Evolutionary Science And Its Implications

[Miss Take]

you should watch martin stubbs original footage then china .. but you have to buy it..

 

I'll admit to only skim reading this thread, but the above quote I think tells me everything I need to know. Smacks of 'jesus will love you even more if you call this toll free number...'

[Chinahand]

patience isnt a virtue you guys have been overly endowed with.

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3874568473252816241

 

nothing wrong with word or works of lockhead scientists/phycisists.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYsmn4rxgh0...feature=related

What he is demonstrating isn't anything special - its a parlour trick - I think every 1st year engineering lab has an experiment showing the properties of objects in a magnetic field - sure it can bamboozal a credulous journalist playing with magnets, but what he is demonstrating here is very easily explainable - antigravity my arse, more like magnetic and electrical field interactions.

[manxman2]

Sorry i keep getting sidetracked in all these freedom of information act revelations.

 

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/03P...es/x_file02.pdf

 

http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/declass/ufo/index.shtml

 

This report forwards information concerning the sighting of an UFO in Iran on 19 September 1976.

 

A. Atabout12: 30 AM on 19 Sep. 76. the received four telephone calls from citizens living in the Shemiran area of Tehran saying that they had seen strange objects in the sky. Some reported a kind of bird-like object while others reported a helicopter with a light on. There were no helicopters airborne at that time.

 

After he told the citizen it was only stars and tlad talked to Mehrabad Tower he decided to look for himself. He noticed an object in the sky similar to a star bigger and brighter, He decided to scramble an F-4 from Shahrokhi AFB to investigate.

 

B. At 0130 hrs on the 19th the F-4 took off and proceeded to a point about 40 NM (nautical miles-Ed.) North of Tehran. Due to its brilliance the object was easily visible from 70 miles away. As the F-4 approached a range of 25 NM he lost all instrumentation and communications (UHF and intercom). He broke off the intercept and headed back to Shahrokhi.

 

When the F-4 turned away from the object and apparently was no longer a threat to it the aircraft regained all instrumentation and communications. At 0140 hrs a second F-4 was launched. The backseater acquired a radar lock on at 27 NM, 12 o'clock high position with the VD (rate of closure) at 150 NMPH. As the range decreased to 25 NM the object moved away at a speed that was visible on the radar scope and stayed at 25 NM.

 

C. The size of the radar return was comparable to that of a 707 tanker. The visual size of the object was difficult to discern because of its intense brilliance. The light that it gave off was that of flashing strobe lights arranged in a rectangular pattern and alternating blue, green, red and orange in color. The sequence of the lights was so fast that all the colors could be seen at once. The object and the pursuing F-4 continued on a course to the south of Tehran when another brightly lighted object, estimated to be one half to one third the apparent size of the moon, came out of the original object.

 

This second object headed straight toward the F-4 at a very fast rate of speed. The pilot attempted to fire an AIM-9 missile at the object but at that Instant his weapons control panel went off and he lost allcommunications (UHF and Interphone). At this point the pilot initiated a turn and negative G dive to get away. As he turned the object fell in trail at what appeared to be about 3-4 NM as he continued ln his turn away from the primary object the second object went to the inside of his turn then returned to the primary object for a perfect rejoin.

 

D. Shortly after the second object joined up with the primary object another object appeared to come out of the other side of the primary object going straight down at a great rate of speed. The F-4 crew had regained communications and the weapons control panel and watched the object approach the ground anticipating a large explosion. This object appeared to come to rest gently on the earth and cast a very bright light over an area of about 2-3 kilometers. The crew descended from their altitude of 25M to 15M and continued to observe and mark the object's position.

 

They had some difficulty in adjusting their night visibility for landing so after orbiting Mehrabad a few times they went out for a straight in landing. There was a lot of interference on the UHF and each time they passed through a mag. bearing of 150 degree from Fhrarad they lost their communications. (UHF and Interphone) and the ins fluctuated (instruments -Ed.) from 30 degrees-50 degrees.

 

The one civil airliner that was approaching Mehrabad during this same time experienced communications failure In the same Vicinity (KILO ZULU) but did not report seeing anything.

