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.

 

Aliens never visited Earth

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 02:15 AM
link   
are you sure the man is a scientist....




posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mad_Hatter
Yep. Case closed. One guy's opinion on the matter and that's it. Final answer. Just because he's a scientist doesn't mean he is exempt from providing proof of his claims.


[edit on 7/6/2008 by Mad_Hatter]


As a matter of fact it does, because:

1- A negative is impossible to prove, you cannot prove that something that does not exist does not exist...

2- Since only a positive can be proved, it is, in fact, up to the people that claim that Aliens have visited Earth to prove their point...

This is basic high-school level science...



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by VIKINGANT
 


This is a bit of a mixed message to me and also answers why any such discovery has not/will not be made public.

* Do not see any mixed message, finding life on another planet has nothing to do with Aliens, or advance extraterrestrial civilizations that could visit earth (life would probably be found in the form of bacteria or other microscopic simple living beings).



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by VIKINGANT
It is quite an odd statement to make considering that even the Vatican now says it is OK to believe it.
I am tempted to send him a link to ATS (possibly to this thread) and see how he fares.



1) Who is the Vatican to say what is OK or isn't OK for people to believe in?

2) Believing has nothing to do with proof...

3) He would do fine, due to the lack of intelligent forms on this post and on most of ATS...



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Corum

If ''open minded'' is the key word then you have to consider the possibilty that what this scientist says is correct, otherwise it's you who is not being open minded.

You also said to Savior ''You are in a pitiable state, brainwashed I must say'' and then in the same post mention how the ''real'' scientist (real?) knows about arrogance and what is is to be condescending? Don't you think calling someone pitiable and brainwashed is arrogant and condescending?


You have twisted the meaning of 'open-minded' beyond recognition.
Of course there is a possibility but that does not exclude all other possibilities entirely, and so entertaining only that possibility is not a sign of open mindedness.

If I'm rejecting his narrow view, that does not mean that its entirely impossible, only that he failed to see the bigger picture. He could have entertained the other possibilities, but he stayed on his own favorite thus closing the doors for further knowledge.
This shows his ignorance on the subject as well as that he is not a REAL scientist.

I'm calling Kaku a real scientist because he is leading us in new areas, showing us new ways of thinking rather than saying nothing is possible because everything that was possible was already achieved by us humans.

Why do you think calling someone pitiable and brainwashed is arrogant ?
How will he learn if I don't point out his mistakes and limitations ? Thats what we do here on ATS, deny ignorance.



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nizzmo
are you sure the man is a scientist....


Well if he is then I hope his colleagues are somewhat smarter and less narrowminded.


Originally posted by rocksolidbrain

Sheeple shall bow and follow as soon as they hear the words 'A leading scientist'.
It must be true.


This sadly is indeed the case with most people. When they hear "leading scientist" or "scientist" they go: Wow this guy is a scientist, so what he is saying must be true! Wrong...

For the people who believe what all the scientists say: these great scientists thought the earth was flat only some hundreds of years ago.
I you argued against this you would be burned at the stake.



And now you see it all over the world. Everything that is out of their line of thinking is quickly dismissed as pseudo science. The so-called Egyptologists are a great example. If something doesn't fit their theory it is dismissed, debunkt and if that doesn't work they just ignore the subject.

And now the scientists like in this article start speculating without presenting any form of proof, and thus abuse their standing as a scientist to give weight to their arguments...



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Promecus
 


The good Dr. did not say if life existed or not, he said that there was no PROOF that extraterrestrial life forms visited planet Earth...

As far as I am concerned you can Believe in what you want, just don't mix your beliefs with PROOF...I personally believe in Santa, the tooth fairy and in the Wizard of OZ...



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 03:12 AM
link   
reply to post by FallenFromTheTree
 


Why? Any Proof of Aliens there?



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by VIKINGANT
 


Yes he does, please check your own posts, the second one to be more precise...



