The thing that defeated nazi germany on russian territory was pretty much the same thing that defeated napoleon some hundred years ago: the weather (and of course the russian army that needed time to rally).
Secret communication can be broken best example is the enigma.
The US entry into ww2 was nothing of a wonder it was more or less very obvious for all war parties (supporting allied powers with money, arms and soldiers while having economic sanctions and blockades against the axis powers).
All in all the war was very unlikely to be won after germany went into a 3 front war in the west, east and south in africa.
Germany itself has nearly no resources and could only run their war machinery by looting the invaded nations and getting help by swiss bankers who they used to sold their stolen goods (mostly gold) for foreign currency to buy war needed assets (historians say that probaly 75% went through switzerland).
There is a reason why people want to save their (illegal) money in swissbanks. And the reason is if even nazis could do good, secret and stable business in wartime their everyone else could too.
Topic: Intervention Theory: An alternative to Darwinism and Creationism - page 6. (Read 9473 times)
December 17, 2016, 07:46:54 PM
December 17, 2016, 05:46:45 PM
The Devil is always trying to destroy Jewish people because then God's promises, future prophecies and the Holy Bible would become a lie.
December 17, 2016, 03:42:10 PM
Intervention Theory
Did a Higher Power Defeat the Nazis?
Did a Higher Power Defeat the Nazis?
Quote from: Wikipedia
Nazism subscribed to theories of racial hierarchy and Social Darwinism, identifying Germans as part of what Nazis regarded as an Aryan or Nordic master race. It aimed to overcome social divisions and create a homogeneous society, unified on the basis of "racial purity" (Volksgemeinschaft). The Nazis aimed to unite all Germans living in historically German territory, as well as gain additional lands for German expansion under the doctrine of Lebensraum, while excluding those deemed either to be community aliens or belonging to an "inferior" race.
The utter defeat of Nazis is something of a historical oddity. The Nazi’s were the 20th century’s equivalent of the Mongols or the Huns. They were motivated, technologically advanced, disciplined, and man for man outclassed their rivals of the time. This advantage was seen in their multiple strategic triumphs. Until the fall of 1941 they went from victory to victory always one step ahead of their opponents. They conquered almost all of continental Europe and Norway quickly and decisively.
Hitler believed that the Soviet Union would rapidly collapse in the face of sustained attack and initially it appeared his assessment was entirely correct. In the first few months of the German attack the Germans captured millions of soviet prisoners. In the fall of 1941 German’s encircled destroyed the bulk of the armies guarding the approach to Moscow capturing over 500,000 prisoners. For a brief window the Soviets had only 90,000 men and 150 tanks left to defend Moscow.
Yet the Nazi’s did not capture Moscow they were repulsed and ultimately crushed. Three historical quirks of fate led to this defeat:
1) Extreme and unusual weather that started in October 1941.
2) Odd Nazi’s error in August 1941 that compromised secret German communications.
3) Historical oddities in August of 1941 that led directly to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
All three of these oddities played a role in the defeating the Nazi regime and all three involved an unusual element of chance or circumstance. Let’s examine each of these.
A) Extreme and unusual weather
Unusual Fall Rains:
Following the defeat of the armies guarding Moscow in October situation was dire for the Soviets. General Georgi Zhukov the soviet commander said the following.
“The defensive front in the west has been destroyed a huge gap has appeared in our lines and there is nothing to fill it as there are no reserves. The roads leading to Moscow are open.”
The Nazi’s were confident of victory. German Army Chief-of-staff, Franz Halder, wrote in his diary, “To save Moscow the enemy will try to bring up reinforcements, especially from the North. But any such miscellaneous force, scraped together in an emergency, will not suffice against our superior strength, and provided our strategy is any good at all (provided the weather is not too bad), we shall succeed in divesting Moscow.”
https://www.tcc.fl.edu/media/divisions/library/citation-guide/turabianx2fchicago/Turabian-Sample-2012-Footnotes_ADA.pdf
Quote
Then the heavens broke. On the night of October 6-7, snow fell on the southern German spearhead and was subsequently followed by nearly a month of cold rain, mixed with snow, across the entire front. A seasonal shift in the regional storm track had begun pushing a series of Scandinavian Cyclones into the greater Moscow region. These intermittent snow and rain squalls, driven by strong northeastern winds, frequently grounded the two German air fleets supporting the offensive. More ominously, when coupled with the much lower fall evaporation rates, this steady wintry mix soon turned the area‘s few existing roads into quagmires.
I will provide rain for your land in the proper time, the autumn and spring rains (Deut 11:14)
With the severe mud German mobility ceased. The mud also wreaked havoc on German machinery. Fuel was consumed at three times the normal rate. General Guderian recalled that,
“. . . the roads rapidly became nothing but canals of bottomless mud, along which our vehicles could advance only at snail’s pace, and with great wear to the engines. The next few weeks were dominated by the mud. Wheeled vehicles could advance only with the help of tracked vehicles. These latter, having to perform tasks for which they were not intended, rapidly wore out.”
http://www.allworldwars.com/Effects-of-Climate-on-Combat-in-European-Russia.html
Quote
The entire German army was completely stopped by mud. The muddy season of that year began in mid-October and was more severe than any other muddy season experienced in World War I or World War II. During the first stages cart and dirt roads were impassable, and then the road from Roslavl to Orel became mud-choked. Supply trucks broke through gravel-top roads and churned up traffic lanes until even courier service had to be carried out with tracked vehicles. Finally only horse-drawn vehicles could move; all other transport and the bulk of the tanks and artillery were stopped dead…
Motor vehicles broke down with clutch or motor trouble. Horses became exhausted and collapsed. Roads were littered with dead draft animals. Few tanks were serviceable….
