There are NO such things as aliens...

[The Rusty Lander]

I believe there are no such things as aliens or spacecraft that have crashed here however I believe it suits the government to perpetuate the myth while officially denying it for one simple purpose. They have developed (in Area 51) their own advanced craft based on anti-gravity technology of which there was a lot of talk about in the 50s but which suddenly mysteriously died. The genuine saucers that have been seen are in fact these secret flying crafts and nothing to do with aliens. Even the crash of 47 could have been an early experimental craft that crashed or, how's this for an idea, it might really have been a weather balloon!
Anyway, the conspiracy here is that the government deliberately feeds certain people, organizations this myth that it is alien technology to cover up the fact that it is actually themselves. One good example of a dupe that has been used is someone called "Lazarus" who I believe was deliberately led to see what they wanted him to see (eg: something made to look like an alien) and then let him "escape" to tell anyone who wanted to hear. If he had really seen something of value, don't you think he'd be dead by now?

[Silas]

If we had anti-gravity technology, we'd have a moonbase (maybe a Mars base!) by now. The government would sell the technology to Lockheed in return for a 1/4 per cent return on profits, and there would be no national debt.

Why would anyone try to keep secret such a treasure?

Did Fleischmann and Pons try to keep "Cold Fusion" a secret? (Hmm... Actually, if they had, they might be millionaires today...)

Silas

[Jovianboy]

Rusty Lander,

That there are no aliens visiting Earth is something I whole-heartedly agree with (along with most people on this bulletin board, I presume). The existence of intelligent life eleswhere in the universe is, in my opinion, probably extremely uncommon (I'm a "rare-Earther"), in accordance with the arguments put forth by Ward and Brownlee (which I won't go into now). So no contention with your assertions there. However, I have to agree with Silas - secret US anti-gravity technology seems almost as far-fetched as visiting aliens! That's just replacing one conspiracy theory with another. Do you have any evidence to support these claims? I would be interested if you do. But please do not provide links to the tired old conspiracy theory websites - I would prefer something more concrete.

BTW, Silas - I'm not quite clear on your meaning regarding cold fusion - since it was fraud, how would Pons and Fleischmann have become millionaires by keeping it a secret? Wouldn't they have merely preserved their reputations?

Cheers.
_________________
"Nowhere in all space or on a thousand worlds will there be men to share our loneliness..."

- Loren Eisely, "The Immense Journey" 1956

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jovianboy on 2002-04-08 20:52 ]</font>

[odysseus0101]

Anyway, the conspiracy here is that the government deliberately feeds certain people, organizations this myth that it is alien technology to cover up the fact that it is actually themselves.

Like those who have already responded, some serious evidence would be key here.

I would like to mention one (of several dozen) arguments in opposition to this conspiracy theory that you have proposed: By keeping such technology secret the US government would not be able to use it as an effective deterrent. To wit, anti-gravity technology would have truly massive implications for weapons development, but unless one's enemies know about a weapon they cannot fear it. Therefore anti-gravity-based weapons technology would be most effective if it were paraded around so other states and NGOs could see it. This was in fact the motivation behind some falsified weapons tests in the late 1980s - in what turned out to be a successful attempt to overburden the Soviet Union with an expensive arms race, the Reagan administration authorized testing of potential SDI weapons, and recently declassified documents indicate that some of those tests went rather poorly. But at the time, the test results were inflated to make the technology appear more viable, and hence more of a deterrent, than it actually was.

[Martian Jim]

no aliens visiting earth

really?

(notice my name)

[GrapesOfWrath]

You're from the jim?

[Phobos]

Anyway, the conspiracy here is that the government deliberately feeds certain people, organizations this myth that it is alien technology to cover up the fact that it is actually themselves. One good example of a dupe that has been used is someone called "Lazarus" who I believe was deliberately led to see what they wanted him to see (eg: something made to look like an alien) and then let him "escape" to tell anyone who wanted to hear. If he had really seen something of value, don't you think he'd be dead by now?

I believe you made an error in your referance to "Lazarus" - With respect to Area 51 the person you are probably referring to is Bob Lazar.

The following link gives some details;
Bob Lazars Website

I suppose it is possible that Bob Lazar may have been used as part of some psycological experiment. If you follow this line there is always the possiblility that his recollections never actually took place but were planted memories.

