It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NASA, UFO Admission?

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 09:46 PM

Whats with the Signal to noise ratio?


What about UFOs?

There is an expression that engineers use: "signal to noise ratio." It refers to the difficulty of getting the real signal, say a voice over the telephone, to stand out and be heard above all the noise and clutter that is also on the line. On the subject of UFOs the signal to noise ratio is so abysmal, that it does no good to listen.

That whole subject is really irrelevant to our own human quest to travel to space. If we humans are going to figure out how to build space vehicles, then WE have to build our own space vehicles. It doesn't matter if it has or has not been done by someone else.

Its been suggested that we might have something to learn by studying UFO stories. I disagree. First there is this signal to noise ratio problem. Even if the stories are correct, they are only as useful as science fiction. Science fiction can be useful to give you some mental picture to get you started thinking about the real issues, but it is no more useful than that. Even if UFOs were completely real, which is doubtful, and even if I had a film of one in front of me, it wouldn't be of much help.

For example, if someone in the previous century saw a film of a 747 flying past, it would not tell them how to build a jet engine, what fuel to use, or what materials to make it out of. Yes, the wings are a clue, but just that, a clue. To do real work, to really determine how to build the next generations of vehicles, we need our own information. There are plenty of possibilities for credible approaches emerging from our own scientific literature. It would be a waste of our limited time to go chasing down mere hearsay.

posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 09:59 PM
Oh they're just lying to the public again by twisting the ratios and complicating things so we are thrown off track.
Debunking is their specialty and they do it every time. To build one you need nothing more than reverse engineering. I'm no engineer but it makes perfect sense to me.


posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 11:11 PM

Originally posted by dgtempe
To build one you need nothing more than reverse engineering. I'm no engineer but it makes perfect sense to me.

So if one had a UFO, just reverse engineering it would allow you to make more like it? What if the materials used were nothing like what we have? Then what? Give a modern day jet fighter like the F-22A to the ancient Romans. Do you think they'd understand everything about it's design? Do you think they could build all the parts themselves? I think not...

I do agree with you that, you are indeed not an engineer.

posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 11:22 PM
Agreed. I wasnt thinking "materials"-

You got me there. But i do think its possible to reverse engineer, though it may take many many years- not an overnite event.

Just my 2 cents.

posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 01:09 AM
I'm a scientist, and in my professional non-conspiratorial, non-influenced by anybody except brain and logic, everything NASA said seems correct and sensible.

Think about it: what would definitive evidence of and sustained, mutual and unequivocal, open interaction ETs do to the NASA budget?

Increase by 5x to 10x that's what.

It's true that like seeing a 747 fly past it wouldn't help 17th century Europe, even Isaac newton, make a transcontinental aircraft.

But, it is true that experimental demonstration of gravitational warping by ET's in front of scientists would rapidly increase the budget to figure it out.

posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 02:48 AM
im sorry but just the signifigance of an alien race is enough for alien use.
How can they say that info is uselss.
We'd probally end up developing the same thing in the future anyways,
considering if they got here they probally used science like us

new topics

top topics

log in