Second Panzer Group… lost 60 percent of its tanks in mud. A division of Fourth Panzer Group, operating in the area north of Gzhatsk during the same period, lost fifty tanks without a shot being fired…no replacements were received. Germany at that time was producing only eighty-five tanks monthly… Tanks, heavy wreckers, and even vehicles with good ground clearance simply push an ever-growing wall of mud before them until they finally stop, half buried by their own motion. A sudden frost in the autumn of 1941 cemented a crippled, buried column into a state of complete uselessness, and it never moved again.
Motor vehicles broke down with clutch or motor trouble. Horses became exhausted and collapsed. Roads were littered with dead draft animals. Few tanks were serviceable….
Second Panzer Group… lost 60 percent of its tanks in mud. A division of Fourth Panzer Group, operating in the area north of Gzhatsk during the same period, lost fifty tanks without a shot being fired…no replacements were received. Germany at that time was producing only eighty-five tanks monthly… Tanks, heavy wreckers, and even vehicles with good ground clearance simply push an ever-growing wall of mud before them until they finally stop, half buried by their own motion. A sudden frost in the autumn of 1941 cemented a crippled, buried column into a state of complete uselessness, and it never moved again.
By November 1, two-thirds of the German trucks had broken down. The muddy season destroyed much of Germany’s motorized transport. What followed was winter and it was not a normal Russian winter. Instead the Nazi’s faced the most severe winter of the twentieth century.
Germany‘s soldiers froze when the full fury of the Russian winter hit on December 5, and the temperature subsequently plunged to a staggering -40º. Over one hundred thousand German soldiers had fallen out ill during the month-long Rasputitsa. Between the first week of December and early March, Army Group Center suffered frightful losses: over 256,000 dead and 350,000 sick or hospitalized with winter-related maladies such as frostbite.
Quote
Cold reduced the efficiency of German locomotives which had been built for the milder temperatures of Central Europe. During the first winter of the war 70 percent of the German locomotives broke down In the winter of 1941-12, sometimes only one third, and frequently less, of the daily quota of twenty-eight trains got through to Army Group Center. The German Second Army and Second Panzer Army together required eighteen supply trains a day and received only two. In November 1941 these armies were unable to take Tula because their supply system had broken down. Even the most critical supplies did not reach the front in time…
Paralyzed by cold, the German troops could not aim their rifle fire, and bolt mechanisms jammed or strikers shattered in the bitter winter weather. Machine guns became encrusted with ice, recoil liquid froze in guns, ammunition supply failed. Mortar shells detonated in deep snow with a hollow, harmless thud, and mines were no longer reliable.
Paralyzed by cold, the German troops could not aim their rifle fire, and bolt mechanisms jammed or strikers shattered in the bitter winter weather. Machine guns became encrusted with ice, recoil liquid froze in guns, ammunition supply failed. Mortar shells detonated in deep snow with a hollow, harmless thud, and mines were no longer reliable.
B) Loss of operational secrecy
Prior to the Fall of 1941. The Nazi’s constantly surprised their enemies. Everything from the Invasion of Norway, to the assault on France, to the invasion of Russia came as a surprise to their opponents. After 1941 the Nazi’s lost all operational secrecy resulting in a dramatic loss of initiative.
The Allies achieved this advantage in part by breaking a top secret German code called Tunny. This was the high-level Nazi encryption machines used by Hitler and Mussolini to communicate directly with their generals in the field. The Germans were convinced that the Tunny cipher system was unbreakable. The system used 12 encryption wheels, four times as many as the famous Enigma machine, which was used in the field and carried standard military communications. How did the Allies break the code?
http://www.rutherfordjournal.org/article030109.html
Quote
On 30 August 1941 two messages with the same indicator were intercepted, B.P. suspected that they had found a depth (A mistake where the Tunny operator does not reset the encryption between messages). As it turned out, the first transmission had been corrupted by atmospheric noise, and the message was resent at the request of the receiving operator. Had the sender repeated the message identically, the use of the same wheel settings would have left (the allies) none the wiser. However, in the course of the second transmission the sender introduced abbreviations and other minor deviations (the message was approximately 4000 characters long). So the depth consisted of two not-quite-identical plaintexts each encrypted by means of exactly the same sequence of key—a codebreaker’s dream. Tutte deduced the design of the Tunny machine from this pair of intercepts.
So a German officer violated protocol sending a not quite identical message twice without properly encrypting the second message. This allowed the British codebreakers to reverse-engineer the German encryption machine, a process later described as "an incredible feat of dedication". This was all made possible because "random" atmospheric noise corrupted a transmission at the exact moment a lazy operator was sending a long message and did not follow protocol. Had this atmospheric noise not occurred the Tunny code may not have been broken.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/captain-jerry-roberts-bletchley-park-codebreaker-who-helped-crack-the-tunny-code-hitler-used-to-9219984.html
Quote
The stream of intelligence (from Tunny) proved vital at key junctures of the war. The Russians were warned three or four months in advance of a major German offensive, Operation Citadel, the Battle of Kursk in July 1943, which went down in history as the biggest ever tank battle. The Russians were told how the attack would be carried out – a pincer movement – as well as the numbers involved…Other intelligence enabled the Allies to ascertain German movements when planning D-Day, helping save thousands of lives.
