NationStates Jolt Archive

If I throw a rock it becomes a missile.
:rolleyes:

A missile in modern weapons parlance is a guided weapon that uses propellant while in flight. A rocket is one without guidance. If you want to talk weapons, educate yourself before making wild claims.


Right. Because people can easily tell the difference between solid & gas.


It's called fire discipline and training. Any soldier who would fire off all his ammo at the clouds would never be allowed outside training camp until he learned better.

Conspiracy theorists like to ignore that sort of conditioning because it shoots their claims full of holes.


And you have made them all out to be crackpots.


Anyone who claims to see a currently living Elvis, Jesus, alien craft or other fantastical occurrences that defy logic without any form of evidence can be safely dismissed as a crackpot.


as anyone would.


Then clearly you are not "anyone". You have made illogical leaps of faith, made baseless assertions, demanded that non-evidence be treated as evidence and not made any attempt at a logical and thorough investigation.

Instead, you offer up wild theories by people of little credibility, doctored images, and accusations.


Elvis is dead. Even if he were alive, he is one person, not an entire species or several species. An alien can die but more will still be out there.


And there could be an army of Elvis clones hiding out under Las Vegas. There's a thousand and one crackpot theories out there, all running with the same amount of credibility and claims method as your alien spaceship conspiracies. Until you provide tangible proof for any of your claims, it will have no more truth to it than Mahatma Ghandi being able to fly.


But no signs. No sightings. No reports. Not even a hint of it ever happening. Not the same case with UFOs

Of course not. Total existence failure would mean that if it happened, there would be no one to observe it. They'd no longer exist.

That being said, there are plenty of sightings of "Elvis".

http://www.elvissightingbulletinboard.com/

So, why is yours more credible again? And don't give me that numbers rubbish, it makes huge leaps of ignorance and hopes that no one will poke too closely at it.


And that could be the case with a 2 second investigation.


For all the effort the conspiracy theorists put into theirs, a genuine 2 second investigation would unearth a lot more truth than believers.


You seem to think that one that sees a UFO is automaticly going to turn away as if some reflex. I submit the shock & awe would freeze them in their tracks which would be a good explination of people grabbing a camera too late.

And this nicely kills your claims of "real UFO photos". So which one is it?

A missile in modern weapons parlance is a guided weapon that uses propellant while in flight. A rocket is one without guidance. If you want to talk weapons, educate yourself before making wild claims.
And the first rocket was a missile , anyway you slice it.

It's called fire discipline and training. Any soldier who would fire off all his ammo at the clouds would never be allowed outside training camp until he learned better.

So then boot camp must be one of the funniest things of all to a DI. Since ordinary people can become so incredibly confused buy a cloud. (accoring to you)

Then clearly you are not "anyone". You have made illogical leaps of faith, made baseless assertions, demanded that non-evidence be treated as evidence By admiting I don't have proof positive?

and not made any attempt at a logical and thorough investigation.

The investigations have gone on for decades, by governments and private citizens. No need to come unraveled when 2 pieces of the puzzle are put together. It was bound to happen sooner or later.


Instead, you offer up wild theories by people of little credibility, doctored images, and accusations.
Sheriffs, pilots and the former governor of Arizona have little credibility?

That being said, there are plenty of sightings of "Elvis".

http://www.elvissightingbulletinboard.com/

So, why is yours more credible again? And don't give me that numbers rubbish, it makes huge leaps of ignorance and hopes that no one will poke too closely at it.

At the top of your link:
"Where Is The King? Tell The World Where YOU Saw Elvis Presley!"

Do UFO researchers operate in this manner? encouraging people to say anything?


For all the effort the conspiracy theorists put into theirs, a genuine 2 second investigation would unearth a lot more truth than believers.
:rolleyes:


And this nicely kills your claims of "real UFO photos". So which one is it?

Since we have heard reports, it's obvious the shock & awe is not permanent. If they are lucky enough they can snap to and grab a camera.

I WANT TO BELIEVE! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnOywclWe58)

rofl. :D

And the first rocket was a missile , anyway you slice it.

The first English speaking terms used to describe them, after they dropped direct Chinese translations, was rockets, any possible way you slice it. But don't let facts get in your way.


So then boot camp must be one of the funniest things of all to a DI. Since ordinary people can become so incredibly confused buy a cloud. (accoring to you)

Only a small handful of them, judging by how few people proclaim their fantastical delusions to be reality with so little backing them up.

Most people are sensible enough to actually think things through before jumping to the magic fairy conclusions unlike conspiracy nuts.


By admiting I don't have proof positive?


And claiming that it's proof itself. That kind of dishonesty is just slimy.


The investigations have gone on for decades, by governments and private citizens.

And yet not one of these investigations, real investigations that don't depend on tabloid style make facts up reporting, has ever been shown to exist. All you have is lies and exaggerations from people more interested in their agenda than actual truth who are no different from scientologists.


Sheriffs, pilots and the former governor of Arizona have little credibility?


Their professions mean nothing to count for their credibility. Their words and actions do. And none of them have been shown to be credible with their statements.


At the top of your link:
"Where Is The King? Tell The World Where YOU Saw Elvis Presley!"

Do UFO researchers operate in this manner? encouraging people to say anything?

Yes. They also do misleading questions, inflate numbers, and make up facts like calling 200 people polled several million.


:rolleyes:


Of course you would do that. After all, when all you have is belief and the facts go against it, all you can do is close your eyes and hope the facts go away.

Why else would you constantly change goalposts, and dismiss clear cut facts that go against them?


Since we have heard reports, it's obvious the shock & awe is not permanent. If they are lucky enough they can snap to and grab a camera.

Or maybe they just faked them for 5 seconds of fame. Have you ever considered that?

There's no clear picture of any type of claimed alien spacecraft that has not been debunked as either a photoshop or natural phenomena.

Most people are sensible enough to actually think things through


Of course they are. Which is why people can't mistake a cloud for a UFO.


And yet not one of these investigations, real investigations that don't depend on tabloid style make facts up reporting, has ever been shown to exist. All you have is lies and exaggerations from people more interested in their agenda than actual truth who are no different from scientologists.



Their professions mean nothing to count for their credibility. Their words and actions do. And none of them have been shown to be credible with their statements.

Yes. They also do misleading questions, inflate numbers, and make up facts like calling 200 people polled several million.

Or maybe they just faked them for 5 seconds of fame. Have you ever considered that?

There's no clear picture of any type of claimed alien spacecraft that has not been debunked as either a photoshop or natural phenomena.

Are all of them lying? Impossible. Are none of them Lying? Impossible.
Out of all of them is only one the real deal? More would be likely but no way to really know. But UFO sightings date back to 47,000BC:
http://www.ufodigest.com/news/0308/firstufo.html

How important was 5 seconds of fame back then?

Of course they are. Which is why people can't mistake a cloud for a UFO.



Are all of them lying? Impossible. Are none of them Lying? Impossible.
Out of all of them is only one the real deal? More would be likely but no way to really know. But UFO sightings date back to 47,000BC:
http://www.ufodigest.com/news/0308/firstufo.html

How important was 5 seconds of fame back then?

Prove it. Very nice to claim, but some proof would be appreciated. And recognising possible bias in your sources would also be useful. ufodigest.com ? Likely to have a slight agenda there, I think?

Prove it. Very nice to claim, but some proof would be appreciated. And recognising possible bias in your sources would also be useful. ufodigest.com ? Likely to have a slight agenda there, I think?

So counter with "ufo's are bullshit dot com" or whatever. Not seeing much in the way of sceptic science here as far as links go. And if my links were from CNN, FOX, ABC, BBC this thread would not have even started. (and as I suspect, we would probably be running our cars with a d cell battery that last 10 years or the like)

So counter with "ufo's are bullshit dot com" or whatever. Not seeing much in the way of sceptic science here as far as links go. And if my links were from CNN, FOX, ABC, BBC this thread would not have even started. (and as I suspect, we would probably be running our cars with a d cell battery that last 10 years or the like)

No. You've claimed there is evidence of UFOs from 47000 years ago, and linked to an article which also only claims this.

Show us pictures of the paintings, evidence, damnit, evidence.

And quieten down the conspiracy theory. There are so many problems with such a line I can't even be bothered to start.

Ancient UFO drawings:
http://www.alien-ufo-pictures.com/ancient_aliens.html

UFOs are not real.

So counter with "ufo's are bullshit dot com" or whatever. Not seeing much in the way of sceptic science here as far as links go. And if my links were from CNN, FOX, ABC, BBC this thread would not have even started. (and as I suspect, we would probably be running our cars with a d cell battery that last 10 years or the like)

Are there any cave paintings 50,000 years old? Wouldn't that be a good place to start before you post that kind of source....

Since the oldest known cave art comes from Europe, and the oldest among THOSE is aged at around 32,000 years (the next oldest NON-European source is in Namibia, and is probably about 25,000 years old) it seems that your source is making some pretty imaginative claims.

(Incidentally, the oldest established Asia sources are maybe 2,000 years old - well within the scope of recorded history... so claiming that there are UFO recordings in Hunan seems to be relying more on the fact that most people know nothing about China... than anything about actual evidence).

Of course they are. Which is why people can't mistake a cloud for a UFO.

You mean like the very same people who look at a shopped photo showing a rusty bolt composited in a grainy night sky and claim "Aliens!"?


Are all of them lying? Impossible.


