King, North TX

Could you briefly define or otherwise explain the terms: ETI theory, EDI theory, and M&M theory...?

This is going to come off as overly-harsh, but would the comparison be like the difference between someone with down-syndrome and someone without it? Natural selectionally speaking, how 'sexy' is something that is slower both mentally and physically, that other breeding options? I mean, if 'I' could choose any breeding partner I could, I'd want a beauty who was athletically gifted. Then again, when times are tough, I guess one takes what they can get. 2:00 am at the bar has led to alpha and gamma hook-ups, of this I am CERTAIN. From everything I've read, there was some inter-breeding between the two lines.

...so after reading 6 pages I found no argument that looked into our actual recorded history to determine how we arrived at who we are today. While I do NOT consider myself a creationist, I am a historian. There are problems, in my mind, with saying evolution or adaptation were the sole causes for our present condition. These stances ignore the possibility that we may have been acted upon by an outside force, as our religious/historical texts indicate: "...Sons of God saw daughters of men, and that they were beautiful, and they took wives of which they chose..." Then the giants, men of renown thing. While I refuse to take such tales at their face value, I think it likely that there was some truth to these tales, as evident in what and who we are compared to our wild primate cousins. What's sexy about the hairless shivering guy, who kills animals to use their rotting skin for cover? It literally makes no sense to lose our hair/protective covering, only to harvest one from another animal. And have you ever wondered why even really hairy folk, lack the 'complete' hair suit? Why is the neck almost always bald? My italian uncle had a very full beard, head of hair, and enough arm, leg, and back hair to slightly cover 3 men, but his neck had the fine short invisible hair. And why are there NEVER any reports of a hairless bigfoot, another bipedal primate who evolved right along side us (if they exist, I mean)? MAYBE, just maybe we WERE set apart from other animals, and made part of some selective breeding program...? I've read much on Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon man. One NOT having given rise to the other (sure maybe some interbreeding), but that they both evolved independently. That said, these two lines are VERY different, in both appearance and lifestyle. Which means that Cro-Magnon made a dramatic 'leap' forward at the same time Neanderthals were just mastering fire, and fashioning crude animals skins for clothing. Cro-Magnon wore tailored clothes and jewelry, while Neanderthals were wearing draped untanned rotting animal skins. And they both came from an even less evolved line...? What 'I' propose is that our history contains the solution. While evolution and adaptation have clearly brought us a long way, there has been another influence...a "heavenly" one. At some point in our ancient past, we were nudged forward, while other lines were left to their own devices. There are NO other bald primates. It isn't functional 'in the wild'. We were brought in from the outside and domesticated. Animalism was shown and proven to be less effective than the new order. Again EVERY report of a bigfoot is of a 'hairy' bipedal tall thing. They are NEVER reported as wearing clothes, or being hairless. Evolution alone won't account for what we are today, when we begin comparing us to our wild cousins. Something's missing... Once again, Science is ignoring History at the peril of actual truth.

Actual truth exists without it, as evident in my Troy argument. That we no longer have the evidence from which to fully study, should NOT keep us from accepting the scribes' of old truthfulness. My initial argument, and the reason I posted under this thread was that Hawking 'completely' ignored every tale, painting, cave wall image, and religious text, is his 'opinion' that mankind's first contact would result in a Christopher Columbus meets North American Natives. I am not suggesting that the sum of all these tales is 'proof' of anything. I am saying however, that to dismiss ALL of them as pure fiction with no basis in reality whatsoever is..."dumb". And to dismiss the consistencies demonstrated in so many History Channel specials, is in a word "IGNORant". There IS something in our heavens it isn't my job to define it or offer it up for study. I am simply not equipped to do so. My shortcomings, or science's inability procure a lab sample doesn't stop said, documented, and witnessed entity from existing. Realty is what it is, even if we can't presently define it. But we ARE witnessing a 'something'. That or EVERY tale, image, text, and video was and has been a fiction...the same one told since man took up a rock and chiseled onto another. EVERY piece of material written about "heavenly agents"...utterly false. Which is more likely, that our entire written history is a complete fabrication OR, that we have simply misinterpreted what "god" truly was...or still is??? If this is what science thinks of history, then I'm glad I call myself a historian.

