They're Baaaaaaaaaaaack
knews4...@yahoo.com
Cwatters
<knews4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6ab72ef-86aa-4239...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
> Swamp gas and all.
> http://www.dailymotion.com/search/ufo/video/xafo84_ufo-filmed-over-arizona_tech
How to get on CNN for $25...
http://www.ufomystic.com/the-redfern-files/phoenix-ufo-re-created/
Asheville, N.C. (October 9, 2008) - A Tennessee man has taken the crown as
the new champion at Joshua P. Warren's annual UFO Experience, a contest to
fake UFOs, used to help researchers analyze genuine UFO imagery. Jim Robison
is an amateur balloon expert who used his experience, timing, and $25 worth
of hand-made hot-air balloons to create an enormous, triangular design in
the sky over Barnardsville, North Carolina, where the event has been held in
a dark, secluded field the past four years. Hundreds came from around the
country to witness the free spectacle in which there are only two rules: the
craft must be airborne and it must be safe.
"It blew everyone away," said event organizer Joshua P. Warren. "This is a
valuable piece of data for anyone interested in analyzing UFO imagery. It's
a great example of how studying a fake can help us analyze the real thing."
The series of five small balloons, powered by rows of birthday cake candles,
drifted into the sky then formed a triangle that appeared to dwarf a jet.
The human brain filled in the gap between the lights, giving the impression
these were points of one giant, fixed-wing vehicle. The overcast conditions
prevented starlight from showing through, enhancing the illusion of one big,
solid, black form. The lights slowly, silently drifted away over the
countryside, 10 minutes north of Asheville.
Last year's winner, and 3-year champion, Jeff Wilson, created a triangular
helium-lifted craft, remote controlled, with multiple stages. He was able to
scan the audience with a laser, release smoke to enshroud his creation, and
even switch the craft's lighting structure instantly, producing the illusion
of a different object.
For the fourth year in a row, Joshua P. Warren, host of the paranormal talk
show "Speaking of Strange" on AM 570 WWNC, produced the "Speaking of Strange
UFO Experience." It's a cookout, free to the public, where paranormal
experts socialize then, after dark, release fake UFOs into the sky. The
creator of the best craft, created from helium balloons and light sources
like glow sticks, win a prize pack, including access to a private ghost hunt
with L.E.M.U.R., Warren's paranormal research team. Warren invites observers
who simply want to enjoy the spectacle, as well as participants in the
contest. The recent even started at 7pm on Friday, August 22, 2008, at the
Big Ivey Community Center in Barnardsville, North Carolina, 10-15 minutes
north of Asheville. A grill was available, and attendees can bring their own
food, beverages, and accessories, though live music and refreshments were
available. Those who constructed a UFO were asked to supply all their own
materials, including helium-filled balloons, if needed. The contest was open
to everyone. Though free, donations are appreciated to help pay for the
location.
"Each year, it's gotten bigger and better, and I've already heard we'll see
some mind-boggling things next year," says Warren, whose show airs Saturday
nights, 8-11pm, on the no-1 rated talk station in the region. "This event
serves two purposes. Seeing creative fake UFOs will help us rule out fakes
when analyzing UFO pictures and footage. Secondly, it's just downright fun;
a chance to meet with new people who share an interest in the unknown and
see a fascinating light-show. If you haven't seen an actual UFO, this will
give you the experience to some degree. To my knowledge, this event is
unique-there is no other like it in the world."
Warren has seen and videotaped genuine UFOs during L.E.M.U.R.
investigations. His work has been featured on the History Channel,
Discovery, Travel Channel and Sci-Fi Channel. His book, "How to Hunt
Ghosts," was published by Simon and Schuster, his book "Haunted Asheville"
is a regional best-seller, and L.E.M.U.R. made the cover of a science
journal, "Electric Space Craft," due to their groundbreaking research on the
mysterious Brown Mountain Lights near Morganton, North Carolina.
For more information on the "Speaking of Strange UFO Experience" visit
www.HoaxResearchCenter.com on the internet.
Benj
<colin.wattersNOS...@TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote:
> <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c6ab72ef-86aa-4239...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Swamp gas and all.
>
> How to get on CNN for $25...
Please go back to sleep everyone.
Science says that if one UFO is a fake made with balloons, then
obviously they all are.
ZZZzzzzzz.
Eric Gisin
With a billion pocket cams out there, there should be a huge amount on flickr.
"Benj" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:9b6e8172-51d8-43e6...@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
Don Lancaster
Photoshop has completely eliminated any need for UFO's.
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Too_Many_Tools
> Eric Gisin wrote:
> > Show us the pix of the real ones then, oh clueless one.
> > With a billion pocket cams out there, there should be a huge amount on
> > flickr.
>
> >news:9b6e8172-51d8-43e6...@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > Swamp gas and all.
> >> >http://www.dailymotion.com/search/ufo/video/xafo84_ufo-filmed-over-ar...
>
> >> How to get on CNN for $25...
>
> > Please go back to sleep everyone.
> > Science says that if one UFO is a fake made with balloons, then
> > obviously they all are.
> > ZZZzzzzzz.
>
> Photoshop has completely eliminated any need for UFO's.
>
> --
> Many thanks,
>
> Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
> Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
> rss:http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I agree...and the aliens regret ever leaving it here with us.
TMT
Don Lancaster
The crucial question, though, is what are the aliens doing with the clip
art in the first place?
Cwatters
"Benj" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:9b6e8172-51d8-43e6...@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
Not at all, but it's pretty pointless showing video clips of little white
dots in the sky. Must have been a quiet day for news.
knews4...@yahoo.com
<colin.wattersNOS...@TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote:
> "Benj" <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
Yes, it was all clip art back in the days.....
http://www.ufoartwork.com
Benj
> Too_Many_Tools wrote:
> > I agree...and the aliens regret ever leaving it here with us.
> The crucial question, though, is what are the aliens doing with the clip
> art in the first place?
Planning an attack to take over the planet, obviously! On the day
that finally happens THEN, you'll all suddenly realize that only
Hillary (or possibly Hillary with Obama as a sidekick) will be able to
save our sorry asses by being appointed dictator of the world for
life. See if I'm not right!
Benj
Benj wrote:
>> Please go back to sleep everyone.
