Should we start saying "AFOS" instead of UFO

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: james1947
You should observe a bit more respect for the individuals involved...

What individuals, the Aliens? If yes, why?

No, the "individuals" involved are anyone, everyone, Mexicans Canadians, Irish, Spanish, Zeta Reticulan, or what ever...

And, I suggest that the term "alien" not be used, primarily because Humans place way too significance on that word when it comes to Extraterrestrials...it's kind of like if it's "alien" ...it way to weird to be considered. When the reality is, as Hermes indicated, Extraterrestrials are likely to be way more Human like than not.

Then of course, the fact that ET has crossed several light years to get here...something that should be respected, along with the species/culture that produced the technology.

And, of course, finally, ET deserves respect simply because he lives!

a reply to: james1947
If you watched those videos then you don't even understand what he said.

It doesn't matter how many stars were discovered after Sagan died, he in fact predicted that someone should be able to come up with a much better match than he presented and even then he would not find it convincing as evidence and he explained why. His explanation is not invalidated by the discovery of additional stars, the star map is still totally worthless as so-called "evidence".

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: james1947
If you watched those videos then you don't even understand what he said.

It doesn't matter how many stars were discovered after Sagan died, he in fact predicted that someone should be able to come up with a much better match than he presented and even then he would not find it convincing as evidence and he explained why. His explanation is not invalidated by the discovery of additional stars, the star map is still totally worthless as so-called "evidence".

Yes, I watched his videos. What was the POV for his view, from which star did he construct his view? He doesn't seem to mention that.

But, ya know what? That was one of the first discoveries I made doing the analysis of the stars and their astrometrics...the Point Of View (POV), its HIP-26737...122 ly from Earth.

Carl talks about how the map "falls apart" when the lines are removed; yet, when those lines are removed the match (using AForge Computer Vision AI) is 99.1%, and yes there may be a better match, but, it will be near by where I found mine; perhaps in orbit of the star HIP-26737.

Carl also talks about how adding more stars would make a match easier; that is total fiction! Probability of a match actually decreases as you add more stars. The match is 25 stars out of somewhat more than 2800, you don't get more and still call it "local space" ( stars > 2800 inside 33 parsec)...so, that is the first 25 terms of 2800+ factorial...a very large number of possible combinations of stars.

Carl appears to have forgotten his math lessons, and in particular Probability...the real probability of a match is almost non existent.

Other arguments such as "some stars moved too far" are BS, the only star that moved significantly was Kappa Fornacis, which does kind of harm the Fish Interpretation, but that is the only "hit". The others: "Close Binaries", there are no close binaries, though Gliese 67 is a Moderate Binary, or "variable stars", but there are no variable stars in the match.

I wasn't talking about stars discovered after Carl's time, but rather after 1961, when Betty originally drew her map. there are several stars that her map predicts that were not known at the time, and it wasn't until the Hipparcos mission in the early 1990's that these stars were cataloged.

So, while Carl's prediction of a better match being found is quite accurate, so is Betty's prediction of 4 stars. Both of these are due to advances in technology, as is the 99.1% match. My case is based on astrometrics, mathematics, and computer science, Carl's case seems to be a couple of crude drawings, neither of which is an accurate representation of what they are claimed to be. Betty's map is missing some stars, and Carl's is unidentifiable.

a reply to: james1947

Well, I only wanted to voice my objection to the statement that there is "no evidence", or "no proof", since neither is true!

The poster you replied didn't say evidence, they said proof.

and here you say there is

Where has there been any proof other than what an individual thinks is proven to them based on their experiences?

Further, he obviously (to anyone who has actually done the work) didn't do any of the work to determine IF Betty's map was valid or not. He may not have had the tools to do that level of work in his time.

experiences can and certainly do equal delusions for quite a few interested and invested in Ufology

This nonsense again

if its proof why do you constantly push it in avenues that wont make any difference?

If its proof why not present your finding to an established scientific venue so the proof can be verified and exposed?

Nah, lets just feed our delusions on conspiracy site and keep saying its proof

"AFOS" sounds like a decent terminology for these alien beings. I'll have to keep that in mind --- Thanks

The old term was "ufonauts," but I'm still feelling that the "you-foe" --- in ufonaut...might be translated wrongly in a different way by some creature from outer space --- which sets-up a beginning of relations by such designations as probable bad protocol.

We have a strident need to know the actual race/races name of there species.

The only ET race that I have a meager knowledge of...is the "dinosauroids," which are sometimes called the "Grays." --- The bipedal humanoids with the 3 fingered hands an 3 toed feet.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

This might set ya thinking about ET's for awhile...though I can't prove it --- Enjoy

www.youtube.com...

[yvid]cS-WaadAmOU[/vid]

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: james1947

The poster you replied didn't say evidence, they said proof.

I try to avoid using the word "proof", since there is typically NO PROOF in any scientific endeavor...the best we should get is a "Theory". IF we actually want "proof" then we should look to mathematics, for there is the ONLY place we actually get "proof", and even then it is quite rare!

experiences can and certainly do equal delusions for quite a few interested and invested in Ufology

This nonsense again

if its proof why do you constantly push it in avenues that wont make any difference?

