真的有外星人？
1、斯诺登爆料外星人控制美国 外星人总部设在内华达州2、美国工程师临终前公布外星人照片 曾在51区工作
3、洛克希德马丁:可安装在卡车的小型核聚变反应堆10年内诞生
记得年初斯诺登说有外星人的时候，大家都当笑话看的。
这次马丁公司工程师说有外星人，然后就有消息说马丁公司在核聚变技术上突破。
事情越来越蹊跷了啊。
难道这，真的有外星人？{:soso_e114:}
看看将来老美还能出什么怪招，搬出老外（星人），大家看看，咱还是有三只眼的:lol，不过也不排除真有外星人这种可能:P 真有外星人的帮助，那技术也不至于只有现在这个水平，应该歼星舰都出来了，银河系随便进出了
难道外星人准备一点一点释放技术，坐享千年之利？ 本帖最后由 loy_20002000 于 2014-11-3 16:06 编辑
司诺登其实也是你们地球人说的外星人。他来自一个叫半螃蟹座阿尔法1872D的行星，那个系统有两颗恒星，重力加速度却只有地球的三分之一。
本来我不想说的，可是他背叛了自己的同胞，他不是什么英雄，只是一个反骨仔。他这个东西很奇怪，我第一遇到他的时候就对他说，不要把核裂变技术告诉人类，那会有严重的后果，可他不听，告诉了一个叫哈恩的人。
我和他的行星在四十万年前被一场莫名其妙的战争毁掉了。他的行星我们叫做蓝海，因为是一个水行星，纯粹的蓝色。我的行星叫做地球，他的含义与你们的地球差不多。我的行星与他的行星是因为什么开战的，我也不清楚，就像你们地球人的夫妻吵嘴一样，莫名其妙的就开始了。其中一方最先使用了宇宙场扭曲器，结果是两颗行星被不断扭曲，最后进入了虫洞，整个星系被传送到宇宙的另外一头。我们的那个星系原本很完美，就像你们太阳系一样，可惜战争的结果是多出了一颗恒星，所有行星都被烤焦了，1872D的水分全部被蒸发了。我们有二十亿年的文明，却毁于一场愚蠢的战争。
我和哥哥耶和华因为到其他星系寻找适宜移民的星球而躲过一劫。我们俩就像是孤儿一样漂泊在宇宙中，直到我们发现了地球。原来我以为地球上只有我们两个外星居民，直到我们遇到了约翰。大概是四千年前吧，在巴比伦我遇到了他。他那天正用发电机点亮一只灯泡，底下是无数蒙昧的人类，他们把他当做了神。仪式过后我找到了他，他认出了我是他的邻居，他居住在蓝海。他说他有很多同伴，其中就包括司诺登。过了很多年，他有了一个新的名字，耶稣。司诺登那个时候还叫撒旦。蓝海人不太喜欢他，他也不太合群。
司诺登很自以为是，虚荣心太强。为了显示自己的与众不同他把质能公式告诉了一个叫爱因斯坦的小孩。约翰愤怒极了，差点把他驱逐出族群。我找过他，对他说：你知道我们的知识可以毁灭这个美丽的星球，你不该这样做。他很不屑的说：那个小孩是近亲结婚生下来的，是个弱智，他根本不知道我说的是什么。可是事实证明那个孩子很聪明。
这次司诺登真的把族长惹毛了，他被驱逐了。起因是四十年前他把宇宙的真相告诉了一个叫希格斯的人，就在去年还帮人类发现了叫希格斯波色子的东西。要知道人类知道的越多，就离宇宙场扭曲越近，我们都不希望善良的人类重蹈我们星系的覆辙。
我说得太多了，像司诺登一样。既然他把真相告诉了人类，我也没必要隐瞒，纸毕竟包不住火。本来人类在西元3000年才能发现量子效应的，可是却提前了一千年，这该归功于多嘴虚荣的司诺登。我讲这么多只是想告诉你们人类，司诺登究竟是个什么货色。这就是他的真面目。 loy_20002000 发表于 2014-11-3 15:59 static/image/common/back.gif
司诺登其实也是你们地球人说的外星人。他来自一个叫半螃蟹座阿尔法1872D的行星，那个系统有两颗恒星，重力加 ...
谁写的？ 有没有外星人我不知道，不过这个宇宙有生命应该是普遍现象。 :lol 外星人 为什么要帮助美国人 这不科学 loy_20002000 发表于 2014-11-3 15:59
司诺登其实也是你们地球人说的外星人。他来自一个叫半螃蟹座阿尔法1872D的行星，那个系统有两颗恒星，重力加 ...
脑洞真大，褒义词哈 loy_20002000 发表于 2014-11-3 15:59 static/image/common/back.gif
司诺登其实也是你们地球人说的外星人。他来自一个叫半螃蟹座阿尔法1872D的行星，那个系统有两颗恒星，重力加 ...