Are all of them telling untruths? Very possible. What you think is true does not need to be fact. In fact, what is true can be used to bludgeon people to death, and they'll still believe otherwise. The lunatic fringe of conspiracy theorists, extremist fundamentalists and cultists are proof of this.


Out of all of them is only one the real deal? More would be likely but no way to really know.


People used to believe that lightning strikes were the act of god. Zeus, Yahweh, whatever. Lots and lots of people believed it. Didn't mean they were any nearer the truth than you were.


But UFO sightings date back to 47,000BC:
http://www.ufodigest.com/news/0308/firstufo.html


How quaint. The article, and your later links, talks about a lot of pie in the sky things, but furnishes no proof, and only demonstrates the ability of the author to use photoshop to composite images. Reproducing such blatant counterfeits is the work of a few minutes to any talented artist. A continuation of your trend of throwing any amount of rubbish into the air and hoping that one of them will stick. Maybe if it talks about the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus sightings next, you'll believe it too.

Maybe I should use Stormfront "articles" to prove the inferiority of the untersmench races then? Would you also believe it to be gospel truth? Or how about Phelps, with his "God hates fags" rants? Maybe you'll believe that too.

All you've brought to the table is nothing but the rants of people so desperate to believe that they're special, they'll concoct lies to aid in it.

You mean like the very same people who look at a shopped photo showing a rusty bolt composited in a grainy night sky and claim "Aliens!"?

A photo? What does that have to do with distinguishing between clouds & solids?

Are all of them telling untruths? Very possible. What you think is true does not need to be fact. In fact, what is true can be used to bludgeon people to death, and they'll still believe otherwise. The lunatic fringe of conspiracy theorists, extremist fundamentalists and cultists are proof of this.
Wtf does that even mean? Cultists now? Conspiracy theorists are loonies? Tell that to Woodward & Bernstein.


People used to believe that lightning strikes were the act of god. Zeus, Yahweh, whatever. Lots and lots of people believed it. Didn't mean they were any nearer the truth than you were.

So with that tidbit of illogic, you seem to think they had doppler radar back then and should have known the difference.

How quaint. The article, and your later links, talks about a lot of pie in the sky things, but furnishes no proof, and only demonstrates the ability of the author to use photoshop to composite images. Reproducing such blatant counterfeits is the work of a few minutes to any talented artist. A continuation of your trend of throwing any amount of rubbish into the air and hoping that one of them will stick. Maybe if it talks about the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus sightings next, you'll believe it too.

Maybe I should use Stormfront "articles" to prove the inferiority of the untersmench races then?


Maybe ANY link that shows a mass conspiricy which you have claimed time & time again.

<snip>
Maybe ANY link that shows a mass conspiricy which you have claimed time & time again.

Which we have claimed? You're the one here who's claiming that aliens have made contact, the CIA have files on it, these are being suppressed, and that massive technological discoveries are also being suppressed.

You know what they say about extraordinary claims, guv?

Maybe ANY link that shows a mass conspiricy which you have claimed time & time again.

Like the CIA withholding vital information?

No.. wait... that was you...

Like the CIA withholding vital information?

No.. wait... that was you...

Beat you to it, I'm afraid.

I'm actually working through that link he gave us, and suggesting at least one more plausible alternate explanation for every one of the images it has. Going to take me a while, I think.

Which we have claimed? You're the one here who's claiming that aliens have made contact, the CIA have files on it, these are being suppressed, and that massive technological discoveries are also being suppressed.

You know what they say about extraordinary claims, guv?

Yes. EXTRAORDINARY claims. Like every single UFO sighting has a non-UFO explination. Still waiting Mr States. (or anyone else)

It doesn't matter if they can build their own worlds. They must have started from somewhere. Arguing that they just popped into existence like that is no different than arguing the existence of an omnipotent god who just popped into being just like that.

Everything starts from something. You can't escape that.

I never said they just popped into existence... I meant that life on other worlds may have to deal with radically different variables than we have on Earth.

Yes. EXTRAORDINARY claims. Like every single UFO sighting has a non-UFO explination. Still waiting Mr States. (or anyone else)

What you are, in fact, saying - is that UFO's are to be considered true until they are ALL proven false?

You don't see that as a problematic proposition to start from?

Using that logic, we can all now be fairly certain that you are John McCain's sextoy. Right? True until it can be PROVED false?

Yes. EXTRAORDINARY claims. Like every single UFO sighting has a non-UFO explination. Still waiting Mr States. (or anyone else)

Your logic is faulty. Given the mathematical unlikeliness of any sort of extra terrestrial visit, combined with the surprising lack of solid evidence on anything like the scale claimed, the task is on you to show that, for any particular UFO case, not one of the non-extraterrestrial explanations is more likely.

Anyway, I have just completed writing up a total response to the link of 'evidence' you provided, containing images of 'UFOs'. Once it is typed (which may take some time) it will be posted.

Edit: And by total, I include every damn image that was on that series of pages. Hence why it took some time.

Dragon - you didn't see http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14106514&postcount=511 or you just decided not to deal with the fact that I just ripped your source a new asshole?

Dragon - you didn't see http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14106514&postcount=511 or you just decided not to deal with the fact that I just ripped your source a new asshole?

50,000 year old paintings/scratchwork/whatever you call it? Even older than that.
http://www.reasons.org/resources/faf/96q4faf/artmusic.shtml

What about ancient tools? You can't scratch an ancient stone for an ancient picture without some ancient tools can you? Is 135,000 years old enough?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1528086/posts

Europe did you say?

Your logic is faulty. Given the mathematical unlikeliness of any sort of extra terrestrial visit.
Oh Brilliant!!! You grab your calculator. I'll get some popcorn.

I have just completed writing up a total response to the link of 'evidence' you provided, containing images of 'UFOs'. Once it is typed (which may take some time) it will be posted


You just might find that all the pictures are bogus. Welcome to the Patriot Act era. I do humbly thank for taking the time to do that though and look forward to commenting afterwards. I havn't seen them all.

50,000 year old paintings/scratchwork/whatever you call it? Even older than that.
http://www.reasons.org/resources/faf/96q4faf/artmusic.shtml

What about ancient tools? You can't scratch an ancient stone for an ancient picture without some ancient tools can you? Is 135,000 years old enough?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1528086/posts

Europe did you say?

Yes, the oldest cave paintings - which is what your source was talking about, are STILL in France.

The 'cave art' you connected to is not painted, but 'punched'.... and might not actually be a picture at all, it said it was so "abstract as to be indecipherable".

Not to mention - that cave art is in Australia, the age hasn't been verified, and it still doesn't confirm ANYTHING about your source.

Your source claims cave paintings in Hunan, which is in China - and it claims they are older than the French art - which is a lie.

Try responding to the actual points.

A photo? What does that have to do with distinguishing between clouds & solids?

It proves that there are dimwits everywhere, who can't even identify obvious fakes, and would rather project their delusions on top of it. Just like the people claiming aliens everytime they see a cloud that looks oddly shaped.


Wtf does that even mean? Cultists now? Conspiracy theorists are loonies?

It means conspiracy theorists are in the same category as cultists. Obsessed with belief and unwilling to damage that by actually looking for the truth. You're a perfect example of this.


So with that tidbit of illogic, you seem to think they had doppler radar back then and should have known the difference.

Benjamin Franklin didn't have doppler radar, but he did prove lightning wasn't an act of god. Fail.

All it takes is a level head and a logical approach to investigating phenomena. Not hand waving "goddidit" raving that you follow in your claims of aliens.

The only thing illogical is your insistence on non-existent data as fact.


Maybe ANY link that shows a mass conspiricy which you have claimed time & time again.

Massive conspiracy? WTF? That was you with your claims of the CIA covering up everything and assorted rubbish which you have been polluting this thread with. Your resorting to the tactics of scum is not going to gain you any points here.

Yes. EXTRAORDINARY claims.

Oh really? You mean like your claims of a global CIA cover up and debunking conspiracy? Alien visitations? That's an extraordinary claim right there. But you can't even prove one single thing. Not the aliens not the conspiracy, not the planted fakes.

In short, you're lying.

Your source claims cave paintings in Hunan, which is in China - and it claims they are older than the French art - which is a lie.

You should write them and ask for a refund.

Do you people really think if I had evidence...verified by the President of the United States, The Queen of England, Professor Steven Hawking & Al fucking Roker I would be posting it on a forum? I'd be on the evening news for a week.

"My claim" is substantial. Several sceptic points work here & there, at given places, at given times for various reasons. But not 100%.

You should write them and ask for a refund.

Do you people really think if I had evidence...verified by the President of the United States, The Queen of England, Professor Steven Hawking & Al fucking Roker I would be posting it on a forum? I'd be on the evening news for a week.

"My claim" is substantial. Several sceptic points work here & there, at given places, at given times for various reasons. But not 100%.

That response doesn't even make sense.... how does any of that follow me showing you that your source is a lie?

All it takes is a level head and a logical approach to investigating phenomena.

Oh NOOOOO! We can't have investigators. An invesitigator sometimes has to theorize (or even hypothesize) if there is a possible conspiracy.
Oops.

Oh NOOOOO! We can't have investigators. An invesitigator sometimes has to theorize (or even hypothesize) if there is a possible conspiracy.
Oops.

This is a clear example of not being level headed, and instead, an example of conspiracy theorist raving with a sprinkling of straw men.

