Closed Thread Icon

Topic awaiting preservation: Hav-musuvs - The original people in America (Page 1 of 1) Pages that link to <a href="https://ozoneasylum.com/backlink?for=14159" title="Pages that link to Topic awaiting preservation: Hav-musuvs - The original people in America (Page 1 of 1)" rel="nofollow" >Topic awaiting preservation: Hav-musuvs - The original people in America <span class="small">(Page 1 of 1)</span>\

 
Gilbert Nolander
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: Washington DC
Insane since: May 2002

posted posted 03-26-2003 00:42

Hav-musuvs - The story that interested me is along the right side of the article, starting with 'TRIBAL MEMORIES OF THE FLYING SAUCERS'

I was getting pretty bored reading all the war stuff, and figured I would start a different topic. The story that interested me is along the right side of the article. I was wondering if any of you think this story is likely, and if so...why would these people not try and teach us what they know so that the earth would not be slowly destroyed? What is the point of them hiding from us? I have just always wondered that. I mean, if aliens, or whatever you want to call these supposed advanced civilizations do exist, why do they let us destroy the planet with our wars and crappy automobile's?

Cell 816 ~ teamEarth ~ Asylum Quotes

Bugimus
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: New California
Insane since: Mar 2000

posted posted 03-26-2003 06:34

*IF* and I mean *if* aliens exist. What makes you think they have found a way to travel the *vast* expanse of space to get here to bother with us in the first place? Just a thought that occurs to me every now and again.

We simply don't have *any* evidence that they exist. Except the stuff WS holds back from us But he would probably have to kill us.

. . : slicePuzzle

WebShaman
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Happy Hunting Grounds...
Insane since: Mar 2001

posted posted 03-26-2003 09:07

Actually Bugs, I don't have any *real* evidence...otherwise, I wouldn't be here posting...but I have seen evidence...that is different. I know...and that is enough for me.

As to why 'ETs' wouldn't just 'show' themselves to Mankind? Well...I could come up with a number of reasons for that...the first one being the cataclysmic culture shock that such an event would bring, for example. Second one would be the readiness factor...we, as a race (or races, if you prefer), haven't yet learned to live in peace and harmony with one another from our own species,let alone from another...and consider the danger of giving Mankind the technology to go to the stars (or even the idea that such technology is real and possible)...we are pretty aggressive, for a species.

And who would they approach? The US? China? The UN? Irregardless of who they appraoched, others would resent it. If they approached all at once, then there would be a scramble for the new technology...and strife would break out.

And why should they approach at all? Maybe time means very little, to them...and they can wait. I would suspect that it would be fascinating to study us...

Who knows?


WebShaman

Skaarjj
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: :morF
Insane since: May 2000

posted posted 03-26-2003 09:10

Since the concept of the Prime Directive can occur ot us (or to a bunch of Star trek writers certainly) who's to say it wouldn't occur to an alien species as well?

Bugimus
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: New California
Insane since: Mar 2000

posted posted 03-26-2003 09:31

The possibilities are really endless. I just wish we had a little more to go on. I'll never forget how Carl Sagan put it on the PBS program NOVA:

quote:
NOVA: Could you please comment on the part of the quality of the evidence that is put forward by these so-called "abduction proponents."

SAGAN: Well, it's almost entirely anecdote. Someone says something happened to them...And, people can say anything. The fact that someone says something doesn't mean it's true. Doesn't mean they're lying, but it doesn't mean it's true.

To be taken seriously, you need physical evidence that can be examined at leisure by skeptical scientists: a scraping of the whole ship, and the discovery that it contains isotopic ratios that aren't present on earth, chemical elements form the so-called island of stability, very heavy elements that don't exist on earth. Or material of absolutely bizarre properties of many sorts -- electrical conductivity or ductility. There are many things like that that would instantly give serious credence to an account.

