Evan Burton

It's trying to delve more into what really makes up matter. The mass reduction theories, if proved correct, will be fantastic. FTL travel makes exploration beyond our solar system practical.

The FTL problem - to a layman like myself - is that our current understanding says that as an object approaches the speed of light, its mass increases. The closer it gets to the speed of light, the heavier it becomes and the greater energy required to continue to propel it. Nearly at the speed of light, the mass of an object becomes infinite... and thus why FTL travel is impossible with our current understanding.

If, however, the object has no or minuscule mass, then FTL travel becomes possible.

The possibilities from this research are simply staggering!

Edited to add: And, of course, the discussion of time travel becomes much more interesting!

I think there is a good chance that there are other civilisations out there, and that at least some hold advanced technology, and some of those may be capable of Faster Than Light travel.

That, I would like to see!!

Well, if you follow the science news, you might be aware of the upcoming startup of the Large Hadron Collider. One of the things the experiments being conducted in it might advance is the ability to change (lower) the mass of an object without changing it's physical dimensions. If this can be achieve, it not only makes sending ojects into space a lot easier, it makes the possibility of FTL travel VERY real.

But belief is not proof. It may surprise you, but I believe UFOs exist. I think there is a good chance that there are other civilisations out there, and that at least some hold advanced technology, and some of those may be capable of Faster Than Light travel. I think it is possible - no, likely - that we have been visited by other civilisations in UFOs... but I have never seen anything I would consider to be proof of alien visitation and am the first one to admit that. All the images I have seen are misidentification, indeterminate, or faked. I have seen things, on two occasions. They are perhaps explainable, but I don't think so. That's why I hold strong views... but my views are not proof.

People like Hoagland do more to damage to serious research than most anyone else. People like Dr Mitchell I take very seriously... but don't necessarily accept. Like everyone else, we need proof.

Is there a world-wide UFO coverup? Maybe - but I don't think so. I just don't see the particular gains for a coverup.... yet there may be one. I don't have proof either way.

Do you have a link for the Phoenix Lights? I would like to learn more about them before I comment on them.

Thanks!

Oh, some more stuff:

http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbust...ythbusters.html

Click on "Mythbusters Raw Video"

When the window finishes loading, there's a menu on the left of a bunch of Discovery shows.

Scroll down to "MythBusters - 118 Clips"

Click on the "118 Clips" part. This will open up the MythBusters video sub-menu.

Click on "MythBusters Uncut" to expand that menu.

The first selection should be "Lunar Lunacy". Click on that to see the "bonus" experiment.

Thanks to Czero 101 for pointing this out.

In case you missed it, or it hasn't been shown in your area as yet, it is available online:

http://www.surfthechannel.com/info/televis...8597/S6E10.html

WARNING! This site does have popups. I would NOT visit it unless you have a firewall and antivirus installed. The popups may be quite benign, but this is an area where my paranoia runs free.

The show addresses, first off, the PHOTOGRAPHIC evidence of fakery... or rather , lack of it. Overall, they do a very credible job of showing that the claims by the Moon Hoax people are not supported by science.

I generally support a lot of surveillance measures, but this is going too far.

Nice post, Don. I would would alter just one thing:

"...if you think another poster is ridiculous, or a disinfo agent, or mentally unbalanced, simply prove to the lurkers just how wrong their posts are."

Just my opinion. Cheers!

I want to say, first of all, that I think John Simkin runs a great forum here. It's a wonderful resource and I value it very much. It's also certainly his right to run this forum the way he wants, and to ask that we all abide by the rules he sets. I agree with Bernice and Dixie about Jack being understandably confused about the email we all received. While I wasn't offended by the email, I also don't consider myself part of any "rebel" group here, and possibly Jack might have felt that he is looked upon as a "rebel," and figured the email was only meant for those who might fall into that category.