Between 1943 and 1945, Roberts and the Testery codebreakers were accessing 90 per cent of the German traffic with, at a conservative estimate, around 64,000 top-line Tunny messages intercepted and broken. Sir Harry Hinsley, a Bletchley veteran and official historian of British Intelligence during the Second World War, has estimated that the intelligence shortened the war by at least two years
Between 1943 and 1945, Roberts and the Testery codebreakers were accessing 90 per cent of the German traffic with, at a conservative estimate, around 64,000 top-line Tunny messages intercepted and broken. Sir Harry Hinsley, a Bletchley veteran and official historian of British Intelligence during the Second World War, has estimated that the intelligence shortened the war by at least two years
However, Tunny was not fully broken in time to warn the Soviets of the German’s 1942 summer offensive towards Stalingrad. The 1942 German invasion plan was called Case Blue and was an attack on southern Russia. The goal of this attack was to destroy the Soviet forces of 1 million soldiers at the frontline in that area and capture the soviet oil fields in the caucuses. Stalin was entirely focused on Moscow certain a German attack would occur in the North. Yet despite this misconception a quirk of history would warn the Soviets of the upcoming German attack.
Early on the morning of the 19th of June 1942 an unarmed German liaison plan guided to earth near soviet army positions. There was no trail of smoke or obvious reason for its crash landing. When soviet troops captured the aircraft they found a single bullet hole through its petrol tank. The pilot was killed before he could destroy his briefcase which contained the top secret German plans. The dead German was Major Richter head of operation for the German 23 panzer division. He was carrying plans for the upcoming Case Blue Invasion. The single bullet hitting a moving plane at exactly the right spot apparently caused the plane to run out of fuel right over Soviets positions. The secret German plans literally fell in the Soviet’s hands out of “chance”. Unlike the the previous year when the Germans surprised and surrounded millions of soviet troops Case Blue lead to very few prisoners as the Soviets conducted an orderly withdraw in front of a German attack that was no longer a surprise.
C) Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor
In 1941 the US was highly isolationist. Public opinion was strongly against entry into war. On December 7th, 1941 the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. This act would change public opinion and bring the massive strength of the USA down upon the Axis ensuring their defeat. Why did Japan attack the USA? That story is a very interesting one and revolves around a man named Dean Acheson.
http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=22899
Quote
As of June 1941, Japanese companies had already obtained approved licenses for "7.1 million barrels of gasoline, 21.9 million barrels of crude oil, and 33,000 barrels of lubricants, altogether worth about $50 million," which meant that Japan could legally purchase from the United States "gasoline for another nine months and ordinary crude oil for an astonishing thirty-two months--enough to supply it until the end of 1943!". To Dean Acheson and some other hard-liners the idea of freezing Japanese assets became increasingly attractive, for a financial freeze by a single stroke of pen could cut U.S. exports to Japan to zero despite the approved licenses for oil purchase Japan had already obtained.
In response to Japanese troops' occupation of southern Indochina, Roosevelt wanted to impose "a dollar freeze that would subject all transactions with Japan to licensing", which gave the United States flexibility to decide later how much trade Japan should be allowed to resume based on its future behavior. According to the plan, the State Department and the Export Control Administration would continue to grant Japanese export licenses for oil, but a newly created three-man interdepartmental policy committee, the Foreign Funds Control Committee (FFCC), had to release funds for licensed exports.
In response to Japanese troops' occupation of southern Indochina, Roosevelt wanted to impose "a dollar freeze that would subject all transactions with Japan to licensing", which gave the United States flexibility to decide later how much trade Japan should be allowed to resume based on its future behavior. According to the plan, the State Department and the Export Control Administration would continue to grant Japanese export licenses for oil, but a newly created three-man interdepartmental policy committee, the Foreign Funds Control Committee (FFCC), had to release funds for licensed exports.
When the United States froze Japanese assets in the United states the president told his interior secretary, Harold Ickes, at the time, his goal was not war in the Pacific: “I simply have not got enough Navy to go around—and every little episode in the Pacific means fewer ships in the Atlantic.”. He had earlier told Churchill that a fight with Japan would be “the wrong war in the wrong ocean at the wrong time.” The PM agreed their first objective must be to defeat Hitler. Roosevelt’s involvement is unclear but with or without approval it was in August of 1941 that Assistant secretary of state Dean Acheson set the USA on the course to war against Japan.
http://www.salon.com/2013/12/05/oil_led_to_pearl_harbor/
Quote
Roosevelt, his trusted adviser Harry Hopkins and U.S. Undersecretary of State Sumner Welles were attending the shipboard conference off Newfoundland in and Secretary of State Cordell Hull was on vacation at the Greenbrier in West Virginia, the authority to grant licenses to export and pay for oil and other goods was left in the hands of a three-person interagency committee dominated by Assistant Secretary of State Dean Acheson, whom one historian described as the “quintessential opportunist of U.S. foreign policy in 1941.”
Acheson favored a “bullet-proof freeze” on oil shipments to Japan, claiming it would not provoke war because “no rational Japanese could believe that an attack on us could result in anything but disaster for his country.”
With breathtaking confidence in his own judgment, and ignoring the objections of others in the State Department, Acheson refused to grant licenses to Japan to pay for goods in dollars. That effectively ended Japan’s ability to ship oil and all other goods from the United States. Acheson’s actions cut off all American trade with Japan. When Roosevelt returned, he decided not to overturn the “state of affairs” initiated by Acheson, (possibly) because he feared he would otherwise be regarded as an appeaser.
Acheson favored a “bullet-proof freeze” on oil shipments to Japan, claiming it would not provoke war because “no rational Japanese could believe that an attack on us could result in anything but disaster for his country.”
With breathtaking confidence in his own judgment, and ignoring the objections of others in the State Department, Acheson refused to grant licenses to Japan to pay for goods in dollars. That effectively ended Japan’s ability to ship oil and all other goods from the United States. Acheson’s actions cut off all American trade with Japan. When Roosevelt returned, he decided not to overturn the “state of affairs” initiated by Acheson, (possibly) because he feared he would otherwise be regarded as an appeaser.
