The Three Clinchers for Proof of Alien Life

page: 5
82
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 06:26 AM
link   
To the poster;

Don't waste your time trying to beat the debunkers, it can't be done.

They still think the spoon in front of them is real, when in the grand sense there is no spoon.


There's a few different types of people on this planet, mainly being those who are indoctrinated to be over analytical, and those who look for answers within what they see can't be analyzed by the over analytical.

When there is not an answer for something, like the Phoenix Lights, they make up their own answers, and if someone of this over analytical breed speaks of a average compiled answer, flares, they use that, not because they don't want to believe in a out-of-the-ordinary circumstance, because they don't know how, their brain physically will not let them.

When they debunk something, the debunkers, they're not doing it to ruin your day, or to make you not believe, they're telling you what they believe, and everyone will fight for their belief. That's our fault on both sides of the fence.


So, as this spirals into another worthless debate with nothing more gained then a few calories lost at the flickers of your fingers hitting the keys on your keyboards, do it with peace.




posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 07:29 AM
link   
About The "Betty Hill Star Map" I can't see why this is just a random interpretation and nothing more. The number of stars is just too big to understand -- look at this article from 2003:


Imperfect Estimate Claims Universe Has 70 Sextillion Stars
Astronomers announced today that there are 70 sextillion stars in the visible universe, or some 70 thousand million million million. That's a 7 followed by 22 zeros.

The figure paints an inadequate picture of the scope of the cosmos, however.

Other scientists have previously tried to pin down this most elusive of astronomical numbers. The new figure is 10 times more accurate than previous attempts, according to those who made it. Still, the researchers admit that it is just an estimate, based on surveying only a small patch of sky.

Source

The chances of hitting and drawing a random spot in the sky is fairly high if you consider the number of stars.

As for the cave drawings - we will never know what they are... but it looks like simple art/interpretation/vision stuff, nothing more. Think ahead 5000 years from now and when another civilisation finds our, at times extremely weird art, and begin the speculate over something that was just imaginary art in the first place.

[edit on 5-4-2009 by DwaynetheSpecious]



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Great thread, with a nice collection of ancient art depicturing whats undoubtably creatures and beings from "out of this world"
Theres already a thread on this tho ("Early Traces of Alien Influence on Mankind"), which also have many interesting pictures, for those interested in the subject should check that out, as its fairly new aswell.

Anyway, I just want to add a theory on those gigantic "only viewable from the air" carvings. I belive it was on a radio show with Graham Hancock on coast 2 coast, where he said he`d been talking to a shaman from the rainforest in South America, and he explained that the gigantic "pictures", were part of a training-program with other members of the tribe, in which the purpose was to gather in the middle of the depicturing, and consume mind-altering drugs (most likely Ayahuasca) and induce an Out Of Body-experience, so they could fly up and see the entire picture.

So when a student could for example tell the shaman that the picture they were gathered in was a spider, he would pass the test.

This explanation is far from meant as debunking. Actually I just think it makes things more interesting. Graham Hancock actually belives theres a grand connection between animal-beings in ancient civilisation artwork, aliens, shamanism and plant-drugs. For anyone who has read up on '___' should especially know what I`m talking about


[edit on 5-4-2009 by pekle]

[edit on 5-4-2009 by pekle]



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by ArMaP
 
Pictures of humans in caves have hair for one thing.You can't deny that these look strangely like Greys.
I don't remember seeing any cave painting of a human with hair, most rock paintings I remember look like stick figures, can you point to one of those examples? Thanks.

And saying that they look strangely like Greys means nothing (even if they do, I still do not see any similarity).

Thinking about it, it may even mean that the cave paintings that do not show humans show something that we (humans) have as an ancestral target of fear/aw/reverence/etc., only now we call them aliens and Greys because we now think in a more technically based way than before.



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
You are the one who has interpreted the gold box as being an 'alien gold box' that has 'alien writing all around it'...

...Those are your words.

Without the smiley, that you conveniently removed in your quote, the meaning is completely different. Irony is lost on you.

Don't I have the right to speculate? You don't know me. I speculate a lot. I could point you to many of my posts where I speculate. BTW I have nothing against the ideas debated in this thread. They are all good speculations. My point is that taking them seriously as proof is either ignorant or delusional.



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
There are mid-evil age paintings depicting UFOs however,so really for as long as we have had art we have had accounts of these agreeably strange things.
And that is one of the reasons I do not like to see them mixed with other ancient art.

Some of those old paintings really represent sightings, and they are known for being just that, representations of what people saw, but most are not representations of UFOs, they are just the representation of things that are not easily described (mostly in religious art), and mixing all those things together may affect the real UFO reports from ancient times.

PS: it's medieval, not mid-evil.



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Revolution-2012
To the poster;

Don't waste your time trying to beat the debunkers, it can't be done.


It can be and it has been done. I have destroyed most of their arguments.

But to be fair other than the NASA recording, the other two evidences are just not strong enough to warrant any major deliberation. The star map can be attributed to chance, unless somebody can demonstrate that they can draw random points and lines and not end up with a match.

The Naza lines are far from a smoking gun. They can be explained as ancient tribal rituals, and such rituals occur today as well called cropcircles. Possibly created by UFO religions etc.



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


I wonder why people call UFO something that supposedly came out of the ocean, unless it means Unidentified Floating Object.



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by DataWraith
Like the ancient cave drawings from thousands of years ago, " they don't look similar , so therefore they are not aliens".
If they were presented as evidence of alien presence because they look similar, then, if that similarity does not exist then that can not be used as evidence, just that.


With the materials they had , even they weren't the same the world over so why should all the images 'look similar'?.
It's not a question of materials, in these cases it depends on the person making the drawings, only those that are not capable of making good looking drawings blame the materials.



If you have to draw a crowd or a mass of people you'd focus on the front rowsx bodies then draw the heads only behind, its all a matter of perspective..
That, once more, depends on the person making the drawing, two people may make things in different ways.

I am one of those people that would have take the time to make it closer to the truth as possible, that is why the only good drawing I made in my life was a scene from a farm in which I drew all the branches from all the trees I could see (fortunately they were only three).

PS: although I am not an artist, it looks like having a sister that is a painter and a photographer makes me see things in a different way, is there an artist (but one that has studied art history) in the house?



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Revolution-2012
To the poster;

Don't waste your time trying to beat the debunkers, it can't be done.



Of course it can, all that it needs is some proof that is not circumstantial.

A shakey picture of a light supposedly in sky is not proof
A fuzzy picture of something in sky is not proof
Somebody writing about an event is not proof

If there were only 1 or 2 sightings a year world wide it would be more
believable. But there are literally hundreds of reported events world wide
per day!!. With so many buzzing around everywhere, surely there would
be some undisputed physical evidence by now, but there is zippo. And then
multiply that figure by, say 50 years. But then the Ufologists just hide behind
the "It's like a Government cover up, Man"



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 08:35 AM
link   
These are all some of my favorites esp the Betty Hill star map. When I saw that for the first time I was amazed. I have shown other people these items and they still dont want to even consider any other life is out there. I think the Nazca lines are very interesting. I have always wondered what their real purpose it and how they got there and why whoever chose those pics.
Thanks for the post!



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


I wonder why people call UFO something that supposedly came out of the ocean, unless it means Unidentified Floating Object.


You beat me to it.

I was going to expand on that abbreviation in such a way ;-)

In any case, I use the terms that are ascribed to the object and event by the various researchers who have cited it.

Did you even bother to read any of the research papers that have been done on the event?

It is commonly called the 'Edo UFO'; try googling it for awhile.


Cheers!



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by skeptic_al
 


Nothing is proof. That kind of language does not belong in our world today. There is proof for nothing, nothing can be proven. You only can know the world insofar as you can observe it, and not beyond that.

So rather than demanding proof which is an impossible demand, demand evidence. Incidentally the OP did provide evidence, so you can no longer maintain there is no evidence either. Can you explain this evidence and is your explanation consistent with all available data? Do you have a valid explanation for clilncher 1, 2 and 3 that is reasonable? I would like to hear it.



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus chadwickus, your reply to armap surprised me. after all you have to say about ufo's/aliens i thought you'd be impressed with this thread. tell me please what do you think of the astronaughts talking before they changed frequencies? if you didn't watch the video you must have seen it before
 



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Ameneter the video convinced me as well. why do we let nasa get away with lying to us? hmm..that would make an interesting thread
 



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by echodogene
 


I tend to stay out of the NASA/space ufo debate.

I don't know enough about it to comment.



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
reply to post by skeptic_al
 


Nothing is proof. That kind of language does not belong in our world today. There is proof for nothing, nothing can be proven. You only can know the world insofar as you can observe it, and not beyond that.

So rather than demanding proof which is an impossible demand, demand evidence. Incidentally the OP did provide evidence, so you can no longer maintain there is no evidence either. Can you explain this evidence and is your explanation consistent with all available data? Do you have a valid explanation for clilncher 1, 2 and 3 that is reasonable? I would like to hear it.



But you are just putting a modern day on spin on explaining something
that was done thousands of years ago. Just like the Pyramids, Nazca
quite a lot still think we can't build it today using ""Lasers"" , GPS, Heavy
Cranes and water jet cutters, so therefore it must have been built by
Aliens or Alien Technology. Today a big building project might have 1,000
people on it, but a project of 100,000 people all working on the same
project for the common goal, now that's impossible today.

It's not know how exactly they were done, but they certainly could
have been built using really simple techniques using lots of people.

I have already explained the more rational and reasonable explanations
for 1 and 3, it is 2 I can't decide either way.



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 09:14 AM
link   
Isn't there already enough evidence of alien life existing to prove it by now? Former astronauts are even coming out and saying that they exist...

www.youtube.com...





[edit on 5-4-2009 by shadow15]

[edit on 5-4-2009 by shadow15]



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   

But you are just putting a modern day on spin on explaining something
that was done thousands of years ago. Just like the Pyramids, Nazca
quite a lot still think we can't build it today using ""Lasers"" , GPS, Heavy
Cranes and water jet cutters, so therefore it must have been built by
Aliens or Alien Technology. Today a big building project might have 1,000
people on it, but a project of 100,000 people all working on the same
project for the common goal, now that's impossible today.


I am? Read a few posts back. I'm saying the same thing as you in regards to the Naza lines.



I have already explained the more rational and reasonable explanations
for 1 and 3, it is 2 I can't decide either way.


What is most the rational and reasonable explanation for 3 again? A NASA recording is listened in on by a radio station in which astronauts are talking about alien spaceships. This is further corroborated by admissions of famous astronauts such as Gorden Cooper and Edgar Mitchel who have admitted to seeing alien bases on the moon and UFO's in space. That's rather strong evidence, so I would like to hear how you explain it?

[edit on 5-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 


best Alien post i have read in a longgggg time


that discovery message was WOW!
S+F for you


i look forward to the day when a mass visitation/arrival/landing will happen and it will be soon i just feel something isnt right anymore..something great is coming





 
82
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join