Or possibly, the behavior patterns of a pathological liar.

That response doesn't even make sense.... how does any of that follow me showing you that your source is a lie?

By you not knowing about ancient art older than Europe's?

Some of those drawings are not dated. Some just say "1000s" of years. In fact the one that does just say "1000s of years" in near Death Valley. (near the 135,000 year old tools)

I posted a link that says 47,000 years. You complain because of no pictures. So that makes me a liar?
:rolleyes:

This is a clear example of not being level headed, and instead, an example of conspiracy theorist raving with a sprinkling of straw men.

Or possibly, the behavior patterns of a pathological liar.

So investigators & inspectors are NOT conspiracy theorist? Seems like the jails would be a lot more empty if that were true. And if they are, you think they are loonies.

By you not knowing about ancient art older than Europe's?


I do know. That's why I didn't accept your evidence.


Some of those drawings are not dated. Some just say "1000s" of years. In fact the one that does just say "1000s of years" in near Death Valley. (near the 135,000 year old tools)


And obviously if tools and a picture are found in the same place, they must somehow be conencted?


I posted a link that says 47,000 years. You complain because of no pictures. So that makes me a liar?
:rolleyes:

You posted a link that talked about pictures in Hunan that are dated 47,000 BC.

There ARE no pictures in Hunan that are that old. The oldest ESTABLISHED pictures are in France, and they're considerably younger than the 47,000 years.

Thta's why your SOURCE lies. I didn't say you lie.

Your SOURCE is claiming as evidence some pictures that are not as old as they claim. They must know that - which makes them liars.

I posted a link that says 47,000 years. You complain because of no pictures. So that makes me a liar?
:rolleyes:

Your link has no proof, makes assertions, is not backed by any formal research, is by all appearances is a fabrication. You trying to pass it off as truth makes you a liar, or an accessory to one.

So investigators & inspectors are NOT conspiracy theorist?

Any competent and licensed one, no. Inspectors collect evidence, and then attempt to reconstruct events. Conspiracy theorists invent complex ideas first, and then try to cherry pick events they can distort to fit their ideas.

The former is good research methodology. The latter is not even research.


Seems like the jails would be a lot more empty if that were true. And if they are, you think they are loonies.

Yet again, you change the goalposts, avoid counterpoints, make absurd claims and trying to link them to your non-existent points.

More evidence to support the idea that you are a pathological liar.

Oh Brilliant!!! You grab your calculator. I'll get some popcorn..
I already did twice. You failed to respond both times presumably because you can't.
No surprise there.

I already did twice. You failed to respond both times presumably because you can't.
No surprise there.

Not can't. Won't. Through the course of this thread, Dragontide has summarily refused to address any single fact or point we have raised, changing goal posts with all the grace of a lame hippo and making any number of random accusations in the hopes that we will forget to refer to the older posts when he brings back the tired old arguments once more.

Either we are dealing with an outright UFO cultist, or a troll.

Either we are dealing with an outright UFO cultist, or a troll.

Well of course you would think that. To you the difference between Gas and solid is as difficult as temporal mechanics. You are someone that would watch a missile fly right into you, trying to determine if it's a rocket.

Zombie I have seen no proof that's it's impossible for ET's to exist. From you or anyone. How is it impossible? How is it 0%?

Well of course you would think that. To you the difference between Gas and solid is as difficult as temporal mechanics. You are someone that would watch a missile fly right into you, trying to determine if it's a rocket.

Zombie I have seen no proof that's it's impossible for ET's to exist. From you or anyone. How is it impossible? How is it 0%?

Again, we see here a classic case of false attributions that is common to the typical mindset of a dogmatic believer/cultist. Note how the entirety of the argument was avoided, with only the end point selected for use in creating the false attributions?

In addition, the poor grammatical quality of the first line of the second paragraph appears to be a deliberate attempt at obfuscation by proclaiming that an object must be proven not to be exist before it is accepted as non-existent, solid proof of dishonesty from the alien spacecraft advocate. It is also notable that the same advocate has not demonstrated proof that he or she is not responsible for the charge of murder of all sentients on the planet, a clear admission, by the advocates reasoning, that he or she is the murderer.

The impartial observer will also note that the accusations presented here have been slightly shifted From extraterrastriel visitations to proof existence of extraterrastriels altogether. Given an examination of previous posts however, it is highly likely that any positive remarks to the existence of extraterrastriels will be quickly taken by this dogmatic cultist/believer as admittance of extraterrastriel visitations.

I put to NSG that this is further evidence to support my hypothesis that this advocate, known as Dragontide, is a troll or a cultist.

Correction: A troll or cultist with an overly large opinion of his or herself.

Just a thinker. A maker. A shaper. I can put 2 pieces of a puzzle together.

Well of course you would think that. To you the difference between Gas and solid is as difficult as temporal mechanics. You are someone that would watch a missile fly right into you, trying to determine if it's a rocket.

Zombie I have seen no proof that's it's impossible for ET's to exist. From you or anyone. How is it impossible? How is it 0%?
Again with the delibrate misinterpretation of other's posts. No-one afaik has said that there's no extraterrestrial intelligent life (EIL) out there. Especially not me. What we HAVE said, and pointed out using probability and knowledge about our galaxy is that the chances of EIL are extremely small, so small in fact that the chances of EIL reaching a level of technology capable of interstellar travel is practically zero. This coupled with the sheer size of the Milky Way makes the probablity of them having visited us zero.

And that doesn't even touch on the UFO theorist's explanation that they would come all the way here (we are talking hundreds, if not thousands of LY) and have no desire to announce themselves to us. All they want to do is nothing more than probe a few anuses and rip up a few cows. What's the point of coming all that way just to do that? They would get no scientific gain from it.

Just a thinker. A maker. A shaper. I can put 2 pieces of a puzzle together.
and from those two pieces, cry "It's a UFO!"
Shame it's in actual fact a 1000 piece puzzle of some kittens in a basket.

Again with the delibrate misinterpretation of other's posts. No-one afaik has said that there's no extraterrestrial intelligent life (EIL) out there. Especially not me. What we HAVE said, and pointed out using probability and knowledge about our galaxy is that the chances of EIL are extremely small, so small in fact that the chances of EIL reaching a level of technology capable of interstellar travel is practically zero. This coupled with the sheer size of the Milky Way makes the probablity of them having visited us zero.

And that doesn't even touch on the UFO theorist's explanation that they would come all the way here (we are talking hundreds, if not thousands of LY) and have no desire to announce themselves to us. All they want to do is nothing more than probe a few anuses and rip up a few cows. What's the point of coming all that way just to do that? They would get no scientific gain from it.

What I meant by ETs was ones that have visited Earth. And they have. Let's step outside the Milky Way a sec. How many other galaxies are there? There are at least theories about curbed space, light bending. folded space, wormholes. If anyone in all the galaxies have mastered any of these and maybe even shared the technology, the sky....the universe is the limit.

What I meant by ETs was ones that have visited Earth. And they have. Let's step outside the Milky Way a sec. How many other galaxies are there? There are at least theories about curbed space, light bending. folded space, wormholes. If anyone in all the galaxies have mastered any of these and maybe even shared the technology, the sky....the universe is the limit.

You're forgetting the scales we're talking about.

- The amount of stars in our galaxy is HUGE. With million interstellar scouts visiting 10 star systems per year average star system in our galaxy would be visited once every 20,000 years.

- The amount of galaxies is HUGE-r. With million intergalactic ships visiting 10 galaxies per annum it would take hundreds of thousands of years per visit.

- Intergalactic travel is much bigger step than interstellar travel is from interplanetary travel. So it's that much rarer.

- The energy required by interstellar, let alone intergalactic, travel is also HUGE and would invariably be detectable at close and not so close range. Hence, if they visited here we would be able to detect them from lighthours, if not lightmonths/years, away. (remember, no stealth in space).

Just a thinker. A maker. A shaper. I can put 2 pieces of a puzzle together.

I would have great respect for you if this was true.

But what you do is to ignore evidence, and chase the fictions you prefer over the facts.

I don't blame you for wanting the world to be bigger and more important than it is, but I do blame you for choosing to ignore objectively observing the world.

Basic universal rule of thumb for any species, no matter what planet you evolved on. Resources are limited. Life isn't fair. You compete for resources, or you die out.

not exactly. life is neither fair nor unfair until members of sentient societies make it so for each other.

and while NOTHING is likely ever to prove entirely unlimited, with the possible, and only possible at that that, exceptions of deep space and diversity itself, a working ecosystem, prerequisite to the emergence of sentience, recycles 100%,

so there is no universally inheirent shortage of resources to begin with. (even for the development of tecnology. which could and would have taken place just fine, had neither coal nor oil ever been discouvered, or even existed) its more a matter of how much a sentient society screwes up before it gets its head out of its ass and learns from the land they live on, how to live on it.

there is certainly no universal requirement for people on other worlds to have brainwashed each other into keeping each other as ignorant for as long as what is currently the dominant culture on our own planet has been doing.

not exactly. life is neither fair nor unfair until members of sentient societies make it so for each other.

The moment you want something, and can't have it, it becomes unfair. Just about every type of complex fauna (multicellular) experiences this.


and while NOTHING is likely ever to prove entirely unlimited, with the possible, and only possible at that that, exceptions of deep space and diversity itself, a working ecosystem, prerequisite to the emergence of sentience, recycles 100%,

It's not just an ecosystem, but planetary cycle. And even then it's not unlimited. The planetary core will eventually cool down, the local star will die out. Resources will simply cease to be present.

