Clay Pigeon Shooting

The sport of shooting clay pigeons has been popular for centuries. The technology in weaponry has improved drastically in recent years, but the sport itself has remained relatively unchanged for centuries. Clay shooting allows a shooter to practice and train their skills at shooting birds out of the sky. The sport was originally conceived as a way for hunters to hone their skills at shooting and to simulate a real world situation where they might have to quickly draw, aim, and fire to shoot a bird that was flying away from them. The skill can be used in duck hunting, quail, hunting, pheasant hunting, or any other type of fast flying bird hunting.

Clay pigeon shooting can be done individually or it can be done as a social activity. Depending on the type of thrower that is being used, clay shooting is normally done in groups of three or more. Clay targets are simple clay discs that are ejected from a clay pigeon thrower. The thrower will project the clay disc high into the air, or straight out away from the shooter in a simulation of how a real live bird would fly away from a shooter who is hunting.

When clay shooting, the shooter will begin by standing behind the thrower. When the shooter is ready for the clay to be thrown, he will yell “pull”. This command will notify the thrower operator to release the clay. Once the clay target has been released the shooter will track the clay and try to shoot it out of the air. Shooting a clay pigeon can be very difficult and can only be mastered after a lot of practice. In fact, many people practice the sport for their entire lives to be good enough to shoot a clay pigeon on every shot.

Many people shoot clay targets to practice their skills to hunt real bird, while many other people simply decide to shoot clay targets for the sport itself. Clays are shot using a shotgun. The shotgun shoots out a combination of pellets that will spread out in an arcing pattern to hit their target. Different shooters prefer to use different variations of a shotgun and different shot loads, but they all serve the same purpose of hitting the clay pigeons. The sport of shooting clay pigeons can be fun and addicting for anyone who is willing to put the time in to learn.

The History Of Flight Simulator Games

Flight simulators are virtual tools that are designed to teach the user how to fly an aircraft without the risk. When you are learning how to fly professionally or for fun, you cannot buckle yourself into a 747 and expect to catch on in a matter of minutes. Flying an aircraft is not like riding a bike; one small mistake can have serious consequences. This is why flight simulator games were created to help teach training pilots how to fly. Learn about the history of flight simulation and see just how much it has advanced over the years.

The first known arcade game to use flight simulation was Jet Rocket. This simulator was released by Sega in 1970 and was designed as a form of entertainment and not training. The game featured a cockpit complete with all of the controls and a basic and stationary landscaping scene on the screen. Players could shoot missiles and explode targets before their eyes.

The advancement of these types of games brought the release of Jet Rocket making way for a whole genre of combat simulator games. The next popular game to hit the arcades was Interceptor made by Taito in 1975. This first-person shooter took flight simulation to a new level and used a joystick so the player could aim at enemy aircraft and disintegrate them in mid-air.

It was not until the 1980s that flight simulator games were made for personal computers. They have remained very popular on personal computers to this day. The first PC game to hit the market was subLOGIC. The subLOGIC game, created by Bruce Artwick, has basic graphics, real world scenery, and a mock control panel. The creator made several different versions of subLOGIC for Mac computers and later for IBM compatible computers. The IBM compatible versions were licensed under Microsoft as Flight Simulator 1.00. The company later released 2.0 and 3.0 versions with more aircraft options and better graphics.

After PC games, came more advanced games for playing consoles in the home. Sega released a flight simulator game in 1987 that was titled After Burner. This combat game used a joystick and was widely popular on the Genesis and later the PlayStation. Super Nintendo also released a game called Pilotwings. This game helped the player earn their pilot license by completing flight lessons that were built into the game.

These types of games may have started out slow but they have graduated into a huge market. They are designed to entertain you and teach you what it feels like to control an actual aircraft. New simulator games have advanced so much that you will really feel like you are controlling a plane. If you choose the right game, you can use controls that are found in actual cockpits and select the weather and time of day you want to fly. You can even fly over your house and see it with satellite technology. The world of flight games will continue to grow.

Closer to Virtual Reality: Extraterrestrials and the Simulation Hypothesis

I believe that the Simulation Hypothesis – a hypothesis that we ‘live’ as virtual beings inside a simulated landscape inside a computer – is the most probable hypothesis when it comes to choosing between differing possibilities of reality. However, the key word revolves around what I “believe”. I cannot prove that the Simulation Hypothesis is the be-all-and-end-all of our reality – not yet at least though I’m working on that. Thus, I must keep an open mind to the possibility that our reality isn’t virtual but really real. In the meantime my pontificating on the aliens-are-here, the UFO extraterrestrial hypothesis and related, is to be examined here in that virtual reality scenario.