>> Science says that if one UFO is a fake made with balloons, then
>> obviously they all are.
>> ZZZzzzzzz.
> Show us the pix of the real ones then, oh clueless one.
> With a billion pocket cams out there, there should be a huge amount on flickr.
Sorry but I don't have pix of the real ones. I'm afraid that some
pocket cam photo of an object at 60,000 feet isn't going to cut it for
you. I suggest a roadtrip to Langley and ask at CIA headquarters for
the real nice photos they take with high res areal cameras in
reconnaissance aircraft. I'm sure they'll be glad to share with you.
Tell them you are a taxpayer and therefore you are their boss. That'll
work.
Don Lancaster
knews4...@yahoo.com
> Eric Gisin wrote:
> > Show us the pix of the real ones then, oh clueless one.
> > With a billion pocket cams out there, there should be a huge amount on
> > flickr.
>
> >news:9b6e8172-51d8-43e6...@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > Swamp gas and all.
> >> >http://www.dailymotion.com/search/ufo/video/xafo84_ufo-filmed-over-ar...
>
> >> How to get on CNN for $25...
>
> > Please go back to sleep everyone.
> > Science says that if one UFO is a fake made with balloons, then
> > obviously they all are.
> > ZZZzzzzzz.
>
> Photoshop has completely eliminated any need for UFO's.
>
> --
> Many thanks,
>
> Don Lancaster
Of course Photoshop can use electricity to make Crop Circles too.
http://goldenagetoday.com/departments/paranormal/35-paranormal-events/95-lightcreatescropcircle
Robert Higgins
Ah, yes.. still clips from "In Search of..."
The opening voice-over includes the now famous phrase "... based in
part on theory and conjecture." to which my mother (not a scientist,
but a person with common sense) would always remark "based ENTIRELY on
theory and conjecture."
Isn't it interesting that archeologists who are experts on the
languages and customs of these people vehemently disagree with these
"ancient astronaut" hypotheses?
knews4...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> On Sep 26, 2:35 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 26, 11:16 am, "Cwatters"
>
> > <colin.wattersNOS...@TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote:
> > > "Benj" <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
>
> > >news:9b6e8172-51d8-43e6...@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Sep 26, 10:22 am, "Cwatters"
>
> > > <colin.wattersNOS...@TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote:
> > > >> <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >>news:c6ab72ef-86aa-4239...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > >> > Swamp gas and all.
> > > >> >http://www.dailymotion.com/search/ufo/video/xafo84_ufo-filmed-over-ar...
>
> > > >> How to get on CNN for $25...
>
> > > >Please go back to sleep everyone.
> > > >Science says that if one UFO is a fake made with balloons, then
> > > >obviously they all are.
> > > >ZZZzzzzzz.
>
> > > Not at all, but it's pretty pointless showing video clips of little white
> > > dots in the sky. Must have been a quiet day for news.
>
> > Yes, it was all clip art back in the days.....http://www.ufoartwork.com
>
> Ah, yes.. still clips from "In Search of..."
>
Paintings and artifacts from way back when.
> The opening voice-over includes the now famous phrase "... based in
> part on theory and conjecture." to which my mother (not a scientist,
> but a person with common sense) would always remark "based ENTIRELY on
> theory and conjecture."
Everything is based on theory.
You can't prove a 500 year old painting was painted by a guy who saw a
UFO if he's dead.
> Isn't it interesting that archeologists who are experts on the
> languages and customs of these people vehemently disagree with these
> "ancient astronaut" hypotheses?
They "all" do?
Each and every single one?
Every "expert" all across the globe?
www.mcremo.com
http://www.humandevolution.com
Robert Higgins
"Paintings and artifacts from way back when" that you know about since
they were clips on "in Search of..." or pictures from "Chariots of the
Gods" or some such nonsense.
>
> > The opening voice-over includes the now famous phrase "... based in
> > part on theory and conjecture." to which my mother (not a scientist,
> > but a person with common sense) would always remark "based ENTIRELY on
> > theory and conjecture."
>
> Everything is based on theory.
The funny part of her remark was the understanding that "theory and
conjecture" was in reality "wild, uninformed conjecture". (but you had
to be there, I guess...)
> You can't prove a 500 year old painting was painted by a guy who saw a
> UFO if he's dead.
Could you have a 500 year old painring by a guy who WASN'T dead???
The guy being still alive would scarcely be less miraculous than a UFO
itself.
>
> > Isn't it interesting that archeologists who are experts on the
> > languages and customs of these people vehemently disagree with these
> > "ancient astronaut" hypotheses?
>
> They "all" do?
Where did I write "all"?
> Each and every single one?
I don't know - you'll have to ask around.
> Every "expert" all across the globe?www.mcremo.comhttp://www.humandevolution.com
How much do YOU know about the cultures that produced those drawings?
The only interest in these cultures is alleged UFO pictures. Once you
find out that a particular drawing is of some god or another, you lose
interest.
knews4...@yahoo.com
Which came first the paintings or the TV show about them?
Did they show Columbus' sailing log entry about the "flaming shields"
that followed his ship?
I know about them from the websites.
What does it matter?
>
>
> > > The opening voice-over includes the now famous phrase "... based in
> > > part on theory and conjecture." to which my mother (not a scientist,
> > > but a person with common sense) would always remark "based ENTIRELY on
> > > theory and conjecture."
>
> > Everything is based on theory.
>
> The funny part of her remark was the understanding that "theory and
> conjecture" was in reality "wild, uninformed conjecture". (but you had
> to be there, I guess...)
>
No.
I just know many people who've seen UFOs long before Photoshop, TV,
and videos.
How long is your memory?
http://www.rense.com/ufo/battleofla.htm
Just "swamp gas" right?
> > You can't prove a 500 year old painting was painted by a guy who saw a
> > UFO if he's dead.
>
> Could you have a 500 year old painring by a guy who WASN'T dead???
> The guy being still alive would scarcely be less miraculous than a UFO
> itself.
>
Do you have a point or just disbelief in UFOs?
>
> > > Isn't it interesting that archeologists who are experts on the
> > > languages and customs of these people vehemently disagree with these
> > > "ancient astronaut" hypotheses?
>
> > They "all" do?
>
> Where did I write "all"?
