"The Unexplainable...."

[TCO95]

The articles on the page I called neutral are attributable to the original authors and not the web site. Because they present the information in a non-judgmental way I called it neutral. Maybe informational would have been more accurate.

The History channel also carries an interesting program called 'Life After People'. The program explores how long it would take for the Earth to 'cleanse' itself if we all just up and disappeared. It seems the plastics we use every day would be the most likely to remain. Nice legacy.

[squigg58]

Originally Posted by TCO95

The articles on the page I called neutral are attributable to the original authors and not the web site.

You're right, of course. Not commenting or questioning (as I suggested) is about as neutral as you can get!

[topshelf]

This one always catches my attention,Henri Lhote's algerian cave paintings, known as ancient astronauts.


http://www.inquiring-mines.com/ancie..._testimony.htm

[nevermind]

Originally Posted by RyderKnightley

People who believe in one phenomenon or another do not have to give any justification for their beliefs. The onus is always on those who disagree to provide evidence as to why they disagree.
If you beleive that aliens regularly visit our planet, how do you think they get here?

I do not believe in the third kind, but that's as far as it goes for me...
People are used to think in time terms, but time is not absolute,
time is relative according to Einstein.
We always have to meassure things. It's human like i would say.
With Einstein's special relativity theory, in which he showed that time can be influenced.
Is it possible to travel through time. But if possible, under which circumstances?
It will become very clear that the speed of light has got a major influence on the possibility of time travelling. An object should move faster than light speed to travel through time.
The movie(s) Back to the future would be a perfect sience fiction example.

[Extempus]

Originally Posted by seany65

Here's something I find unexplainable: Amy Winehouse! Voice is crap, songs are crap, can't dance, unreliable, bad-mannered, bad-tempered, drug-addled nearly alcholic, yet practically everyone worships the silly moo saying how talented she is!

I don't. Her voice sounds like a cat being tortured. But I guess the casting couch is alive and well (is there any other logical explanation as to how she got to where she is??? And be honest).

[Mad Koala Bear]

Originally Posted by Clouddancer

Given the age of the Earth, its not exactly implausible, that a race of humans existed, & managed to wipe themselves out in prehistory.
It might explain, the existence of such places as Ankor Watt in Cambodia. Or the cities of the Aztecs.

Angkor Wat was built using well established though hugely labour intensive methods in the 12th century, and abandoned in the 15th after invasion by the Thais. Nothing 'pre-history' about it. Similarly with the Aztecs and other Central and South American no longer extant civilisations.

[porty]

We must remember that all arguments for and against are being based on the realms of human knowledge which is still at quite an early stage of learning.

Science is being rewritten on a daily basis, everything from dinosaurs to space itself is finding that former theories are now incorrect.

scientists argue that things can't be done due to the law of physics, but whose rules?

things that were regarded as impossible as the law of physics wouldn't allow it are now everyday occurences, for example:

we must remember that as late as 1940 scientists still believed there was a possibility of serious injury or death should a human being go through the sound barrier, same with space flight, it was assumed death through radiation exposure would be instant the moment a human left earths atmosphere.

in less than 20 years we have gone from the sinclair spectrum, commodore 64's to 3 gig quad core supermachines, again deemed impossible for many decades according to the scientists at the time...

science is very blinkered and accepts at no time something that cannot be explained without a scientific theory or explanation..... described very well by Albert Einstein...
'science believes there is no such thing as a coincidence, but explains it as purely a random result of positive mathematical probability'

it is widely accepted that if the sahara desert was the knowledge of the universe then human knowledge would be the equivalent of two handfuls of sand, so science still has a way to go...

do i believe? well... i have an open mind on the matter, although we have countries releasing documentation all the time with unexplained incidents of UFO's so maybe there is some credibility to it... who knows??

[Mad Koala Bear]

Science is rarely 'rewritten'. Rather, it is, by its very nature, amended, added to, refined, discarded, confirmed, proposed, etc.
By the way, there was risk of serious injury or death for anyone attempting to break the sound barrier, until better and more airworthy planes were developed.And the supercomputers of today weren't deemed impossible by scientists at the time, as they could have had no concept of such a huge leap in technology from the calculating machines of their day to machines involving technology that had not been invented. Alan Turing proposed a universal machine back in the 1930s without any idea of how it might be built, but he didn't say it was impossible.

[NelsonsGoodeye]

Why does snow melt on drain covers? We've 8 inches of snow thick on the on the ground here, except the metal drain covers, (every 10 yards or so along the path I'm walking) which have no snow on them at all? Why? It's not as if they're heated, ffs!

[electile disfunction]

Originally Posted by squigg58

You're right, of course. Not commenting or questioning (as I suggested) is about as neutral as you can get!

Well, publishing everything once--for and against and neither--would be most neutral.

e.d.