@Lou

Quote:

No, you would assume it was random neighborhood incident...

Another mischaracterization? Seems to be a theme with you.

Let's do another brief synopsys. Brian sees a slashed tire. Postulates various possibilities. Evidences those possibilties. The stalker was true and useful evidence allowed others to see the same conclusion. The stalker is in jail and girlfriend is safe from her ex. Lou sees a slashed tired. Postulates and concludes it's a stalker. The stalker happened to be true in this case. Because it's unevidenced the court can't make a definitive guilty ruling. The stalker goes free to torment you some more. Lou's head gets a bit flatter.

@BrianK

Sure, drift off topic when you are wrong.

@Lou

Quote:

Sure, drift off topic when you are wrong.

Do you always have problems understanding examples? I think it fairly and clearly highlighted the differences at play between Lou's belief and Brian's demand for evidence. Along with the usefulness in creating understanding in others of why something is likely to be the best explaination.


Mars Missions fail 50% of the time WOW! I was considering the 10-20% failures in general. The specific case is even more interesting. And even worse for those thinking this to be some sort of co-incident. So, Lou, if you really think someone doesn't want us to get to Phobos do you have any actual evidence of this belief? Or is it just another of your conflating the postulate to a conclusion?

Last edited by BrianK on 17-Nov-2011 at 02:13 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 17-Nov-2011 at 02:07 PM.

@BrianK

Let's get it clear, Phobos defies the laws of gravity because dirt sticks to it when it shouldn't. It's orbit is more that of an artificial satellite than a captured asteroid. It has interesting parallel grooves across its irregular surface. All attempts by the Russians to get close to it have failed. "Gas" (chemtrails?) was seen emitted from it before one Russian satellite was destroyed. It has a monolith on its surface.

You are actually being ridiculous now. In this case, the mundane does not suffice and that irks you.

@Lou

Quote:

Let's get it clear, Phobos defies the laws of gravity because dirt sticks to it when it shouldn't.

Really? So what object are you contending to have a larger gravitational pull on the surface of Phobos than Phobos?


Quote:

It's orbit is more that of an artificial satellite than a captured asteroid

Conjecture from the 50s and better evidence in the 60s disagrees.

Quote:

It has interesting parallel grooves across its irregular surface.

Yup the cracks are interesting.

Quote:

All attempts by the Russians to get close to it have failed.

50% of Mars missions fail. Russian's also have about 50% of the failures for the analyzed 20 year period. That Russians have some intermittent issues is nothing new.

Stating 'someone doesn't want us to get there' is an interesting postulate, I agree. Though without appropriate evidence you are unable to conclude that your guess indeed the truth. Making this conflation is only accomplished through a leap of faith.

Quote:

Gas" (chemtrails?) was seen emitted from it before one Russian satellite was destroyed

You've been telling us gasses are a naturally occuring item in the universe driven all by EM. Now all of a sudden gas in the universe is 'special'? It's clear Phobos gets hit by objects. There's many things this 'gas' could be. Including ejection from an impact. Again any evidence this is from unnatural causes?

Quote:

It has a monolith on its surface.

Monoliths naturally occur on Earth as well as other objects in our solar system. Existence of something with a right angle is not proof that the object came from a lifeform. I agree an interesting feature. I expect better observation will give us improved information. I'd be excited if this were alien in origin. How cool would that be! However, I won't be surprised to find, like the Face on Mars, this is simply a question of better evidence and better quality of evidence through improved resolution photography.

You are actually continuing to be ridiculous.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Let's get it clear, Phobos defies the laws of gravity because dirt sticks to it when it shouldn't. Really? So what object are you contending to have a larger gravitational pull on the surface of Phobos than Phobos?

Remember, it was your big-banging scientists that are puzzled by this not me:
Quote:

Phobos is covered with a layer of fine-grained regolith at least 100 meters thick; it is hypothesized to have been created by impacts from other bodies, but it is not known how the material stuck to an object with almost no gravity.

