Sardauker-Kirov

Hah. Like the scientists have evidence that ghosts DOESN'T exist. Believing in the existance ghosts is the same thing as believing in God. Scientists will never be able to prove both of their existance. People will believe anything in these days, if they watched too many movies yes. But an expert in the fields of digital art can easily say what is edited and what is not. Same goes for the digital dinosaurs, even though they're not the real thing. Scientists: "If we don't see the thing, the thing does not exist, despite what people claims of what they've seen." People believed in ghosts for almost centuries, much like in the same way with God. There are close-minded people that sticks way too much with the physics books. "If it is not in the book, then it does not exist." They can't use common logic or think. "What if there is something out there." Theory and lack of evidence? Once again, state your OWN evidence about the non-existance of ghosts. I live near the forest and I've witnessed strange events happening near the German defense bunkers, and so did everyone else. People that walked through the forests have seen appearances and heard weird noises, some of them even saw a few 'apparitions' running through the forest with a rifle at night and day. And as for evidence? 46 people has experienced the weird things near the bunkers and forest. %76 of them are not informed about the actual existance of the bunkers. So let me guess your reply to this one; "The 46 must be seeing things because of drugs." Not everyone smokes weed, y'know. And about UFOs, there is a very large chance that UFOs are visiting earth. There are other civilizations out there and there are scientists that believe in their existance. But the same with ghosts, it's hard to determine whether what is real and what is not. Why do they visit earth?.... And why do we visit other planets? Guess.

Light is not smoke you know. The chances that smoke may form a head or anything similiar is higher than that of light. People that call the orbs of light floating around in pictures are fools, and those orbs ARE reflections. Sure, you can alter a picture so you create a ghost. But 'todays' media technology can also be used to spot what is fake and what is not. If the user is highly skilled in the tools. People who do not believe in ghosts have actually seen ghosts and could have experienced strange unexplainable things. Most of my friends do not believe in ghosts and 'yet' they've seen them. Scientists will always call everything fake or an error. Why? Because they don't believe in them, even if they saw a ghost right in front of their face, they will call and see it as an appearance out of their mind. Time-distortions..? Yeah, and a high-density black hole must be residing in my toilet. :P Just kidding.. Anyways, ghosts are researched by ghost hunters... Even though some of them are idiotic as hell. I have my theories with ghosts. Ghosts may be haunting/roaming around a place, because of; The one that died may be so fond to his property that he decides to live near it. Some may be fond to their family so they still live with them as a ghost in secrecy.

Mix between it. ;D

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/good.php

I don't know? Ask them? Maybe they've photographed and made a ghost in those 9501 frames for fun of it. And did you even read, better yet.. DID you even watched it? Some of the pictures were checked and they didn't found any clues of tampering. Science, let me see. What purpose has science actually, with ghosts, science is useful for physical and mental purposes. If you watched ghost documentary on the television (Undoubtedly, you don't watch 'em.) they've discovered that some ghosts pictures are fake, they are either messed with or the most known problems with the photography is the light dots from reflections. Seriously, how can the video be fake? Go do a research on it, my ignorant friend.

Wow, very strange to be having mist in the middle of a house, dry air, garage even. If you actually took the time to watch the videos. Even if scientists gets the hard proof smacked in their face, they continue to deny it and make up petty excuses to cover their own words and ones logic.

link I've heard about people editing pictures..... But seriously, not all of them can be fake.

Only this bothers me, though. What if there's somekind of organized crime within the infrastructure of Communism or if some corrupt guy is bribing the other 'leaders' to do his bidding?

The government serves the people, but at the same time, they serve themselves and they enjoy the power that they have over the people. But seriously, throwing US civilians into a fight like in WW2 is fairly stupid. The draft should only be used if WW3 breaks out and if there is a shortage of men in the military. Much like an all-out-attack if the war gets on the bad side. ((Which will not likely happen.))

Oh god. WW2 style draft, here we come. Edric O has made a nice example for the draft. "We want you dead!" "Fight for freedom and we sit on our comfy chairs, waiting!"

The Germans bombarded Stalingrad to millions of pieces. And if Rommel was in charge, he would knew what tactic to pick if his men was stormed by "Zhukov's" strategy. He would've retaliated with a quick effective attack of whatsoever. Didn't Rommel used the enviroment and the present resources to get himself out of the situations? He was very 'resourceful' And Rommel was very specialized at sneak attacks, stealth, mobility. If he was such a bad commander, he would've lost against the british. ;)

But Rommel has won battles even with the odds against him. The Germans in Russia had logistical problems, supply problems(Partizans and the like) and second, the German division received an inexperienced commander thanks to the tard hitler..(A fatal mistake made by Hitler)

Invading USA is almost impossible. Just think about it. Germany would have to fight with their ships, airplanes, shore defenses etc. Even if Germany has penetrated their way into their defenses, supplies, ammo and the large landscape might pose as a constant obstacle. As for Russia, Germany could easily beat the Russians if they fought them without any other enemies.

The Russians would've been crushed if the allies didn't helped. How is Rommel a bad leader? He defeated the enemy in the most weirdest situations. ::) Obviously, numbers won't decide the outcome of a battle. Once again, take a look at Ghenghis Khan. In war, the quality, tactical strength can decide the outcome of the battle. Especially if the enemy has a certain weakness to exploit.

It was Hitler's fault that the Germans have lost. ::) He was so stubborn and overconfident about his own abilities that he threw a large German division in the hands of a inexperienced commander when the assault on Stalingrad began. The Germans could have won the war, despite the problems that they encountered.