So whats the fcc ukers idea on whats happening here. I'm off to my underground bunker

Aliens !

It's always good to have informed discussion...

I`m rather disappointed that this is not a News International thread. Although I guess that could be Murdoch`s death star refuelling....

Well it is relative Andrew. It is too hot in my room to have liquid hydrogen rain but too cold for lead rain. Those big blue stars make our little yellow one look relatively cool. As for ET someone should have mentioned it...

I think it's real.

We're all going to die

Definately true

I can guarantee death will happen to us all eventually, except for stan

this is something to consider

There has been anomalys around our sun for years.

As usual key evidence is generally ignored or defined as unxeplained phenomenon, or even the latest joke digital artifacts from cameras that cost millions of pounds.

What we have to understand we are newbies of 2k-3k years in our universe which in itself billions of years old.

We also dont really have any idea of the actual physics that it operates on.

Even our basic undertanding of time distance velocity is wrong albeit near accurate but not exact.

There has also become a mainstream media led ' take the piss ' philosphy on possible ideas on many different phenomenon either in space or earth.

Thus has casued the mainstream sheep to follow the herd and therefore have the same attitude towards it.

Rather than laugh or mock what it may be ' think what it may be ' History seems to repeat itself pardon the pun but didnt the earth used to be flat?

Our physics is now smashed wide open einsteins equations wrong speed of light limit which back in 80s people in the know already knew this! Now we have Talk of different dimensions ie string theory.

Believe me if aliens could have the tech to stop our sun we would already be dead, but if they had the tech then why would a adavanced culture destroy life?

It's hard to imagine why.

The idea that you can post something about science on the internet and not have at least one person contribute to the debate by the medium of lame gags is touchingly naive. And where is Stan, anyways?

oreally. Try posing something about god

God has been done to death (as Nietzsche nearly said), but it's been 10 month since the chem-trails thread, so I'm ready for another round of Jonny's alien nonsense

You are quick to label it nonsense. The fact of matter is that there is phenomenom happening on here in earth and in space.

So Andrew what is this phenomenon? swamp gas, digital artifacts from cameras, birds, the laughable excuses go on and on.

In 1952 The US goverment was tasked with investigating the phenomenon leading this was Dr Allen Hynek who was orginally skeptical.

After many different events that he had to attend he was tasked by the board to debunk as most he could an attitude that you employ without thought. Hynek became tired of having to employ this methodolgy.

He now is a firm believer of what is going on.
Along with many astranughts.

Can I also add that a high percentage of people that have come out with information regarding the projects are now dead.

Ask you self why?

a quick few for you to try and debunk good luck

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=273jcsMQu3M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zApl-jA6E3w

What are they then andrew?

Oh, goody! We have not had one of these threads for ages!

What am I, your de-bunk monkey? I learned from the chem-trail thread that there's no point arguing with you as you don't understand how to evaluate evidence.

As there are, effectively, an unlimited number of idiots with access to YouTube there will never be a stage where there aren't another couple of clips or interviews to be 'explained'.

So, if you don't mind, this time round I'll just laugh at you and your ridiculous ideas. I particularly liked this ...



It's a fascinating insight into your way of thinking that when 999,999 experiments confirm the predicitions of relativity and 1 experiment runs count to them your immediate thought is, "Ha! The establishment was wrong!" rather than, "Let's have another look at that experiment, eh?".

I think its you that cant evaluate evidence as you either dismiss it without explaination. Or even try to explain what it is?

As for the chemtrail thread, I dont believe I was part of that one again you are mistaken.

Im not saying you are my debunk monkey but you find it easy to label me with 'jonnys alien nonesense' without proving me wrong.

You obviously lack debating skills as this form tactic in a subject acceptable within mainstream you would look foolish.

On the other hand I provide you with good evidence that you cant explain no matter how hard you try.

Not just me, but also the forum search engine - which shows 46 posts from you in that thread.

Of course, an alien could have taken over your body, I suppose.

Or the search engine...

no im right again the thread was

'Aliens, physics, chemtrails, and California'

Not once did I talk about chemtrails. Aliens yes physics yes.

Away from that anyway your einstein obsesion is now proved wrong thanks to CERN but that is a public front anaway.

The problem with our equations is that they are near accurate but not exact.

here is an example

I once remember in higher level chemistry my teacher asked the class what temp does water boil. I said 95 celcius he errupted with laughter. I then had to corrected him and advise that water only boils at 100celcius at sea level.
He went away and checked this to be true and we all had a laugh at him.

What this goes to show is people similar to yourself andrew are conditioned by the media and culture with sheep like philopshy just like 95% of the population.

Just like 95% of the people presumed the world was flat. History seems to repeat trends. So when reality for you kicks in embrace it dont fight it.

So you were part of the thread, but you were right to say, "I don't believe I was part of that one" because you didn't post about chemtrails?

I don't think I have an Einstein obsession, but I know that CERN haven't proved him wrong (he was, of course, wrong about a lot of things, but most of them pointed out before CERN's time). One experiment has results which contradict the theory of relativity, but it's hardly conclusive yet.

Your boiling water story is lovely, although I'm not sure what the point of it is. You were just as 'wrong' as your chemistry teacher, in that the boiling point of water is 95 degrees only at a certain atmospheric pressure. In a vacuum, for example, the boiling point of water will be far lower than 95 degrees.

Much as I enjoy all of your sheep references it's fairly clear that you're trying to compensate for your obvious lack of intelligence by imaginging yourself to blessed with hidden knowledge that the 'sheep' will never be able to understand. Good on you. Hope that's going well.

God, I have missed this place!

Andrew, clearly your being negged. .