If its proof why not present your finding to an established scientific venue so the proof can be verified and exposed?

Nah, lets just feed our delusions on conspiracy site and keep saying its proof

Why do I mention this in places like ATS? To test the acceptance against a skeptical crowd...
What "established scientific venue" would you suggest?

LOL...well, dude, what can I say; you call this a delusion and nonsense, yet I'd bet that you are completely incapable of showing that either is actually true!

This delusion you want to refer to is Astronomy and Astrophysics...in that ALL of what I've done here is based off of real, actual, verifiable stellar data collected by NASA, ESA, and several observatories. This is the very same data that is used by each and every Astronomer every day, It is the data that kind of defines modern Astronomy and Astrophysics.

And, I'm not "pushing" anything here, simply using that event as an example...perhaps YOU should look into it, actually the same work that I have and "see" if it is right...course that would mean that you are using and following proper scientific procedure and protocol. You know; that whole repeatable experiment thing...

In any case if you want to call me delusional, or my work nonsense; you might want to actually try providing some evidence of either...but, of course, you can't; partly because neither is true, and because you don't have the data, and have not done the work.

By the way: I'm thinking of changing the website to more accurately reflect what Betty saw while on the Extraterrestrial craft...at least as far as the "map" goes...


ETA: It seems to me that attacking my work without foundation is the nonsense / delusion here...just sayin'

originally posted by: llama

WTFs

That's pretty much what I said when I saw one.

originally posted by: musicismagic
I think if we start using "AFOS" that would give more credit to those people that actually have encounter such living matter from outer spacer.

UFOs have nothing to do with imaginary space people.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: musicismagic

"There has never been any sighting of extraterrestrial crafts from the International Space Station in all these years. "

Yeah, like they would be allowed to report such things as if it was no big deal. Nobody knows if they have actually seen anything up there except for the astronauts/cosmonauts themselves, and the people who debrief them.

Also the windows on the International Space Station are "hatch windows" tiny little portals of which there are not many so chances of them seeing anything through them is slim.

originally posted by: kode
Also the windows on the International Space Station are "hatch windows" tiny little portals of which there are not many so chances of them seeing anything through them is slim.

You forgot the cupola.

a reply to: james1947

Back again to try and pull people into your silly arguments? You've yet to convince anyone on this forum "james1947". The type message boards you should be making statements as facts:

www.physicsforums.com...

Try the Astronomy and Astrophysics forum, begin there. They will better suit your scientific arguments, not an Alien/UFO message board built on conspiracies. A message board where knowledge of astronomy is where you want to challenge your points. You seem to want scientific questioning seeing as you make the same arguments over and over. Any true scientist welcomes the questioning of their theories that challenge their points, right? There's no soap box to get on saying you've found THE evidence of visiting extraterrestrials. That's a huge claim to make that has to be met with heavy scientific scrutiny. You haven't done that. Especially by perusing online alien message boards.

Anyone with basic spatial skills recognizes the visual faults in your theories. As I said in one of our endless exchanges:
"So you've moved all of her dots, tried to make a similar pattern with the lines, used only stars when Betty describes both stars and planets, placed your map onto a 3-dimensional rendition of the stars in our galaxy when she drew her map in 2-dimensions" Betty's map only became 3-D in 1969 when Majorie Fish visited her.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
a reply to: james1947

Back again to try and pull people into your silly arguments? You've yet to convince anyone on this forum "james1947".

Yes back, but, not trying to convince anyone of anything...just adding my 2 cents. As for the reference to my analysis; that is just my way of saying that there is in fact evidence of Extraterrestrial involvement with Earth and Humans.

And, true, I've not convinced anyone here, but then again, according to server logs; nobody has ever read my analysis!

Perhaps IF any of y'all would bother to actually read, maybe a good conversation can exist for a bit. But, Alas, I don't see that ever happening.

The type message boards you should be making statements as facts:

www.physicsforums.com...

That's a huge claim to make that has to be met with heavy scientific scrutiny. You haven't done that. Especially by perusing online alien message boards.

Been there, done that. People on boards like that aren't any better than folks Here at ATS, maybe worse. Point is everyone wants to discredit my analysis, nobody want to actually read it first; thus there can be no conversation, no progress toward truth.

And that "heavy scientific scrutiny"? I can't do that, you have to, or someone with the appropriate skills, point is, I can't some other scientist has to.

Anyone with basic spatial skills recognizes the visual faults in your theories. As I said in one of our endless exchanges:
"So you've moved all of her dots, tried to make a similar pattern with the lines, used only stars when Betty describes both stars and planets, placed your map onto a 3-dimensional rendition of the stars in our galaxy when she drew her map in 2-dimensions" Betty's map only became 3-D in 1969 when Majorie Fish visited her.

Yes, yes; that old bug-a-boo. Ya know what? Computer Science, A.I., Computer Vision; say that Betty's map is a 99.1% match to real stars. I've shown that match in my analysis, perhaps you should go find out.

