Here Today... Gone To Hell!

OTTAWA (AFP) - A former Canadian defense minister is demanding governments worldwide disclose and use secret alien technologies obtained in alleged UFO crashes to stem climate change, a local paper said Wednesday.

"I would like to see what (alien) technology there might be that could eliminate the burning of fossil fuels within a generation ... that could be a way to save our planet," Paul Hellyer, 83, told the Ottawa Citizen.

Alien spacecrafts would have traveled vast distances to reach Earth, and so must be equipped with advanced propulsion systems or used exceptional fuels, he told the newspaper.

Such alien technologies could offer humanity alternatives to fossil fuels, he said, pointing to the enigmatic 1947 incident in Roswell, New Mexico -- which has become a shrine for UFO believers -- as an example of alien contact.

"We need to persuade governments to come clean on what they know. Some of us suspect they know quite a lot, and it might be enough to save our planet if applied quickly enough," he said.

Hellyer became defense minister in former prime minister Lester Pearson's cabinet in 1963, and oversaw the controversial integration and unification of Canada's army, air force and navy into the Canadian Forces.

He shocked Canadians in September 2005 by announcing he once saw a UFO.

I've always wondered why they're witholding technology that could help the human race. The likely answer isn't very good news for us.

We almost got another UFO...unfortunately, Harry Whittington's face got in the way of Dick Cheney's attempt to bring it down with birdshot.  :rofl:

Is there anything on the UFO to alleviate old men of "the crazies"?

And, in all seriousness, is this an attempt to hatch a scheme so ridiculous that it makes conservatives take another look at Al Gore's positions?

ever thought they maybe...just maybe...dont have ''alien technology''

Aliens have never visited this planet - its impossible to cover those distances - light speed is not an attainable velocity, and would be inadequate anyway....

I'm undecided on the question. My logic says no, but hearing ministers, millitary officers, scientists and researchers claiming it to be true has made me a little ambivelent.

And to say it's impossible to cover those distanses is ridiculous. Nothing is impossible in science, history should have thought us that much.

Even if technology like that exists the reason for it not being out there is simple......Money

Let's say some brilliant mind has invented a car that could run on tap water, how do you think Big multinationals like shell would react? They would probably kill the guy before he could share his invention with the world...

My thoughts exactly, and it means very bad news for our race.

If you take my cat's hat off, he will be in communication and will tell you the answers. Yesterday he told me the answer was to kill each and everyone of you.

(http://images4.fotki.com/v49/photos/3/34576/98387/104_0440-vi.jpg)

Please ask your cat if my life may be spared because (1) I personally never suggested the theft of its home planet technology and (2) I am fairly certain that I'm not human.  In other news, it looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue.

(http://www.forumspile.com/Thread-Love_so_much.jpg)

No really I do! :D

I think jarmo should institute a +karma rule for good use of an Airplane! quote.

Dementia is very sad.  If he has family, I feel very sorry for them.  :'(

Light-speed is very attainable, light achieves it all the time.
And light-speed is only the speed at which light travels through space, and while it may be impossible to travel through space faster than light it is worth remembering that space itself is not a finite entity. "Space" is only an idea, the word describes not a single place or force but the sum of the energies contained in and forces acting on the emptiness that all the planets and stars are floating in.  The question is not whether you can travel through space faster than light-speed but whether you can manipulate space itself to create a method of traversing it which suits your needs.

Why any alien species advanced enough to traverse space at faster-than-light speeds would go to all the effort and expense of building magic spaceships and then spend all of their time playing hide-and-seek with hillbilly earthlings, well, that is something we each have to figure out for ourselves. Personally, I think that the only thing you would find at a secret military base is "secret" failed aircraft prototypes, and other weapons that don't work.   

They would not kill him. They would do what they always do; buy the design, waste millions on "refining" it, then call it a failure and lock it in a vault somewhere. 

