Conspiracies - Are you a believer?

[HankSolo]

I'm curious what you skeptics actually DO believe in.

Is there any conspiracy that any of you are willing to admit believing in? C'mon be honest. Do you think Oswald had help? Was the moon walk faked? Illuminati? Is Elvis alive? Did Paul die? There's gotta be something some of you die-hard skeptics believe in that's against the mainstream.

You obviously know mine. I just wonder what (if anything) skeptics believe in. For example, my wife (a die-hard skeptic) saw an unidentified flying object at close range years ago. This was seen by thousands of people in Connecticut and is well documented in sites such as:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/9047/packo.htm
It was reported to the police and the newspapers. It was seen by people all over the state, including police. It flew up I-95 prompting people to get out of their cars and gawk. My wife saw it hovering and flying slowly for a long time and she estimates she was as close as 200-300 feet away at one point. This has to be one of the biggest mass sightings that I know about. The next day, the newspaper reported that the UFO was actually 3 low-flying airplanes. My wife still doesn't believe it was an alien spaceship, but she knows for sure that it wasn't 3 low-flying airplanes. Maybe a secret military plane with incredible technology, she reasons. Not only would 3 low-flying airplanes make a tremendous noise, they would zip over her, not hover. My question then is, what is the US Govt doing flying a super-secret airplane over I-95 and over half the state of CT, and then denying it?!? Aren't there other more 'rural' places that they can be doing their test flights? That's kind of like buzzing the streets of NYC in a Stealth Bomber when the Stealth was still in super-secret development. Though she agrees with the logic, she still can't bring herself to believe it was alien.

Figures.... I would kill to see something like that and who sees it? A skeptic....

So I thought it may be fun to find out what, if any, non-mainstream beliefs people on this board have? There's gotta be something... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

[sts60]

So I thought it may be fun to find out what, if any, non-mainstream beliefs people on this board have? There's gotta be something...

OK. I believe, with no evidence to support such a claim, that the Astros will one season make it past the National League playoffs.

There. I've said it.

[Russ]

I believe I'll have another beer. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif

[RalphVanDyke]

Along the same lines as sts60, I believe in a horrible curse cast upon the Cubs, that makes them miserable every year. Other than that, nothing. Oswald killed JFK, UFOs are 100% explainable, we really walked on the moon, and the government isn't trying to spray chemicals on us from 50,000 ft. Guess I'm boring like that.

[steinhenge]

OK. I believe, with no evidence to support such a claim, that the Astros will one season make it past the National League playoffs.

There. I've said it.


Don't worry, I've been rubbing my lucky Chris Holt broken bat all this season and last (and my fiancee has been polishing her Ted Williams tin "Moxie" sign with her Brad Ausmus all-star jersey), so I think we'll be a cinch this year for the World Series. Unfortunatly, the likely strike could erase my postive karma. Sigh.

[Jigsaw]

Is there any conspiracy that any of you are willing to admit believing in?
Yes--I personally believe that the price of gas is set every day by a group of men in a smoke-filled back room who throw darts at a dartboard.

Really.

[Silas]

The cover-up of the massacre of the Polish officer corps by the Stalinists...

The conspiracy of silence regarding the Armenian genocide....

The Reagan administration's arrangement to bring Cocaine into Los Angeles...

The denial of civil rights to the Ainu by the Japanese...

The soft-pedaling of the immediate danger to the city of Seattle from Mt. Rainier, a semi-dormant volcano that *will* erupt, just like Mt. St. Helens, very likely within our lifetime, and which will kill millions of people...

The ongoing effort to belittle the effects of radioactive waste...

Silas

[Celestial Mechanic]

I don't believe that James Earl Ray acted alone in assassinating Martin Luther King Jr. An ignorant ex-con just doesn't end up in Britain with $25,000 and a fake passport. Someone helped him. Who?

I believe that the national guardsmen at Kent State did agree beforehand to turn and fire when they reached the top of the hill. One of them will confess to it on his deathbed a few years from now.

And, as you can see from my signature, I believe that there is an evil conspiracy headquartered in Redmond, WA to deny the people of the world a choice of operating system software. If you don't believe that one, go to a computer store and ask for OS/2 or BeOS preloaded on a computer. Call Dell or Gateway and ask for Linux on a non-server PC. Just try!

[xriso]

I believe that there are people who intentionally spread conspiracy theories and then have a good laugh when they become popular.

[David Hall]

I believe that there was possibly a conspiracy to assasinate JFK. But I don't believe that the extent of it was as large as many people make it out to be. I would say it was a small group of people with one or two of them in high places. But my feeling is we'll never know for sure.

Other than that, I might give some credence to other small-scale conspiracy theories, but I can't see anything on the scale of the Apollo hoax or Illuminati having any basis other than paranoia.

[nebularain]

OK, I'll take a stab at it - for fun.

Oswald? Well, if true, there's enough evidence thrown around that would indicate there was a conspiracy. As an example, I know some people who visited the assassination sight who said that there were markers to show where the key players were at the time, and these people couldn't see how it was possible for Oswald to have accomplish what he supposedly did. But I agree, whatever side of the fence you may lean on, it may never truly be known exactly what happened.

Moon landing? Not a fake.

Illuminate? Hard to say. Though, I wouldn't be suprised if there really was some "behind the scene" manipulation going on from some force or group or something that is influencing world events. Let's see, politicians seem to be owned by businessmen who give them their funds. Public opinion seems to be influenced by the media. Who rules the media? Boy, this line of thought could be debated for months, couldn't it?

Elvis and Paul? Honostly, I could care less.

Now, anyone want to tackle Atlantis or the Burmuda Triangle?

[beskeptical]

I assume, Hank, you are talking about what do we skeptics believe in besides the scientific process.

I believe that false claims in advertisments are discussed in management meetings and they know full well it's a big lie but they don't care as long as they can sell their products.

I believe corporations conspire to do anything that's in the best interest of the richest shareholders and managers regardless of the cost to anyone else.

I believe in the 'right wing conspiracy' that managed to get 50+ million in taxpayer funding to try to get Clinton.

I believe there's a lot of conspiring that goes on in government and if some of us don't keep a close eye on it, the masses will be manipulated and our freedom will be at great risk.

I also doubt that James Earl Ray acted alone but I'm not convinced Oswald didn't.

I don't think Mt. Rainier is being soft pedaled at all, I think the public doesn't want to hear it. (From our Mt St Helens and Mt Pinatubo lessons though, I think there are good odds there will be time to get out of the way. But, I personally wouldn't live on one of the old mud flows. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif )

[Conrad]

I believe that there is a conspiracy by various authors, journalists, editors and publishers to maintain a market for UFO's, Roswell, alien abductions et al, in the teeth of the truth (slightly confused metaphor there). As for the Bermuda Triangle, read Larry Kusche's excellent "Bermuda Triangle - Mystery Solved" and it will, er, solve the mystery for you. More seriously, there are various anti-semitic conspiracies trying to deny the Holocaust and rehabilitate Adolf Hitler (Boy! talk about an uphill struggle on that one!).

- and I believe there is a cloud-creating conspiracy to keep me from ever using my telescope ...

[informant]

xriso wrote:
I believe that there are people who intentionally spread conspiracy theories and then have a good laugh when they become popular.


Conrad wrote:
I believe that there is a conspiracy by various authors, journalists, editors and publishers to maintain a market for UFO's, Roswell, alien abductions et al, in the teeth of the truth (slightly confused metaphor there). As for the Bermuda Triangle, read Larry Kusche's excellent "Bermuda Triangle - Mystery Solved" and it will, er, solve the mystery for you. More seriously, there are various anti-semitic conspiracies trying to deny the Holocaust and rehabilitate Adolf Hitler (Boy! talk about an uphill struggle on that one!).

My kind of conspiracy theories as well.

Oh, and there was something weird about Janis Joplin’s death too! But nevermind that…:)

[The Incubus]

On 2002-08-09 00:50, Celestial Mechanic wrote:
I don't believe that James Earl Ray acted alone in assassinating Martin Luther King Jr. An ignorant ex-con just doesn't end up in Britain with $25,000 and a fake passport. Someone helped him. Who?

Same with Malcom X, who supposedly reported the same guy following him in a couple different countries (IIRC)


Call Dell or Gateway and ask for Linux on a non-server PC. Just try!

No, but call IBM and they might (They actually sell some computers with Red Hat Linux on them)

The (I know little about space, but I KNOW Computers, gosh darnit! =-)

[traztx]

On 2002-08-09 00:36, Silas wrote:
The soft-pedaling of the immediate danger to the city of Seattle from Mt. Rainier, a semi-dormant volcano that *will* erupt, just like Mt. St. Helens, very likely within our lifetime, and which will kill millions of people...


When I was up on Ranier, I thought it was funny how the park is trying to keep people on little paths in order to prevent them from disturbing the delicate endangered alpine flowers. Hello... this is an active volcano!!

[Valiant Dancer]

I believe that when I drove long distances to work (35-50 miles), the Illinois DOT followed me and tore up all the alternates I had. At one point I had 14 alternates and all of them were under construction.

I believe that George Ryan (R-IL Governor) was aware of licenses for bribes and encouraged it.

I believe that Ray had help escaping the country.

I believe that the US government still has an experimental skunk works at Groom's lake (Area 51).

I believe that John Ashcroft is getting rid of all the Constitutional protections he feels are getting in his way.

I believe that above the level of state legislatures, there are no non-corrupt/bought leaders.

I believe that corporations are out for profit alone and don't care a whit about their employees.

I believe employee loyalty in a corporate environment is stupid.

I believe HMO's have supplanted many medical decisions by providers with ones made by accountants.

I believe that there is a devine force and science describes the rules that the divine force set up. This study is encouraged by the divine force.

[DaveC]

I believe this thread is totally off topic and the BA must be either feeling particularly benevolent or he's on vacation.

[samsara15]

The problem I have weith almost all conspiracy theories is that they assume someone out there is smart enough to keep a secret from lots of people for a long time...everything I have seen in my lifetime indicates that all large, organized groups of human beings take incompetency to astonishing levels. In other words, we're not smart enough creatures to make these conspiracies work.

[HankSolo]

There's some good stuff here. Some of you believe in stuff as wacky as I do!

My opinion? The magic bullet theory just self-destructs the whole Oswald-acted-alone argument. Bad Astronomy? How about Bad Science! Oswald had help. Whether it was just a couple of wackos, or a conspiracy worthy of indicting LBJ, or something in between, that's the real question. But why cover it up? Does society really need closure that bad that we deny ourselves the truth?

Elvis is alive and on Nibiru.

Just kidding.

[beskeptical]

On 2002-08-09 12:40, DaveC wrote:
I believe this thread is totally off topic and the BA must be either feeling particularly benevolent or he's on vacation.


Did we ever establish if you counted those M & Ms as a kid? (Just kidding.)

Didn't this whole web site start because of the supposed 'Lunar Landing Conspiracy'? My take on Hank's reason for bringing this thread up, (not trying to speak for Hank mind you), is that he felt a bit attacked in his last thread. I think he just needed some reassurance that we weren't just discounting every non-mainstream idea for the sake of science.

