Nice Catch Duckster
http://www.naa.gov.au/publications/fact_sheets/FS129.html
http://www.oneworld.org/ips2/jan98/australia2.html
Plus:
http://google.yahoo.com/bin/query?p=australia+nuclear+tests&hc=0&hs=0
There has been concern over the years that the US bases in Australia are up to no good - the main point cited is that there are areas off limits to Australian personnel. Whilst I can understand these concerns (probably similar to those felt in Japan and Germany, etc), the goings on inside these bases, however secret they may be, are probably no more sinister than anything happening in US bases on American soil -which most Americans are not privy to. Australia is in a strategically important position for the US, and the Americans would be silly not to make use of this. Australian government, defence, and intelligence would definitely be getting something out of the bargain. I’m sure our aliens are no different to the ones at Area 51. Those cargo planes are probably full of gear for setting up an underground McDonalds or something… 
BTW, what is this Board’s fascination with Vegemite (I probably shouldn’t complain, coz I did my bit to encourage this by sending off a jar to a US doper)? It’s great stuff, but it’s just a sandwich spread already!
Oh, sure! That’s what they want you to believe. 
In the waning years of the Clinton Administration, the US and Australia signed a number of defense agreements, one of which raised the status of Australian security access to the top level. This means any and all secret information is shared equally between both countries. It is my understanding, this is the same level of access as Canada and the UK.
As for those cargo planes, I am aware of several in the past which departed Australia for a nonstop to CONUS where the flight path was to be kept as level as possible, full stop. The rate of climb was practically non-existent. They were carrying something very large and very heavy which could not be out of level by more than a few degrees for the entire flight.
BTW, aliens to Australia generally arrive by boat, they get locked up for two years at taxpayers expense before they are released into the country.
No guards, the handcuffs won’t be necessary [sub]for the moment[/sub]. Just stand outside the door. adopts insincere friendly demeanour and slaps samclem on the shoulder Soooo, samclem ol’ mate, you appear to know a great deal about projec… er… I mean… Vegemite. Please, do have a seat. You and I need to have a little chat.
I must be totally missing the point somewhere, but I don’t understand what you are hinting is on the planes. Top secret, large, heavy, has to stay level…and I think you’re implying that it’s capable of causing earth tremors and fireballs.
Well, I was going to say World’s Largest Etch-a-Sketch, but the fireball requirement has me stymied.
I suggest you reread the thread, complete with splinters.
Okay, I’ve reread the thread, and am no closer to understanding exactly what you’re talking about. You seem to be circling around the idea that some kind of secret US/Australian military research is causing fireballs and explosions out in the desert, and whatever is going on is big, heavy, and needs to be kept level.
There were definitely bad things going on with the British/Australian nuclear tests in the 1950s. (Thanks for the cites, crc!) I went looking for a cite for your assertion that “confirmed reports of human body parts of dead Australians being shipped to the USA and the UK for testing of trace radioactivity. This report is less than six months old and includes adults as well as children.” and found this and this, etc. But these tests all were done in the 50’s through 70’s. It’s evidence that the British, American and Australian governments weren’t exactly on their best behavior to their citizens during the Cold War, but doesn’t specifically relate to the topic at hand.
This other thread makes it quite clear you don’t trust the Australian government, but I’d like to see some actual substantive statements about what they’re hiding.
Could you please give us a clear statement of what you think is going on? (And what the heck does “complete with splinters” mean?)
OK, here goes …
-
The Australian government has been into high-tech research for a long time, much of it at the request of, and/or in conjunction with the USA and the UK. A considerable portion of this research is military-based, with dollar amounts spent indicating funding for such projects must be coming from overseas.
-
It is possible that those fireballs and subsequent explosions may be human caused in origin which have nothing to do with Cecil’s original post on the issue. I merely suggest you look beyond the rhetoric and do some research on your own, preferably with non-USA based search engines and media outlets.
-
There are more American military sites in Australia than what is generally known, and of these sites, a number are devoted to more than just tracking and communications.
-
No, I don’t trust the Australian government any more than I trust the US government. Actually less. In my personal and professional interactions with both governments, at all levels, I find the Australian government has an innate distrust of its people. I loathe to provide specific example because unless one has an internal understanding of the society (brought about by actually living there and/or extensive study), one ends up using their own experiences as a baseline of comparison and often draws the incorrect conclusion. However, I will give a few examples.
