Invasion Earth
EAdams8221
In article <3582e7a1...@news.demon.co.uk>, Lo...@corrode.demon.co.uk (Love
Lies Squealing) writes:
>>SETI is very much a 'cult', going by Stanton Friedman. You've got to prove
>that
>>CSETI is one before I can take you up on that one though.
>
>Let's see; recruting people on the premise that they will be the first
>ones to have the privalege of contacting a being so powerful that he/she
>can freely disregard the laws of physics while not actually having
>anything they can show people to conclusively prove the existence of said
>being?
No-one's saying they will be the 'first ones'. That would be contradictory with
CSETI's standpoitn that the governments of the world have already made open
contact decades ago. Please explain exactly WHICH laws of physics that a
visiting ET lifeform is violating? Theory of Relativity? That was shown to be
wrong ages ago.
- Eric
---------
"A sceptic is a person who neither believes nor disbelieves in something until
proof is provided one way or the other." - That's what I am. :)
Orig...@my-dejanews.com
In article <199806131839...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
eadam...@aol.com (EAdams8221) wrote:
>
> No-one's saying they will be the 'first ones'. That would be contradictory
with
> CSETI's standpoitn that the governments of the world have already made open
> contact decades ago. Please explain exactly WHICH laws of physics that a
> visiting ET lifeform is violating? Theory of Relativity? That was shown to be
> wrong ages ago.
>
> - Eric
> ---------
> "A sceptic is a person who neither believes nor disbelieves in something until
> proof is provided one way or the other." - That's what I am. :)
>
> > Well, relativity isn't really wrong. It just assumes linear travel, and
disregards the possiblility of manipulating gravity. It seems to me that the
STS-48 footage makes it quite clear, that someone (ET, military or both) has
managed to manipulate gravity.
> > -Christian.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
EAdams8221
>Well, relativity isn't really wrong. It just assumes linear travel, and
>disregards the possiblility of manipulating gravity. It seems to me that the
>STS-48 footage makes it quite clear, that someone (ET, military or both) has
>managed to manipulate gravity.
I'd agree with you on teh STS-48 matter, but the Theory of Relativity is most
definitely wrong. It is incompatible with the experiments in quantum mechnics:
If the theory and experiment do not match up, then the theory must be wrong.
EAdams8221
In article <3581e068...@news.demon.co.uk>, Lo...@corrode.demon.co.uk (Love
Lies Squealing) writes:
>You appear to be acting the apologist here. The money is requested.
<SNIP>
Only if you want to become a meber! My point is that nobody's forcing you to
become one. Regardless of this, as you quite rightly put there, it is a
non-profit organisation.
>On the 'praying';
>
>------------
>Question: What methods do you use in initiating contact?
>
>Answer: We use lights, lasers, sound projected over radio waves,
> and CTS, or a form of active remote viewing where we
> remote view the craft and life forms and then 'vector'
> or guide them into our research site.
> The ETs have equipment/technology which interfaces
> directly with mind/thought, if properly coherent and
> directed. As for sounds we use a series of beeping
> tones which have been recorded off of operational ET
> craft, and from the crop circles.
>------------
>
>The sound being the ubiquitous 'Grasshopper warbler'.
And that has got exactly WHAT to do with praying? Praying is a religious
ritual, designed to ask some deity or other to perform miracles. What CSETI are
describing is merely telepathy.
>Regarding the closed congressional hearings, they've been refused the
>hearings that they wanted, although the only evidence of this was a terse
>press release from Greer that proclaimed that the government were too
>scared to act upon the compelling evidence that he'd lovingly 'collected'
>from various sources. They've asked the FBI to do the background checks
>for the witnesses, as they still haven't done this as of yet, but Adair is
>one of their star witnesses. Are you aware of Adair's claims?
I have heard one of his interviews on 'Sightings on the Radio' from last yea,
which a friend in the States was good enough to send me on tape. I'd like to
find out more about him as it happens. By all means, go ahead. A researcher I
know and myself are, at this moment, trying to give a certain Congressman the
information he needs to initiate a new study into UFOs - most definitely NOT
like the bungled 'Project Blue Book'. CSETI's helping on this matter too.
They're alright, leave them alone.
>>>You ought to hear what SETI scientists actually do say about NASA. Jodi
>>>Foster's character is based upon a real astronomer that has spent an
>>>awfully long time looking for signals in the face of what you've said
>>>above from her peers. These are the guys that would be getting the
>>>tenureships and the like in the near future, while this poor sod gets to
>>>look for signals based upon a dream that one day we might contact someone
>>>in the neighbourhood without the help of Linda Napolatino.
>>
>>But what's the point? If they'd only bother to take a look at some of the
>stuff
>>that's going on the ground, they wouldn't need to look into the night sky
>and
>>spend millions on massive radio telescopes and stuff!
>
>But they get results looking through those massive telescopes and stuff.
>UFOlogy is mired in the legacy of a decently organised and funded project
>50 years ago.
Which project? Blue Book? Don't make me laugh! If not that one, then which?
They get SOME results yes, but I suggest that if they're looking for
intelligent life itself, then they ought to get out of their glass towers and
get down to 'ground zero' as it were.
>>HAH! Have you SEEN the Defence cut-backs the UK has suffered??? We couldn't
>>even defend outselves, let alone deal with some huge asteroid that's
>hurtling
>>towards us! Leave it up to the Americans. I remember a DERA project for
>>clearing away sea-mines. It's this torpedo-shpaed thing with a laser on the
>>front (to search for the mines). You should have seen the ad-lib stuff that
>the
>>technicians had to make do with, because they didn't have the money or spare
>>parts. Of course any competant military commander would blow the damn thing
>up
>>as soon as the laser switched on, but that didn't stop them! It's because we
>>privatised the Defence industry and don't bother to invest in it.
>
>We don't have to. You know, for someone claiming to be a sceptic you
>don't really ask why that programme showed 'top secret' developments, all
>of which failed.
We don't have to? No country is ever prepared for its next war... Only its
last. We must ALWAYS be prepared for the next conflict. To allow our Defence
industry to slip into decay is one of the worst things imaginable. Where are
all the skills going to come from when you need them, eh? The program was but
one example. But go to pretty much any one of those and you'll see the same
picture. Brilliant designs and ideas, but a severe lack of funding to get them
anywhere near anything resembling 'completion'. Ask any technician in the RAF
and they'll tell you, privately of course, that they have to regularly
canabalie many aircraft, just to keep a couple or so Tornados in the air! Yep -
that's almost our ENTIRE air defence system. All because of drastic cut-backs
and bloated beaurocracy. Most of our equipment is either obselete or not
obtained in the numbers we need. Sod going off half way around the world to
fight OTHER country's conflits - we haven't got enough to defend ourselves!!!
>>Besides, how do you know they're NOT working on something to deflect/destroy
>>NEA's? You don't of course.
>
>I do.
How?
>>SDI Probably has/had more than a few 'spin-offs'
>>conveniently labelled as 'prototypes' hanging around the planet.
>
>They don't. A brief perusal of the documentation will show you that such
>an act is considered a decleration of war.
Oh and that's going to be, like, really frightening is it? A really huge
deterant? I don't think so somehow! That's, partly, why they're labelled as
'prototypes'. Go and check out the 'prototype' EMP weapon at SNL engineered to
one hundred trillion volts. There're loads of the damn things. That's old news
to people such as myself.
>>Don't worry. Like I've said the evidence for ET's is ALREADY here. Carl
>Sagan
>>himself once said something that's as true today as it ever was... "You can
>>only read so many books within a lifetime. The trick is to read the right
>>books."
>
>He didn't mean books of one particular subject, either, and the evidence
>is far from here. Otherwise you could show me one, yes?
I'm already attempting to do so. Remember our current debate over Iran 1976? ;)
BTW: Nice reply to Tim earlier, about his seemingly incessent need to label
EVERY genuine UFO sighting as secret Nazi technology. :) If he acts like that
all the time, no wonder that Redfern et al threw him out (IF - and I stress IF
- they really did: I want to see their side of the story too before making my
mind up on that one). Tim, if you're reading this, feel free to reply. You
sounded a teensy bit 'arrogant' though, whether or not you meant to be.
EAdams8221
In article <35885bd7...@news.demon.co.uk>, Lo...@corrode.demon.co.uk (Love
Lies Squealing) writes:
>>>Well, relativity isn't really wrong. It just assumes linear travel, and
>>>disregards the possiblility of manipulating gravity. It seems to me that
>the
>>>STS-48 footage makes it quite clear, that someone (ET, military or both)
>has
>>>managed to manipulate gravity.
>>
>>I'd agree with you on teh STS-48 matter, but the Theory of Relativity is
>most
>>definitely wrong. It is incompatible with the experiments in quantum
>mechnics:
>>If the theory and experiment do not match up, then the theory must be wrong.
>
>Can you prove this assertation, or are you parroting?
Not at all. Go look it up for yoruself. Hawking admits this fact in his book. I
suggest you go find the opinions of retired physicists who are free to voice
their opinions. Start with the work of L. Essan and go on from there.
- Eric
---------
"Be wary of any book with no references and no index."
"Friedman's law is that progress comes from doing things differently in an
unpredicatable way."
- Both by Stanton Friedman.
EAdams8221
In article <35875b0b...@news.demon.co.uk>, Lo...@corrode.demon.co.uk (Love
Lies Squealing) writes:
>>>>SETI is very much a 'cult', going by Stanton Friedman. You've got to prove
>>>that
>>>>CSETI is one before I can take you up on that one though.
>>>
>>>Let's see; recruting people on the premise that they will be the first
>>>ones to have the privalege of contacting a being so powerful that he/she
>>>can freely disregard the laws of physics while not actually having
>>>anything they can show people to conclusively prove the existence of said
>>>being?
>>
>>No-one's saying they will be the 'first ones'.
>
>Re-read your 'starlight' literature.
>
>>That would be contradictory with
>>CSETI's standpoitn that the governments of the world have already made open
>>contact decades ago.
>
>'Diplomatic contact'.
It's still contact. If CSETI are saying they will be the 'first', then they are
contradicting themselves.
>>Please explain exactly WHICH laws of physics that a
>>visiting ET lifeform is violating? Theory of Relativity? That was shown to
>be
>>wrong ages ago.
>
>Please explain how the Theory of relativity (Special or general) was shown
>to be wrong. Please feel free to cite any and all published works on
>this.
Like I've said, start with L. Essen's work 'Relativity: Joke or Swindle?' for a
start. If you E-mail me a postal address, I can pass you on a photocopy myself.
I am refering to both.
>However, I'm not talking about a 'law of physics', but the lack of
>physical evidence that they've left over the past fifty-odd years of
>explicitly informing people that they've been taken by aliens. This stops
>you invoking that infamous 'fairy' offside trap, by the way.
That's not violating a law. I don't know where you've been all these ears, but
the physical evidence is most certainly here. Has been for a long time. You've
just got to know where to look. That's all. I am not refering to anecdotal
'contactee' stories either.
EAdams8221
In article <35895bf0...@news.demon.co.uk>, Lo...@corrode.demon.co.uk (Love
Lies Squealing) writes:
>>>You appear to be acting the apologist here. The money is requested.
>><SNIP>
>>
>>Only if you want to become a member!
>
>They say the same about the Aum Shiva and Solar temple.
So? Nobody's forcing you to join. If you do, then you do. If you don't, then
you don't! Stating the obvious I think.
>>My point is that nobody's forcing you to
>>become one. Regardless of this, as you quite rightly put there, it is a
>>non-profit organisation.
>
>With some interesting holdings, such as considerable amounts of property.
Does this really matter? They're a large organisation. You could say the same
about Microsoft on the 'property' score, or any number of large companies.
>>>On the 'praying';
>>>
>>>------------
>>>Question: What methods do you use in initiating contact?
>>>
>>>Answer: We use lights, lasers, sound projected over radio waves,
>>> and CTS, or a form of active remote viewing where we
>>> remote view the craft and life forms and then 'vector'
>>> or guide them into our research site.
>>> The ETs have equipment/technology which interfaces
>>> directly with mind/thought, if properly coherent and
>>> directed. As for sounds we use a series of beeping
>>> tones which have been recorded off of operational ET
>>> craft, and from the crop circles.
>>>------------
>>>
>>>The sound being the ubiquitous 'Grasshopper warbler'.
>>
>>And that has got exactly WHAT to do with praying? Praying is a religious
>>ritual, designed to ask some deity or other to perform miracles. What CSETI
>are
>>describing is merely telepathy.
>
>Ah, yes. Silly me. However, how do you make the distinction between the
>above ritual to contact a 'higher' being and telepathy? (Known as
>'vectoring in', if you want the parlance)
It is not religious, for starters. Neither does it take the form of a ritual.
It is simply communication via the mind itself. Vectoring means transmitting
your location, hence the use of the word 'vector' in the title! :) This is
obviously just one thing that you could do with telepathy.
>>>Regarding the closed congressional hearings, they've been refused the
>>>hearings that they wanted, although the only evidence of this was a terse
>>>press release from Greer that proclaimed that the government were too
>>>scared to act upon the compelling evidence that he'd lovingly 'collected'
>>>from various sources. They've asked the FBI to do the background checks
>>>for the witnesses, as they still haven't done this as of yet, but Adair is
>>>one of their star witnesses. Are you aware of Adair's claims?
>>
>>I have heard one of his interviews on 'Sightings on the Radio' from last
>yea,
>>which a friend in the States was good enough to send me on tape. I'd like to
>>find out more about him as it happens. By all means, go ahead. A researcher
>I
>>know and myself are, at this moment, trying to give a certain Congressman
>the
>>information he needs to initiate a new study into UFOs - most definitely NOT
>>like the bungled 'Project Blue Book'. CSETI's helping on this matter too.
>>They're alright, leave them alone.
>
>Oh, I'm such a nasty man. They do wonderful work for the community, and
>they're such quiet neighbours...
So you have nothing to say on David Adair? OK. I am saying you shouldn't dress
CSETI up as a cult. You can't prove it it would seem and, thus, it would be
wrong of you to reach such a conclusion. I am saying that they ARE doing some
very active work in this field. The above example was meant to show something
they are doing in order to set the wheels of change going. Liek I've said, it's
more than other groups I've heard of.
>>>But they get results looking through those massive telescopes and stuff.
>>>UFOlogy is mired in the legacy of a decently organised and funded project
>>>50 years ago.
>>
>>Which project? Blue Book? Don't make me laugh! If not that one, then which?
>>They get SOME results yes, but I suggest that if they're looking for
>>intelligent life itself, then they ought to get out of their glass towers
>and
>>get down to 'ground zero' as it were.
>
>Actually, Blue Book was one of the ones I was referring to, but there was
>the extended CUFOS critique and Project Twinkle, but I'd be interested to
>hear something more than a single line denigration of Blue Book. You have
>any specific points at all?
Of course!
- Not one single UFO report concerning matters of national security, ie. UFO's
seen
over strategic military bases etc, were ever routed to Project Blue Book.
- Not one single overseas UFO report routed to the still-classified 'Project
Fang' was
seen by officers and staff at Project Blue Book.
- Of the 12,618 sightings listed in Project Blue Book, 701 remain unidentified
(8%).
- The Condon Committee did not look at all 12,618 reports - they looked at 117.
Of
these, 30% defied explanation.
- Project Blue Book 'Special Report No. 14' is rarely referred to by the United
States
Air Force, but the 1955 publication was an integral part of the Blue Book
study. It
contains over 240 charts, maps and graphs; comparisons between the known and
unknown; tables showing size, colour and velocity. Over 3,000 UFO reports are
contained in this one publication - over 600 (20%) were deemed unidentified by
professional Air Force investigators.
Understandably, few cynics and debunkers care to mention Project Blue Book
'Special Report No. 14' when making their pronouncements about UFO's, nor do
they care to point out the extremely high figure of 'unidentified' cases
contained in Project Blue Book as a whole. What is perhaps more disturbing, is
the continuing reluctance on the part of Air Force spokesman at the Pentagon to
draw attention to either. Their failure to do so is a gross abdication of
responsibility to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth;
both to the American people and enquiring journalists. It is left to others to
draw their own conclusions as to why the Pentagon have chosen to omit such
important references.
>>>We don't have to. You know, for someone claiming to be a sceptic you
>>>don't really ask why that programme showed 'top secret' developments, all
>>>of which failed.
>>
>>We don't have to? No country is ever prepared for its next war... Only its
>>last. We must ALWAYS be prepared for the next conflict. To allow our Defence
>>industry to slip into decay is one of the worst things imaginable. Where are
>>all the skills going to come from when you need them, eh? The program was
>but
>>one example. But go to pretty much any one of those and you'll see the same
>>picture. Brilliant designs and ideas, but a severe lack of funding to get
>them
>>anywhere near anything resembling 'completion'. Ask any technician in the
>RAF
>>and they'll tell you, privately of course, that they have to regularly
>>canabalie many aircraft, just to keep a couple or so Tornados in the air!
>Yep -
>>that's almost our ENTIRE air defence system. All because of drastic
>cut-backs
>>and bloated beaurocracy. Most of our equipment is either obselete or not
>>obtained in the numbers we need. Sod going off half way around the world to
>>fight OTHER country's conflits - we haven't got enough to defend
>ourselves!!!
>
>You're mixing R&D with the provision for spare parts, with predictable
>results. You still haven't approached the question of why the programme
>into the DERA only showed projects that failed.
R&D is one thing. Getting ideas off the ground and into practical applications
is quite another. We haven't got the funds to keep the stuff we've already got
in working order, let alone go around displaying our 'brand new projects'! That
program is a tiny part. You should have seen the 'Cutting Edge' documentary on
Channel 4 last year in relation to this.
>Just to save you the bother, I'll tell you why. Because they didn't want
>to reveal any of the good stuff on national TV. The designs were all
>publically speculative (helmet mounted HUDs) or already in production
>(Minisub minesweepers).
That minesweeper is riddled with problems. What exactly is this 'good stuff'?
Like I've said, we haven't got the funds to go around making loads of little
goodies. We haven't got enough to deal with the equipment we've got as it is.
Have you got any idea the number of Tornadoes are actually air-worthy at any
one time?
>>>>Besides, how do you know they're NOT working on something to
>deflect/destroy
>>>>NEA's? You don't of course.
>>>
>>>I do.
>>
>>How?
>
>Same way you don't.
Erm, I think you'll find that's different. I've got no evidence to say they
have, but then there's no evidence I know of to say they're not, either. They
might well be doing it, in co-operation with the Americans of course, for all I
know.
>>>>SDI Probably has/had more than a few 'spin-offs'
>>>>conveniently labelled as 'prototypes' hanging around the planet.
>>>
>>>They don't. A brief perusal of the documentation will show you that such
>>>an act is considered a decleration of war.
>>
>>Oh and that's going to be, like, really frightening is it? A really huge
>>deterant? I don't think so somehow! That's, partly, why they're labelled as
>>'prototypes'. Go and check out the 'prototype' EMP weapon at SNL engineered
>to
>>one hundred trillion volts. There're loads of the damn things. That's old
>news
>>to people such as myself.
>
>And for those in touch with reality there is the question of how you
>produce an electromagnetic pulse of that magnitude without wiping out
>every major electrical system within a fairly decent range of the test
>site; How you generate 100 Teravolts and what possible use an
>indiscriminate device like this would be put to.
The term 'nuclear weapons' should not be refined to warheads anymore. It can be
applied to a weapon which uses a nuclear reaction as a power source. What
you're saying is like saying "oh how can you make light destroy anything? Try
using a lightbulb and it goes all over the place!" Think of focusing and you'll
get the idea. That's what they did with the laser.
>The Russians started off with the idea of an EMP, but they used a 20kT
>nuclear warhead detonated high in the atmosphere as a precursor to a full
>strategic strike, and they'd even use that selectively, as you don't want
>to blind yourself in the process of knocking out your enemies radar. Just
>to reiterate, this required a nuclear fission bomb on a missile preferably
>aimed as far away as possible.
Like I said, you can focus energy along a particular path if need be. I've
heard there's one at SNL.
>>BTW: Nice reply to Tim earlier, about his seemingly incessent need to label
>>EVERY genuine UFO sighting as secret Nazi technology. :)
>
>He doesn't, and that kind of blanket assumption is one that drives him
>wild.
That's why I qualified my statement with "seemingly". That's what his previous
posting implied to me.
>However, one of the things that he points out is that most of the
>engineers working on some of the more interesting projects ended up in
>rocketry and flight-engineering bases. Go look up the Me 263 and do the
>math.
Sure, but that doesn't say much.
>>"A sceptic is a person who neither believes nor disbelieves in something
>until
>>proof is provided one way or the other." - That's what I am. :)
>
>And you feel that the evidence for aliens is here?
Yes. There is precisely the amount and type of evidence around here that you'd
EXPECT to see when complient with the ETH (which I personally favour for the
majority of genuine UFOs, which is not to say that some may not be time
machines, unterdimensional or something else we haven't even dreamed of yet).
Dave Pearson
On 18 Jun 1998 13:48:11 GMT, EAdams8221 <eadam...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article <35875b0b...@news.demon.co.uk>, Lo...@corrode.demon.co.uk (Love
> Lies Squealing) writes:
>
> >However, I'm not talking about a 'law of physics', but the lack of
> >physical evidence that they've left over the past fifty-odd years of
> >explicitly informing people that they've been taken by aliens. This
> >stops you invoking that infamous 'fairy' offside trap, by the way.
>
> That's not violating a law. I don't know where you've been all these ears,
> but the physical evidence is most certainly here. Has been for a long
> time. You've just got to know where to look. That's all. I am not refering
> to anecdotal 'contactee' stories either.
So, where do I, as a "layman" (because, at the end of the day, it's the
woman/man in the street who has to be convinced before the exercise is
concluded), go to see this irrefutable physical evidence of alien contact?
--
Take a look in Hagbard's World: | w3ng - The WWW Norton Guide reader.
http://www.acemake.com/hagbard/ | ng2html - The NG to HTML converter.
http://www.hagbard.demon.co.uk/ | eg - Norton Guide reader for Linux.
Free software, including........| dgscan - DGROUP scanner for Clipper.
Robert Snow
EAdams8221 wrote:
>
> In article <3582e7a1...@news.demon.co.uk>, Lo...@corrode.demon.co.uk (Love
> Lies Squealing) writes:
>
> >>SETI is very much a 'cult', going by Stanton Friedman. You've got to prove
> >that
> >>CSETI is one before I can take you up on that one though.
> >
> >Let's see; recruting people on the premise that they will be the first
> >ones to have the privalege of contacting a being so powerful that he/she
> >can freely disregard the laws of physics while not actually having
> >anything they can show people to conclusively prove the existence of said
> >being?
>
> CSETI's standpoitn that the governments of the world have already made open
> visiting ET lifeform is violating? Theory of Relativity? That was shown to be
> wrong ages ago.
Thats the problem with man, he thinks he knows all there is to know
& what he knows he thinks is right.
We have no idea as top what wonders are in outa space. It is very
nieve to apply the laws of physics (we have defined on earth) to outa
space.
Rob
>
> - Eric
> ---------
EAdams8221
In article <slrn6oigha.9...@hagbard.demon.co.uk>,
davep...@hagbard.demon.co.uk (Dave Pearson) writes:
>So, where do I, as a "layman" (because, at the end of the day, it's the
>woman/man in the street who has to be convinced before the exercise is
>concluded), go to see this irrefutable physical evidence of alien contact?
Well that's just it, isn't it? Like Carl Sagan once said (paraphrased): "You
can only read so many books within a lifetime... The trick is to read teh right
ones."
Until we can all co-ordinate our efforts (which is the entire purpose of the UK
branch of the Art Bell Chat Club, which I run - ChatC...@aol.com), the public
is going to get so many conflicting views that he or she won't know where to
turn.
I can, however, put you in the direction of a few good books: I would
especially reccomend 'A Covert Agenda' by Nicholas Redfern, which deals amost
exclusively with the British Government's actions and policies in this subject.
I would also recommend 'Beyond Top Secret' by Timothy Good and 'UFO Danger
Zone' by Bob Pratt. 'UFO Magazine' is, on the whole, quite reliable too - from
what I've seen of its work. These books are probably more than enough to
demonstrate my first assertion. I would say that you should read those three
first, then E-mail me again for other references. The above is only really a
'basic' guide, but go on from there and you should be fine.
HAND :)
EAdams8221
In article <358A37...@NOSPAMfjcomp.com>, Robert Snow
<rs...@NOSPAMfjcomp.com> writes:
>Thats the problem with man, he thinks he knows all there is to know
>& what he knows he thinks is right.
>We have no idea as top what wonders are in outa space. It is very
>nieve to apply the laws of physics (we have defined on earth) to outa
>space.
>
> Rob
Pretty much agree with your basic point there Rob.
Dave Pearson
On 20 Jun 1998 15:55:20 GMT, EAdams8221 <eadam...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article <slrn6oigha.9...@hagbard.demon.co.uk>,
> davep...@hagbard.demon.co.uk (Dave Pearson) writes:
>
> >So, where do I, as a "layman" (because, at the end of the day, it's the
> >woman/man in the street who has to be convinced before the exercise is
> >concluded), go to see this irrefutable physical evidence of alien contact?
>
> Well that's just it, isn't it? Like Carl Sagan once said (paraphrased):
> "You can only read so many books within a lifetime... The trick is to read
> teh right ones."
Don't say that, you're going to hurt a nice little money making
industry. ;-)
> Until we can all co-ordinate our efforts (which is the entire purpose of
> the UK branch of the Art Bell Chat Club, which I run -
> ChatC...@aol.com), the public is going to get so many conflicting views
> that he or she won't know where to turn.
Yup, this is exactly the problem. Over the past few years I've given up on
buying any UFO related books. I guess the main reason is that it is
impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff and it appears obvious that
most of them are not published in an effort to make important information
available but are instead published only to make some fast cash (I guess it
is easy to blame the popularity of things like the X-Files or (to a lesser
degree) Dark Skies, hell, last year, "Men In Black" is released and we see a
supposed serious book on the subject come out at the same time,
coincidence?). While I'm not opposed to people making money I find myself
thinking that if any of this stuff was really true and provable beyond a
shadow of a doubt if would be freely available.
> I can, however, put you in the direction of a few good books: I would
> especially reccomend 'A Covert Agenda' by Nicholas Redfern, which deals
> amost exclusively with the British Government's actions and policies in
> this subject. I would also recommend 'Beyond Top Secret' by Timothy Good
> and 'UFO Danger Zone' by Bob Pratt.
