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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Promecus
And to think that we are the only intelligent forms of life in existence IS narrow minded and conceited.
Theories need evidence 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.
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.
You are confusing evidence and fact. On top of that, most of that "evidence" is misinterpreted, sometimes purposefully to fit the ancient-astronaut theory.
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.
Originally posted by VIKINGANT
You have no evidence they didn't
Originally posted by VIKINGANT
Theorise and May two words in that one statement that leave alot of room for speculation
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.
Originally posted by VIKINGANT
This one is my favorite. "Very unlikely" ....But not impossible?
Originally posted by Fastwalker81
And you base this on what? Oh sorry you are just speculating like the scientist in the article.
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.
Originally posted by Fastwalker81
Scientists are often wrong and can be very untruthful.
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.
Originally posted by Promecus
Read a book already.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Promecus
Next, let's watch a few famous short videos. How can anyone explain these away? What is it? Swamp gas?!?
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.
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?
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.
Originally posted by SaviorComplex
And the fact remains where these is a gap in knowledge, there is gullibility to fill that gap.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by xmotex