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: 7
82
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh
Do you think civilizations/cultures in general 10,000 years ago were dumb?
No, and if you remember some of my posts from other threads, I am always saying that older cultures were not as dumb as some people today think they were.


Or had a level of evolution that can equate to brains of a four year old kid today?
No, the fact that I compared their paintings with a four years old drawings does not mean that I was implying an equivalent brain development.

Do you know the "Naive schools" of painting? They are characterised by their child-like looks, but they were made by artists as good as those from the other "schools", it was only a different way of painting. Here is a good example.



Also, considering that those paintings have some very good representations of animals, I think that they just painted people like that because they were not the most important thing in the paintings.


Are you sure?
I am sure I did not said any of the things you think I said.



OK, check this out. Advanced technology more than 10,000 years ago! Is this fiction too? Stories written under influence of exotic drugs?
I wish people stopped implying that I said things I never said. Why do you make a reference to fiction and exotic drugs? I did not said anything about drugs, and representing things in a way that is not a realistic way is not fiction, it's just the artist's interpretation of the subject.


The Samara Sutradhara is a scientific treatise dealing with every possible angle of air travel in a Vimana.
I have not read it, so I cannot comment all that text.


Here’s something more, this time about an American Indian ritual…


Dr. Joao Americo Peret took these photos of Kayapo Indians in 1952,
when no one had any idea how astronauts dressed. The Indians wear
these ritual robes in memory of the appearance of the heavenly being
Bep Kororoti.
Pic: Joao Americo Peret
The "heavenly being" is said to have come from a mountain, to which he returned, not from heaven.

The same legend says that the Sun, tired of the day's work, lay on the ground to sleep and that Mem Baba, the inventor of all things, covered the heaven with his cloak full of hanging stars, and that Memi Keniti picks up the falling stars and puts them on the sky again, so why isolate just Bep Kororoti from the whole legend?

And I find it interesting that people say that nobody had seen anything like a space suit before Gagarin's flight and they forget the original design, the diving helmet and dry-suit.

The Bep Kororoti is just one of several legends about a white man that came to South America and taught the Indians several things, like agriculture.


Well read the rest in the link below. It would either blow your mind or, as usual, you would brush it off as imagination of deluded souls high on pot!
I only read the opening post, not the whole thread, is that enough for you?


And no, it did not blew my mind (my mind is hard to blow
) and I did not brushed it off as "imagination of deluded souls high on pot".

And I would like to know why are you accusing me of things I never said in these almost five years that I have been on ATS, saying that it is usual for me to brush off things as "imagination of deluded souls high on pot".

I have never alluded to souls (I don't know if they exist) and I have never accused (for the lack of a better word, it would be easier if I could write in Portuguese) nobody of being under the influence of drugs, either present day or ancient people.

And I never brush things off, even those things I find very unlikely (I do not know enough to say that something is impossible) are not "brushed off", they are just "classified" as unlikely to explain something.

And yes, all those things from the "Vaimanika Sastra" are interesting, but without more data they are just that, interesting.


They weren’t that dumb after all!
I never said they were.


* You can get the VYMAANIDASHAASTRA AERONAUTICS by Maharishi Bharadwaaja, translated into English and edited, printed and published by Mr. G. R.Josyer, Mysore, India, 1979. Mr. Josyer is the director of the International Academy of Sanskrit Investigation, located in Mysore, India.
Not very likely, I do not have enough money to spend on all things I would like to buy, that is why I limit my investigations to freely available material.

PS: From what I have read, there are some different interpretations of what was written, something like Nostradamus' works, with the use of "coded terms, symbolic expressions, archaic language", and that is never a good thing.




posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Once again UFO people give us a list that, while can't be 100% refuted, is FAR from 100% proof.

1- Nazca Lines.
Yes, its a mystery, but lack of mundane reasons doesn't prove alien visitation. UFO people themselves have been arguing about whether these are some type of runways or interstellar billboards, and religious expressions of earth-bound people seems far more likely as the reason.

2- Betty Hill "Star Map"
Many people smarter than me have found chinks in the claims of Betty and Barney Hill, but looking at that map myself I would not say it is an "exact" replica of the part of the sky claimed, and some have said the same diagram shows up in a popular science fiction movie of the time. Do I think she was purposely lying and trying to deceive people? No. Do I think she could have convinced herself of something based on lots of stuff normal she'd experienced during her life? Maybe. In any case, NOT undeniable proof.

