Galactic Federation

espinolman · 27-06-2009 11:45am #1

They have a base on Mars .

Here is a message from them :

http://sci.tech-archive.net/pdf/Archive/sci.astro/2004-06/0636.pdf

What do you think , is this true ?

thecommander · 27-06-2009 12:12pm

espinolman wrote: »

What do you think , is this true ?

No. I air on the side of caution on random pdfs pulled off the net. Do you believe it?

Also, when did aliens start using AOL email to communicate?

King Mob · 27-06-2009 1:34pm

That thing reads like really bad sci-fi.

I don't see why anyone should take it seriously.

espinolman · 27-06-2009 6:47pm

thecommander wrote: »

No. I air on the side of caution on random pdfs pulled off the net. Do you believe it?

I did'nt pull that off the net at random , it seems to match up with what i know , it makes sence , i believe it is true .

Does'nt this explain what UFOs are really about :

Here we monitor the hidden activities of your
>> secret government's underground bases and maintain a close and
>> continuous surveillance of your world and the workings of the last
>> remnants of the dark.

espinolman · 27-06-2009 9:31pm

Sometimes the Galactic Federation do de-cloak their ships :

Galactic Federation Fleets
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ehZSSpGSRo

The secret government should watch that video ,:P

King Mob · 27-06-2009 9:48pm

Ohh a spooky voice.
It must be a direct transmission!

6th · 28-06-2009 10:18am

King Mob wrote: »

Ohh a spooky voice.
It must be a direct transmission!

Discuss the topic or dont. Taking digs wont be tolerated. Expect a crack down on comments like this.

Mahatma coat · 29-06-2009 4:38am

interestin letter

I particularly like the 57 flavours of Aliens.

its always hard to tell with things like these, the more outlandish and implausible it sounds on first inspection the higher the possibility that it is actually true, as it would fly in the face of ''çonventional Wisdom'' and therefore all the Disinfo thats asscosiated with the the cover story being peddled at us from all angles.

that said have you any more corespondences from this author???

Nehaxak · 29-06-2009 6:13am

espinolman wrote: »

They have a base on Mars .

Here is a message from them :

http://sci.tech-archive.net/pdf/Archive/sci.astro/2004-06/0636.pdf

What do you think , is this true ?

I think it's complete total and utter rubbish and no, it's not true in any way whatsoever. The only CT I can see here is whether or not this initial posting and that document have any linkages to Scientology and/or used as grooming techniques for feeble minded people intent on believing this kind of sci-fi stuff.

How can you even remotely believe this is true ? What are you basing your beliefs on ?

Mahatma coat · 29-06-2009 7:30am

Dunno I think you have to look past your first impression of the letter and then consider the points being raised in it again.

main one for me, the asteroid Belt is the remainder of the original planet these guys occupied, and our moon is the moon from that.

dont get me wrong tis a fairly outlandish theory, and may have a lot to do with Scientology, but Lets look at the post in particular rather than trying to question/secondguess the motives of the Poster

espinolman · 29-06-2009 8:45am

Mahatma coat wrote: »

, and may have a lot to do with Scientology

Absolutely and positively nothing to do with Scientology , actually kinesiology , if anyone is really interested then download and read this :

http://www.themarsrecords.com/download.html

The mars records are about a man who regained hidden memories of military service on mars , i believe it to be true .

espinolman · 29-06-2009 9:28am

Nehaxak wrote: »

What are you basing your beliefs on ?

Common sense .

29-06-2009 1:40pm

espinolman wrote: »

Common sense .

It isn't really common sense though, is it? It's the opposite, really.

espinolman · 29-06-2009 6:13pm

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

It isn't really common sense though, is it? It's the opposite, really.

Do you mean the subject of this thread , well it might not seem like common sense to you , but it does to me , some people think earth is the centre of the universe and there is only life on earth well that does'nt seem like a common sense theory to me at all , how anyone could believe this is beyond me , just look how far we have come technologically in the last century , if you had told someone say 150 years ago what was going to happen they would have told you that you are nuts ,and thats not common sense , if you told them about the technology we have today .

