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.

 

Other forms of Evidence: The Smartphone Challenge to Alien Contactees/Abductees/Experiencers

page: 5
11
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418
So, perhaps, before you start throwing around old computer clichés around, you might want to actually become familiar with the technologies involved.


That you throw this in my face says to me you have no idea who you're talking to with little to no knowledge of what I do for a living. Were you not the individual who argued earlier in more than one post, that based on CCD chip mapping verification of a photo being taken by a specific camera - was validation for the image content (!?) - then abruptly reversed position after being told how demonstrably ridiculous that is?

Ok, here's my final remarks - because I don't have time for nonsensical debate.

Much like your argument for a hand drawn star map from hypnotic recall being unique as far as star placement, it falls inevitably flat.

Perhaps rather than making foolish and uneducated statements on what I should "bone up" on, you should account with demonstrable work how you derive anything useful from a hand drawn star map. I'll assume you've already done said work and had it peer reviewed by astronomers?

Oh, and make sure you take this quote from Betty Hill herself into account as well:

"As for the 8 background stars - I really do not know if they exist and in that position, or if I added them to try to show that the other stars were seen on the sky map in the background. I know I added them to show that stars were in the background; however, as to their position on the original skymap, I am not sure."

Remember, in science you don't get to pick and choose what lines up and what doesn't. Claiming unique alignment requires complete alignment.

The bottom line is you're starting with bad information to start with, therefore any scientific validation is not going to happen - and no matter how ignorant you try to portray me to be, that's not going to change.

What I see is a preconceived ideology being defended rather than actual science being applied. The endgame here is scientific jargon is trying to be applied to essentially worthless data. It's like trying to run a DNA test on fairy dust.


edit on 27-2-2015 by jritzmann because: added remarks




posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Maybe the aliens will let you do a selfie in their space ship. What i would do is try to get a lighter or ashtray from their ship.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: LA1IMPALA

Too bad the aliens have a strict take only what you come with policy.

edit on PMFri, 27 Feb 2015 15:07:34 -060027America/Chicago2092015Fridayf by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: jritzmann

originally posted by: tanka418
So, perhaps, before you start throwing around old computer clichés around, you might want to actually become familiar with the technologies involved.


That you throw this in my face says to me you have no idea who you're talking to with little to no knowledge of what I do for a living. Were you not the individual who argued earlier in more than one post, that based on CCD chip mapping verification of a photo being taken by a specific camera - was validation for the image content (!?) - then abruptly reversed position after being told how demonstrably ridiculous that is?



I like the way you missed my point in that other post...shows you truly pay attention...I was saying that IF someone took the time to actually map the imperfections of a CCD array onto an image; it would be indistinguishable from an image taken with that CCD. But, in your haste you somehow overlooked that...your bad.

Now then, I don't really give a damn "who" you are...you have shown me no credential, nor are you likely to...but, when / if you do, please understand I have some too; they're meaningless in this context.

As with a couple of others who tried the very same argument, and used the same evidence; The data supports my position, you have presented no data to support yours.

edit on 27-2-2015 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Maybe they ask you to turn off mobile phones as it messes with the radios.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 06:42 PM
link   
It's certainly true that I could build a full-sized, fake UFO in my backyard or out in the desert someplace where nobody would see me, and put alien figures in it and take pictures of it with my phone camera and it would be impossible to prove that it was fake, because it wouldn't be fake. It would be an authentic photo.

That would be way too ambitious for me, though.



new topics

top topics
 
11
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join