RE: What program/film/documentary are you watching now? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message


warspite1 -> RE: What program/film/documentary are you watching now? (2/6/2013 7:06:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

This is amazing....

They found his body straight away - How spooky is that?? They didn't even know where the Church was and yet they came upon it as soon as they started digging - you couldn't make it up....
warspite1, read the interesting Wall Street Journal article about Richard III:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324900204578285852772384788.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
warspite1

Thanks I will - the author wrote a piece in my newspaper yesterday too.





SLAAKMAN -> RE: What program/film/documentary are you watching now? (2/10/2013 11:39:52 PM)

Secret Agent X-9, 1945- Chapters 1,2&3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up25Ci5pAr8




warspite1 -> RE: What program/film/documentary are you watching now? (2/13/2013 7:31:26 PM)

Coronation Street




SLAAKMAN -> RE: What program/film/documentary are you watching now? (2/13/2013 9:14:30 PM)

911 missing links
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHTWnzAg75A


[image]local://upfiles/7190/52AE6430FBCF4502BFDC5CC333BE6876.jpg[/image]




Darryl60 -> RE: What program/film/documentary are you watching now? (2/13/2013 9:49:36 PM)

1)The Blue Max

2)Ken Burns-Civil War

3)Mayday(I find the reasons behind air crashes to be both interesting and sometimes infuriating).




SLAAKMAN -> RE: What program/film/documentary are you watching now? (2/15/2013 6:44:22 PM)

World War II - BLITZKRIEG - The Lightning War [France Falls 1940]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-KfzcZ8dt4

[image]http://www.kingsacademy.com/mhodges/03_The-World-since-1900/07_World-War-Two/pictures/WIK_map_France_May-1940.jpg[/image]




SLAAKMAN -> RE: What program/film/documentary are you watching now? (2/15/2013 7:24:35 PM)

[2012] NEW EVIDENCE THAT 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3UpwskTIRc

George Humphrey - 911 The great Illusion - Full version
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVjeUjgY-ps


[image]local://upfiles/7190/16337D00DBAF4EBBA4676DD9A21E164B.gif[/image]




parusski -> RE: What program/film/documentary are you watching now? (2/15/2013 9:49:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SLAAKMAN

[2012] NEW EVIDENCE THAT 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3UpwskTIRc

George Humphrey - 911 The great Illusion - Full version
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVjeUjgY-ps


[image]local://upfiles/7190/16337D00DBAF4EBBA4676DD9A21E164B.gif[/image]


There is new evidence that Barrack Hussein Obama had secret meeting with AlGore and Jimmy Carter in 2000 to plan the destruction of George Bush. They decided to create fake air planes(I hear they were helium planes) that would appear to fly into the Trade Center buildings while two nuclear devices were detonated to cause the buildings to fall faster than a conspiracy theorist can make s**t up. It worked and BO became president. Also, they recruited the entire population to lie about seeing those planes hit buildings.




warspite1 -> RE: What program/film/documentary are you watching now? (2/15/2013 10:53:33 PM)

When watching those programmes you can see how people can be taken in. However, it would be better for the conspiracy theorists if they actually got their story straight. So in the clips I watched there were eye witness reports that the aircraft that struck the towers were military and not civilian planes, oh and ALSO that there were NO planes....okay....




SLAAKMAN -> RE: What program/film/documentary are you watching now? (2/15/2013 10:59:12 PM)

quote:

When watching those programmes you can see how people can be taken in. However, it would be better for the conspiracy theorists if they actually got their story straight. So in the clips I watched there were eye witness reports that the aircraft that struck the towers were military and not civilian planes, oh and ALSO that there were NO planes....okay....

Suuuure just like there were WMD's in Iraq to justify invasion & jet fuel burned down the WTC....LMAOROFL! [sm=00000289.gif]


[image]local://upfiles/7190/1D3D3C272D0F407C9CE0197AD5C80C80.jpg[/image]




warspite1 -> RE: What program/film/documentary are you watching now? (2/15/2013 11:07:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SLAAKMAN

quote:

When watching those programmes you can see how people can be taken in. However, it would be better for the conspiracy theorists if they actually got their story straight. So in the clips I watched there were eye witness reports that the aircraft that struck the towers were military and not civilian planes, oh and ALSO that there were NO planes....okay....

