It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Military activity...... beneath the surface - DUMB: deep underground military bases -

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Absolutely plausible??? Please explain how you think an underground train that can travel MACH 2 is plausible? Or that LADAR can see thru solid objects, that there could be a 109 MILLION MAN army living underground or that the F117 uses Alien or ET technology??? how about some facts or evidence that any of this stuff exists?

I'm not saying that there aren't DUMBs, but some of the ideas sound like someones fantasy and perhaps someday they will become reality, but I have yet to see anything that proves otherwise




posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 09:43 PM
link   
The movie Resident evil and The island illustrate DUMBS and resident evil even has the train tho not mach2



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Resident Evil = a video game, and The Island = a movie both of which are NOT REALITY
vs. Phil Schnieder's claims which are supposedly based in the real world



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by warpboost
Absolutely plausible??? Please explain how you think an underground train that can travel MACH 2 is plausible?


What exactly makes it seem to impossible in your opinion? I mean we have commercial Mag-Lev type systems ( without military involvement ) with civilian oversight, budget considerations and no vacuum that reach top speeds of 430 km/h within their 30 km shuttle range? Is it so odd to believe that Mach two trains could be in operation between secret government underground facilities; it's after all not their money but yours?


Or that LADAR can see thru solid objects,


We know there exists systems that can do that so try to move on?


that there could be a 109 MILLION MAN army living underground


Since you have no way of proving otherwise why continue this specific line of reasoning? Of course there COULD BE so if you want to complain state that it's in your opinion exceedingly improbably and even more unlikely. Don't pretend that you can be 'sure' or that you can prove otherwise as this is IMO much like arguing that the invisible, levitating, inter dimensional, pink elephant is not in fact 'in the corner'.


or that the F117 uses Alien or ET technology???


Maybe it has 0.0000017% Alien technology; feel free to try prove otherwise.


how about some facts or evidence that any of this stuff exists?


Your on ATS and if you have trouble believing something then just do not? Why the harsh criticism for things that are going to be hard to prove on way or another? Why not focus on the topics in ATS where you have proof with which to argue one way or another?


I'm not saying that there aren't DUMBs,


There obviously are so yeah....


but some of the ideas sound like someones fantasy


Every new scientific 'breakthrough' sounds impossible for a few centuries ( or years ) before it happens so once again i feel your just showing up what you consider plausible as if that should be some kind of standard for the rest of us! Personal considerations of how reality should or might work simply do not change reality so lets each focus on the areas where we have some knowledge and try build from there. Why waste time trying to disprove something so fantastic , in your perception of reality, that you have almost no evidence on way or another?

If only people investigated what mainstream 'science' ( consensus based on the word of old men with grey or white hair) has said of the scientific revolutionaries almost every time they suggested alternative explanations, that turned out to be right, for observed reality we might have had progress that makes our current civilization seem quite inhuman and strikingly stupid.


and perhaps someday they will become reality,
but I have yet to see anything that proves otherwise


And until then try be more open minded; you are after all on the ATS forum!

Stellar



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 04:30 AM
link   

What exactly makes it seem to impossible in your opinion? I mean we have commercial Mag-Lev type systems ( without military involvement ) with civilian oversight, budget considerations and no vacuum that reach top speeds of 430 km/h within their 30 km shuttle range? Is it so odd to believe that Mach two trains could be in operation between secret government underground facilities; it's after all not their money but yours?


The only low-speed maglev (100 km/h) currently operational, the Japanese Linimo HSST, cost approximately US$100 million/km to build. Now your saying they can do it at mach 2, UNDERGROUND, and accross the whole world, because some guy on the internet said so?


Maybe it has 0.0000017% Alien technology; feel free to try prove otherwise.
LOL! Is that a joke?



black helicopters

What type of helicopters are these? Where are they built? Did they appear out of nowhere? Did China build them? Did a fleet of black helicopters just be built as normal blackhawks yet noone realized there were more blackhawks then revealed?


Under ground 100 million man army

It's called evidence. You will need some before you make outlandish claims.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by PisTonZOR
...
The only low-speed maglev (100 km/h) currently operational, the Japanese Linimo HSST, cost approximately US$100 million/km to build. Now your saying they can do it at mach 2, UNDERGROUND, and accross the whole world, because some guy on the internet said so?
...


Not quite:

en.wikipedia.org...

