Posted on 06/07/2010 1:39:25 PM PDT by JoeProBono
“Yeah, I see your as accurate as your brother delusionals.”
Hey, what’s your problem, buddy? I made a legitimate, and CORRECT observation, and you stoop to personal insults?
Let me repeat, CORRECT observation:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/space/article7107207.ece
Not that I take my marching orders from anybody else, anyway, no matter how intelligent. I haven’t even expressed an opinion on this, but now I have an opinion on you...
"I made a legitimate, and CORRECT observation . . ."Oh really? You might want to revisit your own words:
"Odd that you use Hawking, considering he is fairly sympathetic to the possibility of alien visitors."In fact as my previous quotations show, he does not believe that we have been visited by aliens in UFO's, which, along with the question of Friedman's sanity, is the topic of this entire discussion, into which you injected yourself. Apparently the truth offends you.
“As an aside, I remember that in the Epic of Gilgamesh, there are stories which parallel the Old Testament. For example (and I find this odd as h$ll), it said that the gods (those beings which spoke to man through auditory hallucinations) left the earth for the safety of the heavens (whatever that means) at the time of the flood.”
FWIW: Zecharia Stichin claims from his translation of various Sumeiran writings that the Anninaki (Those Who Came Down) fled the Earth before the Flood...
Thanks for taking the time to read my long-winded comment (my ex-wife says they are a great cure for insomnia) and responding.
BTW, as you probably noticed, I pinged The Comedian and Quix so that they might stay abreast of this discussion (of which I know they are both interested and knowledgeable).
I think (though it takes so darn much research to feel certain) that the Sumerian god Anu is the father of the Annunaki...and the Annunaki were a race of Nephilim (and we know what that means)!
As ancient as this is, it is very exciting.
Please either add me to your pings lists or keep me in mind (for a ping) when you post stuff on this subject.
And please don't hesitate to include me in any discussion you may have on this matter...I am fascinated by it and much of my reading is this general direction.
Asking why is reasonable.
Seeking a maximum amount of proof is reasonable.
Denying the validity of thousands of cases of expert testimony is not reasonable.
Denying the validity of thousands of cases of scientific study of tangible hard evidence is not reasonable.
Bending so far over backwards to avoid a TYPE I ERROR that one is obsessively, compulsively sucking the tit of a TYPE II ERROR 24/7 is NOT REASONABLE.
I gather you’re not acquainted with his assertions on the topic that have come out in the last 60 days or so.
Typical of naysayers.
I’m guessing an extra several hundred square feet every year or so . . . as a minimum.
Thumbs up, Quix!
It kind of goes with the territory.
I used to try and play nice with the naysayers.
They usually BEGAN AS NOW—WITH THE PERSONAL INSULTS—usually about IQ, SANITY etc.
I found over the years that unless they get some ‘TUDE back in their faces, their relentless absurd nastiness just escalates etc.
Dumping some of what they dish out back onto them doesn’t usually make for serenity and they usually go ape in response for a while . . . but at least they know not all of us will roll over and play dead to their obnoxious mean absurdities.
And, the fire-works do add a certain kind of energy to the threads and keep them bumped up.
The mods are no help—some of them seem to have the same attitudes as the naysayers. Sometimes I wonder if both are paid undercover government shills sabotaging FR.
THX THX.
Will check your status on the UFO ping list . . .
You are on the least frequented level of the UFO ping list—as you have been for a long time.
As it has tended to happen the last year, that’s mostly the one that I use as I am too busy most of the time to bother with the lesser levels.
THX THX.
Miss your posts.
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2010/jun/08/hawkings-warning-opens-debate/
I find these paragraphs very pregnant with meaning and import:
@@@@@
In response to Hawking’s warning, The Journal of Cosmology, a scholarly journal of astronomy and astrophysics associated with the Department of Astronomy, Center for Astrophysics, at Harvard-Smithsonian in Cambridge, Mass., published the views of 12 scientists commenting on Hawking’s ET statements. According to the Los Angeles Times, “some criticized Hawking’s use of human behavior to predict what aliens would do, but others said human behavior was a reasonable yardstick. Few, however, questioned the premise of Hawking’s statements — that alien life forms probably exist and we are likely someday to encounter them.”
