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.

 

Aliens or ex-inhabitants..

page: 10
14
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

Firstly sir; I'm not clairvoyant...


Nor are you an Alien from Andromeda.

Nor are you a hybrid.

Nor are you a warlock [thanks for the hex, nonetheless. It's the thought that counts].

Nor are you a Bayesian genius.




posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: tanka418
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

Firstly sir; I'm not clairvoyant...


Nor are you an Alien from Andromeda.

Nor are you a hybrid.

Nor are you a warlock [thanks for the hex, nonetheless. It's the thought that counts].

Nor are you a Bayesian genius.



Just what the hell are you trying to talk about? But, instead of answering and dragging this thread off-topic (seems like that is what you want)...just stop.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

ah don't mind my brother . I may have added a few new things to the blood supply...

you should see Tangerine , he now looks more, bloodorangish
how we laughed , bar Zeta , he couldn't see

funbox


edit on 13-2-2015 by funbox because: w



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 11:02 PM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

Firstly sir; I'm not clairvoyant...

Not clairvoyant?

clairvoyant-
[klair-voi-uh nt]
adj
1. (Psychology) of, possessing, or relating to clairvoyance
2. having great insight or second sight
n
3. a person claiming to have the power to foretell future events

Don't tell me you have removed the ability to predict and summon UFOs at will from your resume'.

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

Re: Hill map
You're not getting it... Remove the lines from both maps and the dots don't even correspond:



This renders Marjorie Fish's map and stars interpretation useless. There have been better connections to the Hill map. You should look into those maps and go on the assumption as well that those stars carry planets that not only can sustain life, but have the 1 in hundreds of millions (if not billions) of chances as Earth did of evolving an intelligent species and that species further having the capability to travel light years.

Another problem with the story and map is not only was it drawn 3+ years after the incident through hypnosis, but Betty Hill claimed the aliens were here examining them to understand how human beings function. But according to her map and the support of Marjorie Fish's interpretation, our sun is listed as a solid line "trade route" and not the dashed lined "exploration route". A trade route would be an already discovered, explored, and established area in which some type of commerce or trade is happening for the "aliens" within the planets of that solar system and their own. Both Betty and Barney describe these alien beings abducting them as an exploration of our species. I guess we're to believe the aliens have been using our solar system as some type of trade route, but overlooked and never explored the one planet that had intelligent life? Not likely. Another illogical part of the story.

As for physical evidence, Betty claimed one of the aliens gave her a book, but it was taken away when she was leaving the spacecraft. She was upset because it was a way for her to prove the abduction actually happened. When they got home after this incident, they noticed 12 to 18 silver dollar sized shiny spots on the trunk of their car. They theorized they were from the beeping sound they heard from the trunk during this encounter. Betty put a compass on the spots and said the pointer spun and believed they were radioactive. These spots stayed on the car until the winter when they eventually faded away. Here's physical evidence she wanted of something happening and she never took a photograph of these spots at any time? That makes no logical sense.

There are many questionable statements made by both Barney and Betty if you look. If you're really searching for facts (which I question as it seems you're searching more for validation) you should be questioning these cases instead of blindly believing what you've been fed over the years.



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 11:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
a reply to: tanka418

Firstly sir; I'm not clairvoyant...

Not clairvoyant?

clairvoyant-
[klair-voi-uh nt]
adj
1. (Psychology) of, possessing, or relating to clairvoyance
2. having great insight or second sight
n
3. a person claiming to have the power to foretell future events

Don't tell me you have removed the ability to predict and summon UFOs at will from your resume'.



No, I have not removed those items from my resume; however, like most everything else, you have misunderstood...

The ability to predict in this case is telepathy, the "summon" of a UFO, is also telepathy.

Oh, and the use of an arcane / hidden technology, that interestingly is in the public domain...languishing in a pool of misunderstanding, and fear.



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

Re: Hill map
You're not getting it... Remove the lines from both maps and the dots don't even correspond:



And, I'm afraid you are the one who doesn't get it...think of it like this; I have done my own analysis, with some input from an astronomer. Based on new data (Hipparcos) the stars, relative positions, etc shown in the original Hill map have been shown to "fit" the "Fish" map with great precision. You cute little GIF does not show either of these maps in a proper analytical light, and provides more opportunity to miss the reality of the map. By the way...those two views seem to be the same stars in a slightly different representation. You might want to sharpen your image recognition skills.

