Would Transistors Have Been in the Roswell Spaceship Wreckage ? (Yes)
Max Headroom
Would there have been transistors in the Roswell Spaceship wreckage?
This is an
important question to be certain about. There is increasing evidence
of the
importance of the Roswell situation. Physical wreckage from an
extraterrestrial
spaceship would inevitably be studied. The simplest components
of the superior
alien technology would be understood, copied and used in human technology.
Considering the cold-war hysteria that existed from the mid-1940s to
the early
1970s, the greatest possible secrecy would likely be used where possible.
So the following vital points need consideration.
1. Did one or two alien spaceships built and operated by nonhumans
crash near
Roswell and Corona New Mexico in early July 1947?
YES. The initial declaration by the Army Air Force of exactly
that, has been multiply
confirmed by many witnesses, involving a wide variety of activities
directly related to
transport and handling of aliens and alien materials. Other events
corroborate this,
including the extraordinary secrecy and security used in the Roswell
situation, far
beyond even the handling of nuclear weapons. Recent mass destruction
of historical
documents of details such as telephone records of the Roswell air base
(which should
not have been done) are just continuing verifications. Finally
American Computer Co.
has claimed to now be in possession of about 20,000 pages of engineering
notes
made of Roswell crash debris, and is verifying them and preparing releases
for this year.
2. Would transistors be in technology that is one thousand to
one MILLION years in
advance of the human race?
YES. Electricity, electrostatic fields and magnetic fields are
fundamental forces of
the universe. Electricity is extremely versatile, currently used
for computation,
sensing, lighting and mechanical movement. For some areas, like
intense computation,
light and holography may eventually prove to be best, but elsewhere,
small control
computers might be considered more appropriate for tasks such as door
opening
and closing, simply because less interfacing would be needed.
Transistors might be
found only on silicon wafer microcircuits, but they should be expected
to be found,
beyond any reasonable doubt.
3. Would transistors be detectable in advanced alien technology?
YES. Transistors would be expected in various forms and sizes
to do different
functions, so some would be easier to identify. At least some
would be used in
signal amplification purposes, and that would be detectable through
experimentation.
Skilled experts would be given the task of searching, and the equivalent
of a triode
vacuum tube would be understandable. (Apparently a mass-storage
memory component
was not understood 50 years ago, and is only now being researched by
ACC).
4. Were the crash and announcement of the transistor separated
by enough time to
allow the transistor to be detected?
YES. The alien spaceships went down near Roswell and Corona NM
in early July
1947. The transistor was announced in December 1947. That
is plenty of time to
research debris that by even its appearance (most likely microcircuits,
some of which
would be visible) indicated electronic circuitry.
5. Could the transistor have been under development separately
from the Roswell
spaceship debris study, and just coincidentally been discovered at
virtually the exact
same time that it would have been discovered in the alien technology?
PROBABLY NOT. The initial patent filings by AT&T - Bell Labs
were disputed because
of the lack of engineering research provided to prove they had discovered
it (and not just
stole it from someone else). Some of the 50 year old engineering
notes now in possession
of ACC strongly indicate the transistor was discovered in the Roswell
crash debris. In
addition, ACC claims to have a copy of a "life insurance policy"
that one of more of the
estates of Shockley, Brattain and Bardeen required of Bell labs in
return for fraudulently
claiming to have invented the transistor. (Since the document
can continue to function
as a "life insurance policy" to whoever holds it, it may not be soon
released).
Upon realizing the FACT of the Roswell and Corona Extraterrestrial spaceship
downings,
the answers to the other relevant questions become certain beyond a
reasonable doubt,
indicating that the transistor (and who knows how much more) has been
discovered within
alien spaceship components, this situation kept secret, and used to
enormously enrich
those who were permitted to share the secrets. When "Roswell"
is accepted as fact,
the rest becomes logically INEVITABLE.
The weblink:
http://www.american-computer.com/roswell.htm
contains a description of the continuing investigation of this, including
discovery of
electronic components new to human technology, yet explained in 50
year old
engineering notes.
----------------------------------------------------------
Some individuals have commented that the transistor had already been
invented and
existed at the time of the Roswell spaceship crashes. Such a
claim is NONSENSE,
as can be easily proved.
First, such a claim is LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE. Inventions cannot be
repatented. Once
the patent expires, it can never be patented again. And AT&T-Bell
Labs would have had
their patent application denied (It was challenged, on the topic of
inadequate research).
Second, such a claim is a virtual HUMAN IMPOSSIBILITY. Humans
operate with various
predictable intentions. A major human intention is GREED.
This effects all humans
to some extent, but for some it is overpowering. If transistors
had been invented but
not patented by the inventor, someone else would have done so.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO KNOW MORE ?
http://www.sightings.com/ufo/battleofLA.htm
- Battle
of LA - Feb 25,1942 -
California Coastal Defense Artillery fires
1400 cannon shots at UFOs,
no effect. Pictures, eyewitness testimony,
newspaper details.
http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/topic/foo/
WEBPAGE INDEX:
"FAUX" Fighters and
"Ghost Rockets" sightings of World War 2.
Many listings.
http://www.evansville.net/~slk/hanf45.htm
Hot Persuit of UFO at Hanford Nuclear Reactor,
July 1945
6 interceptors were launched, radioed to "Blow
the engines if you have to, but use full military power,
full throttle injection, maximum, continuous.
Go for it!" to try to get to combat range
with the
enormous intruder object.
http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/sighting/date/1940s/
WEBPAGE INDEX:
UFO Sightings in the 1940s.
Many listings.
http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/topic/1947/
WEBPAGE INDEX:
UFO Sightings in the year 1947.
Many listings.
http://www.ufomind.com/place/us/dc/washington/
WEBPAGE INDEX:
UFO overflights of Washington
DC over several days in 1952,
prompting
the largest Press Conference since World War
2. The official Air Force explanation has been
proven wrong. (See http://www.ufomind.com/catalog/isbn/fufor/mirage
)
http://www.iufog.org/project1947/fig/1952d.htm
Chronology of 1952 Washington DC Flyovers
http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/newse/wash/index.html
Pictures of UFO overflights
http://www.ufomind.com/catalog/isbn/fufor/h006/
Radar-Visual UFO Cases in 1952 -The UFO Sightings
that Shook the Government
http://www.amazon.com/
(bookseller)
The book "UFOS
ARE REAL - HERES THE PROOF" by
Ed Walters and optical
physicist Dr. Bruce Maccabee provides ABSOLUTE
DOCUMENTARY PROOF that
unconventional flying objects are real, operated
by one or more nonhuman races
of beings, and that the US military is EXTREMELY
AWARE of their actions. Every attempt
to disprove ANY PART of the evidence has failed,
and every attempt to smear Ed and
his family, or the evidence, has also failed,
and three separate attempts by "Men in
Black" to steal the evidence have failed (although
the third attempt did steal a copy of various
photographs).
Paperback, low-cost, UNDENIABLE AND INCONTROVERTIBLE.
http://cnn.com/US/9706/15/ufo.poll/
(CNN/TIME Poll)
http://archive.abcnews.com/sections/scitech/roswell/abcalienpoll.html
(ABC NEWS Poll)
CNN/Time poll: 80 percent of Americans think
the government is hiding knowledge of ETs
http://www.amazon.com/
(bookseller)
"Unconventional Flying Objects - a scientific
analysis", by Paul Hill, Hampton Roads Publ.
Co.,Charlottesville, VA 1995 (ISBN1-57174-027-9),
$15.95 Former Chief Scientist at NASA
Langley Research Center.
http://www.accessnv.com/nids/seti2.shtml
Synopsis by Hal Puthoff, Ph.D.,
Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin,Austin,
TX
http://www.westol.com/~paufo/kecks.html
"KECKSBURG - THE UNTOLD STORY"
video. 1965 crash-landing of alien spaceship
at Kecksburg PA. Videos
of eyewitnesses, radar data, detailed explanations.
http://www.geocities.com/~phenomena-x/CAT9_radar.html
WEBPAGE INDEX:
MILITARY PERSUITS of PRESUMED ALIEN SPACESHIPS
detected on RADAR
http://www.cseti.org/crashes/crash.htm
WEBPAGE INDEX:
List of Possible Downed Alien Spaceships
http://www.jse.com/PR_UFO_98.html
STANFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS RELEASE
SOME UFOs NEED INVESTIGATION - Dr. David E.
Pritchard, Professor of Physics, MIT (and others)
goes to the STANFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS RELEASE
regarding their declaration that some UFO
situations are in fact in need of investigation,
despite the Air Force claim otherwise.
http://www.sightings.com/ufo/sarah.htm
From: Sarah McClendon,
one of the major White House Correspondents (7/1/1998):
"Washington, D.C. - Pressure is building up
for Congress to give attention to the controversy over
unidentified flying objects. With scientists
from Stanford, MIT, Cornell, Princeton and elsewhere
studying UFO evidence, the controversy is
now being brought out into the open and heavy secrecy
surrounding the subject is being lifted. Seminars
on UFO evidence are being held periodically throughout
the country with laymen discussing the evidence
without fear of being ridiculed. (continued...)"
http://www.primenet.com/%7Ebdzeiler/index.html
WEBSITE: Science,
Logic and the UFO Debate
Website focused on "The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis".
http://ufoinfo.com/roundup/
WEBSITE: UFOROUNDUP
Weekly summary of sightings, up to the current
week.
(Save this newsgroup posting for future reference - This posting will be updated)
roger erland
destroying recovered
semiconductors from the first Arnold.
Air Force Press Release, San Jose Mercury News, Jan. 1995 -- Air Force
acknowledges
recovering remains of a manufactured object considered non-terrestrial
in origin.
I think you're on to something.
Max Headroom
almi...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>2. Would transistors be in technology that is one thousand to one MILLION years in
>advance of the human race?
>
>YES. Electricity, electrostatic fields and magnetic fields are fundamental forces of
>the universe. Electricity is extremely versatile, currently used for computation,
>sensing, lighting and mechanical movement. For some areas, like intense computation,
>light and holography may eventually prove to be best, but elsewhere, small control
>computers might be considered more appropriate for tasks such as door opening
>and closing, simply because less interfacing would be needed. Transistors might be
>found only on silicon wafer microcircuits, but they should be expected to be found,
>beyond any reasonable doubt.
This is an impossible argument to sustain, regardless of whether
transistors were actually present in the roswell craft (assuming point
1, deleted above). It may well be that transistors would have been
surpassed aeons ago by such an advanced life form. Further, it is not
necessarily true that transistors are better than valves (aka vacuum
tubes), as under certain conditions, these devices are more reliable
and less susceptible to things like EMP. Perhaps an alien life form
would have been able to construct miniature valves, if miniaturization
is even to be assumed a prerequisite. Finally, even if transistors
were present in a found roswell object of the sort you describe, there
is no evidence that either the US or any other Gov't would have had
the technology to even discover them in the 40s or even until quite
recently--especially if they were embedded in silicon-type wafers.
Therefore, you cannot say at all that they should be found, beyond a
reasonable doubt. Rather, one can only say that it was possible,
rather than impossible.
>
>3. Would transistors be detectable in advanced alien technology?
>
>YES. Transistors would be expected in various forms and sizes to do different
>functions, so some would be easier to identify. At least some would be used in
>signal amplification purposes, and that would be detectable through experimentation.
>Skilled experts would be given the task of searching, and the equivalent of a triode
>vacuum tube would be understandable. (Apparently a mass-storage memory component
>was not understood 50 years ago, and is only now being researched by ACC).
Again, see the point above; you apparently accept the idea that only
now would such a device be detectable. What mode of experimentation
would have detected such amplification transistors in tiny silicon
wafers 50 years ago? If we had had that technology to detect them,
then there would have been no particular advance presented by alien
technology and hence, you undercut your own argument.
*snip*
>
>5. Could the transistor have been under development separately from the Roswell
>spaceship debris study, and just coincidentally been discovered at virtually the exact
>same time that it would have been discovered in the alien technology?
>
>PROBABLY NOT. The initial patent filings by AT&T - Bell Labs were disputed because
>of the lack of engineering research provided to prove they had discovered it (and not just
>stole it from someone else). Some of the 50 year old engineering notes now in possession
>of ACC strongly indicate the transistor was discovered in the Roswell crash debris. In
>addition, ACC claims to have a copy of a "life insurance policy" that one of more of the
>estates of Shockley, Brattain and Bardeen required of Bell labs in return for fraudulently
>claiming to have invented the transistor. (Since the document can continue to function
>as a "life insurance policy" to whoever holds it, it may not be soon released).
>
How convenient. The one document you purport to be able to vindicate
the theory that ATT stole the transistor from Roswell researches has
neither been seen by you, nor anyone else who can testify as to its
contents. As for concurrent discovery, there are literally thousands
of important discoveries that are made concurrently in science and
engineering, which often leads to Patent interventions or later,
infringement suits. Calculus springs to mind, as an unpatentable
discovery made virtually simultaneously by both Leibnitz and Newton.
As for the fact that the ATT patent was disputed, again, this proves
nothing at all other than the fact that the theory and technology used
to ultimately make transistors was widely known and being pursued by
several corporations and scientists. This is natural in any field of
science and engineering as most scientists tend to share a certain
level of their findings and theories along the way toward a seminal
invention. All one needs to validate a patent claim is proof that the
exact object invented did not exist in the prior art, that it did not
appear in publication internationally, and that it is not an obvious
improvement over an existing device. Anyone who really wanted to
dispute ATT patent would have filed an intervention and would have
had to demonstrate through documentation that they too had made the
same device. Obviously, no one was able to successfully challenge the
claim because such proof was lacking. Even if there were a successful
or believable challenge, that would simply undercut the argument that
these were secrets kept at Roswell, as one would have to show that
their research would have been available to ATT (i.e., a reasonable
search of the literature would have revealed to ATT that such a device
had already been invented), and therefore their patent claim lacked
novelty. If it were a trade secret, they would have had to prove that
ATT violated their trade secrecy through surreptitious means.