"those distances"? Is it because you know the technology they have and where they live, or because you know how long they live and how the universe functions? Even if lightspeed was not attainable (as it seems at the moment), why would it be inadequate?

Of course it's not propable but to state something like that as a fact is a gutsy move.

Superior beings with incredibly advanced intellects and means of transportation travelled thousands of light years, came on Earth, and CRASHED !! Give me a fucking break! If John Travolta can keep it in the air, so can the little green men, therefore, there are no little green men, at least not anywere near us.

Has that hypocrite Al Gore announced a big Green welcome to all space aliens yet? ::)

You seem to have missed Gore's message entirely. It is not "go back to the days of no energy consuming appliances and cars" it is "do what you will with an eye on your impact on the environment, and make intelligent, thought out choices."

Gore and his wife have their work offices inside the 10,000 square foot home, and they provide living quarters and offices for the security detail they have as former Vice President of the United States. Gore's energy usage measured in Watt-hours per square foot meets the average for households in his county. Gore buys the maximum number of Watt-hours from more expensive "green" sources as allowed by his power utility. Gore minimizes his use of automobiles by using his home office, and, because he does not need to maintain another place of work, avoids the entire energy costs of rental office spaces.

Gore is a wealthy man. A 10,000 square foot home, with spaces for his office, his wife's office and the security detail's offices, along with an office assistant and possibly other support, is just not ostentatous or flagrantly over consuming, regardless of how you would like to portray it. And, by buying the maximum number of monthly Watt-hours of energy from "green" sources his local utility will allow, Gore is literally doing what he can to reduce his contribution to greenhouse gasses and global warming.

But of course, you already knew that.

What about all that jet fuel he burns flying all over the world in his private jet? And those limousines he uses?

He is a hypocrite. I'm sure his 3 or 4 mansions that he has burns more energy in one month than I do in one year or even more. I don't need to be lectured by such a hypocrite. Just because is a rich spoiled fat ass brat doesn't give him the right to lecture the world about their enrgy overuse and how they should minimize there energy levels.  That's the same as a fat kid telling a skinny kid that he eats too much.

Did you know that?

If you don't want to be lectured by Al Gore, don't go to his lectures. You see, the clue is in there somewhere. If something is taking place in a lecture hall, it's probably a lecture (or really horrible college-kid performance art).

Now, if you happen to hear him outside of a lecture hall he's probably trying to inform you of his views. That's not quite the same thing as being lectured, it's a different thing called being informed. You don't have to listen to his information nor agree with the substance of it, in fact he's probably just on the television -  you can possibly change the station or hit the mute button on your remote. It's the one with "mute" written near it, or a picture of a speaker with a line through it. See that? That was me informing you.

I'm not sure why you feel so threatened by Al Gore that you mistake him disseminating information as him lecturing you, I'm even less sure why it upsets you so much that you had to whine about it like a dog whose master went walkies without him. The constant use of the words private jet, limousines and mansions followed by a comparison to yourself really makes it seem like you're quite jealous, which is a weak corner to fight out of.

Here's the thing; People who do more than you consume more energy than you. It's one of the basic tenets of physics, the law of the conservation of energy. And thanks to that law of physics, you understand that to do things we need to use energy and that to use energy we have to convert it from its existing form into a form we can use. And converting energy leaves us with by-products which pollute our atmosphere, turn our living space into a poison pit, and keep Al Gore in work. But let's back-track a little; People who do more than you consume more energy than you. Insisting that Al Gore is a hypocrite for using more energy than you only makes sense if you do as many energy-burning things as Al Gore. If you're doing less than he is then a comparison of your energy uses isn't valid, you see? So, when you have a number of mansions and private jets and limousines carrying you from lecture to lecture, a security detail living in your home, researchers, writers, and god knows who else working with you AND you're using less energy than Al Gore, then you can tell us all what a big hypocrite he is for not following your energy conserving lead. That was me lecturing you. You're welcome. 

