Posted by: graemebird | March 31, 2010

Congratulations To LLoyd Pye/ Why ‘On Earth’ Would Aliens Come Here?

LLoyd Pye has made what must be the most monumental scientific discovery this century. Which is understating matters to a very great degree. For awhile now he has been in the possession of a very strange skull. This skull has a human mother. For some time evidence has been accumulating that the father was shall we say “not of this earth.” He now has proof (proof being convergent evidence) that the father of this strange creature was no human father, and that the fathers genetics are different from any known earth species. This has a great many implications for broad areas of science. Not excluding evolutionary theory, human pre-history, and genetics.

The skull is 900 years old. And it proves that we have been visited by aliens as recently as that. Now I would have assumed that we would have interstellar travelers. But I just went on the apriori basis that since the distances were so vast, that this would probably be a once every several million years type of deal. Its pretty shocking to find that this has happened within the last millenia. Not only that. The aliens had a breeding project somewhere in the Mexico region. Or so it would seem. The determination that the Mother was human came quickly on the basis of the mitochondrial DNA. But the DNA in the nucleus of the cell proved much harder to get a purchase on because of the incredibly strange nature of the skull. The skull is both lighter and harder than a human skull. You might say its an improved design. The skull appears to be made of a substance much closer to human tooth enamel then human bone. Ruling out utterly mere deformity. This is proof alright. But the PZ MYERS idiots of the science world are not going to admit it in a million years.

The idea of such a recent breeding program is utterly disturbing. I asked Lloyd “Where does it end.” This is what I said to Lloyd and I’m sure many of you can sympathise:

GRAEME SEZ:

Right. I wasn’t aware that Neanderthals had been found prior to 200 000 years ago.

I want you to know that you have caused me grave cognitive dissonance in the last few weeks Lloyd. I may never be the same again. I now have to accept, at least as the leading paradigm, a whole string of ideas that will destroy my ability to advocate ideas in many other areas.

LLOYD SEZ:

GMB: I’m really smiling here, I truly am. What I usually hear from people is that I’ve caused them to lose their religion, which I always feel bad about because I know how much it means to those who are really wedded to it. But to create “grave cognitive dissonance”…..man, I LOVE to do that! I love setting good people off on a path of inquiry that I know is going to leave them feeling so much more wired into the truth about basic issues that I feel are important for all of us to know about.

GRAEME SEZ:

I suppose you might upset their faith at that. Because while pro-evolutionists were being pigheaded as to the objections that many Christians and intelligent design folks bring up, the Christians had something they knew to be wrong to react to. The stupidity of the other side gives people space for their beliefs.

For my part I had worked my way to rejecting the age of the universe that the maths-mystics had laid down. So I was dealing with the problems by applying a multi-planet arrangement. Pamspermia. Von Daniken-lite intevention. Perhaps on average only once every few million years. Some light Lemarkian mechanisms. Something I was calling pumping-holocaust evolution. New-niche morphing evolution. And just trying to build a more realistic picture of things.

Then you show up and I’m almost expecting to wander out and there will be Elvis fixing some Vittels in my kitchen with ET and the Rugaru.

Where does it end?.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

Well where does it end? I don’t know. I want to point out though that belief doesn’t come into it. I don’t know if there are aliens running around now, capturing humans, stealing their sperm, by sticking sharp objects up their rectum. It all seems crazy to me. What is not a matter of belief is that Lloyd has found a human-alien hybrid from 900 years ago. I might have believed from 3 million years ago, if you were asking me questions back in 2008. But everyone ought to get used to the fact that some foreigners, from Lord only knows where, have visited earth, as recently as 900 years ago. Worse still they’ve taken a few liberties with our sheilas. Not only are they foreigners, they are people cruising for a bruising if you ask me.

I’ll try to find a playlist from a while back wherein Lloyd has accumulated convergent evidence beyond doubt. What is the more recent congratulations for then? Well in the last couple of months Lloyd has got some results in from new technology that could do a better job at genetic testing then when he first tried maybe five or six years or so back. He just had to sit tight and wait for the technology to improve.

WHY ON EARTH WOULD ALIENS COME HERE?

I expect this question to be asked as if it were proof that aliens did not come here. But this is putting the cart before the horse. Now we have absolute proof that they have been here, at least one time, about 900-1000 years ago. There was a lot of evidence that we’d been visited before. But here we have a single example of total proof.

Still its hard to imagine why they would show up. The distances being so great. On the other hand the orbit of stars around the spiral arms of the galaxy may mean that solar systems overlap and collide from time to time. Yet this can give us no help in explaining why aliens would want to show up here as recently as 1000 years ago? Some might wonder if they ever left? The distances being so great, we might suspect that they came here and are here still. I won’t go down that road right now. Here is a general explanation I made to Lloyd to explain what could be in it for them. Why they would be motivated to go out into deep cold space rather then just stay home and get rich.

GRAEME SEZ:

Galaxy Evolution.
I’ve been tentatively getting a view of the evolution of the galaxy that would make your view of evolution on earth almost inevitable. Its just speculation. But what I’m getting borrows on some aspects of growing earth theory and some things Paul LaViollete has been saying.

If moons grow to planets, planets like the earth grow to gas giants, and gas giants grow to stars, then under this scenario the galaxy will start small and keep growing organically. But the growth need not be smooth. Galactic centre shocks, of the sort that Paul LaViolette describes, will cause a lot of damage in and of themselves. But they will also touch off supernovae and exploding planets.

Being if this is the case, and suppose that the universe is very very old, then evolution would likely start at the centre of galaxies. But the centre of galaxies is where, as time goes on, the risk of your star or planet being exploded, or your planet suffering catastrophic effects, becomes more and more probable as time goes on.

So your scenario would then become almost inevitable. Intelligent life would see it in its interest to terra-form fringe planets if they could do so without too much cost.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Sorting out what is speculative from what is not: The take-home story here is that Lloyd has got himself a human/alien skull from 900 years back. You can lock that in and overturn everything you think you know, with reference to this fact. As Lloyd says “Everything You Think You Know Is Wrong.”

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Enid Blyton wrote more imaginative stories than this!

  2. But this isn’t a story. Its a fact get used to it.

  3. I just saw another idiot like you over at catallaxy. Like you, he thinks he’s got the gift of second sight. Like you he believes he knows stuff that he cannot possibly know.

    http://catallaxyfiles.com/2010/03/27/open-forum-march-27-2010/comment-page-7/#comment-28625

  4. “The skull is 900 years old. And it proves that we have been visited by aliens as recently as that. Now I would have assumed that we would have interstellar travelers. But I just went on the apriori basis that since the distances were so vast, that this would probably be a once every several million years type of deal.”

    Bear in mind that everyone at Catallaxy was too stupid even to accept this reasoning. I’m as surprised as anyone to find that aliens have been here more recently. But for goodness sakes. Imagine being so dim you cannot appreciate the argument within the quotes?

    It is likely that everyone at P-Z Myers, and pretty much all of the idiots on his site are too dim to appreciate the logic of the quote I made above.

    But as I will emphasize time and again, to people who will refuse to believe me, no-one could have been more surprised then I was to find out that aliens had been here so recently.

  5. Apparently you and birdlab think that someone with a proven human mother can just evolve, in a single generation, an whole new type of bone makeup, superior to human bone in strength. Stronger and lighter at the same time.

    Cambria has signed onto this theory too. So thats 3 idiots we have on the fly already.

    Other people may assume that Lloyd is some sort of charlatan which is not plausible at all. But still more people will agree he has a good case. But will not be able to say so because of the science maffia.

  6. Hm, I could say :
    One Skull? One strange skull!?! And you alter a myriad of your beliefs and statements.

    I HAD TO. I HAD NO CHOICE IN THE MATTER. IT WOULD BE ILLOGICAL TO HOLD ONTO BELIEFS THAT HAD BEEN PROVED WRONG UTTERLY. I ASSUMED THAT INTER-STELLA TRAVELERS WOULD ALMOST NEVER COME HERE. THAT THEY WOULD COME HERE BUT EXTREMELY INFREQUENTLY. SO OBVIOUSLY, SINCE ITS BEEN PROVED THAT THEY’VE BEEN HERE LESS THAN 1000 YEARS AGO, THIS THROWS MY THINKING INTO CONFUSION. BECAUSE MY CONTENTION THAT THEY WOULD ONLY SHOW UP ONCE EVERY FEW MILLION YEARS HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE UNTENABLE BY THE EVIDENCE.

    SEE YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND LOGIC, REASON, OR THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. THATS WHAT I FOUND AT FATTY-MYERS SITE. NO-ONE THERE WAS INTERESTED IN EVIDENCE, REASON OR THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

    IT STILL PRETTY SHOCKING TO ME REALLY. THINK OF HOW FAR AWAY THE STARS ARE????????? WHY WOULD THEY COME HERE????? WHY NOT JUST STAY HOME AND TAKE IT EASY? SPENDING YEARS TRAVELING IN SPACE WITHOUT A BACK-UP ECONOMY DOESN’T SOUND LIKE MY IDEA OF RATIONAL BEHAVIOUR.

    SO ALL OUR IDEAS ARE OUT THE WINDOW. THATS THE REALITY OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

  7. From elsewhere:

    ” But in 1887, Albert Michelson and Edward Morley were able to do a very careful experiment to measure the speed of light as the earth moved through the aether as it orbited in space. Their experiment came up negative. There just wasn’t any aether.”

    Thats not true actually. Michelson Morely was not consistent with Einstein. But it rather was more consistent with the doctrine of the partially-entrained aether. Whatever the aether is, it appears to entrain itself in a bodies gravitational field.

    To see what light is we have to look with fresh eyes at the peculiarity of its characteristics, without getting bogged down by current dogma.

    Posted by: Graeme Bird | March 31, 2010 10:46 PM
    6
    ” Light was a wave, if a special one that didn’t require a medium to wave.”

    There is just no reason to believe this. And Einstein himself didn’t believe this, but this is neither here nor there, since science isn’t about belief or the cult of personality. As soon as someone assumes there is no medium, arbitrarily, they have lost any capacity to then try and figure out what light is.

    The idea of a volley of particles, being consistent with wave motion, makes no sense. It cannot be reproduced by some sort of animation to help one comprehend what is going on.

    Everytime someone looks like coming up with a wave motion, without a medium, a whole bunch of people should shout out “Don’t go there” or “Don’t even go there”. Its logical and its caused all this confusion.

    Posted by: Graeme Bird | March 31, 2010 11:01 PM

  8. WE KNOW THEY CAME. WE DON’T KNOW WHY. YOU ARE RIGHT ITS VERY SURPRISING. BUT THERE YOU ARE.

  9. I’M NOT PUTTING UP WITH ANY INSULTS OF LLOYD PYE. LETS HAVE YOUR SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT. NOW YOU IMPLY THAT A CREATURE WITH A HUMAN MOTHER, COULD HAVE EVOLVED A SKULL MADE OF A SUBSTANCE MORE LIKE TOOTH ENAMEL, THEN BONE, WITHIN THE SPACE OF A SINGLE GENERATION. IS THAT RIGHT?

  10. good .. i like it !! 🙂 this is a new knowledge for me .
    thank’s..

