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.

 

Project Serpo: Postings by "Anonymous" -- Breaking news?

page: 192
29
<< 189  190  191    193  194  195 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 10:16 PM
link   
GradyPhilpott ....thanks for the link.
I had just finished reading up on the case at several different sites,but thank you. I was really interested in the drawings Zamora made of the craft and "logo" he saw on the craft. The FBI files on the case were pretty interesting as well.

JeddyHi, thank you.
Again, not to get off topic, the date mentioned on Serpo just struck me as something I knew from somewhere else. It motivated me enough that I quit being a "lurker" here and added in my 2 cents lol.


[edit on 1-2-2006 by makaveli27]




posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 10:19 PM
link   
I think the way it works is victor talks to anon, bill talks to victor, and gary o talks to bill. Somebody in that group of 3 or 4 has to be anon!


Garyo--It did look like that is what your slip of the hand wrote. But I accept your statement.

"Did Victor just get an e-mail that said create a site.
And write what I say."
(Garyo1954 quote).

Maybe you should modify it to say "did Victor just get an email that said create a site? And did Anon say to him write what I say?" I assume that is what you meant.

Thanks for your service by the way.



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 10:25 PM
link   

The information began to be released on 2 November 2005 by a retired senior official within the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) who calls himself “Anonymous”. Until he chooses to make his name known, this is the way he will be represented here. Anonymous reports that he is not acting individually and is part of a group of six DIA personnel working together as an alliance: three current and three former employees. He is their chief spokesman.


Ok, here is the thing. Any disclosure of anykind can really never be credible disclosure when it comes from an anonymous source. Why remain anonymous? There are a couple reasons one would do this.

1. They wish to conceal their identities from those who would harm them or try to stop the disclosure.

2. They are hoaxing the disclosure and wish to remain anonymous so when the hoax is discovered, they can disappear into obscurity.

I'm leaning towards number one. Only because we have individuals who are involved that are not anonymous. Namely Bill Ryan and Victor Martinez. But they could be pawns in a hoax by the anonymous source.

On to number two. By the source of the material remaining anonymous, and the quality of the data released so far, we have to realize that by staying anonymous, he hurts is own disclosure.

Steven Greer has people ready to testify in front of a Senate hearing as to what they know. Names out in the open. This gives the disclosure some form of seriousness. I'm about out of patience with Serpo. No more Journals that border on science fiction. We need data. Real data. Photos would be nice. Anonymous needs to come out of the closet and click on the light. The more I think about him remaining anonymous, the more something rotten smells in Denmark!!

If Anonymous is reading this post, please consider revealing yourself because I can't be the only one about to give up on this. If you really are ex DIA, and this can be proven, it would certainly do wonders for your credibility. If you cannot under no circumstance reveal yourself, then you really need to start releasing some good, real as it gets, data. Stuff people can examine and be amazed by. So far we have a storyline. It's time for data that backs up the story. Plain and simple. Please consider this.



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 10:26 PM
link   
so would pictures change everyones view if they looked authentic? even about the cloning and hybrids and such?



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Pictures At Eleven


Originally posted by waffleprime
so would pictures change everyones view if they looked authentic? even about the cloning and hybrids and such?

I can't say they would change everyone's view, but I can say they would be a welcome and unique presentation of evidence.

Hey, just look what they did for Titor.



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by waffleprime
so would pictures change everyones view if they looked authentic? even about the cloning and hybrids and such?


Anonymous needs to release anything that can offer some sort of credibility to the story. Enough of the journals. They could be fiction for all we know. I want some evidence, some data that is factual. Some scientific data about a binary star system would be a start. A group of humans living under a binary star system for 10 years, with access to spacecraft that can travel faster than light. Would they not have studied this binary system up close. How about data on the energy device. Communication device. Or the propulsion system the Eben's use. Anything other than another journal entry.



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 11:19 PM
link   
I think if Victor is sincere about this project, he would want us to hear from him. A podcast is a rather unthreatening way to get his word out. I give Bill respect for standing here when others wont.



