Russia declassified UFO

[Sharp]

"Now try to levitate a one ounce piece of meat with any magnet in mid air. This is very testable. You may discover why you can't do it."

It is a proven fact seen on the Science Channel that the piece of meat, or your whole body as a test frog showed NASA researchers, that if you place it in a properly tuned EM> field about 100 times greater than a fringe magnet that the meat will levitate. Gravity time runs faster than EM> time: we are observing the weak force which is a speed of light clock running fast when observed from the strong force’s inertial frame of reference.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEC9G8JU ... re=related

NASA wants to build high EM> field rooms so astronauts can practice living in space in zero gravity, but if they would just look they would see the other side of the coin and add gravity by reducing it. The study of semi-conductors is full of holes, but not a word about gravity. Welcome to the Higgs Field.

Are UFO’s real? They are till you identify them, then they are just FO’s proving space is real. Anything you can imagine is possible, and the state of “anything” (observer included) is what is real and can be measured. I leave it to you to make up your own mind but after you do I can measure your EM/gravity field and tell you where your body parts are at. I prefer to do this with girls. I have a test to see if feeling/awareness is connected to gravity/weight and a bathroom scale shows it is. It works and so far every test I have conducted shows that it fluctuates. They always end up putting their cloths back on. I feel more tests of longer duration are called for in the interest of Science.

Dude, if you believe that fake 9 second video showing a strawberry wiggling around from a top view, not seeing anything, underneath it because the view is blocke, that proports to be due to an EM field, then you'll believe anything. Nothing is shown about how the experiment is conducted.

Before you believe it, why don't you reproduce it yourself?

That's one of the fundamental principles of scientific research: independent reproduceability. If you really believe it's true, it should be very easy to reproduce. EM fields aren't hard to create, they are all around us.

lol... Don't get John going.

The guy is probably the most brainy person I've ever interacted with. You would be well out of your league talking science to this guy. Seriously...he would eat you a live !!!

Cheers
Sharp

[Sharp]

Who's more open, someone who accepts what they see in a movie without any desire whatsover for further confirmation, or someone who reserves judgment until investigating whatever has been seen to confirm or disprove it?

If I knew we could actually achieve something by debating this, I'd be all for it. But regardless of how much effort I could put in, I know for a fact that I will never convince you of anything.

Every answer is another question to you. The concept of accepting something on faith is more alien to you than aliens themselves. I'm not saying I accept things on blind fate, I'm just saying that every answer does not lead to another question. There has to be a point where you accept what's beeing presented as the truth. If you can't do that, then you will get nowhere.

Regards
Sharp.

[Timo]

"Science has taught us many lessons, but none more important than the notion of questioning what we're told. Thousands of years ago practically everybody believed God made us as we are, just as they believed the world was flat. It was science that taught us the value of seeking real answers rather than just taking what we are told as fact."

Quoted from elsewhere, but it describes my stance identically.

Science is all about questiong, predicting, testing, finding a result, questioning, predicting, re-testing, confirming (or finding failure, or holes in the theory, in which case the theory MUST be abandoned or retested taking into account all aspects, as it has no merit and is scientifically flawed, or at best used until a suitable replacement is found) then allowing others to independently question and test to see if they get the same results....

.... After which, if the predictions hold true, it is called a theory (it's still not considered a fact). Why? You may think that Newton's Theory of Gravitation was fact. Indeed it was correct in day-to-day usage and was accepted as fact, but Einstein's General Theory of Relativity predicted a slightly different result when questioning the minute positions of huge celestial bodies and at large distances. Indeed when it was able to be tested, it was shown that Einstein's predictions were correct, whereas Newton's theory was only approximate. Newton's theory of Gravitation was therefore abandoned.

However Newton's theory is still being taught in schools as it's much easier to work with compared to Einstein's, and Newton's theory only breaks down when considering extremely large gravitational bodies and distances.