However, even if the device existed and was being kept secret, that
alone would not invalidate the claim because, by definition of what a
secret is, ATT could not have known of such a device. Your argument
simply lacks logic and an understanding of patent law.
>Upon realizing the FACT of the Roswell and Corona Extraterrestrial spaceship downings,
>the answers to the other relevant questions become certain beyond a reasonable doubt,
>indicating that the transistor (and who knows how much more) has been discovered within
>alien spaceship components, this situation kept secret, and used to enormously enrich
>those who were permitted to share the secrets. When "Roswell" is accepted as fact,
>the rest becomes logically INEVITABLE.
Even if your above arguments were true, this statement simply does not
follow in any sense of logical construction, certainly one cannot say
that merely because Roswell occurred before the invention of cellular
phones, that there is an inevitable connection between the two. I was
born some years after Roswell, does that make my existence dependent
upon it? (leaving aside existentialist philosophical meanderings for
the moment). It's this kind of inexplicable illogic that gives
legitimate UFO researchers a bad name and associates us with...shall
we say...neurotic delusions. Hopefully, a careful checking of the
facts and patent law, as well as an introduction to simple deductive
reasoning will clear things up.
>
>First, such a claim is LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE. Inventions cannot be repatented. Once
>the patent expires, it can never be patented again. And AT&T-Bell Labs would have had
>their patent application denied (It was challenged, on the topic of inadequate research).
>
ok...that clears up one error in the first posting. Inadequate
research merely means that the patent examiner was not initially
convinced that ATT had a workable device; i.e., that they had not
demonstrated that their invention could be reduced to practice.
Patents can be claimed for inventions never actually constructed--in
fact, the vast majority of patents are for plans of devices that are
never ever made, but are claimed so that corporations (who get the
license to patented inventions of their researchers usually) can get a
lock on obvious improvements to these devices and so that they can
prevent other similar or actual inventions from being patented by
rivals (because once patented, an invention is by definition in the
"prior art" for any subsequent researcher).
>Second, such a claim is a virtual HUMAN IMPOSSIBILITY. Humans operate with various
>predictable intentions. A major human intention is GREED. This effects all humans
>to some extent, but for some it is overpowering. If transistors had been invented but
>not patented by the inventor, someone else would have done so.
this is weak. if that were true, virtually any device could be said
to be inevitable, which is clearly not so, otherwise all patents would
be denied because all inventions would be "obvious". all inventions
must necessarily build upon previous research and devices; patentable
improvements on existing devices are patentable precisely because they
are not obvious or inevitable consequences.
Michael Edelman
> >2. Would transistors be in technology that is one thousand to one MILLION years in
> >advance of the human race?
> >
> >YES. Electricity, electrostatic fields and magnetic fields are fundamental forces of
> >the universe.
And of course 60 years ago you could advance the same argument for tubes ;-)
> ... ACC claims to have a copy of a "life insurance policy" that one of more of the
> >estates of Shockley, Brattain and Bardeen required of Bell labs in return for fraudulently
> >claiming to have invented the transistor. (Since the document can continue to function
> >as a "life insurance policy" to whoever holds it, it may not be soon released).
It's easy when you just make up unverifiable "facts". But we do know that "ACC" is a fraud.
There's no devices, no company, nothing.
Michael Voytinsky
>Air Force Press Release, San Jose Mercury News, Jan. 1995 -- Air Force
>acknowledges recovering remains of a manufactured object considered
non-terrestrial
>in origin.
Do you have a date in January for this item?
Thanks
Cheers
Michael
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Michael Voytinsky, SP4, KoX
Ottawa Ontario Canada
http://www.igs.net/~michaelv
***** Question Authority? Sez Who!? *****
PGP Key at: ldap://certserver.pgp.com
PGP Fingerprint: AA61 BD6A 11CB 926A ED1E B135 9938 200E 0D8C 56F9
Ron Schwarz -- see sig to reply
>> ...
>> >2. Would transistors be in technology that is one thousand to one MILLION years in
>> >advance of the human race?
>> >
>> >YES. Electricity, electrostatic fields and magnetic fields are fundamental forces of
>> >the universe.
>
>And of course 60 years ago you could advance the same argument for tubes ;-)
>
>> ... ACC claims to have a copy of a "life insurance policy" that one of more of the
>> >estates of Shockley, Brattain and Bardeen required of Bell labs in return for fraudulently
>> >claiming to have invented the transistor. (Since the document can continue to function
>> >as a "life insurance policy" to whoever holds it, it may not be soon released).
>
>It's easy when you just make up unverifiable "facts". But we do know that "ACC" is a fraud.
>There's no devices, no company, nothing.
The notion that transistors were deduced by looking at technology "one thousand
to one MILLION years in advance of the human race" is like saying that you gave
a Cray supercomputer to a bunch of neanderthals, and six months later, they used
its design to invent the abacus.
The notion that anyone takes the longest-troll-on-earth seriously is even more
laughable than abacus-wielding neanderthals, though.
--
When they say, "Eat your spam," I say, "Drink your [purple] Koolaid".
Sender: crosscut
Domain: killtrees.com
R@R
Michael Edelman
wrote:
> .. Compare this thought line with humanities' "fossil record"
> of rock to spear, to bow, to gun(match to flint, to cap, to
> cartridge), to laser??? How did WE speed up our historic
> progression? Mankind of today is no more intelligent than the
> last 400 years of his ancestors, more open and less restrained
> from new ideas perhaps, but remember folks, the last four
> hundred years span across the likes of Galileo and Newton, to
> Einstein and Hawking. So what happened with the timing of the
> progression of the technology and science? It is logical to go
> from spear to bow, and after the mixing of the natural
> components of gunpowder, to the various developments of
> firearms over a period of centuries. So can anyone out there
> tell me how the Hell did we jump from the initial development
> of rapid firing metallic cased projectile weapons like the
> Gattling gun model 1865, to being able to shoot moving aircraft
> out of the sky with a guided laser beam in 1973, a period of
> just 108 years? --
For one thing, 108 years is a very long time! In my comparitively
short life I've seen computers go from beheamoths using vacuum
tubes through the discrete solid state era and into high density
integration- and all of it was very well documented. Storage
density has increased a billionfold.
The laser is a good illustration of the development of
technology. It was predicted long before one was ever made as the
physics of the laser is an outcome of basic quantum
electrodynamics. The construction of the first maser showed that
the principle works. At that point it was really a technological
race just to see who'd get there first.
The transistor was the same way. The idea of a solid-state valve
equivalent was long in the mind of many researchers.
Posters like the above show their ignorance of history, science
and technology. They don't understand how science or technology
progresses. To them, prior to 1950 we were all just banging rocks
together. And yet, the 18th century was an explosion of science
and technology. Why? One prosperity. Western society had become
wealthy enough to devote a large amount of resources to pure
research. Two, communications. Faster ships and rail transport
meant that information flowed faster than ever, bringing people
in contact with each other. News of an invention that might have
taken 20 or even 50 years to move from one end of Europe to the
other now took only days.
And so on. But to someone who is totally ignorant or history and
technology, it could only be spacemen ;-)
Michael Edelman
Spambait
rhu...@fcc.gov jqu...@fcc.gov sn...@fcc.gov rch...@fcc.gov
cust...@email.usps.gov consum...@ftc.gov
admin@loopback $LOGIN@localhost $LOGNAME@localhost
$USER@localhost
$USER@$HOST -h1024@localhost ro...@mailloop.com
Chuck Kline
R@R wrote in message <361da...@news.greatbasin.net>...
Marty Fouts
"R@R" <rum...@random.dayton.nv.us> writes:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
Don't do that. MIME is a bad choice for a USENET posting. It is hard
to read, takes up extra space, and contributes no value. Stick to
plain text, especially for a posting like this one which uses none of
the features that might justify MIME in other applications.
[snip]
> Compare this thought line with humanities' "fossil record" of rock to
> spear, to bow, to gun(match to flint, to cap, to cartridge), to
> laser??? How did WE speed up our historic progression? Mankind of
> today is no more intelligent than the last 400 years of his
> ancestors, more open and less restrained from new ideas perhaps, but
> remember folks, the last four hundred years span across the likes of
> Galileo and Newton, to Einstein and Hawking. So what happened with
> the timing of the progression of the technology and science? It is
> logical to go from spear to bow, and after the mixing of the natural
> components of gunpowder, to the various developments of firearms
> over a period of centuries. So can anyone out there tell me how the
> Hell did we jump from the initial development of rapid firing
> metallic cased projectile weapons like the Gattling gun model 1865,
> to being able to shoot moving aircraft out of the sky with a guided
> laser beam in 1973, a period of just 108 years? Chemical reaction
> charge weapon to energy ray. Hmm, maybe we have had a bit of
> corruption at that, extraterrestrial or otherwise.
>
[snip] "If I have seen farther it is because I have stood on the
shoulder of giants." Does that quote sound at all familiar?
If your public library has PBS videos, I'd strongly recommend the
video set _Connections_ by James Burke; even the companion book would
do as a starting point.
What you will find there is fascinating, some of which is relevant to
your posting.
First, all knowledge in the sciences is approximately cumulative, and
the number of researchers alive now is greater than the _total_ number
of curious people in all times past. So one can expect a huge growth
rate.
Second, the progression you are pointing out isn't really a
progression. Western man started exploring optics and magnetism at
about the same time as he started exploring the use of explosives to
propel projectiles. Your latter example comes from the long history
of attempting to understand those mechanisms, your former from the
chemistry of explosives, two divergent and overlapping paths.
BTW, we still can't shoot moving aircraft out of the air with a laser
beam.
You should explore the history of science. It really is quite
fascinating. And needs neither devils nor aliens for explanation.
JohnPegase
In article <2sET1.3174$q5.47378258@news2>, "Chuck Kline" <mcom...@infinet.com>
writes:
> Compare this thought line with humanities' "fossil record" of rock =
>to spear, to bow, to gun(match to flint, to cap, to cartridge), to =
>laser??? How did WE speed up our historic progression? Mankind of today =
>is no more intelligent than the last 400 years of his ancestors, more =
>open and less restrained from new ideas perhaps, but remember folks, the =
>last four hundred years span across the likes of Galileo and Newton, to =
>Einstein and Hawking. So what happened with the timing of the =
>progression of the technology and science?
Vastly better communication between scientists, scientists getting paid rather
than working on their "hobby", the demands of war giving unlimited research
funds, greater population so more scientists, more scientific work pulished
inthe last twenty years then in the history of mankind, more universities to
train scientists, more people going to university, even the invention of the
PC. Lots of reasons for the increased rate of discovery.
John Wright, 742
Chuck Kline
people, hence more research....etc.... You keep comparing the bow to the gun
being centuries. How many people were in the world when the bow was around?
How many people were around when the gun was invented? Aliens and such has
nothing to do with this logical progression of science. I do believe that
aliens exist....I just don't blame them for everything.
MadAdmin wrote in message <6vobqt$709$1...@news-1.news.gte.net>...
>On Sat, 10 Oct 1998 07:57:50 GMT, "Chuck Kline" <mcom...@infinet.com>
>wrote:
>COMMUNICATION is how the jump happened.
>The advent of the telegraph brought about an increase in speed of
>communications. As we got to the point of having reasonable global
>communication we had a LOT more mixing of ideas. When it takes seconds
>rather than weeks for news to travel around the world a lot more
>advances can happen. The amount of information at the fingertips of
>people now days is nothing less than astounding.
>If you think in terms of communication then it isn't necessary to have
>alien conspiracies to explain technological jumps. (Although that
>doesn't necessarily mean there aren't such conspiracies.) Throughout
>our history the major advances tended not to occur in some isolated
>village but rather in the societies who were traveling and
>communicating around the world.
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>If it's tourist season how come we can't shoot 'em???
>
>Gee I got a sig.
>How kewl.
Marty Fouts
smrg...@zxcvbnm.ugh (MadAdmin) writes:
> On 10 Oct 1998 01:22:09 -0700, Marty Fouts <usene...@usa.net>
> wrote:
[snip]
> >BTW, we still can't shoot moving aircraft out of the air with a laser
> >beam.
> >
>
> It's not easy but we can:
> http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/outdoor/od19.htm
>
>
>
[snip]
The Airborne Laser Lab managed, under nearly perfect conditions, with
full foreknowledge of the trajectory, to shoot down five sidewinders
over the course of 11 years.
This differs from "we" being able to shoot down _aircraft_ in
approximately the same complexity that the Wright bros first flight
differed from a manned mission to Mars.
BTW, the conclusion of the ALL experiment was that laser shootdown of
aircraft was not feasible. Which explains why the research was
terminated a decade ago and has never resumed.
marty
Corey Ashford
Chuck Kline wrote in message ...
>We can't shoot aircraft down with a laser. ...
[snip]
Not true. There was
an experiment that used a high-powered laser to cut the wing off of a plane in flight.
Marty Fouts
smrg...@zxcvbnm.ugh (MadAdmin) writes:
> On 10 Oct 1998 19:30:22 -0700, Marty Fouts <usene...@usa.net>
> Yeah but they're planning on using it to shoot down ballistic missiles
> during their boost phase.
>
The keyword here is _planning_. The SDI had a lot of blue-sky
planning that didn't/isn't going to pan out. At this point it is
probably good to trot out one of Peter Salus' old sig lines: the
difference between theory and practice is always larger in practice.
> http://www.de.afrl.af.mil/abl/
>
> Granted a missile doesn't have the maneuverability of a fighter
> aircraft. But I don't see as it's that big of a step from shooting
> down missiles and drones to shooting down actual aircraft.