There is a kind of "order" in the map, a sort of logic that IF you "see" it makes the map make more sense. I'm being a bit vague here because it would be better IF you found it for yourself...it really is quite interesting.

Here is a video I made about this:



The map that starts the vide is the current compilation...it is a synthesis of the Hill Map, the Fish Map, and XHIP (a composite table using Hipparcos, and relative current planetary data).

None of the arguments against the Hill ma hold any water as they all fail in one aspect of astronomy or another.
The argument you are trying to use is from the article you posted, and that was proven incorrect early on with its false report on the nature of those 4 stars it tried to condemn;

54 Pisc.
107 Pisc.
Gliese 67
Tau 1 Erid.

If it can't get these four little details right, how much error is contain in the remainder?



edit on 15-2-2015 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 11:47 PM
link   
I think in ancient times there were legends of aliens comming and aiding humans in various ways. Those people wrote legends of aliens so I think there were aliens, now in our common era people speak of aliens so I think there are aliens. I think there have been aliens all along.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
I think in ancient times there were legends of aliens comming and aiding humans in various ways. Those people wrote legends of aliens so I think there were aliens, now in our common era people speak of aliens so I think there are aliens. I think there have been aliens all along.


Indeed, there is good evidence that places rather advanced space-faring peoples here on Earth starting at least as far back as 8000 years ago or so.

I've spoken of this before...a race supposedly from the star system Sirius, visited, and very likely colonized the Earth. They eventually either wee driven off or died out. This race was known to the Dogon as the "nommo". Though they weren't actually from Sirius, and probably Nu 2 Canis Majoris. It is this race that has given rise to the myth of the "Reptilians", though they are amphibious.

I think there may be another race as well; those reportedly from the Pleiades, and while there is no possibility at this time for life in the Pleiades, a near by star 39 Tauri may the source of this myth.

edit on 15-2-2015 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 12:12 AM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

You best get on the horn with Stanton Friedman. Those "cute gifs" are screen grabs of a pin point display of the maps from a show partial hosted by Friedman, they aren't mine. The map that was supposedly an exact match for Betty Hill's. They were in a Betty and Barney Hill museum at the time.

I guess if you choose to see it... But you still have a few problems- First being there has been zero evidence that there's any intelligent life in the area of the star systems on Fish's map. Even after 50+ years since this case was told. That would be the first step before even assuming this incident is factual. No matter how many "calculations" and assumptions from those calculations you make, it doesn't take the place of actual evidence.
The Hill story itself provides no evidence of alien beings either. It's a story told under hypnosis 3 years after the incident. Their story is coincidentally dated for the times. Betty Hill (who was the crux of bringing this case forward) was a UFO enthusiast to say the least. They claimed to be physically taken aboard the craft where they interacted and were examined by aliens, but provide no physical evidence to back it up. As I pointed out in my previous post, which you've conveniently ignored as with my other points, Betty could have tried to use these "radioactive" spots on their trunk as evidence. Why no photographs, videos, or some type of study of these spots? Lots of holes and questions if you really go into depth with this story rather than following the lead of these biased "experts."



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
a reply to: tanka418

That would be the first step before even assuming this incident is factual. No matter how many "calculations" and assumptions from those calculations you make, it doesn't take the place of actual evidence.

The Hill story itself provides no evidence of alien beings either. It's a story told under hypnosis 3 years after the incident.


You have miss it all!

No this doesn't take the place of physical evidence, it is however evidence in and of itself.

You say it provides no evidence, yet, what remains, and is the subject of this is the MAP itself. That map couldn't exist if Betty hadn't drawn it. and the map has been PROVEN not be collection of random dots / star positions. And, the map has shown itself to actually be a collection of habitable stars, as opposed to simply random stars. Further the layout has a logical progression...but, I suspect you missed all that in your haste to condemn.

You seem to think that somehow, possibly magically the psychological state of Betty, and perhaps others has an effect of the positioning and/or nature of the stars. I can assure that is not the case. Then you dig up some "hack" of the original evidence and attempt to use it to support your failed position. Sorry man, it don't work that way!!!

