PDA

View Full Version : Extraterrestrial Vehicles



homo_cosmosicus
2006-Aug-07, 04:41 PM
Moderator note: Posts in this thread have been split from this discussion (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=45296) in the Questions & Answers section. -- W.


I have also heard that the most ufo's were seen in the nevada region, brazil, mexico for number of times. They were also appeared in the sphinx area of egypt, they were also observed at the top of the vulcanic erruption area.


The correct name for what you have in mind is - EV (Extraterrestrial Vehicle).
Some other researches like Steven Greer call it "AV" (Alien Vehicle).

EVs (or AVs) appear everywhere on this planet, starting from South Pole
in Antractida and up to the Norht Pole like Greenland and Spitzbergen islands.





Hydrogen is their fuel?


No. Their fuel, in other words energy, comes from virtual vacuum particles.

As you understand that energy is everywhere, in air, in cosmos,
in oceans, in the ground, everywhere, thus no need to carry fuel.




what is the reality?, are all ufo's are techonologically more advance than of earth's?


Not all UFOs are Extraterrestrial Vehicles. Some are just plain simple
airplane or helicopter lights...




Why they appear with spped and went away with great speed?


EVs (or AVs) do appear and went away with great speed,
but in final approach to ground they slow down, they are slow then
so they don't hit the ground due to high speed.
The same when they went away, first they lift off from ground
very slowly, in order not to hit some object like tree or building, hill, etc,
then they greatly accelerate and go away.
Why not, if they can achive great speed then why not?




Are they mostly caught on the radars previously?


Some of them.
The best way to see them is by using near-infrared technology.




What standards are derived for its realisation, as they were located in the sky? or suppose 1 or 2 big tail lights of the fighter plane looks like a ufo?


There are professional standars and you have to look for those standards in
Earthling's organizations who are dedicated to study EVs.


Homo Cosmosicus

Argos
2006-Aug-07, 05:04 PM
I think Sunil is asking for scientific evidence of ET visitors. The above post may be misleading.

Gillianren
2006-Aug-07, 05:57 PM
No. Their fuel, in other words energy, comes from virtual vacuum particles.

As you understand that energy is everywhere, in air, in cosmos,
in oceans, in the ground, everywhere, thus no need to carry fuel.

How do you know? I mean, unless you can present me with an Alien Spacecraft Engineer's Certificate or something, it's just as much speculation as what anyone else says fuels the things and therefore is completely inappropriate to give as an answer in this section, especially given that you cannot provide any evidence of any of the claims you've made in the Conspiracy Theories section other than speculation.

Van Rijn
2006-Aug-07, 07:03 PM
How do you know? I mean, unless you can present me with an Alien Spacecraft Engineer's Certificate or something, it's just as much speculation as what anyone else says fuels the things and therefore is completely inappropriate to give as an answer in this section, especially given that you cannot provide any evidence of any of the claims you've made in the Conspiracy Theories section other than speculation.

Yup. H_C, for this section we try to give serious answers, things we can actually back up with evidence. If you think you have a magical energy source, take it to ATM. If you think ET is here, then present some evidence. If that was a joke post, add a smiley or something.

homo_cosmosicus
2006-Aug-09, 05:21 AM
Yup. H_C, for this section we try to give serious answers,
things we can actually back up with evidence.


Since I notice you are chasing me on various forums,
and "barking" at me after every post I make,
I have to note this:
I do not need to explain myself to you, but want to say
that I give serious answer to the person asking the question.




If you think you have a magical energy source, take it to ATM.


Those are your own words, I do not claim any magical sourse of energy.

Virtual vacuum particles are well know thing in physics,
and they do have energy... try to read some physics
if you don't believe it.




If you think ET is here, then present some evidence.


Where here? If you mean on Earth, that they occasionally visit Earth,
then, evidence was presented million of times, and more then
half of the people in USA do believe in ETs...




If that was a joke post, add a smiley or something.


Quit giving me orders what to do.

Gillianren
2006-Aug-09, 05:30 AM
Where here? If you mean on Earth, that they occasionally visit Earth,
then, evidence was presented million of times, and more then
half of the people in USA do believe in ETs...

There are people who don't believe the Holocaust happened. They're wrong. There are people who believe the sun orbits Earth. They're wrong. Science, as we keep pointing out, isn't a popularity contest. Nor is history. What's more, while I do believe in ETs, I don't believe they have visited Earth, because there is no evidence that withstands scrutiny.

Van Rijn
2006-Aug-09, 06:33 AM
Since I notice you are chasing me on various forums,
and "barking" at me after every post I make,


Hardly. You've made many claims, mostly in the CT forum. This Q&A forum is not for CTs or wild speculation, and I noted that. I and others have occasionally asked you for evidence for your claims, as is normal for BAUT. We're still waiting to see some of that evidence.



I have to note this:
I do not need to explain myself to you, but want to say
that I give serious answer to the person asking the question.


Good! So let's see them.



Those are your own words, I do not claim any magical sourse of energy.

Virtual vacuum particles are well know thing in physics,
and they do have energy... try to read some physics
if you don't believe it.


Virtual particles exist with a net energy of zero. Nobody has shown that it is possible to extract net energy from the vacuum, despite the use of the concept ("vacuum energy" or "zero point energy") in science fiction stories and on UFO sites. If you actually have evidence you can usefully extract energy from a vacuum, present it. At this point, it is an ATM concept, a magical source of energy.



Where here? If you mean on Earth, that they occasionally visit Earth,
then, evidence was presented million of times, and more then
half of the people in USA do believe in ETs...


So present the evidence. Remember that in science, evidence is not second-hand anectdotes or fuzzy photographs.

PhantomWolf
2006-Aug-09, 07:28 AM
Nobody has shown that it is possible to extract net energy from the vacuum

Actually this isn't quite true. There is an experiment where you can use two plates seperated by a vacuum and they will produce a current, however to get anything useful out of them they'd have to have an area about 10,000m2 so while it actually appears possible to extract energy from a vacuum, it's also totally impractical.

Van Rijn
2006-Aug-09, 07:43 AM
Nobody has shown that it is possible to extract net energy from the vacuum

Actually this isn't quite true. There is an experiment where you can use two plates seperated by a vacuum and they will produce a current, however to get anything useful out of them they'd have to have an area about 10,000m2 so while it actually appears possible to extract energy from a vacuum, it's also totally impractical.

Do you have a reference to an experiment showing a net energy output?

