Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Sunday, June 21, 2009

Every credible type of person on the planet has seen UFO's. The reports from Police, military, pilots. astronauts, and Presidents should be a hint. The govenment is keeping this information fromus. But I don't think it will go on much longer

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

Buffalo_Bob

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

You either believe him or you don't. You either believe the police or you don't. You either believe the astronauts or you don't. You either believe the military or you don't. You either believe the clergy or you don't. You either believe the pilots or you don't.

#1 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-06-21 09:09 PM | Reply | Flag: while spamming his own thread, da BoOb reveals himself to be a true conservative; All black or white, no gray.

Has to be true. Mr. Wolff was an Airman 2nd Class at the time. He would know if anyone would. No chance someone was goofing on him or he is lying. He says he would even testify to it under oath.

Zatoichi

How do you get a gray out of UFO's? Either they exist or they don't. It is one or the other. How can you get gray out of that? See if you can express a rational thought instead of a personal attack with evey post.

"How do you get a gray out of UFO's?"

Silk Hawaiian shirts, the louder the better. They're nuts for them.

All black or white, no gray.

No gray?

Begs to differ.

;>D

Be Well.

Moder8

He could be lying. The police could be lying. The astronauts could be lying. The military could be lying. The pilots could be lying. The Head of Project Blue Book believed also--but he could have been lyng too. All true

Somebody could have gone to a lot of trouble faking this. True enough

www.youtube.com

Is that you think? They are all liars and fakes?

Sorry Tater.

s179.photobucket.com

"Is that you think? They are all liars and fakes?"

#7 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-06-21 09:35 PM | Reply | Flag: Not at all; We all think you're more batshit crazy and pathetically stupid than Tadowe; Or Vermin.

Zatoichi

You seem to be the one posting batsht crazy posts. I see your inability to post without a personal attack remains in force. Run along littlemind. Talk to someone your equal--like Goatman. Maybe he will stop stalking me for a while.

They are all liars and fakes?

No. Just you, bOoB. Occam's razor

Liars and fakes everywhere are insulted.

Gee whiz Bob, Goat hasn't even shown up here and you're peeing in your hulu skirt.

Oops well heh spoke too soon.

BBob, either thousands of government officials and scientists from throughout the world are part of a mind boggling vast conspiracy, or else several dozen unconnected individuals have mistakenly created (either as a hoax or in good faith) a story which strikes at the heart of human imagination. Certainly, the latter seems far more likely.

DXlinger

You were saying.....

"peeing in your hulu skirt"

Seen Year One yet?

It's stupid, but it's worth it.

Bob, I already peed in mine.

Moder8

So say it. Say the police ar lyinjhg. Say the astronauts are lyuing. Say the pilots are lying. Say the military is lying. Say the video I posted is all photo-bullshit. Make a statement. Be definitive. Take a stand. Be a mensch.

There is no vast conspiracy necessary. Not that many people have seen UFOs. Their silence is to be expected.

#10 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-06-21 09:53 PM | Reply | Flag: Needs a lot of phenobarbital.

Zatoichi

Not that it is that difficult making a fool of you, but can you tell me a lie I have told on this thread? Anything? No? How bout that. I guess that makes you a fool doesn't it.

"Not that it is that difficult making a fool of you"

Funny flag; In a pathetic sort of way.

Funny flag; In a pathetic sort of way.

#22 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2009-06-21 10:09 PM | Reply | Flag

Said the Fool.

Zatoichi Goes to School

BBob, I believe the people claiming the UFOs are either lying or mistaken. (There I said it.) I think the film clips are either manufactured or else subject to innocent (non-alien intelligence) explanation. That is what I think.

Moder8

Fair enough. What would it take to convince you? Why do you think the astronauts were lying? Do you think they could be delusional?

#25 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-06-21 10:19 PM | Reply | Flag: batshit crazy but entertaining in a pitifully stupid sort of way

I don't have an answer for every question you could up with about this subject. I do believe some people are lying. Some are having a laugh at the expense of the gullible. Some are delusional. Some are sincere but misinterpreting the evidence. Etcetera.

To make a believer out of me would involve verifiable, reproducible scientific evidence being made public, and being confirmed by peer reviewed scientific research. Nothing fringe. Nothing subject to lies or human interpretation.

"To make a believer out of me would involve verifiable, reproducible scientific evidence being made public, and being confirmed by peer reviewed scientific research. Nothing fringe. Nothing subject to lies or human interpretation."

What are you saying, man...you don't believe the guy who also claims there are smokestacks in an atmosphere without oxygen?!?

Moder8

You didn't answer all the questions. Let's try theones you missed again.

Why do you think the astronauts were lying? Do you think they could be delusional?

These videos are from NASA---are they fringe?

The astronauts may be lying. They may be having a laugh at our expense. They may be a little nutso.

I am told by people who know more about these things than I do that the videos from NASA are apparently subject to interpretation and a variety of common photographic effects which create the appearance of something which is not really there or not being corrected captured on film.

*makes popcorn*

This has the markings of a legendary thread.

"This has the markings of a legendary thread."

Posted by Axiom


i179.photobucket.com

"i179.photobucket.com"

I can't tell if she's a natural brunette; all I can say is she definitely parts it in the middle.

You dirty old man. that has nothing to do with threads.

now if you pardon me, i'll be in my bunk!

What are you saying, man...you don't believe the guy who also claims there are smokestacks in an atmosphere without oxygen?!?

#28 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-06-21 10:34 PM | Reply | Flag:


I don't SAY it---I SHOW it. You don't need an atmosphere to have a smokestack. A smokestack is not living quarters--an tmosphere does not need to be maintained to eject refuse through a pipe. The living quarters would be undergound and have a very nice, necessary atmosphere.

You realise that a smokestack on the moon would function on the same lines as a submarine ejecting a torpedo don't you. Good atmosphre inside--no atmosphere outside. Can you understand that there would be a separate chamber for the ejecta? In fact the vacuum on the moon would expel the ejecta very fast if there were any gas involved, and the dispersal would be vast.

Smokestack on the Moon

I have the video. the whole sequence is about3 second. The smokestack action is less than a second. It was hidden for 40 years. That's some subtle trickery.

I'll really believe in aliens when she sits on my face and gets all nasty.

www.beertripper.com

This has the markings of a legendary thread.

Did someone say legendary thread?

Be Well.

It says Sgt Karl Wolf on the screen behind him.

He refers to himself as a airman 2nd class.

Airman is airman and sergeant is sergeant there is no distinction between the two that can cause confusion.

Besides ,his lip movement doesn't match the words he is speaking.


Bob the idiot has been had.

rwd

Bwa-ha-ha! Bob, oh, Bob

*gasping for breath*

hahaha

*wheezing*

*cough*
*cough*

hahah

oh, man. Sell me some of that stuff you're smoking!

PS kudos to rightwingdon, I agree completely with #38!

RWD

When he saw the photos, he was an airman second class. When he left the military he was a sergeant. Was that so tough to figure out? He says HE WAS ALSO AN AIRMAN SECOND CLASS--talking past tense--he didn't remain at that rank forever.

The lip synch looks fine to me--what specific part and time are you referring to?

I appreciate the discussion, but try adding little deeper thinking to your posts.

In addition--whether this guy was factual or not, you seem to ignore all the other points made on this thread--like why were the astronauts lyng--why would police lie--why would pilots lie--why would miliary lie? What about the other video posted.