Since Mr Lazar has been milking his experiences on the lecture circuit you have to put a big question mark on his credibility as a witness.

Phobos

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Phobos on 2002-04-09 06:28 ]</font>

<a name="20020409.4:44"> page 20020409.4:44 aka A LIE N S
not only do i think the word exists {at this time}[on this planet]
my guess would be the probability of
organic matter {carbon based}
Not origionally on Earth 4.5 Billion Yr ago
at conception?
...anyway the probability of that higher
that the probability of that should be
---------------------------------------
never mind the arguement i disagee.
===================================
now my point, just a while ago
I some way by mistake enter a couple of posts
into the general area..thinking i was on
the Against partition.. opun discover I was
in the wrong space i did go back & delete THOSE
& it looked to me like they did delete themselves
in proper time frame..anyway thats MY guess about this.

[The Rusty Lander]

The anti-gravity technology I'm talking about that was discussed in the 50s is more to do with, electified magnestism, that is, making use of the pull of the two poles and magnifying that force with electricity and turning it into a propulsion system. This would not work outside the Earth which is why it has not been used for space travel.

[Bob S.]

The anti-gravity technology I'm talking about that was discussed in the 50s is more to do with, electified magnestism, that is, making use of the pull of the two poles and magnifying that force with electricity and turning it into a propulsion system.

Sounds like you're talking about something like a mag-lev propulsion system now in study for mass transit.
http://www.calmaglev.org/
http://216.181.117.50/
Again, sadly, not too practical for flight... yet.

[Phobos]

More likely the propulsion system that Rusty refers to is something like this;

Lifter Research

or similar to recent NASA sponsored research;

More NASA related Anti-Gravity research

While an operational device is at least five years in the future, developers of what can be loosely termed a force-field machine say it has cleared major theoretical hurdles. To demonstrate their claim, they invited POPULAR MECHANICS to visit their Huntsville, Ala., laboratory to see the most important component of their proof-of-concept demonstrator. It is a 12-in.-dia. high-temperature superconducting disc (HTSD). When the force-field machine is complete, a bowling ball placed anywhere above this disc, which resembles a clutch plate, will stay exactly where you left it.

Reading throught the article I found this thought provoking quote;

Build a larger disc and the force field above it should be controllable. "It's a gravity-like force you can point in any direction," says Campbell. "It could be used in space to protect the international space station against impacts by small meteoroids and orbital debris."

I have researched this report and found an interesting bullitin board discussion which seems to confirm the details;

Skeggs & Ning Li on Gravitational Modification -- Superconductors, varying magnetic field

The site confirms that Ning Li works for the University of Alabama, Huntsville and does a lot of work with NASA’s Manned Space Flight Center.

Based on the results of her experiments so far, then perhaps we can expect future spacecraft from NASA to be saucer shaped ...

Whilst the research that I refer to is recent, it is theoretically possible that the miliary have been conducting research in this field for some time.

Phobos


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Phobos on 2002-04-09 10:08 ]</font>

[Prince]

Where do you get this "4.5 billion years ago"? The rate of decline of the Earth's magnetic field indicates that 10,000 years ago it would have had the strength of a magnetic star.

[ToSeek]

On 2002-04-09 12:11, Prince wrote:
Where do you get this "4.5 billion years ago"? The rate of decline of the Earth's magnetic field indicates that 10,000 years ago it would have had the strength of a magnetic star.

That's based on a dubious extrapolation of 150 years of data, forced to an exponential curve rather than a linear one, ignores the increase in the nondipole field over the same period of time, and ignores all of the considerable geological evidence for magnetic field reversals.
Age of the Earth: Deterioration of Earth's Magnetic Field

Meanwhile, I could point out that the rate of decay of radioactive elements indicates that the Earth is billions of years old. Why do creationists only make assumptions of uniformity when it suits them?


_________________
"... to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." - Tennyson, Ulysses

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ToSeek on 2002-04-09 12:24 ]</font>

[Prince]

The first measurement in 1835 (8.57 "units") has constantly decreased since then, with a 1/2 life of 1400 years. The field bends cosmic rays away from the Earth, reducing the amount of C14 generated in the upper atmosphere, affecting the total amount reaching the biosphere, reducing the calculated time since the death of an organism. Brown says that reducing the field to zero would double the amount produced. With a creation 6000 years ago, this would allow for 4 doublings, 137 units at creation. It is easy to see how the ground level C14 has risen slowly to its present level, falsifying all those extrapolations that assume a near constant stabilised rate of production.

