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 & Aliens & The Physical Evidence

page: 12
11
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
I do not propose to go through this rigmarole for my other statements. Now you know my source, check for yourself.



Well, I'm afraid that you will have to, or admit that your data is either misunderstood, taken from an invalid source, or that you have made it all up...kind of "on-the-fly".

NONE of your "facts", or data points have been verified by Hipparcos!

In fact, Hipparcos indicates that none of the stars have a stellar object in close proximity, and none of them are variable.

So...show us your data! And its source!

I'm kind of hoping you actually can, I welcome the opportunity to learn something new.




posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418


I'm kind of hoping you actually can, I welcome the opportunity to learn something new.



Since when?



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: tanka418


Now tell us WHY this is even relevant!

The first link is to the actual Hipparcos catalogue data for the star 54 Piscium.

The second explains how to interpret the relevant fields.


edit on 11/2/15 by Astyanax because: of stating the obvious.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: tanka418


Now tell us WHY this is even relevant!

The first link is to the actual Hipparcos catalogue data for the star 54 Piscium.

The second explains how to interpret the relevant fields.



Your first link doesn't work...it links to a document, NOT Hipparcos data.

You misinterpreted the graphic (Fig. 2.1.1) the minimum detectable level is more like 0.012.

Now then...your data please.

I'm finding it a bit difficult to actually show the query results in this medium, however;
I have a copy of the entire Hipparcos, Tyco, HabCat, and sever other data tables.

I ran this query: select * from [dbo].[hip_main] where catd=3093

The result for the relevant columns; proximityflag, [course variability flag], [variabilityperiod], [variabilityType], [varabilityannexdata], [variabilityannexcurves] are all blank. One should diffenentiate between the default state for all data types, null, and the "blank" nature of these fields. Meaning that the value is known, and it is zero, or empty, but NOT null.

Hip-3093 is 54 Pisc. Hipparcos does not define or state a value for any variability associated with this star. The quoted variability threshold is around 0.012 of actual magnitude.

This should serve to adequately show that the current data does not support your statements.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 08:19 PM
link   


Here is some more evidence to look over dealing with implants which arent from earth at all.

This is what testable evidence is.
edit on 11-2-2015 by FormOfTheLord because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 09:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord


Here is some more evidence to look over dealing with implants which arent from earth at all.

This is what testable evidence is.

Hey T&C Nazi, have a look at this:
15k.) Video links/embeds: You will not embed or Post a link to a video without a reasonable description of its content and why it interests you, is germane to the topics discussed on the Websites or the topic of an existing thread should you post it in a reply to an existing thread. www.abovetopsecret.com...

Beef, it's what's for dinner.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: FormOfTheLord


This is what testable evidence is.


No its not. Youtube videos are for rabble and codfish and stuff like that.

here is the general guideline for the Scientific Method from Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org...


1.Define a question
2.Gather information and resources (observe)
3.Form an explanatory hypothesis
4.Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner
5.Analyze the data
6.Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7.Publish results
8.Retest (frequently done by other scientists)


Leir fails at 4. Where is the data? Has anyone else been able to reproduce this? This is what is known as a scam. Guys like Leir know there are people that are willfully ignorant of some basic concepts and do not hesitate to take full advantage of the gullible. Now I remember watching his lectures and being fascinated that he may have actually found something. However, I understand what data is and what real science actually looks like and it didn't take me long to realize that he was a fraud.






edit on 11-2-2015 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord





Here is some more evidence to look over dealing with implants which arent from earth at all.



This is what testable evidence is.


Hey T&C Nazi, have a look at this:

15k.) Video links/embeds: You will not embed or Post a link to a video without a reasonable description of its content and why it interests you, is germane to the topics discussed on the Websites or the topic of an existing thread should you post it in a reply to an existing thread. www.abovetopsecret.com...



Beef, it's what's for dinner.

Your off topic, im no Nazi, and look its interesting to me because its testable evidence duh, and I said its dealing with implants which arent from earth.