It is a _huge_ step, because of the way a laser has to work in order
to cut metal. Boost phase missiles are on fixed easy to track
trajectories, while fighter aircraft are constantly and unpredictably
changing the profile they present. They also are firing back, and the
kind of platform needed to house a laser capable of the energy and
impluse levels necessary is going to fly like a KC-135.
> It may not currently be economically feasible though. My
> understanding of the first ABL with the NKC-135 was that the early
> problems were mostly vibration related. I would have to assume that
> it would be possible to build a reasonably successful ground-based
> laser AA system but it most likely wouldn't be an economically wise
> decision. Directed energy weapons are coming and it won't be as
> long between the NKC-135 and battlefield use as the time frame
> between the Wright Brothers and landing on Mars.
>
There are more than vibration problems. Using a laser against metal
has some really unique problems because the laser vaporizes the metal
and the vapor cloud makes a great energy diffuser. Also, high-power
and long-pulse are not usually found in the same laser. And, of
course, some materials are better at diffusing the energy than others,
and those materials also tend to be good at diffusing radar. . .
But given that the time frame for a Mars landing seems to be some time
in the 23rd century, I suppose that a laser or other concentrated
energy source is likely to be an effective weapon for some limited
applications before a Mars landing.
Chuck Kline
Corey Ashford wrote in message <6vqre7$7r2$1...@usenet.rational.com>...
Nuke...@webtv.net
unemployment, illness, impeaching the pesident and watching any 11
oclock news program are the meat of our mental fodder day to day.
If in fact, Roswell was a site of absolute proff of extraterestrial life
( decades ago ). The E.T.s must have listened to the same news casts
we do and havent thought a 2nd trip would be worthwhile. Can you blame
them.
Just think... here you are standing by the road side after your car (for
unknown reasons) stalls.
A very tall extremely thin orange skinned entitiy walks up to you and
says "take me to your leader". An historic event for mankind and you
say " he's busy in the oval office you'll have to wait till Monica
leaves".
Humor aside, if there is a more advanced race out in the starts
somewhere i really do wish they would stop playing around with us and
give us advice on how to live with our neighbors.
Lots_...@webtv.net
had enough technology to invent the most powerful bomb on Earth. After
that crash, for some reason, they built it. As to this day, not even a
lot of countries in the world knows how it works. They just know that
it does work. Coincident? Maybe...
Plus another thing that I don't get is that if these aliens flew a
million light years just to get here. How did they do that? The only
way to fly the speed of light, is to be light (or energy). Because, for
matter, the faster you go, the heavier you get. So you'll never reach
the speed of light unless you can turn youself into pure energy while
flying, and turn yourself back, when going to land.
Well, these are my thoughts on this subject. I still believe in aliens
though, but I just don't think that they have arived YET. Maybe soon.
Steven Dart
To assume they are willing or able to hand over the answers to all our
problems seems suspect.
First, can they help us? For starters, the microbiology of our planet
would have to be examined in it's entirety to help us medically. That
could take a while. If they give us the antidote for AIDS, then why not
cancer, then why not aging. They would permanently alter our existence.
Our economics, politics, or ability to "just get along" involve human
nature; the complexities to that one are enormous and equally fraught
with negative side-effects.
Second, will they help us? They may not want to help us progress; we
are a pretty destructive bunch. Throughout our history we have managed
to spread disease, warfare, slavery, genocide, and other such
pleasantries to the new lands we find. Would you help us on our way to
other planets.
Marty Fouts
nospmb...@infinet.com (Ben Jacoby) writes:
> Marty Fouts (usene...@usa.net) spake thusly:
>
>>> Yeah but they're planning on using it to shoot down ballistic
>>> missiles during their boost phase.
>>>
>
>>The keyword here is _planning_. The SDI had a lot of blue-sky
>>planning that didn't/isn't going to pan out. At this point it is
>>probably good to trot out one of Peter Salus' old sig lines: the
>>difference between theory and practice is always larger in practice.
>
> Says who? It's easy to say that this or that isn't going to work
> when the things that do work are all going to be secret anyway.
>
Says a lot of people. There are a lot of well written technical
discussions of the various bits of SDI blue-sky and why, given current
technology or technology likely available in the next fifty years, the
technical problems are insurmountable.
Also, if you read the declassified reports on the SDI research, you
find a lot of attempts to do something that didn't work.
Very little is actually "kept secret" for any length in time.
Remember that the leading publication in the industry is called
"aviation leak."
All of the SDI ideas were based on concepts with pretty simple
physics, which means that it was pretty easy to demonstrate the
difficulty behind them.
>
>>It is a _huge_ step, because of the way a laser has to work in order
>>to cut metal. Boost phase missiles are on fixed easy to track
>>trajectories, while fighter aircraft are constantly and unpredictably
>>changing the profile they present. They also are firing back, and the
>>kind of platform needed to house a laser capable of the energy and
>>impluse levels necessary is going to fly like a KC-135.
>
> Yeah but the KC-135 doesn't have to turn to aim the laser. Are you
> saying that an aircraft is fast enough to dodge a light beam? <snort>
> Let's see here, how fast can you aim a light beam.... duh, ever see a
> light show?
>
You missed my point about the KC-135. It isn't its ability to aim a
laser that is interesting. It is its ability to avoid being shot down
while it is doing so.
> Yeah, cutting metal is a problem, but many aircraft today aren't metal.
> Didn't you see that film on the news of the laser test on the missile
> sturcture? (presumably some kind of composite) The thing just exploded.
> For that matter maybe all you'd have to do is heat the wings enough until
> the fuel tanks exploded.
>
Cutting composites provides a _different_ problem, since carbon works
just as well to create a diffusion cloud.
Most aviations fuels are not very explosive, since one needs to have a
vapor to explode and a lot of effort is put into keeping them liquid.
You might go back and check the story about the FAA's attempts to get
a 737 to blow up on landing and the stuff they had to do to get it to
do so.
>>> It may not currently be economically feasible though. My
>>> understanding of the first ABL with the NKC-135 was that the early
>>> problems were mostly vibration related. I would have to assume that
>>> it would be possible to build a reasonably successful ground-based
>>> laser AA system but it most likely wouldn't be an economically wise
>>> decision. Directed energy weapons are coming and it won't be as
>>> long between the NKC-135 and battlefield use as the time frame
>>> between the Wright Brothers and landing on Mars.
>
> Yeah, ground based would be big but as far as I know there is already a
> prototype built with funding likely for a full scale unit.
>
A lot of prototypes get build, even a lot of full scale units, of
technology that eventually the military has to admit doesn't work.
>>There are more than vibration problems. Using a laser against metal
>>has some really unique problems because the laser vaporizes the metal
>>and the vapor cloud makes a great energy diffuser. Also, high-power
>>and long-pulse are not usually found in the same laser. And, of
>>course, some materials are better at diffusing the energy than others,
>>and those materials also tend to be good at diffusing radar. . .
>
> Sure a difuser is a problem, but with enough power... And even if high
> power and long pulse are not *usually* found together all you need is
> *one* instance to build your laser. And I might note that chemical
> lasers are *very* long pulses.
>
Well, what you really need is a laser that generates high power short
duration pulses at a high frequency _and_ the ability to hit the same
spot over and over again. The first two combine to make the laser
hard to build, since such lasers have a tendency to self destruct.
The third is where fighter manuevarbility comes into play, since the
source of the laser is likely to be an easy target.
>>But given that the time frame for a Mars landing seems to be some time
>>in the 23rd century, I suppose that a laser or other concentrated
>>energy source is likely to be an effective weapon for some limited
>>applications before a Mars landing.
>
> Speculation about when the military will or won't have this or that or
> more exactly will tell us what they do or don't already have, is the
> height of futility.
>
So why are you speculating then?
marty
Joey
First of all the roswell craft did not "crash",
the US government shocked the hell out of them
by ionizing the upper atmosphere, the craft, bieng
powered by gravity, was covered in fine wires, and
the biengs piloting it were connected to it, they were put
unconcious by the shock and subsequencly crashed.
They are not playing with us they want contact,
but the majority of people will commit suicide if
they knew the religion that they had utter belief in all their
life was prove wrong in a simple sweep. Not only that,
but the thought of another bieng having supreme power
over your entire species is a thought that scares the hell
out of people and would also cause extreme distress.
Do not underestimate their understanding, there is nothing to hide.
Ben Jacoby
: > Yeah but they're planning on using it to shoot down ballistic missiles
: > during their boost phase.
: >
: The keyword here is _planning_. The SDI had a lot of blue-sky
: planning that didn't/isn't going to pan out. At this point it is
: probably good to trot out one of Peter Salus' old sig lines: the
: difference between theory and practice is always larger in practice.
Says who? It's easy to say that this or that isn't going to work when the
things that do work are all going to be secret anyway.
: It is a _huge_ step, because of the way a laser has to work in order
: to cut metal. Boost phase missiles are on fixed easy to track
: trajectories, while fighter aircraft are constantly and unpredictably
: changing the profile they present. They also are firing back, and the
: kind of platform needed to house a laser capable of the energy and
: impluse levels necessary is going to fly like a KC-135.
Yeah but the KC-135 doesn't have to turn to aim the laser. Are you
saying that an aircraft is fast enough to dodge a light beam? <snort>
Let's see here, how fast can you aim a light beam.... duh, ever see a
light show?
Yeah, cutting metal is a problem, but many aircraft today aren't metal.
Didn't you see that film on the news of the laser test on the missile
sturcture? (presumably some kind of composite) The thing just exploded.
For that matter maybe all you'd have to do is heat the wings enough until
the fuel tanks exploded.
: > It may not currently be economically feasible though. My
: > understanding of the first ABL with the NKC-135 was that the early
: > problems were mostly vibration related. I would have to assume that
: > it would be possible to build a reasonably successful ground-based
: > laser AA system but it most likely wouldn't be an economically wise
: > decision. Directed energy weapons are coming and it won't be as
: > long between the NKC-135 and battlefield use as the time frame
: > between the Wright Brothers and landing on Mars.
Yeah, ground based would be big but as far as I know there is already a
prototype built with funding likely for a full scale unit.
: There are more than vibration problems. Using a laser against metal
: has some really unique problems because the laser vaporizes the metal
: and the vapor cloud makes a great energy diffuser. Also, high-power
: and long-pulse are not usually found in the same laser. And, of
: course, some materials are better at diffusing the energy than others,
: and those materials also tend to be good at diffusing radar. . .
Sure a difuser is a problem, but with enough power... And even if high
power and long pulse are not *usually* found together all you need is
*one* instance to build your laser. And I might note that chemical
lasers are *very* long pulses.
: But given that the time frame for a Mars landing seems to be some time
: in the 23rd century, I suppose that a laser or other concentrated
: energy source is likely to be an effective weapon for some limited
: applications before a Mars landing.
Speculation about when the military will or won't have this or that or
more exactly will tell us what they do or don't already have, is the
height of futility.
--
Benjamin Jacoby | "Some rob you with a six-gun and some with
| a fountain pen." ..........Woodie Guthrie
(SPAM GUARD! Delete the no spam letters in name to email.)
Neil O'Brien
allow different currents to flow through a wire (in very basic terms). To
tell you the truth I dont believe that any of our technology has been
affected by Et influence, why?, because we can explain all that we know and
we understand it, I dont know how we could fully understand something if it
didn't come from our brains.
Lots_...@webtv.net wrote in article
<3982-36...@newsd-213.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
Larry DeMers
Art Bell came on the radio this morning and did most of his regular
program after returning from a week long trip to Africa. He seemed happy
tobe back and showed no signs of trouble at all. Then at 2:55 into the
show, he came back froma commercial announcement and said the following:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You may recall about a year ago... I told you that there was an
event, a threatening terrible event occured to my family, which I could
not tell you
about. Because of that event, and a succession of other events, what
you're listening to right now, is my final broadcast on the air. This is
it folks, I'm
going off the air and will not return. And what I will tell you now
is what I told you then. When the time comes when I can tell you what
occurred, I will tell
you, through the press, through the media, of one sort or the other.
I will explain to you the entire thing, it's not that I want to hold
anything back from
my audience, however, for the protection of my family, until it is
otherwise revealed, I can't discuss it, I won't discuss it. And if you
were in my position,
you would do exactly the same thing. And when you finally hear
whatever it is, what it is, whenever you hear it, I think you will then
understand.
At any rate, I wanted to tell you, I didn't want to go without
saying a word, so I'm telling you now. What you are listening to, is MY
FINAL BROADCAST.
It's been a good run, and you've been a great audience, and it's
been an absolutely incredible forum. And my presumption is, that the
forum will
continue. At any rate, it certainly is my hope, that the forum will
continue.
And again when the time comes, when this information can be
released, you can be sure that I will release it, and I would assume
because of the
magnitude of the forum that I have held, at that time, you'll get
the whole story. But the time will come when I will tell it.
So for now and the foreseeable future, that's it! That is the end of
this man's broadcast career. So, thank you, and goodbye...
(Art Bell, 2:55 AM, Oct 13, 1998)
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Larry DeMers
Larry DeMers
Art Bell came on the radio this morning and did most of his regular
program after returning from a week long trip to Africa. He seemed happy
tobe back and showed no signs of trouble at all. Then at 2:55 into the
show, he came back from a commercial announcement and said the following:
rnyberg
MadAdmin wrote in message <700hue$4sp$1...@news-1.news.gte.net>...