  11. NO LYING ON THIS SITE IDIOT. YOU CANNOT POSSIBLY KNOW WHAT IT IS YOU ARE SAYING.

  12. I blocked Truism’s IP Address since there is just no chance he’s going to try and improve his act.

  13. Off Topic From Elsewhere:

    At every step of this history one would notice that the logical inference drawn is reasonable but not full-proof. One tends to think of the reasons given as inescapable consequences, whereas they are historical and not logical reasons for the theory of light to have taken that step.

    “Put in modern words, Newton understood that a pure particle model did not explain light, but he didn’t develop a model that combined particle and wave models the way 20th century quantum theory did.”

    That was no failure. The failure is the modern interpretation. They should have three or more separate models until one wins out comprehensively. Instead they have turned theological. Unable to work out what is the real deal, they’ve made up an idea less scientific then the idea of the trinity.

    This is a terminal failure if it is continued. To take a shortcut and to come up with an unscientific model, rather than to maintain several models until the matter is resolved, is to bring progress to a grinding halt.

    Its 2010 and we still don’t know what light is. This is the public service, not doing its job.

    Posted by: Graeme Bird | April 1, 2010 12:27 PM
    13
    “Still, you should always keep when I or anyone else talks about light as a wave or particle, it’s an approximation. Nature is more subtle.”

    That is not the attitude to take. This is akin to saying “The Lord moves in mysterious ways.” If you assume rather that the public service has gone down the wrong path and failed, there is at least a chance the situation can be repaired.

    “You physicists should stop pretending that light is two different things and answer the question seriously!”

    We have to stop this idea that science is about the cult of personality. “Physicists” have managed to grab unquestioned seniority over the other scientists, and even over the philosophers. But they aren’t really physicists any more. They aren’t interested in the scientific method. They are public servants and not natural philosophers. We are talking about the public service with all the dysfunction that implies.

    The problem with pretending you can have wave motion without a medium, is it stops you from finding out what that medium is. So there is no mystery at all why the public service has run into a brick wall and failed utterly.

    Posted by: Graeme Bird | April 1, 2010 12:34 PM

  14. Look you two. Give me an indication that you might put a bit more effort in. You must lift your game when you come here.

    Scroll up. You will see that this blog says “Graeme Bird For High Office”

    It does not say “Fatty-Myers. The stupidest man on the internet”

    You have come to the wrong shop for the habit of disengaging your minds, and saying stuff that you cannot possibly know. Plus you are essentially saying that Lloyd is lying. Which is not true, you are. But more importantly, which you are not in a position to find out one way or another.

    I’ll see some evidence that you are going to try harder or you are spam-fodder.

  15. Logged posts from elsewhere:

    “sure overthrowing Einstein, et al,”

    You see this? Science on the basis of the cult of personality. But science is not about consensus, peer review, the cult of personality, or any of that dysfunctional priesthood stuff.

    Science is about evidence, reason and the scientific method. The priesthood is in a rebellion against science.

    Posted by: Graeme Bird | April 1, 2010 1:09 PM
    16
    “In the end, why don’t you just apply to grad school and achieve massive success in your new proofs of the aether?”

    Its not a new proof. Its the same old proof. Just by the way, Einstein always believed in the aether. That puts your cult of personality epistemology into unresolvable conflict surely.

    Light moves in waves, Hence some sort of medium. Simple as that. We want to find out what that medium is or the public servants will never be able to tell us what light is. Simple as that.

    There was never any logical reason to abandon the fact that waves require a medium. Suggesting that this is the case puts you on the opposing side to Einstein, which is of course neither here nor there.

    Posted by: Graeme Bird | April 1, 2010 1:15 PM
    17
    When I see one of the scientists saying that he’s taking an extreme point of view and he thinks that electrons (for example) are just a wave, and no particle at all …. well he may be wrong or he may be right. But at least he’s being a scientist. Once you decide these particles are wavicles, or both a wave and a particle, or that it depends on how you test it, you’ve taken a shortcut, subverted the search for the truth of it, and you’ve ceased being scientific.

    The proof is in the result. 2010 and the public service are still completely stuck on this poser. They don’t know what light is. Have no idea what gravity is. And are in utter denial of the fact that gravity propagates much faster than light. So therefore they cannot follow the implications of what this instantaneous propagation means. Actually it is probably a clue to what the missing medium truly is.

    Posted by: Graeme Bird | April 1, 2010 1:23 PM

    • Einstein always believed in the aether? Want to prove that, Mr. Bird?

      WOULD YOU LIKE TO PROVE OTHERWISE?

      Because so far as I know, Einstein’s mention of the aether was only as reference to the metric of spacetime

      THERE YOU GO. THIS IS BECOMING A HABIT WITH YOU YOU BLOCKHEAD. I SAY THAT EINSTEIN NEVER LOST HIS BELIEF IN THE AETHER. YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEF IS SO STRONG YOU BACK ME UP IN THIS MATTER WITHOUT EVEN FUCKING KNOWING YOU ARE DOING IT. GET FUCKING HELP BLOCKHEAD.

      • HOW ABOUT SHOW THAT HE WAS IDIOTIC ENOUGH NOT TO BELIEVE IN A MEDIUM FOR A WAVE PHENOMENON.

        A WAVE WITHOUT A MEDIUM MAKES AS MUCH SENSE AS A SMILE WITHOUT A FACE. IN THE END IT MATTERS NOT EVEN A TINY BIT WHAT EINSTEIN SEZ. JUST FOR YOUR FUCKING INFORMATION, SCIENCE IS NOT ABOUT THE CULT OF PERSONALITY.

      • P.S. http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html

  16. FROM ELSEWHERE.

    Nomen its very important that the laity like you keep the public service honest. After all if you are a taxpayer they are working on your time.

    The propagation speed of gravity is essentially instantaneous. We know this or else the orbits of planets would unravel. Unfortunately special relativity is a religion. While numerous examples of superluminal speeds are known, and in fact repeatable in the lab, it is a heresy for the benefactors of the public service to talk about this or suggest this as a refutation to some of their sacred cows. In unmixed company this knowledge is spoken of confidently.

    This means that gravity too is held to propagate at that speed. Which is ridiculous. If we were to find the angle of the suns pull on us we would find it is coming from the suns true position. Not from where the sun was 8 minutes ago.

    Now what does this mean? Well consider the doctrine of the photon. This photon is alleged to be created ex-nihilo. We can call this photon Forrest Gump. Or Forrest for short. No matter where this photon is created it doesn’t like where it is. It starts running away from us at the speed of light in this story. “Where are you going little photon” and “Why are you running so fast”.

    I want you to consider the utter strangeness of this behaviour.

    Now the next thing is that when calculations have been attempted for the propagation speeds of GRAVITY the public servants have essentially taken two approaches to the matter.

    1. The Monty Python “Are you a virgin?” approach. This is where they claim that gravity propagates at the speed of light. And they say “It does you know.” “It must do”. When further prodded they will go into incredible evasive action. The usual. Bombing you will links. Ridicule. Arguments from authority. All the normal gear.

    2. Actual attempts to calculate how fast gravity particles would need to move to produce a push-gravity version of the force of gravity wind up coming out at 20 billion times the speed of light. I don’t know the assumptions behind this. Essentially gravity is instantaneous, and certainly in the single galaxy context.

    Now consider again how odd it is for a Forrest Gump particle to be created ex-nihilo and to race off at the speed of light? No reason is given for this utterly bizzare behaviour. If this is not bizarre enough at the speed of light, then how more implausible is it to suppose that we can have gravity particles which exhibit this same inexplicable strangeness, but at 20 billion times the speed of light?

    So we find from this analysis that we have but one conclusion to make. That all objects that exhibit mass are permanently attached either directly or indirectly to eachother.

    EACH PROTON IS ATTACHED TO EVERY OTHER.

    Now going back to this question of lights medium:

    If all particles that are affected by gravity are attached to every other, directly or indirectly……. why ought this network of attachments not form the medium that light is traveling through?

    If you have a peg on either end of a tight clothesline and you hit that peg, you will note that the peg at the other end moves almost immediately. Now we have an explanation for the strange behaviour of light and gravity. And this is really the only contending explanation. All other explanations are essentially voodoo.

    Posted by: Graeme Bird | April 1, 2010 6:46 PM

    • “EACH PROTON IS ATTACHED TO EVERY OTHER.”

      Called string theory, yes? from around 1968.

      • No its a completely different theory. Its got some precedents. But in recent times Bill Gaede has developed this theory. I’m not sure of all aspects of his theory, though I have his book which I’m going to start reading soon.

        But what I have written down is pretty much what we can nail down for sure.

        String theory is something entirely different. Wherein instead of three dimensions or four dimensions these people have conjured as many as ten dimensions of space. But in this story I think that many of the dimensions are microscopic.

        Bill assumes no more than three dimensions of space. Everything he says is coherent and capable of visualisation. And you can see that my representation of what he is saying is pretty damn hard to get around. Because light and gravity cannot really be accounted for any other way.

  17. Apparently we must now assume, in accordance with the pronouncements of quackademic, and stupidest man on the internet …. PZ Myers ….. that misaligned joints and vertrbrae will automatically just slot nicely back into place.

    “OK, totally unsurprising and boring. How about this for exciting news: Simon Singh has won an appeal, and gets to use the defense of fair comment in his battle with the chiropractic quacks.”

    Amazing. How this fucking idiot just seems to know that this self-correction happens all by itself. He also seems to think that an hypothesis proves itself, so one ought not be so surprised.

  18. Capable of visualisation in such matters is hardly a legitimate, relevant or even possible criteria.

    • No it is Philomena. If they cannot even so much as make an animation of the objects they are talking about, since we have no evidence whatsoever of more than three dimensions of space (we are really just talking about three right angles. The “three” in this story is not intrinsic to reality, but rather us making sense of it with our mathematical tools) then we have to assume the public service is engaging in bullshitartistry.

      They’ve got to explain what they are seeing in their minds eye. Physics is about objects. Not about concepts. Objects are things that have shape. We are talking about big stuff and small stuff. We are not asking people to see an ultraviolet coloured mountain. We are just talking about what shape they think the small stuff is. Its structure. Orthogonal ropes and nodes? It would seem this is at least part of the story.

      Personally I expect to see the same shapes repeating on all scales. Very much like that deep deep deep complexity you were talking about earlier. I don’t think it ever ends. I expect it to be like a repeating Mandelbrot set. I expect the same sort of patterns you see in leaves and leopards you were telling me about. Being generated on and on, no matter how big or small you get.

      • Ok. But I thought that if the basic constitutent of matter is a series of entities so small then they are beyond the scope of direct observation by current measuring instruments. Some physicists say there may be 11 dimensions in all, 10 of space and one of time. Many of these are hidden dimensions curled up of which we are not presently aware. I guess such things can be modelled or visualised by some but the arguments for these are made for mathematical reasons that even mathematicians find difficult. But the need for extra dimensions is to explains why particles have the mass and energy and number that they do.

        And the thing about string theory is that it suggests there may be a pre-history to the universe, a period before the so-called Big Bang. That rather than starting out as very hot and tightly curled in a tiny spatial speck, the universe started out as cold and essentially infinite in spatial effect.