[Espritch]

My personal pet conspiracy theory is that the fast internet service providers have all conspired to fix the price of fast internet connections at around 40$ a month. Otherwise, it just doesn't seem likely that technologies as different as DSL and Cable Modem accesss would "independently" arrive at almost identical pricing structures. That's the main reason I'm still muddling by with a 56k modem (i.e. I think fast internet prices are artificially inflated). /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif

Conspiracies can and do exist. They may in fact be fairly common in the business world. Greed is a powerful motive and in any industry dominated by a few large corporations, it only requires cooperation amongst a small number of people to fix prices (there is also a lot of precedence for conspiracies of this sort).

However, the chance that a conspiracy will succeed is, in general, inversely proportional to the number of people who have to be in on it and directly proportional to the vested interest of the participants in the success of the conspiracy. A moon hoax would require a vast conspiracy involving thousands of people and the cooperation of several foriegn goverments who had no vested interest in supporting such a conspiracy. For this reason alone, the likelyhood of such a conspiracy is somewhere between zero and zilch.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Espritch on 2002-08-10 10:10 ]</font>

[SeanF]

On 2002-08-10 10:08, Espritch wrote:
My personal pet conspiracy theory is that the fast internet service providers have all conspired to fix the price of fast internet connections at around 40$ a month. Otherwise, it just doesn't seem likely that technologies as different as DSL and Cable Modem accesss would "independently" arrive at almost identical pricing structures. That's the main reason I'm still muddling by with a 56k modem (i.e. I think fast internet prices are artificially inflated). /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif



Well, that conspiracy may in fact exist, but I think your logic is flawed. In the end, prices are dictated by market and not necessarily by manufacturing cost.

DSL and Cable Modems are providing the same service, regardless of the underlying technology. Therefore, they are in competition with each other. Therefore, they have to sell near to each other in price, or the more expensive one will go out of business quickly.

[Espritch]

In the end, prices are dictated by market and not necessarily by manufacturing cost.

In a competitive market, market prices should closely reflect manufacturing costs. However, such competition would tend to drive down per unit profits. If the market is big enough, the sponsors of competing technologies might decide to share the pie at inflated prices rather than risk a profit punishing price war.

ADM ("supermarket to the world") was convicted not long ago of conspiring with other multi-national corporations to commit just such a market division for some agricultural product (I don't recall the specific product). I remember listening to a segment on NPR about this. One of the conspirators mentioned how mundane the whole process of "dividing up the world" had seemed. Cooperation is often more beneficial to the bottom line than competition. Unfortunately, this benefit almost always comes at a cost to the consumer. That's the whole reason we have the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

[HankSolo]

Beskeptical is 100% right. The reason I had posed this question was to find out a little more about the people here. There's a big difference between honest skepticism and refusal of any theory outside the mainstream. I know several of the latter (not here of course /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif ). The only reason I started posting on this board is to have intelligent discussions with open-minded people who don't always agree with me, where we can hopefully all walk away with a little more knowledge or awareness. Trying to have a discussion with a "refuser" or a "blind follower" is usually a waste of time. I'm glad to see many of you have just as crazy ideas as I do.

I have my beliefs on a lot of things based on my logic or common sense, but I know full-well that I could be completely wrong and I'm always willing to change my mind and many times do. I like to hear both sides in everything and I'll come to my own conclusions regardless of scientific or religious acceptance or political correctness. I'm always skeptical of the media, any government, science, religion, or any group that wants me to think in their particular way. In my opinion, skepticism seems to be a big theme of this board, and many conspiracy theories are the result of healthy skepticism. If any of these theories could spark some good discussion in its own thread, that would be a good thing.

More stuff I believe in:
1. The stock market is a rigged game run by those who profit from volatility and high volume (investment firms). Without inside information, you're honestly better off going to a casino and playing blackjack (assuming you know how to play it right).
2. OJ didn't do it.
3. The Cydonia region of Mars has some very interesting features that appear to not be natural structures. What are the scientific, religious, and strategic implications if they are artificial, and if verified, would this knowledge ever be released or admitted to the public?
4. What knowledge does the government possess that it withholds from us for fear of "panic" or national security? I agree that a huge conspiracy to withhold something like UFO's is hard to do, and there would be plenty of leaks to the public. And in fact there are plenty of leaks and hints from within the gov't(Roswell and Bob Lazar to name a couple, possibly?). The government response has been to take a stance of ridicule, and that stance has proven quite effective in not having to explain things that we should be demanding explanations for. There's another thread about F-16's recently scrambling to chase a UFO that then disappears from radar. This is accompanied and corraborated by an eyewitness to the chase. The response from the Air Force? A lackadasical "Nothing to worry about, just routine...". I'm paraphrasing, but whether extra-terrestrial in nature or not, that's not an acceptable response to me.

[aurorae]

3. The Cydonia region of Mars has some very interesting features that appear to not be natural structures. What are the scientific, religious, and strategic implications if they are artificial, and if verified, would this knowledge ever be released or admitted to the public?


Why not? This question always dumbfounds me.

Some groups (like NASA and JPL and their suppliers) would have a great vested interest in the discovery of extraterrestrial life, especially intelligent life, since it would open the floodgates of funding due to overwhelming public interest and excitement.

Also, if there is anything on any of the Mars images that appears to you to be artificial, I'd suggest taking Geol 101 at your local university. Follow that up with a 300 level class in physical geology.

[Firefox]

The only problem is that NASA doesn't consider the formations in Cydonia to be compelling enough to really warrant further exploration. Not only has the Global Surveyor and the newer Mars Odyssey cast doubt on the "face", as I recall, the Viking orbiter that took the original photo also caught the "face" in different lighting conditions, demonstrating that it was not an artificial construct, but rather a trick of light and perspective.

It also helps to keep in mind that humans have the tendency to identify facial features in natural objects, a hold back from when we were infants.


-Adam

[HankSolo]

On the contrary, I think the US would not reveal a discovery on this scale. The strategic military advantage of discovering advanced intelligence would outweigh any benefit to the public. A "captured" UFO is more valuable to the military if only they know about it. Revealing advanced technology to the public will only make us have to share the info. There's a reason we develop military aircraft in secret, instead of sharing those advances with the world. Whether legitimate or not, I believe the government, any government, would keep a discovery of this magnitude top-secret as long as possible. So we cannot trust the gov't if we are seeking the truth. Skepticism is crucial and you must make your own conclusions based on your own observations.

Are there multiple, natural, geological structures on earth that have triangular sides? If natural, wouldn't these types of structures appear randomly scattered throughout Mars and Earth, or would they only appear as a cluster in Cydonia? That type of evidence would convince me.

As for the face, subsequent photos should be treated with skepticism. While it can obviously be a trick of light and shadows, I have to reserve judgement because of the proximity of the pyramid structures. As I mentioned before, I honestly believe that we wouldn't be told about a discovery like this, at least not for a long time. I wouldn't tell. Imagine the fallout. What real benefit would it serve humanity, and what are the dangers, that's what I would have to weigh as president (or whoever gets to make these decisions /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif). I have also read how NASA was shown to have deliberately removed data from a subsequent set of pictures to change the appearance of the "face". A possibility that has to be taken into account... I have to reserve judgement for now, though the implications if they are legit are absolutely fascinating. To me, they continue to "appear" artifical.

I admit it is far-fetched, but it is right there in front of our noses. Until we have conclusive evidence, we only deny it because we can't bring ourselves to believe it is possible. Putting the shoe on the other foot, if we as a society had already accepted ET's visiting Earth in the past, and then we made the Cydonia discoveries, we might immediately assume that these structures were artificial. It's all about what possibilities we will allow.

[sts60]

No, we deny it because it looks like a funny-shaped natural formation, and the "evidence" for any artificiality is based on silly mathematical games that can be applied to any vaguely suggestive formation.

Could the "Face" be an artificial construct? Sure. Is it? Not very likely at all. Is it worth trying to investigate it more? Well, I certainly believe we should go to Mars in person. But Cydonia is just one region on Mars, and not the most interesting from either the geological or xenobiological point of view.

And I don't buy any coverup story. The discovery of an artificial structure would be a huge boon to NASA, but of no immediate military significance. There's no reason to cover it up, and every reason (read funding and public excitement) to trumpet it.

It's conceivable the military would classify the existence of some ancient ray gun, but the only closeups of Mars so far show dirt and rocks, not artifacts. If you believe otherwise, try coming up with some evidence before asking me to believe you. Just saying "there's a coverup" won't do it.

[HankSolo]

http://www.his.com/~tharsis/pyramid/

Here's a site that a quick search brought up. Read for yourself and come to your own conclusions. Lots of formulas, so you scientists should like it. Personally, I just go by appearances and come to my own conclusions based on common sense and the possibilities I allow. I never asked you to believe in anything, so I'm not sure where that came from. You yourself said it is possible that it could be artificial. I agree that we need to investigate these structures in person. With sand and dirt being whipped up over such a long time, there's no way to get detailed photographs. Add to that the catastrophic meteor/asteroid impacts splattering dirt all around, and who knows how much detail is being hidden from us. We need a serious archealogical expedition to expose the nature of the formations. Only then will we know for sure. For now, we can only speculate based on appearances. There's no reason why our speculations can't be different. I think mine is more fun though.

Unless I'm mistaken, NASA is still a government agency. Anything they discover has to be declassified before the public gets it. Any evidence of ET technology would have to go through so much scrutiny before it's released. NASA would still get its funding regardless of the public being informed. I don't think public excitement figures much in their decisions. Evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence would have tremendous strategic importance, especially if that intelligence is higher than ours. Contact with the source of that intelligence would be the first step. Do we want Saddam Hussein to be Earth's representative? Do we want other countries vying to be the first ones to communicate with a greater intelligence? Or do we want that advantage for ourselves? It's absolutely logical why we wouldn't release a discovery of this magnitude.

What benefit would the "masses" get by admitting these discoveries? Looking at it from the "boss's" point of view, I don't see any besides answering the curiosity of people like me. The others don't believe it anyway. On the other hand, anarchy, mass suicides, cults, panic, and a general deterioration of religion and society could be a possibility that they would probably rather not face. Seriously put yourself in the position of making this decision, with the influence of your close (probably military, definitely political) peers, and not from the perspective of science, and what decision would you make? I would keep it secret until I can establish contact, and then use that advantage to establish myself as the world leader and the primary contact. Then any flow of information would have to go through me first. Keep in mind the ego that's required for political office. And I don't think satisfying the scientific curiousity of people like you and me really matters, when all is said and done. It's all about power. It always has been.

[Kaptain K]

HankSolo,
You are making a very common mistake in thinking that the pictures of Mars taken from orbit by MGS belong to NASA to deal with (i.e. classify) as they wish. NASA provided the transportation. The camera was designed, and is owned and operated by MSSS (Malin Space Science Systems). NASA (and by extension, the gov't) have no control over the release of images from MGS.

[Rift]

Hank, here's a site in which Ralph Greenberg, a mathematician professor, analyzes the D&M 'Pyramid" and particularly the claims of Hoagland.

http://www.math.washington.edu/~greenber/DMPyramid.html

[HankSolo]

Kaptain K: Good point. I was actually on MSSS's website yesterday. However, wouldn't it still be logical for NASA to have first rights to any image taken by the camera? I would think it would be a stipulation before providing the transportation. Lots of private companies build equipment for the gov't, but that doesn't necessarily mean they maintain sovereignty over them. Private companies build military aircraft like the Stealth, yet the plans, progress, and results aren't forwarded to the public. We're talking about the next frontier, where we have no idea what we're going to find, so it would make sense for the gov't to review all data before allowing MSSS to release it. As much as I would like to believe it, I really don't think we have that much freedom.