As for your physical evidence; I submit the map itself... a document that brings a significant deal to the probabilities involved...Oh, and by the way; I work primarily with the probabilities here...something you should take into account. After all the universe has been shown to be probabilistic rather than deterministic. These "probabilities" constitute significant evidence themselves, and, in the absence of physical evidence is much better than what you have, which is absolutely nothing!!

You may not like my evidence, but, I am the One with the starting point, you are the One groping in the dark.

And when you are through "knocking yourself around" in that dark cavern of doubt and uncertainty; come join the victory party with me and the others who have at least a little sight.

ETA: Please understand, I followed no "experts" in this analysis of mine...other than those astronomers, and astrobiolgists who have prepared the data required to perform this analysis...you know...the scientists who actually looked at the stars with their technology and complied the data.



edit on 17-2-2015 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-2-2015 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 02:18 AM
link   
a reply to: tanka418
There's nothing missing. You have to twist your YouTube map on the X & Y axis six ways to Sunday to even get it close to anything. I suggest you try that and update your video to reflect it. Besides, as I already pointed out, even if you did find an exact match, you have a 50+ year history since with no evidence of life in that area. A probability is a likely outcome, but still not a fact. You need more supporting information in order for it to become that fact when referencing a physical alien being. The Hills claimed an 'extraordinary' physical encounter, which requires physical evidence, period. You also should be relying on both the Hill's story and your map. But, their story needs to be reviewed in it's entirety and not through biased sources. Especially not sources that have done it for profit.


ETA: Please understand, I followed no "experts" in this analysis of mine...other than those astronomers, and astrobiolgists who have prepared the data required to perform this analysis...you know...the scientists who actually looked at the stars with their technology and complied the data.

As far as taking your data from astronomers and astrobiologist, that's where it ends. How many of those would believe you can telepathically communicate with alien beings, summon UFOs at will, have government secrets that aliens share with you, or any of your unsubstantiated claims? How many would question your claim of intelligent alien life on Earth based on such delusions? You're in a certain group with a certain mindset. You give the perfect example of how it's important to study not only all the facts of a case, but to know the source of those claims.



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

a reply to: tanka418


There ya go!!! Show us your data bias!




There's nothing missing. You have to twist your YouTube map on the X & Y axis six ways to Sunday to even get it close to anything.


You are quite funny, you should be on Letterman! I'd like to see the results of you or indeed anyone doing this. Fortunately either you nor anyone else will find the "time" to do that...kind of sad really, because it would show you just how wrong you are.

But then again; you did make the statement...too bad you can't/won't back it up. Of course, then there is the wee issue in that you can't back up your statement...

Throughout this whole discussion you have NEVER looked at the supporting data...which does not support your position, yet you continue to try to make the data to be something less than it really is.



Besides, as I already pointed out, even if you did find an exact match, you have a 50+ year history since with no evidence of life in that area.


Yes 50+ years and nothing...OH WAIT!!!! they found habitable stars in that region, even found planets around some of the stars on the map...but alas no alien with his "finger up". What is sad here is that you refuse to acknowledge the probabilities.

For instance, I can make a prediction here...Zeta 2 Reticuli has planets, at least 1 in the habitable zone. Or how about life on some of those predicted worlds.

Did you know that science is about to accept the notion that planets and perhaps life itself are ubiquitous? Before you condemn my statement; do your homework.



A probability is a likely outcome, but still not a fact. You need more supporting information in order for it to become that fact when referencing a physical alien being. The Hills claimed an 'extraordinary' physical encounter, which requires physical evidence, period.



That old notion about "extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence" is one of the absolutely stupidest things any person has ever said. Too often in my work I have found that it is nearly always the most obvious, "dumbest" / most mundane possible thing that is the explaination. The evidence for life on another world will, in the final analysis, still be only life. It will have no special or unusual properties other than it didn't evolve on Earth.

You don't really know much mathematics, especially where it comes to probability do you? For instance; probabilities are all we ever have...some good, others not so much. But, probabilities is all that is available...nothing is impossible, nothing is a "sure thing"...i.e. probabilities are never 0 (zero) nor are they ever 1 (one). And while you "think" more data is required, I think that we should establish a starting point, a first, perhaps second approximation and continue research.