The Casimir effect can cause an effective attractive force between two closely placed plates, but it is a static force. You could extract energy by letting the plates come together, but once that is done, you would have to winch them open again, with at least as much energy input as was extracted. It's like running water in and out of a reservoir and far less practical.

PhantomWolf
2006-Aug-09, 08:22 AM
It was a while since I saw the program it featured on. I just recall that they stated it'd take plates the size of a skyscraper to get enough energy to light a torch bulb.

Ozzy
2006-Aug-09, 08:27 AM
Is is theoretically possible to bounce off Earth's gravity field?

PhantomWolf
2006-Aug-09, 08:45 AM
I could see that you could slingshot about the the Earth like we do with probes, but I'd suggest that attempting to bounce off the Earth's gravity well would be like attempting to bounce off a hole in the gound.

Van Rijn
2006-Aug-09, 09:00 AM
It was a while since I saw the program it featured on. I just recall that they stated it'd take plates the size of a skyscraper to get enough energy to light a torch bulb.

Okay. This is a heavily hyped subject, along with many other "free energy" concepts. Failing some verified experiments showing net energy production from the vacuum, I wouldn't take any TV show story on the subject too seriously.

Jakenorrish
2006-Aug-09, 01:49 PM
Where here? If you mean on Earth, that they occasionally visit Earth,
then, evidence was presented million of times, and more then
half of the people in USA do believe in ETs...

Quit giving me orders what to do.

In so far as the above goes, I'll ask again. Where's the evidence? You've yet to produce any, neither has ANYBODY produced ANY evidence which could justify the above claim within the scientific community.

Not only that, but the UK's ministry of defence feels like this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4981720.stm

So before you accuse myself or others of barking orders at you, or chasing you around threads, I REQUEST that you produce your evidence to back up these claims of alien visitation you've been making for many weeks.

Without any evidence, your claims have no substance to them whatsoever.

R.A.F.
2006-Aug-09, 02:02 PM
I do not need to explain myself to you, but want to say that I give serious answer to the person asking the question.

Serious answer??? That's the problem...you don't give us any answers...


I REQUEST that you produce your evidence to back up these claims of alien visitation you've been making for many weeks.

I agree...h_c, quit complaining and show us the evidence.

Wolverine
2006-Aug-09, 03:08 PM
I've split the posts in this thread from the original discussion (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=45296) of UFOs in the in Q&A section.


Since I notice you are chasing me on various forums,
and "barking" at me after every post I make,
I have to note this:
I do not need to explain myself to you....

Hello, homo_cosmosicus: you're welcome to make whatever claims you like, however you are expected to back them up with evidence when asked. That's how things work on this forum. Please extend the courtesy of addressing the questions posed by other forum members. Thanks.

sts60
2006-Aug-09, 05:23 PM
One might also point out that in addition to magically extracting enormous amounts of energy from the vacuum, the vehicles are also magically immune to inertia and magically able to prevent atmospheric friction from making them the brightest things in the sky. Hey, why stop at one miracle?

JayUtah
2006-Aug-09, 05:27 PM
In other words "alien" or "extraterrestrial" vehicles always have all the magical properties necessary to explain some odd observation in terms of them. The solution is simply defined ad hoc to fit the problem and then asserted as somehow proven (or at least worthy of a second look). Proof does not lie in the supposition of what "might" be possible, or what is needed in order for some pet theory. Proof lies in showing what actually is or was the case.

Kelfazin
2006-Aug-09, 10:15 PM
What I've never understood about the people that claim scientists cover up the truth of EV's/UFO's/AV's/Whatever is that the scientific community probably wishes the hardest for proof of ET. I would LOVE it if SETI finally picked up an unmistakable alien radio signal. I would LOVE it if some long-dead alien probe wandered into our solar system with a golden disc on it describing their own star system. I would LOVE it if an alien ship landed on our planet and some ET popped out telling us to take him to our leader. And I would be willing to bet that a majority of the people that post and lurk on this forum agree with me.

So why, if there were actual EVIDENCE, would we want to cover it up? If we found the evidence, we would be ecstatic, we would be dancing in the streets (or actually, we would be glued to the TV and our computers waiting for the next deveolpment in the story). We most certainly would not want to keep it all secret.

edit for typo

hplasm
2006-Aug-10, 12:45 AM
Well said, Kelfazin.

Your post should be pinned permanently to the top of many, many forums. :clap:

forumii.

fora..

whatever- :think: :think:

homo_cosmosicus
2006-Aug-10, 06:02 PM
Hello, homo_cosmosicus: you're welcome to make whatever claims you
like, however you are expected to back them up with evidence when
asked. That's how things work on this forum. Please extend the courtesy of
addressing the questions posed by other forum members. Thanks.


First, I didn't make claim, I was just giving answer to the person asking
questions about "UFOs" (see original post).

When I give my answer to the question, some people here
started to blame me for giving honest and serious answer.
I do not need to explain myself to those people.
I give my answer to the author of the original message,
and if somebody finds it necessary to demand some sort of "evidence"
then its their problem, and by the way, those saying UFOs do not exist
have NO evidence whatsoever nor would give any.

Therefore, no questions were asked, nobody asked me a question,
but I was (again) attacked by the same people, just for my honest
answer to somebody who asked about UFOs.
Lets not mix apples and oranges. Thanks.

homo_cosmosicus
2006-Aug-10, 06:08 PM
How do you know? I mean, unless you can present me with
an Alien Spacecraft Engineer's Certificate or something...


And you call this "question"??!!

All I see here is demand "do this, show me that"...

Common, let's be serious.

I want to answer, and I will answer in my way.
But I'm not going to jump whenever anybody wants me to.

Hamlet
2006-Aug-10, 06:21 PM
First, I didn't make claim, I was just giving answer to the person asking
questions about "UFOs" (see original post).

This is not a claim?


No. Their fuel, in other words energy, comes from virtual vacuum particles.

As you understand that energy is everywhere, in air, in cosmos,
in oceans, in the ground, everywhere, thus no need to carry fuel.

You're claiming knowledge of how supposed ET craft are fueled and providing absolutely no evidence. How do you know any of this? Please give specifics.



When I give my answer to the question, some people here
started to blame me for giving honest and serious answer.

No one is questioning your honesty or seriousness. We are questioning the highly dubious claims you made. Can you not see the difference?



I do not need to explain myself to those people.

Well, yes you do. If your presenting something that is purported to be factual, then it is incumbent on you to provide evidence to support it.