I presumed there was another thread on chemtrails as the majority of the thread didnt discuss them.




Opera has conducted '2' expermiments, both proved neutrinos faster than light you are right in saying more experiments are req to complete disprove of relativity but its looking very likely.

You dont think you have an obsesion with Einstein? You either do or dont.



I was only making the point that what is learned in schools etc is not gospel and does not operate on a 'think out of the box' methodolgy. I am more than aware the boiling point of water in a vacum would be less than 95 degrees. what I was refering to was the fact that we were roughly 600m above sea level and that boiling point would be less than 100dc.



Another below the belt insult, probably because you cant accept my metodolgy. The only lack of intelligence appears to be coming from you with your inabilty to look at evidence and logically come up with any explaination. Instead you insult me and others who dont have the blinkers on.

have a look at the 2 videos I posted earlier on and logically tell me what you think they could be. Is that not a fair and constructive approach?

You *have* noted that Opera have revisited their methodology and discovered connector errors which account for the delay?

Just asking...

This, you see, is what's wrong with your 'metodology' - your flippant approach to what is meant by terms such as 'proof' and 'likely'.

The chance that relativity will be completely disproved are very, very small indeed - mainly because we have so much experimental evidence that it works very well indeed.

Obviously the results of the neutrino experiments are very interesting, but they haven't proved anything, yet, and nor will they until they have been subject to a great deal more scrutiny.

In your mad-cap system 'proof' is a YouTube video, or testimony given by somebody you consider reputable, or even the hint of dark forces at work. I'm not an expert in flying objects, so showing me crappy videos until I admit that I can't explain what they are proves nothing, other than there's a lot of shit on the Internet.

However, I've yet to see a video you posted where there isn't someone who has a non-alien explanation, which the UFO crowd either ignore or use a the starting point to attack the person giving the explanation. Attacking their credentials (which is rich given the people that UFO fans will take as trustworthy) or accusing them of being part of a cover-up, while, at the same time, having the nerve to accuse *others* of being blinkered, sheep-like or closed minded.

That's a crappy metodology - so, no, I don't like it.

The footage could be of anything anywhere.
It could be of a cell.
It actually looks like the footage of my sperm being rejected by my wifes egg.
I base the above opinions on the fact that there is no sound track, if you are filming that close to the Sun you would be able to hear it crackling. Or something similar to chips in a fryer, although that always reminds me of the fake applause on TV.
...or, it could be a camera lens mite, possibly?

Yes it works well but that doesnt make it correct. For example Speed = distance/time it works really well but it isnt exact this has been proved by atomic clocks flown on aircraft.

The atomic clocks soon become out of sync with changes in altitude and gravitational fluctations allbeit microseconds the effect is noticable. Therfore the equation isnt correct.

We can also apply this concept to relativty, times have moved on with talk of many different dimensions ie string theory.




Well done Andrew bascially recaping what I said more tests need to be ran to confirm.



Get with the times Andrew youtue Is now one of the most available media formats for the aveage joe to broadcast just look at the amount of hits the recent joseph Kony video is getting.

Im sorry I dont have a news team and a camera crew to meet your standard.

All the videos that i have posted are either NASA videos or miltary videos to elimante. The shit that your talking about ie the CGI fake videos.

As for the whitness testimony I only previously provided astronaughts ( not credible by your standard obviously)

Also Bob lazar was mentioned claiming to work on back engineering projects from ET technolgy backed up by 2 lie detector passes and his name found in LOS alamos directory despite the goverment claiming he never worked there.




Generally as I stated I dont normally look at the videos unless they are likely to be genuine and come from good sources. What you have to understand is im not a UFO fan what I am is someone who realises there is some kind of phenomenon going on here and trying to make sense of it. On the other side of the coin like yourself you simply dismiss without reason. Out of the 2 sides of that coin I can assure you its your side working to a crappy metodolgy.

I finnally have a question for you what do you believe the phenomenon is? Considering it has been occuring since history began here is one from 1561 germany, obviously with no photos at the time but painted with statements now held in a zurich Libary.
http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case486.htm

Jonny (Wishbone?), you really, really worry me.

You're so desperate to believe that you're willing to find "evidence" in anything. Honestly, you can't prove that alien piloted UFOs exist because it's a near certainty they don't and no amount of YouTube clips, eye witness accounts or conspiracy theories will change that.

Until they are truly observable in a scientific and repeatable manner they will continue to not exist. Not because only things that have been observed exist, but because real science works on theory based on sound physics and probabilities. There is no sound theory for interstellar travel, nor is it practical or probable. Those massive obstacles aside why would aliens go to great lengths to come to our solar system simply to make a weird pattern in a sun spot? Why not just pop round for tea and biscuits and get the whole ambiguity thing out of the way?

You're as zealous as a fundamentally religious person, but you make God(s) seem plausible when compared to the claptrap you seem to think proves the existence of aliens. Seriously, go have a few minutes in a darkened room and actually think about your theories for a moment, I mean really objectively look at them.

Yours faithfully,

Reptilon - Shapeshifter Extraordinaire.

I'm not sure were to start with this, so I'm not going to, the great thing about science is no one is asking you to believe anything. If your capable of understanding the methods, processes and context then for the most part you or some one else should be able to consistently validate the results.

Before you continue down this line, educate yourself.

I think you'll find that's part of the experimental evidence that Einstein's equations - and in particular the Lorenz-Fitzgerald contractions - are correct.

Bear in mind that 'science' doesn't look to prove things exist; it looks to define a model *as accurate as possible* to describe observed effects. It does this by looking for ways to falsify its own theories, and testing them.

