mooeypoo

Yeah, it's an ad, but damn that is too cool to miss: dLymisVND-4 Physics is in everything, eh? but anyways, just a thought - if they were to attempt the shot from higher altitude, they'd probably have to calculate for the wind and friction. I just thought it's a cool video to see, and discuss. ~moo

First off, there's no "Dark side" to the moon, all sides get the same amount of light every month (other than a particular crater at its bottom, which is always dark). NASA (yeah, government) sent a probe there recently, but the entire world saw the explosion of fumes and water that resulted. We don't trust one source in science, as you should know. Specially not in something like astronomy and astrophysics, that usually are relatively easy to verify all over the world. Second, any item or object that has an engine, produces heat. We would detect this heat just by looking at the close side of the moon, because it's close enough. Any item or object next to the moon for a large period of time would affect the wobbliness of the moon (which does wobble, and we *CAN* detect its wobbliness to an EXTREMELY accurate level). Any item or object at the far end of the moon would emit radiation. Unless it's dead - completely. No heat, no communication, no movement. And that is without taking into account that the "UFO" sightings, if they are alien visitations, mean that items *DO* go *out* of the far side of the moon, which means we WOULD Be able to see them ,because there are people (like me) who look at the moon almost every night, with a strong enough binoculars (or telescopes) to spot satellites. And there are many numbers of stations on Earth that permanently observe the moon all over the earth (that is, not just when it's night in the USA), that don't belong to any one government and, more often than not, are completely private. Assuming that these aliens stay at the far side of the moon and are still undetected requires *a very large* number of assumptions on top of assumptions, and considering the fact they seem to be detected quite a large amount of time on the earth (via supposed 'ufo sightings') it also requires assuming those aliens are reckless. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and we know more than you seem to claim we do. Not just the government. Or any one particular government, or any one particular private institution. We're talking about a conspiracy that, if happening, involves almost any concievable country on earth, any private institution with an available telescope, even those who are at war against one another, and any and all educational institutions that teach physicists how to calculate pertrubations, wobbliness of the moon, wobbliness of the earth, and advanced mechanics, in general, of the solar system. How many assumptions does it take to assume that UFOs, on the other hand, are misinterpreted natural or man-made objects, knowing (and having *proof*) that our brains consistently deceive us specifically in these instances? Occhams' razor is sharp in this case. Again. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So far, we've had assumptions, on top of assumptions, on top of assumptions that require more and more and more assumptions, each more incredible than the next. That's why, before I even look at the evidence, I'm having a hard time with this idea. I am not saying it's impossible, i'm saying it's improbable, specially in light of much simpler - much more reasonable, well explained, well known - phenomena that can explain the entire deal. ~moo Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged The argument isn't about whether or not "UFOs" exist - we all know there are objects sighted that were unidentified. The argument here is whether or not assuming they're alien visitors is scientifically valid. Argument from ignorance being one reason why it's not, occham's razor being another, and the fact remains: extraordinary claims (and this *IS* an extraordinary claim) require extraordinary evidence. Grainy video that no one can replicate and more times than not proven to be faked does not count as evidence, and it definitely does not count as extraordinary evidence. ~moo

Spitzer isn't the only one, just like SETI isn't the only one. We're looking at multiple angles from all accross the world all the time. Do you really think we would miss a fleet of aliens (or even a single ship that sends smaller ships down to earth) that is on *close proximity to earth*? Who are visiting us for hundreds of years, it seems? All over the world? You really think we would never spot a *SINGLE* actual proof - a *GOOD* quality video, as opposed to crappy quality of the type that can be whatever (specially today, where everyone has a camera and video camera on his cell). Hundreds of thousands of amateur and professional astronomers look up at the skies. Really? We would miss *AALLLLLLLLL* anomalies that are related to alien visitors, they're that good? and yet they're that incompetent as to get caught, frequently, it seems, by crappy video cameras. Don't you see how many assumptions you would need to make for this to make sense?