I give my answer to the author of the original message,

It wasn't an answer. It was pure speculation.



and if somebody finds it necessary to demand some sort of "evidence"
then its their problem, and by the way, those saying UFOs do not exist
have NO evidence whatsoever nor would give any.

When extraordinary claims are made, you can be sure we are going to ask for evidence. Are we just supposed to take your word that ET craft are fueled by "virtual vaccum particles"?



Lets not mix apples and oranges. Thanks.

No ones mixing anything. We are simply asking you to back up your claims.

Van Rijn
2006-Aug-10, 06:27 PM
First, I didn't make claim, I was just giving answer to the person asking
questions about "UFOs" (see original post).


From here: (http://www.answers.com/claim&r=67)

Claim - To state to be true, especially when open to question; assert or maintain: claimed he had won the race; a candidate claiming many supporters.


When I give my answer to the question, some people here started to blame me for giving honest and serious answer. I do not need to explain myself to those people.


As R.A.F. said, What answer? I'm tired of the game, H_C. You've made claims about alien ships, magic energy sources, a moon hoax, 9/11, and probably a few other things, but you don't follow up on them and ignore any questions.



I give my answer to the author of the original message,
and if somebody finds it necessary to demand some sort of "evidence" then its their problem, and by the way, those saying UFOs do not existhave NO evidence whatsoever nor would give any.


Shifting the burden of evidence. See my sig. This is your claim, you are the one expected to provide evidence. Edited to add: Your original claim was for "EV" (Extraterrestrial Vehicles) using a magical energy source. It was not merely for UFOs.



Therefore, no questions were asked, nobody asked me a question,but I was (again) attacked by the same people, just for my honestanswer to somebody who asked about UFOs.Lets not mix apples and oranges. Thanks.

Please point out the attacks.

R.A.F.
2006-Aug-10, 06:33 PM
When I give my answer to the question, some people here started to blame me for giving honest and serious answer.

Care to point out just where you gave this "honest and serious" answer???...I'm having trouble finding it.


I do not need to explain myself to those people.

Please read the rules of this board before making statements concerning what you do and do not "need" to do here.


...if somebody finds it necessary to demand some sort of "evidence" then its their problem...

Are you kidding???


...and by the way, those saying UFOs do not exist
have NO evidence whatsoever nor would give any.

Of course UFO's exist...what we've been saying is that there is no evidence that UFO's are alien space craft. Please recognize the difference.


Therefore, no questions were asked, nobody asked me a question...

That's a silly statement...don't expect it to be taken seriously.


...I was (again) attacked by the same people, just for my honest answer to somebody who asked about UFOs.

This "victim act" of yours is getting really old...why don't you stop it.

Sigma_Orionis
2006-Aug-10, 06:43 PM
[Showing his Official Cap'n Midnight Alien Engineer Ring]

Well as not-so-official representative of the evil Orion Reptile Overlords I categorically deny our Evil Alien Spacecraft use Vacuum Energy.

Our propulsion systems are based on the CTWaste principle in which we take rare ores such as male bovine refuse and HTML CT webpages (ocationally it can even run on IT Industry "White Papers") and after our patented* Bullcycle (TM) process generates enourmous amounts of quantum-kinetic-electric-nucleonic-atomic energy.

It has been calculated that a craft equiped with our Non-Newtonian-Law inertia-free Mk III BullDrive(TM) can reach speeds in excess of 10^22 yocto-millimiters per second, making it quite capable to perform intergalactic travel using just kitchen tools and a string.

*Patent # -7654321i issued on Alpha Orionis, Patents # -1i,-2i,-3i,-4i,-5i issued in the Carina, Sagittarius, Centaurus, Perseus and Cygnus Arms of the Milky Way. Patent pending on the Orion Arm, Preparing Patent proposal for the Orion Spur

CTWaste, Bullcycle and BullDrive are registred trademarks throught the Local Group belonging to "Evil Orion Overlord Reptile Aliens Inc." a wholly owned division of The Root of All Evil Corp.

Van Rijn
2006-Aug-10, 06:49 PM
And you call this "question"??!!

All I see here is demand "do this, show me that"...

Common, let's be serious.


Well, here is a serious question:

http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=799634&postcount=20

and here is another:

http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=798451&postcount=19

Both were ignored. Still, it's hard to take you at all seriously, given your habit of making claims but complaining when anyone responds to them.



I want to answer, and I will answer in my way.


Would you mind letting us know when you'll get around to these answers? Because we've been waiting since you started here.



But I'm not going to jump whenever anybody wants me to.

You have made that abundantly clear. So, hopefully you'll no longer feel you have to prove anything and will start following up on some of your claims?

Gillianren
2006-Aug-10, 07:14 PM
I'm confused. Since when is "how do you know?" not a real question?

Kelfazin
2006-Aug-10, 09:02 PM
and by the way, those saying UFOs do not exist
have NO evidence whatsoever nor would give any.

Ok we'll assume that when you say UFO you mean the EV or AV's. Can you please tell me how one proves a negative? How can you have evidence that something does not exist, except for the glaringly obvious fact that it continues to stubbornly not show up?

It's just like the comment in Van Rijn's signature "I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?" Can you prove there is no invisible elf in his backyard? No, of course not.

The burden of proof is not on those of us that say they don't exist, the burden of proof is on you because you say they do exist.

Trust me when I say that if you could provide absolute, verifiable, undeniable proof that EV's existed and were in the habit of visiting our planet, the people of this forum would be among the first to applaude your accomplishment. But until that happens, our response will be the same: "Prove it." And apparently your answer will remain the same: "<this space left intentionally blank>"

hplasm
2006-Aug-10, 09:11 PM
"The correct name for what you have in mind is - EV (Extraterrestrial Vehicle)."

Of course EVs exist.

There are the Lunar rovers, there's Spirit and Opportunity, there's...

AGN Fuel
2006-Aug-11, 12:06 AM
I do not need to explain myself to those people. I give my answer to the author of the original message,
and if somebody finds it necessary to demand some sort of "evidence"
then its their problem

h_c,

I am sure you have been told before about the forum rules, but in view of this attitude, you really do need to read them again, particularly:


If you have some idea which goes against commonly-held astronomical theory, then you are welcome to argue it here. Before you do, though READ THIS THREAD FIRST. This is very important. Then, if you still want to post your idea, you will do so politely, you will not call people names, and you will defend your arguments. Direct questions must be answered in a timely manner.

