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: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Promecus
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.


In a scientific sense, that is not a theory. Theories need evidence, of which you have none. First, you have no evidence of extraterrestrial life surviving billions of years to come here. Second, using Earth as a model, we see there are no extant higher order species billions of years old (cyanobacteria have existed for four billion years. Lingula, the oldest living animal species is just 500 million years old). The average lifespan of a species is just a few million years. By what we can observe on Earth, we can safely theorize (using that world intentionally and purposefully) that the same may hold true in our galaxy.

Even if what we observe on Earth does not apply to the galaxy-at-large, it is still very unlikely any species could survive billions of years. The universe is a very dangerous place. There are any number of cosmic and planetary disasters that could scour a planet clean.


Originally posted by Promecus
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.


You are confusing evidence and fact. On top of that, most of that "evidence" is misinterpreted, sometimes purposefully to fit the ancient-astronaut theory.

[edit on 8-7-2008 by SaviorComplex]




posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 


SaviorComplex, I'm not going to continue to argue with someone who reminds me of someone whom still believes the Earth is the center of the universe and that the sun revolves around it.


But I will say this...



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).


If they are unknowns then why do you dispute that we have been visited? Especially when you think about the supporting theory and facts that myself and others have stated in this thread.

Our understanding of the universe is still so small that to even define ALL life based off of what we see on Earth is laughable. And to think that we are the only intelligent forms of life in existence IS narrow minded and conceited.

To believe that we have it all figured out is a vast mistake.



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Promecus
SaviorComplex, I'm not going to continue to argue with someone who reminds me of someone whom still believes the Earth is the center of the universe and that the sun revolves around it.


What exactly do you think I'm arguing?


Originally posted by Promecus
If they are unknowns then why do you dispute that we have been visited? Especially when you think about the supporting theory and facts that myself and others have stated in this thread.


They are unknowns. If you would read the link that you yourself provided, you would see this. We don't know the fraction of stars that have planets, the fraction of those that develop life, the fraction of those that then develop intelligent life, and so forth. And that was part of the point of the Drake Equation.

What "supporting theory" and "facts" have you presented, outside of wishful thinking? And don't get me wrong, I am right with you in that wishful thinking. I hope we are not alone, though I doubt we will see confirmation of extraterrestrials in my lifetime. But it is wishful thinking. There are no known scientific law stating just because a planet or solar-system, or galaxy forms that it will develop life.

But there is little evidence to suggest we are not alone (thus far) If the Mediocrity Principle is true, where are the radio signals, where are the Bracewell Probes, where are the Dyson Spheres, where are the artifacts?*


Originally posted by Promecus
Our understanding of the universe is still so small that to even define ALL life based off of what we see on Earth is laughable.


Since Earth is the only model we have to go off of, the idea is not laughable at all, because it is all we know, observe, and verify.


Originally posted by Promecus
And to think that we are the only intelligent forms of life in existence IS narrow minded and conceited.


Not in the least. Considering possibilities is not narrow-minded or conceited. Discounting possibilities on the simple basis they are not what you want to hear, as you are doing, is narrow-minded. There is equal chance we are alone as there is that we are not alone. Both prospects are as equally fascinating, wonderful, and terrifying.

(*Here I have to make a concession to Clarke's Third Law; they may not be recognizable. But then at that point, why bother looking if we can't recognize it)



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   
To the topic of the thread:

what, we didn't????????????????


Sorry couldn't help it.



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 03:21 PM
link   
This one's for those fleshy headed mutants out there crying "where's the proof, where's the proof. You can't prove it." You know who you are.

Don’t bite my finger, look where I’m pointing.

www.netscientia.com...
ikastikos.blogspot.com...
alienufoparanormal.aliencasebook.com...
www.thebigview.com...
www.scientificexploration.org...

Maybe...maybe not...
www.scribd.com...

Read a book already.
www.alibris.com...:%20Extraterrestrial%20Expressions%20on%20Earth



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 09:36 PM
link   
For a leading scientist one would expect his argument to be a bit more original than "alien's could never come to earth because it's too far away..." how many times have you heard that cliché?


[edit on 8/7/2008 by mandrake]



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 09:43 PM
link   
I am sorry to do this Saviour complex. You have been raising some good points until now.


