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.

 

UFO's Pose no Threat

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2014 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: tanka418
A complete analysis would be problematic. Deliberate hoaxes and misidentifications would have to be eliminated. Both are a problem with limited data. Of course, if you chose the default to be "unless shown to be otherwise, UFO reports represent alien visitation", you're good to go. But there are those who say "unless shown to be otherwise, UFO reports represent manifestations of demons."

See the problem?


edit on 12/7/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 7 2014 @ 09:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Tangerine
Let's start with your original claim, "otherworlder starships have visited our planet in the recent past....". I am unaware of any data that proves the existence of "otherworlder starships". Can you cite this data specifically? Exactly how are my notions about "testable" and "evidence" skewed?


Well, firstly; I didn't make that claim.

And, we are not talking about "proof", we are talking about evidence.



I checked and you are right. You did not make that statement; someone else did. However,you agreed with it so the questions stand. You still have not cited the data to which you refer and explained how my notions about "testable" and "evidence" are skewed. Facts are based on testable evidence only. Absent that, you are left with belief. Proof is a mathematical concept.



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine
I checked and you are right. You did not make that statement; someone else did. However,you agreed with it so the questions stand. You still have not cited the data to which you refer and explained how my notions about "testable" and "evidence" are skewed. Facts are based on testable evidence only. Absent that, you are left with belief. Proof is a mathematical concept.


Don't remember "agreeing" with it...but...

There are a plethora of images from ISS and other space-borne cameras that aren't reflections, there is a serious amount of "space junk" that isn't junk.

All of these are evidence, all of them are testable. Go do your "due diligence", find the evidence you are looking for...



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: tanka418
A complete analysis would be problematic. Deliberate hoaxes and misidentifications would have to be eliminated. Both are a problem with limited data. Of course, if you chose the default to be "unless shown to be otherwise, UFO reports represent alien visitation", you're good to go. But there are those who say "unless shown to be otherwise, UFO reports represent manifestations of demons."

See the problem?



Yes Phage I see the problems...I wonder IF you do.

It would seem that you are willing to settle for something less than a "full" analysis. You do know that most of the "problems" you think you see are imaginary, right?

Virtually ALL of the issues associated with this kind of analysis can be easily resolved with technology.

So, the problem I see here is; you.



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Tangerine
It's a fact that "otherworlder starships have visited our planet in the recent past...."? Facts are based on testable evidence. Where's the testable evidence?


Actually that evidence is all around, and there is no shortage of evidence. The issue typically lies in the lack of understanding of "what" constitutes evidence.

Most people have an exaggerated idea of what evidence IS, to the point that their expectations of evidence is unrealistic.

Perhaps, many would be better served if they gave up their unrealistic / uneducated notions and started to simply use fundamental science and their guide...as opposed to what they would like things to be.



Stating that there is evidence all around is still not stating the evidence. Please do so. I am using fundamental science as a guide in that I requested testable evidence. So far, none has been forthcoming.


Hoaxes and misidentifications aside...I believe Ufology uses basic/fundamental research in a systematic study directed toward greater knowledge or understanding of the fundamental aspects of the UFO phenomena.



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Erno86

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Tangerine
It's a fact that "otherworlder starships have visited our planet in the recent past...."? Facts are based on testable evidence. Where's the testable evidence?


Actually that evidence is all around, and there is no shortage of evidence. The issue typically lies in the lack of understanding of "what" constitutes evidence.

Most people have an exaggerated idea of what evidence IS, to the point that their expectations of evidence is unrealistic.

Perhaps, many would be better served if they gave up their unrealistic / uneducated notions and started to simply use fundamental science and their guide...as opposed to what they would like things to be.



Stating that there is evidence all around is still not stating the evidence. Please do so. I am using fundamental science as a guide in that I requested testable evidence. So far, none has been forthcoming.


Hoaxes and misidentifications aside...I believe Ufology uses basic/fundamental research in a systematic study directed toward greater knowledge or understanding of the fundamental aspects of the UFO phenomena.