Ahh, but this is the problem isn't it? What I asked about was the
"irrefutable physical evidence". Books are fine to a degree but at the end
of the day they are still nothing more than methods of making money via some
"trust me" hand waving on paper. Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt there is
some convincing evidence in such books (probably more convincing if you are
less than sceptical), but, no mater how many of them you have read, at the
end of such an exercise a layman still has no hard evidence on which to form
an opinion.
I guess what I'm saying is that "seeing is believing" still holds true.
> 'UFO Magazine' is, on the whole, quite reliable too - from what I've seen
> of its work.
ROTFL! Sorry, I didn't want to be unfair here, but UFO Magazine is
terrible. I'll have to admit to still reading it but I find it very trashy
and written in such a way as to pander to very belief held by anyone who
hasn't got an ounce of scepticism. This, BTW, is the magazine that is so
concerned with the truth that they'll tell you that the Sun is 8.5 light
seconds from the Earth (wrong) and that the "Gas Giants" are Jupiter,
Uranus, Neptune and Pluto (wrong). I wrote to them to let them know about
their cock-up, never got a reply, the magazine never corrected the mistakes.
This is also the same magazine that is so desperate to fill it's pages that
it will publish articles from loons who claim that comets are intelligent
and are sent for a reason and who will publish a photo of a building that
has a bit of internal reflection giving a rainbow effect on the photo and
claim that it is a UFO (you know the sort of thing, "One Photographic expert
was unable to explain it", yeah, right, some expert).
> These books are probably more than enough to demonstrate my first
> assertion. I would say that you should read those three first, then E-mail
> me again for other references. The above is only really a 'basic' guide,
> but go on from there and you should be fine.
While I might, if I get the time, check out some of those books, this still
doesn't really answer my question does it? Most people are not going to go
out and purchase such books. Even if they did, it still wouldn't provide
them with "irrefutable physical evidence". Don't forget, I was responding to
your point (from 199806181348...@ladder01.news.aol.com):
> That's not violating a law. I don't know where you've been all these ears,
> but the physical evidence is most certainly here. Has been for a long
> time. You've just got to know where to look. That's all. I am not refering
> to anecdotal 'contactee' stories either.
If there is physical evidence, where is it? Where do I go to actually see
it? How do I get my hands on it so I can be sure? A book might tell me that
it exists, but that is no better than you telling me that it exists. Like I
said, it might be a old fashioned way of viewing things but "seeing is
believing", from your comments above, I'm sure you'd agree.
Dave Pearson
On Mon, 22 Jun 1998 01:27:52 GMT, Love Lies Squealing <Lo...@corrode.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Jun 1998 09:44:06 GMT, davep...@hagbard.demon.co.uk (Dave
> Pearson) wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >Yup, this is exactly the problem. Over the past few years I've given up on
> >buying any UFO related books.
>
> is well-deserved of a look, but I agree.
Noted.
> One of my particular fun things is digging up the books written in the
> past and comparing them with the recent stuff.
I can remember, as a kid, getting all the books on UFOs from the library and
reading about all these amazing alien races that were coming from Venus and
Mars and how they abducted people and took them for a trip around the moon
and stuff. Oddly it seems that as I get older the aliens move further
away. <g>
> >ROTFL! Sorry, I didn't want to be unfair here, but UFO Magazine is
> >terrible. I'll have to admit to still reading it but I find it very trashy
> >and written in such a way as to pander to very belief held by anyone who
> >hasn't got an ounce of scepticism.
>
> *grin*
>
> Now you're a debunker, matey.
Cool. How long before I'm working for "them"? <wink>
> >This is also the same magazine that is so desperate to fill it's pages that
> >it will publish articles from loons who claim that comets are intelligent
> >and are sent for a reason and who will publish a photo of a building that
> >has a bit of internal reflection giving a rainbow effect on the photo and
> >claim that it is a UFO (you know the sort of thing, "One Photographic expert
> >was unable to explain it", yeah, right, some expert).
>
> I've got some great pictures of ghosts produced by stop bath
> contamination.
I've got a few pictures of ghosts that live in my parent's back lane. Odd
thing is the ghosts look a little like me. Don't ya just love a camera with
a B setting?
> This is a moderate distance from it being extraterrestrial, and saying
> otherwise is being delusional.
This is what saddens me about mags like UFO mag. You can't doubt the fact
that there is a "UFO problem" (for want of a better phrase). But, here is a
magazine that, for the most part, appears to want to indulge in ET only
related explanations and, while doing so, appears, for the most part, to
want to be highly unskeptical about any picture that comes their way. I
guess I read it because I like the state of frustration. ;-)
Robert Snow
Love Lies Squealing wrote:
>
> On Fri, 19 Jun 1998 11:03:27 +0100, Robert Snow <rs...@NOSPAMfjcomp.com>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >> >Let's see; recruting people on the premise that they will be the first
> >> >ones to have the privalege of contacting a being so powerful that he/she
> >> >can freely disregard the laws of physics while not actually having
> >> >anything they can show people to conclusively prove the existence of said
> >> >being?
> >>
> >> No-one's saying they will be the 'first ones'. That would be contradictory with
> >> CSETI's standpoitn that the governments of the world have already made open
> >> contact decades ago. Please explain exactly WHICH laws of physics that a
> >> visiting ET lifeform is violating? Theory of Relativity? That was shown to be
> >> wrong ages ago.
> >
> >& what he knows he thinks is right.
> >We have no idea as top what wonders are in outa space. It is very
> >nieve to apply the laws of physics (we have defined on earth) to outa
> >space.
>
> look at physics on Earth before we continue?
Thats not what I am saying. Man understands physics as they are defined
on earth. It would be silly to apply them to say Black Holes etc.
Just becouse OUR physics says the distances to other planets is way to
far for aliens to travel to earth, does not mean its relevent for all
the universe.
Rob
>
> xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox
> | This thing is a man. | My reputation's terrible |
> | Look upon what you are, | which comforts me a lot |
> | and what awaits you. | - Noel Coward. |
> | Gaze on this image and |---------------------------|
> | learn what your own end will be. | Largely Unrepentant |
> xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox
>
EAdams8221
In article <slrn6oplf6.9...@hagbard.demon.co.uk>,
davep...@hagbard.demon.co.uk (Dave Pearson) writes:
>> Until we can all co-ordinate our efforts (which is the entire purpose of
>> the UK branch of the Art Bell Chat Club, which I run -
>> ChatC...@aol.com), the public is going to get so many conflicting views
>> that he or she won't know where to turn.
>
>Yup, this is exactly the problem. Over the past few years I've given up on
>buying any UFO related books. I guess the main reason is that it is
>impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff and it appears obvious that
>most of them are not published in an effort to make important information
>available but are instead published only to make some fast cash (I guess it
>is easy to blame the popularity of things like the X-Files or (to a lesser
>degree) Dark Skies, hell, last year, "Men In Black" is released and we see a
>supposed serious book on the subject come out at the same time,
>coincidence?).
Blame the publisher - not Jenny Randles. I dissagree with her conclusions, from
what I've heard of them. MIB was a bit odd, but at least it raised people's
awareness. Dark Skies was just fine - untill they brought in the 'Ganglian'
thing. I thought the whole point of DS was to connect every single conspiracy
theory and NOT to take artistic licence? Turned out that the pilot episode
seemed to be the best of the lot. JT Walsh dies recently, y'know: Bach's role
was perfect for him. X-Files went completely off the rails and started to
believe its own publicity it seemed: Don't worry, I'm doing a screenplay in
collaberation with a researcher. Hopefully, it'll set the record straight in
this regard. It'll deal with proven historical events. Got a meeting this week
with a bloke from 'Paramount'. Can't say much more than that!
>While I'm not opposed to people making money I find myself
>thinking that if any of this stuff was really true and provable beyond a
>shadow of a doubt if would be freely available.
It is, but you've got to know where to look. The mainstream media either won't
- or can't - get off its arse and take a good look.
>> I can, however, put you in the direction of a few good books: I would
>> especially recommend 'A Covert Agenda' by Nicholas Redfern, which deals
>> amost exclusively with the British Government's actions and policies in
>> this subject. I would also recommend 'Beyond Top Secret' by Timothy Good
>> and 'UFO Danger Zone' by Bob Pratt.
>
>Ahh, but this is the problem isn't it? What I asked about was the
>"irrefutable physical evidence". Books are fine to a degree but at the end
>of the day they are still nothing more than methods of making money via some
>"trust me" hand waving on paper. Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt there is
>some convincing evidence in such books (probably more convincing if you are
>less than sceptical), but, no mater how many of them you have read, at the
>end of such an exercise a layman still has no hard evidence on which to form
>an opinion.
The evidence is in such books. You have to check it up for yourself to see its
validity. If some real money was in this area, then there'd be a lot more
interest, but there's not, so there isn't. They contain the evidence and it's
up to you, if you're really interested, to chase down the references and go on
from there. The authors have done as best they can it seems.
>I guess what I'm saying is that "seeing is believing" still holds true.
Does it though?
>> 'UFO Magazine' is, on the whole, quite reliable too - from what I've seen
>> of its work.
>
>ROTFL! Sorry, I didn't want to be unfair here, but UFO Magazine is
>terrible. I'll have to admit to still reading it but I find it very trashy
>and written in such a way as to pander to very belief held by anyone who
>hasn't got an ounce of scepticism.
Not the issues I've seen.
>This, BTW, is the magazine that is so
>concerned with the truth that they'll tell you that the Sun is 8.5 light
>seconds from the Earth (wrong) and that the "Gas Giants" are Jupiter,
>Uranus, Neptune and Pluto (wrong). I wrote to them to let them know about
>their cock-up, never got a reply, the magazine never corrected the mistakes.
>
>This is also the same magazine that is so desperate to fill it's pages that
>it will publish articles from loons who claim that comets are intelligent
>and are sent for a reason and who will publish a photo of a building that
>has a bit of internal reflection giving a rainbow effect on the photo and
>claim that it is a UFO (you know the sort of thing, "One Photographic expert
>was unable to explain it", yeah, right, some expert).
I don't really look at those articles about space, odd photographs and their
current obsession with Near Earth Asteroids though. They're interesting enough,
sure, but there's much more valuable information in there. Or at least there is
from what I've seen.
>> These books are probably more than enough to demonstrate my first
>> assertion. I would say that you should read those three first, then E-mail
>> me again for other references. The above is only really a 'basic' guide,
>> but go on from there and you should be fine.
>
>While I might, if I get the time, check out some of those books, this still
>doesn't really answer my question does it? Most people are not going to go
>out and purchase such books. Even if they did, it still wouldn't provide
>them with "irrefutable physical evidence". Don't forget, I was responding to
>your point (from 199806181348...@ladder01.news.aol.com):
Actually it does. The books tell you where to find it and how to verify it and
so on in a lot of cases. Take Redfern's book: Gives full listings for the files
at the PRO so you can go and see yourself - and that's just the official
documents, although they are rather incriminating.
>> That's not violating a law. I don't know where you've been all these ears,
>> but the physical evidence is most certainly here. Has been for a long
>> time. You've just got to know where to look. That's all. I am not refering
>> to anecdotal 'contactee' stories either.
>
>If there is physical evidence, where is it? Where do I go to actually see
>it? How do I get my hands on it so I can be sure? A book might tell me that
>it exists, but that is no better than you telling me that it exists. Like I
>said, it might be a old fashioned way of viewing things but "seeing is
>believing", from your comments above, I'm sure you'd agree.
Gives you the references which you can go and check up for yourself. As with
everything. The thing is that mainstream journalists should do that work for
the public, but most of them either don't want to, or aren't allowed to, touch
it with a barge pole. They should do massive expose'-type things, but of course
they just take the 'official position' at face-value, without asking some of
the more interesting questions. All I can say is that the facts speak for
themselves. Read those books in full and digest the given information. Go on
from there. It'd take far too long for me to copy it all up here! :)
Dave Pearson
On 22 Jun 1998 15:09:18 GMT, EAdams8221 <eadam...@aol.com> wrote:
> Don't worry, I'm doing a screenplay in collaberation with a
> researcher. Hopefully, it'll set the record straight in this regard. It'll
> deal with proven historical events.
I hope it doesn't involve any knowledge of astronomy or astronomical
terms. ;-)
> >While I'm not opposed to people making money I find myself thinking that
> >if any of this stuff was really true and provable beyond a shadow of a
> >doubt if would be freely available.
>
> It is, but you've got to know where to look.
Isn't this exactly the problem we are talking about? I think it would be
fair of me to make the suggestion that if "you've got to know where to look"
then, for all intents and purposes, the proof doesn't exist (remember, I'm
talking from the POV of someone with, at most, a recreational interest in
UFOs and all the attendant ideas as to the cause of the phenomenon). Perhaps
that is pushing it a little too far, but I'm sure you'll get the idea.
Much of the UFO related media seem happy with lots of hand waving, pretty
pictures and "an expert said" style quotes. If this irrefutable physical
evidence really does exist, why don't we see it in the UFO media? Then
again, perhaps it does and I'm too dense to see the evidence staring me in
the face?
> >Ahh, but this is the problem isn't it? What I asked about was the
> >"irrefutable physical evidence". Books are fine to a degree but at the
> >end of the day they are still nothing more than methods of making money
> >via some "trust me" hand waving on paper. Don't get me wrong, I don't
> >doubt there is some convincing evidence in such books (probably more
> >convincing if you are less than sceptical), but, no mater how many of
> >them you have read, at the end of such an exercise a layman still has no
> >hard evidence on which to form an opinion.
>
> The evidence is in such books. You have to check it up for yourself to see
> its validity. If some real money was in this area, then there'd be a lot
> more interest, but there's not, so there isn't. They contain the evidence
> and it's up to you, if you're really interested, to chase down the
> references and go on from there. The authors have done as best they can it
> seems.
Hmm, I think you are missing my point. You yourself have agreed that until
irrefutable proof can be handed on a plate to the general public the whole
exercise is for nothing. While I'm sure plenty of authors would rub their
hands in glee at the prospect of the general public rushing out and
purchasing every book on the subject with a view to doing tons of homework
in an effort to prove to themselves that craft of an alien origin are indeed
"here", it isn't going to happen.
Allow me to play the "normal bloke with a bit of interest" for the moment
(which, I'd say I'm well equipped to play, 'cos that is pretty much my
position). As with everything, mundane problems exist. If I could fully
indulge in all my interests I'd be a happy man, however, time and finance
dictate otherwise. Once I'm done with the things I have a deep interest in
there is little time and book budget left over for playing at "UFO
investigator" (while feeding off other peoples hard work/fiction (you never
can tell with books)). I'm sure you'd agree that this is pretty typical for
most people.
Now, given the above, when I see someone say that there is "physical
evidence" available I'm gonna think that you are claiming just that,
"physical evidence". Perhaps I'm asking too much, but I'd not call (from a
"layman's" POV) trailing thru a number of books, to then work your way to
more books/documents, "physical evidence". What am I going to end up with?
Will I have irrefutable proof in my hand at the end of such an exercise? Or
will I have simply generated income for a number of book, video and magazine
publishers?
I guess what I'm trying to say is that, in the world at large, I seriously
doubt standing there saying "irrefutable physical evidence here, get yer
physical evidence here" and then, when a crowd gathers, you give them a clue
that will start them out on a long winded paper tail, will cut little ice
with most people.
See what I'm getting at?
> >I guess what I'm saying is that "seeing is believing" still holds true.
>
> Does it though?
Does for me. Your slightly enigmatic question would suggest you think
otherwise. Care to expand?
From my own personal POV I'd say yes, seeing is (for the most part)
believing. I guess it is the difference between belief based on informed
opinion and belief based on faith. As I kid I'd believe just about anything
I read about UFOs (that said they were alien in origin or would backup the
idea), this was belief based on faith. I really wanted to believe so any
sighting report or story would simply feed my already made-up mind.
I'd like to think that I'm a little older and wiser now (stop giggling at
the back). I'm still amused by the fantasy of "aliens among us" but at a day
to day level I really don't believe it anymore. Why? Simple, because I've
never seen any convincing evidence. I know it sounds mundane (it is) but
there is little point in living the fantasy, so I don't.
Now, someone might counter the above with the suggestion that there are many
other parts of mundane life that I take for granted and for which I don't
have hard and fast proof, they'd probably be right. However, you have to
take into account either the safety of a shared belief or the evidence of
effect. There are many things in life that I believe are true because of the
evidence of effect, I've never *seen* the Earth from orbit but I still
believe that it is round because of the effects I see when I look out of the
window, I've never taken my car engine apart to prove that it does indeed
run on petrol but I've seen the effect driving has on my bank
balance. However, I've never seen an "effect" that suggests a cause of
"aliens amongst us".
So, yes, from my own personal POV, seeing is indeed believing. If I were
shown "irrefutable physical evidence" (and I'm not talking about following a
paper trail here) I'd have a hard time not believing it (because it is
irrefutable). Seeing would be believing.
Ok, waffle off, I'll look forward to you expanding on your question.
> >> 'UFO Magazine' is, on the whole, quite reliable too - from what I've
> >> seen of its work.
> >
> >ROTFL! Sorry, I didn't want to be unfair here, but UFO Magazine is
> >terrible. I'll have to admit to still reading it but I find it very
> >trashy and written in such a way as to pander to very belief held by
> >anyone who hasn't got an ounce of scepticism.
>
> Not the issues I've seen.
>
> >[SNIP bad astronomy and dodgy photos]
>
> I don't really look at those articles about space, odd photographs and
> their current obsession with Near Earth Asteroids though.
In which case no, you wouldn't have noticed their lack of attention to
detail. BTW, the article that placed the Sun 8.5 light seconds from us and
managed to swap Pluto for Saturn wasn't about space as much as it was about
how "common" life would be in our galaxy (something you have touched on a
couple of times in the last week or so, and which formed part of a followup
I made to one of your articles but you must have missed that one 'cos I
didn't see a reply to my questions).
> They're interesting enough, sure, but there's much more valuable
> information in there. Or at least there is from what I've seen.
However, there is a problem here. While I'm no active astronomer I know more
than your average man-in-the-street (thinking about the current star hopping
talks I've given by accident at BBQ's lately, a lot more) so howlers like
the above stand out in a magazine. However, I'm not a full time UFO
enthusiast, so I can't use the same critical eye for those kind of
articles. Problem is, one thing I've come to learn is that when any form of
media makes those kinds of mistakes or shortcuts in subject areas you know,
they are more than likely doing the same in the articles in subject areas
you don't know. For that reason alone I read *everything* in UFO mag with a
huge pinch of salt (and then, only for the entertainment value).
I assume your experience of the magazine is different? Perhaps you'd care to
expand? I'd also be interested to hear how highly you value the content of a
magazine that, by definition, reports on a "fringe" subject yet doesn't even
know the planets of the Solar System or the location of the Sun (or, for
that matter, the difference between a UFO and "flare" within a camera).
> Actually it does. The books tell you where to find it and how to verify it
> and so on in a lot of cases. Take Redfern's book: Gives full listings for
> the files at the PRO so you can go and see yourself - and that's just the
> official documents, although they are rather incriminating.
This is what I mean by the "paper chase". Your average bod in the street
isn't going to do it. I'm sure this isn't what you really meant by evidence
that is easily available to the masses?
From what you've said I can only draw the conclusion that there isn't really
any "irrefutable physical evidence". I'll happy accept that there is a very
interesting paper chase and I'd be happy to bet that what you end up with
could help you lead to some interesting conclusions, but I can't help
thinking that the lack of people running around with actual evidence in
their hands shouting "it's true, it's true" can only mean that there isn't
any hard proof, only pointers to a possible truth that is open to personal
interpretation depending on what you are trying to prove.
Call me lazy, but I much prefer to ask questions of those who think they've
found proof (never take anything on face value), I guess that is why I
subscribe to uk.REC.ufo in preference to any other Usenet group on the
subject.
EAdams8221
In article <3598ac67...@news.demon.co.uk>, Lo...@corrode.demon.co.uk (Love
Lies Squealing) writes:
>>That's not violating a law. I don't know where you've been all these ears,
>but
>>the physical evidence is most certainly here. Has been for a long time.
>You've
>>just got to know where to look. That's all. I am not refering to anecdotal
>>'contactee' stories either.
>
>You're not talking about anything much at the moment. Where is this
>physical evidence?
Well, in the 50's/early 60's, there was a case in Spain where a UFO was seen at
low altitude and an aluminuim or solid steel container was found on the ground
and when it was opened, a 'jelly-like substance' was found. There were also
virgin polyurethane strips. Now the interesting thing about this, is that the
urethane in question had just recently been developped by NASA. That's not to
say that it was actually FROM NASA of course and who's to say that NASA didn't
the idea, in turn, from a similar scenario?
Another in 1965, from a man in Florida, who saw a UFO landing and associated
entities. The entities left footprints which looked like figure 'eights'. The
man, his surname being Reeves, found something resembling tissue paper on the
ground covered in heiroglyphics. Subsequently the millitary were called in to
do an investigation and they took away the samples of the paper. After a couple
of months poor copies were returned to Reeves, with changed heiroglyphs on.
Reeves was told by the military that it was an obvious fake and that the
message on this obvious fake obviously read, something along the lines of
"Planet Mars, why did you stay away so long? Missing you." Reeves,
understandably, went ballistic!
South Haven Park, Suffolk County, Long Island : November 24th, 1992 At 19:00
hours on the evening of November 24th, 1992, a man named Walter Knowles, a
resident of Mastic Beach, Long Island, was driving down Sunrise Highway between
Shirley and Yaphank, when he saw a unusual object in the sky off to the south
and above trees which separate Sunrise Highway from the Montauk Highway. It was
cigar shaped, or tubular and displayed two brilliant blue lights on it, one to
each end with an additional light in its center. The UFO appeared to be a dull
metallic gray overall. The UFO then performed a right angle turn and headed out
over the woods on the north side of the highway. Amazed, he pulled his vehicle
off of the road and stepped out to take a better look at the object; at that
exact moment it fell out of the sky and into woodland near South Haven Park,
along Gerald Road, which borders the edge of the site and crashed with the most
spectacular explosion, which set fires raging throughout the site. Though
Knowles believes that the UFO produced a powerful white beam of white there is
evidence which suggests that the UFO was in fact struck by a laser cannon fired
from Brookhaven National Laboratories [a mile and a half south-southwest].
Later, people living in Ridge [six and a half miles distant], Long Island, and
Bald Hill, at Coram [eleven miles distant], Long Island also saw it. Knowles
was joined by several others, who watched a fire raging some distance away.
He then set off again, not wishing to be caught in the area because he knew
that there had been a UFO incident, he was driving along the highway in the
vicinity of the exit ramp for William Floyd Parkway when he saw a formation of
four large, military helicopters which were unmarked and painted black. When he
arrived home he was confused by the total news blackout in regards to the crash
in the park. There was no evidence of a conventional crash either. He then went
back to the
crash scene with his brother-in-law and they arrived back there twenty-five
minutes after the incident had taken place. There was a military roadblock
across the highway at William Floyd Parkway around to Sunrise Highway. Military
personnel were dressed in black jumpsuits with no identifying markings.
Vehicles obviously belonging to them and parked nearby were also without
markings and painted black. While at the roadblock they witnessed five Long
Island Police department (Suffolk County) police vehicles being turned back by
the same personnel. Later, it would transpire that the police at West Hampton
Barracks denied all knowledge of such an incident taking place. The military
also closed off the side streets from Beatrice, Dawn, and Sunset. Knowles was
able, however, to head west on Victory Boulevard, until they drove up to Gerald
Road. There they saw a large fire blazing away no more than three hundred yards
from their position.
They also smelt something like burning insulation and the flames were higher
than the trees in the park. Another witness, a motorist who was coming out of
Brookhaven Hamlet also saw the UFO as it traveled eastwards at around 19:15
hours that evening, and he reported seeing another object in the sky at the
time the UFO crashed. It should be noted that South Haven Park borders on a
military reservation. There is a considerable amount of evidence to back up
this incident : If such an incident had taken place, all federal, and local
agencies would have been involved in one way or another, yet all of them denied
that they were present at South Haven Park on the evening of November 24th. Why
then did the Long Island UFO Network (LIUFON) manage to obtain fire fighting
equipment from South Haven Park on December 20th, 1992? If the fire department
was not there in the first place? The equipment had been recovered from a
location on the main fire road from the park and was similar in appearance and
type to the materials which the Brookhaven
Hamlet Fire Department. In due course, a member of that same fire department
stated in confidence to the LIUFON that fire personnel were on the scene soon
after the crash, but they had been prohibited from admitting that or saying
anything about their involvement because of orders issued by the federal
government concerning absolute silence.
On the night of November 24th, 1992, the Suffolk County police department
issued a county-wide alert and stated in dispatches that a UFO had crashed near
William Floyd Parkway. All units were to communicate using land lines for fear
of being overheard on CB, mobile phone and radio circuits. South Haven Park was
closed for several days while clean up crews sorted out the mess and cleared
away the debris. At first, county officials denied the allegation that the park
had been closed, but later they stated to the editor of the South Shore Press
that in Mastic Park, which borders the area, the park had been closed because
of Duck Hunting season. It should be noted that numerous people in the
immediate area of the park heard the UFO crash into the park, and others stated
that they saw black, unmarked helicopters, hovering over the area for hours
after the crash. What was more, people all over Long Island, and especially in
the immediate area of Brookhaven National Laboratories reported disruptions in
their electrical power. At the moment that the UFO came down, cable television
and home appliances burned out. Car batteries failed, and the telephone system
was overloaded and malfunctioned. In a number of homes within an area
immediately around Brookhaven, light bulbs burned out and with annoying
frequency. The incidents seemed to be linked to a massive electromagnetic pulse
which was known to have originated in that area.
When the site was investigated, LIUFON investigators found two areas in which
flattened and broken trees were evident along Gerald Road. In one area, one
hundred yards long, seemed to indicate that something had crashed into the
ground there. The area showed evidence of broken and splintered trees. Another
location, approximately two hundred yards north of that position, also
displayed broken trees and evidence of a intense fire which had been burning
there. The trees in the second area were found to contain strong traces of a
electromagnetic field, indicating that they had been emerged in a EM field at
some time in the recent past. On the night of the crash, more than seven
municipal fire departments responded to the call for assistance at the park. In
addition a unit of the Brookhaven National Laboratories Fire Department and
Emergency Response Team were sent out to the site since they had the necessary
experience and equipment for the control of a radiological fire - meaning that
the object which came down was radioactive. In June, 1993, the
chairman of the LIUFON, John Ford, received an anonymous package containing a
video tape which had come from a Defense Department systems analyst, who
claimed to be a resident of Rocky Point, New York. The video showed the
recovery of wreckage and debris of a UFO which crashed in an area north of
South Haven Park. It also shows extraterrestrial corpses and parts of corpses;
arms, and legs mainly which were recovered from the scene of the incident.
