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.

 

Neil DeGrasse Tyson: ET and DNA

page: 16
39
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: ZetaRediculian





If there are 1000 people that live in a high rise apartment building and 2% of that is 20, I really don't know how else to interpret that.


So are you now suggesting the aliens take two percent of the population that live in each high rise apartment building?

That would be quite an outlandish claim, would it not?

A more outlandish claim might be that 2% of 1000 does not equal 20 which is what I think you are saying. Do you have better information on the Roper pole? What I am really suggesting is that the Roper pole is ridiculous as are the "researchers" that support it (Hopkins and Jacobs). It's really hard to take the pole seriously.


Incorrect, a course in statistics would be beneficial.

If you have a jar of jelly beans and you take a sample and determine that 2% are red jelly beans, using your statistics, are more red jelly beans at the top or the bottom?



Nothing you say can justify the claim that most abductees are taken from high rise apartments in New York City.

Nothing you can say can justify that I even said that.



You have nothing to support your claim.

correct, since I haven't made any claims.


edit on 27-3-2015 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: ZetaRediculian




What I am really suggesting is that the Roper pole is ridiculous as are the "researchers" that support it (Hopkins and Jacobs). It's really hard to take the pole seriously.


I wouldn't know, but I will take your word for that.
edit on 27-3-2015 by Scdfa because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: tanka418
Yes, I don't disagree with the logic but the question was where did the statements in question come from. The only abduction stats I know are from the roper pole. This was something that the popular abduction researchers promoted as evidence of a rampant epidemic of alien abduction. So I don't know if the statements originated from Jacobs and Hopkins but it seems like something they would say. Where I am going is, for the purpose of the discussion, that we can accept the popular statistics and the assumptions or move on with new ones and get better stats. Personally, I would be happy to drop kick Roper, Hopkins and especially Jocobs.



So...where are these results...i.e. the actual dataset from the roper poll?

Anybody care to actually post up a link?

Just a little time spent using the search engine at the Roper site yields no results for alien abductions...so, where's the Beef?

I would be rather sure that IF there really is such a poll that the data will indicate "where" these abductions took place...I also quite sure it won't be in the city.

So...anybody...a link to this poll...



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: tanka418
Sure. I have been looking for the distribution numbers but its been difficult between working and looking up stats on abductions. Plus I'm on a cell. If you google"roper poll abductions" you should get a lot of hits.

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Scdfa

I wouldn't know, but I will take your word for that


Oh come on now. Its right there in front of you.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: tanka418
Sure. I have been looking for the distribution numbers but its been difficult between working and looking up stats on abductions. Plus I'm on a cell. If you google"roper poll abductions" you should get a lot of hits.

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...




Yeah...I did that...you're right lots of hits.

I was unable t find one that links to Roper, only to a third party. Thus no reliable dataset...especially in view of the fact that Roper's search engine couldn't find any reference.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: tanka418


I was unable t find one that links to Roper, only to a third party. Thus no reliable dataset...especially in view of the fact that Roper's search engine couldn't find any reference.

Good point. I don't know if I have come across the actual report. Jacob's and Hopkin's reference it a lot and, I believe, were behind it. So that might be a good place to start. I will see what I can find.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Scdfa

I wouldn't know, but I will take your word for that


Oh come on now. Its right there in front of you.


Yes, well, you have to be careful when you type "It's hard to take the 'pole' seriously".

Homophones. Dangerous in the wrong hands.

Hard to take seriously, indeed.

But I see that you still don't have any evidence to support your theory that aliens abductees are selected according to population density. I don't expect you to find any, either


edit on 27-3-2015 by Scdfa because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-3-2015 by Scdfa because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-3-2015 by Scdfa because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-3-2015 by Scdfa because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-3-2015 by Scdfa because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 06:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Scdfa

I wouldn't know, but I will take your word for that


Oh come on now. Its right there in front of you.


Yes, well, you have to be careful when you type "It's hard to take the 'pole' seriously".

Homophones. Dangerous in the wrong hands.

Hard to take seriously, indeed.

But I see that you still don't have any evidence to support your theory that aliens abductees are selected according to population density.



What are you, twelve?



I chuckled too.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Scdfa

I wouldn't know, but I will take your word for that


Oh come on now. Its right there in front of you.