        And while there are patterns in nature Mandelbrot had the idea of chaos combined with complexity. He identified “fractals” such as coastlines, snowflakes, rocks, etc. From a distance they have a uniform shape of outline, but the closer you can see them the more intricate the outline, with often the pattern repeated at different scales. The complicated patterns they contain in fact if fed into a computer program would show that they contain patterns that never quite repeat themselves again.

  19. The ‘starchild’ skull has been tested which revealed that mitochondrial DNA recovered from the skull shows the child was human with 2 human parents.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    YOU IDIOT. FIRST YOU’RE A LIAR. SECOND YOU INSULT LLOYD YOU GET WIPED AND YOU MIGHT GET BANNED FOR GOOD. THIRDLY YOU FUCKING MORON, MITOCHONDRIAL DNA TELLS US ABOUT THE MOTHER ALONE. AND THE MOTHER WAS, WITHOUT ANY DOUBT WHATSOEVER, HUMAN.

    MITOCHONDRIAL DNA TELLS US NOTHING AT ALL ABOUT THE FATHER. YOUR MITOCHONDRIAL DNA SHEDS GREAT LIGHT ON YOUR MOTHER. YOUR MOTHERS MOTHER. HER MOTHER. AND THATS IT. NOTHING IN THE MITOCHONDRIAL DNA SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT ANY OF YOUR MALE ANCESTORS.

    THE MALES ARE SORT OF ENGULFED BY WOMEN, IN A WAY.

    • You know Graeme, I may have made an error saying that “mitochondrial DNA recovered from the skull shows the child was human with 2 human parents.”

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHA MAY HAVE? HAHAHAHAHA

      NOW NO LYING ON THIS SITE FELLA. YOU GOT THAT FAR WITHOUT LYING, BUT THEN I HAD TO CUT THE REST OFF. YOU ARE NOT EVEN TRYING ARE YOU? MORE TRYING, NO LYING.

    • LIE ERASED

      Anyway, it makes no difference because the starchild skull DNA was found to contain both an X and a Y chromosome.

      ITS A BOY!!!!!

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA YOU MORON. THIS PROVES ONLY THAT THE CHILD HAD A FATHER. THEY ALREADY KNEW THAT THE CHILD HAD A MOTHER. THEY WERE WANTING TO FIND WHAT THE GENETICS OF THE FATHER WERE LIKE.

      YOU ARE GENUINELY RETARDED. AT NO STAGE DID THEY DOUBT THAT THE CHILD HAD BOTH A FATHER AND A MOTHER. THEY WERE TRYING TO FIND THE GENETICS OF THE FATHER YOU TOTAL DROOLING BLOCKHEAD.

    • Anyway, it makes no difference because the starchild skull DNA was found to contain both an X and a Y chromosome. This is conclusive evidence that the child

      1.WAS A BOY
      2. HAD A FATHER.

      THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU HANG OUT ON THE PZ-MYERS, THE STUPIDEST MAN ON THE INTERESTS SITE. WHEN YOU HANG OUT THERE TOO LONG YOUR BRAIN ATROPHIES. CLEARLY YOU ARE NOW A DIM BULB, WHETHER OR NOT YOU STARTED OUT THAT WAY.

    • YOU GOT ONE MORE CHANCE TO MAKE A VALID ARGUMENT AND IF YOU PROVE UNABLE YOU ARE BANNED. YOU’VE BEEN HERE A NUMBER OF DAYS AND THIS HAS PROVED BEYOND YOU.

      AT NO TIME DID LLOYD AND HIS PEOPLE THINK THAT THE STARCHILD WAS THE RESULT OF A VIRGIN BIRTH. THEY SPECIFICALLY WERE WANTING TO KNOW WHAT SORT OF MOTHER AND FATHER IT HAD.

      • Who said anything about a virgin birth? The skull is from a human who had a human mother

        NO LYING ON THIS SITE. THE WHOLE POINT OF ALL THE EVIDENCE IS THAT THE MOTHER HAS BEEN PROVEN HUMAN. THE FATHER IS ALIEN. AND THERE MUST HAVE BEEN A LOT OF GENETIC MANIPULATION IN ORDER TO GET TWO ALIEN SPECIES TO BREED. SO OBVIOUSLY IT WASN’T JUST ET RAPING SOME CHICK. IT WAS A SOPHISTICATED OPERATION IN GENETIC MANIPULATION.

  20. Philomena, I know they talk about all these dimensions. But since they have no evidence for any of them, I don’t consider this science. I consider it maths-mysticism.

    There physical description of the various shapes must explain the rest of their theory and not leave things hanging.

    So if they are claiming that a photon is created ex-nihlo, and then buggers off from where it is at the speed of light, I want to know why.

    Bill Gaede delivers. He says that you hit a peg on a tight clothesline, the peg at the other end of the rope moves immediately. This is a physical description which explains the speed of light.

    Just saying that a photon has “zero rest mass” and that these shapeless concepts bugger off at the speed of light, should they have a zero rest mass, is not good science. Its bad theology. I like good theology don’t get me wrong. I don’t like bad theology pretending to be science.

    Now what you say about the Mandelbrot set. What a great description. You say how valuable you are to my blog.

    I assume, but of course I don’t know, that nature works like that Mandelbrot set, just exactly how you have magnificently described it. I assume that nature had to formulate such a series of repeating structures, or at least before existence, properly considered, could exist. I assume organic growth. And I don’t go in for this conservation of energy and mass, otherwise there doesn’t seem to be much chance that existence could exist. I think physics is about creation, growth, decay, much like biology, since its founded on those same principles that you have introduced to this thread.

    “And while there are patterns in nature Mandelbrot had the idea of chaos combined with complexity. He identified “fractals” such as coastlines, snowflakes, rocks, etc. From a distance they have a uniform shape of outline, but the closer you can see them the more intricate the outline, with often the pattern repeated at different scales. The complicated patterns they contain in fact if fed into a computer program would show that they contain patterns that never quite repeat themselves again.”

    I just need a few more people like you here and I’ll have the coolest blog. Somehow very few of the blokes that come here seem to cut it.

  21. Interesting you mention visualisation powers.

    I was just reading about Francis Galton in “Human Faculties” who drew a distinction between two types of mind or types, visualisers and non-visualisers, the former thinking in terms of mental images and the latter tending or preferring to think abstractly in terms of words which do not evoke specific images.

    I have a friend who has difficulty recognising faces even of well known people who he has seen over and over again. It is very odd. I don’t think I am a visualiser so much either, though I don’t have that problem.

    I think there can be drawbacks to being a visualiser but a strength or advantage is said to often be in the ability to see numbers arranged in a definite and often unvarying position in space, and that the number forms are often coloured.

    Some such folks are said to be capable of performing mental calculations very rapidly and accurately. But once past the highest number they can “see” (e.g. 1000) they find calculation much harder. What is invisible they find hard to intuitively understand or incorporate into their mental calculations.

  22. Actually I’m a poor visualiser. Thats probably why I expect them to spell the visuals out clearly. I’m kind of jealous of Neal Adams because he can formulate good theory, from the basis of his superior visual ability.

    What has happened is that the upwardly mobile in physics have eschewed both verbal logic and visual description, and have gone in for maths-based description.

    But maths is just a tool. Like a hammer and a ruler.

  23. Analogous to the the visualiser/non-visualiser types in the realm of maths is said to be the geometrical vs the analytical mind. Of course not mutually exclusive.

    But Henri PoincarĂ© pointed out the fundamental dissimilarity between these two types of mathematical intelligence, i.e. some are by nature geometrically minded and do their thinking in terms of figures and diagrams and can even claim they’re literally incapable of understanding any physical hypothesis which they can not interpret schematically by means of a mechanical model. If the electromagnetic theory of light cannot be illustrated by mechanical means it remains incomprehensible to them.

    For others, even some mathematicians, a model or a concrete diagram of any kind seems like an obstacle to comprehension rather than an aid. While I not in that league, I found it comforting, since I refuse to even look at any form of chart, diagram, model, etc. They infuriate me.

  24. And then there are the poets and thinkers who view what to others are mere objects as windows into higher yes mystical if you like realities.

    Goethe thought the triangle had magical properties and symbolic virtues. You may think that is absurd but that does not mean your sort of reason is superior to his. It is different, that is all, perhaps irreconcilably different.

    What is seen as reason is not the same or absolute for everyone at all times and all places.

    How we see things, including how scientists see things, is a function of many things including psychology, physiology and political or intellectual persuasion. All of these factors predispose us to concreteness of thought or abstraction, to matter-of-factness or mysticism, to realism or verbal communication or visual or abstract representation.

    Magical or mystical actions or experiences or insights cannot be expressed mathematically or isolated for the benefit of chemical analysis, but that is not proof that they do not exist. And it is arrogant nonsense to state otherwise.

  25. You know some of the people who I have found informative and interesting have mentioned Poincare. I may have to check out his thoughts somehow.

  26. Oil Is Mastery’s List Of Modern Guru’s. I’ll log this here and try and remember to check them out.

    Living Gurus
    Paul LaViolette
    Tom Valone
    Michael Cremo
    Virginia Steen-McIntyre
    Rand Flem-Ath
    Gavin Menzies
    Graham Hancock
    Robert Bauval
    John West
    Robert Schoch
    Robert Christy
    Richard Garwin
    Per Carlqvist
    Anthony Peratt
    Friedemann Freund
    Halton Arp
    Jayant Narlikar
    Geoffrey Burbidge
    Margaret Burbidge
    Ralph Sansbury
    Abhas Mitra
    Rudolph Schild
    Darryl Leiter
    Vladilen Krayushkin
    Irina Plotnikova
    Jack Kenney
    Stavros Tassos
    David Ford
    Hiroo Kanamori
    Dennis McCarthy
    Freeman Dyson
    Neal Adams
    Ian Tresman
    Nassim Taleb
    Erich Von Däniken
    Zecharia Sitchin

  27. I DISCOVERED THE YOUNG BLOKE ON THE BASIS THAT HE GOT BANNED FROM THE RICHARD DAWKINS SITE JUST BEFORE ME. THOUGH HE HAD BEEN FAULTLESSLY RATIONAL, AND POLITE. THATS WHY I WAS QUITE IMPRESSED WITH HIM.

    YOU DON’T GET TO INSULT RATIONAL PEOPLE ON THIS SITE DUMMY.

    • YOU LIE OR INSULT YOUR BETTERS, YOU ARE GETTING WRITTEN OVER. ATTEMPT TO BE REASONABLE. NOTE YOUR POSTS WHERE YOU’VE MANAGED TO GET HALF THE POST APPROVED. OFTEN YOU STARTED LYING AT THAT POINT WHERE YOU GOT WIPED.

      • If you cannot learn how to talk rationally about anything, without lying, or insulting people who follow the scientific method, or making things up as if you had special powers of second sight, I’m just as likely to ban you altogether. So start making sense.

  28. I’ve just started checking out Gavin Menzies again, on the basis of the recommendation of him being on young Mr Oil Is Masteries list.

    He appears to be fine. Doesn’t seem to be anything wrong with him.

    • WHAT PROPOSITION IS THIS AN ARGUMENT FOR OR AGAINST? MAKE A REASONED ARGUMENT.

    • WHAT PROPOSITION IS THIS AN ARGUMENT FOR OR AGAINST? MAKE A REASONED ARGUMENT.

