Posted on 08/22/2006 5:30:44 AM PDT by MichaelP
I'm Not. I just want those who cliam they do exist to offer more proof than goes into a typical Urban Legend. Or is the word of a friend of a friend's, nephew's grandma sufficient for you? Along with a Phuzzy Photoshop print of some inderterminate lights.
Lots of people try to substitute brazen personhood insults for hard research. I can understand that.
But it doesn't count for much, with me.
Proof? I'm just here for the show. I was just wondering why it was so important to you to prove they don't exist.
= = = =
My best shrink's guess would be . . . horrid insecurity at the prospect of one's world view and cosmology crashing to the ground in tiny shattered shards.
I have noticed that neither Hard? research nor Hard facts are any part of your argument. But cary on. TaTa
WRONG AGAIN! Is it really that much FUN being so brazenly, cheekily wrong?
Evidently you missed the stuff about biophysicist's W. C. Levengood's peer reviewed stuff in the scholarly peer reviewed journals
Physiologia Plantarum
and in the American
Journal of Scientific Exploration.
(Vol. 9, No. 2, Pages 191-199) re the hard researched evidence of:
"So far, no one has refuted his hypothesis that spinning plasma vortices containing microwaves, magnetic fields and electric fields produced by charge separation in plasma form the complex energy systems that create the crop formations."
. . .
"In a 1995 paper entitled "Semi-Molten Meteoric Iron Associated with A Crop Formation" published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration [ref above], Levengood and his research colleague, John Burke, wrote: 'Out of a four year investigation of plant tissues taken from over eighty crop formations, located within five countries, we report data from a single sample set which indicates a 'close encounter,' between the complex forces producing these flattened circular type formations and meteoric material from the atmosphere."
"Both soil chunks and plant tissue taken from specific regions within a 1993 wheat crop formation in Cherhill, Wiltshire, England, exhibited a high degree of magnetic susceptibility which originated within adherent coatings consisting of the commingled iron oxides, hematite (Fe2O2) and magnetite (FeO4) fused into a heterogeneous mass, and having the properties of a 'magnetic glaze.' The makeup of this material appears to be of meteoric origin and apparently impacted the ground while in the semi-molten state. Presence of meteoric material adhering to both soil and plant tissues, casts considerable doubt on this being an artificially prepared or 'hoaxed' formation."
Just in case it was missed . . . the 'magnetic glaze' is rather HARD. It's considerably harder than the denial fantasies so many naysayers have about such facts.
Here's another bit under some of the photos in the book by Linda Moulton Howe: MYSTERIOIUS LIGHTS AND CROP CIRCLES p 250:
"The wheat leaf at Cherhill was not damaged by this molton iron deposit because of the Liedenfrost effect. Suddenly heated leaves can release steam through their stomata that creates a protective layer between the leaf and whatever warm substance touches them. In this case, it was the deposit of semi-molten meteoric iron particles."
And on p 253:
"Since his Cherhill paper, Levengood has found high concentrations of magnetic iron in many other crop formations, occasionally more than 700 times higher concentrations than the normal 0.4 milligrams of magnetite per gram of soil. Soil samples continue to confirm distribution by centrifugal spinning force."
Qx note: The orbs of light often seen in crop circles being formed are typically perceived to be spinning, as I understand it. Common additional hard evidence has to do with plant nodes.
p 258
"In one of Levengood's English case files, he had photographs of stretched and reoriented growth nodes and expulsion cavities found in the wheat formation at Stanton St. Bernard on June 22, 1999. He stressed that 'the energy causing node expansion appears to have microwave components whereas the energy inducing growth enhancement in the seeds has electrophoretic properties.' Electrophoresis is the motion of charged particles, especially colloidal properties, through a relatively stationary liquid under the influence of an applied elecric field."
photo caption on the same page:
"Stanton St. Bernard, Wiltshire, formation discovered June 22, 1999, in wheat field. Apical upper nodes were lengthened and reoriented. Penultimate nodes further down the stems had expulsion cavities. Both effects have been simulated by Levengood by putting control plants in microwave ovens for a few seconds."
But, hey, I realize that hard evidence is not likely to be any better received than soft evidence. Folks just do not appreciate having their cosmology rattled, regardless of the facts.
I wonder if you caught physicist Stanton Friedman on last night. He noted that in a significant survey of engineers and scientists--2/3rds fo them believe in UFO's.
And, he cited another study done by scientists and engineers picked strictly because of their neutrality on the topic, the group concluded that of the cases offered, I think it was 37% could not be explained by conventional means.