Yes, well, you have to be careful when you type "It's hard to take the 'pole' seriously".

Homophones. Dangerous in the wrong hands.

Hard to take seriously, indeed.

But I see that you still don't have any evidence to support your theory that aliens abductees are selected according to population density.



What are you, twelve?



I chuckled too.


LOL Good



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 06:51 PM
link   

edit on 27-3-2015 by Scdfa because: Sorry, double post



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Although I agree with his concept of the difference 1% can do but I have always though:

'Are humans really more intelligent then they were thousands of years ago?
I dont think so, we have more knowledge but our intelligence is the same.
Meaning if you could go back in time say 5 thousand years ago and adopt a human child and
raisehim/her in todays society they would come out no more intelligent then the rest of the present world humans.

Now we have computers that do most of our analysing, thinking and calculations, then spits out the answer.
Give it another say 200 years in the future when mankind finally explores the universe, would we be anymore
intelligent then we are now? Or would our computers be far more advanced?

Chances are [speaking of the large possibility of intelligent life out there] advanced aliens are probably of normal intelligence but their computers and tech makes themselves appear massivly intelligent.

Gotta say Neil DeGrasse Tyson is one of my favorite mainstream scientist.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Scdfa


But I see that you still don't have any evidence to support your theory that aliens abductees are selected according to population density. I don't expect you to find any, either

No but you are providing evidence that you hallucinate. If you really think I said that then it could explain some of your other claims. I'm not kidding.

But what I think you are saying is that people that live in cites are not part of the population. I honestly don't know how else to explain your thinking. 2% percent of the population means just that. nothing else. It doesn't mean 2% of whatever confirms your beliefs. is it sinking in yet?

And I am not saying this. This is what Jacobs and Hopkins are saying. It would seem obvious to me if Jacobs was giving the pole to someone that there would be a location on the survey. The fact that you cant find this information anywhere might tell you something. What it tells me is that the information wasn't shared. probably because you couldn't make any such determinations. I am sure that If you could, you would get your hands on Jacob's pole but its nowhere to be found.

So the conclusions from the pole are 2% of the population.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 07:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Scdfa

I wouldn't know, but I will take your word for that


Oh come on now. Its right there in front of you.


Yes, well, you have to be careful when you type "It's hard to take the 'pole' seriously".

Homophones. Dangerous in the wrong hands.

Hard to take seriously, indeed.

But I see that you still don't have any evidence to support your theory that aliens abductees are selected according to population density.




What are you, twelve?



I chuckled too.



I am not sinking to this level of immaturity.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 07:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Scdfa


But I see that you still don't have any evidence to support your theory that aliens abductees are selected according to population density. I don't expect you to find any, either

No but you are providing evidence that you hallucinate. If you really think I said that then it could explain some of your other claims. I'm not kidding.

But what I think you are saying is that people that live in cites are not part of the population. I honestly don't know how else to explain your thinking. 2% percent of the population means just that. nothing else. It doesn't mean 2% of whatever confirms your beliefs. is it sinking in yet?

And I am not saying this. This is what Jacobs and Hopkins are saying. It would seem obvious to me if Jacobs was giving the pole to someone that there would be a location on the survey. The fact that you cant find this information anywhere might tell you something. What it tells me is that the information wasn't shared. probably because you couldn't make any such determinations. I am sure that If you could, you would get your hands on Jacob's pole but its nowhere to be found.

So the conclusions from the pole are 2% of the population.



I'm sorry, I must be misunderstanding you.

If the Roper poll determined that two percent of the American population has been abducted, I feel that could well be the case.

My point of disagreement was with Harte, who stated:The majority of abductions are from large cities, and the majority of those are from high rise apartments in New York City.

I took issue with that, and it seemed to me you were defending that statement. If you say you do not support that position, I believe you.

As I say, Linda Cortille Napolitano is the only case I know of where someone was abducted from a Manhattan high-rise. This fascinating case was investigated by the great Budd Hopkins, in his book "Witnessed", It also involved a UN dignitary, a powerful read.
edit on 27-3-2015 by Scdfa because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Scdfa


I'm sorry, I must be misunderstanding you.

No problem bro, it happens.



If the Roper poll determined that two percent of the American population has been abducted, I feel that could well be the case.

Nah.