But there's no scrapings, no interior photographs, no filched page from the captain's log book. All there are are stories. There are instances of disturbed soil, but I can disturb soil with a shovel. There are instances of people claiming to flash lights at UFOs and the UFOs flash back. But, pilots of airplanes can also flash back, especially if they think it would be a good joke to play on the UFO enthusiast. So, that does not constitute good evidence.

And, a very interesting example of this sort of thing is the so-called crop circles in England in which wheat and rye and other grains -- these beautiful immense circles appeared and then -- this was in the 70's and 80's -- and then over progressive years, more and more complex geometries. And there were lots of people who said that these were made by UFOs that were landing and that it was too complex or too highly mathematical to be a hoax.

And it turns out that two blokes in Southern England, at their regular bar one night, thought it would be a good idea to make a kind of hoax to see if they could lure in UFO enthusiasts. And they succeeded every time--every time an explanation was proferred: a peculiar kind of wind, they then made another one which contradicted that hypothesis. And they were very pleased when it was said that no human intelligence could do this. That gave them great satisfaction. And for 15 years, they succeeded in these nocturnal expeditions using rope and board -- all the technology they needed.

And in their 60's, they finally confessed to the press with a demonstration of how it was done. And, of course, the confession received very little play in the media. And the claims of alien influence had received prominent exposure.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/aliens/carlsagan.html

Gilbert Nolander
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: Washington DC
Insane since: May 2002

posted posted 03-26-2003 15:39

I'm wondering more about these people that have supposedly lived here for a long time. If they consider this their home, it just seems strange to me that they would not want to protect it from our harmful actions. Perhaps slip an invention in here and there, something to help us get rid of comsuming fossil fuels...But the more I think about it, I guess we already have these things available, it's just that due to the greed of the oil producers, we do not use these things. It's a shame that making money is more of a priority than making this planet as good as possible.

Cell 816 ~ teamEarth ~ Asylum Quotes

Ruski
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From:
Insane since: Jul 2002

posted posted 03-26-2003 16:24

Hmm...my mother's friend's husband's father...or lets just say my friend's father in 1970....was in the airport, and then all of sudden from about 200 feet high UFO slowly passed by the window.....alot of people where stunned...

he definatly didnt bullshit.....why would he? he is an adult, heh? in front of his wife friends etc....

anyway...there are many theories about aliens, people also believe that aliens are us from the future.....

DL-44
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: under the bed
Insane since: Feb 2000

posted posted 03-26-2003 18:04
quote:
As to why 'ETs' wouldn't just 'show' themselves to Mankind?



Well duh, the Vulcans won't let them becuase we havn't developed warp drive capabilities ourselves yet.

Sheesh.

{{edit - oops, I see skaarjj kinda beat me to it...oh well...}}



[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 03-26-2003).]

Bugimus
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: New California
Insane since: Mar 2000

posted posted 03-26-2003 20:18

GN, let me ask you this. Do you burn or use anything that comes from burning fossil fuels? If so, examine why you yourself do this, and then expand that analysis to the society at large. If you have never taken that mental path, give it a try and I would be interested to know your thoughts after you're done.

And you're quite right, we have or are very close to having lots of excellent technology that will move us away from oil.

Gilbert Nolander
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: Washington DC
Insane since: May 2002

posted posted 03-26-2003 22:16

Yes, Bugs...I do use fossil fuels. But what choice do I have? If there was another form of automobile, perhaps run on water, I would use it, or if there was an electric company in my area that used solar power, I would use them. I am sure that society as a whole is similiar. We only use what is available to us. I have taken this mental approach before, and always reach the conclusion that the masses use whatever is provided to them. If the providers don't stop providing it, or perhaps start providing alternatives, besides a 3-cylinder gas/electric car, I would gladly use the alternative as I am sure so would all of society.

It's the same with littering. I don't litter, but that is not the point. I have no problem with littering though, because I view the real litter as the roads we build through huge forests, the buildings we work and live in, etc. I guess that actually has nothing to do with this, so nevermind...

