It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Three Clinchers for Proof of Alien Life

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

+43 more 
posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 03:18 PM
Hey everyone,I have compiled the three most airtight events to impact Ufology,events with overwhelming evidence(circumstantial or other wise) that despite the best efforts of debunkers the evidence is still "untouchable"and even logic points to but one inescapable conclusion:We are NOT alone.Despite the best efforts of the world government to hide this fact for the time being some proof has indeed got out,you can only hide so much when this is happening on such a large scale with so many people digging for the truth.I know that all three of these topics have been discussed many times on ATS,I am simply compiling the top three events and stating that these are indeed the proof we all seek.I am asking for new input and analysis,I have tried to "connect the dots" in order to maybe swade some disbelievers and open their eyes.A lot of this evidence has been in front of our eyes the whole time,yet many people simply refuse to break with the basic paradigm and realize that what we thought(or what mainstream taught us to think) is simply not so.Humans do not like change,this is a evolutionary fact.Also humans for good and bad are a species that generally requires physical proof from multiple independent sources.What we must do however (and indeed what many are starting to do,just like the great members of this site)is realize that proof can come many ways,and some types of events can't have a multiple objectiveness.We mustn't refuse to believe because it is just to "out of ordinary",or we would have to re-learn certain parts of history we pride ourselves in knowing.This thread will contain three examples(there are more)ranging from thousands of years ago to relatively recent events.Like always I invite debunkers into this discussion,as it is a fundamental part of the scientific process of determining what is real and what is not in reality.Debunkers keep in mind however if you look at something from all directions and still appears to be what us "believers" say it is,then(using a page from your doctrine)what is more likely:It simply is what it appears or a serious of unlikely events,scenarios,and coincidences that "fool" us into thinking something is something else.As you know Hakim's Razor states the simplest explanation is the most likely,so keep that in mind when trying to come up with complex and unlikely arguments to refute evidence that logically seems true to what it is.I will start with clincher one,a series of ancient drawings and monuments,which obviously show stunning similarities with accounts from today and some have no other purpose then to be viewed from the sky.

Clincher One:The Nazca Lines and Kimberly,Australia cave paintings

*This one is known as the "Landing Pad" or "Spaceport".

*This one is called "The Astronaut".

On a side note for this image what other good reason would a thousand plus year old civilization have and what experience have they had to compel them to make a gigantic picture only viewable from the air showing what no one can argue is an astronaut or depiction of a Grey waving one hand in a friendly gesture.Obviously they were trying to impress someone or something up in the sky.

*This one is called "Hummingbird".

*Another famous one called "The Spider".

Now for the estimated 5,000 year old Kimberly,Australia cave paintings.
*Look familiar?Depiction of Greys over 5,000 years before the first "modern" recorded sighting

On another note I actually used this picture as a visual aid for my persuasive speech last year in my com-101 class,needless to say no one had ever seen it and were shocked.
*Another picture of what appears to be Grey-like beings encompassed in light.

Moving on now to the second "clincher",I think you can see the apparently irrefutable evidence of ancient contact with extraterrestrials.Nazca has only one logical reason for the existence of the lines.The lines were made to attract or show respect to someone or something that they knew "lived" in the sky.The Kimberly paintings obviously show a near exact replication of what we now call the "Greys",only 5,000 years ago!

Clincher Two:The "Betty Hill Star Map"

This is even better than the first(if that's possible)as it is a direct evidential link between a reported Grey abduction,evidence of where these creatures live given to the abductee,and then the abductee recreating accurately the star chart of a yet undiscovered system only a few years later to be discovered by astronomers in exact detail as the abductee(who had no knowledge of astronomy,and even if she did this system was not yet known)who drew it!Let us now take a look at a brief summary of the story and the star chart itself.