Nice that even scientists are stepping a bit more up to the plate and admitting, reporting the facts instead of the disinformation.
Only the level of derangement of those who claim to have seen them while sober. --rock58seg
= = = =
Thanks. BTW, aruanan.
Some folks think I'm significantly mentally healthier than the average bear. Of course, some don't! LOL.
As a shrink, this phenomena of so many folks buying into the derisive disinformation efforts of the powers that be is fascinating. All the more so because usually the most shrill amongst them tend to be the folks pontificating the loudest about "hard evidence" sorts of issues. And, usually rather stereotypically, narrowly, virtually mindlessly so. Very curious. Very paradoxical. Sad, really.
It's almost like critical thinking goes absolutely out the window while trying to couch their thoughts in the language of critical thinking without anything truly sharply critical being involved. Interesting.
Since there are no real UFO's it is not possible to fear them.
= = = =
Given that I'm 100% certain that you have not personally examined all the cases around the world in even the slightest detail . . . first hand . . .
The above is obviously a BRAZEN statement of faith, belief, even fantasy.
You are persistently a charitable voice of sound reason and civil perspective. I could learn more from you than seems to be my habit! Sigh. LOL.
Thanks.
Or is the word of a friend of a friend's, nephew's grandma sufficient for you?
= = = =
Perhaps you are labeling me a liar? Thankfully, I'm not. Nor is my relative. Pretending otherwise does not change the facts. My relative is a close relative--primary, direct blood relationship. The above characterization is untrue as well as unkind and cheeky.
What facts? You have offered none
Of course I would not call you a liar. I believe you believe averything you say. Therein lies the problem. pointing out the truth of no UFO proofs is not unkind, no matter how much the truth hurts.
As to your relative, You will have to judge his veracity, as you apparently have. If he also believes what you are saying he does,
Do you see each other more than on visiting days?
Oh My! I have stirred a hornets nest.
How can anyone ignore facts not presented?
Go in peace, whatever, the color of the sky is, where you are.
Some things people "just know" If space aliens show up though they better have visas. I'm not paying any more taxes for their health care and housing.
Here is the result of a net search at the Smithsonian:
Object Collections
Help
Quick Search Search Help
Search the National Air and Space Museum collections database for:
No results were found matching your search for alien world artifacts
National Air and Space Museum Home | © 2005 Smithsonian | Privacy | Links | Smithsonian Institution
Interesting that you include all the facts--peer reviewed facts in a scientific journal . . . as well as those mentioned by physicist Stanton Friedman as "none."
What a fascinating denial of reality.
Of course I would not call you a liar. I believe you believe averything you say. Therein lies the problem. pointing out the truth of no UFO proofs is not unkind, no matter how much the truth hurts.
I'm not the least bit hurt by the facts or the truth. My God and my cosmology handles the whole of reality rather well. Sorry about those for whom that's not true.
As to your relative, You will have to judge his veracity, as you apparently have. If he also believes what you are saying he does, Do you see each other more than on visiting days?
More charity! What a surprise. /s
Denial of facts coupled with hostile, smug, haughty, self-righteous, arrogant insults. Fascinating phenomena.
My impression is that our side is quite at peace.
It's the poor folks who's cosmologies and constructions on reality are so threatened with their psychologies thereby so evidently insecure who seem so un-at-peace and so compulsively driven to smug insults.
Now that is cute. Very cute. I can't think of a logical reason why anyone WELL READ ON THE TOPIC would expect the Smithsonian to have any such artifacts. Sounds like more denial and being out-of-touch with reality in terms of the realities of the topic.
Evidently some readers are also unaware of the findings of the archeological dig at the Roswell site. Wherein multiple different laboratories noted that the bits of debris did not match known alloys etc.
Then there's the realities involved with SOME of the implant retrievals.
Fascinating the degree of ignorance and denial coupled with ABSOLUTIST statements. Curious.
I suppose one possibility is that
IF
a poster sounds like a 'powers-that-be' disinformation shill, they COULD be a disinformation puppet. Though I think they usually SOUND MUCH MORE erudite and . . . mature in their assertions, somehow.
I think it's very funny now that it's come to light what I'd assumed all along--that what's his farce . . . Carl Sagan was a government disinformation debunker employee. LOL.
Whoop di doo.
Aha! From the Monty Python movie, " Bring to me a shrubbery" now takes on a greater significance mayhaps?
Still no artifacts.
Why would you consider the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum as a non authority? I would trust them sooner than you are your dear cherished family member.
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.