Area 51 - The Frantic Caller
closed account (z0My6Up4)
I came across this video audio and thought I would share it. A man who is clearly terrified calls Coast to Coast AM and tells Art Bell that he used to work at Area 51 and is now being chased by the government. The satellite transmitting the radio station is then knocked off air, which is creepy enough.
It is very interesting what the caller says about extraterrestrials. I think this is the real deal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee3bld4lTG0
It is very interesting what the caller says about extraterrestrials. I think this is the real deal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee3bld4lTG0
Didn't you just have another conspiracy thread not that long ago? :P
There could be life on other planets, but I am not convinced by that video sounds fake to me.
There could be life on other planets, but I am not convinced by that video sounds fake to me.
| I think this is the real deal. |
I'm sorry... but that's retarded.
Around the 2:30 mark the guy says there are big disasters coming and the government knows about them and that they want the major population centers wiped out (IE: he's basically pitching an apocalyptic scenario)
The video is from 1997.
1997 was 17 years ago.
Nothing has happened.
Anyone who has infiltrated the military on a level this guy claims would have no problem wrecking havok on the world within 17 years if that was their desire.
History has already proven that this guy is full of shit.
Do aliens exist? Almost definitely.
Have any of them visited Earth or even our solar system? Almost definitely not.
When you know the science about just how freaking big the universe is... and how far away everything is from our solar system... and how long it takes to travel such a long distance... it is clear that alien invasion of Earth is virtually impossible.
If it is possible to traverse that distance... then any species that possesses the technology capable of doing it would far exceed our own and would crush us without a thought. There would be no need to lurk in the shadows and ruin us from the inside.
It'd be like the modern military fighting cavemen. They could just shoot a couple of them until the others fall in line. It'd be a one-sided slaughter.
Last edited on
closed account (3hM2Nwbp)
| Disch wrote: |
|---|
| Have any of them visited Earth or even our solar system? Almost definitely not. |
I'd have to respectfully disagree...too many early civilizations have very similar records of peculiar things involving the heavens to dismiss the possibility.
| Disch wrote: |
|---|
| any species that possesses the technology capable of doing it would far exceed our own and would crush us without a thought. |
Would humanity (if we found another life-form) be hell bent on destroying them on first contact? Who's to say another species would automatically have malevolent intent?
| Would humanity (if we found another life-form) be hell bent on destroying them on first contact? Who's to say another species would automatically have malevolent intent? |
What if they're far superior to use? We just seem like dumb apes to them. Do you see how humans treat "lesser" species on earth? Sure, it's not purposely malevolent, but it also isn't great. I could imagine a whole lot of testing and experimentation happening. Or just brushed aside because we're in the way of whatever resource they are after.
closed account (3hM2Nwbp)
I can see a problem if the aliens find that they enjoy a ResidentBiscuitBurger on occasion, but even (most) humans don't go out of their way to torture and kill lesser species just for the fun of it. Largely, the way humanity treats livestock and wild game is out of necessity. I can't even begin to believe that humans would be a staple food of an advanced species.
Now there's going to be a problem if some little green man comes at me with rubber gloves and a probe, agreed...
Although, wouldn't communication be vastly more effective? Any intelligence should be able to deduce that.
---
The 'incognito-apocalypse' thing would make the most sense if they wanted a habitable planet. I'm sure that if we had a full-scale invasion, then nukes would be one of the first (and last?) things that would be tried. If I was going to attempt to steal a planet, I sure as hell wouldn't want it to be damaged any more than necessary during the process.
| I could imagine a whole lot of testing and experimentation happening. |
Now there's going to be a problem if some little green man comes at me with rubber gloves and a probe, agreed...
Although, wouldn't communication be vastly more effective? Any intelligence should be able to deduce that.
---
The 'incognito-apocalypse' thing would make the most sense if they wanted a habitable planet. I'm sure that if we had a full-scale invasion, then nukes would be one of the first (and last?) things that would be tried. If I was going to attempt to steal a planet, I sure as hell wouldn't want it to be damaged any more than necessary during the process.
As far as the communication deal goes, Neil DeGrasse Tyson had an interesting question with that.