At present there are more mag-lev trains, in fact those blokes of transrapid belong to a real powerfull industrial group with siemens and tyssen-krupp backing the project.
I still see the mach 2 as more wishfull than possible at this date though.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by PisTonZOR
The only low-speed maglev (100 km/h) currently operational, the Japanese Linimo HSST, cost approximately US$100 million/km to build.


Actually the Chinese operate one with the peak speeds i mentioned; you really should do some research. The 100 million per km is not as expensive as you might think considering the cost of the type of alternative transportation normally employed. Once again something which becomes readily obvious with some basic research.


Now your saying they can do it at mach 2, UNDERGROUND, and accross the whole world, because some guy on the internet said so?


I can not prove that Mach two underground trains does in fact exist but i have seen nothing that closes my mind to such a eventuality; i don't make up my mind because of a lack of information.....


LOL! Is that a joke?


Well feel free to try 'prove' otherwise if you want to insist that it's 'impossible'.


What type of helicopters are these? Where are they built? Did they appear out of nowhere? Did China build them? Did a fleet of black helicopters just be built as normal blackhawks yet noone realized there were more blackhawks then revealed?


Denials from ignorance serves no one but the close minded. If you have no actual information to dispute such 'fantastic' claims beside your own disbelief you really have nothing at all.


It's called evidence. You will need some before you make outlandish claims.


Actually one needs no evidence to be right. If objective reality turns out to agree with your speculative claim then that's just your luck thought. The 'outlandishness' ( i don't think it's in the dictionary) of the claim have absolutely nothing to do with how real it might turn out to be; reality mostly turns out to be more fantastic than anyone had imagined it.

I wont put money on the 100 million man underground army but then i am not the betting kind.... Thanks for making your purpose on ATS so abundantly clear in your last few posts.

Stellar



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 07:22 AM
link   
the now becoming famous 100 million men army here. :p

they could've done some cloning and breeding down there to, right?

besides, how many people dissapear a year in america? doesn't take much effort to get them down there and mind control them to killers, don't they. hm, reminds me of the movie Conspiray Theory... (a good way to explain to the mass MK-Ultra did exist)

this thread is getting bigger.. good thing


P.S. Nice work StellarX




[edit on 2-12-2006 by etherical waterwave]



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by etherical waterwave

the now becoming famous 100 million men army here. :p


Well maybe the Pentagon computers really just plainly have trouble 'communicating' with each other or some people just lined their pockets very well... There is , i suppose, that small chance that they spent it all on a underground hundred million 'man' star wars type clone army.
That's what i had in mind but i have no proof and i wont dream of trying to defend the notion.....


they could've done some cloning and breeding down there to, right?


We have a billion sheep above ground so not sure why they would want to clone em.



besides, how many people dissapear a year in america? doesn't take much effort to get them down there and mind control them to killers, don't they. hm, reminds me of the movie Conspiray Theory... (a good way to explain to the mass MK-Ultra did exist)


Well there is a project you can take on....

jscms.jrn.columbia.edu...

www.crimelibrary.com...

The question is really how many of those 800 000 Americans a year stays 'missing' or at least how many cases are simply not investigated...

Alex Jones can probably offer a few good clue's as to who is involved in the cases where people are never heard from again...

www.prisonplanet.com...

And then...

rawstory.com...

If they can force hundreds of thousands of Eastern European women and children into slavery ( and not the relatively benign kind) in such a short space of time imagine what they can do in their own back yard that is America? Remember that Eastern Europeans are as Caucasian ( and i hate bringing up race but some people don't seem to care if this happens so long as their some other 'colour' ) as almost everyone on this forum so this is very much happening to 'us' and not just to some nondescript 'them'.


this thread is getting bigger.. good thing


Not sure if that is a good thing as i am just playing devils advocate and trying to point out how many of these things may in fact be possible. I hope i made clear that i can't prove, and don't really want to defend, most of the orginal authors claims? Only reason i am posting is because of the vapid ' it's impossible' crowds 'contributions'.


P.S. Nice work StellarX


Compliments are pretty rare when you really 'deny ignorance' ( and i am not talking of those pretenders who defend every establishment lie under that banner) so i always appreciate them!

Stellar



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Ah, this age old tale.

Here's a few operational obstacles, though. Assume we have these drilling machines and using them for such a project. Where does all the dirt go? If we go as far as suspecting fission or fusion technology - you could simply vaporize it or plasmate it.... but you still have to move it somewhere. And if you're digging out cubic MILES of dirt - someone is going to notice. You can't just build a massive underground base in a top-secret hangar like you can a plane.

