Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
monolith
climber
Berkeley, CA
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2010 - 01:12pm PT
|
Really Klimmer, that could not be accomplished any other way than a link-up in orbit?
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 24, 2010 - 01:23pm PT
|
but, but, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov *denies* the Apollo 20 urban myth! I guess they got to him. Maybe mind-control beams or something.
MB,
Really, show me the money. Show me!
The author Luca S., of the book Apollo 20: The Disclosure who has followed this story and did the interviews since April of 2007, has said that indeed, Alexei does know that this story is out publically, and he has a "no comment" reaction. He doesn't denie it. He has a "No comment" response.
Astronaut John Young has said it is all fake or something to that effect, but when asked directly about the massive mothership, has a "No comment" response also.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2010 - 01:29pm PT
|
There were no undetectable Apollo launches.
|
|
monolith
climber
Berkeley, CA
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2010 - 01:31pm PT
|
Funny, the perps can lie, but when asked a direct question are compelled to say "no comment".
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2010 - 01:39pm PT
|
Again, the odds of any single alien civilization developing a means of time travel is infinitesimal.
Somebody thinks they know all there is to know about the universe!
Remember, it wasn't so long ago that people on this planet thought that the Sun revolved around the Earth.
Lo, but we are "modern" and know much more. In fact, we have discovered all there is to know about the physical universe.
What a joke.
healyje, are you familiar with Sagan's "Cosmic Calendar?" Carl Sagan, in his book Dragons of Eden, put forth the idea of a calendar whereby the entire cosmos, from the Big Bang until now, was plotted out on a calendar year. Interesting to look at. Not much happens here on earth for the first 11 1/2 months. In fact, in the cosmic calendar, Christ was born only a second or two before Midnight on December 31.
http://school.discoveryeducation.com/schooladventures/universe/itsawesome/cosmiccalendar/page2.html
My point? Well, suppose that a civilization began its development 1 day (in the cosmic calendar sense) before us. Now suppose, do you think they might know a bit more about the physical universe than, say, you?
Your statements are made with authority and are portrayed at fact. Although from what you know about the universe, you might as well be saying the Earth is flat and that the Sun rotates around us.
BTW, teleportation is, in a sense, time travel. Impossible, right?
Well, here on Earth, there is a glimmer of it:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1874760,00.html
Again, the odds of any single alien civilization developing a means of time travel is infinitesimal.
Perhaps you want to rephrase that?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2010 - 02:05pm PT
|
Bro, the quote is: "Well, suppose that a civilization began its development 1 day (in the cosmic calendar sense) before us."
You know, like on December 30th.
As for this statement:
"If you invoke the principle that 'anything is possible since we don't know everything about everything' then all arguments end with the same trivial conclusion."
I never said that anything is possible. What I am saying is that we are foolish if we believe we know all there is to know about the physical universe. Einstein, smart as he was, didn't get it all; his statement about nothing being able to travel faster than the speed of light (you know, E=MC2 and all) has been proven false. See the article about teleportation for an example.
|
|
Skeptimistic
Mountain climber
La Mancha
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2010 - 02:22pm PT
|
his statement about nothing being able to travel faster than the speed of light (you know, E=MC2 and all) has been proven false.
Well, for all practical purposes, TFL is impossible. Any vehicle attempting to do so would be impossible to control and the radiation produced would kill anyone in the ship. See Alcubierre Drive for more analysis
|
|
rectorsquid
climber
Lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2010 - 02:28pm PT
|
We're babies and keep thinking we know the whole story.
If every civilization and culture before us had decided to be more open-minded to the outrageous, we would still be back before the dark-ages in technology and thought. People would be researching every little stupid thing that came out of "klimmers'" mouths. People would have gotten nowhere without a very healthy acceptance that most people are stupid or crazy and that we should not take every nut-job crack-pot idea and run with it.