You take one video---make up falsities about it, and dismiss all other evidence or input. Typical of the right wing, so you are well named.

da BoOb reveals himself to be a true conservative; All black or white, no gray.

#2 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2009-06-21 09:14 PM

Zat, you cant blame this on the toe conservatives. This nutbag is one of yours.

I disagree with BBob about whether the accounts are credible. But you guys dismiss what he is saying simply because he is the one saying it. Sounds kind of narrow minded...

PS kudos to rightwingdon, I agree completely with #38!

#39 | Posted by SamBarber at 2009-06-21 11:35 PM | Reply | Flag

Tell it to this guy.

www.youtube.com

or this guy

www.youtube.com

#1 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-06-21 09:09 PM | Reply | Flag: while spamming his own thread, da BoOb reveals himself to be a true conservative; All black or white, no gray.
#2 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2009-06-21 09:14 PM

I'll tell thee everything I can;
There's little to relate.
I saw an aged aged man,
A-sitting on agate.
"Who are you, aged man?" I said.
"And how is it you live?"
And his answer trickled through my head
Like water through a sieve.

He said, "I look for butterflies
That sleep among the wheat:
I make them into mutton-pies,
And sell them in the street.
I sell them unto men" he said,
"Who sail on stormy seas;
And that's the way I get my bread-
A trifle, if you please."

But I was thinking of a plan
To dye one's whiskers green,
And always use so large a fan
That they could not be seen.
So, having no reply to give
To what the old man said,
I cried, "Come, tell me how you live!"
And thumped him on the head.

His accents mild took up the tale:
He said, "I go my ways,
And when I find a mountain-rill,
I set it in a blaze;
And thence they make a stuff they call
Rowland's Macassar Oil-
Yet twopence-halfpenny is all
They give me for my toil."

But I was thinking of a way
To feed oneself on batter,
And so go on from day to day
Getting a little fatter.
I shook him well from side to side,
Until his face was blue:
"Come, tell me how you live," I cried,
"And what it is you do!"

He said: "I hunt for haddocks' eyes
Among the heather bright,
And work them into waistcoat-buttons
In the silent night.
And these I do not sell for gold
Or coin of silvery shine,
But for a copper halfpenny,
And that will purchase nine.

I sometimes dig for buttered rolls,
Or set limed twigs for crabs;
I sometimes search the grassy knolls
For wheels of Hansome-cabs.
And that's the way" (he gave a wink)
"By which I get my wealth-
And very gladly will I drink
Your Honour's noble health."

I heard him then, for I had just
Completed my design
To keep the Menai bridge from rust
By boiling it in wine.
I thanked him much for telling me
The way he got his wealth,
But chiefly for his wish that he
Might drink my noble health.

And now, if e'er by chance I put
My fingers into glue,
Or madly squeeze a right-hand foot
Into a left-hand shoe,
Or if I drop upon my toe
A very heavy weight,
I weep, for it reminds me so
Of that old man I used to know-
Whose look was mild, whose speech was slow,
Whose hair was whiter than the snow,
Whose face was very like a crow,
With eyes like cinders, all aglow,
Who seemed distracted with his woe,
Who rocked his body to and fro,
And muttered mumblingly and low,
As if his mouth were full of dough,
Who snorted like a buffalo-
That summer evening long ago

A-sitting on a gate.

BuffaloBob

I think you'll find this article and photos very interesting if you haven't already seen it. Your youtube video did not show the photos like this article does.

Karl Wolfe and Photos of Moon

There are a number of things we disagree on -- such as I firmly believe we landed on the Moon in 1969 and you don't.

However, I don't totally disregard the idea of some sort of lifeform on other planets.

What I don't understand is, if it's true and there are aliens (or other "beings") on other planets, then why does our government think we here on Earth couldn't handle that kind of news? Why do they think we would all run amok through the streets terrorized if the government admitted to it being true?

What would be the government's purpose in wanting to keep it quiet and make it appear anyone who thinks there might be life on Mars or ancient structures on the Moon are insane? I think in this day of high technology, etc. people are sophisticated enough to absorb such possibilities.

" We all think you're more batshit crazy and pathetically stupid than Tadowe; Or Vermin."

Zat is of course referring to all of his multiple personalities, and the turd in his pocket.

CalifChris

Just because I argue that certain photos were not taken on the moon, doesn't mean I don't think we went there. There is positive evidence both ways. We may have gone just like the government says and the world and I believed for years--or we may have gone to the moon, but not with our technology, meaning we may have had help getting there. Or we never went to the moon, and it was all a cover up for dispersing cash into other covert operations. I would say that it would be easier to come up with the technology to fool the tracking equipment of the sixties than to come up with the technology to go to the moon. In fact NASA bragged about a satellite that was designed to train ground personel just as if it were really going to the moon. It was destroyed before the first launch---or was it.

We just launched a satellite designed for future safety from radiation when we go back to the moon--why would we need that? We already know enough to go to the moon--if we had really gone.

Why will it take us until 2010 to return when we went 40 years ago?

Do you think you could handle the truth of extra terrestials? Knowing that your government is powerless against their tech? Knowing their race has superior knowledge to our own? Knowing that with their superior military might that they would be making rules as they see fit? Knowing God made another race superior to us, and made them long before us? What if they worshipped another God? What if they worshipped no God?

Some people would freak. I wouldn't want to be around any large crowds.

BTW Bob,
Don't get Zat's dander up! He'll go into spelling police mode, and start correcting your spelling!

#48 | Posted by JeffnDenmark at 2009-06-22 05:38 AM | Reply | Flag

At least his post would have a point for once.

I disagree with BBob about whether the accounts are credible. But you guys dismiss what he is saying simply because he is the one saying it. Sounds kind of narrow minded...

It works the same for Drunk Sarvis and several others where JeffnDenmark is concerned. I suppose what is good for the goose and all.

#48 | Posted by JeffnDenmark at 2009-06-22 05:38 AM | Reply | Flag: Takes Alex Jones seriously.

#47 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-06-22 05:30 AM | Reply | Flag: Takes George Noorey seriously.

"Knowing God made a race superior to us..."

If the aliens are already here, Bob, then we know at least this about them---They have trouble piloting flying saucers in lightning storms. See Roswell.

This is your bias: better technology makes better "people".

Since EVERYTHING important about these visiting aliens remains unknown to us, I posit this: they are timid assholes that envy everything about us, starting with our relationship to God.

Some people would freak. I wouldn't want to be around any large crowds.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob


boob is suggesting people would "freak".

He has been freaked about shit like this for GOD knows how long.

LOL

"Is that you think? They are all liars and fakes?"

I know you like to add little "rules" to every discussion that don't really make sense. In this case, it is that either these people saw aliens or they are liars.

But in real life, people are sometimes just wrong. They aren't lying. They saw something. They could be just wrong about what it is and when dealing with the unknown sometimes memories get embelished unintentionally.

Also sometimes people just believe things that aren't true - like false "memories" brought back via hypnosis. They aren't lying if they believe what they are saying but the events they described are fictitious.

You can't discuss this rationally without being open to the possibility that UFO witnesses saw something and are just wrong about what they saw.

I wonder if there were car antennas attached to the smokestacks on this alien base.

I think BOOB is like Joe Rogan, and has a tank and does DMT. During BOob's DMT trips, he frequently imagines he is married to an alien. Furthermore, despite the fact the closest system is what 250 MILLION light years away, and traveling at the speed of light takes thousands of life times to get there, Boob thinks Aliens fold space to get here.

