Messages

Space boy, if you take up some books, you would see that actually there is some hard evidence. those amateur websites run by youngsters are bullshit.

Could you tell me which books is should look for?

Maybe "The great imposture", where says that the US government hijacked a plane, and then, in spite of crashing that very plane or crash an identical one to the Pentagon, makes it vanish (Where? maybe landing in area 51 and killing all the passangers) and launches a missile? 

It's so stupid that it needs no further comment... 

So, your sources to tell that Atlantis existed (let' s remember, a Continent that sunk in the middle of the Atlantic, with the size of north of Africa, with channels and successive rings, with high buildings constructed with red bricks by a 9000 years old civilization, with Elephants and bulls) are a National Geographic article saying "Atlantis" (notice the " ") and a videogame?

Amazing...

There are some problems... Santorini eruption was 3,600 ago. The Atlantida SUNK 9,000 years ago. Santorini, if I am not mistaken, is a tad smaller than the north of Africa. Santorini never had elephants, or buildings made with red bricks. The only coincidence is that it exploted near in space and time with Plato's birthplace. Is that an "evidence" for you? You will be a great scientist or historian... 

Google Plato's  dialogues (Timeaus and Chritias) and read them carefully. When you do that, come back to go on with a serious debate (if you still believe in that crap)

Lo_res_man, I know what Krakatoa was... I was asking for evidences that Atlantis was a  mediterranian civilization destroyed by a volcano.

Atlantis was just probably a krackitoa type disaster that may have happened on some island in the Mediterranean.

Which are your evidences? Plato says it was in the Atlantic, sunk 9,000 years ago and was higher than the North of Africa. Plato was very specific about the size, the location, the shape....

If you start to cross words on Plato' s decription in this way: "Ok... we will move the continent to this Sea, remove the elephants and the bulls... Change the red colour of the bricks that Plato depicts into marble stones... Change the channels and the inner circles into "a cicle shaped island", and then move it 6,000 years forward, and change "sinking" into "volcano eruption"and blah, blah, blah", then, you' ll probably reach to the conclussion that Atlantis was Santorini, Sicily or Crete, or something like that.

That theory might amuse you and make you look like a smart ass in front of a group of uninformed fellas, but... the theory is still stupid.

If we do that (change man into "woman" change "french" to "Egyptian", change "XVIII Century" to "I Century B.C.") we might also reach to the conclussion that Napoleon was actually Cleopatra. Does that look scientific of historically accurated to you? Please, be informed a bit beofre typic no senses.

Yeah, the Cathar (i think there is an H) region is definitely the place to go if you want to see tons of medieval castles. There is an historic background of religious wars, lords wars in deep valleys and castles on high peeks, etc.

Not in Spanish, that' s why of the mistake... anyways, thanks

Yeah Renne's attracting weirdos of all the planet and The DVC was the last opus who make it a total tourist trap. Anyway there's nothing so interesting to see there : 1 small middle age church a strange small tower and some tombstone that you wont be able to see cuz' the 500 other tourists will hide it from your eyes.

I had a simillar idea... been there? Thanks to corroborate my initial feeling.

Yes, the "Roswell incident" happened before the book, and it has some kind of echo in the local media, that' s undeniable... But very very small, it passed quick (apparently the "fever" lasted less than 2 days) and if now it' s famous, it' s just because it had the "fortune" to be choosen by a recognised hoaxer. It was not the most strange or spectacular case (Typing that IMO there were more spectacular cases doesn' t imply that I believe that we have been visited by Alien spacecrafts, eh?)

It' s funny that you mention the Atlantis, because for me, it' s also a mistery how, from the thousands of myths that could have been used to create a "legend", this one survived over the rest. Like Roswell...  

PS before posting: I think I should explain a bit of Atlantis before "launching" the idea it' s a big hoax. Well... Atlantis was a short dialogue on just 9 pages by Plato. I think many knew the author, but I am not sure if everybody knows of how short and how lack of importance the dialogue had in comparision with the rest of the work of the Greek genious...

I encourage people to investigate how Roswell became popular, not if the bright material was mylar or fryed potato.

Roswell was not famous till 1980, when Charles Berlitz and William Moore published "The incident", about "facts" happened in 1947.