Quote:

Quote: It's orbit is more that of an artificial satellite than a captured asteroid Conjecture from the 50s and better evidence in the 60s disagrees.

It orbits so close to the planet that it moves around Mars faster than Mars itself rotates. Can you show me a gravitational simulation of Mars capturing such an asteroid and putting it in this particular orbit?

While we're on the subject of gravity. According to the big banging 'law of conservation of angular momentum' can you explain to me why two planet rotate in the opposite direction of all the others including the sun?

Quote:

Quote: All attempts by the Russians to get close to it have failed. 50% of Mars missions fail. Russian's also have about 50% of the failures for the analyzed 20 year period. That Russians have some intermittent issues is nothing new. Stating 'someone doesn't want us to get there' is an interesting postulate, I agree. Though without appropriate evidence you are unable to conclude that your guess indeed the truth. Making this conflation is only accomplished through a leap of faith.

Considering the Russians have an actual 95% success rate into space overall, I am amused how you play with the #'s...

Quote:

Quote: Gas" (chemtrails?) was seen emitted from it before one Russian satellite was destroyed You've been telling us gasses are a naturally occuring item in the universe driven all by EM. Now all of a sudden gas in the universe is 'special'? It's clear Phobos gets hit by objects. There's many things this 'gas' could be. Including ejection from an impact. Again any evidence this is from unnatural causes?

Only that a short time later the Russian satellite was destroyed. Once again the mundane is good enough for you.

Quote:

Quote: It has a monolith on its surface. Monoliths naturally occur on Earth as well as other objects in our solar system. Existence of something with a right angle is not proof that the object came from a lifeform. I agree an interesting feature. I expect better observation will give us improved information. I'd be excited if this were alien in origin. How cool would that be! However, I won't be surprised to find, like the Face on Mars, this is simply a question of better evidence and better quality of evidence through improved resolution photography. You are actually continuing to be ridiculous.

Oh really, where are these naturally occurring monoliths with square bases occurring? You haven't shown me one picture of such a naturally occurring structure anywhere. Until you do, your assertions are indeed ridiculous.

@Lou

Quote:

Remember, it was your big-banging scientists that are puzzled by this not me: Quote: Phobos is covered with a layer of fine-grained regolith at least 100 meters thick; it is hypothesized to have been created by impacts from other bodies, but it is not known how the material stuck to an object with almost no gravity

You've conflated 'not known' to 'defies the laws'. Again we see your conjecture is your conclusion. You have no evidence at this time to say it defines the laws. Instead we have a big 'not known' which hopefully we'll resolve, in whatever direction it resolves, through future observations and understanding.

Quote:

Can you show me a gravitational simulation of Mars capturing such an asteroid and putting it in this particular orbit?

Yes. Though again the conjecture of an artifical object was postulated in the 50s. In the late 60s we had sufficent data to understand where the 50s scientitists went wrong and why this object isn't an alien artifact.

You can say that 'PERHAPS an unknown alien race used unknown alien technology to artifically combine particles, in such a way that this is moon mimics a naturally occuring object in our solar system, for unknown reasons'. Though again note this is a postulate not a conclusion. (Hint: all the unknowns should lead you to the understanding of the difference.)

Quote:

Considering the Russians have an actual 95% success rate into space overall, I am amused how you play with the #'s

I've made available the evidence. Even if you want to discard it fine. I'll take your assertion of 95% being true. It certainly still backs that space travel is not 100%. You have still failed to meet the request of any evidence your conclusion of conspiracy to keep Russians away from Phobos.

Quote:

Only that a short time later the Russian satellite was destroyed.

What evidence do you have for this destruction? More unknown aliens with unknown technologies?

Quote:

Oh really, where are these naturally occurring monoliths with square bases occurring? You haven't shown me one picture of such a naturally occurring structure anywhere

.. I can certainly use Google for you. (Hopefully you know of these on earth?) But, really isn't this request laughable? You demand me to provide evidence and you've yet to provide a single iota and instead provide a continual stream of confusion as to what a postulate is and what a conclusion is.