If I look at a "spot" 50 lightyears away, I will definitely see something passing a light-hour away. Most definitely. And I would know it's close, too. Immediately, I will know. You don't look at a "spot" in space. You look at an expanse. Vast expanse. With multiple instroments that look at multiple angles, far and close. There's no way we would've missed multiple anomalies repeating over hundreds of years.

We would see as weird, we would investigate and not let go 'till we find something. And if they're coming here for such a long time already, we'd be seeing lots and lots of weird stuff in space. Which we don't. You know, we discovered Pluto because of perturbations we didn't understand, and pluto isn't *that* big. We also noticed an anomaly with the inner planets - we thought that means there's another planet (Vulcan), and after checking, we saw that the anomalies (small anomalies!) were explained using relativity. We see anomalies and we investigate them. We don't jump to the conclusion that they're alien, that's right, but we *DO* find a solution. We don't see any anomalies that would explain visiting aliens. None. SETI isn't designed for that, we have other satellites that can detect orbiting planets around stars (Check out Keppler for *one* example). Also, we're not talking about Alpha Centauri - which is 4.3 light years away. We're talking about the close vicinity of the Earth. You can see the Jupiter quite clearly with a relatively small amateur telescope. The distances we're talking about are even closer. SETI looks for broadcasts. This is *one* methodology out there. The search for exoplanets and solar systems is much bigger than tht. We have satellites that DO detect planets in other stars, and very far stars (farther than Alpha Centauri) and we can detect anomalies when they are in our solar system - specially when we're talking about quite a large amount of anomalies, potentially. We'd be detecting anomalies. Many anomalies. And if we don't, it's because the aliens do a DAMN good job hiding. But then, if they hide so well, they are being very bad trying to hide on Earth, it seems. I find that inconsistent, to say the least. And more than weird. ~moo

Waste, gravitational perturbations, communications, radiation, reflection... We can accurately model our solar system by the tiniest pertrubations due to all the planets' locations, their moons, and occasionally-appearing asteroids. One of the ways to deflect an asteroid on collision with the earth, for instance, is to have a rocket fly for a while *next to it* - the gravitational pull between the two will deflect the asteroid enough to miss the Earth. We're talking about vast distances and immense effects. I am still going to go through the individual accounts, but this is one thing I find extremely unlikely: That an alien civilization is so advanced, and so secretive that we would miss *all* potential hints for it - hints that cannot be hidden by the government when hundreds of thousands of private people look at the sky every given night all over the world, independently, with quite advanced equipment, enough to recognize objects in far away *GALAXIES* - and yet this massively-advanced civilization manages to hide so well from our detection outside the Earth's atmosphere, but screws up the stuff that are supposed to be minute (compared to interstellar travel *and* hiding all the waste, radiation, communcation and gravitational anomalies produced in space) by having UFO sightings. I find this claim to be preposterous. Really. Impossible? No, nothing is impossible. Unlikely? Very. If those aliens really do come visit Earth, let's just say they got a lot of 'splainin' to do. ~moo

The fact *you* don't know of the investigations that were done doesn't mean no one's looking into it. I am in the middle of studies, so I don't have a lot of time pulling out all the resources, but I suggest we just go over the evidence one by one, as we're supposed to, instead of talking in general and stating things that are (to say the least) innaccurate. Not just the government investigates UFO sightings, Moontanman. I know of at least 3 groups that do that, according to the scientific method, and have nothing to do with government. Skeptical groups take those topics on *ALL THE TIME*. Here's a bit of info - GENERAL info. http://www.skepdic.com/ufos_ets.html It has a lot of books and references about incidences that *were* invesigated. I suggest we stop making definitive judgment until after we reviewed specific evidence. Feel free to raise *SPECIFIC* evidence, and we can start going over it. Otherwise, this generalization is getting tedious and (to be perfectly honest) very annoying. ~moo

Moontanman, again, you keep claiming people don't even look INTO those things - that's false. These incidents *ARE* checked, are reserched, and there *ARE* solutions for them more often than not. The fact that the scientific community (that researched many of those claims) doesn't jump up every time a repetitive claim is raised doesn't mean no one has *ever* tested them. I do agree that anything we don't know deserves to be examined scientifically. On this, it seems, we agree. Many of those UFO sightings were indeed researched and checked and many were resolved. It's not like the scientific community runs away from them as if it's poison. ~moo

The names represent the user's activity in the *forum*, not necessarily in life. You can be a triple-PhD with five nobel prizes and your activity log will still show your scale as a "Lepton", until you are more active, and the forum scale will upgrade your title.

