Russkies find alien spaceship in Tunguska

[bn880 5]

Well, the ide is he may have provided a more detailed "proof" that we are not being shown, but that kind of statement does undermine credibility. However credibility is not a very scientific approach either now is it?? Remember our history...

[bn880 5]

Well, the idea is he may have provided a more detailed "proof" that we are not being shown, but that kind of statement does undermine credibility. However credibility is not a very scientific approach either now is it?? Remember our history...

[Bernadotte 0]

But also we know it was not purely ice... because you would not get a 15MT airburst from that.

Nope.  According to Impact Effects the airbust would be 310,000 MegaTons for ice.  

I've ready speculation that it could have been frozen methane instead of frozen water.  But ice is the lowest density substance used by the Impact Effects calculator.

[SSEnigma 0]

Quote[/b] ]Members of a special expedition researching the site of the famous Tunguska meteorite fall have claimed they had discovered parts of an extraterrestrial device.

The expedition, organized by the Siberian Public State Foundation “Tunguska Space Phenomenon†completed its work on the scene of Tunguska meteorite fall on August 9. It was the first expedition to the region since 2000. Guided by the space photos, the researchers scanned a wider territory in the vicinity of the Poligusa village for parts of the space object that crashed into Earth in 1908 and was later called the Tunguska meteorite.

The scientists claim that they found remains of an extraterrestrial technical device that allegedly had an accident in Siberia in 1908. They also say that they found the so called “deer stone†- an artifact repeatedly mentioned in the reports of the eyewitnesses of the Tunguska phenomenon. A part of the “deer stone†has been delivered to Krasnoyarsk for research.

The head of the expedition Yuri Lavbin told MosNews on Tuesday that the researchers had traced the possible trajectory of the space object, but this time they counted that it ran from West to East, unlike the members previous missions who thought that the object had flown East to West. The new approach allowed the expedition members to find a buried object covered with trees.

The object appeared to be a large block made with metal. The researchers chipped a piece of the object and will now test its composition.

In his further comment to MosNews, Lavbin noted that according to his calculations, the mass of the space object that collided with the Earth in 1908 amounted to almost 1 billion tons and the blast on impact must have destroyed the humanity. The fact that it did not happen testifies to the theory that the Tunguska event was an explosion of an artificial object at an altitude of about 10 kilometers.

“I am fully confident and I can make an official statement that we were saved by some forces of a superior civilization,†the scientist said. “They exploded this enormous meteorite that headed towards us with enormous speed,†he said. Now this great object that caused the meteorite to explode is found at last. We will continue our research, he said.

Lavbin says that the results of this year’s expedition give him hope that the Tunguska mystery will be solved before the phenomenon’s 100th anniversary. To do this, Russian researchers plan another large-scale expedition to the Eastern Siberia.

The Tunguska event was an aerial explosion that occurred near the Tunguska River in Siberia on June 30, 1908. The blast felled an estimated 60 million trees over 2,150 square kilometres. On this day, local residents observed a huge fireball, almost as bright as the Sun, moving across the sky. A few minutes later, there was a flash that lit up half of the sky, followed by a shock wave that knocked people off their feet and broke windows up to 400 miles away.

The explosion registered on seismic stations across Eurasia, and produced fluctuations in atmospheric pressure strong enough to be detected by the recently invented barographs in Britain. Over the next few weeks, night skies over Europe and western Russia glowed brightly enough for people to read by. In the United States, the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory and the Mount Wilson Observatory observed a decrease in atmospheric transparency that lasted for several months.

The size of the blast was later estimated to be between 10 and 15 megatons. Until this year members of numerous expeditions have failed to find any remains of the object that caused the event.

Source

Let's wait until they develop this into a new technology against the West.

Russia is already making a new kind of bomber that flies into space like a ufo

[bn880 5]

But also we know it was not purely ice... because you would not get a 15MT airburst from that.

Nope. According to Impact Effects the airbust would be 310,000 MegaTons for ice.

As if...

This is what I call a "weather forecast"

[Bernadotte 0]

But also we know it was not purely ice... because you would not get a 15MT airburst from that.

Nope.  According to Impact Effects the airbust would be 310,000 MegaTons for ice.  

