Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

This is amazing....

They found his body straight away - How spooky is that?? They didn't even know where the Church was and yet they came upon it as soon as they started digging - you couldn't make it up....

warspite1, read the interesting Wall Street Journal article about Richard III:

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

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: SLAAKMAN

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

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

quote:

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: SLAAKMAN

quote:

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

Suuuure just like there were WMD's in Iraq to justify invasion & jet fuel burned down the WTC....LMAOROFL!

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

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

quote:

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: SLAAKMAN

quote:

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

Suuuure just like there were WMD's in Iraq to justify invasion & jet fuel burned down the WTC....LMAOROFL!

warspite1

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

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

quote:


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: SLAAKMAN

quote:

ORIGINAL: SLAAKMAN

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: SLAAKMAN

I love it.

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

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

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

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

quote:

I love it.

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

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

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

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: SLAAKMAN

Basting-Chickenboy,

quote:

I love it.

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

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

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

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

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski

quote:

ORIGINAL: SLAAKMAN

Basting-Chickenboy,

quote:

I love it.

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

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

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

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

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

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



And how did you know I have cystic bowels?

quote:


And how did you know I have cystic bowels?

quote:

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

quote:

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

quote:


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: SLAAKMAN

quote:


And how did you know I have cystic bowels?

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

quote:

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

Neither. That sighting was a Wright-Patterson visIon of an alien autopsy;

quote:

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

quote:

The Drake equation states that:


where:

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

and

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

R factor

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: SLAAKMAN

The Drake equation states that:


where:

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

and

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

R factor

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: SLAAKMAN

quote:

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

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

quote:


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

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