No, I'm originally from Israel. Before we go on, though, this stopped my at my tracks, and I need a resolution before I put time into examining any evidence for any claims: Either I don't understand the claim, or you're shifting the goal post. There's no doubt that "UFOs" - as Unidentified Flying Objects - as in, things we see but don't know what tehy are - exist. I wrote that multiple time. The claim taht seems to stick in this thread (and the other one),though, is that those UFOs are not a collection of human-made/natural objects that we just didn't recognize what they are yet, but rather non man-made objects. Namely, alien visitations. "Evidence" (we will discuss what accounts for evidence and what doesn't later) were given to show that alien crafts were visiting the earth. How am *I* the one jumping to assumptions? I'm merely repeating the claim made. But your comment above seems to suggest that it's not about aliens visiting the earth. This, potentially, makes this entire discussion moot, so the first thing we need to do, is for you to make your claim clearly. ~moo BTW: If your problem is the word "ALL" it wasn't *I* who put that word there, it's you. I don't have a problem with "some" of the UFOs being suitable to your claim - it's still a big, gigantic, multiple-assumptions claim. And it still requires big evidence.

1. Who admitted to telling which lies? 2. What was used to make the lies look 'scientific'? 3. How do we know the above is true and not a lie on the part of the government, which, we establish, lies? I don't mean to dismiss anything, btw, I'm really not sure I understand, so I want to clarify. I wasn't raised in the USA, where the UFO mythos (as in 'epic', not necessarily as a myth) is very common. Where I come from, we don't really have that all that much. So don't take my questions as ridicule. I'm trying to understand what we *have* vs. what we're inferring, and how good the bases are upon which we make these conjectures. Who? I only heard rumors so far, I didn't know there were actual people. And do they have proof? Now, I am aware that the immediate reaction can be "of course they don't have proof, the government hides them!" but we all know that one of the most effective things about science is that it's repeatable. Even if the "hard proof" is hidden, a whistle-blower should have *something* to show, otherwise it makes it a bit difficult to see if the whistle blower isn't just doing that for attention, or if what they're saying is true. In short, if you decide you distrust what the government says, then you need to make that distrust 'fair' and distribute it to anyone who makes an unsupported claim. Your conclusion should be based on the evidence; we should examine the evidence, one by one if we have to, and try to reach a conclusion. One good evidence might be enough, while a billion crappy evidence are worthless. There's ridicule attached to a lot of things, but in this case, the ridicule is often because the claims are so outlandish that they require quite a big evidence base. When those aren't supported, then ridicule tends to follow. I dont' mean to ridicule, but you need to understand that I'm not going to make a judgment without evidence that matches the claim made. If I told you that the moon is wobbling, it's a claim that isn't too outlandish; you will probably require a relatively small proof. If I told you that the moon is made of cheese, you'd require a MUCH larger proof for it, right? By suggesting that UFOs are alien visitations, you're already assuming that (a) aliens exist, (b) they're intelligent, © they came here, (d) they don't want anyone to know they come here, (e) they are able to communicate, scheme, (f) professional scientists cannot detect them, (g) but they crash-land or accidentally expose themselves -- and many other assumptions. There's such a multitude of assumptions that accompany the claim that UFOs are alien visitations that the claim requires an equally large evidence to be accepted or even considered scientifically. ~moo

