RICHPLANET.NET FORUM : WE ARE NOT ADMITTING NEW MEMBERS AT THIS POINT IN TIME.  THIS IS DUE TO PREVIOUS TROLLS ATTACKING THE FORUM.<br>
There is still no decision on whether new members will be added.  This can only happen when suitable moderators are in place, who are not easy to find for obvious reasons. www.richplanet.net community built on miniBB / RICHPLANET.NET FORUM : WE ARE NOT ADMITTING NEW MEMBERS AT THIS POINT IN TIME. THIS IS DUE TO PREVIOUS TROLLS ATTACKING THE FORUM.
There is still no decision on whether new members will be added. This can only happen when suitable moderators are in place, who are not easy to find for obvious reasons.
/

HIDDEN TECHNOLOGY

 Page:  ««  1  2  ...  8  9  10  11  12  ...  97  98  »» 
dreamkatcher
Member
#136 | Posted: 7 Jan 2010 11:43
Reply 
Some of my mails not getting through. Still no internet connection but using laptop/dongle, not reliable. Read this info.... amazing. DK

http://www.projectpegasus.net/
dreamkatcher
Member
#137 | Posted: 10 Jan 2010 13:43
Reply 
http://www.drboylan .com/xplanes2. html

DK
monkeyboy
Member
#138 | Posted: 10 Jan 2010 15:27
Reply 
dreamkatcher:
Some of my mails not getting through. Still no internet connection but using laptop/dongle, not reliable. Read this info.... amazing. DK

http://www.projectpegasus.net/

interesting inteview DK i have come across this information before have you seen "The prestige" the film is about a magician using a tesla invention that replicates whatever you put into it but this was an offshoot of his time travel experiments so they also have replicator tech also.
dreamkatcher
Member
#139 | Posted: 11 Jan 2010 08:36
Reply 
MB

No, not seen, but will watch out for it. Thanks

This landline connection doing my head in........ lol. Engineer turned up here 7am on Saturday morning. Ive had more engineers here lately than dinners.... still no further forward.

DK
Starseed
Guest
#140 | Posted: 23 Jan 2010 11:30
Reply 
Wow! UK parliamentary investigation into Climategate may not be a whitewash
By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: January 22nd, 2010

The Commons Science and Technology Committee has launched an inquiry into "the unauthorised publication of data, emails and documents relating to the work of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA)" ie Climategate.

On 1 December 2009 Phil Willis, Chairman of the Science and Technology Committee, wrote to Professor Edward Acton, Vice-Chancellor of UEA following the considerable press coverage of the data, emails and documents relating to the work of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU). The coverage alleged that data may have been manipulated or deleted in order to produce evidence on global warming. On 3 December the UEA announced an Independent Review into the allegations to be headed by Sir Muir Russell.

The Independent Review will:

1. Examine the hacked e-mail exchanges, other relevant e-mail exchanges and any other information held at CRU to determine whether there is any evidence of the manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice and may therefore call into question any of the research outcomes.

2. Review CRU's policies and practices for acquiring, assembling, subjecting to peer review and disseminating data and research findings, and their compliance or otherwise with best scientific practice.

3. Review CRU's compliance or otherwise with the University's policies and practices regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act ('the FOIA') and the Environmental Information Regulations ('the EIR') for the release of data.

4. Review and make recommendations as to the appropriate management, governance and security structures for CRU and the security, integrity and release of the data it holds .

But here's the really surprising part: it's planning to ask the right questions.

What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?
Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate (see below)?
How independent are the other two international data sets?

This is very heartening news for taxpayers, rationalists, and everyone who believes in the integrity of the scientific process. More encouraging still is Bishop Hill's suggestion that it might be used by climate realists in the US government to launch a pincer movement against the eco fascists in the Obama administration:

Joe Barton, the man behind the US Senate's 2006 hearings on the Hockey Stick, has been stirring things up in Washington again:

Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) is pressing Energy Secretary Steven Chu for information about department ties to the U.K. climate institute at the center of the controversy over the infamous hacked climate science emails.

Barton, the top Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, and Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) wrote to Chu Friday asking about DoE funding for projects connected to the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.

Observes the Bishop: Coming so soon after the announcement of the UK Parliamentary inquiry, one can't help but wonder if the timing is entirely coincidental. Nevertheless, shedding sunlight on what has been going on is certainly no bad thing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good old Delingpole!!!

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100023449/wow-uk-parliamentary-inve stigation-into-climategate-may-not-be-a-whitewash/
Starseed
Guest
#141 | Posted: 23 Jan 2010 11:31 | Edited by: Starseed
Reply 
wooops!
Starseed
Guest
#142 | Posted: 23 Jan 2010 11:33
Reply 
Why the BBC will always be wrong on Climate Change

Today I had another go at the BBC for its biased coverage of 'Climate Change', this time venturing into the belly of the beast itself for an interview on Radio 4's Media Show. (God I hate doing programmes on the BBC. If you want to hear me on form, listen to me on US radio where my dangerously conservative views get so much more sympathetic a reception here, say, from my old mate Greg Garrison).