>On 11 Oct 1998 16:18:38 -0700, Marty Fouts <usene...@usa.net>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>smrg...@zxcvbnm.ugh (MadAdmin) writes:
>>
>>> On 10 Oct 1998 19:30:22 -0700, Marty Fouts <usene...@usa.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >smrg...@zxcvbnm.ugh (MadAdmin) writes:
>>> >
>>> >> On 10 Oct 1998 01:22:09 -0700, Marty Fouts <usene...@usa.net>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >[snip]
>>> >> >BTW, we still can't shoot moving aircraft out of the air with a
laser
>>> >> >beam.
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >> It's not easy but we can:
>>> >> http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/outdoor/od19.htm
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >[snip]
>>> >
>>> >The Airborne Laser Lab managed, under nearly perfect conditions, with
>>> >full foreknowledge of the trajectory, to shoot down five sidewinders
>>> >over the course of 11 years.
>>> >
>>> >This differs from "we" being able to shoot down _aircraft_ in
>>> >approximately the same complexity that the Wright bros first flight
>>> >differed from a manned mission to Mars.
>>> >
>>> >BTW, the conclusion of the ALL experiment was that laser shootdown of
>>> >aircraft was not feasible. Which explains why the research was
>>> >terminated a decade ago and has never resumed.
>>> >
>>> >marty
>>>
>>> during their boost phase.
>>>
>>
>>The keyword here is _planning_. The SDI had a lot of blue-sky
>>planning that didn't/isn't going to pan out. At this point it is
>>probably good to trot out one of Peter Salus' old sig lines: the
>>difference between theory and practice is always larger in practice.
>>
>>>
>>> Granted a missile doesn't have the maneuverability of a fighter
>>> aircraft. But I don't see as it's that big of a step from shooting
>>> down missiles and drones to shooting down actual aircraft.
>>
>>to cut metal. Boost phase missiles are on fixed easy to track
>>trajectories, while fighter aircraft are constantly and unpredictably
>>changing the profile they present. They also are firing back, and the
>>kind of platform needed to house a laser capable of the energy and
>>impluse levels necessary is going to fly like a KC-135.
>>
>
>AIM-9 makes a MUCH smaller target than a normal aircraft even a
>fighter. It currently wouldn't make much sense to have something the
>size of a KC-135 (or 747 on the new stuff) trying to chase down
>fighters. However a ground-based AA system could easily work but might
>be too expensive to bother implemnting.
>
>>> It may not currently be economically feasible though. My
>>> understanding of the first ABL with the NKC-135 was that the early
>>> problems were mostly vibration related. I would have to assume that
>>> it would be possible to build a reasonably successful ground-based
>>> laser AA system but it most likely wouldn't be an economically wise
>>> decision. Directed energy weapons are coming and it won't be as
>>> long between the NKC-135 and battlefield use as the time frame
>>> between the Wright Brothers and landing on Mars.
>>>
>>
>>has some really unique problems because the laser vaporizes the metal
>>and the vapor cloud makes a great energy diffuser. Also, high-power
>>and long-pulse are not usually found in the same laser. And, of
>>course, some materials are better at diffusing the energy than others,
>>and those materials also tend to be good at diffusing radar. . .
>>
>
>in some underwater communication applications so maybe differing
>wavelengths can be used to overcome the diffusion properties of
>various materials. It's like any other weapon system where there is
>always a way to counter it.
>
>>But given that the time frame for a Mars landing seems to be some time
>>in the 23rd century, I suppose that a laser or other concentrated
>>energy source is likely to be an effective weapon for some limited
>>applications before a Mars landing.
>
>laser and other directed energy weapons will have some application
>since a ground-based laser wouldn't have near the limitations on power
>an airborne system would. However kinectic weapons will always have
>effectiveness too. Like on tanks you can disperse the jet of gases
>from missile attacks with another explosion, etc. so actual
>projectiles are still being used as well.
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>New sig of the day
>
>TTTHHHPPPPPPPP!!!!
Actually the laser is a possibility if you can get the power source down and
scale the entire laser itself down then you could fit it on a fighter. The
better weapon would be ither the EMP this would difuse all electronic
equipment or a Rail gun. They are currently trying to scale the Rail-gun
down to sit on a tank. This would then effectivly make armor obsolete.
żLou Minatti?
>
> For those that don't know about this yet;
>
> Art Bell came on the radio this morning and did most of his regular
> program after returning from a week long trip to Africa. He seemed happy
> tobe back and showed no signs of trouble at all. Then at 2:55 into the
> show, he came back from a commercial announcement and said the following:
His publicity stunt sure has the airwaves and Internet buzzing!
--
We're watching you at SpOOk Central.
http://www.watchingyou.com/
Marty Fouts
smrg...@zxcvbnm.ugh (MadAdmin) writes:
> On 11 Oct 1998 16:18:38 -0700, Marty Fouts <usene...@usa.net>
> wrote:
>
> [etc - snip/snip]
> >
> >It is a _huge_ step, because of the way a laser has to work in order
> >to cut metal. Boost phase missiles are on fixed easy to track
> >trajectories, while fighter aircraft are constantly and unpredictably
> >changing the profile they present. They also are firing back, and the
> >kind of platform needed to house a laser capable of the energy and
> >impluse levels necessary is going to fly like a KC-135.
> >
>
> BUT we already are using lasers in tracking moving targets. Plus the
> AIM-9 makes a MUCH smaller target than a normal aircraft even a
> fighter. It currently wouldn't make much sense to have something the
> size of a KC-135 (or 747 on the new stuff) trying to chase down
> fighters. However a ground-based AA system could easily work but might
> be too expensive to bother implemnting.
>
Tracking and shooting down are far different problems. Tracking
merely requires that enough energy reach the target to get a good
reflection back. _low_ energy is much better for tracking.
The ground-based AA system would have the same problem that all such
systems have now: it is a relatively easy target and would have to be
heavily defeneded.
[snip]
>
> Water diffuses light as well but I believe blue-green lasers are used
> in some underwater communication applications so maybe differing
> wavelengths can be used to overcome the diffusion properties of
> various materials. It's like any other weapon system where there is
> always a way to counter it.
>
multiple frequencies mean multiple lasers with separate optics, power
supplies, et cetera. Doubling the number of lasers quadruples the
support overhead.
> >But given that the time frame for a Mars landing seems to be some time
> >in the 23rd century, I suppose that a laser or other concentrated
> >energy source is likely to be an effective weapon for some limited
> >applications before a Mars landing.
>
> Especially from a ground-based perspective I'm quite certain that
> laser and other directed energy weapons will have some application
> since a ground-based laser wouldn't have near the limitations on power
> an airborne system would. However kinectic weapons will always have
> effectiveness too. Like on tanks you can disperse the jet of gases
> from missile attacks with another explosion, etc. so actual
> projectiles are still being used as well.
>
On this we fully agree: old weapons never completely disappear.
marty
Lou Minatti
>
> On 13 Oct 1998 17:53:31 PDT, żLou Minatti? <loumi...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Larry DeMers wrote:
> >>
> >> For those that don't know about this yet;
> >>
> >> Art Bell came on the radio this morning and did most of his regular
> >> program after returning from a week long trip to Africa. He seemed happy
> >> tobe back and showed no signs of trouble at all. Then at 2:55 into the
> >> show, he came back from a commercial announcement and said the following:
> ><snip>
> >
> >His publicity stunt sure has the airwaves and Internet buzzing!
>
Shippey and I have been briefed on the situation. Art will be back
before the end of the month.
Cydo...@webtv.net
Blue Resonant Human
wrote:
>Larry DeMers wrote:
>>
>> For those that don't know about this yet;
>>
>> Art Bell came on the radio this morning and did most of his regular
>> program after returning from a week long trip to Africa. He seemed happy
>> tobe back and showed no signs of trouble at all. Then at 2:55 into the
>> show, he came back from a commercial announcement and said the following:
><snip>
>
>His publicity stunt sure has the airwaves and Internet buzzing!
Damn you, Minatti! You're in on this with Shippey, aren't you?!
-Brother Blue
+--------------------------------------------------+
| We are all one mind. We're the fever dream of a |
| Hippo with serious bowel problems, and will fade |
| when the sun rises over the Serengeti once more. |
+--------------------------------------------------+
Aaron LeClair
order).
Gov. wanted him to shut up, so they threatened him. A, or many kooky
religious fanatics threatend him. Just a plane ol nut prank that Art
fell for. Art is just wanting to go out with a bang, aka a hoax.fraud,
joke. Publicity stunt. Any one think of any thing other than these
guesses?
George Waller wrote:
> Any ideas why?
>
> George Waller
Lou Minatti
Your Web-TV making funny noises again?
Mark Shippey
Hell, I don't know but I hear some bookies are already making
odds on when he will reappear after this situation.
BTW, anybody see the AP report where someone is quoted as
saying that Art is a "no-nonsense" kind of guy and would not
do this as a stunt.
No-nonsense? Well, I guess that is relative. Anybody remember
Brother Art and the Hale Bopp Special?
Rob Hafernik
> Any ideas why?
Could it possibly be that he was sick of doing the show and just wanted to
retire? Doing it this way, under some undisclosed, secret threat, is just
his way of giving all his loyal listeners something to talk about after
he's gone. If he's doing it right, one of two things will happen:
A) He'll come back on the air (to much publicity) in a little while.
He'll say, "the threat my family was under has been lifted, but only under
the guarantee of complete secrecy, so I can't talk about it". Even
better, hint around that it's the GOVERNMENT that somehow doesn't want him
to talk.
B) He'll somehow fake his or a family member's persecution (or demise) and
cash in via other media. He could write a book that he releases "from
seclusion" or he could start a website or whatever.
Darrell Whitley
it out...pnp ...pnn etc...I wish some alien could fix my dodge..
Chuck Kline
Rob Hafernik wrote in message ...
Joe Elliott
Paul Richardson
Mark
bang."
why would the government care? its not like he uncovered anything and let
his 5 million+ listeners
know about it on air. And I doubt that religous orginizations would
threatin him... Maybe he just pissed
someone off (gave em the finger or something..haha) so they are messing
with him.. But if he received
threats, i doubt it had anything to do with his show.
Aaron LeClair wrote:
> All I have is guesses. You wanna hear em? hear it goes, ( in no certain
> order).
>
> Gov. wanted him to shut up, so they threatened him. A, or many kooky
> religious fanatics threatend him. Just a plane ol nut prank that Art
> fell for. Art is just wanting to go out with a bang, aka a hoax.fraud,
> joke. Publicity stunt. Any one think of any thing other than these
> guesses?
>
Mark
to give the UFO fanatics something to talk about and so that he would be
remembered as something more than just another
radioshow host with a big influence..
Blue Resonant Human
wrote:
>All I have is guesses. You wanna hear em? hear it goes, ( in no certain
>order).
>
> Gov. wanted him to shut up, so they threatened him. A, or many kooky
>religious fanatics threatend him. Just a plane ol nut prank that Art
>fell for. Art is just wanting to go out with a bang, aka a hoax.fraud,
>joke. Publicity stunt. Any one think of any thing other than these
>guesses?
::: Clear Channel To Take Over Jacor :::
By JOHN NOLAN
.c The Associated Press
CINCINNATI (AP) -- Clear Channel Communications Inc. is taking
over Jacor Communications Inc. in a $3.4 billion stock deal
announced Thursday that creates a powerhouse with more than
450 radio stations.
If given regulatory approval next year, the buyout will reduce to
three the number of major players in the rapidly changing radio
industry, along with Chancellor Media Corp. and CBS Corp.
Jacor, based in Covington, Ky., near Cincinnati, went through its
own buyout binge since ownership rules were relaxed in 1996.
The company also provides syndicated radio programming,
including talk shows featuring Rush Limbaugh, Dr. Dean Edell,
Dr. Laura Schlessinger and Art Bell.
In recent years, Clear Channel and Jacor were virtually tied as
the second-largest radio company, but they slipped down the
rankings as CBS acquired Infinity Broadcasting and American
Radio Systems and Chancellor announced plans to acquire
Capstar Broadcasting Corp.
Clear Channel said it hopes to obtain Justice Department and
Federal Communications Commission approval by Sept. 30,
1999, for the deal, which would make Jacor a subsidiary of
Clear Channel.
``It doesn't feel much like a takeover to us,'' Randy Michaels,
who will remain as Jacor's chief executive officer, said
Thursday. ``We rather actively sought this merger out. We're
very enthusiastic about it. It feels like a partnership.''
Lowry Mays, chief executive officer of Clear Channel, who
attended a news conference with Michaels, said he expects
the deal to give the combined companies more market punch.
Mays said he is pleased to obtain the services of Michaels,
regarded in the industry as a programming wizard.
The purchase will give Clear Channel, based in San Antonio,
454 radio stations in 101 U.S. markets, as well as 20 television
stations and outdoor advertising businesses in 25 countries.
Under the deal, each share of Jacor stock would be converted
into 1.4 shares of Clear Channel stock. At $37 a share, the
closing price of Clear Channel stock Wednesday, the deal
would be worth $3.429 billion. Clear Channel also will assume
more than $1.26 billion in Jacor debt. Jacor's closing price
Wednesday was $40.12 1/2.
The companies said the final purchase price will be based on
the average closing price of Clear Channel's common shares
during a 25-trading day period prior to the closing date.
Clear Channel shares dropped 37 1/2 cents to close at $36.62 1/2
Thursday on the New York Stock Exchange. Jacor shares rose
43 3/4 cents on the Nasdaq Stock Market to $40.56 1/4.
Clear Channel already has $2.8 billion in debt, management said.
But the companies said they plan to use their resources -- including
almost $1 billion in marketable securities -- to pay down that debt
by the time the deal closes.
Clear Channel and Jacor last year had combined radio station
revenue of about $1.1 billion, which would rank third behind
Chancellor and CBS. Clear Channel would rank second in
station ownership.
