UFOs, Extraterrestrial Contact, Conspiracy, Exopolitics, Geopolitics, Paranormal, Crypto-zoology, Ancient History, Cutting-Edge Science & Special Guests.

Latest topics

» Livin Your Best Life
Yesterday at 6:50 pm by cwallatruth

» Immaterialism 4
Yesterday at 6:23 pm by Foot Mann

» Uncommon Thoughts on Common Things - Cyrellys
Yesterday at 3:06 pm by Cyrellys

» Americas Border Issues Part 1
Yesterday at 2:26 pm by Cyrellys

» Disclosure - For U by U
Fri Dec 14, 2018 11:44 am by clusterfuggles

» Three in One
Thu Dec 13, 2018 10:23 pm by RunningBull

» Migrant caravan Continued Part 2
Tue Dec 11, 2018 1:09 pm by Aaron

» Immaterialism 3
Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:08 am by dan

» Montage grokking
Sun Dec 09, 2018 4:09 pm by mion

Where did all the Open Minds Forum members go?

Fri Oct 19, 2012 12:29 pm by Admin

With Open Minds Forum restored now for almost half a year at it's new location with forumotion.com we can now turn to look at reaching out to OMF's original members who have not yet returned home. OMF's original membership was over 6,000 members strong, prior to the proboards suspension, according to the rolls of the time. We can probably safely assume that some of those accounts were unidentified socks. If we were to assume a reasonable guess of maybe as many as 30% possible sock accounts then that would leave potentially somewhere between 4800 to 4900 possible real members to locate. That is still a substantial number of people.

Who were all these people? Some were average individuals with common interests in ufology, exopolitics, globalism, corruption, earthchanges, science and technology, and a variety of other interests. Some just enjoyed being part of a vibrant and unusually interesting community. Others were representative of various insider groups participating in observation and outreach projects, while still others were bonafide intelligence community personnel. All with stake in the hunt for truth in one fashion or another. Some in support of truth, and communication. Others seeking real disclosure and forms of proof. And others highly skeptical of anything or limited subjects. The smallest division of membership being wholly anti-disclosure oriented.

So where did these members vanish to? They had many options. There are almost innumerable other forums out there on the topics of UFO's or Exopolitics, the Unexplained, and Conspiracy Theory. Did they disappear into the world-wide network of forum inhabitants? Did some go find new homes on chatrooms or individual blogs? Did they participate in ufo conventions or other public events and gatherings? How about those who represented groups in special access? Or IC and military observers? Those with academic affiliations? Where did they all go and what would be the best way to reach out and extend an invitation to return?

And what constitutes a situation deserving of their time and participation? Is the archive enough? How exactly do people within the paradigm most desire to define a community? Is it amenities, humanity or simply population size for exposure? Most of the special guests have been emailed and have expressed that population size for exposure is what most motivates them. But not all. Long-time member Dan Smith has other priorities and values motivating his participation. Should this open opportunities for unattached junior guests who have experience and dialog to contribute to the world? How best to make use of OMF's time, experience and resources?

Many skeptics would like to see the historical guardian of discourse opportunity to just up and disappear; go into permanent stasis. They think that not everyone has a right to speak about their experiences and if there is no proof involved then there can philosophically be no value to discourse. I personally would respectfully disagree with them. Discourse has always been the prelude to meaningful relationships and meaningful mutual relationships have always been the prelude to exchanges of proof. In a contentious social environment with regards to communication vs disclosure how do we best re-establish a haven for those preludes? Is it only the "if we build it they will come" answer? Well considering OMF has been largely fully functional over the last four or five months this line of reasoning is not necessarily true. So what would be the best way re-establish this? Your suggestions are sought. Please comment.