Sure, some more open-mindedness seems like it might help us. On the other hand, how do we decide to open our minds to the idea that the earth is round while not also opening our minds to the idea that there are faeries in the forest making the flowers bloom.
In fact, why does Klimmer think that there is an ark on the moon but not think that there are mermaids?
We may be babies but thinking that we don't know the whole story may do more harm than good in the long run.
Dave
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2010 - 02:37pm PT
|
Just so, I am not saying space ships have to travel at the speed of light, time travel, or go through "worm holes" to space travel.
I look at the different reports of UFOs, pictures and accounts from various folks, and have to believe that there is more to it than science fiction.
I cannot say that I know what is up, but I can certainly say that there are real, physical air crafts that go way beyond what we know of the physical universe. How they got here, who knows. But when hundreds of people, military pilots and such, claim to see things (and have pictures of such), then you have to begin to admit that there's more to it than we, in our lifetimes, might ever know.
Check out slides 9-12 on the following site:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/14/ufos-on-the-record-leslie_n_714733.html
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2010 - 02:55pm PT
|
Healyje's statement is still valid given what we currently know.
and
... [is] there is some tiny chance that any statement could be wrong because we don't know everything?
A tiny chance? Wow, you are certainly strong in your convictions that what you know is infallibly true!
Einstein never said that nothing can travel faster than light.
I'm just a layperson, but my understanding of E=MC^2 is that the mass of an object approaches infinity the closer it gets to the speed of light; and therefore, a particle could not go as fast as the speed of light because it's mass would become too large. From this we have the wave vs. particle dilemma.
And, from my tiny knowledge of the subject, it's my belief that current experiments in quantum physics demonstrate that particles instantaneously move from one spot to another, in essence traveling faster than the speed of light.
Regardless, using the claim that there is a "tiny" chance that things are not as we believe, can you explain what the Mexican Air Force captured on these films:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDOOZ_IPb6Y
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
A Token of My Extreme
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2010 - 03:09pm PT
|
Has anybody put this on here?
This is absolutely perfect for this thread.
"Cause like I seen pictures with J-lo and two massive geezers dong's there, like right 'ere, you know?"
Buzz Aldrin: Well I haven't seen those pictures.
Ali: Well then you should check it out......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNj1UOgacMA
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 24, 2010 - 03:20pm PT
|
In my position, I have had the great privilege of talking to many of the important figures from this era. When I asked Neil Armstrong about this in 1989 at the National Academy of the Sciences celebration of the 20th anniversary of the moon landing he shook his head, rolled his eyes and said the dilema he faced was whether to draw even more attention to the ridiculous claims by repeatedly publicly denying them or to just assume that people were not that gullible and the silly stories would fade away. He also said that the sorts of people who have a need to believe in that sort of stuff will use whatever he says to bolster their case so it is usually best to simply say "no comment" while realizing even that will be mis-used.
I was also a member of the visiting committee that evaluated the Soviet 6-meter telescope scientific productivity in 1994. Leonov was attended the dinner for the review committee on the last evening and told many interesting and amusing stories. When someone asked about the Apollo 20 stories he dismissed the topic with a wave of his hand and an oath (at least it had that feel) in Russian.
Dr. Michael Bolte, PhD, Astrophysicist, NASA Hubble Fellow
Did you believe those stories? I completely made them up!
PhD Bolte,
Nice story. You wouldn't have known to ask Alexei about Apollo 20, because the story didn't publically break until April, 2007. :-)
Now, I know you are a well respected PhD. I've looked you up. I do appreciate your input. I respect your input. I appreciate everyone's input when it is well meaning (no personal attacks etc.)
Yes, I know people lie and make-up stuff for whatever wrong reasons. Me I try not to ever do that. I wrestle with these things because I really truly want to know. Don't we all want to know? Can't we have meaningful discussions without the constant ad hominem attacks and ridicule? Too much evidence is in existance now and too many people have come forward with what they know.