The tape was examined by Preston B. Nichols, a former employee of Brookhaven
National Laboratories, and Alan Green, both members of the LIUFON. They
produced a video image enhanced copy of the tape. Theirs is the opinion that
the tape shows extraterrestrial entities similar in appearance to the Grey
species. According to a government analyst who has since contacted and
identified himself to the LIUFON, stated that the tape had been confiscated
from the fire department which was first on the scene of the crash. The
wreckage was, as of 1994, being stored and being examined at the Brookhaven
National Laboratory site.
For information on this case 'The Rainbow Conspiracy' (1994) by Brad Steiger is
recommended.
EAdams8221
In article <3596a046...@news.demon.co.uk>, Lo...@corrode.demon.co.uk (Love
Lies Squealing) writes:
>>Of course!
>>
>>- Not one single UFO report concerning matters of national security, ie.
>UFO's
>>seen
>>over strategic military bases etc, were ever routed to Project Blue Book.
>
>Bollocks. What do you call the Godman Field report of January 7th, 1948?
Yes, you are quite correct, however it wasn't purely to do with UFOs. A that
time the Committee that issued the report were concerned about overflights of
non-American hardware, ie. hostile aircraft, missiles, or surveilence craft of
Soviet origin.
However, the late Joseph Allen Hyneck was once quoted as saying "while employed
at Project Blue Book, I watched Blue Book personel do handsprings to explain
away anything that they could while deliberately taking the best reports, ie
the ones that could not be so easily explained away and foward them to higher
headquarters." Hyneck made that statement circa 1973.
I suggest you also take a good look at the events of Washington 1952 and see
just how much was put into Blue Book. Read 'Project Blue Book' by Brad Steiger
and as a counterpoint, the excellent, though sometimes debunking volume, 'Watch
the Skies!' by Curtis Peebles.
<SNIP>
>Where did you get this one from?
>
>>- Of the 12,618 sightings listed in Project Blue Book, 701 remain
>unidentified
>>(8%).
>
>Later pared down to 640 cases by J Allen Hynek in 'The Hynek UFO report'
>(1977) and further down to 585 by Don Berliner.
>
>Pick ten numbers from 585, and I'll post the reports here. They're quite
>short.
You are absolutely correct, however none of us can allow for human factors
including missidentification, hoaxes or the inability to suitably explain a
manifestation of what may well be 'genuine UFOs'. I remind you at this point
that UFOs, strictly speaking, means Unidentified Flying Objects. By that basic
criteria, all objects explained or otherwise, initially begin as unidentified.
The inability of any agency, whether they be millitary, government or civilian,
to identify these so-called unidentified objects unfortunately rely on basic
human observational systems.
>>- The Condon Committee did not look at all 12,618 reports - they looked at
>117.
>>Of
>>these, 30% defied explanation.
>
>Have you seen a copy of the Colorado University study?
I have a copy of the original New York Times edition sitting on my desk.
>>- Project Blue Book 'Special Report No. 14' is rarely referred to by the
>United
>>States
>>Air Force, but the 1955 publication was an integral part of the Blue Book
>>study. It
>>contains over 240 charts, maps and graphs; comparisons between the known and
>>unknown; tables showing size, colour and velocity. Over 3,000 UFO reports
>are
>>contained in this one publication - over 600 (20%) were deemed unidentified
>by
>>professional Air Force investigators.
>>
>>Understandably, few cynics and debunkers care to mention Project Blue Book
>>'Special Report No. 14' when making their pronouncements about UFO's, nor do
>>they care to point out the extremely high figure of 'unidentified' cases
>>contained in Project Blue Book as a whole. What is perhaps more disturbing,
>is
>>the continuing reluctance on the part of Air Force spokesman at the Pentagon
>to
>>draw attention to either. Their failure to do so is a gross abdication of
>>responsibility to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth;
>>both to the American people and enquiring journalists. It is left to others
>to
>>draw their own conclusions as to why the Pentagon have chosen to omit such
>>important references.
>
>Did you read this? It conflicts with your first point, you know.
The report does exist, however the unavailability of the report makes it very
difficult for those who aren't in the mainstream of UFO research to obtain it.
Most of the time researchers, be they proffesional or ameteur, often have to
rely on quotations and limited sections of that report, when producing
documentation when dealing with such. I would be most gratefull if you could
give me a source where I may obtain a FULL copy so that these assumptions may
be checked.
><snip>
>>>Just to save you the bother, I'll tell you why. Because they didn't want
>>>to reveal any of the good stuff on national TV. The designs were all
>>>publically speculative (helmet mounted HUDs) or already in production
>>>(Minisub minesweepers).
>>
>>That minesweeper is riddled with problems.
>
>Which is why the project was cancelled. It had signicicant design
>problems too.
>
>>What exactly is this 'good stuff'?
>
>Oh, explosive reactive armour, infra-red cloaking, intelligent robotics,
>stereoscopic imaging systems. The usual.
If you profess to having information regarding these developments, you may well
be in breach of national security and/or any oath you may or may not have taken
in regards to the Official Secrets Act. I am assuming that you have this
information because you have either worked in close proximity to the sources
implied, or have a working knowledge of them. If this is not indeed the case -
and please don't take this the wrong way - I really feel that you are not
qualified to discuss such subjects.
>>Like I've said, we haven't got the funds to go around making loads of little
>>goodies. We haven't got enough to deal with the equipment we've got as it
>is.
>>Have you got any idea the number of Tornadoes are actually air-worthy at any
>>one time?
>
>Approximately 85%
This seems a somewhat optemistic figure!
>>>>>>Besides, how do you know they're NOT working on something to
>>>deflect/destroy
>>>>>>NEA's? You don't of course.
>>>>>
>>>>>I do.
>>>>
>>>>How?
>>>
>>>Same way you don't.
>>
>>Erm, I think you'll find that's different. I've got no evidence to say they
>>have, but then there's no evidence I know of to say they're not, either.
>They
>>might well be doing it, in co-operation with the Americans of course, for
>all I
>>know.
>
>And for all you know, they could be running unscheduled launches from Pine
>Gap of weapons of awesome destructive power. The difference between us is
>that I checked. And checked. And checked.
>
>Met some interesting scientists in the process, and had a stand-up row
>with the Project leader of the Hubble space telescope. Didn't find out
>until after, though.
>
>By all means accept the word of Birdsall and Birdsall, though.
We are also aware of a number of Black Projects involving SDI. The first of
which involves a covert space mission launching platform located somewhere in
the Indian Ocean and which is operated by 'elements' of the US millitary. There
is also a little-known independent space-launching facility on an island or
spit neighbouring the main NASA launching facilities in Florida. In return to
your question, the facility in question is operated by United States Air Force
and is quite capable of sending up ICBM's, manned vehicles or
communications/millitary satelites independentally of NASA. In fact a number of
the astronauts were given a tour of this facility (date unknown) and reported
that the USAF have completely duplicated the master control area at Houston,
Texas.
Rumour has it that the British Government, at least at one level, have from
time to time liasoned with the USAF in establishing Black Projects in Earth
orbit. This may or may not include tactical nuclear devices which may have been
originally designed to deal with your suggestion of a space defence network.
More likely, if such a system does exist (and this is only an assumption),
chances are the scenario inviolved may well mirror the motion picture 'Meteor'.
In answer to your assertion, it is very difficult, if not downright impossible,
to verify any of the points and/or assumptions you have in my answer.
><snip>
>>>And for those in touch with reality there is the question of how you
>>>produce an electromagnetic pulse of that magnitude without wiping out
>>>every major electrical system within a fairly decent range of the test
>>>site; How you generate 100 Teravolts and what possible use an
>>>indiscriminate device like this would be put to.
>>
>>The term 'nuclear weapons' should not be refined to warheads anymore. It can
>be
>>applied to a weapon which uses a nuclear reaction as a power source. What
>>you're saying is like saying "oh how can you make light destroy anything?
>Try
>>using a lightbulb and it goes all over the place!" Think of focusing and
>you'll
>>get the idea. That's what they did with the laser.
>
>And failed to achieve anything seriously, as the only way to focus light
>is to bend it. How do you bend light, Eric?
>
>EMPs are not the same as cohering light. They're the side effect of a
>bloody sharp increase in the temperature of air with runaway generation of
>high energy waves in the X-ray and broadband radio. How do you focus both
>of those, Eric?
>
>How do you generate a pulse of 100 teravolts?
It seems that you are correct in your answer, as I have persued the matter and
consulted a colleague who understands such a medium. I will attempt to
re-educate myself, however my error lies in the fact that I confused EMP with
directed energy/light technology. As has been pointed out to me, EMP is a
scattering EM field effect, whereas light can be directed as you suggested. It
is simply a missunderstanding on my part of the technical aspects involved.
Thank you.
I will post up the results of my research in this field soon enough. All I can
say at this time, is that such weaponary does seem to be in operational use
around the world. This is a proven fact and undeniable.
For example, there was a 1987/88 'Horizon' on the BBC dealing with the SDI
program and its ramifications.
>>>The Russians started off with the idea of an EMP, but they used a 20kT
>>>nuclear warhead detonated high in the atmosphere as a precursor to a full
>>>strategic strike, and they'd even use that selectively, as you don't want
>>>to blind yourself in the process of knocking out your enemies radar. Just
>>>to reiterate, this required a nuclear fission bomb on a missile preferably
>>>aimed as far away as possible.
>>
>>Like I said, you can focus energy along a particular path if need be. I've
>>heard there's one at SNL.
>
>No doubt from Boylan. Boylan is a kook.
>
>The best thing that SNL have along the lines of SDI is the MIRACL,
>although they have a few smaller lasers knocking about.
Energy requirements aren't the issue. This point is invalid in today's world.
There is a large particle accelerator designed for a similar purpose located at
Long Island New York. It is rumoured that in part this particular particle
accelerator was used to power a quark meson laser at Brookhaven National
Laboratorys, Long Island. In one such incident, this collumated energy
weapon/device was used to vapourise a UFO and seriously damage another which
crashed in South Haven Park, Long Island (New York). Date of incedent: November
22nd 1992. Incident was witnessed by members of the local public and video
taped by the local fire department. Subsequently a portion of this "evidence"
was aired on 'Sightings'.
EAdams8221
In article <3599acdc...@news.demon.co.uk>, Lo...@corrode.demon.co.uk (Love
Lies Squealing) writes:
>You know that 'Beyond Top secret' is considered excreble by those in the
>know?
Please outline what 'excreble' means for some people here.
D J F
In article <3592a97c...@news.demon.co.uk>, Love Lies Squealing
<Lo...@corrode.demon.co.uk> writes
>On Mon, 22 Jun 1998 06:22:59 GMT, davep...@hagbard.demon.co.uk (Dave
>Pearson) wrote:
>
><snip>
>>> One of my particular fun things is digging up the books written in the
>>> past and comparing them with the recent stuff.
>>
>>I can remember, as a kid, getting all the books on UFOs from the library and
>>reading about all these amazing alien races that were coming from Venus and
>>Mars and how they abducted people and took them for a trip around the moon
>>and stuff. Oddly it seems that as I get older the aliens move further
>>away. <g>
>
>Biggles and other things of that ilk. I dug my copy of 'Flying saucers
>from outer space' up from the base of a box, and it all seems quite
>distant now.
>
>*sniffle*
>
>>> >ROTFL! Sorry, I didn't want to be unfair here, but UFO Magazine is
>>> >terrible. I'll have to admit to still reading it but I find it very trashy
>>> >and written in such a way as to pander to very belief held by anyone who
>>> >hasn't got an ounce of scepticism.
>>>
>>>
>>> Now you're a debunker, matey.
>>
>>Cool. How long before I'm working for "them"? <wink>
>
You are working for 'them' are you not ?!
>As soon as I process the relevant forms. Watch for an unmarked blue van
>outside your house. we'll contact you with a microwave modulator.
>
>>> >This is also the same magazine that is so desperate to fill it's pages that
>>> >it will publish articles from loons who claim that comets are intelligent
>>> >and are sent for a reason and who will publish a photo of a building that
>>> >has a bit of internal reflection giving a rainbow effect on the photo and
>>> >claim that it is a UFO (you know the sort of thing, "One Photographic expert
>>> >was unable to explain it", yeah, right, some expert).
>>>
>>> I've got some great pictures of ghosts produced by stop bath
>>> contamination.
>>
>>I've got a few pictures of ghosts that live in my parent's back lane. Odd
>>thing is the ghosts look a little like me. Don't ya just love a camera with
>>a B setting?
>
>An absolute must for decent astronomical photography.
>
>>> This is a moderate distance from it being extraterrestrial, and saying
>>> otherwise is being delusional.
>>
>>This is what saddens me about mags like UFO mag. You can't doubt the fact
>>that there is a "UFO problem" (for want of a better phrase). But, here is a
>>magazine that, for the most part, appears to want to indulge in ET only
>>related explanations and, while doing so, appears, for the most part, to
>>want to be highly unskeptical about any picture that comes their way. I
>>guess I read it because I like the state of frustration. ;-)
>
>Well, it has to be better than UFO reality, which gradually revealed the
>wierdest thoughts of Jon King. The steady slide into obscurity was a
>given once the mumbo-jumbo took hold and they re-wrote Bill English's
>stuff with a UK slant.
>
>The problem in the Uk is we're still suffering the legacy passed on by
>Milton Cooper and the rest of the Vegas UFOlogists that played such merry
>hell with the whole anonymous witness gig.
>
>
> xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox
> | This thing is a man. | My reputation's terrible |
> | Look upon what you are, | which comforts me a lot |
> | and what awaits you. | - Noel Coward. |
> | Gaze on this image and |---------------------------|
> | learn what your own end will be. | Largely Unrepentant |
> xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox
>
--
D J F
Robert Snow
Love Lies Squealing wrote:
>
> On Mon, 22 Jun 1998 13:07:29 +0100, Robert Snow <rs...@NOSPAMfjcomp.com>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >> >Thats the problem with man, he thinks he knows all there is to know
> >> >& what he knows he thinks is right.
> >> >We have no idea as top what wonders are in outa space. It is very
> >> >nieve to apply the laws of physics (we have defined on earth) to outa
> >> >space.
> >>
> >> I guess that we should stop launching satellites and take a good serious
> >> look at physics on Earth before we continue?
> >
> >Thats not what I am saying. Man understands physics as they are defined
> >on earth. It would be silly to apply them to say Black Holes etc.
> >Just becouse OUR physics says the distances to other planets is way to
> >far for aliens to travel to earth, does not mean its relevent for all
> >the universe.
>
> earth.
Ah Black holes, you say there were "Predicted" many years agao. How do
you know if what they "Predicted" is true, have you been upto or in a
black hole, NO you havn't, infact no one has, so its all What Man thinks
it sh0uld be like using what physics we understand on earth.
> In fact, they were predicted in 1920, although a guy called Newton
> hinted at the possibility a lot further back.
>
> And you know that they finally think they've spotted one? Last year, in
> fact.
Oh yes they "Think" thay have spotted one, Man thinks up loats of
things & lots of them crash to the ground.
>
> Sure, there are problems within physics and the application thereof, but
> so far the level of debate in this section hasn't risen to the level where
> I could possibly consider explaining some of the problems on a decent
> level.
Well try this one, the universe (as we know) is held together with
gravity, If mars was to dissapear then Earth, neptune etc would all have
their orbit changed. So if someone can understand & make a gravity
machine then travelling vast distances is no problem.
>
> Given the question of distances involved; we have a barrier we call SOL.
> E=mc^2, a good working equation for the moment, tends to suggest that as
> your speed approaches that of SOL, your mass will increase towards
> infinity, raising the power necessary to accelerate further.
See above
>
> The best we can hope for at the moment is ~10% SOL or 0.1c, which makes a
> trip to Centauri a mere matter of 42 years, ignoring the small matter of
> acceleration and deceleration.
Very true, you have applied the pysics of earth to the whole universe
, as I have said physics goe's out of the window when investigating the
universe as a whole, rather than as we understand physics.
>
> That's our problem. It may not seem like much, but Centauri is the
> closest system to us. Most are considerably farther away.
>
> Sorry, It's kickoff. I have to go...
Robert Snow
Love Lies Squealing wrote:
>
> On Tue, 16 Jun 1998 19:30:54 GMT, Orig...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Dr. Marc Carlotto has calculated, that the "main object" on the STS-48
> >footage (the one that dodges the Pine Gap weapon (railgun or particle beam
> >depending on who you listen to)) performs a massive 14000 G. This is
> >completely outside "accepted" physics, and I think this is why many scietists
> >don't enjoy commenting on the footage. "Wasn't that ice particles from the
> >shuttle?" DuuuuuH!!!!
>
> 14000 G?
>
> 137000 m/s/s?
>
> ~1% the speed of light?
>
> <snip>
> >Note generally. I
> >personally think that both Relativity and Quantum mechanics are right. We
> >just haven't found the connecting theory yet. - At least not in "public"
> >science.
>
> The connecting theory being 'quantum gravity', or a decent method of
> revising the infinities that Feynman managed to reduce to a matter of
> little consequence.
>
> >-Christian. "Do you anticiapte that any of the recovered vehicles would ever
> >become available for technological research.....outside of military circles?"
Have a look at the American Computer company, they have admitted
to developing transisters from some unknown piece of hardware.
supposedly from Roswell ??
Rob
> >"I honestly don't know, ten years ago the answer would have been no." - Bob
> >Oechsler interviewing Adm. Bobby Ray Inmann, former NSA-director, deputy CIA
> >director and director of Naval Intelligence. Now on board of directors at
> >Science Applications International Corporation.
>
> Bob Oeschler?
>
> Hmm.
Dave Pearson
On Tue, 23 Jun 1998 19:03:47 GMT, Love Lies Squealing <Lo...@corrode.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >I hope it doesn't involve any knowledge of astronomy or astronomical
> >terms. ;-)
>
> Hollywood has been winging it for years. Earth 2 was a howler for getting
> things completely wrong.
To be fair, something like that is simply a SciFi "soap", I don't expect any
kind of accuracy from something like that. Now, if you want to see science
in a movie try "Deep Impact", I still can't believe I paid good money to see
that.
> Welcome to UFOlogy. A miasma of opinions, with faint smatterings of
> revisionism and a pathological disregard for what can be considered proof.
Tell me about it, as a "casual observer" I constantly find it frustrating
and annoying to see so-called researchers, who all appear to claim a degree
of healthy skepticism, spend so much time apparently ignoring basic facts in
an effort to prove their pet theory.
> >Will I have irrefutable proof in my hand at the end of such an exercise?
>
> Nope. Although that depends on the strength of your belief, either pro or
> contra.
I can't help thinking that you wouldn't have proof either way, but you would
have a collection of icons of faith.
> I have sighted a UFO. I cannot explain the sighting, and I have a good
> grounding in identifying a good many lights and objects that can be found
> in the day and night sky. I do not assign a value to the pilot, I do not
> speculate on origin. Such things would be based on faith rather than a
> rigourous look at the evidence that I have...
You've mentioned this sighting a couple of times now, would you care to post
the details if it isn't too much trouble?
> >In which case no, you wouldn't have noticed their lack of attention to
> >detail. BTW, the article that placed the Sun 8.5 light seconds from us
> >and managed to swap Pluto for Saturn wasn't about space as much as it was
> >about how "common" life would be in our galaxy (something you have
> >touched on a couple of times in the last week or so, and which formed
> >part of a followup I made to one of your articles but you must have
> >missed that one 'cos I didn't see a reply to my questions).
>
> Based on the Drake geusstimate? Hmm. I have half an article on the
> subject that I'm writing, but it concentrates on scale and volume rather
> than probabilities. I thought it was time for another spin of the wheel.
I'd be very interested to read it. The last treatment of the subject that I
read was the two(three?)-parter in UFO magazine, this was the same article
that said the Sun was 8.5 light seconds from the Earth and that Pluto was a
gas giant. As you can imagine, I wasn't too impressed. ;-)
Dave Pearson
On Tue, 23 Jun 1998 19:03:45 GMT, Love Lies Squealing <Lo...@corrode.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >Cool. How long before I'm working for "them"? <wink>
>
> As soon as I process the relevant forms. Watch for an unmarked blue van
> outside your house. we'll contact you with a microwave modulator.
Don't suppose you ever disguise them as BT vans? I seem to have one round
the corner from my house pretty much every day.
> >I've got a few pictures of ghosts that live in my parent's back lane. Odd
> >thing is the ghosts look a little like me. Don't ya just love a camera
> >with a B setting?
>
> An absolute must for decent astronomical photography.
Sure is. Take a cheap Zenith, a dark night, any kind of tracking mount (used
to use a "hand wound" one) and you're away.
Dave Pearson
On Fri, 26 Jun 1998 13:05:36 +0100, Robert Snow <rs...@NOSPAMfjcomp.com> wrote:
> > Sure, there are problems within physics and the application thereof, but
> > so far the level of debate in this section hasn't risen to the level
> > where I could possibly consider explaining some of the problems on a
> > decent level.
>
> Well try this one, the universe (as we know) is held together with
> gravity, If mars was to dissapear then Earth, neptune etc would all have
> their orbit changed. So if someone can understand & make a gravity machine
> then travelling vast distances is no problem.
How so? Lets suppose that "someone" does indeed make a "gravity machine",
how exactly would it work and how exactly would it make "traveling vast
distances ... no problem"? BTW, don't forget that while you are explaining
this you'll have to keep in mind that, unless you have extra insight, you'll
be working with "Earth based physics" and so you'll have negated your own
explanation. Like you said:
"Man thinks up loats of things & lots of them crash to the ground."
> > Given the question of distances involved; we have a barrier we call SOL.
> > E=mc^2, a good working equation for the moment, tends to suggest that as
> > your speed approaches that of SOL, your mass will increase towards
> > infinity, raising the power necessary to accelerate further.
>
> See above
I didn't see anything "above" that demonstrates that the above is actually
wrong.
> > The best we can hope for at the moment is ~10% SOL or 0.1c, which makes
> > a trip to Centauri a mere matter of 42 years, ignoring the small matter
> > of acceleration and deceleration.
>
> Very true, you have applied the pysics of earth to the whole universe , as
> I have said physics goe's out of the window when investigating the
> universe as a whole, rather than as we understand physics.
Interesting, LLS said "The best *we* can hope for at the moment", what you
say here seems to imply that you've got the technology to overcome the
problems of distance and acceleration/deceleration. Care to share them with
us?
Robert Snow
OK
listen closley
1 gravity machine, It looks like a big gun (artillery)
OK switch her on & point it where you want to go.
The gravity focus's on the point in space you wanna go. It pulls
that part of space it is focused on & pulls it back to where we
are. We latch on or in the space that was pulled to our location &
turn of the gun, The space pings back into place taking the
attached objects/people with it.
You understande ???
Rob
Dave Pearson
On Sun, 28 Jun 1998 21:56:00 GMT, Love Lies Squealing <Lo...@corrode.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 1998 13:32:38 GMT, davep...@hagbard.demon.co.uk (Dave
> Pearson) wrote:
>
> >To be fair, something like that is simply a SciFi "soap", I don't expect
> >any kind of accuracy from something like that. Now, if you want to see
> >science in a movie try "Deep Impact", I still can't believe I paid good
> >money to see that.
>
Now you're asking. Let me see if I can remember some of the things I noticed
(this is far from an exhaustive list):
o Kid spots new comet with naked eye (but the rest of the world doesn't
notice).
o Astronomer calculates orbit with a single observation.
o Considering where it was first spotted, I'd have thought the orbit would
have placed it in Southern skies for the out-bound leg, not Northern.
o Nobody else notices it for about a year.
o You can land on a comet nucleus by traveling "up the tail" with no
shielding.
o Comet tails point away from the Sun, not along the direction of travel
(I'm talking about the "visible tail" here).
o If the comets were going to hit on the outward bound portion of their
orbit, how come you could see them in the sky during the night?
o The angle of impact was way too shallow.
o If the big wave was traveling faster than the speed of sound, how come you
could hear it? (ok, nit picking now <g>).
...plus lots more that I can't recall off hand.
> Another I had considered is entitled 'A sense of scale', and points out
> that a light-year might sound a little small and twee, but once you put
> this in a cluster and supercluster perspective the size of space is
> mind-numbing.
>
> "Listen, it says, space is big. If you thought it was a long way down to
> the chemists on the corner, then that's peanuts compared with space..."
I was saying that in my head even before I hit the last two lines. ;-)
Dave Pearson
On Mon, 29 Jun 1998 11:07:43 +0100, Robert Snow <rs...@NOSPAMfjcomp.com> wrote:
> 1 gravity machine, It looks like a big gun (artillery) OK switch her on &
> point it where you want to go. The gravity focus's on the point in space
> you wanna go. It pulls that part of space it is focused on & pulls it back
> to where we are. We latch on or in the space that was pulled to our
> location & turn of the gun, The space pings back into place taking the
> attached objects/people with it.
Sounds reminiscent of (IIRC) a Harry Harrison book, the elastic drive or
something? However, my point still stands, how does it work? The above
doesn't describe how it works, it outlines the effect you'd "see" but I'd
hardly call it a working description. Also, and this was my main point, even
if you've got the physics to back it up you've proved yourself wrong, as you
said:
> > > Very true, you have applied the pysics of earth to the whole universe
> > > , as I have said physics goe's out of the window when investigating
> > > the universe as a whole, rather than as we understand physics.
So, given what you've said, if you've got the science to prove that your
"gravity gun" works it is no proof because "Earth based physics" "goes out
of the window" when "investigating the universe as a whole", however,
without the science as proof to back it up it is simply science
fiction. Catch 22?
Robert Snow
Dave Pearson wrote:
>
> On Mon, 29 Jun 1998 11:07:43 +0100, Robert Snow <rs...@NOSPAMfjcomp.com> wrote:
>
> > 1 gravity machine, It looks like a big gun (artillery) OK switch her on &
> > point it where you want to go. The gravity focus's on the point in space
> > you wanna go. It pulls that part of space it is focused on & pulls it back
> > to where we are. We latch on or in the space that was pulled to our
> > location & turn of the gun, The space pings back into place taking the
> > attached objects/people with it.
>
> Sounds reminiscent of (IIRC) a Harry Harrison book,
Think again & you might come up with Robert Lazar.
> the elastic drive or
> something? However, my point still stands, how does it work? The above
> doesn't describe how it works, it outlines the effect you'd "see" but I'd
> hardly call it a working description. Also, and this was my main point, even
> if you've got the physics to back it up you've proved yourself wrong, as you
> said:
If I knew how it worked I would make one.
So I should not make a glider as I can't explain how it works???