MMR Twitter News

December 2018

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031     

Calendar Calendar


Speculations

Share

Vaclav
New Member
New Member

Posts : 7
Join date : 2014-06-21

Speculations

Post by Vaclav on Tue Oct 07, 2014 10:35 am

Many writers have attempted to guess about the possible existence of intelligent species. If there are such creatures, some of them may have achieved the building of an advanced technological civilization. Over the past billion years (that is some thousand of million years) some of these civilizations may even have succeeded in developing space flight. Here I will refer to civilizations capable of reaching their nearest neighboring solar system as SFC's (Space Faring Civilizations). Clearly under physical constrains based on our (limited) knowledge, expeditions to such far away places would take a lot of time. Humans have shown willingness to take long duration voyages in the past. Consider for example the expedition of Magellan that left Spain shortly after March 1519 with 5 ships and a crew of 251, and returned September 1522 with only one ship and 18 survivors.
Some of the numerous writers that wrote their ideas about possible alien life include Arlan Andrews Sr., Edward M Lerner, Richard A Lovett, Karl Schroeder, Mark H Shellans and others. I am intrigued by suggestions (see e.g. Schroeder) that there may already exist a galactic network of communications. If we assume that as early as one billion years ago there has been an SFC in our galaxy, there may indeed be such a network (and if not, there may be one 1 billion years from now). Such a net would consist of active nodes, namely the home planets (moons) of SFC's,
inactive nodes (bodies with evolving life forms, bodies where SFC's became extinct and airless bodies containing evidence of past or present civilization). These nodes would be connected by links to SFC's. Clearly the odds that two SFC's communicate with each other are almost zero. Communication would be by means of messages sent from the past into the distant million years future. There would be be messages locating inactive nodes (such as the existence of manufactured objects surviving millions of years on small airless rocky bodies) and occasional messages like the one we sent on our Voyager 1 probe. With time (hundred of million years) any small network may grow in size and grow in the amount of information. Gradually some SFC'c may start compiling the intra-galactic information and send it through the network. In conclusion, I believe that one of the highest priorities in exploring Mars, moons and asteroids is for us to look for any advanced objects that may tell us about life in our galaxy.

Guest
Guest

Re: Speculations

Post by Guest on Thu Aug 04, 2016 9:04 pm

We already know of several SFCs, none friendly, as they have bases here on Earth and elsewhere in the solar system. Also, travel between solar systems would be relatively fast using antigravity, which could attain speeds of 3000 that of light. The chance of an SFC meeting another is fairly high. A galactic  network of communications has been postulated by Paul Laviolette (Talk of the Galaxy).

jizba
Full Member
Full Member

Posts : 16
Join date : 2014-12-21

Re: Speculations

Post by jizba on Thu Aug 04, 2016 10:08 pm

I was not aware that speeds can be attained 3000 that of light.
Where does that information come from?

Guest
Guest

Re: Speculations

Post by Guest on Sat Aug 06, 2016 7:42 am

Paul Laviolette. See his Antigravity Propulsion book at Amazon.

jizba
Full Member
Full Member

Posts : 16
Join date : 2014-12-21

Re: Speculations

Post by jizba on Sat Aug 06, 2016 10:37 am

I have been aware of the effect of antigravity for several years.
Basically the procedure is to create a virtual heavy mass in front
of the spaceship. This causes the spaceship to move towards
the virtual mass at ever increasing velocity which has no limit and
is not related to any limitation due to the speed of light.

jizba
Full Member
Full Member

Posts : 16
Join date : 2014-12-21

Re: Speculations

Post by jizba on Sat Sep 17, 2016 9:25 am

Although this is obvious, it may be worth mentioning it. When I described a faster than light method of travelling through space,
I omitted mentioning the effect on the astronaut. Since the spacecraft motion is towards a severely distorted spacetime volume ahead of the craft simulating a black hole, the motion is that of free fall, so that the
astronaut does not feel any gravitational pull. As velocity in space increases without limit, the passengers are not aware at all of the
"acceleration".

jizba
Full Member
Full Member

Posts : 16
Join date : 2014-12-21

Re: Speculations

Post by jizba on Sat Sep 17, 2016 9:31 am

Although this is obvious, it may be worth mentioning it. When I described a faster than light method of travelling through space,
I omitted mentioning the effect on the astronaut. Since the spacecraft motion is towards a severely distorted spacetime volume ahead of the craft simulating a black hole, the motion is that of free fall, so that the
astronaut does not feel any gravitational pull. As velocity in space increases without limit, the passengers are not aware at all of the
"acceleration".

