NASA Astrobiologists Debunk Aliens and UFOs In One Paragraph = Unscientific

I wouldn't trust NASA as far as I can throw it. All those space shuttle missions that the public pay for are nothing more than covert ops and ET studies. They know they are there. They are probably in contact with them. Remember NASA was started by 'Ex- Ardent Nazi's'

Trust them? Nope. One small step for mankind? One big step for them more like. Treat the public like mushrooms. Feed them on s**t and keep them in the dark.......

Don't believe NASA. They are in it for themselves and not for humanity!!!

I'm going to stop posting in this thread just because it's reached absurd levels of ridiculousness. Claiming NASA is keeping up conspiracies for themselves when you can't even give information on what they have to gain.

I'm done though. FYI, cave paintings on a wall doesn't mean anything. Just because someone drew a dragon during medieval times means dragons are real. And if I remember correctly, the majority reports made on greys depict them without mouths, yet those cave paintings did have mouths. So it's subject to interpretation based off of contradicting 'evidence'.

/thread

[edit on 22-7-2009 by CidCaldensfey]

reply to post by CidCaldensfey

These only prove UFOs are real. None of it proves aliens are actually visiting Earth or any sort of ET involvement.

Well I guess that statement would concur with me and others that the NASA statement saying "UFOS or aliens do not exist" was WAY OFF BASE. Beings the topic of this thread is the NASA statement and related evidence I am not going to go off debating certain pieces of evidence with you. HOWEVER, if you would like to start your own thread or challenge me to an official debate I would be more than happy.

Until that time I have already derailed this thread enough by responding in the way I did, but I felt it was warranted. It will be the only "off topic" response I will give. The topic of this thread is on the NASA statements made by the astrobiologist, NOT the other evidence. (no I am not a mod before you say that, I am only trying to help facilitate THIS particular discussion)

reply to post by jkrog08


I'll break it down what the NASA guy said and the question.

Have aliens visited Earth? Are UFOs real?. This is the question which was asked. The question, once again, is:

Have aliens visited Earth? Are UFOs real?

In otherwords, the question is asking the possibility of aliens visiting Earth and also it is asking if UFOs are real.


The NASA PR guy responded with:

No, there is no evidence for visits of intelligent aliens to Earth, either now or in the past.

What this means is that...There is no evidence which supports intelligent life, other than that of humans, are currently involved with any sort of activities on this planet. Basically, all phenoma are either caused by humans, nature, or are unknown. Nothing has proven to be directly done by aliens.

I don't know how much easier this can be explained other than by drawing a picture. I don't really want to have to do that :[

[edit on 22-7-2009 by CidCaldensfey]

Originally posted by CidCaldensfey
The NASA PR guy responded with:

That 'guy' is not a NASA PR guy...

He is David Morrison, the Senior Scientist of the NASA Astrobiology Institute

He also says this... as Internos found a few posts back

No. Area 51 is an obsolete designation for a U.S. Air Force airfield near Las Vegas, Nevada. It is located adjacent to the Nevada Test Range, which was once used for nuclear weapon tests. This area has been used for testing experimental aircraft, which may have been interpreted as UFOs, but it has nothing to do with alien life forms. David Morrison
NAI Senior Scientist
June 25, 2007

Kinda blows his credibility a tad

Originally posted by CidCaldensfey
reply to post by Xtraeme

 

The original video was NEVER released. You can even go to Stan Romanek's website www.stanromanek.com... and see for yourself. While you are there, you buy his book too.

What you linked is something someone made based off of the idea of the original copy. AKA someone made a hoax tape.

In this case, armchair forensics only took ten minutes for me to figure out something was a hoax, all by using the power of google. Really not that hard.

See the problem with arm-chair forensics, especially when done in 10 minutes is you tend have a very incomplete picture of what you think you know based off claims provided by other people. Real analysis involves weighting assertions on both sides and looking for corroboration between statements to find out what is and isn't true.

So while yes the video is claimed to have not been released. It appears it has been leaked. How do I know this? During the Larry King airing as well as an MSNBC interview of Jeff Peckman a frame from the video was shown on national TV.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b9b311a5e74a.png[/atsimg]

Now there are two videos touted as being the Romanek film. The much more convincing version being this one:



However this is largely accepted as a hoax. Whereas the other:



Correctly matches the frame from the MSNBC & Larry King broadcasts.

According to Mr. Peckman analysis done by Jerry Hoffman of the Colorado film school confirms the thing behind the window wasn't edited in. Of course a full-paper describing the process he used to do his analysis would be nice, but I can find no such scholarly write-up.

So despite not being peer-reviewed that's one data-point in favor of the film having some basis for being worth further investigation. Again this doesn't prove the contents of the film it's just a starting point.