>
> > Each and every single one?
>
> I don't know - you'll have to ask around.
>
> > Every "expert" all across the globe?www.mcremo.comhttp://www.humandevolution.com
>
> How much do YOU know about the cultures that produced those drawings?
> The only interest in these cultures is alleged UFO pictures. Once you
> find out that a particular drawing is of some god or another, you lose
> interest.
Change the word "heavens" to "skies" in the Bible and you have about
400 UFO references.
http://www.bibleufo.com
knews4...@yahoo.com
Some "god?"
Same story, different millennium.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7727907925097415055#
Eric Gisin
If you can see it, a 6MP camera will too.
Plenty of cameras with 10X zoom out there, no pix of UFOs.
"Benj" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:030cf224-653c-4e9c...@33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
Robert Higgins
Usually, the paintings. But the silly interpretations mostly came
after the TV shows.
> Did they show Columbus' sailing log entry about the "flaming shields"
> that followed his ship?
Was that before or after the giant sea serpents attacked his ship, or
some of his men were possessed by demons, or had hexes put on them by
witches?
> I know about them from the websites.
> What does it matter?
It matters becuase you cherry-pick information completely out of
context to justify your prejudices. Those who know the most about the
contexts of these pictures or monumnets or artifacts don't see them as
evidence for extraterestrials at all.
>
>
>
> > > > The opening voice-over includes the now famous phrase "... based in
> > > > part on theory and conjecture." to which my mother (not a scientist,
> > > > but a person with common sense) would always remark "based ENTIRELY on
> > > > theory and conjecture."
>
> > > Everything is based on theory.
>
> > The funny part of her remark was the understanding that "theory and
> > conjecture" was in reality "wild, uninformed conjecture". (but you had
> > to be there, I guess...)
>
> No.
> I just know many people who've seen UFOs long before Photoshop, TV,
> and videos.
I've seen lights in the sky many times, too. I'm just not silly enough
to jump to the conclusion that they are a sign of ET's.
> How long is your memory?http://www.rense.com/ufo/battleofla.htm
> Just "swamp gas" right?
You see, it is your complete lack of historical knowledge that leads
you to such interpretations... just like all this nonsense about
policemen and pilots being "trained observers".
There are hundreds of cases of anti-aircraft gunners firing at
nothing, or their own planes. Part of the reasons is nerves, and part
of the reason is that (unlike the movies or "In Search of...") WWII
aircraft were almost as likely to attack their own troops as the
enemy. Airborne troops going into Sicily were massacred by American AA
fire, even though the troops were told that the airborne was coming
in, and the planes were flying in exactly the right direction to be
Allies, and not the Germans. Eventually it got so bad that most AA
guns had notations on them to the effect that "Only to fired by
officers".
Once one gun starts firing, everyone else joins in. In the dark, your
eyes see exactly what you want them, or expect them, to see.
>
> > > You can't prove a 500 year old painting was painted by a guy who saw a
> > > UFO if he's dead.
>
> > Could you have a 500 year old painring by a guy who WASN'T dead???
> > The guy being still alive would scarcely be less miraculous than a UFO
> > itself.
>
> Do you have a point or just disbelief in UFOs?
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > Isn't it interesting that archeologists who are experts on the
> > > > languages and customs of these people vehemently disagree with these
> > > > "ancient astronaut" hypotheses?
>
> > > They "all" do?
>
> > Where did I write "all"?
>
> > > Each and every single one?
>
> > I don't know - you'll have to ask around.
>
> > > Every "expert" all across the globe?www.mcremo.comhttp://www.humandevolution.com
>
> > How much do YOU know about the cultures that produced those drawings?
> > The only interest in these cultures is alleged UFO pictures. Once you
> > find out that a particular drawing is of some god or another, you lose
> > interest.
>
> Change the word "heavens" to "skies" in the Bible and you have about
> 400 UFO references.http://www.bibleufo.com
"I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death
before they see the kingdom of God." Luke 9:27 - pretty much sums up
the Bible's credibility, don't you think?
>
> http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS345&=&q=...
Curly Surmudgeon
Hillary _is_ an alien. Well, the parasite controlling her anyhow.
Note that she never wears collar-less tops or dresses and usually has
hair down to the collar to hide the parasite. "Hillary" is a small
legless rodent-like being that attaches itself at the base of her skull
with two spikes with nerve endings which penetrate to the medulla and
control the symbiote victim.
The victim you call "Hillary" was undoubtedly taken over in college.
Beware, they reproduce by parathenogenic division every 3.7 earth years
where one crawls to the next sleeping victim who bares the back of their
neck during slumber and attaches. You, too, could be the unwilling
zombie giving up all conscious control of your motor functions.
Be sure to sleep on your back to avoid exposure.
Those who are controlled by the aliens are often discernable by having
thunder thighs or a Southern drawl.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Otros Aires: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udYzFsyU7yg
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Higgins
Angel in the Bible is "angelos" in Greek, simply "Messenger". Somehow,
when describing the angels, the Biblical authors never mention that
they are grey, 3 feet tall, have eyes like EInstein, and keep trying
to phone home
knews4...@yahoo.com
You are a fool.
http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS345&=&q=ufos+in+the+bible&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g1g-m2
Robert Higgins
You're a nitwit. Before you convince yourself that you are a Bible
expert, you might read it once or twice - not for "reglion", but to
acquaint yourself with a very large and confusing set of books. Oh,
and by the way, a little knowledge of foreign languages is a help,
too.
If you had ever actually READ the Bible, rather than listen to other
fringe thinkers, you would have noticed something odd - that several
of the stories in the Old Testament are included twice, but each
version is slightly different. In one of the stories God will be
called "Yahweh", whereas in the other, he wil be called "Elohim."
Those ignorant of languages will jump on the fact that "Elohim" is
plural, and immediately translate it as "gods", and those who are UFO
fanatics will see these "gods" as alien ET's. THERE ARE MANY WORDS IN
MANY LANGUAGES THAT ARE GRAMMATICALLY PLURAL, but singular in effect.
In English: "scissors, pants, trousers, pajamas, tongs, forceps", etc.
"He was wearing trousers" - Oh my god! He was wearing MANY of them!
Why was that?
I'll leave it to your research to discover why some stories use
"Yahweh", and some use "elohim".