You don't need to turn it into something so complicated 25. It's alot simplier than that. Trust me, I don't feel threatned nor am I jealous of him. It's not whining, it's calling Gore a hypocrite for which he simply his. Just because he has a big entourage and alot of people working for him and needs to consume more energy doesn't give him a free pass. How about really leading by example. It doesn't work for me to believe if someone is burning more good energy it's a good thing. As I said before he's the fat kid calling the skinny kid fat.

My constant use of his prviate jets, limousines, mansions, etc., etc., etc. are examples of his over need of energy use. Why should anyone listen, get scared, and think they should cut back on their energy uses when this jerk is using more energy in a year then most people will use in several years? Why not really lead by example?

we once lived on a cuboid earth where boats would fall off the end of the horizon. : ok:

Well i got guts.

We've watched so much damn scifi we start thinking warp drive has some kind of scientific basis behind it...

and why would aliens waste a million years coming here anyway? Why would they be so incompetant as to crash on earth?


Best. Line. Ever. :hihi: :rofl:

I didn't say that they had crashed the earth. I just commented on your statement that they have never visited and never would because it's impossible.

I wasn't speaking about warp drives or such... My theoretical knowledge of physics is nowhere near the level of me even speculating on the existance of such things. Appearently teleporting particles at the speed of light isn't impossible in theory, but I guess the trick would be to teleport a lot of the particles and make them come out exactly in the same order at the other end. But like I said. I don't know about these things really.

c'mon i dont want to sound beligerant because i truly hope we do reach the stars some time

But even a cursory knowledge of physics tells us that its just not possible - its not a question of doing the research but of distances impossibly huge and power requirements equally big

...and why would aliens be more advanced than us? Isnt it possible we are the most advanced life form out there?

..and how would aliens even find us? 100 trillion stars in 100 trillion galaxies and they find us? What are the odds?

I know about the power requirements... But that's not the issue in itself. Things that were thought impossible a thousand years back are now possible, so I just don't like the "it impossible" attitude on things that are arguable.

Why would aliens be more advanced than us? They might not be. And if they weren't, they most certainly wouldn't be flying in space (we've been able to fly in space for about 50 years, and it's still in very early develepment all in all). And nobody's to say that we're not the most advanced specie there is in the entire universe. It's just pretty unlikely. But if life did exist on another planet, and let's say that it began it's evolution by a relatively small time of 700 000 years before ours. I would say that we can't even begin to imagine our specie and all the innovations and life only a 100 000 years from now.

How would they find us? Who knows. I have no idea... Especially since it's not even known if there is a "they".  The why's and how's are not something I'm trying to explain. And it's not what I was objecting to.

All I was saying, is that there are scenarios in which it is perfectly possible that there is (intelligent) life somewhere else and that they might be able to visit.

The distances are huge, I know. The propabilities are extremely low. I know. It is the way that you stated it as an absolute truth that there was no way this sort of thing could happen. Anyway. It's not really what this topic's about. And I've gotta go sleep. Real, less alien things to do tomorrow morning.

So, basically, your reasoning is that Gore is a hypocrite because he doesn't manage to achieve an impossible paradox by traveling the country, giving lectures, making movies and whatever else he does without consuming more energy than he would by staying home and dicking around on the internet? It seems to me that your thinking is flawed. Gore would be a hypocrite if he believed in all the things he says about climate change and energy consumption, and believed that people needed to be informed of those things, yet chose to stay home and do nothing.  That would be hypocritical.

Perhaps if you actually listened to the arguments for limiting energy consumption you'd understand that an individual's consumption isn't the problem. Limiting consumption is considered a solution on the basis that the production of energy from fossil fuels is a major pollutant, and that production of energy rises and drops in response to consumption. Using alternative fuels would be another solution. It's hardly hypocritical to point those things out while also using energy created by fossil fuels, because there is no other option. If Gore was pointing those things out while also running a massive coal-burning power plant, that would be hypocritical.