    • THIS MAY APPEAR TO BE A VALID ARGUMENT TO YOU AND PZ MYERS, THE STUPIDEST MAN ON THE INTERNET. BUT IT DOESN’T CUT IT AROUND HERE.

  29. 1. YOU KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT IDIOT. SPECIAL RELATIVITY IS UNTENABLE.

    2. WAVE MOTION REQUIRES A MEDIUM JUST AS A HOT BABES SMILE REQUIRES HER FACE.

    3. I CLAIMED THAT EINSTEIN BELIEVED IN AN AETHER. AND YOU HAVEN’T BROUGHT UP A DAMN THING AGAINST THIS PROPOSITION. RATHER YOU’VE BROUGHT UP DIRECT EVIDENCE IN YOUR LINK TO SUGGEST HE WENT ON BELIEVING THIS.

    4. IT DOESN’T MAKE A DIFFERENCE WHAT EINSTEIN BEELIEVED IN ANY CASE.

    5. YOUR IDIOCY IS JUST UNBELIEVABLE. IF YOU WANT TO BELIEVE THAT EINSTEIN DIDN’T GO ON THINKING THAT THERE MUST BE AN AETHER, WELL YOU MIGHT WANT TO BRING EVIDENCE FOR THAT CONTENTION.

    6. YOU ARE SUCH A DUMB FUCK YOU THINK ANYTHING AT ALL YOU QUOTE IS EVIDENCE FOR WHAT YOU ARE CLAIMING.

    • DESPITE THE FACT THAT YOU ARE ON MODERATION, YOU WILL NOTICE THAT TRUISM HAS GOTTEN A POST THROUGH. QUITE TO MY SURPRISE HE ACTUALLY ATTEMPTED TO MAKE AN ARGUMENT. THEY WERE PRETTY STUPID ARGUMENTS, BUT THEY WERE A START.

      SO DESPITE THE FACT THAT YOU ARE NOW ON MODERATION, I DO CHECK THE COMMENTS NOW AND THEN. AND I WILL RETRIEVE ANYTHING THAT IS NOT DRIBBLING LUNACY.

      SO FAR TRUISM IS THE FIRST PERSON FROM THE PZ MYERS SCHOOL FOR STUPID TO MAKE A VALID ARGUMENT. AND HE ONLY DID IT AFTER HE WAS PUT ON PERMANENT MODERATION. GO FIGURE.

  30. From Elsewhere:

    No no. Wave is not any shorthand for mathematical formalism. Its a real EVENT involving movement through a great many discrete objects. Waves would exist if mathematics was never developed.

    Modern physics has a religious overlay to it. Partly because of two sins against logic. One logical error is to reify a concept into an object. But you’ve just committed another error, in that you’ve demoted a real object, or in this case an event, into a mathematical concept.

    You don’t want to play mix and match like this. Or you will lose your sense of what is real and what isn’t. We must distinguish between concepts and objects.

    When you are talking about a wave in stock prices you are talking by analogy towards real things in nature. In this case a wave.

    So consider the unlogic. You’ve taken an anlogy of a wave, said that this analogy is not a real wave, and then tried to say that real waves in nature are merely mathematical constructs. But you can surf on some of them, and without a calculator in sight.

    Posted by: Graeme Bird | April 2, 2010 8:00 PM
    40
    “And there’s no requirement that light do so either.

    Once again this is impossible. All authentic waves in nature require a medium. An analogous wave in stock prices is something else again, because its a wave in things that are already at one or two levels of abstraction.

    So we know that light must have a medium. Many things in physics are in grave doubt. But not this. A girls smile is not possible without the girls face. No evidence has ever emerged that light waves, or any real waves in nature, lack a medium.

    Posted by: Graeme Bird | April 2, 2010 8:07 PM
    41
    The first step to finding out what light is, consists of finding out what its medium is. The reason why we haven’t found out what light is, is that we abandoned the search for lights medium. Clearly this was an unjustifiable mistake. And look at the extreme consequences of this mistake??? The proof really is in the pudding. We abandon finding out what lights medium is, so why are we surprised to find out, that in 2010 we don’t know what light is. The result follows the logical error like night follows day.

    Posted by: Graeme Bird | April 2, 2010 8:12 PM

  31. So far not one person who has come over from the PZ MYERS blog has proved capable of making a valid argument.

    Incredible. Even Steve Edney and some of the fellows from Catallaxy can make mediocre points once in awhile.

    I have to contend that the PZ Myers blog is far more stupid again then even Catallaxy.

    • IS NO-ONE FROM THE PZ-MYERS STUPIDTOWN CAPABLE OF ADDRESSING AN ARGUMENT, OR MAKING AN ARGUMENT ON TOPIC.

      HE IS TRULY THE STUPIDEST MAN ON THE INTERENET.

  32. OK, so the premise is that an obviously more advanced group of aliens visited earth at some stage and at least attempted to interbreed. This does raise a few questions:
    1. Why bother, what could they hope to gain? If they were that advanced, I don’t see that they would have the desire to ‘enslave’ us.Or were they being altruistic?

    RIGHT. THATS A HUGE MYSTERY. WHY BOTHER. WHY NOT STAY AT HOME. I’VE ALREADY ATTEMPTED AN EXPLANATION IN THE THREAD. I GUESS YOU WOULD HAVE TO ASK THEM. BECAUSE WE NOW KNOW THEY DID SHOW UP.

    2. Did they succeed or fail? If they failed, why would they leave any evidence behind?

    WHAT SORT OF DUMB QUESTION IS THIS? THESE PEOPLE ARE MANY LIGHT-YEARS FROM HOME? THEY ARE LIKE EXPLORERS TO THE SOUTH POLE WHO LEAVE SCOTS BODY BEHIND. THEY ARE NOT GOD. THEY DON’T HAVE AN ECONOMY BACKING THEM. I DON’T GET YOUR LINE OF QUESTIONING. WE HAVE A SKULL THAT PROVES THEY DID COME. THATS ALL WE HAVE.

    3. If they succeeded, surely they would have bred out factors such as greed, the urge to harm others and the desire for war? I can’t see such an advanced species doing a ‘half-arsed’ job of it.

    YOU’VE LOST THE PLOT MATE. ALL WE HAVE IS THE KNOWLEDGE THAT THEY CAME HERE AND TOOK ADVANTAGE OF ONE OF OUR PRE-MEXICAN SHEILAS. THATS IT. ITS ONLY 900 YEARS AGO MATE. ITS PRETTY CLEAR THEY DIDN’T TAKE OVER THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE 900 YEARS AGO?

    LOOK YOU AT LEAST MADE SOME SORT OF ARGUMENT, SO EVEN THOUGH YOU ARE BLOCKED I WILL APPROVE THIS. NOW YOU HAVE PROVED THAT YOU CAN MAKE AN ARGUMENT, TRY AND MAKE BETTER ARGUMENTS. AND MAKE THEM STRAIGHT. NOT IN THE FORM OF STUPID QUESTIONS ALONE. STICK YOUR NECK OUT.

    NOW IF THIS IS JUST SOME SORT OF TEMPORARY OUTPOST THESE GUYS HAD 1000 YEARS AGO, THEY ARE ON THE BONES OF THEIR ASS. YOU NEED A PLANETARY ECONOMY TO MAINTAIN HIGH TECHNOLOGY. THE FACTORY CANNOT GO TWO SHIFTS (16 HOURS) WITHOUT A MAINTENANCE TEAM.

  33. Excellent talk on gravity. By far the best thing I’ve seen outside of what Gaede has to say.

  34. http://www.globalcoolingradio.com/

  35. if I understand the point you are formulating through your answers, which can be demonstrated by your statement ‘THEY ARE LIKE EXPLORERS TO THE SOUTH POLE WHO LEAVE SCOTS BODY BEHIND.’ I have to say I can’t agree.

    EXCELLENT. GOOD STUFF. YOU SEE I’M SPECULATING. EXTRAPOLATING. WHAT WE KNOW IS WE HAVE A HYBRID SKULL. MOTHER HUMAN. FATHER ALIEN. THERE MUST HAVE BEEN MUCH SLICING AND DICING TO MAKE THAT GIG WORK. AND PROBABLY EARLIER GENETIC MIXING AS WELL. BUT THE REST IS SPECULATIVE. YOU LOCK IN WHAT YOU KNOW. THEN YOU ARE FORCED TO SPECULATE.

    My point is that if they are advanced enough to get here, choose to land here and do what they did, then surely they are advanced enough that my questions are valid regarding the how’s and why’s?

    NO NOT AT ALL. ECONOMICALLY SPEAKING TECHNOLOGY RELIES ON CAPITAL ACCUMULATION. WHICH RELIES ON THE EXTENT OF GLOBAL TRADE, THE LENGTH OF THE STRUCTURE OF PRODUCTION, AND THE DEGREE OF SPECIALISATION. IF THEY HAVE TO TRAVEL MANY DECADES TO GET HERE THEY WILL HAVE VERY LITTLE RESOURCES TO WORK WITH.

    UNLESS YOU ARE ASSERTING THEY HAVE SET UP PERMANENT OPERATION IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM. IN WHICH CASE YOU COULD MAKE THAT ARGUMENT. I DON’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT SUCH A PROSPECT. ALL I KNOW ABOUT IS WE HAVE A HYBRID SKULL FROM 900 YEARS AGO. SO WHAT DO WE HAVE? A SHIP AND A LAB AND A MAINTENANCE CREW? OR ALTERNATIVELY A WIDER TRADING OPERATION IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM. MAYBE THEY COULDN’T GO TO EUROPE OR CHINA UNDER THOSE CONDITIONS. MAYBE THEY ARE ON A WING AND A PRAYER AND WOULD HAVE FACED THE POSSIBILITY OF GETTING THEIR ASS WHIPPED.

    CAPTAIN COOK HAD MUSKETS. BUT HE GOT EATEN BY ISLANDERS. SOME OF HIS MEN MAY HAVE MATED WITH POLYNESIANS. BUT THE FACT IS HE WAS A LONG WAY FROM HOME WITH VERY FEW RESOURCES.

    • So where did these aliens go? Who were they trading with in the solar system? Martians?

      WHY ARE YOU ASKING ME FOR? YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING THAT CASE? TO HAVE A WIDER TRADING OPERATION IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM, IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN SUPERIOR TECHNOLOGY, WITH AWESOME RESOURCES, YOU’D NEED A POPULATION OF AT LEAST PERHAPS 500 MILLION.

      I’M NOT MAKING THAT CASE. I’M SAYING THAT WE KNOW WE HAVE A HYBRID SKULL. IF THEY DIDN’T HAVE A MEGA-ECONOMY IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM THEN THEY ARE UNDER-RESOURCED AND A LONG WAY FROM HOME. SO OBVIOUSLY UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES YOUR INITIAL QUESTIONS WOULD MAKE NO SENSE AT ALL.

      IF YOU WANT TO MAKE THE CASE THAT THEY HAVE ALL THESE RESOURCES, THEN YOU HAVE TO MAKE THE CASE FOR A MASSIVE ALIEN ECONOMY IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM. I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT ALL THEY HAD WAS AN OUTPOST SOMEWHERE. IN WHICH CASE THEY ARE LIKE A SINGLE SPANISH SHIP LANDING IN SOUTH AMERICA. VERY VULNERABLE.

