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.
You never saw the videos on youtube of guys making complex shapes in crop circles that can only be appreciated from the air?
Originally posted by FreedomCommander
I'm not saying that the Nazca plains is a landing strip, that was your saying. What I'm saying is that you need to be on the air to see them, and I don't think you could make them by being on the ground the whole time.
Just a cryptic comment with no meaning that's apparent. Most of what I run across from Japan lately is stuff like heated protests over re-opening nuclear plants so I'm not used to seeing them chillin, that radiation is pretty hot.
If one looks at the inventions of the past, your more likely to come up with new things of the future, take for example Japan, they looked to the past, and look at them now, they are chillin'.
This? What does that prove?
And have you even read the Vaimanika Shastra?
So the way to meet God is by flying an airplane to God's house. How does this prove anything?
Maharshi Bharadwaaja:
I make obeisance to the Divine Being, who is visible on the crest of the Vedas, who is the fountain of eternal bliss, and whose abode is reached by Vimaanas or Aeroplanes.
You really don't research things very well:
Originally posted by FreedomCommander
I'm still having a hard time trying to get my head wrapped around the whole Nazca lines being done without a in-the-sky shot.
I guess you missed this. But even if they weren't visible from the foothills, you never addressed my point about how guys make extremely complex crop circle shapes that can't be appreciated from the ground. You just ignore things that contradict your distorted viewpoint? I guess so.
Contrary to the popular belief that the lines and figures can only be seen with the aid of flight, they are visible from atop the surrounding foothills.
You don't see the relevance? If it's an incredible story, it's not credible. If the part about flying to visit god on a mountaintop isn't real, why would you assume anything else is?
However, I'm more focusing on what is built, not who is in the sky.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Nazca Lines
I guess you missed this. But even if they weren't visible from the foothills, you never addressed my point about how guys make extremely complex crop circle shapes that can't be appreciated from the ground. You just ignore things that contradict your distorted viewpoint? I guess so.
Contrary to the popular belief that the lines and figures can only be seen with the aid of flight, they are visible from atop the surrounding foothills.
You don't see the relevance? If it's an incredible story, it's not credible. If the part about flying to visit god on a mountaintop isn't real, why would you assume anything else is?
However, I'm more focusing on what is built, not who is in the sky.
So if I wrote that I visited Zmorg in the Perseus star system on my rocket powered bike, you'd be interested in my rocket powered bike and not worried about the rest of the story?
You believe what you wish to believe, which was the main option available before science.
Originally posted by FreedomCommander
people usually like to see things with their own eyes, hear what they hear, and believe what they wish to believe.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Now that we have science, we are offered another choice: to believe what can be demonstrated with facts, evidence, and repeatable experiments. Sometimes this evidence doesn't show us what we wish to believe, so then we have a choice:
-believe what you wish to believe, or,
-believe the evidence.
They said it was a meteor, but do meteors cause a massive amount of heat, a massive amount of light that can reach all the way to London to where a person can read a newspaper at night without a light?
This post should be put on "Weapons" Thread, but I need to do this first. Ignorance, in any shape or form, is what kills people. I'm not one to kill, and I don't have the heart to kill a person that has done nothing but good. But the only heart I have towards those who do evil is the one that shows them that they don't have to be like this.
Galen Winsor is a nuclear physicist of renown who worked at, and helped design, nuclear power plants in Hanford, WA; Oak Ridge, TN; Morris, IL, San Jose, CA; Wimington, NJ. Among his positions of expertise he was in charge of measuring and controlling the nuclear fuel inventory and storage.
Actually the source FreedomCommander used lists several reasons why it's not a meteor but probably a comet instead, so I have no idea why he's contradicting his own source? The bright night skies have been cited as possible evidence of a cometary tail causing the illumination as the Earth passed through it, and a primarily rocky body doesn't normally have a cometary tail.
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FreedomCommander
They said it was a meteor, but do meteors cause a massive amount of heat, a massive amount of light that can reach all the way to London to where a person can read a newspaper at night without a light?
Yes, they do, actually. The Tungaska event was more likely caused by a comet, though. The volatiles would have made it more explosive.
Here's a list of unexplained explosion events:
Originally posted by FreedomCommander
Plus, name another incident that happened like that incident. I can't find any, can you?
I have estimated that the frequency of Tunguska-type impacts worldwide is only about once in a thousand years. That's on the edge of implausible since one happened only a century ago, but I think anything more often than once a century is inconsistent both with historical records and with observations of NEAs in space.
Light is by definition a form of radiation, called electromagnetic radiation. But light isn't composed of positive charges. UV light can cause skin cancer, so yes some light radiation can be harmful.
Originally posted by FreedomCommander
But the interesting thing is, out of all of them, have any of them given off light to a large area? I keep on finding only that event.
Why?
As well, it's radiation. Radiation is mainly composed of positive charges, very dangerous for a human being.
The other bolides weren't as large and probably didn't have as much ice content, so I'm guessing that's why they didn't light up the sky.
night skies in Asia and Europe were aglow;[12] it has been theorized that this was due to light passing through high-altitude ice particles formed at extremely low temperatures, a phenomenon that occurred again when the Space Shuttle re-entered the Earth's atmosphere.
Probably for the same reason that the western US got hit with higher radiation levels from Fukushima than the Eastern US did. Things can move around in the atmosphere and stratosphere but that doesn't mean the range is unlimited.
Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by Arbitrageur
why say that? When light diffracts it grows less and less. How is it possible for light to be shown at ~7000 miles but not in the US all due to a supposed "Meteor"?
When did you "told me" that?
Originally posted by FreedomCommander
But haven't I told you that radiation, if in the right doses and the right treatments, that it will help a person live better?
you got about half that right and half wrong.
Originally posted by FreedomCommander
There are three types of radiation, Alpha, Beta, and Gamma.
Alpha rays are consisting of helium nuclei or a bunch of protons, neutrons and electrons. Unknown number of them.
Beta rays are consisting of electrons of ordinary electricity.
Gamma rays are consisting of ether particles of a large negative charge nature. They have no more of a penetrating ability than a stream of very negative charged electrons and they are no more harmful than that same stream of electrons. This also say that they cannot penetrate as readily as other electrons.
That only leaves one type of ray that is dangerous, the Alpha.
So the killing properties of gamma rays can be good if they are used to kill cancer cells, or kill organisms growing in the food we eat. But because they are so hard to stop, they can be far deadlier than alpha particles.
Gamma radiation is often used to kill living organisms, in a process called irradiation. Applications of this include sterilizing medical equipment (as an alternative to autoclaves or chemical means), removing decay-causing bacteria from many foods or preventing fruit and vegetables from sprouting to maintain freshness and flavor.
Despite their cancer-causing properties, gamma rays are also used to treat some types of cancer, since the rays kill cancer cells also. In the procedure called gamma-knife surgery, multiple concentrated beams of gamma rays are directed on the growth in order to kill the cancerous cells. The beams are aimed from different angles to concentrate the radiation on the growth while minimizing damage to surrounding tissues.