You also said "It doesn't work for me to believe if someone is burning more good energy it's a good thing."
Unfortunately, that statement pretty much confirms your simplistic and uninformed reasoning. If Gore's entire argument is that we should produce more clean energy and use it instead of fossil-fuel energy (which would clearly be a "good thing" as it doesn't produce the pollution which contributes to the acceleration of climate change which is the heart of the issue) and Gore is using the maximum available supply of clean energy  he's clearly doing his best to live by the same tired dogma that he's spouting.

I'm sure that your argument makes sense to you (and on a base level, after removing the substance and intent of the global warming crusaders and their "message", boiling it down and twisting it into "they want us to become candle-burning luddites," it almost does make sense if you don't give it any more than the most symbolic token of thought) but  it is clearly based on very poor information, it has the ring of an evening news sound-bite.

It's this simple, really; If Gore's message was simply "We all must use less energy," and he's using more energy than anyone else, it would be hypocritical. But Gore's message is something more like "The means of producing usable energy from fossil fuel sources also creates by-products which, in collusion with many other polluting effects of our industrial society,  alter the natural equilibrium of the atmosphere and seem to be contributing to a rapid acceleration of the planet's natural tendancy towards climate change which could see most living things on Earth, our civilization included, destroyed by natural forces in a very short space of time and certainly much quicker than would have occurred naturally had we not polluted the atmosphere to begin with. We should do something about that before we all die." Suddenly shouting "You use more energy than me!" is neither proof of hypocrisy nor a valid counter-argument. If, after reading all that, you can't see why you're both wrong and vastly missing the point, there's nothing more I can do.

For the record, I despise the fact that I've had to waste so many epidermal cells typing a defense of Al Gore. Please make the next blundering, short-sighted judgment about someone I actually like or respect.

Warping space does have a valid theoretical basis, at least as valid as any of the hypothetical spacial anomalies that have found their way into text books (black holes, anyone? Hey, black holes warp space too! Mmm, gravitation). 

I feel pretty confident in saying that, unless it can be clearly observed as a dot of light by a huge and expensive telescope, we have no idea what is/isn't/could be hiding out there in space and without that information we have no real basis upon which to theorize. And neither do any aliens which may or may not exist and may or may not be reading this. Sorry aliens.

You didn't read one thing he wrote, or chose to ignore it. It's as if you have your hands over your ears and are just blabbing away....

Once again you jump to conclusions and your wrong again. As you always accuse me of ignoring and not reading simply because I disagree with a point of view. If people don't agree with you, you consider them Ignoring or simply "blabbing" away. Couldn't the same exact be said for alot of your blabbing away. Same could be said for you.

And 25, my judgement is not short-sighted. Al Gore is rolling in his own blunder with his materialistic waste.

Thanks for taking the time to read the last line of my 5-million-word post.

You're acting like we know all the laws of phsyics and the inner workings of the universe. We don't. Every so often there's a scientific 'revolution' where somebody goes "gee, I never thought of that".

The universe is as complex as it is immense. To assume that you know anything for sure will most certainly come back and bite you in the ass. You're basing your assumptions on present knowledge. It's basically refusing the idea of the earth being round because you don't know/believe gravity.

And if Aliens were to visit us they would by default be more advanced. There are possibly billions and trillions of new, old and extinct civilizations out there. If one of them were to visit us it would be one of the advanced ones.

As to why bother. Well, sophisticated technology is a result of curiosity.

As to how to find us. Sending countless bots around to galaxies and potential star systems would be a way, but then again, who knows what technologies they possess. For all we know they use the universe like we use the phonebook.

I did read it. But 5 million? It was overdone but it wasn't 5 million. I could've written a short story also but what's the difference, it still would have been blabbering in some peoples views.

Yes, it probably would have. But that would have probably been because, had it followed the pattern of your previous posts, it would have basically said "nu-uh!" You don't need many words for that.