So you need to look over the T&C for calling me a Nazi which violates the T&C of ATS.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 10:01 PM
link   
a reply to: FormOfTheLord

I didn't call you a "Nazi", I said T&C Nazi. Here is the explanation of the difference in a form you might understand

A typical and common mini-mod post of yours wherein you cherry pick pet T&C,


Also lets stay on topic and discuss the Op of the thread and the evidence in the videos and not each other which is against T&C of ATS.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
while routinely violating others. I simply pointed out your hypocrisy.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 10:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: FormOfTheLord



I didn't call you a "Nazi", I said T&C Nazi. Here is the explanation of the difference in a form you might understand



A typical and common mini-mod post of yours wherein you cherry pick pet T&C,




Also lets stay on topic and discuss the Op of the thread and the evidence in the videos and not each other which is against T&C of ATS.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

while routinely violating others. I simply pointed out your hypocrisy.


I can see you have nothing of interest to say about the evidence presented, and I reccomend you look at your own posts and see how they fit into the ATS T&C.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 11:18 PM
link   
a reply to: FormOfTheLord


I can see you have nothing of interest to say about the evidence presented, and I reccomend you look at your own posts and see how they fit into the ATS T&C.

Now I wasn't going to post this but I changed my mind because you aren't getting it.... and I posted about your evidence...lets step it up a bit.


a reply to: DenyObfuscation

What is odd is that when I do discuss the evidence, he makes insulting comments and posts off topic youtube videos.

me (notice discussion of the evidence and is on topic)

Its kind of obvious. The picture is at an angle so your lines are offset. and to show lens flare, the lines would go to the corresponding eye, so the lines would cross. Where the line crosses, should be the center of the picture. But you really need the original and you really need eyes. The perfect match to the deer head is good enough for most though. I'm on a phone so can't really show you. Maybe someone else can.


response (insult followed by discussing me, not my post and is off topic):

Ok this is loony tunes, watch the video before you comment please, so you dont make the error of sounding uninformed.


me: on topic...mostly

correct. I looked at the photo with lines on it that were at a right angle to the screen shot of the video of a photograph. Not the actual photo. Not sure why I would watch the video at this point...or even bother with your silly threads at this point.


response (note how its all about me and is off topic):

No one is making you post its totally up to you if you want to contribute to a conversation or not. There are plenty of other threads on ATS that you may enjoy more than this one. Of course you welcome to stay but please refrain from calling my threads names like silly its uncalled for, just as if I started calling your threads names, it doesnt belong in a on topic discussion.


me (Calling things "looney tunes" is apparently acceptable and the definition of "willful ignorance" is part of the OP and something he repeats ad nauseam. Wilful ignorance is on topic at its part of the OP)

My bad, your threads are looney tunes and the epitome of willful ignorance.


response: off topic

Please try not to sink to insults, instead discuss the evidence presented in the videos. LOLz


so I point this out: off topic but...

Huh?
Seriously, just about every one of your posts is incredibly insulting and then followed by some stupid off topic youtube video


response: off topic.

Its not about me, this thread is about the evidence in the videos or any other evidence people may find and come upon. Like I said your welcome to stick around but please discuss the evidence and not me, because this thread isnt about me and there is no need to start going off topic.

And then there are all the off topic youtube videos that are meant to be insults?

posts by: FormOfTheLord

















edit on 11-2-2015 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 11:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: FormOfTheLord




I can see you have nothing of interest to say about the evidence presented, and I reccomend you look at your own posts and see how they fit into the ATS T&C.


Now I wasn't going to post this but I changed my mind because you aren't getting it.... and I posted about your evidence...lets step it up a bit.





a reply to: DenyObfuscation



What is odd is that when I do discuss the evidence, he makes insulting comments and posts off topic youtube videos.



me (notice discussion of the evidence)


Its kind of obvious. The picture is at an angle so your lines are offset. and to show lens flare, the lines would go to the corresponding eye, so the lines would cross. Where the line crosses, should be the center of the picture. But you really need the original and you really need eyes. The perfect match to the deer head is good enough for most though. I'm on a phone so can't really show you. Maybe someone else can.





response (insult followed by discussing me, not my post):


Ok this is loony tunes, watch the video before you comment please, so you dont make the error of sounding uninformed.




me:


correct. I looked at the photo with lines on it that were at a right angle to the screen shot of the video of a photograph. Not the actual photo. Not sure why I would watch the video at this point...or even bother with your silly threads at this point.





response (note how its all about me and is off topic):


No one is making you post its totally up to you if you want to contribute to a conversation or not. There are plenty of other threads on ATS that you may enjoy more than this one. Of course you welcome to stay but please refrain from calling my threads names like silly its uncalled for, just as if I started calling your threads names, it doesnt belong in a on topic discussion.




me (Calling things "looney tunes" is apparently acceptable and the definition of "willful ignorance" is part of the OP and something he repeats ad nauseam.)