Boob wants one day to go doggie style with a Klingon, because he saw that on a star trek episode and during his DMT trips imagined he was Capt Kirk.

Kuma

ROLFMAO!!!! BoOB once again makes Jeffin look sane (and that ain't easy).

Given that: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

If we encountered an alien civilization that was technologically superior to us, it might be impossible (or take us a an extremely long time) to verify whatever "superior" scientific information they hand us as truthful.

(How could a remote South American tribe, for example, be able to verify our statements concerning atomic structures?)

In regard to other kinds of knowledge that are not dependent on scientific methods--epistemological, ethical, aesthetic, theological--we would have to hear their arguments and evaluate them like any other argument. Different is not necessarily superior or advanced.

Cheers

"The smokestack action is less than a second. "

Why would the "smoke" from the "smokestack" drift "to the right" on an airless moon? Why eject "smoke" sideways from a "smokestack" that is purported to be "thousands of feet tall"?

Why will it take us until 2010 to return when we went 40 years ago?

#47 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

Got any heavy lift capability along the lines of a Saturn V or Russian sitting down in your basement or in backyard that NASA can borrow?

No?

There's your answer then.

Knowing that with their superior military might that they would be making rules as they see fit?

#47 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

How about if their "superior military might" consists of little more than throwing rocks at us?

Oh, one other thing,

Bob, I do not dismiss the UFO claims of scientists, astronauts, etc. out of hand. I, like most people, have a curious but extremely skeptical interest in the paranormal and the bizarre. The problem is that the very few interesting claims are surrounded by an overwhelming spectacle of hoaxers, fools, liars, etc.

This person on the video makes an interesting claim. It is food for thought for those interested in UFO phenomena, but one cannot accept it as absolute truth merely because of a uniform, a clean cut look, a straight delivery and a past association with NASA.

Former Apollo Astronaut James Irwin said that his experiences in space made him feel the presence of God. He became a devout Christian minister and later searched Mt. Ararat for Noah's Ark!

Apollo astronaut Edgar Mitchell makes claims to aliens on the moon.

I am willing to bet that you would be easily dismissive of Irwin's claims, despite his training and education, experience and respectability, but that you would accept the claims of Mitchell precisely because of his education, experience and respectability.

In a world filled with people making claims--political, spiritual, scientific, legal, ethical and artistic--it is difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff.


Cheers

First of all UFO's exist without question! The main question then to be proven is "Are UFO's of extraterrestrial origin?" According to a large number of people who state that they are first hand viewers of the craft vers uncounted numbers of people without any first hand knoledge of UFO's, "Aliens exist or don't. When looked at this way, it makes on wonder.

"Saturn V or Russian"

Russian Energia, that is.

The second to the last word in my previous post #44 should read "one". As per usual, My bad.

In a world filled with people making claims--political, spiritual, scientific, legal, ethical and artistic--it is difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff.


#63 | Posted by Grendel

No it's not. Where are the clear, sharp pictures and/or video that conclusively show spacecraft, lifeforms, cities, etc., not of Earth origin? There are millions and millions of cameras and video recorders out there, both on Earth and in orbit around the Earth and the Moon (and the rest of the planets for that matter). Not a single person or billion dollar machine is capable of getting a single clear pic or vid? Nothing but blurry fuzzy streaky inconclusive pics and vids of supposed ET craft or ET itself? Point out one single, credible, indisputable piece of evidence. Otherwise it's all talk-talk and blah-blah. Sad people looking for attention. Stories. Legends. Myths. Fairy tales. Hoaxes (also termed Hoaglands). Not a shred of tangible evidence. All speculation.

I want to believe.

I can't. Yet...

#32 | Posted by Zatoichi

She your new Airplane Mechanic Zat?

Zot,

My statement was more about the difficulty of accepting the word of all kinds of authorities.

In regard to UFO photo/videos, technology has made cameras ubiquitous but it has also made it easier to fake footage.

Consider the following video:

www.youtube.com

www.youtube.com


For the average person it will require yet another authority figure to put one's faith in to tell whether the image is genuine or a computer fake.

Cheers

"Former Apollo Astronaut James Irwin said that his experiences in space made him feel the presence of God. He became a devout Christian minister and later searched Mt. Ararat for Noah's Ark! "

"Apollo astronaut Edgar Mitchell makes claims to aliens on the moon"

Actually Mitchell doesn't say that at all, he says there were no aliens or bases on the moon(he was there), but that through his opening of an institute of learning and upon speaking to thousands of government and military personnel he believes aliens exist. Unlike doing something so overwhelming emotionally and saying it was god.......not a good comparison at all.....

LM

In regard to UFO photo/videos, technology has made cameras ubiquitous but it has also made it easier to fake footage.


#69 | Posted by Grendel

You be correct. I had seen he Haiti vid (but not the Paris). Pretty kewl.

Guess I'll have to count on Fox to give me the truth when it happens...

Actually Mitchell doesn't say that at all, he says there were no aliens or bases on the moon(he was there), but that through his opening of an institute of learning and upon speaking to thousands of government and military personnel he believes aliens exist. Unlike doing something so overwhelming emotionally and saying it was god.......not a good comparison at all.....

No doubt you are correct that. I spoke about Mitchell from memory.

My point is that both make amazing claims and that the acceptance of them is either reinforced through their credentials or dismissed despite them.

With this in mind it becomes clear that our predisposed attitudes or willingness to want to believe a claim is actually more important than the credentials or evidence supplied.

In this instance, when we want to believe a claim, we will admit credentials for support and and when we don't want to accept it we will dismiss essentially the same credentials.

Cheers

I think BOOB is like Joe Rogan, and has a tank and does DMT. During BOob's DMT trips, he frequently imagines he is married to an alien. Furthermore, despite the fact the closest system is what 250 MILLION light years away, and traveling at the speed of light takes thousands of life times to get there, Boob thinks Aliens fold space to get here.

Uh.

Joe Rogan's explanation of Alien encounters and abductions is that the brain produces DMT during heavy REM sleep and causes the visions.

In other words. "Boob" isn't like Joe Rogan at all.

Of course UFO's exist. By definition any object flying object that you can't not identify is an Unidentified Flying Object. Now of course the question is are they actually alien in origin? Most likely not. Is the government hiding something from us? Yes but mostly likely it's just experimental test aircraft that they don't want to be public knowledge.

If you're ever in Dayton, Ohio head over to Wright Patterson Air Force Base and check out the National Museum of the USAF and check out the section on experimental aircraft. They have some crazy looking planes and those are the ones that have been approved for public display.

You guys might find this exchange interesting - the ground voice being disagreed with by an astronaut. The action really begins at 5:00 on the nose.. at 7 it's become fun and I see the exchange more in the form of an scientific observation-off more than a pissing contest. I'm beginning to admire this crazy 'naut.
[
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=HKvmOYhdaQw&NR=1
]

Acknowledging the limited amount of daylight and clearly taking into account the enormous scientific value this presents, why would anyone have to request permission to deviate from "OBSS inspection" to use their cameras to photograph the interesting objects? "We'll get back to ya!"

You can't discuss this rationally without being open to the possibility that UFO witnesses saw something and are just wrong about what they saw.

#55 | Posted by sully at 2009-06-22 10:44 AM | Reply | Flag

True, but you can't discuss this rationally without being open to the possibility that some UFO witnesses saw something and reported accurately on what they saw.

