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.

 

ET Proof?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 04:41 PM
link   
You want ET proof?

Then here’s what you’re going to need get…

1. RADAR/optical tracking data of a UFO actually going into or coming out of space.

2. An artifact composed of non-terrestrial elements, materials, isotopes, or atomic particles.

3. A being or a sample of DNA/RNA of non-terrestrial origin.


Just because you saw something you can’t identify doesn’t mean it’s from outer space.

Just because you saw a UFO exhibit unconventional performance characteristics doesn’t mean it’s not the result of some natural phenomena and has mass.

Just because you saw a UFO doesn’t mean there’s anybody in it.

All the sightings, photographs, and videos in the world aren’t going to prove a thing.

GO IT?

OK now go out there and get us some proof!

P.S. Happy New Year.

[edit on 31-12-2006 by Saviour Of The Real]




posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 05:13 PM
link   
The title is a bit misleading, imo. I thought you had found "ET Proof!"

Perhaps you should change it to "How to get ET Evidence" , or "How to tell if you have ET Proof"?


Just a suggestion.


Edit to add:


I agree with your statements.

[edit on 12/31/2006 by Mechanic 32]



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 05:19 PM
link   
From what I've gathered through the years of UFO interest, those 3 demands have already been fulfilled


The thing is, you can never get the ultimate proof unless you have it in front of you and even then its difficult to decide if it should be considered proof. We still havent *really* proven many things we take for a fact in daily life.

All we got is evidence. Some pretty neat evidence at that.



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mechanic 32
The title is a bit misleading, imo. I thought you had found "ET Proof!"

I wish.



Perhaps you should change it to "How to get ET Evidence" , or "How to tell if you have ET Proof"?

Better now?



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Saviour Of The Real
I wish.


Yeah, me too. I get tired of all of the latest and greatest "Real Proof". So much so, that I have become very skeptical; where once before I was a die hard believer.



Better now?


Yes, it avoids confusion this way.



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by merka
The thing is, you can never get the ultimate proof unless you have it in front of you and even then its difficult to decide if it should be considered proof.

I'd probably be willing to accept any one of those three as close enough if they were independently verified .



We still havent *really* proven many things we take for a fact in daily life.

Like?



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Hey SOTR - love your avatar!

WRT to ET - I agree with your criteria.

But what about those who are not of extraterrestrial, but are interdimensional in origin? What criteria would you suggest is needed to prove their existence?

Always,
Shawnna

PS - Happy New Year to all!



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shawnna.

But what about those who are not of extraterrestrial, but are interdimensional in origin?


Now that is a good question!

I have always (sort of) held the belief, that if there were extraterrestrials, that they may in fact be interdimensional beings.

If you think about it, we being creatures that are bound within the 3 dimensions that we know of, how would an interdimensional being appear to us?

First you would have to look at a 2 dimensional image and compare to 3 dimensions. In these 2 dimensions (height and width), if a ball approached you, you would see a spherical shape, growing in size to its maximum, then shrinking again, until it disappears.

Now consider a four or more dimensional being approaching you; how would you perceive it, using the only 3 dimensions that your senses are capable of?

I think this would be a topic all to itself, and I fear I have already strayed from the intended topic.

Sorry.



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 07:47 PM
link   
I'm sure your aware of the available evidence that fits your criteria
so I'll try not to be condiscending.
There're innumerable instances of radar tracks and sightings that are
documented both by civilians and the military.
Dr. Leir.(or any meteorite)
Wright-Patterson.



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Here's proof that keeps getting shoved under the rug


An abduction case from Australia has resulted in what may be the world's first DNA test of abduction-related biological material. The intriguing results raise many questions about the physical nature of abduction and also illustrate the need for more intensive scientific research on this worldwide mystery.

/Area51/Shadowlands/6583/abduct



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Now this is interesting...... I appreciate your link to the private website which is an interesting story but certainly doesn't constitute "evidence".

I was able to find the blog of the book's author and darn if I can find anything that resembles definitive "evidence".



What I can tell from this is that they claim to have gone through two phases of DNA analysis of two hairs and are working on a phase 3 of the DNA analysis.

As much as I'd like to believe this story - if in fact this involved irrefutable proof via DNA evidence of an extraterrestrial visitation, we wouldn't have to buy the book and wait for the results of phase 3 DNA testing would we?



I don't know anything about how DNA testing works but I have never heard of it being done in phases.

Can anyone shed any light on this idea of phased DNA testing?

Or better yet - if I missed something and in fact, this is definitive DNA proof - please point it out to me.

I would be most grateful!



Always,
Shawnna

[edit on 1-1-2007 by Shawnna]



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Just because you saw a UFO exhibit unconventional performance characteristics doesn’t mean it’s not the result of some natural phenomena and has mass.


natural phenomena don't maintain distance to a plane, they don't do intimidation maneuvers, they don't flee at hypersonic speeds when a jet tries to intercept them, they don't fly in a formation, they don't crash to the ground.