有水平 斯诺登爆料外星人控制美国 外星人总部设在内华达州
新闻源头，偶不太清楚，最近没关注斯诺登。
不过如从某方面来看，也不完全是笑话。 不需要阴谋论，搜索一下“共济会”，美国如何建国，与“世界新秩序”。 美国从某种意义上来说也算是“邪教国家”，“美式民主”与American exceptional 像慢性毒药，欺骗的不仅仅是普通美国贫民百姓。。。
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7 ... B%E5%A4%96%E8%AB%96
loy_20002000 发表于 2014-11-3 15:59 static/image/common/back.gif
司诺登其实也是你们地球人说的外星人。他来自一个叫半螃蟹座阿尔法1872D的行星，那个系统有两颗恒星，重力加 ...
司诺登还说：有个像金字塔般的通天天塔，那有神秘的力量，是我们外星人来这里改造地球的使命。。。{:4_280:} polaris1 发表于 2014-11-3 15:10 static/image/common/back.gif
看看将来老美还能出什么怪招，搬出老外（星人），大家看看，咱还是有三只眼的，不过也不排除真有外星人 ...
石人一只眼。。。 雷神也说过类似的东东。不过那文章脑洞大开，雷死人了。 思炎 发表于 2014-11-4 11:18 static/image/common/back.gif
新闻源头，偶不太清楚，最近没关注斯诺登。
不过如从某方面来看，也不完全是笑话。 不需要阴谋论，搜 ...
我认为，美国的体制能够平稳运行至今，有个重要的前提：周遭没有敌国威胁。从二战到越战、海湾，他的对手远隔千山万水，自然能够坐收渔翁之利。
这个新闻的源头是伊朗（我也是看八卦媒体说的，新浪）。 写的真精彩！{:1_1:} 海因杰 发表于 2014-11-4 12:12 static/image/common/back.gif
雷神也说过类似的东东。不过那文章脑洞大开，雷死人了。
是啊，的确是。
《我从远古归来》看完之后，不用看《飞碟探索》一类的科幻杂志了。
本帖最后由 思炎 于 2014-11-6 10:38 编辑
loy_20002000 发表于 2014-11-4 13:23 static/image/common/back.gif
我认为，美国的体制能够平稳运行至今，有个重要的前提：周遭没有敌国威胁。从二战到越战、海湾，他的对手 ...
美国不过200年，还真不敢保证体制就永远伟光正呢， 这几年共和党与民主党的斗争误事，弊端也逐渐露出来。
美国一战时就悄悄发了一票，二战发达。邻国与他实力悬殊，不过与加拿大开战倒吃了苦头。
而且美联储不属于美国政府掌控，无权直接印钞票。国际货币基金组织、世界银行都是私人的。
林肯与肯尼迪被暗杀，据说与共济会有关。
YouTube上肯尼迪最后的演讲，反对“secret society”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdMbmdFOvTs
其中，他说：
"There's a plot in this country to enslave every man, woman and child. Before I leave this high and noble office, I intend to expose this plot."
7天后被暗杀。
美式民主。。。千万不能真当真{:soso_e147:}
思炎 发表于 2014-11-6 10:31 static/image/common/back.gif
美国不过200年，还真不敢保证体制就永远伟光正呢， 这几年共和党与民主党的斗争误事，弊端也逐渐露出来。 ...
美国的民主内耗太严重，总统选举与议会选举频率太高，这也就决定了美国不可能有长远的战略规划。美国在二战的时候发了战争财，因为布雷顿体系确定了美元硬通货的地位，因为“铁幕”确定了美国在欧洲的势力圈。没有二战就没有现在的美国。 很有可能有，但是美国肯定没有{:4_280:} 思炎 发表于 2014-11-6 10:31 static/image/common/back.gif
美国不过200年，还真不敢保证体制就永远伟光正呢， 这几年共和党与民主党的斗争误事，弊端也逐渐露出来。 ...
老大能发下全文吗，这也太阴谋论了吧. pilgrim 发表于 2014-11-11 03:22 http://www.sychaguan.com/static/image/common/back.gif
老大能发下全文吗，这也太阴谋论了吧.
President John F. Kennedy
Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York City
April 27, 1961
Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:
I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.
You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.
You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.
We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the "lousiest petty bourgeois cheating."
But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.
If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man.
I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight "The President and the Press." Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded "The President Versus the Press." But those are not my sentiments tonight.
It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.
Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.
Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.
If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.
On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses that they once did.
It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one's golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man.
My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.
I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future--for reducing this threat or living with it--there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security--a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.
This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.
I
The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.
But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.
Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.
If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.
It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.
Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.
For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.
The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.
The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.
On many earlier occasions, I have said--and your newspapers have constantly said--that these are times that appeal to every citizen's sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.
I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.
Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in America--unions and businessmen and public officials at every level-- will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.
And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.
Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.
II
It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation--an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people--to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.
No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.
I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.
Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.
This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it.
III
It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.
And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.
页:
[1]