And then there's the entropic collapse of the universe to worry about if you live that long.

You just can't escape the inherent fact that resources are limited.


so there is no universally inheirent shortage of resources to begin with. (even for the development of tecnology. which could and would have taken place just fine, had neither coal nor oil ever been discouvered, or even existed) its more a matter of how much a sentient society screwes up before it gets its head out of its ass and learns from the land they live on, how to live on it.


That doesn't work either. Any civilization that completely harmonizes with its surroundings to the point where there's a natural balance will be wiped out the moment there is a large scale upheaval. Could be a super volcano, tidal wave, ice age, ELE impact, the star going nova, anything. Once that happens, the natural equilibrium is destroyed, and there WILL be mass extinctions.

The only ones who survive that are those who can re-adapt to any new equilibrium with a minimum of fuss, or those who can move up to the recently vacated niche on the food chain, meaning, putting limited resources on demand and exploiting it better than anyone else.


there is certainly no universal requirement for people on other worlds to have brainwashed each other into keeping each other as ignorant for as long as what is currently the dominant culture on our own planet has been doing.

What this has to do with the fact that resources are limited and that population numbers will always grow to the point where they cannot sustain anymore positive growth, I have no idea.

You're forgetting the scales we're talking about.

- The amount of stars in our galaxy is HUGE. With million interstellar scouts visiting 10 star systems per year average star system in our galaxy would be visited once every 20,000 years.

- The amount of galaxies is HUGE-r. With million intergalactic ships visiting 10 galaxies per annum it would take hundreds of thousands of years per visit.

- Intergalactic travel is much bigger step than interstellar travel is from interplanetary travel. So it's that much rarer.

- The energy required by interstellar, let alone intergalactic, travel is also HUGE and would invariably be detectable at close and not so close range. Hence, if they visited here we would be able to detect them from lighthours, if not lightmonths/years, away. (remember, no stealth in space).

What if folding space is possible. That would mean whatever galaxy your in, I could get there in a matter of seconds.

I would have great respect for you if this was true.

But what you do is to ignore evidence, and chase the fictions you prefer over the facts.

I don't blame you for wanting the world to be bigger and more important than it is, but I do blame you for choosing to ignore objectively observing the world.

Fuck the bigger and more important and astonishment. I want cheaper energy.

Fuck the bigger and more important and astonishment. I want cheaper energy.

Once again, you made some little aside whilst ignoring the entire thrust of the post. As you've done pretty consistently throughout the thread.

What if folding space is possible. That would mean whatever galaxy your in, I could get there in a matter of seconds.

What if it's not?

Then you're just inventing things to try to cover the increasing unlikeliness of your little story.

What if it's not?

Then you're just inventing things to try to cover the increasing unlikeliness of your little story.

I didn't invent it. Nor wormhole theories. Nor curved space. Nor matter transfer.

I agree that a ship traveling from one galaxy to another, through the void between galaxies would be very unlikely.

I didn't invent it. Nor wormhole theories. Nor curbed space. Nor matter transfer.

I wonder if you mean 'curved' space...

I'm aware you're dealing with concepts that are already out there. Way to prove my point again, though... by once again grabbing on to one irrelevent word or phrase, and ignoring the meaning of the post.

I'm aware you're dealing with concepts that are already out there. Way to prove my point again, though... by once again grabbing on to one irrelevent word or phrase, and ignoring the meaning of the post.

What meaning? That it is unlikely? And becoming more unlikely?

Folded space. Curved space. Wormholes. Matter transfer. Ships and energy sources made from material that is not available on Earth. Longer lifespans on other worlds. And whatever they come up with doing these atom smasher tests.

Throw in all the UFO sightings and it becomes more likely every day.

What if the aliens are actually Nyarlathotep the Crawling Chaos and thus can do whatever they want because they have absolute control over the universe?

What if the aliens are actually Nyarlathotep the Crawling Chaos and thus can do whatever they want because they have absolute control over the universe?

I've always wanted to try and convince a UFO believer that "The Shadow over Innsmouth" is really a true story. It's about as reasonable and logical as most of the conspiracy theories.

What meaning? That it is unlikely? And becoming more unlikely?

Folded space. Curved space. Wormholes. Matter transfer. Ships and energy sources made from material that is not available on Earth. Longer lifespans on other worlds. And whatever they come up with doing these atom smasher tests.

Throw in all the UFO sightings and it becomes more likely every day.

Okay. Allow me to grant for a moment that there exists some technology that permits a ship to travel from any star to any other in a single year. Not just speed of light travel, but true Faster than Light travel.

Such technology would be absurdly tricky to develop, and the developers would rapidly be able to conquer anyone they encountered, so let's assume that there is just one civilisation in our galaxy with this tech. Assume also that they've built 100 ships incorporating it, and for the last 1000 years have been scouring every star system for traces of life.

1 star per year per ship
100 ships

Therefore,

100 stars per year
1000 years searching

Therefore,

100,000 stars checked so far
200,000,000,000 stars in Milky Way (low end estimate)

Therefore,

Probability that our planet has been visited is: 0.0000005

And this is assuming technology that is quite literally impossible. If you restricted travel to light speed, for example, I would have to use scientific notation to express the probability.

Okay. Allow me to grant for a moment that there exists some technology that permits a ship to travel from any star to any other in a single year. Not just speed of light travel, but true Faster than Light travel.

Such technology would be absurdly tricky to develop, and the developers would rapidly be able to conquer anyone they encountered, so let's assume that there is just one civilisation in our galaxy with this tech. Assume also that they've built 100 ships incorporating it, and for the last 1000 years have been scouring every star system for traces of life.

1 star per year per ship
100 ships

Therefore,

100 stars per year
1000 years searching

Therefore,

100,000 stars checked so far
200,000,000,000 stars in Milky Way (low end estimate)

Therefore,

Probability that our planet has been visited is: 0.0000005

And this is assuming technology that is quite literally impossible. If you restricted travel to light speed, for example, I would have to use scientific notation to express the probability.

Very good. But let's eliminate that the developers are interested in conquering and more dedicated to pioneering, exploration and simple curiosity. They find a world like ours (industrialized) and share some of the technology in exchange for assistance in their exploration. Then another world and so on and so forth.

A lot of folks here on Earth experience their greatest joys in life by helping others. It's better than sex, drugs and rock & roll as far as I'm concerned. Our galaxy is a very dangerous place. Super novas. Mobile black holes. Meteors, asteroids & comets, on and on. In some cases, an alien intervention to relocate whatever could be on an endangered planet. Or to help cure a plague on a planet...and on and on.

Very good. But let's eliminate that the developers are interested in conquering and more dedicated to pioneering, exploration and simple curiosity. They find a world like ours (industrialized) and share some of the technology in exchange for assistance in their exploration. Then another world and so on and so forth.

A lot of folks here on Earth experience their greatest joys in life by helping others. It's better than sex, drugs and rock & roll as far as I'm concerned. Our galaxy is a very dangerous place. Super novas. Mobile black holes. Meteors, asteroids & comets, on and on. In some cases, an alien intervention to relocate whatever could be on an endangered planet. Or to help cure a plague on a planet...and on and on.

Sure. But given the amount of extra time it would take, you would have to reduce the estimates for rate of discovery massively, even further reducing the chance of anyone reaching us. Did you not notice that the final result even with such generous figures predicted only a half chance we would have been visited in the last 1 million years?

Besides, as I have already said, that was based on completely fictional and impossible technology. If you impose reality as a constraint, the number becomes even tinier.

What if folding space is possible. That would mean whatever galaxy your in, I could get there in a matter of seconds.
And how fast do you suggest they study a star system? It really doesn't matter overall where the one month is spent: Whether it's in 1,000 times the speed of light travel or plain research doesn't make one iota of difference in the scale.

I also really have to ask do you have any grasp of the amount of energy needed for an exploration of such scale? It doesn't MATTER how the exploration is done, you can't just remove or add potential, kinetic energy or momentum at will - The energy HAS to go/come somewhere.

Did you not notice that the final result even with such generous figures predicted only a half chance we would have been visited in the last 1 million years?

Yea I thought the million years number was pretty low. Assuming you mean the technology in the Milky Way did not exist before that. The Milky Way is 8(ish) billion years old. The technology could just as easily be 3-4 billion years old.

I've always wanted to try and convince a UFO believer that "The Shadow over Innsmouth" is really a true story. It's about as reasonable and logical as most of the conspiracy theories.

Spec is that von Daniken (sp), the Chariots from the Stars guy, ripped his ideas off wholesale from a German translation of At the Mountains of Madness.

What meaning? That it is unlikely? And becoming more unlikely?


No - that it is unlikely... and no matter how many hypotheticals you throw at it, it's no more likely.

If you had something real and verifiable... a way to take a solid mass to lightspeed, for example... you might have something.

As it is, all you are doing is multiplying your complications.


Folded space. Curved space. Wormholes. Matter transfer. Ships and energy sources made from material that is not available on Earth. Longer lifespans on other worlds.


Okay - all science fiction, so far.

It doesn't matter how good the theory is, if there's no evidence to back it, there's nothing to it.


And whatever they come up with doing these atom smasher tests.


Broken atoms.


Throw in all the UFO sightings and it becomes more likely every day.