Even a pilot may make a mistake---but can hundred of pilots over the years make the same type of mistake? Even an astronaut can make a mistake--but are the astronauts both so incompetent that they can't tell a plane from a UFO? Same with police and every other report. The man who ran Project Blue Book was a skeptic and later changed his mind.

Your point seems to rest on people not being able to tell what they are looking at. My point is that I don't think they are ALL mistaken. I think a pilot can tell a plane when they see one.

I think a pilot can tell a plane when they see one.

#76 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob


Not if it is an experimental aircraft with which he is unfamilar. I bet a lot of pilots would have sworn the B-2 was an alien aircraft until it was declassified.

Everything you know is wrong!

www.youtube.com

Why would the "smoke" from the "smokestack" drift "to the right" on an airless moon? Why eject "smoke" sideways from a "smokestack" that is purported to be "thousands of feet tall"?

#60 | Posted by ZOT at 2009-06-22 11:32 AM | Reply | Flag

Ejected was the wrong choice of words. Whatever came out of the smokestack didn't have to be ejected---if there was a gas involved, and it looks like it was, then the atmosphere would have sucked it our of the smokestack and the dispersal would have been very very fast---no drifting involved. That's just what is shown.

If the smokestack was 75 miles away, it must have been huge in order to be seen. By the same token, whatever came out must have been massive in volume since it looks larger than the smokestack. As stated, I bought the DVD "To the Moon" that this sequence is taken from, and the huge cloud dissipates in less than a second--no drifting at all. This seems to lend credence that it happened in the vacuum of space for the dispersal to happen so quickly and so completely.

In addition, the gas cloud seems to contain very fine dark particles. The area surrounding the smokestack does not seem to show a layer of darker material anywhere near it. Either the smokestack is relatively new, or it ejects material very very rarely.

I call it a smokestack because that's what the guy in the video says it looks like--and he's right. What would you call it?

Not if it is an experimental aircraft with which he is unfamilar. I bet a lot of pilots would have sworn the B-2 was an alien aircraft until it was declassified.

#77 | Posted by astrobuckeye at 2009-06-22 03:51 PM | Reply | Flag


You talk of one pilot and use that logic to dismiss the reports of all pilots. See the flaw in your logic?

Do you think it possible that every pilot making a UFO report was unable to tell the difference between a plane and a cloud, or Venus? Do you think that all of their reports of accelerated speed and manueverability of the UFOs was miscalculation? A B-2 isn't noiseless, doesn't fly close to the ground, and can't make 90 degree turns at supersoinc speeds. These things have been reported by pilots and other reputable people. Were they all wrong? If these are experimental aircraft, would we be flying them over most of the countries of the world---or do most of the countries of the world have these types of aircraft and just don't tell their citizens about them. I think I could have known the B2 was a plane, and would have doubted it was a UFO, simply because a B2 can only do what other planes can do except when it comes to radar. It isn't that much different than planes today. It isn't as different as a jet to a prop plane, and when pilots first saw jets, they didn't think they were UFOs.

One pilot--sure--maybe he made a mistake. But LOTS of pilots--telling essentially the same story? Who can you believe. Your logic, or their reports.

if there was a gas involved, and it looks like it was, then the atmosphere would have sucked it our of the smokestack

#79 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

You do realize that the moon isn't massive enough to maintain an atmosphere, right? So if any sort suspended fluid were ejected from the moon's surface it would either shoot into space if it wer travelling in speeds excess of the escape velocity or just kind of hang around the surface, in a big growing lump.

But LOTS of pilots--telling essentially the same story?

There are a lot of things that can be mis-interpreted in a lot of ways.

Did you know that there was a time when there were a lot of people who through their observations declared the earth was flat? Really. It's the truth.

BoOb hasn't learned a thing. When the bigfoot thread was ongoing he was sure it was legit because a cop and a corrections officer were involved.
BoBob wants desperately to believe in authority, until of course the authority disagrees with his crazy fucking conspiracy theories.

Long story short, BoOb is here for one purpose, and one purpose only, our amusement.

So if any sort suspended fluid were ejected from the moon's surface it would either shoot into space if it wer travelling in speeds excess of the escape velocity or just kind of hang around the surface, in a big growing lump.

I've pointed this out to da bOoB before, but it is one of the many things he tries hard to ignore and will never address since it doesn't allow his model to work.

noiseless, doesn't fly close to the ground, and can't make 90 degree turns at supersoinc speeds
#80 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

First of all anything flying out supersonic speeds will make noise of some sort, it is possible to shape the shock wave to minimize the noise but it's still going to make noise. Secondly any plane that flies is capable of making a 90 degree turn. And a plane that flies at supersonic speeds are capable of turning at supersonic speeds. Finally pilots fly airplanes, they don't design them. Unless they have a degree in Aeronautical Engineering they have a minimal idea of what a flying machine is capable of. They know plenty about flying but very little about flight design. Unless of course they're a test pilot then they might of picked up slightly more than some schmuck flying around in a Cessna like he's a badass. Pilots are trained to be very good at reading sensors and responding to what the sensors tell them. Being a pilot doesn't make you an expert in flight design.

Did you know that there was a time when there were a lot of people who through their observations declared the earth was flat? Really. It's the truth.

Posted by goatman


Were those the same people who saw GWB fuck an orphan he had flown in from an orphanage in Nebraska? I believe Cheney was there drinking scotch and watching.

Really. they even captured the event by writing it down and saying it on the internet.

but didn't cheney shoot a lawyer & get away with it?

How about if their "superior military might" consists of little more than throwing rocks at us?

#62 | Posted by ZOT

Throwing rocks at us by hand is one thing but dropping them onto the planet is another. We still don't have the ability to stop an asteroid even if we knew it was coming years in advance.

Anyone who believes that they are not aliens out there just can't do the numbers.

Drakes Equation

Remember this equation gives from 1-5000 intelligent civilizations in just our galaxy. There must be billions in the entire universe.

However, just because there are aliens "out there" doesn't mean they are here on Earth. As of yet no proof exists of any life forms other than that of Planet Earth.

However, it is interesting that there is more reliable proof and eye witness testimonies of "UFO" activity than that of a God or a Jesus and look how many folks "believe" they exist.

If the aliens are already here, Bob, then we know at least this about them---They have trouble piloting flying saucers in lightning storms. See Roswell.

Shit happens--even to aliens. I wonder what their words or phrase for that would be. I think we'll be finding out soon.

This is your bias: better technology makes better "people".

No, that is your strawman assumption. Better tech makes stronger military--See the American Indian history. The invaders had better tech, but to me, the Indians were the better people by far. Their religion was better--not many religious wars among the various Indian nations.

Since EVERYTHING important about these visiting aliens remains unknown to us, I posit this: they are timid assholes that envy everything about us, starting with our relationship to God.

Possible, but doubtful. You don't reach space travel by being timid assholes. If they are there, they are most likely scientists--if they were military we would have known it by now. If they are scientists, they probably have rules about interference, and are studying our civilization.

The book much the bible is edited from says that man was made in their image and their likeness. Some of them may be the gods that created us

#53 | Posted by Zed at 2009-06-22 09:04 AM | Reply | Flag

Long story short, BoOb is here for one purpose, and one purpose only, our amusement.

#83 | Posted by 101Chairborne

hmmm and here I thought amusing the readers of DR was YOUR job!

Drakes Equation


Remember this equation gives from 1-5000 intelligent civilizations in just our galaxy. There must be billions in the entire universe.

