Virgin Galactic Promo Video and serious question.

There was no attempt to 'derogate' you. I stated a fact. You made a sweeping generalisation about people who see UFOs, that's a fact. You assumed that I was insulted, when I wasn't, that's a fact. As a neutral observer to the thread, I can post my opinion as freely as you post your's.

While you are free to post your opinions, I would hardly call you neutral given your stance. And while the statement about people who see UFOs was a sweeping generalisation, something I freely admitted, it is still an observational question based on my experience, something you have yet to prove me wrong on.

"Why do only stupid people see UFOs?" is a generalisation that is false.

As I have already stated, prove so and I shall happily retract my statement.

To answer your question, when you score a warning from a moderator, which you did, then you were breaking the forum rules - you were trolling. You can see that one of your posts has been edited, where the personal attack that you made against someone has been removed. Again, that's trolling.

Hmm, thanks for pointing out that one of my posts was edited, I hadn't realised that until now. Kind of odd though since plenty of stuff that could be considered offensive has been left in posts prior to that.
Simply because I break the rules of a particular forum and a moderator 'warns' me does not mean I am a troll. So no that does not answer my question on how I was specifically being a troll, especially given that I aimed to answer the questions posed and had no intention of provoking response. I admit, as I have numerous times, that I am abrasive, but that does not make me a troll. Yes I made insults, that's just me being me, for me to be a troll there would have to be devious motive to my method, for which, once again as I have stated, there is not. Given that I had adjusted my attitude and that you have persisted on this particular issue in spite of that, would that not make you the troll?

No. Not at all. I am not implying that. Again, that's your assumption, without any facts.

...

People who believe things without hard evidence and rational judgement to back them up aren't intelligent, I'm sorry but that's reality, reality bites I know, but you've got to face it at some point.

Apparently, you live in a different reality to that which I do.

I have to assume (yes assume) that that is what you were referring to since where else have I asserted a specific definition of reality?

Some people believe in aliens, because they have seen them. They can't prove it to other people, but they have had first-hand experiences with aliens. Whether or not anyone else needs to believe them, or even cares to believe is up to them.

But by professing to others they intend for others to believe, and for that they need evidence. Regardless of that fact nothing there proves that those people are intelligent. I believe that I exist, and by all standards of my experience I do exist, that does not make me intelligent.
It would be so nice to see an intelligent person prove that aliens do visit us, it would provide me with hope that there is a way of escaping humanity's perpetual stupidity, so please do prove my sweeping generalisations wrong.

To be fair my generalisations were only made in passing and are only a small part of the entire debate I have put forward, so other than stating the obvious and telling me things for which most of I freely admit, what exactly is your point?

Originally posted by himselfe

tezzajw
"Why do only stupid people see UFOs?" is a generalisation that is false.

As I have already stated, prove so and I shall happily retract my statement.

I'm happy to leave the above quotes stand. You choose to label people who see UFOs, as being stupid. That's fine. That's your opinion.

Most people here can read the quotes and decide for themselves what to make of that two sentence exchange. I think that it sums you and your opinions up perfectly well and that's MY opinion.

I'm happy to leave the above quotes stand. You choose to label people who see UFOs, as being stupid. That's fine. That's your opinion.

Actually I was asking a question based on my experience in which I have yet to see an intelligent person assert that they have seen 'UFOs' (further clarified to only refer to alien visitors). I have also readily stated that simply seeing an 'UFO' does not make somebody stupid only that I ever see people lacking in intelligence professing to have seen UFOs, something that is not a generalisation because that really is all I've seen, and I find that idea kind of depressing so I would love to be proven wrong on that point.

Most people here can read the quotes and decide for themselves what to make of that two sentence exchange. I think that it sums you and your opinions up perfectly well and that's MY opinion.

I completely agree with you there, though I would recommend to anybody that they read the entire thread to gain a complete perspective from all sides.