And, then there is the old "stars AND planets"...except that my analysis contains some 25 stars and 17 planets...some of those planets are habitable, and of course there are still a vast amount of planets to discover...however, please don't hold it against me, or Betty if science and technology haven't discovered all the planets associated with map yet. It's a process...science takes time.

You need to rethink your objections...perhaps introduce a bit of logic, and astrometrics.

ETA: Oops, my bad!!! There are 18 planets in that list...I just built a new "view" on the data...merged the stars of Zeta Reticuli group (a data base table based on Hipparcos) and a recent "exoplanet.eu" table and found that there are 18 planets.

originally posted by: james1947
Yes back, but, not trying to convince anyone of anything...just adding my 2 cents. As for the reference to my analysis; that is just my way of saying that there is in fact evidence of Extraterrestrial involvement with Earth and Humans.

Still beating that dead horse of a Betty Hill Map whenever you can, huh? You should read some other encounter reports. Humanoidlord can hook you up. A lot of aliens say they come from Venus. Don't even need an iffy map for that. Then you can try to figure out which aliens are really telling the truth and which ones aren't.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

Still beating that dead horse of a Betty Hill Map whenever you can, huh? You should read some other encounter reports. Humanoidlord can hook you up. A lot of aliens say they come from Venus. Don't even need an iffy map for that. Then you can try to figure out which aliens are really telling the truth and which ones aren't.

dead horse...lol...gotta love it; the abject stupidity that is...though it did make me laugh.

Yea all those other extraterrestrials that have "visited", etc. Tell me; How many of those other extraterrestrials left behind a bit of evidence?

And, by evidence I do mean something that could not have been produced on Earth at the time.

You see, Betty's map actually does something that no other bit of evidence has ever done...
1. depict a representation of local to Earth stars that is highly accurate (99.1%), and not viewed from Earth
2. present a bit of data that may show an origin (home world)
3. predict the existence and relative position of stars that were unknown in 1961, and in fact were not cataloged until 1992 (and discovered post 1989)

What Betty didn't show, and Ms. Fish couldn't determine is the Point of View...HIP-26737. The view from HIP-26737 shows that 99.1% match between Betty's map and real stars, and that includes the stars that weren't discovered yet, and the map stars Ms. Fish didn't identify.

Finally; The Hill case is, to the best of my knowledge, the only instance where an artifact was produced that could be shown to be authentic...seriously, Betty could not have drawn that as a random event...

But, ya know, I NEVER expected anyone to accept this on my word. That is why there is a website, a PDF, and a ton of supporting data, as well as over a thousand lines of code (C#, Python, SQL)...the real problem here is y'all won't look at the data, and would prefer to continue not knowing, so you almost vehemently reject reality. All of the data is there for you to verify what I've been saying.

originally posted by: james1947
Finally; The Hill case is, to the best of my knowledge, the only instance where an artifact was produced that could be shown to be authentic...seriously, Betty could not have drawn that as a random event...

My problem with Betty's map is that it was made by her, it's not an object left by the Aliens that we can analyse.

a reply to: james1947

You’re mistaken. The “aliens” weren’t from space. They were from the UK!

a reply to: musicismagic

If there is one thing ufology doesn't need it's more acronyms!

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: james1947
Finally; The Hill case is, to the best of my knowledge, the only instance where an artifact was produced that could be shown to be authentic...seriously, Betty could not have drawn that as a random event...

My problem with Betty's map is that it was made by her, it's not an object left by the Aliens that we can analyse.

She should have smuggled out the alien book they gave her by stuffing it down her knickers on the way out of the craft. Unless it was called "To Serve Man", of course.

James1947's well-known enthusiasm for the Betty & Barney case is admirable. Even by throwing out the hypnosis evidence, their lucid free memories of the incident before allegedly entering the UFO are impressive in themselves. I'd have more faith in the regressions if they'd been conducted soon after the event, and if Betty hadn't written down her dreams in the interim, let alone relating them to Barney.

The one distinction between her dreams and alleged reality that I found most fascinating was the dream's notion of aliens with black hair and Jimmy Durante noses - which, to Barney's credit, he didn't carry forth into his regression!

James1947 should start his own thread on the case (if he hasn't already done so) rather than setting out his stall in a thread that's about... well... acronyms. I'd be interested to read James' full passionate defence.

originally posted by: james1947

And that "heavy scientific scrutiny"? I can't do that, you have to, or someone with the appropriate skills, point is, I can't some other scientist has to.

If you really do want a challenge from an astronomer that has an interest in extraterrestrial life, I can think of no one better than Seth Shostak. Here's a link below to Shostaks public contact information. Just write a brief message of what you claim to have found and link him to your website:
sethshostak.com...

You may not be satisfied with his response, but Shostak will give you a grounded response without woo-woo BS involved.

More to your liking, try contacting Stanton Friedman using his public email below. I'm sure he welcomes anything that would help him substantiate Betty's claims:
fsphys@bellaliant.net

Someone mentioned in another thread to have a professor of astronomy use your theory as a project for a research group and get it published.

My point being, if you really did want your theory challenged, I can think of several places you can do this and maybe get the attention you think it deserves. But you choose to go on about it on forums like this which gets you nowhere. What do you think that says?