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorthWolfe CND
reply to post by Promecus
 


The good Dr. did not say if life existed or not, he said that there was no PROOF that extraterrestrial life forms visited planet Earth...


No offence but this is not what he said in the article.



"However, the distances between stars in our galaxy are enormous. Therefore, there is no way that life forms from another planet, if such exist, could have already visited us on Earth," explained Dr Kaiser.


He doesn't mention proof, he says outright it isn't possible. So he is just speculating about things he doesn't know anything about. That is what makes him narrowminded and to me he comes across as being really ignorant, because his claims are outright laughable.

But please continue to defend this "leading scientist".



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by rocksolidbrain
If I'm rejecting his narrow view, that does not mean that its entirely impossible, only that he failed to see the bigger picture. He could have entertained the other possibilities, but he stayed on his own favorite thus closing the doors for further knowledge.
This shows his ignorance on the subject as well as that he is not a REAL scientist.


This hits the nail right on the head. I couldn't agree more.

Star for you.


[edit on 8/7/08 by Fastwalker81]



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 04:02 AM
link   
Don't you just LOVE when people use current technology to write the rules of the universe? Such a lack of vision. I purpose a 150 years ago he would've said flight is impossible. :insertrollingeyeshere:



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorthWolfe CND
reply to post by VIKINGANT
 


Yes he does, please check your own posts, the second one to be more precise...


Feel free to quote occasionally so people know what you are talking about. I assume you mean

yet he does not entertain the “theory” that life might exist elsewhere?

Which was rectified only a few posts after with

I should have said

So he is “mainly interested in theoretical astrophysics” yet he does not entertain the “theory” that life existing elsewhere might have the technology to travel here?


Even with the adjustment the Dr. himself states

life forms from another planet, if such exist

Which tells me he is sceptical even about the existance of life

And while I am at it

1) Who is the Vatican to say what is OK or isn't OK for people to believe in?

I was making reference to several threads that have recently been about this very thing.

2) Believing has nothing to do with proof...

Whats the point in believing something if it dosn't exist?

3) He would do fine, due to the lack of intelligent forms on this post and on most of ATS...

You evedently missed the
but feel free to go ahead and contact him yourself. His email is on his we page that I have linked earlier.

I think that is about it for now. I wont answer the rest of your inane comments on behalf of others.

[edit on 8/7/2008 by VIKINGANT]



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 04:43 AM
link   
Dont you just love it when you know secrets that the so called elite scientists dont know. Kind of makes them look like chumps.

This guy probably is in the secret societies and just blowing smoke.

Einstein, Bohr and thousands of great physicists all knew time was an illusion. Oh wait theres only space/time......do u see?

So this means on the highest level evolution is an illusion too...and yet its in motion on our level. So you see there is life all around us and its so obvious aliens are here. All you gotta do is alter your awareness and youll see what space/time is....and then you know. You dont gotta meet aliens or have the lame proof that every lazy person on here whines about that they will never obtain. Stop waiting around dudes.

So funny that 100 yrs later top scientists still didnt understand what einstein and the boys figured out.



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 05:01 AM
link   
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


By the way, I've been seeing way too many one line posts these days and none of them get a warning. Have the rules changed or do moderators no longer care about enforcing the rules?



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 05:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Impreza
 


Nice save on the one liner issue....


Crap! Now I need a second line.....



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 07:06 AM
link   
Wow, I could write a book long response about this.

Me and this guy would most likely not enjoy each other's company in regards to this topic.

Ready for what *I* believe? Hold on to your hats, boys and girls.

A long, long time ago, a advanced species of beings came across this entire solar system. They were looking for a planet suitable to establish a ranch for the purpose of harvesting meat.

The entire earth was their ranch; it was the prehistoric age. Back in the days of T-Rex.

This very aggressive race of beings was and remains still in constant conflict with another race of beings. These other beings are far more advanced in intelligence.

In a great battle that may be responsible for the destruction of an entire planet in our solar system, the smarter beings chased the aggressive beings beyond our solar system in full retreat.