Benj
> Fucking moron. Nobody sees 60,000ft.
You ignorant shit. I see the moon. Gosh it's farther than 60,000
feet. So is Venus. Grow a brain.
> If you can see it, a 6MP camera will too.
> Plenty of cameras with 10X zoom out there, no pix of UFOs.
10x zoom? Bwahahahaha! Yeah, that will work to see something at
60,000 feet. Oh look muffy, I can see little people looking out the
portholes!
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
idiot.
knews4...@yahoo.com
history.
> > You are a fool.http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS345&=&q=...
>
> You're a nitwit. Before you convince yourself that you are a Bible
> expert,
Liar.
I refer to researchers who know much more than you or me.
>you might read it once or twice - not for "reglion", but to
> acquaint yourself with a very large and confusing set of books.
Red Herring noted.
I didn't say a word about religion.
There are hundreds of other writings with UFO references.
Columbus' ship log for one.
>Oh,
> and by the way, a little knowledge of foreign languages is a help,
> too.
>
And what have you proven or dis-proven with your distractions?
> If you had ever actually READ the Bible, rather than listen to other
> fringe thinkers, you would have noticed something odd - that several
> of the stories in the Old Testament are included twice, but each
> version is slightly different. In one of the stories God will be
> called "Yahweh", whereas in the other, he wil be called "Elohim."
So?
> Those ignorant of languages will jump on the fact that "Elohim" is
> plural, and immediately translate it as "gods", and those who are UFO
> fanatics will see these "gods" as alien ET's. THERE ARE MANY WORDS IN
> MANY LANGUAGES THAT ARE GRAMMATICALLY PLURAL, but singular in effect.
> In English: "scissors, pants, trousers, pajamas, tongs, forceps", etc.
>
> "He was wearing trousers" - Oh my god! He was wearing MANY of them!
> Why was that?
Because you want to confuse the issue.
> I'll leave it to your research to discover why some stories use
> "Yahweh", and some use "elohim".
The point is they all came from the sky.
Where did I claim "if it is a UFO that it is ET?
For all we know they have been here under land an sea since before
"man" showed up.
There are thousands of eyewitnesses who have seen UFOs come from and
go into the oceans and other bodies of water.
I can find 10 people who will swear there is a portal of the coast of
Ventura California where UFOs are regularly seen going and coming from
the ocean.
Why is eye witness testimony good in court but not good enough for you
whether it's recent or a 2000 years old?
If you saw something unequivocally moving under intelligent control in
the sky like nothing else you had ever seen, what would you call it?
That is if you didn't go stick your head in the sand.
Read "The Threat" by David Jacobs.
He set out to prove that alien abductions "were all in people's
heads."
He doesn't think so now.
Funny how people who actually do research change their beliefs.
Robert Higgins
Again I ask - was it before or after mention of giant sea monsters and
mermaids? Do YOU believe in Mermaids and witches? There was lots of
"eyewitness" testimony hundreds of years ago. "Where have all the
flowers (witches) gone?"
>
> >Oh,
> > and by the way, a little knowledge of foreign languages is a help,
> > too.
>
> And what have you proven or dis-proven with your distractions?
It was one of you links to UFOs in the BIble that expounds on the
"elohim", blissfully ignorant of the actual meaning and context of the
term.
>
> > If you had ever actually READ the Bible, rather than listen to other
> > fringe thinkers, you would have noticed something odd - that several
> > of the stories in the Old Testament are included twice, but each
> > version is slightly different. In one of the stories God will be
> > called "Yahweh", whereas in the other, he wil be called "Elohim."
>
> So?
IT was one of your links for UFOs in the BIble that seemed to think
the word "elohim" was very important. Don't you?
>
> > Those ignorant of languages will jump on the fact that "Elohim" is
> > plural, and immediately translate it as "gods", and those who are UFO
> > fanatics will see these "gods" as alien ET's. THERE ARE MANY WORDS IN
> > MANY LANGUAGES THAT ARE GRAMMATICALLY PLURAL, but singular in effect.
> > In English: "scissors, pants, trousers, pajamas, tongs, forceps", etc.
>
> > "He was wearing trousers" - Oh my god! He was wearing MANY of them!
> > Why was that?
>
> Because you want to confuse the issue.
No, I am trying to CLARIFY the issue, by showing how much confusion
exists through intentional ignorance.
>
> > I'll leave it to your research to discover why some stories use
> > "Yahweh", and some use "elohim".
>
> The point is they all came from the sky.
> Where did I claim "if it is a UFO that it is ET?
> For all we know they have been here under land an sea since before
> "man" showed up.
Except, apparently, for the ones in the Bible.
> There are thousands of eyewitnesses who have seen UFOs come from and
> go into the oceans and other bodies of water.
There are thousands of witnesses who insist they saw Elvis. Your
point?
> I can find 10 people who will swear there is a portal of the coast of
> Ventura California where UFOs are regularly seen going and coming from
> the ocean.
You know a lot of wacky people.
> Why is eye witness testimony good in court but not good enough for you
> whether it's recent or a 2000 years old?
2000 year old testimony would not be accepted in court - can't be
cross-examined!
> If you saw something unequivocally moving under intelligent control in
> the sky like nothing else you had ever seen, what would you call it?
I would not assume that something was doing anything "unequivocally",
least of all if it was very far away, and it was dark out.
> That is if you didn't go stick your head in the sand.
No need to stick my head in the sane. Nothing in the sky except the
usual stuff.
> Read "The Threat" by David Jacobs.
Why, so more royalties can go to a charlatan?
> He set out to prove that alien abductions "were all in people's
> heads."
> He doesn't think so now.
Much the worse for him and his sanity. BTW, we DO have alien
abductions, by Mexicans of American citizens, but that, which is
provable, doesn't bother you at all, I'm sure. That is why Phoenix has
the highest rates of kindapping in the country - it's aleins, alright,
just not "elohim"
> Funny how people who actually do research change their beliefs.
Intentional self-delusion is not "research".
knews4...@yahoo.com
Talk to Col. Philip Corso.
Oh yes, he's dead too.
http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc395.htm
Guess he couldn't wait to die so his book could be published?
Robert Higgins
> Guess he couldn't wait to die so his book could be published?
