It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Show Proof of the Existence of ONE Alien Being

page: 6
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 11:29 PM
link   
a reply to: AlienView

You notice AlienView how they are side-tracking the main issue - "Show Proof of the Existence of ONE Alien Being" - by getting into a debate on a persons claim of a strange piece of metal being alien? So what? Does it really matter? The real issue here is that I am drawing a line in the sand that both the believers and skeptics want to avoid. I don't blame them and let me summarize what all the data, sightings, and alien claims come down to. There is an immense amount of evidence that 'high strangeness' has been taking place in nearby visible space - it is not understood, but to deny it is happening is only for fools. The government often claims it is all understandable, but when you do the research you find, often those that worked for the government such as high ranking military men admitting that they have seen some of this phenomena, are aware of it, and often under national security claims, have been told to shut-up. But often when they retire they come out and tell the rest of the story - but the rest of the story is always incomplete
- they still do not know who or what they are dealing with - And can you blame the government for maintaining a cover-up - Governments would hate to tell the people they are dealing with something that is beyond human technology and could possibly represent a serious threat to humans and life on this Earth - that would make a lot of people nervous. And you can not blame me for asking who or what is it - And wondering where is the proof of the existence of these alien beings? Or are we really dealing with beings or 'mechanical probes' from this or another galaxy or dimension? Intelligent speculation is welcome

edit on 29-4-2014 by AlienView because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 11:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Ectoplasm8


Sorry you fail to understand...perhaps this will help.

Where is the complete metallurgical assay, and the complete isotopic assay?

You haven't shown that as far as I have seen...course then again what you have shown was made so small that when "blown up" to a readable size is rather pixelated. What's up with that?

When you make the claim that there isn't any evidence of ET; you are necessarily ignoring a vast amount of data. By doing this you are "cherry picking"...When you choose to ignore the fossil evidence from Mars, you are "Cherry picking" your data.



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 12:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: AlienView
a reply to: AlienView

You notice AlienView how they are side-tracking the main issue - "Show Proof of the Existence of ONE Alien Being" - by getting into a debate on a persons claim of a strange piece of metal being alien?


I'm not so sure. This "side track" is showing how the Terrestrial Human mind set can offset serious science, and make it virtually worthless. It shows how easy it is to simply ignore the evidence that is available, and of course, arrive at the wrong conclusion.

And what we are seeing is folk who will accept partial data, not bother with finding even supporting data, simply because the partial solution supports what they "want". And as long as the partial solution "works" for them, nothing else is required.



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

I'm not so sure. This "side track" is showing how the Terrestrial Human mind set can offset serious science, and make it virtually worthless.


As opposed to what - the extraterrestrial human mind?



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: tanka418

I'm not so sure. This "side track" is showing how the Terrestrial Human mind set can offset serious science, and make it virtually worthless.


As opposed to what - the extraterrestrial human mind?


As opposed to and differentiated from; considering all relevant data and arriving at a conclusion based In science, logic, and common sense.

And I'm afraid that Terrestrials do not have a monopoly on the ability to apply inappropriate "filters", I fear that is something ALL sentient, thinking, beings do as a natural course.

Also, there is absolutely no reason to confine the "Human" species to just Earth. While it may be "technically" correct to not call off worlders "Human", it is still entirely possible for an off-worlder to have virtually identical genetics (DNA). And, it is more probable that Extraterrestrials (the space faring kind) are very much like Terrestrials in many respects.

edit on 30-4-2014 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 11:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

Also, there is absolutely no reason to confine the "Human" species to just Earth. While it may be "technically" correct to not call off worlders "Human", it is still entirely possible for an off-worlder to have virtually identical genetics (DNA).


Or so you have claimed in other threads.

Convenient when attempting to explain a disappointing test result of "human".



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 02:08 PM
link   
I read an interesting report years ago about how when all "cues" , daylight, clocks etc. were removed from an environment with human subjects they eventually (within a week or two) were waking and sleeping in a "longer day" cycle. Something like 30+ hours, don't remember the specifics. Curious.....You would think that if it were a result of our "older primitive lizard brain" the natural rhythm the subjects settled into would have been a slightly shorter day (as earths rotation is slowing) not a longer "day"! SOooo.....Mabey WE are the aliens! Just something that piqued my curiosity years ago..... There was something I saw somewhere about our eyes as well....that they are not the most receptive in the wavelengths our sun puts out but rather in a slightly redder bandwidth.
edit on 30-4-2014 by csgt428 because: additions



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: tanka418

Also, there is absolutely no reason to confine the "Human" species to just Earth. While it may be "technically" correct to not call off worlders "Human", it is still entirely possible for an off-worlder to have virtually identical genetics (DNA).