I have an idea on how it works but cannot explain as I have not tryed it
yet, even thou I have not tryed it does not make it impossible ??
>
> > > > Very true, you have applied the pysics of earth to the whole universe
> > > > , as I have said physics goe's out of the window when investigating
> > > > the universe as a whole, rather than as we understand physics.
>
> So, given what you've said, if you've got the science to prove that your
> "gravity gun" works it is no proof because "Earth based physics" "goes out
> of the window" when "investigating the universe as a whole", however,
> without the science as proof to back it up it is simply science
> fiction. Catch 22?
Er where did I say I have the science to back it up, thats you thought
on things, you wont accept anything untill it is proved by using Earth
Science. That's your problem not mine.
I don't need everything explained in minute detail to belive it might
work
Rob
Dave Pearson
On Tue, 30 Jun 1998 10:53:57 +0100, Robert Snow <rs...@NOSPAMfjcomp.com> wrote:
> Dave Pearson wrote:
>
> > Sounds reminiscent of (IIRC) a Harry Harrison book,
>
> Think again & you might come up with Robert Lazar.
Nope, it definitely sounds a lot like something I remember reading in a
old(ish?) sci-fi book, also, from what I've seen and read, I doubt that
Lazar should be quoted as a reputable source.
> > However, my point still stands, how does it work? The above doesn't
> > describe how it works, it outlines the effect you'd "see" but I'd hardly
> > call it a working description. Also, and this was my main point, even if
> > you've got the physics to back it up you've proved yourself wrong, as
> > you said:
>
> If I knew how it worked I would make one.
>
> So I should not make a glider as I can't explain how it works??? I have
> an idea on how it works but cannot explain as I have not tryed it yet,
> even thou I have not tryed it does not make it impossible ??
You're missing the point 100%. Sure, we can sit here and dream up all sorts
of wonderful things, but none of them would be proof that "Earth based
science" is wrong, only proof that we've got good imaginations.
Don't forget, you invoked your "gravity gun" as part of the proof that
"Earth based physics" doesn't cut it in the Universe at large (see article
35938E...@NOSPAMfjcomp.com), thing is, from where I'm sat, it shows no
such thing.
> > So, given what you've said, if you've got the science to prove that your
> > "gravity gun" works it is no proof because "Earth based physics" "goes
> > out of the window" when "investigating the universe as a whole",
> > however, without the science as proof to back it up it is simply science
> > fiction. Catch 22?
>
> Er where did I say I have the science to back it up,
You didn't, hence the reason I'm asking if you have.
> thats you thought on things, you wont accept anything untill it is proved
> by using Earth Science. That's your problem not mine. I don't need
> everything explained in minute detail to belive it might work
Hmm, you sound a little like the emperor's tailer here.
Oh, sure, I can "believe" it might work, I do this many times a week, you
know, suspend disbelief while watching TNG or some such bit of entertaining
fiction. That, however, isn't the point.
What I'm trying to point out is that, for all intents and purposes, you're
attempting to invoke magic as proof of something. You've stated that the
physics we know at the moment probably isn't the "real physics" of the
universe (for want of a better term). Sure thing, I very much doubt it
is. As history has constantly shown science never stands still no matter how
deeply some people may think that we've discovered everything. However, look
at what you are trying to say:
o Physics as we understand it doesn't apply to the universe.
o Amazing things are possible if we think "outside" of our current knowledge
of how the Universe works.
o Those amazing things are proof of the first point.
However, the problem is that, while engaging in the last point, you are
deluding yourself. Think about it. You've used the "gravity gun" as some
kind of proof, however, without something to back up the possibility that it
can work it is nothing more than pure fiction. Now, if you had some kind of
proof to show that it is indeed proof of the first point above you've
instantly proved it wrong because of your "everything falls" assertion.
BTW, your glider analogy doesn't work either. The fact that you know that
something should be able to "float" in the air (say, from watching birds)
shows that you know this is a possibility and that you have proof that it is
possible. Sure, you might not have an intimate knowledge of how flight works
but you do have proof that it is possible (birds).
VoD
>On Tue, 30 Jun 1998 10:53:57 +0100, Robert Snow <rs...@NOSPAMfjcomp.com> wrote:
>> Dave Pearson wrote:
>>
>> > Sounds reminiscent of (IIRC) a Harry Harrison book,
>>
>> Think again & you might come up with Robert Lazar.
>
>Nope, it definitely sounds a lot like something I remember reading in a
>old(ish?) sci-fi book, also, from what I've seen and read, I doubt that
>Lazar should be quoted as a reputable source.
>
Try looking at Bill the Galactic Hero, by (as you've rightly guessed)
Harry Harrison). It was called the Bloater drive.
Dave Leeming
Dave Pearson
Many thanks, it was starting to get to me, not being able to remember the
name of the book. I'll have to hunt for it in my collection now to remind
myself how the drive worked (I seem to remember is was hilarious and not too
different from what is being described).
EAdams8221
In article <3598d6ae...@news.demon.co.uk>, Lo...@corrode.demon.co.uk (Love
Lies Squealing) writes:
<SNIP on both sides.>
>Very true. I've been examining the Autopsy film since just before it came
>out to the general public, and the interesting thing is that this obvious
>hoax is still used as a reference work by some researchers.
>
>From Bob Shell yesterday; "Ray Santilli's former associate Gary Shoefield
>has told us that the film is a hoax. I still question on where, how and
>by whom it was hoaxed, but I am willing to take Gary's word on this that
>it is fake."
>
>Even after it's exposure, you'll still find people referring to it in
>hushed tones, much as you find people referring to Meier, Adamski or
>Lazar.
All the same, Bob raises valid points. Just because somebody's come foward to
say it was a hoax, doesn't mean to say it actually WAS. Before taking somebody
on their word alone, I'd prefer to have the evidence about just those topics
for a start: Where, how, by whom and where the money trail is. I know many of
the claims that go against it, but there was suposed to have been a recent book
(I forget the title) which came out that was supposed to have refuted those
claims. Untill I get hold of one from the library, I can't really say. My
feeling is that it was a hoax, but without knowing for sure... I still think
that it's a bit 'off' by Santilli not to give one of the required frames for
analysis. Remember those guys who came forward claiming Ed Walter's photos
being of a paper model? A bit embarassing when they found the copyright on the
designs being 2 years AFTER the photo was taken!
Anyway, I thought you said it was only going to be a couple of days or
something - didn't you claim to have found the person behind the alledged hoax?
Where's the article going to be (if anywhere)?
About Adamski, perhaps his later claims were a load of crap, but even after his
orignal 'backers' left him, they always stood by his first claims. Maybe he had
genuine experiences and liked the 'taste' of fame or something? The same could
apply to Meier. In regards to Lazar, I think he was set up. Probably his
original story is more or less 'as is'. Did you hear what he's doing with that
abandoned nuclear bunker/silo now? :)
EAdams8221
In article <slrn6petc1.fn...@hagbard.demon.co.uk>,
davep...@hagbard.demon.co.uk (Dave Pearson) writes:
>On Mon, 29 Jun 1998 11:07:43 +0100, Robert Snow <rs...@NOSPAMfjcomp.com>
>wrote:
>
>> 1 gravity machine, It looks like a big gun (artillery) OK switch her on &
>> point it where you want to go. The gravity focus's on the point in space
>> you wanna go. It pulls that part of space it is focused on & pulls it back
>> to where we are. We latch on or in the space that was pulled to our
>> location & turn of the gun, The space pings back into place taking the
>> attached objects/people with it.
>
>Sounds reminiscent of (IIRC) a Harry Harrison book, the elastic drive or
>something? However, my point still stands, how does it work? The above
>doesn't describe how it works, it outlines the effect you'd "see" but I'd
>hardly call it a working description. Also, and this was my main point, even
>if you've got the physics to back it up you've proved yourself wrong, as you
>said:
Actually, it sounds like Bob Lazar's explanation. The only thing that's been
brought up against Lazar is the amount of energy needed. However, this assumes
that another species hasn't got some super-efficient fuel that's as common as,
I don't know, iron or something where they come from. Love Lies... Says that
gravity MUST be created by mass. I don't think that's the only method it can be
made. That's like saying that light can only be made by a nuclear reaction,
because the sun creates it: Of course, we now know how to make lightbulbs -
which obviously don't have to run on nuclear power.
>> > > Very true, you have applied the pysics of earth to the whole universe
>> > > , as I have said physics goe's out of the window when investigating
>> > > the universe as a whole, rather than as we understand physics.
>
>So, given what you've said, if you've got the science to prove that your
>"gravity gun" works it is no proof because "Earth based physics" "goes out
>of the window" when "investigating the universe as a whole", however,
>without the science as proof to back it up it is simply science
>fiction. Catch 22?
I think he's talking generally. If you can get the thing to, more or less, be
shown to be POSSIBLE, then there's no reason to say it can NOT work. Like I've
already said around here, there's bound to be more than one method of
interstellar travel.
EAdams8221
In article <3599ed82...@news.demon.co.uk>, Lo...@corrode.demon.co.uk (Love
Lies Squealing) writes:
>On Fri, 26 Jun 1998 13:05:36 +0100, Robert Snow <rs...@NOSPAMfjcomp.com>
>wrote:
<SNIP>
>>Well try this one, the universe (as we know) is held together with
>>gravity, If mars was to dissapear then Earth, neptune etc would all have
>>their orbit changed. So if someone can understand & make a gravity
>>machine then travelling vast distances is no problem.
>
>Funily enough this is the upshot of Lazar's work, which is really amusing.
>Ok, we have a space-ship with a gravity drive tootling along in a fold of
>space, raising gravitational potential in front of it, and surfing down
>the wave.
>
>As soon as a rock comes close, it's also going to surf down the wave.
>Dangerous.
>
>As soon as you get near a planet, what's going to happen to that planet?
NOTE TO NEWCOMERS: I didn't write the first bit.
Lazar never said it would 'surf'. He said it would pull one part of space over
to it and then 'let go'. There would, in esscence, be no physical 'travel' from
A to B. There would BE no rocks in the way! :) Anyway, you're assuming it
wouldn't have shields or something. But as I say, it's superfluous - Lazar said
it wouldn't use that method of travel in the first place.
EAdams8221
In article <359af07d...@news.demon.co.uk>, Lo...@corrode.demon.co.uk (Love
Lies Squealing) writes:
>The problem is that if there is a gravity particle, then it must exist
>beyond the limit of the current accelerators. The supercollider was
>intended to search for the Higgs boson, the so-called 'God particle'
>although Hawking recently said that he doubted that it existed.
I think you'd be interested in the recent book 'The Physics of a Flying
Saucer'. Goes into 'gravity particles' and all the rest of it. Haven't seen a
copy around yet, myself. Still searching.
>> "Man thinks up loats of things & lots of them crash to the ground."
He does! He does! :) This is why I hate it when people go on about "well if
they were so advanced..." No technology's perfect!
>>> > Given the question of distances involved; we have a barrier we call SOL.
>>> > E=mc^2, a good working equation for the moment, tends to suggest that as
>>> > your speed approaches that of SOL, your mass will increase towards
>>> > infinity, raising the power necessary to accelerate further.
>>>
>>> See above
>>
>>I didn't see anything "above" that demonstrates that the above is actually
>>wrong.
>
>That bit was from Eric, and I'm looking forward to him explaining tensors
>to me.
What? What do you mean about 'tensors'? I must have missed that post.
Dave Pearson
On 30 Jun 1998 22:17:38 GMT, EAdams8221 <eadam...@aol.com> wrote:
> Love Lies... Says that gravity MUST be created by mass. I don't think
> that's the only method it can be made.
What other methods do you think can be used?
> That's like saying that light can only be made by a nuclear reaction,
> because the sun creates it: Of course, we now know how to make lightbulbs
> - which obviously don't have to run on nuclear power.
So, how does a light-bulb work?
> >So, given what you've said, if you've got the science to prove that your
> >"gravity gun" works it is no proof because "Earth based physics" "goes
> >out of the window" when "investigating the universe as a whole", however,
> >without the science as proof to back it up it is simply science
> >fiction. Catch 22?
>
> I think he's talking generally. If you can get the thing to, more or less,
> be shown to be POSSIBLE, then there's no reason to say it can NOT work.
My point exactly, simply dreaming something up isn't showing that it is
possible. So, how is someone going to show that the "gravity gun" is
possible? And, once they do, won't it also be sown to be wrong because we'll
be demonstrating it using "Earth based science"?
> Like I've already said around here, there's bound to be more than one
> method of interstellar travel.
You may well be right, but isn't it also correct to say that such *hopes*
are proof of nothing? I, as much as the next bloke, love the idea that some
Extra Terrestrial race is buzzing our planet, dropping in now and again to
see how things are. However, one of the main problems is how they got here
and where they came from. As Doug Adams (and LLS <g>) said, "space is
big". To move from "wishing" to "knowing it is possible" you've got to
answer that (and many other) question.
Obviously, you can dream up a number of different methods of traveling over
vast distances, SciFi authors do it all the time and I'm sure I'm not alone
in my ability to suspend disbelief when reading/watching their
work. However, real life is real life and I'm no "in there" physicist (I
seriously doubt most other readers of this newsgroup are either) so, call me
small minded, I prefer to see something that shows that a method of space
travel is more than science fiction.
I would have thought that anyone who has the desire to prove that some Alien
race is "here" would want to do so in a convincing way, you yourself have
agreed that until you can show to the average "man in the street"
irrefutable proof it is all for nothing. Dreaming up methods of space travel
to overcome the problem of distance isn't real research and isn't going to
result in irrefutable proof. Sure, it is fun to dream up ways of how the
problem can be overcome, but it doesn't get you anywhere and it doesn't
solve the distance problem.
What we've seen in this thread is the usual "Emperor's new clothes" argument
which, IMHO, is nothing more than justification for a flight of fancy and a
method of waving away some fundamental problems with the "they're here" view
UFOs. The moment you decide that "anything goes" and that "Earth based
physics" don't count you are no longer trying to find proof but are instead
playing "what if" games. "What if" games are fun and can also be very
educational, but the kind of game that is being played here doesn't, IMHO,
benefit anyone beyond that group of people who want to feel like they are in
on some big secret.
Dave Pearson
On Wed, 01 Jul 1998 17:20:51 GMT, Love Lies Squealing <Lo...@corrode.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Not to mention the problem of whanging Earth out of it's orbit, or
> overcoming the foundations and watching a sizeable chuck of Earth
> accelerate to Alpha-Centauri.
I was sort of giving him the benefit of the doubt here and suspending
disbelief by imagining that it "virtually" "pulled" things about. Note that
I was doing this in the same way I give the writer's of TNG the benefit of
the doubt.
I had an amusing (to me anyway) thought about the "gravity gun" this
afternoon. Suppose you've got two ships who want to get to Earth and they
are both a couple of light years either side of Sol. Both of them engage
their "gravity gun" at the same time. Tug of war anyone? ;-)
Dave Pearson
On Wed, 01 Jul 1998 17:20:55 GMT, Love Lies Squealing <Lo...@corrode.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >o The angle of impact was way too shallow.
>
> Caveat: there could be outgassing during ablation that could cause a
> 'course change'.
Not much of a caveat in this case, I'm talking about the angle it hit the
atmosphere at. If you watch it, it appears to hit at, ohh, (guessing) a good
50 to 60 degrees if not more, it then seems to manage to travel parallel to
the ground until the mid-Atlantic (starting somewhere over the mid US) and
takes a dive into the ocean. Looked very pretty, I'll give 'em that, but it
was far from "correct" or "believable".
I take it you didn't get to see it, good move. Take my advice, when it comes
out on video, let someone else pay for the rental.
EAdams8221
In article <3595ba8a...@news.demon.co.uk>, Lo...@corrode.demon.co.uk (Love
Lies Squealing) writes:
>Hmm. You do know that Alternative Three was a hoax that went out on a
>delayed transmission by Anglia? Leslie Watkins has been quite candid
>about this case that became such a runaway success for the conspiracy
>theorists.
I'm quite aware that this particuar programme was a hoax. But there are still a
few facets of it which do appear to hold some rather disturbing correlations.
Think about this: Why, if there's 'nothing to it', was Watkins forced to state
on his book, that it was a work of fiction, when it's obvious to the reader
that he was trying to imply anything but?
To anybody interested: Much of this 'Alternative 3' stuff will be up on the Web
site soon enough as well. Once I can get the bloody thing going!
EAdams8221
I don't know of the exact details of other methods. However, thinking them up
and making them workable 'paper' designs, means that they are possible. That's
all you need when a cynic comes up to you with the usual "It can't be,
therefore it isn't" mentality: Show 'em. They go "oh, I didn't know anybody'd
figured a way around it yet... Well I can't comment." "Well why the hell do you
go around shouting your mouth off about 'needing' to see an engine or soemthing
then?!" Once you've got something that's theoretically possible, the argument
about going beyond the speed of light being 'impossible' doesn't really hold
water anymore, because they cannot realistically say it's 'impossible', merely
'unlikely' (yeah right, like they could EVER say it!).
I heard there was some interesting work going on in Austrailia with a young up
and coming engineer, who'd got a disc craft to work (the principle behind it
was, interestingly, claimed would work BETTER in a vacuum) quite efficiently.
Eric Laithwaite (is that how you spell his name?), the British inventor of the
'mag-lev' system, called the guy a 'genius' because of this work. This was all
in BBC 2's excellent 'Heretics' programme which, unfortunately, they haven't
reshown - to my knowledge.
Then there's the bloke who wrote that book 'The Physics of a Flying Saucer' who
had all his desgins/work confiscated by the Austrialian equivalent of our
friendly Ministry of Defence. Also found his place was bugged, several times
too... Anyway, from what I saw of his article in 'Alien Encounters' (issue 16 I
think), it looked pretty plausible.
I know there was also an abductee who was 'given' the designs for how the
Plaiedians (I think it was the Nordics anyway) fly their ships. Kind of like a
'vacuum' in the electro-magnetic field or something. Creates one in front and
the ship slides in behind it, thereby moving fowards. Apparently some big
company was interested and he'd done a working mock-up of a one (disc-shaped).
I think NASA might've been 'interested' too. Probably never to be seen again!!!
;)
Dave Pearson
[I'm assuming here, because of the wording of the first paragraph, that you
are attempting to followup my article id:
<slrn6pkjvm.uh...@hagbard.demon.co.uk>
Shame you didn't actually follow it up, I'd have been interested in your
response to the couple of questions I asked and to the points I made. I'll
assume this was a mistake and not simply an evasive measure <g>.]
On 02 Jul 1998 13:13:00 GMT, EAdams8221 <eadam...@aol.com> wrote:
> I don't know of the exact details of other methods. However, thinking them
> up and making them workable 'paper' designs, means that they are
> possible.
Agreed, if, what you've got "on paper", is something more than simply "off
the top of the head" SciFi. I'm sure you'd agree that simply because
something is "on paper" it doesn't mean it is, by default, possible.
> That's all you need when a cynic comes up to you with the usual "It can't
> be, therefore it isn't" mentality: Show 'em. They go "oh, I didn't know
> anybody'd figured a way around it yet... Well I can't comment."
I think you are missing the point. The question isn't about "cynics" not
knowing all the latest research, it is about what is plausible as "proof" of
the "they're here" view of UFOs. Besides, the above paragraph comes back to
the Catch-22 problem, if someone has indeed "figured a way around it" they'd
have done it using "Earth based science" and as we've seen in this thread
such science has been shown to be wrong. Call me cynical <g>, but I don't
think you can seriously knock science because it doesn't prove your pet
theory and then in the next breath praise it because it has. Yeah, I like to
have my cake and eat it too....
On a wider note, and, as an "outsider" looking in on all of this, one thing
that constantly amuses and at the same time frustrates me is that so many
people waste so much energy on silly things. Allow me the assumption that we
are all reading this Usenet group because, to one degree or another, we have
an interest in the fact that people have and do see and report odd things in
the sky. Now, I'd assume that anyone interested enough in the subject of
UFOs to become a "researcher" would want to work, as it were, from "ground
zero". That is, not start out with a theory and work backwards to the data,
but, reading this group and reading the likes of UFO Magazine it would
appear that this is what happens.
I simply don't get it.
Sure, "gravity guns" and the like are all good fun but they are far removed
from research into the cause of UFO sightings and I think that anyone who
wants to be known as a researcher and who, at the same time, engages in such
flights of fancy with a view to proving a serious point is doing the field
of UFO research a disservice.
I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't go out on a limb to dream up what
is possible, if nothing else it is fun and good mental exercise, what I am
saying is that when I "look in" on what "researchers" are *seriously* doing
it turns me off when I see this sort of thing. Much like your "research"
into the "meteor storm", you appear to want to ignore some pretty basic
facts and I think it does your "research" harm (and I mean that in the
nicest possible way).
> I know there was also an abductee who was 'given' the designs for how the
> Plaiedians (I think it was the Nordics anyway) fly their ships.
This is also the sort of thing that, IMHO, makes most "UFO researchers" look
like nutters to the world at large. It, in a matter of fact way, says that
"we've" been given the plans to a ship that us used by an Alien race. Thing
is, where is the proof that this Alien race exists? Can you really and
honestly show me a "Plaiedian"? Do you really and honestly believe that such
a thing exists yourself? As someone who has referred to himself as a
researcher I'd assume you don't just believe this sort of stuff by default?
In conclusion, my point isn't so much that anything you (or the other poster
whose name escapes me, my apologies) say or believe is wrong, but that the
language used appears to make a number of sweeping assumptions that would
appear to have no backing. You wonder why there isn't more coverage of this
field of research in the media? Don't you think that this might be one of
the causes? Sure, it is easy to write off such lack of coverage with some
"conspiracy theory", perhaps when with some "evidence" of such, but I think
it would be fair to say that people would be more willing to listen if the
language used was more down to Earth and there was more proof than
assumption.
I post this in the hope that you'll consider and address these (and other
previous) points and questions instead of simply throwing out phrases like
"cynic". Perhaps I'm wrong in thinking that the reason you post to this
group is so you can have a debate, problem is, it is hard to have a debate
if people won't actually address your points or answer your questions.
EAdams8221
In article <359da16a...@news.demon.co.uk>, Lo...@corrode.demon.co.uk (Love
Lies Squealing) writes:
>>>The problem is that if there is a gravity particle, then it must exist
>>>beyond the limit of the current accelerators. The supercollider was
>>>intended to search for the Higgs boson, the so-called 'God particle'
>>>although Hawking recently said that he doubted that it existed.
>>
>>I think you'd be interested in the recent book 'The Physics of a Flying
>>Saucer'. Goes into 'gravity particles' and all the rest of it. Haven't seen
>a
>>copy around yet, myself. Still searching.
>
>You want 'Unconventional flying objects' (Paul R. Hill)
>
>Hill tends to be selective in his reports and uncritical, relying
>_heavily_ on a force carrier 'graviton' and the 'magic' of fields. Force
>fields. Two thirds of the book are good and solid nuts & bolts work,
>though.
No - different bloke entirely! I was right: 'The physics of a Flying Saucer' by
Ted Roach.
>>>> "Man thinks up loats of things & lots of them crash to the ground."
>>
>>He does! He does! :) This is why I hate it when people go on about "well if
>>they were so advanced..." No technology's perfect!
>
>No, but how many Stealth fighters have crashed?
Are you aware of the irony of your statement?! "do we know of how many secret
government protoype stealthy aircraft have crashed - even though most o fthat
will have been covered up for obvious reasons, like economics?" LOL! I do
remember a few, yes. There was that famous one with the YF-22, plus the F-117
one (or was it two - or even three?) that comes to mind. Ask in a millitary
aviation NG - I'm sure they'd be able to quote you down to the very mubers
you're seeking. ;)
EAdams8221
In article <359ea233...@news.demon.co.uk>, Lo...@corrode.demon.co.uk (Love
Lies Squealing) writes:
>>>Sounds reminiscent of (IIRC) a Harry Harrison book, the elastic drive or
>>>something? However, my point still stands, how does it work? The above
>>>doesn't describe how it works, it outlines the effect you'd "see" but I'd
>>>hardly call it a working description. Also, and this was my main point,
>even
>>>if you've got the physics to back it up you've proved yourself wrong, as
>you
>>>said:
>>
>>Actually, it sounds like Bob Lazar's explanation. The only thing that's been
>>brought up against Lazar is the amount of energy needed. However, this
>assumes
>>that another species hasn't got some super-efficient fuel that's as common
>as,
>>I don't know, iron or something where they come from.
>
>Lazar mentions Element 114, something we're just of making that possibly
>sits in the 'island of stability' for heavy atoms. Trouble is that your
>fuel in this case would decay in seconds.
Actually it was between element 115 and 116. Somewhere between there he said HE
would have put it - whether or not it actually was is open to debate. Without
having some of the stuff in your hand, you would not know for sure what would
happen. If his story is true (and, lets face it, he did have those 'certain'
numbers on his W-2 form), then it was still just his opinion. It might have
been a totally different fuel, or even enriched/coated with another substance
in order to prevent decay.
>>Love Lies... Says that
>>gravity MUST be created by mass.
>
>I didn't capitalise, and you're stressing it a little too heavily. At the
>moment, gravity is simply a side-effect of mass, ie you have mass, you
>have gravitational potential. Show me something light with a high G and
>I'll concede defeat.
You're basically saying it's the only method which is widely known about. I say
that it doesn't mean to say it's the only method there CAN be.
>>I don't think that's the only method it can be
>>made.
>
>Again with the thinking. It is.
No. Sorry, I don't go along with that. I'm a genuine sceptic - show me proof or
sufficient evidence to convince me! I don't assume a falsehood.
>>That's like saying that light can only be made by a nuclear reaction,
>>because the sun creates it: Of course, we now know how to make lightbulbs -
>>which obviously don't have to run on nuclear power.
>
>Fallacious argument, and pretty audacious at that. I have plenty of
>examples of light being produced through other means, such as the rare
>interaction between the back of the skull and a solar neutrino.
It's the same principle. As you know of other examples, then fine. But just
because you don't know of any other ways to make gravity, doesn't mean to say
that there AREN'T any.
>>>So, given what you've said, if you've got the science to prove that your
>>>"gravity gun" works it is no proof because "Earth based physics" "goes out
>>>of the window" when "investigating the universe as a whole", however,
>>>without the science as proof to back it up it is simply science
>>>fiction. Catch 22?
>>
>>I think he's talking generally. If you can get the thing to, more or less,
>be
>>shown to be POSSIBLE, then there's no reason to say it can NOT work. Like
>I've
>>already said around here, there's bound to be more than one method of
>>interstellar travel.
>
>Quite possibly, but he doesn't seem to know any of them.