Jacor had recently been seen as a takeover target for both CBS
and Chancellor, especially since CBS plans to sell part of its
radio business to the public in an offering estimated at around
$3 billion.
The deal appears a good fit for both companies, said Jim
Duncan, president of Duncan's American Radio LLC in
Indianapolis. Duncan estimates the companies may have
to sell 18 to 30 radio stations in six markets where they have
overlapping operations: Louisville, Ky.; Dayton and Cleveland,
Ohio; Jacksonville and Tampa, Fla., and Houston.
``In a deal this size, that would be really negligible,'' Duncan said.
Because the stock market's recent drop has hurt broadcast
companies' stocks, Duncan said he doesn't expect a competitor
to try and outbid Clear Channel for Jacor.
Broadcasting stocks have fallen as investors worry about an
advertising slowdown. From the market's peak in mid-July
through Wednesday, Jacor shares had plunged 38 percent
while Clear Channel dropped 40 percent.
AP-NY-10-08-98 1957EDT
Jabwakoona Malakawa
cataclysmic earth changes. They are real, they are true and they will happen.
God has nothing to with it. What will cause it is a CME from the solar
material which lies deep within our planet. This material got there when an
ancient cme was not deflected by the earth's magnetic field and some matter
landed onto and penetrated the ground. This material is active and behaves in
a manner not unlike the sun.......it has sunspot activity and shows signs of
similar cycles. When one of these subterranien CME's breaks the surface of
the planet....all hell breaks loose, so to speak.
Larry DeMers wrote:
> For those that don't know about this yet;
>
> Art Bell came on the radio this morning and did most of his regular
> program after returning from a week long trip to Africa. He seemed happy
> tobe back and showed no signs of trouble at all. Then at 2:55 into the
> show, he came back from a commercial announcement and said the following:
>
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
Marty Fouts
smrg...@zxcvbnm.ugh (MadAdmin) writes:
[snip]
>
> I didn't necessarily mean multiple frequencies just possibly different
> wavelengths than are currently being used. I'm not aware of any
> high-power projects currently being done in the blue-green range. I
> haven't really kept up with laser research but do like to look into it
> once in a while.
>
I don't know about any blue-green high-power stuff either. But there
has been a lot of progress recently in those frequencies in low power,
so perhaps the high power will be along shortly.
[snip]
>
> Actually one of my favorite "new" weapons is a kinetic one - the
> so-called "Rail Gun"
>
> As far as small arms go though I doubt that gunpowder will ever be
> completely replaced for many generations to come....
>
> Now about those damn aliens....
>
AFAIK, _they_ gave up on gun powder a long time go.
marty
skep-Ti-peasant=?iso-8859-1?Q?=99
>
> The thing that some people don't want him to talk about is the impending
> cataclysmic earth changes. They are real, they are true and they will happen.
> God has nothing to with it.
now they will just blame it on the y2K problem.
>
George Waller
Any ideas why?
George Waller
Chuck Kline
eyes!
Chuck Kline
Mischievous Computer Services
mcom...@infinet.com
http://www.infinet.com/~mcompute
Jabwakoona Malakawa wrote in message <36255852...@my.net>...
>The thing that some people don't want him to talk about is the impending
>cataclysmic earth changes. They are real, they are true and they will
happen.
John Malechek
?
George Waller
(I did mean PORCH but I suppose PERCH could also be inserted here...)
BTW - was it ever possible to receive Art's program on radio equipment over
here in the UK? Was it shunted through a sat tv channel perhaps so that
foreign listener's could hear it?
George W
George Waller
I thought he already had a web site.
George W
Token
>
> lucky shot.
>
> Corey Ashford wrote in message <6vqre7$7r2$1...@usenet.rational.com>...
> >
> >Chuck Kline wrote in message ...
> >>We can't shoot aircraft down with a laser. ...
> >[snip]
> >
> >Not true. There was
> >an experiment that used a high-powered laser to cut the wing off of a plane
> in flight.
> >
> >
> >
> >
Chuck,
Why do you say that?
I do not know of any laser capable of cutting off an aircrafts wing
in flight, but I see no reason it couldn't be done. It would just
be expensive. Stingers cost waaaaaaay less.
So Long,
Token
John Richter
Token wrote:
> Chuck,
>
> Why do you say that?
>
> I do not know of any laser capable of cutting off an aircrafts wing
> in flight, but I see no reason it couldn't be done. It would just
> be expensive. Stingers cost waaaaaaay less.
>
> So Long,
>
> Token
The US Govt. did create a very large and powerful laser which was capable of puncturing certain parts of moving aircraft. This technology was initially created as a ground station and eventually modified and put into an air force jet with the capability to track a moving target. This technology was being developed in the late 1960's and 1970's. It was the impetus for Reagon's Star Wars program but was eventually scrapped because the laser, even as powerful as it was, was only strong enough to cut through one or two miles of interference in the atmosphere such as dust. It can only be a short range weapon. It's massive size and safety concerns make conventional weapons much more appealing. Even though our computer technology today is much greater than back then, and although our tracking ability has increased twenty fold, it is still useless because the laser is crippled by the fact that it simply can not cut through the dust in our atmosphere.
John R.
Randomseed
day ideas have been different methods of propulsion, such as warp drives,
and worm holes, which are scientifically feasible
--
Randomseed
--merwI'
http://wwp.mirabilis.com/8562260
Lots_...@webtv.net wrote in message
<3982-36...@newsd-213.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
What I think about The crash is that, before the crash, man has never
had enough technology to invent the most powerful bomb on Earth. After
that crash, for some reason, they built it. As to this day, not even a
lot of countries in the world knows how it works. They just know that
it does work. Coincident? Maybe...
Plus another thing that I don't get is that if these aliens flew a
million light years just to get here. How did they do that? The only
way to fly the speed of light, is to be light (or energy). Because, for
matter, the faster you go, the heavier you get. So you'll never reach
the speed of light unless you can turn youself into pure energy while
flying, and turn yourself back, when going to land.
Well, these are my thoughts on this subject. I still believe in aliens
though, but I just don't think that they have arived YET. Maybe soon.
Max Headroom
Would there have been transistors in the Roswell Spaceship wreckage?
This is an
important question to be certain about. There is increasing evidence
of the
importance of the Roswell situation. Physical wreckage from an
extraterrestrial
spaceship would inevitably be studied. The simplest components
of the superior
alien technology would be understood, copied and used in human technology.
Considering the cold-war hysteria that existed from the mid-1940s to
the early
1970s, the greatest possible secrecy would likely be used where possible.
So the following vital points need consideration.
1. Did one or two alien spaceships built and operated by nonhumans
crash near
Roswell and Corona New Mexico in early July 1947?
YES. The initial declaration by the Army Air Force of exactly
that, has been multiply
confirmed by many witnesses, involving a wide variety of activities
directly related to
transport and handling of aliens and alien materials. Other events
corroborate this,
including the extraordinary secrecy and security used in the Roswell
situation, far
beyond even the handling of nuclear weapons. Recent mass destruction
of historical
documents of details such as telephone records of the Roswell air base
(which should
not have been done) are just continuing verifications. Finally
American Computer Co.
has claimed to now be in possession of about 20,000 pages of engineering
notes
made of Roswell crash debris, and is verifying them and preparing releases
for this year.
2. Would transistors be in technology that is one thousand to
one MILLION years in
advance of the human race?
YES. Electricity, electrostatic fields and magnetic fields are
fundamental forces of
the universe. Electricity is extremely versatile, currently used
for computation,
sensing, lighting and mechanical movement. For some areas, like
intense computation,
light and holography may eventually prove to be best, but elsewhere,
small control
computers might be considered more appropriate for tasks such as door
opening
and closing, simply because less interfacing would be needed.
Transistors might be
found only on silicon wafer microcircuits, but they should be expected
to be found,
beyond any reasonable doubt.
3. Would transistors be detectable in advanced alien technology?
YES. Transistors would be expected in various forms and sizes
to do different
functions, so some would be easier to identify. At least some
would be used in
signal amplification purposes, and that would be detectable through
experimentation.
Skilled experts would be given the task of searching, and the equivalent
of a triode
vacuum tube would be understandable. (Apparently a mass-storage
memory component
was not understood 50 years ago, and is only now being researched by
ACC).
4. Were the crash and announcement of the transistor separated
by enough time to
allow the transistor to be detected?
YES. The alien spaceships went down near Roswell and Corona NM
in early July
1947. The transistor was announced in December 1947. That
is plenty of time to
research debris that by even its appearance (most likely microcircuits,
some of which
would be visible) indicated electronic circuitry.
5. Could the transistor have been under development separately
from the Roswell
spaceship debris study, and just coincidentally been discovered at
virtually the exact
same time that it would have been discovered in the alien technology?
PROBABLY NOT. The initial patent filings by AT&T - Bell Labs
were disputed because
of the lack of engineering research provided to prove they had discovered
it (and not just
stole it from someone else). Some of the 50 year old engineering
notes now in possession
of ACC strongly indicate the transistor was discovered in the Roswell
crash debris. In
addition, ACC claims to have a copy of a "life insurance policy"
that one of more of the
estates of Shockley, Brattain and Bardeen required of Bell labs in
return for fraudulently
claiming to have invented the transistor. (Since the document
can continue to function
as a "life insurance policy" to whoever holds it, it may not be soon
released).
Upon realizing the FACT of the Roswell and Corona Extraterrestrial spaceship
downings,
the answers to the other relevant questions become certain beyond a
reasonable doubt,
indicating that the transistor (and who knows how much more) has been
discovered within
alien spaceship components, this situation kept secret, and used to
enormously enrich
those who were permitted to share the secrets. When "Roswell"
is accepted as fact,
the rest becomes logically INEVITABLE.
The weblink:
http://www.american-computer.com/roswell.htm
contains a description of the continuing investigation of this, including
discovery of
electronic components new to human technology, yet explained in 50
year old
engineering notes.
----------------------------------------------------------
Some individuals have commented that the transistor had already been
invented and
existed at the time of the Roswell spaceship crashes. Such a
claim is NONSENSE,
as can be easily proved.
First, such a claim is LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE. Inventions cannot be
repatented. Once
the patent expires, it can never be patented again. And AT&T-Bell
Labs would have had
their patent application denied (It was challenged, on the topic of
inadequate research).
Second, such a claim is a virtual HUMAN IMPOSSIBILITY. Humans
operate with various
predictable intentions. A major human intention is GREED.
This effects all humans
to some extent, but for some it is overpowering. If transistors
had been invented but
not patented by the inventor, someone else would have done so.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO KNOW MORE ?
http://www.sightings.com/ufo/battleofLA.htm
- Battle
of LA - Feb 25,1942 -
California Coastal Defense Artillery fires
1400 cannon shots at UFOs,
no effect. Pictures, eyewitness testimony,
newspaper details.
http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/topic/foo/
WEBPAGE INDEX:
"FAUX" Fighters and
"Ghost Rockets" sightings of World War 2.
Many listings.
http://www.evansville.net/~slk/hanf45.htm
Hot Persuit of UFO at Hanford Nuclear Reactor,
July 1945
6 interceptors were launched, radioed to "Blow
the engines if you have to, but use full military power,
full throttle injection, maximum, continuous.
Go for it!" to try to get to combat range
with the
enormous intruder object.
http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/sighting/date/1940s/
WEBPAGE INDEX:
UFO Sightings in the 1940s.
Many listings.
http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/topic/1947/
WEBPAGE INDEX:
UFO Sightings in the year 1947.
Many listings.
http://www.ufomind.com/place/us/dc/washington/
WEBPAGE INDEX:
UFO overflights of Washington
DC over several days in 1952,
prompting
the largest Press Conference since World War
2. The official Air Force explanation has been
proven wrong. (See http://www.ufomind.com/catalog/isbn/fufor/mirage
)
http://www.iufog.org/project1947/fig/1952d.htm
Chronology of 1952 Washington DC Flyovers
http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/newse/wash/index.html
Pictures of UFO overflights
http://www.ufomind.com/catalog/isbn/fufor/h006/
Radar-Visual UFO Cases in 1952 -The UFO Sightings
that Shook the Government
http://www.amazon.com/
(bookseller)
The book "UFOS
ARE REAL - HERES THE PROOF" by
Ed Walters and optical
physicist Dr. Bruce Maccabee provides ABSOLUTE
DOCUMENTARY PROOF that
unconventional flying objects are real, operated
by one or more nonhuman races
of beings, and that the US military is EXTREMELY
AWARE of their actions. Every attempt
to disprove ANY PART of the evidence has failed,
and every attempt to smear Ed and
his family, or the evidence, has also failed,
and three separate attempts by "Men in
Black" to steal the evidence have failed (although
the third attempt did steal a copy of various
photographs).
Paperback, low-cost, UNDENIABLE AND INCONTROVERTIBLE.
http://cnn.com/US/9706/15/ufo.poll/
(CNN/TIME Poll)
http://archive.abcnews.com/sections/scitech/roswell/abcalienpoll.html
(ABC NEWS Poll)
CNN/Time poll: 80 percent of Americans think
the government is hiding knowledge of ETs
http://www.amazon.com/
(bookseller)
"Unconventional Flying Objects - a scientific
analysis", by Paul Hill, Hampton Roads Publ.
Co.,Charlottesville, VA 1995 (ISBN1-57174-027-9),
$15.95 Former Chief Scientist at NASA
Langley Research Center.
http://www.accessnv.com/nids/seti2.shtml
Synopsis by Hal Puthoff, Ph.D.,
Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin,Austin,
TX
http://www.westol.com/~paufo/kecks.html
"KECKSBURG - THE UNTOLD STORY"
video. 1965 crash-landing of alien spaceship
at Kecksburg PA. Videos
of eyewitnesses, radar data, detailed explanations.
http://www.geocities.com/~phenomena-x/CAT9_radar.html
WEBPAGE INDEX:
MILITARY PERSUITS of PRESUMED ALIEN SPACESHIPS
detected on RADAR
http://www.cseti.org/crashes/crash.htm
WEBPAGE INDEX:
List of Possible Downed Alien Spaceships
http://www.jse.com/PR_UFO_98.html
STANFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS RELEASE
SOME UFOs NEED INVESTIGATION - Dr. David E.