Oil was Japan's most crucial import, and more than 80% of Japan's oil at the time came from the United States. IJN headquarters informed Emperor Hirohito its reserve bunker oil would be exhausted within two years if a new source was not found. In August 1941, Japanese prime minister Fumimaro Konoe proposed a summit with President Roosevelt to discuss differences. Roosevelt replied Japan must leave China before a summit meeting could be held. On September 6, 1941, Japanese leaders met to discuss this crisis. Prime Minister Konoe argued for more negotiations and possible concessions to avert war. Prime Minister Konoe, was almost assassinated by pro-war fanatics wielding ceremonial knives. Weakened by the attempt to overthrow him and losing power and influence to militarist elements, Prince Konoe’s government fell on October 16, and he was replaced by hardliners.
In August of 1941 the Nazis appeared on the brink of total victory. The UK was in danger of being economically strangled by submarine warfare and armies of the Russians were collapsing. Two months later the vectors of fate had dramatically shifted. The severe weather was crippling the German army, top secret German communications were compromised, and the stage was set for US entry into the war. Tremendous sacrifice from the allies especially Russia would follow. The Nazi’s were now destined for defeat.
When asked to defend their belief that there is no God non-believers will often point to some horrific evil in the world and ask the following question:
“Why did God permit this why didn’t he stop it?”
The horror of the Holocaust is one example commonly cited. Here is one such argument:
https://whistlinginthewind.org/2012/05/07/why-did-god-not-stop-the-holocaust/
Quote
Why Did God Not Stop The Holocaust?
I can only see three possible explanations. Either God refused to prevent this genocide, in which case he is a bastard who we should not worship and praise. Or he did not know about the genocide or could do nothing to prevent it, in which case there is no point worshiping him and praying to him. Or he does not exist and they would have been as well praying for fairies or unicorns to save them. Draw your own conclusions.
I can only see three possible explanations. Either God refused to prevent this genocide, in which case he is a bastard who we should not worship and praise. Or he did not know about the genocide or could do nothing to prevent it, in which case there is no point worshiping him and praying to him. Or he does not exist and they would have been as well praying for fairies or unicorns to save them. Draw your own conclusions.
Such argument ignores another possibility. Perhaps God did intervene to stop the Holocaust! The books of Jeremiah and Genesis are Holy Scripture to both Christians and Jews. These books spell out a promise made by God.
For I am with you, says the LORD, to save you: though I make a full end of all nations where I have scattered you, yet will I not make a full end of you: but I will correct you in just measure, and will not leave you altogether unpunished. (Jer. 30:11).
I will keep My covenant between Me and you, and your offspring after you throughout their generations, as an everlasting covenant to be your God and the God of your offspring after you” (Gen. 17:7).
Let us for a moment explore a hypothetical. Is it possible that God exists and that he created a world where humans are given free will even to do evil? Is it also possible that the promises written in Jeremiah and Genesis are promises from God that will be kept?
In their early years the Nazi’s discriminated against Jews but they did not try to exterminate them. This early Nazism was not an existential threat to the Jewish people. However, with the invasion of the Soviet Union that would change.
In June 1941. Four mobile killing groups were formed called special duty units Einsatzgruppen A, B, C and D. These squads would follow the German army, as it advanced deep into Soviet territory, and carry out mass-murder operations. At first, the mobile killing squads primarily targeted adult Jewish men. Initially there was a semblance of legality given to the shootings, with trumped-up charges being read out (arson, sabotage, black marketeering, or refusal to work, for example) and victims being killed by a firing squad. However, by August of 1941 net had been widened to include women and children.
The Einsatzgruppen gathered Jews town by town, marched them to huge pits dug earlier, stripped them, lined them up, and shot them with automatic weapons with survivors being killed with a pistol shot.
A people can perhaps survive the murder of its adult male population but it cannot survive the deaths of its women and children. By August of 1941 there was no longer be any doubt that the Jewish people were in danger of complete destruction.
http://chosenpeople.com/main/index.php/the-bible-and-the-preservation-of-the-jewish-people
Quote
The late Israeli Prime Minister, Menachem Begin, made a similar point, speaking at the Western Wall… (he) reminded his audience how close Hitler and Nazi Germany came to winning World War II. Had Hitler been successful, it would have meant the murder of not only six million European Jewish people, but could likely have led to the murder of virtually all the Jewish people around the globe.
Perhaps it is all a giant coincidence that it was also in August of 1941 that the fortunes of Nazi Germany took a dramatic turn for the worse. Perhaps it is simply chance that simultaneously altered so many vectors of destiny.
Nevertheless when people ask why didn’t God stop the holocaust and save the Jews I answer with a query of my own.
What makes you think he didn’t?
See:
Intervention Theory: Solar Activity and Earth's Climate
October 06, 2016, 01:23:49 PM
Perhaps world war 2 pilot's where simply prone to seeing similar types of hallucinations.
Perhaps this simple and evidence-free assertion would also be able to explain away shared "hallucinations" like the Rendlesham Forest incident (also known as "Britain's Roswell"), and those incidents involving numerous civilian witnesses, like the Phoenix Lights. Just kidding! I think there are only two plausible explanations, as mentioned here:
UFO believers say it's no coincidence that aliens showed up very shortly after we'd developed atomic weapons and rocket technology, as this is when they were alerted to the threat we pose to the wider cosmos.
'Ironically, governments have sometimes secretly promoted belief in UFOs, because if someone sees a secret prototype aircraft or drone, it's much better to have it reported as a flying saucer than recognised for what it is,' said Pope.