He already posted one, probably the Lazar method. Nobody's really put foward
much of an argument against it.
EAdams8221
In article <359c0b6d...@news.demon.co.uk>, Lo...@corrode.demon.co.uk (Love
Lies Squealing) writes:
>On 02 Jul 1998 13:12:59 GMT, eadam...@aol.com (EAdams8221) wrote:
>
>>In article <3595ba8a...@news.demon.co.uk>, Lo...@corrode.demon.co.uk
>(Love
>>Lies Squealing) writes:
>>
>>>Hmm. You do know that Alternative Three was a hoax that went out on a
>>>delayed transmission by Anglia? Leslie Watkins has been quite candid
>>>about this case that became such a runaway success for the conspiracy
>>>theorists.
>>
>>I'm quite aware that this particuar programme was a hoax. But there are
>still a
>>few facets of it which do appear to hold some rather disturbing
>correlations.
>>Think about this: Why, if there's 'nothing to it', was Watkins forced to
>state
>>on his book, that it was a work of fiction, when it's obvious to the reader
>>that he was trying to imply anything but?
>
>Ah, you think that he protests too much, therefore he means the opposite
>of what he says?
No - just stating the obvious. Why was he forced to stick it on his book, when
the opposite was true? <g> I'm not saying it's proof, but it's an interesting
facet, nontheless.
>Clever. I can see that the intelligence services are going to have to
>stay up all night to slip the really big conspiracy past you.
Oh yes indeedy! ;)
EAdams8221
In article <359d0bfa...@news.demon.co.uk>, Lo...@corrode.demon.co.uk (Love
Lies Squealing) writes:
>>I don't know of the exact details of other methods. However, thinking them
>up
>>and making them workable 'paper' designs, means that they are possible.
>
>In exactly the same way that Leonardo da Vinci designed the tank,
>machine-gun and hang-glider. Unfortunately the materials he had access to
>made almost all of his designs unworkable, although the organ-gun had
>limited success.
Well there you go then. I'm jsut saying that you can't say something's
'impossible', when there's a design or theory which IS generally (if not
totally) plausible.
>>That's
>>all you need when a cynic comes up to you with the usual "It can't be,
>>therefore it isn't" mentality: Show 'em. They go "oh, I didn't know
>anybody'd
>>figured a way around it yet... Well I can't comment." "Well why the hell do
>you
>>go around shouting your mouth off about 'needing' to see an engine or
>soemthing
>>then?!" Once you've got something that's theoretically possible, the
>argument
>>about going beyond the speed of light being 'impossible' doesn't really hold
>>water anymore, because they cannot realistically say it's 'impossible',
>merely
>>'unlikely' (yeah right, like they could EVER say it!).
>
>Utter bollocks, Eric. There are some cynics around, but they've become
>cynics due to a vast number of clueless people floating around with claims
>to have designed a perpetual motion machine. There is a reason why the
>patent office has a blanket ban on such things being submitted, and one of
>the reasons why I gave the immortal piece of advice to the over-unity
>group, "Sell the bugger and let the theory come later."
Excuse me? I'm refering to the likes of Phillip Klass and James Randi. They are
most definitely NOT sceptics! I supose we could call them obstructionists, if
you want (which I sometimes do). I thought cynic would be easier and mroe
coloquial. ;)
>>I heard there was some interesting work going on in Austrailia with a young
>up
>>and coming engineer, who'd got a disc craft to work (the principle behind it
>>was, interestingly, claimed would work BETTER in a vacuum) quite
>efficiently.
>
>Names. I know of three or four engineers at NASA who're producing this
>kind of thing for the AIAA.
Unable to say. That's another reason I want them to repeat it! Can't rememebr
at the moment.
>>Eric Laithwaite (is that how you spell his name?),
>
>Yes.
>
>> the British inventor of the
>>'mag-lev' system, called the guy a 'genius' because of this work. This was
>all
>>in BBC 2's excellent 'Heretics' programme which, unfortunately, they haven't
>>reshown - to my knowledge.
>
>Just to update you, Eric died in 1996 and had pretty much given up on
>'Gyron' and the other work on gyroscopes. We looked at four or five over
>the past couple of years, and they were mostly eccentric weight systems
>that appeared to go 'AG' except when you tested them carefully. You have
>to use this crotchety old 'science' for that bit.
I know he died. Only found out about it at the 'end of the year' thing in a
newspaper, showing some people who died. I was really surprised he didn't get
more coverage about that, like Frank Whittle. Then again, maybe not...
>>Then there's the bloke who wrote that book 'The Physics of a Flying Saucer'
>who
>>had all his desgins/work confiscated by the Austrialian equivalent of our
>>friendly Ministry of Defence. Also found his place was bugged, several times
>>too... Anyway, from what I saw of his article in 'Alien Encounters' (issue
>16 I
>>think), it looked pretty plausible.
>
>Forgive the po-face, but that is hardly a glowing recommendation.
Read the book. What more can I say? Ted Roach.
>>I know there was also an abductee who was 'given' the designs for how the
>>Plaiedians (I think it was the Nordics anyway) fly their ships. Kind of like
>a
>>'vacuum' in the electro-magnetic field or something. Creates one in front
>and
>>the ship slides in behind it, thereby moving fowards. Apparently some big
>>company was interested and he'd done a working mock-up of a one
>(disc-shaped).
>>I think NASA might've been 'interested' too. Probably never to be seen
>again!!!
>>;)
>
>"Kind of like a 'vacuum' in the electro-magnetic field or something." I
>can imagine that the AIAA would be crapping themselves.
We aren't making categorical statements to the Authorities here, are we?
'Course not (although that's debateable, but on the balance of probablity, they
mostly won't use it unless they reeeeeally want to). I'm just saying what I can
remember off the top of my head. It's the basic principle, yes.
EAdams8221
In article <35a00f5c...@news.demon.co.uk>, Lo...@corrode.demon.co.uk (Love
Lies Squealing) writes:
>>I had an amusing (to me anyway) thought about the "gravity gun" this
>>afternoon. Suppose you've got two ships who want to get to Earth and they
>>are both a couple of light years either side of Sol. Both of them engage
>>their "gravity gun" at the same time. Tug of war anyone? ;-)
>
>Well, without getting to technical, if your ships are light enough, then
>they'd go with the flow. They'd be spread along quite a long region of
>space in pieces, though.
As I'm still assuming he was basing it on Lazar's theory, they would only do
that if they were targetting directly at each other. The Lazar one works by
pinpointing a specific place in space, then going to that actual area. It's not
a 'beam' as such. If they did target each other and go at PRECISELY the same
time, they'd probably either fuse together, or bang into each other. They
wouldn't 'race along' in a linear fashion.
EAdams8221
In article <slrn6pn968.uh...@hagbard.demon.co.uk>,
davep...@hagbard.demon.co.uk (Dave Pearson) writes:
>> I don't know of the exact details of other methods. However, thinking them
>> up and making them workable 'paper' designs, means that they are
>> possible.
>
>Agreed, if, what you've got "on paper", is something more than simply "off
>the top of the head" SciFi. I'm sure you'd agree that simply because
>something is "on paper" it doesn't mean it is, by default, possible.
Well it is possible, if nobody can show anything wrong with it and it conforms
to known laws.
>> That's all you need when a cynic comes up to you with the usual "It can't
>> be, therefore it isn't" mentality: Show 'em. They go "oh, I didn't know
>> anybody'd figured a way around it yet... Well I can't comment."
>
>I think you are missing the point. The question isn't about "cynics" not
>knowing all the latest research, it is about what is plausible as "proof" of
>the "they're here" view of UFOs. Besides, the above paragraph comes back to
>the Catch-22 problem, if someone has indeed "figured a way around it" they'd
>have done it using "Earth based science" and as we've seen in this thread
>such science has been shown to be wrong.
Yes, but there are certain principles which seem to hold true regardless of the
amount of time involved.
>Call me cynical <g>, but I don't
>think you can seriously knock science because it doesn't prove your pet
>theory and then in the next breath praise it because it has. Yeah, I like to
>have my cake and eat it too....
Hold on a minute though - who's 'pet' theory? What is this theory? Who's?! <g>
I don't 'knock science', since it's an ever-evolving animal. But Orthodox
scientific THINKING... That's a cat of a different colour, I'm afraid.
Regarding cynics, I am refering to people (although I use that term losely :) )
like Phillip Klass and James Randi. I'm not on about the people who are just
asking for evidence, like you or I. I'm talking about those who proclaim
various things as 'impossible' and 'psuedo science', merely because it doesn't
fit into their own little paradigms.
>On a wider note, and, as an "outsider" looking in on all of this, one thing
>that constantly amuses and at the same time frustrates me is that so many
>people waste so much energy on silly things. Allow me the assumption that we
>are all reading this Usenet group because, to one degree or another, we have
>an interest in the fact that people have and do see and report odd things in
>the sky. Now, I'd assume that anyone interested enough in the subject of
>UFOs to become a "researcher" would want to work, as it were, from "ground
>zero". That is, not start out with a theory and work backwards to the data,
>but, reading this group and reading the likes of UFO Magazine it would
>appear that this is what happens.
That is a cardinal rule of science that has regularly been broken. Especially
by people such as Dr Condon. But there's nothing wrong with creating a theory
and seeing if it holds true, or seeing various clues, seeing if they form a
pattern and looking for any evidence. There's a difference there.
>I simply don't get it.
>
>Sure, "gravity guns" and the like are all good fun but they are far removed
>from research into the cause of UFO sightings and I think that anyone who
>wants to be known as a researcher and who, at the same time, engages in such
>flights of fancy with a view to proving a serious point is doing the field
>of UFO research a disservice.
No - such things do need to be thought of. You don't have to be a researcher to
do this. But it helps when you 'cross foils', so to speak, with particular
members of the opposite camp. It's usefull to have an idea or five at your
disposal, just in case they pose such questions to you. Otherwise they'll just
accuse you of being 'unprepared' or whatever (believe me, this happens a lot
mroe than most people realise). They're just theories, nothing wrong with that.
Unless you're trying to convince people that it is some kind of proof, then
it's perfectly OK to get a little creative in your spare time, about what
propulsion methods might be employed by a space/dimension-fareing species. It's
only human nature, afterall.
>I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't go out on a limb to dream up what
>is possible, if nothing else it is fun and good mental exercise, what I am
>saying is that when I "look in" on what "researchers" are *seriously* doing
>it turns me off when I see this sort of thing. Much like your "research"
>into the "meteor storm", you appear to want to ignore some pretty basic
>facts and I think it does your "research" harm (and I mean that in the
>nicest possible way).
You've ignored ME! I said it's still being looked into at this moment in time.
I'll put all points up there, if they do not conflict with the known facts.
I'll let the people decide for themselves. Do not make me out to be the
'debunker' in this case, just because I have my own personal doubts. It's the
Web site for the Art Bell Chat Club (UK) - NOT my own personal one. It will not
be meant as a podium for my own viewpoints. If a thing comes along to change
whatever conclusions may or may not be up there, that'll be posted too.
>> I know there was also an abductee who was 'given' the designs for how the
>> Plaiedians (I think it was the Nordics anyway) fly their ships.
>
>This is also the sort of thing that, IMHO, makes most "UFO researchers" look
>like nutters to the world at large. It, in a matter of fact way, says that
>"we've" been given the plans to a ship that us used by an Alien race. Thing
>is, where is the proof that this Alien race exists? Can you really and
>honestly show me a "Plaiedian"? Do you really and honestly believe that such
>a thing exists yourself? As someone who has referred to himself as a
>researcher I'd assume you don't just believe this sort of stuff by default?
I neither believe nor DISbelieve. FYI: This wasn't a particularly well-known
event. Somebody asked for methods of propulsion systems (or something along
those lines anyway) and those were the ones which sprang to mind. Hey - if the
thing works, then so be it! He must've got the information from somewhere. I
was just putting it foward as a simple example. Many are NOT like this, as I'm
sure you know.
>In conclusion, my point isn't so much that anything you (or the other poster
>whose name escapes me, my apologies) say or believe is wrong, but that the
>language used appears to make a number of sweeping assumptions that would
>appear to have no backing. You wonder why there isn't more coverage of this
>field of research in the media? Don't you think that this might be one of
>the causes? Sure, it is easy to write off such lack of coverage with some
>"conspiracy theory", perhaps when with some "evidence" of such, but I think
>it would be fair to say that people would be more willing to listen if the
>language used was more down to Earth and there was more proof than
>assumption.
I can point you in the direction of information which is virtually as good as.
As far as 100% garanteed, scientifically scrutinised and well-published proof
which you can hold in your hand, look at and say "this is from an alien
spaceship"... Do you honestly think I'd be where I am if I had such?! There is
enough to convince me of the validity of UFOs existing and that the evidence
for a non-human origin has been available in the past. As that recent
scientific panel concluded, there is physical evidence. Now, it doesn't point
100% concrete to outer space - that's for another investigation (more a process
of elimination, I would say), but there is enough to say that these things
exist and they're physical (ie, they interact with the environment). Now when
you get a whole crashed vehicle or something, it's a bit obvious that it WILL
be covered up. Anybody can go out and research that for themselves, such as in
the Kecksberg incident. But hey - that's what our friendly unelected officials
are for. As regards other stuff, that too is occasionaly looked in to, but
isn't given too much wide-spread publicity, because of the stigma attached to
it. What astronomer is going to look into it? What metallurgist is going to
look into it? What geologist... You see? There are probably a good few honest
souls out there, but they are few and far between. Most often drowned out by
the 'vocal minority', who most of the rest seem to follow like sheep. Now as
far as documents et al go, these are easilly available...
All I can say is follow the paper trail. See where it leads. Look at what
posessed certain authors of certain documents to come to the conclusions they
did. Scrutinise it yourself. That's the best that anybody can do untill a
proper, concerted, INDEPENDENT, scientific effort is made to look into this
whole thing.
But didn't you say that you, or the 'average Joe' don't want to go to these
lengths? That you want others to do it for you? It ain't gonna' happen. Not yet
at least. You have to be prepared to go out there yourself. I'm not being
patronising here, just stating the facts, if you're really genuine about
wanting to find the evidence yourself. You've got to have the time and
resrouces which, unfortunately, most of us haven't got in as much quantities as
we'd like it. But the bottom line really is that if you want something done
properly, you've got to do it yourself!
Don't forget that the ETH is just one theory (although the one which I
personally tend to favour). The thing is whether these things exist or not.
That's the point. Do they or not? Obviously they do. Are they physical? Again,
yes. Once you've got it down to those basic points, you can then start seeing
where the evidence takes you. But investigation needs to be done beforehand.
Where is the investigation? In the hands of private researchers, most with
their own little agendas. The main point is whether there is sufficient
evidence to warrent scientific investigation, whether there is enough to show
it's a real phenomenon. The answer? Quite simply, yes.
The evidence for their being real is very much here. The evidence showing they
are of ET in origin - that's different. It depends what you're after. The
former is easy to find, while the latter is a little harder! :P
Oh yeah - and I for one can be pretty 'straight to the point' if I have to be!
There are some of us who would be able to put it in simple-enough terms for the
average 'Sun' journalist, if they want us to. Some people do tend to get
carried away with metaphysics and such (which, as you rightly point out, has
the side-effect of making the majority of people 'turn off'), but there are
some quite eloquant speakers out there.
>I post this in the hope that you'll consider and address these (and other
>previous) points and questions instead of simply throwing out phrases like
>"cynic". Perhaps I'm wrong in thinking that the reason you post to this
>group is so you can have a debate, problem is, it is hard to have a debate
>if people won't actually address your points or answer your questions.
Sure, I'm open to debate. Maybe you missed some of my postings? How do I know?
I've answered these ones here. I am not caling you a cynic and my basic overall
definition for such a person is above.
Robert Snow
>
> On Tue, 30 Jun 1998 17:40:26 GMT, VoD <da...@muffinz.force9.net.DONTSPAMME.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Jun 1998 11:38:21 GMT, davep...@hagbard.demon.co.uk
> > (Dave Pearson) wrote:
> >
> > >> Dave Pearson wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Sounds reminiscent of (IIRC) a Harry Harrison book,
> > >>
> > >
> > >Nope, it definitely sounds a lot like something I remember reading in a
> > >old(ish?) sci-fi book, also, from what I've seen and read, I doubt that
> > >Lazar should be quoted as a reputable source.
> >
> > Try looking at Bill the Galactic Hero, by (as you've rightly guessed)
> > Harry Harrison). It was called the Bloater drive.
>
> Many thanks, it was starting to get to me, not being able to remember the
> name of the book. I'll have to hunt for it in my collection now to remind
> myself how the drive worked (I seem to remember is was hilarious and not too
> different from what is being described).
OK, so what holds out universe together, Gravity???. So if one can
master the grav wave,atom etc would it not open up a whole new era
of mankind, but then again I doubt you do.
So mastermind what is gravity, I mean its here on earth, you can feel
its presence etc. but you cannot touch it, see it etc.
So acording to you its fantasy, I mean how can our planet have such a
hold of us, surly its not, how can a wave or atom hold is here on earth.
Coz I don't understand gravity it is not real.??
Robert Snow
>
> On Tue, 30 Jun 1998 10:53:57 +0100, Robert Snow <rs...@NOSPAMfjcomp.com> wrote:
> > Dave Pearson wrote:
> >
> > > Sounds reminiscent of (IIRC) a Harry Harrison book,
> >
> > Think again & you might come up with Robert Lazar.
>
> Nope, it definitely sounds a lot like something I remember reading in a
> old(ish?) sci-fi book, also, from what I've seen and read, I doubt that
> Lazar should be quoted as a reputable source.
& you have proof of that, I mean it has to be proved to be correct.
does it not. When I see an aircraft flying, I mwean tons of metal
floating upto the sky. Go back 100 years & explain to the people of that
time about aircraft. TV, computers. The great scientists of the day
would understand the pysics of fight in an atosphere planet.
So people who do not understand thigs makes them liers etc
>
> > > However, my point still stands, how does it work? The above doesn't
> > > describe how it works, it outlines the effect you'd "see" but I'd hardly
> > > call it a working description. Also, and this was my main point, even if
> > > you've got the physics to back it up you've proved yourself wrong, as
> > > you said:
> >
> > If I knew how it worked I would make one.
> >
> > So I should not make a glider as I can't explain how it works??? I have
> > an idea on how it works but cannot explain as I have not tryed it yet,
> > even thou I have not tryed it does not make it impossible ??
>
> You're missing the point 100%. Sure, we can sit here and dream up all sorts
> of wonderful things, but none of them would be proof that "Earth based
> science" is wrong, only proof that we've got good imaginations.
Does not science start from woderfull & strage ideas in people heads ??
>
> Don't forget, you invoked your "gravity gun" as part of the proof that
> "Earth based physics" doesn't cut it in the Universe at large (see article
> 35938E...@NOSPAMfjcomp.com), thing is, from where I'm sat, it shows no
> such thing.
>
> > > So, given what you've said, if you've got the science to prove that your
> > > "gravity gun" works it is no proof because "Earth based physics" "goes
> > > out of the window" when "investigating the universe as a whole",
> > > however, without the science as proof to back it up it is simply science
> > > fiction. Catch 22?
I am talking about gravity, as we think we understand it & which some
say is a wave others say it a particle. Well we can't even agree on what
gravity is. So just because YOU do not understand it, it makes it a
dream ??
> >
> > Er where did I say I have the science to back it up,
>
> You didn't, hence the reason I'm asking if you have.
Do you have the science to disproove what I say ??
>
> > thats you thought on things, you wont accept anything untill it is proved
> > by using Earth Science. That's your problem not mine. I don't need
> > everything explained in minute detail to belive it might work
>
> Hmm, you sound a little like the emperor's tailer here.
>
> Oh, sure, I can "believe" it might work, I do this many times a week, you
> know, suspend disbelief while watching TNG or some such bit of entertaining
> fiction. That, however, isn't the point.
>
> What I'm trying to point out is that, for all intents and purposes, you're
> attempting to invoke magic as proof of something. You've stated that the
> physics we know at the moment probably isn't the "real physics" of the
> universe (for want of a better term). Sure thing, I very much doubt it
> is. As history has constantly shown science never stands still no matter how
> deeply some people may think that we've discovered everything. However, look
> at what you are trying to say:
>
> o Physics as we understand it doesn't apply to the universe.
> o Amazing things are possible if we think "outside" of our current knowledge
> of how the Universe works.
> o Those amazing things are proof of the first point.
>
> However, the problem is that, while engaging in the last point, you are
> deluding yourself. Think about it. You've used the "gravity gun" as some
> kind of proof, however, without something to back up the possibility that it
> can work it is nothing more than pure fiction. Now, if you had some kind of
> proof to show that it is indeed proof of the first point above you've
> instantly proved it wrong because of your "everything falls" assertion.
Whats the famous saying, if you'v explored all logical options to no
avail, start to look at the not so abvious (something like that anyway)
>
> BTW, your glider analogy doesn't work either. The fact that you know that
> something should be able to "float" in the air (say, from watching birds)
> shows that you know this is a possibility and that you have proof that it is
> possible. Sure, you might not have an intimate knowledge of how flight works
> but you do have proof that it is possible (birds).
No, I understand that the air goes over the wing at a lower speed giving
lift. I have not flown, touched etc a glider, but from reading info I do
understand it.
Robert Snow
If people have no Idea what Lasar was saying here is the basic theory
He says the universe is held together by gravity, When one drops an
apple to the ground it is pulling on the earth as the earth is pulling
on the apple, but the apple is so small we do not see any effect other
than the apple dropping to the groung.
So the universe is like one big 3D universe held together by gravity
& one aims "The Gun" at the place they wanna go. The "Gun" pulls that
part of space to the currect location. Then somehow (& no I don't know
how) the traveller attaches to the point of space pulled to the currect
location & releases the pull of the "Gun". The universe then pings back
to its origional location taking the travvelar with it.
Easy when you know how :)-~
But impossible if you don't know how, so as no one knows how this
works it impossible, as you put it ??
Rob
EAdams8221 wrote:
>
> In article <359ea233...@news.demon.co.uk>, Lo...@corrode.demon.co.uk (Love
> Lies Squealing) writes:
>
> >>>Sounds reminiscent of (IIRC) a Harry Harrison book, the elastic drive or
> >>>something? However, my point still stands, how does it work? The above
> >>>doesn't describe how it works, it outlines the effect you'd "see" but I'd
> >>>hardly call it a working description. Also, and this was my main point,
> >even
> >>>if you've got the physics to back it up you've proved yourself wrong, as
> >you
> >>>said:
> >>
> >>>So, given what you've said, if you've got the science to prove that your
> >>>"gravity gun" works it is no proof because "Earth based physics" "goes out
> >>>of the window" when "investigating the universe as a whole", however,
> >>>without the science as proof to back it up it is simply science
> >>>fiction. Catch 22?
> >>
> >>I think he's talking generally. If you can get the thing to, more or less,
> >be
> >>shown to be POSSIBLE, then there's no reason to say it can NOT work. Like
> >I've
> >>already said around here, there's bound to be more than one method of
> >>interstellar travel.
> >
> >Quite possibly, but he doesn't seem to know any of them.
>
> He already posted one, probably the Lazar method. Nobody's really put foward
> much of an argument against it.
>
Dave Pearson
> Dave Pearson wrote:
>
> > the name of the book. I'll have to hunt for it in my collection now to
> > remind myself how the drive worked (I seem to remember is was hilarious
> > and not too different from what is being described).
>
> OK, so what holds out universe together, Gravity???.
You'll have to excuse me if I have trouble seeing what the above question
has in common with the name of a Harry Harrison book.
> So if one can master the grav wave,atom etc would it not open up a whole
> new era of mankind, but then again I doubt you do.
I'm sure it would, but, wouldn't you agree that until such a time it is
nothing but science fiction?
> So mastermind
Just in case you don't know, it is possible to have a discussion without
resorting to childish name calling and snide remarks, this and the email
calling me "lame" puts you pretty close to getting dropped in the killfile.
> what is gravity,
You are the one who has figured it out, why don't you enlighten me? You've
suggested that it is either a "wave" or an "atom", which is it?
> I mean its here on earth, you can feel its presence etc. but you cannot
> touch it, see it etc. So acording to you its fantasy,
Wrong, not according to me. Go back and read what I wrote and you'll
understand why.
Dave Pearson
> > Nope, it definitely sounds a lot like something I remember reading in a
> > old(ish?) sci-fi book, also, from what I've seen and read, I doubt that
> > Lazar should be quoted as a reputable source.
>
> & you have proof of that,
No, I don't, and I never claimed it either. Read and comprehend the above
paragraph to see why.
> So people who do not understand thigs makes them liers etc
How do you reach this conclusion?
> > You're missing the point 100%. Sure, we can sit here and dream up all
> > sorts of wonderful things, but none of them would be proof that "Earth
> > based science" is wrong, only proof that we've got good imaginations.
>
> Does not science start from woderfull & strage ideas in people heads ??
I'm sure it does from time to time, but this doesn't detract from the point
of the above paragraph.
> > > > So, given what you've said, if you've got the science to prove that
> > > > your "gravity gun" works it is no proof because "Earth based
> > > > physics" "goes out of the window" when "investigating the universe
> > > > as a whole", however, without the science as proof to back it up it
> > > > is simply science fiction. Catch 22?
>
> I am talking about gravity, as we think we understand it & which some say
> is a wave others say it a particle. Well we can't even agree on what
> gravity is. So just because YOU do not understand it, it makes it a dream
> ??
Nope, I never said that, please read and comprehend the above paragraph.
> > > Er where did I say I have the science to back it up,
> >
> > You didn't, hence the reason I'm asking if you have.
>
> Do you have the science to disproove what I say ??
Obviously I don't, but a lack of proof one way doesn't prove something
else. Now, perhaps you can drop the diversionary tactics and answer the
question?
> Whats the famous saying, if you'v explored all logical options to no
> avail, start to look at the not so abvious (something like that anyway)
Are you suggesting that all obvious options have been fully explored?
> > BTW, your glider analogy doesn't work either. The fact that you know
> > that something should be able to "float" in the air (say, from watching
> > birds) shows that you know this is a possibility and that you have proof
> > that it is possible. Sure, you might not have an intimate knowledge of
> > how flight works but you do have proof that it is possible (birds).
>
> No, I understand that the air goes over the wing at a lower speed giving
> lift. I have not flown, touched etc a glider, but from reading info I do
> understand it.
My point exactly.
Robert Snow
>
> On 30 Jun 1998 22:17:41 GMT, eadam...@aol.com (EAdams8221) wrote:
>
> >In article <359af07d...@news.demon.co.uk>, Lo...@corrode.demon.co.uk (Love
> >Lies Squealing) writes:
> >
> >>The problem is that if there is a gravity particle, then it must exist
> >>beyond the limit of the current accelerators. The supercollider was
> >>intended to search for the Higgs boson, the so-called 'God particle'
> >>although Hawking recently said that he doubted that it existed.