Suuuure just like there were WMD's in Iraq to justify invasion & jet fuel burned down the WTC....LMAOROFL! [sm=00000289.gif]


[image]local://upfiles/7190/1D3D3C272D0F407C9CE0197AD5C80C80.jpg[/image]
warspite1

Oh, I'm with you on the WMD crap, but let's not go down that Allied soldier graveyard [:(]

But seriously, are the conspiracy theorists trying to argue no planes or yes there were planes but they weren't civilian? If they don't stick to a theory, but instead just try a scattergun approach, then they lose the credibility they are trying to achieve. There was also a theory that the second plane was in fact a ball?? Is that why there was an enormous trebuchet set up in Newfoundland at the start of September? I wonder if it was a civilian ball or a military ball?




SLAAKMAN -> RE: What program/film/documentary are you watching now? (2/16/2013 2:21:42 AM)

quote:

But seriously, are the conspiracy theorists trying to argue no planes or yes there were planes but they weren't civilian? If they don't stick to a theory, but instead just try a scattergun approach, then they lose the credibility they are trying to achieve.

There are no "conspiracy theories". Thats only a brainwashing term. There are only verifiable historical facts & logical deductions.

quote:

There was also a theory that the second plane was in fact a ball?? Is that why there was an enormous trebuchet set up in Newfoundland at the start of September? I wonder if it was a civilian ball or a military ball?

My grandfather & the side of my family who grew up before & during World War One were told that SciFi writers believed people would fly, watch & talk to each other with wireless devices, cure polio & smallpox and travel to the moon. Few believed they would ever see it in their lifetimes. Most laughed at the notions. They were also told that horrific wars were coming & millions would be slaughtered with weapons only few had dreamed of, whole cities & peoples would be destroyed & even nightmarish weapons would be used that had only been fantasized before. When the first reports of atrocities in the Bolshevik Revolution started to leak out my grandparents were told that its only a silly "conspiracy theory"....The rest is history.




parusski -> RE: What program/film/documentary are you watching now? (2/16/2013 2:41:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: SLAAKMAN

quote:

When watching those programmes you can see how people can be taken in. However, it would be better for the conspiracy theorists if they actually got their story straight. So in the clips I watched there were eye witness reports that the aircraft that struck the towers were military and not civilian planes, oh and ALSO that there were NO planes....okay....

Suuuure just like there were WMD's in Iraq to justify invasion & jet fuel burned down the WTC....LMAOROFL! [sm=00000289.gif]


[image]local://upfiles/7190/1D3D3C272D0F407C9CE0197AD5C80C80.jpg[/image]
warspite1

Oh, I'm with you on the WMD crap, but let's not go down that Allied soldier graveyard [:(]

But seriously, are the conspiracy theorists trying to argue no planes or yes there were planes but they weren't civilian? If they don't stick to a theory, but instead just try a scattergun approach, then they lose the credibility they are trying to achieve. There was also a theory that the second plane was in fact a ball?? Is that why there was an enormous trebuchet set up in Newfoundland at the start of September? I wonder if it was a civilian ball or a military ball?


W1, you must realize that SLAAK and other planetary aliens, KNOW the truth. Just ask them about WW2. WW2 never happened, it was all a lot of footage from Hollywood lots and pretend combat on the moon.




SLAAKMAN -> RE: What program/film/documentary are you watching now? (2/17/2013 12:05:30 AM)

quote:


W1, you must realize that SLAAK and other planetary aliens, KNOW the truth. Just ask them about WW2. WW2 never happened, it was all a lot of footage from Hollywood lots and pretend combat on the moon.

Silly parruski-Newblette, observe; [:'(][:D]

UFO - OVNI - UFOs In Washington D.C - 60 years ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hObI12DD3-Y
[image]http://memory.loc.gov/master/mss/mtj/mtj1/046/1000/1031.jpg[/image]




SLAAKMAN -> RE: What program/film/documentary are you watching now? (2/17/2013 12:09:00 AM)

[image]http://photos1.blogger.com/img/169/3473/1024/Scientists%20Sure%20Saucers%20Exist%20New%20York%20Knickerbocker%207-28-1952.jpg[/image]




parusski -> RE: What program/film/documentary are you watching now? (2/17/2013 12:10:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SLAAKMAN

[image]http://photos1.blogger.com/img/169/3473/1024/Scientists%20Sure%20Saucers%20Exist%20New%20York%20Knickerbocker%207-28-1952.jpg[/image]


What? Is that a story from SLAAKMAN Daily Insane News?