Boy are you gullible. You'll beiieve any nonsense. How many millions
have you gotten from those Nigerians on the Internet?
knews4...@yahoo.com
You have yet to do anything but smear.
Got anything relevant?
You don't believe in UFOs or the possibility of life from this or
other planets having advanced technology.
So what?
There are people far smarter than you and me that have witnessed what
they consider proof of something not "man made."
But they're all crazy right?
And the Military has been studying something that "doesn't exist"
since 1947.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Allen_Hynek#Turnaround
http://www.cohenufo.org/Hynek/hynk_ufomnd.htm
doug
Robert Higgins wrote:
You have to remember that this poster, JW, "invested" money with
the Meyer electrolysis scam and still has not figured out that
he was a fraud victim. This fact alone tells you he is a sucker
for any scam. His other posts here demonstrate that very clearly.
doug
Robert Higgins wrote:
He actually "invested" in Meyer's scam and has not figured it
out yet.
knews4...@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Stanley Meyer's Court Case
From: "Ted Zettergren" <ted.zetterg...@swipnet.se>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 15:59:28 +0100
John Feiereisen skrev i meddelandet <756atu$mkn
$...@client2.news.psi.net>...
>For those of you who are unfamiliar, Stanley Meyer patented some
>equipment for fueling an IC engine with hydrogen. In addition to this
>legitimate work, he claimed to be able decompose water into hydrogen
>and oxygen with >100% thermal efficiency, thereby inventing a
>"water-powered car". He sold "marketing rights" for this technology
>to unsuspecting people, one of whom is a regular reader of s.e.h.
>Thanks.
VERY GOOD Mr. Feiereisen
Take a copy of the tape fromx that trial and put it on the Real Player
so we all can listen to what really happened in the Court.
The most interesting is to hear what the WFC Expert Witnesses and
Electrical Engineer Mathias Johanson has to say.
[Note not ONE OF YOU DORKS has gone after him or the original poster
about their results]
Just attack me or JW.]
The first part of the trial started on Thursday/Friday, 1/2 February
1996 before Judge William Corzine III at the Common Pleas Court,
Chillicothe, Ohio.
By the way. If you like to do some experiment, try this.
AT FIRST:
You must know the difference between a chemical reaction and a
nuclear reaction. A lot of people don't understand that but they like
to argue a lot in every NG on Internet.
In a chemical reaction you need a lot of current and some salt for
making the water conductive.
In a nuclear reaction you don't need any current at all, only high
voltage. How much current you need in a real application depends
on how clean your water is. As cleaner as better.
Stanley Meyers method's have NOTHING to do with chemical
reactions.
HOW TO?
As a guide, you need US Patent 4,936,961 ref. figure 1 to 3F.
If you read something about magical frequencyis, forget that.
It works fine with 10KHz or something else if you preferred.
Use 50% duty cycle. BUT! the frequency will be doubled in the
step up circuit and that's the frequency the Water-Cell will work
with. The components must resist at least 2000V.
The Water-Cell is very simple. Take a lot of stainless steel tubes
with the inner diameter of the bigger tube 3mm bigger than the outer
diameter of the inner tube. From now you must look at this
Water-Cell as a capacitor with water as dilectricum.
The Water-Cell and the INDUCTOR will resonate at a specific
frequency. It's a normal RC-circuit.
Now the most important: The Water-Cell/Inductor frequency and
the doubled frequency from the generator must be exactly the
same. A special condition exists in a L/C Circuit, when it is
energized at a frequency at which the inductive reactance is equal
to the capacitive reactance, XL = XC.
Adjust the voltage peak level to reach a maximum hydrogen/oxygen
producing with a minimum of current using. If you earlier make
hydrogen with the electrolysis method with a lot of current,
this experiment will really surprise you.
For even less current you can make some experiment with a
centertapped puls-transformer.
Have a nice trip to Ohio!
Ted
doug
knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sep 27, 9:43 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
[snipped part about JW ufo delusions]
>>>>Talk to Col. Philip Corso.
>>>>Oh yes, he's dead too.http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc395.htm
>>>>Guess he couldn't wait to die so his book could be published?
>>
>>>Boy are you gullible. You'll beiieve any nonsense. How many millions
>>>have you gotten from those Nigerians on the Internet?
>>
>>He actually "invested" in Meyer's scam and has not figured it
>>out yet.
>
Notice that, in reply, JW reposts the standard nonsense
he posts everytime this fraus comes up.
The real facts are:
1. Meyer was found guilty of fraud.
2. Meyer's work is available for free and no one wants
it. JW seems to consider a few youtube videos as
evidence of something. If it worked, there are
billions to be made but, since it does not, free
is too expensive.
>
> Subject: Re: Stanley Meyer's Court Case
> From: "Ted Zettergren" <ted.zetterg...@swipnet.se>
> Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 15:59:28 +0100
>
> John Feiereisen skrev i meddelandet <756atu$mkn
> $...@client2.news.psi.net>...
>
>
>>For those of you who are unfamiliar, Stanley Meyer patented some
>>equipment for fueling an IC engine with hydrogen. In addition to this
>>legitimate work, he claimed to be able decompose water into hydrogen
>>and oxygen with >100% thermal efficiency, thereby inventing a
>>"water-powered car". He sold "marketing rights" for this technology
>>to unsuspecting people, one of whom is a regular reader of s.e.h.
>>Thanks.
>
>
> VERY GOOD Mr. Feiereisen
>
> Take a copy of the tape fromx that trial and put it on the Real Player
> so we all can listen to what really happened in the Court.
>
> The most interesting is to hear what the WFC Expert Witnesses and
> Electrical Engineer Mathias Johanson has to say.
>
> [Note not ONE OF YOU DORKS has gone after him or the original poster
> about their results]
> Just attack me or JW.]
Oh yes, we have pointed out all the nonsense many times but
you are so immersed in your delusions and paranoia you are
unable to understand any scienc.
>
> The first part of the trial started on Thursday/Friday, 1/2 February
> 1996 before Judge William Corzine III at the Common Pleas Court,
> Chillicothe, Ohio.
>
> By the way. If you like to do some experiment, try this.
>
> AT FIRST:
>
> You must know the difference between a chemical reaction and a
> nuclear reaction. A lot of people don't understand that but they like
> to argue a lot in every NG on Internet.