People will attack your arguments with glee and fervor here; that's what science and scientists do. If you cannot handle that sort of attack, then maybe you need to rethink your theory, too. Remember: you came here. It's our job to attack new theories. Those that are strong will survive, and may become part of mainstream science.

If you want to post unquantified speculation on a science board, you need to expect to be challenged. If you are getting your data from a back issue of "The X-Files Quarterly", then do not be aggrieved if asked to present that data to the harsh light of scrutiny that this board demands.

Edited to add:

Example:




Hydrogen is their fuel?

No. Their fuel, in other words energy, comes from virtual vacuum particles.

This is a claim. Claims like this must be supported by you as claimant if challenged on this board.

PhantomWolf
2006-Aug-11, 12:10 AM
Of course EVs exist.

There are the Lunar rovers, there's Spirit and Opportunity, there's...

No, they might be in an extraterrestial enviroment, but they are still terrestial craft.

PhantomWolf
2006-Aug-11, 12:17 AM
First, I didn't make claim

You didn't? Shall we have a look and see?

Claim: EVs (or AVs) appear everywhere on this planet starting from South Pole in Antractida and up to the Norht Pole like Greenland and Spitzbergen islands.
Proof Given: None

Claim: Their fuel, in other words energy, comes from virtual vacuum particles.
Proof Given: None

Claim: energy is everywhere, in air, in cosmos, in oceans, in the ground, everywhere, thus no need to carry fuel.
Proof Given: None

Claim: EVs (or AVs) do appear and went away with great speed
Proof Given: None

Claim: The best way to see them is by using near-infrared technology.
Proof Given: None

Hmmmmm, that's 5 claims in your post where you didn't make any claims. Please do provide some evidence of these. This is a science based board,the rules are clear, provide evidence or retract the statement. If you have the evidence, post it, if you don't and it's speculation, admit it is speculation instead of stating it as fact.

Gillianren
2006-Aug-11, 04:22 AM
Hey, isn't "near-infrared," you know, red?

Van Rijn
2006-Aug-11, 06:05 AM
Hey, isn't "near-infrared," you know, red?

Actually, it's IR just under red (compare to mid and far-infrared).

Jakenorrish
2006-Aug-11, 09:30 AM
And you call this "question"??!!

All I see here is demand "do this, show me that"...

Common, let's be serious.

I want to answer, and I will answer in my way.
But I'm not going to jump whenever anybody wants me to.

Don't 'answer in your 'own way', answer by abiding by the rules of the forum. You aren't able to back up any of your claims as there is no evidence for any of them.

Yes, 'let's be serious'. Put your evidence on the board, or go and find a forum more suited to 'concepts not grounded in any kind of reality'.

Ozzy
2006-Aug-11, 11:29 AM
There are many sites and forums on the net that make unsubstantiated claims. What I like about Bad Astronomy is that contributors attempt to explain phenomena with scientific backup. I have learnt heaps about astonomy since joining.

This forum is not for the mentally lazy, and I have often found myself trolling the net for information before I make a post. I've even started sorting out my old assignments and resources, as sometimes I see a post that I know I have facts for ........ somewhere.

Homo C, may I suggest that if you have explainations but cant back them up, a question mark is a beautiful thing. i.e. how feasible is virtual vacuum particles as possible fuel source for spacecraft? Then you will see the true beauty of this forum emerge, as contributors will give you explainations as to the feasibility of this fuel.

I have never heard of these particles before,and now I am wiser.:dance:

hplasm
2006-Aug-11, 09:02 PM
Of course EVs exist.

There are the Lunar rovers, there's Spirit and Opportunity, there's...

No, they might be in an extraterrestial enviroment, but they are still terrestial craft.

Ah- it's Craft of Extraterrestrial Origin that are required- CEOs ;)

There's one of those in the Board Room...

WaxRubiks
2006-Aug-12, 07:46 PM
maybe the galaxy is teeming with flying saucers and all they want from Earth is somewhere to set down and generate antimatter for their journey on from star to star, although one of the other planets would do just as well for this but there might just be so many that some end up on Earth.

Faultline
2006-Aug-13, 06:55 PM
maybe the galaxy is teeming with flying saucers and all they want from Earth is somewhere to set down and generate antimatter for their journey on from star to star, although one of the other planets would do just as well for this but there might just be so many that some end up on Earth.

What makes Earth better than something in the Kuiper Belt? It sure is a long way to come just to do your refuelling when you have to make sure you hide from the populace.

Wolverine
2006-Aug-13, 10:31 PM
This is a science based board,the rules are clear, provide evidence or retract the statement. If you have the evidence, post it, if you don't and it's speculation, admit it is speculation instead of stating it as fact.

PhantomWolf and numerous others in the previous posts have correctly summarized the situation here.

homo_cosmosicus, this forum is dedicated to science -- it's not a place where wild assertions may be thrown about without consequence.

I will reiterate: it is your responsibility to substantiate the claims you've presented and answer direct questions posed to you by other forum members. A number of replies have been provided to you explaining what claims are, what constitutes evidence, and, elaborating upon what criteria you need to follow in order to show us that the things you state are actually true. You are obligated to back up your statements with evidence if you wish to continue posting to this bulletin board.

If you are not willing to respond and address these issues, you will once again be in violation of our forum's guidelines, and this thread will be locked.

homo_cosmosicus
2006-Aug-14, 06:20 AM
PhantomWolf and numerous others in the previous posts have correctly summarized the situation here.

homo_cosmosicus, this forum is dedicated to science -- it's not a place where wild assertions may be thrown about without consequence.

I will reiterate: it is your responsibility to substantiate the claims you've presented and answer direct questions posed to you by other forum members. A number of replies have been provided to you explaining what claims are, what constitutes evidence, and, elaborating upon what criteria you need to follow in order to show us that the things you state are actually true. You are obligated to back up your statements with evidence if you wish to continue posting to this bulletin board.

If you are not willing to respond and address these issues, you will once again be in violation of our forum's guidelines, and this thread will be locked.


I replied to you in private message and I'm going to post it here also:



I give them evidence, for example, in form of video, interview with Silverstein, where he admits that he ordered "lets pull it" (WTC 7 building).
CT-debunkers just radiculated that evidence.

They don't need evidence, and if presented with evidence, they will radiculate it.

Also, for example, some members will keep asking me questions, like my opinion what was on the Moon, etc.
I'm just stating that no Apollo craft ever landed on the Moon, but they are pushing me to start writing about what do I think was on the Moon, but, if I do, then they will require "evidence" for my claim.
In fact, I just claim that no Apollo craft ever landed on the Moon.

