Originally posted by dirkboy
Although the subject matter is quite serious and there IS a giant spider program going on, I must say, your guys artwork is quite good.. I dont know
to laugh or cry. Please understand the situation is quite serious and our remote viewers using quick stop holographic technology capable of rendering
remote views, (fast forward, rewind, stop.., zoom.. etc) ARE seeing the program with technical capability you have only dreamed..
At this point, I've given up on proof....I'd settle for a valid link, even if it was to the Weekly World News, that actually showed something to
support your claims.
Technically speaking, hiding something quite unbelievable in plain site has been accomplished....Remember the trojan horse. WHO WOULD SUSPECT THAT
CRAZY GIANT SPIDER IDEA!!! LETS MAKE ONE and use it against them..
Makes ever so much more sense than using genetic engineering to create super-human assassins and intelligence agents that could pass among an enemy
population looking like perfectly normal people. Did the holograph-enhanced remote viewers happen to see how these bio-technology terrors would be
deployed?
Oh.. Again I emphasize gene splicing as a route to overcome inherent genetic defects.. We see 5 legged pigs all the time now due to genetic
manipulation of the food supply.. Why dont you believe?
You can emphasize gene splicing as a route to overcoming genetic defects all you want. That has nothing to do with the impossibility of spiders big
enough to 'take down' aircraft, since the limitation on their size isn't genetic, it's mechanical. Look up something called the 'square-cube'
law.
Hang on a second. Here's a link for you, just in case your remote viewers aren't up to speed tonight. I'm keeping it simple, it's a wikipedia
link, so they use (mostly) small words and simple math.
Wiki - Square - Cube Law
I'll make it even easier, in case remote viewing doesn't allow hyperlinks:
The square-cube law is a principle, drawn from the mathematics of proportion, that is applied in engineering and biomechanics. It was first
demonstrated in 1638 in Galileo's Two New Sciences. It states:When an object undergoes a proportional increase in size, its new volume is
proportional to the cube of the multiplier and its new surface area is proportional to the square of the multiplier.
v_2=v_1\left(\frac{\ell_2}{\ell_1}\right)^3where v1 is the original volume, v2 is the new volume, \ell_1 is the original length and \ell_2 is
the new length. Note that it doesn't matter which length is used. A_2=A_1\left(\frac{\ell_2}{\ell_1}\right)^2where A1 is the original surface
area and A2 is the new surface area.For example, if a cube with a side length of 1 meter were doubled in size, its volume would be 8 m³ and its
surface area would be 24 m². This principle applies to all solids.
And the direct application to the subject at hand:
BiomechanicsIf an animal were scaled up by a considerable amount, its muscular strength would be severely reduced since the cross section of its
muscles would increase by the square of the scaling factor while their mass would increase by the cube of the scaling factor. As a result of this,
cardiovascular functions would be severely limited. In the case of flying animals, their wing loading would be increased if they were scaled up, and
they would therefore have to fly faster to gain the same amount of lift. This would be difficult considering that muscular strength was reduced. This
also explains how a bumblebee can have a large body relative to its wings, which would not be possible for a larger flying animal. Air resistance per
unit mass is also higher for smaller animals, which is why a small animal like an ant cannot die by falling from any height, but a tank could no more
survive a fall from a height of one mile than an elephant could.Because of this, the giant insects, spiders and other animals seen in horror movies
are unrealistic, as their sheer size would force them to collapse. The exceptions are giant aquatic animals, as water can support such enlarged
creatures.
Both quotes from the above-referenced link.
You asked "Why don't you believe?"...there's your answer. Do you have any reason why I should?