Here's a good page for you... http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=188900 -- Look at the animation and image below. Clearly this does not have a square base. Looks to be a 3 sided object with one of the 3 sides curved. Look at the mock ups on the page... Not even the other conspiracy nutters are claiming this to be a square object.

Here's Mars based Monoliths Which under further examination have been found to be geologic features. Though this event could occur as impact projected material too. ... Again EVIDENCE. I've clearly stated this one on Phobos is 'unknown' but concluding it's manufactured by aliens is making a leap of faith with failing to find the evidence.

Aliens are quite strange beings. They go around the universe moving rocks about. Say on Phobos or building a wall for someone. They seem to like to move wheat about too. What's your guess on why they travel so many miles to crush a few wheat fields and move some boulders?

Last edited by BrianK on 17-Nov-2011 at 05:08 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 17-Nov-2011 at 04:59 PM.

@Lou

Scientists create Light from nothing I know you were laughing at 'virtual particles' but it appears though experimentation that the concept may have some merit. Newer evidence, future experiments. I know learning isn't something you want to occur but we're not born with a 'cookbook' of how to make a universe.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Remember, it was your big-banging scientists that are puzzled by this not me: Quote: Phobos is covered with a layer of fine-grained regolith at least 100 meters thick; it is hypothesized to have been created by impacts from other bodies, but it is not known how the material stuck to an object with almost no gravity You've conflated 'not known' to 'defies the laws'. Again we see your conjecture is your conclusion. You have no evidence at this time to say it defines the laws. Instead we have a big 'not known' which hopefully we'll resolve, in whatever direction it resolves, through future observations and understanding. Quote: Can you show me a gravitational simulation of Mars capturing such an asteroid and putting it in this particular orbit? Yes. Though again the conjecture of an artifical object was postulated in the 50s. In the late 60s we had sufficent data to understand where the 50s scientitists went wrong and why this object isn't an alien artifact. You can say that 'PERHAPS an unknown alien race used unknown alien technology to artifically combine particles, in such a way that this is moon mimics a naturally occuring object in our solar system, for unknown reasons'. Though again note this is a postulate not a conclusion. (Hint: all the unknowns should lead you to the understanding of the difference.) Quote: Considering the Russians have an actual 95% success rate into space overall, I am amused how you play with the #'s I've made available the evidence. Even if you want to discard it fine. I'll take your assertion of 95% being true. It certainly still backs that space travel is not 100%. You have still failed to meet the request of any evidence your conclusion of conspiracy to keep Russians away from Phobos. Quote: Only that a short time later the Russian satellite was destroyed. What evidence do you have for this destruction? More unknown aliens with unknown technologies? Quote: Oh really, where are these naturally occurring monoliths with square bases occurring? You haven't shown me one picture of such a naturally occurring structure anywhere .. I can certainly use Google for you. (Hopefully you know of these on earth?) But, really isn't this request laughable? You demand me to provide evidence and you've yet to provide a single iota and instead provide a continual stream of confusion as to what a postulate is and what a conclusion is. Here's a good page for you... http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=188900 -- Look at the animation and image below. Clearly this does not have a square base. Looks to be a 3 sided object with one of the 3 sides curved. Look at the mock ups on the page... Not even the other conspiracy nutters are claiming this to be a square object.

Perhaps you should actually read what you link. Further down in the thread here's what you get: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2W1YewyfEZc

So we have Russians admitting it was a UFO that was pictured before Phobos 2 went "silent"...hmmm... {mundane factor set to negative}


Quote:

Here's Mars based Monoliths Which under further examination have been found to be geologic features. Though this event could occur as impact projected material too. ... Again EVIDENCE. I've clearly stated this one on Phobos is 'unknown' but concluding it's manufactured by aliens is making a leap of faith with failing to find the evidence. Aliens are quite strange beings. They go around the universe moving rocks about. Say on Phobos or building a wall for someone. They seem to like to move wheat about too. What's your guess on why they travel so many miles to crush a few wheat fields and move some boulders?