So the experience remains a fascinating story despite the absence of proof that it actually happened. Anyway -- that's where things were in 1966 when Marjorie Fish, an Ohio schoolteacher, amateur astronomer and member of Mensa, became involved. She wondered if the objects shown on the map that Betty Hill allegedly observed inside the vehicle might represent some actual pattern of celestial objects. To get more information about the map she decided to visit Betty Hill in the summer of 1969. (Barney Hill died in early 1969.) Here is Ms. Fish's account of that meeting:"On Aug.4, 1969, Betty Hill discussed the star map with me. Betty explained that she drew the map in 1964 under posthypnotic suggestion. It was to be drawn only if she could remember it accurately, and she was not to pay attention to what she was drawing -- which puts it in the realm of automatic drawing. This is a way of getting at repressed or forgotten material and can result in unusual accuracy. She made two erasures showing her conscious mind took control part of the time.
"Betty described the map as three-dimensional, like looking through a window. The stars were tinted and glowed. The map material was flat and thin (not a model), and there were no noticeable lenticular lines like one of our three-dimensional processes. (It sounds very much like a reflective hologram.) Betty did not shift her position while viewing it, so we cannot tell if it would give the same three-dimensional view from all positions or if it would be completely three-dimensional. Betty estimated the map was approximately three feet wide and two feet high with the pattern covering most of the map. She was standing about three feet away from it. She said there were many other stars on the map but she only (apparently) was able to specifically recall the prominent ones connected by lines and a small distinctive triangle off to the left. There was no concentration of stars to indicate the Milky Way (galactic plane) suggesting that if it represented reality, it probably only contained local stars. There were no grid lines."

In 1968, Marjorie Fish of Oak Harbor,Ohio read Fuller's Interrupted Journey. She was an elementary school teacher and amateur astronomer. Intrigued by the "star map", Fish wondered if it might be "deciphered" to determine which star system the UFO came from.
Assuming that one of the fifteen stars on the map must represent the Earth's sun, Fish constructed a 3-dimensional model of nearby sun-like stars using thread and beads, basing stellar distances on those published in the 1969 Gliese Star Catolog. Studying thousands of vantage points over several years, the only one that seemed to match the Hill map was from the viewpoint of the double star system of Zeta Reticuli. Therefore she concluded that the UFO might have come from planets orbiting Zeta Reticuli.
As a result of Fish's hypothesis, some have dubbed the Hills' account The Zeta Reticuli Incident. Most so-called Ufologist, however, continue to prefer the Hill Abduction or some similar term.
Distance information needed to match three stars, forming the distinctive triangle Hill said she remembered, was not generally available until the 1969 Gliese Catalog came out. Fish also was the first to note that all the stars on the map connected by lines (which Betty Hill said she was told were trade or frequently-traveled routes) fell in a plane, with Zeta Reticuli acting as a hub. Thus the displayed routes would be the most logical and efficient way of exploring the nearby stellar neighborhood for a civilization located in Zeta Reticuli. These points played critical roles in the subsequent debates over the validity of the Fish match to the Hill map.
Fish sent her analysis to Webb. Agreeing with her conclusions, Webb sent the map to Terrence Dickinson, editor of the popular magazine "Astronomy". Dickinson did not endorse Fish and Webb's conclusions, but he was intrigued, and, for the first time in the journal's history, Astronomy invited comments and debate on a UFO report, starting with an opening article in the December 1974 issue.It was also pointed out that Zeta Reticuli is highly unusual in being the only known example of a wide double star system consisting of two stars very similar to the sun. One of the articles in the Astronomy magazine debate, on the ages of the stars in the Hill/Fish map, said evidence pointed to the Reticulan system being 1 to 3 billion years older than our own, with the suggestion that this would have permitted another intelligence race to have evolved long before we did and thus be considerably more advanced

[edit on 16-5-2009 by spacedoubt]

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 03:27 PM
i thought there were three clinchers? maybe your still typing it and i posted a reply to soon, in which case, my bad.

line two....

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 03:29 PM
Furthermore, it was noted the two stars are very close together (now believed to be only 1/8 light year apart).
Here is a more detailed map from Mrs.Hill,with actual star names and positions(The red lines were here "trade routes").