Chickenboy -> RE: What program/film/documentary are you watching now? (2/17/2013 12:53:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SLAAKMAN

[image]http://photos1.blogger.com/img/169/3473/1024/Scientists%20Sure%20Saucers%20Exist%20New%20York%20Knickerbocker%207-28-1952.jpg[/image]


I love it. [:D]

Hard hitting journalism that has half of its scientific opinions 'off the record' or 'wished to have his name withheld' with his opinion. The cited Berkeley astronomy department professor (like *he* would know?) stated he had no idea what in the heck the interviewer was talking about.

Under the subheading 'space travel possible' a professor is cited as being entirely unlikely that these saucers came from another planet. No, silly newspaper person-the quotes do not support the title or subheading.

All in all, my journalism professor would have flayed me, skinned me, had me drawn and quartered and then made me wash parusski's socks had I written something like this. C'mon SLAAK-why don't you find a credible source?

ETA: I missed the "We *know* there is vegetation on Mars so..." [:D] Oh yes. Vegetation on Mars. Fruit trees surround gumdrop lane on Mars. Butterflies and unicorns and pegasi. Lovely.




parusski -> RE: What program/film/documentary are you watching now? (2/17/2013 2:17:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: SLAAKMAN

[image]http://photos1.blogger.com/img/169/3473/1024/Scientists%20Sure%20Saucers%20Exist%20New%20York%20Knickerbocker%207-28-1952.jpg[/image]


I love it. [:D]

Hard hitting journalism that has half of its scientific opinions 'off the record' or 'wished to have his name withheld' with his opinion. The cited Berkeley astronomy department professor (like *he* would know?) stated he had no idea what in the heck the interviewer was talking about.

Under the subheading 'space travel possible' a professor is cited as being entirely unlikely that these saucers came from another planet. No, silly newspaper person-the quotes do not support the title or subheading.

All in all, my journalism professor would have flayed me, skinned me, had me drawn and quartered and then made me wash parusski's socks had I written something like this. C'mon SLAAK-why don't you find a credible source?

ETA: I missed the "We *know* there is vegetation on Mars so..." [:D] Oh yes. Vegetation on Mars. Fruit trees surround gumdrop lane on Mars. Butterflies and unicorns and pegasi. Lovely.


Hey, cut SLAAK some SLACK...I need to say that at least once a month. There are unicorns on Mars, I know this cause SLAAKER told me.




SLAAKMAN -> RE: What program/film/documentary are you watching now? (2/17/2013 3:07:39 AM)

Basting-Chickenboy,
quote:

I love it.

Hard hitting journalism that has half of its scientific opinions 'off the record' or 'wished to have his name withheld' with his opinion. The cited Berkeley astronomy department professor (like *he* would know?) stated he had no idea what in the heck the interviewer was talking about.

Under the subheading 'space travel possible' a professor is cited as being entirely unlikely that these saucers came from another planet. No, silly newspaper person-the quotes do not support the title or subheading.

All in all, my journalism professor would have flayed me, skinned me, had me drawn and quartered and then made me wash parusski's socks had I written something like this. C'mon SLAAK-why don't you find a credible source?

ETA: I missed the "We *know* there is vegetation on Mars so..." Oh yes. Vegetation on Mars. Fruit trees surround gumdrop lane on Mars. Butterflies and unicorns and pegasi. Lovely.

(The second article is merely a government disinformation juxtaposition of the irrefutable sighting of alien spacecraft over Washington so as to prevent old grannies, heart patients & weak bladdered-bloated prostate sufferers such as yourself & parruski from incurring lethal panic attacks as a result. Your fragile testicles & cystic bowels might explode otherwise). [sm=00000506.gif]



[image]local://upfiles/7190/7FD4A3A972794211930EBBD6D1B44F6C.jpg[/image]




parusski -> RE: What program/film/documentary are you watching now? (2/17/2013 4:02:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SLAAKMAN

Basting-Chickenboy,
quote:

I love it.