>
> In a chemical reaction you need a lot of current and some salt for
> making the water conductive.
>
> In a nuclear reaction you don't need any current at all, only high
> voltage. How much current you need in a real application depends
> on how clean your water is. As cleaner as better.
See, this is what I mean. This is wrong as a starter.
>
> Stanley Meyers method's have NOTHING to do with chemical
> reactions.
It has only to do with the fraud.
>
> HOW TO?
>
> As a guide, you need US Patent 4,936,961 ref. figure 1 to 3F.
>
> If you read something about magical frequencyis, forget that.
> It works fine with 10KHz or something else if you preferred.
> Use 50% duty cycle. BUT! the frequency will be doubled in the
> step up circuit and that's the frequency the Water-Cell will work
> with. The components must resist at least 2000V.
>
> The Water-Cell is very simple. Take a lot of stainless steel tubes
> with the inner diameter of the bigger tube 3mm bigger than the outer
> diameter of the inner tube. From now you must look at this
> Water-Cell as a capacitor with water as dilectricum.
>
> The Water-Cell and the INDUCTOR will resonate at a specific
> frequency. It's a normal RC-circuit.
>
> Now the most important: The Water-Cell/Inductor frequency and
> the doubled frequency from the generator must be exactly the
> same. A special condition exists in a L/C Circuit, when it is
> energized at a frequency at which the inductive reactance is equal
> to the capacitive reactance, XL = XC.
>
> Adjust the voltage peak level to reach a maximum hydrogen/oxygen
> producing with a minimum of current using. If you earlier make
> hydrogen with the electrolysis method with a lot of current,
> this experiment will really surprise you.
>
> For even less current you can make some experiment with a
> centertapped puls-transformer.
>
Yes, this is all a great way to waste energy.
Robert Higgins
I am not surprised.......
Robert Higgins
No, I have poked huge holes in your "evidence" and exposed thevast
ignorance of the one of your sources.
> Got anything relevant?
> You don't believe in UFOs or the possibility of life from this or
> other planets having advanced technology.
> So what?
The "possibility of life" on other planets is very remote, but
conceivable. "UFO's" are utter nonsense.
> There are people far smarter than you and me
There are some people far smarter than me, and even more that are far
smarter than you.
> that have witnessed what
> they consider proof of something not "man made."
"What they consider" doesn't mean shit. I DON'T CARE what they
consider proof. The scientific standards of proof are widely accepted,
and I know what they are. If people want to believe in pixy dust and
unicorns, all well and good, so long as I don't have to hear about it.
Most of these "witnesses" are hoaxers or con-artists, preying on the
gullibility and stupidity of people exactly like you.
How would YOU know what is "man made"? Ponderous tone: "It could not
have been made on earth." How the hell could anyone tell what was made
on earth or not? Certainly, all the elements are here, so that is no
help. Maybe the isotopic distribution is way off, which might mean
something. Most of the evidence is finding very small holes ("OMG, it
is IMPOSSIBLE to drill a hole that small! Oh! It must be ALIENS!!!")
> But they're all crazy right?
Sometimes. Often gullible, naive, stupid, or mallicious.
> And the Military has been studying something that "doesn't exist"
Now you hold up the military as a paragon of virtue, knowledge, and
efficiency? You mean the same military that routinely commits "war
crimes", and pays $500 for a hammer?
> since 1947.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Allen_Hynek#Turnaroundhttp://www.cohenufo.org/Hynek/hynk_ufomnd.htm
Benj
knews4...@yahoo.com
You still have nothing but ad hominem.
DanB
> On Sep 27, 8:06 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Got anything relevant?
>> You don't believe in UFOs or the possibility of life from this or
>> other planets having advanced technology.
>> So what?
See, this is where you assume that UFO == Extraterrestrials. Jung
addressed the UFO phenomena half a century ago and his conclusion
stands. And that was that there is no conclusion, we are clueless.
But I do recall I've pointed this out before, yet you sink back into a
state of belief instead of critical thinking.
Robert Higgins wrote:
>
> The "possibility of life" on other planets is very remote, but
> conceivable. "UFO's" are utter nonsense.
So you believe.
> "What they consider" doesn't mean shit. I DON'T CARE what they
> consider proof. The scientific standards of proof are widely accepted,
> and I know what they are...
Apparently not as there are no 'proofs' in science. I have a feeling you
have no clue as to how the scientific method works and how/why it is
what it is.
> If people want to believe in pixy dust and
> unicorns, all well and good, so long as I don't have to hear about it.
> Most of these "witnesses" are hoaxers or con-artists, preying on the
> gullibility and stupidity of people exactly like you.
Most? So are you saying that 'some' UFO sighting are just that?
So in that light, what is your scientific hypothesis of the phenomena?
Eric Gisin
If you see airplanes at 60,000' you are hallucinating.
Your inability to reason also suggests schizophrenia.
"Benj" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:8a4e7016-3483-4817...@g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
Robert Higgins
> > On Sep 27, 8:06 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> Got anything relevant?
> >> You don't believe in UFOs or the possibility of life from this or
> >> other planets having advanced technology.
> >> So what?
>
> See, this is where you assume that UFO == Extraterrestrials. Jung
> addressed the UFO phenomena half a century ago and his conclusion
> stands. And that was that there is no conclusion, we are clueless.
>
> But I do recall I've pointed this out before, yet you sink back into a
> state of belief instead of critical thinking.
>
> Robert Higgins wrote:
>
> > The "possibility of life" on other planets is very remote, but
> > conceivable. "UFO's" are utter nonsense.
>
> So you believe.
And you believe in alien abductions and ghosts and Nessie and all. OK.
>
> > "What they consider" doesn't mean shit. I DON'T CARE what they
> > consider proof. The scientific standards of proof are widely accepted,
> > and I know what they are...
>
> Apparently not as there are no 'proofs' in science. I have a feeling you
> have no clue as to how the scientific method works and how/why it is
> what it is.
Ask the greys - they'll give you the intergallactic answer.
>
> > If people want to believe in pixy dust and
> > unicorns, all well and good, so long as I don't have to hear about it.
> > Most of these "witnesses" are hoaxers or con-artists, preying on the
> > gullibility and stupidity of people exactly like you.