I agree Erno86 but as pointed out in a different thread about old Pulp Fiction Sci Fi magazines, there were ideas that later became a reality. So Sci Fi can later become a reality, and maybe UFO's are strictly science-fiction.

Or maybe there are actual solid examples of UFO's and I agree with Tangerine that no one is posting any examples!



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

There are a plethora of images from ISS and other space-borne cameras that aren't reflections,

probably space junk.


there is a serious amount of "space junk" that isn't junk.

probably reflections.



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 11:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Tangerine
I checked and you are right. You did not make that statement; someone else did. However,you agreed with it so the questions stand. You still have not cited the data to which you refer and explained how my notions about "testable" and "evidence" are skewed. Facts are based on testable evidence only. Absent that, you are left with belief. Proof is a mathematical concept.


Don't remember "agreeing" with it...but...

There are a plethora of images from ISS and other space-borne cameras that aren't reflections, there is a serious amount of "space junk" that isn't junk.

All of these are evidence, all of them are testable. Go do your "due diligence", find the evidence you are looking for...



How do a plethora of images from ISS translate to ""otherworlder starships have visited our planet in the recent past...."? Unidentified images are not testable evidence that those objects are "otherworlder spaceships". We don't know what those images are. To claim that we do is a huge leap in logic.
edit on 8-12-2014 by Tangerine because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 11:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Erno86

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Tangerine
It's a fact that "otherworlder starships have visited our planet in the recent past...."? Facts are based on testable evidence. Where's the testable evidence?


Actually that evidence is all around, and there is no shortage of evidence. The issue typically lies in the lack of understanding of "what" constitutes evidence.

Most people have an exaggerated idea of what evidence IS, to the point that their expectations of evidence is unrealistic.

Perhaps, many would be better served if they gave up their unrealistic / uneducated notions and started to simply use fundamental science and their guide...as opposed to what they would like things to be.



Stating that there is evidence all around is still not stating the evidence. Please do so. I am using fundamental science as a guide in that I requested testable evidence. So far, none has been forthcoming.


Hoaxes and misidentifications aside...I believe Ufology uses basic/fundamental research in a systematic study directed toward greater knowledge or understanding of the fundamental aspects of the UFO phenomena.


What current basic/fundamental research is being conducted in a systematic study in reference to UFOs? I'm not being sarcastic (well, a little) but asking a serious question.



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 08:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Erno86

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Tangerine
It's a fact that "otherworlder starships have visited our planet in the recent past...."? Facts are based on testable evidence. Where's the testable evidence?


Actually that evidence is all around, and there is no shortage of evidence. The issue typically lies in the lack of understanding of "what" constitutes evidence.

Most people have an exaggerated idea of what evidence IS, to the point that their expectations of evidence is unrealistic.

Perhaps, many would be better served if they gave up their unrealistic / uneducated notions and started to simply use fundamental science and their guide...as opposed to what they would like things to be.



Stating that there is evidence all around is still not stating the evidence. Please do so. I am using fundamental science as a guide in that I requested testable evidence. So far, none has been forthcoming.


Hoaxes and misidentifications aside...I believe Ufology uses basic/fundamental research in a systematic study directed toward greater knowledge or understanding of the fundamental aspects of the UFO phenomena.


What current basic/fundamental research is being conducted in a systematic study in reference to UFOs? I'm not being sarcastic (well, a little) but asking a serious question.



Well...this forum and various others seem to have opinions on the subject at hand --- not too mention the obvious attempts of certain U.S. Federal agencies to sweep various aspects of the UFO phenomena under the rug; most likely due to security concerns.

Speaking for myself...my attempts at earthling to otherworlder communication/deciphering otherworlder to earthling communication, and my my theory on alien starship propulsion --- in relation to my eyewitness alien starship sighting --- one night in November of 1976 --- approx. 40 miles west of Washington D.C.



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine
How do a plethora of images from ISS translate to ""otherworlder starships have visited our planet in the recent past...."? Unidentified images are not testable evidence that those objects are "otherworlder spaceships". We don't know what those images are. To claim that we do is a huge leap in logic.