Maybe those who are saying this thread is not common sense have tunnel vision !

Undergod · 29-06-2009 6:14pm

espinolman wrote: »

The mars records are about a man who regained hidden memories of military service on mars , i believe it to be true .

Isn't that We Can Remember It For You Wholesale by Philip K Dick?

Mahatma coat wrote:

main one for me, the asteroid Belt is the remainder of the original planet these guys occupied, and our moon is the moon from that.

This is just from a quick look at Wikipedia, but it seems the mass of the bodies in the asteroid belt is only about 4% of the mass of the Moon, and they have a range very different chemical compositions, too much for it to be likely to be from a single planet.

29-06-2009 6:22pm

espinolman wrote: »

Do you mean the subject of this thread , well it might not seem like common sense to you , but it does to me , some people think earth is the centre of the universe and there is only life on earth well that does'nt seem like a common sense theory to me at all , how anyone could believe this is beyond me , just look how far we have come technologically in the last century , if you had told someone say 150 years ago what was going to happen they would have told you that you are nuts ,and thats not common sense , if you told them about the technology we have today .

Maybe those who are saying this thread is not common sense have tunnel vision !

You're completely conflating two seperate concepts in that argument, though.

I believe that there is other life out there; I think that it is an arrogant view to assume that Earth is the only suitable location for life in this vast universe. Do I believe there is intelligent life? Yes, certainly. So, in that sense I agree with you.

Now, do I believe that this intelligent life is setting up a base on Mars and is involved in some sort of a Galactic Federation? No, that just seems absurb. I don't even believe that any extraterrestrial life has visited Earth. The distances are too vast and, unfortunately, the limitations of the laws of physics apply to all life in this universe.

You can believe that there is extraterrestrial life without believing in this - in my opinion, absurb - notion of a Galactic Federation setting up on Mars and the Moon etc.

Don't conflate the two arguments. And certainly don't use the assumption of one (believing in extreterrestrial life) to back up the other (Galactic Federation etc.).

espinolman · 29-06-2009 6:26pm

Undergod wrote: »

Isn't that We Can Remember It For You Wholesale by Philip K Dick?

Yes , it could be , it could also be that Philip K Dick was writting about something real , just because someone writes a sci-fi story does'nt prove it is not true or based on something real !

espinolman · 29-06-2009 7:13pm

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

You can believe that there is extraterrestrial life without believing in this - in my opinion, absurb - notion of a Galactic Federation setting up on Mars and the Moon etc.

'Galactic Federation' is a descriptive name of what we are discussing .

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif, CopprplGoth Bd BT]11) The ET's who will arrive on 2017 are referred to as "The Controllers." They are a
"galactic federation" type group; however, "galactic federation" is not the real
name for their group--it is hypothetical name used as a reference.[/FONT]

Quote from :http://www.exopolitics.org/Exo-Comment-66.htm

29-06-2009 7:18pm

How is it known that they will arrive in 2017?

PirateShampoo · 29-06-2009 7:19pm

So if you know thats not the real name then what is?

espinolman · 29-06-2009 7:50pm

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

How is it known that they will arrive in 2017?

As far as i know , there is not going to be a mass alien landing until there is a single world government , so they are aiming for around 2017 , but if there is not a single world government it will not happen , i think things which are happening in the world are being planned around this .
What do you think would happen if they came now , some countries would probably fight them , but if there is a single world government !

PirateShampoo · 29-06-2009 7:56pm

Nice and convenient for you then so, because there wont be a single world government in any of our life times.

29-06-2009 8:22pm

espinolman wrote: »

As far as i know , there is not going to be a mass alien landing until there is a single world government , so they are aiming for around 2017 , but if there is not a single world government it will not happen , i think things which are happening in the world are being planned around this .
What do you think would happen if they came now , some countries would probably fight them , but if there is a single world government !

You're not answering any of my questions, you're just deferring them and raising more questions in doing so!

Give me the pieces of evidence which lead you to know (I would say believe, but you seem to think that you know this as the truth) that:

1) They won't come until there is a single world government, and,
2) That they're aiming for around 2017.