The Zeta Reticuli system is about 39.5 light years away,relatively close in stellar terms.Basically what I quoted above was a brief story on the events from Betty's drawing to the actual discovery of the system and respective neighbors.The stars in the maps are real stars and those positions are their real positions for all intents and purposes.Even though some say it was a mere "chance match",that is highly unlikely.That is the only debunking that even holds some ground with the Betty and Barney Hill incident.To just say this is a mere coincidence is preposterous,we have here a sequence of events ultimately verifying an extraordinary event took place on the night of September 1961.Debunkers always ask for "one shred of proof of an abduction or encounter",well here it is with the most likely reality being that Betty Hill was really abducted by someone and shown an as of yet unknown star map,she took this evidence in the form of memory and accurately recreated it and had it confirmed by science.The "Smoking Gun" has arrived yet again.

Clincher Three:The 1989 Discovery Transmission
Long have we awaited some type of official government acknowledgement of alien contact,some think we still are.I agree we have not had an intentional and disclosure acknowledgement but mistakes have been made and oh yes we have an official NASA recording(one of many)with government officials acknowledging contact with an alien spacecraft.I believe we have our government acknowledgement right here,and to conclude I give you the third "Smoking Gun".

On March 13th,1989 the space shuttle Discovery while in orbit made an astonishing transmission luckily picked up and recorded by an amature radio operator before NASA was recorded telling the astronaut to immediately "switch",as in change to a a secure radio frequency,which he did and nothing more was heard.NASA to this day denies all knowledge of the transmission.Luckily we still have it here today,let's take a listen shall we?
(The Discovery clip is 37 seconds into the video,but I suggest you watch it all)

I don't know but that is about as "airtight" as you can get for proof not only of alien life,but for proof of alien contact here on Earth.I realize that until we do get a Grey on the White House lawn or an official disclosure from President Obama we all still have our work cut out for us trying to get that 110% undisputed proof that changes the whole world.Maybe now though we can get past the elementary "are aliens real" part and get to some real work,like weeding out hoaxes and trying(as unlikely as it may be)to expose beyond any doubt that aliens exist and have affairs here on Earth that forces the government to finally say "Okay,enough is enough,they are real,they are here,and let's stop the lies and really change".Maybe then we can truly take the next steps of our destiny to understanding not only ourselves,but our part in the cosmos.

Discovery Transmission

[edit on 4/4/2009 by jkrog08]

[edit on 16-5-2009 by spacedoubt]

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 03:30 PM
reply to post by dkman222

You are correct,all done now

Line two...........

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 03:30 PM
Double post.....

[edit on 9/2/2009 by jkrog08]

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 03:33 PM
your video in your third clincher isn't loading, just letting you know

2nd line on the pine.

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 03:40 PM
SnF. Lots of great information.

Nice job.

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 03:42 PM
Sorry all ,having issue with video will get it takem care of.Standby.

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 03:45 PM
Alright everything works now,sorry about that!

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 03:50 PM
Thought I might add some info on the Kimberly rock art, specifically the 'greys'.

They are called The Wandjinas:

The Wandjinas are anthropomorphic figures drawn in rough outline. Some are very crude and clumsy, but others are executed with a considerable measure of primitive refinement. The natural curves and indentations of the stone are often used to create additional plastic effects. Wandjinas are generally portrayed in a horizontal position, with the face enclosed by a (upside down) U-shaped border in red or yellow ochre. Only the eyes and nose are painted, the mouth is missing. Several mythological explanations have been advanced for the lack of a mouth, but the proliferation of competing versions inevitably casts doubts on their plausibility.

Beneath the pictures one often finds skulls, painted in red ochre, with the lower part of the jaw missing. These mark the site of skull burials, at the spot where people found their ‘soul-home’. Thus the mouthless faces of the Wandjinas are portraits, as it were, of the buried and painted skulls.

[edit on 4/4/09 by Chadwickus]

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 04:05 PM
Good info.

The problem you will have with the debunkers is that they don't use reason when looking at these things.

They will ask for absolute proof or extraordinary evidence. I think when you weigh the evidence within reason it points to extraterrestrial or extradimensional life.