Gary made an excellent point about members being excessively concerned about the rules. My view is that the moderators should handle this, and the rest of us shouldn't be getting worked up over someone's signature or avator. One rule I feel is violated frequently is the one against personal attacks. Although the definition of "attack" is open to interpretation, I think a lot of posts are too mean-spirited in tone. But, I realize this is not my call, and everyone has the right to express themselves. If something is over the line, I trust the moderators to handle it. That being said, my own opinion is that Jack White takes a lot more abuse here, from several members, than he hands out. In fact, while it is a valid criticism to point out that Jack often is overly sensitive and perhaps almost as paranoid as me, he never resorts to the sort of nastiness that is directed at him. Again, jmho, and I readily admit that I'm a great admirer of Jack's and agree with him most of the time, so I'm hardly unbiased.

Mark, I don't believe we are familiar with each other, but I think if you go back and re-read what you wrote to Dixie, maybe you will realize how she was bound to be offended by it. And ridiculing her for her number of posts- what does that have to do with anything she has to say? Are you suggesting that forums be ruled by those with the most number of posts? I remember Dixie from Rich's old JFK Research Forum, as well as Lancer. She's a very polite lady who treats other posters with respect. Again, just my two cents worth.

Now, having said that, I think we all need to develop thicker skins. Forums are about debate and disagreement; if you think another poster is ridiculous, or a disinfo agent, or mentally unbalanced, simply ignore their posts.

Just how many times has Jack done this - make an incorrect assumption leading to a baseless accusation? I've been the target several times.

Evan do you mean in research, or the forum issues? I would hope just the forum issues so as to have a manageable figure.

Oh, Forum issues. I've discussed Jack's research elsewhere.

This is start of failure....it is obvious to me explosions are present and the subsequent collapse is not spontaneous. It also defies known physics...buildings damaged non symetrically, do not fall symetrically....and they do not fall into the path of greatest resistance.

Fair enough comment, Mark, but can you support any of what you say?

To simply state it is your opinion is one thing. We most all have opinions with respect to 9/11 in regard to any complicity of governments, if evidence is missing or faked, motives, etc.

Supporting those opinions to claim they are fact ("... defies all known physics...") is another matter. Perhaps there is evidence to suggest your opinions are correct. Perhaps there is evidence to conclusively support your opinion. On the other hand, there might be evidence to suggest you are wrong, or conclusively refute your opinion.

So, is it just an honest opinion, or is it more? Do you believe you can present supporting evidence for what you believe?

Until we get someone to sign a confession, all we will have is opinions Evan. Unfortunately, or fortunately for the guilty, the debris from WTC was quickly removed and recycled....had it been taken for evaluation and testing, we could have by now atleast determined what kind of explosives were used...if any of course. In fact, this debris was removed illegally as there is a law that makes tragedies such as 9/11 be investigated to determine if any changes to existing statutes needs to be changed or updated to prevent a similar occurance in the future....Im sure you all remember TWA 800, exploded over LI Sound and put back together piece by piece in a hangar...at great cost and manpower to determine what caused the plane to explode.

Again, another fair point... but I question if it might be a little more than opinions? Each side of the fence can gather qualified people to support their own opinions. So what do we do? I'd suggest for those of us that do not hold the qualifications to make a professional determination, listen to both sides. Listen to the qualified people on both sides. Then look at the proportions of qualified people on both sides, and use that as a guide.

Because more qualified people hold a certain opinion, it does not make it certain... but it does indicate that on the balance of probability, one side of the argument is more likely. We can use this as a guide for us to decide who is right, and who is wrong.

That's all any of us can do in those respects.

This is start of failure....it is obvious to me explosions are present and the subsequent collapse is not spontaneous. It also defies known physics...buildings damaged non symetrically, do not fall symetrically....and they do not fall into the path of greatest resistance.

Fair enough comment, Mark, but can you support any of what you say?

To simply state it is your opinion is one thing. We most all have opinions with respect to 9/11 in regard to any complicity of governments, if evidence is missing or faked, motives, etc.