Did people in 1947 think that "The incident" was actually an UFO crash? No. Even Raymond A. Palmer, a science fiction editor which moved to "believer" founding the magazine "Fate" did not believe in it. And let' s remember that he was in a disesperate raid of good paranormal stories since his magazine was not going too well (He was also editor of "Amazing stories", but some of his writers moved (I.E. Asimov) seeing the sensationalist change of direction that his magazines were taking.

The news about the incident were published in an enviroment of high histeria. Soon before, Kenneth Arnold, an amateur pilot said he saw "nine boomerang shaped objects, flying like saucers thrown to a lake, flying over Idaho" He was convinced (in that time) they were some kind of secret reactor (And secret crafts which an suspectous simillarity with Arnold' s paintings and decriptions were prooved to be flying during that period), but an enthusiastic reporter (Bill Basquette) made a mistake and depicted the objects as "Flying saucers". Result: In the following weeks more that 200 "flying saucers" were seen over the US... When Arnold' s suspectuous objects had boomeran shape. A clear case of histeria.

That s why in a first moment, another enthusiastic reporter said that the alluminium paper he saw in New Mexico was a flying saucer. The US Army soon explained that they were pieces of a meteorological baloon of the project balloon, and nobody believed the Alien aspect of the ncident since 1980' s book (From the same author of "The Bermuda triangle").

I think it' s a quite clear case of "re-fryed" mistery to fool the believers. Of course there is a conspiration here, but it' s not driven by the Government, but by that smart ass Berlitz.

Sure Chrille, I am not saying it is not a nice place... I just saying that my "feeling" is that there might be nicest places less "mediatised". 

Well, France is full of castles and medieval towns, I name myself AGA' s helper, I will browse the internet as well looking for nice medieval towns. Doesn' t "The Catars country" sound good, as well? 

Rennes le Chateau sounds good, Chrille, but maybe the enviroment is going to be too weird 'cos, if I am not mistaken, it' s an esoterical place which inspired some chapters of DaVinci's code and all that... Maybe there are some places less known and more interesting, like Bergerac, in The Dordogne River.

And Jet, if you propose Finland as an easy place for the host to arrange the meeting, I don' t think that, nowadays, with internet telephones and stuff, it should be too difficult for AGA or someone else to preppair mittens in France.  

Congrats for the triumphal comeback, Vel. I' d love to help, but you know that my English is not good enough for the Ezine Anyway, good luck with the new project, and long life to the Ezine.

Seriosly speaking... Aliens might exist somewhere, but they are far different than anything you or I can even imagine.

They are, basically, FAR.

Well, we don' t know the period of this 2008 mittens, no? Or the final EXACT location? I lauched the idea of the Pyrinées as a lovely dream (I know that at least one miteneer liked the idea  ), but I don' t want anybody to feel forced to "accept" my propossal. I hosted a mittens, my right to choose places is "on hold" for some years! 

But, if we go to the Pyrinées, going during the Tour is a no-no... Too much people, and too much hours of waiting (maybe a day) to see the riders for 3 seconds. Tour the France is only reasonable to see with bikes.... And I don' t imagine Helm riding a bike, his hair would clog in the cog.

So, why don' t we decide the place before deciding the period and asking people to tell if they might appear?

Everybody needs something to wake up with energies... For me, it's my girlfriend, relatives, and sport... For some others might be finishing a game, or inking their final comic page. Someone needs to believe in God?

If it helps... Great!!!

But no one should label the other' s reasons as ridiculous or silly... Or try to convince the others that "your reason" is better than others.

I think I am moving to be a bit more "pro-religious" than "pro-atheistic" (being 100% atheistic as I am), because I "sense" a feeling of the "atheistics" to reply to "believers" in a too disturbed(*) way.

((*) Correct word? I am using AltaVista... I mean "Unmeasured" manner... hope it makes sense)

I go on with my argument...To be honest, guys, what would you do if I post something like:

"I like living. I love to wake up, make 3 or 4 hours of sport, coming back home, kiss my mum, take a shower and pick my gf up to come home and finish some sprites for an AGS game!"

I think you would reply something like: "Oh, great for you!" or "Congratulations for having such a productive life" or "Great! I want to see those sprites asap!"? Kind words, to summarise.