Interesting. I believe that's pretty much what I said in the original thread, plus explaining the problem with the heisenberg principle. And yet, you posted a claim that was untested, unverified and unsupported, and expected others to do the work of understanding what you meant, why you say it and where it's supported *FOR YOU*. You know better, ponderer. You're not new in this forum. You're being cryptic, and I'm not wrong. Yes, whcih you were supposed to supply. I didn't say it was crap, I said it was unsupported. The responsibility to support this claim is on you. By the way - the claim is STILL not mainstream science, and therefore it's STILL not valid as an *answer* to a mainstream science question. But if you post something, then do the whole job and post the facts with it. You were careless, lazy or you didn't care, and you posted an unsupported claim, expecting us to run around and provide the evidence for you. I asked you - TWICE - to support it. To show evidence. You just continued to post unsupported gibberish. I wasn't the only one to ask you, you know. Nor was it the first time. That's not science, and you know it. Stop hiding behind the fact you were miraculously saved by Cap'ns incidental find. *YOU* made that claim, and YOU were supposed to back it up. Since you didn't, it was an irrelevant answer to a mainstream-science question. ~moo

Sorry, I think I've missed something. How do we know lies were told? Or are we guessing that what we were told are lies?

Right! I did this problem in 3D with a single particle, and the available energy levels did have 0 in them (|001> , |010>, |100> was the first). How do I know that in this case the levels start from 111 ?? My initial answer had 0 in it.. is that wrong? I'm confused. How am I supposed to know in advance? I don't understand .. ... why not? Here's another problem I solved from an earlier homework (that's why I'm confused about the current one, they're VERY similar, only with another particle) A particle of mass m is confined inside a rectangular box of sides a, a and 2a. Find the energy and deceneracy of the lowest three energy levels. Since [math]\Psi=X(x)Y(y)Z(z)[/math] like you said, the wave equation is: [math]\Psi = \frac{2}{a}\frac{1}{\sqrt{a}}sin(\frac{n_x \pi x}{a})sin(\frac{n_y \pi y}{a})sin(\frac{n_z \pi x}{2a})[/math] And the Energy: [math]E_n = \frac{\hbar^2 \pi^2}{2ma^2} \big( n_x^2 + n_y^2 + \frac{n_z^2}{4} \big)[/math] And the lowest three states (according to the answer sheet too): [math]E_{001}=\frac{\hbar^2 \pi}{8ma^2}[/math] (the answer sheet writes the above as E_000, but that's surely a mistake) And [math]E_{100}=E_{010}=\frac{\hbar^2 \pi}{2ma^2}[/math] And [math]E_{101}=E_{011}=\frac{5\hbar^2 \pi}{8ma^2}[/math] So, in this case we COULD have n=0 state! this is more or less the same situation as above (a box) only with another particle. What am I missing? Why is this case okay with n=0 and the first case with 2 particles not okay with n=0?

Just pointing out - lies are not the same as secrets. Some things the government holds as secret, that doesn't mean it's actively lying to its citizens. And it doesn't make it automatically bad, either, depending on why the secret is kept. Classified intelligence information should be kept secret as to not blow sources. This isn't lying, and the government is doing that all the time, and not many find this to be a malicious act for the sake of power. That's why oversight exists (whether or not it's deployed or utilized correctly is a different issue). ~moo