Cell 816 ~ teamEarth ~ Asylum Quotes

St. Seneca
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: 3rd shelf, behind the cereal
Insane since: Dec 2000

posted posted 03-27-2003 22:59

Gilbert, I don't want to call you a liar, but...

You're telling me that you would pay 3 times as much for electricity as long as it was solar instead of fossil? $450 instead of $150?

You're also telling me that you would pay for a gasless vehicle even if it cost $60,000 when you could get the exact same vehicle that burnt gas for $15,000? I don't think so.

The reason that solar energy isn't a viable alternative is that it is more expensive for the consumer. If business people thought that a large portion of the market would pay more for earth-friendly products, they'd market them. The sad truth is that people base purchases almost solely on the price.

As for the Suvians, it's all a bunch a hooey!

Bugimus
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: New California
Insane since: Mar 2000

posted posted 03-27-2003 23:30

I totally agree with that St. Seneca. In the not so distant future, alternative energy will become more and more cost effective.

And Gilbert, you do have a choice. You have chosen fossil fuels. No one forces you to use the stuff you do. You can move about freely in this country. You would either have to make a lot of money to afford alternative sources of energy or you could move and live a life using older methods. For instance, why not live like the Amish? They seem to manage quite well without it, what's to stop you from doing the same?

I am only pointing this out to demonstrate why fossil fuels are still the best choice until the technology progresses a bit further where it will be a no-brainer to choose an alternative energy source as opposed to oil. And the oil companies will not be able to stop that progress forever. They might be able to slow it down but that is all they can do. If the demand is there, it will be marketed. In fact, I would expect the oil companies to be the ones that will probably be the best suited to transition because they have the capital to pull it off on a large scale. The oil companies don't pollute because they like pollution, they pollute because we want their products and they want to make a profit.

GrythusDraconis
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: The Astral Plane
Insane since: Jul 2002

posted posted 03-27-2003 23:46
quote:
In fact, I would expect the oil companies to be the ones that will probably be the best suited to transition because they have the capital to pull it off on a large scale.



Not to mention the patents of dozens of alternative fuel vehicles and products.

GrythusDraconis
"I'm sick of hearing that beauty is only skin-deep. That's deep enough. Who wants an adorable pancreas?" - Unknown

Suho1004
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: Seoul, Korea
Insane since: Apr 2002

posted posted 03-28-2003 01:04

When my grandfather died, he was working on a car that ran on water (ie, used water as fuel). Unfortunately, like many an otherwise brilliant man, he kept everything in his head, so when he left this earth his plans left with him. The car sat in the garage for years (my grandmother never threw anything out) until it finally just fell apart. Who knows if it would have actually run... and if that would have even mattered.

As for the Suvians, well, I don't really know for sure, but the U.S. southwest can get kind of spooky when you're all alone in the middle of nowhere. I can understand how people might have thought they saw flying canoes.

Oh, and if this sort of thing is your cup of tea, read "The Haunted Mesa," by Louis L'Amour. It's not his usual fare by a long shot (usual fare = formulaic Western novel), but it's a good read.





www.liminality.org

Gilbert Nolander
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: Washington DC
Insane since: May 2002

posted posted 03-28-2003 01:32

I guess I should rephrase that, "What choice do I have of using fossil fuels if I want to contine living according to modern society and am not rich?"

St. Senaca - How could a car run on water be three times as much as one ran on gas? I guess initially the costs of production would be greater because there are not many factories, but if they were the only cars being built, I am sure that they are made of the same basic materials as gas powered auto's and the cost of production would eventually drop once they started being mass produced in factories. And as far as solar power is concerned, I understand that the initial cost is greater than fossil fuel based electricity, but once the initial products are purchased, the montly fee is a lot less.

And Bugs, the life of the Amish does sound good right about now. Damn the traffic around Washington DC sucks.

{edit - Suho-Damn Vampires}

Cell 816 ~ teamEarth ~ Asylum Quotes

[This message has been edited by Gilbert Nolander (edited 03-28-2003).]