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 11:21 PM
link   


The botched landing in '64 was about the same latitude as the two prior crashes and about equal distance between (+/- a few 100 miles).

Initial Crashes:
1)Southwest of Corona, New Mexico
2)South of Datil, New Mexico

Botched '64 --> near Socorro, New Mexico

[edit on 2/1/2006 by Arm Of Geddon]



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Greetings fellow earthlings:

After lurking for two years (just kidding, well, not really...eh, forget it) ... I've decided to weigh in on this, my first really interesting thread on ATS. Here's my .02:

In any phenomenon regarding the ability of humans, human society and human nature to accept a condition, we find 3 crowds emerge:

-> Disbelievers: will always seek to avoid belief and can be expected to sit on the fence but lean towards the disproof of all things related to the phenomenon.

-> Agnostics: will always care very little about the outcome until the outcome is actually something other than what they expect, and then will jump to either side that they've always had a hidden preference for.

-> Believers: The Jodi Foster types. Always believe, even in the face of simple doubt and advanced disinformation and repeated attempts to discredit.



Me? I'm all three, with belief being my preference, agnosticism being my mainstay and disbelief being my easy escape from something such as the Serpo thread if it turns out that way. But in fact, it's not actually. In the end, none of these matter in the face of the POSSIBILITY (there exists one) and PROBABILITY (ditto) that Superior Alien Races could, do and in fact, have been existing for many more years than we've been picking dinosaur bones from our teeth.



Let me bring up a few key points that identify why my belief neurons are firing over this thread, Serpo, and the alien question in general:


(1) First, too much of the information is presented here in a matter-of-fact way. This is not the modus operandi of hoaxers and attention seekers. In fact, as I read the first line it produced itself as someone who was explaining something, not attempting to prove it. That speaks volumes and if you have any sense of understanding of human psychology and the nature of man, you'll agree with my general statement that those who appear as though they have nothing to prove -- generally don't. In fact, with this thread, no attempt has been made to hype it nor have any attempts been made to substantiate it beyond what has been presented or referenced. Bill Ryan has done nothing more than simply present the documentation, and defend the practices of those attempting to release the information in accordance with 'best intentions efforts'. Aren't hoaxes traditionally presented using glamorous, often attention-grabbing methods? I don't see any of that here. Let's assume then, that Bill has nothing to do with this other than being the man in the middle. Conveniently, also, that allows us to assume he's neutral, insignificant (sorry Bill!) and so much more not important than we are thinking. Then, kids, it's the data that we need to scrutinize, and not so much Mr. Bill Ryan.


(2) Next, the information in this thread from Anonymous and/or Bill Ryan can be easily compared to many (too many, in fact) other sources of general information that has been circling our planet information streams for the past 60 years. You could almost erroneously discredit this entire thread as "Nothing new to see here, move on" as more points were identified and researched. Therein lies the key error: the identification, discussion and subsequent disbelief of the story based upon premature detail-based analysis. Instead, we must connect the dots. Often it's easier (and quicker) to see how well this story fits in with mainstream potential 'fits' among the popular UFO/ET crowd. I'm thinking, it's going to be fitting REALLY well, which is scary. And, thus more probable as truth by the minute. To sum: there really isn't much that's NEW here, except for the tying in of all available data and providing a core story that seems to integrate all of these discrete pieces of information into a single coherent, cohesive and consistent explanation -- which is what we all really want deep down. Then, once we identify the size of puzzle that we're working with (uh, pre-civilization to present), we can begin to vett detail. There are, undoubtedly, many other questions that need to be answered and holes that need to have data pushed into them for this to work out in a way that makes most of the people happy, but who says this isn't the way it's going to happen? I mean, I think people here are WAY too eager to rush to a completion. I think if Bill Ryan had been provided all of the information at once, there wouldn't even be a solid way for him to release it in a manner that didn't alarm others or allow the skeptic masses and conditioned disbelievers to issue blanket statements regarding the 'canned' nature of the information. Sheesh, (if they are) the shadow types are way smarter than this.