Pritchard, Professor of Physics, MIT (and others)
goes to the STANFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS RELEASE
regarding their declaration that some UFO
situations are in fact in need of investigation,
despite the Air Force claim otherwise.
http://www.sightings.com/ufo/sarah.htm
From: Sarah McClendon,
one of the major White House Correspondents (7/1/1998):
"Washington, D.C. - Pressure is building up
for Congress to give attention to the controversy over
unidentified flying objects. With scientists
from Stanford, MIT, Cornell, Princeton and elsewhere
studying UFO evidence, the controversy is
now being brought out into the open and heavy secrecy
surrounding the subject is being lifted. Seminars
on UFO evidence are being held periodically throughout
the country with laymen discussing the evidence
without fear of being ridiculed. (continued...)"
http://www.primenet.com/%7Ebdzeiler/index.html
WEBSITE: Science,
Logic and the UFO Debate
Website focused on "The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis".
http://ufoinfo.com/roundup/
WEBSITE: UFOROUNDUP
Weekly summary of sightings, up to the current
week.
(Save this newsgroup posting for future reference - This posting will be updated)
aero
surely they can arrive at any point in our history/future they like. Or
maybe they live for hunderds of thousands of years, and don't get bored or
fedup with being with the same 2 or 3 crew members for hunderds of thousands
of years. It could be the reason they crashed. "You've had control for the
last five millenia, it's your turn to read this bloody map." "I'm fed up
with your wittering on, and your snoring." "I don't snore!" "Yes you do, you
sound like a Creeble grotching an Illkey." I do not." etc....
There's a much maligned 'proof' by a Dr Tipler, who demonstrates through
extrapolation of technological advancement against time, amongst other
things, that humans will inhabit the whole galaxy within 400,000yrs, and not
one person will leave our soloar system.
Maybe we're never gonna know, because our comprehension of all new concepts
is chained to our past experience. (although advocates of psychoactives will
insist we can break these chains.) i.e. We can all imagine huge numbers,
but can you really comprehend infinity. Our experience and current knowledge
tells us it's there, but we can't get anywhere near it.
I believe the most powerful bomb on earth is that love bomb we all gotta
drop on each other. Too many greed bomb's around, I hope our visitors could
leave the plans to that soon.
p.s.I have experienced a single incident which I attribute to sleep
paralysis. But, whoa, it seemed very real.
P.
Jerry Bryson
disrupt the UFO newsgroups.
Max Headroom <Netw...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> Would Transistors Have Been in the Roswell Spaceship Wreckage ? (Yes)
--
Failure doesn't mean you can't;
It just means you haven't
Max Headroom
Jerry Bryson
>
> Would Transistors Have Been in the Roswell Spaceship Wreckage ? (Yes)
No, as is shown weekly
dan house
>
> Would Transistors Have Been in the Roswell Spaceship Wreckage ? (Yes)
>
Can we let this go?
Can we stop wating Bandwidth?
CAN YOU STOP CROSSPOSTING THIS STUFF?
Jeff
>
> Would Transistors Have Been in the Roswell Spaceship Wreckage ? (Yes)
Probably not. If semiconductors of any kind were in use in a craft
constructed by those possessing vastly superior technology, I would
suspect that VLSICs (very large scale integrated circuits) would
be used. You know, like that 80586 chip which makes this discussion
possible. I would also expect to find field-effect transistors and
thyristors, both of which were unknown to humankind at that date.
I would also expect to find transistors which use semiconductor
compounds such as gallium arsenide as opposed to semiconductor
elements such as germanium.
>
> 2. Would transistors be in technology that is one thousand to one
> MILLION years in
> advance of the human race?
It seems doubtful but difficult to divine an answer either way. The
steam locomotive was a human contrivance which radically changed the
way humans lived but it grew, flourished and disappeared in just over
100 years. The vacuum tube had a similar life cycle. Other technologies
have changed very little in millenia. The common household broom has
been in use for at least 4000 years with little change nor has the basic
concept of the wheel, the cam, the crank changed much over the ages. So
transistor-based devices may be here to stay or they may soon be found
only in books.
>
> Transistors might be
> found only on silicon wafer microcircuits, but they should be expected
> to be found,
> beyond any reasonable doubt.
They may be found as discrete devices in high collector dissipation or
RF applications but I would suspect that a greater intelligence would
have overcome these engineering difficulties.
>
>
>
> 5. Could the transistor have been under development separately from
> the Roswell
> spaceship debris study, and just coincidentally been discovered at
> virtually the exact
> same time that it would have been discovered in the alien technology?
I read that British researchers had been working on amplifying devices
based on Galena crystals since the early 1930's. Like the Magnetron,
I believe American corporate interests and their harlots in Congress
demanded these devices from the British in return for saving their ass
from Hitler.
>
>
BTW, is Dr. Shockley still alive?
jHh
Max Headroom
Lou Minatti
>
> Would Transistors Have Been in the Roswell Spaceship Wreckage ? (Yes)
stick, post some new material!
--
We're watching you at SpOOk Central.
http://www.watchingyou.com/
Coming soon: The Infamous Mullet Watch!
John Cason
<363A95...@yahoo.com>...
> Max Headroom wrote:
>>
>> Would Transistors Have Been in the Roswell Spaceship Wreckage ? (Yes)
> How many times are you gonna spam the same shit? Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo
> stick, post some new material!
Lou, Max has no appreciation for the pervasive influence of alien
technology on human history. He needs help with his material:
Would Wireless Sets Have Been in the 1883 Krakatoa Mothership Crash?
Would Hourglasses Have Been in the 1066 Hastings Comet Fly-By?
Would Iron Spearpoints Have Been in the 1000 BC Flying Chariot Wreckage?
Would Bronze Shields Have Been in the 5000 BC Like-Volcano PhoenixBird?
Would Stone Axes Have Been in the 10,000 BC Fire-From-Sky BigBoom?
Max Headroom
The weblink:
http://www.american-computer.com/roswell.htm
http://ufoinfo.com/roundup/ WEBSITE: UFOROUNDUPWeekly summary of sightings, up to the current week.
Philo Pfaehnstock
Max Headroom wrote:
> Would Transistors Have Been in the Roswell Spaceship
> Wreckage ? (Yes)
I guess we can skip the argument then, huh? ;-)
> Would there have been transistors in the Roswell Spaceship
> wreckage? This is an
> important question to be certain about.
Why?
> There is increasing evidence of the
> importance of the Roswell situation.
Why?
> Physical wreckage from an extraterrestrial
> spaceship would inevitably be studied. The simplest
> components of the superior
> alien technology would be understood
So if a simple, department-store computer motherboard from
1998 fell into the hands of a primitive earthling from, oh,
1938, he'd understand it? In your dreams! ;-)
> , copied and used in human technology.
Yeah, right. That explains all the flying saucers down at
the airport ;-)
> ...So the following vital points need consideration.
>
> 1. Did one or two alien spaceships built and operated by
> nonhumans crash near
> Roswell and Corona New Mexico in early July 1947?
>
> YES. The initial declaration by the Army Air Force of
> exactly that
Absolute and incontravertable bullshit. Someone said "flying
disks" based on second hand knowledge- and possibly speaking
tongue in cheek. No one ever said "one or two alien
spaceships built and operated by nonhumans" until years
later.
> ....Other events corroborate this,
> including the extraordinary secrecy and security used in
> the Roswell situation, far
> beyond even the handling of nuclear weapons.
Bullshit. You don't even know what the security procedures
are for handling nuclear weapons, so how would you know?
And of course we have the "secrecy" argument: There's
absolutely no evidence, ergo it must be *really* secret.
That line of reasoning can also be used to prove the
exitence of flying monkeys in the west wing of the White
House ;-)
> Recent mass destruction of historical
> documents of details such as telephone records of the
> Roswell air base (which should
> not have been done) are just continuing verifications.
And of course you have proof of this. So why would they
destroy the evidence 50 years after the fact?
> Finally American Computer Co.
> has claimed to now be in possession of about 20,000 pages
> of engineering notes
> made of Roswell crash debris, and is verifying them and
> preparing releases for this year.
Oh, THAT again! That moron has been making his claim for
years. There's no device, no aliens, no documentation, and
no "American COmputer" either. The picture of the supposed
company on the web page is someone else's building.
> 2. Would transistors be in technology that is one
> thousand to one MILLION years in
> advance of the human race?
>
> YES. Electricity, electrostatic fields and magnetic
> fields are fundamental forces of
> the universe.
You could make the same argument for tubes. Or Leyden jars.
Gotta have Leyden jars; otherwise how could you store
charges? And Whimhurst influence machines- it's the only
efficient way to generate a charge.....
The people who fabricated the first transistors wouldn't
recognize the chips made today if you gave them one. They
wouldn't even have the tools to reverse engineer it.
You think that having an example of a device is enough to
copy it, which whows how little you know. Could an engineer
of the 15th century copy a steam locomotive, even if given
the plans and operating manual? Could RCA, the electronics
leader of the 1930s, have built a computer even if given a
dozen pentiums to work with?
You don't seem to have much of a grasp of real technology.
> 3. Would transistors be detectable in advanced alien
> technology?
>
> YES. Transistors would be expected in various forms and
> sizes to do different
> functions, so some would be easier to identify.
In your dreams, Earthman! ;-)
> At least some would be used in
> signal amplification purposes, and that would be
> detectable through experimentation.
If you even knew what was an *amplifier! * Plenty of skilled
electrical tinkerers destroyed CK722s, trying to fiogure out
how they worked...and they *knew* they were transistors.
> 5. Could the transistor have been under development
> separately from the Roswell
> spaceship debris study, and just coincidentally been
> discovered at virtually the exact
> same time that it would have been discovered in the alien
> technology?
>
> PROBABLY NOT. The initial patent filings by AT&T - Bell
> Labs were disputed because
> of the lack of engineering research provided to prove they
> had discovered it
That's just a lie, plain and simple. *Many* researchers were
working on the problem of developing a solid state analog
to the vacuum tube switch.
> .... Some of the 50 year old engineering notes now in
> possession
> of ACC
I'm getting tired of this repeated bullshit. Put up, or shut
up.
> ... ACC claims to have a copy of a "life insurance
> policy" that one of more of the
> estates of Shockley, Brattain and Bardeen required of Bell
> labs in return for fraudulently
> claiming to have invented the transistor. (Since the
> document can continue to function
> as a "life insurance policy" to whoever holds it, it may
> not be soon released).
Again: Put up or shut up. Either you have a copy, or it
doesn't exist.
> ....When "Roswell" is accepted as fact,
> the rest becomes logically INEVITABLE.
Or at least justifiable to the feeble.
rnyberg
Philo Pfaehnstock wrote in message <3641BB10...@clip.ork>...
>
>
>Max Headroom wrote:
>
>> Would Transistors Have Been in the Roswell Spaceship
>> Wreckage ? (Yes)
>
>I guess we can skip the argument then, huh? ;-)
>
>> Would there have been transistors in the Roswell Spaceship
>> wreckage? This is an
>> important question to be certain about.
>
>Why?
>
>> There is increasing evidence of the
>> importance of the Roswell situation.
>
>Why?
>
>> Physical wreckage from an extraterrestrial
>> spaceship would inevitably be studied. The simplest
>> components of the superior
>> alien technology would be understood
>
>So if a simple, department-store computer motherboard from
>1998 fell into the hands of a primitive earthling from, oh,
>1938, he'd understand it? In your dreams! ;-)
>
Ya, we would understand pong or how to plug it in. But with it crashing all
the time I would think that people would kill Bill Gates before he was born.
>> , copied and used in human technology.
>
>Yeah, right. That explains all the flying saucers down at
>the airport ;-)
>
>> ...So the following vital points need consideration.
>>
>> 1. Did one or two alien spaceships built and operated by
>> nonhumans crash near
>> Roswell and Corona New Mexico in early July 1947?
>>
>> YES. The initial declaration by the Army Air Force of
>> exactly that
>
>Absolute and incontravertable bullshit. Someone said "flying
>disks" based on second hand knowledge- and possibly speaking
>tongue in cheek. No one ever said "one or two alien
>spaceships built and operated by nonhumans" until years
>later.
>
>> ....Other events corroborate this,
>> including the extraordinary secrecy and security used in
>> the Roswell situation, far
>> beyond even the handling of nuclear weapons.
>
>Bullshit. You don't even know what the security procedures
>are for handling nuclear weapons, so how would you know?
>
They just don't hit the red button.
>And of course we have the "secrecy" argument: There's
>absolutely no evidence, ergo it must be *really* secret.
>That line of reasoning can also be used to prove the
>exitence of flying monkeys in the west wing of the White
>House ;-)
>
I'm sure someones brother saw them.
>> Recent mass destruction of historical
>> documents of details such as telephone records of the
>> Roswell air base (which should
>> not have been done) are just continuing verifications.
>
>And of course you have proof of this. So why would they
>destroy the evidence 50 years after the fact?
>
They needed the storage space.
>> Finally American Computer Co.
>> has claimed to now be in possession of about 20,000 pages
>> of engineering notes
>> made of Roswell crash debris, and is verifying them and
>> preparing releases for this year.
>
>Oh, THAT again! That moron has been making his claim for
>years. There's no device, no aliens, no documentation, and
>no "American COmputer" either. The picture of the supposed
>company on the web page is someone else's building.