No, not even vaguely. Clearly, you are not a scientist.

Yea I thought the million years number was pretty low. Assuming you mean the technology in the Milky Way did not exist before that. The Milky Way is 8(ish) billion years old. The technology could just as easily be 3-4 billion years old.

I granted impossible premises, and your arguments are still vanishingly unlikely. You don't even want to see what the figures look like if some sort of realism is assumed.

Besides, arguments about age do not apply to the same degree. If there's one thing we've learned from the history of the Earth, it's that a species or civilisation is rather likely to be destroyed before it manages to develop high technology.

UFOs are not real.

people see shit in the sky that they can't identify quite often actually.

people see shit in the sky that they can't identify quite often actually.

Not wanting to split hairs too much, but that doesn't necessarily make them real, either.

Okay - all science fiction, so far.


Scientific theories. Not proven one way or the other. But it shouldn't be much longer. We went from airplanes to landing on the moon pretty damm quick. Didn't we?

As far as science fiction goes, it has evolved mankind. Look at all the technology just from the TV show Star Trek.

I granted impossible premises, and your arguments are still vanishingly unlikely. You don't even want to see what the figures look like if some sort of realism is assumed.

Besides, arguments about age do not apply to the same degree. If there's one thing we've learned from the history of the Earth, it's that a species or civilisation is rather likely to be destroyed before it manages to develop high technology.

From airplanes to the moon. From fire to lightbulbs. From telephones to broadcast television. From batteries to nuke power......Were still here.

Scientific theories. Not proven one way or the other. But it shouldn't be much longer. We went from airplanes to landing on the moon pretty damm quick. Didn't we?

As far as science fiction goes, it has evolved mankind. Look at all the technology just from the TV show Star Trek.

No, not scientific theories. That's a name reserved for ideas that are fairly damn well backed up by the available facts and evidence.

Quick guide to science:
Theories. Best explanations for large parts of the available evidence. They have predictive power, and have so far survived all tests designed to invalidate them. Are, as far as science can be, proven.

Hypotheses. Suggested explanations for an observed phenomenon . Makes predictions which can be tested.

Conjecture. Stab in the dark about what the reason for something is. Often has some evidence, but no real predictive power yet.

Delusions, pipe dreams, or fantasies. "Wouldn't it be nice if...". Have no predictive power, no real evidence, no nothing. Occasionally considered scientific because they were thought of by a scientist.

Guess which one most of your suggestions fall into.

And as for the nonsense about Star Trek. Please demonstrate what it has done for mankind, besides entertaining some people.

Scientific theories. Not proven one way or the other. But it shouldn't be much longer. We went from airplanes to landing on the moon pretty damm quick. Didn't we?


Not really. The first arial vehicle designs were several hundred years before the first real production of flying machines, and THAT was half a century before the first space flights...


As far as science fiction goes, it has evolved mankind. Look at all the technology just from the TV show Star Trek.

However, the one isn't an immediate causative for the other. Just because something makes good science fiction, doesn't mean it will EVER be science fact.

Theories. Best explanations for large parts of the available evidence.

The evidence: Too many sightings for all of them to be a hoax. Hench the search for an explination as to how they got here.


And as for the nonsense about Star Trek. Please demonstrate what it has done for mankind, besides entertaining some people.

http://www.space.com/technology/top10-star-trek-tech.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/breakthrough-brings-star-trek-teleport-a-step-closer-451673.html

Science- Nothing new happens without first an idea.

The evidence: Too many sightings for all of them to be a hoax.


There's no such thing.


http://www.space.com/technology/top10-star-trek-tech.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/breakthrough-brings-star-trek-teleport-a-step-closer-451673.html

Science- Nothing new happens without first an idea.

Pasteur?

There's no such thing.

In your mind.


Pasteur?

Dragontide!

In your mind.


Ergo: Dragontide says Elvis lives. Too many sightings after all.

Ergo: Dragontide says Elvis lives. Too many sightings after all.

You know. That is a good point. I'm quite sure not the point you meant but a good point.

What the expressions on peoples faces that spot UFOs -vs- Elvis? Are the UFO spoters giggling as if they'd seen a celebrity? Is their demeanor one would expext as if they were truly shock and awed or more that of sheer happiness that someone they'd thought has passed away is still among us?

You comparing apples & oranges.

In your mind.


No - there just is no limit at which there are just too many un-evidenced events to be false or erroneous.


Dragontide!

You didn't get the Pasteur reference, then?

What the expressions on peoples faces that spot UFOs -vs- Elvis? Are the UFO spoters giggling as if they'd seen a celebrity? Is their demeanor one would expext as if they were truly shock and awed or more that of sheer happiness that someone they'd thought has passed away is still among us?


Note again NSG, how this Dragontide does not address the similarity of the cases, but draws up irrelevant, and completely baseless, assertions in an attempt to obscure his lack of points and argument avoidance.

You people have been "debating" this for HOW long?

Note again NSG, how this Dragontide does not address the similarity of the cases, but draws up irrelevant, and completely baseless, assertions in an attempt to obscure his lack of points and argument avoidance.

Someone lies or is confued about seeing Elvis means someone else was lying or confused about a UFO?

"Yes your honor. Several witnesses say they saw me murder a nun in broad daylight on a crystal clear day. But several other people in the tobacco industry lied about tobacco being harmful."

Apples & oranges.

You people have been "debating" this for HOW long?

I had a 2 year global warming debate at all republican forum. :tongue:

Someone lies or is confued about seeing Elvis means someone else was lying or confused about a UFO?

"Yes your honor. Several witnesses say they saw me murder a nun in broad daylight on a crystal clear day. But several other people in the tobacco industry lied about tobacco being harmful."

Apples & oranges.

Again, note the avoidance Dragontide utilizes here, by drawing upon case examples that produce evidence and witnesses, and tries to compare them to scenarios which have no evidence whatsoever. A clear cut example of deliberate and dishonest obfuscation commonly found in liars when attempting to draw attention away to the unraveling of their fabrications.

Again, note the avoidance Dragontide utilizes here, by drawing upon case examples that produce evidence and witnesses, and tries to compare them to scenarios which have no evidence whatsoever. A clear cut example of deliberate and dishonest obfuscation commonly found in liars when attempting to draw attention away to the unraveling of their fabrications.

What did I avoid? You made a pointless comparison and I explained why it was pointless.

What did I avoid? You made a pointless comparison and I explained why it was pointless.

As can be seen, Dragontide then goes on to question what he avoided when called on the matter, further demonstrating an inability, or unwillingness, to read or comprehend the rebuttals to his baseless assertions, relying instead on repeated declarations of patently false and debunked claims.

You people have been "debating" this for HOW long?

Well, some of us are debating it, anyway.

The evidence: Too many sightings for all of them to be a hoax. Hench the search for an explination as to how they got here.

Does not follow. No-one is claiming that every UFO 'sighting' is a hoax. I, for one, consider most apparent sightings to be misidentification of some perfectly normal object or phenomenon.

http://www.space.com/technology/top10-star-trek-tech.html

Hehe. That's a silly article:

Cell phones: "According to internal memos, AT&T discussed the idea of developing a wireless phone in 1915" (Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_phone))

"Medical Tricorders": Faulty logic. Just because Star Trek 'invented' a device with no scientific backing, and a device with scientific backing that does a superficially similar thing has now been developed, does not mean that one follows from the other. Especially considering MRI machines are the size of a fscking room. CAT scans, on the other hand, use X-rays, and thus are based on principles over 100 years old.

Translators: Again, similarity does not mean inspiration. Especially if you know anything about the actual way that modern translation devices work. They're essentially a very fancy computerised phrasebook, nothing more. Sure as hell not some universal gizmo that makes any conversation possible, no matter the difference in languages.

QUIDs: Ideas of a universal currency predate Star Trek quite handily, so they can't claim inspiration. Never mind that QUIDs are, in fact, not a universal currency at all, being accepted basically nowhere, and that they simply serve as a publicity stunt.

GPS: The first satellite navigation systems were tested in 1960. Star Trek first aired in 1966. Therefore, Star Trek cannot have been the inspiration.

Mars Rover Sensors: Interesting, and about the only one which might be possibly considered a valid claim. However, such technology would have been developed anyway out of scientific necessity, whether or not we had Star Trek to compare it to.

Ultrasound surgery: The Star Trek 'tech' and the reality of this are, as usual, very different. They are similar in claimed technique, but that's about it.

Transparent Aluminum: Transparent metals are an old SF standby, dating back well before Star Trek.

PHASRs: In real life, it's a laser you shine in people's eyes. In Star Trek, it's a weapon using hundreds of fictional ideas, that can do anything except wash the dishes. About the only inspiration here is the name.

Life detection: Detecting life at close ranges with a robot is in no way the same as "detecting life at unreasonably long distances". They might have had a better argument by mentioning work done by astronomers to detect makeup of planetary atmospheres, and thus possibly life. Again, not exactly something that Star Trek can claim to have inspired, as it's a technology we would naturally develop for exploration.

Anyway, if you wanted an example of SF predicting the future, you should have cited "The Land Ironclads" by H.G. Wells, which contains a near perfect description of WWI tank warfare, but predates it by 13 years. How is it so accurate? Wells tries to be scientifically accurate, not inventing magical ideas, but instead applying technology that either existed or was directly and clearly in the near future.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/breakthrough-brings-star-trek-teleport-a-step-closer-451673.html

Completely ridiculous. That's like trying to claim, if we ever invent time travel, that H.G. Wells inspired it. Besides which, quantum entanglement predates Star Trek, so there's no way of claiming the slightest bit of inspiration.