Anyway, the BBC is clearly very het up about the notion that it's in breach of its code of impartiality as it most definitely is in its science coverage. But trying to explain to the BBC why its coverage is skewed in a painfully left-liberal, eco-fascist direction is bit like trying to tell Attila the Hun that he errs on the side of pillage and rape: for both Attila and the BBC...

Read More
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/jamesdelingpole/

This guy really is one of the good guys!
Dave Hall
Member
#143 | Posted: 23 Jan 2010 14:45
Reply 
What think you of this?
D.
In 1997, US Secretary of Defense William Cohen also expressed concern about activities that "can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves."

The US government, however, has chosen to stick to its position that HAARP is merely a program aimed at analyzing the Earth's ionosphere for the purpose of developing communications and surveillance technology
dreamkatcher
Member
#144 | Posted: 23 Jan 2010 15:15
Reply 
Starseed
Guest
#145 | Posted: 23 Jan 2010 16:26
Reply 
dreamkatcher:
Have you read Nick Begich?

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/guest/begich-nick/5914

Yes, but you are preaching to the converted on this forum. I mean, is there anyone out there who wants an argument about the whole HAARP thing? No? That`s because we`re all singing from the same hymn sheet on here.

Or - if not - lets have an argument (discussion)
Starseed
Guest
#146 | Posted: 23 Jan 2010 16:31
Reply 
Dave Hall:
The US government, however, has chosen to stick to its position that HAARP is merely a program aimed at analyzing the Earth's ionosphere for the purpose of developing communications and surveillance technology

They 'might' be telling the truth.

Kennedy was shot by Oswald acting alone too...
Dave Hall
Member
#147 | Posted: 24 Jan 2010 15:29
Reply 
What the hell is going on in Austrailia.
Comments please, is this HAARP AGAIN!!!!!!
Dave.
URL
dreamkatcher
Member
#148 | Posted: 24 Jan 2010 17:30
Reply 
The grass is green !
Starseed
Guest
#149 | Posted: 24 Jan 2010 17:30
Reply 
As if any proof were needed:


Last decade warmest ever: NASA

The past decade was the warmest ever on Earth, a new analysis of global surface temperatures released by NASA showed Thursday.

This piece of SHIT soundbite/headline from these cunts:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/last-decade-warmest-ever-nasa-1877413.h...

---------------------------------------------------------------------

The very top comment sums this up perfectly. Enough said.

The Independent really ought to read these outsources articles before reproducing them on this site. Whoever "Relax News" is they start this article with a huge error: "warmest ever on Earth". This is certainly not what NASA claimed.

But who cares, when it comes to climate journalism any and all exageration is welcome. Up until last week NASA itself was even exagerating the now discreditted IPCC report's "himalayan glaicers gone by 2035" claim by giving 2030 instead. Since that claim was found to be completely unfounded NASA have removed the claim altogether.

If we look at the Met. Office's lastest global temperature graph you don' t need to be a climatologist to note a distinct change in the trend that had the world in hysterics in recent years.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/comparison.html

"we find global warming is continuing unabated," Hansen said in a statement.

If Hansen wishes to see that as "unabated" and only sees a "leveling off" in the 1940s he should probably stop pretending to be a scientist.

I am not alone in being sick to the back teeth of these lies and distortions by those claiming to represent science.

I would also expect a reputable newspaper like the Independent not to propagate such disinformation without , it seems , even reading to check if it makes sense.
Joe
Member
#150 | Posted: 31 Jan 2010 04:10
Reply 
"There are elements with higher atomic numbers which are stable, even though they don't occur naturally on earth and we can't synthesize them in particle accelerators. These are the elements in the 114, 115 range, which don't appear on our periodic chart. Beyond element 115, the elements become unstable again and, in fact, element 116 decays in a fraction of a second."

The above statement may have been true at one time, but if you look at the "periodic table" to date, more new elements have been added. The 114, 115 & 116 range have been surpassed; a total of 118 elements now exist.

Bob Lazar says himself [I think] that these elements do not occur on Earth? I would like to hear what he has to say now.
 Page:  ««  1  2  ...  8  9  10  11  12  ...  97  98  »» 
Your reply
Bold Style  Italic Style  Image Link  URL Link 

   
» Username  » Password 
Only registered users are allowed to post here. Please enter your login/password details upon posting a message, or sign up first
TO JOIN THIS FORUM: WE ARE NOT ADMITTING NEW MEMBERS AT THIS POINT IN TIME. THIS IS DUE TO PREVIOUS TROLLS ATTACKING THE FORUM.
We may be considering adding new members on a "block basis". We will collect new member requests and then introduce a new batch. The new memebrs will be identifiable by a prefix in their username as a "new member". Anyone considered to be trolling or causing trouble will be immedialtey removed. To be put on the list please email richard@richplanet.net AND GIVE YOUR US NAME, A USERNAME, PASSWORD. I would imagine a new batch of new members will be added in January 2012.
 

Forums are powered by miniBB®