As if...  

Ok, then how many Megatons of TNT would you estimate to equal the airburst of a 1 billion tonne meteor?

(Hint:  1 tonne of TNT releases about 4.2 million Kilojoules of energy)

[bn880 5]

I do not do weather forecasting on a billion tonnes of pure ice. It's utter bullshit trying to say #1 it will airburst, #2 it will get there in once piece

Also first we may want to prove that _pure_ ice can airburst with a force of even one megaton, is this a proven theory?

how about you, what is your estimate, not the programs?

[denoir 0]

Well, the ide is he may have provided a more detailed "proof" that we are not being shown, but that kind of statement does undermine credibility.  However credibility is not a very scientific approach either now is it?? Remember our history...

You mean of the masses of cackpots who have done nothing but waste people's time?

Tell me of one serious scientist in history who has made an extraordinary claim without providing extraordinary evidence of it.

Credibility is everything in science. The difference between a scientific result and reading the horoscope is the scientific method. And him publishing claims that can be falsified through a 15 second google search makes it fairly evident that that the guy skipped the whole peer review process. Which makes him about as credible as a person who writes horoscopes.

[bn880 5]

Well, you are building a strawman there Denoir. And I'm not touching it. I am saying that society has regarded some scientists as un credible in the past, and they were proven right later on. Remember the Solar System motion or was it the round earth... even Einstein was thought to be very un credible at times.

Credibility has shit all to do with facts, but a good proof does. Theories without proof are not automatically wrong, with proven counter evidence they may be.

[denoir 0]

Remember the Solar System motion or was it the round earth...

Yeah, and those that disproved it did not come up with models that gave worse results than the existing ones. On the contrary, they solved the problems with the old models. And they were documented and proven.

Quote[/b] ]even Einstein was thought to be very un credible at times.

That's not true. There were plenty of people that did not believe his theory - that thought that there was an error somewhere - but nobody doubted his scientific credibility. And that's because he followed the scientific method and provided verifiable documentation for every step. Before publishing his results, other scientist checked them.

This Russian so-called 'scientist' made claims that an amateur with an internet connection can falsify directly. Which makes him a charlatan and his 'investigation' quasi-scientific. It's simple as that.

There is no problem in principle with his theory, but there is a big problem with the assertions that he bases the theory on. You can't imagine unsubstantiated things and then use them to build a theory. Credibility in science is not about the results; it's about the method used.

[kerosene 0]

It'd be more impressive if they showed a few pictures of the extraterrestrial machine they claim they've found.

None of these scientists have a digital camera?

[MSpencer 0]

God I love conspiracy theories.

And let's take another page from Russia's book and say that the US travelled back in time with an ion cannon to blast the ship out of the sky in order to hit Moscow with a falling spaceship.

[bn880 5]

And.... hello Denoir, we disagree on that one, I'm not going to waste time dabating about nothing which reality can't prove to you.

And my estimate for the airburst of an ice comet(pure ice) coming in at 3 degrees and that speed is: wait for it: 0KT.

Have a nice day.

[Bernadotte 0]

Also first we may want to prove that _pure_ ice can airburst with a force of even one megaton, is this a proven theory?

how about you, what is your estimate, not the programs?

You may be missing a key point here.

In one moment there was ~1 billion tonnes of ice (or whatever) travelling at 50 km/s relative to the earth.

In the next moment it was all travelling nearly 0 km/s relative to the earth.

That incredibly large amount of kinetic energy was converted into other forms such as heat, light, sound, trees and windows breaking, etc.   Secondary school physics is enough to show that the total amount of energy converted was in the thousands of Megaton range.

[bn880 5]

I'm not missing a key point there, an object being slowed down by the atmosphere, not containing substances which can create an explosion a certain temperatures (mixed iwth our atmosphere) will not airburst in a sudden release of energy. An ice comet would likely have broken up and risen in the atmosphere as water vapor, even at that size since it came in at 3 degrees. It would also most likely break up into peices.

You need more fuel than kinetic energy here, since we are not talking about supernova size events.