(3) Where there is information there is disinformation. This should be the sole genetic marker used to identify this story as a legitimate candidate for truth and revelation. We have INFORMATION --and-- DISINFORMATION. What people should focus on is the fact that BOTH exist, and our collective jobs is NOT to sort the wheat from the chaff but to stand in awe of the fact that both are present. In fact, [false] disinformation exists soley to negate [truth] information. This nicely sums up my firmer belief that the more disinformation that appears contrary to any information we receive in this thread is put there by individuals, organizations and others because the truth is too painful, to real, or simply too blunt.



Regarding Bill Ryan:

(Hi Bill!)

Bill will be discredited, disinformed against and generally put out as a target for a unrelenting crowd of disbelievers and skeptics to fire their weapons of mass disbelief against. But we all know and should expect this to happen as it's a natural and convenient course of approach for those to use that cannot accept the possiblity of this actually being true, however much of it, or however deep the truth. Those of us who hold out for goods unknown and sight unseen will undoutedbly have to push through the throngs of nay-sayers and contra-information peddlers and continue to be patient. In fact, I wish we could simply have a thread that only Bill could post in and answer questions to.

It's much too cluttered now, as is. Even in the event that this is a great hoax it would help to speed up the hoax-confirmation or de-hoaxing (if you will) process. Meaning, if we give Bill a stage, he will undoutedbly perform or completely fail to perform. In any event, it simply allows the process whatever that may be to hasten.



Belief In General -- Outside of Yours

Why its so hard to believe is beyond me. I completely can switch from belief to disbelief to agnosticism in a moments notice. The triangle of positions fails to absolve the fact and truth that it is POSSIBLE and PROBABLE that Aliens, alien races and other intelligent life (defining intelligence is difficult, so I'll just use that cursorily) exist in our known physical universe and/or reality of now.

Simply having a picture of my child does not make him more real. Requiring physical proof -- ala a sentient alien landing and performing an uninvited anal probe on me -- in order to believe is shallow and very indicative of a person unwilling to accept potential realities in addition to the ones they believe in. Love and hate exist, yet we can not see them save their manifestations in the human race via our emotions, actions and intentions. Yet, the very absence of the physical proof the love drive simply fails as a method to discredit. Find and replace with Aliens, it works too.

I however embrace the rationale that "We are NOT alone" would raise a few eyebrows and result in predictable global mass hysteria. Economies would collapse, armies would rampage and generally human society would undergo a paradigm shift as religion, faith, culture and human nature would take a back seat until we really figured out what this all meant. Of course, the myriad of studies that undoutedbly have taken place by our collective governments have already confirmed these concepts and we've been very careful (in my Aliens exist reality) to release information carefully and constructively.




To Shawwna:

One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.




To Crakeur:

Data can be misinterpreted. You're going for microscopic (no pun intended) details when a better approach might be to analyze high level correlations (Socorro landing just posted in the thread, above) and mid-level data analysis. Why go for the atomic level when we still cannot determine name, rank and serial # at this point? You're unnecessarily spinning your wheels, IMHO. You could probably discredit other data at a much higher level, in effect.




To Jeddyhi

Pictures, even supposed authentic ones, would serve to do no more than allow belief for a short period of time until the disbelief campaign and mis/dis/anti-information machine had a chance to warm up.


  1. "Photoshopped!"
  2. "A duplicate picture!"
  3. "The shadow on 501's leg is in the wrong position for the second sun on that day for that photo based upon my college-degreed calculations and known positions of the celestial bodies in that area of the galaxy at that particular UTC."


...etc -- I can hear them all now already, can't you?


Me, I'd personally drool over photos, but I'm going to assume they're the least amount of solid proof that will really matter in the long run. What about after the photos?