Bugimus
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: New California
Insane since: Mar 2000

posted posted 03-28-2003 02:50

GN,

quote:
...it's just that due to the greed of the oil producers, we do not use these things. It's a shame that making money is more of a priority than making this planet as good as possible.

The corporations are totally amoral and only do what is profitable for their shareholders, it's the only thing that animates them. In fact, the only reason corporations exist is to make profit.

If you continue to demand the products that the oil producers provide, can it not be said that you are part of the problem you want solved? I'm honestly not trying to give you a hard time but I really do think the public has far more power by how they spend their money than we realize.

WebShaman
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Happy Hunting Grounds...
Insane since: Mar 2001

posted posted 03-28-2003 08:32

Amen, Bugs. Well put. That is exactly the problem. Hit them where it hurts...in the pocket books...

But there is much more to the oil topic, than just consumer choice...and that is one of economy. This became rather apparent in the current conflict in Iraq, I think...

Whether one likes it or not, the global economy is largely dependent on oil. Getting away from this will be a slow, painful process...and will take massive efforts, and unbending wills. Also, one has to be willing to shoulder the responsibility of the consequences, and they will not be small. It is not a simple thing, to just decide, that we don't need oil anymore and then to impliment it on a grand scale.

Other cases in point - there are vehicles that don't run on oil, and they are available on the market - see California.

Even with very large amounts of money thrown into their developement, will (and has ) not turned out vehicles that are on the same level of developement as the gasoline engine. This is simply because of the amount of time, and money, that has gone into the gasoline motor. Look how 'easy' it is to use gasoline - you buy a car, and you can tank it just about anywhere...to put such support systems in place, is a huge undertaking...and costs enourmous amounts of money, and takes time. No company will invest in this, unless there is money to be made...and currently, that is a problem.

Maybe the best alternative is the electric motor...but how are you going to use this type of vehicle, outside of a city? No place to re-energize it, conviently...'excuse me, Farmer so-and-so, can I use your electricity to re-fill my car?'...hehe...one can imagine the response.

Next, one must realize, that the oil lobbies are among the most powerful in existence...and they do not wish to just step down, and make place for someone else. A mighty opponent, that must be faced, to enact such changes. Even the government of California is feeling their wrath.

Combined with the above, is also those citizens that have a 'comfortable' living standard...they do not wish to give up their luxuries...and will (and are) resisting...with their pocketbooks, and their vote.

I've kinda had this discussion before with Bugs...and some of his points really made me think. I, too, would love to see America become the first non-oil dependent country...however, the reality of the situation cannot be ignored...and Bugs pointed that out quite well, I found.

So if anyone can find a way, to remove the above stumbling blocks, then I'd love to hear it.

Gilbert Nolander
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: Washington DC
Insane since: May 2002

posted posted 03-28-2003 14:41

There really is no way. Perhpas Jesus will come along and he we say how we are destroying the enviromnent with oil and gasoline and everyone will listen to him and stop driving their cars, and demand that the oil producers and suppliers start suppling something else or they won't go to work.

And then, instead of being killed on a cross, he will be killed with a sniper rifle from a guy wearing an exxon hat.



Cell 816 ~ teamEarth ~ Asylum Quotes

velvetrose
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: overlooking the bay
Insane since: Apr 2001

posted posted 03-28-2003 15:01

does anyone know when the planet will run out of oil? that impending possibility will certainly get everyone's thinking hats on and research dollars working...

mobrul
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From:
Insane since: Aug 2000

posted posted 03-28-2003 16:34

I've heard and read varying reports on 'running out' of pertrol..the extremes of what I've read go from 30 years to about 70 years. I would think there are a lot of variables that could be guessed or approximated, but very difficult (impossible) to know. Either way, 30 or 70, that's not really that long of a time.

I suppose my biggest problem is not with oil companies. I absolutely agree that their responsibilities are to their shareholders. For those cases where they are purposefully polluting against the law, that is a problem -- stock holders and profits are no excuse for breaking the law -- but that's not really what we're talking about here. My big problem comes from gov't officials who cowardly bow to the will of oil companies instead of the interest of the people.