> >
> >I think you'd be interested in the recent book 'The Physics of a Flying
> >Saucer'. Goes into 'gravity particles' and all the rest of it. Haven't seen a
> >copy around yet, myself. Still searching.
>
> You want 'Unconventional flying objects' (Paul R. Hill)
>
> Hill tends to be selective in his reports and uncritical, relying
> _heavily_ on a force carrier 'graviton' and the 'magic' of fields. Force
> fields. Two thirds of the book are good and solid nuts & bolts work,
> though.
>
> >
> >He does! He does! :) This is why I hate it when people go on about "well if
> >they were so advanced..." No technology's perfect!
>
> No, but how many Stealth fighters have crashed?
One
>
> >>>> > Given the question of distances involved; we have a barrier we call SOL.
> >>>> > E=mc^2, a good working equation for the moment, tends to suggest that as
> >>>> > your speed approaches that of SOL, your mass will increase towards
> >>>> > infinity, raising the power necessary to accelerate further.
> >>>>
> >>>> See above
> >>>
> >>>I didn't see anything "above" that demonstrates that the above is actually
> >>>wrong.
> >>
> >>That bit was from Eric, and I'm looking forward to him explaining tensors
> >>to me.
him ?? , who me ??
> >
> >What? What do you mean about 'tensors'? I must have missed that post.
>
> The upshot behind Pearson's work are the overlooked tensors and
> Quaternions that got snipped from James Clerk Maxwell's work. I'm just
> looking forward to the explanation.
>
> xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox
> | This thing is a man. | My reputation's terrible |
> | Look upon what you are, | which comforts me a lot |
> | and what awaits you. | - Noel Coward. |
> | Gaze on this image and |---------------------------|
> | learn what your own end will be. | Largely Unrepentant |
> xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox
>
Robert Snow
>
> On 04 Jul 1998 14:09:22 GMT, EAdams8221 <eadam...@aol.com> wrote:
> > In article <slrn6pn968.uh...@hagbard.demon.co.uk>,
> > davep...@hagbard.demon.co.uk (Dave Pearson) writes:
> >
> > >Agreed, if, what you've got "on paper", is something more than simply
> > >"off the top of the head" SciFi. I'm sure you'd agree that simply because
> > >something is "on paper" it doesn't mean it is, by default, possible.
> >
> > Well it is possible, if nobody can show anything wrong with it and it
> > conforms to known laws.
>
>
> > >Call me cynical <g>, but I don't think you can seriously knock science
> > >because it doesn't prove your pet theory and then in the next breath
> > >praise it because it has. Yeah, I like to have my cake and eat it too....
> >
> > Hold on a minute though - who's 'pet' theory?
>
> was talking about was the circular thinking we've seen in this thread. You
> know, the ETH is possible despite the problems of interstellar travel
> because we can dream up any mode of transport, and any mode is ok because
> Earth based science is unreliable,
In relation to the universe.
> that is, until the mode of transport is
> then shown to conform to "known laws",
> then that same science is ok. I'm not
> saying outright that this is wrong (I'm in no position to do so), just that
> the reasoning appears to be very circular and so seems a lot less convincing
> and highly dubious.
>
> > [Large SNIP] They're just theories, nothing wrong with that. [SNIP]
>
> I guess that this is what I'm driving at, and it isn't you in particular I'm
> directing this at. Theories and ideas are one thing, the problem is, all too
> often, we see such theories and ideas spoken about as if they were gospel
> and anyone who questions them is inferred to be small minded, look at the
> response I got from another poster when I questioned his "gravity gun"
> idea. This is what I'm talking about.
>
> > Unless you're trying to convince people that it is some kind of proof,
> > then it's perfectly OK to get a little creative in your spare time, about
> > what propulsion methods might be employed by a space/dimension-fareing
> > species. It's only human nature, afterall.
>
> If you've been reading my posts you'll know that I've been saying this all
> along. Like I say above, I'm not questioning the creative aspect of this (it
> *is* fun and can also be educational), I'm questioning those people who
> appear to take such flights of fancy as gospel and use them as serious
> answers to serious questions.
>
> > >I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't go out on a limb to dream up
> > >what is possible, if nothing else it is fun and good mental exercise,
> > >what I am saying is that when I "look in" on what "researchers" are
> > >*seriously* doing it turns me off when I see this sort of thing. Much
> > >like your "research" into the "meteor storm", you appear to want to
> > >ignore some pretty basic facts and I think it does your "research" harm
> > >(and I mean that in the nicest possible way).
> >
> > You've ignored ME!
>
> Hmm, I don't think so. Every time you've posted on the subject I've shown
> interest in your posts and followed them up, mostly asking questions about
> some of the ideas or conclusions they've contained. However, you've ignored
> those questions or pointed me to articles that contained pretty much 0 data.
>
> > I said it's still being looked into at this moment in time.
>
> In which case I'd assume you'd be more than happy to keep up the dialog
> about it.
>
> > I'll put all points up there, if they do not conflict with the known
> > facts. I'll let the people decide for themselves. Do not make me out to
> > be the 'debunker' in this case,
>
> Debunker? How so?
>
> > just because I have my own personal doubts.
>
> Doubts about what? That it was a meteor shower or that it wasn't a meteor
> shower?
>
> > [SNIP]
> >
> > But didn't you say that you, or the 'average Joe' don't want to go to
> > these lengths? That you want others to do it for you?
>
> No, I didn't say that. I did say that I for one don't have the time or
> resource to do it, I never said that I expected anyone else to do
> it. However, I hope you don't think that this disqualifies me from asking
> questions of such people or questioning some of their conclusions.
>
> > [SNIP do UFOs exist?]
>
> I seriously doubt that *anyone* can question this.
>
> > >I post this in the hope that you'll consider and address these (and other
> > >previous) points and questions instead of simply throwing out phrases
> > >like "cynic". Perhaps I'm wrong in thinking that the reason you post to
> > >this group is so you can have a debate, problem is, it is hard to have a
> > >debate if people won't actually address your points or answer your
> > >questions.
> >
> > Sure, I'm open to debate. Maybe you missed some of my postings? How do I
> > know?
>
> Well, I've checked on DejaNews for any posts I might have missed and I
> didn't see any. However, in case you're in any doubt about your ignoring
> questions you might like to go back and check article:
>
> slrn6p52o9.rp...@hagbard.demon.co.uk
>
> and start from there. I never saw a response to that one. Now, if you did
> follow it up and you did address the points contained in it I apologise and
> I'd ask that you give me the message ID of the article you posted so I can
> go and hunt it down.
>
> If you'd like the article numbers of any other posts where I didn't see a
> response to questions about your investigation into the meteor shower then
> please feel free to ask, I'd be more than happy to supply them.
Robert Snow
>
> In article <359af07d...@news.demon.co.uk>, Lo...@corrode.demon.co.uk (Love
> Lies Squealing) writes:
>
> >The problem is that if there is a gravity particle, then it must exist
> >beyond the limit of the current accelerators. The supercollider was
> >intended to search for the Higgs boson, the so-called 'God particle'
> >although Hawking recently said that he doubted that it existed.
>
> I think you'd be interested in the recent book 'The Physics of a Flying
> Saucer'. Goes into 'gravity particles' and all the rest of it. Haven't seen a
> copy around yet, myself. Still searching.
>
>
> He does! He does! :) This is why I hate it when people go on about "well if
> they were so advanced..." No technology's perfect!
>
> >>> > E=mc^2, a good working equation for the moment, tends to suggest that as
> >>> > your speed approaches that of SOL, your mass will increase towards
> >>> > infinity, raising the power necessary to accelerate further.
> >>>
> >>> See above
> >>
> >>I didn't see anything "above" that demonstrates that the above is actually
> >>wrong.
Here we go again, just because you cannot see it does not mean its not
there/correct.
Try swiching on your brain & read the post's especially your ones ??
Rob
> >
> >That bit was from Eric, and I'm looking forward to him explaining tensors
> >to me.
>
> What? What do you mean about 'tensors'? I must have missed that post.
>
EAdams8221
Lies Squealing) writes:
>>>>>> "Man thinks up loats of things & lots of them crash to the ground."
>>>>
>>>>He does! He does! :) This is why I hate it when people go on about "well
>if
>>>>they were so advanced..." No technology's perfect!
>>>
>>>No, but how many Stealth fighters have crashed?
>>
>>Are you aware of the irony of your statement?!
>
>Not at all...
>
>>"do we know of how many secret
>>government protoype stealthy aircraft have crashed - even though most o
>fthat
>>will have been covered up for obvious reasons, like economics?"
>
>...Ah, of course...
>
>> LOL! I do
>>remember a few, yes. There was that famous one with the YF-22, plus the
>F-117
>>one (or was it two - or even three?) that comes to mind.
>
>...But this makes your answer seem a little odd.
>
>
>>Ask in a millitary
>>aviation NG - I'm sure they'd be able to quote you down to the very mubers
>>you're seeking. ;)
>
>Six, including the recent one. It seems we're doing better than the
>aliens, if the CSETI score of 215 crashes is to be believed.
Hey - I've never said I've accepted that figure. Would't really surprise me
either though. I'm sure they've found their stuff goes a bit wonky
ocaissionally. Perhaps, more often than not, on those occaisions they were SHOT
down. Who knows? I'm pretty certain there must have been SOME that have found
they had a sticky gear box or something and whacked into the ground at some
point.
Dave Pearson
> No, I understand that the air goes over the wing at a lower speed giving
> lift. I have not flown, touched etc a glider, but from reading info I do
> understand it.
BTW, as an aside, you might not understand it as well as you think (due to
the reading you've done). Check out the "Bad Science" web site:
http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/BadScience.html
Fun reading.
Robert Snow
>
> On Tue, 07 Jul 1998 11:53:54 +0100, Robert Snow <rs...@NOSPAMfjcomp.com> wrote:
>
> > > Nope, it definitely sounds a lot like something I remember reading in a
> > > old(ish?) sci-fi book, also, from what I've seen and read, I doubt that
> > > Lazar should be quoted as a reputable source.
> >
> > & you have proof of that,
>
> paragraph to see why.
>
>
>
> > > sorts of wonderful things, but none of them would be proof that "Earth
> > > based science" is wrong, only proof that we've got good imaginations.
> >
> > Does not science start from woderfull & strage ideas in people heads ??
>
> of the above paragraph.
>
> > > > > your "gravity gun" works it is no proof because "Earth based
> > > > > physics" "goes out of the window" when "investigating the universe
> > > > > as a whole", however, without the science as proof to back it up it
> > > > > is simply science fiction. Catch 22?
> >
> > I am talking about gravity, as we think we understand it & which some say
> > is a wave others say it a particle. Well we can't even agree on what
> > gravity is. So just because YOU do not understand it, it makes it a dream
> > ??
>
>
> > >
> > > You didn't, hence the reason I'm asking if you have.
> >
> > Do you have the science to disproove what I say ??
>
> else. Now, perhaps you can drop the diversionary tactics and answer the
> question?
Sorry, the question?? was it travelling vast distances faster than
light..
I was saying that just cos we do not understand it, it does not mean
it's impossibl. also that the laws of physics are different in space
than on earth.
> > Whats the famous saying, if you'v explored all logical options to no
> > avail, start to look at the not so abvious (something like that anyway)
>
> Are you suggesting that all obvious options have been fully explored?
Well YES, as the scientists say we cannot travel faster than light
so NO aliens have visited earth due to the time it would take to get
here. Thats the end of the scientist's point of view (unless he has
a secure job or lots of money)
>
> > > BTW, your glider analogy doesn't work either. The fact that you know
> > > that something should be able to "float" in the air (say, from watching
> > > birds) shows that you know this is a possibility and that you have proof
> > > that it is possible.
I don't have to have things prooved to me befor I belive in them??
I mean I have not been given any proff the earth goes round the sun
but from what I have read & understand I belive it.
So just becouse we don't understand it does not mean its impossible
> Sure, you might not have an intimate knowledge of
> > > how flight works but you do have proof that it is possible (birds).
Birds fly by flapping their wings, that I can see. But when a plane is
in teh air, there are no wings going up & down. So there must be
something else taking place, something that has nothing to do with birds
other than they both fly
> >
> > No, I understand that the air goes over the wing at a lower speed giving
> > lift. I have not flown, touched etc a glider, but from reading info I do
> > understand it.
>
> My point exactly.
Robert Snow
>
> On Tue, 07 Jul 1998 12:19:49 +0100, Robert Snow <rs...@NOSPAMfjcomp.com> wrote:
> > Dave Pearson wrote:
> >
> > > Many thanks, it was starting to get to me, not being able to remember
> > > the name of the book. I'll have to hunt for it in my collection now to
> > > remind myself how the drive worked (I seem to remember is was hilarious
> > > and not too different from what is being described).
> >
> > OK, so what holds out universe together, Gravity???.
>
> You'll have to excuse me if I have trouble seeing what the above question
> has in common with the name of a Harry Harrison book.
Don't know I did not mention the book - Rob
>
> > So if one can master the grav wave,atom etc would it not open up a whole
> > new era of mankind, but then again I doubt you do.
>
> I'm sure it would, but, wouldn't you agree that until such a time it is
> nothing but science fiction?
>
Yes I agree with that one.
> > So mastermind
>
> Just in case you don't know, it is possible to have a discussion without
> resorting to childish name calling and snide remarks, this and the email
> calling me "lame" puts you pretty close to getting dropped in the killfile.
Oh dear, plz point out where I called you LAME, ?????
I call you mastermind, should that not be a complement as mastermind
are very brainy ??
but if the hat fits etc etc
>
> > what is gravity,
>
> You are the one who has figured it out, why don't you enlighten me? You've
> suggested that it is either a "wave" or an "atom", which is it?
>
Not again, I did not say that, I said, if you read, that some scientists
say its a wave while others think its an atom.
Just goes to show how much we understand gravity.
So how can people say travelling vast distances faster than light speed
is impossible, just cos we/they do not undedrstand it does not mean its
not poswsible. I mean if we get to understand gravity, we will then
understand how the universe is held together etc ?? No/Yes ???
> > I mean its here on earth, you can feel its presence etc. but you cannot
> > touch it, see it etc. So acording to you its fantasy,
>
> Wrong, not according to me. Go back and read what I wrote and you'll
> understand why.
>
Sorry if it was not you that said it, So many threads so little brain
(thats me I'm talking about, just incase someone thinks I am slagging
them off etc)
Robert Snow
Me again :)
If we belive the way UFO's use gravity while flying in earths
atmosphere, they bounce along on a a gravity cusion. So a crash
would be quite beliveable
EAdams8221
<rs...@NOSPAMfjcomp.com> writes:
>Here we go again, just because you cannot see it does not mean its not
>there/correct.
>Try swiching on your brain & read the post's especially your ones ??
>
> Rob
Again, I didn't write those bits, but you've quoted my message as though I did!
For the record: I think that Lazar's theory is possible. I don't see anything
which disproves it, so the possibility remains. Therefore you cannot say it is
impossible. That's my methodology on this one. Of course, that's not to say
it's been proven, but it's interesting to note the certain numbers on Lazar's
W-2 form which even America's GAO (or some such institution) couldn't penetrate
in to. Whatever the case, yes I think it's possible. I don't see any 100%
proof, but it's plausible enough to show me one method of how interstellar
travel might be accomplished.
EAdams8221
<rs...@NOSPAMfjcomp.com> writes:
> But impossible if you don't know how, so as no one knows how this
>works it impossible, as you put it ??
I was saying that it's quite plausible acutally! :)
Dave Pearson
> Dave Pearson wrote:
>
> > You'll have to excuse me if I have trouble seeing what the above
> > question has in common with the name of a Harry Harrison book.
>
> Don't know I did not mention the book - Rob
Then why jump in?
> > > So if one can master the grav wave,atom etc would it not open up a
> > > whole new era of mankind, but then again I doubt you do.
> >
> > I'm sure it would, but, wouldn't you agree that until such a time it is
> > nothing but science fiction?
>
> Yes I agree with that one.
Good, at least we've got that one out of the way.
> > Just in case you don't know, it is possible to have a discussion without
> > resorting to childish name calling and snide remarks, this and the email
> > calling me "lame" puts you pretty close to getting dropped in the
> > killfile.
>
> Oh dear, plz point out where I called you LAME, ?????
In email ID <35A206...@NOSPAMfjcomp.com>, I would quote the email but
that is considered bad manners on Usenet. Do I have your permission to quote
your email?
[For everyone else, Robert accidently emailed me instead of posting to the
group and so some of the discussion is taking place in private. Seeing as
how he made the "mistake" I'm leaving it up to him to direct the
conversation back here, doing otherwise would be ad form.]
> I call you mastermind, should that not be a complement as mastermind
> are very brainy ??
Obviously I have a better understanding of your sarcasm than you do. ;-)
> > You are the one who has figured it out, why don't you enlighten me?
> > You've suggested that it is either a "wave" or an "atom", which is it?
>
> Not again, I did not say that, I said, if you read, that some scientists
> say its a wave while others think its an atom.
Err, no you didn't, you even kept what you said in the post I'm responding
to, let me refresh your memory:
> > > So if one can master the grav wave,atom etc would it not open up a
> > > whole new era of mankind, but then again I doubt you do.
No mention of "some scientists" in there.
> So how can people say travelling vast distances faster than light speed
> is impossible,
Because they've done the maths and you haven't? Or, perhaps you've taken it
further than the likes of Einstein, Hawking and Kipp (for example)? If you
haven't then the point is moot, as you yourself agreed:
> > I'm sure it would, but, wouldn't you agree that until such a time it is
> > nothing but science fiction?
So, by your *own* *admission*, until such a time that someone does the maths
you're engaging in nothing more than science fiction. In the mean time, if
you can explain the maths I'd be more than happy to listen.
Dave Pearson
> > > > > Er where did I say I have the science to back it up,
> > > >
> > > > You didn't, hence the reason I'm asking if you have.
> > >
> > > Do you have the science to disproove what I say ??
> >
> > else. Now, perhaps you can drop the diversionary tactics and answer the
> > question?
>
> Sorry, the question??
Yeah, the one where I asked if you had the science to back it up. See above.
> I was saying that just cos we do not understand it, it does not mean it's
> impossibl. also that the laws of physics are different in space than on
> earth.
Perhaps you would care to explain exactly how the laws of Physics are
different in space when compared to this little planet?
Perhaps you'd also like to explain how come you think that the Earth isn't
part of "space"?
BTW, I know you've tried to explain the above via our email conversation but
perhaps you'd like to re-explain this in this Usenet group for the benefit
of everyone who is taking part in this thread.
I know, why don't you start with your proof/take on the Moon/Feather/Hammer
experiment, see if anyone else thinks you are wrong.
> > > Whats the famous saying, if you'v explored all logical options to no
> > > avail, start to look at the not so abvious (something like that
> > > anyway)
> >
> > Are you suggesting that all obvious options have been fully explored?
>
> Well YES, as the scientists say we cannot travel faster than light so NO
> aliens have visited earth due to the time it would take to get here.
You've already jumped too far. The question as to "all obvious options"
being "fully explored" has to start with all possible explanations for UFO
sightings. I'd have thought that the ETH would be way down the line of "not
so obvious" answers.
> > > > BTW, your glider analogy doesn't work either. The fact that you know
> > > > that something should be able to "float" in the air (say, from
> > > > watching birds) shows that you know this is a possibility and that
> > > > you have proof that it is possible.
>
> I don't have to have things prooved to me befor I belive in them??
From our email conversation it would appear that this is the case.
> I mean I have not been given any proff the earth goes round the sun but
> from what I have read & understand I belive it.
Thing with this is that given the data, which you can collect yourself, you
can draw some pretty logical conclusions. I can see the fixed stars "change"
each night over the course of a year and so I can see one or more effects
that fit with the "theory" that the Earth goes around the Sun.
> So just becouse we don't understand it does not mean its impossible
Yet, at the same time, you don't understand the basic principles of gravity
and it's effects yet you've declared that it is impossible that gravity on
Earth works different to gravity on the Moon (for everyone else's benefit,
this comes from the email conversation, I'll allow Robert to explain his
ideas in full).
> > > > Sure, you might not have an intimate knowledge of how flight works
> > > > but you do have proof that it is possible (birds).
>
> Birds fly by flapping their wings, that I can see. But when a plane is in
> teh air, there are no wings going up & down. So there must be something
> else taking place, something that has nothing to do with birds other than
> they both fly
I take it you've never seen a bird glide then? Don't you ever get to the
coast (for example)?
Failing that, have you ever made a paper plane? Now, try making a "paper
gravity gun" (in other words, you can test "flight" on a very small and
simple scale so you will have some small observable proof, how would you do
that for your "gravity gun"?).
Dave Pearson
> On Tue, 07 Jul 1998 12:19:49 +0100, Robert Snow <rs...@NOSPAMfjcomp.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I mean how can our planet have such a hold of us, surly its not, how can
> >a wave or atom hold is here on earth. Coz I don't understand gravity it
> >is not real.??
>
>
> If you want a short course in gravity, I can give you the short course.
> It's a doddle, and something you should be interested in.
Robert has told me, via email, that gravity actually *works* differently on
the Moon than it does on the Earth, I suggest you start by asking him for
his proof and work from there. Beware though, when you point out the flaw in
his reasoning he appears to get a bit upset.
Robert Snow
>
> On Tue, 07 Jul 1998 11:53:54 +0100, Robert Snow <rs...@NOSPAMfjcomp.com>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >& you have proof of that, I mean it has to be proved to be correct.
> >does it not. When I see an aircraft flying, I mwean tons of metal
> >floating upto the sky.
>
You snipped to early, add the following :-
Just becouse I don't understand areodynamics does not mean
its not possible. Just becouse people can't understand the universe
& the way it works, gravity etc does not mean faster than light travel
is not possible, this is what this thread was about.
>
> >Go back 100 years & explain to the people of that
> >time about aircraft.
>
> Go to the library and look up Leonardo Da Vinci. More than just a teenage
> mutant ninja turtle.
We seem to have wandered off the long windy road this thread was about.
About going back 100 years & explaining about aeroplanes to them
would be like talking magic. Even if they do not understand it does not
mean its not possible.
>
> >TV, computers. The great scientists of the day
> >would understand the pysics of fight in an atosphere planet.
> >So people who do not understand thigs makes them liers etc
>
> Ackshully, Scientific American failed consistently to take a couple of
> Bicycle repairmen seriously until they started offering rides to people in
> their aeroplane.
>
> <snip>
> >>
> >> You're missing the point 100%. Sure, we can sit here and dream up all sorts
> >> of wonderful things, but none of them would be proof that "Earth based
> >> science" is wrong,
I'm not saying physics on earth is wrong, I'm saying the same laws do
not apply when applying them to what happens in a star, black hole
etc.
> only proof that we've got good imaginations.
> >
> >Does not science start from woderfull & strage ideas in people heads ??
>
> Yep, then it makes that gradual leap to being something that you can
> describe to other people.
>
> <snip>
> >> >
> >> > Er where did I say I have the science to back it up,
> >>
> >> You didn't, hence the reason I'm asking if you have.
> >
> >Do you have the science to disproove what I say ??
>
> Yup. We've been discussing it.
So proove to me that the same laws of physics applies to what happens in
a star, blackhole etc.
>
> <snip>
> >
> >Whats the famous saying, if you'v explored all logical options to no
> >avail, start to look at the not so abvious (something like that anyway)
>
> Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, generally accredited to Sherlock Holmes. Trould
> is that you haven't scratched the surface of the possible yet.
>
> >> BTW, your glider analogy doesn't work either. The fact that you know that
> >> something should be able to "float" in the air (say, from watching birds)
> >> shows that you know this is a possibility and that you have proof that it is
> >> possible. Sure, you might not have an intimate knowledge of how flight works
> >> but you do have proof that it is possible (birds).
> >
> >No, I understand that the air goes over the wing at a lower speed giving
> >lift. I have not flown, touched etc a glider, but from reading info I do
> >understand it.
>
> Do you know the relationship with wing width to chord?
No. but it does not mean its impossible.
This is exacly what I am saying, how can people say travelling vast
distances faster than light is not possible when we can't even agree
if gravity is a wave or a particle.
Robert Snow
>
> On Wed, 08 Jul 1998 13:03:33 +0100, Robert Snow <rs...@NOSPAMfjcomp.com> wrote:
> > Dave Pearson wrote:
> >
> > > You'll have to excuse me if I have trouble seeing what the above
> > > question has in common with the name of a Harry Harrison book.
> >
> > Don't know I did not mention the book - Rob
>
> Then why jump in?
Try reading ALL the thread, People say aliens can't visit earth as the
distance is too vast. I argue that an advanced race may have discovered
how to manupulate gravity, hense bending space & time to travel the vast
distances. So the smart alecs say proove it. As I can't proove it they
say its not possible. So I argue that if ones goes back 100 years &
talked about flying in the sky's they would not understand what we were
talking about, becouse they do not understand it does not mean its not
possible. Thats why I jumped in :)-~
>
> > > > So if one can master the grav wave,atom etc would it not open up a
> > > > whole new era of mankind, but then again I doubt you do.
> > >
> > > I'm sure it would, but, wouldn't you agree that until such a time it is
> > > nothing but science fiction?
> >
> > Yes I agree with that one.
Its science fiction, but that does not make it impossible. Just becouse
I can't proove something does not make it impossible.
>
> Good, at least we've got that one out of the way.
>
> > > Just in case you don't know, it is possible to have a discussion without
> > > resorting to childish name calling and snide remarks, this and the email
> > > calling me "lame" puts you pretty close to getting dropped in the
> > > killfile.
> >
> > Oh dear, plz point out where I called you LAME, ?????
>
> In email ID <35A206...@NOSPAMfjcomp.com>, I would quote the email but
> that is considered bad manners on Usenet. Do I have your permission to quote
> your email?
>
> [For everyone else, Robert accidently emailed me instead of posting to the
> group and so some of the discussion is taking place in private. Seeing as
> how he made the "mistake" I'm leaving it up to him to direct the
> conversation back here, doing otherwise would be ad form.]
I'm here as requested :)
>
> > I call you mastermind, should that not be a complement as mastermind
> > are very brainy ??
>
> Obviously I have a better understanding of your sarcasm than you do. ;-)
>
> > > You are the one who has figured it out,
& you call me sarcastic ???
> why don't you enlighten me?
> > > You've suggested that it is either a "wave" or an "atom", which is it?