Rift: I'll check out the site and let you know my take on it. Could he have picked more offensive background & foreground colors?!? Right off the bat, my theory is that he has stock in Tylenol!

[GrapesOfWrath]

On 2002-08-13 12:05, HankSolo wrote:
Skepticism is crucial and you must make your own conclusions based on your own observations.

Exactly.

[SeanF]

Okay, let me make sure I understand this theory correctly.

1) There are artificial constructions on Mars of which the gov't (NASA) has photographic evidence.

2) The gov't is withholding that evidence in order to keep the public from knowing about it (for whatever reason).

3) The reason we do know about it is [b]because of photographic evidence which NASA (the gov't) released some 20 years ago.[b/]

Why does it seem like that logic is slightly flawed?

[HankSolo]

I read the math professor's website and I have to agree with his point. The mathematical relationships within the D&M Pyramid, pointed out by Hoagland as evidence of intelligent design, could just as easily be coincidence. We can find patterns in any set of numbers. However, it doesn't prove that it's coincidental, only that a coincidence is possible. With that same logic, we can say that the relationship of angles in any man-made structure could be coincidental as well. I don't see how he is disproving that the D&M pyramid is an artificial structure. He is just saying that the mathematical relationships trumpeted by Hoagland as proof of intelligent design, could just as easily be chalked up to coincidence. I agree.

This professor seems to be a solid scientific citizen with tip-top credentials, that other scientists must have a high level of respect for. If you follow a link to his discussion about The Mounds of Cydonia and it's geometrical oddities, he goes on to say:

"The repetitive appearance of these special triangles is intriguing and puzzling to me. I am not able to dismiss this kind of evidence."

http://www.math.washington.edu/~greenber/moundillustrations.html

Though he doesn't find them convincing either, he cannot dismiss them. The possibility of artificial structures in Cydonia remains, regardless of whether Hoagland is right about planned mathematical relationships, or whether those relationships are coincidental. I think they're coincidental too. I really don't think people have these subliminal ideas when they're building something. They just use the material available to them and try to build a structure that suits their needs and that won't come crashing down. The fact that it won't come crashing down may result in the structure having some interesting angle relationships if they are examined after the fact. Kind of like coincidence-by-design. But I don't think those angles were any sort of message. I still go by appearances, which is all we have, and those appearances suggest possible artificiality.

I am what you would call a Sitchinite. I so far like his theories above any others that I have heard, including mainstream theories, and I allow for the possibility of extra-terrestrials visiting the earth sometime in our history (and still today). A base on Mars is a big part of this theory. Triangulation of coordinates was key to establishing landing corridors and platforms on both Mars and Earth. I can go into details, but it would take me 9 books. I'm sure you have all done a lot of your own research on Sitchin's theories and have your own opinions. This theory continues to fit in perfectly so far with things we cannot otherwise explain on both Earth and Mars, without resorting to God and staying scientifically possible. While admittedly hard to swallow at first, because it is so radical, the theory shines more than ever, and continues to get more and more scientific support with every new discovery.

[HankSolo]

On 2002-08-14 12:34, SeanF wrote:
Okay, let me make sure I understand this theory correctly.

1) There are artificial constructions on Mars of which the gov't (NASA) has photographic evidence.

2) The gov't is withholding that evidence in order to keep the public from knowing about it (for whatever reason).

3) The reason we do know about it is [b]because of photographic evidence which NASA (the gov't) released some 20 years ago.[b/]

Why does it seem like that logic is slightly flawed?



I was waiting for this one... NASA hasn't released a single photograph of anything that is obviously artificial on Mars. There is just as strong an argument to say the Cydonia structures are natural as well. They appear artificial. If these structures stood out as obviously artificial, I think that we would never have seen it. As is, they may have missed it when they originally released the photos, or didn't think it was significant enough to suppress. The logic stands! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

It's also interesting how subsequent scans of Cydonia have missed the D&M Pyramid. Just a funny coincidence because they were right there, and only happened to catch the very tip of D&M with the new high-res equipment. Considering it's the second most prominent feature in the area, and that they scanned so much else, it's very disappointing that they didn't get D&M. That would have been very interesting to see. Or maybe they did... Hmmm.... Oh well, maybe next time...

[nebularain]

What I believe:

If you tend to believe in alien life visiting this solar system, you will tend to believe that the structures on Mars are alien (artificially made by intelligent beings) in origin.

If you tend to not believe in aliens visiting this solar system, you will tend to believe the structures are natural and just happen to take on the appearance of artificially made structures.

Then there are those who on the surface tend not to believe in aliens visiting this solar system, but are willing to admit that they could believe if more substantial (non-speculative) evidence is presented. These will most likely view the objects on Mars as natural because the evidence of intelligent design (and NASA conspiracy) is too specculative.

[Kaptain K]

Kaptain K: Good point. I was actually on MSSS's website yesterday. However, wouldn't it still be logical for NASA to have first rights to any image taken by the camera? I would think it would be a stipulation before providing the transportation.
No! MSSS held the trumps. They had the camera. MSSS built the camera for its own use and contracted with NASA for transportation. NASA is not the only source of transportation. I'm sure that if NASA had tried to put such a stipulation in the contract, Russia, Japan, or Eurospace would have been glad to provide transportation (for a fee).


Lots of private companies build equipment for the gov't, but that doesn't necessarily mean they maintain sovereignty over them. Private companies build military aircraft like the Stealth, yet the plans, progress, and results aren't forwarded to the public.
Apples and oranges! Military equipment, built under gov't contract is sold to the gov't and belongs to the gov't. NASA also buys equipment for its own use. The builder has no proprietary control over its use.

[HankSolo]

Kaptain, are you 100% sure that MSSS has full rights and control over everything their camera does, and that they release everything to the public regardless of NASA? If so, can I ask how you have access to this information?

From the MSSS web site, it says that MSSS's cameras were selected by NASA for the missions, not the other way around:



"After the loss of Mars Observer in August 1993, MSSS participated in studies aimed at recovering from the spacecraft loss, and was selected to provide the spare Mars Observer Camera for the re-flight mission, Mars Global Surveyor. At the same time, MSSS was developing a very small, modular camera system for future flight missions. This work culminated with the selection of MSSS to provide cameras for both the Mars Surveyor '98 Orbiter and Lander."


Since this is coming from MSSS themselves, I would say that contradicts your statements. Who's logic has flaws? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

[beskeptical]

There seem to be an awful lot of people in the government, in the CIA, in the FBI, etc. that can't keep their mouths shut. I assume some of these 'leaks' are disinformation schemes as past evidence has revealed. But some of the 'leaks' have been too embarassing and damaging to be purposeful conspiracies. Artificial structures on Mars would be just about impossible to hide.

[Firefox]

There seem to be an awful lot of people in the government, in the CIA, in the FBI, etc. that can't keep their mouths shut. I assume some of these 'leaks' are disinformation schemes as past evidence has revealed. But some of the 'leaks' have been too embarassing and damaging to be purposeful conspiracies. Artificial structures on Mars would be just about impossible to hide.

It's always good to keep in mind that this is the same government that couldn't keep the hydrogen bomb secrets from the Russians, let alone Bay of Pigs, etc.


-Adam

[DoctorDon]

HankSolo wrote:
Wouldn't it still be logical for NASA to have first rights to any image taken by the camera? ... It would make sense for the gov't to review all data before allowing MSSS to release it. As much as I would like to believe it, I really don't think we have that much freedom.

NASA is still a government agency. Anything they discover has to be declassified before the public gets it.


Well, having worked for NASA off and on for about 12 years now, and knowing lots of people who have worked for NASA for decades, I can only state from my own experience that this is not the way NASA works. No NASA scientific data is classified. There are some projects where particular scientists get one year of exclusive data rights, to protect the work they put into their proposal in the first place, but then it all goes public. Furthermore, there are many projects (like the All-Sky Monitor on RXTE) where all the data is fully public, immediately. It's actually a selling point in the current NASA climate: a mission with fully public data is actually more attractive than one which withholds data rights, because NASA runs on PR, and they know that projects that give away data are more popular than ones that hoard it. The whole ethos at NASA is diametrically opposed to what you're describing. They just don't have the authority you're ascribing to it.

Furthermore, if you've ever met any scientists at all, you'd know that the idea that they could keep a discovery of this magnitude secret is absolutely ludicrous. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif Even if they were ordered not to publish (and I don't know whose authority they would recognize on that), they would tell colleagues, mention it at conferences, etc. Secrecy is antithetical to science. We scientists don't do it very well, on average.
But of course, since I worked for NASA, I suppose you'll say I'm just part of the cover-up. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Don

[Jim]

Just to tie those last three messages (beskeptical, Fire Fox, Dr. Don), if you think back to the Manhattan Project, the greatest fear the governement and military had was that the scientists tended to be very loose=lipped when it came to talking about their work. That's why General groves insisted they all be confined to the project site for the duration of the project. They were allowed only limited and monitored contact with the outside world and even more limited and monitored trips off site.

And, even with those and other very stringent secrecy programs in place, Uncle Josef was fully aware of what was going on.

<font color=blue>Three people can keep a secret as long as two of them are dead.
B. Franklin</font>

[HankSolo]

I agree that leaks are bound to happen, but all the gov't has to do is apply a little ridicule and they can walk away from the subject. It's ingenious actually. One simple "Little Green Man" joke can offset 10,000 eyewitnesses in the eyes of mainstream pundits.

I wonder what the mainstream explanation for the "Battle of Los Angeles" is? What could the object in the sky have been? Any suggestions? If you need to read up on it, here a link to one of your favorite people's web site:
http://www.rense.com/ufo/battleofla.htm

You have to at least read up on this if you've never heard of it. It may be the biggest mass sighting ever, complete with anti-aircraft fire, photographs, eye-witness descriptions, and military acknowledgement that they have no idea what it was. Six people died as a result of all the shells fired at the thing. Direct hits on it had no effect. This wasn't a blimp or a plane. It wasn't the moon. It certainly wasn't Venus. Shouldn't we be curious?

Are we content to leave this story, and thousands of others like this, buried in the "fuggedaboutit" pile? Does the science of studying quarks demand more serious attention than figuring out mysteries on our own planet (that have the potential of reaping huge scientific advances)? Sorry, but Venus, swamp gas, the northern lights, and ball lightning simply doesn't cut it all the time. What do any of you think about foo fighters? Are that many people hallucinating the same thing?

What amuses me is how mainstream science ignores UFO's, which is largely based on direct observation, yet embraces astronomy, which is largely based on direct observation. We have no physical evidence for black holes. We only have speculation based on observations. Yet, what mainstream scientist will deny there's such a thing? We have no physical evidence that attaining and surpassing the speed of light is impossible. We don't have the technology to test that claim. It's purely a theory, yet it is universally accepted. But even though millions, including well-respected people, have eye-witness reports of UFO's, the mainstream perception is that it is hogwash and a waste of time. Isn't that funny? Who gets to decide this stuff? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

[Rift]

Hank, I believe in UFOs. Heck I've seen enough of them myself...

