Evolutionary Science And Its Implications

[manxman2]

see post above china.

 

and i will make a seperate thread on that one peice of shuttle footage on which we can debate its merits.

 

but i am not going into it half cocked and letting you towering intellects make unsubstantiated claims and assumptions without being in full knowledge of my sourced and personally well considered replys .. its not happening again i am not going to argue a case on 6 or 7 year old memories.

[manxman2]

i treat as i am treated .. and love nothing more than for people both on the net and in life to under-estimate me .. infact i actively encourage it.

 

Where have I treated you anything with the equivalence of 'lycra clad wanker'?

 

you have been getting it large because you gave it large simple as .. you get pleasure out of belittling those you think you are more intelligent than .. however most of your arguements fall apart if kept to a narritive .. you dont like narritive .. slims worst nightmare is narrative.

 

I'm not belittling, I'm disagreeing. I don't think I'm more intelligent than anyone, I do find it difficult to let posts slide that I disagree with. Ans, for example, thinks you're talking bollocks, but he won't compose a reply to say why he thinks you're talking bollocks, he'll just say that you are. I take the time to reply, to engage a discussion, and you see that as belittling because I've a tendency to disagree with you. But that's why I'm posting! If I agreed with you, I wouldn't bother posting at all.

 

I don't understand your point about narrative, and it seems odd coming from someone who quotes examples and then rejects them a few posts later, like the whole Roswell thing. Can you give me an example of where I've struggled with narrative?

 

exactly its incalculable odds against there not being. .. am i still an asshole/retard etc for being open minded to alternate technologies being out there in space then..??

 

Your not, I just disagreed with your conclusion that spots around a tether were evidence of extra terrestrial technology.

 

there you go again with the arrogance.

 

I'm just disagreeing with you! It's an important point of scale, it's vital to this discussion. You've demonstrated a misunderstanding of it, and that's important. It's not arrogance, I just disagree!

 

theres no ofcourse about it. we dont know what we dont know its that simple.

 

Right. So you can't make things up to fit the conclusion you're after, which is what, in my opinion, you have done with the tether video.

 

and as for all those documented foia documents which we ordinary joes were never ever supposed to see where highly trained pilots/astronauts and various other highly trained observers with the armed forces talk in detail about crafts a mile in diameter etc with strobing lights etc that they flew within meters of in broad daylight in earths atmosphere i find them intriguing and if that makes me an uneducated retard then so be it. .. its not paedophilia or something grubby .. its a subject that our and many other armed forces and governments took extremely serious hence the incredible amount of detail in the debriefing documents..

 

Yes, they took it seriously, lots of people did, and then it was discounted. There's no evidence, there's nothing to work with, move on and deal with the things you can actually do something about. Some things remain unexplained, if new evidence occurs they should be re-examined, until then, shelve it.

 

 

you purposely make your posts provocative slim .. to activily encourage a bite .. just like the hook in the tail of the last post above..

but ofcourse i am too stupid too re-alise your intent. ..

 

i only answer half your rubbish to do the same back .. you liked the lycra clad wanker quote didnt you really eh .. made you smile..

[Lao]

if this thread was us all having a daydream about what kinda cool alien technology we would like to see an alien race share with us, i would be daydreaming with you. there is absolutely no shame in being fascinated by space, or future techs. The problem is what you have chosen to attach your interest to, these awful tether videos that have been debunked 1000 times.

 

The problem with the space programs is it is disapointing when compared to sci-fi, star trek has man zipping through the universe solving problems and banging hot alien chicks(every damn episode in ST:TOS), but in real life scientist get excited about finding ice water on mars.

 

for me the technology that would most interest me would be FTL travel. covering vast distances is the biggest problem facing any spacefaring race wanting to make contact with other life forms or finding other worlds to colonize.I have always harboured an idea that there is a direction of travel that we dont understand, to us it would seem as though we were folding space between us and our destination. its not up/down, left/right, forward/back, distance/time, it is simply a direction between two points that would offer almost instataneous travel, what i understand of entanglement theory has supported this idea. because we have height width and depth it is easy for us to percieve these dimensions of travel, i theorize that we have no mass or energy in my theoretical dimension and as a result we are unaware of its existance. and as such its increadibly difficult to describe!

 

this might also lead to transporter technology, much safer than being dis-assembled at a molecular level, an alien race that could solve heisenberg's uncertainty principle and actually make manipulations at the sub atomic level would be very interesting to me.

 

i would like to submit my application for xeno-diplomat at the earliest convienience, to whom should i speak?

 

after a few years of active duty, i would probably then move on to proffessor of xeno studies.

 

i like the sound of that.

[manxman2]

fantasise away loa knock yourself out son..