In many cases it has nothing to do with hiding something in particular as it is the nature of the society, or more accurately, the political structure is being less than truthful with the country’s population. It is a society where the government proposed national ID cards in the late 1980s, but selected media drummed up enough public outcry to apparently stop it - Later the government did it anyway giving it a new name and a different focus. Today, people think little of it, even though individual rights are eroded gradually. It is a society where ex post facto laws are common, especially with tax collection. I’ve seen people use the tax laws to reduce their taxes legally, only to have the government find the revenue so reduced as to pass an ex post facto tax law, backdate it 25 years and proceed to charge thousands with tax evasion and risk fines and jail.
I witnessed the passage of the most draconian Internet censorship laws in the western world. ISPs are required by law to filter all traffic, excluding email, or risk fines and jail. ISPs objected, knowing this was technically impossible. The law exists. I saw a law passed changing Australian copyright laws which effectively make proxy servers and web browsers illegal. Though all of the law is not enforced, all it takes is a decision from the AG to say yes, and that’s it. I saw a new law passed giving one agency unlimited access to any computer in the country, without the need for a third-party warrant. Another law just went into effect which as a byproduct, gives the authority permission to read and censor email, without a warrant. When questioned on this the government apologized for the unintended authority - but refused to repeal that part of the law. They can enforce it at any time without notifying the public or Parliament. A proposed law in one state will give a police officer discretionary authority as to what is or is not illegal with respect to some types of Internet activity. The rule of law is gradually being replaced with individual laws to suit individual whims.
Those are just a few reasons why I do not trust them. Verify my statements as you believe or not because all are available off the web. You just have to know where to look.
This theory is way out there, but quite a few people believe it was a large chunk of anti-matter that caused the explosion. When anti-matter collides with matter (the stuff on earth, and a lot of other places), it creates an intense explosion of energy. Just thought I’d throw this in.
Duckster While I’m convinced you mean well, you are long on generalities, and short on specifics. You appear to give specifics, but you don’t. You make bold statements but give no cites in evidence. You say that much of what you say can be found on the net, if one knows where to look. But you provide no cites.
Just as an example, can you provide any on-line cites to back up your statements
?
Hey, Duckster, thanks for the great reply.
And as one newbie to another, welcome to the boards!
I personally feel satisfied with the evidence that a natural event is responsible for the explosion in question. YMMV.
Haarrrmpphh! 
Sorry for the snit but sometimes I’m amazed at the inability to use search engines …
Take a look at …
Look for
- The 1997 Telecommunications Act
- The 1999 Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Act
- The 1999 Digital Amendment
- The 1999 ASIO Amendment
So how do you explain how a chunk of anti-matter passing through an atmosphere of matter does not explode until it strikes the Earth?
Frame of reference is not the issue, what you need on this message board is cite’s to back up your conclusions. I agree with Samclem that “you are long on generalities, and short on specifics.” Your conclusions are not convincing without cites.
Who said that it struck the Earth? The same explosion in the atmosphere would still be quite impressive-- More so, actually, if it occured at the right height. I don’t buy the antimatter explanation, but that’s just because earthquakes and matter meteors are both a lot more common than antimatter.
Well, I’m neither campaigning for this theory, nor expecting poeple to believe it. As I said, I just thought I’d throw it in there. Figured I’d give the forum more depth. If anyone is that curious as to where I got this info, I read it a few times in a special release by Reader’s Digest - something about the greatest wonders of the world.
Okay I am wading in on this.
And Duckster no you can’t understand it if you haven’t lived there. I am Australian.
Okay first for nuclear test.
- They found no crater. Therefore it could not have been a ground burst.
- There was a fireball. Assuming it was caused by nuclear weapons, it could not have been an underground test.
- That leaves an airburst.
Like many people here, I am aware that the US and Russian governments are able to detect nuclear detonations. The article says that a terrorist group is suspected of detonating the weapon. What possible reason would Australia, US and Russia (I am not aware of UK, France or China but might suspect a similar capability)have for covering that up? Assuming all that any way - what about the EMP (electro magnetic pulse). What kind of yield are we talking about? I know the outback is big and empty, but it says observers could see the flash. Surely we might suppose an EMP would have affected those areas.