But I'm using the term as it was originally intended-Unidentified Flying Objects.

But don't you see what a HUGE leap in logic it is from seeing a light in the sky you can't explain to saying "it's aliens from another planet!"? Most scientists, myself included, are not afraid of saying "I don't know".

I first heard about the "Battle of LA" about 3 months ago. I tried doing some research on it on the internet, but precious little came up.
Interestingly enough, although a Rense page came up, it wasn't the one you just linked too, so thanks. I AM curious about this stuff, just haven't seen anything to make me think we are being visited by aliens.

Am I 100% sure cydonia is natural, that NASA and Malin aren't hiding something from me? No of course not. Nothing in science is 100% sure. We don't have all the information on the universe, so what we think is true changes. That's how science works. But for the moment, I have no reason to think that the things at cydonia, and other places, aren't artificial. I don't even think that the possibility warrants spending billions of dollars to go up there now and prove it. Why? Because we could go up there, drill holes in the face, build a damn subdivision on it, and people like Hoagland will still say there's some great conspiracy behind it, and that it is real. We'll get up there eventually, and prove it one way or another. (I think we already have, myself, at least enough for me)

As for the "Battle of LA", I think it was probably something like Venus. You can't dismiss prosaic explanations away so easy. It was war nerves, we were just bombed by Japan. My question is, how come nothing like this has ever happened again? The aliens got scared and stop flying over large cities?

About astronomy, anybody can point a telescope out at the universe and make the same observations. They can do this at anytime and see what others have seen. You can't do this with UFOs.

On an episode of Bill Nye, he was at Mount Palomar and said that for all the years that astronomers have looked through telescopes not one extraterrestrial craft has been seen or photographed, not one.

[nebularain]

A little game:
Which "UFO's" are truly unidentified object?

http://tlc.discovery.com/convergence/aliens/photos/game.html

[Wiley]

On 2002-08-15 15:52, nebularain wrote:
A little game:
Which "UFO's" are truly unidentified object?

http://tlc.discovery.com/convergence/aliens/photos/game.html



Thanks for the link Ms. Rain. Good fun site. I also took the alien pop culture quiz (http://tlc.discovery.com/convergence/aliens/quiz/quiz.html), and I ashamed to say I got 'em all. Yes, I even knew what planet Alf was from.

[overrated]

There's a huge difference in saying x is POSSIBLE and x is PLAUSIBLE. I mean, it's possible, I suppose, that my chair here at work is designed to leach energy out of my body to power the building's lights. My evidence? I feel tired when I go home each night. But is it plausible? In a word, no. Evidence--physiological, in this case--points to the too-stiff back, the poorly padded seat and the barely adjustable armrests as the causes of my drainage.

There's a psychological need to believe in conspiracies. It's comforting to some people, especially in the face of actual, immutable problems in the world around them.

As for the Battle of L.A., all I know for sure that it's a Rage Against the Machine album, and a not-so-hot one, at that.

But suggesting that the UFO was an alien ship or whatever is another big logical jump. My dad lived there during World War II, and air raid sirens went off all the time--including, it turns out, a few times when U.S. aircraft were mistaken for Japanese planes. I guess identifying things in the sky wasn't the strong suit of the air defense spotters. Or... perhaps Hirohito was in league with the little green men....

[nebularain]

HankSolo - Why is it, exactly, that you believe the "face" and the "pyramids" are built structures and that NASA is trying to cover it up? I mean, you have been trying to argue that these things are such, but what basis do you have for believing it all to be so to begin with?

[Firefox]

You know, using Hank's line of logic:

http://www.itc.nl/~bakker/earsel/gif/happy-face.gif

You could say this is the result of an alien prankster.


-Adam

[HankSolo]

Rift, I've been trying to keep using the term UFO for exactly that reason. Maybe once or twice I may slip, but I realize the ET conclusion is in no way definite. I personally believe sightings such as the Battle of LA, Foo fighters, and the many other respectable reports seem to show a technology that we do not (or did not) have at the time. I realize I could be completely wrong, but I lean towards the ET explanation (in some cases) because of the alternatives.

In the LA scenario, there were hundreds of thousands of eyewitnesses, and the object was "huge". It moved about 20 miles in 30 minutes, and was tracked by searchlights. There were clear atmospheric conditions. The earthly possibilities (in 1941) include:
Blimp
Balloon
Airplane
Cloud
Venus
Moon

Considering that the military was positive it made direct hits with highly explosive shells, to no avail, I would rule out a blimp or a balloon. An airplane wouldn't move so slowly and it was reported to sometimes just hover (though that could mean it was just moving slowly). It also wouldn't withstand direct hits with the artillary being thrown up into the sky.

The searchlights all converged on the object and you can see the object being lit up by the lights, so there must have been something in the sky to reflect the light (as opposed to the moon or Venus). The fact that it disappeared from view after 30 minutes (after being directly above everyone) would also rule out the moon or a planet (I'm no expert but it makes sense, right?). The only other explanation I can think of would be a small low-flying cloud. But the photo sure doesn't look like a cloud! If this was a one-time event, I may be able to chalk it up to a cloud and jittery nerves, but similar scenarios have shown up throughout history, and in highly populated areas. I would classify it as unexplainable by conventional methods. Combined with the wave of UFO's throughout the 40's and 50's that have left researchers and military from dozens of countries without explanations, including respectable individuals providing eye-witness accounts of close-range sightings (within yards) of actual aircraft exhibiting incredible maneuvers, I have to give the ET explanation some validity. I can understand if we were just talking about lights in the skies here. But we're talking about military and gov't officials in airplanes watching another craft maneuver next to them and around them, at close range, and taking off at incredible speeds and making impossible turns. ET-piloted UFO's are just one of the possibilities for some of these sightings, but it is one that would make the most sense and it is all-encompassing.

Also, if you subscribe to Sitchin's theories, UFO's are a part of life!

I just think that the ET explanation doesn't get a fair shake. Here we are sending spaceships to the planets in our solar system, but it's so hard for us to believe someone sending ships to ours. We try to make up every conceivable excuse why something wouldn't be alien, sometimes to absurd levels. Swamp gas?!? But it seems like we refuse the simplest answer of all... gremlins...

[HankSolo]

On 2002-08-15 17:41, nebularain wrote:
HankSolo - Why is it, exactly, that you believe the "face" and the "pyramids" are built structures and that NASA is trying to cover it up? I mean, you have been trying to argue that these things are such, but what basis do you have for believing it all to be so to begin with?



I've been saying that dismissing the possibility of these structures being artificial is due to the prejudice that mainstream thinking endorses. Here we have some structures that appear to be very odd compared to their surroundings. A structure that appears like a symmetrical pyramid has a good chance of being artificial. The only other explanation is that it is natural. I asked previously if anyone can show me a natural pyramid formation on Earth with equal smooth sides. We jump to the conclusion that it is natural because the alternative is "crazy". Yet the Sumerians wrote of a face carved into a mountain on Mars (according to Sitchin) and a base.

Gotta go. Will continue...

[overrated]

First of all, it's an entirely different proposition to send probes to planets in one's own solar system than to explore another solar system.

I think most people dismiss the idea of the Cydonia formations being artificial because there's no scientific basis for believing they are. Can you provide some scientific evidence? Why are they "odd" compared to the surrounding landscape, for example? And comparing formations on Mars to those on Earth is apples and oranges. A whole different system of natural forces is at work on Earth. Mars is truly an alien environment.

Further, no matter how "improbable" an explanation like swamp gas might be, it's still vastly more probable than aliens traveling from another planet.

So you still haven't answered nebularian's question: Why IS the "face" on Mars most likely created by non-terrestrials?

[Rift]

Article that debunks the "Battle of LA"

http://www.geocities.com/nib68/html/labatt.html

[beskeptical]

On 2002-08-15 15:52, nebularain wrote:
A little game:
Which "UFO's" are truly unidentified object?

http://tlc.discovery.com/convergence/aliens/photos/game.html





The supposed sighting over Sicily seems suspicious. Does it look to you as if the spectators are not quite looking in the direction of the objects in the sky? The picture looks to me like a reflection in the camera lens and the people are just looking at the view.

I think they could have chosen better pics for the quiz.

[widosm]

The possibility of artificial structures in Cydonia remains, regardless of whether Hoagland is right about planned mathematical relationships, or whether those relationships are coincidental. I think they're coincidental too. I really don't think people have these subliminal ideas when they're building something.
Whoa there! Nowadays this is largely true. But centuries ago, 'subliminal' messages where the whole point of some structures. In many ancient (BC) religious buildings practically every measurement you can take has a meaning. Pointing N/S/E/W, shadows falling in particular places at specific times in the year, constant references to the golden ratio, Pi, the circumference of the earth, the milky way & star positions, the perspective tricks played in many Roman buildings. Some architecture is in itself is library of mathematical knowledge of the time.

I find the Cydonia region of Mars to be very interesting (I like the name, mainly /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif) but a five sided pyramidal feature near to a rock that, under specific lighting conditions, vaguely resembles a face is pretty tame when compared to some natural geological features (http://www.giantscausewayofficialguide.com/) here on earth.

[overrated]

That Battle of L.A. article is great. It hits on what I think the most important factor is: It was wartime and no one knew what they were doing. UFOs (of the non-alien variety) were common, especially at night.

[Sarcastronaught]

I believe that the majority of the popular music industry is controlled by a computer that generates songs for models to lip-synch to. If you listen carefully you can often hear places in songs where the voices sound a bit computerised.

Oh, and this one too, for all you Mars-Face theorists.
http://www.geocities.com/toomuchsparetime_ak2/marsface.htm

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sarcastronaught on 2002-08-17 01:32 ]</font>

[Kaptain K]

I believe that the majority of the popular music industry is controlled by a computer that generates songs for models to lip-synch to. If you listen carefully you can often hear places in songs where the voices sound a bit computerised.
I believe that you don't know what you're talking about! I have been in the business (live sound reinforcement and recording) for over 25 years. FWIW, the "computerized" voices you are hearing is an electronic effect known as a "vocoder". Other effects are commonly used (such as doubling, chorus, echo, reverb, flanging, pitch-change, auto-harmony and compression) to "sweeten" both recordings and live performances. Like anything else, they can be over used (sometimes to the point of "abuse"). There was a time when "talent" actually had to have talent. Some acts out there these days literally could not perform without a rack full of "toys" (several tens of thousands of $$$ worth).

[Donnie B.]

I find the Cydonia region of Mars to be very interesting (I like the name, mainly /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif) ...

Somehow it makes me think of Marx Brothers movies... "All hail the Supreme Potentate of Cydonia!"... "Hail Cydonia!"

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

On 2002-08-17 08:46, Kaptain K wrote:
There was a time when "talent" actually had to have talent. Some acts out there these days literally could not perform without a rack full of "toys" (several tens of thousands of $$$ worth).


So, Kap'n, you Namin' Names?

'Cause I have some Ideas of my own, do The Initials B.S., mean Anything to you?

[David Hall]

Well, in my mind, any act in which choreography plays a central role is automatically suspect.

(**I can't sing, I can't write, but I'm cute and I can follow my dance instructor's moves to the letter! I'm gonna be a star!**)

[widosm]

On 2002-08-17 14:50, David Hall wrote:
Well, in my mind, any act in which choreography plays a central role is automatically suspect.

