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.

 

Best Proof

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 


Thanks. It was an insight I had recently, as to the 'real estate speculation' part.

Now, I suppose that if a Type II had control of the asteroids then that might be one reason against creating a multi-planet system. After all, things that are threats to us are not necessarily threats to an advanced civ.

However, there are other reasons and other potential extinction events, especially pollution and geo-thermal events (super volcanoes?). Oh, and don't forget gamma-ray bursts!

So I remain convinced that the -most- important goal of any advanced, space-faring civilization would be to create -at least- one additional world (and more reasonably about 5-10) to ensure their continued survival.

Because of the danger of gamma-ray bursts, which would wipe out all carbon-based life, they'd need to set up shop in an area that is somewhat distant from their home world.

Even so, it's known that life expands until it fills up all niches and I don't think that corollary would be any different for aliens than it is for life on Earth.

Again, thanks for the props.




PS - as to the active denial part, or quarantine, though I suppose that's possible, it would take some doing to cloak all aspects of the presence of a Type II or greater and I just don't think they'd bother. After all, it would be no threat to them, we, with our primitive nukes.

I have speculated that perhaps there is something like the Borg who cruise the Galaxy and that advanced civs cloak to deny their existence to such a threat. But that's kind of a long shot, and no doubt that threat would have been visited upon us by now.


[edit on 31-3-2008 by Badge01]




posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Badge01
reply to post by internos
 


I gave you a star for a well-produced post, but there's plenty of evidence that we have the technology to reproduce the Belgian sightings.

In fact, my theory is that many of these 'triangles' which over-fly populated areas all lighted up are not craft at all, but other craft making a holographic projection to gauge reactions and other psych ops. It's pretty clear that whoever is doing it -wants- to be seen.

Just a thought. (Good post)



Have a (deserved) star back: i always appreciate your posts because you always add something to the discussion.
NOW there's plenty of such of technology: ya're right.
But what about 1990?
Are you honestly SURE that those performances were available to our air forces? And, if yes, then why they did played their games over inhabitates European towns rather than over US desert towns whatsoever? And what about the acceleration?
Why an allied force revealed it, if this was a military secret? There's a COUPLE OF PROBLEM with the Belgian UFO wave, if you ask me, a couple of problems and a missing explanation.
So, if those were allied manoeuvres, then i would expect an official explanation. I've studied that case for more than four years and please trust me: that one was an UFO, not claiming that was an extraterrestrial spacecraft, but that one was an UFO.



[edit on 31/3/2008 by internos]



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Badge01
 


No problem


I had a feeling you were going to invoke the 'nuclear option'! You did

GRBs (Gamma Ray Bursts) are absolutely the reason to expand (well, the one that scares me the most anyway). As a society, we'd never want all of our eggs in one basket. Right now ALL humans are here in the basket we call Earth. We are so vulnerable, and so many of us don't even know it!

But your right also, that the Solar System itself is still a pretty small basket, when you're talking about GRBs. Incidentally, the Asteroid theory came to me as a result of brainstorming on ways to make Humans immune to a potential GRB that could wipe out our system. The plan was/is to travel to our Asteroid belt, between Mars and Jupiter, and to acquire potential spaceships there, from asteroids approximately the right size and shape (I've got dibs on 'Dactyl' a small asteroid revolving around another Asteroid, 'Ida'
)

From there (once you've converted your asteroid into a working habitat with steerable engines) you'd use Jupiter's gravity to slingshot about a dozen of these 'ships' in different directions.

Anyway, it was just a thought experiment I did a long time ago.

You are totally right that even a Type II Civilization would be vulnerable to GRBs, and would seek to find a way to outlast such a threat, as a species.

-WFA



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by internos
 


Oh, I don't disagree, I think the triangular craft sightings, including Belgium and the one that over flew the US being sighted by several police are highly suspicious and quite unexplained.

Unfortunately, even in 1990, I think it's -possible- that we had something that could produce these.

The 'Stealth Blimp' was already being speculated on back then and though it seemed to violate international treaty and normal flight plan rules, it made a good candidate.