We also always seem to assume the worst when something 'secret' is going on. "They are building a massive underground chamber - let's assume it is NOT for our good." We've seen far too many horror movies. If these bases do exist - and I beleive there is SOME credibility .... on a smaller scale .... and they are funded with drug money - then I would like to beleive that they are for the civilians (I am no longer one of those!) who have not whored themselves out to drugs and addictions. A way of filtering out the slime so that everything esle will survive.

Either that or be a facility that prevents said disasters.

But we always have to assume the worst. Because our government is out to destroy us.

The media is our true enemy - don't let them distract you.

There are far too many people in the military that would not stand for the perposterous plans that have been suggested - and a thousand angry marines with guns and a few tanks would demolish a 'government plan' of that nature like a hoboe attacking a bisciut. Add in the other branches - and it just won't fly at all.

Doesn't matter how many stars that officer has on his/her collar - or how many chevrons a senior enlisted wears - if their colegues and the 'grunts' view it as something that is against the people - it's NOT going to happen - or at least not without the military dividing and having it's own little civil war.

I think I can speak for most of my fellow sailors when I say that we'd not stand for something like that.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
Assume we have these drilling machines and using them for such a project. Where does all the dirt go? If we go as far as suspecting fission or fusion technology - you could simply vaporize it or plasmate it.... but you still have to move it somewhere. And if you're digging out cubic MILES of dirt - someone is going to notice. You can't just build a massive underground base in a top-secret hangar like you can a plane.



Schneider claims the dirt leftovers are used to make the wands of the tunnel. Immediate get away of the dirt. So I've heard.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 09:54 AM
link   
The onus of proof is on the one making the assertion. If you make a claim, you need to provide proof, not expect the other party to disprove your assertion. Disproof of a negative is just poor logic.





Then you have statements like this-


"Conventional explosives outside the building in a truck can just not do that as far as my knowledge goes."

What is your background to give you any authority on this subject?


A shaped charge makes nice neat holes(they're known as cutting charges), so that's not what you'd use to knock down a structure. The ammonium nitrate that McVeigh used, was more omni directional, providing overpressure, which is consistent with the effects witnessed on the building in Oklahoma.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Oh, and Alex Jones isn't exactly the most credible source for anything. I wouldn't ask him directions to the bus station.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 06:28 PM
link   
I m surprised that there s not more about Phil Schnieder in these forums, a cursory search only turned up 3 threads. I ve watched some of those lectures on youtube and google, there s quite a bit of material there. I think its very easy really to dismiss his story; too easy. What initially shocked me in the video I was watching was when he initially mentioned his infamous encounter with a "large grey" he raised his hand which was missing several fingers, and I could see that there was a semi-circle pattern in the damage there on the hand which sync-ed with where he indicated his (clothed) abdomen. His claims are very intriguiging, they are so "out there" that one is reminded that bigger lies are more easily believed, but not to diminish here, sometimes we believe because we know the truth can also be like this. I havent watched all of the videos, (there are several hours worth) but has anyone actually seen what happened to his torso? I know this sounds morbid but what really happened to this guy ? - he obviously has severe health problems. What gets me is that he sounds sincere and scared; whatever the reason. The details of his death are quite disturbing as well, there seem to be at least 3 succesive official causes of death, which is never good and at the very least a poor indicator for the authorities involved in investigating his death.
Somewhere there a records for this guys hospital stays and employment. What was he living off? Certainly not ufo lectures. He s nowhere near as famous as Stanton Friedman for instance. There are enough "anomolies" with this guys own life to make it a provactative case, let alone his claims. What draws my attention in his stories is these four "big holes" that he talks about, - surely these are massive holes? they would have to still be there. If filled in, they would still show up if tested for fill. It would be next to impossible to duplicate the original geologic layering in such holes.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Well, yeah - of course they exist.

As a military kid growing up we called them DUH's.

Deep Underground Housing.

I hear the majority of them these days are being used for extensive closed movie sets and also a way to house and contain those obnoxious and weird genetic things we call "pop stars" (not all of them, but some of them).

*wonders how Paris Hilton got topside*



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
Ah, this age old tale.
Here's a few operational obstacles, though. Assume we have these drilling machines and using them for such a project. Where does all the dirt go? If we go as far as suspecting fission or fusion technology - you could simply vaporize it or plasmate it.... but you still have to move it somewhere.