You presented some strong evidence.

+14 more 
posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 04:08 PM
I always think that forcing a present day interpretation to thousands of years old drawings and carvings is not proof of anything.

The "astronaut", for example, looks like the drawings my brother used to do when he was four years old, and no, he was not drawing astronauts, everybody looked like that on his drawings.

Yes, the Nazca lines are a mystery, but by giving them suggestive names we are implying that we know why they were made. Calling some triangles and lines a "landing pad" or "spaceport" is a little misleading, in my opinion.

And even if those lines were made to be seen from above (we don't know that), they are only visible from near the ground, not from space, so it does not imply an extraterrestrial explanation, at most an aerial explanation.

The Australian cave paintings do not look like the "astronaut", they have several differences. The most obvious is that the "astronaut" is complete, but the Australian paintings only show floating heads (on the first photo) and almost full body but with what looks like clothes (unlike the "astronaut") on the second photo. The drawings on the second photo do not have a mouth like the "floating" heads from the first, and what looks like a hand on one of the subjects has (if it is a hand) six fingers. So, I do not even can be sure if those two Australian drawings show the same thing, or if they do it looks like they show something that was only described to the artist, that way one description could be slightly different from the other while they were from the same thing.

And calling that Grey-like beings is another exaggeration, they look nothing like what I have seen described as a "Grey", one of the things common to the two drawings is the vertical line between what looks like eyes, and I have never seen any description like that, those drawings look more human than the "normal" description of a Grey.

So, in conclusion, I don't think that the Nazca lines and the Australian drawings are signs of extraterrestrial presence, much less that they are "irrefutable evidence" with contact with extraterrestrial beings.

I am too lazy to answer the other two.

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 04:11 PM
S and F.

Brilliant mate.
I might just have to show this link to anyone of my friends who doesn't believe in ETs. Hopefully it'll wake up a few people.

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 04:13 PM
reply to post by ArMaP

Agreed, if these rock drawings had been drawn by other Aboriginals from a different region and not just restricted to just the one place, like they are, then things would get more interesting.

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 04:39 PM
reply to post by jkrog08

The Betty Hill map and the Nazca lines are intriguing, but the clincher is the Discovery transmission. Debunkers go at it. Good job jkrog08.

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 05:19 PM
- Cave paintings and lines prove that ancient peoples had an interesting culture.
- Betty Hill's map could as well be a map of planets in the solar system or other stars.
- Discovery transmission is a hoax according to the person that recorded the audio clip. Posted by Isaac Koi here:

No proof as usual. Not even good evidence.

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 05:25 PM
reply to post by Chadwickus

This also to my friend "Armap".You said "if these pictures were all over the world,we may have something interesting" did you not?Okay,let further the proverbial "nail in the coffin".

This one is from the ancient Sumerians...

This one is from Tanzinia....

This one from Sego Canyon,Utah(estimated 5500 years old).....

This one from Val Camonica,Italy......

This one is from Death Valley........

This from Tassili,Africa(6600 BC)......

This one from Japan........

Again you said if these paintings were "all over the world you would be interested",have you connected the dots yet?Interested yet?

[edit on 16-5-2009 by spacedoubt]

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 05:33 PM
reply to post by nablator

No proof as usual. Not even good evidence.

Really?For real?A little harsh,expected though.Like I said, debunkers when faced with insurmountable proof will resort to "nope not true,hoax........this one guy on this blog site said it was a hoax."NASA said the transmission didn't exist,they are clearly heard using the same protocol as in other "encounter events" such as switching to a secure line.I will refer you to the 95 incident with another shuttle,was that a hoax as well?You know as well as I this video to this day as not been discredited and has been run through analysis.

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 05:34 PM
reply to post by jkrog08

What I was getting at was that the drawings and stories of The Wandjinas is located to one small tribe located in the Kimberly.

Also, as you can see The Wandjinas are drawn in a specific way (for reasons unknown) But we can assume if other tribes saw these same beings, they would look similar.

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 05:34 PM
very good, you JUST cannot argue with the discovery transmission ...

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in