Hard hitting journalism that has half of its scientific opinions 'off the record' or 'wished to have his name withheld' with his opinion. The cited Berkeley astronomy department professor (like *he* would know?) stated he had no idea what in the heck the interviewer was talking about.

Under the subheading 'space travel possible' a professor is cited as being entirely unlikely that these saucers came from another planet. No, silly newspaper person-the quotes do not support the title or subheading.

All in all, my journalism professor would have flayed me, skinned me, had me drawn and quartered and then made me wash parusski's socks had I written something like this. C'mon SLAAK-why don't you find a credible source?

ETA: I missed the "We *know* there is vegetation on Mars so..." Oh yes. Vegetation on Mars. Fruit trees surround gumdrop lane on Mars. Butterflies and unicorns and pegasi. Lovely.

(The second article is merely a government disinformation juxtaposition of the irrefutable sighting of alien spacecraft over Washington so as to prevent old grannies, heart patients & weak bladdered-bloated prostate sufferers such as yourself & parruski from incurring lethal panic attacks as a result. Your fragile testicles & cystic bowels might explode otherwise). [sm=00000506.gif]



[image]local://upfiles/7190/7FD4A3A972794211930EBBD6D1B44F6C.jpg[/image]


I have to say that I admire your incredible ability to have a FREAKING answer for everything. So, was the 1967 Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film a government conspiracy or was it a government disinformation campaign to take attention away from your birth?



And how did you know I have cystic bowels?

[image]local://upfiles/191/5AED1769F81F4A7FBA5606305E177DE7.jpg[/image]




Chickenboy -> RE: What program/film/documentary are you watching now? (2/17/2013 5:05:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski

quote:

ORIGINAL: SLAAKMAN

Basting-Chickenboy,
quote:

I love it.

Hard hitting journalism that has half of its scientific opinions 'off the record' or 'wished to have his name withheld' with his opinion. The cited Berkeley astronomy department professor (like *he* would know?) stated he had no idea what in the heck the interviewer was talking about.

Under the subheading 'space travel possible' a professor is cited as being entirely unlikely that these saucers came from another planet. No, silly newspaper person-the quotes do not support the title or subheading.

All in all, my journalism professor would have flayed me, skinned me, had me drawn and quartered and then made me wash parusski's socks had I written something like this. C'mon SLAAK-why don't you find a credible source?

ETA: I missed the "We *know* there is vegetation on Mars so..." Oh yes. Vegetation on Mars. Fruit trees surround gumdrop lane on Mars. Butterflies and unicorns and pegasi. Lovely.

(The second article is merely a government disinformation juxtaposition of the irrefutable sighting of alien spacecraft over Washington so as to prevent old grannies, heart patients & weak bladdered-bloated prostate sufferers such as yourself & parruski from incurring lethal panic attacks as a result. Your fragile testicles & cystic bowels might explode otherwise). [sm=00000506.gif]



[image]local://upfiles/7190/7FD4A3A972794211930EBBD6D1B44F6C.jpg[/image]


I have to say that I admire your incredible ability to have a FREAKING answer for everything. So, was the 1967 Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film a government conspiracy or was it a government disinformation campaign to take attention away from your birth?



And how did you know I have cystic bowels?

[image]local://upfiles/191/5AED1769F81F4A7FBA5606305E177DE7.jpg[/image]

I'm waiting patiently for the 'irrefutable' part of this bit. I've yet to see it.




SLAAKMAN -> RE: What program/film/documentary are you watching now? (2/17/2013 5:52:06 AM)

quote:


And how did you know I have cystic bowels?

(Youre woman told me while bathing in my glory).

quote:

I have to say that I admire your incredible ability to have a FREAKING answer for everything. So, was the 1967 Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film a government conspiracy or was it a government disinformation campaign to take attention away from your birth?

Neither. That sighting was a Wright-Patterson visIon of an alien autopsy;
[image]http://www.the-savoisien.com/blog/public/img2/ufos_file/hangar_18_the_ufo_warehouse.png[/image]




SLAAKMAN -> RE: What program/film/documentary are you watching now? (2/17/2013 5:58:07 AM)

quote:

I'm waiting patiently for the 'irrefutable' part of this bit. I've yet to see it.