Theories need evidence First

Theories are ideas, hypotosis or even opinion. NOT requiring facts per se.
A great number of Einsteins 'theories' had nothing to back them up until recently and some are still questionable.



you have no evidence of extraterrestrial life surviving billions of years to come here.

You have no evidence they didn't


Second, using Earth as a model, we see there are no extant higher order species billions of years old (cyanobacteria have existed for four billion years. Lingula, the oldest living animal species is just 500 million years old). The average lifespan of a species is just a few million years.

Sure. Thats on earth. We dont know how long ET life can live for or thier life cycles. A few million years? Our nearest star is only 4 light years away. I am sure if anyone were the they could develop the tech and get here in that time.

By what we can observe on Earth, we can safely theorize (using that world intentionally and purposefully) that the same may hold true in our galaxy.

Theorise and May two words in that one statement that leave alot of room for speculation


Even if what we observe on Earth does not apply to the galaxy-at-large, it is still very unlikely any species could survive billions of years.

This one is my favorite. "Very unlikely" ....But not impossible?



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Even if what we observe on Earth does not apply to the galaxy-at-large, it is still very unlikely any species could survive billions of years. The universe is a very dangerous place. There are any number of cosmic and planetary disasters that could scour a planet clean.


And you base this on what? Oh sorry you are just speculating like the scientist in the article.



You are confusing evidence and fact. On top of that, most of that "evidence" is misinterpreted, sometimes purposefully to fit the ancient-astronaut theory.


Ah I see so this is the case? Where did you get this information that "evidence" is misinterpreted? Nevermind you probably got it from a "leading scientist".


Look Savior I'm all for a good debate, but you are just doing the same thing as the people you are pointing fingers at. You are just speculating and rejecting all evidence presented to you. I know it is easier for one to stay in ones comfort zone.


It normally goes like this:

Wow aliens are visiting earth. --> Where is the evidence?

There are photo's --> Those are photoshopped.
But there is video --> Done with CGI.
What about the documents --> Clearly made up.
There are witness reports --> Those people are crazy.

And yet all these sceptical people have blind faith in science and just swallow everything the scientists come up with as truth because a "scientist" said so.

Scientists are often wrong and can be very untruthfull.

Report Says Scientist Used False Claims for Grant

Also look at all the so called "Egyptologists" who dismiss and outright ignore all evidence contradicting their beliefs. They have a living to make just like you and I. They risk ridicule and even unemployment if they deviate from the accepted method of thinking.

So I would consider not buying everything science says, just like you do with people who believe that aliens are visiting earth.



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by VIKINGANT
Theories are ideas, hypotosis or even opinion. NOT requiring facts per se.
A great number of Einsteins 'theories' had nothing to back them up until recently and some are still questionable.


As those words are used in common speech, you are right. But in a strictly scientific sense, theories and hypothesis are not the same, though both do require facts Nor does theory mean an unsubtantiated guess or opinion. Both theory and hypothesis are based on observation; but where a hypothesis has to be falsifiable, it becomes theory when no new evidence is likely* to alter it. And where a hypothesis is more-or-less an explanation based on observation, a theory allows one to make a prediction about the unobserved.


Originally posted by VIKINGANT
You have no evidence they didn't


Although absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, based on what we can observe here and now, we see no evidence that they have. To say otherwise is simple speculation, not supported by the data at the moment.


Originally posted by VIKINGANT
Theorise and May two words in that one statement that leave alot of room for speculation


Though I'd rather not use the word "speculation," you are right. There is still the possibility. That is why it is theory and not a law.


Originally posted by VIKINGANT
Sure. Thats on earth. We dont know how long ET life can live for or thier life cycles. A few million years? Our nearest star is only 4 light years away. I am sure if anyone were the they could develop the tech and get here in that time.


You are right, that could be the case. But we have no observational data to suggest this. We have plenty more observational data from Earth to suggest the opposite. And extrapolating from the Mediocrity Principle**, there is no reason to assume what holds true on Earth does not hold true on other worlds.


Originally posted by VIKINGANT
This one is my favorite. "Very unlikely" ....But not impossible?


Of course not. I do not dispute this. We see on Earth that species can survive billions of years; but these species are the exception, not the rule.

(*Likely being an operative word; it leaves open the possibility)

(**Which states there is nothing special about Earth or humanity. If it is accurate, then the inverse must be true as well)

[edit on 9-7-2008 by SaviorComplex]



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fastwalker81
And you base this on what? Oh sorry you are just speculating like the scientist in the article.