# Virtual Aliens: If the Simulation Hypothesis is correct, what would it mean for aliens to be here? It would mean no more and no less than what would it mean for a simulated couch to be in your simulated living room or a simulated tree in your simulated front yard or a simulated crook to pickpocket your simulated wallet. You’re asking a question about the motivation of whoever programmed into our simulated landscape the this, and the that and the next thing too including the concept of simulated anomalous lights in the sky and simulated extraterrestrials having their wicked way with a select few of us. I have no idea what their motivation might be.

I suggest though that one needs to perhaps look at things through the eyes of our very own simulated beings part-and-parcel of our simulated landscapes in our video games. What would these virtual beings that we have programmed think of all the bits-and-pieces that we have included in their virtual world? Why is this guy shooting at me? Why is this monster lurking in the shadows? Why is this Little Green Man abducting and raping my daughter? Do we not include aliens, and all manner of alien interactions in our own video games? Have we not created video games that revolve around “Star Trek” and “Star Wars” and their associated extraterrestrials? So, if we do it, what’s the issue with what someone (or something) might include in the programming of our simulation and simulated landscape?

Okay, that’s hardly a question that discounts the existence of aliens in the here and now in what you would call our really real reality.

# The Supreme Programmer: It could well be the fact that as far as our Supreme Programmer – the he / she / it / them responsible for creating our virtual reality – is concerned, we are just trivia. If this Supreme Programmer has designed hundreds or thousands of simulated universes and landscapes, then yes, we’re trivial. But then so to is any simulation or video game that we create. You buy an off-the-shelf video game and isn’t really all of the contents really trivial? But back to simulated aliens. Since we have programmed hundreds of video games that feature aliens, and produced hundreds of movies and TV episodes (cinema being just another form of simulation) that featured ET, some made even before the start of the modern UFO era, why should we (Royal We) and why should you (as in just you) raise eyebrows at the thought that our Supreme Programmer(s) featured aliens? Many forms of what passes for entertainment is trivial. Our science fiction novels and short stories feature aliens by the bucketful who don’t “have to travel through space, time, space-time, or even a mental space to get “here”.” Well actually they have to travel via a mental space – the author’s mental space or the film producer’s mental space or the programmer’s mental space. So maybe we’re just entertainment for the Supreme Programmer, the “we’re” including aliens and UFOs all rounding out the Supreme Programmer’s cosmic landscape.

If we could talk to our video game or simulation characters (or characters written into a novel or who appear on the silver screen) – and as you note, we can’t, yet – they might ask questions very similar to what must exist in the minds of readers here about why we (the Royal We), their creators, programmed this or that or the next thing in creating their simulated landscape. We (the Royal We) might respond that that’s the way we wanted it, even if it was trivial, or absurd.

I need point out when addressing the Simulation Hypothesis that no free will exists. The characters in our novels have no free will; the characters in our films have no free will; the characters in our video games have no free will. If we’re the creation of a Supreme Programmer, we have no free will. We might have no free will when we boldly go, but as long as we think we have free will then we (Royal We) can be convinced of our boldly going prowess. That by the by could equally apply even if we exist in a really real reality.

But if anyone has digested anything I’ve ever posted about the Simulation Hypothesis, they’d be aware there is one vast difference between my postulated Supreme Programmer and a supernatural deity, or God if that word floats your boat. My postulated Supreme Programmer is a fallible SOB and ‘oops’ happen and absurdities happen. God, being omni this and omni that and omni the next thing wouldn’t create any oops or absurdities.

It is important to contrast a creation by a perfect being, an omni-God, whose creation logically would be perfect – no anomalies, no absurdities – and an imperfect being like a mortal flesh-and-blood computer programmer whose programming would not always be perfect and would probably contain anomalies and absurdities. The proof of that pudding is it the constant updates and upgrades you get for your PC as well as the news stories that surface from time to time about security programming flaws in software that allow the less than ethical among us to do relatively nasty things to our privacy, our bank accounts, our databases, our private and public institutions, like hacking into the NSA or the CIA, or having the NSA and the CIA hack into our PC’s.