How can you possibly even consider this as truth? I'd like to see what leads you to believe that this is the case. And don't cite someone else on some conspiracy website; give me something believable.

TheManWho · 30-06-2009 2:47am

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Now, do I believe that this intelligent life is setting up a base on Mars and is involved in some sort of a Galactic Federation? No, that just seems absurb. I don't even believe that any extraterrestrial life has visited Earth. The distances are too vast and, unfortunately, the limitations of the laws of physics apply to all life in this universe.

I disagree, not with the aliens setting up moon bases part, because that's borderline insanity, but the improbability of intelligent life having visited or even being capable of visiting earth. It's not outside the laws of physics, our comprehension of physics is just primitive in the grand scheme of things. Einstein scrached the surface and now we have about a dozen ideas of faster than light travel, to us they're just idea's, but to extraterrestrials centuarys even thousands of years ahead of us, they might be functional technologies. Imagine if we didn't have the dark ages, where science was considered heracy, if that centuary or two was spent worshiping knowledge instead of superstitions, life would be very different now. We would have a much deeper understanding of the universe and our limitations, and I'm sure that any extra solar life have a much deeper understanding than we could possibly even imagine.

6th · 30-06-2009 10:00am

TheManWho wrote: »

I'm sure that any extra solar life have a much deeper understanding than we could possibly even imagine.

This always confuses me ... why do people presume we (humans) are the retarded cousins of the universe?

gpjordanf1 · 30-06-2009 10:33am

nobody is saying were the retarded cousin's! What is being said is that we are very very young compared to the rest of the universe. So like anyone thats young we think we know it all where in fact we know jack.

6th · 30-06-2009 10:39am

Sorry, I was phrasing it to add a little humour. I just mean I see no reason to believe that if life exists that it would be any further along (if even comparable) as opposed to being less developed. Presuming its vastly superior just seems like a romantic notion to me.

gpjordanf1 · 30-06-2009 10:47am

i would be the polar opposite, i would expect some but not all life, to be very advanced,in galactic terms i believe were still primitive. Only time will tell 6th, who knows, some of us will be right and wrong. But i'd hate to imagine were the most advanced life around, doesn't inspire me for the future of the human race.

nyarlothothep · 30-06-2009 11:26am

6th wrote: »

This always confuses me ... why do people presume we (humans) are the retarded cousins of the universe?

Even to other humans, humans are the retarded cousins of the universe and I am not a human.

First contact with an alien race would benefit the human specie which needs guidance. So far humans have done a passable job, but its like expecting dogs to raise themselves, they won't turn out amiable.

thecommander · 30-06-2009 11:37am

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Even to other humans, humans are the retarded cousins of the universe and I am not a human.

Say what?

robtri · 30-06-2009 12:14pm

forgive me if I have taken this up wrong....
but this Galatic federation who have a base on mars are communicating with in essence a nobody here on earth instead of contacting governments? media outlets or even landing and chating to locals......
I find that vitually impossible to believe that a race has taken up a base on mars and yet communicate in this way......

Mahatma coat · 30-06-2009 1:27pm

thecommander wrote: »

nyarlothothep wrote:

Even to other humans, humans are the retarded cousins of the universe and I am not a human.

Say what?

<snip>

but seriously, stuff like this takes ages to trawl through for the few bitsof detail on which its all based

6th · 30-06-2009 2:52pm

MC, I dont like having to remove pointless/distracting crap from peoples posts.

30-06-2009 3:18pm

TheManWho wrote: »

It's not outside the laws of physics, our comprehension of physics is just primitive in the grand scheme of things. Einstein scrached the surface and now we have about a dozen ideas of faster than light travel, to us they're just idea's, but to extraterrestrials centuarys even thousands of years ahead of us, they might be functional technologies.

