Please explain this then>>>>>

XXVoid MainXX wrote:

Changing my view? Maybe you missed the part about my view used to be the same as many of yours and my view HAS changed to...

Changing my view? Maybe you missed the part about my view used to be the same as many of yours and my view HAS changed to where it is now? I kept an open mind back when I was younger (and it's very open now) and getting sucked into the UFOlogy stuff. By keeping an open mind and researching all sides over many years, I am able to apply logic to all of the data individually and as a whole and form a very solid opinion. You know, science.

I'm religious because I require good evidence? Do you understand the meaning of religion? I am the exact opposite of religious. Religion requires no proof and acts solely on faith.

I do understand why some of you (not you specifically) get angry by my comments. I remember when my buddies first told me there wasn't a Santa Claus. I told them they were wrong and wanted to beat their ass for even suggesting such a thing. But looking back on it now I am pretty sure I would have figured it out as I gained a better understanding of science and physics.

https://sploid.gizmodo.com/can-santa-claus-exist-a-scientific-debate-16…

1 No known species of reindeer can fly. BUT there are 300,000 species of living organisms yet to be classified, and while most of these are insects and germs, this does not COMPLETELY rule out flying reindeer which only Santa has ever seen.

2 There are 2 billion children (persons under 18) in the world. BUT since Santa doesn't (appear to) handle the Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and Buddhist children, that reduces the workload to 15% of the total - 378 million according to Population Reference Bureau. At an average (census)rate of 3.5 children per household, that's 91.8 million homes. One presumes there's at least one good child in each.

3 Santa has 31 hours of Christmas to work with, thanks to the different time zones and the rotation of the earth, assuming he travels east to west(which seems logical). This works out to 822.6 visits per second. This is to say that for each Christian household with good children, Santa has 1/1000th of a second to park, hop out of the sleigh, jump down the chimney, fill the stockings, distribute the remaining presents under the tree, eat whatever snacks have been left, get back up the chimney, get back into the sleigh and move on to the next house. Assuming that each of these 91.8 million stops are evenly distributed around the earth (which, of course, we know to be false but for the purposes of our calculations we will accept), we are now talking about .78 miles per household, a total trip of 75-1/2 million miles, not counting stops to do what most of us must do at least once every 31 hours, plus feeding etc.

4 This means that Santa's sleigh is moving at 650 miles per second, 3,000 times the speed of sound. For purposes of comparison, the fastest man- made vehicle on earth, the Ulysses space probe, moves at a poky 27.4 miles per second - a conventional reindeer can run, tops, 15 miles per hour.

5 The payload on the sleigh adds another interesting element. Assuming that each child gets nothing more than a medium-sized lego set (2 pounds), the sleigh is carrying 321,300 tons, not counting Santa, who is invariably described as overweight. On land, conventional reindeer can pull no more than 300 pounds. Even granting that "flying reindeer" (see point #1) could pull TEN TIMES the normal anoint, we cannot do the job with eight, or even nine. We need 214,200 reindeer. This increases the payload - not even counting the weight of the sleigh - to 353,430 tons. Again, for comparison - this is four times the weight of the Queen Elizabeth.

6 353,000 tons traveling at 650 miles per second creates enormous air resistance - this will heat the reindeer up in the same fashion as spacecrafts re-entering the earth's atmosphere. The lead pair of reindeer will absorb 14.3 QUINTILLION joules of energy. Per second. Each. In short, they will burst into flame almost instantaneously, exposing the reindeer behind them, and create deafening sonic booms in their wake.The entire reindeer team will be vaporized within 4.26 thousandths of a second. Santa, meanwhile, will be subjected to centrifugal forces 17,500.06 times greater than gravity. A 250-pound Santa (which seems ludicrously slim)would be pinned to the back of his sleigh by 4,315,015 pounds of force.

In conclusion — If Santa ever DID deliver presents on Christmas Eve, he's dead now.

hard2kill wrote:

[i]I'm religious because I require good evidence? Do you understand the meaning of religion? I am the exact opposite of religious. Religion requires no proof and...