'None of this is to say that there haven't been some genuinely fascinating and unexplained UFO sightings around nuclear facilities and military bases, but just because a UFO sighting is unexplained, it doesn't follow that it's extraterrestrial.'
'Ironically, governments have sometimes secretly promoted belief in UFOs, because if someone sees a secret prototype aircraft or drone, it's much better to have it reported as a flying saucer than recognised for what it is,' said Pope.
'None of this is to say that there haven't been some genuinely fascinating and unexplained UFO sightings around nuclear facilities and military bases, but just because a UFO sighting is unexplained, it doesn't follow that it's extraterrestrial.'
October 06, 2016, 01:00:34 AM
Some interesting reading I came across today.
World War II Foo Fighters
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foo_fighter#Sightings
A video that describes these world war 2 sightings objectively.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BqLB72wtgc
Was this mass hallucination by tired pilots or something else? Not enough evidence to say.
I find it interesting, however, that these reports seem to have not started until around 1944. World war II was nearing its end at that time with the defeat of the axis powers inevitable. There was, however, a new technology that had just come online.
The X-10 Graphite Reactor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-10_Graphite_Reactor
To any hypothetical entity advanced enough to be hanging out in near earth at the time starting the X-10 Graphite Reactor would likely be akin to setting off a signal flare.
Detection of (Nuclear) Reactors by their Gamma-ray and Positron Emissions
http://scienceandglobalsecurity.org/archive/sgs01primackA.pdf
Finally, one last interesting data point to consider.
Green fireballs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_fireballs#Early_green_fireballs
Again no proof here, but probably enough to justify keeping an open mind regarding various possible causes. Perhaps world war 2 pilot's where simply prone to seeing similar types of hallucinations. Perhaps the green fireballs are the result of some type of atmospheric phenomena that we still do not really understand today or of unprecedented meteor shower. Nevertheless, alternative theories cannot be entirely dismissed here.
World War II Foo Fighters
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foo_fighter#Sightings
Quote
The first sightings occurred in November 1944, when pilots flying over Germany by night reported seeing fast-moving round glowing objects following their aircraft. The objects were variously described as fiery, and glowing red, white, or orange. Some pilots described them as resembling Christmas tree lights and reported that they seemed to toy with the aircraft, making wild turns before simply vanishing. Pilots and aircrew reported that the objects flew formation with their aircraft and behaved as if under intelligent control, but never displayed hostile behavior. However, they could not be outmaneuvered or shot down. The phenomenon was so widespread that the lights earned a name – in the European Theater of Operations they were often called "kraut fireballs" but for the most part called "foo-fighters". The military took the sightings seriously, suspecting that the mysterious sightings might be secret German weapons, but further investigation revealed that German and Japanese pilots had reported similar sightings
A video that describes these world war 2 sightings objectively.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BqLB72wtgc
Was this mass hallucination by tired pilots or something else? Not enough evidence to say.
I find it interesting, however, that these reports seem to have not started until around 1944. World war II was nearing its end at that time with the defeat of the axis powers inevitable. There was, however, a new technology that had just come online.
The X-10 Graphite Reactor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-10_Graphite_Reactor
Quote
The X-10 Graphite Reactor was the first reactor designed and built for continuous operation. It was built during World War II as part of the Manhattan Project... The reactor went critical on November 4, 1943, and produced its first plutonium in early 1944. It supplied the Los Alamos Laboratory with its first significant amounts of plutonium, and its first reactor-bred product. Studies of these samples heavily influenced bomb design.
To any hypothetical entity advanced enough to be hanging out in near earth at the time starting the X-10 Graphite Reactor would likely be akin to setting off a signal flare.
Detection of (Nuclear) Reactors by their Gamma-ray and Positron Emissions
http://scienceandglobalsecurity.org/archive/sgs01primackA.pdf
Quote from: Joel R. Primack
A ban on nuclear reactors in orbit could be verified using the tremendous flux of gamma rays and positrons that such reactors emit when operating. Indeed, these radiations already constitute a significant background for orbiting gamma-ray
astronomical satellites.
In this paper, we estimate the gamma-ray flux from reactors on spacecraft, using the design parameters for the US SP-100 space reactor as an example. We then summarize the sensitivities of several existing and planned gamma-ray detectors.
astronomical satellites.
In this paper, we estimate the gamma-ray flux from reactors on spacecraft, using the design parameters for the US SP-100 space reactor as an example. We then summarize the sensitivities of several existing and planned gamma-ray detectors.
Finally, one last interesting data point to consider.
Green fireballs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_fireballs#Early_green_fireballs
Quote
Green fireballs are a type of unidentified flying object which have been sighted in the sky since the late 1940s.[1] Early sightings primarily occurred in the southwestern United States, particularly in New Mexico.[2][3][4] They were once of notable concern to the US government because they were often clustered around sensitive research and military installations, such as Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratory, then Sandia base.
Meteor expert Dr. Lincoln LaPaz headed much of the investigation into the fireballs on behalf of the military. LaPaz's conclusion was that the objects displayed too many anomalous characteristics to be a type of meteor and instead were artificial, perhaps secret Russian spy devices... The green fireballs were seen by many people of high repute including LaPaz, distinguished Los Alamos scientists, Kirtland AFB intelligence officers and Air Command Defense personnel.[5] ...