Each year our tax money funds research into all sorts of technology. For years and years, and somewhat even today, the oil lobby attempted to block meaningful research into 'alternative' fuel sources, and our elected leaders silently obliged. The history of companies (oil companies especially) making a mess and taxpayers cleaning the mess is long and well documented.

The record is bad in the states, but even worse in third-world countries (Nigeria is a prime example) where oil companies from industrialized nations wreck the environment of the villagers and give them virtually zero of the benefits of the oil drilling. All the while, our government threatens smaller nations not to resist the destruction and supports brutal, tyrannical dictators who are willing to sell their souls and their people for a small slice of that oil profit.

St. Seneca
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: 3rd shelf, behind the cereal
Insane since: Dec 2000

posted posted 03-28-2003 17:36

Gilbert, you asked me how an alternative fuel vehicle could cost so much more than and oil vehicle. The answer is simply cost efficiency. Sure water is cheaper than oil, but we haven't figured out how to burn water nearly as cost efficiently as oil.

The current problem with alternative fuels is that with gas you put in a little energy to start the burn and you get a lot of energy out. That's more cost efficient than with alternative fuels where you have to put a lot of energy in to get barely more than what you put in back out. That's why until those cost efficiencies go up, gas will always be preferred over an alternative fuel for automobiles.

Also, Gilbert, if solar energy technology was advanced to the point where it was an effective alternative, we would be using it. Unfortunately it would require fields upon fields of silicon plates and very large batteries to supply energy on cloudy days and on nights. It is just less cost efficient than oil and systems that use solar energy are often forced to suplement their power by burning fossil fuels. Current alternative energy sources are often merely a supplement to fossil fuel sources.

That's why it is more expensive and why the average consumer will not buy into it until an alternative fuel is at LEAST as cost effective as oil if not more cost effective.

DL-44
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: under the bed
Insane since: Feb 2000

posted posted 03-28-2003 18:09
quote:
the public has far more power by how they spend their money than we realize



While that is absolutely true, there is also the huge factor of how corporations steer our government. This obviously effects everything from what laws are passed, what america's tax dollars get spent on (ie what technologies get funding for R&D), to what propaganda gets sent to the american public.

All of these things have a tremendous impact on what consumers spend their money on.



[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 03-28-2003).]

Gilbert Nolander
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: Washington DC
Insane since: May 2002

posted posted 03-28-2003 19:56
quote:
velvetrose - does anyone know when the planet will run out of oil?



When I was in college, I posed this same question to one of my Geology professors and he basically said never. He explained that people have all these estimates to when we will run out, but he was saying that there is tons of oil and we will never run out because it is constantly being created. He said that some oil is formed from plants being crushed and yada yada, but that there is also oil naturally occuring deep in the earth's crust. To read more, click below.

How oil is created

{edit-and by the way, this is another problem for oil suppliers to never have to look at making other sources of energy more viable. and thanks St. Seneca for explaing that to me a bit, that really puts it into prespective.}

[This message has been edited by Gilbert Nolander (edited 03-28-2003).]

WebShaman
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Happy Hunting Grounds...
Insane since: Mar 2001

posted posted 03-31-2003 09:56

Wow!!! GN, thanks for the link...that, added to this Odd Reservoir Off Louisiana really does seem to have some fact in it...or at least, gives one pause for thought. Especially this excerpt

quote:
Production at the oil field, deep in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana, was supposed to have declined years ago. And for a while, it behaved like any normal field: Following its 1973 discovery, Eugene Island 330's output peaked at about 15,000 barrels a day. By 1989, production had slowed to about 4,000 barrels a day.

Then suddenly -- some say almost inexplicably -- Eugene Island's fortunes reversed. The field, operated by PennzEnergy Co., is now producing 13,000 barrels a day, and probable reserves have rocketed to more than 400 million barrels from 60 million. Stranger still, scientists studying the field say the crude coming out of the pipe is of a geological age quite different from the oil that gushed 10 years ago.