[Silas]

Just to clarify my quip... If Fleishcman and Pons had been frauds, they could have gone the route of so many other fraudulent perpetual-motion-machine inventors and proceded to bilk millions out of gullible investors. In my opinion, the fact that they went public indicates that they were probably honest, and honestly mistaken.

Prince: C-14 dating is generally useful for fairly recent samples: it's useful for dates less than 50,000 before present, and, quite obviously, the more recent the sample is, the better the accuracy of the result. Carbon 14 dating is largely irrelevant to the issue of the age of the earth. It's useful to determine the age of a sample of frozen mastodon flesh, for example, or the possessions of the "Ice Man."

Silas

[ToSeek]

The first measurement in 1835 (8.57 "units") has constantly decreased since then, with a 1/2 life of 1400 years.

This is not true. As this site points out, the field dropped noticeably until 1935 but has been basically steady since then. I also find it hard to believe that one could deduce a definitive exponential decay rate from the data, which is graphed as a meandering little line on this (Creationist) page.

The first measurement in 1835 (8.57 "units") has constantly decreased since then, with a 1/2 life of 1400 years.

Again, this assumes a remarkably accurate calculation of an exponential curve based on a handful of data points that are fairly close together.

The field bends cosmic rays away from the Earth, reducing the amount of C14 generated in the upper atmosphere, affecting the total amount reaching the biosphere, reducing the calculated time since the death of an organism. Brown says that reducing the field to zero would double the amount produced. With a creation 6000 years ago, this would allow for 4 doublings, 137 units at creation. It is easy to see how the ground level C14 has risen slowly to its present level, falsifying all those extrapolations that assume a near constant stabilised rate of production.

This at least has the merit of a certain amount of scientific consistency, but doesn't explain how C-14 dating has managed to be correlated with tree rings, ice layers, and historical artifacts with clear provenance.

It also ignores the myriad other means of radioactive dating and particularly the fact that C-14 dating is too short-term (on the order of tens of thousands of years) to have anything to do calculating the age of a 4.5 billion-year-old Earth.

[corrected typo]
_________________
"... to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." - Tennyson, Ulysses


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ToSeek on 2002-04-09 14:23 ]</font>

[Firefox]

Another thing to keep in mind (I know many here know about it, though I'm not sure about the YECers,) is that carbon dating is effective only in dating organic remains, as I understand it correctly. For age of the Earth, you would need something more appropriate for nonorganic materials.

[Karl]

This at least has the merit of a certain amount of scientific consistency, but doesn't explain how C-14 dating has managed to be correlated with tree rings, ice layers, and historical artifacts with clear provenance.

It also ignores the myriad other means of radioactive dating and particularly the fact that C-14 dating is too short-term (on the order of tens of thousands of years) to have anything to do calculating the age of a 4.5 billion-year-old Earth.

One interesting radiometric technique which has use in dating both human artifacts and geological features is known as "fission-track" dating. This method uses the fission decay of Uranium which emits a high energy alpha particle leaving a damage track in glassy material. The material is etched and the tracks can be counted. By irradiating the remaining material, the actual amount of Uranium in the sample can be determined, and given the fission decay rate, the length of time since the material was annealed or hardened determined.

The "clock" is reset by heat, which anneals the track damage. This makes the method useful for dating pottery glazes, glasses, obsidian spearheads, and making thermal history profiles of oil bearing rock.

[SeekingKnowledge]

Im no scientist but c'mon there has to be some scientific proof out there to show the earth is more than just a few thousand years old? Isn't there rocks or something older than this? Hasn't there been "C-14" dating on dinosaur bones to prove otherwise?

[Jovianboy]

On 2002-04-09 13:22, Silas wrote:
Just to clarify my quip... If Fleishcman and Pons had been frauds, they could have gone the route of so many other fraudulent perpetual-motion-machine inventors and proceded to bilk millions out of gullible investors. In my opinion, the fact that they went public indicates that they were probably honest, and honestly mistaken.

Silas

Thanks Silas. I see what you mean. I must confess to having very limited knowledge of the Cold Fusion scandal. I had always assumed that it was a case of outright fraud, based on falsified data. I will endeavour to do some more reading on the subject. Perhaps it was more a case of misread data/faulty assumptions arising from emotively desired results rather than scientifically-sound results. A bit like what the Creationists usually do, eh? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

Cheers.