Wow, such a jump in logic...I never equated these "unknowns" to ET craft...I said that the images, etc. were testable evidence; and they are.



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Erno86

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Erno86

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Tangerine
It's a fact that "otherworlder starships have visited our planet in the recent past...."? Facts are based on testable evidence. Where's the testable evidence?


Actually that evidence is all around, and there is no shortage of evidence. The issue typically lies in the lack of understanding of "what" constitutes evidence.

Most people have an exaggerated idea of what evidence IS, to the point that their expectations of evidence is unrealistic.

Perhaps, many would be better served if they gave up their unrealistic / uneducated notions and started to simply use fundamental science and their guide...as opposed to what they would like things to be.



Stating that there is evidence all around is still not stating the evidence. Please do so. I am using fundamental science as a guide in that I requested testable evidence. So far, none has been forthcoming.


Hoaxes and misidentifications aside...I believe Ufology uses basic/fundamental research in a systematic study directed toward greater knowledge or understanding of the fundamental aspects of the UFO phenomena.


What current basic/fundamental research is being conducted in a systematic study in reference to UFOs? I'm not being sarcastic (well, a little) but asking a serious question.



Well...this forum and various others seem to have opinions on the subject at hand --- not too mention the obvious attempts of certain U.S. Federal agencies to sweep various aspects of the UFO phenomena under the rug; most likely due to security concerns.

Speaking for myself...my attempts at earthling to otherworlder communication/deciphering otherworlder to earthling communication, and my my theory on alien starship propulsion --- in relation to my eyewitness alien starship sighting --- one night in November of 1976 --- approx. 40 miles west of Washington D.C.


How are opinions research?
What scientific methodology did you use to determine that that which you saw was an alien starship? What evidence did or anyone else acquire and how was it scientifically tested?
Do you mean to say hypothesis of alien starship propulsion or scientific theory (theorum)? If it's the latter, what methodology was used, what evidence was acquired, and how was it tested to reach the level of fact?
Alleged attempts by certain federal agencies to "sweep various aspects of the UFO phenomena under the rug" doesn't constitute scientific research. I'll ask again, who is doing all this scientific research regarding UFOs?



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Tangerine
How do a plethora of images from ISS translate to ""otherworlder starships have visited our planet in the recent past...."? Unidentified images are not testable evidence that those objects are "otherworlder spaceships". We don't know what those images are. To claim that we do is a huge leap in logic.



Wow, such a jump in logic...I never equated these "unknowns" to ET craft...I said that the images, etc. were testable evidence; and they are.




O.K. Testable evidence of what, exactly? If you're claiming that captured images are testable evidence that images exist, sure. But what do the images prove except that images of unknown origin exist?



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

O.K. Testable evidence of what, exactly? If you're claiming that captured images are testable evidence that images exist, sure. But what do the images prove except that images of unknown origin exist?

I think you are correct. You have an image of something. You can only test that against other known images, otherwise, you just have an image of something you cant identify. Basically the "test" is asking "what is that?" It would be more interesting if the unknown images were less fuzzy. I haven't seen anything other than something fuzzy and fuzzy things aren't too threatening.



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnuTyr
Just wait till the fight over humanity heats up.

The reason there's been no invasion is because more than one E.T faction on the chess boards have been putting each other in check.

But this is a timed match. And when the numbers are nearly gone they will make their last moves out of desperation.
The timing is dependant on Earth. If a cataklysm happens soon then the time is up. But if we threaten ourselves with technology the time will also be up.

Yeah sure we are posing threats to ourselves. But i ment enough to actually make humanity scarce. Nothing has happened as of yet to cause a culling of humanity.

Now if A.I began converting everyone into cybermen. That would be a different story. And that's coming in our near future.


That's not coming either. People will not be turned into robots or drones and no Evil Et is going to be running any show. They're also all going down and will be rounded up with the abusers of power here by the true Highest Love and Goodness Family there is. Though most (all probably) of us have to die to join that team, have been shown being on it already. The first stop was House of Windsors and the Rothschild's apparently. They're getting pulled off first.