(**I can't sing, I can't write, but I'm cute and I can follow my dance instructor's moves to the letter! I'm gonna be a star!**


word...

[Kaptain K]

So, Kap'n, you Namin' Names?
No.


'Cause I have some Ideas of my own, do The Initials B.S., mean Anything to you?
I would not disagree.

Please note that "effects" are not "bad" per se. When properly used, they can make good sound great and great sound absolutely awe inspiring. But, they cannot make bad sound great. A term used quite often in the sound business "polishing a turd" is (I believe) self explanatory.

_________________
When all is said and done - sit down and shut up!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kaptain K on 2002-08-18 18:16 ]</font>

[xriso]

Okay, about this "amazing" geometry at Cydonia. I invite you to take a look at all the points that could have been used (some of those mounds aren't used at all. Useless buildings?), then all the possible angular interactions between them (hint: this is a large number). It's not suprising that one might find a 29 degree angle, or maybe a 55-60-65 triangle (which looks equilateral). Once you take into account all the options that the analyser would have settled for, you can get a lot of triangles. Where's the circle? The spiral? The 2-d projection of a double-truncated superdupercube? There are so many ways to line up the points, that even a collection of random points would look like perfect geometrical configuration.

I almost expect them to have found more of this stuff after searching over the entire Mars surface survey. Maybe they aren't creative enough. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: xriso on 2002-08-19 11:26 ]</font>

[HankSolo]

On 2002-08-15 18:29, overrated wrote:
First of all, it's an entirely different proposition to send probes to planets in one's own solar system than to explore another solar system.


Who's to say they're coming from another solar system? They could be coming from our own... Nibiru (Planet X for you non-Sitchin fans). No light-speed travel required. They could be here continuously monitoring our development (since they created us). And a world war is a major event! The nuclear arms race following the war is another interesting development that anyone studying us would pay close attention to. I know it sounds fantastic, but Sitchin has managed to explain a lot of things with one simple premise...



I think most people dismiss the idea of the Cydonia formations being artificial because there's no scientific basis for believing they are. Can you provide some scientific evidence? Why are they "odd" compared to the surrounding landscape, for example? And comparing formations on Mars to those on Earth is apples and oranges. A whole different system of natural forces is at work on Earth. Mars is truly an alien environment.


I have no scientific evidence regarding artificiality, I just have what my eyes can see, and they appear artificial. There is no scientific evidence showing them to be natural either. We simply have no physical evidence either way until we excavate. I don't know what we'll find. I do believe that Mars was used as a waypoint between Earth and Nibiru for the transport of gold, because I believe Sitchin's translations of ancient Sumerian texts are the most reliable ones. The Sumerians wrote of a deceased former Niburian king's face being carved into a Martian mountain from orbit, to forever gaze at Earth and Nibiru in honor of his accomplishment. Sitchin explained the pyramids of Giza and their purposes, and it would make sense for the same types of structures to be necessary on Mars. Whether Cydonia is this Martain base, I don't know. It sure sticks out as a candidate. My conspiracy point is that I don't believe NASA or any gov't agency would ever confirm evidence for an advanced ET civilization, and that info would be highly top-secret.



Further, no matter how "improbable" an explanation like swamp gas might be, it's still vastly more probable than aliens traveling from another planet.


What are the chances that there is life somewhere besides Earth? What was Sagan's estimation of how many planets may contain Earth-like life? Millions.... Of those, probably 50% would be more advanced and have higher technology than we do (unless we still think we are the pinnacle of life). Right now we are sending spaceships to other planets. What about a civilization that had a 100-year head-start on us? Or 1000 years? Or 1 million years? I mean, that's just a small blip of time in the grand scheme of things. What would they be capable of? Right now, we can identify planets in other solar systems, estimate their size, composition, temperature, etc... What would an additional million years in technological evolution allow us to do? Who's to say that there aren't millions of other planets out there with higher tech than we have? Who's to say that they haven't identified us, and have made the trip to study us, using technology that seems impossible to us? So impossible, that we shrug it off as "swamp gas"! Here we are, sending ships and people into space, landing on planets, exploring the solar system, yet we are so arrogant (or is it ignorant?) that we can't believe the same thing happening to us. I don't think it's just possible, I think it's highly likely that we have been visited by an ET sometime in the Earth's history.



So you still haven't answered nebularian's question: Why IS the "face" on Mars most likely created by non-terrestrials?


I don't have an answer for that. I never said that it was. I only say that it would perfectly fit the Sitchin model, and it looks artificial. That's where I may be a little different than some of you scientists. I can accept that a horse might be a horse, because it looks like a horse, smells like a horse, and sounds like a horse. I don't need a DNA test! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

It's a possibility that we shouldn't discount just because it is so unbelievable. It used to be just as "unbelievable" to sail across the ocean and not fall off the edge of the earth.

But my discussion is really about whether NASA and the gov't would disclose this level of revelation to the public. Can we trust what the gov't says about things of this magnitude? Heck, can we trust what they say... period! Three low-flying airplanes (in my initial post in this thread) is an outright lie, and an insult to people who witnessed it. Whatever the purpose of lying, what else is the gov't hiding from us and lying about?

[nebularain]

On 2002-08-19 13:55, HankSolo wrote:
Whatever the purpose of lying, what else is the gov't hiding from us and lying about?

"Well, I could tell you, but then I would have to kill you."
/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif

[Jim]

On 2002-08-19 13:55, HankSolo wrote:
Who's to say they're coming from another solar system? They could be coming from our own... Nibiru (Planet X for you non-Sitchin fans).

But - assuming it even exists - Nibiru has an orbit that takes it far out of the habitable zone around Sol. So, how do the Nibiruans manage to survive? And, if you want to say they have developed the tech to do so, how did they do that before Nibiru froze over?

I have no scientific evidence regarding artificiality, I just have what my eyes can see, and they appear artificial.

But, humans have the ability/habit to glean patterns from almost anything. If you see something unusual, the first thing your mind does is try to make sense of it, and it does this by creating a familiar pattern... in this case, a face.

There is no scientific evidence showing them to be natural either.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, all indications say they are natural.

... I believe Sitchin's translations of ancient Sumerian texts are the most reliable ones.

Why? Is it because his ideas appeal to you more than the mundane translations of others?

My conspiracy point is that I don't believe NASA or any gov't agency would ever confirm evidence for an advanced ET civilization, and that info would be highly top-secret.

Again, why?

Have you ever read or watched Contact? It makes the very logical case that anything so public is impossible to control. NASA and the US gov cannot control all access to the Cydonia data. Indeed, they have not.

... I only say that it would perfectly fit the Sitchin model, and it looks artificial. That's where I may be a little different than some of you scientists. I can accept that a horse might be a horse, because it looks like a horse, smells like a horse, and sounds like a horse. I don't need a DNA test!

But, you admit to a bias toward Sitchin, and you admit the "face" only appears to look like one. So you have no real evidence. Remember the tale of the three blind men describing an elephant by feel?

It used to be just as "unbelievable" to sail across the ocean and not fall off the edge of the earth.

Only to the unlearned. Science has known the earth is round since at least the time of Erastosthenes.

Heck, can we trust what they say... period! Three low-flying airplanes (in my initial post in this thread) is an outright lie, and an insult to people who witnessed it.

Eyewitness accounts are notoriously inaccurate.

[HankSolo]

So, how do the Nibiruans manage to survive?
According to Sitchin, Nibiru generates its own heat. Its atmosphere is very thick and insulates the planet as well as reflects excess heat during its phase between Mars & Jupiter. The reason for the trip to Earth was to plug a hole in the atmosphere, similar to the ozone hole, that was affecting their climate. Gold was the solution, ground super-fine and released into the upper atmosphere. The most abundant source of gold in the solar system? Earth.

If you see something unusual, the first thing your mind does is try to make sense of it, and it does this by creating a familiar pattern... in this case, a face.

Absolutely. It appears as a face.

Is it because his ideas appeal to you more than the mundane translations of others?

Yes. His ideas fit in perfectly with everything that science and religion has been telling us for a long time. It's hard for me to discount 4 or 5 billion people believing in a god or gods. But I also don't believe in the supernatural trappings of religion. Sitchin's Sumerian translations allow science to explain everything, while showing the real roots of religions throughout the world. It's an odd marraige, science and religion, but it all makes too much sense and is beautiful in its simplicity.

Again, why?

I explained this before. Power, greed, fear, all the nice traits that most politicians and world leaders exhibit. History should serve as an example to us. How many ancient libraries have been burnt to the ground? How much knowledge has been kept from us and eventually lost forever because of human greed and our struggle for power? Why makes you think that we have changed all of a sudden? Knowledge is power. If we find this knowledge, why do you think we would share it? Do we share any other type of new technology that would have such a strategic benefit? Do we share with the world the technology we are advancing in our military? I mean, eventually it would have to be exposed, but that could be decades later. There would be no greater leap in technology than if we can find and contact an advanced alien civilization. Why should we share that when we can use that knowledge to help us dominate the world? Maybe I don't give human nature much credit, but I'm only going by what history has shown us.

[beskeptical]

Hank, you might want to spend some time learning real science. It would help you support or refute those things you think make so much sense. My guess is mostly refute.

Logic: If you are so well insulated that heat cannot escape, heat isn't likely to enter either. You are saying that there is some kind of one way valve for heat from the Sun entering Nibiru.

It is soooo unlikely a planet would conveniently absorb energy and store it up, then lose heat soooo slowly as to maintain a narrow enough range to be compatable with life (unless maybe these beings hibernate or something).

And, why would gold only be available on Earth? And, gold patches the ozone hole?? But no other chemical reaction would? All this stuff is very far fetched. Those 'zebra' hypotheses might be possible in the most remote circumstances, I really couldn't say, but they don't 'make sense'.

_________________
For the record, that's Beskeptigal.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: beskeptical on 2002-08-20 21:40 ]</font>

[Peter B]

On 2002-08-19 13:55, HankSolo wrote:
My conspiracy point is that I don't believe NASA or any gov't agency would ever confirm evidence for an advanced ET civilization, and that info would be highly top-secret.


Unfortunately, Hank, this is where the conspiracy theorist can never lose. Consider these three possibilities:

1. There is evidence to support the conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theorists say their theory is proved. Conspiracy theorists win.

2. There is evidence which opposes the conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theorists say the evidence was manufactured, and their case still holds. Conspiracy theorists win.

3. There is no evidence one way or the other. Conspiracy theorists say the evidence which supports their case has been suppressed. Conspiracy theorists win.

So you see, no matter whether the evidence supports the case or opposes it, or whether there's no evidence at all, the conpsiracy theorist wins.

To be fair, conspiracy theorists have to be willing to specify conditions whereby they accept that their theory is just plain wrong. Science lives with the fact that most of what we currently know is wrong in *some* way. To be taken seriously, conspiracy theorists must do the same thing.

As an example, I hereby claim that Australia secretly rules the whole world. The evidence in favour of this is (1) the fact that we beat the world in so many sports (cricket, swimming, rugby league, Australian rules football) (2) the successful export of many of our actors to Hollywood (Mel Gibson, Kate Blanchette, Russell Crowe) and the international success of our musicians (Kylie Minogue, INXS, Savage Garden) (3) our great climate and (4) our "no worries" attitude.