[bn880 5]

@Denoir, tell me this:

1. do you believe a person can understand something without being able to explain it?

next

2. do you believe someone can understand something without being able to write the equation for it?

more

3. do you believe someone can understand something without having derived the equation for it?

lastly

4. do you beleive someone can understand something without being able to prove it?

I think your study of neural nets can give you some of the answers.

[denoir 0]

And.... hello Denoir, we disagree on that one, I'm not going to waste time dabating about nothing which reality can't prove to you.    

Well, then you disagree with the scientific method which is the modern criterion for defining and testing theories. It has worked quite well for the past 500 years - since Galileo.

Out of curiosity, which of the following principles do you disagree with?

[*] Any assumptions made in a hypothesis must be validated either through empirical measurements or other theories that have been validated.

[*] If other theories contradict your hypothesis, you must show why the other theories are wrong and you have to back it up with either empirical measurements or deductive reasoning based on more fundamental, empirically validated theories.

[*] Before going public with the results, the work shoud be submitted for peer review - i.e other scientists should check your theory.

You're a big fan of Tarot cards, right?  

[Bernadotte 0]

I'm not missing a key point there, an object being slowed down by the atmosphere, not containing substances which can create an explosion a certain temperatures (mixed iwth our atmosphere) will not airburst in a sudden release of energy.

If you say so.

However, I prefer to trust the findings and opinions of the experts at the U. of Arizona (and elsewhere) about the behaviour of comets/meteors entering the atmosphere.

[bn880 5]

I'm not missing a key point there, an object being slowed down by the atmosphere, not containing substances which can create an explosion a certain temperatures (mixed iwth our atmosphere) will not airburst in a sudden release of energy.

If you say so.

However, I prefer to trust the findings and opinions of the experts at the U. of Arizona (and elsewhere) about the behaviour of comets/meteors entering the atmosphere.

No you do not (other than the program). The theory actually is 100KT of ice with space dust and gases (and probably a rock core), and it is still contreversial. How they made this program to airpurst pure ice is beyond me. Maybe they assume other matter in the ice.

[bn880 5]

And.... hello Denoir, we disagree on that one, I'm not going to waste time dabating about nothing which reality can't prove to you.

Well, then you disagree with the scientific method which is the modern criterion for defining and testing theories. It has worked quite well for the past 500 years - since Galileo.

No I do not. I prefer the scientific method, but I am arguing about credibility. I fully agree with the scientific process, but for some things we can not complete the proof yet,right.

[denoir 0]

@Denoir, tell me this:

1. do you believe a person can understand something without being able to explain it?

next

2. do you believe someone can understand something without being able to write the equation for it?

more

3. do you believe someone can understand something without having derived the equation for it?

lastly

4.  do you beleive someone can understand something without being able to prove it?

I think your study of neural nets can give you some of the answers.  

"someone" is a nonsense keyword here. We're talking about a physical reality and a universal description of it.

And this case has nothing to do with some 'implied knowledge' on the part of that 'scientist'. It has to do that his alien hypothesis contradicts very elementary theories in classical physics - theories that have been verifierd empirically on many occasions. And he on the other hand does not provide any data. There is no documentation whatsoever, just a bunch of claims he made to a newspaper.

Bottom line, he has not provided any proof for the extraordinary claims while at the same time managed to miss on some very basic physics.

Hell, I can claim I have an UFO under my bed, and if I put some effort in it, I can probably make a statement that doesn't contain any gross physical errors. Does it make it true?

I'm constantly amazed how people are willing to believe things, without having one shred of evidence and an infinite amount of previous cases that were proven to be hoaxes, frauds etc.

[bn880 5]

The whole issue here is

#1. You are making strawmen for me to knock down, you think I'm arguing about things I am not.

#2. Bernadotte for some reason assumed a pure ice composition comet, while this does not say that

Quote[/b] ]In his further comment to MosNews, Lavbin noted that according to his calculations, the mass of the space object that collided with the Earth in 1908 amounted to almost 1 billion tons and the blast on impact must have destroyed the humanity. The fact that it did not happen testifies to the theory that the Tunguska event was an explosion of an artificial object at an altitude of about 10 kilometers.