Gimme a flying saucer landing at Heathrow and I'll believe you. Gimme lights in the sky, and much as I'd love to believe, you're on your own.

Speed does equal distance/time - that is the definition of speed. What relativity says is that we won't always agree on the distance or time of an event.

If you're going to confidently post about this sort of thing you really should make an effort to understand it first.




You said that it had been proved that neutrinos travelled faster than light, which isn't the case. That's the distinction I was making, how lightly you consider something proved.

As for YouTube - well you made your hand pretty clear with, I think, the first video you posted in the chemtrails thread. It was a NASA video (I'm not disputing the source) showing, as the nutters would have it, huge jelly-fish like beings floating around Earth. The huge jelly-fish do look a lot like out of focus dust specs, and when the astronaut (who you've already mentioned twice in this thread as being credible, although incredibly badly spelled) is asked what he can see he says he can see debris outside the shuttle.

So there you have a video with a good source, a clear explanation for what it is and a credible testimony from somebody who is there about what it shows, and you still tried to post it as great proof of extra-terrestrial life.

Don't you see how that makes you a nutter?

Gimme a flying saucer doing anything and you should believe. The question is how you would determine to your satisfaction that it is a flying saucer. That's the really significant problem for me: If a flying saucer landed on the Whitehouse lawn and the occupants went for tea with the President, what would it take to convince you (one) that all of this really happened and that the said saucer was from beyond the Earth's biosphere?

I hate to be a party-pooper guys, but Speed = Distance/Time is correct. Call me an irritating pedant (I like it), but that is a definition. It is only in the travelling frame of reference that time dilates.

BTW - I am pleased to see they have found something useful for the royal family to get on with -

Nutter is a bit strong Andrew. Eager to believe maybe, as the evidence is shaky on this kind of thing.

Out of interest hands up for all those who think extraterrestrial life if out there? Not aliens have visited us, but on some arbitrary planet out there. Maybe even doing what we are doing?

Given that we have evolved on a planet with a rich diversity of life and there is still a plethora of universe that we could never hope to explore (even if we could travel at that widely accepted top speed). I can't help but think that if we had some gigantic leap in understanding/technology we would find something. I think that's also the main argument why aliens are not likely to visit us.

I'd think it's almost certain that life has evolved on alien worlds. With the trillions of stars we can see it's almost unimaginable that our little planet would be the only home to life anywhere in the universe.

However, there's a wipe gap between that view and trying to argue that every out of focus snapshot of a weather balloon is an alien craft.

Couldn't agree more. Although I have to say, a big bit of me would like some of the balloons to turn out to be alien craft.

I think Enforcer picked up on a good point; What would constitute proof? Is seeing believing?

All sounds like the philosophical conjecture of Jean Baudrillard to me. The Gulf War Never Happened and all that jazz.

Thanks again Andrew & Brewster for below the belt comments, typical debunker responses.

Another Astronaut Catherine Coleman aboard mission STS 73 Clearly states we have a Ufo alongside us
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1M68C7G-EE

after the live transmision comment nasa shut down the public link and diverted to encripted channel.

Yet more evidence!

So I ask you again Andrew what is this phenomenon?

I don't think its down to Andrew to prove its not a alien space craft, its up to you to prove it is

And thank you for ignoring all of the points that you can't answer, or where you were just plain wrong (e.g. speed doesn't equal distance/time) - a typical nutter response, just keep moving the goal-posts and accusing others of not playing fair.

What's a wipe gap? I don't like the sound of that

The question arises: what is a non-falsifiable evidence for alien life?

My thoughts:

- biological samples using either amino acids which are not used by any terrestrial life, or which uses a chromosome-expressing molecule other than DNA. In the latter case, the specimen had better be visibly alive, i.e. demonstrating entropy-fixing, replicating, eating and excreting.

- materials not makable in a gravity field - e.g. foamed alloys - in sufficiently larger quantities than could be made by known LEO astronauts (they're mostly making samples; the presence of industrial quantities would be a good hint for a zero-g production. Alternately, demonstrably unknown physical mechanisms - anti-gravity, FTL travel (there are ways to fake that if you can be sufficiently stealthy and have more than one ship, so be careful), and so on.

- a walkin' talkin' alien - but note pictures are not enough, given what Hollywood can do these days, hence my earlier request for a UFO at Heathrow.

Any other suggestions?

True Samsite, however clearly there is a phenomenon present here I am only trying to logicaly work out what it is. In the video sts73 the shuttle is moving aprox 18000 kmph the unidentifed object is moving far faster stops dead and changes direction at incredible speed, with catherine feeding back to nasa we have a UFO near by.

I look at that and try to rule out what it isnt, its not space debree, meteor , satelite.
After that it appears to be a conrtolled object, which at present we dont have the capabilty to make a space vechile to perform like that. So where does that leave us?

Its no good having Andrews ' I dont know what it is but its not a alien craft' responses.

At least I am trying to explain the phenomenon which has been world wide since day dot.

Andrew on the other hand will not attempt to explain, what it is but states im am a nutter?

And again years ago when people with andrews outlook presumed the world was flat calling the people who questioned that 'nutters'.

There is also a element of rubbish on the internet ie the 'reptilian shapeshifters' which brewster kindly assumed thats what I am talking about.

I'd want to see its passport for a start.

Don't go playing the philosophy card on me, Jim - it was a serious point.

What exactly would you need in the way of evidence? It isn't that simple.

Jonny, that YouTube clip is, well, not proof. I grant you It's not easily explained.

It's referred to as a UFO because it's unidentified. Not because it's alien (at least not in the sense you mean).

The other slight flaw is when the commentator states that the object defies all laws of physics. My problem there is that I can see it and it moves in a pattern that I would suggest is an orbit of some kind. What that would suggest to me is there is some external force acting on the blurry pixels. Maybe which we can't explain. But it isn't proof by a long stretch.

I agree, Brian, it isn't simple and I'm not sure what you would need beyond Neil's detailed stipulations. However, my point was adjacent to serious: consuming media coverage of an event doesn't mean the event happened, at least not in the way it is portrayed.

I'd expect a bit less, actually. Neil's stipulations might confirm alien origins, but in the normal course of events we operate our beliefs on a more relaxed set of criteria, I'd say.

If a helicopter lands on the lawn, I don't need any science to feel confident about that, but an alien craft - I'd need more but I don't think I'd need the DNA samples.

That's probably included in test 3... I don't need *all* of them.

But a UFO on my doorstep - I'd be very leery of a hoax. Otherwise it's always a question of it proving it is what it claims to be...

As this is at least the third time you've cited this argument, presumably in some catch-all attempt to prove that the minority is always correct, then let's see if your history is any better than your science ... who presumed the world was flat? Who did they laugh at (or call a nutter) for suggesting otherwise?

Go on, have a good Google and then enlighten me.

I think it was Jade Goody, although history has never been my strong point.

Im not claiming the minority is always correct far from it! What I am claiming is there is clearly something going on here, that you cant deny. With that in mind you refuse the challange to establish what it is without logic and simply chose to ignore evidence and laugh at the people trying to come up with an explination.

You chose to ignore evidence given by key people that have worked in projects assosiated with the phenomenon
from miltary personal having 5 nuclear weapons shut down with a metalic disc hovering above the silos with Captain Robert salas usaf giving evidence http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTrGF6tSwZM

Bob Lazar worked at Area 51 S4 back engineering alien craft passes lie detector test http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRRceIpedjg

Phil schneider structrual engineer involved in building DUMBS (deep underground miltary bases) after he came forward with the info he was murdered.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8TpzzSJru0

Not to mention Gordon cooper, buzz aldrin and many other famous astronauts talking about ufos in space.




The ' world being flat ' argument, I only use as a principle that the majority are not always right.

I have no interest to enlighten you in any way.

All these guys must be nutters aswell Andrew?

So, in fact, they never called people who said the Earth wasn't flat 'nutters', or anything else - is that what you're saying? Nice to note how graciously you accepted being wrong there.

I can't be bothered to wade through all of your YouTube videos again, but I remember Bob Lazar from last time around - he's the one who has been caught clearly lying about what qualifications he has, and who you really would have to be insane to give any kind of credibility to.

As, IIRC, the Buzz Aldrin story was one he that he recounted somebody else telling him.

If you remember our last discussion on this subject - it doesn't matter how credible somebody is, anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all. Certainly not from Bob Lazar.

Exactly you cant be bothered to look so point proved, dont bother commenting untill you have!! All of this evidence could be used in a court of law. Yet in your view its invalid.

As for lazar his file was completed deleted. But after George knapp done a little digging on it found lazar listed a nuclear physist at los alamos directory along with his pay slips and passing the lie detector test.

He now runs united nuclear.

The only insanity is you chosing to ignore evidence.

It is invalid, because it's not scientific evidence.

Lazar's a complete fraud and his story is clearly b'lox of the 1st order ... sure, the black helicopter crew deleted all of his educational records, but Lazar himself couldn't name any of his professors or classmates, or provide any evidence that he attended the schools he claims.

Seriously, by continuing to cite him as a reference you do your cause no favours at all.

Finally, as you seem to have missed it all of the times it was mentioned in last year's thread - Lie detectors DO NOT work!, they are demonstrably no better than lucky guesses. Passing a lie detector test proves nothing at all.

What??

I watch Jeremy Kyle on a regular basis, and all I can say is that you need to check your facts. Just use a bit of common sense, (which you seem to be completely lacking). If lie detectors are useless, that means Jeremy Kyle is complete crap, and I have been wasting my time watching it. Since it obviously isn't a waste of time, it is also obvious that you have got your facts wrong.

Just get a grip, mate. If science depended on people with your closed-minded attitude we'd never even have Jeremy Kyle - and then where would we be?

Watching Ricki Lake?

I like potato salad

You might have been too quick with the 'proved' there ...

Neutrinos now same speed as light

Again your link is invalid by still showing neutrions slighlty faster than light.

And as before you state 1 test or, 2 for opera to be not considered proof.

Epic fail again.

For fair comeback review the 3 cases I provided links to, and give feedback on your view with a open minded approach.

You seem a smart guy, maybe a little narrow minded possibly to do with your age .

All I ask of you is to view them and give your take.

Thanks.

At least we have one thing we agree on ' the coop'

I'm just gonna wade in here.

The scientists who MADE the original opera experiments have admitted they had faulty/miscalibrated equipment. How do you manage to just ignore large parts of a story so easily?!

I would like an answer to another recurring problem however. You have mentioned flying saucers already, how do you explain that the 'look' of alien aircraft has historically changed depending on the cultural sci-fi imaginations of the time.

There were no mentionings of 'flying saucers' before they become the popular fictional shape, then suddenly people were reporting them all over the place. Why were saucers the favoured shape of sci-fi? Because technical thinking at the time was that the ultimate aircraft design was a 'saucer' which could take off vertically and travel in any direction.

Recently, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of triangular UFO's reported. Convieniently this mirrors the advent of 'triangular' flying wing shaped aircraft being the latest thinking in aircraft design, and being used extensivelyt in pop culture programs like X-Files, Stargate etc.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.3433v1.pdf

The latest nutreno report, they are not traveling faster than light. Mr e holds up well on his one still.
And if you still despute you have got to be trolling.