Like I said, too many NASA officials, NASA astronauts, NASA "Moonwalkers", Military officers, and enlisted men (and women)have come forward at the risk of public ridicule and said UFOs are a real phenomenon, and ET is here.
Now, I know not all aspects of the Apollo 19 and 20 story are true. I know that. But some are. Some of it rings true. Who is capable of faking all of this evidence and who has the means, motive, and opportunity to do so? Just for a internet Youtube or Revver joke? We are talking about an incredibly expensive block-buster hoax.
There are only so many possibilities:
A. It is all true.
B. Parts of it are true and parts of it are false.
C. It is all an elaborate hoax. None of it is true.
I'm going with B.
Now who could pull-off this disclosure of part truth and part hoax? We are talking big budget, lots of time, access to props only the government would have, skilled camera work, elaborate large scale models, the list goes on and on, actors, lots of people involved, skilled artists, on and on and on.
Either the Hollywood studio that pulled this massive hoax off for 3.5 years now, has done this for a massive under the radar ad campaign for the block-buster movie coming out soon or . . .
The USAF and other US government oganizations have done this. I think the USAF is disclosing in a small "d" kind of a way, and seeking cover so they can denie it. People get used to the idea and learn the truth of a massive Mothership on the farside of the Moon, and they don't have to suffer the out-fall. All they have to say is hog-wash and point to obvious hoaxing that we are figuring out.
Who can hoax on this grandscale? Who has the motive, means, and opportunity? USAF and those deep inside NASA. Part disclosure and part lie. They get it both ways. What a perfect cover.
|
|
gtowey
Sport climber
Sunnyvale, CA
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2010 - 03:21pm PT
|
"but I can certainly say that there are real, physical air crafts that go way beyond what we know of the physical universe. "
Huh? How can you say that? The only think you can say for sure is that there's some stuff that people may or may not have observed which they didn't know what it was. BFD!
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2010 - 03:26pm PT
|
I admit, my knowledge of physics is "tiny."
Mike: "mexican lights = gas flares + refraction/reflection effects + moving airplane
dancing lights in the dark are very hard to interpret."
Obviously you did not view the video. The are not "lights" at all. These are spheres that followed and surrounded the plane for about 10 minutes. Then they vanished. They were not in the visible spectrum.
So to say they were "dancing lights in the dark" shows you've made up your mind before looking at evidence.
And del cross, the thing about bigfoot...please take out the trash and bring your "debate" above the elementary school level. Thanks.
|
|
Hawkeye
climber
State of Mine
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2010 - 03:35pm PT
|
The USAF and other US government oganizations have done this. I think the USAF is disclosing in a small "d" kind of a way, and seeking cover so they can denie it. People get used to the idea and learn the truth of a massive Mothership on the farside of the Moon, and they don't have to suffer the out-fall. All they have to say is hog-wash and point to obvious hoaxing that we are figuring out.
klimmer, relax. go see a doctor and get some meds. and for god sakes don't keep firearms in your house...you need some serious help.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2010 - 03:37pm PT
|
"... there's some stuff that people may or may not have observed which they didn't know what it was."
Whoa boy, now there's a whopper!
"I didn't see anything, and I certainly don't know what it was!"
BTW, I can say that because I know the same way that you "know" anything.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2010 - 04:02pm PT
|
K-man, I'm in the computer biz and know about the entanglement experiments and the other various quantum computing work going on. Yeah, we can transport entangled information, but what they aren't saying is that to disassemble and reassemble any significant entity would require more processing power than exists in the universe - it's basically an infinite scaling requirement to do so.
And even if you can entangle significant amounts of information you still have cover the distance from point A to point B. Ain't going to happen. Even if there were a remote, glimmering possibility of it, the likely odds of a civilization being overtaken by a civilization-ending biological, geological, astronomical, or self-generated event before they could do so are immense if almost unthinkable.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!