It is not speculation at all. We can see on Earth that the majority of species do not survive beyond a few million years. We can also see on Earth and throughout the galaxy that we live in a very dangerous place; supernovas and meteors can spell doom for a civilization. See the Cretaceous-Tertiary Extinction Event, or what a Gamma Ray Burst could do, or supernovas, then tell me again if you think it is mere speculation civilizations can be destroyed by cosmic events.


Originally posted by Fastwalker81
And yet all these sceptical people have blind faith in science and just swallow everything the scientists come up with as truth because a "scientist" said so.


You have a very mistaken view of what science is. Nothing in science is ever just because "a scientist said so." There is no such thing as "blind faith" in science. There must be data to back up their claims, data that must be verified. Science is never unchanging or static; when new data is presented and can be verified, theories change.


Originally posted by Fastwalker81
Scientists are often wrong and can be very untruthful.


You are using one case to cast doubt on the entirity of science. One incident (or even a handful) do not make an case that all science is in doubt. To use your logic, then every UFO theory is as well, because Erich Von Daniken stole money to finance Chariots of the Gods.

You are also equating "wrong" with "untruthful." Yes they are often wrong, and when verifiable evidence is presented, they change the theory to fit the evidence. That is how science works.

[edit on 9-7-2008 by SaviorComplex]



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Promecus
This one's for those fleshy headed mutants out there crying "where's the proof, where's the proof. You can't prove it." You know who you are.


Your condescending attitude and insults are getting a bit tiresome.

What you have presented is evidence, not proof or fact. There is a vast difference. On top of that, you are presenting evidence that is wildly misinterpreted, evidence that is molded to fit a theory, not the other way around.


Originally posted by Promecus
Read a book already.


This coming from the person who claimed the Drake Equation was a scientific law, and does not know the difference between evidence and facts. Please, "read a book already," preferably one grounded in science, such as archeaology and history, before you condescend to someone again and accuse them of not reading. May I suggest Cult of Alien Gods or 1491.

I have already forgotten more about these subjects than you can ever hope to learn, child.



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
It is not speculation at all. We can see on Earth that the majority of species do not survive beyond a few million years. We can also see on Earth and throughout the galaxy that we live in a very dangerous place; supernovas and meteors can spell doom for a civilization.


Yes you absolutely have a point there. But you are talking about unintelligent species no? If a meteor (dinosaur style) would hit earth tommorow our species would certainly survive. This is something to consider I think.


You are using one case to cast doubt on the entirity of science (though doubtless it has happened numerous times). One incident (or even a handful) do not make an case that all science is in doubt. To use your logic, then every UFO theory is as well, because Erich Von Daniken stole money to finance Chariots of the Gods.


It was not my intention to cast doubt on the entirety of science, but merely to state (illustrated by an actual event) that science is not te be regarded as always right and truthfull. Many people have blind faith in science, but frankly when speculating
about possible species so much more advanced then our own coventional science could very well just be to primitive to explain the alien phenomenon.

If aliens exist and are visiting us, then maybe the bulk of their scientific knowledge and technology is just to advanced to fit into our primitive conceptual framework.

Thanks for the reply.



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by Promecus
This one's for those fleshy headed mutants out there crying "where's the proof, where's the proof. You can't prove it." You know who you are.


Your condescending attitude and insults are getting a bit tiresome.

What you have presented is evidence, not proof or fact. There is a vast difference. On top of that, you are presenting evidence that is wildly misinterpreted, evidence that is molded to fit a theory, not the other way around.


Awww, did I hurt your feelings? Gosh, I'm really sorry.


The facts remain that, sadly, many people refuse to even acknowledge the possibility that what has been show here is plausible.

And if you look at all of the sights and actually read what they have to say I'm sure you'll find the evidence is undeniable.

Again, don't bite my finger, look at where I'm pointing.

Now, just for the record, as I understand it a theory is a scientific notation that has been backed with testing. Either in a controlled environment (such as a lab or a chalk board) or in the field (with all the universal elements at play).

According to "The American Heritage Science Dictionary...


theory
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.


A hypothesis is just an educated guess.



hy-poth-e-sis
1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption
3.The antecedent of a conditional statement.


With this in mind, it would seem that Dr.PhD's statement is nothing short of a hypothesis and cannot be accepted as scientific fact.