Guest
Guest

Re: Speculations

Post by Guest on Mon Sep 19, 2016 3:25 pm

It's antigravity propulsion so there is free fall so they don't feel the acceleration, but it doesn't simulate a black hole because they can't exist, and there's no space-time volume, only material volume.

George Gamow, one of the founding fathers of quantum physics, states in his watershed book Thirty Years That Shook Physics: the Story of Quantum Theory from 1966, that in the mid-1920’s, Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck discovered not only that electrons were orthorotating, but also that they were spinning at 1.37 times the speed of light. Gamow makes it clear that this discovery did not violate anything in quantum physics, but, of course, it violated Einstein’s theory. This finding went into oblivion and no physicist talks about it anymore. (Tesla vs. Einstein: the Ether & the Birth of the New Physics, 2012, (newdawnmagazine.com).

jizba
Full Member
Full Member

Posts : 16
Join date : 2014-12-21

Re: Speculations

Post by jizba on Mon Sep 19, 2016 4:18 pm

The header of this topic is SPECULATIONS.

jizba
Full Member
Full Member

Posts : 16
Join date : 2014-12-21

Re: Speculations

Post by jizba on Tue Sep 20, 2016 9:01 am

I am sorry, I spent my career working in scientific fields (geology)
and was completely sold on ALL advances in science (except some
that later turned out to be false). Since my retirement I found a TOTAL secrecy permeating many fields, so now I am a skeptic.
I do not trust anything in science and am not impressed by any
authoritarian statements. We think we know everything, but actually know nothing.

Guest
Guest

Re: Speculations

Post by Guest on Fri Sep 23, 2016 12:26 am

You mean authoritative statements. Authoritarian statements are made by orthodoxers. And if we didn't know anything we wouldn't have brains. Absolute skepticism is emotional dogma, is not based on evidence, is part and parcel of irrationalism, which is dominant in science, and is necessarily contradictory and self-refuting. If you don't know anything then you don't know that don't know anything. And how do you know the advances in geology you speak of are false if you don't know anything? Scientists are certain nothing is certain, and, of course, believe orthodoxy is always right and defend it with Inquisitional tactics and religious fervour. I don't see how anyone can be an absolute skeptic even in theory, and they certainly can't be in practice. The opposite extreme is by the guy who wrote The End of Science. The moderate and realistic view is that there are some things we know and some we don't. There is also the matter of a fundamental ontological principle, so if there is ignorance there must also be knowledge and vice versa, just as there is up and down, right and left, hot and cold, etc., etc.

jizba
Full Member
Full Member

Posts : 16
Join date : 2014-12-21

Re: Speculations

Post by jizba on Fri Sep 23, 2016 8:54 am

I can cite specific facts (images released by NASA) that cannot in
my opinion be explained. In at least one instance, one image as well as a discussion of the contents of that image by NASA personnel has been deleted within a few days of their original release. To me that means someone does not want a discussion of scientific evidence to be pursued. In another example a publication released an image that defies easy explanation. All efforts by me to comment on that image were ignored, and the publication did not release the succeeding issue. Later, the publication was reintroduced with a less frequent rate. (I have kept a copy of the issue with the controversial image.) Again it was clear that someone did not want to discuss the contents of the image. This kind of behavior is contrary to what I have been taught many years ago about pursuit of scientific evidence.
I have also made comments and specified hypotheses about information released by NASA to several websites. Although I cannot prove that my input had anything to do, these websites
went out of business shortly after my comments were made.

Sponsored content

Re: Speculations

Post by Sponsored content


    Current date/time is Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:36 am