Well, quite.

My take:

1. the exciting clip with the 'laser beam' looks completely faked. Looks more like an extendable light sabre. Probability of faking = High. Probability of alien craft = Low.

2. Robert Lazar has been resoundingly exposed as a complete fake.

3. Someone was found dead in his apartment. Probability of natural causes / suicide /accident/ high (because there is no reason to doubt it). Probability of murder to cover up truth = unquantifiable, unless we firstly establish the likely truth. You can't infer the likely truth about aliens from a man being found dead in his apartment.

The underlying problem with your approach, jonnybgt1759, is that you seem to be making a simple mistake in confusing possibility with certainty, or high probability. We already know that it is possible that the aliens are among us. That is not controversial. We also know that there are far more plausible explanations for any item of 'evidence' you care to produce. So whenever you cite something that could easily be explained without appeal to aliens, but insist that the evidence probably points to alien origins, you are just being irrational. The rational procedure is to opt for the most probable explanation. In the case of UFO evidence, this is always a mundane one.

Open-mindedness, as I think others have pointed out, entails openness to the relative probability of each available explanation; not just openness to the one explanation you want to be correct.

How wrong can you be view my post earlier on the 1562 nuremubrg avent http://www.altereddimensions.net/aliens/NurembergUFOBattle.aspx


Also not to mention the countless hieroglypics recorded years ago http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXT6BxhC_V8



Yes well done the triangle craft are ours Under made under 'Aurora' Project With T3RA & T3RB which was evolved from the german scientists taken after ww2 who were working on the 'bell' project

Do you admit you were wrong about your CERN post yet?

Its funny how after one test against the original neutrino proves that it travels at the speed of light. I am labeled wrong however when i post the original tests the response was ' more tests are needed to conclude'

Just saying its one rule for others another for me.

I wasnt meaning that video however the video is directly from usaf so fake looks to be unlikely and the officer in charge comes forward and explains he was directly taken into a room with higher personal to view the clip and not to talk about it.

The first clip was captain robert salas giving evidence of nuclear slios being shutdown 5 warheads with many miltary whitness viewing a disc hovering above them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTrGF6tSwZM


As for Lazar where has heen been proved fake? Its news to me proof was found he worked at los alamos, wage slips ID cards. He now runs united nuclear with his own particle accelerator. His latests breakthrough is building hyrdodgen fuel systems more advanced than the fuel cell idea. http://www.unitednuclear.com/

Does this man sound like a fraud to you?

He also at the time explained that the element 115 is used as fuel in the craft. At the time didnt exist the problem is making it stable which funnily enough appears possible here is a qoute on it

'This latest scientific breakthrough, however, provides significant credibility to Bob Lazar’s claims rather than discrediting his claims. Bob Lazar’s Element 115 discs used to make the wedge for the “Sport Model” Flying Disc Anti-Matter Reactor would have to have been the isotope of Element 115 containing the magic number of 184 neutrons, therefore, having an atomic mass of 299. The nuclear configuration of this isotope of Element 115 would be identical to the nuclear configuration of the only known stable isotope of Element 83, Bismuth, 83Bi209, containing the magic number of 126 neutrons, except that the Element 115 isotope would have one more energy level completely filled with protons and neutrons. 82 protons and 114 protons are magic numbers for protons because 82 protons completely fill 6 proton energy levels and 114 protons completely fill 7 proton energy levels. The 83rd proton for Bismuth is a lone proton in the 7th proton energy level and the 115th proton for Element 115 is the lone proton in the 8th proton energy level. 126 neutrons completely fill 7 neutron energy levels and 184 neutrons completely fill 8 neutron energy levels. Refer to the Nucleon Energy Level Table for Bismuth and Element 115, below, for the nuclear configurations of Bismuth and Element 115. This stable isotope of Bismuth, Element 83, has very unique gravitational characteristics. Refer to the Henry William Wallace Patent: U.S. Patent 3,626,605, “Method and Apparatus for Generating a Secondary Gravitational Force Field.” '


He now views it a mistake coming forward with his information as genreally people refused to accept it with there sheep like attitude and attempts on his life.

Your clearly a troll lol enjoy your day because I'm done

Enough of the abuse I havent once responded this way but i now feel annoyed so.

Yeah Im a troll & stay in caves and eat people shrek like.

Enjoy your day driving your little rubbish car

I'm surprised no-one's brought up the case of the two mysterious green children found in Woolpit in the 12th century...

Meanwhile - I don't understand your comment about 'one experiment'. What has happened there is that an experiment was designed to measure the speed of neutrinos. It was expected that they would travel at, or slightly slower than, the speed of light; previous experiments had suggested this. The classic experiment to demonstrate this was the observation that the neutrinos generated in a supernova explosion arrive some time behind the light peak, but this does not allow for easy correlation of the times at which the photons and neutrinos were generated.

The experiment generated pulsed neutrinos and delivered them to a detector several hundred miles away, whose position was very accurately known. The calculated measurement errors were around 20ns - about the time it takes light to travel twenty feet - and the first results of the experiment suggested that the neutrinos arrived 60ns early...

However, when presented with unexpected results, the scientific method seeks to find out why. When the results are as far from accepted theory as this suggested, it is examined *very* carefully. In this case, not only was no-one able to replicate the results, but examination of the equipment used to detect the neutrinos revealed a bad connection in an optical fibre, the net effect of which would have been to delay a signal by approximately 60ns. Given the choice of (a) a complete overthrow of accepted and tested theory and (b) a faulty hardware error, Occam's razor dictates that the more likely (b) is the correct choice.