It went something like: Humans and Apes share 99% similarity in DNA, yet we can't have any form of intelligent communication. What makes us think we would be able to have intelligent conversations with a life that is vastly different?
It went something like: Humans and Apes share 99% similarity in DNA, yet we can't have any form of intelligent communication. What makes us think we would be able to have intelligent conversations with a life that is vastly different?
closed account (3hM2Nwbp)
The answer to that question is very simple.
We already have carried on intelligent communication up to the threshold of the "lesser" participant's understanding, given the "greater" participant's means by which to do so. I also think that part of the problem is that humans aren't nearly as smart as we seem to think ourselves. Our main means of vocal communication is just one step above primitive. I'm curious to see where neuroscience will lead us in non-verbal communication - my guess would be a much better solution to that question.
We already have carried on intelligent communication up to the threshold of the "lesser" participant's understanding, given the "greater" participant's means by which to do so. I also think that part of the problem is that humans aren't nearly as smart as we seem to think ourselves. Our main means of vocal communication is just one step above primitive. I'm curious to see where neuroscience will lead us in non-verbal communication - my guess would be a much better solution to that question.
Last edited on
| Luc Leiber wrote: |
|---|
| I'd have to respectfully disagree...too many early civilizations have very similar records of peculiar things involving the heavens to dismiss the possibility. |
There are lots of things that happen in the heavens that seem peculiar to people that don't understand astronomy. As Neil DeGrasse Tyson put it... "we [Astronomers] know what we're looking at".
Peculiar historical records of fantastic things being observed suggests nothing other than what was being observed was not understood.
As I previously mentioned... the logistics of interstellar space travel alone make this extraordinarily unlikely.
The nearest solar system to our own is Alpha Centauri:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_stars_and_brown_dwarfs#List
Alpha Centauri is 4.2 light years away. That is... if you are traveling at the speed of light, it would still take you 4.2 years to get there.
Of course, physics as we understand it indicates it is impossible to get anywhere near the speed of light (especially with something as massive as a space shuttle capable of carrying and supporting life) without disintegrating. Nevermind the dangers of moving that fast (you're pretty much guaranteed to collide with something big enough to make your entire ship explode). I'm not going to say it's impossible. But the technology required to accomplish this would be astounding.
EDIT: (yes I realize the 4.2 year journey would seem instantaneous to the people taking it -- but my point here was to give an idea of just how far apart everything in space is. Remember... this is the nearest solar system. The others are even further) /EDIT
| Would humanity (if we found another life-form) be hell bent on destroying them on first contact? |
Probably. A significant portion of the population believes we are the center of creation and are the single, greatest species to ever exist, are the only ones with a soul, and basically are the only ones that matter.
If you mix that mentality with the fear of discovering another species that has technology thousands and thousands of years ahead of our own... it wouldn't end well.
| Who's to say another species would automatically have malevolent intent? |
The OP's link. Which is what I was originally debunking.
Last edited on
| Disch wrote: |
|---|
| Of course, physics as we understand it indicates it is impossible to get anywhere near the speed of light (especially with something as massive as a space shuttle capable of carrying and supporting life) without disintegrating. Nevermind the dangers of moving that fast (you're pretty much guaranteed to collide with something big enough to make you |
The cool part is (if you chose believe theories and shows like NASA's Unexplained Files) that the hubble telescope has found thousands of galaxies going faster than the speed of light away from us.
| Luc Lieber wrote: |
|---|
| Would humanity (if we found another life-form) be hell bent on destroying them on first contact? |
WWI, WWII, Vietnam War, Somalia, Desert Storm, Korean War, Revolutionary War, Civil War, etc. History shows we are an unfortunately violent species, so I'd have to say yes.
| The cool part is (if you chose believe theories and shows like NASA's Unexplained Files) that the hubble telescope has found thousands of galaxies going faster than the speed of light away from us. |
I'm skeptical. My understanding is that if it was moving faster than the speed of light away from us, the light wouldn't reach us and therefore we'd be unable to observe it.
Makes sense. I just am going by what the show claimed, but I'm like you, I am skeptical. Still have to admit, it is an intriguing idea. They talked to a Bob Williams who was allegedly the ex-director of the Hubble Space Telescope (though, titles don't give credit to the claim).
Last edited on
Neil DeGrasse Tyson (I watch a lot of his stuff) said that something he found interesting was that since the universe keeps accelerating, things eventually will be moving faster than the speed of light and would then be unobservable. At which point, the heavens would no longer be able to be observed and the only recollection of it would be in history books.
Though I'm paraphrasing and might be remembering incorrectly. Couldn't find the video I saw that in.
Though I'm paraphrasing and might be remembering incorrectly. Couldn't find the video I saw that in.
From my memories, it is that galaxies moving faster than the speed of light away from us do exist, though I can't remember if they are visible (I think they are). I'm not entirely sure why, but they can measure the speed of it through red-shift, and the fact that the speed of light is (for some reason) a constant, regardless of your point of observation... I don't really get how this all links, but whatever.
Apparently one given reason for this is that we aren't necessarily staying still, but we could be moving at a high speed away from them at the same time as they are moving at a high speed away from us, and the sum of these speeds make it look like they are moving faster than the speed of light from our perspective. Another theory is that we aren't actually moving at all, and space is somehow being 'generated' in between galaxies (though then why isn't space being generated between us?).
Apparently one given reason for this is that we aren't necessarily staying still, but we could be moving at a high speed away from them at the same time as they are moving at a high speed away from us, and the sum of these speeds make it look like they are moving faster than the speed of light from our perspective. Another theory is that we aren't actually moving at all, and space is somehow being 'generated' in between galaxies (though then why isn't space being generated between us?).
Here's the video I mentioned before with Dr. Tyson regarding the universe disappearing due to it moving away:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXh9RQCvxmg&t=53m57s
I did remember it somewhat incorrectly.
His answer to the 'game changer' question touches on it (linked at timestamp 53:57)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXh9RQCvxmg&t=53m57s
I did remember it somewhat incorrectly.
His answer to the 'game changer' question touches on it (linked at timestamp 53:57)
Last edited on
If objects in space started moving away from us faster than the speed of light, it doesn't mean that they become unobservable. Hell, if it were unobservable than we wouldn't even know that it exists: the way we determine the speed of a galaxy is by measuring the "blueshift" and "redshift" of the spectrometer measurements of its constituent parts. Light emitting from something going faster than the speed of light wouldn't make it invisible- it would just redshift it significantly... actually, here's even more mathematical proof that this is illogical:
Say we have an object, A. We'll say that this object emits light (say, a star) of frequency f0. We are aware of the basic equation of the change in frequency as f=((c-vr)/(c+vs))f0, where f0 is the original frequency, vr is the velocity of the receiver relative to the source, and vs is the velocity of the source relative to the receiver. Now, even without relativistic equations (I'll get into those later) you can see that the frequency of the light of object A as far as we can see never reaches zero unless the velocity reaches infinity. Hence. objects would remain observable even if moving beyond the speed of light.
As for whether these objects are, in fact, moving faster than the speed of light- just take a look at any of the relativistic equations created by Einstein. Since they still hold true, it would be by no stretch of the imagination to say that an object traveling faster than light would have negative volume (alright, a kind-of-big stretch of the imagination). This is a result of length dilation- objects appear thinner the faster they move relative to other objects by the equation L=L0γ, where γ is the relativistic factor (one over the square root of one minus the velocity squared over the speed of light squared). As the speed approaches the speed of light, the length approaches zero- hence, an object traveling the speed of light would have zero volume, and anything traveling faster would hence have negative volume to any observer. This is a result of how to someone watching such an object approach, the frequency shift would begin to become negative- this implies that the object will pass before it is seen, and in reverse order. You would see the back of an object as the front approaches, in other words.
Now, if this sounds absolutely absurd, it should- again, mathematical demonstration is minimal (and already done by others), and would show that for an object to travel faster than the speed of light, it would have to be... well, again, negative volume. Actually, no- not negative. Imaginary... which would make even less sense.
