I was on another board discussing the shuttle situation, and it seems I walked into what has to be the most laughable conspiracy theory I ever heard! Part of me wants to tell the guy, "You need prayer!" and discreetly walk away. Another part of me wants to make it very clear to them that they are so left field they left the ballpark!

One poster provided these websites:

http://anomalous-images.com/text/FIRESK5.TXT

http://anomalous-images.com/text/FIRESK6.TXT

Honostly, I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this.

Another poster had this to say in reaction to a response I had given him:

Is there any validity to this at all?

** Phil, if you believe this is innapropriate, let me know and I will either delete or modify this posting as is appropriate.

** Would it be alright if I provided a link from that thread on the other board to this thread so they can see the answers themselves? ( I wanted to do this right away, but I wanted to make sure it was OK first.)

Thanks!

__________________
"As I lay beneath the Southern Cross, the stars tell more than I could" . . . David Meece

Well, grand unification had absolutely nothing to do with nuclear power or nuclear energy, that's for sure. Einstein did not acheive unificaiton, though he worked on it for most of his life after GR was completed. Neutrino experiments at the South Pole I've never heard of. What has occurred at the South Pole recently was observations of the CMB polarization. However, neither neutrinos nor CMB polarization does anything more than provide parameter constraints on Grand Unification.

What's more, grand unification in itself will not provide technologies. Application of scientific theory in the engineering realm is what drives technology. There are interesting research questions in applied research too, but it is not from basic research that technologies are developed (except by way of spinoff)

I'd offer help if I had any... but after reading those two text files, I think my brain has melted. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif[/img]

__________________
"Went all the way to the Gap of Rohan only to discover that there is no Gap in Rohan... not even a Banana Republic!"

Well, the sheer lack of basic physics in the argument is appaling.
First, to speak of 4 forces without explaining or understanding them is a problem in it's own right. The Strong Nuclear, Weak Nuclear, Electromagnetic, and Gravitational forces are the ones in question here. Einstein, through Quantum mechanics had the means to explain the relationship between the 1st three, but he spent his life trying to unify gravity.
The idea that gravity has been unified through equations to the other 4 forces is implausible. First of all, although it's true the Superstring theory, if taken mathematically, does go so far as to include a possible role of gravity with the other force, GUT (grand unification theory), it'ss still decades away.
See, in order to combine gravity, you would need a quantum theory of gravity, in other words, you would need to explain gravity in the form of particles called gravitons, but they have yet to be detected. This year, there will be 4 graviton wave detectors to go online, and perhaps then we may discover the weakest of all the elemental forces.
With superstring theory, which is based on the existence of 11 dimensions, it's possible that gravity would be the one force interacting between all the 10 spacial dimensions, given that, in order to explain the inherent weakness, you would need to take into account gravity's existence in the other dimensions. Unlike the other 3 forces, which have no plausibility in interacting in extradimensional space, gravitons, if they do exist, can interact, and thus allow for the unificaiton of all 4.
How all this translates to harnessing power or weaponry is laughable. In order to generate the kinds of energies required to tunnel into extra-dimensional space, and capture gravitons, which if they exist, interact so weakly, it would require the harnessing of at least the total output of power in one day from the sun.
Again, I go back to my original point, let's not get involved in so much speculation that we lose sight of what true causes can be plausible. In the same mindset, let's not be so blind as to allow the media coverage to blind our judgement to other scenarios. There's a fine balance between scepticism, and acceptance.

(very big sigh)

There are 30 of those Fire in the Sky articles. I skimmed through them all, which basically amounted to a giant conspiracy theory of the usual sort: every major event in history in the 20th century was part of some massive behind-the-scenes struggle between various secret societies.

The author's ability to quote private conversations from all parts of the world is probably the best indication that he's making it up. To suggest that "people in the know" told him stuff is being spare with reality.

The best thing I can recommend is to go out and buy a copy of the Steve Jackson Games card game "Illuminati". That's the best way to simulate a world in which Motorcycle Gangs control Hollywood and NASA causes earthquakes (or whatever).

I have to simply say, ignore them.

Much as I would prefer to correct the wrongs of the world, conspiracy theorists are the most narrow minded of people.

They will simply claim that you're "spreading the propaganda", believing the hype. They'll call you gullible for NOT believing that silicon chip technology was given to representatives from the CIA and FBI in exchange for protection of the X'lict'nict people from the galaxy Boorool.

They use apocryphal, anectodal and NO OTHER evidence, which of course cannot be disproven. Only accepted.

They rely on pseudoscience and paranoia to carry ridiculous arguments.

There is no way to argue with these people. It is important, in my opinion to always have an open mind. When someone comes up with a controvertial theory or opinion, it should be examined with logical and critical thought. I, for example, am open to the possibility that there are extra-terrestrials. I am ALSO open to the possibility that there are NOT! Some ACTUAL evidence would be nice, huh?

People hold very strongly to certain beliefs. Given someone's argument, you can argue specific points, but with guys like that "skies of fire" idiot, where do you even start?

In conclusion, there's no point arguing with a fruitcake.

--In conclusion, there's no point arguing with a fruitcake.--

A part of me believes conspiracists would relish talking to a fruitcake, they don't disagree with you. Even if you found a fruitcake that spoke back and dissented, you could always eat it. They are rather delisious.