For those who study of the politics of extraterrestrial contact — the exopolitics community — and many in the UFO research community, Hawking’s statement was a double-edged sword. On the one hand, he brought the ET topic front and center. On the other, his statement runs counter to the opinion and claims of numerous exopolitical analysts and hundreds of UFO researchers and highly credentialed witnesses who firmly believe ET/Earth contact has been well-documented and has been a long-term phenomenon.
Among those offended by Hawking’s pronouncement was former Canadian Defense Minister Paul Hellyer, who is the longest-serving current member of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada.
On May 2, Hellyer publicly defended extraterrestrial civilizations, which he strongly believes have not only visited Earth but also have contributed positively to human technological advancement. “The reality is that they’ve been visiting Earth for decades and probably millennia and have contributed to our knowledge,” Hellyer said. “Microchips, for example, fiber-optics, they are just two of the things that allegedly … came from crashed vehicles.”
In an interview, Hellyer said: “I think Professor Hawking is indulging in some pretty scary talk that I would have hoped would not come from someone with such an established stature. I think it’s really sad that a scientist of his repute would contribute to what I would consider more misinformation about a vast and very important subject.”
A May 5 report by Zland Communications Network also added to the UFO/ET discussion. That report said in 1984 beloved astronomer/astrophysicist Carl Sagan revealed to J. Allen Hynek that he, like Hynek, believed UFOs are real. Hynek, a former professor of astronomy at Ohio State University and at Northwestern University, served as civilian scientific consultant to the U.S. Air Force’s seminal UFO study know as Project Blue Book (1952-69).
At the outset, Hynek was a UFO debunker and, as he said, was an “arch-enemy of those flying saucer groups and enthusiasts who very dearly wanted UFOs to be interplanetary.”
. . .
Sagan’s alleged UFO revelation was cited by Hynek’s former colleague, photojournalist and investigative reporter Paola Leopizzi-Harris.
“My recollection is that Hynek said it was backstage of one of the many Johnny Carson Tonight Shows Sagan did,” Leopizzi-Harris said. “He basically said” to Hynek “in 1984, ‘I know UFOs are real, but I would not risk my research funding, as you do, to talk openly about them in public.’ ” This comment was in stark contrast to many of Sagan’s earlier statements, including one at a 1968 meeting of the U.S. House Committee on Science and Astronautics at which he said: “I do not think the evidence is at all persuasive, that UFOs are of intelligent extraterrestrial origin.”
@@@@@@@@@@@@@
I've met Paola Leopizzi Harris this last March.
She's an excellent interviewer and clearly skilled at getting to the meat of issues and to the candid core of whatever the interviewee has to share.
She also comes across as way above average in integrity and honesty. I have no doubt whatsoever that she told the truth about Sagan.
What is truth about Sagan.
I saw a ufo the other day
seriously
i watced it standing stil for about 5 minutes- looked away at a bird and looked back and it was gone and i had a clear 180 view of the entire cloudless sky
What, no reaction to the story I linked, quoting Hawking? Or the story in post 169? Why don’t you at least be intellectually honest and read what Hawking has to say? Here, I’ll pick out one quote:
“To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational,” he said. “The real challenge is to work out what aliens might actually be like.”
Now, do you want to adapt your analysis of Hawking’s belief, or do you want to bury your head in the sand and remind me of a liberal democrat? Your choice. By the way, I don’t antagonistic until someone starts throwing unwarranted insults my way, for instance, calling me delusional.
Also, for what it’s worth, the truth most certainly does not offend me. As a scientist, I search for it unsarcastically and with an open mind.
That Sagan told her in a media ‘green room’ sort of area before a show that he actually believed in UFO’s but was not about to risk his funding.
Other credible sources have strongly suggested that they personally had seen or heard reliably that he was a paid government shill debunker.
>I saw a ufo the other day
seriously
Posting that was very brave of you.
I know it
Jesse Jr is a FREEPER.
I have met him face to face.
He is also a decorated military surgeon who went back in service because his specialty was so needed in Iraq though he was more than 70 years old.
He knows what he saw as did his dad.
He knows it was not anything like either of them had ever seen.
The foil behaved as described.
The symbols on the very light weight metal ‘I’ beam were also of nothing known. Jr saw and handled both.
I fiercely resent the cheeky insulting accusations to this decorated veteran’s integrity, honesty, IQ, perspective, horse sense etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.