Again, you need to read carefully! Monoliths seem to be common...FOR MARS! However they have not been proven to be "natural" just common. Coincidentally, Skyscapers are common occurrences on earth. Clearly if visitors from other planets came to this one after all civilization was lost, they would obviously assume mother nature created the skyscrapers... /fail

I think the laws of "for BrianK everything must be mundane" are being broken...a tragedy....

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Scientists create Light from nothing I know you were laughing at 'virtual particles' but it appears though experimentation that the concept may have some merit. Newer evidence, future experiments. I know learning isn't something you want to occur but we're not born with a 'cookbook' of how to make a universe.

It was proven some time ago that matter is merely fluctuations(waves) in vacuum. They with *shock* *horror* with magnetic YES MAGNETIC fields induced a wave.

Why are you suprised by this? After all, it's an electric universe...

@Lou

Quote:

Perhaps you should actually read what you link

Lou you've accused me of 'changing the subject' and I'd level that charge at you here. Instead of discussing how your conclusions are nothing but unsupported postulates you move onto some other line of discussion. I'm fine with moving on as I've come to expect your failures in evidencing conclusions. But, do want to note that is what is happening.

Thanks for the video - Dean Stockwell has been a favorite of mine since he played Ben.

Quote:

So we have Russians admitting it was a UFO

Yes we have Russians admitting it's not been identified. Related to Phobos 2 is also the shadowy disc on Mars from the same flight. Apparently the object creating that would have to be about 13 miles in size. Not sure why Visitors would need such a big craft. Perhaps they all left at once headed home to Iscandar?

Quote:

Clearly if visitors from other planets came to this one after all civilization was lost, they would obviously assume mother nature created the skyscrapers

I am highly skeptical of this conclusion. IMO a Visitor would have Material Engineering knowledge, afterall they built the spaceships, and so would be able to identify a natural vs man-made object.

Besides the Vistors love for moving boulders and squashing wheat there's another interesting aspect this brings up. Visitors have an uncanny ability of garbage collection. They get every miniscule amount of trash collected and removed as they leave. I encourage campers to always bring out what they bring in. Glad to see our alien overlords take this philosophy to the nth degree.

As for the new experiments indicating there might be truth to the 40 year old postulate I thought you'd enjoy it. Glad you did. Though I don't know if you can say this Quote:

YES MAGNETIC fields induced a wave.

. An EM field is defined as the region where the continous structure of the EM wave exists. If you want to look at the quantum view it'd be the area defined by the particles instead of the wave. Either way the field doesn't cause (eg induce) the wave but would be a collection of the waves.

Last edited by BrianK on 17-Nov-2011 at 07:01 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Perhaps you should actually read what you link Lou you've accused me of 'changing the subject' and I'd level that charge at you here. Instead of discussing how your conclusions are nothing but unsupported postulates you move onto some other line of discussion. I'm fine with moving on as I've come to expect your failures in evidencing conclusions. But, do want to note that is what is happening. Thanks for the video - Dean Stockwell has been a favorite of mine since he played Ben.

Typical mundane answer from BrianK... /yawn

Quote:

Quote: So we have Russians admitting it was a UFO Yes we have Russians admitting it's not been identified. Related to Phobos 2 is also the shadowy disc on Mars from the same flight. Apparently the object creating that would have to be about 13 miles in size. Not sure why Visitors would need such a big craft. Perhaps they all left at once headed home to Iscandar?

What's the matter, BrianK, can't your shadow be taller than you are?

Quote:

Quote: Clearly if visitors from other planets came to this one after all civilization was lost, they would obviously assume mother nature created the skyscrapers I am highly skeptical of this conclusion. IMO a Visitor would have Material Engineering knowledge, afterall they built the spaceships, and so would be able to identify a natural vs man-made object.

Yes, if they got close enough to it. What we get are censored images and certainly never up close ones.