This is not to say that neutrinos do not indeed travel faster than light. However, if they do, by any margin whatsoever, then then entire structure of post-Newtonian physics will need to be re-written and as yet there is insufficient evidence that this is required.

Equally - science is full of cases where accepted theory has, on presentation of sufficient evidence, been overturned. Cases such as the age of the earth - until it was realised that it was internally heated by nuclear decay, it was thought it could not be more than a few million years old and still maintain a liquid core - or Wegener's theory of continental drift, first suggested by fossil and biological evidence and now measured by GPS positioning, are a couple that immediately spring to mind. Cold fusion, on the other hand...

This is not to say that it is impossible that we are being visited by aliens. It does however seem extremely unlikely - energy considerations alone would suggest that it is difficult to arrive here in any reasonable length of time without leaving a footprint visible to any astronomer, professional or amateur. And irrespective of the difficulties of getting here, it's hard to see why these putative aliens would behave in the way they're reported to; why there are *no* unambiguous and reliable witnesses; and why contact has not been made publicly.

Another reliable whitness Paul Hellyer The former Canadian Minister of Defense spells out the reasons why ET disclosure needs to happen now and how it can boost the clean energy economy .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAbFrQpfGM0&feature=player_embedded

Every day another high profile person comes forward with more info on it. This phenomenon is real. If you cant accept that then you cant accept reality.

Enjoy your herd and the farm you live in!

You do know the backdrop to the interview has pictures of flying saucers on it? Kind of makes it hard to believe that the interview isn't somewhat biased.

I think that's what people are getting at. There seems to be a heavy slant towards believing. The evidence doesn't appear to be impartial. It all seems to be reported with an agenda.

This is the guy who accused GWB of building military bases on the moon to shoot down alien visitors, yes? My, it certainly sounds like not listening to him would be refusing to accept reality.

Does accepting all of this sh*t at face value really make you think you're smarter than the 'herd'?

Once again - please keep the personal abuse and ad hominem attacks out of this discussion. Thanks. <the management>

Yess but only because the traditional media comapnys arent allowed to talk about it, never mind interview people regarding it. So the alternative media is the only media pushing the info out.

Another deunker response with a former canadian defence minister telling you what he knows. Why would a man of that cloth risk his crediability?

All of these whitness testimonys i provided you at least 6 different people from astronauts, high ranking miltary personal, nuclear physisist and senior poloticians . And i could give you 20 more!! All telling the same story so are they all nutters andrew?

The only link you gave back in response was some silly skeptical website 'straightdope' aka cecil adams who I have never heard of trying to debunk cattle mutalations without even conducting a field visit.

The funny thing is US TV documentary 'UFO HUNTERS' actually went out for a field visit and found plenty of evidence from strange fetus's implanted into cows all with pictures and film. Which seems to be operating out of dulce 'DUMB' ran by our miltary conduncting genetic expermiments possibly linked to Alien agendas.

If this was a court case andrew you would have lost but as its a taboo subject the 95% of you herd will protect you.

The thing is that your 'witnesses' aren't all telling the same story - they've all got completely different stories.

Sure, they've all mention aliens, but beyond that they seem to have little in common. It's only your desperation to believe that you know something that the common herd doesn't which ties them all together. If you were capable of evaluating them critically you'd see them for the load of tosh that they are.

I am amazed that a TV programme called UFO Hunters investigated cattle mutilations and found that there was evidence of an alien agenda at work. Really, you'd think that UFO Hunters would be completely impartial, likely to report that the 'mutilations' were natural and that no aliens were involved at all. That's certainly what I'd expect for a programme wearing its neutrality on its sleeve like that.

If this was a court case the judge would have dismissed it long ago, on the grounds that you talk not one blind bit of sense. Seriously, try re-reading your paragraph starting, "The funny thing..." as a sane person would read it and tell me that you don't sound like a nutter.

I would remind you that eye-witness evidence is considered, with good reason, to be the least credible in court. We know neither the motivation nor the trustworthiness of the witnesses, and we cannot tell the difference between 'what happened' and 'what I think happened'.

You have not yet provided one scrap of physical evidence.

It doesn't do any harm to believe there is life out there but until the wee green man says "We come in peace and by the way, nice motor !" is it really worth adopting other people's version of "events" and opinions ?

All a bit pointless in my book !

jonnybgt1759 -

Why do you want your claims to be true?|

For the record, I did honestly think you were trolling for the joys of watching the replies jonnybgt, I don't know you just like you don't know me, it certonly wont be the first time some one has started discussions like this just to poke the nest of wasps and run off for fun.
If that's not the case then sorry, I can assure you that I find my car just as crappy as you do

I do not despite the possibly of other life in this universe, statistically its probable. I do not actively seek to dismiss any ones thoughts or views... BUT thats all they are until proven otherwise.

As others have said, the credibility of the some of the sources used is suspect at best, not one bit of "evidence" has been credibly explained as proof of extra extraterrestrials visiting our plaint.

There are things we cannot explain yet, but to accept this as prof of UFO's does nothing for the credibility of your argument.

Claude Vorilhon, he's the rael thing!

There is physical evidence from landing sites with abnormal radition levels. Obviously the holy grail would be a reovered crashed disc but the goverment covers it up very quicky and effictivly dubbed project pounce http://www.drboylan.com/swilson2.html which main duty is to recieve crashed ufos.