Perhaps the most graphic example occurred during the "Buster series" of atomic tests on November 1 and 5, 1951, which were accompanied by so many reported green fireball sightings in states affected by fallout, that even the New York Times carried a story on November 9, "Southwest's 7 Fireballs in 11 Days Called 'Without Parallel in History'." Dr. LaPaz was widely quoted saying, "There has never been a rate of meteorite fall in history that has been one-fifth as high as the present fall. If that rate should continue, I would suspect the phenomenon is not natural... [they] don't behave like ordinary meteorites at all."
Initially the green fireballs were reported in Arizona and New Mexico as the fallout clouds left Nevada, but as the clouds spread out and drifted further east, south, and north, green fireball sightings then followed in Texas, northern Mexico, Iowa, Kansas, Indiana, Michigan, and New York. Portions of the fallout also drifted west into the Los Angeles area on November 7, followed the next day by a green fireball sighting there...
Summarizing the rash of fireball sightings in November 1951, Wilson commented, "Some researchers imply that the radioactivity itself was producing the green fireballs, possibly as an electrostatic effect.
Wilson concluded, "We can make one statement of fact: the fireball sightings—green or otherwise—occurred in areas that received radioactive debris from Operation Buster. Was this just coincidence, or a planned occurrence? We simply don't know, so all we can do is to continue to collect data and see if some overwhelmingly convincing pattern emerges." Wilson nonetheless felt the evidence pointed to the fireballs being real, artificial, and those responsible having some sort of agenda."
Meteor expert Dr. Lincoln LaPaz headed much of the investigation into the fireballs on behalf of the military. LaPaz's conclusion was that the objects displayed too many anomalous characteristics to be a type of meteor and instead were artificial, perhaps secret Russian spy devices... The green fireballs were seen by many people of high repute including LaPaz, distinguished Los Alamos scientists, Kirtland AFB intelligence officers and Air Command Defense personnel.[5] ...
Perhaps the most graphic example occurred during the "Buster series" of atomic tests on November 1 and 5, 1951, which were accompanied by so many reported green fireball sightings in states affected by fallout, that even the New York Times carried a story on November 9, "Southwest's 7 Fireballs in 11 Days Called 'Without Parallel in History'." Dr. LaPaz was widely quoted saying, "There has never been a rate of meteorite fall in history that has been one-fifth as high as the present fall. If that rate should continue, I would suspect the phenomenon is not natural... [they] don't behave like ordinary meteorites at all."
Initially the green fireballs were reported in Arizona and New Mexico as the fallout clouds left Nevada, but as the clouds spread out and drifted further east, south, and north, green fireball sightings then followed in Texas, northern Mexico, Iowa, Kansas, Indiana, Michigan, and New York. Portions of the fallout also drifted west into the Los Angeles area on November 7, followed the next day by a green fireball sighting there...
Summarizing the rash of fireball sightings in November 1951, Wilson commented, "Some researchers imply that the radioactivity itself was producing the green fireballs, possibly as an electrostatic effect.
Wilson concluded, "We can make one statement of fact: the fireball sightings—green or otherwise—occurred in areas that received radioactive debris from Operation Buster. Was this just coincidence, or a planned occurrence? We simply don't know, so all we can do is to continue to collect data and see if some overwhelmingly convincing pattern emerges." Wilson nonetheless felt the evidence pointed to the fireballs being real, artificial, and those responsible having some sort of agenda."
Again no proof here, but probably enough to justify keeping an open mind regarding various possible causes. Perhaps world war 2 pilot's where simply prone to seeing similar types of hallucinations. Perhaps the green fireballs are the result of some type of atmospheric phenomena that we still do not really understand today or of unprecedented meteor shower. Nevertheless, alternative theories cannot be entirely dismissed here.
October 04, 2016, 03:23:27 AM
There is no "Creation Theory." Creationism is not a theory at all. It is a religiously based assertion with no basis in fact.
Theories come from people who make theories. There are loads of potential theories that simply haven't been made yet, some of which will never be made, simply because nobody makes them.
The fact that creation existed is shown by entropy theory, and the fact that high complexity exists. If there were no creation... if everything had always existed... entropy would have reduced complexity in the universe to a blob of super simplicity long ago.
What you say is the way that it is suppose to work. But what is behind the theory making? Isn't it the desire to lay down a base of examination, to find facts in a certain area, the area of the theory? This means that the person who makes the theory is often clouded by his own desires to find a theory that fits the things that he wants them to fit. Because of this, he often ignores a whole lot of things that would make the theory to be ridiculous if he had considered them.
The example? Science would become a whole lot more logical and accurate if scientists who make theories would do two simple, little things:
1. In all their theory making, take into account that cause and effect is a law of the universe, upheld by Newton's 3rd LAW, and recognize the significance of it;
2. Recognize the fact that probability math negates the possibility of evolution.
Want two examples of science theory that should not fall into the realm of theory at all, because they don't fit the theory process? Big Bang Theory and Black Hole Theory. Neither of these theories should be theories because neither will ever be able to be proven to be fact or not. Yet they are very popular theories... so popular that thousands of people believe them even though they can never be proven to be true or false. When people believe something that can never be proven, they have a religion for themselves. Religion is what science has become, but it was never meant to be that way.
Both science and religion are first and foremost based on beliefs/theories that cannot be proven at first.
And both share a certain amount of truth within those bodies of data.
To think that life originated from matter just by itself is as idiotic as anything can be.
Life is sparked and driven by the desire to survive something that no rock will ever have.
October 02, 2016, 08:35:14 AM
There is no "Creation Theory." Creationism is not a theory at all. It is a religiously based assertion with no basis in fact.
Theories come from people who make theories. There are loads of potential theories that simply haven't been made yet, some of which will never be made, simply because nobody makes them.
The fact that creation existed is shown by entropy theory, and the fact that high complexity exists. If there were no creation... if everything had always existed... entropy would have reduced complexity in the universe to a blob of super simplicity long ago.