If you read the postings I said, scientists can't even decide if its an
atom or wave
so how can you say faster than light travel is impossible. Yes
impossible as we understand
physics here, but as has happed many times in the past. Mans thought &
ideas get blown
away as we (the scientists - not me :) )learn more & more about life
the universe &
Partying .
See below, & you say your read the posts.??
> >
> > Not again, I did not say that, I said, if you read, that some scientists
> > say its a wave while others think its an atom.
>
> Err, no you didn't, you even kept what you said in the post I'm responding
> to, let me refresh your memory:
>
> > > > So if one can master the grav wave,atom etc would it not open up a
> > > > whole new era of mankind, but then again I doubt you do.
>
> No mention of "some scientists" in there.
>
> > So how can people say travelling vast distances faster than light speed
> > is impossible,
>
> Because they've done the maths and you haven't?
They have done their math's , man you are a scream.
how can they have "done their maths" when they can't even decide if
gravity is a wave or atom??
> Or, perhaps you've taken it
> further than the likes of Einstein, Hawking and Kipp (for example)? If you
> haven't then the point is moot, as you yourself agreed:
Ohhh thats 2 sarcastic comments, I at least try to keep to one per post.
>
> > > I'm sure it would, but, wouldn't you agree that until such a time it is
> > > nothing but science fiction?
>
> So, by your *own* *admission*, until such a time that someone does the maths
> you're engaging in nothing more than science fiction. In the mean time, if
> you can explain the maths I'd be more than happy to listen.
If I could explain the maths I would build one, just becouse I can't
explain it does
not mean its not true. This is the thing we definatelly don't agree on.
You wan't proof of anything you want to belive is true. No proof & you
don't even consider it, even if you
don't understand it you won't entertain the idea.
Wether its about gravity aliens etc becouse you think they can't get
hear (using the physics taught to you) then its not possible.
Arrggh its gone 6 & i'm still here
Laters Rob
Dave Pearson
> Love Lies Squealing wrote:
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > >& you have proof of that, I mean it has to be proved to be correct.
> > >does it not. When I see an aircraft flying, I mwean tons of metal
> > >floating upto the sky.
> >
>
> You snipped to early, add the following :- Just becouse I don't understand
You still seem to be missing the problem with this analogy. Sure, *you*
don't understand aerodynamics, but if you look around you you'll see
evidence that flying is possible, simply look at the birds. In other words,
you'll see that flying is indeed possible, you simply don't know how to do
it yourself yet.
However...
> Just becouse people can't understand the universe & the way it works,
> gravity etc does not mean faster than light travel is not possible, this
> is what this thread was about.
This is an entirely different matter. The last time I looked there was no
evidence around us that faster than light travel is possible, in other
words, there are no "birds".
In the flying example it is a case of seeing that it is indeed possible to
fly but not knowing how to do it yourself, in the FTLT example it is a case
of a) having no examples that it is possible and b) not knowing how to do it
yourself. The two things are very different.
Given this, and you yourself have agreed with this, talking about FTLT is
nothing more than science fiction, at least, until you can point us in the
direction of an example of it being possible.
> > Go to the library and look up Leonardo Da Vinci. More than just a
> > teenage mutant ninja turtle.
>
> We seem to have wandered off the long windy road this thread was about.
> About going back 100 years & explaining about aeroplanes to them would be
> like talking magic. Even if they do not understand it does not mean its
> not possible.
But, if you did go back 100 years you'd at least be able to point at birds
and say "look, flying is possible". Now, try pointing at something today and
say "look, traveling faster than light is possible".
> I'm not saying physics on earth is wrong, I'm saying the same laws do not
> apply when applying them to what happens in a star, black hole etc.
You keep saying this over and over again, would you care to give an example
of how the laws of Physics here on Earth differ from the laws of Physics in
the vicinity (or the interior) of a star?
Do you realise that black holes were predicted, using the laws of physics,
long before a candidate black hole was discovered? Now, are you seriously
suggesting that a whole new set of laws were "made up" just to come up with
the idea of black holes?
> > >Do you have the science to disproove what I say ??
> >
> > Yup. We've been discussing it.
>
> So proove to me that the same laws of physics applies to what happens in a
> star, blackhole etc.
Easy, go pick up any half good book on the subject.
Now, with that out of the way, why don't you prove that the laws of physics
here on Earth *differ* from those "inside a star"?
> This is exacly what I am saying, how can people say travelling vast
> distances faster than light is not possible when we can't even agree if
> gravity is a wave or a particle.
Because they take a scientific approach to the subject? Besides, the above
point is now moot, you yourself have agreed that it is simply science
fiction and so the idea really has no place in this discussion (which, in
case you've forgotten, is about the fact that the problem if distance is one
very big hurdle in the way of the ETH).
Dave Pearson
> Dave Pearson wrote:
> >
> > > > You'll have to excuse me if I have trouble seeing what the above
> > > > question has in common with the name of a Harry Harrison book.
> > >
> > > Don't know I did not mention the book - Rob
> >
> > Then why jump in?
>
> Try reading ALL the thread,
I have, you followed up a message that was talking about the title of a
Harry Harrison book, doesn't your newsreader sub-thread?
> People say aliens can't visit earth as the distance is too vast. I argue
> that an advanced race may have discovered how to manupulate gravity,
^^^
May, exactly, *may*. It's a what if game. Rob, you've got to acknowledge
that this discussion can and does operate on two levels. I'll quite happily
sit down and play "what if" games long into the night, I'm sure that between
us we could dream up some very interesting methods of interstellar travel
(and I bet if we dragged LLS along he could out-dream the both of us). And,
as a conclusion to such a session I'm sure we'd all happily agree that
anything is indeed possible and non of us a qualified enough to know exactly
what will or won't be possible as out understanding of the workings of the
Universe expands.
However, there is the other level, or side. There are people who truly and
honestly *believe* that Alien races are visiting this planet and that this
"fact" accounts for UFO sightings. At that point it is no longer a "what if"
game, at that point there is a burden of proof on those who believe it. Part
of that burden of proof is answering the problem of the distances involved.
> hense bending space & time to travel the vast distances. So the smart
> alecs say proove it.
There is nothing "smart alec" about it, it is a simple thing, some people
blindly believe and some people will question, probe and prod the idea.
> As I can't proove it they say its not possible.
It isn't about saying it isn't possible because you can't prove it, it is
(for me anyway) about not having the data to help turn blind belief into
something more tangible.
> So I argue that if ones goes back 100 years & talked about flying in the
> sky's they would not understand what we were talking about, becouse they
> do not understand it does not mean its not possible.
And, as I keep pointing out, this analogy doesn't work, 100 years ago, or
even 1000 years, proof that flying was possible was there in front of you,
read my previous posts.
> > > > I'm sure it would, but, wouldn't you agree that until such a time it is
> > > > nothing but science fiction?
> > >
> > > Yes I agree with that one.
>
> Its science fiction, but that does not make it impossible.
Neither does it make it possible, it places the idea in limbo, it is a moot
point.
> Just because I can't proove something does not make it impossible.
Neither does it make it possible, it places the idea in limbo, it is a moot
point.
> > [For everyone else, Robert accidently emailed me instead of posting to the
> > group and so some of the discussion is taking place in private. Seeing as
> > how he made the "mistake" I'm leaving it up to him to direct the
> > conversation back here, doing otherwise would be ad form.]
>
> I'm here as requested :)
So, do you fancy posting your thoughts on why the laws of physics are
different on Earth to those in space? I know we've discussed this via email
but I think it might be a good idea to post them so everyone taking part in
this thread can appreciate them and see where you are coming from.
> > > > You've suggested that it is either a "wave" or an "atom", which is it?
>
> If you read the postings I said, scientists can't even decide if its an
> atom or wave so how can you say faster than light travel is impossible.
Please read the post you were following up, I even quoted, *twice*, the
paragraph where you introduced the "atom" or "wave" idea and it didn't say
anything about "scientists".
> See below, & you say your read the posts.??
See below? Ok, lets, and watch the indent levels, in your last post you
claimed:
> > > Not again, I did not say that, I said, if you read, that some
> > > scientists say its a wave while others think its an atom.
To which I replied:
> > Err, no you didn't, you even kept what you said in the post I'm
> > responding to, let me refresh your memory:
> >
> > > > > So if one can master the grav wave,atom etc would it not open up a
> > > > > whole new era of mankind, but then again I doubt you do.
> >
> > No mention of "some scientists" in there.
See? Robert, please, if you were meaning to say "scientists" then fine, I
don't have a problem with that but please don't claim you've said something
that you haven't and then go accuse me of not reading the posts.
> > > So how can people say travelling vast distances faster than light
> > > speed is impossible,
> >
> > Because they've done the maths and you haven't?
>
> They have done their math's , man you are a scream. how can they have
> "done their maths" when they can't even decide if gravity is a wave or
> atom??
(particle, not atom, particle). Ok, tell me this, how can they know that it
can be viewed as a particle or a wave if they haven't done the maths?
> > Or, perhaps you've taken it further than the likes of Einstein, Hawking
> > and Kipp (for example)? If you haven't then the point is moot, as you
> > yourself agreed:
>
> Ohhh thats 2 sarcastic comments, I at least try to keep to one per post.
No, that isn't a sarcastic comment, that is a honest question. Perhaps you'd
care to answer it instead of side stepping it?
> > > > I'm sure it would, but, wouldn't you agree that until such a time it
> > > > is nothing but science fiction?
> >
> > So, by your *own* *admission*, until such a time that someone does the
> > maths you're engaging in nothing more than science fiction. In the mean
> > time, if you can explain the maths I'd be more than happy to listen.
>
> If I could explain the maths I would build one, just becouse I can't
> explain it does not mean its not true.
The problem as I see it is that the idea has no basis in fact whatsoever. At
least with the flying analogy you are fond of there is a basis in fact, look
out of the window (at any point in history) and you'll see evidence that
flight is possible.
Besides, even *if* the "gravity gun" idea is possible you seem to want to
ignore some of the fundamental problems with it. Perhaps you'd like to
address those points, LLS has outlined most of those problems for you.
> You wan't proof of anything you want to belive is true. No proof & you
> don't even consider it, even if you don't understand it you won't
> entertain the idea.
You're not right but you're not wrong either. I do think that simple
"belief" is for the lazy, belief implies that you've decided that something
is true without bothering to check the facts. I won't deny that I do
*believe* certain things, but I ensure that those ideas are under review
every single day. Total belief is nothing more than fantasy, I don't like to
live in a fantasy world.
> Wether its about gravity aliens etc becouse you think they can't get
> hear (using the physics taught to you) then its not possible.
You're talking like this is some kind of religion. Perhaps it is for you,
but it isn't for me. Right at this moment in time I don't "believe" that
alien races are visiting this planet and the reasons are more varied than
just the problem of FTLT. However, if, tomorrow, I started to believe that
aliens *were* visiting this planet I'd still be struggling with and
considering the problem of how they could travel here in a sensible
timeframe. What you are suggesting is that I should suspend disbelief and
simply accept any old theory or fantasy because it will prop up my belief,
sorry, that isn't how I work.
Dave Pearson
> The point being that they're a construct of physics, not a generally
> observable phenomenon, although there are signs that point to the
> existence of a couple in the centre of galaxies and a particularly
> energetic one called X-1.
>
> Theory first, confirmation later.
This is one of the things that Robert, when he says that physics on Earth is
different to physics "in space", is failing to understand IMHO. The
interesting thing about Black Holes is that they existed in theory long
before anyone had found a candidate for their existence "in practice".
Dave Pearson
> >Robert has told me, via email, that gravity actually *works* differently
> >on the Moon than it does on the Earth, I suggest you start by asking him
> >for his proof and work from there. Beware though, when you point out the
> >flaw in his reasoning he appears to get a bit upset.
>
> I'll pass on that one then.
Probably for the best, I tried twice to explain it to him, he's ignored the
second attempt.
> I'm quite outraged to find out that there are manners in Usenet, though.
> I've been doing this for four years with loads of aplomb and I didn't
> realise there might be _rules_.
You didn't get a rule book when you joined up with the.... Oops, said too
much already.
Dave Pearson
> On Thu, 9 Jul 1998 08:12:24 GMT, davep...@hagbard.demon.co.uk (Dave
> Pearson) wrote:
>
> >[Dave suggests to Robert...]
> >
> >I know, why don't you start with your proof/take on the Moon/Feather/Hammer
> >experiment, see if anyone else thinks you are wrong.
>
Doesn't take much to work it out does it? Oddly, Robert stated that air
resistance wasn't relevent in this experiment and so it followed that the
laws of physics are different on the moon.
However (I take it you are reading this Robert?) I'll allow Rob to explain
his reasoning first, or, with his permission, I'll post an outline of our
email exchange on the subject.
Frankly I'm flabbergasted that anyone can be confused about it, it's (at
best) O-Level physics and you've also got resources like:
http://www.curtin.edu.au/curtin/dept/phys-sci/gravity/
available which explain *exactly* what the experiment was about.
You can lead a horse to water etc....
Robert Snow
>
> On Thu, 9 Jul 1998 08:12:24 GMT, davep...@hagbard.demon.co.uk (Dave
> Pearson) wrote:
>
> >BTW, I know you've tried to explain the above via our email conversation but
> >perhaps you'd like to re-explain this in this Usenet group for the benefit
> >of everyone who is taking part in this thread.
> >
> >experiment, see if anyone else thinks you are wrong.
>
> Lack of air resistance, as another stab in the dark?
Or lack of gravity ???
>
> <snip da rest>
Robert Snow
>
> On Thu, 09 Jul 1998 21:46:32 GMT, Love Lies Squealing <Lo...@corrode.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Thu, 9 Jul 1998 08:12:24 GMT, davep...@hagbard.demon.co.uk (Dave
> > Pearson) wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >I know, why don't you start with your proof/take on the Moon/Feather/Hammer
> > >experiment, see if anyone else thinks you are wrong.
> >
> > Lack of air resistance, as another stab in the dark?
>
> resistance wasn't relevent
Did I, I have not said anything about wind resistence ??
in this experiment and so it followed that the
> laws of physics are different on the moon.
>
> However (I take it you are reading this Robert?) I'll allow Rob to explain
> his reasoning first, or, with his permission, I'll post an outline of our
> email exchange on the subject.
>
> Frankly I'm flabbergasted that anyone can be confused about it, it's (at
> best) O-Level physics and you've also got resources like:
>
> http://www.curtin.edu.au/curtin/dept/phys-sci/gravity/
>
> available which explain *exactly* what the experiment was about.
>
> You can lead a horse to water etc....
You are clouding the issue, the issue ws about travelling faster than
light & you wanting me to proove it to you becouse you don't belive
anything without proof
Robert Snow
>
> On Thu, 09 Jul 1998 21:46:35 GMT, Love Lies Squealing <Lo...@corrode.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > The point being that they're a construct of physics, not a generally
> > observable phenomenon, although there are signs that point to the
> > existence of a couple in the centre of galaxies and a particularly
> > energetic one called X-1.
> >
> > Theory first, confirmation later.
>
> This is one of the things that Robert, when he says that physics on Earth is
> different to physics "in space",
But you spouted of that I said earth physics is wrong, change of heart
now ??
is failing to understand IMHO. The
> interesting thing about Black Holes is that they existed in theory long
> before anyone had found a candidate for their existence "in practice".
But they were not proves & going on your analogy as they have never been
prooved they re not possible.
Robert Snow
>
> On Thu, 09 Jul 1998 17:18:47 +0100, Robert Snow <rs...@NOSPAMfjcomp.com> wrote:
> > Love Lies Squealing wrote:
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > >& you have proof of that, I mean it has to be proved to be correct.
> > > >does it not. When I see an aircraft flying, I mwean tons of metal
> > > >floating upto the sky.
> > >
> > > Handy to have things like aerodynamics. Ever seen a jumbo hover?
> >
> > You snipped to early, add the following :- Just becouse I don't understand
> > areodynamics does not mean its not possible.
>
> You still seem to be missing the problem with this analogy. Sure, *you*
> evidence that flying is possible,
Yeah right I see a bird weighing a few pounds, then I look at tons of
metal, rubber etc & think, oh yes becouse the brids fly theres no
problem in getting tons of metal in the sky
>simply look at the birds. In other words,
> you'll see that flying is indeed possible, you simply don't know how to do
> it yourself yet.
>
> However...
>
> > Just becouse people can't understand the universe & the way it works,
> > gravity etc does not mean faster than light travel is not possible, this
> > is what this thread was about.
>
> This is an entirely different matter. The last time I looked there was no
> evidence around us that faster than light travel is possible, in other
> words, there are no "birds".
So you say there is no evidence of faster than light travel so its not
possible. Thank you thats what all this was about, "as you cannot see
or understand FTLT its not possible"
THE END
>
> In the flying example it is a case of seeing that it is indeed possible to
> fly but not knowing how to do it yourself, in the FTLT example it is a case
> of a) having no examples that it is possible and b) not knowing how to do it
> yourself. The two things are very different.
>
> Given this, and you yourself have agreed with this, talking about FTLT is
> nothing more than science fiction, at least, until you can point us in the
> direction of an example of it being possible.
>
> > > Go to the library and look up Leonardo Da Vinci. More than just a
> > > teenage mutant ninja turtle.
> >
> > We seem to have wandered off the long windy road this thread was about.
> > About going back 100 years & explaining about aeroplanes to them would be
> > like talking magic. Even if they do not understand it does not mean its
> > not possible.
>
Robert Snow
>
> On Thu, 09 Jul 1998 17:18:47 +0100, Robert Snow <rs...@NOSPAMfjcomp.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Love Lies Squealing wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 07 Jul 1998 11:53:54 +0100, Robert Snow <rs...@NOSPAMfjcomp.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >> >& you have proof of that, I mean it has to be proved to be correct.
> >> >does it not. When I see an aircraft flying, I mwean tons of metal
> >> >floating upto the sky.
> >>
> >> Handy to have things like aerodynamics. Ever seen a jumbo hover?
> >
> >You snipped to early, add the following :-
> >Just becouse I don't understand areodynamics does not mean
> >its not possible.
>
> about the aeroplane fairies first. As Messr. Pearson has pointed out, it
> takes a sheet of A4 paper folded to get a basic grasp of aerodynamics, and
> can provide a couple of hours of entertaining diversion.
>
> >Just becouse people can't understand the universe
> >& the way it works, gravity etc does not mean faster than light travel
> >is not possible, this is what this thread was about.
>
>
> The problem with what you've said there is that we have a really good idea
> of how the universe works, but when you look at the details you find small
> inconsistencies in practice. These inconsistencies are too small to
> effect something like the trajectory of a planet, which was basically
> pinned by Johannes Kepler, but are fundamental to the next generation of
> junction transistors and microelectronics and those tinkers that like to
> smash atoms into each other 'for a laugh'.
>
> You annoyed me personally in that your assertation was that because you
> can think something up, it's possible, which isn't true. I personally
> would be quite intrigued by 20' high spiders, but they aren't going to
> happen except on planets with silly oxygen levels and low G, conditions
> extremely unlikely to ever go hand in hand. (That is material for another
> thread rather than something I can expand upon here.)
>
> Ignore the manipulation of gravity when you consider FTL travel, and get
> yourself a copy of 'Hyperspace' or 'Black Holes and Time warps'.
> Considered mainstream opinion tends to suggest that we're unlikely to ever
> have the ability to manipulate gravity, although we may be able to create
> singularities through manipulation of space.
>
> >> >Go back 100 years & explain to the people of that
> >> >time about aircraft.
> >>
> >> mutant ninja turtle.
> >
> >We seem to have wandered off the long windy road this thread was about.
> >About going back 100 years & explaining about aeroplanes to them
> >would be like talking magic. Even if they do not understand it does not
> >mean its not possible.
>
> years ago. 95 years ago, the Wright brothers made a short powered hop.
>
> You obviously didn't look Leonardo up, which is a pity. He died in 1519,
> roughly 470 years ago
470 years ago the idea was thought up, & when did you say the 1st glider
flew ??? er 107 years . So it took363 years to develope the idea
But birds have been around for 1000's of years & all we had to do
was look at them I realise we can fly, build an aeroplane & fly.
So how come there were no planes etc round 400 years ago.
>, after describing a number of devices we use today,
> including the Camera Obscura, the tank and the hang-glider, as well as an
> unworkable helicopter and a decent but heavy ornithopter.
>
> "He was the most relentlessly curious man in history. Everything he saw
> made him ask how and why. Why does one find sea-shells in the mountains?
> How do they build locks in Flanders? How does a bird fly? What accounts
> for cracks in walls? What is the origin of winds and clouds? Find out;
> write it down; if you can see it, draw it."
> Kenneth Clark on Leonardo Da Vinci
>
> The Australian Aborigines had the basis of wing cross-sections down to pat
> more than 5000 years ago.
sheesh so it took 4893 years to put his ideas into the sky
Seems an awwwwwfffuulll looooong time ??
>
> Just to counterpoint, 100 years ago;
>
> -The virus was discovered
> -Radium and Polonium were identified as radioactive elements
> -The first multistorey reinforced concrete structure was built
> -Galaxies were identified by Curtis
> -'The Time Machine' by HG Wells was published
> -The asteroid 'Eros' was discovered
> -Willamina Fleming designed the stellar classification system used in the
> Draper catalogue
> -Keeler discovered that Saturn's rings were made from dust
> -Krypton, the inert gas, discovered
> -Marconi transmits and receives radio
> -The submarine is developed into a workable design
>
> <snip>
> >> >> You're missing the point 100%. Sure, we can sit here and dream up all sorts
> >> >> of wonderful things, but none of them would be proof that "Earth based
> >> >> science" is wrong,
> >
> >I'm not saying physics on earth is wrong, I'm saying the same laws do
> >not apply when applying them to what happens in a star, black hole
> >etc.
>
> The thing is that they do, expecially in a black-hole considering that
> it's a construct of physics rather than a local phenomenon. That does
> depend on you definition of local, though.
>
> Stars are faairly ordinary objects that exist due to Proton-proton chain
> fusion and the self-fulfilling effect of what happens when you gather a
> lot of mass in one place.
>
> <snip>
> >> >Do you have the science to disproove what I say ??
> >>
> >> Yup. We've been discussing it.
> >
> >So proove to me that the same laws of physics applies to what happens in
> >a star, blackhole etc.
>
> The former is quite hard, so I'm going to ignore it for the moment, but
> the latter is a doddle. Subrayhman Chandrasekhar developed a theory of
> supermassive objects in 1920 (70 years ago, as an aside) that was
> pooh-pooed by Sir Arthur Eddington, not really being revived until 1950.
> The current seminal work on Black holes is being done by Kip Thorne.
>
> The point being that they're a construct of physics, not a generally
> observable phenomenon, although there are signs that point to the
> existence of a couple in the centre of galaxies and a particularly
> energetic one called X-1.
>
> Theory first, confirmation later.
>
> <snip>
> >> >No, I understand that the air goes over the wing at a lower speed giving
> >> >lift. I have not flown, touched etc a glider, but from reading info I do
> >> >understand it.
> >>
> >> Do you know the relationship with wing width to chord?
> >
> >No. but it does not mean its impossible.
>
> I'm considering balancing a coin on the stylus.
>
> >This is exacly what I am saying, how can people say travelling vast
> >distances faster than light is not possible when we can't even agree
> >if gravity is a wave or a particle.
>
> Neither. I don't know where you've picked this up from, but it sounds
> like a crock.
>
> If you were talking about light, that would be a different matter, as
> duality gets some stick from me.
Robert Snow
>
> In article <35A209...@NOSPAMfjcomp.com>, Robert Snow
> <rs...@NOSPAMfjcomp.com> writes:
>
> > But impossible if you don't know how, so as no one knows how this
> >works it impossible, as you put it ??
>
> I was saying that it's quite plausible acutally! :)
No you stance is that you do not belive anything until it is prooved to
you.
Robert Snow
>
> On Tue, 07 Jul 1998 12:39:54 +0100, Robert Snow <rs...@NOSPAMfjcomp.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Ahh the Mr Lasar, OK I'm gonna jump right into the deep end:
> >
> >If people have no Idea what Lasar was saying here is the basic theory
> >
> >He says the universe is held together by gravity, When one drops an
> >apple to the ground it is pulling on the earth as the earth is pulling
> >on the apple, but the apple is so small we do not see any effect other
> >than the apple dropping to the groung.
>
> No, that was Mr Isaac Newton. Viciously plagerised Lazar by the clever
> means of publishing it 300 years earlier.
Sorry must get my semantics right, Bob Lasar said & also Newton
Dave at the local chip shop, my science teacher & her dog's mums granny.
Did I include everybody ??
Opps better include my self as I have just said it too.
>
> >So the universe is like one big 3D universe held together by gravity
> >& one aims "The Gun" at the place they wanna go. The "Gun" pulls that
> >part of space to the currect location. Then somehow (& no I don't know
> >how) the traveller attaches to the point of space pulled to the currect
> >location & releases the pull of the "Gun". The universe then pings back
> >to its origional location taking the travvelar with it.
> >
> > Easy when you know how :)-~
> >
> > But impossible if you don't know how, so as no one knows how this
> >works it impossible, as you put it ??
>
> Exactly. In positing the 'gun', you've not addressed any problems.
> Personally I'd like to put forth the idea of a gravity 'banana' which
> unpeels spacetime and allows you to travel through one of those stringy
> bits to your destination.
Whats this, someone with a similar idead/belife. Don't let David see you
saying that.
Robert Snow
>
> On Tue, 07 Jul 1998 13:49:17 +0100, Robert Snow <rs...@NOSPAMfjcomp.com>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >> >>I didn't see anything "above" that demonstrates that the above is actually
> >> >>wrong.
> >
> >there/correct.
> >Try swiching on your brain & read the post's especially your ones ??
>
> a lesser number of years studying physics for enjoyment. Currently I'm
> about postgrad. level in astrophysics and getting really excited about
> some of the things that NASA keeps cutting budgets on, the last being the
> DCX.
Delta Clipper
>
> When it comes to things like gravity, I'm your man to talk to and I'm
> quite willing to discuss the shortcomings so long as you're willing to ask
> serious questions about it and do a little background research.
Whats your feelings on being able to control gravity to manipulate
space/time for FTLT ??
>
> Contrary to popular belief on the NG, I'm a heretic myself, but I'm an
> educated heretic.
Robert Snow
>
> On Thu, 09 Jul 1998 18:04:57 +0100, Robert Snow <rs...@NOSPAMfjcomp.com> wrote:
> > Dave Pearson wrote:
> > >
> > > > > You'll have to excuse me if I have trouble seeing what the above
> > > > > question has in common with the name of a Harry Harrison book.
> > > >
> > > > Don't know I did not mention the book - Rob
> > >
> > > Then why jump in?
> >
> > Try reading ALL the thread,
>
> I have, you followed up a message that was talking about the title of a
> Harry Harrison book, doesn't your newsreader sub-thread?
>
> > People say aliens can't visit earth as the distance is too vast. I argue
> > that an advanced race may have discovered how to manupulate gravity,
> ^^^
> May, exactly, *may*. It's a what if game
May, as in if life on a planet is 1000's or millions of years ahead of
us, they may have discovered the secret's of gravity
So why soooo long before the plane/glider was invented??
Robert Snow
>
> On 08 Jul 1998 17:33:47 GMT, eadam...@aol.com (EAdams8221) wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >Again, I didn't write those bits, but you've quoted my message as though I did!
>
> wouldn't complain too much. It seems that Robert may be getting confused
> over who's posting what.
Yeap I agree witth that one. I havn't got the luxtry of sitting in my
arm chair while here, I 'm at work & people are begining to wonder
if I'm writting a book as my K/B goes non stop for hours trying to reply
to thes thread, & its getting longer. Can we not drop all these
fragmented threads & make them into a jumper that will fit us all.
>
> >For the record: I think that Lazar's theory is possible.
Who said that ?? - Rob
>
> It's not. It's complete arse.
I take it you know alot about arse's. Plz keep them to your self as I'm
going to lunch soon
>
> >I don't see anything
> >which disproves it, so the possibility remains.
>
Who said that, That is exacly my point to David.
> A) Gravity is a byproduct of mass.
> B) We cannot invoke gravity at will.
> C) There is no known method of focussing gravity.
> D) Caveating against A & B, if a force-carrier exists, then it is
> still subject to General relativity.
> E) Caveating all the above, Lazar appears to have as much experience
> of physics as you do.
>
> >Therefore you cannot say it is
> >impossible.
>
> I will. It's impossible. Prove me wrong.
Yaaawwwnnnnnnnn, Proove me wrong ner ner ne ne ner
You know full well there is no proof. So you have to
resort to the only reply you have. Proove it.
Knowing we can't, thinking your so smart
P.S just out of curiosity how old are you
>
> >Of course, that's not to say
> >it's been proven, but it's interesting to note the certain numbers on Lazar's
> >W-2 form which even America's GAO (or some such institution) couldn't penetrate
> >in to.
>
> Where did you hear that one? Note that the GAO has carte blanche to all
> sources of information due to it's very nature.
>
> >Whatever the case, yes I think it's possible. I don't see any 100%
> >proof, but it's plausible enough to show me one method of how interstellar
> >travel might be accomplished.
>
> Then I'd say you have an extremely rose-tinted view of things.
>
& you don't. Typical self centered mankind sort of answer
Dave Pearson
> > > >I know, why don't you start with your proof/take on the
> > > >Moon/Feather/Hammer experiment, see if anyone else thinks you are
> > > >wrong.
> > >
> > > Lack of air resistance, as another stab in the dark?
> >
> > Doesn't take much to work it out does it? Oddly, Robert stated that air
> > resistance wasn't relevent
>
> Did I, I have not said anything about wind resistence ??
"*Wind* resistance", no, nothing was said by anyone about "*wind*
resistance".
The issue was (look above, read, comprehend), *air* resistance (in other
words the presence of an atmosphere on Earth and the lack of one on the
Moon). If you don't believe me go back and look at your email to me on the
subject, the message ID is <19980708105...@ROB2864.bra01.icl.co.uk>
and the date stamp is "Wed, 08 Jul 1998 11:52:00 -0500".
Are you denying that you sent that email to me?
You appear to have a short memory so let me remind you about the email
conversation we had:
o You claimed that the laws of Physics on Earth were different to those
found in space.
o I pointed out that this simply wasn't true.
o You insisted I was wrong and used the Hammer/Feather/Moon experiment as
proof that the laws of Physics are different on the Moon.
o I pointed out to you that they are no different and that you'd totally
misread the point of the experiment (the hammer wins on Earth due to the
presence of an atmosphere, it is a tie on the Moon because there isn't
one, however, you can reverse the results with little effort).
o You then insisted that (and I quote) "the atmosphere is not relevent here,
its the gravity.", thus showing that you had a fundamental lack of
understanding of a) gravity b) air resistance and c) the point of the
experiment.
o I then wrote back to you, in great detail, along with some pointers and an
experiment or two, showing you that you were totally misreading the
experiment and what the results mean.
o You didn't reply.
> You are clouding the issue, the issue ws about travelling faster than
> light & you wanting me to proove it to you becouse you don't belive
> anything without proof
Wrong, I'm not clouding the issue, you are simply evading a couple of simple
questions. Part of your reasoning that FTLT is possible using (for example)
a gravity gun is that the laws of Physics are different in space. You've yet
to show *how* they are different and *where* they are different.
So, Robert, take the upper hand, un-cloud the issue by addressing the above
point and then we can move on.
Dave Pearson
> > Exactly. In positing the 'gun', you've not addressed any problems.
> > Personally I'd like to put forth the idea of a gravity 'banana' which
> > unpeels spacetime and allows you to travel through one of those stringy
> > bits to your destination.
>
> Whats this, someone with a similar idead/belife. Don't let David see you
> saying that.
Don't go assuming that I don't have my own theories, personally I *know*
that LLS's "banana" idea is total bunk and that the only plausible idea is
my "Cosmic Polo Packet" theory. I'm still working on the maths for getting
the wrapper off....
Dave Pearson
> Love Lies Squealing wrote:
> >
> > >I know, why don't you start with your proof/take on the Moon/Feather/Hammer
> > >experiment, see if anyone else thinks you are wrong.
> >
> > Lack of air resistance, as another stab in the dark?
>
Can I just double check this, are you saying that the Moon as no gravity?
Dave Pearson
> Dave Pearson wrote:
>
> > You still seem to be missing the problem with this analogy. Sure, *you*
> > don't understand aerodynamics, but if you look around you you'll see
> > evidence that flying is possible,
>
> Yeah right I see a bird weighing a few pounds, then I look at tons of
> metal, rubber etc & think, oh yes becouse the brids fly theres no problem
> in getting tons of metal in the sky
Is a bird lighter than air or heavier than air?
> > This is an entirely different matter. The last time I looked there was no
> > evidence around us that faster than light travel is possible, in other
> > words, there are no "birds".
>
> So you say there is no evidence of faster than light travel so its not
> possible.
No, I don't say that. The question isn't about if FTLT is possible, period,
it is about plausibility of the "gravity gun" idea as a *solution* to the
FTLT problem.
Perhaps you'd care to show me exactly where I've flatly said that
interstellar travel in a sensible time-frame is not and never will be a
possibility?
> Thank you thats what all this was about, "as you cannot see or understand
> FTLT its not possible"
Only in your mind Robert, if you fail to use comprehension when reading then
you *will* reach the wrong conclusion. I can tell you straight, you *have*
reached the wrong conclusion.
Dave Pearson
> Dave Pearson wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 09 Jul 1998 18:04:57 +0100, Robert Snow <rs...@NOSPAMfjcomp.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > People say aliens can't visit earth as the distance is too vast. I argue
> > > that an advanced race may have discovered how to manupulate gravity,
> > ^^^
> > May, exactly, *may*. It's a what if game
>
> May, as in if life on a planet is 1000's or millions of years ahead of us,
> they may have discovered the secret's of gravity
Or, may, as in *if* we are the first life form to have evolved in this
galaxy, or, indeed, in the universe as a whole (*someone* has the be the
first), then aliens can't be visiting us because we're way ahead of them.
Obviously, I can't prove the above, but that doesn't mean it isn't true, so
that cancels out your idea and so the point is moot.
Want to play some more "what if"?
> > And, as I keep pointing out, this analogy doesn't work, 100 years ago, or
> > even 1000 years, proof that flying was possible was there in front of you,
> > read my previous posts.
>
> So why soooo long before the plane/glider was invented??
It isn't unusual for the ideas and the proofs to exist before technology
will allow us to act on them. Go read some books on black holes and the
like, you'll find many ideas (with some basis in fact) that show that
interstellar travel in sensible timeframes is plausible, unfortunately we
don't have the technology to do it right at this moment.
> [*HUGE* SNIP]
Rob, is there any chance of you actually editing your replies? If you do it
will save bandwidth, download times and it'll make your posts a lot easier
to read.
Robert Snow
>
> On Tue, 07 Jul 1998 12:19:49 +0100, Robert Snow <rs...@NOSPAMfjcomp.com>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >> Many thanks, it was starting to get to me, not being able to remember the
> >> name of the book. I'll have to hunt for it in my collection now to remind
> >> myself how the drive worked (I seem to remember is was hilarious and not too
> >> different from what is being described).
> >
> >OK, so what holds out universe together, Gravity???.
>
> Yup.
>
> >So if one can
> >master the grav wave,atom etc would it not open up a whole new era
> >of mankind, but then again I doubt you do.
>
> the dark as to your intended meaning;
>
> Yes, the discovery of a force-carrier for Gravity would make everything
> nowadays seem a tad trite and dated, but it hasn't happened.
Just becouse it has not happened it does not mean its not possible ??
Or does it ??
>
> >So mastermind what is gravity,
>
> The attraction between two bodies that have mass. Bigger things have more
> gravity than smaller things.
>
> >I mean its here on earth, you can feel
> >its presence etc. but you cannot touch it, see it etc.
> >So acording to you its fantasy,
>
> Nope, because you can _measure_ it. And if you cared it's currently
> floating around the 9.8 m/s/s and 9.8N/Kg mark.
Well I'll try & remember that :)
>
> >I mean how can our planet have such a
> >hold of us, surly its not, how can a wave or atom hold is here on earth.
> >Coz I don't understand gravity it is not real.??
>
> Again, the froth appears to be obscuring meaning. I'm saying that gravity
> is real, but it isn't something you can turn on or off,
Why not, would not a gravity device counter the effects of gravity.
If we discovered its secrets then it is possible to build a machine
to counter/control its effects.
Becouse you can't think up a gravity machine you say its impossible. How
can one say something is impossible when they don't
fully understand how it works.
Rob
> _given that we
> don't have a clue as to how *information* regarding gravitational
> potential is 'transmitted' across distance_.
>
> The standard view is that mass bends space in such a way as to increase
> energy in any given system near to a large body that is inversely
> proportional to your distance from the given body.
>
> If you want a short course in gravity, I can give you the short course.
> It's a doddle, and something you should be interested in.
>
Robert Snow
> >>sits in the 'island of stability' for heavy atoms. Trouble is that your
> >>fuel in this case would decay in seconds.
> >
> >Actually it was between element 115 and 116.
>
> Apologies. Brain-fart.
>
> >Somewhere between there he said HE
> >would have put it - whether or not it actually was is open to debate. Without
> >having some of the stuff in your hand, you would not know for sure what would
> >happen. If his story is true (and, lets face it, he did have those 'certain'
> >numbers on his W-2 form), then it was still just his opinion. It might have
> >been a totally different fuel, or even enriched/coated with another substance
> >in order to prevent decay.
>
> You know that he claimed to have actually stolen some that was later
> 'stolen back'?
>
> >>>Love Lies... Says that
> >>>gravity MUST be created by mass.
> >>
> >>I didn't capitalise, and you're stressing it a little too heavily. At the
> >>moment, gravity is simply a side-effect of mass, ie you have mass, you
> >>have gravitational potential. Show me something light with a high G and
> >>I'll concede defeat.
> >
> >You're basically saying it's the only method which is widely known about. I say
> >that it doesn't mean to say it's the only method there CAN be.
>
> The light dawns?
>
> Yup, that's what I'm saying. There is a conjectural theory that states
> that the Higgs boson is the force carrier, but general opinion is moving
> against the Higgs boson existing. A weighty tome on the matter is Leon
> Ledermann, 'The God particle'.
>
> >>>I don't think that's the only method it can be
> >>>made.
> >>
> >>Again with the thinking. It is.
> >
> >No. Sorry, I don't go along with that. I'm a genuine sceptic - show me proof or
> >sufficient evidence to convince me! I don't assume a falsehood.
>
> Sufficient evidence surrounds you. Mass is linked to gravity which is
> something that Johannes Kepler first figured out, but he ascribed it to
> God.
>
> Basically, showing you proof would require you to do the work. Happy
> about that?
>
> >>>That's like saying that light can only be made by a nuclear reaction,
> >>>because the sun creates it: Of course, we now know how to make lightbulbs -
> >>>which obviously don't have to run on nuclear power.
> >>
> >>Fallacious argument, and pretty audacious at that. I have plenty of
> >>examples of light being produced through other means, such as the rare
> >>interaction between the back of the skull and a solar neutrino.
> >
> >It's the same principle. As you know of other examples, then fine. But just
> >because you don't know of any other ways to make gravity, doesn't mean to say
> >that there AREN'T any.
>
> Fair enough comment, but neutrino decay and the photoelectric effect are
> not the same principle at all.
>
> >>>>So, given what you've said, if you've got the science to prove that your
> >>>>"gravity gun" works it is no proof because "Earth based physics" "goes out
> >>>>of the window" when "investigating the universe as a whole", however,
> >>>>without the science as proof to back it up it is simply science
> >>>>fiction. Catch 22?
> >>>
> >>>I think he's talking generally. If you can get the thing to, more or less,
> >>be
> >>>shown to be POSSIBLE, then there's no reason to say it can NOT work. Like
> >>I've
> >>>already said around here, there's bound to be more than one method of
> >>>interstellar travel.
> >>
> >>Quite possibly, but he doesn't seem to know any of them.
> >
> >He already posted one, probably the Lazar method. Nobody's really put foward
> >much of an argument against it.
>
> Oh, I've tried, but it really is like banging your head against a brick
> wall here.
Why, becouse we don't think the same as you do??
EAdams8221
In article <35a5ac74...@news.demon.co.uk>, Lo...@corrode.demon.co.uk (Love
Lies Squealing) writes:
>>Excuse me? I'm refering to the likes of Phillip Klass and James Randi. They
>are
>>most definitely NOT sceptics! I supose we could call them obstructionists,
>if
>>you want (which I sometimes do). I thought cynic would be easier and mroe
>>coloquial. ;)
>
>Philip Klass was the editor of one of the most respected military aircraft
>organs in the world, and is a damn fine investigator, should you deign to
>read anything by him.
I have. As I'm sure you're aware, there are a fair number of conclusions of his
that are erroneous, if not damn well misleading. I could quote you any number
of examples, but like I've said previously, it's doubtfull I'll be making many
more 'appearences' around here for the time being. :(
>Randi is a little more along the lines of your
>definition, but is willing to back up his assertations with cold, hard
>cash, so far attracting almost no attention from the fringes in a rather
>spooky and strange way.
Oh that would most certainly be wrong. unfortuantely, not only does Mr Randi
refuse to recognise the findings of independent scientists, but his rules
(personal and otherwise - try and take 'the challange and you'll see what I
mean) are written in such a way that he'll never have to part with the cash. I
know of a number of people who have tried to claim the money, but he never
replied to them. One such person (who was actually a claiment, as opposed to a
scientist) had a brief E-mail exchange with him, informing him that he was just
as sceptical. Randi found this most amusing, until the person in question
completed the forms and sent them in... Yet again, he has yet to hear ANYTHING
back from Randi. I wouldn't mind if it was fair, but like most things in
CSICOP, it isn't and, like most things from the magician James Randi, the offer
of 'prize money' is an illusion. Just take a look at a few of the articles on
their Web site to see how bizarre their logic is. The 'Critical Thinking'
article is a classic! I even E-mailed the author, trying to be constructive.
simply pointing out a few things I knew were wrong and that I hoped he would
re-evaluate certain thing, or at least check them out. I was very polite, but
just got something back along the lines of him somehow knowing I was "ignorant
of certain matters". He didn't point out anything to show this, it was just his
opinion. Just brushing my comments aside without bothering to see if they were
correct. Oh well...
EAdams8221
<rs...@NOSPAMfjcomp.com> writes:
>> >For the record: I think that Lazar's theory is possible.
>
>Who said that ?? - Rob
I did! :)
EAdams8221
report on Roswell that the USAF bring out every year or so. ;D
In article <35A5FD...@NOSPAMfjcomp.com>, Robert Snow
<rs...@NOSPAMfjcomp.com> writes:
>> > But impossible if you don't know how, so as no one knows how this
>> >works it impossible, as you put it ??
>>
>> I was saying that it's quite plausible acutally! :)
>
>No you stance is that you do not belive anything until it is prooved to
>you.
That's true. I don't have to BELIEVE something, in order to think it is
PLAUSIBLE on the whole, though. They are quite different things. I don't 100%
believe that method MUST be true, but on the whole I can't really see much
wrong with the basics. It's just a matter of getting the required amount of
energy, but that might not be any problem for a completely different planet,
where some super-enriched type of fuel could well be common to find.
EAdams8221
Lies Squealing) writes:
>>For the record: I think that Lazar's theory is possible.
>
>It's not. It's complete arse.
>
>>I don't see anything
>>which disproves it, so the possibility remains.
>
>A) Gravity is a byproduct of mass.
>B) We cannot invoke gravity at will.
>C) There is no known method of focussing gravity.
All three of those are PRESUMPTIONS. Not known facts. There is a difference.
You do not know all the above are 100% true. Gravity might well be a by-product
of mass, but is that the ONLY method it can be produced? Yes, that we in the
public sector know about, as you say. But that does NOT mean to say it is the
ONLY method. This is exactly what I'm saying. Lazar's theory isn't proven (that
we know of), but it's an interesting theory nonetheless which could well be
true. That's my viewpoint.
>D) Caveating against A & B, if a force-carrier exists, then it is
> still subject to General relativity.
Assuming that Relativity is true and unchallenged (which it isn't - I noticed
you didn't give me a postal address in E-mail for me to send the article off
to. Oh well, you'll just have to wait for it on the Web site: URL already given
on another posting here).
>E) Caveating all the above, Lazar appears to have as much experience
> of physics as you do.
None of the above are really relavent in so far as 'disproving' it goes.
>>Therefore you cannot say it is
>>impossible.
>
>I will. It's impossible. Prove me wrong.
The burden of proof is now on you. You have not said "it doesn't convince me
personally", or even "it's unlikely, given the known facts". You have said
"it's impossible". You are now required to DISprove it. Why? Because otherwise
it is an unformed conclusion. Remember that half a point is worse than no point
at all. You have no grounds on which to make such a conclusion, ergo it's about
as relevent as an episode of Blue Peter on something like Economic and Monetry
Union! Sorry LLS, but you're the one who's just now declared it to be
"impossible". You've got to disprove it now. Happy hunting...
>>Of course, that's not to say
>>it's been proven, but it's interesting to note the certain numbers on
>Lazar's
>>W-2 form which even America's GAO (or some such institution) couldn't
>penetrate
>>in to.
>
>Where did you hear that one? Note that the GAO has carte blanche to all
>sources of information due to it's very nature.
Was that the sound I heard of a penny dropping? <g>
It was on the well-publicised documentary about Area 51, which was broadcast on
Sky 1 last year and on two Sudnay afternoons on ITV this year (but not
well-publicised that time). I don't remember the person's name, but he was some
Congressman I think. I've also got an article somewhere about this, but again,
I don't have time for all of this. I'm only responding to some of these because
(a) they affect how people might perceive my methodology and (b), I'm sending
them all out in one 'go'. I think Bruce Macerbee was involved in talking about
that bit too, but I'm unsure about that - not having the references here in
front of me at the present time.
Oh - I've just remembered. The IRS tried to look into the numbers as well as
the GAO and other highprofile people. I think the Feds did some research on Mr
Lazar's past and couldn'tfigure out why so much info on him had suddenly been
pulled (even the yearbook from colege or something). Anyway, there y'go!
Dave Pearson
> On Fri, 10 Jul 1998 14:41:14 GMT, davep...@hagbard.demon.co.uk (Dave
> Pearson) wrote:
>
> >> > Lack of air resistance, as another stab in the dark?
> >>
> >> Or lack of gravity ???
> >
> >Can I just double check this, are you saying that the Moon as no gravity?
>
Yet it appears to be a "mass" of contradictions while, at the same time, for
him, it holds a certain "attraction".
Dave Pearson
> On Fri, 10 Jul 1998 14:39:58 GMT, davep...@hagbard.demon.co.uk (Dave
> Pearson) wrote:
>
> >Don't go assuming that I don't have my own theories, personally I *know*
> >that LLS's "banana" idea is total bunk and that the only plausible idea
> >is my "Cosmic Polo Packet" theory. I'm still working on the maths for
> >getting the wrapper off....
>
> Bub, I have you pegged.
Ha! At least WE admit that our theory (nay, fact!) HAS a HOLE in it right
from the START.
> The cosmic banana is the only way, even though it's become the gravity
> felch through DILIGENT and directed RESEARCH channeled from Amaretha, my
> Amerindian spirit guide.
Amaretha? Oh come on, that was proved to be the side effect of too much
cheese before meditation. We, on the other hand, take out information from a
number of channels, indeed, one of our best guides gets sent via the post
once a month, dunno where it comes from but it says on the front that it is
the "Sky Guide". Now, I ask you, HOW can that be wrong?
> He says to ditch the living room curtains, by the way.
See, I told you Amaretha was bunk, I ditched them weeks ago when I pained
the glass white to keep the Alien meteor showers away.
Dave Pearson
Reply-To: davep...@hagbard.demon.co.uk
X-URL: http://www.acemake.com/hagbard/
X-Address-1: The above address will be valid until at least the end of August
X-Address-2: 1998. After that time, remove the .newsN
Message-Id: <slrn6qgn28.82...@hagbard.demon.co.uk>
X-Newsreader: slrn (0.9.5.1 UNIX)
On Fri, 10 Jul 1998 23:52:29 GMT, Love Lies Squealing <Lo...@corrode.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jul 1998 23:43:00 GMT, davep...@hagbard.demon.co.uk (Dave
> Pearson) wrote:
>
> >> hense bending space & time to travel the vast distances. So the smart
> >> alecs say proove it.
> >
> >There is nothing "smart alec" about it, it is a simple thing, some people
> >blindly believe and some people will question, probe and prod the idea.
>
> Actually I hold my hand up to the Smart Alec thing, as it's true. People
> want to be taken seriously, they at least have to nod in the direction of
> a 'proof' or have a decent bloody idea.
Even then, only those who refuse to check the basic facts would be lazy
enough to level the charge of "smart alec", IMHO.
Dave Pearson
> Hagbard. Hmm. Wouldn't have the second name 'Celine'?
Well, none of my machines have surnames, but one of the other machines is
called 'Eris'.
--
Take a look in Hagbard's World: | w3ng - The WWW Norton Guide reader.
http://www.acemake.com/hagbard/ | ng2html - The NG to HTML converter.
http://www.hagbard.demon.co.uk/ | eg - Norton Guide reader for Linux.
Fnord software, including.......| dgscan - DGROUP scanner for Clipper.
Dave Pearson
> On Sun, 12 Jul 1998 06:44:03 GMT, davep...@hagbard.demon.co.uk (Dave
> Pearson) wrote:
>
> >Ha! At least WE admit that our theory (nay, fact!) HAS a HOLE in it right
> >from the START.
>
Oh, that didn't come out too well did it?
> How do you expect the backflux of the transverse quark matrix to
> immenantize the eschaton through a hole? Next you'll be saying that the
> name of God is 'POLO', as enscribed upon the surface of such minty
> fripperies.
Oh, right, use lots of fancy words to try and confuse us, smart alec!
Anyway, just for that, we're going to cut off your supply of white holes
(who else did you think makes them?), *now* lets see who can make it to
Rigel before closing time.
> >We, on the other hand, take out information from a number of channels,
> >indeed, one of our best guides gets sent via the post once a month, dunno
> >where it comes from but it says on the front that it is the "Sky
> >Guide". Now, I ask you, HOW can that be wrong?
>
> Ha! You expect me to believe anecdotal evidence from one who _believes_
> that space-time can only be described in terms of a confectionary modelled
> on the bits that other manufacturers don't even consider?
Err, yes?
> And besides which, Polo's have a mildly laxative effect.
Exactly, how do you think black holes really evaporate? Hawking radiation?
Ha! Who the hell is going to believe that? Nope, dump a shed load of Polo's
in the bugger and it's soon sorted.
> >See, I told you Amaretha was bunk, I ditched them weeks ago when I pained
> >the glass white to keep the Alien meteor showers away.
>
> Amaretha was simply viewing a future living room.
I doubt it, we're about to move into our new underground HQ (safe from the
invasion of laggy band driven reptilian warships) in a secret location,
somewhere in Glendower Street, Merthyr Tydfil. See, no windows?
--
Take a look in Hagbard's World: | w3ng - The WWW Norton Guide reader.
http://www.acemake.com/hagbard/ | ng2html - The NG to HTML converter.
http://www.hagbard.demon.co.uk/ | eg - Norton Guide reader for Linux.
Free software, including........| dgscan - DGROUP scanner for Clipper.
Robert Snow
>
> On Fri, 10 Jul 1998 12:52:31 +0100, Robert Snow <rs...@NOSPAMfjcomp.com> wrote:
> > Dave Pearson wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 09 Jul 1998 18:04:57 +0100, Robert Snow <rs...@NOSPAMfjcomp.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > People say aliens can't visit earth as the distance is too vast. I argue
> > > > that an advanced race may have discovered how to manupulate gravity,
> > > ^^^
> > > May, exactly, *may*. It's a what if game
> >
> > May, as in if life on a planet is 1000's or millions of years ahead of us,
> > they may have discovered the secret's of gravity
>
> galaxy, or, indeed, in the universe as a whole (*someone* has the be the
> first), then aliens can't be visiting us because we're way ahead of them.
>
> Obviously, I can't prove the above, but that doesn't mean it isn't true, so
> that cancels out your idea and so the point is moot.
>
> Want to play some more "what if"?
>
> > > even 1000 years, proof that flying was possible was there in front of you,
> > > read my previous posts.
> >
> > So why soooo long before the plane/glider was invented??
>
> will allow us to act on them. Go read some books on black holes and the
> like, you'll find many ideas (with some basis in fact) that show that
> interstellar travel in sensible timeframes is plausible, unfortunately we
> don't have the technology to do it right at this moment.
>
> > [*HUGE* SNIP]
>
> Rob, is there any chance of you actually editing your replies? If you do it
> will save bandwidth, download times and it'll make your posts a lot easier
> to read.
As I suggested earlyier why all these different threads on the same
subject. Perhaps we could create a new one just for me. Something
like "Rob & his FTLT thoughts" - So until we have one thread I am not
wasting any more of my time repeating the same things over & over etc
Rob