REAL Alien TECHNOLOGY Explained

reply to post by Jay-in-AR


if you say so. Get used to it buddy, I am going to argue on thepart of science in the UFO field, especially here on ATS. When it comes to science and skepticism NavalFC is here to stay!

"Although just 100 millionths of the acceleration due to the Earth's gravitational field, the measured field is a surprising one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein's General Relativity predicts. Initially, the researchers were reluctant to believe their own results.

"We ran more than 250 experiments, improved the facility over 3 years and discussed the validity of the results for 8 months before making this announcement. "...
Here's another, from... www.sciencedaily.com...

If anyone is actually interested, that is.

reply to post by NavalFC


If "I say so?"... It was right there in black and white!


If you call that "science" I'll just have to assign myself to a mental ward.
I have given studies that back the findings from Harvard. I guess they aren't worthy. Well, I gave another.
Yet you said these things aren't independantly verified and called it "utter nonsense."
Take your "science" and shove it.

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
No, I HAVEN'T seen you give an opinion on anything. I have seen you ride the OP of each thread you have participated in.

In THIS CASE, the OP was giving information and said, upfront, that they aren't up on the physics jargon.
You took the opportunity to ride he/she into the ground.

In this case your wrong Jay-in-AR!

NFC attacked the evidence with counter evidence and not the Op. Go back and read his original post properly. Not one of you has countered his evidence in return. It's actually you guys riding him!

The truth is, there is a lot of nonsense on this board and too many take it at face value without employing any semblance of critical thinking or research... if it's on YouTube, it's good enough for them! If there are two separate video's on YouTube claiming the same thing or sighting one another, then it's a slam dunk because one erroneous video somehow proves the validity of the other erroneous video. That's how many people around here justify their half baked 'opinions'.


IRM

[edit on 3/12/08 by InfaRedMan]

reply to post by InfaRedMan


ERRONEOUS!!! On all counts!

I OUTLINED SPECIFICALLY how he took advantage of the OP!

Not only that, but I countered his claims with studies BACKING THE OP!!!

reply to post by Jay-in-AR


Really? you did? show me one study you posted saying that aliens were using super viscious liquids in a centirfugal structure to create anti gravity and thus propl their craft this way

reply to post by NavalFC


You are shifting the burden and you know it.
The idea is whether or not it is possible. Intellectual dishonesty is a no-no.

reply to post by Jay-in-AR


I am not shifting the burden. If someone is going to come forward claiming to know alien tech,the burden of proof is on them to justify it.

It is apparent I am wasting my time here. I've spent the better part of an hour on this "nonsensical issue"... Unless you have anything else, NavalFc, I'll take my retire.

reply to post by NavalFC


I never said it was actual alien tech. All I'm saying is COUNTER TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, and saying it MAY BE POSSIBLE. I bid you adue.

*maybe the UFOs we see are nothing more than rotating superconductors using a differential phase of the planet Earth itself. Able to traverse by fine tuning the frequency of their output vs. the Earth's own magnetic lines*


[edit on 3-12-2008 by Jay-in-AR]

Originally posted by NavalFC
reply to post by Jay-in-AR

 

I am not shifting the burden. If someone is going to come forward claiming to know alien tech,the burden of proof is on them to justify it.

Exactly.

This is the fact of the matter right here. The burden is on the OP to show us this supposed "REAL Alien TECHNOLOGY" (note the caps to get our attention) and after reading the topic I see no evidence of any extraterrestrial technology.

[edit on 3-12-2008 by Turiddu]

reply to post by Jay-in-AR


"it may be possble" - I see this often used as a blanket statement used in the context of grasping at straws. Well adue

reply to post by NavalFC


If you wish to claim that the OP was nonsensical based on the fact that we simply don't know as much, you shouldn't say that the physics is lacking.

That was our issue. The physics ISN'T lacking. Have a good one.

Edit to add - May be possible on a physical science level is more than simply saying "may be possible"... Afterall, I could say that purple unicorns flying out of my arse "may be possible"... Fact of the matter is that this issue may have merit. As I have shown.
As to saying unequivocaly "THIS IS ALIEN TECH" is, of course, absurd, but that isn't the issue you took contention with. You, in point of fact, called it bunk science.
You were wrong.


[edit on 3-12-2008 by Jay-in-AR]

reply to post by Jay-in-AR


no, I wasnt. No where in that study does it talk about creating a inverse gravity well. Not once.