Now you might so far accept Einstein's theory as fact. However Einstein's theory breaks down when trying to predict mechanics on a fundamental, quantum level, therefore it is not a totally true, accurate description of gravitation as a whole. A new, universal theory must be found. One which takes into account both macro-cosmic and quantum level physics, and which seamlessly binds them together into one theory.

So science is all about independently questioning others and their sources, and testing to see if they can undisputedly confirm them before considering them as theoretical fact.

[xmlguy]

I think I agree with every word that Timo just expressed.

Sharp, you have drawn a lot of false conclusions about me without even bothering to actually answer ANY of the questions I've actually posed. You might question yourself as to why you really don't want to answer them, even to yourself. I did not ask the questions merely to keep you busy answering them. They are questions that I first ask myself, and for something as potentially significant as the presence of Alien beings, I need a lot more evidence that a 89 minute movie of dubious origin by a filmmaker unwilling to even claim it is actually true, instead of "based" on real events. On the other hand, you seem to be accepting this "faux documentary" as if it were fact.

I accept a lot of things on faith. I also reject a lot of things on faith. I just try to rely more on the Scientific Method and the findings of others who hold themselves to these same principles before accepting anything on faith. Even what I've accepted on faith I'm willing to reconsider rejecting in the future if I see evidence that contradicts or disproves it unless there is a lot of confirmation and research done by credible sources, but I don't just sit back and rely on others if something is important to me and I can research and test myself.

If anything, I believe the scientific process leads to a more reliable means to get accurate conclusions, and even though the method is not perfect and there are those who intentionally try to get away with hiding under science instead of using it, there is always motivation for others to expose such deceit when they independently test the hypothesis and get different results, or use better scientific developments to examine the evidence in ways that can expose problems that aren't so easy to hide.

Just because I question your faith, doesn't not mean that I reject all faith, nor does it necessarily mean that I reject your faith. Questioning is part of the process of testing the strength of faith. I was questioning the notion, that you seemed to accept, that magnetism was an adequate explanation for the levitation of humans who were not attached to magnetic materials. That belief requires no a small step of faith, that's a giant leap. You could become a very rich man indeed if you patent a device that could levitate humans using magnetism alone without being attached to magnetic materials. It would allow MagLev transportation without all the expense of MagLev trains and track, which are tremendously expensive.

But if you want to drop the whole issue, that's fine by me. You might do yourself some good by thinking about it some more in the future when you have the time.

[Sharp]

Sharp, you have drawn a lot of false conclusions about me without even bothering to actually answer ANY of the questions I've actually posed.

I don't blieve you. Prove it

[Timo]

Incidently I've been in an MRI scanner twice, both for scans of the skull (one for the neck and brainstem, and another for the TMJ jaw joint also including the middle and outer ear). Got a few metal plates, rods and a few rogue nuts and bolts in my body, but I can't remember levitating.

Very claustrophobic though, and I'm not generally of a claustrophobic nature. It's effectively like a tomb, with only a few inches to move. And very, very noisy. The oddest electronic noises I've ever heard. It could spawn a new genre! Ear plugs are standard issue. I also had a cage surrounding my skull to keep it rock still.

Had to take off all jewellry but you can leave your belt on, consequently you can feel a distinct tug of you trousers as you go in due to the EMF. (Or maybe it was just the nurse? )

Couldn't feel the metal in my jaw or spine tugging or anything though. Unfortunately the metal in my jaw blurred the MRI image of the TMJ jaw joint & ear beyond use, so it ended up useless. =/ A nice waste of £500. Could've bought a couple of electribes instead!

[xmlguy]

Fortunately, KorgForums does not check the DNA of new members when joining. If Aliens where trying to keep their identity from being revealed, monitoring off-topic forums might be quite useful in that regard. That thing that goes bump in the night may not be a leprechaun. Sleep tight.

[Sharp]

All I'll say is your the one looking for the confirmation and the proof, so it's you who needs to do the research. It's unfair to ask me to defend my believes just because you don't believe in the same things. You also don't make we what to even share an opinion because you can be so cynical. The 2012 thread was a perfect example. You would say something wrong, I'd disprove that, and you would just ignore what I said or accept it without any real acknowledgement other than to disagree partly.