I'm religious because I require good evidence? Do you understand the meaning of religion? I am the exact opposite of religious. Religion requires no proof and acts solely on faith. Again wrong perspective.

Nearly every religion is based on an abundance of "proof". At least most religions recognize that they ultimately have to have faith in their "proof". This is why I would say you are the most religious person here. Do you not see how much faith you place in your "good evidence" and "proof"?

Now I do think that you are very logical most of the time, and I actually agree with you on many of your viewpoints. But at the end of the day nobody can "prove" anything and if you are truly open minded there is "good evidence" for almost anything anybody wants to present. Now that certainly does not mean that anything can be true for anybody as some people now believe, but what this is beginning to highlight is each person's need for faith in order to come to any conclusion.

As Science has continued to rapidly "progress" the Age of Reason has come to an end. Thus, enter “The Post Modern World,”. These ideas largely began in the late 1800s and early 1900s with the Industrial Revolution. There was an explosion of inventions and an explosion of solutions to questions. However, as multiple solutions for the same questions were being brought forth and multiple answers( which were diametrically opposing) for the same question could be reasoned out, the implications were clear. Perhaps we don't know everything. Perhaps some of the previous conclusions we came to are in fact wrong, but how can we know which answer is now correct for a particular question? Rather than face the reality that our sought knowledge does not stand on a firm foundation, the world has now come to the conclusion that not only do we know everything thru reason, but all of our reasoning is also relative. “Truth” is even now relative, which just highlights how bad the world's thinking has become. With the invention of radio, the TV and most recently the internet these ideas have began to really spread throughout society. Not only is “truth” now perceived as relative, but even things such as “gender” have become relative, and even more recent reality itself is now becoming relative to many.

XXVoid MainXX wrote:

Changing my view? Maybe you missed the part about my view used to be the same as many of yours and my view HAS changed to...

Changing my view? Maybe you missed the part about my view used to be the same as many of yours and my view HAS changed to where it is now? I kept an open mind back when I was younger (and it's very open now) and getting sucked into the UFOlogy stuff. By keeping an open mind and researching all sides over many years, I am able to apply logic to all of the data individually and as a whole and form a very solid opinion. You know, science.

I'm religious because I require good evidence? Do you understand the meaning of religion? I am the exact opposite of religious. Religion requires no proof and acts solely on faith.

I do understand why some of you (not you specifically) get angry by my comments. I remember when my buddies first told me there wasn't a Santa Claus. I told them they were wrong and wanted to beat their ass for even suggesting such a thing. But looking back on it now I am pretty sure I would have figured it out as I gained a better understanding of science and physics.

https://sploid.gizmodo.com/can-santa-claus-exist-a-scientific-debate-16…

1 No known species of reindeer can fly. BUT there are 300,000 species of living organisms yet to be classified, and while most of these are insects and germs, this does not COMPLETELY rule out flying reindeer which only Santa has ever seen.

2 There are 2 billion children (persons under 18) in the world. BUT since Santa doesn't (appear to) handle the Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and Buddhist children, that reduces the workload to 15% of the total - 378 million according to Population Reference Bureau. At an average (census)rate of 3.5 children per household, that's 91.8 million homes. One presumes there's at least one good child in each.

3 Santa has 31 hours of Christmas to work with, thanks to the different time zones and the rotation of the earth, assuming he travels east to west(which seems logical). This works out to 822.6 visits per second. This is to say that for each Christian household with good children, Santa has 1/1000th of a second to park, hop out of the sleigh, jump down the chimney, fill the stockings, distribute the remaining presents under the tree, eat whatever snacks have been left, get back up the chimney, get back into the sleigh and move on to the next house. Assuming that each of these 91.8 million stops are evenly distributed around the earth (which, of course, we know to be false but for the purposes of our calculations we will accept), we are now talking about .78 miles per household, a total trip of 75-1/2 million miles, not counting stops to do what most of us must do at least once every 31 hours, plus feeding etc.