      WHEN THE EUROPEANS STARTED BUILDING COLONIES IN THE AMERICAS THEIR HOUSING TECHNOLOGY REGRESSED 1000 YEARS. THATS THE SORT OF ECONOMIC REALITY WE ARE TALKING ABOUT FOR DISTANT OUTPOSTS. IT WOULD BE ALL THEY COULD DO TO KEEP THE TECHNOLOGY THAT THEY HAD. WE DON’T LEAVE DOUBLE-ENTRY BOOK-KEEPING BEHIND JUST BECAUSE WE BECOME HIGH-TECH. FOR A HIGH-TECH ECONOMY THEY WOULD STILL NEED SMALL BUSINESSMEN WITH THE PROFIT MOTIVE.

      • Graeme said: ALL I KNOW ABOUT IS WE HAVE A HYBRID SKULL FROM 900 YEARS AGO. SO WHAT DO WE HAVE? A SHIP AND A LAB AND A MAINTENANCE CREW? OR ALTERNATIVELY A WIDER TRADING OPERATION IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM. MAYBE THEY COULDN’T GO TO EUROPE OR CHINA UNDER THOSE CONDITIONS. MAYBE THEY ARE ON A WING AND A PRAYER AND WOULD HAVE FACED THE POSSIBILITY OF GETTING THEIR ASS WHIPPED.

        You’re the one who is trying to make a case about aliens trading in the solar system.

        NO I’M NOT MAKING THAT CASE AT ALL. WHAT WE HAVE IS A HYBRID SKULL. WHICH MEANS THAT THEY MUST HAVE BROUGHT WITH THEM A LOT OF GEAR TO DO WITH GENE SPLICING. MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY. THEY MUST HAVE LOADED UP ON THAT SORT OF GEAR. IF THEY DIDN’T HAVE A LOCAL ECONOMY, THEREFORE, THEY ARE ON A WING AND A PRAYER. AND OF COURSE THEY COULD GET THEMSELVES IN TROUBLE. JUST AS CAPTAIN COOK DID DESPITE HIS SUPERIOR TECHNOLOGY TO THE POLYNESIANS. HE GOT EATEN IN CASE YOU DIDN’T KNOW.

  36. Are there any other people out there who are in agreement with the likes of Gavin Menzies and Lloyd Pye.

    THERE MUST BE MANY THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE. SINCE BOTH THESE GUYS BELIEVE IN EVIDENCE AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. WHEREAS FATTY MYERS BELIEVES IN NONE OF THIS STUFF, BUT ONLY TALKS UP A STORM WHEN HE COMES TO MY TOWN.

    I BOUGHT THE GAVIN MENZIES BOOK WHEN IT CAME OUT. THEN I HEARD HE’D BEEN DISCREDITED AND DIDN’T THINK MUCH OF IT. I’VE CHECKED HIM OUT FOR THE FIRST TIME AGAIN YESTERDAY. AND I CAN SAY THAT HE USES SOUND METHOD. I CANNOT VOUCH FOR ANY SPECIFIC CLAIM HE’S MADE. BUT HE FOLLOWS SOUND THINKING, BELIEVES IN THE IMPORTANCE OF EVIDENCE AND SO FORTH. HENCE HE’S TO BE LISTENED TO, NOT AS THE GOSPEL, BUT AS AN IMPORTANT SPECULATIVE HISTORIAN.

    • What has PZ Myers got to do with this? He is a respected scientist

      RESPECTED BY WHOM? HE’S A MORON. OH AND I WILL ADD. HE’S A LIAR. HE LIED ABOUT ME, HAS HAD TIME TO RETRACT, AND HAS NOT DONE SO.

      • HE CALLED ME AN EVOLUTION-DENIER AND AN ANTI-VAXER. STRAIGHT BRAZEN LIES. THEN HE MADE A STRING OF HALF-TRUTHZ THAT WERE EVEN WORSE. YOU SHOW ANY NUANCE AROUND THIS FAT UNSCIENTIST, YOU CAN BE BRANDED SIX WAYS.

  37. OK, under your version of events (not criticising here) that is a plausible hypothesis, as evidenced by ‘IF THEY HAVE TO TRAVEL MANY DECADES TO GET HERE’.

    If however, they are advanced enough that the trip was significantly faster, it would alter so many salient factors regarding what took place that the questions I posed are valid, are they not?

    YES I SUPPOSE IT WOULD AND NOW YOU ARE SHOWING YOUR FRIENDS HOW TO MAKE AN EXCELLENT LOGICAL POINT.

    NOW BEAR IN MIND THAT THERE IS NO LIGHT-SPEED LIMIT. WE CAN KEEP ACCELERATING PAST LIGHT-SPEED. BUT I SEE THIS AS REALLY TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE FROM A PRACTICAL POINT OF VIEW. YOU’D BE RIPPED TO SHREDS. THINK OF ALL THE SOLAR WINDS AND COSMIC RAYS …. SUBATOMIC PARTICLES. YOU REALLY HAVE TO CONFORM TO CERTAIN GALACTIC SPEED LIMITS I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT, OR ELSE YOU’D BE SHREDDED.

    SUPPOSE YOU COULD SURVIVE ABOVE LIGHT SPEED? WELL THEN YOU COULD GET ABOVE LIGHT SPEED AND THEN LOCAL CONDITIONS WOULD SLOW YOU DOWN BELOW THAT SPEED. SO WHILE FASTER THAN LIGHT SPEED IS A POSSIBILITY ITS NOT REAL REAL PRACTICAL IN THIS STORY. WE HAVE TO ASSUME CONSIDERABLY SLOWER TRANSPORT SPEEDS AND THEREFORE LONGER TRANSPORT TIMES.

    AND I WOULD THINK IT MIGHT BE PRETTY EASY TO NEUTRALISE GRAVITY SPECIFICALLY BELOW YOU. BUT INERTIA? I DON’T THINK SO. SO THINK OF ALL THE TIME YOU’D SPEND ACCELERATING. SO WITH THOSE TWO LIMITATIONS, AND THE LIMITATIONS OF THE ECONOMY OF THE HOME PLANET, I DON’T SEE THIS AS A LIKELY STORY. SO TO ME THERE RESOURCES ARE LIMITED. THEY ARE ON A WING AND A PRAYER.

    IF YOU WANT TO DISPUTE THE SKULLS STATUS LETS HAVE YOUR REASONS FOCUSING ON LLOYDS EVIDENCE. I’M NOT INTERESTED IN YOUR LIVER QUIVER MAN. LLOYDS PROVED THE STATUS. AND I’LL NOT PUT UP WITH ANY WILD ASSERTIONS AS TO HIS INTELLECTUAL OR GENERAL HONESTY. SO TAKE A LOOK AT HIS EVIDENCE AND MAKE YOUR CASE ON THAT BASIS ALONE.

    BUT YOU’VE DONE PRETTY WELL. MUCH BETTER THEN ANYONE ELSE FROM THE PZ MYERS SCHOOL FOR STUPID. WHY DID YOU FUCK AROUND FOR THREE DAYS WASTING TIME? ITS JUST RUDE YOU KNOW.

  38. What you say in regard to the travel aspect may be true for US, but surely it’s hard to ascertain what level of advancement another species (need to find a more accurate word than species, any suggestions?) may have attained?
    They could have found ways to overcome the issues you enunciate, or used a completely different sytem of travel such as teleporting.

    WOULD YOU STEP INTO A MACHINE THAT WAS GOING TO DESTROY YOU UTTERLY AND THEN RE-ASSEMBLE YOU? AND THEN YOU BEAM THAT ACROSS HOW FAR AND EXPECT IT TO SELF-ASSEMBLE? WITH ALL YOUR GEAR AS WELL? NOW COME ON. BEING HIGH TECH DOESN’T MEAN YOU GET TO CHANGE THE LAWS OF PHYSICS.

    Again, currently impossible for US, but who knows what’s out there?

    At the risk of being repetitive, I still find it difficult to accept ….

    BUT THATS HARDLY THE POINT. WE DON’T KNOW WHY THEY CAME HERE. WE HAVE A SKULL THAT PROVES WITH FINALITY THAT THEY WERE HERE. AND THATS ALL WE HAVE. I’M NOT A MIND-READER. I DON’T KNOW WHY THEY WERE HERE. BUT THEY WERE HERE AND THAT MUCH WE KNOW. ……… that they would arrive, mess around with us and either succeed yet not make us better than we are

    WHY WOULD THEY WANT TO DO THAT? HOW MUCH OF A BUDGET DO YOU IMAGINE THEY WERE WORKING WITH?; or fail and not remove or destroy the evidence. WHY WOULD THEY WANT TO DESTROY THE EVIDENCE? YOU SEE YOU ARE IMAGINING THAT YOU HAVE THE GIFT OF SECOND SIGHT AND CAN SEE INTO ALIEN PRIORITIES.

    NOW WHY DO YOU FIND THIS IMPROBABLE THAT THEY WOULDN’T DROP EVERYTHING AND TURN US ALL INTO SOMETHING WE WERE NOT? DID CAPTAIN COOKS MEN WANT TO DO ALL THAT? WE WOULD HAVE TO ASSUME THAT THE BREEDING PROGRAM IS FOR THEM AND NOT FOR US. WE WOULD HAVE TO ASSUME THAT THEY HAVE THEIR OWN PROBLEMS.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    YOU DON’T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE AND YOU ARE JUST KIDDING YOURSELF IF YOU THINK YOU DO. YOU CANNOT FIND ANYTHING “CLOSE-TO-SOURCE” AT ALL. HERE YOU HAVE FIRST-HAND TESTIMONY. NO OTHER SOURCE IS ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

    SO WHAT DO YOU IMAGINE BASED ON THE FIRST-HAND-EVIDENCE THAT YOU DO HAVE? HE’S RIGHT THERE ON TAPE. HE’S PRESENTING A REPRESENTATIVE SURVEY OF THE EVIDENCE HE’S ACCUMULATED.

    SUPPOSING YOU ARE NOT CLAIMING HE’S LYING. WHAT DO YOU FIND UNCONVINCING ABOUT THE EVIDENCE? YOU OUGHT TO TELL ME WHAT YOU FIND UNCONVINCING ABOUT THE EVIDENCE OR YOU OUGHT TO WAKE UP TO YOURSELF AND ADMIT THAT YOU AREN’T A SCIENTIST. RATHER YOU ARE BELIEVING WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE.

  39. “If however, they are advanced enough that the trip was significantly faster, it would alter so many salient factors regarding what took place that the questions I posed are valid, are they not?”

    Did you see this electric? Did you read this? Did you follow the argument and comprehend the degree of validity of this logical inference?

    This is probably the first middling level sound logical inference I’ve had from any of the fatty-MYERS crowd in all that time since he put up the whipping-boy thread.

    Fatty-Myers is full of shit. He runs an anti-science, obstructionist blog for people who really don’t wish to think at all.

  40. You have to be objective about this Truism. You have to follow the evidence you do have and not make up evidence that you don’t have.

    Now following the close-to-source evidence you do have, lets have your analysis.