#88 | Posted by donnerboy

Citing Drake's Equation are you serious? I believe that intelligent life is out there but Drake's Equation is bullshit. I'll make a random equation and then randomly define all the variables and then it will spit out results and I'll pretend they're accurate. Come on, let's try to be slightly scientific.

#2 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2009-06-21 09:14 PM

#1 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-06-21 09:09 PM | Reply | Flag: while spamming his own thread, da BoOb reveals himself to be a true conservative; All black or white, no gray. (Bolding added.)_

Say Zat, fair is fair. I always had thought that you occasionally exhibited a scintilla of integrity. But ... egads, "'sus, Marie, Josep," ot whatever. Just accept it. Bob is one of yours. Bob is not a conservative. Ask him. He'll tell you. Calling Bob a conservative is the equivalent of hurling expletives at him.

Watch out, or he'll make a voodoo doll of you and impale it on a car antenna.


but didn't cheney shoot a lawyer & get away with it?

#87 | Posted by Bani

yes.

so?

You do realize that the moon isn't massive enough to maintain an atmosphere, right?

Yes--you are correct.

So if any sort suspended fluid were ejected from the moon's surface it would either shoot into space if it wer travelling in speeds excess of the escape velocity or just kind of hang around the surface, in a big growing lump.

I don't know how the stuff coming out of the smokestack became fluid--I assumed it was suspended solid particles in a gas--but let's assume it is fluids for a second. If it was water, or contained any water, the water would boil off quickly and disperse, leaving the solids remaining to continue in the direction they were going, affected by gravity. What kind of fluid were you talking about?

The vacuum of space would pull it in all directions--not just up---some would be pulled straight down.

#81 | Posted by astrobuckeye at 2009-06-22 04:29 PM | Reply | Flag

The Drake equation is valid I believe, but it is absurd to pretend we know what values to plug into the variables. We are only beginning to understand extra-solar planets, much less the rest of the equation.

A naked woman in Cheney's sunglasses? or alien? lol

www.azcentral.com

Got any heavy lift capability along the lines of a Saturn V or Russian sitting down in your basement or in backyard that NASA can borrow?

No?

There's your answer then.

#61 | Posted by ZOT at 2009-06-22 11:37 AM | Reply | Flag

They didn't have those things in 1961 either. hey didn't even have the history of having such thing in 1961. They didn't have computers in 1961. They didn't have 2009 tech in 1961. Yet it will take us longer to go back now than it did the first time---and you think that is logical.

I don't know how the stuff coming out of the smokestack became fluid--I assumed it was suspended solid particles in a gas--but let's assume it is fluids for a second.

#94 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

I'm sorry to have confused you but anyone with knowledge of fluid mechanics knows that a gas is simply a compressible fluid. So since whatever is supposedly coming out of the surface of the moon is an unknown, but definitely not a solid, it is assumedly a fluid with particulate suspended in it.

The vacuum of space would not pull on the fluid at all. The only forces acting on it would be the frictional forces of the gas on itself and the gravity of the moon. The gravity of the moon would either been enough to pull it down in which case it would likely look like a fountain. If the gravity of the moon was not enough to pull it down then it would continue to travel through space indefinitely, that is until it is either dispersed by solar winds or affected by some other gravitational force.

The Drake equation is valid I believe, but it is absurd to pretend we know what values to plug into the variables. We are only beginning to understand extra-solar planets, much less the rest of the equation.

The Drake equation is valid I believe, but it is absurd to pretend we know what values to plug into the variables. We are only beginning to understand extra-solar planets, much less the rest of the equation.

The vacuum of space would pull it in all directions--not just up

Gas, yes. Particulate matter (smoke), no

The vacuum of space would not pull on the fluid at all.

#98 | Posted by astrobuckeye at 2009-06-22 04:59 PM | Reply | Flag

If you are talking gas--say gas. If you are talking fluid--say fluid. There is a reason why there are different words for different things. If you consider a gas to be a compressable fluid, fine--however, describe it as to which state it is in at the time--gaseous or fluid state.

A vaccuum acts dramatically on a gas. If you could take a balloon instantly from the surface of the Earth to the surface of the moon, the balloon would pop, and the gas would be disperse dramatically. That you say a vacuum would have no effect on the gas is amazing.

A fluid would react differently, depending on its composition. What kind of fluid are you talking about? A vacuum has a dramatic effect on water.

Any particulate matter would be propelled in the direction its nearest gas molecules went. Much like a piece of straw in a hurricane. Where the air goes, the straw goes. The air affects the straw--the gas affects the particulate matter.


#100 | Posted by goatman


not so absurd. If the numbers are more than one then it is significant. There is the little problem in that the only experience with life in this galaxy or even universe is available from one planet which skews the results. If that number were to ever rise to two then well the numbers may become "astronomical".


I'll make a random equation and then randomly define all the variables

It is not a "random" equation and the variables are not random. All we are waiting for is solid evidence of any of the variables such as planets that can support life or life arising independently of Earth.

As soon as we can plug in those variables then the results will be valid. Right now we can only speculate based on the probabilities.

Are you saying that probabilities and statistics are not a valid theories?

I thought I saw a graviton
But then I couldn't find it.
So I'm trying very hard
To find out whats behind it.

Aha. It's Lost in Space.
Professor Robinson knows the truth.

You folks who are ridiculing Bob, don't know that he's entangled with an alien being. You folks are not giving his information the proper spin or color.

Some folks experience synesthesia. Bob isn't limited the way you folks are. He possesses the capacity to perceive and process what you can't. It must indeed be difficult for someone endowed with his faculties to interact with humans, who can't even conceive of what Bob experiences. He is a true post-human.

"You don't reach space travel by being timid assholes...."

Since I know as much about this subject as you do, or anyone does, I'll claim otherwise.

Zed

You may be correct, but if I could get odds and an outcome, I'd bet the other way.

I think it would be worthwhile for you to find out about Nick Cook. The idea an anti-gravity drive is already developed, by us, is fascinating.

Even more fascinating is the necessary idea out government is hiding this news even from NASA, to maintain a strategic edge for the longest period of time.

NASA, which in theory is stuck going back to the Moon using chemical engines when the technology exists to do it tommorrow at a fraction of the cost.


What are you saying, man...you don't believe the guy who also claims there are smokestacks in an atmosphere without oxygen?!?


#28 | Posted by Danforth


You just couldn't help yourself, could you? You just had to bring this up...;o)

As for UFO's--hubby swears he saw the Dexter, MI sightings.

Zed

I used to think anti Gravity was what propelled UFOs if they were real, but it has recently been pointed out that gravity is not a wave or a particle--it is an instantaneous event.

Light takes about 8 minutes to get here from the sun. When you look at the sun, you are actually seeing it where it was 8 minutes ago---but the Earth reacts to the gravitational pull of the sun as to where it actually is located in space--it doesn't orbit around a point that is 8 minutes behind the sun. So the gravitational force from the sun is instantaneous, but light takes 8 minutes for its effect to reach us. Since nothing can travel faster than light, gravity can't be a particle or wave. Gravity is an instantaneous universal event.

If there are alien ships visiting our planet I'm thinking they may have discovered dark energy--or dark matter. They may even have found an efficient way to make anti-matter.

"but it has recently been pointed out that gravity is not a wave or a particle--it is an instantaneous event"

#112 | Posted by Barfalo Batshit at 2009-06-22 06:54 PM | Reply | Flag: bullshit

BuffaloBob

Read your post. This part you wrote does give one pause as to how the majority of us "Earthlings" might react.

