for focus that such a
>cord would be totally invisible and outside the resolution capability of the
>lens. Well lets face it a lens on a good 35mm SLR Camera of that era under
>ideal conditions with fine grain film would be capable of a resolution of
>about 100 lines per millimetre at f5.6, obviously in practice with the
>camera he was using (I think you mentioned the focusing was faulty) under
>average conditions we would be talking anything from 40 to 70 lines per
>millimetre at best. It's highly likely therefore that thin puppetry cord
>would be totally invisible to camera unless it picked up light reflection
>and in that case you would still not necessarily see the whole cord.
>
>So I think it's quite possible he used cord and if the models are about 12
>to 15 ins in diameter though fairly light e.g made of plastic dinner plates,
>various bits of Tupperware or waste plastic packaging, sprayed with
>something like mirror car spray paint such cord should IMO be quite adequate
>to hold the models and the cord would be quite difficult to see with the
>naked eye let alone a camera.
>
I do say that it's easy to talk about this stuff, but once you did
a trial - you will see how it is not so easy to come up with the best
photographs that Billy took, and your results would look decidely
different, ie. model like. That beamship design is particularly good.
>> The stuff that appeared at the time of his breakup with his wife -
>> may have been just 'her' way of getting back at Billy. That it may be
>> a disgruntled ex-wife's comments and actions.
>>
>> I don't know too much about the Gulf Breeze UFO photographs. Whether
>> those photographs are genuine or not? It is the same sort of
>> situation as
>> Billy Meier. How do you know if they are genuine or not?
>> You have one expert saying something, and another expert saying
>> something different altogether - the opposite.
>> And someone could plant a 'model' on the photographer's property -
>> which
>> will give rise to the idea, that he used that model all along.
>> Very much like 9-11, where a flight instruction manual of some kind,
>> is found conveniently in a car parked, left at the airport. It would
>> have been more logical, that the manual should have been taken with
>> them?
>> And not so conveniently left to be found, after the event.
>
>Well most evidence is convienient :)
>
>
>> I say you have to collect up as much information as you can, and
>> enough information will weigh up as to what is more clearer than the
>> other. The one with less inconsistancies, is closer to the truth.
>
>True :)
The more information you have - the better you can see whether is true or not.
>
>--
>Amanda
>
>
I know that it can be very difficult to sort out the information
with the faked or not? arguments against Billy Meier.
You have to check out whether the person making the case against (and for),
whether that person is presenting their argument legitimately or not?
The early critics against Meier, certainly did not any type of reasonable
investigation at all. Basically they did it without checking it out,
properly in any way.
You should at least look at all the photographs possible, and don't
simply discredit the worse of the photographs.
With various contactees in the past - usually what they have said,
amounted to no verifiable information. Or what information they provided,
turned out to be incorrect. This is a sure way of discrediting
fake contactees.
I think this is the same way that religion can be discounted as being
inaccurate and false. That what information they provide, does not add up
to anything logical and reasonable. A sort of like garbage in / garbage
out result.
Harvey
Amanda Angelika
Your Name Here=Harvey <y...@somehost.somedomain.aus> typed:
> Colour slide film, would be I think, slower in film speed,
> at that time. Maybe 80 ASA?
Yes actually even less than that Agfachome used to be 50ASA and Kodak did
Kodachrome which was available in two flavours 25ASA and 64ASA and I think
Ektachome was available at 64 ASA. That said there was also a film made by
GAF Ansco which was 500ASA if I remember rightly. GAF film was fairly
popular and readily available to amateur photographers through Camera shops
and large departments stores and presumably was available throughout Europe
particularly in affluent popular tourist destinations such as Switzerland
and Austria because of the Alps, Liederhosen cheese with holes, sausages,
singing Nuns, beer, and not to mention flying saucers :)
But yes in general the most popularly available 35mm slide film was a bit
slow back then. But even 50ASA film will allow shutter speeds in the region
of 1/60 at f11 in average bright sunlight and for general photography one
wouldn't need anything beyond 100ASA. in fact some cameras weren't capable
of using fast films without some manual conversion and guess work. Though
the Olympus ECR had a top shutter speed of 1/800th second so should have
been capable of using faster slide films up to around 500ASA and many
cameras of that time were made to be able to use film up to about 500ASA
since B/W film up to 400ASA was fairly common and readily available. :)
--
Amanda
ianpa...@gmail.com
also issues of a purely AI nature. I have what could perhaps be
described as bees in my bonnet on this one.
I feel that in many ways robotics research has taken a wrong turn.