As far as taking your data from astronomers and astrobiologist, that's where it ends. How many of those would believe you can telepathically communicate with alien beings, summon UFOs at will, have government secrets that aliens share with you, or any of your unsubstantiated claims? How many would question your claim of intelligent alien life on Earth based on such delusions? You're in a certain group with a certain mindset. You give the perfect example of how it's important to study not only all the facts of a case, but to know the source of those claims.


for what it's worth; my "claims" to being able to telepathically communicate is well established, not by you, but by empirical observation and experiment...no you may not see the data. What you may see, however will depend on your willingness to search for truth. My "claims" to being able to "summon" UFO has been documented...you will need to search for it!

Course now, you will want to be careful here sport. you will have extreme difficulty supporting your "delusional" statement...so...perhaps you should stop now before you dig yourself a hole you can't get out of.

Yes, and you belong to a special group as well...those who are so biased toward the data that they fail in every case to even begin to grasp the true nature of that data. It is soooo convenient to be able to say "there is no evidence / data"...all One need to do is ignore reality and repeat the mantra; "there is no evidence". And, "Poof" it is all your way...now that's delusional!

And again I should ask; "What does psychology have to do with astronomy?"
Answer: nothing!

Should probably drop all of the above and simply go with:

"The data supports my position, it does not support yours."



edit on 18-2-2015 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

Yes 50+ years and nothing...OH WAIT!!!! they found habitable stars in that region,


Habitable stars? I must have missed that discovery.


That old notion about "extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence" is one of the absolutely stupidest things any person has ever said.



Carl Sagan was smarter than you'll ever be.



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: tanka418



Yes 50+ years and nothing...OH WAIT!!!! they found habitable stars in that region, even found planets around some of the stars on the map...but alas no alien with his "finger up". What is sad here is that you refuse to acknowledge the probabilities.


I wonder if they will find planets orbiting Scholz, and its brown dwarf companion ?

www.bbc.co.uk...

question I have does that make our system a trifecta ?

funbox



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 10:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: tanka418

Yes 50+ years and nothing...OH WAIT!!!! they found habitable stars in that region,


Habitable stars? I must have missed that discovery.


That old notion about "extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence" is one of the absolutely stupidest things any person has ever said.



Carl Sagan was smarter than you'll ever be.


You do know what is meant by "habitable star", right? (probably not)...

Would you like the list?



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: funbox
a reply to: tanka418



Yes 50+ years and nothing...OH WAIT!!!! they found habitable stars in that region, even found planets around some of the stars on the map...but alas no alien with his "finger up". What is sad here is that you refuse to acknowledge the probabilities.


I wonder if they will find planets orbiting Scholz, and its brown dwarf companion ?

www.bbc.co.uk...

question I have does that make our system a trifecta ?

funbox


One of the things I like so little about astronomy; the fact that each and every study of the stars, each and every catalog, uses their own identifications, and there is never a cross-reference.

So it appears that Scholz is not on e the Kepler list of targets (missionstars database table), so it could be a long time before anyone looks there for planets. That said; it is still highly probable that one or more will be found...

On the other hand, they did recently find a planet orbiting two stars! Kind of cool.



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   
you mean it swaps it's orbit between stars? , ill bet that can throw up some interesting cycles within a spicies if theres life there.

but does this recent finding say that we are in a trinary star system?

the article by the bbc doesn't make it clear.

funbox
edit on 18-2-2015 by funbox because: syntax error in your''re favour collect 200



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: funbox


you mean it swaps it's orbit between stars? , ill bet that can throw up some interesting cycles within a spicies if theres life there.

but does this recent finding say that we are in a trinary star system?

the article by the bbc doesn't make it clear.

funbox


Not sure just how the orbit runs on that...the article I saw wasn't very clear...

to the best of my knowledge Sol, is a unary star system...though, I've been wondering lately just what it takes for a system to be binary or have multiple stars. For instance, in the Hipparcos the star Sirius A does not have any stars within "proximity"...by that they mean no star was observed within 10 arcseconds...at 8 light years that is about 24 A.U. Sirius is a binary star system, a well known and accepted fact, yet the data would try to suggest otherwise.