The smarter beings discovered the planet ranch called earth and destroyed a key local source of their enemies food. And with it, T-Rex and all his friends went bye-bye.

The smarter beings came in large numbers and cleansed our planet of it's previous life.

They created new life, something more consistent with their own way of life. Finally, they created beings in likeness to them but far from equal (on purpose).

Commonly referred to as Gods, each one was responsible for a certain function on this planet.

As the more aggressive beings regrouped, more and more Gods were called away from earth to the battle front.

One by one, the Gods left until there was only one.

And then, that God left. Now, there were none. Not a single God overseeing the events on our planet.

That last God has every intention of returning. So do his more aggressive foes.

They want us to believe they are the great power and their enemies are the great evil.

In reality, they are just two races of advanced beings that happen to be at war.

Each wants us on their side. The smarter group has a much better PR program but the more aggressive group is gaining in numbers.

None of that matters much. We are spawns of the smarter beings. As for their foes, most of the information about them is propaganda coming from our creators.

The smarter beings promise that people most loyal to them will be rescued from this planet if things get really bad. Whose paradise? Theirs. It's their utopia and you'll learn to like it or they will send you to the other place.

Meanwhile, the real God in charge is outside our universe, possibly even outside whatever holds all the universes. Possibly even outside of that, and so on.

THAT God is less concerned with what goes on in the garden of eden and more concerned about getting that black hole on the other side of the universe under control before it consumes his favorite three galaxies.

So, I *DO* believe there is other life in the universe, I believe two separate beings of races are in a battle not for this planet, but for the entire part of the galaxy, and I believe there are other beings completely outside this universe "Godding" what goes on within.

SO I don't think that guy would want to talk to me about his theory. I think he is pretty shallow.



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Promecus
Who said I was talking about a gas giant? Besides, who is to say that life doesn't exist on Jupiter or Saturn? Have you been there lately?


The good Dr. Kaiser was talking about Jovian worlds as compared to terrestrial worlds (as all but three extra-solar planets discovered thus far are Jovian), saying that we are more likely to find life on terrestrial worlds. You disputed that.

All indications are that Jupiter and Saturn do not support life. If you have any evidence to the contrary, please show us.


Originally posted by Promecus
And those planets do have a solid surface, but have a large thick atmosphere. What, did you believe they were just giant balls of gas?


There is a reason they are called gas-giants. These planets do not have a "surface" as we understand it on Earth, no oceans or landmasses. Even if an astronaut could withstand the pressures and temperatures (up to 20,000K on Jupiter!), he would not be able to land and plant a flag. Towards the inner layers of these planets, gravity compresses the gases into liquid or liquid-like states, but there is no clear boundary between surface and atmosphere like on terrestrial worlds (though it may be more defined on planets like Uranus or Neptune). Jupiter and Saturn may not even have rocky cores like the terrestrial worlds, but rather may be regions where the concentration of heavier elements are most common.


Originally posted by Promecus
And I'm trying to point out that a planet doesn't have to be Earth-like in order to support life. And yes, life is great at adapting to its environment. Everything from a polar bear to an ant and everything in between has evolved in such a way that suits its environment. Read a book please.


Do you know what "Earth-like" means in the context that Dr. Kaiser was talking about?

And you are right, life is great at adapting to the enviroment...on Earth. The polar-bear and ant did not form in a vacuum, already adapted to it's environment. Those animals (and every other form of life on the planet) adapted in a gradual process. However, for life to begin and flourish in the first place, certain conditions had to exist. Now granted, what those exact conditions were or are, aren't exactly known, but several models exist. And in every single case, the conditions in those models are found, in only one place in the universe. (at least, so far...)


Originally posted by Promecus
And there you have it. I quote "life-as-we-know-it"...Because I'm certain we know very little about all forms of life.


I have been very careful to use that exact wording. Life on Earth presents in certain, quantifiable ways. We do not know how life may present on other worlds, as we only have one model planet to look at. Thus, it makes sense to focus are search for life to Earth-like planets (and no, that does not mean exactly like Earth), where life may present itself in readily identifiable ways.