 

While the F-4 was on a long final approach the crew noticed another cylinder shaped object about the size of a T-bird at 10M [10,000 ft. Ed.] with bright steady lights on each end and a flasher in the middle. When queried the tower stated there was no other known traffic in the area.

 

During the time that the object passed over the F-4 the tower did not have a visual on it but picked it up after the pilot told them to look between the mountains and the refinery.

 

E. During daylight the F-4 crew was taken out to the area in a helicopter where the object apparently had landed. Nothing was noticed at the spot they thought the object landed (a dry lake bed) but as they circled off the the west of the area they picked up a very noticeable beeper signal.

 

At the point where the return was the loudest was a small house with a garden. They landed and asked the people within if they had noticed anything strange last night. The people talked about a loud noise and a very bright light like lightning. The aircraft and area where the object is believed to have landed are being checked for possible radiation.

 

More Information will beforwarded when it becomes available.

 

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ufos/

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ufos/existing-files.asp

http://www.foia.cia.gov/search.asp?pageNum...qRecord=ufo.txt

http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/ufo.htm

http://www.bluebookarchive.org/search.aspx

http://www.foia.af.mil/reading/documents/index.asp

http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/ufo/

 

heres an example of links i posted on the 18/6/09 that once pointed out to interested partie/s {Oberg} disappear within 24 hrs.

 

http://www.defenselink.mil/faq/pis/16.html {edit its actually linking now but not to what it did 4 or 5 days ago }

 

and another after a quote was pointed out to him.{this link went dead within 6 hours}

 

http://www.nsa.gov:8080/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo5.pdf

 

just 2 of several links that died after he was proved to be blatantly misleading the public. {Oberg}

 

strange shit when over 50% of the links you use to source your data from government sites die within 48 hours after revealing them to Oberg. .. i find that intrigueing to be honest.

Edited June 22, 2009 by manxman2

[Slim]

Is this like the Roswell thing, where you deflect your earlier stupidness with something else you belive in, only to drop it like a stone when it's pointed out how tenuous it is? I mean, if we bother to reply, as before, are you just going to say we're derailing and you really wanted to talk about mysterious blobs on old shuttle cameras?

[ans]

i find that intrigueing to be honest.

 

I find it obvious. He's not a credible source of information.

[manxman2]

slim along with infinite universes come infinite possibilities you may remember oberg he is the official nasa debunker whose hypothosises yourself and china so eagerly latched onto .. and do you really think im going to start throwing you crumbs of info about how i will PROVE beyond reasonable doubt that ice crystals / space junk is a crock of bollocks.

 

start by actually examing what the camera is actually filming a 0.01 inch strand of wire from one hundred nautical miles that you do know beyond doubt.

 

i have put all your relevent posts to the thread about the tether footage onto word document and will reply to your posts same as with china in an orderly fashion .. that way your attempts to detour the thread your way, and the constant taunts stroke disruptive retard posts will not gets in the way of the real facts.

 

good luck with your googling.

 

lets see how your replies look against properly sourced and balanced replies.

 

i will be about a week yet i would think .. i have little things to do like find the camera serial number etc..

 

i will edit you a little bone in .. the last time the shuttle discharged waste products before the tether was filmed was 16 hours prior to the footage .. how long do ice crystals last in space ?? .. check that out it will stop both of you making cunts outta yourselves .. the said info is right infront of you aswell you only have to look at the shuttles daily logs it is/was there.

Edited June 22, 2009 by manxman2

[Slim]

slim along with infinite universes come infinite possibilities you may remember oberg he is the official nasa debunker whose hypothosises yourself and china so eagerly latched onto .. and do you really think im going to start throwing you crumbs of info about how i will PROVE beyond reasonable doubt that ice crystals / space junk is a crock of bollocks.

 

start by actually examing what the camera is actually filming a 0.01 inch strand of wire from one hundred nautical miles that you do know beyond doubt.

 

i have put all your relevent posts to the thread about the tether footage onto word document and will reply to your posts same as with china in an orderly fashion .. that way your attempts to detour the thread your way, and the constant taunts stroke disruptive retard posts will not gets in the way of the real facts.

 

good luck with your googling.

 

lets see how your replies look against properly sourced and balanced replies.

 

i will be about a week yet i would think .. i have little things to do like find the camera serial number etc..