Quote:

As for the new experiments indicating there might be truth to the 40 year old postulate I thought you'd enjoy it. Glad you did. Though I don't know if you can say this Quote: YES MAGNETIC fields induced a wave. . An EM field is defined as the region where the continous structure of the EM wave exists. If you want to look at the quantum view it'd be the area defined by the particles instead of the wave. Either way the field doesn't cause (eg induce) the wave but would be a collection of the waves.

But the quantum *view* is just a *view*. A paradigm. Look up wave-particle duality.
Now look at a sine wave. Let's say we can only measure the existence of a 'particle' when it's on the >.5 of a +/-1 scale sine wave. This is why when attempting to deal with particles (vs. waves) they "pop in and out of existence". There are no virtual particles, only waves. This is also why you have those probablity distribution charts, its a matter of where the wave is hitting when we take the measurement.

@Lou

Quote:

Typical mundane answer from BrianK... /yawn

I know having to evidence a conclusion so someone besides Lou may ascertain the truth is so difficult and yet consistent with science's demands.

Quote:

What's the matter, BrianK, can't your shadow be taller than you are?

Wow either I can take the UFOlogist at their word or evidence it. Now you want me to evidence this stuff for you? Don't forget shadows can be shorter too, hmmm. And shadows can be destorted depending upon the angle... The answer is we're still guessing what created this shadow. Calling it ET is again unevidenced postulates masquerading as a conclusion.

Quote:

What we get are censored images and certainly never up close ones.

That would assume that up close ones do exist. Again got any evidence?

Quote:

But the quantum *view* is just a *view*. A paradigm. Look up wave-particle duality

Let me reexplain as you appear to be off on a vaguely related tangent. Within Quantum Physics the EM Field is that area defined by the group of particles emitted from the item. WIthin Classic Physics the EM Field is that area defined by the group of waves emitted from the item. Neither definition says that the field causes the a wave, as you had stated.

Think of it this way. Walden Pond is a fairly famous pond in Mass. The Pond (Field) is defined by the 3 dimensional area that contains the waves (Classic) or contains the water molecules (Quantum). In no way does the Pond induce the waves. And in no way does the field induce the waves.

Last edited by BrianK on 17-Nov-2011 at 10:54 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 17-Nov-2011 at 09:47 PM.

BREAKING NEWS: Government agencies lie, even to each other!
http://news.yahoo.com/judge-fbi-must-pay-penalty-calif-muslims-043306148.html

In other news, BrianK will always believe their official stories no matter what.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Typical mundane answer from BrianK... /yawn I know having to evidence a conclusion so someone besides Lou may ascertain the truth is so difficult and yet consistent with science's demands.

From having a friend who works for the FBI, I know they do indeed infiltrate social forums. At this point I'm ready to accept you as a dissident for disinformation or someone who enjoys living in a box.

Quote:

Quote: What's the matter, BrianK, can't your shadow be taller than you are? Wow either I can take the UFOlogist at their word or evidence it. Now you want me to evidence this stuff for you? Don't forget shadows can be shorter too, hmmm. And shadows can be destorted depending upon the angle... The answer is we're still guessing what created this shadow. Calling it ET is again unevidenced postulates masquerading as a conclusion.

Mars' atmosphere is smaller than earth's. The moon does eclipse the sun quite easily, I image something closer to the surface of mars but much smaller than the moon could achieve what you saw. But, I know, it doesn't meet your utterly mundane criteria factor.

Quote:

Quote: What we get are censored images and certainly never up close ones. That would assume that up close ones do exist. Again got any evidence?

What part of the word "censored" did you fail to comprehend. With 2 rovers traversing the surface of Mars as well as several satellites, you'd think NASA (yea freaking right) would be interested in those areas vs. the flat boring areas. No?