The opposing evidence is either irrelevant (who cares about national economies?) or manufactured (but who'd want to manufacture something bad about Australia?).

Now prove me wrong! (If you can't, I expect you to emigrate to Australia /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif )

[overrated]

Hank, it seems to me as if you are treating belief in conspiracies as just that: An unassailable belief. So what kind of discussion can we have if we roll out scientific evidence and you say, well, I believe in Sitchin. And what can we say to that? The man wrote a bunch of improbable, unprovable stuff. I could say an invisible nugget of dark matter in a geostationary orbit over my apartment screws up my TV reception. Does the absence of evidence make that theory more viable? Especially in light of other, more common sources of interference? In a word, no.

So it's one thing to posit something that can be proved or, at least, disproved. But (for instance) the whole Nibiru thing can't be proved or disproved--or, at least, evidence to the contrary is tossed out by believers. So what's the point?

Also, for the record--and I wish I had the time to find this equation--even if I grant you 1 million intelligent civilizations, if you factor in how freaking huge the universe is, the level of technology needed for interstellar (let alone intergalactic) travel, and the duration of a civilization (among many other variables), the odds of a UFO sighting being extraterrestrial are ininitesimal compared with even the most outlandish Earth-based explanation.

[Senor Molinero]

"If fifty million people believe in a dumb idea, it is still a dumb idea."
-Anatole France

[Jim]

On 2002-08-20 22:54, Peter B wrote:
As an example, I hereby claim that Australia secretly rules the whole world. The evidence in favour of this is ... (2) the successful export of many of our actors to Hollywood ...

Nicole Kidman.

I have absolutely no objections to being ruled by Nicole Kidman.

(sigh)

[jumbo]

I have no objection to being ruled by kylie! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif Sadly it seems as likely as this nibiru/planet x thingy /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif

Seriously though, does anyone know how this thoery got started (it may have been brought up before but i`ve got a memory like a sieve somedays)



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jumbo on 2002-08-21 10:21 ]</font>

[Donnie B.]

On 2002-08-21 08:36, Jim wrote:
Nicole Kidman.

I have absolutely no objections to being ruled by Nicole Kidman.

(sigh)


Get in line, buddy, get in line! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

[HankSolo]

On 2002-08-20 21:38, beskeptical wrote:
Logic: If you are so well insulated that heat cannot escape, heat isn't likely to enter either. You are saying that there is some kind of one way valve for heat from the Sun entering Nibiru.

It is soooo unlikely a planet would conveniently absorb energy and store it up, then lose heat soooo slowly as to maintain a narrow enough range to be compatable with life (unless maybe these beings hibernate or something).


Nope, I said that the heat being produced by the planet is sufficient to keep the surface warm thanks to the insulating effects of the atmosphere. It insulates it just enough to keep a semi-constant temperature. I'm sure heat is released into space, but it would be replenished by the internal heat. Is there something wrong with that logic? Why doesn't a greenhouse hit a million degrees?

Maybe you don't believe that planets can generate heat?

Or maybe you believe that conditions must be identical to Earth in order to support life?

From Sitchin's descriptions of Nibiru, conditions are similar to Earth, including liquid water. Does liquid water exist on Uranus and Neptune? They're very far from the sun too.

Earth wasn't the only place with gold. It's just one of the most abundant sources and was most easily accessible. They had found gold in the asteroids (since the asteroids were originally part of earth), but could not set up an efficient mining operation. Earth and its compatible environment was a perfect choice. They're first choice was to filter gold out of the water, but when that proved inefficient, they resorted to mining. That decision eventually brought about the need for a primitive worker... I can go on all day, but I'm sure you've read the books and already know all this /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

I was using Earth's ozone hole to compare to the dwindling atmosphere on Nibiru. I don't know if they're problem was the same, and if gold is the answer to ours. Insulating properties of their atmosphere was maintained by volcanic activity, but as volcanic activity decreased, their climate began fluctuating wildly. Nibiru had tried other methods of enhancing their atmosphere, including using strategiclly placed nuclear explosions to try to enhance volcanic activity. Their top scientists settled on gold as a possible solution. I don't know why, but there's a reason we put a thin layer of gold in spaceship windows, right? What insulating and reflective properties does gold exhibit? Also, what material with these properties allows itself to be ground to a fine dust, where it could be suspended in the atmosphere? Does gold meet all these requirements? There is some "sense" there...

Have you ever thought about why we like gold so much? There's rarer materials. It's awfully soft, too soft for most practical purposes. It's not especially beautiful (no more so than bronze or copper). In fact, wouldn't bronze be a much more logical choice for our affections? Similar color, much harder, makes a good weapon, a product of our intelligence... Why our fascination with gold throughout human history, and its association with gods? I know, I know... coincidence..... (sigh) How many coincidences do we need before we start allowing that there may be something to all this garbage? I can go on and on... (believe me, I can!)

Peter B: I would love to move to Australia. I always have. But how could you forget Nicole?!? Shame on you! According to the PlanetX folks (they're different than the Nibiru folks, btw), you should be able to see it right about now, huh?

Jumbo: Depends on your perspective. Zecharia Sitchin came out with his first book (The 12th Planet) in 1976. So maybe he started the theory. But if Sitchin's translations are correct, then the Nibiru theory might have been started by the Sumerians circa 4000BC. If the Sumerians made up the story, then Sitchin shows that they possessed knowledge that they could not possibly have and that science is only today confirming. If they didn't make up the story, then they were basing their writings on what they were told by the Anunnaki (who came from Nibiru). At that point, it wouldn't be a theory anymore /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

I have no idea how the 2003 Planet X offshoot started, but it has to be based on a different interpretation of Nibiru's last visit. Planet X was the name scientists gave it, since its existance has been long theorized and the media picked up on the name when IRAS possibly spotted it in the 1980's. The 2003 craze all goes back to when people date the Great Flood or Deluge (if you believe that that wasn't a coincidence too). Those who date it circa 11000 BC (as Sitchin shows in his books), are not worried about 2003. I believe the 11000BC date, since the 3600 year orbit interval coincides with many subsequent critical developments in human civilization. But of course, it's all just coincidence!

Overrated: How am I dismissing scientific evidence by saying I believe Sitchin's interpretations of Sumerian texts? How does science disagree with anything the Sumerians wrote? I don't understand. I have had long discussions on this topic, and to this day, the only objection from skeptics is that other scholars have different interpretations. Someone has to be right, and it could be Sitchin just as much as anyone else. The difference is Sitchin isn't concerned about being thrown out of the mainstream scholars country club. He put his significant reputation on the line because he is so sure of his translations. He used to be one of those "mainstream scholars" until the evidence he was uncovering became too overwhelming. I think he is vastly more believable than his critics. And science just proves him right at every turn. I can get into detail if necessary but I think I've typed enough for now...

The truth is out there...

[Jim]

Have you ever thought about why we like gold so much? There's rarer materials. It's awfully soft, too soft for most practical purposes. It's not especially beautiful (no more so than bronze or copper). In fact, wouldn't bronze be a much more logical choice for our affections? Similar color, much harder, makes a good weapon, a product of our intelligence... Why our fascination with gold throughout human history, and its association with gods? I know, I know... coincidence.....

It is far rarer than copper. And it has superiour appearance properties to either copper or bronze (see next).

Gold is a very noble element. That is, it doesn't react with too many others, such as oxygen. This means it doesn't rust (as do bronze or copper) and lose its luster.

It is more malleable, which means it can be made into jewelry or thin sheets more easily than bronze or copper.

It is more malleable, which means it doesn't make a very good sword, as do bronze and copper.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jim on 2002-08-21 15:50 ]</font>

[Firefox]

The truth is out there...

Yes, and it's generally more mundane than you make it out to be, unfortunately.


-Adam

[Peter B]

On 2002-08-21 15:30, HankSolo wrote:
Peter B: I would love to move to Australia. I always have. But how could you forget Nicole?!? Shame on you! According to the PlanetX folks (they're different than the Nibiru folks, btw), you should be able to see it right about now, huh?


Why didn't I mention Nicole? Well, got to leave some of the riches for us Aussies! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

As for PlanetX, can you give me some directions to look? The southern sky is just as large as the northern sky...!

[overrated]

Hank, come on. It's not like the scientific community is ignoring Sitchin because he's not part of their "country club." First of all, he's not even an expert in the fields he's expounding on. The man has an undergraduate degree in economic history. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it doesn't really qualify him to speak authoritatively on the existence of odd, new planets. And I really, really question how auhtoritative his "translations" of Sumerian texts are when, according to National Geograhpic:

Scholars studying the ancient world are therefore eagerly awaiting the FIRST Sumerian dictionary, a 30-year project at the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. Sumerologists there hope to release an early version by 2004. (emphasis mine. and here's the link, if you want to read about it: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/07/0723_020724_cuneiform.html)

So how is it that there's not even a complete dictionary of Sumerian cuneiform, yet Sitchin has gleaned all this otherworldly information from Sumerian writings?

Further, it's NOT a matter of interpretation. How can it possibly be a matter of interpretation when there's nothing to interpret? Astronomers can't observe Nibiru where it's supposed to be. But the pro-Nibiru folks just invent some reason why they can't. The planet's inhabitants have cloaking devices, or it's made of dark matter--whatever. The explanation isn't really important. What IS important is that all the things he posits can't be proven, or, to put it more concisely, any evidence to the contrary is explained away by more myth.

Science proves him right at every turn? How has science proved that:

-The Annunaki made homo sapiens through genetic engineering?
-There are (or were) spaceports in the Sinai Peninsula?
-The use of nuclear weapons to destroy those spaceports, some 4,000 years ago?

... and when I say "proved," I don't mean more interpretation of myth.

And look, I've read the Epic of Gilgamesh, and it's a great story. It talks about the Deluge and Enlil and Enki and all the wondrous things that happened in those days. But it's a myth. The writing is filled with turns of phrase and descriptions that could be construed to mean just about anything (much like Nostradamus' prophecies). Is the Trojan Horse an allusion to a giant spaceship that rendered attackers invisible until they wished to be seen? No? Because this is the way Sitchin is interpreting myth.

Frankly, Joseph Campbell does a better, and more functional job of that.

[edited to put the "c" in functional]

_________________
PC load letter? What the @%$# does that mean?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: overrated on 2002-08-21 22:07 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: overrated on 2002-08-21 22:11 ]</font>

[overrated]

And hey, listen, I'm sorry if I come off as being mean or shrill. My point--and I mean to make it firmly, but not unkindly--is that Sitchin's propositions are a matter of belief, not science. And belief is totally cool--just not when it's presented as scientific fact.

[beskeptical]

On 2002-08-21 15:30, HankSolo wrote:


On 2002-08-20 21:38, beskeptical wrote:
Logic: If you are so well insulated that heat cannot escape, heat isn't likely to enter either. You are saying that there is some kind of one way valve for heat from the Sun entering Nibiru.

It is soooo unlikely a planet would conveniently absorb energy and store it up, then lose heat soooo slowly as to maintain a narrow enough range to be compatable with life (unless maybe these beings hibernate or something).


Nope, I said that the heat being produced by the planet is sufficient to keep the surface warm thanks to the insulating effects of the atmosphere. It insulates it just enough to keep a semi-constant temperature. I'm sure heat is released into space, but it would be replenished by the internal heat. Is there something wrong with that logic? Why doesn't a greenhouse hit a million degrees?