Final is coming up, and I'm going over all my homework. I'm trying to understand this part, though, and i'm not sure I get it. Question: Two non interacting particles of mass m each are inside a cubical box of side a and rigid walls (potential 0 inside and infinity outside). a) Write the states for the lowest 3 values of the energy if the particles are distinguishable. What is the degeneracy of each level? So, this is an infinite square well in three dimentions, with two particles: Energy eigenstates are represented with: [math]E_n=\frac{\hbar^2 \pi^2}{2ma^2}(n_{x_1}^2+n_{y_1}^2+n_{z_1}^2 + n_{x_2}^2+n_{y_2}^2+n_{z_2}^2 )[/math] In an infinite square well with one particle, I can start with an eigenstate [math]E_{100}=E_{010}=E_{001}[/math] - that is, I can have n=0. In the answer sheet, though, the eigenstate are in a table, like this: [math]E=\frac{\hbar^2 \pi^2}{2ma^2}(3 + 3)[/math] Which is [math]|111>_{1}|111>_{2}[/math] (Degeneracy = 1) [math]E=\frac{\hbar^2 \pi^2}{2ma^2}(6 + 3)[/math] Which is [math]|211>_{1}|111>_{2}[/math] [math]|121>_{1}|111>_{2}[/math] [math]|112>_{1}|111>_{2}[/math] [math]|111>_{1}|211>_{2}[/math] [math]|111>_{1}|121>_{2}[/math] [math]|111>_{1}|112>_{2}[/math] (Degeneracy = 6) But why is this eigenstate wrong? Shouldn't that be the first energy level?? [math]E=\frac{\hbar^2 \pi^2}{2ma^2}(1 + 1)[/math] Which is [math]|001>_{1}|001>_{2}[/math] [math]|001>_{1}|010>_{2}[/math] [math]|001>_{1}|100>_{2}[/math] [math]|100>_{1}|100>_{2}[/math] [math]|100>_{1}|010>_{2}[/math] [math]|100>_{1}|001>_{2}[/math] [math]|010>_{1}|001>_{2}[/math] [math]|010>_{1}|010>_{2}[/math] [math]|010>_{1}|100>_{2}[/math] (Degeneracy = 9) I have a problem with part 2, two (the question then goes to ask what are the three values of the lowest energies if the particles are bosons, then fermions [i know one's symmetric and one isn't]), but I'll wait 'till I get the first part before I move on. Thanks! ~moo

No I didn't. I moved the thread to speculations because it's unsupported. It's also not mainstream. It *STILL* isn't mainstream. My comparison to ESP was only made when ponderer's idea of substantiation was that the army is supporting it. My claim came to show that the fact the army supports something, doesn't mean it's science. I gave ESP as an example. I wasn't the only one to make that observation. Ponderer's mistake was to put speculative claims in the format of facts without backing them up. It isn't. The difference is that I *SAID* it wasn't science, I explained what star trek physics says and why it's *not* valid in mainstream physics. I was also answering swansont who raised star trek as an example. I explained why the star trek version isn't science, not gave it as an example of proper explanation in a mainstream thread. I know you love inventing your lovely logic laws, but you're coming out a bit condecending here, honestly. The claims ponderer made is non mainstream science, which is why it's in speculation. It was done in a factual matter without being substantiated, which is why I dismissed it *UNTIL FURTHER SUBSTANTIATION WAS PROVIDED*. It was also the second time I requested he do the work and give us something to work with here. You did the work for him, good job. I read the articles, and I don't dismiss anything - but that doesn;'t mean it's not a speculative issue, still. If it was utter nonsense, we both know the thread might've been locked, closed, or sent to trash. Neither of those happened. The problem here wasn't the idea, or the theory proposed (though both *still* belong in speculation, which isn't science-hell, it's just not science-mainstream) the problem was ponderer insisting on posting speculation as fact in a mainstream science thread after two moderators asked him to explain and substantiate and, at least, not treat the speculation as fact. I know you love finding examples where people outright dismiss ideas and cause discussions to go south, but this wasn't one of those cases. This is about science, and about proper presentation of a scientific idea (or nonidea) in mainstream thread and in speculation thread. If ponderer was to give us the name of the magazine, or a link, or even the name of the theory, or the blog, or whatever - ANYTHING to work with, it might've been different. The theory would still belong in speculation, but we would all have SOMETHING to work with to show why the suggestion is or isn't science, or is or isn't valid speculation. Since ponderer, instead, posted (TWICE) the speculation as if it's fact, without any remnant or shred of any substantiation, we asked him to supply some evidence. I truly didn't understand *WHAT* he's talking about in the first post, which is why I answered the way I did. Instead of giving us SOMETHING to work with - 'I read this in a magzine" would be somewhat better, ushering us to ask him which one, and find a link - the idea didn't belong in a mainstream thread. It wouldn't have belonged in the speculation thread if not for *SOME* articles or substantiated matter (he should thank you for taking the time). I don't expect everyone to be able to prove/substantiate using high level physics or math. I do expect, in this forum, that a claim is substantiated - or at least properly explained. The problem wasn't the idea, Cap'n. The problem was the delivery. And we've tried to correct the delivery twice in the original thread, to no avail. The thread was split here, so as to not mix non-supported claims (presented as facts) from a mainstream-science explanation. Posting unsupported claims as if they're facts in a thread that answers a new'bie question annoys physicists even more. You seem to have this knee-jerk reaction that everything annoys everything. This is a speculation. It belongs in speculation, and if oyu wouldn't have saved it with accidentally understanding what ponderer spilled onto the page, it would've ended up in trash. Don't make it seem like I'm the villain here when we attempted to get some cooperation and got none. And if you think I handled this wrong as a moderator, then you, as the master-of-the-site, mister administrator, can overrule, erase, and remerge. I personally think you're makingit into a bigger deal than it is. Speculative notions go in speculations. Non cooperative posters get 'please start cooperating' moderation notes. Ponderer isn't new to the forum; he knows this. ~moo