But by the by, if anyone were to wish to call the Supreme Programmer, the software/computer programmer responsible for our Simulated (Virtual Reality) Universe “supernatural”, that’s fine by me as long as it’s not an omni-supernatural he / she / it / they. But what this nitpicking actually contributes to the subject of E.T. and whether or not aliens are, or are not here, in our postulated virtual reality quite escapes me. I doubt if the readers here give a damn whether or not a computer programmer can be defined as someone “supernatural”.

# The Twilight Zone: Whoever, whatever, programmed our cosmos and our local landscape had a sense of the absurd. Perhaps that’s our Supreme Programmer’s sense of humour coming to the fore. What absurdities? Quantum physics is absurd. The fact that we just can’t come up with a Theory of Everything is absurd. An accelerating expansion rate for the cosmos is absurd. Dark Energy and Dark Matter are absurd concepts. Crop circles are absurd (but they’re here). The Loch Ness Monster is absurd (but people report seeing it or them). Long Delayed Echoes are absurd (but verified). Transient Lunar Phenomena are absurd (but verified). Those Martian rock ‘anomalies’ like lizards, rats and skulls are absurd (but they have been photographed). Biblical ‘miracles’ are absurd but millions believe they happened. The SETI “WOW” signal is an absurdity but it happened. There are all manner of archaeological absurdities, but I’ll mention just one – The Temple of Jupiter at Baalbek in modern day Lebanon. There are many things that are absurd when it comes to the human species: here’s one – humans are the only species where the saying “don’t shoot until you see the whites of their eyes makes actual sense. If photons cannot escape from a Black Hole then neither can gravitons. Gravitons convey the gravitational force which means that Black Holes exert no gravity. A Black Hole without gravity is therefore an absurdity. Then you have quasars that appear linked but have vastly differing red shifts which is also an absurdity. The missing satellite of Venus, Neith, is another absurdity as in how can satellites vanish? You have physical constants that apparently aren’t – constant that is. Time travel to the past is both theoretically possible (General Relativity) and theoretically impossible (paradoxes) – it’s an absurdity to have both something that can be and not be at the same time. Ghosts are absurd yet there are probably more sightings of ghosts going back to ancient times than there have been sightings of UFOs. Perhaps UFOs, the “Greys” and related are also absurdities, but they exist in good company with the rest of what passes for our simulated cosmic ‘Twilight Zone’.

Here are a few more absurdities to ponder over. There are three generations of elementary particles, yet only one plays any significant role in the cosmos. The other two contribute nothing of substance and structure, so why is there a second and a third generation of the elementary particles? In archaeology, the Mesoamerican Olmec massive multi-ton stone heads scream out ‘made in Africa’ or ‘we’re African’, yet there should not have been any cross-cultural contact between Africa and Central America way back in Olmec days. Such a scenario is deemed an absurdity. Lastly, turning again to human anomalies, we alone in all the animal kingdom have a bipedal gait without benefit of a balancing tail. A bipedal gait without any balancing mechanism makes us very unstable on our feet. We’re very easy to knock over. We can lose our balance, fall down and do ourselves a mischief very easily relative to the rest of the animal kingdom. That Mother Nature would select for such an absurdity, is, well, an absurdity.

Exceptions to the rule, like the human bipedal gait, require extra special scrutiny since at first glance lone exceptions appear highly out-of-place and anomalous. Another example is with respect to velocity. Velocities can be added and subtracted with one exception – the speed of light. Why is this so? Nobody knows.

Now from the inside of the computer looking out, as virtual beings, we could never know for absolute certain that anomalies or absurdities weren’t designed deliberately or built into the system. But that doesn’t mean we (Royal We) can’t damn well have suspicions, especially when the anomalies or the absurdities just keep on mounting up. So there is no such thing, as some might suggest, of a proven ‘oops’, but there certainly can be suspicions that something is screwy somewhere. There couldn’t logically be such suspicions if an omni-God (or equivalent) were the only option regarding our creation, something that was the case in ancient times before computer programming and software simulations was conceived of in anyone’s philosophy. An omni-God is no longer the only creation scenario game in town.

I repeat, our Universe might be deliberately designed to be a ‘Twilight Zone’ cosmos, but the odds seem to favour some unintentional “oops” caused by lapses in the programming that was done by my postulated Supreme (but fallible) Programmer. Given the absolute complexity of designing a simulated cosmos from scratch, it is logical to suspect that anyone who isn’t an omni-God would goof a few things up. No one can prove that, but one certainly can suspect that not all is right with the cosmos; one can have one’s doubts! The bottom line is that anomalies and absurdities most certainly argue against an omni-God but support the idea of a fallible creator, like a computer programmer.