I'm really not being mean, it just gets a bit much somthings when talking to you. Every answer is a question.

Regards
James

[ausser]

http://i.thisis.co.uk/274079/binaries/A ... 20UFOs.jpg

I have to say - this actually looks more religious to me from the artists impression.
They really do look like Crucifixes to me.
In modern times, apparitions of the Virgin Mary or associated apparitional symbols appearing in the sky to large groups of people were usually at first thought to be commoner garden UFO's ie. little green men from outer space.
For instance Medjugorje, the six children, young teenagers at the time, thought the first apparition of the Virgin was a UFO! one of the visionaries Ivan, even ran for his life! though he does say that was because he had then realized WHO it actually was!

Also its alledged that the CIA took an active interest in Medjugorje at its early stages.
Documents still classified.
Of course, when they heard what the Celestial Visitor had to say -
repentance, prayer and fasting, they quickly lost interest - LOL!
Well...maybe not just that quickly...

It would be interesting to see AnthonyB, how the reports on the sighting develop.

Crosses in the Sky, AFAIK, have often heralded Divine communications or Apparitions.
They do look a bit ominous to me - though that is an artist impression.

Anthony - from your impression of the event - you might be interested in this Pro-Life message:
http://www.rosaryoftheunborn.com/store/ ... ?idpage=16
Particularly the August 2006 messages.

I didn't hear a word about this on the national news.

Peace
Ausser.

[xmlguy]

Since you are offended by having your beliefs and claims questioned, and you refuse to answer any questions regardless, I can see that it serves no purpose to attempt to get you to explain why you believe what you do. If you want to believe in aliens because of that film, that's your perogative. I wasn't the one making claims about the existance of aliens or films that do so, but I'll accept that you have no interest to independently verify or otherwise back up your statements. If you think it's unfair to question claims such as the existance of aliens, then I'm quite content being unfair in that regard. I will also question the existence of fairies, ghosts, trolls, wookies, hobbits, wizards, Harry Potter, or any other fictional characters taken to be real. Call me a cynic, I don't mind. You don't have to back up what you believe, it's not required. By questioning what you believe I don't question your right to believe what you do.

[xmlguy]

By the way, I firmly believe in the power of Korg gear to intice humans to dance, move to the beat, shake their asses, and other things that let them take their minds off of other things that may trouble them. Perhaps that's something we can agree on? Plus the Kaossilator can do some bitchn' UFO sounds that are lots of fun.

[Sharp]

Since you are offended by having your beliefs and claims questioned, and you refuse to answer any questions regardless, I can see that it serves no purpose to attempt to get you to explain why you believe what you do. If you want to believe in aliens because of that film, that's your perogative.

I'm not offended at all. I just don't feel that I have to defend my believes just because you don't believe in the same things as I do. You need to find the answers to your own questions yourself because no answer I could give you will ever make you happy. Go see the movie for starters.

Regards
James

[xmlguy]

I'm glad you aren't offended, at least.

[ausser]

well,

saw the movie.

Biggest problems I have are certainly the degree of dissent among the IMDB commentaries.
Most of them seem to assert that the "footage" was actually not real at all, and was contrived.
Certainly the editing seems to tilt obtusely toward the dramatic.
It doesn't rule out however, the possibility that the director decided not to prolong what may be -dramatically dangerous- inclusion of footage that may fascinate an audience beyond the deeper questions I cannot deny the film may be TRYING TO ASK.
It could be that the director choose the Nome scenario as a vehicle with which to portray current social 'anomalies' that are profound in statistic, profound in victim singular effect, but mere sensational fillers for an erstwhile lazy media during a humdrum news period.
e.g. - no car bombs in Iraq - but why investigate the drinking habits of a remote town in Alaska? Whats that got to do with our concerns?
Or even innercity drug problems...?

Unfortunately, there seems to be no "Stand To" regarding the persons portrayed in this movie - and no substancial back-up to the research this movie claims as its selling point.