I didn't dismiss the claim, I dismissed the method the claim was raised in. Ponderer was asked several times to participate in a proper discussion instead of tossing unfounded and unclear notions to a *mainstream physics* discussion. He kept repeating the claims without any sort of explanation or substantiation. The claims were then moved to their proper place: speculations. Even now the claims are still not mainstream science, they are speculative - though they might be more substantiated than mere wordgarbage. Still, they're not mainstream science. The fact this thread is in speculation doesn't mean we dismissed the claims outright. The fact I'm still debating in it shows I personally didn't dismiss anything outright either. Speculation isn't the garbage can, and claims should go with substantiation if they are to be taken seriously - specially when the discussion was in mainstream physics which requires an even deeper degree of substantiation. ~moo

Then next time, supply the substantiation along with your claims instead of waiting for *others* to do that for you, so that we can see this is more than just pointless nonsense. That's what separates a science minded person from the rest. Right? right. You make an unlikely statement, you back it up. ~moo

There are dozens of Earthquakes a day. Considering that fact, coincidences aren't all that unlikely. That said, here is a list for recent earthquakes in Puerto Rico (UTC = Universal Time): Monday, May 17, 2010 at 17:19:44 UTC Magnitude 2.7 Monday, May 17, 2010 at 08:04:15 UTC Magnitude 3.2 Sunday, May 16, 2010 at 21:03:53 UTC Magnitude 3.5 Sunday, May 16, 2010 at 20:10:03 UTC Magnitude 2.5 Sunday, May 16, 2010 at 19:49:53 UTC Magnitude 3.0 Sunday, May 16, 2010 at 14:56:09 UTC Magnitude 2.8 Sunday, May 16, 2010 at 14:30:16 UTC Magnitude 2.7 Sunday, May 16, 2010 at 14:24:43 UTC Magnitude 2.7 Sunday, May 16, 2010 at 14:19:43 UTC Magnitude 2.8 Sunday, May 16, 2010 at 13:41:33 UTC Magnitude 2.9 Sunday, May 16, 2010 at 13:22:34 UTC Magnitude 2.9 Sunday, May 16, 2010 at 13:19:26 UTC Magnitude 2.6 Sunday, May 16, 2010 at 12:55:42 UTC Magnitude 3.0 Sunday, May 16, 2010 at 07:45:22 UTC Magnitude 2.7 Sunday, May 16, 2010 at 05:47:14 UTC Magnitude 3.0 Sunday, May 16, 2010 at 05:33:46 UTC Magnitude 3.2 Sunday, May 16, 2010 at 05:16:10 UTC Magnitude 5.8 Sunday, May 16, 2010 at 01:34:44 UTC Magnitude 2.7 These are only the past two days. As you can see, there are MANY earthquakes in that region (and in the world). This is something that's called the 'rule of big numbers'. The odds for this type of coincidence is small. But even small odds eventually happen when the number of instances is so large, as in this case. It is an interesting coincidence, though. What do you think it is, if not a coincidence? ~moo