What you say is the way that it is suppose to work. But what is behind the theory making? Isn't it the desire to lay down a base of examination, to find facts in a certain area, the area of the theory? This means that the person who makes the theory is often clouded by his own desires to find a theory that fits the things that he wants them to fit. Because of this, he often ignores a whole lot of things that would make the theory to be ridiculous if he had considered them.
The example? Science would become a whole lot more logical and accurate if scientists who make theories would do two simple, little things:
1. In all their theory making, take into account that cause and effect is a law of the universe, upheld by Newton's 3rd LAW, and recognize the significance of it;
2. Recognize the fact that probability math negates the possibility of evolution.
Want two examples of science theory that should not fall into the realm of theory at all, because they don't fit the theory process? Big Bang Theory and Black Hole Theory. Neither of these theories should be theories because neither will ever be able to be proven to be fact or not. Yet they are very popular theories... so popular that thousands of people believe them even though they can never be proven to be true or false. When people believe something that can never be proven, they have a religion for themselves. Religion is what science has become, but it was never meant to be that way.
October 02, 2016, 02:46:14 AM
There is no "Creation Theory." Creationism is not a theory at all. It is a religiously based assertion with no basis in fact.
Theories come from people who make theories. There are loads of potential theories that simply haven't been made yet, some of which will never be made, simply because nobody makes them.
The fact that creation existed is shown by entropy theory, and the fact that high complexity exists. If there were no creation... if everything had always existed... entropy would have reduced complexity in the universe to a blob of super simplicity long ago.
October 01, 2016, 11:22:00 PM
Intertwined throughout the thinking of the author(s) of the Wikipedia article, and other authors listed above, is the idea of evolution. You don't need me to do an Internet search on probability math regarding evolution. Even if evolution probability, were possible probability math-wise, it wouldn't be as probable as abiogenesis.
Probability of what? That we arrived here as we are now due to evolutionary advance?
I (and I am AnonyMint) think that is entirely the wrong way to look at it. We could simply be one of the innumerable (quadrillions or higher) of variants of outcomes that exist in the universe. It doesn't require any probable advance from tadpoles to monkeys to learning to use our thumbs and stand up, rather it is just is.
Complexity is increasing because the number of variants in the universe is always increasing. That doesn't mean the probability of a subsequent variant is increasing, because the Verlinde entropic force is greater for matter that is in "proximity" (meaning more generally I think resonant and this is a direction I want to go with future research and thought but no time right now). Thus from any relative perspective, the probability of perceiving any specific variant is decreasing, while the complexity of variants which exist but are only omnisciently perceived, is increasing. So afaics "evolution" and omniscient creation would not be incongruent.
The key is unifying relativism together with the concept of entropy. I think this is the missing link that the researchers need to pursue. It is not enough to say the entropy has increased, if it isn't qualified relative to what. Then we end up with infinite recursion (two mirrors facing each other), which is a more accurate model of a universe that has no perception of its bound (in time, space, etc).
One little problem with all of what you say here. There is no proof of any of it, and the little of it that looks plausible, can be explained in many other ways at the same time.
The probability that the building blocks of life could ever come together in such a way as to form life is so small that it is essentially impossible. The probability that living-life could change, without change-programming being built into it, is even smaller.
Cause and effect is so extremely abundant in everything that we see, and nothing that we see can be factually explained any other way, that it shows that the universe and life was programmed.
In its basic form, entropy is reduction of complexity. This is slowly happening to everything around us. Because life is as complex as it is, entropy works faster with life than it does with other things. The result is death, and then further reduction of complexity through decomposition.
Perhaps we don't like this. But it is abundantly factual all around us. The things you say are not factual.
October 01, 2016, 10:50:31 PM
Intertwined throughout the thinking of the author(s) of the Wikipedia article, and other authors listed above, is the idea of evolution. You don't need me to do an Internet search on probability math regarding evolution. Even if evolution probability, were possible probability math-wise, it wouldn't be as probable as abiogenesis.
Probability of what? That we arrived here as we are now due to evolutionary advance?
I (and I am AnonyMint) think that is entirely the wrong way to look at it. We could simply be one of the innumerable (quadrillions or higher) of variants of outcomes that exist in the universe. It doesn't require any probable advance from tadpoles to monkeys to learning to use our thumbs and stand up, rather it is just is.
Complexity is increasing because the number of variants in the universe is always increasing. That doesn't mean the probability of a subsequent variant is increasing, because the Verlinde entropic force is greater for matter that is in "proximity" (meaning more generally I think resonant and this is a direction I want to go with future research and thought but no time right now). Thus from any relative perspective, the probability of perceiving any specific variant is decreasing, while the complexity of variants which exist but are only omnisciently perceived, is increasing. So afaics "evolution" and omniscient creation would not be incongruent.
The key is unifying relativism together with the concept of entropy. I think this is the missing link that the researchers need to pursue. It is not enough to say the entropy has increased, if it isn't qualified relative to what. Then we end up with infinite recursion (two mirrors facing each other), which is a more accurate model of a universe that has no perception of its bound (in time, space, etc).
September 30, 2016, 04:56:52 AM
September 28, 2016, 07:49:28 PM
September 28, 2016, 04:25:17 PM
Intervention Theory is nonsense.
Everything wears out. Even though entropy is detailed, it still exists. Intervention theory is nonsense because the very nature of things shows a gradual breaking down of complexity.
The reverse of Intervention Theory is true. There was far greater complexity and diversity in the past. The fossil record shows this. The closest we might come to intervention is, somebody is slowing down entropy a little.
