Page 2 of 2
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 4:58 am
by Loredoctor
sgt.null wrote:distance. i have a nephew who is a rocket scientist at Texas A&M. your muscles would atrophy during a long space voyage. you've seen people come back from the space station? it would be worse. your heart muscles would wither and you would die. and if anything were to go wrong on the way there? the astronauts die. it is a huge waste of money and it serves no real purpose.
They might be able to use rotating structures to simulate gravity. But that would be costly.
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 4:59 am
by emotional leper
sgt.null wrote:distance. i have a nephew who is a rocket scientist at Texas A&M. your muscles would atrophy during a long space voyage. you've seen people come back from the space station? it would be worse. your heart muscles would wither and you would die. and if anything were to go wrong on the way there? the astronauts die. it is a huge waste of money and it serves no real purpose.
You can get to Mars in 6 months. It just costs more.
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 5:21 am
by sgt.null
and the odds of someone surviving the trip to and from?
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 8:23 pm
by emotional leper
sgt.null wrote:and the odds of someone surviving the trip to and from?
Should be much better if it's done on a high-energy, high-fuel, short-time trip, the exact name of which I can't remember right now. The majour problem with traveling to Mars is not them getting weak from lack of exercise, because we know how to exercise in space. Or, if we're gonna spend some money on this, we could just spin the ship for gravity. The most dangerous part of the entire trip to the crew is exposure to cosmic radiation, which they would be exposed to far long if it took them 2 years to get there and 2 to get back.
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 8:57 pm
by wayfriend
Texas UFO Sighting Under Investigation
... The Texas UFO sighting outside of the farming community of Stephenville, Texas has attracted the interest of MUFON, a nationwide scientific group dedicated to the investigation of UFO sightings.
... Within two separate reports on MUFON's website, witnesses reported seeing UFOs in the Texas skies on two occasions and in both reports, the witnesses described U.S. jets chasing the objects shortly after they came overhead. In one report, the witness said that not longer after the military planes flew by that several government vehicles followed on the roadway which were said to have government license plates on them. ... [
link]
UFO Sightings Over Texas: Photos of Mystery Lights Sought [
link]
Do These Photos Capture UFO Over Central Texas? [
link]
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 2:29 am
by sgt.null
thaty last pic looks photoshopped.
Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 7:44 pm
by wayfriend
Guess what, the government is now saying, "Wait ... What? The Airforce? Oh yeah, the Airforce
WAS in the area that night."
link
That's either the worst attempt at a coverup since Janet Jackson's brassiere. Or .... wait, I can't think what else this could mean.
Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 7:54 pm
by Cameraman Jenn
What part is the cover up? The Air Force was covering up covert operations by their pilots? or The Air Force is covering up for the UFO's?
Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:04 pm
by wayfriend
Well, obviously they're lying NOW. After they spent a week not coming up with anything better.
Didn't the lights hover?
Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 11:27 pm
by A Gunslinger
It wasn't a very smart admission. Peopl in TX all claimed that F-16 were attempting to intercpet the UFO(s?). So now, it seems that the Air Force is trying to say that everything that was seen was F-16's when clearly F-16's were easily discernable from the unknown thing.
Therefore...in effect, they have just confirmed that they were investigating something. They'd have been better off not saying anything at all.
Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 11:47 pm
by Loredoctor
But none of this implies an alien ship. Further, any change of statement by the airforce is simply due to the fact that different parts of the service make contradicting statements or claims, as information doesn't flow efficiently. Note the Roswell event.
Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 6:56 am
by sgt.null
still no hard proof that anything was in the sky.
Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 2:49 pm
by wayfriend
Information is supposed to flow more efficiently these days. A 9/11 action item.
I mean ... a week?
It's like they WANT people to be suspicious.
Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:24 pm
by Loredoctor
Wayfriend wrote:Information is supposed to flow more efficiently these days. A 9/11 action item.
I mean ... a week?
It's like they WANT people to be suspicious.
Or maybe they simply made a mistake. Quit being so paranoid.
The fact of the matter is, we don't know what it is, and we could spend years like the rest of the conspiracy enthusiasts discussing Roswell, moon landings etc.
It could be anything.