...Do you think you could handle the truth of extra terrestials? Knowing that your government is powerless against their tech? Knowing their race has superior knowledge to our own? Knowing that with their superior military might that they would be making rules as they see fit? Knowing God made another race superior to us, and made them long before us? What if they worshipped another God? What if they worshipped no God?
...

#47 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-06-22 05:30 AM



You just couldn't help yourself, could you? You just had to bring this up...;o)

#110 | Posted by MURPHY at 2009-06-22 06:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

You see, one of your many problems is you only read what you want to read. You should investigate further, look at both sides, then make a valued judgement.

#35 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-06-21 10:49 PM | Reply | Flag

Zatoichi

Your post as usual, is incorrect.

The gravity effect from the sun is instantaneous. This is how we know how to orbit other planets with space craft. The effects of gravity are known as to how it effects orbiting bodies. The effect is instantaneous. No wave or particle can go from the Sun to Pluto instantaneously.

But your rebuttals are improving--at least you spelled it right this time. You are to be commended for your efforts.

The gravity effect from the sun is instantaneous.

Wrong, bOoB. If the sun were to somehow instantly disappear, the earth would continue its orbit for another 8 or so minutes before it felt the effect.

In Newtonian physics instantaneous gravity was assumed. Einstein proved Newton wrong. If gravity was instanteous as you say, information could be sent at faster than the speed of light.

Sorry, bOoB. Break out the physics books and learn something about reality and leave your fantasy world of instanteous gravity behind.

The speed of gravity has been measured for the first time. The landmark experiment shows that it travels at the speed of light, meaning that Einstein's general theory of relativity has passed another test with flying colours.

Isaac Newton thought the influence of gravity was instantaneous, but Einstein assumed it travelled at the speed of light and built this into his 1915 general theory of relativity.

www.newscientist.com

No wonder you believe in smokestacks on the moon and all that other BS. You don't even understand basic physics! LOL Grow a brain, bOoB

Zatoichi

I understand you know a big person who can explain this to you, and what the big words mean.

Fact: Gravity Has No Aberration

BBob, let this one go. Gravity is not instantaneous. Sorry. The science on this point is too well settled. (Don't choose this issue as a battleground.)

LOL. Stick to real scientific sites for your links, not these metaphysical type of sites with theories on unproven data. There is not one experiment noted in the site you link to -- not sites that call themself "Innovative astronomy research". Innovation is fine if you have facts, data, and resultf of valid experiments to back up the wild claims.

Idiot.

In September 2002, Sergei Kopeikin and Edward Fomalont announced that they had made an indirect measurement of the speed of gravity, using their data from VLBI measurement of the retarded position of Jupiter on its orbit during Jupiter's transit across the line-of-sight of the bright radio source quasar QSO J0842+1835. Kopeikin and Fomalont concluded that the speed of gravity is between 0.8 and 1.2 times the speed of light, which would be fully consistent with the theoretical prediction of general relativity that the speed of gravity is exactly the same as the speed of light.

en.wikipedia.org

Notice the inclusion of experimental data, bOoB? LOL

If you want, I'll direct you to a few dozen more links that prove what an idiot you are. That entire wiki link has several more sets of data from experiments that support the speed of gravity.

Leave the 18th century behind and join us in the 21st, OK? On second thought you are more amusing living in the past. Stay there and make us laugh. LOL

Moder8

You are mistaken. Here is another source and explanation.

The proof that faster-than-light (FTL) propagation is not allowed by nature is simple. Special relativity (SR) forbids it because, in that theory, time slows and approaches a cessation of flow for any material entity approaching the speed of light. So no matter how much energy is brought to bear, the entity cannot be propelled all the way to, much less beyond, the point where time ceases. The entity's inertia simply increases towards infinity as the speed barrier is approached.[*] But most importantly, relativists are confident that SR is a valid theory because it has passed eleven independent experiments confirming most of its features and predictions. Moreover, the very successful theory of general relativity (GR) is based on SR, and has likewise passed several major experimental tests. So SR is confirmed by observations and forbids FTL propagation and travel.

As solid as this reasoning appears to be, it has a logical flaw because another theory exists about which the same supporting claims can be made, but which has no universal speed limit.

www.metaresearch.org

bOoB, you yourself admitted upthread (post 112) that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. If gravity was instantaneous, information could be sent faster than light. If the sun disappeared and the earth immediately felt it, that would happen faster than the speed of light. How do you resolve this conflict you yourself created?

Oh yea, like I said -- how about some links that have results from experiments. There is no such data in you #122. Just speculation from a junk science site. Stick to real science sites if you want to be taken seriously.

IN the meantime, here is another site with scientific data and results of actual experiments. Try using this sort of stuff, OK? Speculation is nice, but in the end, it is the results of experiments that count:

www.csa.com

You are so ignorant, bOoB. You'd be wise to take M8's advice and choose another battle. You have never been more wrong in your life in this one.

Loser

Oh yea, bOoB -- if gravity was instanteous, the abberation that has been observed in the orbit of Mercury (and more recently in the more outer planets as observation techniques and instruments are refined) for hundreds of years would not exist.

Just to let you know.

In the simple newtonian model, gravity propagates instantaneously: the force exerted by a massive object points directly toward that object's present position. For example, even though the Sun is 500 light seconds from the Earth, newtonian gravity describes a force on Earth directed towards the Sun's position "now," not its position 500 seconds ago. Putting a "light travel delay" (technically called "retardation") into newtonian gravity would make orbits unstable, leading to predictions that clearly contradict Solar System observations.

In general relativity, on the other hand, gravity propagates at the speed of light; that is, the motion of a massive object creates a distortion in the curvature of spacetime that moves outward at light speed. This might seem to contradict the Solar System observations described above, but remember that general relativity is conceptually very different from newtonian gravity, so a direct comparison is not so simple.

math.ucr.edu

bOoB, you yourself admitted upthread (post 112) that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. If gravity was instantaneous, information could be sent faster than light. If the sun disappeared and the earth immediately felt it, that would happen faster than the speed of light. How do you resolve this conflict you yourself created?

Well? How do you explain this self-imosed dilemma, bOoB

Sorry for the nested blockquotes above

bOoB, you yourself admitted upthread (post 112) that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. If gravity was instantaneous, information could be sent faster than light. If the sun disappeared and the earth immediately felt it, that would happen faster than the speed of light. How do you resolve this conflict you yourself created?

Well? How do you explain this self-imosed dilemma, bOoB

#126 | Posted by goatman

By the way, the answer to the question you asked earlier is 6/22/09.

The famous Jupiter/quasar experiment (if you are interested in experimental data. If you wish to stick to junk metaphysical science with no basis in real data, ignore this link)

www.lbl.gov

As a public defender, sometimes I have clients who find themselves in an untenable position, but out of stubborness are unwilling to give an inch. Even when giving an inch might save a mile.

BBob, gravity is not phenomena that occurs at faster than light speed. It's just not. There is nothing to argue about. It's just not.

By the way, the answer to the question you asked earlier is 6/22/09

You've stumped me. What question is that, sanan?

Well? How do you explain this self-imposed dilemma, bOoB

That's right. You can't. So you have to admit either 1)gravity is not instaneous or 2) Something can indeed excede the speed of light.

Which do you choose? 1 or 2? Simple question, no big words to stump you. One keystroke is all it takes to answer. Think you can manage? If you can't, see if there is a brain bigger than yours in the vicinity. You know, something at least as big as a budgie's.