Unfounded...? I'm not just pulling stuff out of my sphincter, here. MOST creation stories contain the same tale, "Gods of heaven, created man in their image." While I think it is unlikely that my ancestor was "molded from clay, and then filled with the breathe of life". I utterly refuse to toss out the baby with the bath water. But let's be clear, these aren't 'my' opinions. These are our ancestor's facts... It is now up to our scientists to verify them, or not. Hawking IS wrong, because his stance was created while ignoring our entire history with 'heavenly agents'.

I disagree. First with the use of the term "aliens", second that our ancestors were incapable of recording the events that occurred around them. That said, I'll concede that what they wrote or recorded at their face value. However, what we can do is look at other records from the same period, and then look for consistencies. Tales of 'our beginning', at the hands of heavenly agents IS 'common'. While I'll concede this is not proof or evidence, the consistencies should provide reasonable suspicion that such events likely happened, and that we should follow the trail of breadcrumbs.

Ahhh....you guys are all making the same mistake Professor Hawking did, AGAIN. We have a history with these entities, that suggests 'we' were made in 'their' image. We ARE 'like them'.

All we have to do is make genetic modification(s) illegal ...

To initiate contact... What do we do? _ *I say, we invite them to compete in our Olympics. WHO'S WITH ME!?

..."it" then... My point is that it is a 'something', and not nothing... I don't know 'what' truly appears in our records. I just know our immediate heavens have something there... We have not known, and still do not now have the ability to quantify what 'specifically' we are seeing. What we have essentially are reports of the 'spirit' of wood leaving upon burning it. We know now that this is or was just 'smoke'. The use of the term 'spirit', or in this case "god/the divine" is a misnomer. As the label was placed without true knowledge about the subject matter being named. The point again, is that both our ancestors and today's modern day cameras are catch/featuring SOMETHING. It is now the duty of science to define it. To suggest that there is nothing 'up there' for science to investigate, is in a word "ignorant"...

Ahhh... I understand our disagreement, now. 'I' don't use the term, or concede its usage, this term "alien". They are no more alien than we are. I am suggesting that these references, pictures, and photographs are of an as of yet "undefined" entity. We've called them a great many things- god, angels, flying saucers, ufos, and thousands of others throughout the ages. We shown them literally in every piece of medium available to us, even unto today's digital media. I don't think anyone can say for sure what they are or have to be. I certainly am not. What I am saying is that they ARE, and always have been, for as long as scribes could draw. That we lack the scientific will and or ability to study these things, doesn't keep them from being real. It just keeps us from truly understanding their make-up. What we are faced with are extraordinary events, while we are armed with only ordinary means. *"If we can't study it, it doesn't exist." ...seems like a rather limiting stance to take.

You are comparing THE most written about entity in the history of man- "god", to time traveling frisbees... As if the possibility of their existences are 'equal'...??? Really? :rolleyes::rolleyes: A fact is something that can be proven true, as opposed to an opinion. There are both true and false facts. Troy 'was' a fictional city in a story. That story, fully of characters and locals was certainly embellished over the centuries, but 'discovery' didn't happen until someone found it to be a truth. However, NONE of this mattered to the hidden city lying in wait to be found. It was ALWAYS real, even if the evidence or proof wasn't under someone's microscope. Actual truth isn't subject to your beliefs... "God/intelligent ufos EXIST, both now and in our ancient past." ...is indeed a declarative statement that need not be supported by any 'further' evidence. Admittedly, I am more historian than scientist. I'm merely noting a millennial expanded consistency in the data that 'demands' serious scientific investigation into what "god/intelligent ufos" are. That said, I'd like to thank JohnB for his thoughtful and well worded retort, just above. I think he said more, and in a more pleasing manner than I here offer. Such statement are far too rare... Be well, JohnB.

This is just intellectual dishonesty. While I'll concede that there is no "dark side" of the Moon, earthly onlookers can NOT see 'half' of the Moon's surface, and only NASA has given us that information. There ARE places for 'them' to hide, that normal citizens lack access to.

Who were the last 'normal citizens'/non-military personnel to see the dark side of the Moon?