Please, temper bias and skepticism evenly. Being suspicious is altogether reasonable, but when there's something that represents hard data (photographic evidence, radar data, etc.) scientific tests can attempt to bring a process to the table to help sort out what is and isn't, independent of our bias, giving us hopefully unassailable facts.

I don't get it, how does it blow his credibility?

The first video looks more realistic than the last one btw.

[edit on 22-7-2009 by CidCaldensfey]

reply to post by SaturnFX


What you say is true... to a certain degree. I haven't drunk that flavor of Koolaid- but I have seen enough separate ' degrees of how low humans can stoop' to enough times to really consider that all the elements can be pulled to together to make it happen. Let's go recent: The economy has turned some into killers- people who have lost it all and have gone on to take their lives, their families' lives, ect. One man beat up another for his sandwich. Then, MJ- Look at the profiteering of someone's death. Then- do I even have to mention our govts? Greedy, trigger happy, you name it, they've done it. Or passed laws so they CAN do it. These are only a few examples. I am sure there's many, many more.

Too many separate elements that can come together too quickly, I think.

reply to post by zorgon


Oh yea, I MUST agree with that one. While many scientist do give ufology a credible outlook many DO NOT. This guy seems like one of those that DON'T. As internos already pointed out, NASA has NO PLACE commenting and giving their "ask an expert" 'expertise' on something DNI/USAF related---none what-so-ever. Again, just to reiterate to some:

The professional response to the question of "Do aliens and UFOs exist? Is flawed on MANY levels.

First off the scientist leads the reader to believe he KNOWS they do not exist, this is because of his incorrect syntax. Second off the scientist erroneously states there is "no evidence"--that is a killer IMHO, that is a blatant lack of knowledge on the subject or pure psuedoskepticism. Finally and worse of all (IMO) the scientist states all of this in an official NASA response, and furthermore this comes from a SINGULAR SOURCE, an astrobiologist. To fully come to a conclusion on this phenomena you would need (as internos ALREADY SAID) physicist, astrobiologists, psychologist, optical experts, astrogeologist, etc, etc..........NOT ONE opinion. That is like me, a student in cosmology, giving you a 'professional opinion' on the dynamics of an internal combustion engine!! I do not have the credentials to give that opinion, and in this case (UFOs) all I could say in an "official" manner would be that "I SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW", while I BELEIVE---I DO NOT KNOW. Regardless of what I have personally seen, I have no concrete and objective proof of what I believe. And that my friends is the only way this whole UFO phenomena will be proven alien,time traveler, mass delusion, etc---With 100% PROOF that can be VERIFIED by MULTIPLE PEERS.

I am done with this topic because it is circular and is not helping ufology, I am going to continue on a PRODUCTIVE course, I suggest others do the same.

[edit on 7/22/2009 by jkrog08]

Originally posted by CidCaldensfey
I don't get it, how does it blow his credibility?

The first video looks more realistic than the last one btw.

[edit on 22-7-2009 by CidCaldensfey]

I entirely agree, the first video is much more convincing IMO. This is why I find photographic evidence so tenuous nowadays. It's also why I'm much more interested in analysis done by labs that have the capability to measure light refraction / diffusion and other affects that can be inserted in to a frame either through rendering techniques or compositing.

Just about anything can be faked at this point. So dismissing anything out of hand is to say we can trust nothing. What we need right now are tried and true techniques that we can apply evenly across all films / photographs to give us a percentage likelihood of photographic integrity.

Thankfully techniques are being developed to handle this sort of uncertainty present when evaluating the truthfulness of a photograph (analyzing photographic recompression / error level analysis, principle component analysis, shadow disparity, etc).

reply to post by Xtraeme


The second video is terrible, Xtraeme. That is clearly CGI.

Hell, this video is more realistic...

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
reply to post by Xtraeme

 

The second video is terrible, Xtraeme. That is clearly CGI.

Hell, this video is more realistic...

Good one.

I've dealt with people saying a picture is or isn't real many times in recent history. Having a knowledge of what's actually behind rendering technology and working hand in hand with artists I agree it's more than possible that the video is fake. However I'm rarely willing to deal in absolutes.

I leave a percentage chance open to the possibility in either direction. What's interesting to me is creating an even and automated process to evaluate photographic data. Until we have such a system in place anything can be said to be fake. Whether it be the LRO photos of the Apollo hardware, photographic shots of aliens, or what have you.

Really what this requires is a form of cryptographic security as a part of the photographic process. As of late I've been re-reading through Bruce Schneier's Applied Cryptography trying to find an appropriate protocol for this sort of task.

[edit on 22-7-2009 by Xtraeme]

Originally posted by deloneninja
from the article, one thing that stuck out to me:

"The photos that are posted on the Internet are mostly fakes"

mostly fake


so they are not all fake..?

Yeah I thought that too but I think he means the thers are just 'mistakes' untintentially false pictures, not faked on purpose. All semantics of course.