Fill 'er Up

All of which has led some scientists to a radical theory: Eugene Island is rapidly refilling itself, perhaps from some continuous source miles below the Earth's surface. That, they say, raises the tantalizing possibility that oil may not be the limited resource it is assumed to be.

"It kind of blew me away," says Jean Whelan, a geochemist and senior researcher from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts. Connected to Woods Hole since 1973, Dr. Whelan says she considered herself a traditional thinker until she encountered the phenomenon in the Gulf of Mexico. Now, she says, "I believe there is a huge system of oil just migrating" deep underground.

--By CHRISTOPHER COOPER Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL



Hehe...a lot of creationists are going to be jubbeling about this...

I do find it rather strange, that the origin of oil has never been really studied...or has it? I do know that diesel and crude oil can be synthesised...and made from RAPs...all from organic sources...hmmm....synthetic oil is not from organic material, it seems...

This is really interesting...and, if true, really leads to some unsavoury questions...

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 03-31-2003).]

Suho1004
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: Seoul, Korea
Insane since: Apr 2002

posted posted 03-31-2003 11:16
quote:
Hehe...a lot of creationists are going to be jubbeling about this...


Uh, what does this have to do with creationism? And what is jubbeling?

WebShaman
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Happy Hunting Grounds...
Insane since: Mar 2001

posted posted 03-31-2003 11:26

Quite a lot, actually, Master Suho. You see, the hydrocarbon thing has been a major stumbling block for Creationists for years...because of the time thing. If oil is indeed a natural product, and not of organic nature (i.e. from fossils), then that stumbling block just 'disappears'...

Jubbeling is celebrating...

I'm surprised, though, that you are not asking other questions...like, for example, why hasn't anyone asked this question before? And who decided that Oil was organic, and why? And why was it unanimously accepted? And why haven't we heard more about this, in more 'respected' scientific journals? Is there a coverup? Is it like diamonds, where a cartel artificially controls the availability, and therefore the price (in this case, the information)?

It really opens a huge can of worms, if it is true...irregardless of how difficult it is to actually reach all that oil...and it opens other methods of reaching 'readily reached' oil, if true.

Gilbert Nolander
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: Washington DC
Insane since: May 2002

posted posted 03-31-2003 23:45

I think it may form in both manners, WS, but I'm not sure...


Ozone Quotes

Suho1004
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: Seoul, Korea
Insane since: Apr 2002

posted posted 04-01-2003 00:31

WS: Oh, OK... I see. And I think you're mixing up German and English and again. According to my German dictionary, "Jubel" means "rejoicing" or "celebrating." I think the English word would probably be jubilating.



As for the other questions you mentioned... yes, actually I was wondering about all those things, but I was just kind of whipping through and the creationism thing caught my eye. Those are all good questions, and ones to which I'm sure we'd all like to hear answers.

brucew
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: North Coast of America
Insane since: Dec 2001

posted posted 04-01-2003 02:58
quote:
And who decided that Oil was organic, and why?



High school chemistry textbooks, that's who. Organic molecules are defined as "any molecule containing the element carbon." It doesn't matter how the carbon was joined with the other atoms--by life processes or not. If it contains carbon, it's organic.

Suho1004
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: Seoul, Korea
Insane since: Apr 2002

posted posted 04-01-2003 04:13

Good point, but I think WS was referring to the idea that oil was produced from dead organisms... poor wording, apparently.

DL-44
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: under the bed
Insane since: Feb 2000

posted posted 04-01-2003 04:26

Yes, it seems WS used the term organic for a couple of different meanings in his post

WebShaman
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Happy Hunting Grounds...
Insane since: Mar 2001

posted posted 04-01-2003 08:25

*sigh* Yes, that is, scientifically speaking, correct...organic. Though I did mean it in the sense that Master Suho mentioned...

I'll try to be more specific, to avoid displeasing and/or confusing...

Tough crowd...hehe...

« BackwardsOnwards »

Show Forum Drop Down Menu