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.

 

Alien Implant Isotopes not from our solar system

page: 3
12
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doctor Smith
Please tell us what you specifically consider pseudo-scientific chicanery about the case.


It's already been discussed elsewhere in this thread.




posted on Oct, 31 2010 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by Doctor Smith
Please tell us what you specifically consider pseudo-scientific chicanery about the case.


It's already been discussed elsewhere in this thread.


It's been discussed but I don't see any real challenges to the science.



posted on Oct, 31 2010 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister
I have read the report. I don't know anything about material science but the background information seems very unfitting for a scientific paper if you ask me.

Which science? It sounds like a medical report to me. Have you ever had surgery? The medical staff will constantly ask: "How do you feel? Rate your pain from 1 to 10. What's your birth-date? Who is the President? How do you feel?" etc.

Also, back-ground information and medical history is always noted and taken into consideration. I haven't read the reports this evening, but these comments that were illustrated in your post just read like any medical report I have ever read. No insult to you intended, I'm just saying that there should be a difference when you mix several disciplines of Science and the different concentrations of meaningful reports for each discipline involved. It is something I would expect from a multi-discipline report.



posted on Oct, 31 2010 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by SunshineLaws

Originally posted by cripmeister
I have read the report. I don't know anything about material science but the background information seems very unfitting for a scientific paper if you ask me.

Which science? It sounds like a medical report to me. Have you ever had surgery? The medical staff will constantly ask: "How do you feel? Rate your pain from 1 to 10. What's your birth-date? Who is the President? How do you feel?" etc.

Also, back-ground information and medical history is always noted and taken into consideration. I haven't read the reports this evening, but these comments that were illustrated in your post just read like any medical report I have ever read. No insult to you intended, I'm just saying that there should be a difference when you mix several disciplines of Science and the different concentrations of meaningful reports for each discipline involved. It is something I would expect from a multi-discipline report.



Maybe you missed the little detail about the isotope decay of the atoms in the material being older than any in our solar system? Indicating they were brought here from another solar system. Then implanted into his body. To name a few details.
edit on 31-10-2010 by Doctor Smith because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2010 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Doctor Smith
 

I was commenting on the what could be a misinterpretation of a multi-discipline scientific report. I have what you posted in the OP, book-marked to read in the morning. I've had too many Trick-or-Treaters coming to my door, to read your links this evening. Go back and read what I said. If I was wrong in my assumptions, I'll suck it up and apologize to the member's post I was commenting on.



posted on Oct, 31 2010 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by SunshineLaws
reply to post by Doctor Smith
 

I was commenting on the what could be a misinterpretation of a multi-discipline scientific report. I have what you posted in the OP, book-marked to read in the morning. I've had too many Trick-or-Treaters coming to my door, to read your links this evening. Go back and read what I said. If I was wrong in my assumptions, I'll suck it up and apologize to the member's post I was commenting on.


Now I see that you were just answering the nonsensical ramblings of "cripmeister ".
edit on 31-10-2010 by Doctor Smith because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics
 
12
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join