Make a youtube video. It might actually go viral. Actually, with today's apparent youtube taste, I bet it would go viral. You should put a link to us, I might decide I like you. Though that is technically a 'gun shot wound', it's not REALLY a gun shot wound in the sense most people think of when they hear.. "gun shot wound". Those are much worse. A '22 is pretty tiny, I have to say, you're really lucky it was just that. A higher caliber could've taken your finger clean off, plus more, probably. In any case, if you're already taking daily photos in the interest of science, then let's make this properly. Try to take the pictures on the same angle/distance each day (replicate the picture *as much as you can). We won't be able to see day to day changes in the pictures you post, but if you're into watching wounds heal (which could be interesting), you should make it into a video eventually. In order for it to look good (and teach us something about anatomy... and.. look cool...) you should try and get the pictures to look like one another, as much as you can. That could be interesting, actually, regardless of the circumstances which led to this unfortunate probably painful incident. ~moo

Yes, some records contend that Alexander ascended to the sky instead of dying, and some records contend that Eliyahu (bible) went to heaven with a glowing fiery chariot. As did Ra. And metuselah was contended to live 1000 years. There's a difference between "some records contend" and "there is evidence that..". And-- -- even the egyptologists know that difference. Mostly ~moo

Can you please stop posting these humongous feet-photos? We got the picture. Literally. Thank you. It hurts, it's bumpy, you got lucky it's a 22 and not something MUCH MUCH worse. Trust me, I, unfortunately, had the displeasure of seeing what happens with worse caliber guns, and not necessarily self-inflicted. The fact you were *walking* is even worse. If this happened, I am not sure I trust that you even know - or was too well aware - where the gun was pointing while you tried to decock it unsafely. With the safety off. You broke gun safety rules. More than one. I can think of at least three off the top of my head. Unlike any gadget, breaking safety rules with a gun can lead to *OTHER* people getting hurt, hence my absolute and relentless lack of sympathy to you. I do hope, at the very least, that you learned something from this, and that if you insist on using a gun you don't know how to operate again, then, at least, you do it while having no one around you in a mile radius. I'm not sure what you expect to get in the forum, though. Medically speaking, you need to see a medical doctor. I wouldn't be stressing myself too bad, I've seen cuts that were worse than this little needle prick. You should see a doctor, and you should take care of the foot so the wound isn't infected. If you intend on posting any more humongous picture of your feet, I would also recommend a shave, a pedicure, and a hot foot-bath. Good luck. ~moo

Again, your definition of proof seems to be very fluid. You're presenting a painting that (a) can be interpreted in various ways (I don't see it, for instance) and (b) even if it *does* display somerthing unique, you have no way of knowing if it's not a reinterpretation of an event the painter didn't understand (not necessarily alien). I find it interesting that the picture is classified as "Special Features/Characteristics: Famous Person, Witness Photo" -- neither of which have any reliability in *ANY* scientific discussion (not even in court, honestly), and the photo isn't a photo. It's a painting, so it's not even *pretending* to be unbiased; a painting is done by a person, it's always an interpretation of an event. This isn't proof, guys. It's a story that someone interpreted to say what they want it to say. How can you classify this as any sort of real evidence for alien visitation?? There's no substantiation. On top of that, the "original" link is no longer working. BTW, just so I won't be accused of not reading the page -- please go over the entire text, and notice, that the entire thing has "No reference". Every bit, and the only references that do exist, reference to *biased* sites ('ufovisitations' / ufofiles/ etc) That's not science, guys. And whenever the stories doesn't *quite* add up, the author of the article claims that the different interpreters didn't understand one another. Nitpicking what to excuse and what not to excuse doesn't give too much legitimacy to any of it, honestly. ~moo

Where does that appear in which historical document? I am having a bit of difficulty with ancient-anything human even *using* the word "metallic" in describing something they aren't sure what it is, even if it was metallic. But yeah, where is this from? I'd love to read the original context. ~moo