Moder8

You should consider the irony in your statement. I know your point, and it was dealt with in the links I provided. I held your point of view myself. But I read this stuff. You don't. You don't know what they are saying, and don't care to investigate. I would say your evaluation was flawed until you understood the points made.

I know your point, and it was dealt with in the links I provided.

Which provided zero data to support its claims. Yes, I read it. Did you read the links I posted what actually had real data? I guess it wouldn't matter since you have always been perturbed by the truth and the results of scientific experimentation.

Quoting metaphysical speculative physics is the best you have? You're a riot, bOoB. You know what else is so funny? Although zat and I disagree on a lot, there is not one person on this forum whose word I would take on matters of physics over his. And you dispute him. Funny, funny, funny.

Want some more links? Or have I sufficiently rubbed you nose raw in the ground with the data I have provided?

Oh, BTW, we are still waiting for a link to experiental data to support your claim. LOL

Don't know much about geometry. Don't know much about Einstein-Minowski or Einstein's use of Riemannian geometry. The only thing more pathetic than Bob presenting his misbegotten ideas is that people are actually arguing with a man who has repeatedly demonstrated that he is an ignoramus.

I trust anything BBob has to say over what you say any day of the week.

Does Johnson profess such insane conspiracy theories?

Oh wait, you probably believe them too.

nevermind.

I trust anything BBob has to say over what you say any day of the week.

So your weapon of choice if confronted by a home invader is also a car antennae?

As opposed to johnson's flaccid dick?

"So your weapon of choice if confronted by a home invader is also a car antennae?"

LOL. Goatman brought his A game tonight! A car antenna joke!

LOL. Goatman brought his A game tonight! A car antenna joke

Of course. That is one joke that never fails to bring a smile to my face. It's a classic.

We may have another classic in the make, nulli. bOoB's refusal to acknowledge that gravity is not instantaneous is on track for the DR wall of shame.

bOoB claiming that Einstein was wrong! LOL It doesn't get much better than that, unless of course a car antennae can be worked into the story.

#139 | Posted by moder8 at 2009-06-22 10:35 PM

As opposed to johnson's flaccid dick?

Aw come on moder8, just because you can't get a rise out of me? I told you that I'm straight. Just go elsewhere if you want to arouse someone.

I could list some posters who are out of the closet and unashamedly so. You could probably hit on them with more of a chance of success. But you know who they are, so just go courting on your own. I didn't know that this site also served as a dating service for some folks. But to each his own.

I just don't find homosexual banter interesting, moder8.

#136 | Posted by moder8 at 2009-06-22 10:01 PM

Fck off Johnson. I trust anything BBob has to say over what you say any day of the week
.
You post this, of course, as a demonstration of your own brilliance and discernment, and the depth of your knowledge.

Well, you do the best you can.

Sword disguised as an umbrella

Sign I should've known more bat shit crazy Buffoon_Boob BS

Boob is off base to say the least.

A speck of space dust on a camera lense: UFO exists.

A loose bolt comes off the space station: Aliens landing in Texas.

Do you know how much space shit is circling the earth? Ditto for the moon.

Also, just think for moment. Why would real aliens want to hide form us? It makes no sense at all. We would want to make contact, them as well.

And please don't mention the Prime Directive.

Crisis

Crisisstills

You take too many words to say to say nothing.

If you are talking gas--say gas. If you are talking fluid--say fluid. There is a reason why there are different words for different things. If you consider a gas to be a compressable fluid, fine--however, describe it as to which state it is in at the time--gaseous or fluid state.

#102 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

I'm being specific and correct. Gases and liquids are both fluid and are governed by the same physical laws. The exception is that for a liquid the density is considered constant for a gas the density can change.

Secondly a vaccuum exerts no force on a gas. A balloon would pop because the pressure inside the balloon is greater than the pressure in a vaccuum. The vaccuum of space would perhaps cause the fluid stream to expand more rapidly but a vaccuum cannot exert a force on anything. A vaccuum is an absence of anything, therefore it doesn't do anything.

Don't be bitchy because you don't understand physics.

Moonbase Alpha, this is core group leader.
Moonbase Alpha, this is core group leader, over.
Plan progressing better than expected.
Stupid humans dedicating incredible amounts of time and energy on ridiculous planted topic. Takeover imminent.
Out.

Astrobuckeye

You are not being correct. You are describing a general state rather than a specific state. A gas is different than a fluid in density-when you are talking about a fluid with the density of gas, you should use the word "gas". When you are talking about a fluid with the density of liquid, you use the term "liquid". That way, people know what state the liquid you are talking about happens to be at the time of discussion. Glass is a liquid--people rarely think of glass in that term though and to use that term for glass would be confusing--just as when you use of the term "liquid" when the liquid under discussion is in the gaseous state. Be specific as to which state the liquid you are talking about to avoid confusion. Oxygen is a liquid, but tell people uyou breath a liquid, and you will get some strange stares.

Negative pressure is a force. The vacuum of space would seek to equalize the pressure of the gas, dispersing the molecules very fast---explosively in fact. If you call that "not exerting a force", we can never agree.

How about if their "superior military might" consists of little more than throwing rocks at us?

#62 | Posted by ZOT

Throwing rocks at us by hand is one thing but dropping them onto the planet is another.

#88 | Posted by donnerboy

Well... That's really what I was getting at. Wouldn't take much to nudge a Big Boy, say 18-wheeler size, out of the asteroid belt, put it on the correct Earth-intercept trajectory, and go do something else for a few months.

50,000-kph entry through the atmosphere to the ground of 50,000 kilos of iron rock...

Cheap, and quite effective, granted of course if you have the know-how to build a spacecraft in the first place.

A man standing on a street corner with a sign reading "the lizard people rule you all," or, "my neighbors are spying on me for the government" isn't likely to get many supporters.

I always find it amazing that you can find conspiracy sheep and lead them anywhere and make them beleive anything. Its like shooting fish in a barrel

BuffaloBob

Kind of off topic, but I was going to ask you about Ohio as I'm checking our different states to consider moving to -- job availability, cost of living, apt. rentals, which cities are better than others.

But then on the "10 Most Dangerous Cities" thread they had Cincinnati, Ohio and Cleveland, Ohio as among the 10 most dangerous. Is Ohio that bad all over or is it just some dangerous spots within those couple of cities in Ohio? And does it snow a lot in the winter? Also, many lakes and rivers around for recreation? Thanks for any info.

Its like shooting fish in a barrel.

#152 | Posted by StreekyD at 2009-06-23 05:32 PM | Reply | Flag

You seem to be unarmed. The fish live.

CalifChris

It seems OK to me--I don't hear of any crime sprees going on. There is all kinds of recreation, from skiing to boating. Several lakes and national parks to play in. Canoe rides are great.

However, I would suggest reading the online papers about each city you are considering moving to in order to get a better feel for what the city offers both negative and positive.

There hasn't been much snow in Ohio since 1978. 2 maybe 3 snowfalls a year that cause traffic problems for a day, but nothing much.

"Its like shooting fish in a barrel.

#152 | Posted by StreekyD"


You seem to be unarmed. The fish live.

#154 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-06-23 05


The fish won't live long if he shoots a few bullet holes in the barrel and drains all the water out.

Cheap, and quite effective, granted of course if you have the know-how to build a spacecraft in the first place.

#151 | Posted by ZOT

If you are already "up there" it is relatively EZ. Hell, we probably wouldn't even know who or what hit us. We'd just be gone. Just like the dinosaurs.