  41. WE AREN’T GOING AROUND IN CIRCLES. YOU ARE GOING AROUND IN CIRCLES. DID THE POLYNESIANS HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEMAND THAT ALL ENGLISHMEN BE BILLIONAIRES?

    DO YOU IMAGINE FOR ONE MINUTE THAT ALL ALIENS ARE BILLIONAIRES? THAT THEY HAVE ABANDONED THE NEED FOR CAPITALISM, SMALL BUSINESS, PROFITS, HARD MONEY, MARKETS AND ALL THAT?

    DO YOU IMAGINE THAT ALIENS DO NOT NEED DOUBLE-ENTRY BOOK-KEEPING ON THE GROUNDS THAT THEY ARE BILLIONAIRES?

    HOW WOULD ALL ALIENS BECOME BILLIONAIRES IN THE FIRST PLACE. UNLESS THEY WERE WILLING TO BUILD A RACE OF SLAVES THAT WERE SMART BUT COULDN’T TALK AND WERE PHYSICALLY WEAK? TO DO ALL THE WORK FOR THEM AND YET NEVER GANG UP ON THEM?

    WHY WOULD YOU FOR ONE MINUTE IMAGINE THAT ALL ALIENS WERE BILLIONAIRES AND WOULD WANT TO, UPON SEEING US, SQUANDER THEIR ENTIRE PLANETARY FORTUNE ON SOME ALTRUISTIC DEAL WHEREIN THEY MADE US BETTER HUMANS?

    THE WHOLE STORY YOU ARE PAINTING IS PRETTY MORONIC. I SUPPOSE ITS POSSIBLE. BUT YOU ARE TALKING AS IF IT IS A NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE OF THEM COMING HERE. LIKE WE GO TO MARS, WE FIND SOME BACTERIA, WE HAVE TO MAKE THE BACTERIA INTELLIGENT BACTERIA AND SET UP A FUCKING HEAVEN ON EARTH.

    ITS ONE THING TO BUY INTO YOUR SILLY STORY ABOUT ALIEN INTENTIONS BUT TO SUGGEST THAT THIS IS THE MANIFEST DESTINY OF ALIENS IS REALLY QUITE INCREDIBLE. FOR STARTERS IF YOU WERE SENT ON A TRIP LASTING TEN …… NO LETS SAY 30 YEARS MINIMUM, YOU ARE PROBABLY A CRIMINAL ON ORDERS AS A PUNISHMENT. YOU ARE PROBABLY CONDUCTING A MISSION THAT NO NON-CRIMINAL WOULD ACCEPT. WHY LEAVE YOUR OWN SOLAR SYSTEM WHEN YOU COULD STAY HOME AND GET RICH?

    YOU SEE THE ABOVE IS MY SPECULATION. PROBABLY NOT A GOOD ONE. SURELY TEN OR ONE HUNDRED TIMES BETTER THAN YOUR OWN.

    BUT SPECULATION IS NOT THE POINT. THE POINT IS THAT WE HAVE PROOF THAT THEY CAME HERE AROUND ABOUT ONE THOUSAND YEARS AGO. THEY WERE USING OUR SHEILAS. AND THEY PRODUCED AT LEAST ONE HYBRID. PROBABLY MANY MORE. IF YOU ASK ME THE ONLY MOTIVE I CAN THINK OF IS TO HAVE A SLAVE SPECIES SO THAT THEY CAN SIT AROUND WRITING POETRY OR SOMETHING. BUT THEN THATS SPECULATION.

    THE FACT OF THEM COMING HERE AND LAUNCHING SOME SORT OF REPULSIVE BREEDING PROGRAM IS NOT SPECULATION BECAUSE WE HAVE ABSOLUTE PROOF.

  42. Graeme,

    You should see some of the stuff my former collaborator and myself have been digging up of late. Recently my old friend met a scientist who is launching a major challenge against the neoDarwinist model. Like most who do so he and the Alternberg 16 are accused of being evolution deniers. Quite the opposite, they are providing conceptual tools to explain so many things that the neoDarwinist models cannot explain. It raises all sorts of fascinating philosophical and scientific issues. This revolution is somewhat premature, it is going to take a lot of hard work to overthrow the neodarwinist model and unless you are one of the lucky ones who gets to meet the scientists starting this challenge it is very easy to think that all the scientists just blithely accept the doctrines of their particular discipline.

    • Well exactly John. I don’t why you were giving me such a hard time about it. I was talking about an whole string of possibilities. I had about ten different possible enhancement mechanisms. From Lemarkian-lite. To Von Daniken-lite. To the idea of us evolving essentially “off-camera” near the water for millions of years before leaping onto the scene and driving Erectus “off-camera.” To the idea of infrequent solar-systems collision which might lead to some neutron-star blasting us with UV and thereby multiplying our mutations. To many catastrophic events, not as severe as the extinction events ….. but leaving vastly more space for what I would call new-niche-morphing evolution.

      But most of all to us ditching this idiocy of the young universe. And by this I mean this pathetic creation story of the big bang. That way we have the potential for two-types of panspermia. For multi-planet evolution. We have trillions of years to get life started and not just four billion. You be more polite from now on. As if I’d ignore Ockhams razor. Ockhams razor is always my working premise. But any decent methodology means putting dozens of options on the table.

  43. I’d be very interested in any work you are doing John. I know you are capable of excellent work when you are in the right frame of mind.

    I’m still mad as a cut snake at Fatty-PZ calling me an anti-evolutionist. Its like this with all these idiots saying that climate empiricists are “against climate science” or “against the science.”

    They are trying to make leftist stupidity the official story in science.

  44. I have stated that I do not believe your position on the ability and intent of possible visiting aliens to be invalid.

    “THE CHANCES OF ANYTHING COMING FROM MARS ARE A MILLION TO ONE HE SAID….
    THE CHANCES OF ANYTHING COMING FROM MARS ARE A MILLION TO ONE
    BUT STILL
    THEY COME…”

    OPINIONS ARE LIKE ASSHOLES. EVERYONES GOT ONE. BUT YOU ARE HERE MAKING AN ASSERTION THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVED WRONG.

    I DON’T LIKE IT EITHER. I TOLD LLOYD I DIDN’T LIKE IT AND THAT IT THREW ALL MY UNDERSTANDINGS COMPLETELY OUT THE WINDOW. I’M NOT PRETENDING TO MAKE SENSE OF IT. I’LL HAVE TO TALK AROUND THE SUBJECT FOR A VERY LONG TIME UNTIL I CAN EVEN HAVE A DECENT SORT OF SPECULATION AS TO WHY THE FUCK THEY WOULD BE HERE. IT CERTAINLY LENDS WEIGHT TO THE OVERLAPPING SOLAR SYSTEM THEORY. BUT EVEN THEN AT ONLY A THOUSAND YEARS AGO WE WOULD HAVE TO BE TALKING ABOUT A DARK STAR AND A PLANET THAT DIDN’T GET REAL CLOSE. EVEN THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO EXPECT MASSIVE TRAVELING TIMES. AND I CANNOT THINK OF A MOTIVE, OTHER THEN TO MAKE A RACE OF MORE BRAINY SLAVES THAT COULDN’T TALK. AND THAT SEEMS PRETTY WEAK I’D GRANT YOU. THATS A VERY WEAK MOTIVE TO COME THIS FAR AND AT ALL THAT EXPENSE.

    OPINIONS ARE LIKE ASSHOLES. YOU HAVEN’T ARGUED THAT LLOYD IS WRONG. YOU’VE SIMPLY ASSERTED IT BASED ON NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER.

    YOUR ASSERTIONS AND YOUR OPINIONS DON’T COUNT FOR A LONE YOWIE-IN-HIDING ON THIS BLOG. I TOO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT IT WOULD BE AN IMPOSSIBLE CO-INCIDENCE TO HAVE THIS RECENT A VISITATION. I WOULD HAVE EXPECTED ONE ONCE EVERY FEW MILLION YEARS.

    BUT LLOYD HAS A HYBRID SKULL. ITS ONLY 900 YEARS OLD. THATS JUST A FACT. ITS JUST SOMETHING WE HAVE TO LIVE WITH. THE FACT OF IT IS SO INCREDIBLY POWERFUL THAT YOU HAVEN’T PUT UP A SINGLE ARGUMENT AGAINST IT. NOT ONE.

  45. Some of you third parties might note that whilst John H and I have had running arguments at Catallaxy and elsewhere, I can never remember once having to moderate him at my place. So I’m not vengeful when it comes to moderation.

    John seems to come here when he’s in a good mood. He’s always got his thinking cap on. He’s forced me into a mild backdown at least once that I can recall.

    So I’m telling you straight. If you learn to think again, and shed this PZ Myers bully-boy status, lose the assumption that you have the leftist gift of second sight ……. then my blog-door is always open.

    Philomena has seldom gotten moderated either. But then she’s a real honey. So that may bias the site deity somewhat.

  46. Well anyhow thats great news John. I’m sure you guys will make a magnificent fist of it. Lord knows its overdue.

    You know what PZ-MYERS would call you?

    A CONCERN-BLOGGER.

  47. If you and your coterie get into a debate with PZ-MYERS, remember not to give him an even break.

    He’s not coming from a righteous point of view at all. I’ve heard him debating. He’ll bullshit straight to the other guys face. And he’ll shake down the conceptualist live on the basis of slightly superior specialist knowledge.

  48. I am about to partake of good food and company.
    I shall respond to your missive a bit later.

    HUH. BUYING TIME I SEE. I’VE HAD GOOD FOOD AND COMPANY SINCE MY GOOD COMPANY WOKE ME UP WITH FOOD, AND OFFERS FOR TEMPORARY UNPAID EMPLOYMENT.

    OKAY BUT I AM LOSING PATIENCE. YOU HAVE LLOYD PYES EVIDENCE RIGHT BEFORE YOU. IT COULD NOT BE CLOSER TO SOURCE. ITS PROBABLY TIME FOR YOU TO EVALUATE THAT EVIDENCE DIRECTLY. STOP BEATING AROUND THE BUSH. SURELY THE TENDENTIOUSNESS AND THE IMPLIED LEFTIST GIFT OF ALIEN MOTIVE-READING CAN TAKE A BREAK, WHILE YOU ASSESS THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE.

  49. John H. You and your coterie would do well to go back and review all of the Berlinski objections. If you took notes from Berlinski its really just hard yakka after that. Because he really spells out the task for you guys.

    Also of course I recommend that you do check out Lloyd Pye. I think he makes an immense number of good points on the hominid side of things.

    You would have your work cut out for you there as well. Could you come up with answers yet more convincing then Lloyd?

    If you could this would be valuable evolutionary theory, right or wrong.

    I cannot get the Myers view. All of this would be CONCERN BLOGGING in his small-minded, dimwitted and dishonest point of view.

  50. you keep referring to ‘close-to-source’ evidence.