JB

[Karl]

On 2002-04-09 19:47, SeekingKnowledge wrote:
Im no scientist but c'mon there has to be some scientific proof out there to show the earth is more than just a few thousand years old? Isn't there rocks or something older than this? Hasn't there been "C-14" dating on dinosaur bones to prove otherwise?

There are many ways to show the age of the earth to be older than a few thousand years. The simplest methods involve just counting. Several lakes around the world have yearly cycles of organic and inorganic sediment that lays down identifiable layers or 'varves'. Since these layers trap organic material, they are useful for providing the small corrections to C-14 dating due to variations in cosmic ray flux.

Likewise, ice cores from Greenland and other thick ice flows show layers due to yearly snow accumulation, also trapping dust and chemicals from the atmosphere. So we can count down for instance to the layer corresponding to 1623BC and find shards of volcanic glass chemically identical to ash from the eruption of Thera that devastated the Minoan civilization. What happens if we keep counting down a few more thousand layers, past 6-10 thousand years ago? Nothing special. As an added benefit, the snow deposited carries an isotope marker that permits the researchers to determine the temperature of the water it evaporated from. O18, due it's higher mass required slightly more energy to evaporate. So warm temperatures will provide a snow with a higher O18/O16 ratio. This allows a good summer/winter boundary marker when the dust layer becomes less distinct, and also gives a good data set for determining climate changes due to events such as volcanic eruptions.

How far down do the ice cores go? The bottoms are dated a more than 100,000 years.

Added final sentance.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Karl on 2002-04-09 23:08 ]</font>

Fix spelling and clarify.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Karl on 2002-04-09 23:12 ]</font>

[dapted]

The mean distance to the moon is a little less than 400,000 KM away. It gets ~4 cm further away each year. Counting backwards and assuming (thats always a problem) it has always moved away from us at that rate means 100 years ago it was 4 meters closer. 100 million years ago it was 4,000 km closer and 10 billion years ago, it was part of the earth. It travels thru space around the core of earth at approximately the same speed as the surface of the earth does 1000 to 1100 miles per hour. If we ever get to study the geology of the moon in great detail we may find the remains of what ever form of life may have existed on earth then, before what ever broke that chunk of the planet off.

Life is said to have begun on earth sometime between 2.5 and 4.5 billion years ago. Maybe so, but maybe life just re-started then. If something hit us hard enough to put a chunk of the planet into orbit, it would stand to reason that life would have to start all over again sometime after that calamity. What fun it would be to look for fossilized signs of life on the moon. Other than the rover and that other 60's era litter I mean.

Keep grinning and wondering.

Dan

[ToSeek]

On 2002-04-10 01:59, dapted wrote:
The mean distance to the moon is a little less than 400,000 KM away. It gets ~4 cm further away each year. Counting backwards and assuming (thats always a problem) it has always moved away from us at that rate means 100 years ago it was 4 meters closer. 100 million years ago it was 4,000 km closer and 10 billion years ago, it was part of the earth.

Several problems:

- The current recession rate is unusually high.
- On the other hand, the farther away the Moon gets, the slower it recedes.
- In any case, the Earth is only about 4.5 billion years old, so the 10 billion figure is clearly inaccurate.

Your suggestion that there might be fossils of early Earth life on the Moon seems unlikely, since the collision that formed the Moon is believed to have happened when the solar system was still forming, and the Earth was too hot for life to develop. Interesting thought, though.

[Donnie B.]

...and besides, the collision would have vaporized the resulting debris, so the Moon would have re-accreted with no trace of any pre-existing life (even if there was any).

[Prince]

You ask for evidence of a 6000 year universe?
Records show that for the average galaxy there would be one supernova
about every 25 years, and with this frequency, thousands of SNRs should be
visible. Totalling the three stages they pass through, 7,291 should be visible if
the universe is millions of years old, but only 270 if it is only 7,000 years old.
The actual number observed is 205, which supports the young-earth view
Davies reports the puzzlement of astronomers who ask "Where have
all the remnants gone?!"