Tell me what type aircraft did we have in 1952 that could fly at 7200MPH from horizontal to vertical vector?
quote:


Unbelievable Speed:
The irrefutable radar returns were seen at Washington National Airport and Andrews Air Force Base. Government officials were at a loss to account what was happening over their own air space. The blips traveled around 100 mph for the most part, but what was unbelievable was their ability to reach the astonishing speed of 7,200 mph when accelerating. The capabilities of the UFOs were far beyond our technological proficiency at the time.
Vanished From Sight:
The U.S. Air Force Air Defense Command was first notified of what was occurring by Andrews Air Force Base. Immediately, several F-94 night fliers were ordered to hunt down and verify the subject of the radar sightings. However, repairs being done on a runway delayed their response. There would be actual dogfights between the U. S. planes and the UFOs, with our planes being out-maneuvered.

http://ufos.about.com/od/visualproofphotosvideo/p/washingtondc.htm




warspite1 -> RE: What program/film/documentary are you watching now? (2/17/2013 7:47:03 AM)

The BBC's "The Normans" on DVD. Qualiteeee [:)]




warspite1 -> RE: What program/film/documentary are you watching now? (2/17/2013 11:09:34 AM)

I watched the first of the new series of Air Crash Investigation yesterday. Tragic...

A Boeing 737, flying from Jakarta to Singapore suddenly fell out of the sky and crashed into a Sumatran river, killing all 104 passengers and crew onboard.

The investigators came to the conclusion that one of the pilots, heavily in debt and recently demoted, purposely flew the plane into the river.... what a .........[:@]




parusski -> RE: What program/film/documentary are you watching now? (2/17/2013 2:32:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SLAAKMAN

quote:


And how did you know I have cystic bowels?

(Youre woman told me while bathing in my glory).

quote:

I have to say that I admire your incredible ability to have a FREAKING answer for everything. So, was the 1967 Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film a government conspiracy or was it a government disinformation campaign to take attention away from your birth?

Neither. That sighting was a Wright-Patterson visIon of an alien autopsy;
[image]http://www.the-savoisien.com/blog/public/img2/ufos_file/hangar_18_the_ufo_warehouse.png[/image]


Wow, SLAAK, I never thought you could get any more delusional.[X(][X(]




SLAAKMAN -> RE: What program/film/documentary are you watching now? (2/17/2013 3:25:48 PM)

quote:

Wow, SLAAK, I never thought you could get any more delusional.

Silly parruski Newblette why are you straining your neurons without addressing the issue properly? Begin with Drakes Formula to understand that the odds favor the Glory of Slaakery:
quote:

The Drake equation states that:
[image]http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/9/2/d/92df3d5260eaca523ca8bcfd474d3aaa.png[/image]

where:

N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible (i.e. which are on our current past light cone);

and

R* = the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fℓ = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space[5]

R factor

One can question why the number of civilizations should be proportional to the star formation rate, though this makes technical sense. (The product of all the factors except L tells how many new communicating civilizations are born each year. Then you multiply by the lifetime to get the expected number. For example, if an average of 0.01 new civilizations are born each year, and they each last 500 years on the average, then on the average 5 will exist at any time.) The original Drake Equation can be extended to a more realistic model, where the equation uses not the number of stars that are forming now, but those that were forming several billion years ago. The alternate formulation, in terms of the number of stars in the galaxy, is easier to explain and understand, but implicitly assumes the star formation rate is constant over the life of the galaxy.
The number of stars in the galaxy now, N*, is related to the star formation rate R* by
[image]http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/9/1/0/910753167fad20256dacdd8983101e7d.png[/image]where Tg = the age of the galaxy.Assuming for simplicity that R* is constant, then [image]http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/5/9/e59241ca83723b5b603e2d22b39c6ad8.png[/image] the Drake equation can be rewritten into an alternate form phrased in terms of the more easily observable value,
[image]http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/8/4/6/846953db691bd7f2123caa767626d2af.png[/image]

Now examine this astute testimony of Bob Lazars account of working on an alien spaceship;
The Bob Lazar Interview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvmie0zxjzw

And examine the proximity of our neighbors from Zeta Reticuli, only 39 LY from Earth;


[image]local://upfiles/7190/C71B0EC5822640BF8A46C304615E18F4.jpg[/image]




Curtis Lemay -> RE: What program/film/documentary are you watching now? (2/17/2013 4:45:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SLAAKMAN