    ONLY CLOSE TO SOURCE EVIDENCE COUNTS. EMINENCE DOESN’T COUNT EVEN A TINY BIT. IF YOU WAKE A SCIENCE WORKER UP IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT AND ASK FOR HIS OPINION HE’S NOT GOING TO KNOW AT ALL, AND ON TOP OF THAT HE’S GOT HIS CAREER TO THINK ABOUT. SO IN FACT YOU DON’T HAVE ANY OTHER EVIDENCE. IF YOU HAD SOME COUNTER-EVIDENCE YOU WOULD HAVE PRESENTED IT. BUT SURELY YOU ARE NOT TELLING ME THAT WIKI IS EVIDENCE. IMMEDIATELY YOU START ARGUING WITH PEOPLE ON WIKI ABOUT WHAT OUGHT TO BE CUT AND WHAT OUGHT TO STAY YOU’LL FIND YOURSELF GETTING STITCHED UP BY SOME 15 YEAR OLD COMMUNIST FROM SINGAPORE WHO HAS REACHED THE EFFECTIVE STATUS OF COLONEL. HE’LL TELL YOU TO REMEMBER THAT THERE IS NO CONSPIRACIES, WHILE HIM AND HIS COTERIE BUGGER EVERY PAGE. WHAT SCIENCE WORKER ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT AND WHAT REASONING DID HE HAVE FOR HIS OCCULT KNOWLEDGE. IN FACT YOU ARE TALKING OF NOTHING AT ALL. YOU ARE MAKING IT ALL UP.

    STOP DANCING AWAY FROM THE EVIDENCE AND APPRAISE IT DIRECTLY. SO YOU HAVE SOME THEORY ABOUT HOW SOMEONE MIGHT MUTATE TO SOME SORT OF DIFFERENT BONE STRUCTURE IN A SINGLE GENERATION RIGHT? LIKE SOME FREAK JUST UPS AND MUTATES BONE THAT IS CLOSER TO BEING TOOTH ENAMEL THEN HUMAN BONE RIGHT?

  51. I posted these ones at the site of the stupidest man on the internet. I ought to have saved all my posts. PZ Myers now reckons Michelle Bachman is beyond the pale. Being a scientific and economics illiterate, he would think that. But he doesn’t say why. He just expects all this goose-steppers to know. He need not explain anything to her. PZ brought the thing to an end and furiously wiped my posts on evolution. Then seeing what he had done he thought he better wipe the rest of them as well. To cover the fact that he had no answer to the evolution question and that my explanation was far better than anything he could have come up with in a month of Sundays.

    Posted by: Auditor | April 3, 2010 5:44 PM
    “She has a fairly sensible, centrist agenda so maybe it will work…but then, they could pull a mangy muskrat out of the Mississippi and run it against Bachmann, and it would be an improvement.”
    Translation:
    Even though we are swimming in debt, and millions out of work, we must resist Federal spending cuts like they were a plague.

    Posted by: Auditor | April 3, 2010 6:06 PM
    So lets have the reasoning then (AAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGHHHH somebody wants the reasoning. He must be a “concern blogger”)
    How did Michelle Bachmann get on the stupid-person shitlist? Did you mistake her for a former Bachmann and Turner Overdrive band member?
    Surely you must have some reasons for it. Could it be a fervent belief in shutting down debate in schools and locking in dumb-left norms and beliefs? The need to end intellectual diversity?
    Could it be that you want the dollar to collapse so that you don’t have to pay off your multiple real estate investments?
    (pssssst. More suspected “Concern Blogging” above.)
    #40
    Posted by: Auditor | April 3, 2010 6:10 PM
    “A toaster would make a better congressperson than Bachmann.”
    Deep deep deep deep thought from the Myers coterie. Is the anti-Bachmann thing a vote against Jews? Perhaps thats it. The wrong-footing the rightists as being anti-semitic that has gone on since World War II starting to break down and the real national socialists leaping out again.

    Posted by: Auditor | April 3, 2010 7:44 PM
    So its all about junk science and killing babies with the national socialist crowd then right?
    This is more of a priority then getting the budget balanced, so that millions of people can go back to work, in your view? And this is despite the fact that abortion doesn’t come within the Federal Governments mandate, and even if RvW was overturned, most States would still allow abortion.
    Magnificent sense of political priorities from the national socialist crowd. Here oil is over eighty dollars a barrel, everyone out of work, and you want to put junk science and her attitude towards what is essentially a non-Federal issue (baby-killing) to the front of your priorities. It pretty obvious that few of you are taxpayers. You must be nearly wall-to-wall students, and public spending beneficiaries. Once in awhile you need to think about the your benefactors, the people you are exploiting, and the people the government spending has forced into unemployment.

    Posted by: Auditor | April 3, 2010 7:50 PM
    So I was right that she doesn’t want to shut down debate in school about evolution? Hence there can be no hope for this “concern blogger” if you Maoists get your way, that the people pushing evolution, can be forced into doing a better job of it.
    Can you point to me somewhere on this site where the incredible leap we humans (just for one example)made about two hundred thousand years ago has been explained adequately in evolutionary theory? Yes of course there will be some sort of excellent, non-religious and rational explanation for this. But we certainly are not seeing it from the people we would expect to see it from. It is in the nature of things then, that if you forcefully cut off debate in this matter, we will go on another century, not getting a good answer to this problem.
    So I’m a concern blogger. Too bad. I’m also a taxpayer, and I’m not seeing good value for money.

  52. I’m disappointed in Professor Myers wiping your crazed version of human evolution. We would have had something to laugh at you about for years afterward. Puny humans pinned to the coast indeed.

    INDEED. THIS ROBS THE STUPID KIDS OF A GOOD ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION TO COMPARE SUBSEQUENT EXPLANATIONS WITH.

    ITS A REAL MYSTERY. FAR TOO HARD FOR A SCIENCE ILLITERATE LIKE PZ MYERS TO EVEN SO MUCH AS ATTEMPT TO GRAPPLE WITH. SO HE WIPED IT.

    YOU WOULDN’T BE IN A POSITION TO RETRIEVE A COPY WOULD YOU?

  53. Yeah he did show poor form. You didn’t even mention aliens.

  54. ‘APPRAISE IT DIRECTLY’ – surely my level of appraisal is as direct as yours, how is it otherwise?

    THE ONLY EVIDENCE YOU HAVE IS WHAT LLOYD IS DEMONSTRATING TO YOU IN THAT PLAYLIST. I’VE LINKED THE FIRST VIDEO IN THE PLAYLIST. YOU HAVE NOTHING ELSE OTHER THAN THAT. WIKI IS JUST SOME FOLKS TALKING.

    SO LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE AND APPRAISE IT DIRECTLY. DON’T GET INTO NON-EVIDENCE GENERATED BY PEOPLE WHO KNOW NOTHING ABOUT IT, WHO WEREN’T THERE. EVIDENCE CANNOT BE GENERATED IN WIKI. I’VE BEEN ON WIKI. I’VE ARGUED ON WIKI. I’VE GOT THINGS CHANGED A BIT ON WIKI. I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT IT IS NOT CAPABLE OF GENERATING EVIDENCE ANEW.

    SO LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE AND APPLY HUMAN REASON TO IT. DON’T GO LOOKING FOR NONSENSE THAT ISN’T EVIDENCE, BUT RATHER ONLY RUMOUR, AND SUBSTITUTE IT FOR THE DIRECT EVIDENCE YOU SEE BEFORE YOU.

  55. I only know about one alien. And he was half human. I’m not making claims for any others.

  56. Nothing to say about Michele Bachmann, that crazy bitch?

  57. A half human alien? You still going on about that starchild skull
    YOU DON’T THINK ITS AN IMPORTANT DISCOVERY?

  58. She is right on all issues but perhaps sometimes for the wrong reasons.

    She looks like she has a great bust, but I haven’t been able to confirm that scientifically.

  59. Now now Derek. We have a no lying policy on this site. If you can make that case well then go ahead. But I wouldn’t think you could. Being as you came over from the PZ Myers blog, for incredibly slow learners.

    • YOU CANNOT BACK THESE LIES UP. AFTER ALL PZ MYERS WIPED ALL MY ARGUMENTS TO DO WITH EVOLUTION SO THAT HE WOULDN’T BE PUT ON THE SPOT WITH HIS LACK OF UNDERSTANDING.

  60. It would be a pity that we didn’t have comparative tests for people identifying as skeptics in the 1970’s and for people identifying as skeptics now. One would swear that the 70’s kind would come across as being far above average in intelligence then other graduates. And the skeptics from 2010 would wind up being proved to be the dimmest of all people with undergraduate and graduate degrees.

    I’ve never met people so stupid as those from the Dawkins site. From the Randi site. And especially from the PZ Myers site. Easily the stupidest people on the net.

  61. Here is the woman the national socialists are demonising today.

  62. Woah. This is sure degenerating fast. From “our sheilas” down.

    Birdy, if you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

  63. I read this poem just once a year, at Easter

    “Sunday Morning”
    1
    Complacencies of the peignoir, and late
    Coffee and oranges in a sunny chair,
    And the green freedom of a cockatoo
    Upon a rug mingle to dissipate
    The holy hush of ancient sacrifice.
    She dreams a little, and she feels the dark
    Encroachment of that old catastrophe,
    As a calm darkens among water-lights.
    The pungent oranges and bright, green wings
    Seem things in some procession of the dead,
    Winding across wide water, without sound.
    The day is like wide water, without sound.
    Stilled for the passing of her dreaming feet
    Over the seas, to silent Palestine,
    Dominion of the blood and sepulchre.

    2
    Why should she give her bounty to the dead?
    What is divinity if it can come
    Only in silent shadows and in dreams?
    Shall she not find in comforts of the sun,
    In pungent fruit and bright green wings, or else
    In any balm or beauty of the earth,
    Things to be cherished like the thought of heaven?
    Divinity must live within herself:
    Passions of rain, or moods in falling snow;
    Grievings in loneliness, or unsubdued
    Elations when the forest blooms; gusty
    Emotions on wet roads on autumn nights;
    All pleasures and all pains, remembering
    The bough of summer and the winter branch.
    These are the measure destined for her soul.

    3
    Jove in the clouds had his inhuman birth.
    No mother suckled him, no sweet land gave
    Large-mannered motions to his mythy mind.
    He moved among us, as a muttering king,
    Magnificent, would move among his hinds,
    Until our blood, commingling, virginal,
    With heaven, brought such requital to desire
    The very hinds discerned it, in a star.
    Shall our blood fail? Or shall it come to be
    The blood of paradise? And shall the earth
    Seem all of paradise that we shall know?
    The sky will be much friendlier then than now,
    A part of labor and a part of pain,
    And next in glory to enduring love,
    Not this dividing and indifferent blue.

    4
    She says, “I am content when wakened birds,
    Before they fly, test the reality
    Of misty fields, by their sweet questionings;
    But when the birds are gone, and their warm fields
    Return no more, where, then, is paradise?”
    There is not any haunt of prophecy,
    Nor any old chimera of the grave,
    Neither the golden underground, nor isle
    Melodious, where spirits gat them home,
    Nor visionary south, nor cloudy palm
    Remote on heaven’s hill, that has endured
    As April’s green endures; or will endure
    Like her remembrance of awakened birds,
    Or her desire for June and evening, tipped
    By the consummation of the swallow’s wings.

    5
    She says, “But in contentment I still feel
    The need of some imperishable bliss.”
    Death is the mother of beauty; hence from her,
    Alone, shall come fulfillment to our dreams
    And our desires. Although she strews the leaves
    Of sure obliteration on our paths,
    The path sick sorrow took, the many paths
    Where triumph rang its brassy phrase, or love
    Whispered a little out of tenderness,
    She makes the willow shiver in the sun
    For maidens who were wont to sit and gaze
    Upon the grass, relinquished to their feet.
    She causes boys to pile new plums and pears
    On disregarded plate. The maidens taste
    And stray impassioned in the littering leaves.