#3. I am trying to tell you that credibility or not, someone can be right. We all ahve said things which were not very credible in the past, but we may also be able to explain some things, and better yet prove them.

#4. I would not believe this supernatural explanation without substantial proof, so don't tell me I believe it.

Edit: let me rephrase #4. I find it _EXTREMELY_ unlikely that this was caused by some alien or human action. Now can we get on with it.

[Pathy 0]

I am not questioning your argument Denoir, but i am interested to know what you think caused this incident in 1908

[bn880 5]

@Denoir, tell me this:

1. do you believe a person can understand something without being able to explain it?

next

2. do you believe a person can understand something without being able to write the equation for it?

more

3. do you believe a person can understand something without having derived the equation for it?

lastly

4. do you beleive a person can understand something without being able to prove it?

I think your study of neural nets can give you some of the answers.

Okay I fixed it. A Person= homo sapien sapien, earth species.

[denoir 0]

And.... hello Denoir, we disagree on that one, I'm not going to waste time dabating about nothing which reality can't prove to you.    

Well, then you disagree with the scientific method which is the modern criterion for defining and testing theories. It has worked quite well for the past 500 years - since Galileo.

No I do not.  I prefer the scientific method, but I am arguing about credibility.  I fully agree with the scientific process, but for some things we can not complete the proof yet,right.

Of course there are incomplete theories. As a matter of fact one of the main streams in science [Popper] say that theories can't be verified - just falsified. That doesn't mean that you should believe everything that has not explicitly been proven wrong.

But we're not talking about an esoteric theory combining relativity with quantum mechanics here We're talking about a wreckage in the woods. The guy runs to the media, makes big claims, but doesn't even snap a few shots of the wreckage? He claims that a natural celestial body of that size would have been the end of man kind - something which scientist agree on is worng - without providing any proof of that either?

What do we have? Nothing. Something a guy told a newspaper. If that is enough for you to believe it, you should check out: http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/

ALIENS USING E-MAIL TO SEDUCE EARTH WOMEN [WWN]

Quote[/b] ]

Aliens have tapped into our Internet connections

The porn that's clogging your e-mail inbox isn't always sent by some lonely pervert getting his kicks in a shabby apartment, or by marketing companies trying to make a buck on X-rated merchandise. A top researcher says you could also be getting spammed by aliens on a distant planet!

Astrophysicist Dr. Paul Winterhoof says aliens have "hijacked" the satellite transmissions that connect computers on the Internet, and are using them to contact Earth women with lurid claims about their sexual prowess -- or to entice Earth men with offers of miraculous performance-enhancing drugs and gadgets.

The purpose, Dr. Winterhoof says, is to more efficiently initiate sexual contact for a planned breeding program that will mate humans and extraterrestrials.

"It's well known that aliens have been mating with humans for generations," he says. "But now they are using the Internet to make first contact. Just as the Internet has changed the way humans socialize and do business, so has it altered the way in which aliens seek to infiltrate our society.

"It's a sinister new development, although it does have its benefits," he says. Rather than forcibly kidnapping Earth men and women and subjecting them to terrifying and often-painful breeding experiments, Dr. Winterhoof says, the aliens are now attempting to focus only on willing partners. "Either they are gentler and more considerate than we have given them credit for," he says, "or they simply realize that they'll attract less attention.

"After all, how many women would be willing to risk the ostracism that would result from telling the world she let an alien tie her up and engage in kinky sex games? And what man would admit publicly that his newest relationship began because he was trying to get Viagra at a deep discount?"

Dr. Winterhoof says he began to investigate the alienporn connection after receiving numerous racy emails filled with gibberish. "The message body, and sometimes even the subject line, contained hundreds of naughty words that had simply been strung together in ways that made no sense at all," he explains.

When he attempted to trace the source of the e-mails, he says, his search led to a server connected to a U.S. Air Force satellite launched in 1999.

The scientist advises anyone receiving the dirty messages to immediately delete them. "As their incomprehensible messages attest, these aliens can't read or write English well -- even if you send them a blistering sermon about sinful thoughts, they're going to assume you're interested.

"Unless you want a three-headed alien at your door with some high-tech sex toy, your best bet is to simply ignore these perverts."

Do you find it credible?