As i understand the theory it supposedly 'melts' the material and then uses it to line the tunnel system and lay down a foundation system for the tracks or whatever... I obviously don't have any evidence for that and it's just hearsay as far as i am concerned... That being said i don't see how it's at all 'impossible' after seeing what kinda of boring machines are used on commercial projects...


And if you're digging out cubic MILES of dirt - someone is going to notice. You can't just build a massive underground base in a top-secret hangar like you can a plane.


Why not in your opinion? Out of sight out of mind?


We also always seem to assume the worst when something 'secret' is going on. "They are building a massive underground chamber - let's assume it is NOT for our good."


Then tell me where your local nuclear war 'air raid' shelter is and why Russians, Swedes, Norwegians and Switz are aware of where to go when the trouble starts? Why do some countries have extensive air raid shelters under every recently ( post 1960 in Russia and bit later elsewhere) constructed public building?


We've seen far too many horror movies. If these bases do exist - and I beleive there is SOME credibility


Well actually there is quite a few admitted one's all around the world especially in European and European Russia to say nothing of North Korea...


.... on a smaller scale .... and they are funded with drug money - then I would like to beleive that they are for the civilians (I am no longer one of those!) who have not whored themselves out to drugs and addictions. A way of filtering out the slime so that everything esle will survive.


Well in Europe and many other places they are for civilians but the US have no such preparations and telling people where to go when the nukes start flying with be far too late...


Either that or be a facility that prevents said disasters.
But we always have to assume the worst. Because our government is out to destroy us.


Yes and yes...


The media is our true enemy - don't let them distract you.


The media is what the ruling groups use to change our perception in the directions that suits them best...


There are far too many people in the military that would not stand for the perposterous plans that have been suggested -


So America troops and agents going round the world causing tens of millions of deaths directly or indirectly does not convince you the opposite reality?


and a thousand angry marines with guns and a few tanks would demolish a 'government plan' of that nature like a hoboe attacking a bisciut. Add in the other branches - and it just won't fly at all.


Now your just telling us what you want to believe and while your reality certainly seems nicer and more pleasant than mine i don't think it going to come about by sticking our heads in the sand because we believe in the goodness of those who rule us.


Doesn't matter how many stars that officer has on his/her collar - or how many chevrons a senior enlisted wears - if their colegues and the 'grunts' view it as something that is against the people - it's NOT going to happen - or at least not without the military dividing and having it's own little civil war.


Then you need to explain thousands of years of history that shows that the people rarely benefit by war but quite often fail to prevent their leaders from starting them ...


I think I can speak for most of my fellow sailors when I say that we'd not stand for something like that.


Good to hear but one does not help others by closing your eyes and ears to a reality that is easily visible to those who suffer under it first. Those in power who support these plans for us rarely feel the effects very soon or at all and they are past adept at keeping their enforcers and agents happy and well rewarded... If things are going better with you than is the norm in your country there is a good chance that your part of the system that we are talking about here or not doing anything to fight it.

Stellar

[edit on 23-12-2006 by StellarX]



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
The onus of proof is on the one making the assertion.


Not really but it's a good way to suppress opinions and statements that runs contrary to those that were accepted by the establishment without any real 'onus of proof' on them.


If you make a claim, you need to provide proof, not expect the other party to disprove your assertion. Disproof of a negative is just poor logic.


You should not even think about using the world 'logic' as your views for the world does not in my opinion seem to involve all that much. If i make a claim and i state it as opinion i can pretty much say whatever i like and in threads like these i will be readily obvious what i consider fact and what i am speculating about; if you can not tell the difference go back to school or ask me without resorting to insult.


Then you have statements like this-
"Conventional explosives outside the building in a truck can just not do that as far as my knowledge goes."

What is your background to give you any authority on this subject?


Lots and lots of reading about conventional explosive types and their effects on the local environment to say nothing of the supporting physics that i have actually studied. All that hardly matters as i can quote military and civilian experts who will tell you this is in fact how it works.


A shaped charge makes nice neat holes(they're known as cutting charges), so that's not what you'd use to knock down a structure.


They have to be either in direct contact with the structure they are supposed to undermine/destroy or the charge has to be extremely large while not being very far away. To cause such structural damage to such a huge building by parking a truck where they said he did is not possible and at least some parts of the official story must be revised for this the official general scenario to become possible: according to our current understanding of physics anyways.


The ammonium nitrate that McVeigh used, was more omni directional, providing overpressure, which is consistent with the effects witnessed on the building in Oklahoma.