Now, imagine:

"I like living. God gives me strenght to wake up, make 3 or 4 hours of sport, coming back home, kiss my mum, take a shower and pick my gf up to come home and finish some sprites for an AGS game! I really love God and Jesus!"

Would you think I am the "healthy guy" of the post above, or would you think I am a religious zealot from Waco? I really, honestly, think that the replies wouldn' t be the same than in example "a".

Why this over reaction? Because "believers" want to "convince me" of their "Truth"?   No one  tried it with me in this forums...  :o

Some people tried it in the street (Jehova's Witnesses and simillar), but they have never been to lame or unpolite.

I can even tell that there are more people trying to convince me that Tarot works... And those annoys me inmenselly much than "believers", because I  think that they know Tarot it' s a swindle. I honestly think that "Jehova' s Witnesses" believe in what they say. Why don' t we focus our anger to those CRIMINALS (Tarotists) than in (IMO) wrong/innocent believers?

So, "atheistics" and "skeptics"... relax. I think WE are right, and God does not exist, but being RIGHT does not necessarily mean BEHAVING CORRECTLY, if we go too further with our arguments.

True, but remeber it' s full of french people. 

Aliens could not be humans, so they probably won't think like humans. Maybe evidence is there but is just ignored and therefore unseen. Maybe we are too stupid to understand their ways of communicating or maybe we are just not worth of communicating with them.

Maybe, maybe, maybe... All those theories are full of maybes. But extraordinary statement need of extraordinary evidences... Otherwise, I could say they there are still dragons (but maybe, who knows? they have learned to jump into another dimension, or maybe they are invissible or live under the earth, maybe, maybe, maybe...)

Like travelling to the moon. Saying that a man has step into another sky body is an extraordinary statement... but there are extraordinary evidences! more than 200 hours of video footage, moon rocks, the lauchs seen by million of people from Cape Cañaveral... Reaching the moon, after the lauchs of the Saturns and being prooved to be possible the space docks in the orbit, going just two steps further (on road to moon and landing) seems to me 10 times more plausible that filming it in area 51.

Actually, we just need to use the logic. The russians never claimed the footage to be false. Don' t you think that the russians would have examined every frame of the footage with a magnifier to find an evidence that the "archi-enemy" never reached the moon? And if you want to quote "Kubrick's film theory", please, take a look to the credits of the documentary at the end... there you can see Kubrick' s widow, Rumsfeld and some of the other "intervieweds" laughing like kids for the prank. It was all a joke for having some fun!(*)

If you want to quote those funny "powerpoints" sent via email mentioning the "evidences" that we were never there (the stars do not shine, blah, blah, blah), read before the SCIENTIFIC reports de-mythifing that silly email. You' ll have some laughs. 

(*) I refer to a silly french documentary were Kubrick' s widow and some others (I.E. Donald Rumsfeld) claim that the footage was actually filmed by Kubrick's, who impressed the people at the pentagon after they saw 2001... The main documentary claim itself has a joke on it. Kubrick filmed 2001 after a lot of "real" space footage was filmed, being he, therefore, inpired in "real" footage to make the film, not the opposite.

What exactly do you mean by "localise"? Wink wink nudge nudge..

Locate?

I can speak french like the american Indian natives spoke English in the early Western holywood movies, but as a Spanish, if they are friendly and they speak slow, I can understand quite a lot.

Anyway, Dart speaks french. Could someone do the effort to localise her and ask her to come to mittens?

And space travel doesn't necessarily mean traveling lightyears, there could also be a time warp, bending space and time like Hiro Nakamura did.

So, they have that amazing tecnology, but they are not able to visit us without leaving evidences? No stealth tecnology? That' s like saying that they can do atomic bombs, but didn' t discovered the wheel, I am afraid...

I think Lore and me are in if it' s in France, and if it is close to the Pyrinées(Someone mentioned the final location?), count also with two bikes, one mine and one lended from my biking touring business, for Quitaros, the triathlete!

It' s not only that the Pyrinées are closer to Spain, therefore, less driving (I hope to get the lisence asap), but also because I love the place, Argelés-Gasost is lovely and close to some touristical places like Lourdes (If you believe in such things, you know?)

Anyway, if someone wants to see Paris, I wouldn' t mind... Champions League champions, aaahhhh, good memories!