[Jovianboy]

On 2002-04-10 17:23, Prince wrote:
You ask for evidence of a 6000 year universe?
Records show that for the average galaxy there would be one supernova
about every 25 years, and with this frequency, thousands of SNRs should be
visible. Totalling the three stages they pass through, 7,291 should be visible if
the universe is millions of years old, but only 270 if it is only 7,000 years old.
The actual number observed is 205, which supports the young-earth view
Davies reports the puzzlement of astronomers who ask "Where have
all the remnants gone?!"

You can see this Creationist nonsense thoroughly debunked at this site:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/supernova/

This long article is so interesting that I printed it out and kept it. It mentions the usual Creationist habit of misreading and misquoting data, referring to data that is often out of date, and making logical leaps based on poorly understood evidence. Why do they do this? Because their blind need to absolutely, positively prove the inerracy of Genesis precludes their ability to see the facts in front of their eyes and to actually do some REAL science.

This kind of Creationist sloppiness (and downright dishonesty) is also delt with thoroughly in "Telling Lies for God", an excellent book by Australian geologist Professor Ian Plimer (Plimer makes the interesting point that Creationism is not only "junk science", but also "junk religion"). Grab a copy if you can.

JB

[The Rat]

On 2002-04-08 19:51, The Rusty Lander wrote:Even the crash of 47 could have been an early experimental craft that crashed or, how's this for an idea, it might really have been a weather balloon!

Nope. It was revealed a few years ago that it was not a weather balloon. It was a part of 'Project Mogul', which was an effort to determine the feasibility of detecting evidence of Soviet nuclear tests with high altitude balloons. So, were we lied to? Most definitely. Was it in the interest of national security? Yes. Was it necessary? Oh boy, we could debate that for years. But that's as nefarious as it gets.

_________________
Bailey’s second law; There is no relationship between the three virtues of intelligence, education, and wisdom.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Rat on 2002-04-10 20:39 ]</font>

[The Rat]

On 2002-04-10 17:23, Prince wrote:
You ask for evidence of a 6000 year universe?

Might I trouble you to post your creationist theories over at;

http://www.weirdcrap.com

You may find some,...um,...interesting counter points.


(Heeheeheeheeheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! Another lamb to the slaughter!)

[dapted]

Both evolution, and creationism can be true. They need not contradict each other. Time is the constant which causes the problem. We assume time is a constant by its very definition, but we have nothing to measure it against to determine this to be true. It seems ironic that we assume time to be a constant thru a leap of ,,, gulp,,, FAITH.

Evolution may be the tool used by a creator to create.

The best evidence for creationism, which by the way I do not believe in, comes from the watchmaker story. I don't remember the author. The story goes that if you find a watch sitting on a stump in the forest and watches had never been created at that time how could you possibly believe that it evolved? You would look at it and it's complexity and come to the conclusion that it was made by somebody or something.

Granted it is possible, given enough shaking, stirring, melting, force and gravity it could just occur on its own.

Life and the universe of physics we see around us is far more complex than any watch could ever be. Yet we believe it just happened? No big watchmaker to create it?

Seems inconsistent to me. And I still don't believe in creationism.

But I don't see any reason to believe carbon decomposition always occured at the same rate it does right now. Nor do I see a reason to believe it was ever different than right now. So why not explore both possibilities? Can't hurt anything, who knows we might learn something.

The non-believer in me swears there is no heaven or god, but also prays there is no hell or devil.

Dan

[Donnie B.]

The "Watchmaker" argument isn't an argument at all, it's an analogy.

A similar analogy is being used right now in the debate over "Intelligent Design", which (in my opinion) is just creationism in a new package. One of the major proponents uses Mount Rushmore as an illustration. If you'd never heard of it, and stumbled across it, would you assume that it had appeared by chance? Or would you decide that an intelligent designer had been at work?

It seems like a strong argument, until you realize that nature is not quite so obvious. What if, instead of Mount Rushmore, you had stumbled across the New Hampshire formation known as "The Old Man of the Mountain"? You might be misled into thinking that some intelligent creator had carved the mountainside into the profile of a human, but in fact it's a natural formation. From other angles it doesn't look at all like a face.

The same can be said about the so-called evidence for ID and creationism. You may look at some detail of cell biology and say, "Well, I can't see how evolution could ever have produced something like this, so a designer must have done it." But the next gal, maybe a bit more clever than you, or armed with more knowledge of intermediate forms, might well see exactly how evolution produced that feature.

Let's have no more arguments from incredulity, please!