4 This means that Santa's sleigh is moving at 650 miles per second, 3,000 times the speed of sound. For purposes of comparison, the fastest man- made vehicle on earth, the Ulysses space probe, moves at a poky 27.4 miles per second - a conventional reindeer can run, tops, 15 miles per hour.

5 The payload on the sleigh adds another interesting element. Assuming that each child gets nothing more than a medium-sized lego set (2 pounds), the sleigh is carrying 321,300 tons, not counting Santa, who is invariably described as overweight. On land, conventional reindeer can pull no more than 300 pounds. Even granting that "flying reindeer" (see point #1) could pull TEN TIMES the normal anoint, we cannot do the job with eight, or even nine. We need 214,200 reindeer. This increases the payload - not even counting the weight of the sleigh - to 353,430 tons. Again, for comparison - this is four times the weight of the Queen Elizabeth.

6 353,000 tons traveling at 650 miles per second creates enormous air resistance - this will heat the reindeer up in the same fashion as spacecrafts re-entering the earth's atmosphere. The lead pair of reindeer will absorb 14.3 QUINTILLION joules of energy. Per second. Each. In short, they will burst into flame almost instantaneously, exposing the reindeer behind them, and create deafening sonic booms in their wake.The entire reindeer team will be vaporized within 4.26 thousandths of a second. Santa, meanwhile, will be subjected to centrifugal forces 17,500.06 times greater than gravity. A 250-pound Santa (which seems ludicrously slim)would be pinned to the back of his sleigh by 4,315,015 pounds of force.

In conclusion — If Santa ever DID deliver presents on Christmas Eve, he's dead now.

TXDirt wrote:

Eye witness accounts can be flawed and everyone knows this. They are used in legal cases obviously but humans make mistakes and that’s why eye witness...

Eye witness accounts can be flawed and everyone knows this. They are used in legal cases obviously but humans make mistakes and that’s why eye witness accounts is considered weak evidence. Let’s say there is no other evidence, and solely an eyewitness account, a prosecutor will likely not try the case. You will need other evidence to go along with it. You can’t just simply say you saw someone doing something and that’s enough to prosecute someone. That would be very dangerous to do that.

DNA is about as close to scientific proof as we have and lots of cases are solved that way.

You can go watch cold case files on TV and there are plenty of examples of someone convicted on an eye witness account and then years later they test the DNA and turns out the person didn’t do the crime.

That’s why eye witness accounts are not always credible. Human memory can be skewed. What you thought you see may not be really what you saw.

gabrielito wrote:

Okay but that isn't what I was talking about. Of course a single eye witness account isn't that strong. If twelve people say they saw the...

Okay but that isn't what I was talking about. Of course a single eye witness account isn't that strong. If twelve people say they saw the same thing then you might want to take it seriously. The point i was trying to make is that scientific proof isn't the only way we come to conclusions on things.

TXDirt wrote:

Well that is exactly what you were talking about because that’s what you said. You want to give credence to “eye witness” accounts. That’s very weak...

Well that is exactly what you were talking about because that’s what you said. You want to give credence to “eye witness” accounts. That’s very weak in the scientific and legal communities.

Multiple eye witness accounts in some cases can be even less credible. To use your example, that’s 12 people, 12 different perspectives. 12 different memories. 12 different recollections of a likely traumatic event. You are not talking about 12 people memorizing a phone number.

Just look at recent events. One person says the police officer fired shots within his police car. Another eyewitness says officer didn’t fire till out of his patrol car.

That’s two different people seeing the exact same event, but recalling what they saw far differently.

So in that case the eye witness accounts are worthless. We can go to “other evidence”. Shell casings were found in the patrol car. So the logical answer is the police office fired within his patrol car. This relates to a specific case I’m sure you are familiar with so that’s s good example.

XXVoid MainXX wrote:

Changing my view? Maybe you missed the part about my view used to be the same as many of yours and my view HAS changed to...

Changing my view? Maybe you missed the part about my view used to be the same as many of yours and my view HAS changed to where it is now? I kept an open mind back when I was younger (and it's very open now) and getting sucked into the UFOlogy stuff. By keeping an open mind and researching all sides over many years, I am able to apply logic to all of the data individually and as a whole and form a very solid opinion. You know, science.