If you think Ammonium nitrate can do that kind of damage you either do not know much about explosives or have not investigated the official , contradictory i might add, government scenario.


Originally posted by BlueRaja
Oh, and Alex Jones isn't exactly the most credible source for anything. I wouldn't ask him directions to the bus station.


Alex Jones does not have to be credible as the source material he bases his views are extensive and you will be linked to them from his articles. If you have trouble reading and linking all the facts together, as he did, you might want to consider buying his video's as they are supposedly designed for a lay public that can't or want read and would rather not understand reality less it interferes with their perception of it.

Stellar



posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 06:24 PM
link   
So expecting evidence for an assertion, is a way of suppressing the truth?

It's one thing to be open minded, but when considering information, one must consider the veracity. All assertions aren't equally valid. You have to look at the soundness of the assertions before assigning them credibility. I'm open minded, but skeptical. I ask myself, is this plausible, credible, reasonable, etc...

One can use principals of logic to analyze claims-


Deductive Reasoning

Deductive reasoning is the kind of reasoning in which the conclusion is necessitated by, or reached from, previously known facts (the premises). If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. This is distinguished from abductive and inductive reasoning, where the premises may predict a high probability of the conclusion, but do not ensure that the conclusion is true.

Deductive reasoning may also be defined as inference in which the conclusion is of no greater generality than the premises or inference in which the conclusion is just as certain as the premises.

How it works
Somebody could say, "Since the street is wet, it must have rained". However, there is a hidden argument in this statement: "If it's raining then the street gets wet." Using the premise "If it's raining then the street gets wet" one could argue that "Since it's raining the street is wet" but not "The street is wet so it must be raining".

This is because the wet street is an unavoidable product created by the rain but the wet street does not have to be caused by rain. The basic statement "if something then something else" could logically be followed by "something is; so something else must be" and "something else is not; so something else cannot be". These are the first two basic valid reasoning types. A few examples follow:


[edit] Valid
Since Socrates is a man,
and since all men are mortal,
Socrates is mortal.
Since the picture is above the desk,
and since the desk is above the floor,
the picture is above the floor.
Since a cardinal is a bird,
and since all birds have wings,
a cardinal has wings.
All these sentences are of the form :

a -> b
b -> c
a -> c

[edit] Invalid:
Left wing politicians do not tolerate animal cruelty.
Richard thinks hitting a dog is wrong.
Richard is a left wing politician.
Every criminal opposes the government.
Everyone in the opposition party opposes the government;
Therefore, everyone in the opposition party is a criminal.
These are invalid because the premises fail to establish commonality between hitting a dog and being a left wing politician, and membership in the opposition party and being a criminal, respectively. This is the famous fallacy of the undistributed middle.

In other words, they are of the form :

a -> c
b -> c
b -> a

[edit] Popular misuses of the term
It is occasionally taught that deductive reasoning proceeds from the general to the particular, while inductive reasoning proceeds from the particular to the general. This is false - or at least, is not the way logicians use these terms. There are deductively valid arguments that proceed from the particular to the general (Oscar is grouchy, therefore something is grouchy) and inductive arguments that proceed from the general to the particular (most Rice University students are smart, therefore this particular Rice University student is smart).

Sherlock Holmes frequently describes his methods as involving deductive reasoning in the various stories about the character. However, most of his "deductions" in fact used inductive or abductive reasoning; very few were actually deductive in nature. There was nearly always some concievable, if vanishingly unlikely, way his conclusions could have turned out to be incorrect, a fact exploited by many parodies of the Sherlock Holmes stories.

Critical Thinking
Critical thinking consists of a mental process of analyzing or evaluating information, particularly statements or propositions that people have offered as true. It forms a process of reflecting upon the meaning of statements, examining the offered evidence and reasoning, and forming judgments about the facts.

Critical thinkers can gather such information from observation, experience, reasoning, and/or communication. Critical thinking has its basis in intellectual values that go beyond subject-matter divisions and which include: clarity, accuracy, precision, evidence, thoroughness and fairness.


en.wikipedia.org...