 

but why not see if any of what i have to say on the subject when its threaded up and chinas slims and dr daves questions/assumed guesses have been answered by direct quotes etc from people far more qualified than them to assess the footage before dismissing the footage out of hand .. you have nothing to lose .. there is an abundance of data there to be examined .. and the job would be alot easier if nasa did not keep on retagging alot of the links all the time ..

i have said all thru the thread i dont know what they are only that i know for sure what they are not.

 

after discounting what they are not leaves me no option to my mind that i am seeing some technology utilised in space .. whose tech is anybodies guess.

Edited June 24, 2009 by manxman2

[Slim]

for me the technology that would most interest me would be FTL travel. covering vast distances is the biggest problem facing any spacefaring race wanting to make contact with other life forms or finding other worlds to colonize.I have always harboured an idea that there is a direction of travel that we dont understand, to us it would seem as though we were folding space between us and our destination. its not up/down, left/right, forward/back, distance/time, it is simply a direction between two points that would offer almost instataneous travel, what i understand of entanglement theory has supported this idea. because we have height width and depth it is easy for us to percieve these dimensions of travel, i theorize that we have no mass or energy in my theoretical dimension and as a result we are unaware of its existance. and as such its increadibly difficult to describe!

 

Which is why so much science fiction is wrapped up in exactly this problem, any kind of 'life traversing the vast distances of space story' has to fudge in some kind of solution, be it hyperspace Star Wars, warp in Trek, folding space in Dune or Stasis in a number of seed ship type scenarios. I personally love Dan Simmons approach in the Hyperion series, where from my scratchy memory there was an alternative dimension that abused by mankind for trivial things like instant transportation between two points in our reality when it should have been used for so much more.

 

you purposely make your posts provocative slim .. to activily encourage a bite .. just like the hook in the tail of the last post above..

but ofcourse i am too stupid too re-alise your intent. ..

i only answer half your rubbish to do the same back .. you liked the lycra clad wanker quote didnt you really eh .. made you smile..

 

Nope, I answer based on what I think. I enjoy a discussion, I like to look at a statement like 'there are more planets in the galaxy than grains of sand in the world', decide it doesn't look right and debate that point. I'm happy to be challenged too, and won't react angrily if I'm found to be wrong, quite the opposite in fact.

 

after discounting what they are not leaves me no option to my mind that i am seeing some technology utilised in space .. whose tech is anybodies guess.

 

And that is precisely why you are a conspiracy theorist. An absence of evidence doesn't mean your conclusion automatically fits.

[manxman2]

if labelling me a conspiracy nut because i made a few posts on the 911 thread about the whole truth of the day not being told to the general public then fine .. however i would like to see you quote me saying anywhere that it was other than a terrorist attack. .. infact if you can i will donate £100 to the hospice and post a photo copy of the reciept here.

 

i have an open opinion on the tether footage.

 

 

am i not entitled to an opinion after doing my own research and discounting others thoeries on what i think is solidly presented data to the contrary.

 

have you discovered yet the life span of an ice molecule in the vacume of space either in the shadow of earth or in direct sunlight .

 

have you tried to find out when the shuttle last discharged its waste water before the footage took place.

 

have you even tried to get any technical data on the camera used.

 

have you read any official nasa documents on the data recieved from the satelite.

 

have you done any research on the tether components .. sheath etc and the effects of trapped oxygen in said tether as it turned to plasma and destroyed the experiment.

 

do the above and you may make a good case .. if not i will piss all over your guestimates and chinas school boy basic physics that was so oft quoted at me as i have/am doing/done.

Edited June 24, 2009 by manxman2

[Slim]

if labelling me a conspiracy nut because i made a few posts on the 911 thread about the whole truth of the day not being told to the general public then fine .. however i would like to see you quote me saying anywhere that it was other than a terrorist attack. .. infact if you can i will donate £100 to the hospice and post a photo copy of the reciept here.

 

I'm not talking about anything else other than the line I quoted. You discount what they are not, and conclude that they must be technology. That's the kind of leap of faith a conspiracy theorist makes, it shows, in my view, a fundamental flaw in your reasoning. Personally, if I discounted what something is not, I simply know what it isn't. I still don't know what it is.

 

am i not entitled to an opinion after doing my own research and discounting others thoeries on what i think is solidly presented data to the contrary.

 

Of course you are, and am I not entitled to disagree with it without being called names, accused of derails, and otherwise analysed and slagged off?

 

have you discovered yet the life span of an ice molecule in the vacume of space either in the shadow of earth or in direct sunlight .

have you tried to find out when the shuttle last discharged its waste water before the footage took place.

have you even tried to get any technical data on the camera used.

have you read any official nasa documents on the data recieved from the satelite.

have you done any research on the tether components .. sheath etc and the effects trapped oxygen is said tether had as it turn to plasma and destroyed the experiment.

do the above and you may make a good case .. if not i will piss all over your guestimates and chinas school boy basic physics that was so oft quoted at me as i have/am doing/done.