This whole "multi" star thing needs better definition, though it probably does have that "better definition", but, since we aren't astronomers, we will have difficulty finding it...sigh.



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 01:03 AM
link   
a reply to: tanka418


You are quite funny, you should be on Letterman! I'd like to see the results of you or indeed anyone doing this. Fortunately either you nor anyone else will find the "time" to do that...kind of sad really, because it would show you just how wrong you are.

But then again; you did make the statement...too bad you can't/won't back it up. Of course, then there is the wee issue in that you can't back up your statement...

If all else fails, try to deflect from the fact you have provided zero evidence of anything, back on me. Fun.


Yes 50+ years and nothing...OH WAIT!!!! they found habitable stars in that region, even found planets around some of the stars on the map...but alas no alien with his "finger up". What is sad here is that you refuse to acknowledge the probabilities.

No, I acknowledge a possibility that there could be intelligent alien life existing in the area, or any area in the universe. I don't know of anyone who doesn't. However, there's no supporting evidence, as of this moment, that there is and your "probabilities" are not enough to give a definitive answer to anything.


For instance, I can make a prediction here...Zeta 2 Reticuli has planets, at least 1 in the habitable zone. Or how about life on some of those predicted worlds.

Did you know that science is about to accept the notion that planets and perhaps life itself are ubiquitous? Before you condemn my statement; do your homework.

Life has a broad meaning. Don't confuse a scientific theory of life to mean intelligent alien species. Basic and simple life (relative to humans) is much different than intelligent life. The path to high intelligence is miniscule and rare compared that of low intelligence (again, relative to humans)- As proven by the evolution of many millions of low intelligent species compared to the one of high intelligence.
Also, stop trying to intermix statements by science with your own statements and findings. There's no one in the scientific community, that's taken seriously, that's going to believe you communicate with aliens. < insert defunct animated laughing smilie


That old notion about "extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence" is one of the absolutely stupidest things any person has ever said.

The picture becomes even clearer with that statement. I think it stands on it's own and doesn't require a response.


Too often in my work I have found that it is nearly always the most obvious, "dumbest" / most mundane possible thing that is the explaination. The evidence for life on another world will, in the final analysis, still be only life. It will have no special or unusual properties other than it didn't evolve on Earth.

"will have no special properties".. "will still only be life" You're speaking with conviction again. You shouldn't be on a message board, you should be publishing your findings.


You don't really know much mathematics, especially where it comes to probability do you?

Nope... must be my 6th grade education coming out, sorry.


for what it's worth; my "claims" to being able to telepathically communicate is well established, not by you, but by empirical observation and experiment...no you may not see the data.

By all means, please don't do anything to help substatiuate the claims you make.


Course now, you will want to be careful here sport. you will have extreme difficulty supporting your "delusional" statement...so...perhaps you should stop now before you dig yourself a hole you can't get out of.

I prefer sporto, thanks.

I think draknoir2 is on to something. You should be responded to with parody or satire.



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Ectoplasm8



If all else fails, try to deflect from the fact you have provided zero evidence of anything, back on me. Fun.


Well actually man; I have provided a fair quantity of valid, viable, scientific data / evidence. Much of it from well known scientific studies. You are rejecting it simply because it doesn't say what YOU want...we both know it doesn't work that way. And as I suspected when I suggested that YOU BACK UP YOUR statements, you are refusing!

You demanded data from me, I gave you verifiable data, when asked for data to support your position, there is none.



"will have no special properties".. "will still only be life" You're speaking with conviction again. You shouldn't be on a message board, you should be publishing your findings.


Is this the real reason you have so much trouble? Me "speaking with conviction?" Ya know, what you have quoted here isn't "speaking with conviction." It is simply the application of logic, you should try it sometime.


So, final analysis; All of the data presented supports my position, there is NONE supporting you. We're done!




edit on 19-2-2015 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

I want to add:

Thank you1 Even though we disagree on many major points, I still truly like it when I am compelled to, and want to thank you for making me, re-visit my data. It is through the re-examination that One gains a deeper appreciation for the realities at work here.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join