Until science recognizes the fact of devolution rather than evolution, things like Intervention Theory are only a way for them to increase their popularity so that they can receive recognition and make money.
Everything wears out. Even though entropy is detailed, it still exists. Intervention theory is nonsense because the very nature of things shows a gradual breaking down of complexity.
The reverse of Intervention Theory is true. There was far greater complexity and diversity in the past. The fossil record shows this. The closest we might come to intervention is, somebody is slowing down entropy a little.
Until science recognizes the fact of devolution rather than evolution, things like Intervention Theory are only a way for them to increase their popularity so that they can receive recognition and make money.
September 28, 2016, 04:04:09 PM
Intervention Theory in regards to plant domestication is a bold claim. It is a factual claim and one that with time and study we should be able to find increasing and objective evidence for one way or another. As we lack definitive data currently it is not unreasonable for most to support the status quo of modern biology.
However, I also believe it unwise to totally reject the theoretical possibility of intervention theory. Our overall knowledge is limited. Until the history of crop domestication is fully understood one cannot completely rule it out.
I choose not to support the status quo of modern biology and its adherents on this question because "it is unlikely that such variants pre-existed as common, neutral alleles in wild populations". The things they find when examining [domesticated plants] are [very] far outside the accepted evolutionary paradigm that.
Especially troubling was the absence of "transitional species" in the fossil record. Those were needed to prove that, over vast amounts of time, species did in fact gradually transform into other, "higher" species. Like Pye, I am not "confident their fabled missing link will be found beneath the next overturned rock".
Thomas H. Morgan, who won a Nobel Prize for work on heredity, wrote: “Within the period of human history, we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another if we apply the most rigid and extreme tests used to distinguish wild species.” Colin Patterson, director of the British Museum of Natural History, stated: “No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has gotten near it.” And these are by no means exceptional disclosures.
Scientists know these limitations of evolutionary theory are true and will be enduring, but shamefully few have the nerve to address them openly.
Darwin and his cohorts were promoting a theory based on three fallacious “gaps” in reasoning that could not be reconciled with the knowledge of their era. What is so telling about Dawson’s three fallacies is that they remain unchanged to this day.
This results in much confusion:
Mathematicians model mutation rates and selective forces, which biologists do not trust. Geneticists have little use for palaeontologists, who return the favour in spades (pun intended). Cytogenetics labours to find a niche alongside genetics proper. Population geneticists utilise mathematical models that challenge palaeontologists and systematists.
Botanists know they have a serious problem here, but all they can suggest is that it simply had to have occurred by natural means because no other intervention--by God or You Know What--can be considered under any circumstances. That unwavering stance is maintained by all scientists, not just botanists, to exclude overwhelming evidence such as the fact that in 1837 the Botanical Garden in St Petersburg, Russia, began concerted attempts to cultivate wild rye into a new form of domestication. They are still trying, because their rye has lost none of its wild traits, especially the fragility of its stalk and its small grain. Therein lies the most embarrassing conundrum botanists face.
Most of this post is quoted from Pye's writings on Intervention Theory:
http://whale.to/b/pye1.html
http://www.lloydpye.com/essay_interventiontheory.htm
Among those who study the processes of life on Earth, they must cope with the knowledge that a surprising number of species have no business being here. In some cases, they can't even be here. Yet they are, for better or worse, and those worst-case examples must be hidden or at least obscured from the general public. But no matter how often facts are twisted, data are concealed or reality is denied, the truth is out there.
When all of the above is taken together--the inexplicable puzzles presented by domesticated plants, domesticated animals and humans--it is clear that Darwin cannot explain it, modern scientists cannot explain it, not Creationists nor Intelligent Design proponents. None of them can explain it, because it is not explainable in only Earthbound terms.
We will not answer these questions with any degree of satisfaction until our scientists open their minds and squelch their egos enough to acknowledge that they do not, in fact, know much about their own backyard. Until that happens, the truth will remain obscured.
September 28, 2016, 11:53:35 AM
Reading some of these reply is like taking Star Wars as a fact.
September 28, 2016, 12:39:11 AM
If we have gotten any intervention, then it's been from aliens.
As in "Highlander," there can be only one.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.16385964
That sounds like planet x and pole shift.
September 27, 2016, 08:47:09 PM
If we have gotten any intervention, then it's been from aliens.
As in "Highlander," there can be only one.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.16385964
September 27, 2016, 08:29:04 PM
If we have gotten any intervention, then it's been from aliens.
September 27, 2016, 01:28:39 PM
BADecker and logic never goes together
If the interpretation of Genesis above correct then Genesis describes something that science would not grasp for another 3,000+ years.
The overall interpretation is very much a theistic one if perhaps unconventional.
Perhaps it is not such a good idea to immediately dismiss BADeckers positions as illogical without first evaluating and weighing them.
September 27, 2016, 12:56:35 PM
Who or what were the vegetables for in pre-sin times?
I suspect some logical extrapolation is expected.
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/what-do-monkeys-eat.html
Quote
Most monkeys are omnivores. They love eating ripe fruits and seeds, but they also eat vegetables. Besides bark and leaves, they eat honey and flowers as well. The howler monkey is known as the loudest land animal. You can hear their loud calls even when you are 3 miles away from them in jungles. They are strictly vegetarians and enjoy eating small, young, tender leaves by hanging upside down from their tails. Their diet consists of fresh fruits like yams, bananas, grapes, and green vegetables. Various plants in the canopy layer of the rainforests act as cups and store water for them. Facts about monkeys inform us that they use their lips and hands skillfully to eat only those parts of vegetation which they want. All monkeys wander in search of food during the day,
BADecker and logic never goes together
Jump to: