UFO & Aliens & The Physical Evidence

a reply to: FormOfTheLord
Thanks. will take a look.

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

Here are some interesting artifacts with aliens on them from ancient civilizations, yet another drop in the ocean of evidence that is most likely out there.

Would you stop with the youtube video's belief?

Just because someone makes a claim on a video does not mean its the truth

Now for this video you posted please show evidence of the source these artifacts, and you replying "watch the video" does'nt cut it.

check this out
here's more

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

I actually went to a Coast to Coast AM event back in 2008 here in Canada and saw George Noory do a live show with Whitley Strieber, his wife and also Catherine Austin Fitts. Back then, Fitts only talked about economic stuff - I never really paid too much attention to her. I was surprised recently to hear her talk at length about this other point of view. It's easy to fall behind on this subject unless one is sifting through really good archive sites. C2C at this point is pretty boring. I like to hear the shows that would have been pulled off the air if it were back in the day!

The thing I found especially intriguing about Strieber's recent discussion with Farrell, Dolan and Fitts was that he specifically asked if this so-called alien phenomenon might have some sort of mysterious connection to what happens after death. Farrell has a very strong understanding of advanced physics and is not airy-fairy at all, but he didn't hesitate whatsoever in stating that these paranormal experiences did indeed suggest a connection to what could be considered the other side, for lack of a better way of saying it.

From my perspective, it seems like what could be beyond an event horizon or singularity. So the fact that it is extremely elusive and also high-tech, but also somehow spiritual and co-present with our existence, seems to make sense to me.

Negative time?

a reply to: SecretKnowledge

Would you stop with the youtube video's belief?

I am really starting to think my suspicion is correct and there really are dis-info shills on here.



Hint: my suspicion is the ones that want evidence and demand claims to scrutinized with such vigor that deception in ones claims will be visible to people that see and leave their beliefs at home in this field are more likely to have experienced something that may or may not be classified as alien to us humans at this point in time.

So many that push video after video are the ones with an agenda that is not what they say.

If they are not being financially compensated or given some other incentive to muddy the waters with repeated crap over and over and its their ego pushing their 'Believe me I am an experiencer' attitude, I feel humanity will never have the answers to the questions so many ask about life, intelligent life not of this earth.

Its like the kids saying it takes one to know one.

If there is intelligence out there and if it observes the ignorance down here it will never give verification of its existence to such diverse thinking systems that will argue until their heads turn blue to be believed.


I am just wondering why OP like so many before them don't just stick to YouTube and comment there instead of bring it all over here to be repeatedly argued over then left for a while and then to be brought up again like its the new holy grail by another.

how long does one go in circles until they realize they are getting nowhere with their approach?

That is a question to the OP.

originally posted by: SecretKnowledge

Just because someone makes a claim on a video does not mean its the truth

a reply to: tanka418

If you are referring to the Hill case, I refer you to the Hipparcos catalog. There are some 117 000 stars there, along with a plethora of data on all. Then you can actually use the Fish interpretation as a first approximation, then build your own second, and perhaps third or fourth using commonly available tools.

I have better things to do. Respond to the specific criticism I made. If you have data that bears out this 'star map', post it.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: tanka418

If you are referring to the Hill case, I refer you to the Hipparcos catalog. There are some 117 000 stars there, along with a plethora of data on all. Then you can actually use the Fish interpretation as a first approximation, then build your own second, and perhaps third or fourth using commonly available tools.

I have better things to do. Respond to the specific criticism I made. If you have data that bears out this 'star map', post it.

Full Definition of OBFUSCATE
transitive verb
1
a : darken
b : to make obscure

2 : confuse
intransitive verb
: to be evasive, unclear, or confusing

3 : What tanka does.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: tanka418

If you are referring to the Hill case, I refer you to the Hipparcos catalog. There are some 117 000 stars there, along with a plethora of data on all. Then you can actually use the Fish interpretation as a first approximation, then build your own second, and perhaps third or fourth using commonly available tools.

I have better things to do. Respond to the specific criticism I made. If you have data that bears out this 'star map', post it.

Okay...the data used originally, and the data being used now, is not significantly different. This data is the very same data that is used day to day by terrestrial science (astronomers, astrobiologists, and astrophysiicists). This data I have used, is being used by everyone all of science. I'm not sure just where, or how you came up with the notion that any of this data was obsolete...quite simply; it isn't.

You should have checked out the thread I linked, it contained an amazing amount of very good data, some provided by an astronomer. The data you ask for begins with the liked thread. If you want a link to the source of the astronomical data...as I've already said; it is contained in the Hipparcos catalog...which would be more than just a little difficult to post here (besides, you wouldn't want to deal with a catalog of 117,000 stars and the associated physical properties.

Again, as I said, the original "fish" interpretation is a good first approximation (starting point). From this point One can work out much of the rest.

a reply to: tanka418

I'm not sure just where, or how you came up with the notion that any of this data was obsolete...

The post to which you are replying contains the answer.