Ed:Sorry, just realised this thread is now 6 pages long and I'm still commenting on stuff from page 1 :-)

[edit on 22-7-2009 by and14263]

Have aliens visited Earth? Are UFOs real? No, there is no evidence for visits of intelligent aliens to Earth, either now or in the past. The are many claims concerning UFOs and aliens, but no evidence to support these claims. The photos that are posted on the Internet are mostly fakes, and no one has ever produced an artifact or any other tangible scientific evidence of UFOs or aliens. One of strongest cases against the reality of these claims is that the group of people who spend the most time observing the sky are amateur astronomers, and they don’t report UFO sightings. If there were any evidence of aliens, astrobiologists would be among to first to hail such a discovery and analyze the data. However, there is no evidence that withstands scientific investigation. If you are still interested, you can use the search engine to find posted answers to specific questions about aliens and UFOs.

Well part from modern day Ufology usually is quoted as starting with an Italian Astronomers reported sighting in the mid, late mid 19th century. Second i was deeply into astronomy from a small child. At 13 i, along with a friend, saw a UFO and became interested in UFOs... So that makes the statement about amateur astronomers wholly false..

Amateur astronomers often use high magnifications on a tiny area of the sky. it's a bit like saying you don't believe football exists because you have been watching random single blades of grass, on a pitch and never seen the ball..

so what about the ufos all over religious art? I guess those are "unscientific"? Thats a pretty half baked explenation from a space agency lol.

To CidCaldensfey and Xtraeme,

I really really don't want to derail the thread ever farther, but both of those videos are not Stan Romanek's extraterrestrial footage. The one with the window with multiple square sections looks great, looks real. My problem with it is that it can be done with a very real puppet. The other video with the one undivided window "looks" like it matches the one frame of video shown during the Larry King interview. However, it does not match. It's exceedingly close but it does not match.

This one matches the one still frame shown to multiple news organisations:

media.abovetopsecret.com...

As for the topic of this thread, I suspect the government wants us to remain ignorant of intelligent life beyond human beings because such knowledge being widespread might compromise the ability of governments to successfully keep the populace safe from harm. I'm almost certain there will be mass hysteria and upheaval akin to when the War Of The Worlds broadcast occurred. Why would the government want to deal with that? The longer they keep us in the dark, the longer they can do their job and abuse power. I would love to join the galactic party, but government disclosure might just bring to light my childhood fear that no one wants me on their team for dodgeball. Then the human race can truthfully feel that they are in fact a bunch of losers.

Originally posted by Chovy
so what about the ufos all over religious art? I guess those are "unscientific"? Thats a pretty half baked explenation from a space agency lol.

So what about them? Instead of relying on the superficial explanation from UFO "experts" who have no background in art, consider what art experts have to say about those supposed "UFOs" and what they represent.

Though I have a feeling you won't like the answer.

Ugh, their response to that question infuriates me. I sent them this huge wall of text, lol. Only because they're so blunt with their response and they seemingly give no leeway for plausibility.

"One thing that struck out to me while reading your Ask an Astrobiologist FAQ page, is the response to the question, "Have aliens visited Earth? Are UFOs real?". One statement was "The photos that are posted on the Internet are mostly fake.". So you're saying some are real? There is so many photos and so many correlating eyewitness claims that cannot be explained by modern scientific theories, but you guys clearly do not give a # about those few photos, videos, etc., that are truly phenomena. One thing that's enraging is NASA's conclusion that in the STS-80 video , the objects that are moving independently and seemingly intelligently, even phasing out of sight; are ice particles. Yes, ice particles in the atmosphere that phase in and out of sight, speed up and slow down, and make intelligent turns. What about the tether incident in the STS-75 footage? A 12 mile long "pole" in space that is pulsating, with hundreds of smaller orbs circling it? Oh, that's right. It's space debris... yeah. Your response for the "Have aliens visited Earth? Are UFOs real?" question is bull*. The answer, if not yes, is inconclusive. Sure, you're right there is no hardcore in-your-face evidence, but that doesn't rule out plausibility. It's bull* because NASA does not investigate these important things. NASA is too busy worrying about what's safe to tell the public and what same ol' run of the mill horse doody they feel like publishing tomorrow. If you've actually read all this, thank you. I'm a 17 year old high school student, and I figure not that many people would be interested in my rant. What can I do to change what you guys don't do? Nothing. I digress. Good day."

Oh, why do I bother. Only a few lines are going to be read by whoever handles those comments before they toss it.

I regret posting this now. This thread's got tons of back and forth nonsense. I'm just contributing to that nonsense

[edit on 23-7-2009 by free_form]

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex consider what art experts have to say about those supposed "UFOs" and what they represent.

Art experts

Those that can paint do, those that can't think they know what was in the artists head

this is basically nasa admitting that certain objects are in our atmosphere that they cannot explain..its just he doesnt realize hes saying this.

fool..