In fact, to All:

If proof were obtained, or this continued to evolve credibly, what really is next for all of us? Take off your anti-anti-anti-tinfoil hats and dream with me a moment into future-land sometime later this year. Allow me to set the stage:

Denial and isolation: FALSE! TRUE! The Serpo thread produces a complete isolation of disbelievers and believers. Each scorn the other and refute the others claims entirely without merit or second thought.

Anger: Down with the MAN! The masses begin intense riots and revolts against established authority, government and rule. Chaos begins, but doesn't last long.

Bargaining: We wish to obtain assurances from the goverment and from our new galatic neighbors that we won't be enslaved, consumed or otherwise folded, spindled or [gasp] mutilated.

Depression: Mass suicides and releases from traditional faiths. People see little hope or future for their race. Many who have never thought beyond their next paycheck begin to think thousands of years in the future and see nothing but hopelessness. What *is* our purpose, anyway? How many others are there? How low are we on the food chain?

Acceptance: Bring on the Aliens! I need a way to find how to lower my income taxes anyway, and I heard they don't pay Taxes on Serpo.



Some Information In General, Completely at Random:

--> The Roman poet Lucretius (about 75 B.C.), wrote:

Granted, then, that empty space extends without limit in every direction and that seeds innumerable are rushing on countless courses through an unfathomable universe. It is in the highest degree unlikely that this earth and this sky is the only one to have been created.

--> The Drake Equation? Bueller? Anyone? Anyone?

--> Hundreds of thousands (potentially millions) of sightings, abductions, physical phenomenon - all possible chaff = something greater than zero. Bueller?





[edit on 1-2-2006 by NextLevel]



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 11:56 PM
link   
OK - Wow! I just read everything from "Anonymous" in one sitting. As this string is more than 100 pages I simply cannot read all the thoughts on this string. I will make a prediction though. No I'm not psychic, but I am intelligent.

I started a list of quotes that lead to this conclusion but I realized that it had become 9 pages in word at 12 point type! So I’ll just assume that some here have read and considered everything. This would probably sell as one of those based on fact fiction works but the editor would have to rewrite it. Many parts are too perfect and others lead to too many contradictions that I’m sure you’ve all discussed at length.

Now I think what will happen next is one of two things. The seed has already been planted to use the radiation as a culprit for another set of unintelligible photos that could be real or staged. No way to tell due to the poor quality of the prints. I think this is the most likely event. The other is the author will keep stringing everyone along for as long as they can get away with it and keep those hit counters going. It would also keep people going through the links and buying the books. There is a third. Anonymous will reveal himself and announce the release of their book in hardback for $29.95 and shipping and handling. We would of course have to buy the book to see the photos. I guess there is a fourth? Its real and the world is about to be set on its ear by a set of photos and newly released government documents.

To have credibility, nothing less than high quality, high resolution photos laid out for anyone to research will suffice. After 10 years with little else to do but photograph and document this planet and people any excuse why there are not scores of good photos would be an absolute insult. If the excuses start to fly then I think there can be no doubt that this is a hoax. Although I would hope that it is not, I suspect it is.



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 11:58 PM
link   

To Shawwna:

One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.

[edit on 1-2-2006 by NextLevel]


Hi there! Forgive my ignorance, but I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to? Please help me understand.

Thanks!
Shawnna (that's spelled S-h-a-w-n-n-a)



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Ockham's KISS


Originally posted by Shawnna

To Shawwna:
One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.

Hi there! Forgive my ignorance, but I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to? Please help me understand.

It's a paraphrase of Occam's Razor, a handy tool which never needs batteries.

In a case like this, one way to apply it is to cut down to the roots of the story and avoid being blinded by the foliage.

That is, if I read these signs aright.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by NextLevel
To Jeddyhi

Pictures, even supposed authentic ones, would serve to do no more than allow belief for a short period of time until the disbelief campaign and mis/dis/anti-information machine had a chance to warm up.