3- NASA recordings
Could be damning, but only with more context and proof these were real and not someone playing with audio software. Photoshop threw out individual photo evidence as definitive, audio recordings are in about the same place. Reports of a "Bogey" could be space junk from the NASA spacecraft or other natural phenomena


So if these three items make you want to keep looking, fine. But you have NOT proven your case.



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   
These drawings and carvings are always going to be a bone
of contention. Interpretations are just that, we have no idea
what the drawer or carver was illustrating.

Rituals can be complex and from the moment the Caveman
first picked up a flint stone and started purveying his imagination,
from the first time that that he felt safe in his surroundings and
began to make up an imaginary world that was different from his
'bedrock' stable reality, we also began to attempt to see a world
that we can only guess at.

The planets are as many as pebbles on a riverbed, there must be
advanced life out there that could possibly visit this world.
Will ma... n ever prove it? I don't think that these etchings and the
such can be called proof.

The starmap is a mystery, recent information shows that it's roughly
accurate. But the stone carvings can not be comapred to the reports
of Betty and Barney.
Rubble isn't evidence, whether it's scored with strange marks or not.



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh
Here’s something that’ll set the debunkers thinking. This looks like ancient astronauts and a UFO in this Fergana cave painting, Uzbekistan.


Courtesy: K Pax. Dan Mirahorian

But some will contend that it's just a rock painting by a moron under the influence of pot!
Oh yeah!

Cheers!




No - but some would check further...

"French researcher Didier Leroux revealed in Lumières dans la Nuit (n. 335, Feb 2000) that it’s not a 12,000 years old rock art, but rather a 1967 soviet magazine illustration.

The first issue of Russian magazine Spoutnik, also published in other languagues, including French, featured the article “The Visitors from Cosmos”, authored by Viatcheslaw Zaitsev. Right at the start of the article you can find the familiar illustration.
"

Read on

forgetomori.com...

Clearly a case of "Believing is seeing"


[edit on 5.4.2009 by HolgerTheDane]



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by mblahnikluver
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!


Good points.

It makes no sense how some try and reduce life in the universe to a box that started on earth 4.5 billion years ago and they can't explain their own existence.

This is because reason is thrown out in favor of belief. They start with the assumption that extra-terrestrials can't or don't exist so they are really starting off blind in a uncertain universe.

There whole defense hinges on, there could be another explanation for these things. That means nothing in the context of reason. Of course there could be another explanation for these things but that doesn't stop people from weighing the evidence within reason and reaching a conclusion as to what's most likely and less likely.

We do it in all walks of life. You can see it in police investigations to some that's using reason about wether they should take the highway or go through the city to work.

You can only deny these things if you start with the priori that life is reduced to a box that started on earth 4.5 billion years ago.

If you can't tell me why life in the universe has to be limited, then how can you deny extra-terrestrial and or extra-dimensional beings in light of:

Abduction cases, mass sightings, cave paintings, ancient manuscripts, eyewitness accounts, trace evidence, pictures, video and more.

We also have to look at things like liquid water on Mars, signs of microbial life, extra-terrestrial life may be in the atmosphere, extra-dimensions, braneworlds and more.

I think the so called debunker is leaving reason at the door and operating on a belief that these things can't or don't exist.

Now to the Betty Hill star map.

I still would like to know if there's any evidence that she knew anything about astonomy.

It seems pretty amazing to me that she drew these things from memory and if she had no experience in astronomy then what was her frame of reference? How did she even come close?

When some say it was just an accident, that's just throwing reason out of the window in favor of your pre-existing belief.

I couldn't draw pictures of the catacombs below the Vatican because I never been there. Actually, that would be easier for me to do today because of the internet and cable television. So I have a frame of reference to work with.

Betty Hill didn't have a frame of reference and she drew this star map from memory and some of these things that she drew were not found until years later.

Did she check out books on astronomy from the library? Was she a follower of astronomy? I'm just trying to figure out her frame of reference for the star map.

I wasn't that familiar with the story but now you mention this star map I've been reading up on it and the Betty and Barney Hill case sounds pretty convincing especially in light of the Travis Walton case, the kids in Zimbabwe, the mass sighting in Voronezh, Russia, Rosedale and more.



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   
I think the only way of checking out whether the betty map is a coincidence or not is by somebody drawing some random points and lines and see if a match can be found. I would have thought like this has already been done. Are there any demonstrations of the probability of getting a match from random dots and lines?



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
I think the only way of checking out whether the betty map is a coincidence or not is by somebody drawing some random points and lines and see if a match can be found. I would have thought like this has already been done. Are there any demonstrations of the probability of getting a match from random dots and lines?


Exactly,

They do the same thing with psychic ability. They say well anyone could have guessed that but they can't have sketches drawn of criminals before the police even have a suspect and that drawing goes on the news and leads to the arrest of the criminal or when a psychic gives the police the first and part of the last name of a criminal before they have a suspect and she also tells him that the criminal did time in Florida when they were in New Jersey and this all turns out to be true.

I think it's because reason is thrown out of the window when it comes to ufology and the paranormal and they don't see extra-terrestrials or extra-dimensional beings as a reasonable explanation for these things. So their based in belief and this is why they want to be so certain.



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by JacobNH
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.


If you're looking to convince your friends of the UFO phenomenon you might want to also consider showing them these posts too:
  1. Brief Proof of UFOs.
  2. The State of Ufology
  3. The UFO gauntlet: the case the Condon study, Blue Book, & Klass couldn't crack.
I think the one big thing we can all do to combat the stereotype that UFOs are only seen by crazy or uneducated people is inform our friends of the best cases. Far too many of us are tight-lipped for fear of being ostracized.



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
I think the only way of checking out whether the betty map is a coincidence or not is by somebody drawing some random points and lines and see if a match can be found. I would have thought like this has already been done. Are there any demonstrations of the probability of getting a match from random dots and lines?


I've made a quick demo to illustrate how easy it is to paint some random dots and make it look like a star map of ET origin.

I have centered the video clip on Sol and are moving the view around so you can see diffrent stars forming diffrent patterns. In other words - I could have made ten star maps - all of them different - all of them accurate.

This is not proof that the Betty Star Map is a fake - just that it easily could be a fake.

star map demo

I tried uploading to ATS but got a load of SQL errors.



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   
I think the quote on the video stating an alien aircraft is following them and so many other quotes from shuttle crews discussing craft observing them is damming enough. Couple that with the moon landings and missions and reports of all space activity being monitored by these beings leaves me in no doubt we are been supervised in space. S&F for the great post.



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Very good work. For those who believe, proof is not needed, for those who don't no proof is enough.
Our galaxy is so huge to believe that life only exists on this one small rock at the far side of space is unbelievable.



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Sorry all,I had to go to church and then had a problem with my keyboard(lol).Just wanted to let you know the OP was still here,I will look over the new posts and comment.Again I want to thank everyone for their input!



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by adodson
Very good work. For those who believe, proof is not needed, for those who don't no proof is enough.
Our galaxy is so huge to believe that life only exists on this one small rock at the far side of space is unbelievable.


Good point,

This is also why some ask for extrordinary evidence and absolute or undeniable proof.

These are standards that make no sense and their just strawmen. What constitutes extraordinary evidence or undeniable proof?

This is just a way to deny the evidence no matter how strong the evidence is. If it's good evidence well it's not absolute or extraordinary so it's not good enough.

When you gather evidence you will always run across some evidence that's strong and evidence that's weak and this is why we use reason to weigh the evidence.

When the so called debunkers ask for extraordinary evidence or undeniable proof their not using reason and this strawman is used so that no evidence can be good enough because no matter how good it is it's not extraordinary or absolute.

Here's a link to some of the best documented cases in ufology:
churchofcriticalthinking.org...

Here's a link UFO's from A to Z:
www.ufologie.net...

Here's some alien abduction cases:
www.ufocasebook.com...

Here's some trace evidence cases:
ufophysical.com...

The Betty Hill star map, cave paintings and more gives us alot of evidence to weigh within reason and come to the conclusion that extra-terrestrials and or extra-dimensional beings are the explanation for abduction cases, mass sightings, pictures, video, trace evidence and more.

You don't need extraordinary evidence or absolute proof just good evidence to weigh these things within reason.

[edit on 5-4-2009 by platosallegory]



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


While looking for more information I have found this site that has more information about this case.

It has the same information has the page posted by jackphotohobby here, but it has a link to the scanned pages of the magazine, including an image from the next issue of the magazine with an errata for the caption of that image, saying that the it should be the caption for another image.

So, according to this errata,
(that can be translated as


"We apologize to our readers to a page layout error that has occurred in our last issue on page 107.

The caption on the top right of the drawing illustrating the above article does not apply to this illustration. It should be really at the beginning of the caption of the drawings on pages 110 and 111.)


this caption
(that can be translated as


"The drawing of this "spaceman" was found on rocks near the town of Ferghana (Soviet Republic of Uzbekistan).")


was not for this image,


but for this image.


I wonder of what I will be accused this time.