Yes, of course it may be possible to "beat" the laws of physics (as we currently comprehend them). But, the simple fact is, no experiment has ever been carried out that hasn't agreed with a certain law/laws of physics. I've no reason to believe that a certain law shouldn't remain true in all instances (i.e. faster than light travel). Special relativity states explicitly that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light; I've no reason to doubt that claim, and plenty of reasons to believe it.

gpjordanf1 · 30-06-2009 3:41pm

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Special relativity states explicitly that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light; I've no reason to doubt that claim, and plenty of reasons to believe it.

interesting what are these plenty of reason's?

30-06-2009 3:55pm

gpjordanf1 wrote: »

interesting what are these plenty of reason's?

Ok, I'll just state the implications of something travelling very very close/at the speed of light:

- Photons (the packets which carry light) are massless: they travel at the maximum speed possible. Anything with mass cannot travel as fast. (You should read into Tachyons - they've negative mass and cannot travel slower than the speed of light; they're purely hypothetical, though).
- The closer a massive object travels to the speed of light, the more massive it becomes. At 99.99% the speed of light, it's 7 times (if I remember correctly) more massive, this increases exponentially. A massive object travelling at the speed of light would have an infinite mass. It would take an infinite amount of energy to propel an infinitely massive object at the speed of light, therefore it's impossible. Also, if it travelled faster than the speed of light, it would have more than an infinite mass - impossible.
- The closer an object comes to the speed of light, the slower time runs for it relative to another stationary object. At the speed of light, time doesn't run (relatively). Faster than the speed of light, the time would run backwards (relatively).
- A massive object approaching the speed of light becomes longer in the direction of its travel. At the speed of light it would be infinitely long, faster than the speed of light it would be longer than infinitely long - impossible.

These are just some of the implications off the top of my head. Nothing with mass can travel at (or faster) than the speed of light: in the typical sense, that is. The only possible way is to alter the fabric of space-time, but, at the moment, that's science fiction.

gpjordanf1 · 30-06-2009 4:13pm

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

The only possible way is to alter the fabric of space-time, but, at the moment, that's science fiction.

while i agree with all you've said as i've heard it all before, it is all mostly theory that cant be demonstrated, that's where i lose faith in science. This is the theory and until it's proven otherwise, it's FACT! My point is an advanced civilisation could have already found the technology to travel faster than light.

King Mob · 30-06-2009 4:21pm

gpjordanf1 wrote: »

while i agree with all you've said as i've heard it all before, it is all mostly theory that cant be demonstrated, that's where i lose faith in science. This is the theory and until it's proven otherwise, it's FACT! My point is an advanced civilisation could have already found the technology to travel faster than light.

And even if they did the resources needed to make a a faster than light trip are huge.
The two main FTL theories (wormholes and warp drive) require energy and matter on a galactic scale to work.
It's not like Star Trek where you can have thousands of ships zipping around galaxy.

Ostrom · 30-06-2009 4:22pm

gpjordanf1 wrote: »

This is the theory and until it's proven otherwise, it's FACT!

No, it isnt

Refer to the section on abstract and concrete objects

gpjordanf1 · 30-06-2009 4:29pm

King Mob wrote: »

And even if they did the resources needed to make a a faster than light trip are huge.
The two main FTL theories (wormholes and warp drive) require energy and matter on a galactic scale to work.
It's not like Star Trek where you can have thousands of ships zipping around galaxy.

Yeah everything is on a galactic scale from our point of view, but even from our perspective in a few hundred year's this might be a simple as commercial flying is now, i mean that was impossible not so long ago. I just dont think everything is impossible.

gpjordanf1 · 30-06-2009 4:30pm

efla wrote: »

No, it isnt

Refer to the section on abstract and concrete objects

cant open your link on my mobile phone, sorry.

30-06-2009 4:30pm

gpjordanf1 wrote: »

while i agree with all you've said as i've heard it all before, it is all mostly theory that cant be demonstrated, that's where i lose faith in science. This is the theory and until it's proven otherwise, it's FACT! My point is an advanced civilisation could have already found the technology to travel faster than light.

You're wrong. A lot of it can be demonstrated. Some of the implications of special (and general) relatively have been demonstrated.

I'll give you a few examples.