>
>> 2. Would transistors be in technology that is one
>> thousand to one MILLION years in
>> advance of the human race?
>>
>> YES. Electricity, electrostatic fields and magnetic
>> fields are fundamental forces of
>> the universe.
>
>You could make the same argument for tubes. Or Leyden jars.
>Gotta have Leyden jars; otherwise how could you store
>charges? And Whimhurst influence machines- it's the only
>efficient way to generate a charge.....
>
Don't forget the wankle engine.
>The people who fabricated the first transistors wouldn't
>recognize the chips made today if you gave them one. They
>wouldn't even have the tools to reverse engineer it.
>
Sure a hammer does wonders.
David Thornley
Max Headroom wrote in message <363A4729...@erols.com>...
Max Headroom
Jerry Bryson
>
> Hmmm, July -> December thats LESS than 6 months to research a technology
> and apply it, that noone knows anything about.... and frankly I doubt
> anything/anyone with technology far superior than our own would be using
> ancient transisitors. Even nowdays most appliances don't have many
> transistors and most are surface mount anyway... besides the whole idea
> being a bunch of codgewallap... these pathetic tales of BS show newcomers
> the mentality of people who believe in the fact that ET possibly do exist,
> and spoil it for them...... Your even answering your own questions, before
> they are rationally excepted by others.
Hi, David, It's worse than you thought. We get this about once a week
and Mr. Kazlouski doesn't really care that you find some holes in the
spam, here and there. The wisdom is not to quote his whole message in
your response, because some people pay by the byte, to download. Try
sending complaints to ab...@erols.com.
Jimmy
b) Eat less sugar.
c) See a psychiatrist.
In order for the transistor to have been... what... patented? in Dec of
1947, that means prototypes had to have been around for several years.
But even if it wasn't around for several years, you really ought to seek
medical attention.
Jimmy
David Thornley <dav...@touchstar.com.au> wrote in article
<725epd$h34$1...@the-fly.zip.com.au>...
The weblink:
http://www.american-computer.com/roswell.htm
----------
Max Headroom
The weblink:
http://www.american-computer.com/roswell.htm
http://ufoinfo.com/roundup/ WEBSITE: UFOROUNDUPWeekly summary of sightings, up to the current week.(Save this newsgroup posting for future reference - This posting will be updated)
Ian Wood
Dave Bethke
> A serious technical point for anyone who reads this.
> I set my mail client to filter out mails containing 'Max Headroom', more
> than 100 lines or anything more than 5 days old. How do I set it to
> filter out any posting containing garbage.....................
Such garbage filter's were discovered in the Roswell wreckage, but of
course the government has covered it up. :-)
--
Dave Bethke - on the fringe of Houston
Max Headroom
The weblink:
http://www.american-computer.com/roswell.htm
Website focused on "The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis".http://ufoinfo.com/roundup/WEBSITE:
UFOROUNDUP
Gatt
> Would Transistors Have Been in the Roswell Spaceship Wreckage ? (Yes)
>
> 5. Could the transistor have been under development separately from the Roswell
> spaceship debris study, and just coincidentally been discovered at virtually the exact
> same time that it would have been discovered in the alien technology?
I'm keeping my opinion out of this and tossing in something to think
about. Three years ago I accompanied my girlfriend to a family reunion.
Being a pilot, I was told I should go talk to one of her uncles, who had
worked on airplanes in "weird places" all his life. When I finally met
him, he told me:
He didn't work on airplanes per se. He worked on microchips. Back in the
'50s. It doesn't take a degree in computers to be suspicious,
but I wasn't about to call him a liar outright so I probed him a bit: "I
didn't know they microprocessors existed then."
He grinned and said "We had a lot of things that didn't exist. Have you
ever heard of the Blackbird?"
He told me that he was flown out of Las Vegas everyday in a
Superconstellation to "the ranch," where his job was to run
microtransistors through extremes of hot and cold until they failed.
He said "the ranch" was that place that everybody says they keep UFOs.
Then, he looked at them under a microscope to determine the weakness.
Engineers fixed it and his team repeated until the circuit was up to spec.
Anyway, I didn't bother with innuendo and said "So you worked on the
SR-71 at Area 51?"
He said he worked for Hughes at "The Ranch," nodding all the while. Then
he noted that he never actually had hands-on contact with the aircraft,
and that just about all the top secret technology he was was through the
lens of the microscope.
I said "I heard that people hang out outside the McCarran "Janet" parking
lot and write down your license plate, threatening to harrass you if you
didn't fess up."
He said if they did now, they didn't then and hardly anybody knew about it
anyway because the plant was brand new. Besides, he said... What some
loonie could threaten is nothing compared to what the US government would
threaten, and if they caught wind of such activities, he was sure the
Government would gladly solve the problem for you themselves.
Sorry, guys. I never asked The Question: "So WERE there aliens and UFOs?"
In any case, it's hearsay, but it's evidence for you to chew on if you
want to debate whether transistors could have come from Roswell.
Furthermore, in regard to whether the base is still in operation, a friend
of mine taught at a public middle school in Las Vegas up to this year.
Last year, driving some kids to an off-campus event, one of the students
said in the course of conversation that her dad flew out of the airport to
work everyday, "up north," and that he drove a "six-pack." That's all she
knew of what her dad did, except that he wasn't in the military and
sometimes he'd be gone for a couple of days.
Same friend's aunt works in an office within the NTS and said she had an
all points pass except for special areas and events (live-fire training
and stuff.) She doesn't fly in and says they quit running the bus
regularly when the nuclear test facilities closed. Instead, she issued a
fleet van.
One day she drove north through the test site and ran into a
roadblock, where two armed guards ordered her out of the van, took her ID
badge, told her she had no business being there and ordered to get back in
and turn around.
Later
-gatt
Mark Fergerson
Headroom wrote:
>
> Would Transistors Have Been in the Roswell Spaceship Wreckage ? (Yes)
And then proceeds to argue for the existence of aliens.
But the question was about aliens using transistors in their version
of technology, no? How likely is that, anyway? Why would they need
transistors? Transistors exist to convert electromagnetic power levels
(transistor=transfer+resistor). Humans found that manipulating variable
EM power leads naturally to things like transistors/vacuum tubes/etc.
The usual means of generating and controlling EM forces is easily
constructed with the materials available raw in the Earth's biosphere;
copper, amber, silicon, etc. Knowledge of something functionally
equivalent to basic EM theory dictates the possible physical
configurations of circuit elements e.g.. coils, capacitors,
semiconductors, etc.
But beings manipulating G forces, at the very least, to propel their
craft, would probably build "gravistors" (tm), or maybe "chronistors"
(also tm), which we wouldn't necessarily recognize, design dictated by
the gravitational and temporal analogs of basic EM theory. What would
such things look like, anyhow? I think it's a safe bet we'd never
mistake them for transistors...
Any ideas?
Mark L. Fergerson
cc: to poster and group
A Traveler
>
>On Wed, 25 Nov 1998 09:14:05 GMT, Mark Fergerson
><mferg...@home.com> wrote:
>>I've been lurking in alt.alien.research awhile and noticed that Max
>>Headroom wrote:
>>>
>>
>>I think it's a safe bet we'd never mistake them for transistors...
>>
>Yeah,but what do you suppose they would use in their FM radios ?
>Huh..Huh...whaddya gotta say bout that ? Huh...Huh <g>
>
They didn't use FM radios! I heard they used Alcubierre "bubbles" because
they could still get the channels from home rather than listening to our
primitive music.
Max Headroom
Billy Jason
wreckage but I do believe it is a safe bet that there were no radio tubes!
I do believe there were Transistors in the flight 800 crash though.
Mark Fergerson wrote:
> I've been lurking in alt.alien.research awhile and noticed that Max
> Headroom wrote:
> >
> > Would Transistors Have Been in the Roswell Spaceship Wreckage ? (Yes)
>
> And then proceeds to argue for the existence of aliens.
>
> But the question was about aliens using transistors in their version
> of technology, no? How likely is that, anyway? Why would they need
> transistors? Transistors exist to convert electromagnetic power levels
> (transistor=transfer+resistor). Humans found that manipulating variable
> EM power leads naturally to things like transistors/vacuum tubes/etc.
>
> The usual means of generating and controlling EM forces is easily
> constructed with the materials available raw in the Earth's biosphere;
> copper, amber, silicon, etc. Knowledge of something functionally
> equivalent to basic EM theory dictates the possible physical
> configurations of circuit elements e.g.. coils, capacitors,
> semiconductors, etc.
>
> But beings manipulating G forces, at the very least, to propel their
> craft, would probably build "gravistors" (tm), or maybe "chronistors"
> (also tm), which we wouldn't necessarily recognize, design dictated by
> the gravitational and temporal analogs of basic EM theory. What would
> such things look like, anyhow? I think it's a safe bet we'd never
> mistake them for transistors...
>
eric j. malloy
A Traveler <Trav...@Spiritual.Universal.Journey> wrote in message
news:73h0gt$i1c$1...@camel21.mindspring.com...
>Obse...@TheMailbox.net wrote in message <365be70...@Majic12.gov>...
>>
>>On Wed, 25 Nov 1998 09:14:05 GMT, Mark Fergerson
>>>I've been lurking in alt.alien.research awhile and noticed that Max
>>>Headroom wrote:
>>>>
>
>>>
>>>
Max Headroom
The weblink:
http://www.american-computer.com/roswell.htm
http://ufoinfo.com/roundup/
WEBSITE: UFOROUNDUP
Weekly summary of sightings, up to the current
week.(Save this newsgroup posting for future
reference - This posting will be updated)
Max Headroom
The weblink:
http://www.american-computer.com/roswell.htm
http://ufoinfo.com/roundup/
WEBSITE: UFOROUNDUPWeekly
summary of sightings, up to the current week.
factfynder
Max Headroom wrote:
Would Transistors Have Been in the Roswell Spaceship Wreckage ? (Yes)Would there have been transistors in the Roswell Spaceship wreckage? This is an
important question to be certain about. There is increasing evidence of the
importance of the Roswell situation. Physical wreckage from an extraterrestrial
spaceship would inevitably be studied. The simplest components of the superior
alien technology would be understood, copied and used in human technology.
Considering the cold-war hysteria that existed from the mid-1940s to the early
1970s, the greatest possible secrecy would likely be used where possible.So the following vital points need consideration.
1. Did one or two alien spaceships built and operated by nonhumans crash near
Roswell and Corona New Mexico in early July 1947?YES. The initial declaration by the Army Air Force of exactly that, has been multiply
confirmed by many witnesses, involving a wide variety of activities directly related to
transport and handling of aliens and alien materials. Other events corroborate this,
including the extraordinary secrecy and security used in the Roswell situation, far
beyond even the handling of nuclear weapons. Recent mass destruction of historical
documents of details such as telephone records of the Roswell air base (which should
not have been done) are just continuing verifications. Finally American Computer Co.
has claimed to now be in possession of about 20,000 pages of engineering notes
made of Roswell crash debris, and is verifying them and preparing releases for this year.
IN REFERENCE TO WITNESSES, THOSE PEOPLE TODAY ARE DECEASED AND THIS
INFORMATION CAN NOT BE VERIFIED. A CLOSER LOOK AT ROSWELL WILL SHOW THAT
WITNESSES CLAIM 3 DIFFERENT LOCATIONS AS THE CRASH SITE. WITNESSES WEWRE
BEING PAID BY MEDIA TO TELL THEIR STORIES, SOUNDS LIKE A RECIPE TO MAKE
UP LIES DOESN'T IT.? PARTICULARLY WHEN THERE IS NO BODY GOING TO BE ABLE
TO DISPROVE IT.
as a "life insurance policy" to whoever holds it, it may not be soon released). you
YOU REFER TO THE US PATENT OFFICE, NOT ANY OF EUROPES. THERE YOU WILL FIND VERY EARLY INDICATION OF THIS TYPE OF TECHNOLOGY COMING OUT OF EUROPE.
Upon realizing the FACT of the Roswell and Corona Extraterrestrial spaceship downings,
the answers to the other relevant questions become certain beyond a reasonable doubt,
indicating that the transistor (and who knows how much more) has been discovered within
alien spaceship components, this situation kept secret, and used to enormously enrich
those who were permitted to share the secrets. When "Roswell" is accepted as fact,
the rest becomes logically INEVITABLE.The weblink:
http://www.american-computer.com/roswell.htmcontains a description of the continuing investigation of this, including discovery of
electronic components new to human technology, yet explained in 50 year old
engineering notes.
----------------------------------------------------------Some individuals have commented that the transistor had already been invented and
existed at the time of the Roswell spaceship crashes. Such a claim is NONSENSE,
as can be easily proved.
First, such a claim is LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE. Inventions cannot be repatented. Once
the patent expires, it can never be patented again. And AT&T-Bell Labs would have had
their patent application denied (It was challenged, on the topic of inadequate research).