Some members will even play fool, for example, one of them posts thread about NASA loss of original video, then, I ask him to let me know when the video will be found, so I can watch it.
Then, they will often "put words in my mouth." When I told them not to do it, they will accuse me of "puting words in others people mouth", how? Simply by me posting links to evidece, they think I'm puting "words in somebody elses mouth". Thats not the same.
"Puting words in mouth" and "pasting link to evidence, ie, citation, quoting" is different thing.

There is obviously orchestreted attemp to present me as somebody who "doesn't want to answer, doesn't give evidence". Thats nonsence, and its not fair.

homo_cosmosicus
2006-Aug-14, 06:27 AM
PhantomWolf and numerous others in the previous posts have correctly summarized the situation here.

homo_cosmosicus, this forum is dedicated to science -- it's not a place where wild assertions may be thrown about without consequence.

I will reiterate: it is your responsibility to substantiate the claims you've presented and answer direct questions posed to you by other forum members. A number of replies have been provided to you explaining what claims are, what constitutes evidence, and, elaborating upon what criteria you need to follow in order to show us that the things you state are actually true. You are obligated to back up your statements with evidence if you wish to continue posting to this bulletin board.

If you are not willing to respond and address these issues, you will once again be in violation of our forum's guidelines, and this thread will be locked.


Again:

I did not start this topic.

YOU copied my answer to some member who was asking for our opinions
about what is known as "UFOs".
I give him/her my honest answer.

Now, if some member, obviously CT-debunkers, keep asking me and demanding "evidence",
and that seems to be never-ending-story, ie, one answer comes but
then 10 more questions about non-related topics comes from CT-debunkers.
When presented with evidence, they would simply radiculate either me or the evidence I present to them.

One of them is calling my posting a links to evidence "blindly parroting".
Fine, so I'm "blindly parroting", you know, I'm just a CT believer...

If you do not want me here on this forum, and/or if you do not want ANY CT here
then just say so, and I'll go.

Musashi
2006-Aug-14, 06:28 AM
In fact, I just claim that no Apollo craft ever landed on the Moon.



Around here, claims require evidence. If you cannot back up a claim you can retract it or you can keep it to yourself.

homo_cosmosicus
2006-Aug-14, 07:06 AM
homo_cosmosicus, this forum is dedicated to science -- it's not a
place where wild assertions may be thrown about without consequence.



I'm not here to "throw wild assertions".

If you haven't heard about vacuum energy, for example one of its
forms - Casimir Effect, then please see:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=casimir+effect

I have seen stuff, not only that I was reading about it...

Van Rijn
2006-Aug-14, 07:22 AM
I give them evidence, for example, in form of video, interview with Silverstein, where he admits that he ordered "lets pull it" (WTC 7 building).
CT-debunkers just radiculated that evidence.

They don't need evidence, and if presented with evidence, they will radiculate it.


What's "radiculate"? Anyway, why would you think that just because you make an argument that everyone will accept it uncritically?



Also, for example, some members will keep asking me questions, like my opinion what was on the Moon, etc.
I'm just stating that no Apollo craft ever landed on the Moon, but they are pushing me to start writing about what do I think was on the Moon, but, if I do, then they will require "evidence" for my claim.


Yes, we will. There is vast evidence supporting the landing of Apollo LMs on the moon. If you are going to claim that this didn't happen, you are expected to explain why you believe this. So, what's your issue? Either you have evidence, or you don't. Either you understand the subject well enough to defend your argument, or you don't.



In fact, I just claim that no Apollo craft ever landed on the Moon.


Exactly. And that raises a number of questions that you've been asked (and ignored) repeatedly.



There is obviously orchestreted attemp to present me as somebody who "doesn't want to answer, doesn't give evidence". Thats nonsence, and its not fair.

Well, I sure don't see answers to the many questions you've been asked about your claims or evidence to support them. Only complaints.

Gillianren
2006-Aug-14, 07:25 AM
Okay, let's try explaining this.

If you believe with no evidence, say so. We actually respect that a little more than what you've been doing, which is stating things as fact and then expecting us to just agree. However, we will then point you toward evidence that shows that, well, pretty much everything you've posted thus far is either wrong or insupportable speculation. This is because you're on a science board, where we care about things like evidence.

We haven't ridiculed (I assume that's the word you're looking for) your evidence, because you haven't presented any on any subject. You may think you have, but as has been pointed out to you, what you claim is evidence is heavily larded with certain assumptions on your part that aren't borne out.

As an example--you point out to us here vacuum energy references, but you still haven't explained how you know it's what's used on your hypothetical alien spacecraft. Without evidence of that, it's just as likely that they're using pretty much any other energy source, including ones that human physics have not yet encountered.

Do you see where I'm coming from on this? You are making claims. When we ask you why you believe what you do, you get huffy. However, if you asked any person on this board who's been arguing points with you why they believed, say, that the Apollo missions were real, they could tell you. In frankly exhaustive detail.

However, it's not their job to do so. Yours is the extraordinary claim; yours requires the proof above and beyond anything you've even attempted to show here.

I will also note that most of us respond to you in a patient and reasoned way. Common courtesy, not to mention the board rules, suggests that you do the same. Likewise, it's polite to at least make an attempt at answering questions presented to you. Do remember that "I don't know" is always acceptable.

Van Rijn
2006-Aug-14, 07:39 AM
I'm not here to "throw wild assertions".

If you haven't heard about vacuum energy, for example one of its
forms - Casimir Effect, then please see:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=casimir+effect

I have seen stuff, not only that I was reading about it...

I noted the Casimir effect in this post:

http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=801355&postcount=9

This can cause a small, static attractive force between very closely spaced plates. How would you, even in theory, continuously extract energy from a machine using the Casimir effect with no other input of energy? How do you get net positive energy output from a static force? (And I won't even ask you how you get significant energy.)

Further, what is your evidence for extraterrestrial vehicles, and what is your evidence that they use some kind of magic "vacuum energy" power source?

WaxRubiks
2006-Aug-14, 07:53 AM
HC, the thing is science works in the same way as evolution; theories arise and have to survive in the world or peer review, if a theory survives it then goes on to become accepted and can be built on; this is how science evolves, anything else would lead to chaos.

you can state a point of view or an opinion but you cannot state it as a fact without that statement being challenged if it is non-main stream.