  1. "Photoshopped!"
  2. "A duplicate picture!"
  3. "The shadow on 501's leg is in the wrong position for the second sun on that day for that photo based upon my college-degreed calculations and known positions of the celestial bodies in that area of the galaxy at that particular UTC."


...etc -- I can hear them all now already, can't you?


Me, I'd personally drool over photos, but I'm going to assume they're the least amount of solid proof that will really matter in the long run. What about after the photos?


I don't necessarily want or need photos. As my previous post states, bring on some data that backs the fiction we have been given so far. Scientific data on the binary system, the energy device, the communication device, propulsion systems, anything with backbone. We don't need another journal entry. At the rate this disclosure is going, it may take 10 to 12 years to finish!



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 12:25 AM
link   
My lord, look at all the new posts!

Anything new and exciting? Nope same ol stuff.

It's getting old isn't it?



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 12:28 AM
link   
Something basic?
You mean really, really, really basic?
Like this:

Mass: 5.06X10>24

What is that?
That, friends, enemies, and doberts not is the mass of SERPO.

What is wrong with that?
I am not a math person.
Bill Ryan is.

So alienated listers of ATS, and other enemies, are we talking tons, pounds, kgs, featherweights, karats, carrots, or SERPO weight?



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by garyo1954
Something basic?
You mean really, really, really basic?
Like this:

Mass: 5.06X10>24




From Serpo.org
Diameter: 7,218 miles
Mass: 5.06 x 1024
Distance from Sun #1: 96.5 million miles
Sun #2: 91.4 million miles
Moons: 2
Surface gravity: 9.60m/s2


Mass in Kg?
Acceleration due to gravity m/s2?

Inconsistent usage of english and metric units for data supposedly gathered in an era when the U.S. used primarily, if not exclusively, english units?

Oh.. and the mass of earth is reported to be about 5.98 x 10^24 kg. And g-9.8 m/s^2.

Serpo has lower mass, and should have a lower gravity than is reported (somewhere around 8.3 m/s^2)?

I haven't checked the diameter of the planet yet, but it seems unlikely that checking that will reconcile this discrepancy. There are problems with the "hard" data, too. Although there are numerous "innocent" explanations here. You would think a good hoaxster would have gotten this stuff right, though.


[edit on 2-2-2006 by Centrist]



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Ok so I decided to stop being lazy and actually google stuff on my own. The word disinformation kept jumping out at me on the past few pages and I just had to google for disinformation techniques. Please forgive me if this stuff is common knowledge here, but I found this quite enlightening.
goldismoney.info...
(I recommend you go to the site for an in depth explanation of each rule)


Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil
2. Become incredulous and indignant
3. Create rumor mongers
4. Use a straw man
5. Sidetrack opponents w name calling, ridicule
6. Hit and Run
7. Question motives
8. Invoke authority
9. Play Dumb
10. Associate opponent charges with old news
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions
12. Enigmas have no solution
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic
14. Demand complete solutions
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses
17. Change the subject
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad
19. Ignore facts, demand impossible proofs
20. False evidence
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor
22. Manufacture a new truth
23. Create bigger distractions
24. Silence critics
25. Vanish


Eight Traits of The Disinformationalist

1. Avoidance
2. Selectivity
3. Coincidental
4. Teamwork
5. Anti-conspiratorial
6. Artificial Emotions
7. Inconsistent
8. Newly Discovered: Time Constant

How many of these^ ring true with Serpo?

www.chez.com...

Many techniques may be used. The simplier trickes, which are not always easily foiled, are listed below :

* Mimicry. We all naturally tend to copy the behavior of a group to fit in and be recognized as "one of the guys".
* Sympathy. A friendship-like or geniune bonding can arise beyond professionnal exchanges, confusing competitor or ally. This type of bonding may cause you to confide yourself or to lower the guard of the "sane paranoïa".
* Information eciprocal giving (fair's fair). A reciprocal exchange of information does not always end up on equal footing, especially if you do not have the big picture, know the complete strategy of your company or if its competitors, or if you are not even aware of the analysis of your company's business world.
* Expert opinion. An acknowledged specialist in a field can, prematurely and peremptorily, on purpose or not, shut off a discussion of a topic that still needs to be explored further.
* Planned leak. With this trick, someone, with feigned naïveté or inadventance, drops "confidential" information.
* the typical techniques of the commitment theory (foot-in-the-door, door-in-the-face, sownball effect, entrapment...).