Other physical evidence has again been proved with the Alien implant removals which when tested showed non terestrial isotopes of the device which has a microstructure. The devices are also contiained in a membrane to stop the body attacking the non natural implant. when inside the body they genreally emit electormagnetic frequencys upon removal they stop here is a specialized 'phd physisists'
take on it with the evidence http://www.alienscalpel.com/alien-implan...strial-implants

So I challange you statement that we have no physical evidence I also have many more up my sleeve as I have studied the phenomenon for at least 10 years.

Why do you want it to be true, and what would it take for you to accept that it isn't?

Its not my claims, I have not yet made up my on mind on the full picture despite having researched this since I got the old dial up.

I could say it has always intrgued me since childhood as I found the whole 'GOD' concept very hard to believe and if you questioned the logic off it you would get a telling off.

I also do not follow the crowd as such like i was stating with the herd statement before.

What I do find is that aprox 70% of the ufo stuff is fake that number is going up every day thanks to CGI photoshop etc and the occaisional nutter who claims channeling zorgon from the planet viola

Our general media have certain blackout topics that cannot be given relase, and a element of control is established to the herd this way by using fear as there main weapon.

The progression of the web is now starting to reduce the control as more people can freely get any info they want.

For example how many supposed ufo crashes have you ever heard of?

I can give at least 5 all with multiple eye whitness testimony and at least 2 with photographic evidence and 1 with film evidence.

Can we see the photographs and film?

Can I have a source on that 70% please?

ok i will dig them out for you

Russian 1969 Crash http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFxOeNtNuBQ&feature=related

Shag Harbour Crash http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRsH8qnC9Eg

Kecksberg crash note long video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwY_55Sy_nc

And the original way before roswell The texas Aurora crash 1897 http://www.ufocasebook.com/Aurora.html

I am not going to bother posting the roswell after all everyone and there dug knows about that one.

Lets not forget our UKs most famous encouter not a crash but a landing at Bentwaters shared usaf/raf base at the time which was filmed and recored by the usaf base commander col holt. The video was removed by NSA agents according to col holt but he still has the full voice recording http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaOz7xfAwBM


There are plenty more across europe.

enjoy!

I have to admit, you had me going for a while!

Well, that's it - you've sold it to me. It's all real; the UFOs, Bob Lazar, the whole lot. There's no way any of that could be badly faked on a shoe-string budget. No siree.

I think you've nailed it, Enforcer. We are in the presence of a being of superior intellect

Dear or dear how could you have possibly wathced all that in 5 mins andrew again you dismiss evidence. without proving it to me.

Why would someone fake that? It would hardly be shoe string budget 20 men 2 trucks and cameras lol

I actually now pity you with your old fashioned approach, you probably go down to the post office every other day.

Oh that first one is brilliant.

Do you seriously think that at a 'UFO' crash people would just turn up with clip boards and some armed guards? (even in the 60s - I'm sure Barnacle would confirm - that a plane crash would have a some pretty thorough investigation teams)

Oh and it looks like it been buried, there's no impact crater. And besides the fact it looks freezing cold there would no doubt be more skid marks. It's also quite convenient that the crash it at the edge if a forrest. It would have been much harder to fake a crash totally surrounded by trees.


And not one of the scientists had a beard

another excellent nasa footage of multiple ufos in space including commentry from astronaughts confriming we are not alone and they are privlidged enough to be in on it http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=X-RPWhigpQg&feature=endscreen

I could go all day as the evidence is overhwelming wheter you chose to accept it or not.

Or you can read andrews slilly little website straightdope as we all are entitled to our own opinion.

If any one is interested in learing the facts with hundreads of key whitness testimony check out project camelot run by kerry cassidy and bill ryan it has been ongoing its a free source of information. Again in my view roughly 70% of it real.

Thats enough for me tonight.

Thanks

If I were filming what is possibly the first evidence of a UFO, I'd definitely do it by focussing on the soldiers and more or less ignoring the UFO. After all, what is important is making sure you have the identity of the eye witnesses before the government and media supress them. Otherwise how can I corroborate their by-now-conflicting eye-witness testimony years later on the internet?

You are quite right. The evidence is overwhelming.

Mansilla, you forgot your sarcasm flag...

Yep, definitely overwhelming evidence although the lack of beards is introducing a bit of doubt into my mind. Maybe the scientists were worried that the aliens might tug at them so shaved before going in?

I checked it out. Let's just see if I have the basic story straight ...

The crash at Roswell wasn't aliens at all, rather it was humans from the future who had travelled back in time on a humanitarian mission to change something in the timeline that was going to cause problems in the future. After the crash the US military recovered a device of theirs, which allowed them to see into the future.

It's now clear that the problem is related to the approach of a brown dwarf star (a planet roughly the same size as Jupiter, but with several times its mass) which is heading towards us, causing warming of all of the planets, increased solar activity and over-population (I'm not sure how, but it's what the web-site suggests. Some kind of super-astrology, I assume).

Anyway, NASA, the US military, whoever, having been forewarned of coming extinction have created a secret base on Mars, which is supplied by a combination of secret space missions and stargates (I swear this is what the web-site claims).

The web-site suggests that we all move to Australia, because the effects of the brown dwarf are likely to be less severe there, we should keep a store of bottled water, use some kind of postive thought to generate a field of psychic energy, which may help, and possibly use our mental powers to "bootstrap oneself into an optimum (least worst) timeline".

If your view is that 70% of that is real, or even 7%, then you've got problems.

But you haven't disproved any of it Andrew. To reject it out of hand like this is very closed-minded. As you are well aware, scientific method entails the construction of explanatory theories, and only when they are falsified should they be rejected.

I don't need to bother, I've got NASA to do my dirty work for me.

I'm guessing that, although NASA is made up of people who are highly credible when they're saying that they believe in UFOs, as an organisation NASA is part of the US government's cover-up and therefore not to be trusted.