It IS "historical fact", as it is something that can be proven true or false. Just like Homer's "Troy" was historical fact before "Heinrich Schliemann" started digging. It didn't take him finding it, to make Troy's existence a fact. It took finding it to 'prove' it as a true fact. There's plenty of support for this assertion, we just haven't laid hands on the solid evidence that brought these pictures, paintings, and carvings into being.

This quote/argument is the one that really REALLY bothers me... "Choose the nearest star; decide how long you're willing to travel, how fast you will need to go to get there in that time, what you will have to take with you, and how many should be in the crew. Make it a one-way suicide mission if you wish. As a final step, calculate the kinetic energy that must be imparted to the spaceship to get you there in that time (one half the mass times the velocity squared.) I suggest you stay away from the relativistic limit; it complicates the calculation and won't help you anyway. The good news is that you will then sleep secure in the knowledge that UFOs from elsewhere in the galaxy are not subjecting humans to hideous experiments." --Bob Park ...because it completely and utterly ignores the historical fact that 'they' have ALWAYS been here... There is no need that we require they be from a far off star, capable of traveling here at the speed of light. It like saying you can't prove this woman is pregnant, unless you can prove she flew to Mars recently. One has NOTHING to do with another.

After a few forum searches, I've come up with 2 additives: "biochar" and "dried molasses." *Another poster recommended simply giving the worms more time to do their thing, as they re-ingest the material it gets darker. What component of the urine do I need to isolate?

Scientific Truth vs. Consequences *Would it have been beneficial for General Custer to have believed his scouts who returned with warnings about greater numbers than previously expected, when they came back 'without evidence', other than their anecdotal tales...?

The plural of anecdote is not evidence... I am not sure I agree with that statement, especially when the 'plural' is as diverse and widespread as it is. People have been 'consistently' seeing "flying saucers in the heavens", and associating them with "god" for as long as we could write, all around the world. That we don't have proof, or the object to compare these images is not the failure or fault of historians. We are fools to render their work fiction ESPECIALLY when the same accounts are coming from different times & places. These tales may not be proof of anything, but they be cause for 'serious' scientific investigation.

The photographs, paintings, and even cave paintings contain these same sort of images, located or afixed "in the heavens". You want historical text...? Start with EVERY religious text you can find, and read 'the beginning(s)'. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Where do science and history 'meet'...? Because it seems to me that one dismisses the other, if there's no 'evidence'. But then, I would ask what of your reports, once your lab is destroyed? If the 'evidence' from which you derived your results, is no longer in existence and or can't be immediately replicated...then why SHOULDN'T we rely on your notes, or a copy of them...? Why or rather how is it so easy for scientists to thumb their nose as historical chroniclers? And over the most well written about subject the world has ever known...whether or not there is a god/U.F.O. in heaven... Science says, "It's ALL pure fiction." These ancient reports have been borne out in 'other' accounts from 'unconnected' peoples, and now in present day sightings. Why does Science choose to ignore History, and especially when there is so much of it. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Was he near Komodo?

I think that: "shiny metallic oval/saucer(s)- with the value or symbol of God" is much less vague and far more common than you realize, or thus admit.

I would agree that 'one' story, painting, picture, or eve modern day video featuring heavenly agents would indeed not be proof of anything. Then again, this is the exact opposite of what we actually have to examine. What we have are the same tales and images that continue to reveal themselves from historical chroniclers throughout time and the world. To dismiss these accounts and the consistency of the images, as pure fiction....is folly.

It is partly for marketing purposes... Worm castings are often called the "black gold" of fertilizers, and ideally they should look like coffee grounds. Our's don't, yet... --- I tried to attach a picture of what we've produced thus far.

First allow me to apologize if this is the wrong place to post this query. I've been helping a buddy of mine start up his worm farm. He's working on a system of animal waste management that delivers 100% organic fertilizers and compost. My question is how do we, or rather what do we feed the worms to create 'darker' castings? We've been tinkering with the nitrogen levels, trying augments like blood meal and slaughterhouse 'fruit punch' (blood and water mixture) during the composting, but we're not there yet. Any suggestions from the Chemistry Community? Thanks. (http://www.northtexasorganics.net/)

Do you have evidence that THIS video has been altered, or is that just how you respond to all video submissions?