 

i will edit you a little bone in .. the last time the shuttle discharged waste products before the tether was filmed was 16 hours prior to the footage .. how long do ice crystals last in space ?? .. check that out it will stop both of you making cunts outta yourselves .. the said info is right infront of you aswell you only have to look at the shuttles daily logs it is/was there.

 

[manxman2]

i find that intrigueing to be honest.

 

I find it obvious. He's not a credible source of information.

 

he is the source of both slims and chinas information .. quote verbatim by both.

 

and on whomes basic principle of debunk their arguement is based on.

Edited June 22, 2009 by manxman2

[Chinahand]

Manxman2 - can you tell me what the astronaut who took the shuttle film actually said as he was filming the tether?

 

Was Mr Oberg intercepting the comms between the shuttle and ground control when he said it?

 

Was I mysteriously been taken over by Mr Oberg when I pointed out that the thickness of the image of the tether doesn't alter even when the astronaut zooms in on it.

 

Was Dr Dave been sockpuppeted by Mr Oberg when he showed how the notches in the blobs alter as the blobs move around in the field of view of the video camera.

 

The fact that Mr Oberg said things isn't relevent - it is the fact they were coherent, fit in with the facts presented and can be objectively judged which have made them useful to me.

 

You can entirely remove Mr Oberg from this waste of time. I await links to show me that it is impossible for these images to be ice crystals, but will remain highly sceptical - if they come from above-top-secret.com or similar I will treat them as pretty worthless.

 

We've direct testimony of the astronaut filming, consistent evidence from the video that their appearance is due to artifacts of the camera. You need to explain why these images change shape consistently with a lense apparation - you are welcome to try, but your current efforts are laughably rediculous.

 

MM2 you are coming over as an ignorant crank - believe me. It isn't doing anything for your credibility. You can keep digging if you want, but the hole you've currently dug is pretty sad to behold.

 

Please understand - astronomers are involved in multi-million pound efforts to hunt for near earth objects and scan the skys for evidence of extra-terrrestial intelligence. Both are mainstream, if underfunded, areas of science. The idea that these researchers should be combing youtube and ufo-truth.com for their research material is laughable.

 

I await answers in Science and Nature not Youtube. I do expect those papers some day - gosh if its before I die it will be one of the most incredible days of my life, but really Youtube is very very very very very unlikely to convince me.

 

I totally agree people have seen lights in the sky etc etc etc - but that is just evidence of ignorance, not evidence of ETI.

 

I really hope you stop wasting your time, but don't really expect you to. God help us.

[Slim]

he is the source of both slims and chinas information .. quote verbatim by both.

 

and on whomes basic principle of debunk their arguement is based on.

 

Debunk my arse, it was him who intercepted your so called smoking gun! Of course I used his following denial and admission that it was a scam. That doesn't mean everything he says for the rest of his days is suddenly my gospel.

[manxman2]

maybe spend an extra 5 mins on your googling slim it will double your accuracy. .. {you do the maths}

 

a very school masterly post china i feel siutably humbled by your superior intelect..

 

Manxman2 - can you tell me what the astronaut who took the shuttle film actually said as he was filming the tether?

 

why can you not tell us then..??

 

Was I mysteriously been taken over by Mr Oberg when I pointed out that the thickness of the image of the tether doesn't alter even when the astronaut zooms in on it.

 

which particular zoom as its hard to tell use timings .. dont bother i am not getting back into a 2 and forth with you .. however i will answer the above on my tether thread.

 

as for your oberg quips you were the one who introduced him as your star witness to the thread no matter how much you now regret not checking your source out .. and based your ice crystal/space junk theory on.

 

Was Dr Dave been sockpuppeted by Mr Oberg when he showed how the notches in the blobs alter as the blobs move around in the field of view of the video camera.

 

dave was well intentioned but wrong as will transpire.

 

The fact that Mr Oberg said things isn't relevent - it is the fact they were coherent, fit in with the facts presented and can be objectively judged which have made them useful to me

 

that just about says it all .. as long as its coherent and plausible you can safely rule out any other hypothosis then .. way to go.