It doesn't mean I condemn the film makers motives - because it does challange the audience to ask - at a particular level - why such profoundly tragic circumstances should occur in a town such as Nome.
It does ask, in albiet a contrivance of humility, does any intellectual authority in America have a f*king clue what this woman has been through
in this town called Nome where her daughter disappeared without a trace?
Does anybody care?Really?

What intrigues me beyond the boundary of "truthful" integrity regarding this movie - is the reference to the most ancient of dialect in which the director chose as a cadence to the denumon.
Irrespective of the obvious inflection that the violator was demonic other than extra-terrestrial - the directors focus on demonic ability to impress with things like ancient sumarian seems a very deliberate decision by the director to emphasis not only the capabilities of the enemy in a super-natural manner, but also the nature of the mis-understanding of the 'problem' with respect to current modernistic in-denialism.

Its not so much Blair-witch to me, more Cloverfield - I do believe the director achieved that distinction.

So, although it would be nice to have authorative conformation of the existence of an anomaly either extra-terrestrial or demonic in Nome, I don't believe viewers should lean too heavily on the ""where's the smoking gun?" aspect of things.
However, if even the character of Abigail Tyler is fictitious, then it is in poor taste IMHO, by lazily abusing what may be very real psychological crosses of members of the audience - where there is a known issue ie. abduction phenomenon still in debate.

I'm thinking of the - was it Alfred Hitchcock radio thing? - broadcast about 40 or 50 years ago - about Aliens landing and sent the half of the US into a tailspin..?
That was the perfect balance IMO - people had a good laugh afterwards..

But this movie, focusing on so distressing a set of circumstances that are personalized, if she is fictitious, is a step too far IMO.

Of course, if Abigail Tyler is not fictitious - then there are certainly alot of questions that need to be asked about what is going on in a place called Nome.

Peace
Ausser.

PS:
Ach....maybe this directors over me head.
But I did enjoy the movie though, and it did have me asking deeper questions about the characters motives, rather than writing them off as the stereotypical wise psychologist or the hard-ass sheriff.
I wouldn't base a UFO thesis on it though...

PPS:
Might be interesting to see if there is anything substantial on the DVD extras...
It would be a pity if there wasn't.

[Sharp]

Hi ausser.

Biggest problems I have are certainly the degree of dissent among the IMDB commentaries.

If that's the biggest problem you have, then just let me say type "moon landing a fake" into Google and you will even see all sorts of video's and proof saying that it didn't happen.

For everything that actually happens there will always be a shower of cynical people who can come up with some way of trying to make people believe it didn't happen.

Even 911 is believed to be planned and that the towers were knocked down using termite detonator cord. There's even are hours of video proof to backup their side of the story.

So for everything that really happens there will always be cynical people out there trying to prove the opposite happened.

As for Alien life, which is more likely.
1: We are all alone in the infinite vastness of the universe or there are millions of civilisations out there.

2: Advanced civilisations possibly millions of years ahead of us don't have interstellar travel, or they do have it and it's simply beyond our comprehension to accept it's even possible.

I bird sitting in a tree is only aware of what it's brain and process. We being smarter than the bird can process lots more information and so we know the earth is round. Purely because of our capacity to learn we can do this. Now take us and place us into the same situation as the bird side by side with an advanced civilisation. To them the universe is probably something they can fold and travel instantly from one point to another, where we simply lack the understanding and the means to even get to mars right now let alone that Aliens can even exsist.

Remember, 100 years ago the Wright Brothers first powered flight took place. Look what we achieved in the 100 years since then. Now imagine what an advanced civilisation millions of years more advanced than us can do.

We are lucky they don't squash us out of existence for being nothing more than monkeys because that's exactly what we do to every lower lifeform on our planet. We have no respect for life, not even out own to a point.

Certainly the editing seems to tilt obtusely toward the dramatic.

There's only so many ways you can show a guy having a fit though. It is a dramatic and disturbing event. I suggest you take time to just sit back and digest what you have just seen.

Regards
Sharp