Humans are going to be helped to progress in a much better school. That includes beauty and goodness and creativity.
edit on 9-12-2014 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 11:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine
O.K. Testable evidence of what, exactly? If you're claiming that captured images are testable evidence that images exist, sure. But what do the images prove except that images of unknown origin exist?


You really do seem a bit overly obtuse...

And, no, you aren't left with a pile of images of unknown origin. You are left with a stack of images that are truly "unidentifiable", but you prolly don't see the advantage in that...

This stack of images are what is left after you have removed all the real reflections,, lens flares, and other identifiable objects. What is left can then be categorized, and further analyzed, and over time possibly identified, perhaps you will find "Gold"...BUT; you will never find anything if you reject it all out of hand. Every bit of data you can collect should be valued, analyzed, and saved properly in your database.



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 11:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine
I'll ask again, who is doing all this scientific research regarding UFOs?


You do know that there are a few serious researchers here on ATS, right? The likes of Stan Friedman, Jim O'Berg, and a few others.

Although, it seems that most who purport to be "researchers" aren't, not really...they seem to pick a different historical event of some question, and attempt explain "what really happened". In my opinion, as a data scientist/engineer, they typically fail at even the most fundamental analysis. It's really difficult to know; they seem more like high school math students who don't always show all of their "work" in the derivation of some equation. A math teacher would likely "fail" the loot, regardless of whether they stumbled upon the correct answer, or not...typically they manage "close enough".

Of course the problems and issues associated with real scientific analysis of an event, are almost "impossible"; its not like One can materialize an "object" on demand, reliably. Thus it is difficult to set up all the required data acquisition systems and actually collect some useful data.

So, we are left with the forensic path, and what is happening there is...deplorable. As I said, mostly poor data analysis technique applied to insufficient data, the only "good" part here is that; even that works eventually...just takes longer...



posted on Dec, 10 2014 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Erno86

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Erno86

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Tangerine
It's a fact that "otherworlder starships have visited our planet in the recent past...."? Facts are based on testable evidence. Where's the testable evidence?


Actually that evidence is all around, and there is no shortage of evidence. The issue typically lies in the lack of understanding of "what" constitutes evidence.

Most people have an exaggerated idea of what evidence IS, to the point that their expectations of evidence is unrealistic.

Perhaps, many would be better served if they gave up their unrealistic / uneducated notions and started to simply use fundamental science and their guide...as opposed to what they would like things to be.



Stating that there is evidence all around is still not stating the evidence. Please do so. I am using fundamental science as a guide in that I requested testable evidence. So far, none has been forthcoming.


Hoaxes and misidentifications aside...I believe Ufology uses basic/fundamental research in a systematic study directed toward greater knowledge or understanding of the fundamental aspects of the UFO phenomena.


What current basic/fundamental research is being conducted in a systematic study in reference to UFOs? I'm not being sarcastic (well, a little) but asking a serious question.



Well...this forum and various others seem to have opinions on the subject at hand --- not too mention the obvious attempts of certain U.S. Federal agencies to sweep various aspects of the UFO phenomena under the rug; most likely due to security concerns.

Speaking for myself...my attempts at earthling to otherworlder communication/deciphering otherworlder to earthling communication, and my my theory on alien starship propulsion --- in relation to my eyewitness alien starship sighting --- one night in November of 1976 --- approx. 40 miles west of Washington D.C.


How are opinions research?
What scientific methodology did you use to determine that that which you saw was an alien starship? What evidence did or anyone else acquire and how was it scientifically tested?
Do you mean to say hypothesis of alien starship propulsion or scientific theory (theorum)? If it's the latter, what methodology was used, what evidence was acquired, and how was it tested to reach the level of fact?
Alleged attempts by certain federal agencies to "sweep various aspects of the UFO phenomena under the rug" doesn't constitute scientific research. I'll ask again, who is doing all this scientific research regarding UFOs?



Besides opinions...y6u can look at posters such as Karl12, whose posts sometimes depict reported UFO sightings. Everybody has opinions...even scientists who sometimes give rational/irrational opinions on the veracity of otherworlder starships.