The Drake equation states that:
[image]http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/9/2/d/92df3d5260eaca523ca8bcfd474d3aaa.png[/image]

where:

N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible (i.e. which are on our current past light cone);

and

R* = the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
f = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space[5]

R factor

One can question why the number of civilizations should be proportional to the star formation rate, though this makes technical sense. (The product of all the factors except L tells how many new communicating civilizations are born each year. Then you multiply by the lifetime to get the expected number. For example, if an average of 0.01 new civilizations are born each year, and they each last 500 years on the average, then on the average 5 will exist at any time.) The original Drake Equation can be extended to a more realistic model, where the equation uses not the number of stars that are forming now, but those that were forming several billion years ago. The alternate formulation, in terms of the number of stars in the galaxy, is easier to explain and understand, but implicitly assumes the star formation rate is constant over the life of the galaxy.
The number of stars in the galaxy now, N*, is related to the star formation rate R* by
[image]http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/9/1/0/910753167fad20256dacdd8983101e7d.png[/image]where Tg = the age of the galaxy.Assuming for simplicity that R* is constant, then [image]http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/5/9/e59241ca83723b5b603e2d22b39c6ad8.png[/image] the Drake equation can be rewritten into an alternate form phrased in terms of the more easily observable value,
[image]http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/8/4/6/846953db691bd7f2123caa767626d2af.png[/image]


The problem with the Drake equation is that all the terms multiply. That means that all the errors sum. That means that if even ONE of the terms is a guess, the whole thing is a guess. And, sadly, most of the terms are guesses - and will remain guesses for millions of years. Plausible solutions to the equation range practically from zero to infinity. That's a guess by any definition. So, it's sort of psudeo-science.

I'm more convinced by the Fermi Paradox:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

Basically, it says that, while the galaxy is 100,000 light years across, it is 10,000,000,000 years old. So, at any reasonable pace of exploration, it shouldn't take more than a few million years to explore the entire galaxy - no more than only 0.1% of its age. That means that if space-faring worlds are common, we shouldn't exist. Because they wouldn't have just arrived to check out our radio broadcasts, they wouldn't even have arrived late enough to turn us all into fish sticks. They would have gotten here when we were still pond scum. At that point, it would have been absurd for them to decide to wait billions of years for the pond scum to turn into Carl Sagan. Rather, they would have said "Look at all this Living Space" - if we can just get rid of this pond scum!".

This is confirmed by SETI's decades of searching without finding diddly-squat. Millions of years from now, after OUR decendents have terra-formed and colonized the entire galaxy, they'll get a hit everywhere they point their radio telescopes.




Chickenboy -> RE: What program/film/documentary are you watching now? (2/17/2013 5:17:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SLAAKMAN

quote:

I'm waiting patiently for the 'irrefutable' part of this bit. I've yet to see it.

Tell me what type aircraft did we have in 1952 that could fly at 7200MPH from horizontal to vertical vector?
quote:


Unbelievable Speed:
The irrefutable radar returns were seen at Washington National Airport and Andrews Air Force Base. Government officials were at a loss to account what was happening over their own air space. The blips traveled around 100 mph for the most part, but what was unbelievable was their ability to reach the astonishing speed of 7,200 mph when accelerating. The capabilities of the UFOs were far beyond our technological proficiency at the time.
Vanished From Sight:
The U.S. Air Force Air Defense Command was first notified of what was occurring by Andrews Air Force Base. Immediately, several F-94 night fliers were ordered to hunt down and verify the subject of the radar sightings. However, repairs being done on a runway delayed their response. There would be actual dogfights between the U. S. planes and the UFOs, with our planes being out-maneuvered.

http://ufos.about.com/od/visualproofphotosvideo/p/washingtondc.htm


Yes. Irrefutable 'radar returns'. 'Cuz nothing EVER has caused funky radar returns. Ever. OK-maybe that once. But otherwise, radar signatures (and measuring speed from same) is PERFECT.




Chickenboy -> RE: What program/film/documentary are you watching now? (2/17/2013 5:19:07 PM)

The irrefutable Drake formula (it's a ratio, really) is 11:1 drakes:hens. That's about right.




Page: <<   < prev  20 21 [22] 23 24   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.046875