Second, such a claim is a virtual HUMAN IMPOSSIBILITY. Humans operate with various
predictable intentions. A major human intention is GREED. This effects all humans
to some extent, but for some it is overpowering. If transistors had been invented but
not patented by the inventor, someone else would have done so.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO KNOW MORE ?
http://www.sightings.com/ufo/battleofLA.htm- Battle of LA - Feb 25,1942 -
California Coastal Defense Artillery fires 1400 cannon shots at UFOs,
no effect. Pictures, eyewitness testimony, newspaper details.
http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/topic/foo/
WEBPAGE INDEX:"FAUX" Fighters and "Ghost Rockets" sightings of World War 2. Many listings.
http://www.evansville.net/~slk/hanf45.htm
Hot Persuit of UFO at Hanford Nuclear Reactor, July 1945
6 interceptors were launched, radioed to "Blow the engines if you have to, but use full military power,
full throttle injection, maximum, continuous. Go for it!" to try to get to combat range with the
enormous intruder object.
http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/sighting/date/1940s/
WEBPAGE INDEX:UFO Sightings in the 1940s. Many listings.
http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/topic/1947/
WEBPAGE INDEX:UFO Sightings in the year 1947. Many listings.
http://www.ufomind.com/place/us/dc/washington/
WEBPAGE INDEX:UFO overflights of Washington DC over several days in 1952, prompting
the largest Press Conference since World War 2. The official Air Force explanation has been
proven wrong. (See http://www.ufomind.com/catalog/isbn/fufor/mirage )
http://www.iufog.org/project1947/fig/1952d.htm Chronology of 1952 Washington DC Flyovers
http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/newse/wash/index.html Pictures of UFO overflights
http://www.ufomind.com/catalog/isbn/fufor/h006/Radar-Visual UFO Cases in 1952 -The UFO Sightings
that Shook the Government
http://www.amazon.com/ (bookseller)
The book "UFOS ARE REAL - HERES THE PROOF" by Ed Walters and optical
physicist Dr. Bruce Maccabee provides ABSOLUTE DOCUMENTARY PROOF that
unconventional flying objects are real, operated by one or more nonhuman races
of beings, and that the US military is EXTREMELY AWARE of their actions. Every attempt
to disprove ANY PART of the evidence has failed, and every attempt to smear Ed and
his family, or the evidence, has also failed, and three separate attempts by "Men in
Black" to steal the evidence have failed (although the third attempt did steal a copy of various
photographs).
Paperback, low-cost, UNDENIABLE AND INCONTROVERTIBLE.
http://cnn.com/US/9706/15/ufo.poll/ (CNN/TIME Poll)
http://archive.abcnews.com/sections/scitech/roswell/abcalienpoll.html (ABC NEWS Poll)
CNN/Time poll: 80 percent of Americans think the government is hiding knowledge of ETs
http://www.amazon.com/ (bookseller)
"Unconventional Flying Objects - a scientific analysis", by Paul Hill, Hampton Roads Publ.
Co.,Charlottesville, VA 1995 (ISBN1-57174-027-9), $15.95 Former Chief Scientist at NASA
Langley Research Center.
http://www.accessnv.com/nids/seti2.shtmlSynopsis by Hal Puthoff, Ph.D.,
Ben Jacoby
: I HVE JUST A FEW COMMENTS TO MAKE ON THIS POST. I'LL CAPITALISE MY
: COMMENTS FOR EASIER RECOGNITION. IT APPEARS THAT THE INFORMATION
: OUTLINED COMES ALMOST ENTIRELY FROM CORSO'S BOOK ABOUT ROSWELL. I
: BELIEVE CORSO'S CREDIBILITY IS QUESTIONABLE.
: IN REFERENCE TO WITNESSES, THOSE PEOPLE TODAY ARE DECEASED AND THIS
: INFORMATION CAN NOT BE VERIFIED. A CLOSER LOOK AT ROSWELL WILL SHOW THAT
: WITNESSES CLAIM 3 DIFFERENT LOCATIONS AS THE CRASH SITE. WITNESSES WEWRE
: BEING PAID BY MEDIA TO TELL THEIR STORIES, SOUNDS LIKE A RECIPE TO MAKE
: UP LIES DOESN'T IT.? PARTICULARLY WHEN THERE IS NO BODY GOING TO BE ABLE
: TO DISPROVE IT.
: > YOU REFER TO THE US PATENT OFFICE, NOT ANY OF EUROPES. THERE YOU WILL
: > FIND VERY EARLY INDICATION OF THIS TYPE OF TECHNOLOGY COMING OUT OF
: > EUROPE.
I don't know which is worse. The constant re-posting of the
Roswell-transistor thing or the screaming of the Spook-debunkers!
So just listen to me. You are getting very sleepy. There never was a
Roswell UFO crash or more exactly there never were any recovered disks
that collided and crashed. They were all weather balloons. The
newspapers would never lie to you. The government has no reason to lie
about this. They were perfectly willing to admit that the alien ships
had free run of our air space and if there was any captured advanced
technology we'd have been perfectly willing to share it with the Soviet
Union or any other enemies. Bill Clinton never had sex with Monica Lewinsky.
It's all a Republican plot. When you wake up you will believe everything
I've told you. It's true because I say it is! 3, 2, 1.
--
Benjamin Jacoby | "Some rob you with a six-gun and some with
| a fountain pen." ..........Woodie Guthrie
(SPAM GUARD! Delete the no spam letters in name to email.)
W. K-R
/s/ W.K.R. (European)
Ben Jacoby schrieb in Nachricht ...
>factfynder (factf...@geocities.com) spake thusly:
>
>: I HVE JUST A FEW COMMENTS TO MAKE ON THIS POST. I'LL CAPITALISE MY
>: COMMENTS FOR EASIER RECOGNITION. IT APPEARS THAT THE INFORMATION
>: OUTLINED COMES ALMOST ENTIRELY FROM CORSO'S BOOK ABOUT ROSWELL. I
>: BELIEVE CORSO'S CREDIBILITY IS QUESTIONABLE.
>
>
>: INFORMATION CAN NOT BE VERIFIED. A CLOSER LOOK AT ROSWELL WILL SHOW THAT
>: WITNESSES CLAIM 3 DIFFERENT LOCATIONS AS THE CRASH SITE. WITNESSES WEWRE
>: BEING PAID BY MEDIA TO TELL THEIR STORIES, SOUNDS LIKE A RECIPE TO MAKE
>: UP LIES DOESN'T IT.? PARTICULARLY WHEN THERE IS NO BODY GOING TO BE ABLE
>: TO DISPROVE IT.
>
>
>: > FIND VERY EARLY INDICATION OF THIS TYPE OF TECHNOLOGY COMING OUT OF
>: > EUROPE.
>
>
twi...@worldnet.att.net
<snip>
> There never was a
>Roswell UFO crash or more exactly there never were any recovered disks
>that collided and crashed.
I notice that you don't address his point about the number
of reported crash sites.
He is wrong about the number, however, there are more than 3
reported. None of them have any decent evidence for them.
Do you believe in the crash site on the Foster Ranch not far
from the debris field?
Opps!
Everyone has dropped that one.
Do you believe in Stanton Friedman's Plains crash site?
Opps!
It turns out that Gerald Anderson got caught hoaxing the
documents and that isn't considered a real site now.
Do you believe in Randle's second crash site (the one he
adopted after abandoning the Foster Ranch crash site?
Opps!
His key witness, Jim Ragsdale, less than two years later
swore an affidavit denying that it took place at that site.
His other key witness, Frank Kaufmann (he of the many names
in Randle's books), changed his story from the first Randle
book to the second Randle book and has been caught in other
lies. (See http://www.roswell.org to see just a few of
them)
One of the members of the family that owns that crash site
have sworn an affidavit that, contrary to what Randle
claims, it was inaccessible to wheeled vehicles until they
put the road in in the 1960s.
Do you like Jim Ragsdale's second crash site?
Stanton Friedman has come out in favor of that site.
But that was only because Randle made a fool out of him
about Gerald Anderson and this was Friedman's revenge.
There ain't no evidence for that site either but Forbes
magazine fould lots of evidence against it.
Now, where did this saucer crash?
>They were all weather balloons. The
>newspapers would never lie to you.
Let's see, the newspapers called it a flying saucer but they
also called it an instrument.
> The government has no reason to lie
>about this.
All the classified documents found so far indicate that the
gov't wasn't lying.
<snip>
"No question that an admission of making false statements
to government officals and interferring with the FBI is
an impeachable offense."
Bill Clinton, Arkansas Gazette, Aug 8, 1974, page 7-1
Rune Boersjoe
>: > FIND VERY EARLY INDICATION OF THIS TYPE OF TECHNOLOGY COMING OUT OF
>: > EUROPE.
>
>
>Roswell-transistor thing or the screaming of the Spook-debunkers!
The constant spamming. I for one can not blame him for yelling. Max
Headroom is getting on MY FUCKING NERVES AS WELL.
--
"A lie is best hidden sandwiched between two truths."
Reply by mail to jb...@jancomulti.com
Michael Edelman
> >Roswell-transistor thing or the screaming of the Spook-debunkers!
>
> The constant spamming. I for one can not blame him for yelling. Max
> Headroom is getting on MY FUCKING NERVES AS WELL.
It is *such* a bitch when you're confronted with actual facts, isn't it?
I'm still waiting for the Roswell fans to explain how the FET was patented in
1930 when the saucer didn't crash for another 17 years ;-)
Max Headroom
Andrea Chen
>Finally
> American Computer Co.
> has claimed to now be in possession of about 20,000 pages of
> engineering notes
> made of Roswell crash debris, and is verifying them and preparing
> releases for this year.
>
Notice that American Computer Company has become silent? Undoubtedly
the govt got to them. Further pr
iggy makarevich
company declared on the radio a while back that the whole thing is a
hoax.
why is that?
Jerry Bryson
>
> I'm still waiting for the Roswell fans to explain how the FET was patented in
> 1930 when the saucer didn't crash for another 17 years ;-)
It was a time machine, obviously.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
>> >I don't know which is worse. The constant re-posting of the
>> >Roswell-transistor thing or the screaming of the Spook-debunkers!
>>
>> The constant spamming. I for one can not blame him for yelling. Max
>> Headroom is getting on MY FUCKING NERVES AS WELL.
>
>It is *such* a bitch when you're confronted with actual facts, isn't it?
>
>I'm still waiting for the Roswell fans to explain how the FET was patented in
>1930 when the saucer didn't crash for another 17 years ;-)
>
I'm still waiting to hear which of the many crash sites is
the "real" crash site!
I understand that Schmitt has found another one from July
1947.
Those damn things keep falling out of the sky like clay
pigeons.
Michael Edelman
Jerry Bryson wrote:
> Michael Edelman <mul...@x.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > I'm still waiting for the Roswell fans to explain how the FET was patented in
> > 1930 when the saucer didn't crash for another 17 years ;-)
>
> It was a time machine, obviously.
>
So how come they didn't have transistors in the pyramids? Hah!
Jim Cox
>
> Jerry Bryson wrote:
>
> > Michael Edelman <mul...@x.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I'm still waiting for the Roswell fans to explain how the FET was patented in
> > > 1930 when the saucer didn't crash for another 17 years ;-)
> >
> > It was a time machine, obviously.
> >
Well...one possible answer could lie in the fact that alien craft have
presumably been coming here for much longer than the past 51 years.
Cigar shaped craft were reported in the 1800's, some allege that
Michelangelo painted flying craft in the Cistine Chapel work he was
commissioned to paint. If extraterrestrial craft have been coming here
for centuries, simple rational thought would account for what you are
asking. It would mean that some "developments" may have originated from
earlier crashed craft. Though the likelihood, as you move backward in
history is that such devices would have, if understood, been exploited
by individuals rather than governments.
Harry Bosch
> >> >Roswell-transistor thing or the screaming of the Spook-debunkers!
> >>
> >> The constant spamming. I for one can not blame him for yelling. Max
> >> Headroom is getting on MY FUCKING NERVES AS WELL.
> >
> >It is *such* a bitch when you're confronted with actual facts, isn't it?
> >
> >1930 when the saucer didn't crash for another 17 years ;-)
> >
>
> the "real" crash site!
>
> I understand that Schmitt has found another one from July
> 1947.
>
> Those damn things keep falling out of the sky like clay
> pigeons.
>
> "No question that an admission of making false statements
> to government officals and interferring with the FBI is
> an impeachable offense."
>
> Bill Clinton, Arkansas Gazette, Aug 8, 1974, page 7-1
In 1947 the aliens were using defective Floral Tape in their
FTL drives. Estimated failure was almost 87%.
Regards,
Harry
--
==========================================
If light travels at 186,000 miles per sec.
What's the speed of dark?
har...@chatlink.com
==========================================
Rune Boersjoe
rational thought' and 'extraterrestrial flying saucer' going together
that simply.
--
Rune Boersjoe
>FTL drives. Estimated failure was almost 87%.
Yeah, those were the good old days, UFOs crashing left and right...
our army boys just killed whomever was still left alive inside and
ripped out the varuious technologies... copperwire, duct tape... your
average
extraterrestrial-super-intelligent-time-and-space-defying-craft
building materials.
bear
Harry Bosch wrote:
> twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> >
> > Michael Edelman <mul...@x.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> >I don't know which is worse. The constant re-posting of the
> > >> >Roswell-transistor thing or the screaming of the Spook-debunkers!
> > >>
> > >> The constant spamming. I for one can not blame him for yelling. Max
> > >> Headroom is getting on MY FUCKING NERVES AS WELL.
> > >
> > >It is *such* a bitch when you're confronted with actual facts, isn't it?
> > >
> > >I'm still waiting for the Roswell fans to explain how the FET was patented in
> > >1930 when the saucer didn't crash for another 17 years ;-)
> > >
> >
> > I'm still waiting to hear which of the many crash sites is
> > the "real" crash site!
> >
> > I understand that Schmitt has found another one from July
> > 1947.
> >
> > Those damn things keep falling out of the sky like clay
> > pigeons.
> >
> > "No question that an admission of making false statements
> > to government officals and interferring with the FBI is
> > an impeachable offense."
> >
> > Bill Clinton, Arkansas Gazette, Aug 8, 1974, page 7-1
>
> In 1947 the aliens were using defective Floral Tape in their
> FTL drives. Estimated failure was almost 87%.
>
> Regards,
>
> Harry
> --
> ==========================================
> If light travels at 186,000 miles per sec.
> What's the speed of dark?
186,000 miles per second in reverse. :) bear
> har...@chatlink.com
> ==========================================