I think that whoever was flying or producing those triangles -wanted- to be seen. But I have no good explanation beside what I posted as to why they'd do that.

I don't think it's hoaxers, because, outside of the military, regular folk back in 1990 did not have those capabilities. But, unfortunately, I think they do have the ability to spoof a craft like that now, and have even done so.

It's clear that we mis-read the size of such remotely-controlled craft and people think they're much larger then they are. One group had to finally open the trunk of their car and show people that it was not a huge craft afterall. (search on ultralight UFO remote controlled or similar terms)



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 


That's an excellent option and makes as much or more sense as terraforming planets.

Creating your own generation ship has been touched on in popular fiction "For the Earth is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky"

Wiki - Worlds of Star Trek


Fabrina - Homeworld of the Fabrini species whose world was destroyed by a supernova explosion. The Fabrini used Yonada, a hollow asteroid as a lifeboat to save themselves from annihilation.


In fact it makes -more- sense to craft your own world and have it be mobile than to be stuck on a planet with a predictable path. No more fears of your sun going supernova, either. You'd just park it in orbit around a class-G sun and when the time came, move it to another.

Good call.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Badge01
reply to post by internos
 


Oh, I don't disagree, I think the triangular craft sightings, including Belgium and the one that over flew the US being sighted by several police are highly suspicious and quite unexplained.

Unfortunately, even in 1990, I think it's -possible- that we had something that could produce these.


Something that could produce this? OK, WHAT? Included speed, acceleration, behaviour in front of the radar and so on.
>Hey! 0/1.600 km h
>in less than a SECOND!
>Recorded by tha belgian aeronautics!
i'm i missinn' something here
?
Jus an example in order to put this one to rest.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus
What do you think is the single most convincing incident, event, occurrence that proves the existence of aliens.


Easy, when governments say thay they don't exist!



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Badge01
 


I notie you use Wikipedia alot(well a almost always)you do know that people can add whatever they want to that site-that is way colleges and universities do not allow students to get info from there.Just a thought.(I know I am in school)
edit to add:Also a stealth blimp cannot come close to speeds of mach 1.5,not even speeds approaching the speed of sound.
***Whos that girl in your avatar?Shes HOT,lol.

[edit on 3/31/2008 by jkrog08]



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 12:37 PM
link   
i personally think that the best evidence that i have seen and it still can be disproved is two seperate videos. A) the video that where a man clocks out from work and walks through a gate and a bright light flashes disrupting the cameras, and then a few hours later he re appears. B) the youtube video Aliens land in woods. it has pretty good evidence but i cannot find the full video. but to me in my own oppinion those are the best.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by btay0o9
 


Could you post the link to the worker getting abducted video.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Best evidence?

The absolute "best" evidence IMO would be any sighting which is corraborated by several eyewitnesses and radar returns denoting "other than usual" maneuvers or excessive speeds. Even better would be the case for USOs which then transition to UFOs.

The point is that to have evidence we need solid data. Data that a particular object is flying on a constant heading at a constant speed is not enough. That makes it too easy to call it a misidentification.

Yes, the video and photographic evidence is compelling. I even want to believe it. I've seen UFOs on two occasions over a span of 12 years. Even though I've had previous aircraft identification classes, neither sighting resembled anything I've seen previously or afterwards. But are they credible evidence? No.

So credible evidence needs to have eyewitness data along with hard data, in my opinion. Hard data that shows capabilities that humans don't have. I know there are several cases out there which fill my requirements, but the majority of video and or film evidence doesn't make it into my "convinced" basket.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 


The footage you requested is detailed here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm not sure what to make of that case.

-WFA



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 01:31 PM
link   
I recall one of the sts missions where several object made a circle, the one appears in the middle and starts flashing. I have never seen anything like it before It had to have had some type of intelligence.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 02:08 PM
link   
The best proof that we have, is actual proof that there are no aliens because there is zero, none, nada evidence to support claims that there is any intelligent life outside of earth. None. Anyone telling you otherwise is just a flat out liar and cannot provide proof of anything.