Science- Nothing new happens without first an idea.

Alexander Fleming, and the discovery of penicillin, for one example.

Much more to the point, there are ideas to explain most or all UFOs. These invoke a number of factors, each of which are almost certain in comparison to the chances of an Extraterrestrial visiting our planet.

There were no aliens in the craft, it was filled with Communist spies
Thank god we shot it down

Or if this was the Twilight Zone, then it was those two families who escaped from their planet about to go into nuclear war in a UFO and ended up here

Not just Star Trek but a lot of science fiction has been the base idea behind today's technology.
http://www.howstuffworks.com/laser.htm

Even a trip to the moon was once science fiction. The aliens that visit us probably got started the same way.

Not just Star Trek but a lot of science fiction has been the base idea behind today's technology.
http://www.howstuffworks.com/laser.htm

Yay! Another irrelevant citation. All your link says is that lasers are common in SF, not that SF inspired lasers. Especially as lasers in SF and actual lasers are normally completely different. Learn to read, thank you.

And stop claiming Star Trek was the base idea behind todays technology, unless you'd care to deal with the fact I just ripped that claim a new one.

Even a trip to the moon was once science fiction. The aliens that visit us probably got started the same way.

And it was achieved in said SF by firing people out of a gun, IIRC (presuming you're thinking of the Jules Verne story). You see, there are two important parts to Science Fiction: one is hopefully some scientific basis (especially in 'hard' SF, which does not include Star Trek), the second is the FICTION bit.

SF, even very good SF, has been written on the premise that there are aliens on the Moon or Mars. We know that this is impossible. Further SF has been written with FTL as one of the premises. We know that this is also impossible. Just because it's in a SF story does not mean that it will become science in the future --- it's quite reasonable, indeed common, for it to stay fiction.

But the promise of being the proud owner of a flying car in the future is one of the few things that makes me get out of bed in the morning! Don't destroy my hopes by insinuating that it will never happen!

Yay! Another irrelevant citation.
All your link says is that lasers are common in SF, not that SF inspired lasers. Especially as lasers in SF and actual lasers are normally completely different. Learn to read, thank you.

What part of the sentence: "It's no doubt thanks to these sorts of stories that we now associate lasers with futuristic warfare and sleek spaceships" do you not understand?

What part of the sentence: "It's no doubt thanks to these sorts of stories that we now associate lasers with futuristic warfare and sleek spaceships" do you not understand?

I understand it. It is saying that, thanks to science fiction, we associate lasers with futuristic technology.

It is not saying that science fiction inspired lasers, and claiming it does is quite simply wrong.

It is not saying that science fiction inspired lasers, and claiming it does is quite simply wrong.

Rubbish!
http://www.sfsite.com/fsf/2001/pmpd0101.htm
"Science fiction writers began writing about lasers years before they actually existed. OK, so we called them blasters or ray guns or death rays. But we had the basic idea down: a device that delivered an amazing burst of energy in the form of light."

And it was achieved in said SF by firing people out of a gun, IIRC (presuming you're thinking of the Jules Verne story). You see, there are two important parts to Science Fiction: one is hopefully some scientific basis (especially in 'hard' SF, which does not include Star Trek), the second is the FICTION bit.

SF, even very good SF, has been written on the premise that there are aliens on the Moon or Mars. We know that this is impossible. Further SF has been written with FTL as one of the premises. We know that this is also impossible. Just because it's in a SF story does not mean that it will become science in the future --- it's quite reasonable, indeed common, for it to stay fiction.

Point in order. Jules Verne's story is a posit using technology available at their time. so a giant 'gun' was the propellant for the moon landing. granted we still use what is bascially a 'giant roman candle' to get people into space is not that far from 'shooting them from a gun'.

also, alot of things today were deemed impossible when they were concieved. Breaking the sound barrier was once considered 'impossible'. Putting a Man on the moon also impossible. heck, Heavier than air flight was once considered 'fiction' as well. including wireless communications.

so FTL is not 'impossible'. but just beyond the scope of our science as it stands today.

Was the Shuttle 'inspired' by Star Trek's shuttlecraft? maybe, maybe not. the concept of the space station? who knows. How close are we to cloning a human? Alot of ideas, gadets, and inspiration today comes from the imagination of writers and I for one believe we need more inspiration and hope that what we got these last 20 odd years.

This is not to say DragonTide is right.

Rubbish!
http://www.sfsite.com/fsf/2001/pmpd0101.htm
"Science fiction writers began writing about lasers years before they actually existed. OK, so we called them blasters or ray guns or death rays. But we had the basic idea down: a device that delivered an amazing burst of energy in the form of light."

That's a different source, so it doesn't affect your claims about the previous. Citing a new source to attack my claims about the content of the old source is rather silly, as it does nothing to invalidate those claims.

Then, of course, there are the complete differences between the behavior of a laser beam and a science fiction death ray or blaster. The one delivers energy to the particles it encounters, and has corresponding effects on the air, while the other is a coherent bolt, and only affects solid objects when it reaches them. In short, one is the actual scientific device, and the other is a science fictional construct that bears some superficial similarities, but is entirely different.

That's a different source, so it doesn't affect your claims about the previous. Citing a new source to attack my claims about the content of the old source is rather silly, as it does nothing to invalidate those claims.
that doesn't make sense.

if his new source backs up the claim and content of his old source, then it is a valid argument.

if his new source doesn't back up the claims and content of his old source then it isn't a valid argument.

but the fact that it's a new source doesn't make it invalid.

and yes, Dragontide, there is a difference between a 'blaster' and a 'laser'.

Then, of course, there are the complete differences between the behavior of a laser beam and a science fiction death ray or blaster.

Until one day when someone figured out there is another use for laser tech and invented the CD player. Then DVD.

I'm gonna have to ...erm, extend ... The Viagra Award to Dragontide.
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/012o4aCahedVT/610x.jpg
Not often is there so much stamina expressed here.

Not just Star Trek but a lot of science fiction has been the base idea behind today's technology.
http://www.howstuffworks.com/laser.htm

Even a trip to the moon was once science fiction. The aliens that visit us probably got started the same way.

And here we see the classic example of a person confusing correlation with causation.
to wit:
NO science fiction has been the basis of any of our technology. Just because several decades ago, someone wrote about something that could possibly be contrived into having similar characteristics as something we have today does not mean, in any way whatsoever, that their writings 'inspired' or were the 'basis' of said technological development.
All it means they were either lucky guesses or they looked at what we already had and extrapolated it future development - which, in itself, is just another lucky guess.

Example: In Robert Heinlein's classic novel, 'Friday', written in 1980, the protagonist uses an information network that is pretty much exactly our internet.
Does this mean we can credit Heinlein with 'creating' the internet? Or that whoever did do must have read Heinlein's novel and so worked to make his idea a reality?
Of course not. It just means Heinlein was astute enough to look at developing technology (computer networks) and moved it ahead a 120 years. Indeed, he was wrong as the internet he describes as being current technology in 2100 we have today. So he missed by 100 years, which if nothing else, shows how wrong he was.
The important thing to note is that they are fiction novels, not scientific treatise. None of them actually describe the physics and the science behind their ideas. If I write a story about a man flying to another star system in a FTL ship, it doesn't mean I've got the faintest damn clue about how a spaceship works or how FTL travel could possibly exist. It certainly doesn't 'prove' that aliens must have it and have used it to visit us. It means nothing more than I've made shit up to fit the plot of my story.

To say Heinlein's novel was the "base idea behind today's internet" or that Star Trek phasers were "base idea behind today's lasers" is, at best, silly. At worst it shows up the inability of the person making that statement to understand basic concepts such as correlation =/= causation and their desperation to hold onto their immature delusions.

And here we see the classic example of a person confusing correlation with causation.
to wit:
NO science fiction has been the basis of any of our technology. Just because several decades ago, someone wrote about something that could possibly be contrived into having similar characteristics as something we have today does not mean, in any way whatsoever, that their writings 'inspired' or were the 'basis' of said technological development.
All it means they were either lucky guesses or they looked at what we already had and extrapolated it future development - which, in itself, is just another lucky guess.

Example: In Robert Heinlein's classic novel, 'Friday', written in 1980, the protagonist uses an information network that is pretty much exactly our internet.
Does this mean we can credit Heinlein with 'creating' the internet? Or that whoever did do must have read Heinlein's novel and so worked to make his idea a reality?
Of course not. It just means Heinlein was astute enough to look at developing technology (computer networks) and moved it ahead a 120 years. Indeed, he was wrong as the internet he describes as being current technology in 2100 we have today. So he missed by 100 years, which if nothing else, shows how wrong he was.
The important thing to note is that they are fiction novels, not scientific treatise. None of them actually describe the physics and the science behind their ideas. If I write a story about a man flying to another star system in a FTL ship, it doesn't mean I've got the faintest damn clue about how a spaceship works or how FTL travel could possibly exist. It certainly doesn't 'prove' that aliens must have it and have used it to visit us. It means nothing more than I've made shit up to fit the plot of my story.

To say Heinlein's novel was the "base idea behind today's internet" or that Star Trek phasers were "base idea behind today's lasers" is, at best, silly. At worst it shows up the inability of the person making that statement to understand basic concepts such as correlation =/= causation and their desperation to hold onto their immature delusions.