Sounds OK in a Sci-fi story, but the devil's in the details. What is this magic atmosphere that has such incredible insulating properties? I don't have the time to address the fallacies here but fortunately other folks are assisting.

It's one thing to describe a magical land. It's quite another to find the actual physics that could make that magical land reality. Here are some problems:

Planet goes close to the Sun and very far from the Sun. Temperature variation would be extreme.

Planet has internal heat source and insulating atmosphere. What would this atmosphere be made of? Would it be crushingly heavy? Would it be lost to space? What size would this planet have to be in order to not have cooled off completely since it formed.

I'm not asking these questions for you to tell me the magical answers. What I'm saying is that you have accepted this stuff with very little knowledge of geology, astronomy, chemistry, meteorology, etc. I know from my background in these sciences that Nibiru is a fantasy. You seem very enthusiastic that it is credible as far as you can see. But you only really have a superficial idea of how it would actually work. If you tried to describe the actual science involved, you would have to use improbable elements and physics.


Maybe you don't believe that planets can generate heat?

No, but except for gas giants, planets too far to be heated by an external source like the Sun are frozen.


Or maybe you believe that conditions must be identical to Earth in order to support life?

No, you apparently haven't read my extensive posts that I believe the evidence points to life being common in the Galaxy, in many extreme conditions. This has nothing to do with whether or not Nibiru exists.


From Sitchin's descriptions of Nibiru, conditions are similar to Earth, including liquid water.

All the more reason to doubt the potential for such a planet to exist. It is extremely different from Earth, but conveniently, for the story anyway, conditions are similar.


Does liquid water exist on Uranus and Neptune? They're very far from the sun too.

There might be liquid water on the moons of the gas giants, and I believe there is water vapor, (I'd have to look up the composition of each to be sure), but I wasn't aware there was liquid water on Uranus or Neptune.


I was using Earth's ozone hole to compare to the dwindling atmosphere on Nibiru. I don't know if they're problem was the same, and if gold is the answer to ours. Insulating properties of their atmosphere was maintained by volcanic activity, but as volcanic activity decreased, their climate began fluctuating wildly. Nibiru had tried other methods of enhancing their atmosphere, including using strategiclly placed nuclear explosions to try to enhance volcanic activity. Their top scientists settled on gold as a possible solution. I don't know why, but there's a reason we put a thin layer of gold in spaceship windows, right? What insulating and reflective properties does gold exhibit? Also, what material with these properties allows itself to be ground to a fine dust, where it could be suspended in the atmosphere? Does gold meet all these requirements? There is some "sense" there...

None of this is plausible. Do the research, read about the chemistry and physics involved. It ain't happening man. It's a fantasy.


The truth is out there...


My point exactly, but for now, you are missing it.

[nebularain]

Wait a minute! Isn't Nibiru supposed to be a brown dwarf? A brown dwarf is larger than gas giant planets like Jupiter, but smaller than stars. So, brown dwarfs, too, are big balls of gas, right? So, how does a being actually live on such a world?

[Firefox]

On top of that, how does a living creature withstand the gravity of such a planet, especially if it's supposed to be something with a solid surface?


-Adam

<a name="JD2452509.N"> page JD2452509.N aka JD2452509.N
On 2002-08-17 14:50, David Hall wrote: To: JD2452509.Ho
Well, in my mind, any act in which choreography plays a central role is automatically suspect.

(**I can't sing, I can't write, but I'm cute and I can follow my dance instructor's moves to the letter! I'm gonna be a star!**)
<a name="JD2452511.WW"> LINE JD2452511.WW aka 2 LAMAT 2 MOL aka LIVE {rabbit}
[/quote]
Push from page three of thread to page one of topic
No wait its push from page 3 of topic to page 1 of thread?
NO no its done by pushing H B4 D to get {oh never mind finger H yourself}6:11 A.M. PST

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HUb' on 2002-08-25 02:37 ]</font>

[HankSolo]

I just had a whole essay typed up, and unfortunately hit <tab> and backspace!!! Lost the whole damn thing!!!

I'm going to reply in a short version now because I don't have much more time. I'll address others in the future.

overrated: I will post scientific corraboration of Sitchin's theories. These are not "proofs". We will never have absolute proof until we can find the videotape. It will always be speculation until, one day, the Anunnaki return in sufficient waves that it cannot be ignored. Discovery of Nibiru and its orbit won't be enough for the skeptics. All we can do is have science come up with discoveries that continue to fit perfectly into Sitchin's theories (and none so far have contradicted them). It's almost like we are "rediscovering" science. I refer you to:
http://www.sitchin.com/adam.htm
for an example. This type of evidence, by itself, is not enough. But when you put them all together, it is overwhelming. There are so many "mysteries" that science is finding, that really aren't mysteries at all if you listen to the Sumerians.

Sitchin is not a planetary expert. He is telling us what the Sumerians wrote. The question becomes "How did they know about it in the first place?". How did they know about Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto? How did they know about the asteroid belt? How did they know what Uranus and Neptune looked like, describing their colors, features, oddities, and similarities? Sitchin wrote this in 1976, before Voyager even took off! Voyager then corraborated 10 years later what Sitchin claimed in 1976 that the Sumerians wrote 6000 years ago!

Peter B: I don't believe that you would be able to see Nibiru now, without some serious hardware, since I don't believe it will be anywhere near our vicinity until 3200AD. IRAS may have spotted it. If I find out any info on this, this will be the first place I post it! However, the 2003AD-PlanetX folks claim that you can see Nibiru now in the southern skies just before dawn. I don't believe it, but I can't see for myself. Their websites should have info on where to look. If I find this I will post it too.

I have to go. Bespectikal, I'll come back to you. If you have time, see if you can find Voyager's findings about Uranus, Neptune, and their moons. I will look too. There was evidence of liquid water on its surface. Uranus showed superheated water. The point is that these planets do not get any significant heat from the sun. They generate their own heat (and they are not gas giants). The closest Nibiru comes to the sun is between Mars & Jupiter, and for an extremely short time. I don't know if that is sufficient enough heat and time to really change their environment, especially if the atmosphere maintains a steady environment. The only thing I really question is where they get their light, but there are theories outside of Sitchin to explain that, and it is not enough to debunk the whole thing.

Nebularian: The brown dwarf is another theory that did not come from Sitchin. I'm not too convinced yet though, though it has a lot of potential. It says that Nibiru is actually a "moon" orbiting around the brown dwarf, and the brown dwarf is orbiting every 3600 years around the sun and at its closest point coming between Mars & Jupiter. Nibiru therefore gets its heat and light from the brown dwarf. I haven't come to any conclusion about this yet, and I still allow Nibiru to be a large planet (as large as Jupiter).

All: When we ask questions like "how does a living creature withstand the gravity", we are taking into assumption that life only works in an exact earthlike environment. Yet even on earth, we have life in superheated water, frozen in ice, and every imaginable extreme. This life should not be possible based on the same assumption. Life can exist anywhere, and that life will adapt to its surroundings. If that means stronger bones and stronger muscles to counteract the gravity, why not? It also really boosts the physical feats these "gods" would be able to perform on earth, which mankind has well documented in many texts, religions, and myths.

Gotta go. I learned my lesson.... type elsewhere and then copy/paste into here! Keep firing away. I enjoy reading your point of views. And you know what??? You may be right! But I may be too... Let's all hope I am.

[Jim]

On 2002-08-22 11:50, HankSolo wrote:
overrated: I will post scientific corraboration of Sitchin's theories. These are not "proofs". ... All we can do is have science come up with discoveries that continue to fit perfectly into Sitchin's theories (and none so far have contradicted them). ... I refer you to:
http://www.sitchin.com/adam.htm
for an example. ...


The link discusses the 223 "mystery" genes found while mapping the human genome. However, it doesn't get into much explanation beyond refuting the bacterial lateral transfer possibility and claiming this is actually proof that humans were bio-engineered.

Remarkably, 223 genes (of the 30,000)found in humans are more similar to bacterial genes than to anything seen in yeast, worm, fly or plants. And they appear to have been transferred from a range of bacterial species. The same genes are found in other vertebrate species, indicating that they were introduced early during the vertebrate lineage.
Nature (emphasis added

Dr. Salzberg (of Celera Genomics) said that the consortium (of academic centers) scientists had not tried hard enough to find counterpart genes in distant species and that he quickly turned up counterparts to a couple dozen of the supposed bacterial transfer genes in jellyfish. That means that humans and jellyfish probably acquired the genes the more common way, through inheritance, the critique says.

Indeed, Dr. Salzberg said, there were only 41 of the 223 genes on the list that he could not find in any other species. Even those 41 will dwindle to zero, he predicted, as more genomes are sequenced.
New York Times (emphasis added)

So, at least this "finding" has been contradicted.



Sitchin is not a planetary expert. He is telling us what the Sumerians wrote.


No, he is giving us his interpretation of what they wrote. An independent interpretation that agreed with his would be nice to have; unfortunately, there are none of which I am aware.

It would help Sitchin's case if, instead of writing popular books, he would publish a "scholar's version" offering a direct translation of at least part of the writings... Sumerian on the left page, translation on the right. And if he would publish a corroborating translation of something mundane, like crop yields or import tarriffs, to show his methods worked.

Until then, it's his word against everyone else's. Now, that doesn't make him automatically wrong, but it looks suspicious. He should have learned in college to show his work.



The question becomes "How did they know about it in the first place?". How did they know about Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto? How did they know about the asteroid belt? How did they know what Uranus and Neptune looked like, describing their colors, features, oddities, and similarities? Sitchin wrote this in 1976, before Voyager even took off! Voyager then corraborated 10 years later what Sitchin claimed in 1976 that the Sumerians wrote 6000 years ago!


First, this is what Sitchin says the Sumerians wrote (see above). Second, from stuff I've seen elsewhere claiming "translations" of Sumerian writings (based on Sitchin's work), they weren't that accurate.



If you have time, see if you can find Voyager's findings about Uranus, Neptune, and their moons. I will look too. There was evidence of liquid water on its surface. Uranus showed superheated water. The point is that these planets do not get any significant heat from the sun. They generate their own heat (and they are not gas giants). ...

Uranus and Neptune are considered jovian or gas planets, commonly referred to as "gas giants."

Uranus is composed of an outer envelope of 83% molecular hydrogen, 15% helium and 2% methane roughly the mass of one to two Earths. Below this region appears to be a mantle rich in water, methane, ammonia, and other elements. These elements are under high temperatures and pressures deep within the planet. The mantle is equivalent to 10 to 15 earth masses. Uranus's core is composed of rock and ice, and is likely no more than one Earth mass.

The electrically conductive, super-pressurized ocean of water and ammonia once thought to lie between the core and the atmosphere now appears to be nonexistent.

Neptune is composed of an outer envelope of 85% molecular hydrogen, 13% helium and 2% methane roughly the mass of one to two Earths. Below this region appears to be a mantle rich in water, methane, ammonia, and other elements. These elements are under high temperatures and pressures deep within the planet. The mantle is equivalent to 10 to 15 earth masses. Neptune's core is composed of rock and ice, and is likely no more than one Earth mass.

Like Jupiter and Saturn, Neptune has an internal heat source and radiates more than twice as much energy as it receives from the Sun.