 

I don't need to. I think that what you're seeing in those videos is lens artifacts, and I provided a video that demonstrates it, which means it doesn't matter if it's ice or dust or reflected light or fart vapors escaping the astronauts space suit or something else. They're not technology, there's a number of things that point to what they are, and nothing that points to them being technology. Have you got any evidence that says what you're seeing is alien technology?

[manxman2]

I'm not talking about anything else other than the line I quoted. You discount what they are not, and conclude that they must be technology. That's the kind of leap of faith a conspiracy theorist makes, it shows, in my view, a fundamental flaw in your reasoning. Personally, if I discounted what something is not, I simply know what it isn't. I still don't know what it is.

 

i disagree slim.

 

the character flaw is prejudging a situation before anything has been presented .. which part of i will put up a thread when i am confident that my replies will stand up to scrutiny rather than going of 6 or 7 year old memories are you struggling to comprehend.

 

Of course you are, and am I not entitled to disagree with it without being called names, accused of derails, and otherwise analysed and slagged off?

 

ofcourse your fully aware of the irony in your words here are you not.??

 

I don't need to. I think that what you're seeing in those videos is lens artifacts, and I provided a video that demonstrates it, which means it doesn't matter if it's ice or dust or reflected light or fart vapors escaping the astronauts space suit or something else. They're not technology, there's a number of things that point to what they are, and nothing that points to them being technology. Have you got any evidence that says what you're seeing is alien technology?

 

just about sums up your debating style.. no research needed when all wind and piss will suffice .. physicists scientists who are they compared to you after all.

Edited June 24, 2009 by manxman2

[Lao]

fantasise away loa knock yourself out son..

 

but why not see if any of what i have to say on the subject when its threaded up and chinas slims and dr daves questions/assumed guesses have been answered by direct quotes etc from people far more qualified than them to assess the footage before dismissing the footage out of hand .. you have nothing to lose .. there is an abundance of data there to be examined .. and the job would be alot easier if nasa did not keep on retagging alot of the links all the time ..

i have said all thru the thread i dont know what they are only that i know for sure what they are not.

 

after discounting what they are not leaves me no option to my mind that i am seeing some technology utilised in space .. whose tech is anybodies guess.

 

i look forward to it.

 

have you discovered yet the life span of an ice molecule in the vacume of space either in the shadow of earth or in direct sunlight .

 

this would be a very difficult thing to achieve, as temperature is a expression of the behaviour of the atomic vibration of a solid or the vibrational and rotational behavior of a gas. although space is not quite a vacuum, it is largely empty of anything that could vibrate and therefore is a very cold place. IIRC the temperature of space outside a solar system is based on the background radiation of photons generated by the big bang and has been measured at about 2K (-270 degrees C) inside a solar system is is only slighty warmer due to the solar winds.

 

a more pertinant question might be what would cause ice to melt in space at all, if it does not meet with the friction of an atmoshere or collide with an object travelling at speed?

 

i dont claim to be an expert on the subject, and the above might be better explained by someone with more up to date knowledge on the subject.

[manxman2]

ice doesnt melt in space .. it either super heats or super freezes .. which is for all intents and purposes the same thing.

 

it sublimates.

 

and i do not claim to be an expert .. but i now know some people who are .. thanks for the advice .. atleast now someone is making an effort.

Edited June 24, 2009 by manxman2

[ans]

if not i will piss all over your guestimates and chinas school boy basic physics that was so oft quoted at me as i have/am doing/done.

 

At first I laughed at this. Then I became a little depressed when I realised you were serious. You genuinely believe you're gained the upper hand in places.

 

You're mistaken. Badly.

[Slim]

ice doesnt melt in space .. it either super heats or super freezes .. which is for all intents and purposes the same thing.

 

Can you explain how super heating is the same as super freezing? What has 'super freezing' got to do with melting?

[manxman2]

a more pertinant question might be what would cause ice to melt in space at all.

 

in bold hence my reply.

 

super freezing and heating have virtually the same effect slim gasation i.e. sublimation.

 

basic school boy physics slim thought you may have knew that.

[Slim]

a more pertinant question might be what would cause ice to melt in space at all.

in bold hence my reply.

super freezing and heating have virtually the same effect slim gasation i.e. sublimation.

basic school boy physics slim thought you may have knew that.

 

If it's basic school boy physics, why don't you explain to me how ice sublimates in space due to low temperatures like I asked? If ice sublimates at both high and low temperatures, are you saying there is no ice in space?

 

Why is it more pertinent to ask what would cause ice to melt in space? What are you trying to say?

[manxman2]

if you wanbt to know slim research it yourself as i have .. i will decide what and when i post thanks.