I see what you mean. It appears that NASA is attempting to brainwash people into rejecting the Truth.

This thread is brilliant!

Loving the russian video aswell. Alien aircraft crash landed, should we perhaps video the entire crash site, expected trajectory etc?

No lets stay 10 metres away, focus on the people, and for the love of god dont go round the other side or you'll show the unpainted MDF!!

Alien autopsy. Shall we perhaps set up video cameras on tripods, document it from several angles? Who know this could be important one day.

Nah Sergei has a video camera, get him to stand in the corner.

To be honest though guys i think we're going about this the wrong way, its obvious that Jonny has a deep-rooted psychological need to feel special. He's mentioned 'the herd' in more than enough posts to show an inherent wish to be seen as an enlightened individual.

All we need to do, as 'the herd' is to agree with everything he says, if we all do it on mass, he wont be special anymore and he'll change his view to saying we're all mad and that all this 'evidence' we have is faked.

I've already asked him twice why he wants this stuff to be true, but he hasn't said. I think we need to help.

jonnybgt1759 - I just want you to know, and I am sure everyone else will back me up on this, that you are special, just the way you are. This is one of those threads, thanks largely to your own contributions, that is destined to go down in FCCUK history as one of the most entertaining ever.

Sincerely, this is the sort of thread that makes the General Chat section my early-morning fix for the day. It is, indeed, brilliant.

Wrong again andrew camelot has over 400 hours of whitness testimony some of which they clearly state might not be genuine. However a I said many times I only really view the 'credilbe' whistleblowers who can back up their claims.

What you were refering to was the ' Dan Burisch' interview who I conder to be a fraud.

On the other hand why not look at stanton friedmans work.

Also away from the ufo side a whistlebolwer prediected the japan tsumami 2 days before it occured blaiming 'HARRP' weather modification causing induced seismicity. http://zapatista44.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/project-camelot-dutchsinse-predicted.html

Its not a question wheter i want it to be true or not. I am looking at this phenomenon and filtering out what its not. After that with thousands of whitenss reports of encouters from policemen, miltary personal , astronauts & politicians as well as joe bloggs.

If you chose to label all these people 'nutters' then society has a major problem.

Keep a open mind and dont be led into the debunk culture as generally they fear what this could be hence their unwillingness to look at the data properly.

I suspect that isn't true. The large media groups are sufficiently so that they will report as they see fit.

My explanation is that there simply isn't a credible story there, hence the lack of coverage.

Really? My post was just a summary of this web page ... http://projectcamelot.org/big_picture.html ... which describes itself as "a detailed summary of our [Project Camelot's] tentative, current understanding of the core issues related to the presence of the visitors".

A lot of the stuff I'm "wrong" about does turn out to be right, doesn't it?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingsuit_flying

Whilst I am sure we, in the vastness of space, are not alone the above link shows as a race develops they find more exciting ways to kill them selves. Once sufficiently advanced to brake all laws of physics why would they come here and wind up some red necks?

Read further down andrew under 'footnotes' and that all the info on the page is from dan burisch.

So you read a partial potrain of a summary page which i already stated dan to be fraudelent.

Try viewieing the 400 hours of stuff and filtering out looking for links, genuine documentation backing it up.

Then respond to me with you hypothosis of what the phenomenon is and agenda of our own goverment regarding it.

One of if not the most credible man in the scence of ufo's is PHD nuclear physisist Stanton Friedman who easily debunks the debunkers like yourself andrew .

the clip is 16 mins long watch it and listen to what he has to say and just maybe you will relaize you dont review evidence properly http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxGASV9RYF0

[Heavy sarcasm] I'm coming to the inevitable conclusion. The most interesting things in the universe are:

1. The anus of a redneck
2. The interior of a cow

Hence constant alien visitation. They just want a closer look. And who wouldn't? Anyone who says its not true is a stooge of the machine, because I have over 1 witness testimonies, and one is from that weird bloke who used to be on the Phones4U adverts. He's been on TV, therefore reliable. So weigh the evidence. [/Heavy sarcasm]

Seriously, this is the thread that just keeps on giving. Excellent work all round.

No, it's a question of why. OK, I'll reframe it, and you answer honestly:

1. Do you want your beliefs to be true?

2. If yes, why?

Well I watched it, and he seems like a nice chap. However, that isn't the same as being a neutral observer.

What he misses is that every UFO debunker is a sceptic - there isn't one of them who, if UFOs appeared on the 10 o'clock news, landing on the White House lawn and little green men shaking hands with the president, would watch and say, "No, flying saucers are still a fiction!".

Every debunker is prepared to believe in alien visitors, given compelling enough evidence, whereas no amount of evidence (of fakes, liars, forgeries or hoaxes) will make you accept that we aren't subject to alien visitations ... and the crap that you've tried to pass off as proof on this thread shows just how bad you are at evaluating evidence.

Think of it like religion - if God descends from heaven in a fiery chariot then I'll re-think my atheism, but when it's red-necks finding the face of Jesus in a jar of marmite I'll not order my new rosary beads just yet.

Anyway, I found most of the Friedman interview to be a lot of hot air. He dodges the issue of how aliens get here (presumably as a physicist [although not a PhD one, so far as I can tell] he knows about the constraints that the theory of relativity places on space journeys) and fails to address that, despite all of his work, he has no material evidence for extra-terrestrial visitations.

So, I think it's great that he has an open mind, and that he encourages others to be likewise, but on the other hand he has been getting paid to talk and write about UFOs for more than 40 years now.

However, it's good to see that he refers to our old friend Bob Lazar as a fake, so he's not a complete nutter.