Supporting those opinions to claim they are fact ("... defies all known physics...") is another matter. Perhaps there is evidence to suggest your opinions are correct. Perhaps there is evidence to conclusively support your opinion. On the other hand, there might be evidence to suggest you are wrong, or conclusively refute your opinion.

So, is it just an honest opinion, or is it more? Do you believe you can present supporting evidence for what you believe?

Thanks for that Eric - should be a good website, used in conjunction with things like snopes.

Just how many times has Jack done this - make an incorrect assumption leading to a baseless accusation? I've been the target several times.

Evan, synchronized swimming and rhythmic gymnastics are not sports - and nor is show jumping. Other horse event might be acceptable - but only if there is a bookie stand on the concourse.

That was the argument. They felt that it should not be an Olympic sport unless:

- there is race of some type where one person or team "beat" other people / teams (relay, swimming, marathon, etc); or

- points / goals are scored by people or teams (not awarded by judges), indicating a clear winner.

BTW, you are spot on with your assumption that I want the money spent on Defence. How else are my junkets going to be funded?

I was surprised to see BMX biking an an Olympic sport! It was a hot topic for debate in our office. Some even thought that some events like diving shouldn't be in there!

What about Obama's choice of running mate?

Has he missed out on many votes by not selecting Clinton, or was the animosity between them during the primaries (?) too great to ever be overcome?

That's interesting. The article I referred to remarked upon the number of Australian coaches who had gone to the UK... and also how a concerted effort, such as the Chinese and others are applying (find them young and train them), will eventually produce an overwhelming number of champions.

There was another article about whether we have lost sight of the Olympic goal - competition amongst amateurs, not a concerted effort to dominate by "professionals".

I have little interest in sport, but it is a topic worth discussing.

There was a tremendous piece on the BBC website about how some Australians are reacting to our great defeat. Now that we are on the losing end, we want the Brits to be magnanimous in victory... when we were not.

I also notice how the US is reporting the total number of medals gained as being "the winners", and not the normal formula of gold, then silver, then bronze.

Every now and again, it does one good to have their bums kicked.

The thread is degenerating into a tit-for-tat slugfest, seeing who can make the most cutting reply. It is meant for specific complaints: against the forum, the moderators, the admins, or me. Others are to be directed in accordance with the forum rules, but "open season" still remains active towards me.

If you want to vent your bile against me, then do so here.

If you have complaints against the Forum, mods, or admins, then make them here and they will be referred onwards or dealt with here.

If you want to start bickering amongst yourself, then your posts will be made invisible.

Is that Dr Timothy Leary in the bottom image, middle?

Exactly WHAT forum rule was broken by my post Evan? A direct quote please

An attack on another member. The post implied certain behavior by another member. There were 3 complaints about it from members, and I agreed it was inappropriate.

I think it would be an outstanding job.

Mike,

Please do NOT use that term; I realise it may not necessarily be considered offensive in your country, but it is in many nations. Thank you.

First and only warning regarding use of language.

Paul,

That term may be a colloquialism in the UK (I note the British origin) but it is not in common use in my military, nor would it seem in Mike's. At least 3 people thought it referred to something else - a word that I would imagine a person in the UK would easily recognise, and recognise as a swear word. Please avoid any confusion in future.

There has been a lot of bickering of late, and far less discussion on the various topics. In order to get people back on track, I will be FAR less tolerant of personal insults than in the past... no matter who says them. If I want to be treated as an adult, then I shouldn't act like a child.

I request other Mods adopt the same attitude on this board.

Mythbusters will be doing a "Moon Hoax" special on Discovery Channel (US) 27 AUG 08. I'm unsure when it will be shown on other nation's Discovery Channel.

Should be very interesting viewing.

Len's name can be written; especially if you'd like to debate him. I am sure he would welcome the opportunity. As long as people stay within Forum rules, I am sure it would be a fascinating debate.