Originally posted by Promecus
But again, I re-iterate, that doesn't mean that such life doesn't exist.


And again, no one was disputing that. Disbelief in extraterrestrial visitation is not a disbelief in extraterrestrial life. If Dr. Kaiser did not believe in the possibility of extraterrestrial life, why would he bother looking for it on extra-solar worlds?


Originally posted by Promecus
And I quote
"Yes, because everyone who disagrees with the UFO believers is either a mindless, idiotic sheeple or a plant from the powers-that-be to try lead everyone astray"


You do know who I was addressing and who I was defending when I said that, right?


Originally posted by Promecus
Oh? I'm very sorry to disagree with you on that one.
en.wikipedia.org...

Again, please read a book or something.


The Drake Equation is not a scientific law about the develop of life in the universe, but rather an estimate of intelligent life capable of communication.

But the Drake Equation is not scientific law, it is not even theory. There is not a single scientist, not even Dr. Drake himself, that will say it is scientific law. It is a thought experiment, speculation in the guise of a scientific formula. Drake never meant it to be taken as a scientific law, but rather a guidepost to stimulate discussion. Drake developed the law to demonstrate not the probability of life, but our true lack of information. Several items in the equation are unknown, for example:

In N = R* x Fp x Ne x Fe x Fi X Fc x L

Fp, Ne, Fe, Fi, Fc and L are all unknowns. Thus, depending on what numbers you put in, the outcome of the formula can be either 1 (We are alone) to 1 million (still a small number when you consider there are 400 billion stars in our solar system).


Originally posted by Promecus
Not at all. It is very possible that our actions here could have sent several forms of radiation into the universe that other life forms can pick up on.


A possibility. But whatever radiation we have sent up is miniscule compared to that released by the sun or the planets. Finding our miniscule radiation would be like trying to find the buzzing of a fly against the background of a hurricane.


Originally posted by Promecus
And, did you forget about that probe we launched way-back-when that was broadcasting a friendly greeting? I want to say it was called Voyager....but I can't really remember now.


You're right, kind of. Both Voyager probes contained "golden records," a recording of images and sounds of Earth. But they are not broadcasting; they are waiting for someone to stumble across them.

But the chances of that are very remote. Remember the analogy of trying to find a single grain of sand on all the world's beaches. Now, imagine trying to find a single, unique bacteria while shifting through all those grains. That will give you some idea of how remote the chance is.


Originally posted by Promecus
Besides, if they have the tech to bring themselves all the way here who knows what else they can do. Perhaps finding life on distant planets, to them, is like falling off a log.


Maybe not. There is the Rare Earth Hypothesis, though it is every bit as speculative as the Drake Equation. Even if the upper estimates of the Drake Equation (say a million) are accurate, only .0000025% of stars will support intelligent life. Finding intelligent life would not be like "falling off a log" at all.



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 10:07 AM
link   
I just love it when a Scientist goes there and because he has letters before or after his name he is held in a higher credibility range.

Actually Science has a long way to go and they still work mostly on theory.

There is so much life you don't know of that if you ever get the priviledge to view it you will feel .......... you can fill in the blank



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorthWolfe CND
reply to post by Promecus
 


The good Dr. did not say if life existed or not, he said that there was no PROOF that extraterrestrial life forms visited planet Earth...

As far as I am concerned you can Believe in what you want, just don't mix your beliefs with PROOF...I personally believe in Santa, the tooth fairy and in the Wizard of OZ...


You should read the message a little more carefully. I was pointing out that if life existed on other planets then it was possible that said life could have been in existence for billions of years, thus allowing said life plenty of time to develop the technology to reach Earth. It is called a supporting theory.

As well, there is plenty of evidence in many culture's history that extraterrestrial life has visited this planet. From Mayan artifacts to renasaunce paintings. This is called a supporting fact.

[edit on 8-7-2008 by Promecus]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join