Tog
2006-Aug-14, 07:56 AM
Since you chose to make this public.
I replied to you in private message and I'm going to post it here also:

I give them evidence, for example, in form of video, interview with Silverstein, where he admits that he ordered "lets pull it" (WTC 7 building).
CT-debunkers just radiculated that evidence.

Okay first off. The word is Ridicule, not radiculate. This is not an attack, merely a correction. Since you seem to use it a lot, I can assume that it's not a simple typo.

Second, the evidence that you tend to provide is not really evidence in the true sense of the word. The video was good. It backed up what you said. The problem with the video is that there is a lot of room for debate about what he really meant. This video has been seen many times before and has been discussed in depth.

His use of "pull" can mean many things. If I were to use the term "Dog it", what would you asume I meant? To most people it would mean to follow someone relentlessly. To a stocker in a grocery store it means to hide that last can of X behind the row of Y on the shelf, rather than putting in the back room. It is task specific jargon. Using taks specific jargon, such as "pull it" whan you mean to intentionally bring down a building through the use of explosives in an interview would be a silly mistake to make. That was the debate. WHat could he have meant vs. what he probably meant.

They don't need evidence, and if presented with evidence, they will radiculate it.

We do need evidence. That is what stops people from being burned as a witch because someone claims they turned them into a newt. (See Monty Python and the Holy Grail) Without evidence there is no way to support a claim. With no support, the claim falls flat.

Also, for example, some members will keep asking me questions, like my opinion what was on the Moon, etc.
I'm just stating that no Apollo craft ever landed on the Moon, but they are pushing me to start writing about what do I think was on the Moon, but, if I do, then they will require "evidence" for my claim.
In fact, I just claim that no Apollo craft ever landed on the Moon.

But when the entire scientific world as well as all history books say that the Moon landings were real, just saying it never happened is a claim, and you must back it up, or take it back. This is no different than someone sayig that Europe never came to the Americas in the 15-17th centuries. If you make a claim like that, you need to show why you feel that way or people will look at you like you're nuts. Once you show WHY you think that, the reasons can be discussed until you either accept that what you thought was wrong, convince the other side you are right, or reach no common ground. Simply saying, "No it isn't" is not enough. You need something to back it up.

Since this board is science based, with a number of members very well versed in engineering, you have a big hill to get over to convince them that everythign that they read, saw, and did first hand is wrong, and that what you read on same website is right. Other boards are much more tolerant of people that make outrageous claims. This one is not. You need to treat this forum very much like you would a court of law. There are rules. Evidence must be presented. Failing to do so can result in a charge of contempt (which on here is a banning or suspension).

Some members will even play fool, for example, one of them posts thread about NASA loss of original video, then, I ask him to let me know when the video will be found, so I can watch it.
Then, they will often "put words in my mouth." When I told them not to do it, they will accuse me of "puting words in others people mouth", how? Simply by me posting links to evidece, they think I'm puting "words in somebody elses mouth". Thats not the same.
"Puting words in mouth" and "pasting link to evidence, ie, citation, quoting" is different thing.

Yes, but quoting something, and then adding what you thing that quote means is changing the evidence. "He dogged a whole case of paper towels", could be interpreted as if that person sat ad watched the towels intently. It does not. If you tell me that that is what that statement means, you are putting your words (meaning) into what was said.

A better way to have done it would be to say, This is what I think this means, then paste the quote. You may have people agree with you or not, but the result is that you will not be accused of puttig words in the speaker's mouth.

There is obviously orchestreted attemp to present me as somebody who "doesn't want to answer, doesn't give evidence". Thats nonsence, and its not fair.

It is not an orchistrated attempt to do any such thing. When you first got here, you said the Apollo landings were fake. We asked you to back up your claim. You never did. Instead you claimed that you couldn't get into it here becasue of the no politcs rule.

A thread was opened to see if the members felt that it was okay to talk about politics, without getting political. That is, to be able to discuss a political motive, without getting into specific policies and the like. In tha thread, you chose to fire off a political rant that erved no purpose. If you were going to waste a foul on something like that, it wold have been better served in the Apollo thread.

Later you talk about the specifics of how ET vehicles travel and that they visit earth often. Again you are asked for evidence of this claim, and again, you fail to offer any.

It isn't that people here are setting up secret plans to get you; it's that most can see the pattern. There are several threads open right now that are waiting for a response from you. They have been open for weeks. Waiting.

homo_cosmosicus
2006-Aug-14, 09:14 AM
[B]
I will reiterate: it is your responsibility to substantiate the claims
you've presented and answer direct questions posed to you by other forum members.



Let us clarify something, so you don't say I didn't ask you:


Is this interpretation of the forum's rule correct:

"If somebody makes simple reply to somebodys question,
and then dozen or two dozen others jump on him/her
and keep adding more and more questions, sometimes
totally irrelevant, then, the person making initial
simple answer to somebodys question, must answer
ALL of those questions, even if there is possibility
that questions from that group of few dozen members
will never end, even if it takes years to reply to all of them,
and there is no guarantee they will ever stop nor that
those members will ever be satisfied with valid answer/evidence,
and they might even call you different names, etc,
but if you ever stop answering then you are violating
forum rules, and we will take some action about it..."

This is not only a question, but also my summarization of the situation here.

If my interpretation of the forum's rule is correct,
then, I have no choice but to stop writing any messages
on the Conspiracy forum.

Laguna
2006-Aug-14, 09:35 AM
H_C, it would be great if you could answer at least to one question.

That rule is no instrument to drive people of the board. The mods are very flexible.
So just start answering the first question and usually other questions arise from your answer.
If it gets too much, just state so and stay with the most important ones.

Jakenorrish
2006-Aug-14, 09:46 AM
If H_C believes that alien life can travel dozens or hundreds of light years across the galaxy, but doesn't believe that we're capable of travelling 1/4 of a million miles and landing on the moon, then its worse than I thought!

H_C the moon hoax has been proven beyond all doubt to be a load of nonsense. Go search the CT section of this board and read all about it.