I think it would be a safe bet that NASA on some levels has strong and hidden ties with the US military. Therefore to unquestionably accept their mission statement would be naive. It makes sense to consider the possibilty that hey are using technologies/the space platform for military gain as well as to further scientific knowledge for all. It would be naive to think otherwise. I am basing this assertion on 'reality' - ie the way things of this nature happen in the real world

I think it would be a safe bet that NASA on some levels has strong and hidden ties with the US military. Therefore to unquestionably accept their mission statement would be naive. It makes sense to consider the possibilty that hey are using technologies/the space platform for military gain as well as to further scientific knowledge for all. It would be naive to think otherwise. I am basing this assertion on 'reality' - ie the way things of this nature happen in the real world

NASA does indeed have strong ties with the US military, they make no secret of this, as a quick search on Google will show you. NASA is in part staffed by military personnel and NASA research and technology is readily used by the military.
I never stated that NASA's mission statement was unquestionable, I simply provided it as a logical proposition in aim to prove that the implications to the contrary were not backed by the available evidence.
No rational person unquestionably believes anything, especially without evidence, but for a rational person who uses logic and reasoning to believe something there must be evidence to back up any such rational decision they make.
If you're going to try and subvert an argument with it's own logic and reasoning, at least do your research.

"I never stated that NASA's mission statement was unquestionable, I simply provided it as a logical proposition in aim to prove that the implications to the contrary were not backed by the available evidence"
Blah, Blah....
You can't have it both ways mate. Just think about it for a tad, before you start again. You clearly are not as intelligent as you think you are.

For someone that had stated questionable interest in this site, you sure spend a lot of your time trying to debvate with so-called unintelligent people. Being antagonistic is easy. A sign of real skill and intelligence is someone that can put across a point in a non-inflamitory way, something which you have proved continually on this thread that you are incapable of doing. You have been labelled a troll, have got a hefty minus score, and this is for a reason. I suggest you seriously take a long hard look at your social skills before entering a public forum. If you were to approach a more popular thread in such a way, then others might be less forgiving....

Blah, Blah....
You can't have it both ways mate. Just think about it for a tad, before you start again. You clearly are not as intelligent as you think you are.

For someone that had stated questionable interest in this site, you sure spend a lot of your time trying to debvate with so-called unintelligent people. Being antagonistic is easy. A sign of real skill and intelligence is someone that can put across a point in a non-inflamitory way, something which you have proved continually on this thread that you are incapable of doing. You have been labelled a troll, have got a hefty minus score, and this is for a reason. I suggest you seriously take a long hard look at your social skills before entering a public forum. If you were to approach a more popular thread in such a way, then others might be less forgiving....

mmhm, you keep telling your self that. Meanwhile back at the ranch....

For anybody who wants proof of anything in relation to this debate, all they have to do is read back over the pages, personally I have no fear of what they will see, people will make their own minds up, as many of the people involved in this thread already have done. Honestly, I'd refute what you have just said but the rebuttal is already there, and evidently you're hardly worth the effort. Please do keep grabbing at straws, just remember, it's not me you're making a fool of.

I apologise for my last post, as I think it may have been unjust.
Starting afresh, and don't read anything subversive into the question below, as I am just wanting to continue this debate on a decent level, and interested in your take..

In your opinion, to what extend do you speculate Nasa's military activities are involved?

Sorry, that should have read:

In your opinion, to what extend do you speculate Nasa's military activities could be involved?

I think what's more deserving of a thread than Virgin vs. NASA's picture quality is Virgin vs. NASA's technological superiority!
What's the most suspect is the fact that NASA should have been able to come up with something other than the antiquated Challenger/Atlantis model of space craft years before some dude entering a contest.
Good for Virgin! Now that private industry's taking over space flight, maybe we can start mining those asteroids and begin actually exploring our solar system!
Or maybe this will begin the disclosure that NASA (or some other agency) has already had superior space flight technology, because if that's the case, the stuff's really gonna hit the fan once the first Virgin tourist spots a moon base!

In your opinion, to what extend do you speculate Nasa's military activities are involved?

To exactly what extent NASA and the military are involved I couldn't possibly state, other than based on what's available.
It is certain that many of the staff working for NASA are from the military, many astronauts and test pilots come from a background in the air force. NASA itself is essentially a civilian spin-off of what was a military space program, however NASA did not inherit primary military duties as the DoD itself had/has active space programs. NASA research has undoubtedly supported military applications through it's aeronautics research and other projects, and many of the companies contracted to do work for NASA, for example Lockheed Martin, are also (or are primarily as in the case of Lockheed) defence contractors.

Thanks for the replies.
Something that got my interest going is Gary McKinnon's declaration that he came across list of "Non-terrestrial Officers". I know this is only one man's testimony, but from articles (The Guardian, Sunday Telegraph), and a couple of his interiews I have seen online, not to mention the way his case is being handled (I have since signed his 10 Downing Street petition), I personally want to learn more.

Originally posted by V KaminskiBTW: I like Sir Richard and the loss of those folks out at Scaled Composites (his contractor/partner) can't be underestimated.