 

We've direct testimony of the astronaut filming, consistent evidence from the video that their appearance is due to artifacts of the camera. You need to explain why these images change shape consistently with a lense apparation - you are welcome to try, but your current efforts are laughably rediculous

 

i was going of pure memory .. now i am not .. and in future i will source everything about the opical effects .. everything .. will you ?? or will you still be using phrases like basic school boy physics..?

 

this quote shows the physics involved.

 

EARLY FINDINGS FROM TETHERED SATELLITE MISSION

POINT TO REVAMPING OF SPACE PHYSICS THEORIES

Numerous space physics and plasma theories are being revised or overturned by data gathered during the Tethered Satellite System Reflight (TSS-1R) experiments on Space Shuttle Columbia’s STS-75 mission last March.

Models, accepted by scientists for more than 30 years, are incorrect and must be rewritten.

 

 

MM2 you are coming over as an ignorant crank - believe me. It isn't doing anything for your credibility. You can keep digging if you want, but the hole you've currently dug is pretty sad to behold.

 

personel attacks mean nothing to me .. and goes directly to YOUR credibility not mine.

 

Please understand - astronomers are involved in multi-million pound efforts to hunt for near earth objects and scan the skys for evidence of extra-terrrestial intelligence. Both are mainstream, if underfunded, areas of science. The idea that these researchers should be combing youtube and ufo-truth.com for their research material is laughable

strangely enough i did know that .. and the fact billions have been spent by the americans trying to catch any signals etc. .. some people obviously think its money well spent looking for chattering little green men almost makes me humble just being interested in the possible technology.

 

No they get their data from nasa as i have .. examples from links already provided.

 

 

 

the rest of the post isnt worthy of reply surely you can think of better ways to exercise your frontal lobes..

 

 

 

 

 

as for me i havent got a theory as i do not know for sure what is on the stubbs videos i am just very confident about what they are not .. however i do know they are genuine tapes otherwise nasa would not have gone to the high court/american equivalent to block their release to the general public claiming copy right, if it wasnt for stubbs we wouldnt be going to have a debate on said footage.

a hastily prepared debunk after losing said court case doesnt do it for me i am affraid theres much more to this incident as will be clearly demonstrated.

 

i will not be posting on this thread again .. however i will under-take to answer all outstanding queries that i can using the best sources i can.

 

ps this guy has your type well sussed.

 

"The behavior of highly biased 'sneering scoffers' who try to legitimize their prejudice by donning the mantle of science and proper skepticism. They claim to support reason/logic while in fact filling their arguments with plenty of ad-hominems, straw-man, poisoning-the-well, and numerous other emotion-enflaming fallacies and debating tactics." - William J. Beaty

Edited June 22, 2009 by manxman2

[Slim]

"The behavior of highly biased 'sneering scoffers' who try to legitimize their prejudice by donning the mantle of science and proper skepticism. They claim to support reason/logic while in fact filling their arguments with plenty of ad-hominems, straw-man, poisoning-the-well, and numerous other emotion-enflaming fallacies and debating tactics." - William J. Beaty

 

He's skeptical about skeptics?

[ans]

i will not be posting on this thread again

 

Bet you do.

[Lao]

"The behavior of highly biased 'sneering scoffers' who try to legitimize their prejudice by donning the mantle of science and proper skepticism. They claim to support reason/logic while in fact filling their arguments with plenty of ad-hominems, straw-man, poisoning-the-well, and numerous other emotion-enflaming fallacies and debating tactics." - William J. Beaty

 

He's skeptical about skeptics?

 

im skeptical of his skepticism of skeptics.

 

i really cant believe that this discussion is ongoing. obviously my last post (which i injected with a lot of physics sarcasm) didnt hit the mark.

 

so here is a much more credible authority on life elsewhere in the universe and the question of "have we been visited?"

 

 

you can skip to about 3:40 for the relavant portion of the video but shame on you if you do.

 

thread won.

[VinnieK]

i will under-take to answer all outstanding queries that i can using the best sources i can.

 

So, youtube, anecdotal evidence and hearsay, and whatever public domain articles you find you can twist and misinterpret to suit your argument?

 

What's the convention on how such sources are cited? Do they require individual entries in the bibliography, or is it more usual to write "(Bllk) Bollocks, the Internet. Various years."?