My point of disagreement was with Harte, who stated:The majority of abductions are from large cities, and the majority of those are from high rise apartments in New York City.
Well, maybe you should discuss that with him?



I took issue with that, and it seemed to me you were defending that statement. If you say you do not support that position, I believe you.
I was only trying to understand where that statement may have come from. That was my guess and the math seems to work. Harte can speak for himself.


As I say, Linda Cortille Napolitano is the only case I know of where someone was abducted from a Manhattan high-rise. This fascinating case was investigated by the great Budd Hopkins, in his book "Witnessed", It also involved a UN dignitary, a powerful read.

yeah, I read the book. Its a hoax.



I will make sure I quote your whole post next time or wait out the edit time. Nice one slick! But I am glad you reread my posts and completely changed your response. One thing I learned is if you are going to wrestle with a pig in the mud, you are going to get dirty.



edit on 27-3-2015 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Boy has this thread degenerated.

This thread needs to be closed.

Somebody start a new thread, put up another Tyson vid for us to deconstruct or something.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 08:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueMessiah
Boy has this thread degenerated.

This thread needs to be closed.

Somebody start a new thread, put up another Tyson vid for us to deconstruct or something.


And maybe someone can start a Beavis and Butthead thread so that the people that want to giggle can go there.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 10:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Scdfa


But I see that you still don't have any evidence to support your theory that aliens abductees are selected according to population density. I don't expect you to find any, either

No but you are providing evidence that you hallucinate. If you really think I said that then it could explain some of your other claims. I'm not kidding.

But what I think you are saying is that people that live in cites are not part of the population. I honestly don't know how else to explain your thinking. 2% percent of the population means just that. nothing else. It doesn't mean 2% of whatever confirms your beliefs. is it sinking in yet?

And I am not saying this. This is what Jacobs and Hopkins are saying. It would seem obvious to me if Jacobs was giving the pole to someone that there would be a location on the survey. The fact that you cant find this information anywhere might tell you something. What it tells me is that the information wasn't shared. probably because you couldn't make any such determinations. I am sure that If you could, you would get your hands on Jacob's pole but its nowhere to be found.

So the conclusions from the pole are 2% of the population.



As I say, Linda Cortille Napolitano is the only case I know of where someone was abducted from a Manhattan high-rise. This fascinating case was investigated by the great Budd Hopkins, in his book "Witnessed", It also involved a UN dignitary, a powerful read.


The Linda Cortile Case is a hoax, and this is accepted even among many UFO believers. Hopkins sums it up (even mentioning the Walton case), as pretty much yet another case involving belief, and no evidence.

www.philipcoppens.com...


In the end, the situation is one of belief. Did alien beings make a statement by abducting a woman in the centre of New York, at the same time they abducted the Secretary General, only to have the incident erased from the memory, only to be recovered under hypnosis, and relying on the skills of Hopkins – which are not very impressive – to piece them together? Or did someone manipulate Hopkins into making the proper connections, tying a mundane case of one of his abductees into a phenomenal event. This would not merely have been the first witnessed UFO abductions of this type (the Travis Walton case and others are of a different nature, in which an incident occurs and immediately, there are or are not eyewitnesses. In the case of Linda, the testimony was 15 months apart and apparently independently made); it had the Secretary General of the United States as the witness. In the knowledge of the lengths that the CIA went to to discredit Boutros-Ghali, knowing Richard and Dan were more than likely CIA agents, is it perhaps more likely they tried to put pressure on de Cuellar? Even though Hopkins apparently tried to make him talk, behind the scenes surely someone could “threaten” de Cuellar that his name would be ousted in major publications unless he did “this” or “that”? Perhaps the entire story was even payback for a decision de Cuellar had previously made, in which he managed to upset certain people… But most likely, he never upset any Grey alien…


edit on 27-3-2015 by cuckooold because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 10:34 PM
link   
a reply to: cuckooold
Sure was a hoax

www.carolrainey.com...

It was hard to watch these things happen to a man who had devoted over six years of his life primarily to this single UFO abduction case. But Budd never once backed down or gave an inch of credence to the “debunkers’” attack on the case. (In our house, the words “debunkers” and “skeptics” were used very much in the way that devout Christians use the words “unbelievers” and “the unsaved.”) He continued to tout the major significance of the case long after he knew that Linda had lied to him on multiple occasions. ...



edit on 27-3-2015 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join