If Earth had no birds, would man have ever invented the airplane? How did somebody come up with the idea of building a boat then taking to the high seas? Think they saw something floating on the water first? A thought provoking image or concept can inspire a creation. And it most certainly did.
http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/ctnlistPubDate.asp

that doesn't make sense.

if his new source backs up the claim and content of his old source, then it is a valid argument.

if his new source doesn't back up the claims and content of his old source then it isn't a valid argument.

but the fact that it's a new source doesn't make it invalid.

and yes, Dragontide, there is a difference between a 'blaster' and a 'laser'.

He claimed, specifically, that source A said X. When I pointed out that source A did not say X, he moved on to source B. New sources may help back up a valid argument, but do not back up false claims about a previous source. It's approximately like me saying:

"The Torah has Jesus coming to Earth". When someone says to me "No it doesn't", citing the New Testament has no relevance to my previous claim.

Until one day when someone figured out there is another use for laser tech and invented the CD player. Then DVD.

And where were those predicted in science fiction, thank you very much. That also backs up my point, as it's only the characteristics of a real life laser which permitted that to be done, completely disregarding any SF blasters that were the 'forerunners' of lasers.

Further responses coming along after school.

And where were those predicted in science fiction?

I never said science fiction predicted anything. I said the ideas of some of our technology were inspired by science fiction.

If Earth had no birds, would man have ever invented the airplane? How did somebody come up with the idea of building a boat then taking to the high seas? Think they saw something floating on the water first? A thought provoking image or concept can inspire a creation. And it most certainly did.
http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/ctnlistPubDate.asp
yup. As usual Dragontide misreads and misinterprets everything posited in this thread and wanders off on his own tangent that has nothing to do whatsoever about the post in question.

My post wasn't that people can't invent things. It's that someone saying, 'ohh...maybe one day we'll fly' does not mean in any way whatsoever that when the Wright Brothers finally flew, the person who first thought it would be a grand idea should be credited with the invention.
Likewise a sci-fi writer having a laser gun in his hero's hand does not mean he invented the laser. Nor does it mean he encouraged or inspired someone to invent the laser. It doesn't work like that.
capesh?
no of course you don't. That sort of tricky logical thinking is a tad too difficult.

Point in order. Jules Verne's story is a posit using technology available at their time. so a giant 'gun' was the propellant for the moon landing. granted we still use what is bascially a 'giant roman candle' to get people into space is not that far from 'shooting them from a gun'.

True. Actually, that reinforces my point, as we can see how inaccurate his idea was. When you're trying to jump even 100 years of scientific discovery at a step, your accuracy becomes questionable at best. For another example, look how badly out Gibson's guess at cyberspace in Neuromancer was. And he certainly didn't inspire that.

also, alot of things today were deemed impossible when they were concieved. Breaking the sound barrier was once considered 'impossible'. Putting a Man on the moon also impossible. heck, Heavier than air flight was once considered 'fiction' as well. including wireless communications.

so FTL is not 'impossible'. but just beyond the scope of our science as it stands today.

Okay. To put on a physics hat for a minute: Barring a massive and totally unprecedented discovery in physics, FTL is impossible*. And given the amount of experimental data which confirms our current theories, I feel it is unlikely they will be overturned.

*Having said that, I should probably qualify it as being for objects of significant size --- that is, more than one electron or so. We can actually teleport photons through quantum effects, but I don't think that's at all scalable.

Was the Shuttle 'inspired' by Star Trek's shuttlecraft? maybe, maybe not. the concept of the space station? who knows. How close are we to cloning a human? Alot of ideas, gadets, and inspiration today comes from the imagination of writers and I for one believe we need more inspiration and hope that what we got these last 20 odd years.

This is not to say DragonTide is right.

Indeed. I think the greatest strength of SF as an aid to science is getting kids interested in it. To this end, writers like Asimov have been fantastic --- scientists and mathematicians are some of his main protagonists, he breaks the laws of science only enough to make the story reasonable, and he has actually come up with good ideas that we are now developing for real.

If Earth had no birds, would man have ever invented the airplane? How did somebody come up with the idea of building a boat then taking to the high seas? Think they saw something floating on the water first? A thought provoking image or concept can inspire a creation. And it most certainly did.
http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/ctnlistPubDate.asp

It's a nice list. However, it's simply listing when ideas were first used in Science Fiction. For example, they cite (http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=541) H.G. Wells for the idea of a time machine. As you may have noticed, we do not have a time machine. The mathematical suggestions that might lead to one bear no resemblance to H.G. Wells' device.

Basically, find me a list which gives me both the SF and the real invention, when there's a direct link from one to the other, and the SF was produced first. Then you'll have an argument. As it stands, you're just saying "Hey, people can have ideas, and other things similar happen, so those ideas are the inspiration".

I never said science fiction predicted anything. I said the ideas of some of our technology were inspired by science fiction.

You still haven't demonstrated one actual case of this. The sources you have claimed for that have not yet shown it, and I'm not going to go find sources for you. It shouldn't be that tricky to find good examples if it's as widespread as you claim.

Ironically, it's much easier to show SF predicting technological developments --- I've already cited at least one in this thread.

Oh, and Zombie Potatoeheads: It's capice, capicé, capiche, capeesh, capisch, capishe, or capisce, but not capesh, according to wiktionary.

He claimed, specifically, that source A said X. When I pointed out that source A did not say X, he moved on to source B. New sources may help back up a valid argument, but do not back up false claims about a previous source. It's approximately like me saying:

"The Torah has Jesus coming to Earth". When someone says to me "No it doesn't", citing the New Testament has no relevance to my previous claim.

ah, then your reply might've made more sense if you said his new article DIDN'T support his claim. it just sounded like you were refuting his new evidence because it was from a different source. my bad.

True. Actually, that reinforces my point, as we can see how inaccurate his idea was. When you're trying to jump even 100 years of scientific discovery at a step, your accuracy becomes questionable at best. For another example, look how badly out Gibson's guess at cyberspace in Neuromancer was. And he certainly didn't inspire that.
While I didn't read Neuromancer. realize the Science Fiction is based of of what we do know with guesses as to the leaps taken. the Original Star Trek had Cochrane warping from an Earth Colony from Alpha Centari to Earth. they changed that in 'First Contact' because between the TOS and now, it's been determined that no life can be sustained in Alpha Centari.

Okay. To put on a physics hat for a minute: Barring a massive and totally unprecedented discovery in physics, FTL is impossible*. And given the amount of experimental data which confirms our current theories, I feel it is unlikely they will be overturned. and that is the key words. remember, breaking the sound barrier was also considered impossible back then. will it be possible to travel FTL? who knows. at this time the answer is no. but in the next century?

Indeed. I think the greatest strength of SF as an aid to science is getting kids interested in it. To this end, writers like Asimov have been fantastic --- scientists and mathematicians are some of his main protagonists, he breaks the laws of science only enough to make the story reasonable, and he has actually come up with good ideas that we are now developing for real.
*nods*
I remember reading an article. a science professor created a device to take atmospheric readings, measure various forms of abient radiation, I believe it could even determine the various compounds in the air and their ratio. while his students were using it. he noticed some pointing the probes at each other. when he inquired about what they were doing, the reply was 'taking readings'.

apparently, the device was so sensitive, it could take tempurature as well as other forms of readings from the human body. some of his students started calling it a 'tricorder'.

when he wrote to Paramount and the Roddenberry estate, he found that the Roddenberry estate has a standing contract with Paramount studios. if anyone can create a device similar to what they use on Star Trek, the studio will allow the name to be given to the device.

it was an article I read a while ago... and I can't find it in Google.

[Snipped] Urk... not my argument and I really shouldn't refute those... else it seems I'm supporting ideas I'm really not. :p

Oh, and Zombie Potatoeheads: It's capice, capicé, capiche, capeesh, capisch, capishe, or capisce, but not capesh, according to wiktionary. capicé! *nods* :D

a sci-fi writer having a laser gun in his hero's hand does not mean he invented the laser.
Correct. And I never said he did.


Nor does it mean he encouraged or inspired someone to invent the laser. It doesn't work like that.

Not even close.

It's a nice list. However, it's simply listing when ideas were first used in Science Fiction. For example, they cite (http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=541) H.G. Wells for the idea of a time machine. As you may have noticed, we do not have a time machine.
Is time real? Does it flow in one direction only? Does it have a beginning or an end? What is eternity? None of these questions can be answered to scientists' satisfaction. Yet the mere asking of these questions stretches our minds, and the continual search for answers provides useful insights along the way.

A search for answers needs a question first. Does it not? Sci Fi provides some of those questions?


Basically, find me a list which gives me both the SF and the real invention, when there's a direct link from one to the other, and the SF was produced first. Then you'll have an argument. As it stands, you're just saying "Hey, people can have ideas, and other things similar happen, so those ideas are the inspiration".

You still haven't demonstrated one actual case of this. The sources you have claimed for that have not yet shown it, and I'm not going to go find sources for you. It shouldn't be that tricky to find good examples if it's as widespread as you claim.

Yes I did.
Timeline of Science Fiction Inventions
(sorted by Publication Date)
Most of these items are linked to information about similar real-life inventions and inventors; click on an invention to learn more about it.
http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/ctnlistPubDate.asp




Ironically, it's much easier to show SF predicting technological developments --- I've already cited at least one in this thread.