My bad, your threads are looney tunes and the epitome of willful ignorance.




response:


Please try not to sink to insults, instead discuss the evidence presented in the videos. LOLz





so I point this out:


Huh?

Seriously, just about every one of your posts is incredibly insulting and then followed by some stupid off topic youtube video




response:


Its not about me, this thread is about the evidence in the videos or any other evidence people may find and come upon. Like I said your welcome to stick around but please discuss the evidence and not me, because this thread isnt about me and there is no need to start going off topic.


And then there are all the off topic youtube videos that are meant to be insults?


posts by: FormOfTheLord































Discuss the topic of the OP which is UFOs and the physical evidence, do not discuss ATS members like myself, you should know better. Like I said discuss the topic. . . .



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 11:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: FormOfTheLord


This is what testable evidence is.


No its not. Youtube videos are for rabble and codfish and stuff like that.

here is the general guideline for the Scientific Method from Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org...


1.Define a question
2.Gather information and resources (observe)
3.Form an explanatory hypothesis
4.Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner
5.Analyze the data
6.Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7.Publish results
8.Retest (frequently done by other scientists)


Leir fails at 4. Where is the data? Has anyone else been able to reproduce this? This is what is known as a scam. Guys like Leir know there are people that are willfully ignorant of some basic concepts and do not hesitate to take full advantage of the gullible. Now I remember watching his lectures and being fascinated that he may have actually found something. However, I understand what data is and what real science actually looks like and it didn't take me long to realize that he was a fraud.





Actually I would put the failure at #6. The tests he does are easily repeated, providing he is open with the samples. However, the interpretation that these represent "alien implants" is a rather far stretch.

I can give him "alien" as in extraterrestrial, but, it still just sand. Micrometeorites are not exactly what most people think of when they hear "alien implant".

The "implant" part is where I have great issue. I suppose IF we loosen the definition of implant quite some amount we might be able to squeeze it in, but, not a natural or accommodating "fit".

The whole thing is actually reasonable science, but, its presentation is fraudulent. As I've already indicated; He doesn't do any of the right tests.

edit on 11-2-2015 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 11:53 PM
link   
a reply to: FormOfTheLord


Discuss the topic of the OP which is UFOs and the physical evidence, do not discuss ATS members like myself, you should know better. Like I said discuss the topic. . . .

I agree, however, I am highlighting our interactions, which is important and when I have discussed the topic of physical evidence, you discuss me instead and I am an ATS member too. Like you saying that I should know better is about me and not the topic. I am just pointing this out that people do this in general and not really anything specific to you.

This is from your OP:


We also need to have a look at willful ignorance when discussing evidence which some will be blind to no matter what:

What I am pointing out is a pattern of posting that seems to be "willful ignorance" according to the definition you provided in the OP. When someone does discuss the evidence, it is followed by an insult and off topic youtube video and there is no reply to the "on topic" post. Its quite remarkable.

BTW, there is no link to source.


Willful ignorance is the state and practice of ignoring any sensory input that appears to contradict one’s inner model of reality. At heart, it is almost certainly driven by confirmation bias.

It differs from the standard definition of “ignorance“ — which just means that one is unaware of something — in that willfully ignorant people are fully aware of facts, resources and sources, but refuse to acknowledge them. Indeed, calling someone "ignorant" shouldn’t really be a pejorative, but intentional and willful ignorance is an entirely different matter. In practice though, the word "ignorance" has often come to mean "willful ignorance", and indeed, in many non-English languages, the word based on the same stem actually carries that meaning.