Or so you have claimed in other threads.

Convenient when attempting to explain a disappointing test result of "human".


You let me know when you do anything at all to test, or advance any of these hypotheses. All we ever see from you is dissenting opinion, and other trivial BS...never anything that could be used to increase individual knowledge.

You may not like, understand, or agree with the work I'm doing, but...at least I am doing...You?



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

Sorry you fail to understand...perhaps this will help.

Where is the complete metallurgical assay, and the complete isotopic assay?You haven't shown that as far as I have seen...course then again what you have shown was made so small that when "blown up" to a readable size is rather pixelated. What's up with that?

I'm trying to include screen shots and CC&P snippets within my posts. I doubt many take the time to read long involved links provided when talking about the skeptic side. That's evident when you read the regurgitated biased opinions of UFO sites or tv shows from some members of this board. Not many seem to take the time to seriously research information they read or hear. Many times their information is wrong or incomplete. Just as the misinformation about the lack of isotope analysis. So, when I post, I like to include any visual information I can. If the source picture is small, I can't help that.

If you search for this information yourself and truly are looking for data and facts as you claim, you will find it. You seem to believe from the start this is an object from a spacecraft. What is that belief based on? The popularity of the story and what you've heard? Or actual data that you have studied on this case? The default stance with any piece of "alien evidence" is that it's a terrestrial object. Not that it's extraterrestrial. It's up to the one making the claim to prove without a reasonable doubt that it's extraterrestrial.

Here's the best scanned copy of the first several pages of the Los Alamos report I could find. It's still blurry:


Here's the link to NIDS report:
www.rense.com...

Here's an ATS post by Crakeur and Springer who wanted to see if further testing of Bob White's object would be beneficial. They hired a forensic PhD metallurgist to review the reports and was told it wasn't worth pursuing:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


When you make the claim that there isn't any evidence of ET; you are necessarily ignoring a vast amount of data. By doing this you are "cherry picking"...When you choose to ignore the fossil evidence from Mars, you are "Cherry picking" your data.


Vast amount of data in this particular case or cases in general? I don't dispute finding fossilized life on Mars. I've stated before that simple forms of life more than likely will be found throughout our galaxy and universe. That doesn't mean that simple life bridges the huge gap and evolves to be highly intelligent. That's extremely rare.

Your acceptance of weak and low leveled data as evidence is far lower than mine and many. Of course most don't claim first-hand personal knowledge of aliens.



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Ectoplasm8 said:



Vast amount of data in this particular case or cases in general? I don't dispute finding fossilized life on Mars. I've stated before that simple forms of life more than likely will be found throughout our galaxy and universe. That doesn't mean that simple life bridges the huge gap and evolves to be highly intelligent. That's extremely rare.


"That's extremely rare" ? How would you know that? How can you determine how rare 'intelligent life' is in the universe when some very credible scientists theorize that it might be quite common?
edit on 1-5-2014 by AlienView because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2014 @ 02:34 AM
link   
a reply to: AlienView
I've said this many times, so I guess I'll just CC&P below my response from another thread. We can use Earth as an example of what may occur on other planets. It isn't the be-all and end-all answer of what will happen. Just a logical assumption from the only source we have. The numbers count in the billions as far as years and billions for the different species/life forms that have existed. With those figures, only one has possessed high intelligence.

I'm not saying high intelligence doesn't exist, only that it won't be a dominating factor.

---------------------

EVOLUTION OF INTELLIGENCE USING EARTH AS OUR CONTROL:

- 4.5 Billion years old.
- 3.5 Billion years to the origin of basic life.
- 10,000,000,000 +/-(est. of course) different life forms that have lived on Earth.
- Only one life form of billions & in billions of years, has developed/evolved to be highly intelligent.
- That = 0.00000001% of life forms that have ever existed on Earth are intelligent enough to think and eventually venture beyond it's own planet.
- Meaning a 99.99999999% chance of life on a given planet will have zero interest or ability to visit other planets.
- As the time frame that intelligent species rises to high and superior intelligence, it increasingly has overcome and survive possible extinction via: Meteor strike, Nuclear destruction by their own hand, Disease, Famine, or other mass catastrophes.