Some sci fi has the intention of predicting a possible outcome in the future. (Like "Earth to the Moon") Some just are meant for entertainment with the aurthor having no idea that his crazy story could actually happen (or a similarity) Like a ray gun idea becoming a reality in such things like DVD players and lasar surgery or "20,000 Leagues under the Sea" might have given the Navy a few ideas through the years.

Is time real? Does it flow in one direction only? Does it have a beginning or an end? What is eternity? None of these questions can be answered to scientists' satisfaction.

Yes. Yes. No. A set without bounds.

I'm a scientist. They've all been answered to my satisfaction.

Hence - you fail.

Yes. Yes. No. A set without bounds.

I'm a scientist. They've all been answered to my satisfaction.

Hence - you fail.
In what way does your answers satisfy you? Explination please.

In what way does your answers satisfy you? Explination please.

You want me to explain in what way my answers satisfy me?

They leave me with a feeling of satisfaction. That's about it. For the purposes of my work, and for the purposes of my mental model of reality, the answers I gave are more than sufficient.

You want me to explain in what way my answers satisfy me?

They leave me with a feeling of satisfaction. That's about it. For the purposes of my work, and for the purposes of my mental model of reality, the answers I gave are more than sufficient.

Getting back to UFOs and to respond to this. I think it's very likely that beings from another world don't even bother with time. (especially if they live 100s of millions of years as I suggested) As for time travel, I don't think it's been done. (not that we would know anyway) But the fact of the matter is, Wells wrote "The Time Machine". Years later Albert Einstein published his theory of the four dimensional continuum of space-time.

Oh, and Zombie Potatoeheads: It's capice, capicé, capiche, capeesh, capisch, capishe, or capisce, but not capesh, according to wiktionary.
D'oh! That's what happens when you only watch the first two series of 'The Sopranos' and miss the rest.
Your Italian goes downhill! :tongue:

Getting back to UFOs and to respond to this. I think it's very likely that beings from another world don't even bother with time.


Based on what?

Now remember, given that there's no hard evidence there even ARE any 'aliens', any speculation about how they perceive chronology is beyond 'guesswork'.


...(especially if they live 100s of millions of years as I suggested)


Which is wishful thinking, nothing more.

Again, given NO credible evidence 'they' even exist, even 'speculation' iss too sure and concrete word to describe what you're doing here.


As for time travel, I don't think it's been done. (not that we would know anyway) But the fact of the matter is, Wells wrote "The Time Machine". Years later Albert Einstein published his theory of the four dimensional continuum of space-time.

Hey, you know what? The other day, a guy on tv said 'shit'... and later that day, I had to HAVE a shit!!!

It's all so clear now! How did the logic escape me?




How? I'll tell you how. Speculation, conspiracy theories, and random horseshit do not good evidence make.

The way I see it is.. more than likely what ppl were seeing were man made aircraft .. testers. There are some vids I've seen which make me question that, but anywho.

As for the eyewitnesses that have claimed to have seen actual alien corpses and what not, I look on it as curious, and enjoy hearing what they have to say, but I honestly don't believe it.

Although I do believe there is major almost certain chance other life out there exists. I guess I have a picture in my mind, that 'aliens' would be more advanced, hence less prone to war and bad things that we are.. that if they did come here.. why couldn't they just make themselves known as good neighbors.

Or I have to think .. either my gov is evil and hiding and killing the good aliens... or the aliens themselves are bad.. by which I'd have to swing toward my governt cause I know them more and how could they possibly control evil aliens (since again , I got in my head aliens are beyond our technology)? Cause I couldn't handle believing bad intentioned aliens are out there to get us, and again if so, why not yet?

Meh.. I'm antiquated.

The way I see it is.. more than likely what ppl were seeing were man made aircraft .. testers. There are some vids I've seen which make me question that, but anywho.

As for the eyewitnesses that have claimed to have seen actual alien corpses and what not, I look on it as curious, and enjoy hearing what they have to say, but I honestly don't believe it.

Although I do believe there is major almost certain chance other life out there exists. I guess I have a picture in my mind, that 'aliens' would be more advanced, hence less prone to war and bad things that we are.. that if they did come here.. why couldn't they just make themselves known as good neighbors.

Or I have to think .. either my gov is evil and hiding and killing the good aliens... or the aliens themselves are bad.. by which I'd have to swing toward my governt cause I know them more and how could they possibly control evil aliens (since again , I got in my head aliens are beyond our technology)? Couldn't handle belieinv bad aliens are out there lol.

Meh.. I'm antiquated.

The real problem isn't whether our governments know about it and hide it because they're killing aliens, or because aliens are making them do it.. or any of that kind of thing.

The REAL problem is the idea that - as universal as the sightings are alleged to be... EVERY government is complicit in keeping the secret... even revolutionary governments and juntas. Even more of a problem - all those people are supposed to be CAPABLE of protecting this kind of secret.

The idea of a conspiracy that complete and universal, and secrets held by people with so radically diverse agendas... and - let's not beat around the bush - some of them are dumb as shit, too - frankly beggars belief.

Or I have to think .. either my gov is evil and hiding and killing the good aliens... or the aliens themselves are bad.. by which I'd have to swing toward my governt cause I know them more and how could they possibly control evil aliens (since again , I got in my head aliens are beyond our technology)? Couldn't handle belieinv bad aliens are out there lol.
Meh.. I'm antiquated.

Or they have alt energy technology that they don't want to share to keep their oil barron cronies making those record profits.

The real problem isn't whether our governments know about it and hide it because they're killing aliens, or because aliens are making them do it.. or any of that kind of thing.

The REAL problem is the idea that - as universal as the sightings are alleged to be... EVERY government is complicit in keeping the secret... even revolutionary governments and juntas. Even more of a problem - all those people are supposed to be CAPABLE of protecting this kind of secret.

The idea of a conspiracy that complete and universal, and secrets held by people with so radically diverse agendas... and - let's not beat around the bush - some of them are dumb as shit, too - frankly beggars belief.


Well there are those that believe our world leaders are alien themselves .. that's their excuse to why it hasn't been made known. Then some say it makes itself/themselves? known often, but we choose to ignore it. /shrug

Or they have alt energy technology that they don't want to share to keep their oil barron cronies making those record profits.

that would be super fucked haha

there is a vid I was wanting to post. It was in Easy Rider.. when Jack was talking about UFO's to Dennis. but YT is down. :cool:

Well there are those that believe our world leaders are alien themselves .. that's their excuse to why it hasn't been made known. Then some say it makes itself/themselves? known often, but we choose to ignore it. /shrug

David Icke, mainly. Yes.

Which means that every revolt, every uprising, every protest and assassination... they ALL have to be orchestrated and controlled by a central agency.

Given that it's my experience politicians can't even hide who they're fucking, it seems unlikely that they are ALL in on some big coverup.

David Icke, mainly. Yes.

Which means that every revolt, every uprising, every protest and assassination... they ALL have to be orchestrated and controlled by a central agency.

Given that it's my experience politicians can't even hide who they're fucking, it seems unlikely that they are ALL in on some big coverup.

O geeze it doesn't have to be EVERY one of them. That's what makes the investigation so fun..

Oh and I do believe ppl can keep shit secret. It just depends on the people, their conscience and fear. Oh! and brainwashing! Which I guess is fear..

It's a big circle.

Oh and I do believe ppl can keep shit secret.
But whould the aliens agree with that plan? :p

It was an alien weather baloon.

This one made me chuckle. Yes, aliens, in their plot to take over Earth, have planted weather balloons across the world, to ...predict the best weather for their inevitable invasion. The next time you have a nice, sunny day where you live, you'd better be watching out for alien spaceships!

This one made me chuckle. Yes, aliens, in their plot to take over Earth, have planted weather balloons across the world, to ...predict the best weather for their inevitable invasion. The next time you have a nice, sunny day where you live, you'd better be watching out for alien spaceships!

You just know there'll be a delay in their plans causing them to attack Russia at the onset of Winter.

Christ, it's all so freaking predictable.

You just know there'll be a delay in their plans causing them to attack Russia at the onset of Winter.

Christ, it's all so freaking predictable.

LOL

The one thing Russian weather is good for, stopping any and all invasions.

O geeze it doesn't have to be EVERY one of them. That's what makes the investigation so fun..


No, that's the thing - it DOES have to be all of them... or the truth would come out because, for example, the revolutionary government of Iran doesn't feel like keeping the secrets of the old guard.... or North Korea spills because they're pissed at the US... etc.


Oh and I do believe ppl can keep shit secret. It just depends on the people, their conscience and fear. Oh! and brainwashing! Which I guess is fear..


Small numbers of people. Finite periods. Sure.

Worldwide conspiracies running for half a century? Less believable.

I can tell you right now you puny little humans that when my species claims this planet as their own we will take revenge for the horrible way the U.S. government treated my crashed brethren.

that would be super fucked hahaSounding like a nut ... without actually BEING a nut!

Ya know what i ran across in today's paper? The Associated Press released this ...:
http://www.postchronicle.com/news/strange/article_212180008.shtml

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27279684/

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081020/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_britain_ufo
(good pix on that one)

Someone else who may or may not be sane, given the nature of the conversation here ....

What do i think? I think the military needs better artists. Like Ruffy.

I say an ad with Mccain and Palin on that site
They were the aliens shot down!