    6
    Is there no change of death in paradise?
    Does ripe fruit never fall? Or do the boughs
    Hang always heavy in that perfect sky,
    Unchanging, yet so like our perishing earth,
    With rivers like our own that seek for seas
    They never find, the same receding shores
    That never touch with inarticulate pang?
    Why set pear upon those river-banks
    Or spice the shores with odors of the plum?
    Alas, that they should wear our colors there,
    The silken weavings of our afternoons,
    And pick the strings of our insipid lutes!
    Death is the mother of beauty, mystical,
    Within whose burning bosom we devise
    Our earthly mothers waiting, sleeplessly.

    7
    Supple and turbulent, a ring of men
    Shall chant in orgy on a summer morn
    Their boisterous devotion to the sun,
    Not as a god, but as a god might be,
    Naked among them, like a savage source.
    Their chant shall be a chant of paradise,
    Out of their blood, returning to the sky;
    And in their chant shall enter, voice by voice,
    The windy lake wherein their lord delights,
    The trees, like serafin, and echoing hills,
    That choir among themselves long afterward.
    They shall know well the heavenly fellowship
    Of men that perish and of summer morn.
    And whence they came and whither they shall go
    The dew upon their feel shall manifest.

    8
    She hears, upon that water without sound,
    A voice that cries, “The tomb in Palestine
    Is not the porch of spirits lingering.
    It is the grave of Jesus, where he lay.”
    We live in an old chaos of the sun,
    Or old dependency of day and night,
    Or island solitude, unsponsored, free,
    Of that wide water, inescapable.
    Deer walk upon our mountains, and the quail
    Whistle about us their spontaneous cries;
    Sweet berries ripen in the wilderness;
    And, in the isolation of the sky,
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings.

    – Wallace Stevens

  64. I see you got found out at Pharyngula, is that right Auditor?

    PZ expunged all your comments.

    HE SURE DID. BUT HE LET IT GO UNTIL I STARTED TALKING ABOUT THE SUBJECT THAT HE, AS A PROFESSIONAL, HAS NO ANSWERS FOR.

  65. Block Derek, Graeme. He is a know-nothing monomaniacal bore.

    No greater sin than that.

    And life is too short to waste time sparring )if only) with fuckwits.

  66. Derek is JC/BirdLAb – poor sap. Block him.

  67. Yeah good idea. After all Truism actually made an effort after he’d been banned. So perhaps if Derek wants to change a habit of a lifetime I could dredge some of his comments up.

    I’ll let you know when I’ve read that poem carefully. I want to be in the right mood. I tend to like almost all the poems you help educate me with. But I don’t want to spoil it by looking at it when I’m not quite able to appreciate it.

    Like I was just watching Basil Fawlty. My wife was laughing constantly, but I wasn’t up to watching it. But she was holding my arm to stop me from leaving since its never as funny when you watch it alone. I could barely watch it this time around. Its so funny but its terrible to watch him digging himself in like that if you are not in the mood to hack it.

    Pretty amazing how Fawlty Towers just crosses the cultural barrier like that. She thinks its hilarious. Someone at work gave her all these old English comedy TV show tapes. I’ll come home and she will be watching Frank Spencer and laughing away.

  68. Unfortunately I’m getting these people from the PZ Myers site. PZ is a radical atheist like I was as a teenager. But he’s just not real smart. He’s an all-round dummy.

    I wish I could demonstrate how moronic his people were today. But PZ wiped all my posts.

  69. Regarding your conduct on PZ Myer’s blog:

    THE MINDLESS LYING LOCK-STEP DUMB-LEFTIST AND INTELLECTUAL LIGHT-WEIGHT, MIGHT HAVE AT LEAST RETAINED MY IMAGINATIVE EXPLANATION OF THE GREAT LEAP FORWARD IN OUR EVOLUTION. FROM A COMMON ANCESTOR (((PRESUMABLY))) WITH ERECTUS, TO THIS OUTRAGEOUSLY DIFFERENT SPECIES THAT HAD THE ILLUSION OF APPEARING OVERNIGHT.

    THAT HE WIPED IT, BECAUSE HE IS TOO STUPID TO EVEN SO MUCH AS GUESS AT WHAT COULD EXPLAIN THIS ANOMALY …… MEANS I’LL HAVE TO REWRITE IT. JUST TO SHOW WHAT THIS GUTLESS DUMMY COULD NOT TOLERATE ON HIS BLOG. BECAUSE HE HAS NO ANSWERS, KNOWN OR IMAGINED, FOR THIS LEVEL OF NATURAL INNOVATION, IN WHAT AT LEAST LOOKS LIKE A STUPENDOUSLY SMALL SPACE OF TIME.

    http://skeptic.theplanetarium.org/

    IF ANYONE INTELLIGENT WANTS TO HAVE A FUCKING GOOD LAUGH CHECK OUT THE MOTTO ON THIS BLOG.

    “Question Everything”

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA WHAT A COMPLETE FUCKWIT. BECAUSE HE THEN GOES ON TO FEATURE A LINE-UP OF INCREDIBLE DEAD-HEADS, ALL OF WHOM WILL QUESTION NOTHING AT ALL, AS A MATTER OF PERSONAL RELIGION AND TEMPERAMENT.

  70. A lot of your posts are still up at Pharyngula.

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/03/these_guys_are_dangerous_nuts.php

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/03/the_graeme_bird_memorial_threa.php

    You wanna let us know more about your “IMAGINATIVE EXPLANATION OF THE GREAT LEAP FORWARD IN OUR EVOLUTION.”

    That could be amusing.

    SEE THE EVIL BASTARD WIPED IT BEFORE EVEN YOU COULD READ IT. WHEREAS HE LET ME RUN ON FOR A LONG TIME, AS SOON AS THAT WAS UP HE CALLED TIME, WIPED THE COMMENTS TO DO WITH EVOLUTION. AND ONLY THEN REALISED HE BETTER WIPE ALL MY COMMENTS ON THAT THREAD AS COVER.

    IT WAS A MAKE-BELIEVE VERSION OF EVOLUTION, JUST TO TRY AND SHOW YOU DUMMIES WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN EVOLUTION, BEING AS WE HAVE THESE GREAT LURCHES FORWARD THAT THE CREATIONISTS AND ID PEOPLE TALK ABOUT, BUT WHICH THE CREDENTIALED EVOLUTION-SUPPORTERS APPEAR TO BE IN UTTER DENIAL ABOUT.

    YES OKAY I’LL DO A VERSION OF IT SOONER OR LATER. UNDER THE TITLE “THE SORT OF POST PZ MYERS COULD NOT TOLERATE ON HIS BLOG”

  71. What specifically about human evolution can’t scientists support?

    THE MASSIVE SERIES OF CHANGES TO GO FROM ERECTUS TO EARLY MODERN HUMANS. IT DIDN’T HAPPEN. SO THEY OUGHT NOT PRETEND IT DID. THEY OUGHT TO INTERPOLATE AN EARLIER COMMON ANCESTOR.

  72. Here’s a new lecture from Lloyd Pye:

  73. One of the best versions of a very great song. This is what life is all about. Swimming in the ocean and looking out for our girls.

  74. David Stockman out there showing our Australian economists up as the know-nothings that they are:

  75. There’s a fellow here who I cannot place, but he’s just incredibly smart. I wonder if CL knows much about Archbishop Fulton Sheen. He may even be a big fan one would think. The Venerable Sheen, appears to be almost the epitome of the good things I see in the excellent Catholic intellectual tradition. Someone to put next to Gilbert Keith Chesterton. I still am sympathetic towards people like CL, Mark Steyn, and Victor Davis Hanson. CL at his better moments, and the others, represent the application of human reason to the problems of today WHILE BLOCKING OUT THE REALITY OF THE CONSPIRATIONAL SHADOW GOVERNMENT. Blocking out any reality or ANY of the data is no good. You wind up spending your time feeling superior to the left, when in existential terms you are being bitch-slapped around and you don’t even know it.

  76. How is a good method to get your ex bf jealous?

  77. Why would aliens come here ,,how , and how long do those believers imagine it took these aliens to get here. If we take our closest star , at our current speeds we are talking about 80,000 years to get here .We don’t think there is life there , so we quickly get a whole lot further out , so it would take about a million years to get here form our nearest galaxy ,,what planet are you people on , or what have you been smoking , I will spell it out for you , explain the whole thing in one word ,,”EGO” . First man thought we are the center of the universe , then we are part of the beginning of the universe , and what we can see is all there is , some imagine a god and imagine that god made it for us,? .and of course aliens would all want to come here , to our little corner of the universe , we would of course still be the most important thing in the universe , So lets put it in perspective , how long will it be before we take on interstellar travel , if ever , and how long or far would we be heading. Also think about it in terms of what we would want to do if we could travel light years through space , we certainly wouldn’t play hide and seek and then fly home again , we would want to make meaningful communications , leave something of us for them and visa versa , when has there ever been a piece of alien technology left behind , if they have been here , bread , where are the things they left , the stories and myths would still be told , but there should be .
    In my opinion , there is no proof this skull is anything other than human , and it is only wishful thinking to create a alien story to fit .
    Even if these aliens could travel at the speed of light , we are still talking about years of interstellar travel , each way , for what , ? to do a fly by and go home ,???, any alien culture that showed up on earth could easily take over and establish themselves , they would have weapons and technology cave man wouldn’t be able to compete with , so there would be more than one there would be a whole town of them .
    Question if you imagine these aliens came here a long time ago , are they also of this bb we are supposed to be part of , how did their brains/evolution race ahead of ours to be so advanced , or
    are you going to as I have dismiss the bbt as a piece of crap, a load of rubbish , and see the universe as infinite in age and size ,?

  78. I tried to comment on”Why must I respect new age christians” , but it keeps telling me it’s not there , is that the case , or am I being blocked, that subject being blocked because I’m in NZ ,,?????

  79. I’ll check my spam filter.

  80. I can’t find anything Rex. Keep commenting. I’ll have a look at your large comment in a little while.

  81. “there is no proof this skull is anything other than human…..”

    What makes you say this? Aren’t you working backwards from your thesis about the stars being too far away?

  82. See I had the same theory as you. That visitations from aliens would be very far apart. Perhaps once every several millions of years. But then this skull shows up. So I don’t get to backwards reverse the evidence, by pretending that the skull is human. This is a procedural matter. An epistemological matter.

    Now it turns out that its very easy to live in space. In the inner solar system. Because you’ve got unlimited electrical power to tap. This throws everything open. The other thing is extremely elliptical orbits of planets are possible. If the orbit became three times as far as pluto, at its closest, this orbit could be maintained indefinitely. If the orbit got closer to the sun then Jupiter, tail drag would eventually lead to the orbit getting smaller. But in the case of a planet that never came that close it could maintain a stable but very elliptical orbit for very long time. Aliens could easily come from such a setup. Or they could live much closer by and choose not to let us know about them. So I don’t have a clue what is going on and have no relevant beliefs on this matter. However the skull throws everything open. I think you are working backwards on this score.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: