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.

 

The Three Clinchers for Proof of Alien Life

page: 10
82
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   
So, tell me please, why you believe the source? Is it because he has been verified by multiple independent sources to be presenting an unaltered and genuine version of the recording? Or is it because you want to believe him so you skip all that tedious stuff?




posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   
This one is interesting isn't it?



Don't come with the "piece of a broken, weathered,or unfinished hieroglyphic because that just does not work.

Here is one........UFOs must have been quite common in the middle ages uh?


crystalinks.com



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 


Looks like an interesting read, though I simply couldnt resist commenting on this:

"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."

Hakim's Razor, thats brilliant - surely you meant Occams Razor ?


- Quote isn't working for some reason since I just upgraded to IE 8, it wont allow me to selectively remove the bulk of the post to allow just the part I wanted.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by mortalengine
 



Hakim's Razor, thats brilliant - surely you meant Occams Razor ?


Yea



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Here is an explanation for the hieroglyphs at least:

www.catchpenny.org...

That makes more sense to me than subs, helicopters and planes. If they did see UFOs, I doubt it was a helicopter. And I doubt you'd see it only on one inscription in all of the temples and tombs and buildings discovered so far.

And again: if there is a 'chance' that it represents UFOs, there is an equal (and in my mind, greater) chance it represents worship to the stars (i.e. their gods). That being the case, at least #1 does not 'clinch' anything.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


I might agree with you on the primitive drawings but the Nazca Lines are a bit of a reach not to believe they were made to be seen from above. I cant believe anyone would doubt that, they're absolutely useless to anyone on the ground.

The one that looks like a runway looks so much like a runway that not calling it a runway would seem illogical. The same reason we dont think it's presumptious to call the waving person a waving person... it hardly resembles anything else.

I cant believe people actually think that this much effort would have gone into making things for "gods" that had never been visually seen before. Not to mention that a landing pad/runway would not have made sense to the people of the time, the landing pad to me looks like it might have been constructed under request, whereas the other forms appear to have been made as worship towards the ones that requested the runway.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 


Those paintings are the opposite of the other ones you posted before, those are the ones that represent religious themes and use known (for those that study that stuff) ways of representing things like souls, spirits, and other invisible (or even inexistent) things.

As I said on the other post, I think we should not mix these paintings with the ones that really show UFO sightings.

And the hieroglyph is the juxtaposition of two (or three) different texts, the people that can read those things can look at it and understand what it says.

PS: as we look for video and photo specialists to analyse videos and photos that show strange phenomena, we should look for the experts in other fields, like art and archaeology. I do not know personally any Egyptologist, but what I have seen about art (specially those paintings that represented religious scenes) history, they had some somewhat rigid "standards" that should be followed to represent some things, and those "standards" changed with the epochs, that is why most paintings with those "UFOs" like the ones you posted are (probably, I am not sure) from the same epoch.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Excellent post!!

Although there are a couple of things I do want to add.

Your first clincher I'm not so much impressed with because we know that some ancient people had good understanding of mathematical principals (IE the ancient Romans) which would have allowed them to draw these lines with precision. As for who they might have been drawing them for - they have easily made these lines to impress or please their Gods, not necessarily aliens. The same would be with the cave paintings that these represent their Gods.

Now your other two "smoking guns" I'm far more impressed with. One thing I wanted to point out on the 1989 transmission from Discovery - that last word he's saying doesn't sound like "observance" to me. To me it sounds like he's saying

"Houston this is Discovery. We still have the alien spacecraft, uh, under the turret"

Is there a part of the space shuttle that has a part referred to as a "turret"? I did a quick search on Google but didn't find anything.

[edit on 6-4-2009 by sos37]



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by mortalengine
 


What is a runway? Just a strip of land, right? Then it wouldn't be any surprise that many things look like runways.


And saying that it was too much trouble, have you ever thought about the trouble it was to build, see how much trouble it was to build Europe's cathedrals between the XII and the XIX century, some were built during all those centuries, whenever they could they added something to the building, sometimes to be destroyed again by some war.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by mortalengine
 


If a group of people have even a rudimentary idea of geometry, the Incan's did, it is quite easy to scale drawings.

Assuming that there's significance in that they could be seen from above, to me, seems without nuance.

How far is above?

Incan mythology had mountain gods:

en.wikipedia.org...

Seeing from the top of a mountain (even a fictional mountain) isn't a great deal different from seeing it from the air. Especially without an awareness of perspective.

Furthermore the assumption that their size is an indication that they were designed to be seen from above could be misleading. It could be misleading because their size could have some ritual or cultural significance. It could be that the bigger the symbol the more potent it was perceived, regardless of whether people could see it.

What's the chance there's hills or mountains nearby the Nazca Lines?

Furthermore perspective in art is a new thing, historically speaking. It's unlikely they would have known how to to correct for perspective, so, by default, through today's eyes they'd look like they'd been made to be seen from the air.

Being seen from above & being big, does not equal being seen from the air. I think that assumption is wrong.

[edit on 6-4-2009 by jackphotohobby]



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Okay, so there's a lot of evidence, depending on how you want to define it. But there's still nothing that definitively connects the evidence with extra-terrestrials. Not a thing.

This happens all the time around here. Something looks like something else, so that's what it has to be, right? A lens shape drawn on a rock (or even a saucer flying in the sky) is obviously and alien spacecraft because that's what all the stories and science fiction movies say, right? It's common knowledge. Just like it's common knowledge that vampires are repelled by garlic. And that God created Man in His own image. It's so obvious and true that anybody who would doubt it is nothing but an evil debunker.

I'm just the kind of person who is going to need a little better evidence than "this thing kind of looks like this other thing" to convince me that there are critters from other planets visiting us. It's going to take a sequence of logical repeatable tests that link directly from the piece of evidence step-by-step to the inevitable and inescapable conclusion that it could only have come from or be associated with alien beings of some kind.

And to reiterate a little, if I ask you the question, "Could these things have possibly come from or be related to time traveling humans," and you answer, "Well, I guess they could have," then you haven't proven anything about extraterrestrials.

I don't see where anything presented in this thread leads to the exclusive and inescapable conclusion that ET beings even exists, much less than they are visiting us. Yeah, it's interesting evidence. But of what? I don't have the foggiest idea.


[edit on 6-4-2009 by Nohup]



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   
I just think that there is just way to much "mistaken identities" or "coincidence" in all the history of Ufology to chalk every single one up to being of a Earthly origin,to truly believe that is to be completely illogical,close minded,and ignorant.The three clinchers I presented were(are) IMO the best evidence on the totality of modern human existence that we were or are being visited by aliens beings,or at the very least they do exist.The Roswell crash is also another prime example were you have multiple witness with a lot being ex-military with no reason to lie.You have to this the day the US government coming up with bogus stories that when researched are proven bogus.You have a press release from the United States government stating that "a flying saucer was recovered",only to retract the statement the very next day and still to this day have no acceptable cover story.Project Mogul is a load of crap we all know that,the test dummies are a load of crap.It is not like there are just little questionable reports here and there,there have been major events that have happened that have still not been explained and the only logical conclusion is that they are other worldly.

[edit on 4/6/2009 by jkrog08]



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   
"If suddenly there was a threat to this world from some other species from another planet we'd forget all the little local differences that we have between our two countires and we would find out once and for all that we really are all human beings on this Earth." (Ronald Reagan to Mikhail Gorbachev)

"......And yet, I ask, is not an Alien force ALREADY among us?...There are only a handful of people who know the truth about this." (ronal Reagan to a full session of the United Nations, 9/21/1987)



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
I just think that there is just way to much "mistaken identities" or "coincidence" in all the history of Ufology to chalk every single one up to being of a Earthly origin,to truly believe that is to be completely illogical,close minded,and ignorant.
Yes, there are some things that could be better explained by an extraterrestrial origin than by a terrestrial one, but chalking every unknown (to the observer) thing to an extraterrestrial origin is not logical either.


The three clinchers I presented were(are) IMO the best evidence on the totality of modern human existence that we were or are being visited by aliens beings,or at the very least they do exist.
The problem lies with the "IMO", and that is the real problem. Until we have something more useful data we can only conjecture about it.

As things are, you see the Nazca lines as evidence of extraterrestrial presence on Earth, I see only some drawings on the ground that make sense when seen from above. Yes, they could have been done with the purpose of being seen from above, but that does not mean that they were made to be seen by real creatures that came from above, as far as we know it could even have been made to be seen by the Sun, the Moon or the stars.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
Don't come with the "piece of a broken, weathered,or unfinished hieroglyphic because that just does not work.


why do those who want to believe so badly sound like the 'pseudo' skeptic they so abhor?