Also, as evident by using this example, there is no logical, or biological, reason that a planet will evolve an intelligent species. If that species does develop, it will dominate it's planet possibly using it's resources and killing off other species unrelated to it's own survival. As by example over billions of years and billions of life forms, high intelligence seemingly is eliminated and not an important part in the process of typical evolution. The development of intelligence on a very basic level will be the most likely scenario. We are a fluke and an extremely rare occurrence when you step back and think about it.



posted on May, 1 2014 @ 03:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

Even granting your logic and hypothesis, the more humans stare out into space and comprehend its vastness, it becomes apparent we are dealing with an uncountable number of planets and galaxies. If intelligent life evolved [if that is what happened] on one then the likelihood is it will appear on others. Simple logic, in my opinion, dictates this. How often of course remains to be seen - you say rarely - I say not so rare.



posted on May, 1 2014 @ 08:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
EVOLUTION OF INTELLIGENCE USING EARTH AS OUR CONTROL:

- 4.5 Billion years old.
- 3.5 Billion years to the origin of basic life.
- 10,000,000,000 +/-(est. of course) different life forms that have lived on Earth.
- Only one life form of billions & in billions of years, has developed/evolved to be highly intelligent.


There is a very good paper demonstrating that the probability of Life appearing elsewhere is arbitrarily small...sorry can't find the link....Ask Zeta Rediculan...

Anyway, this paper uses Bayesian inference to make it's point...just the sort of think you will need to probe our point.

The problem with this paper is that it requires that life not appear outside of Earth. Which is to say, that life not be found except on Earth.

This doesn't work very well...as evidence and reason for this body of Math not working I subit: Allan Hills 840001 (ALH840001). A meteorite studied by several famous scientific establishments. This "rock" along with others and some data from present day Mars...indicate rather conclusively that there was ancient life on Mars. Perhaps still...

This notion is quite well supported by current research...which I will ask that you attempt to collect yourself to increase credibility.

In any case...life on Mars completely destroys the work done to show that life is rare. Further...IF you actually do do the math you will quickly discover that life in the Universe is ubiquitous. For instance; in this galaxy alone there are something like 8 billion Earth like planets (current astronomical estimate).

In this solar system alone there are at least 5 places where there is/was life...



posted on May, 1 2014 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Erno86
a reply to: AlienView

Any comments or opinions about my alien entity picture? J. Allen Hynek...did not think much of my alien picture's at all.



Seems like the OP is not going to answer my question.



posted on May, 1 2014 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Erno86

originally posted by: Erno86
a reply to: AlienView

Any comments or opinions about my alien entity picture? J. Allen Hynek...did not think much of my alien picture's at all.



Seems like the OP is not going to answer my question.


What's a "fossil rock" and how do you know there's an Alien behind it?



posted on May, 1 2014 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Erno86

Don't you have a photo with the exit records or whatever thats called? don't we have any photo experts here?



posted on May, 1 2014 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Erno86

originally posted by: Erno86
a reply to: AlienView

Any comments or opinions about my alien entity picture? J. Allen Hynek...did not think much of my alien picture's at all.



Seems like the OP is not going to answer my question.


What's a "fossil rock" and how do you know there's an Alien behind it?


It's a fossil laden rock from the Miocene Epoch 23.03 million to 5.3 million years old --- on the Western Shore of the Chesapeake Bay, at Calvert Cliffs, Maryland.

Now...if you sat on the same throne [another fossil boulder] that the otherworlder sat on at that time [summer of 1972] --- your head would be poking-up behind the fossil rock and your foot and part or your left leg would be straddling about 45 degrees on the fossil rock throne --- same as the otherworlder that had posed for my picture.
edit on 1-5-2014 by Erno86 because: grammar

edit on 1-5-2014 by Erno86 because: typo error



posted on May, 1 2014 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Erno86

Don't you have a photo with the exit records or whatever thats called? don't we have any photo experts here?


That's "exif"...it is a footer to many image files like jpg, png, etc. that contains data about the image, the camera that took it, copyright/licensing data, and prolly other crap as well. Folks seem to think that it is "sacred data" somehow...perhaps protected by magic spell...anyway some seem to think it tell "truth" about the image. In reality it is a data footer, and subject to edit like any other "bit" in the file.



posted on May, 1 2014 @ 04:53 PM
link   
The picture was taken by me [fooftr27], in the summer of 1972 with a Kodak Brownie Box Bullet camera, using 127 film.



posted on May, 1 2014 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Erno86

It's a fossil laden rock from the Miocene Epoch 23.03 million to 5.3 million years old --- on the Western Shore of the Chesapeake Bay, at Calvert Cliffs, Maryland.

Now...if you sat on the same throne [another fossil boulder] that the otherworlder sat on at that time [summer of 1972] --- your head would be poking-up behind the fossil rock and your foot and part or your left leg would be straddling about 45 degrees on the fossil rock throne --- same as the otherworlder that had posed for my picture.


Would that be a face view of these rocks?

www.fossilguy.com...



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join