Say we have an object, A. We'll say that this object emits light (say, a star) of frequency f0. We are aware of the basic equation of the change in frequency as f=((c-vr)/(c+vs))f0, where f0 is the original frequency, vr is the velocity of the receiver relative to the source, and vs is the velocity of the source relative to the receiver. Now, even without relativistic equations (I'll get into those later) you can see that the frequency of the light of object A as far as we can see never reaches zero unless the velocity reaches infinity. Hence. objects would remain observable even if moving beyond the speed of light.
As for whether these objects are, in fact, moving faster than the speed of light- just take a look at any of the relativistic equations created by Einstein. Since they still hold true, it would be by no stretch of the imagination to say that an object traveling faster than light would have negative volume (alright, a kind-of-big stretch of the imagination). This is a result of length dilation- objects appear thinner the faster they move relative to other objects by the equation L=L0γ, where γ is the relativistic factor (one over the square root of one minus the velocity squared over the speed of light squared). As the speed approaches the speed of light, the length approaches zero- hence, an object traveling the speed of light would have zero volume, and anything traveling faster would hence have negative volume to any observer. This is a result of how to someone watching such an object approach, the frequency shift would begin to become negative- this implies that the object will pass before it is seen, and in reverse order. You would see the back of an object as the front approaches, in other words.
Now, if this sounds absolutely absurd, it should- again, mathematical demonstration is minimal (and already done by others), and would show that for an object to travel faster than the speed of light, it would have to be... well, again, negative volume. Actually, no- not negative. Imaginary... which would make even less sense.
While cosmologists say galaxies are receding at faster than the speed of light, they are using special definitions of distance that are very complicated and hard to grasp. They are only moving faster than the speed of light in "co-moving coordinates" and not in the same sense as in relativity. Relativistic calculations don't apply to this concept of motion in co-moving coordinates.
Whenever I read about it, I always get the sense that this stuff could very well mostly be a bunch of BS.
Whenever I read about it, I always get the sense that this stuff could very well mostly be a bunch of BS.
Last edited on
closed account (z0My6Up4)
Disch wrote:
Are you sure that nothing has happened in 17 years? September 11th 2001? Massive climate changes and 'natural disasters'? Are you waiting for CNN to give it to you on a plate?
What are you saying here really? That you cannot possibly think of a way that anyone or anything can travel the vast distances of space and so it must be impossible to do so. I'm sorry but this view is lame. You do not know everything and neither does established science. I suggest you review your attitude by reading up on some of the work of Dr Steven Greer and 'The Disclosure Project' for starters.
I'm sorry... but that's retarded. Around the 2:30 mark the guy says there are big disasters coming and the government knows about them and that they want the major population centers wiped out (IE: he's basically pitching an apocalyptic scenario) The video is from 1997. 1997 was 17 years ago. Nothing has happened. |
Are you sure that nothing has happened in 17 years? September 11th 2001? Massive climate changes and 'natural disasters'? Are you waiting for CNN to give it to you on a plate?
Do aliens exist? Almost definitely. Have any of them visited Earth or even our solar system? Almost definitely not. When you know the science about just how freaking big the universe is... and how far away everything is from our solar system... and how long it takes to travel such a long distance... it is clear that alien invasion of Earth is virtually impossible. |
What are you saying here really? That you cannot possibly think of a way that anyone or anything can travel the vast distances of space and so it must be impossible to do so. I'm sorry but this view is lame. You do not know everything and neither does established science. I suggest you review your attitude by reading up on some of the work of Dr Steven Greer and 'The Disclosure Project' for starters.
| flint wrote: |
|---|
| Are you sure that nothing has happened in 17 years? September 11th 2001? Massive climate changes and 'natural disasters'? Are you waiting for CNN to give it to you on a plate? |
He left it general though, a true sign of a profit! Leave it vague and let conspiracy theorists pick the proof they need. Disasters are coming and the government knows so 9/11 must be it and they know about all the natural disasters coming too. Damn how does such a smart government not rule the world yet?
So all the rumors about President Eisenhower having meetings with aliens in 1953 were true. He sold us to hostile aliens!
Wait! The government is all knowing and all powerful?! The government is God!
Quick! Move to the Ukraine, it is safer there!
</sarcasm>