It is sometimes referred to as tactical stupidity.

Depending on the nature and strength of an individual’s pre-existing beliefs, willful ignorance can manifest itself in different ways. The practice can entail completely disregarding established facts, evidence and/or reasonable opinions if they fail to meet one’s expectations. Often excuses will be made, stating that the source is unreliable, that the experiment was flawed or the opinion is too biased. More often than not this is simple circular reasoning: “I cannot agree with that source because it is untrustworthy because it disagrees with me”.

In other slightly more extreme cases, willful ignorance can involve outright refusal to read, hear or study, in any way, anything that does not conform to the person’s worldview. With regard to oneself, this can even extend to fake locked-in syndrome with complete unresponsiveness. Or with regard to others, to outright censorship of the material from others.

Readers should be aware that willful ignorance is a mechanism that actually protects the brain from becoming unable to function in situations that it just can’t handle. An individual can never accept its whole own reality being meaningless or making no sense, as that would make it impossible to act towards any goal. Forcing an individual into such a state has psychologically been found to be comparable to the death of the higher developed parts of the brain from an outside perspective.

This means that the morally right way to treat such individuals is not to look down upon, ridicule or attack them, but to help them to be able to accept reality again. This is most easily accomplished by offering a way to transition without having to give up their own pride and sense of reality, by starting out with the individual's own model of reality, and then slowly walking the way towards actual observed reality by fitting every piece inside of it in a sensible fashion that offers improved abilities to predict the future (which should not be hard, since that is by definition guaranteed).




edit on 12-2-2015 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 12:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
Discuss the topic of the OP which is UFOs and the physical evidence,


Except you have not shown any evidence, and cannot even link us to the lab reports you claim exist!



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 12:06 AM
link   
a reply to: tanka418


Actually I would put the failure at #6. The tests he does are easily repeated, providing he is open with the samples.

But he wasn't open with the samples and we don't get to see his data or really look at his methodologies so that the tests could be reproduced. I think all we have is youtube videos. I think he represented himself as if he complied with 4. but I don't think he did. And Im like this with everything, not just alien stuff...



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 12:27 AM
link   
a reply to: FormOfTheLord
Just FYI, this post is going to be off-topic, since your topic is testable evidence, and you have provided none (much like every other thread you've authored). No need to tell me I'm off topic and post random YouTube videos this time, OK? Cool.

****Warning, on behalf of FormOfTheLord: Off-topic post ahead.****

Can someone please tell me how to block posts from a specific member? I can't seem to find the option, and I've had more than my fill of seeing thread after thread of disgustingly willful ignorance and outright lies, accompanied by all the random YouTube videos one could ever ask for, authored by a certain individual who I will not name, but who I believe, in fact, to either be an orangutan or an 11 year-old child. It was cute at first, but it's become quite annoying.

Any assistance in the matter would be appreciated.
edit on 2/12/2015 by AdmireTheDistance because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 12:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
a reply to: FormOfTheLord
Just FYI, this post is going to be off-topic, since your topic is testable evidence, and you have provided none (much like every other thread you've authored). No need to tell me I'm off topic and post random YouTube videos this time, OK? Cool.

****Warning, on behalf of FormOfTheLord: Off-topic post ahead.****

Can someone please tell me how to block posts from a specific member? I can't seem to find the option, and I've had more than my fill of seeing thread after thread of disgustingly willful ignorance and outright lies, accompanied by all the random YouTube videos one could ever ask for, authored by a certain individual who I will not name, but who I believe, in fact, to either be an orangutan or an 11 year-old child. It was cute at first, but it's become quite annoying.

Any assistance in the matter would be appreciated.


I don't know but I'd appreciate learning how. Please let me know if you find out. You'll be performing a community service.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 01:01 AM
link   
Well I think that testing out the implants and seeing that they arent anything man made would show that they are ET objects.

Could be considered the smoking gun of ETs being real.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 01:03 AM
link   
a reply to: FormOfTheLord




Well I think that testing out the implants and seeing that they arent anything man made would show that they are ET objects.

Of course, ruling out natural would also be important.

To bad there is no evidence that the "implants" were (or weren't) any of the above.
edit on 2/12/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join