Next, let's watch a few famous short videos. How can anyone explain these away? What is it? Swamp gas?!?

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
video.google.com...
video.google.com...


Originally posted by Fastwalker81
Yes you absolutely have a point there. But you are talking about unintelligent species no? If a meteor (dinosaur style) would hit earth tommorow our species would certainly survive. This is something to consider I think.


That would depend on the size of the rock. Someday I'll have to hunt down a bit of information which explains this (for a different thread, of course). Rock vapor comes to mind.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Promecus
The facts remain that, sadly, many people refuse to even acknowledge the possibility that what has been show here is plausible.


And the fact remains where these is a gap in knowledge, there is gullibility to fill that gap.


Originally posted by Promecus
And if you look at all of the sights and actually read what they have to say I'm sure you'll find the evidence is undeniable.


On the contrary, if you would have a grounding in actual science, you would find it is quite deniable, misinterpreted, misunderstood or twisted.


Originally posted by Promecus
With this in mind, it would seem that Dr.PhD's statement is nothing short of a hypothesis and cannot be accepted as scientific fact.


You are right, but by accident. You are right, it is not "scientific fact." However, you are confusing theory with law. There is a difference. Plus, what he is making is not just a hypothesis...it is a theory by the fact it can be tested, observed, and measured, and used to make predictions about the unobserved.


Originally posted by Promecus
Next, let's watch a few famous short videos. How can anyone explain these away? What is it? Swamp gas?!?


How do you explain them? Aliens? You come to that conclusion based on what? The fact is it unexplained, appears strange, or the fact you cannot understand it? Your logic is akin to primitives cowering in the caves thinking a thunderstorm is the wrath of their gods.

You keep condescend and accuse people of not reading books, but you don't know what the definition of unexplained is or understand that it is not synonymous with "alien." It simply means "unexplained," in that you do not have enough evidence to make a conclusion.


[edit on 10-7-2008 by SaviorComplex]



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
On the contrary, if you would have a grounding in actual science, you would find it is quite deniable, misinterpreted, misunderstood or twisted.


Please correct me if I'm wrong but are you saying that there is no evidence that points to intelligently controlled craft invading our airspace and displaying performance unmatched by anything we have here on earth?

If that's what you are saying then I disagree with you on that one. There actually is evidence suggesting that. If you mean that there is no evidence that these craft are "alien" controlled then you are partially right in my opinion.

There is lots of circumstancial evidence supporting this, but through the "ridicule" campaign (see sig) put forward by the governments of this world actual evidence is quickly dismissed as hoaxes and very credible witnesses declared crazy on the spot.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fastwalker81
Please correct me if I'm wrong but are you saying that there is no evidence that points to intelligently controlled craft invading our airspace and displaying performance unmatched by anything we have here on earth?


You are wrong. Though I wasn't clear, I was specifically talking about the links Promecus provided about "ancient astronauts."


Originally posted by Fastwalker81
There is lots of circumstancial evidence supporting this, but through the "ridicule" campaign (see sig) put forward by the governments of this world actual evidence is quickly dismissed as hoaxes and very credible witnesses declared crazy on the spot.


Yes, there was a ridicule campaign; but it had nothing to do with covering-up saucer-men-from-Mars.

[edit on 10-7-2008 by SaviorComplex]



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Ah, I see the game you’re playing. It’s very similar to what many religious fanatics do when people ask them to prove the existence of God. They always come back with “Prove he doesn’t exist”. On top of that, you side-step the majority of the issues that have been presented in this thread simply to argue the minor trivial points. I believe that’s called diluting the topic. How sad of you, SaviorComplex. You have my pity.


Originally posted by SaviorComplex
And the fact remains where these is a gap in knowledge, there is gullibility to fill that gap.


Which is exactly why such things are discussed. In an attempt to fill in those gaps which can then be researched with farther testing. But please tell us, what does this have to do with how some people refuse to consider the possibility that we have been visited? Your response doesn’t seem to fit my comment.


Originally posted by SaviorComplex
On the contrary, if you would have a grounding in actual science, you would find it is quite deniable, misinterpreted, misunderstood or twisted.


Who’s to say you’re any more of an expert? You sure don’t seem like you’re even half as knowledgeable as anyone else that has posted to this thread. Although I must admit, next time I want someone on my debate team, you’ll be my first choice.