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   

He found out that image was painted by a contemporary Russian artist to illustrate the cover of a 1967 issue of the "Sputnik" Russian magazine, in which there was an article devoted to the topic of visits of ancient astronauts 12.000 years ago, which had been inspired among other stuff by the prehistoric paintings in the caves of Fergana in Uzbekistan in which certain characteristics were considered as possibly some ancient close encounter of the third kind. These paintings seem to exist, but they are sometimes dated back to 2000 BC, sometimes 7000 BC, rather than 10.000 BC.

ufologie.net

I think what Mr.Singh was trying to show(and the painter of the cave drawing for that matter) is the similarities between our(todays) interpretation of life on art and the ancients.It is the "missing piece" of comparing ancient art with todays that all you skeptics were looking for.As I always say you must look in between the lines and open your mind.Also as far as debunking on part of the skeptics all I have heard still is semantics and biased interpretation.I have yet to have a complete explanation of all three clinchers being hoaxes or misunderstood.I think the shear volume of member response to this thread and the lack of proper skeptic explanation is enough to at the very least allow us to look at aliens visiting Earth as likely.



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Besides what I said in my last post(pertaining to Mikes post)I think the rest is other skeptics trying to explain away obvious cave paintings of non terrestrial beings.



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


I missed these threads, surprisingly. Very impressed and have some good reading ahead. Starred and flagged all three. Good work.



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Some more evidence you say?

In A.D. 1211 Gervase of Tilbury, an English chronicler of historical events and curiosities, recorded this bizarre story:

There happened in the borough of Cloera, one Sunday, while the people were at Mass, a marvel. In this town is a church dedicated to St. Kinarus. It befell that an anchor was dropped from the sky, with a rope attached to it, and one of the flukes caught in the arch above the church door. The people rushed out of the church and saw in the sky a ship with men on board, floating before the anchor cable, and they saw a man leap overboard and jump down to the anchor, as if to release it. He looked as if he were swimming in water. The folk rushed up and tried to seize him; but the Bishop forbade the people to hold the man, for it might kill him, he said. The man was freed, and hurried up to the ship, where the crew cut the rope and the ship sailed out of sight. But the anchor is in the church, and has been there ever since, as a testimony.

This tale -- unrelated to any other British legend or supernatural tradition -- is, according to folklorist Katharine Briggs, "one of those strange, unmotivated and therefore rather convincing tales that are scattered through the early chronicles."



In a 9th-century Latin manuscript, Liber contra insulam vulgi opinionem, the Archbishop of Lyons complained about the French peasantry's insistent belief in a "certain region called Magonia from whence come ships in the clouds." The occupants of these vessels "carry back to that region those fruits of the earth which are destroyed by hail and tempests; the sailors paying rewards to the storm wizards and themselves receiving corn and other produce." The archbishop said he had even witnessed the stoning to death of "three men and a woman who said they had fallen from these same ships." Jakob Grimm, a 19th-century folklorist, speculated, "'Magonia' takes us to some region where Latin was spoken, if we may rely on it referring to Magus, i.e., a magic land."

science.howstuffworks.com

Here is a medieval painting depicting a "battle of ships in the sky" in the 9th century.



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 


OK, then how can we know what are representations of terrestrial beings and what are representations of non-terrestrial beings?

How can we judge what we see on those rock paintings and drawings?

We know that some painting represent hunting scenes, because we see animals in running (or falling) positions and what looks like human beings chasing them with what looks like bows and lances.

On other paintings we have creatures that look humanoid that are not doing anything identifiable (at least on those that I have seen they look like they are just there), what reasons do we have to consider those alien beings? The fact that they look like they are wearing different clothes (or just wearing clothes)?

We know that more recent tribes that live more or less in the same way also have different clothes and ornaments for special occasions, why should the extra-terrestrial explanation should be considered the more probable?

The problem is that this whole business of analysing prehistoric paintings and carvings is just a question of interpretation, even the specialists cannot agree on some things, and while things are just open to interpretation there will always be people that interpret things in a different way, and in this case we have no way of really knowing who is right and who is wrong, unless we get a time-machine (that would be coll
).



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 


MORE?????



Pay close attention to the convergence of the searchlights and you will clearly see the shape of the visitor within the illuminated target area. It's a BIG item and seemed completely oblivious to the hundreds of AA shells bursting on and adjacent to it which caused it no evident dismay. There were casualties, however...on the ground. At least 6 people died as a direct result of the Army's attack on the UFO which slowly and leisurely made its way down to and then over Long Beach before finally moving off and disappearing.

rense.com

One more for you all
The "Chicago-O'Hare Incident".............

A lenticular cloud???????????(I think NOT)BTW I just came from O'Hare a few days ago,so I know the area............




top topics



 
82
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join