Quote:

Quote: But the quantum *view* is just a *view*. A paradigm. Look up wave-particle duality Let me reexplain as you appear to be off on a vaguely related tangent. Within Quantum Physics the EM Field is that area defined by the group of particles emitted from the item. WIthin Classic Physics the EM Field is that area defined by the group of waves emitted from the item. Neither definition says that the field causes the a wave, as you had stated. Think of it this way. Walden Pond is a fairly famous pond in Mass. The Pond (Field) is defined by the 3 dimensional area that contains the waves (Classic) or contains the water molecules (Quantum). In no way does the Pond induce the waves. And in no way does the field induce the waves.

/yawn

Let me put it in simpler terms. They used energy to create magnetic fields concentrated in a area and were stupid enough to be suprised by seeing energy where they concentrated their energy fields.

@Lou

Gov lie to each other? So while Russia may be lying about the UFO we must ask how to figure out if they are lying. My answer is - evidence and vigilent skepticsm. The Lou model was accept the Russian gov at face value while accepting that gov lie. -- This unquestioned acceptence and failure to determine if this is, or isn't a lie is a huge problem. Perhaps you're finally getting the importance of verification?

Quote:

I image something closer to the surface of mars but much smaller than the moon could achieve what you saw. But, I know, it doesn't meet your utterly mundane criteria factor.

The important point is not concluding when we really don't have the evidence. It's likely something. What that something was we'll not know.

Quote:

With 2 rovers traversing the surface of Mars as well as several satellites, you'd think NASA (yea freaking right) would be interested in those areas vs. the flat boring areas. No?

Mars is a big place that's largely unexplored. Flat areas are clearly easier to build robots to explore. And should be just as interesting when the exploration is looking for rocks, minerals, and chemicals.

Though the scientific quest continues. In a week, 11/25 expected, is the launch of Curiosity. Looking for the possibility of microbial life. It's supposed to climb a roughly 3.5mile hill. So at least you'll get some less flat areas.

Mars has a CO2 rich atmosphere. We could probably grow some crops there, or near the poles where there would be water. I'd like to see a 1 way mission. In the olden times it was hoped but accepted that ships may not return. (Heck Magellan left with 5 ships and over 200 men. He died and never really made it around the world himself. Most of the men died and not all ships returned.) Some older astronaunts would probably be happy to go live out their final days trying to make farming and a small station work.

Quote:

They used energy to create magnetic fields concentrated in a area and were stupid enough to be suprised by seeing energy where they concentrated their energy fields.

They were surprised? I suppose so. The experiment was built to confirm a postulate that had little to no othe evidence. The outcome was unknown but I don't think they were surprised. Though note this is another example of what I've requested time and again. A 40 year old postulate is subjected to experimentation and observation. Science's next steps are skepticism - identify issues to improve the experiment and see if the results are duplicatable with other experiments. Building ever increasing evidence is the best way to understand what's going on in our universe. ... As you say my Box! It's a wonderful box that demands we don't confusion postulate and conclusions. Instead we take those very important step of evidencing and questions. There's a word for what is built in that box. --> Understanding.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Gov lie to each other? So while Russia may be lying about the UFO we must ask how to figure out if they are lying. My answer is - evidence and vigilent skepticsm. The Lou model was accept the Russian gov at face value while accepting that gov lie. -- This unquestioned acceptence and failure to determine if this is, or isn't a lie is a huge problem. Perhaps you're finally getting the importance of verification?

Which is why a Russian held a press conference at the consulate in California, away from direct government invervention...

Quote:

Quote: I image something closer to the surface of mars but much smaller than the moon could achieve what you saw. But, I know, it doesn't meet your utterly mundane criteria factor. The important point is not concluding when we really don't have the evidence. It's likely something. What that something was we'll not know.

Again, you display your happiness with the mundane...