I'm religious because I require good evidence? Do you understand the meaning of religion? I am the exact opposite of religious. Religion requires no proof and acts solely on faith.

I do understand why some of you (not you specifically) get angry by my comments. I remember when my buddies first told me there wasn't a Santa Claus. I told them they were wrong and wanted to beat their ass for even suggesting such a thing. But looking back on it now I am pretty sure I would have figured it out as I gained a better understanding of science and physics.

https://sploid.gizmodo.com/can-santa-claus-exist-a-scientific-debate-16…

1 No known species of reindeer can fly. BUT there are 300,000 species of living organisms yet to be classified, and while most of these are insects and germs, this does not COMPLETELY rule out flying reindeer which only Santa has ever seen.

2 There are 2 billion children (persons under 18) in the world. BUT since Santa doesn't (appear to) handle the Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and Buddhist children, that reduces the workload to 15% of the total - 378 million according to Population Reference Bureau. At an average (census)rate of 3.5 children per household, that's 91.8 million homes. One presumes there's at least one good child in each.

3 Santa has 31 hours of Christmas to work with, thanks to the different time zones and the rotation of the earth, assuming he travels east to west(which seems logical). This works out to 822.6 visits per second. This is to say that for each Christian household with good children, Santa has 1/1000th of a second to park, hop out of the sleigh, jump down the chimney, fill the stockings, distribute the remaining presents under the tree, eat whatever snacks have been left, get back up the chimney, get back into the sleigh and move on to the next house. Assuming that each of these 91.8 million stops are evenly distributed around the earth (which, of course, we know to be false but for the purposes of our calculations we will accept), we are now talking about .78 miles per household, a total trip of 75-1/2 million miles, not counting stops to do what most of us must do at least once every 31 hours, plus feeding etc.

4 This means that Santa's sleigh is moving at 650 miles per second, 3,000 times the speed of sound. For purposes of comparison, the fastest man- made vehicle on earth, the Ulysses space probe, moves at a poky 27.4 miles per second - a conventional reindeer can run, tops, 15 miles per hour.

5 The payload on the sleigh adds another interesting element. Assuming that each child gets nothing more than a medium-sized lego set (2 pounds), the sleigh is carrying 321,300 tons, not counting Santa, who is invariably described as overweight. On land, conventional reindeer can pull no more than 300 pounds. Even granting that "flying reindeer" (see point #1) could pull TEN TIMES the normal anoint, we cannot do the job with eight, or even nine. We need 214,200 reindeer. This increases the payload - not even counting the weight of the sleigh - to 353,430 tons. Again, for comparison - this is four times the weight of the Queen Elizabeth.

6 353,000 tons traveling at 650 miles per second creates enormous air resistance - this will heat the reindeer up in the same fashion as spacecrafts re-entering the earth's atmosphere. The lead pair of reindeer will absorb 14.3 QUINTILLION joules of energy. Per second. Each. In short, they will burst into flame almost instantaneously, exposing the reindeer behind them, and create deafening sonic booms in their wake.The entire reindeer team will be vaporized within 4.26 thousandths of a second. Santa, meanwhile, will be subjected to centrifugal forces 17,500.06 times greater than gravity. A 250-pound Santa (which seems ludicrously slim)would be pinned to the back of his sleigh by 4,315,015 pounds of force.

In conclusion — If Santa ever DID deliver presents on Christmas Eve, he's dead now.

gabrielito wrote:

[img]https://i.pinimg.com/736x/36/48/75/364875015cc487bcf28a36ed39092fde--st-nicholas-day-san-nicola.jpg[/img]

hard2kill wrote:

Void you hold a firm belief in many things which have no "physical evidence to offer as proof." Do you realize that? Further why do you...

Void you hold a firm belief in many things which have no "physical evidence to offer as proof." Do you realize that?
Further why do you hold physical evidence up so high? I am not saying that you should't just trying to highlight your worldview.