- Special relatively's explanation of the failure of the Michelson-Morley experiment and other such experiments to determine the absolute velocity of the Earth can be counted as an indication that it's a correct theory.

- The relative (i.e. rest mass vrs. relative mass) masses of particles travelling close to the speed of light can be predicted extremely (emphasis on extremely) accurately by special relatively. Particles accelerated in particle accelerators get more massive the faster they travel (their mass can be measured by their deflections in magnetic fields), and the increase in their masses correlates exactly with special relativity's predictions.

- The measurement of the relation between super-accurate clocks travelling at different speeds correlates perfectly with predictions from special relativity.

One of the strongest "proofs" for special relatively is its mathematical consistency: it's completely internally mathematically consistent. Therefore, there is no reason to doubt it's implications. Many physical items have been predicated mathematically before they've been proven experimentally (i.e. anti-matter), so don't just assume that internal mathematical consistency counts for nothing.

Another strong argument for its credibility is the simple fact that nothing, in the last 104 years, has ever been observed to counter its predictions/implications/assumptions.

I'm not telling you to take it as fact, but don't be so arrogant as to claim that it's "mostly theory that can't be demonstrated", when you're extremely wrong. Certainly, don't let your wrong assumption lead you to lose your "faith in science".

King Mob · 30-06-2009 4:34pm

gpjordanf1 wrote: »

Yeah everything is on a galactic scale from our point of view, but even from our perspective in a few hundred year's this might be a simple as commercial flying is now, i mean that was impossible not so long ago. I just dont think everything is impossible.

It's on a galactic scale because you need masses on the order of galaxies to make these things work. And most of these masses are of a non existent type of matter.
It isn't a small feat to do.

DTrotter · 30-06-2009 5:49pm

espinolman wrote: »

As far as i know , there is not going to be a mass alien landing until there is a single world government , so they are aiming for around 2017 , but if there is not a single world government it will not happen , i think things which are happening in the world are being planned around this .
What do you think would happen if they came now , some countries would probably fight them , but if there is a single world government !

I represent one of the galactic Overlords, if you want to help pm me and I'll send you my bank account. For a small donation you could be part of a galactic event in 2017 (provided the 2012 thing is bs).

espinolman · 30-06-2009 6:29pm

DTrotter wrote: »

I represent one of the galactic Overlords, if you want to help pm me and I'll send you my bank account. For a small donation you could be part of a galactic event in 2017 (provided the 2012 thing is bs).

Depends on who you are representing , is it the Draco Mothmen :

http://www.greatdreams.com/reptlan/reps.htm

30-06-2009 6:30pm

espinolman wrote: »

Depends on who you are representing , is it the Draco Mothmen :

http://www.greatdreams.com/reptlan/reps.htm

That's a joke, right?

espinolman · 30-06-2009 6:35pm

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

That's a joke, right?

No , it's a question .

30-06-2009 6:36pm

espinolman wrote: »

No , it's a question .

What you've linked to is very obviously not real.

30-06-2009 7:04pm

espinolman wrote: »

'obviously not real.' in your opinion , why don't you say it is just your opinion , instead of stating this as fact , unless do you have evidence to back up that it is not real .

It's not my opinion, it's the opinion of common sense.

The onus is on you to provide the evidence that it is real! The person making the claim provides the evidence. I, nor nobody else, has to provide evidence that it isn't real; you, and people who believe what you believe, do. I could claim any number of an infinite variety of "truths" and use the fact that you can't prove them as untrue as evidence for their truth. But, that isn't correct; that isn't logical.

30-06-2009 7:12pm

It's really "refreshing" when somebody nit-picks a post for a meaningless point that they can argue against, and then completely ignores the main points of your post. I've only posted a few times in this forum, and it seems to have happened over 2/3's of the time.

bonkey · 30-06-2009 7:17pm

espinolman wrote: »

Oh ' it's the opinion of common sense' in other words a belief !

If you're going to continue this line, then I'd like you to ensure that all comments you offer which cannot be proven as indisputable fact (or which you are not willing to so prove) be clearly stated as being your opinion.

Galactic Federation

Comments