>
> Most? So are you saying that 'some' UFO sighting are just that?
Yes, most. "M - O - S - T". The rest include the congenitally stupid
and the inept.
>
> So in that light, what is your scientific hypothesis of the phenomena?
It is bullshit, of course.
Benj
wrote:
> > Most? So are you saying that 'some' UFO sighting are just that?
>
> Yes, most. "M - O - S - T". The rest include the congenitally stupid
> and the inept.
So basically you are saying that for UFOs to be actual craft is
"impossible". I hope you understand that this is the scientific
equivalent of saying "I'm a moron!".
> > So in that light, what is your scientific hypothesis of the phenomena?
> It is bullshit, of course.
In other words you have no science as an argument. All you have is
your religious opinion. And obviously you have exactly zero data to
back up your opinion. Which raises the question what of value do you
have to contribute to this discussion? I see pretty much nothing of
value. You might as well be arguing that "God" doesn't exist or the
earth is flat in your opinion. We, of course, have no way of know if
what you say is bullshit or not, so it therefore is of little value to
us. Perhaps just a little less "belief" and a little more "data" might
give you just a tad more credibility.
Here's a hint: "Science" does not give a rat's ass what your personal
opinion of things is. Nobody made you dictator of the world so we
don't give a rat's ass either.
DanB
> On Sep 28, 10:03 pm, DanB <a...@some.net> wrote:
>>> On Sep 27, 8:06 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> Got anything relevant?
>>>> You don't believe in UFOs or the possibility of life from this or
>>>> other planets having advanced technology.
>>>> So what?
>> See, this is where you assume that UFO == Extraterrestrials. Jung
>> addressed the UFO phenomena half a century ago and his conclusion
>> stands. And that was that there is no conclusion, we are clueless.
>>
>> But I do recall I've pointed this out before, yet you sink back into a
>> state of belief instead of critical thinking.
>>
>> Robert Higgins wrote:
>>
>>> The "possibility of life" on other planets is very remote, but
>>> conceivable. "UFO's" are utter nonsense.
>> So you believe.
>
> And you believe in alien abductions and ghosts and Nessie and all. OK.
You must have a reading comprehension problem. I never wrote anything of
that sort.
>
>>> "What they consider" doesn't mean shit. I DON'T CARE what they
>>> consider proof. The scientific standards of proof are widely accepted,
>>> and I know what they are...
>> Apparently not as there are no 'proofs' in science. I have a feeling you
>> have no clue as to how the scientific method works and how/why it is
>> what it is.
>
> Ask the greys - they'll give you the intergallactic answer.
Childish, bye bye......
Robert Higgins
> On Sep 30, 12:40 am, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > Most? So are you saying that 'some' UFO sighting are just that?
>
> > Yes, most. "M - O - S - T". The rest include the congenitally stupid
> > and the inept.
>
> So basically you are saying that for UFOs to be actual craft is
> "impossible". I hope you understand that this is the scientific
> equivalent of saying "I'm a moron!".
The possibility of UFO's being "actual craft" NOT FROM THE EARTH (or
being from the future, under the sea, from the Bermuda triangle, the
Fifth DImension, Atlantis, etc.) is so remote that it is unbelievable
without extraordinary evidence.
>
> > > So in that light, what is your scientific hypothesis of the phenomena?
> > It is bullshit, of course.
>
> In other words you have no science as an argument.
If you want to believe nonsense, go ahead - it's still not nonsense.
You prattle about "science", while it is obvious you are not a
scientist, and have not the foggiest notion about science. You think
that programs on the History Channel aimed at the ignorant and the
gullible for "sweeps" qualifies as a science education.
> All you have is
> your religious opinion. And obviously you have exactly zero data to
> back up your opinion.
There is lots of data available as to materials science, radar,
computers, physics, and so on. Your "data' are testimonials from the
confused at best to outright liars at worst. Show me an alien craft,
and I'd loved to test the materials it is made of, and check the
efficiency of it propulsion system. Until you have a vehicle or
bodies, you don't have shit. THe "I DID have the bodies, but a secret
government conspiracy took them away" doesn't cut it. It is the
scientific equivalent of "My dog ate my homework"
> Which raises the question what of value do you
> have to contribute to this discussion? I see pretty much nothing of
> value. You might as well be arguing that "God" doesn't exist or the
> earth is flat in your opinion. We, of course, have no way of know if
> what you say is bullshit or not, so it therefore is of little value to
> us. Perhaps just a little less "belief" and a little more "data" might
> give you just a tad more credibility.
What data do you have, other than testimonials and blurry photographs
from 50 years ago?
Benj
wrote:
> The possibility of UFO's being "actual craft" NOT FROM THE EARTH (or
> being from the future, under the sea, from the Bermuda triangle, the
> Fifth DImension, Atlantis, etc.) is so remote that it is unbelievable
> without extraordinary evidence.
Who said they were "not from the earth"? I guess you didn't notice the
"U" in UFO stands for "Unidentified".
YOU on the other hand seem to have identified them as being not real
and "unbelievable". Perhaps you'd better explain to us in detail how
you came in possession of this God-like knowledge...
> If you want to believe nonsense, go ahead - it's still not nonsense.
> You prattle about "science", while it is obvious you are not a
> scientist, and have not the foggiest notion about science. You think
> that programs on the History Channel aimed at the ignorant and the
> gullible for "sweeps" qualifies as a science education.
What I "believe in" is the efficacy and productivity of the scientific
method. Obviously you consider that nonsense. It is therefore obvious
that you are some kind of writer and not a scientist at all. Or maybe
you teach "science" in public schools. That would sure explain your
total lack of scientific knowledge. Foremost proof of your idiocy is
your evaluation of my scientific knowledge and training. Please list
your credentials that allow you to make such assessments without any
knowledge of the person(s) involved.
> > All you have is
> > your religious opinion. And obviously you have exactly zero data to
> > back up your opinion.
>
> There is lots of data available as to materials science, radar,
> computers, physics, and so on. Your "data' are testimonials from the
> confused at best to outright liars at worst. Show me an alien craft,
> and I'd loved to test the materials it is made of, and check the
> efficiency of it propulsion system. Until you have a vehicle or
> bodies, you don't have shit. THe "I DID have the bodies, but a secret
> government conspiracy took them away" doesn't cut it. It is the
> scientific equivalent of "My dog ate my homework"
Same old claptrap. You pretend that intelligence agencies don't exist.