Additionally I am not suggesting Alien intervention nor do i think Oldpro is, but for some reason you keep going back to that. In fact i would bet that you would sooner accept evidence for Alien's as proof than I would. As you have said, that you are very open to the idea. Where as even if I had "good physical evidence" and had experienced an eyewitness encounter with alien's i would likely still presume it to be just a Great Deception.

hard2kill wrote:

Void you hold a firm belief in many things which have no "physical evidence to offer as proof." Do you realize that? Further why do you...

Void you hold a firm belief in many things which have no "physical evidence to offer as proof." Do you realize that?
Further why do you hold physical evidence up so high? I am not saying that you should't just trying to highlight your worldview.

Additionally I am not suggesting Alien intervention nor do i think Oldpro is, but for some reason you keep going back to that. In fact i would bet that you would sooner accept evidence for Alien's as proof than I would. As you have said, that you are very open to the idea. Where as even if I had "good physical evidence" and had experienced an eyewitness encounter with alien's i would likely still presume it to be just a Great Deception.

XXVoid MainXX wrote:

The reason I keep coming back to it is because that's the original subject of this thread. Look at the first post. I am keeping the...

The reason I keep coming back to it is because that's the original subject of this thread. Look at the first post. I am keeping the thread on topic. G man asked for an explanation of how the pyramids were built. Several explanations were offered, aliens being one of them. I am debating the viability of that particular explanation. The bottom line is, when the scientific community has received enough evidence that a majority of them can conclude that intelligent beings from somewhere other than Earth helped to build the pyramids, then I will also be convinced. Until then find more evidence.

XXVoid MainXX wrote:

Just ran across this interesting and relevant article about the recent F-18 videos. It even mentions Bigelow: http://www.businessinsider.com/pentagon-ufo-alien-research-program-footage-nytimes-2017-12

Just ran across this interesting and relevant article about the recent F-18 videos. It even mentions Bigelow:

http://www.businessinsider.com/pentagon-ufo-alien-research-program-foot…

XXVoid MainXX wrote:

When I used the term odd (oddball), I meant that he truly is odd in the fact that he has differing views from the rest of...

When I used the term odd (oddball), I meant that he truly is odd in the fact that he has differing views from the rest of the scientific community. A lot of great scientists were oddballs. At one time most scientists believed the earth was flat except for that one oddball. Eventually though, that oddball was able to provide enough proof to sway the rest of the scientific community. So far Mr Friedman hasn't done that.

G-man wrote:

Okay boys and girls This Thread got derailed a few times while I was busy over the weekend riding. Our winter in Arizona lasted about five...

Okay boys and girls This Thread got derailed a few times while I was busy over the weekend riding.

Our winter in Arizona lasted about five days--BRUTAL!
Had to go back out it was 76 degrees beautiful weather.

You can't even see the bottom of this hill as it turns and gets real steep. E-ticket Ride!







Anyway while we're out exploring the awesome Sonoran Desert and checking out some bunkers that people actually lived in. The amazing part about it is this is really out in the middle of BFE on a hill that is very hard to get to.

These pioneers somehow brought material to build this crude hideout

And well it's pale and a drop in a huge bucket compared to the Great Pyramid it's mass and Precision, it really makes you appreciate what they went through.

And that was only 80 years ago, not 4000 years!







Not sure if anybody in this thread has been to the Great Pyramids.
I know I have not, but the closest thing I could compare it to is Chitzen Itza which the Mayans built and I climbed up that and while it also was crude, it was pretty incredible.

And that too pales in comparison to the Great Pyramid. So where am I going and all this?

Well seeing how this is a Motocross forum you know how when you watch Glen Helen and you see the huge uphills and downhills on TV?
Until you have seen it in person you truly cannot appreciate the steepness and how gnarly and dangerous it really is!

I can only imagine the Great Pyramid would be the same effect ×1000 by seeing it in person. I would think it would be the most amazing thing you had ever seen!

And to think it's no big deal ( just a pile of rocks) and could be built with such precision in primitive time 4000 years ago with no assistance from what or who is naive in my opinion.

And that is my opinion and I will stick to it.

Carry on.....