Originally posted by SaviorComplex
You are right, but by accident. You are right, it is not "scientific fact." However, you are confusing theory with law. There is a difference. Plus, what he is making is not just a hypothesis...it is a theory by the fact it can be tested, observed, and measured, and used to make predictions about the unobserved.


Yes, I know I’m right. Often times I am. But there was nothing accidental about it.

And no, I’m not confusing any theory with any law. I know exactly what I said and I hit the nail on the head. As well, just so you know, it’s NOT a theory until it has been tested on some level. His mere conjecture cannot be classified as a theory without something a little more substantial than the distances between systems.

It’s a little like when Magellan proved the world was round when everyone believed it was flat. Though Magellan died in the South Pacific, it still changed the way everyone thought about their existence and proved without a doubt that the world was not flat as everyone had believed. What if Magellan had just said, “Gosh, I guess because you see the ground as flat then the entire world must be flat. So I guess I’m wrong about the world being round.”


Originally posted by SaviorComplex
How do you explain them? Aliens? You come to that conclusion based on what? The fact is it unexplained, appears strange, or the fact you cannot understand it? Your logic is akin to primitives cowering in the caves thinking a thunderstorm is the wrath of their gods.

You keep condescend and accuse people of not reading books, but you don't know what the definition of unexplained is or understand that it is not synonymous with "alien." It simply means "unexplained," in that you do not have enough evidence to make a conclusion.


Actually, I can say with little doubt that the crafts depicted in those videos are most probably alien. How many craft that have been man made do YOU know of that can travel that fast in LEO and make instant 90 degree turns without braking or slowing down? Any air force pilot will tell you that such a maneuver…if possible…would kill the pilot. This can be used as weight when gathering additional evidence that earth has been and is being visited by aliens. After all, if we didn’t make those crafts then who did?

Just for the record I’m not telling people to go read a book. I’m telling YOU to go read a book. But at this point I feel that would be pointless because it would appear that you can’t read. Otherwise you’d have seen my comment Don’t bite my finger, look at where I'm pointing.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 


It looks like we are coming closer to an understanding at least.
I have trouble seeing that they have been here, but I am not giving up hope that it is possible. I would love to see it, but don't confuse the realms of possibility with the stupidity of Annunaki (I was hoping they wouldn't be mentioned in this thread and now i am doing it myself. :shk: )

[edit on 10/7/2008 by VIKINGANT]



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 10:37 PM
link   
He describes himself as a scientist, yet makes a positive claim he knows to be unverifiable.

OK.

Had he said that there was no unambiguous evidence that extraterrestrials had visited this planet, then he would be entirely correct IMO.

Instead he said it's 'impossible', despite the fact that's he's quite aware that it's impossible to prove such a claim.

Bad science, PhD or not.

Secondly, it's not anywhere near factually accurate.

We ourselves have only had a technological civilization for a few tens of millennia.

We've been able to leave the surface of our own planet under power (once widely believed impossible) for a little more than a century, we've been able to travel outside our atmosphere (once widely believed impossible) for about half of that.

The other day one of our probes (Voyager 2) transited the termination shock, IE effectively left the solar system. It was not the first, but the second probe to do so.

It was launched 30 years ago.

It's already well within our technological capacity to launch probes (albeit very slow ones) to other solar systems, and we've only been doing this for a short while. We are not at any kind of technological or scientific bottleneck: not only is our technological & scientific sophistication continuing to increase, the rate of increase continues to increase.

It is entirely conceivable we will be launching our own unmanned probes to other solar systems within the lifetime of some of the people reading this post. And that's excluding the possibility of any major technological leaps in the next few decades - in other words unrealistically pessimistic.

In the face of this, it's kind of hard to take a guy making claims about the technological capacities of civilizations that may have been at this for millions of years , instead of our paltry thousands, as anything other than staggeringly naive, and extremely unscientific.

If anything, recent scientific evidence that planetary systems, including rocky volatile-rich worlds like our own, are the rule rather than the exception makes the case for a fairly crowded galaxy stronger, not weaker.

I am all for thoughtful (as opposed to reflexive) skepticism.

Including being skeptical of this guy's claims.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex


Great post.


In my opinion it boggles the mind that a leading scientist claims alien visitation is "impossible", and then ignorantly bases this on our own primitive technology.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join