You say that the Australian government is capable of cover ups. Well I doubt we are very good at it. We can’t even cover up a phone card scandal. Keating was in power then. Hmmm. Well he has better credentials for a cover up than John Howard would. I’ll admit that. Still there was the pig farm debacle.
Yes there is monitoring of conversations over the airwaves and via internet. There is a joint US-Australian monitoring. And you know what? Australia is pissed because the US gets any info that concerns it sent straight to the US without our review. If you think this isn’t going on in your own country then I think you are a little misguided.
But for the most draconian internet rules, I say go to Afghanistan. Internet is illegal there.
Name for me the specific (sections and all if possible, something a little smaller than the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936) tax law that was backdated 25 years. There have been retrospective tax laws passed here, but to the best of my knowledge the worst retrospective law was one that was backdated 2 years. But it had been announced in a press release allowing plenty of time for affected people to make adjustments. The law was backdated to the date of the press release.
As for the ability to make a nuclear weapon. What was the discovery of giants has now becone the job for technicians. No it is not difficult to make a nuclear weapon. It IS difficult to get the components necessary. You just don’t get uranium, plutonium, tritium, shaped explosives off the supermarket shelf. Where would the terrorists have scrounged them from? No it would be easier to get the whole weapon than to get parts. And it wouldn’t be from the US, I would be starting in Russia.
I don’t think the Lucas Heights reactor makes weapons grade plutonium. Ask me about the new reactor that they want to get when I have more info on it and I’ll reassess. Currently it looks as if is for medical and research purposes only.
Oh and Duckster it might be that we have an inate distrust of Americans, not everyone.
Li
P.S. Everyone lay off the Vegemite. There is nothing better than vegemite on toast and a cup of tea for breaky. To say otherwise is to throw down with me.
Ooops forgot to say I am going with meteor.
Li
Regarding the 1908 Tunguska explosion:
-
It definitely was a fireball, since such fireball was seen by plenty of eyewitnesses. In addition, the shock was from the passage was recorded by microbarometers around the world, something you would NOT see with an earthquake. In addition, an awful lot of dust was introduced in the atmoisphere at the time of the Tunguska event – so much that the sky was virtually light in Europe that night – people could read newspapers without a light after midnight. Finally, there was abother meteorite strike the same day, although not as well known.
-
There * was* physical evidence directly at the site of the “strike”, and fragments of a meteorite were found. But it’s clear that no major portion of the meteorite struck the ground. The explosion evidently took place in the air, and was about the size of the Hiroshima bomb. The trees away from the blast center were blown down, radially away from the explosion, but those underneath remained upright, with their branches stripped away. Leonid Kulik, the first investigator at the site (although almost twenty years after the event) likened it to “a forest of telegraph poles.” Kulik’s later expeditions found small fragments. Later expeditions found extremely tiny “micrometorites” resulting from the airburst. There were depressions in the ground under the “burst”, but these seem to be the result of the heat of the explosion melting the ice in the underlying permafrost, letting the soil sag into depressions. These depressions had a twenty-year growth of sphagnum moss, and one had a tree stump in the bottom, which a metorite strike would have obliterated.
-
The idea that the Tunguska event was caused by antimatter was raised at least three separate and independent times. I’ve never found it convincing – why would you have EXACTLY the right amount of antimatter to make it partway through the atmosphere and explode before hitting the ground. That seems highly unlikely to me. In addition, the presence of real micrometeorite debris at the site and the associated meteorite fall strongly indicate that the Tunguska object was real matter. The Tunguska event has always been a sort of Rorshach test of astrophysics – everybody seems to see reflected in it their favorite pet theory. It has been suggested that it was the result of antimatter (thrice), a micro-black hole, a ball of dust, and a comet head, in addition theories much farther out.
-
If the Australian event were a nuclear event, rather than an earthquake, I suspect the authorities know about it. They’ve sunk a lot of resources and energy into distinguishing between the two based on seismic evidence alone. In addition, they would have picked up radioactive debris at monitoring stations – that’s how they knew that the Soviet Union had exploded their first bomb, “Joe 1”, long before it was expected.