PhantomWolf
2006-Aug-14, 09:52 AM
HC, remember that this place is a science discussion board. That means that if you state things that are not currently accepted science, you're going to get questioned on it. If you beleive something just because you want to believe it but you know you don't actually have evidence, find, say that and we leave you alone. If you don't know the answers to a question, say you don't know the answers, and we'll leave you along. But stating things as if they are fact will just get people questioning you for evidence. If you have a belief because you have the evidence to support it, then you shouldn't have a reason to complain so much, just post your evidence. Yes your evidence will be scutinized and likely rebuted or more questions asked, but if you are just assuming that we are going to accept your wild claims without challenge, then you're greatly mistaken. If you don't want your ideas and claims challenged, well then you're totally on the wrong board. If you're unwilling to answer questions and discuss your views, then you are neither acting in a inquiring way, nor in a very open-minded fashion. That's your choice, but if you continue to act in this way then quit your whining. The people on this board have bent over backwards to accomadate you, and as of yet all you have done is complain and claim you are being picked on.

Tog
2006-Aug-14, 09:54 AM
But, H_C, the reply that you made was not just a simple reply as far as those on this board are concerned. You stated something as a fact that is impossible with the physics we know. That is going to get you questioned.

Then, rather that try to address any of these questions with anything other than it doesn't need to be proven, it's true (note that that is NOT a quote), you start another thread on the PM Article. As I said in a different thread, in response to your statements there, there are many threads open, waiting for you to respond. I would start by picking one to address, then mention on the others that you will be focusing on that one for a while. Don't start a new thread about anything else. I think you'll also find that of these dozen or so people asing you things, you'll find that most are asking the exact same questions.

AGN Fuel
2006-Aug-14, 11:19 AM
YOU copied my answer to some member who was asking for our opinions
about what is known as "UFOs".
I give him/her my honest answer.

Now, if some member, obviously CT-debunkers, keep asking me and demanding "evidence",
and that seems to be never-ending-story, ie, one answer comes but
then 10 more questions about non-related topics comes from CT-debunkers.
When presented with evidence, they would simply radiculate either me or the evidence I present to them.

First, you really need to quit the martyr act - it makes you sound like a petulant 12 year old. That will cut no ice here.

Now, let's look at why you are being asked these questions to which you object so much. Take your example above - someone asks a question about UFOs and how they are powered, specifically whether they use hydrogen. You reply, stating that they are powered by virtual particles. Your response is not at all qualified - there is no "It is possible..." or "Maybe they are powered by..." or "I've heard people suggest..." It is stated as fact.

Your reponse creates problems however, particularly for people with a background in science. Although the Casimir Effect is well known, we know that it can't produce a continual flow of energy by currently understood physics without adding more energy into the system. Further, the energy that it does produce as a one-off effect is tiny - far, far below anything that could possibly be used to power a spacecraft.

And that is the next issue. There is no hard evidence AT ALL that UFOs are alien spacecraft. None. Yet you are giving statements of fact about their propulsion systems. To scientists and engineers.

Now, whether or not you realise it, in that single statement you have casually challenged our current understanding of astrobiology and physics, just for starters.

Again, this is a science board. The people here deal with science on a daily basis, in their careers, their hobbies, their interests. You come in and by your statements you blithely challenge our understanding of the universe. That's fine - scientist do this regularly. However, what makes them scientists is that their peers subject their ideas to a blowtorch of scrutiny. If the theory has any merit, it survives. If it is bogus, it will eventually be discarded. That is how science works.

Your claims are being scrutinised, because frankly they are extraordinary claims. There is a saying around here that you will become familiar with if you hang around - 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. So far, all you have done is complain about having your claims questioned. That will sway no-one. If you cannot back up your ideas with any form of evidence - and to date, that is exactly what has happened - then do not expect to be taken seriously in this forum.

btw - if you really want to learn, then you could a lot worse than to engage in these discussions and careful digest the information you are given. There are some remarkable people that roam this site and I know that it is a privilege to have such access to their experience, understanding and insight.

R.A.F.
2006-Aug-14, 11:20 AM
If my interpretation of the forum's rule is correct...

I judge from the "tone' of your post that you have already decided that you are correct...


then, I have no choice but to stop writing any messages on the Conspiracy forum.

You misrepresent the rules of this board, and you want to use that misrepresentation as an excuse to stop posting here???

Do I have that right???

gzhpcu
2006-Aug-14, 11:39 AM
C_T, this site has a conspiracy forum, not to attract conspiracy believers, but to discuss some of the conspiracies floating around. This board has mostly critical persons who think in a scientific manner.

You would feel much more at home on a board like the above top secret board.

Jakenorrish
2006-Aug-14, 02:55 PM
H_C will not produce evidence to substantiate his claims as there is none. If there were, the eminent scientists here would've heard about it.

Let's not mince words here, he is arguing about Pluto's status on another thread, knowing relatively nothing about the Kuiper Belt, arguing about the Apollo moon hoax having read no information about it, arguing about the WTC government plot knowing none of the facts and using every CT'r avoiding tactic there is - playing the victim being the main one.

Isn't it time the mods took a slightly firmer grip of the situation - I know Wolverine has been on, but its been going on too long.....

gzhpcu
2006-Aug-14, 04:32 PM
The less you know, the more you think you know.... :)

Wolverine
2006-Aug-14, 06:08 PM
I give them evidence, for example, in form of video, interview with Silverstein, where he admits that he ordered "lets pull it" (WTC 7 building). CT-debunkers just radiculated that evidence.

It has been explained to you that the video you posted does not constitute acceptable evidence to support your conclusions about WTC7. While you did, in this case, make a small effort to show others how you've reached the conclusion that WTC7 was demolished, the stance of conspiracy supporters (which you cite essentially word-for-word) relies upon misconceptions or misrepresentations about Silverstein and his comments. This has been explained repeatedly.

But more importantly, you've made many claims here on different subjects, in multiple threads, without attempting to provide any evidence for them. Many questions have been posed to you which you've made no effort to answer. That sort of behavior is not acceptable here. Do you understand?


They don't need evidence, and if presented with evidence, they will radiculate it.

This is an invalid assertion or at best, a strong misconception on your part. In any case, you may not use it as an excuse to present claims or arguments without supporting them.


Also, for example, some members will keep asking me questions, like my opinion what was on the Moon, etc.
I'm just stating that no Apollo craft ever landed on the Moon, but they are pushing me to start writing about what do I think was on the Moon, but, if I do, then they will require "evidence" for my claim.
In fact, I just claim that no Apollo craft ever landed on the Moon.

Members are asking you these tough questions because this is a science-oriented discussion board. Your claims run contrary to established scientific knowledge. Since your statements challenge established science, you will be challenged to defend those statements.


Some members will even play fool...

There is obviously orchestreted attemp to present me as somebody who "doesn't want to answer, doesn't give evidence". Thats nonsence, and its not fair.