All: When we ask questions like "how does a living creature withstand the gravity", we are taking into assumption that life only works in an exact earthlike environment. Yet even on earth, we have life in superheated water, frozen in ice, and every imaginable extreme. ... If that means stronger bones and stronger muscles to counteract the gravity, why not? It also really boosts the physical feats these "gods" would be able to perform on earth, which mankind has well documented in many texts, religions, and myths.


I think you miss the point.

Yes, there are exotic forms of life right here on earth. But they are not found everywhere, only in specific locations under specific conditions. The bacteria that thrive near black smokers could not survive in Lake Placid. Cripes, you can't evem mix fresh and salt water fish in an aqaurium.

You must make a choice. Either the Nibiruans/Annunaki are like us or they are not. If they are like us, how can they survive in an environment that is not earth-like? If they are not like us, how could they survive here?

Reread all that info about Uranus and Neptune. It is possible that some form of life could have developed there. But could it survive here?

If you make Nibiru too earthlike, you have to explain how it is that way with its 3600 years orbit.

If you make it fit the conditions of its orbit, you have to explain how the Nibiruans survived on earth.

As for "stronger bones and muscles to counteract the gravity," weren't the Annunaki supposed to be giants? This is unlikely on a high gravity world; they would more likely be bulkier and stockier than humans.

[beskeptical]

Hank, haven't had time to read your post completely yet. Next time you accidentally delete, hit 'control z' for undo. It's a critical command, I use often when I hit control v for paste when I mean to hit control c for copy and waste my post!!!

I will check on the water thing but let the others help clarify a lot of what you bring up. You have to remember, though, a lot of people on this board are VERY knowledgeable. You still seem to be trying to convince them they have missed something. It might be time to start asking why this or that wouldn't work or why it isn't correct rather than trying to convince folks they are wrong.

Most of us know from extensive education, (reading, university, on the job, etc.), that Sitchen's ideas are not supported by the evidence, not supported by logic, and, not supported by physics nor astronomical science. The only people who buy his ideas are people who haven't learned enough yet to realize the fallacies involved.

That doesn't mean I'm criticizing persons who haven't had the benefit of more education, I'm just trying to tell you scientists do not fit your stereotype of old-fashioned stuck in time fools. Lots of scientists are full of new and crazy ideas. And as long as they can support their hypotheses with evidence, they will prevail. Yes, some of the time one does have to battle 'established' views, but evidence is a very powerful weapon.

_________________
For the record, that's Beskeptigal.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: beskeptical on 2002-08-22 18:34 ]</font>

[HankSolo]

Thanks, but I didn't delete what I had wrote, I hit tab and backspace, which is the same as hitting "back". Nothing I could have done at that point... not even "forward". I had irrefutable evidence too!!! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

That's the second time I've lost a post, the other because of the login bug. I now type in Notepad in case I forget to copy before submitting.

I have a way for any of you to debunk Sitchin. One of the central themes is the Celestial Battle, in which Nibiru's moons collided with a watery planet called Tiamat (the planet that used to exist between Mars and Jupiter). The collision resulted in Tiamat being broken in two, with one half being smashed to bits to form the asteroid belt and the comets. The other half of the planet was thrown into a closer orbit around the sun and became Earth. This explains the asteroids, comets (and their crazy orbits), and why all the land masses were on one side of the Earth in the beginning before continental drift (picture the original earth without water). This idea is also central to the generally accepted theory of the "seeding" of earth with the necessary "materials" for life (for lack of a better word). It explains how life on Nibiru and Earth could have developed similarly since we are based on the same "seed".

We have a way to refute this right now. We have the necessary equipment already in place. We have a satellite orbiting an asteroid and studying it. If the composition of asteroids are shown to be "alien" and not Earthlike, then one of Sitchin's primary claims is refuted!! To be fair though, there may be some matter in the asteroid belt that came from Nibiru's moons, but I would think the vast majority would be from Tiamat/Earth.

I know y'all are the scientists (are you really "educated"... or "trained" /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif), and you probably know exactly where to go to get the data that's being collected, because I don't. Here's your opportunity to be the one that debunks Sitchin!

However, what happens if asteroids prove to be composed just like the Earth? That would tend to pose a problem, right? Would mainstream science accept that perhaps the asteroids were the shattered remnants of a collision that left Earth looking like half a planet? It would be a logical conclusion, wouldn't it? Forget Sumerians, how did Sitchin know this in 1976?

So here we have an opportunity to debunk Sitchin. Unfortunately, if it ends up that asteroids are composed exactly like the earth, it'll just be labeled another "coincidence"... It won't even be regarded as scientific corraboration...

I'm going on vacation starting Sunday, and I should be back Thursday or Friday, so if you don't hear from me it's not because I've been abducted!

[Donnie B.]

The idea that the asteroid belt is the remains of a demolished planet is hardly original to Sitchin, or new. It was probably the first hypothesis to come along after the asteroid belt was discovered. The first main-belt asteroid found (1 Ceres) was originally believed to be a comet, and then (when its orbit was computed) a ninth planet (this was pre-Pluto, of course), until its tiny size was realized.

The main reason that the asteroids are no longer believed to be planetary remnants is that there's just not enough material out there -- not even for half a planet. If Sitchin is correct, there should be enough material to form an entire Earth, or some substantial fraction thereof. But there isn't.

The total mass of the asteroids is less than that of the Moon. This includes main-belt objects, Trojans, and irregulars (including Earth-crossers).

Of course, since the asteroids are made up of the same sort of material that the Earth accreted from, there should be no significant difference in composition. So any discovery that the asteroids are similar to the Earth is not evidence that Sitchin is correct.

[Jim]

I have a way for any of you to debunk Sitchin. One of the central themes is the Celestial Battle, in which Nibiru's moons collided with a watery planet called Tiamat (the planet that used to exist between Mars and Jupiter). The collision resulted in Tiamat being broken in two, with one half being smashed to bits to form the asteroid belt and the comets. The other half of the planet was thrown into a closer orbit around the sun and became Earth. This explains the asteroids, comets (and their crazy orbits), and why all the land masses were on one side of the Earth in the beginning before continental drift (picture the original earth without water). This idea is also central to the generally accepted theory of the "seeding" of earth with the necessary "materials" for life (for lack of a better word). It explains how life on Nibiru and Earth could have developed similarly since we are based on the same "seed".

Okay, where to start.

Well, as Donnie said, if you lumped all the asteroids together, you'd have a body smaller... much smaller than the moon. It would have about 0.02 to 0.05 percent of the earth's mass. Not even close to the same as the earth's.

There is an hypothesis, based on asteroid leaving the Belt, that there could have been as much as 1,000 times as much material there once, but that's still no more than half earth's mass.

The current theory for the asteroids not coalescing into a single body is Jupiter's gravitational influence. It keeps tugging on them, preventing any "lumping together." This would have made the formation of Tiamat rather difficult.

Also, there would have to be a mechanism to leave a gap between Venus and Mars for Earth to move into after the Big Hit.

So, the early solar system would have looked much different from today's version. There would have to be a billiard on a grand scale to explain it. Which borders on Velokovskianism, which is where Sitchin got the idea in the first place.

But Velokovsky has been debunked so completely it's not worth discussing.

You mention Nibiru being "seeded" as was Earth and the two developing similar life. But, earlier you got on us because you thought we weren't open to life on Nibiru being different. You should make up your mind. Same or different? (And read my post about the implications of each.)

Oh, composition...

The asteroids come in three primary flavors... C (carbonaceous, 75%), S (silica, 17%) and M (metallic, 8%)... plus 6-12 rare types. For them to have come from the Big Hit you propose, they would have come from (in order) the crust, upper mantle, and core of the original world.

This is a Really Big Hit... all the way to the chewy center. But there isn't enough material for this to have happened.

Also, the material that is there doesn't quite match. You get:
Iron: earth 35%, asteroids 15%
Oxygen: 30%, 15%
Silicon: 15%, 10%
Magnesium: 13%, 5%
Nickel: 2.5%, 6%

These numbers could vary some, but not enough to match. Also, remember that iridium is more common in asteroids than on earth (that was the Dinosaur Killer's fingerprint).

As for the one big continent idea, there have been several instances of supercontinents in earth's past... at least three before Pangea. Were they all the result of Big Hits?

So, to answer your questions, there's not enough asteroid material, it's not the right composition, several supercontinents, and billiards with planets.

Sitchin's ideas just don't hold up.

_________________
<font color=000099>Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.</font>
Isaac Asimov

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jim on 2002-08-23 19:54 ]</font>

[David Hall]

On 2002-08-23 19:51, Jim wrote:

The asteroids come in three primary flavors... C (carbonaceous, 75%), S (silica, 17%) and M (metallic, 8%)...

I think S asteroids taste the best. They're nice and crunchy. (Mmmmm, silica...) /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif

[beskeptical]

On 2002-08-23 16:58, HankSolo wrote:
Thanks, but I didn't delete what I had wrote, I hit tab and backspace, which is the same as hitting "back". Nothing I could have done at that point... not even "forward". I had irrefutable evidence too!!! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Oh ya, I've done that via the back button and not been able to go fwd. Bummer.


That's the second time I've lost a post, the other because of the login bug. I now type in Notepad in case I forget to copy before submitting.

Next time the login bug happens try this:

When you're asked to enter your ID & password, if the Login key is on the menu bar click that. Then after you log in you can hit back several times and your post will still be there and you will be logged in. I lost a post or two then after trial and error found I could re-login and get back to my post.

[David Hall]

On 2002-08-24 04:39, beskeptical wrote:

I lost a post or two then after trial and error found I could re-login and get back to my post.


You can also open the login page in a new window and login there. Then close that window and submit your post. There's no need to leave your original page.

[beskeptical]

On 2002-08-24 11:23, David Hall wrote:


On 2002-08-24 04:39, beskeptical wrote:

I lost a post or two then after trial and error found I could re-login and get back to my post.


You can also open the login page in a new window and login there. Then close that window and submit your post. There's no need to leave your original page.



The login bugs hits when you hit the submit key, especially if you take too long to write your post, (oooh, doesn't say much for that social life). So I guess you could go back to your post first then open the login window, that makes sense.

JD2452511.WW (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=1956&forum=1&start=75&96#JD2452511.WW)

JD2452511.WW (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=1956&forum=1&start=75&96#JD2452511.WW)

[beskeptical]

On 2002-08-25 02:48, HUb' wrote:
JD2452511.WW (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=1956&forum=1&start=75&96#JD2452511.WW)


You linked this page to this page? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif
Interesting. Makes no sense but oh well.

[The Rusty Lander]

Circular argument or loopy logic! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Rusty Lander on 2002-08-27 07:25 ]</font>

[beskeptical]

On 2002-08-27 07:22, The Rusty Lander wrote:
Circular argument or loopy logic! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif


Could it be HUb' is speaking at such a sophisticated level and there really is meaning in all those posts? Wow.

Well HUb', does the Rusty Lander have it right?

[Pi Man]

Hmmm. One thing I want to know is how my dog would translate my immitation of barking into English, and another is how HUB' would translate, "///-->/n':Aka. E14-2~?????>($$$)'{195.36" into english! So, HUB' what's it mean??? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif :laugh:

[Pi Man]

I don't think very against the mainstream. I suppose I'll start questioning when I find something to question!