Search results

Whenever I see people dismiss NHI-on-Earth because of the constraints of special relativity, I do a :rolleyes:. That's basically just an argument from incredulity, because in the case that faster-than-light travel is possible in this universe, we presently don't know how it's possible. Clearly...

I would expect "one of the greatest quantum physicists of his generation" to at least have a Wikipedia article.

Didn't get to the texturing, but here they are, crudely over about 2.4° of arc, 75mm lens. (A screenshot because it glitched when I tried to render.)

This claim is trivial to debunk in a 3D program. Here are 40 blocks in a straight line on a flat surface, "photographed" with 75-, 500-, and 15-mm lenses respectively. (But I guess Blender could be a conspiracy.)

Not at all. No one is claiming that all UFO sightings and photographs are fake or lied about. Rather, that the interpretation of them is mistaken — they are likely all sightings/photographs of something else, or camera/optics/film artifacts, etc. The mistaken photographs that became the major...

It's not a mystery that it collapsed or why it collapsed. The only mystery left is precisely what initiated the collapse mechanism. And I wouldn't call it baffling, as there are many ways the collapse could have initiated. It's an absolute straw man to claim "No one knows how a lightweight steel...

Every believer accusation is a confession.

Nobody's going all in or giving definite answers to anything.

I thought of this thread. (spotted on Twitter, source unknown)

I agree with Mick that it's not about personal security. Instead, it's about hierarchy that they can wrap their brains around. Stochastic, bottom-up terrorism is unpredictable and upsets the apple-cart of social order. Top-down, methodical planning by powerful faceless entities, executed and...

And just like that, the spaceship disappeared and was gone. I know what I saw!

Of course. And in the case of WTC7, all anyone in the structural engineering community cares about is what initiated the failure of the building structure, i.e., why the EPH crumpled. If you know of anyone in the structural-engineering community who cares why 2.25 seconds of FFA (within the...

Yes it does. The goal of the simulation was to find out what interior event could have caused the EPH to crumple as it did, which was the first obvious sign that something catastrophic was about to happen. And, the simulation did exactly that. The last part of the simulation is irrelevant. You...

Who is "we" in this case? Several teams (notably Yanuzzi Demolition) were responsible for the handling at various stages. Is he saying nobody was able to look at every piece, or just his team? This is an assumption, but I'm pretty sure the debris was photographed heavily along the way...

No, that's a false CT talking point. All of the debris was inspected piece-by-piece by forensics experts at Fresh Kills landfill. Consider this minor beam that was found with interesting erosion characteristics (which is also a CT talking point, probably discussed in some old thread): (From...

Please, no more about Plasco. It was a very different structure in many ways, and the collapse sequences were very different in many ways.

Just leaving this here. Seems like we all agree that having a physical alien body available for inspection and verification would convince us skeptics. But at least one person thinks such evidence would not be extraordinary evidence....

Probably the most common argument I come across — and this applies to other believer classes as well, such as 9/11 demolition believers — is that there isn't one "smoking gun" piece of killer evidence, but that we must consider the totality of evidence over the past 75 years. And, debunkers are...

I've said this for a long time: The U.S. military is very very good, unparalleled really, at doing what they are trained to do. But that excellence does not generalize to novel, unexpected, "need to think outside the box" situations. We saw this on 9/11/01, for example. Totally anecdotal, but...

It's a bad match of Graves' description. The only thing that matches is that the fleet objects nominally have a radius of turn. In this simulation, that turn is completed in only about two seconds, which does not seem to accord with Graves' description of the fleet beginning a turn, turning...