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
I just think that there is just way to much "mistaken identities" or "coincidence" in all the history of Ufology to chalk every single one up to being of a Earthly origin,to truly believe that is to be completely illogical,close minded,and ignorant.The three clinchers I presented were(are) IMO the best evidence on the totality of modern human existence that we were or are being visited by aliens beings,or at the very least they do exist.The Roswell crash is also another prime example were you have multiple witness with a lot being ex-military with no reason to lie.You have to this the day the US government coming up with bogus stories that when researched are proven bogus.You have a press release from the United States government stating that "a flying saucer was recovered",only to retract the statement the very next day and still to this day have no acceptable cover story.Project Mogul is a load of crap we all know that,the test dummies are a load of crap.It is not like there are just little questionable reports here and there,there have been major events that have happened that have still not been explained and the only logical conclusion is that they are other worldly.

[edit on 4/6/2009 by jkrog08]



How do you know mogul was crap you are just being like the people you complain about !!!! Just because you think its evidence doesn't mean it is you have to be able to test and prove what you say.Other worldly may be logical to you but too many people on here are OBSESSED with UFO's so they DONT look for what may be the simple reason I would like to see real proof not what you feel!

For example someone posted this as best UFO video ever

www.youtube.com...

Look at it you can see its a load of balloons tied together thats
what I mean about not looking for the simple solution first!!!
Its because they let their emotions rule their mind they are so determined to prove ufo's exist so it must be a ufo

[edit on 6-4-2009 by wmd_2008]



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   
You know something, there is nothing like seeing them yourself that proves they exist, spend less time on your computer and more time outdoors. Now I find it laughable when I read these posts, amazing what a year makes.

I wonder when they sleep. I went out at 5am this morning, and they powered up their ship for me, lighting up the clouds.

I am wondering now, what are they doing? What is that guy up to down there on Earth Alien #2, ah well he is sleeping again, just watching him. Alien #1, oh man, I am kind of bored, when do you think he will wake up?

Honestly, do not waste your time. Thee exist, just accept it, go for a coffee, chill, send them some love and appreciation, and they will show up for you.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   
I wonder why people concentrate on weak evidence like heiroglyphics which could resemble anything to argue for ancient potential ET technology, when you have peer-reviewed scientific evidence like this:

Ancient Spectrometer bult by Indian scientists

An ancient spectrometer to analyse radiation and the expansion of the universe since the big bang and the evolution of the solar system, has been built by scientists in India in a rather high level study and it has been published in India's top science journal.

This spectromer is described in fine technical detail in an ancient text called Anshu Bodhini apparently written by the same author that composed the controversial Vymaanikla Shastra, except whille the latter was purported to be channellled in the early 20th century, the Anushu Bodhini is a 1000 year old manuscript stored in India's Sanskrit achive, from which has been built this novel spectromer, no other such spectrometer exists in the modern world apparentlly. This one is apparently one of 5 spectrometers described in the text.

You can access the study here:

www.new.dli.ernet.in...

Very strong evidence there.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by SoulOrb
You know something, there is nothing like seeing them yourself that proves they exist, spend less time on your computer and more time outdoors. Now I find it laughable when I read these posts, amazing what a year makes.

I wonder when they sleep. I went out at 5am this morning, and they powered up their ship for me, lighting up the clouds.

I am wondering now, what are they doing? What is that guy up to down there on Earth Alien #2, ah well he is sleeping again, just watching him. Alien #1, oh man, I am kind of bored, when do you think he will wake up?

Honestly, do not waste your time. Thee exist, just accept it, go for a coffee, chill, send them some love and appreciation, and they will show up for you.



gotta agree m8

just know what you know, and enjoy knowing



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by SoulOrb
You know something, there is nothing like seeing them yourself that proves they exist, spend less time on your computer and more time outdoors.


The argument has moved beyond the "they exist" point. Sure, weird things are seen and experienced. But what are they? If you saw something, do you know for absolute certain that it was "alien?" How? Even if the thing landed and grey aliens walked out of it and told you they were from another planet, why should you believe them? Where does it say that all aliens must tell the truth?

Again, could it have been a time probe, possibly with robots or genetically engineered "humanoids?" If you can't say for absolute certain that it wasn't, then you can't say it was aliens. You don't know what it was. Just something weird. Unidentified. Unexplainable.

[edit on 6-4-2009 by Nohup]



new topics

top topics



 
82
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join