Robotics should be concerned about Engineering Physics, Geometry and
CAD/CAM and understanding these things in a generic way. Instead some
AI researchers have attempted to build into robots a quality of
"cuteness" rather than trying to get thenm to do useful things such as
assembling a CAD defined flatpack for example. Assembling an assembly
from parts and sub assemblies is a critical step.
If a program developed this understanding the task of ruggedizing it
for aerospace, while not trivial, would at least be a finite task.
Balance, going up stairs bipedially, is a matter of transfer functions
and also geometry. Leaving space aside think of the gaing obtainable by
replacing wheelchairs with robotic limbs that would allow bipedal
movement on stairs and rough surfaces.
Your Name Here=Harvey
says...
>
>In news:dvasj6$p6s$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz,
>Your Name Here=Harvey <y...@somehost.somedomain.aus> typed:
>
>> Colour slide film, would be I think, slower in film speed,
>> at that time. Maybe 80 ASA?
>
>Yes actually even less than that Agfachome used to be 50ASA and Kodak did
>Kodachrome which was available in two flavours 25ASA and 64ASA and I think
>Ektachome was available at 64 ASA. That said there was also a film made by
>GAF Ansco which was 500ASA if I remember rightly. GAF film was fairly
>popular and readily available to amateur photographers through Camera shops
>and large departments stores and presumably was available throughout Europe
>particularly in affluent popular tourist destinations such as Switzerland
>and Austria because of the Alps, Liederhosen cheese with holes, sausages,
>singing Nuns, beer, and not to mention flying saucers :)
>
Yes I was familiar with the 64 ASA Kodak film, I probably used this
for taking a lot of night sky photographs of constellations in the early?
80s'.
I forgot what exposure time I used, so that the stars could be captured
without the images becoming blurred, because of the earth's rotation.
I don't think the 500ASA colour film would have been commonplace, and
it would have been expensive. Enlargements would be - grainy and the
colour saturation not as good as the normal slower speed films, I would
guess.
>But yes in general the most popularly available 35mm slide film was a bit
>slow back then. But even 50ASA film will allow shutter speeds in the region
>of 1/60 at f11 in average bright sunlight and for general photography one
>wouldn't need anything beyond 100ASA. in fact some cameras weren't capable
>of using fast films without some manual conversion and guess work. Though
>the Olympus ECR had a top shutter speed of 1/800th second so should have
>been capable of using faster slide films up to around 500ASA and many
>cameras of that time were made to be able to use film up to about 500ASA
>since B/W film up to 400ASA was fairly common and readily available. :)
>
The focusing ring of Billy Meier's camera developed a fault, when it
was dropped, and was of fixed focus, so that it could not focus on close
objects.
Anyone doing a serious study of the Billy Meier photographs/etc should
take a look at as many of the photographs as possible, as well as the
other material - and not simply selectively sample/choose the easiest
ones to explain away.
Being truthful, would be to look at as much information as possible,
to try to take everything into consideration.
There is certainly a great deal you can pooh pooh about Billy Meier.
Time is one time thing that something faked doesn't stand up to, in
that interest in various other famous contactees have faded away as the
years have gone by - but I don't think that is the case with Billy Meier.
Be aware of the things/arguments said against Billy Meier, in which that
argument is not as sound, as it is proposed. That that critic is not
dishonest... or perhaps wrong in their argument. Something can sound
alright at first, but in actually doing it, does not match the end result, as
in recreating faked photographs. And it is the end result that matters here.
Harvey
>--
>Amanda
>
>
Your Name Here=Harvey
ianpa...@gmail.com says...
Considering the enormity of sending men to Mars, for example --- it
would be far easier to send a robotic device to Mars sooner, which would
do the same, as if you sent men to Mars --- carrying out the same
functions.
And the test bed for this technology - could be sent to the Moon, to trial
out all the equipment. I'm sure many people would be interested in controlling
a Moon rover and viewing the lunar landscape in depth.
It would of course put to rest all the conspiracy theories regarding NASA
and the moon having base for aliens/UFOs/etc - if people can view everything
there is to see on the moon. No doubt lunar samples returned to Earth,
to be examined by the best geologists/etc here should clear up where
exactly did the Moon come from? And whether it was part of Earth? at
any stage of it's early formation?
Mars rovers going all over Mars would put to rest stories about Martian
cities and artefacts such as the Giant Face on Mars ideas.
NASA could use the possibility of ancient Martian cities? to their advantage
to generate the funding interest for future Mars missions, but instead
chooses to ignore the huge public interest in such ideas.
They only perpetuate the mystery by choosing not to investigate it at all.
Surely it falls into the general question - Was there life, at all? on Mars???
Harvey