Quote:

Quote: With 2 rovers traversing the surface of Mars as well as several satellites, you'd think NASA (yea freaking right) would be interested in those areas vs. the flat boring areas. No? Mars is a big place that's largely unexplored. Flat areas are clearly easier to build robots to explore. And should be just as interesting when the exploration is looking for rocks, minerals, and chemicals. Though the scientific quest continues. In a week, 11/25 expected, is the launch of Curiosity. Looking for the possibility of microbial life. It's supposed to climb a roughly 3.5mile hill. So at least you'll get some less flat areas. Mars has a CO2 rich atmosphere. We could probably grow some crops there, or near the poles where there would be water. I'd like to see a 1 way mission. In the olden times it was hoped but accepted that ships may not return. (Heck Magellan left with 5 ships and over 200 men. He died and never really made it around the world himself. Most of the men died and not all ships returned.) Some older astronaunts would probably be happy to go live out their final days trying to make farming and a small station work.

It rains and snows on Mars. The unit we landed on its north pole already confirmed this.

You only see what you're allowed to see from the rovers. One of the disclosure project witnesses that worked in NASA already confirmed this.

Quote:

Quote: They used energy to create magnetic fields concentrated in a area and were stupid enough to be suprised by seeing energy where they concentrated their energy fields. They were surprised? I suppose so. The experiment was built to confirm a postulate that had little to no othe evidence. The outcome was unknown but I don't think they were surprised. Though note this is another example of what I've requested time and again. A 40 year old postulate is subjected to experimentation and observation. Science's next steps are skepticism - identify issues to improve the experiment and see if the results are duplicatable with other experiments. Building ever increasing evidence is the best way to understand what's going on in our universe. ... As you say my Box! It's a wonderful box that demands we don't confusion postulate and conclusions. Instead we take those very important step of evidencing and questions. There's a word for what is built in that box. --> Understanding.

This was a reverse solar cell experiment. Instead of capturing light(EM) to generate electricity, they used electricity to generate light. Newsflash: light is EM. Next they might try showing us that a wheel is round....

Perhaps this can help you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SNfeL2nSXU
followed by
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcCLIwlbhLc

@Lou & BrianK: Very interesting reading your comments about Phobos. About the stripes: They shouldn´t be so hard to explain, similar features have been seen on several moons in the solar system, many of them photographed by Cassini. The most logical explanation would be impacts with a very small angle, IE coming in almost vertical to the surface. Another explanation is the moon crossing an impact plume of some sort.

I think we know too little about Phobos to make drastic conclusions. I was hoping for the recent Russian mission to give some answers but it is now stuck in Earth orbit and will most likely never reach Phobos.

It would be really exiting if future missions reveal exiting stuff about Phobos. Maybe the Americans will beat the Russians? Many American scientist argue that a manned mission to Phobos would be to prefer before a mission to Mars. This is mostly because of the low gravity on Phobos which will make it a lot easier to land and take off from.

edit: typo

Last edited by Niolator on 18-Nov-2011 at 05:29 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

Which is why a Russian held a press conference at the consulate in California, away from direct government invervention

So holding a press conference on foreign soil ensures truth?

Quote:

Again, you display your happiness with the mundane...

Or perhaps more fairly said my unhappiness of leap of faiths to claim a conclusion.

Quote:

It rains and snows on Mars. The unit we landed on its north pole already confirmed this.

Sure but though we're farily far from having predictive models of frequencies and amounts. If you were a traveller heavily dependent upon water would you want to be in an unpredictable and unknown region or would you prefer to setup your camp right next to the water you need to survive?

Quote:

You only see what you're allowed to see from the rovers

Google claimed to have images prior to NASA and raw, as in not processed by scientists. Google Mars 3D So whom might be lying here NASA? Google? Your sources? Again we need evidence to figure out the liar(s).

As a note it seems to me the UFO community was remiss in failing to tap into the feed. A wonderful opportunity was available to them to tap into these live feeds. They could have monitored and recoreded the transmissions and know how much we might or might not have. Heck even if highly encrypted they still could have recorded the signal. Then over time a hacker could unencrypt. IMO UFO believers need to be more involved in gathering the data to show they're right. 1 shadow in 1 picture is hardly compelling.

Last edited by BrianK on 18-Nov-2011 at 07:09 PM.

http://brazilweirdnews.blogspot.com/2011/04/alien-fossil-discovered-in-egyptian.html