It's just plain stupid to think with the amount of people on this planet with cameras, telescopes, and video, that no one would have concrete proof by now, UNLESS there wasn't anything to prove.

Congratulations, we are alone.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Hey what year did that recorded abduction happen(I remember hearing about it)


Is this pic supposed to be real?

[edit on 3/31/2008 by jkrog08]



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by rocksarerocks
 


HAHAHA-Congradulations YOUR IGNORANT!

I need to add this so the mods dont jump me,come on dude,why are you on ATS for than,and why do you come with some ignorant post???



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 02:41 PM
link   
We don't have proof. If we did this wouldn't be an obscure fringe message board. We have speculation and some suggestive evidence. Ever been to a UFO convention? It's hard to take most of the people you will see or meet there seriously. To most of the country we're laughable kooks and will stay that way until we come up with hard, incontrovertible evidence. If I hadn't had a personal sighting that made a believer out of me, I'd be pointing and laughing with the rest of the public.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by rocksarerocks



It's just plain stupid to think with the amount of people on this planet with cameras, telescopes, and video, that no one would have concrete proof by now, UNLESS there wasn't anything to prove.

Congratulations, we are alone.


There are loads of video, telescopic and film images of UFOs that are credible. But since it's easy to dismiss the "unexplained" as simply imaginary, or as CGI that makes it easy to take the skeptic POV.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Convincing incidents will have:

1. Multiple witnesses;
2. Witnesses who are not necessarily UFO fans;
3. Visual sightings corroborated by radar traces;
4. Trace evidence;
5. Professional observers as witnesses (police, airline pilots, military personnel, etc.);
6. Direct memory recall (not hypnosis acquired memories);
7. Crash recovery;
8. Body recovery;
9. Autopsy results.

Some known case have a few of these, but no case, that I'm aware has sufficient quantity or number to rate beyond 'suspicious'.


We don't have "PROOF", but there is good evidence...

Roswell Case, of course... Has all of it, and then some.

1. Multiple witnesses; = Numerous witnesses
2. Witnesses who are not necessarily UFO fans; = This was before UFOs were even a household word, indeed, Kenneth Arnold's sighting was just weeks earlier.
3. Visual sightings corroborated by radar traces; = There wasn't much radar at the time, so doesn't really apply too much, and the radar that was around, wasn't very reliable.
4. Trace evidence; = How about an admitted debris field, with top secret flights (with press confirmation) to the top locales for military research?
5. Professional observers as witnesses (police, airline pilots, military personnel, etc.); = All of the above, and numerous examples of each.
6. Direct memory recall (not hypnosis acquired memories); = Yes, and even a military press release confirmation of a recovered disc, a memo mentioning the crash, and stated by first-hand witnesses.
7. Crash recovery; = See above, verified crash incident, documented recovery
8. Body recovery; = Witness testimony to this
9. Autopsy results. = Witness testimony to this

However, for me, the Hill Abduction Case is still one of the most convincing. There simply is NO other way (other than sheer statistical improbability) that Betty Hill could have drawn a star map that: contained yellow stars in an identifiable configuration, contained stars not even discovered at the time, drew a logical transit path between the yellow stars, and couldn't even have been seen from her native hemisphere. In addition, their disdain for publicity, and the efforts they went to, to find answers, makes theirs a very compelling case.

As for all the cameras and no concrete proof....videos and pics are not lacking, they simply cannot be considered "concrete" with today's ability to fabricate them... The only "concrete" evidence at this point would be either a material or biological sample that could be shown to have extra-terrestrial qualities. Even then, it would be "unexplained" at most, unless it was distinctly alien-like in appearance...

[edit on 31-3-2008 by Gazrok]

[edit on 31-3-2008 by Gazrok]



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by rocksarerocks
Congratulations, we are alone.


Congratulations yourself! It seems you've debunked the Battle of Los Angeles! Mind explaining to me exactly what makes you think we don't have any solid evidence in that case?

I look forward to reading your 7 page reply, outlining each piece of evidence and including the math and physics behind your arguments.


Here's the thread, see you there

www.abovetopsecret.com...

-WFA



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join