There is no such "orchestrated attempt."

homo_cosmosicus, look at the numbers of generally polite replies you've received on this and other threads -- members here are volunteering their time and effort to help you better understand the issues you've raised. It is not fair for you to ignore their replies, their questions, or your responsibility to abide by our forum's rules.


Again: I did not start this topic.

YOU copied my answer to some member who was asking for our opinions about what is known as "UFOs". I give him/her my honest answer.

It doesn't matter whether or not you started a separate topic or posted your UFO claims in another thread. I moved your comments to a more appropriate place along with an explanation (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=801585&postcount=19). Their location is irrelevant -- your "honest answer" consists of claims which you must support with evidence.


If you do not want me here on this forum, and/or if you do not want ANY CT here then just say so, and I'll go.

No, I'm not telling you that you need to leave. We encourage discussion here; I'm not attempting to prevent you from discussing anything. I'm making it clear to you that our discussions are governed by rules, and that you have not been following those rules.


Let us clarify something, so you don't say I didn't ask you:

Is this interpretation of the forum's rule correct:

"If somebody makes simple reply to somebodys question,
and then dozen or two dozen others jump on him/her
and keep adding more and more questions, sometimes
totally irrelevant, then, the person making initial
simple answer to somebodys question, must answer
ALL of those questions, even if there is possibility
that questions from that group of few dozen members
will never end, even if it takes years to reply to all of them,
and there is no guarantee they will ever stop nor that
those members will ever be satisfied with valid answer/evidence,
and they might even call you different names, etc,
but if you ever stop answering then you are violating
forum rules, and we will take some action about it..."

This is not only a question, but also my summarization of the situation here.

If my interpretation of the forum's rule is correct,
then, I have no choice but to stop writing any messages
on the Conspiracy forum.

No, your interpretation is incorrect, and grossly misrepresents what's taking place here. What's being asked of you is very simple.

Remember: you came here -- our forum rules apply to everyone, and you are no exception. People here will challenge your statements when they contradict established scientific knowledge. If you do not wish to be challenged, if you do not wish to answer direct questions, if you do not wish to defend your arguments, then you have the following options:

1) You have the option of retracting your claims.
2) You have the option of keeping these claims (or beliefs) to yourself.
3) You may find another bulletin board on which to participate where these rules don't apply to you.
4) You have the option of continuing to disregard our forum rules and the warnings provided to you by moderators, which will result in the revocation of your posting privileges here.

-Or-

5) You may continue to participate in these discussions by defending your arguments, answering direct questions, and substantiating your claims with evidence.

Before you continue, I encourage you to pause and carefully, thoroughly study the content of this post as well as the many explicit, thoughtful replies you've received here.

sts60
2006-Aug-14, 06:13 PM
H_C, let me point to Phil (gzhpcu) as an example of a regular here who has advanced against-the-mainstream views (specifically regarding astrology) in a constructive manner, engaging in real dialog and exercising due diligence in working to back up his claims. He's always been welcome here, even if we've jumped on some of his claims. In other words, this is not a board simply for skeptics to pat each other on the back, and if you try to back up your claims then you belong here.

I give them evidence, for example, in form of video, interview with Silverstein, where he admits that he ordered "lets pull it" (WTC 7 building).
CT-debunkers just radiculated that evidence.

This was ridiculed because it was such a tired, oft-debunked old chestnut. It wasn't evidence; it was simply torturing a meaning to fit a particular phrase which had far more likely meanings. We explained why, at length. If you still insist on calling that "evidence", then you need to counter the rebuttals.

Also, for example, some members will keep asking me questions, like my opinion what was on the Moon, etc.

No. We know your opinion about Apollo. We're just looking for you to back up it up.

I'm just stating that no Apollo craft ever landed on the Moon, but they are pushing me to start writing about what do I think was on the Moon, but, if I do, then they will require "evidence" for my claim.

Of course. This is a science-oriented board. If you make such a statement, you should be prepared to back it up.

In fact, I just claim that no Apollo craft ever landed on the Moon.

If this means "I believe no Apollo craft ever landed on the Moon, but I don't want to discuss it", then fine, you needn't talk about it. But if you do bring it up again, you'll be asked, again, to back up your claim.

gzhpcu
2006-Aug-14, 07:45 PM
The goal is to try and find out the true facts, and separate the ego from positions taken. Not take things personally. Being open-minded implies a willingness to admit when you are wrong...

publiusr
2006-Aug-17, 06:47 PM
Back on the topic of alienc craft.

If we were, say, to be invaded--there is nothing to say the tech wouldn't look much different from what we propsed.

Thus my old post about the Teton event of the 1970's being a big aerobrake.

Imagine a starship with an aeroshell parabolic dish, and a big NWSR rocket. It uses M2P2 minimagnetospheric braking with raw thrust. The aero shell folds around an ominous tube, that looks a lot like a "flying crowbar;" Project Pluto has slowed a bit. One or two more passes--and it can dispense with the aeroshell and get to work.


How a real invasion might look.

Wolverine
2006-Aug-26, 06:45 PM
Over the course of the last two months, homo_cosmosicus has presented numerous conspiratorial claims, making little if any effort to substantiate them while simultaneously evading forum members' queries. h_c's actions have cumulatively violated a number of forum rules, prompting the issuance of both warnings (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=775355&postcount=233) and suspension (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=791565&postcount=140).

Since my previous posts in this thread were met with little more than protest, I sent h_c a reminder via private message back on the 16th explicitly stating that these unresolved issues had to be addressed. h_c was given the option to simply post a public retraction of these claims, or, to continue the discussions with the understanding that evidence must be provided to back them up, while answering pertinent questions from others. My message was ignored.

I dispatched another PM on the 18th, to which I received no response. On the 21st, I sent an additional PM reminding h_c in no uncertain terms that he was required to address these issues once and for all, by Friday the 25th, and that if these simple obligations were not met, severe disciplinary action would follow. The last message sent did ply a response from h_c on the 21st in which he only stated he could not reply that day, but never informed me of his intent, as I had specifically asked.

From his last posts in the Conspiracy Theories section throughout the above timeframe, h_c has been actively participating in the Astronomy section while ignoring his responsibilities here. It was made perfectly clear that would not be allowed.

For the ongoing impolite behavior, disregard of this forum's guidelines and repeated refusal to follow the promptings of the forum staff (and we've been more than accomodating), homo_cosmosicus' posting privileges here have been revoked.

Locked.