Fortunately he is unarmed.

42

Interesting, Bob. But we need tangible proof and so far nothing unequivocal has turned up. Incidentally I wonder why Zatoichi and Goatman seem to think it's their mission in life to deride everything you say. Closed minds probably, mixed with a predilection towards snarkiness. The odds are very much in your favor compared to their positions, whatever they are, but there's still no proof.

It boggles my mind but some estimates give the number of galaxies in the observable universe at 200 billion and we can assume on average each has roughly the 100 billion stars estimated to be in our own galaxy. This means there could be about ten to the 22nd stars. If even one in a billion of these stars had one planet capable of producing life that evolved into something like us that would mean 10 trillion civilizations at various stages of development, some unimaginably more advanced than we are.

The Drake equation is an attempt to rationalize all this in to some sort of probability but it too is really just a guess and will remain so until something definitive turns up if it ever does.

I'm sure you know of Fermi's "Where are they" paradox and this Wikipedia treatment of it. Interesting stuff.

en.wikipedia.org

Incidentally I wonder why Zatoichi and Goatman seem to think it's their mission in life to deride everything you say

I don't deride everything he says, only the BS.

(pause. scratching head and musing)

Well, I guess that is everything. da bOoB has never been right. His assertion that gravity is instanteous even when given the facts and links to prove he is wrong is a perfect example. And you call me closed minded, brock? LOL

da bOoB quotes a metaphysical junk science site that offers no empiracal evidence to support its claims and I'm supposed to blindly believe it? Get real.

empiracal evidence=
empirical evidence

#155 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-06-23 05:54 PM

Thanks, BuffaloBob.

Good idea too about reading various Ohio newspapers to get the feel of each city.

#161

It seems unlikely that we're the only game in town. It's also reasonable to assume that if we're not then others more advanced than we are would have been here if they could or feel a need to. We need evidence but the existence of other life intelligent life in the universe is a certainty if our intuition and math have any validity outside our local frame of reference. They may not, of course. In which case it's pointless to speculate one way or the other given our present knowledge. No reason to stop doing it though.

I've seen Bob's posts before and I've taken them as the unproven and unprovable assertions they are, some intriguing, some apparently incredible or laughable but all at least as interesting as a lot of what passes for political discussion here.

More power to the Bob.

It seems unlikely that we're the only game in town.

I agree

It's also reasonable to assume that if we're not then others more advanced than we are would have been here if they could or feel a need to.

I sort of agree. But I feel if they are technologically advanced enough to come across the galaxy to watch us, they would be able to do it unseen. If they want to be seen, they would land and do the "Take me to your leader" thing.

I also believe it is the height of absurdity to think that they would come interstellar distances to set up factories on a rock that contains one of the most abundant elements in the universe. (I won't even get into da bOoB's refusal to admit to the absurdities and properties of a smokestack in a vacuum)

I have no problem with unproven phenomoena like bOoB posts. In fact, I welcome such things as I see it as a mental exercise and a chance to research it. But what makes da bOoB such a criticism and shit magnet is that he absolutely refuses to believe any other possibilites exist other than his own hard headed beliefs, even when confronted with irrefutable evidence. Again, I point to his refusal to admit that he is wrong about gravity being instantaneous in spite of irrefutbale data to the contrary.

This is why bOoB gets so much shit, and deservedly so I might add.

Well of course not everything Bob posts makes sense. I post nonsense myself sometimes and more often than I believe I do, no doubt. The phenomena Bob addresses are by definition way out there so it's only logical that some of his explanations get a bit incredible and seem to violate gravity or action in a vacuum, whatever. I remember the smokestacks on the moon discussion. It seemed to me that the "puff of smoke" if it was anything at all was more likely a sublunar venting disturbing the dust. Bob probably told us we had been brainwashed and just didn't want to believe it but we all do that, particularly when we're arguing with Bush and FOX supporters when it's quite true, of course.

... particularly when we're arguing with Bush and FOX supporters ...

I'm not clear how one's political choices or TV station plays into belief in lunar phenomenom, but this wouldn't be the DR if people didn't manage to put a political spin on a topic -- no matter how far from poltics it is.

Actually, if the aliens were Republicans everything would start to make sense.

Actually, if the aliens were Republicans everything would start to make sense.

Good point. The Republican aliens would be the only ones smart enough to build interstellar craft and explore the universe. The Democrat aliens would be insisting that they stay on Glackizizx and make sure every single Glackizizsian was fed an had 3 shoes for their feet before they spent one penny on space exploration.

Good observation, m8

"the only ones smart enough to build interstellar craft and explore the universe"

So why did they come back to Waco?
I sure as hell didn't.

And Goatman claims he's not partisan...

(Actually, I realize his last post had to be a joke. Cuz not even an alien would choose to be a Republican, unless they were into the mind control of all the rightwing sheeple.)

And Goatman claims he's not partisan...

???

I was simply extrapolating terrestrial political views to an alien civilization. This could have been done by either a democrat or a republican. The fact I'm the one who did it firsts does not make me partisan, m8. It must be well past 5:00 in California

Cuz not even an alien would choose to be a Republican, unless they were into the mind control of all the rightwing sheeple

I'm not sure what this means, but as I implied in my previous post, you've had an hour and a half to put yourself into a pina colada (or whatever little paper umbrella drink you consume) induced haze.

"42

#159 | Posted by StreekyD


That's your answer for everything.

Moder8

...but as I [Goatman] implied in my previous post, you've had an hour and a half to put yourself into a pina colada (or whatever little paper umbrella drink you consume) induced haze.


Here's your California
"induced haze" LOL


I sort of agree. But I feel if they are technologically advanced enough to come across the galaxy to watch us, they would be able to do it unseen. If they want to be seen, they would land and do the "Take me to your leader" thing.

Indeed. The sort of travel that would make traveling all this way for observation practical time-wise would mean warping space/time. See the previous thread about the theory of interstellar ward drive.

www.drudge.com

The kind of technology necessary to travel those distances in any practical time would involve warping space-time. Which of course would also make cloaking a ship from view a minor task.

"...involve warping space-time."

#176 | Posted by moomanfl

Which incidentally would de-synch one from the normal time flow.

For example, rarely discussed in Trek was what impulse speed really was and what the consequence was: sublight speeds resulting in time slowdown for those on board ship. There was one episode where it was mentioned that the clocks needed top be resynched with Star Fleet Central (or some such). Real time conversation was impossible at "impulse" speeds.

Which incidentally would de-synch one from the normal time flow.

Obviously you didn't read the thread or article I linked to or you would realize this isn't the case.

To put the idea in a nutshell, space-time has already been proven that it can expand faster than the speed of light. This is seen in recent red shift observations. Therefore the way to get faster than light travel is to move a section of space-time itself rather than move the ship THROUGH space-time. This is done by warping space ahead of, and behind the ship creating a wave that the normal bit of space-time in the middle rides along carrying the ship with it. Since the ship isn't actually moving relative to its place in space-time the effects of relativity do to speed is not in effect. A week travelling in warp is the same as a week spent on Earth.

Real time conversation was impossible at "impulse" speeds.

Not true. They used subspace communication for communication which allowed for real time conversation virtually everywhere. The only time this wasn't true was when it was convenient for it NOT to be true due to plot device. That is the problem with trying to argue what is possible or not in science by pointing to a TV show as evidence.

www.startrek.com

Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2010 World Readable