Occam's Razor
Occam's razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating, or "shaving off", those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. In short, when given two equally valid explanations for a phenomenon, one should embrace the less complicated formulation. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae (law of succinctness):

entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem,
which translates to:

entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.
This is often paraphrased as "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest hypothetical entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 07:10 PM
link   
"They have to be either in direct contact with the structure they are supposed to undermine/destroy or the charge has to be extremely large while not being very far away. To cause such structural damage to such a huge building by parking a truck where they said he did is not possible and at least some parts of the official story must be revised for this the official general scenario to become possible: according to our current understanding of physics anyways. "

So let's say you weren't right next to a 2000 bomb, when it exploded(assuming for our purposes that shrapnel isn't the issue), but say 100 feet away. You believe that you'd be alright, because it wasn't a shaped charge?

Overpressure-

Definition: (DOD, NATO) The pressure resulting from the blast wave of an explosion. It is referred to as "positive" when it exceeds atmospheric pressure and "negative" during the passage of the wave when resulting pressures are less than atmospheric pressure.

Omni directional blast rely on overpressure for their destructiveness.(i.e. clearing minefields, knocking structures down, killing folks that are in the vicinity of the blast, etc..)

Now let's consider atmospherics. Depending on temp/humidity/cloud cover/etc....shock waves can behave differently, as they'll travel through the air at different velocities, or for greater distances. A blast of a few hundred pounds of explosive, can shatter windows, and knock things off shelves, from several miles away, if you have the proper atmospheric conditions. Now let's consider the effects of 10,000+ pounds of explosives 100yds or less away. It could easily do the damage to unreinforced structures, that it did in McVeigh's case. Or was there a clever cover up, with explosives already inside the building, ready to go off, and the 5 tons of explosives outside was just the diversion?

I've been on demo ranges and seen the effects, so, I can tell you first hand that Ammonium Nitrate can have a huge explosive wallp. For certain applications, it is the preferred explosive, just as C-4, TNT, PETN, etc... may be preferred in other instances.
Shaped charges focus that blast on a small area to maximize the effect on a limited area(i.e. to punch holes through armor, cut neat holes in things)



posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by GT100FV
So expecting evidence for an assertion, is a way of suppressing the truth?


What can constitute evidence when the Earth was always round but the scientist denied it for so long?


It's one thing to be open minded, but when considering information, one must consider the veracity.


And who do you trust to guard the channels that brings this information to you? Why should every new idea ( that contradicts any belief already in place) be subject to such high standards of 'proof' when much of what is already believed would not even begin to stand up to the same scrutiny? The science establishment just protects whoever agrees with current norms and it has very little to do with how reality might objectively function.


All assertions aren't equally valid.


No assertion is essentially valid and all our theories does it lend us predictive powers for future investigation.


You have to look at the soundness of the assertions before assigning them credibility.


Sound based on who's opinion? What kind of nonsense statement is this? The 'soundness' of any statement is entirely based on prior perception hence the Earth was flat even thought it NEVER WAS. Don't tell me about 'soundness' otherwise you will have to explain why we did not have jet aircraft a thousand years ago. Do you really think their theories were not in their opinion internally consistent at the time? BAH!


I'm open minded, but skeptical. I ask myself, is this plausible, credible, reasonable, etc...


Your don't seem very open minded to me but this is the type of drama close minded people often indulge in. All scientific theories were not plausible from the moment we had brains ( despite the fact that objective have not changed since) so how can you pretend that we know what might be possible based on nothing but our current ignorance of reality? Why are the defenders of dogma so often more ignorant of the world around them than those who propose alternatives?

How can you argue that plausibility, reasonability and credibility is at all relevant when all of those things are so very subjective and can not determine objective reality any better than a person with no credibility using implausible unreasonable methods can? Reality is not determined by consensus and it does not matter how experienced, trained, objective, reasonable or sane the discoverer or proponent is or was.


One can use principals of logic to analyze claims-


I have found that few people who use the term 'logic' employs much of it and that logic predicated on popular notions and accepted norms are as good as useless to anyone who wants to discover more about reality than is already assumed known.


Deductive Reasoning

Deductive reasoning is the kind of reasoning in which the conclusion is necessitated by, or reached from, previously known facts (the premises). If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. This is distinguished


Well thanks for quoting material you probably understand as well as i do! What about the basic scenario's outlined in the real discussion ( from which your detracting) earlier bothers you and if so did not note that i did not set forth to prove them as true or even very likely?

I post in threads like these because i notice too many ignorant people telling others what is and isn't possible and if it's one thing i know it is that ignorant people lack imagination in almost direct proportion to their ignorance. Without imagination you should not bother getting involved in the sciences as your unlikely to much other than defend well established norms until someone comes along and easily disproves what seemed so real before.

Stellar



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join