-emphasis is mine

I just want to say one thing to whoever the source of this information/disinformation: Well played sir...well played.

[edit on 2-2-2006 by midniteracerx]



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 01:01 AM
link   

I however embrace the rationale that "We are NOT alone" would raise a few eyebrows and result in predictable global mass hysteria. Economies would collapse, armies would rampage and generally human society would undergo a paradigm shift as religion, faith, culture and human nature would take a back seat until we really figured out what this all meant.


How exactly would that work? Civilization did not collapse upon Darwin's publications,
which were in their day far more disturbing to the collective philosophical understanding.

What's the reasoning behind the hysteria? Why would an army rampage---what would they rampage about? "Dude, there's aliens out there! Yeah, and?"

Why would an economy collapse? The electric bill and the mortgage will still have to be paid. They will still go to work or get fired.

It'll be like the OJ trial, it'll be what people watch and talk about for 4 months. And then people will get bored and think about the baseball season.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shawnna

To Shawwna:

One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.

[edit on 1-2-2006 by NextLevel]


Hi there! Forgive my ignorance, but I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to? Please help me understand.

Thanks!
Shawnna (that's spelled S-h-a-w-n-n-a)


I apologize profusely for the Spelling mis-step. Shawnna it shall be, and I shall not call you the other -- again!


The reference I made is Occams Razor -- spelled in various ways. It in fact is referenced in the motion picture movie from which you draw your own signature quote ("The only thing we found that makes the emptiness bearable is................... each other.") line -- Contact.

Jodie Foster in one scene is asked whether she knows or has heard of this (Occams' Razor). She replies "Yes, it's the scientific principle that, all things being equal, the simplest answer is usually the right one." This is a great example of script writers dumbing the information down for the consumer. It's horribly mangled, however, so I chose to insert the Wiki definition (above, my original thread to you). In fact, for reference, his quote in latin originally was "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate" which [translation mine] comes to : Consider only what's necessary and not everything.

Of course I don't know latin, so this is just a great great leap of guessing.




Further, to explain my quotation and tongue-in-cheek approach to replying to you:

-> I believe you have a position on this subject (Serpo Thread)

-> I believe you are attempting to define that position and quite possibly share it with others

-> Regardless of your position [which, all of them being equal I respect any of them] -- I can say that you may apply William's razor against the data herein as a means of simplifying your definition procedure, if that helps you (and if you need help, which you may not).



That's all -- and Thanks Majic!


Jeddyhi:

I agree. I too want something that correlates more fact with science. Anything. Again, I hope it comes soon. And in my hope lies my belief in this being possible.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 01:04 AM
link   
Centrist,

There is no discrepency issue with Gravity.


hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

Acceleration of gravity on surface of earth 9.8 m/s2


Also the Diameter of Earth would be larger than Serpo. Earth @ 7,926.21 Miles.

The mass of Earth is also larger than Serpo. Earth @ 5.976x10^24 kg from the link above.

Plus you have to consider that less Mass does necessarily equate to less gravity. Gravity in large part depends on Density in my understanding.

For instance the Mass of Earth is constant or for all intents and purposes is constant and yet there is a range of Gravity on Earth because of the density differences at different points on the Planet.

Also from the link above.

Range (of Gravity) on earth's surface about 9.77 to 9.83 m/s^2

(parenthesis mine)




[edit on 2-2-2006 by lost_shaman]




top topics



 
29
<< 189  190  191    193  194  195 >>

log in

join