If you want a link to the source of the astronomical data...as I've already said; it is contained in the Hipparcos catalog...which would be more than just a little difficult to post here (besides, you wouldn't want to deal with a catalog of 117,000 stars and the associated physical properties.

Are you aware that the Hipparcos catalogue did not exist when Betty Hill drew her map?

originally posted by: Astyanax
Are you aware that the Hipparcos catalogue did not exist when Betty Hill drew her map?

Yes, I know. However, it does now, and gives us a somewhat better idea of the stars, and their locations. Although, in all of the important attributes, Hipparcos serves more as an extension to the original data. With the introduction of XHIP, even more relevant data can be easily be included in any queries. Bringing us to the realization that the original data isn't obsolete at all...simply older (i.e. earlier epoch). The real world differences can also be solved with mathematics by simply correcting locations. The differences in parallax though, may be a little more significant (distances), but in this case, I don't think it will make any serious difference.

The stars, their class, locations, data, haven't changed enough since the 1960's to make any significant difference. Thus the re-creations are all, and still, accurate. The only serious question is the HIP7918 / Upsilon Andromeda question, and even that doesn't mean much since both stars are highly likely to have some sort of advanced life possible space-faring.

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: tanka418

If you are referring to the Hill case, I refer you to the Hipparcos catalog. There are some 117 000 stars there, along with a plethora of data on all. Then you can actually use the Fish interpretation as a first approximation, then build your own second, and perhaps third or fourth using commonly available tools.

I have better things to do. Respond to the specific criticism I made. If you have data that bears out this 'star map', post it.

Full Definition of OBFUSCATE
transitive verb
1
a : darken
b : to make obscure

2 : confuse
intransitive verb
: to be evasive, unclear, or confusing

3 : What tanka does.

wow...it appears that you are not the only one around here that has difficulties with real data.

Just to be clear; the use of, and reference to, existing compiled scientific data is not an obfuscation, it is a clarification. In as much as this data is what has been determined to be what is "real" and "true". Though it may take some amount of education and expertise to actually understand some of that data.

a reply to: Astyanax

The same discussion on this took place a while back www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: tanka418

If you are referring to the Hill case, I refer you to the Hipparcos catalog. There are some 117 000 stars there, along with a plethora of data on all. Then you can actually use the Fish interpretation as a first approximation, then build your own second, and perhaps third or fourth using commonly available tools.

I have better things to do. Respond to the specific criticism I made. If you have data that bears out this 'star map', post it.

But, you did ask for specific response to criticism...

in your original post you quoted:

Other research has looked at stars included in Fish’s research. Two, 54 and 107 Piscium, have been revealed to be variable stars, while Gliese 67 and Tau 1 Eridani are in fact close binaries.

This information is wholly incorrect...

54 and 107 Piscium are both main sequence stars.
Neither Glises 67 nor Tau 1 Eridani are components of a multi-star system
Source: Hipparcos and XHIP

Gliese 67 can be found in another table of stars known as HabCat. That is a table of near-by habitable star systems.
www.nasa.gov...

So, it would appear that your source has used invalid or perhaps corrupt data t reach their conclusions.

So here are a few news stories that caught my eye, very interesting and I would toss it in the evidence bin for discussion too.
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.

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

What kind of aliens are there?

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Astyanax

The same discussion on this took place a while back www.abovetopsecret.com...

I remember that...

Back in that day my software for plotting star locations in 3D space wasn't as sophisticated as it is today. Star positions (RA, Decl, and distance) were entered manually, which always leads to random error. I've since replaced that with SQL table queries, and of course HIPP, XHIP, HABCAT, etc. are now SQL Server data tables in my private stellar database.

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
So here are a few news stories that caught my eye, very interesting and I would toss it in the evidence bin for discussion too.
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.

I believe that was also proved to be lens flare off the deer's face - mirrored vertically [the bright dots correspond to its eyes].

originally posted by: Specimen
a reply to: FormOfTheLord



What kind of aliens are there?

I dunno thats a whole different topic than what we are attempting to discuss in this thread, perhaps we should make another thread which deals with that topic. This thread is for the discussion of various evidence we may come upon in our travels.

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
So here are a few news stories that caught my eye, very interesting and I would toss it in the evidence bin for discussion too.
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.

I believe that was also proved to be lens flare off the deer's face - mirrored vertically [the bright dots correspond to its eyes].

Really!!?

I'd seriously like to see the physics on that...to bad its probably non existent. But, I would like to see some sort of explanation as that seems a wee bit counter-intuitive given the circumstances.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
So here are a few news stories that caught my eye, very interesting and I would toss it in the evidence bin for discussion too.
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.

I believe that was also proved to be lens flare off the deer's face - mirrored vertically [the bright dots correspond to its eyes].

Really!!?

I'd seriously like to see the physics on that...to bad its probably non existent. But, I would like to see some sort of explanation as that seems a wee bit counter-intuitive given the circumstances.

Why am I not surprised?