That classified data is some hoax and that governments never lie about
what they know. I think it's time to change your diapers because you
were born yesterday. Hey dingbat, *I've* generated classified data.
And NO, I can't tell you about it. And that "doesn't cut it" I
suppose. If intelligence agencies don't exist and have no secrets,
then why can't you produce the secret government documents that prove
it? Hey, "dog ate my homework" doesn't cut it. I want you to show me
those top secret documents that prove nothing is going on! Idiot.
> What data do you have, other than testimonials and blurry photographs
> from 50 years ago?
We notice how cleverly you've worded your "arguments" to make your
propaganda point. "From 50 years ago" rather than 50 years OF
photographs (have you seen them ALL so you can testify that they are
ALL blurry?) and testimony (We note your use of the "spun" word
"testimonials" as in quack medicine, rather than "testimony" as in a
court of law). The bottom line is that all you have is "spin" and your
completely worthless opinion.
> > Here's a hint: "Science" does not give a rat's ass what your personal
> > opinion of things is. Nobody made you dictator of the world so we
> > don't give a rat's ass either.
And that means my opinion of you (above) still stands.
Robert Higgins
> On Sep 30, 4:37 pm, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The possibility of UFO's being "actual craft" NOT FROM THE EARTH (or
> > being from the future, under the sea, from the Bermuda triangle, the
> > Fifth DImension, Atlantis, etc.) is so remote that it is unbelievable
> > without extraordinary evidence.
>
> Who said they were "not from the earth"? I guess you didn't notice the
> "U" in UFO stands for "Unidentified".
> YOU on the other hand seem to have identified them as being not real
> and "unbelievable". Perhaps you'd better explain to us in detail how
> you came in possession of this God-like knowledge...
>
> > If you want to believe nonsense, go ahead - it's still not nonsense.
> > You prattle about "science", while it is obvious you are not a
> > scientist, and have not the foggiest notion about science. You think
> > that programs on the History Channel aimed at the ignorant and the
> > gullible for "sweeps" qualifies as a science education.
>
> What I "believe in" is the efficacy and productivity of the scientific
> method.
OK. Provide a cite of an article from a peer-reviewed jouranl that
provides evidence of "UFO's". Science and Nature are the two top
scientific journals. I must have missed the ET centerfold. Just tell
me the issue, and I'll look it up.
> Obviously you consider that nonsense. It is therefore obvious
> that you are some kind of writer and not a scientist at all. Or maybe
> you teach "science" in public schools. That would sure explain your
> total lack of scientific knowledge. Foremost proof of your idiocy is
> your evaluation of my scientific knowledge and training. Please list
> your credentials that allow you to make such assessments without any
> knowledge of the person(s) involved.
Yawn.....
>
> > > All you have is
> > > your religious opinion. And obviously you have exactly zero data to
> > > back up your opinion.
>
> > There is lots of data available as to materials science, radar,
> > computers, physics, and so on. Your "data' are testimonials from the
> > confused at best to outright liars at worst. Show me an alien craft,
> > and I'd loved to test the materials it is made of, and check the
> > efficiency of it propulsion system. Until you have a vehicle or
> > bodies, you don't have shit. THe "I DID have the bodies, but a secret
> > government conspiracy took them away" doesn't cut it. It is the
> > scientific equivalent of "My dog ate my homework"
>
> Same old claptrap. You pretend that intelligence agencies don't exist.
Oh, I get it now - your version of "science" include paranoid
conspiracy theories and speculation as evidence. At which University
did you learn that this is "science"?
> That classified data is some hoax and that governments never lie about
> what they know.
Some government agencies lie --> UFO's are alien craft. Interesting
scientific analysis...
> I think it's time to change your diapers because you
> were born yesterday.
And I can write complete paragraphs in ajust a day. Must mean I learn
a hell of a lot faster than you do. How do you know I am not an alien?
> Hey dingbat, *I've* generated classified data.
Good for you - So you have good reason to believe the government lies,
based on your own knowledge of YOURSELF. "All cretins are liars; I
know, because a cretin told me himself."
> And NO, I can't tell you about it.
What a shock!
> And that "doesn't cut it" I
> suppose.
For science, it doesn't. But, I suppose YOU already knew that, what
with your deep knowledge of science, and all that
> If intelligence agencies don't exist and have no secrets,
> then why can't you produce the secret government documents that prove
> it?
Again with the "secret government documents". Nonexistent evidence
does not qualify as science, just as non-existent evidence doesn't
qualify in court, either. Look up the Statute of Frauds (1677), and
why it was passed in the first place.
> Hey, "dog ate my homework" doesn't cut it. I want you to show me
> those top secret documents that prove nothing is going on! Idiot.
>
> > What data do you have, other than testimonials and blurry photographs
> > from 50 years ago?
>
> We notice how cleverly you've worded your "arguments" to make your
> propaganda point. "From 50 years ago" rather than 50 years OF
> photographs (have you seen them ALL so you can testify that they are
> ALL blurry?) and testimony (We note your use of the "spun" word
> "testimonials" as in quack medicine, rather than "testimony" as in a
> court of law).
"Court of law" - like the ones that accept the "twinkly defense" and
the "Chewbacca defense". "The alien don't fit - you must acquit!"
> The bottom line is that all you have is "spin" and your
> completely worthless opinion.
blah, blah, blah - tell it to an ET who cares.
>
> > > Here's a hint: "Science" does not give a rat's ass what your personal
> > > opinion of things is. Nobody made you dictator of the world so we
> > > don't give a rat's ass either.
>
> And that means my opinion of you (above) still stands.
I am honored by your opinion - that is the finest compliment anyone
could give me. To thought highly of by you would be the greatest
insult.
knews4...@yahoo.com
> Swamp gas and all.http://www.dailymotion.com/search/ufo/video/xafo84_ufo-filmed-over-ar...
Bit NASA knows they've been her all along.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2p5RLnW3uo
knews4...@yahoo.com
And so do the cows...
http://english.pravda.ru/society/anomal/27-11-2009/110783-cattle_mutilation-0