I now call my explanation of starship propulsion as a theory --- based on the methodology of scientific deduction --- mainly based on my research into the feasibility of using a micro-mini black hole as the heart of the photon propulsion unit, onboard a superluminal capable interstellar starship.



posted on Dec, 10 2014 @ 05:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Erno86

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Erno86

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Erno86

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Tangerine
It's a fact that "otherworlder starships have visited our planet in the recent past...."? Facts are based on testable evidence. Where's the testable evidence?


Actually that evidence is all around, and there is no shortage of evidence. The issue typically lies in the lack of understanding of "what" constitutes evidence.

Most people have an exaggerated idea of what evidence IS, to the point that their expectations of evidence is unrealistic.

Perhaps, many would be better served if they gave up their unrealistic / uneducated notions and started to simply use fundamental science and their guide...as opposed to what they would like things to be.



Stating that there is evidence all around is still not stating the evidence. Please do so. I am using fundamental science as a guide in that I requested testable evidence. So far, none has been forthcoming.


Hoaxes and misidentifications aside...I believe Ufology uses basic/fundamental research in a systematic study directed toward greater knowledge or understanding of the fundamental aspects of the UFO phenomena.


What current basic/fundamental research is being conducted in a systematic study in reference to UFOs? I'm not being sarcastic (well, a little) but asking a serious question.



Well...this forum and various others seem to have opinions on the subject at hand --- not too mention the obvious attempts of certain U.S. Federal agencies to sweep various aspects of the UFO phenomena under the rug; most likely due to security concerns.

Speaking for myself...my attempts at earthling to otherworlder communication/deciphering otherworlder to earthling communication, and my my theory on alien starship propulsion --- in relation to my eyewitness alien starship sighting --- one night in November of 1976 --- approx. 40 miles west of Washington D.C.


How are opinions research?
What scientific methodology did you use to determine that that which you saw was an alien starship? What evidence did or anyone else acquire and how was it scientifically tested?
Do you mean to say hypothesis of alien starship propulsion or scientific theory (theorum)? If it's the latter, what methodology was used, what evidence was acquired, and how was it tested to reach the level of fact?
Alleged attempts by certain federal agencies to "sweep various aspects of the UFO phenomena under the rug" doesn't constitute scientific research. I'll ask again, who is doing all this scientific research regarding UFOs?



Besides opinions...y6u can look at posters such as Karl12, whose posts sometimes depict reported UFO sightings. Everybody has opinions...even scientists who sometimes give rational/irrational opinions on the veracity of otherworlder starships.

I now call my explanation of starship propulsion as a theory --- based on the methodology of scientific deduction --- mainly based on my research into the feasibility of using a micro-mini black hole as the heart of the photon propulsion unit, onboard a superluminal capable interstellar starship.


MUFON has been cataloging sightings for years but, as far as I know, hasn't done anything with those lists of sightings. That's not a scientific study.

Your claim that "otherworlder starships" are visiting earth is not a scientific theorum (ie. theory). It's a hypothesis. Don't confuse the two. You are hypothesizing that a certain propulsion system exists on on hypothetical "interstellar starships". If, using the scientific method, you manage to find testable evidence that such a propulsion system would work, you still have to prove that that propulsion system exists and you still have to prove that "interstellar starships" exist and you still have to prove that they are visiting earth before your hypothesis becomes a scientific theorum (ie. theory). You can't just point at something in the sky and say, "That's an interstellar spaceship visiting earth by means of a black hole as the heart of the photon propulsion unit aboard that superluminal capable craft."

Of course scientists have opinions, but opinions are a huge leap away from testable evidence and claims of fact.



posted on Dec, 10 2014 @ 09:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine
MUFON has been cataloging sightings for years but, as far as I know, hasn't done anything with those lists of sightings. That's not a scientific study.


No it is not...however all that data; is a good start, and a basis for several "studies".




Your claim that "otherworlder starships" are visiting earth is not a scientific theorum (ie. theory). It's a hypothesis. Don't confuse the two.


I'm wondering IF you understand the very small difference between the two...

edit on 10-12-2014 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-12-2014 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join