Cheers Q',

Vic

VK, What do you mean by the loss of the folks at SC?

Something that got my interest going is Gary McKinnon's declaration that he came across list of "Non-terrestrial Officers". I know this is only one man's testimony, but from articles (The Guardian, Sunday Telegraph), and a couple of his interiews I have seen online, not to mention the way his case is being handled (I have since signed his 10 Downing Street petition), I personally want to learn more.

The hacker story can be a very enticing and convincing one. When I was younger (around the age of 15), and was into the whole hacker/phreaker scene and the surrounding mythos, a friend and I met with a guy called Matthew Bevan who, under the hacker name Kuji, had hacked into US Air force systems. During that meeting he alleged that he had seen amazing technology that was beyond our current supposed capabilities. His story was an entrancing one, and for quite a while I believed he had uncovered some amazing evidence for government involvement in UFO activity, however there were a few crucial things missing. He provided no actual evidence for what he had seen, and when quizzed about what he had seen, he'd decline to go into specifics and became very sketchy in his facts. As I grew older and reminisced about that meeting I realised one thing I had completely overlooked in my youth naivety, his ego. Looking back at the conversations and his demeanour now it's become quite obvious that he was exaggerating many of his experiences for the sake of glory. His story, while brilliant, was almost as extravagant as the political spin in the allegations brought against him. There was no doubt that he had hacked into US Air Force computer systems as he was charged for it, however now that I am better informed it is obvious that his story was little more than glazing to awe two starry-eyed teenagers.
Consequentially there are striking similarities in the Gary McKinnon case. You could argue that these similarities would be due to an actual conspiracy happening, however there are a few important things you must remember: Both individuals were UFO obsessed, both individuals had bias in their aim to prove something, and yet despite this driving aim, both individuals have come up empty handed and become quite ambiguous when stating their facts. Gary McKinnon claims to have seen a 'low resolution' image of an object that "didn't look manmade or anything like what we have created", yet has very convenient excuses about why he is unable to reproduce this and the other images he has purportedly seen. You also have to consider (especially in the McKinnon case) that given the prevalence of crackers, and the supposed competence of the military at covering up such huge conspiracies, you'd think the military would have much tighter security around the computers and networks that had access to such information. If I can secure my data from any unauthorised access I'm pretty sure a large organisation with a huge budget and dedicated security specialists can do the same. Obviously they didn't with the computers and systems that McKinnon gained access to, but I can't imagine they'd be so lax with systems that contain sensitive data.

Good points. Thanks himselfe

But my point of interest is the severity, and alteration of existing law, of the Gary MicKinnon case. Following the legalities of this case (freegary.org), I find this to mean more than a guy's fantasy. If you follow me....

But my point of interest is the severity, and alteration of existing law, of the Gary MicKinnon case. Following the legalities of this case (freegary.org), I find this to mean more than a guy's fantasy. If you follow me....

Indeed the punishments he faces are disproportionally severe and unjust, however you must keep in mind that since 9/11 there has been a rolling ball in regards to laws surrounding extradition and legal relations with the US and other countries, and certain governments have always made a point of making examples of any hackers they catch and tend to treat hackers almost like terrorists (see Kevin Mitnick).

Originally posted by darkbluesky

Originally posted by V KaminskiBTW: I like Sir Richard and the loss of those folks out at Scaled Composites (his contractor/partner) can't be underestimated.

Cheers Q',

Vic

VK, What do you mean by the loss of the folks at SC?

here you go friend..


Updated: Fri, Jul 27, 2007, 6:54 AM ET (1054 GMT)
Originally Posted: Thu, Jul 26, 2007, 8:18 PM ET (0018 GMT)
An explosion at a Scaled Composites rocket test stand at Mojave Airport in California Thursday afternoon killed three people and injured three others. The explosion, described as a nitrous oxide "flash" explosion, took place around 5:30 pm EDT (2130 GMT) Thursday at a test stand on airport property. The test stand is operated by Scaled Composites and the three people killed were all Scaled employees. Scaled founder Burt Rutan said that the workers were performing a "cold flow" test using nitrous oxide, but without an ignition system. The test had been performed a number of times in the past without incident. Scaled is developing a hybrid propulsion system for SpaceShipTwo, the commercial suborbital passenger spacecraft it is building for Virgin Galactic. Mojave Airport is an FAA-licensed spaceport and is home to a number of entrepreneurial space companies besides Scaled.


Link


[edit on 4-8-2007 by Quantum_Squirrel]