GOT IT?

[edit on 1-1-2007 by DarkSide]



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shawnna
Hey SOTR - love your avatar!

Thanks! Haven't been riding much lately but I went for quick ride around the block in my jammies yesterday morning to warm the bike up… brr!




But what about those who are not of extraterrestrial, but are interdimensional in origin? What criteria would you suggest is needed to prove their existence?

Damn, you and your tough questions.


I have no idea but my wife who’s into some high level spiritual stuff says if that’s the case then it’s not supposed to happen and we need not concern ourselves with it.


(I know, not a very good answer, but it’s the best I could come up with without going into a lengthy physics discussion about the pseudoscientific aspects of Vallee’s theory)



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mechanic 32
Now consider a four or more dimensional being approaching you; how would you perceive it, using the only 3 dimensions that your senses are capable of?

Like this?

upload.wikimedia.org..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>



I think this would be a topic all to itself, and I fear I have already strayed from the intended topic.

Not really since we need to define what it is we're trying to prove. If it's interdimensional beings we're after I think you illustrated part of the problem.



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by cheepnis
I'm sure your aware of the available evidence that fits your criteria
so I'll try not to be condiscending.

Umm... thanks?



There're innumerable instances of radar tracks and sightings that are documented both by civilians and the military.

Right but I'm not aware of any documented cases of UFOs being tracked coming in or out of space are you? None of these are...

www.ufoevidence.org...

If you know of any then by all means let's review it!



Dr. Leir.(or any meteorite)

Err...
alienscalpel.com...



Wright-Patterson.

Ah yes, the legendary Hanger 18... killer tune (both the original and "Return to Hanger") by Megadeth.



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shawnna
Can anyone shed any light on this idea of phased DNA testing?

I think you just did.


Sounds a lot like the "Starchild Skull" thing where all they needed was more funding for more DNA testing...

www.starchildproject.com...




posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarkSide
natural phenomena don't maintain distance to a plane, they don't do intimidation maneuvers, they don't flee at hypersonic speeds when a jet tries to intercept them, they don't fly in a formation, they don't crash to the ground.

GOT IT?

NO.

Have you read the recently declassified UK MoD report?

Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) in the UK Air Defence Region

If not I suggest you check it out.

It differs from many official investigations in that it acknowledges that UFOs are real (duh!) and offers a potential plausible explanation (e.g. dusty plasmas) that COULD do all those things you describe. Of course the report is far from conclusive and more research into this type of phenomena needs to be done to be sure but it's definitely a step in the right direction IMO.

I'm just sayin...



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 02:34 PM
link   
i was watching a documentary about the land speed records.

People build rocket-like cars and see how fast they can go.

But it's not good enough that radars and other instruments clock them at a certain speed. It's not proof just because a policeman is standing there with a speed camera filming the whole thing. It's not proof just because the on-board and off-board computers accurately measure the speed and record it precisely. Heck no. None of those things are proof that you've broken the land speed record.

In order to "Prove" you have the fastest bucket of bolts on earth you have to "Repeat" the demonstration. You have to drive at the same speed again and be recorded all over again by the devices and officials.

And there are other checks in place also. Like special seals on your gas tanks that prevent you from opening them.


Yet police have cameras in place automatically sending tickets to speeding drivers all over the world. One camera is "Proof" that the person was speeding.

So with the alien/ufo phenom we can use the one camera method and just pay up and admit it is real. Or we can apply the more stricter criteria and deny every single bit of proof that comes along.



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by probedbygrays

So with the alien/ufo phenom we can use the one camera method and just pay up and admit it is real. Or we can apply the more stricter criteria and deny every single bit of proof that comes along.


I hope you don't think I'm trying to deny anything, probedbygrays.



What I am trying to understand is the whole process for DNA testing and why - with respect to the link you shared - I can't find anything that states it is 'proof.' I've not heard of phases of DNA testing being done except with respect to stories about possible ET DNA.



What I would like to understand is why DNA testing stories associated with possible ET DNA seem to be so darn different than DNA testing related to identifying species or criminals, just for example.

It seems to me that if DNA results reflected 'other than human' or 'unidentifiable' species - that would be pretty simple to state, would it not?

Or did I miss something?




posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 07:18 PM
link   
1 - Can be obtained via the Disclosure Project. www.disclosureproject.org
2 - Phil Schneider.. and also Roswell parts.. these are I can think of off-hand, there is also proof of an alien implant removed by Dr Roger Leir and tested by the Los Alamos National Laboratory and concluded to be of non-terrestrial origin.
3 - none that I positively know of, but wouldn't be surprised if the data is under wraps somewhere in bucketloads.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join