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.

 

Show us ONE, just one UFO pic or ANY evidence that can be proven as evidence of visitation.

page: 52
85
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by AnthraAndromda
reply to post by butcherguy
 


For what ever its worth, nobody has succeeded in "poking" any holes in my evidence yet. Some have tried, but failed.
For whatever it is worth to you, I NEVER mentioned evidence. Because........

You have provided zero evidence.

I can get a cats DNA tested, submit the results, and post them here on ATS.

Does that make me a cat?

What I mentioned was Weedwhacker having a go at poking holes in the 'swiss cheese' of your alien existence. I don't believe that you are an alien, see? You don't have an alien existence!

[edit on 15-7-2010 by butcherguy]


Yes you could indeed get your cat's DNA tested, and no, that wouldn't make you a cat.

However, if you represented your cat's dna as yours you would quickly be found out. A simple "second" test would show that your were lying. And, by the way, that additional test is the logical, responsible thing to do.

In my case, IF you had the 'sack' to do the additional tests, the results wouldn't change.

So ... your argument doesn't wash! If you don't want to accept my evidence ... prove it wrong! [of course ... the reality is ... you can't!]


[edit on 15-7-2010 by AnthraAndromda]




posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


Ya know, when I originally posted to this thread it was in response to the OP requesting for 'one' bit of evidence that ET is visiting Earth. I thought my data was relevent.

It has been yahoos like you that have started any arguments I've been engaged in. The worst part being that you won't even address the data. You try to find piddly little things that make no difference what so ever to try to 'trip' me, and then make out like it has some effect on the validity of the data.

I find it truly amazing that you humans will discount evidence out-of-hand if you don't like it or its implecations. It is a very good thing that none of you are in a position to effect the path and speed of scientific, and social progress of your species. If you were, you'd still be living in caves, hunting with sticks, and women would be property.

Etharzi od Oma.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by AnthraAndromda
 
Knock, knock.....

Anybody in there?

You have presented evidence(such as it was) that proves that your DNA is human. In your fertile mind, that makes you an alien, apparently.

Good. You keep going with that.

Let me wish you all the luck in the world(s) in your quest to link back up with your parents and then, HOPEFULLY FOR THE REST OF US, a nice spaceship ride back to your home planet!






posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by AnthraAndromda
 
Hi Gunderson!

Never quite had you pegged as a yahoo before.

But I am NOT about to argue with an ALIEN!




posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnthraAndromda
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


Ya know, when I originally posted to this thread it was in response to the OP requesting for 'one' bit of evidence that ET is visiting Earth. I thought my data was relevent.


Maybe it was. Maybe it was not. Either way, you have posted it, haven't you?


It has been yahoos like you that have started any arguments I've been engaged in. The worst part being that you won't even address the data. You try to find piddly little things that make no difference what so ever to try to 'trip' me, and then make out like it has some effect on the validity of the data.


Super. I know a good place to discuss it.


DNA Evidence of ET?

DNA Evidence of ET? Second thread.


I find it truly amazing that you humans will discount evidence out-of-hand if you don't like it or its implecations. It is a very good thing that none of you are in a position to effect the path and speed of scientific, and social progress of your species. If you were, you'd still be living in caves, hunting with sticks, and women would be property.

Etharzi od Oma.


Super. Data offered, point made.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by AnthraAndromda
 
Knock, knock.....

Anybody in there?

You have presented evidence(such as it was) that proves that your DNA is human. In your fertile mind, that makes you an alien, apparently.

Good. You keep going with that.

Let me wish you all the luck in the world(s) in your quest to link back up with your parents and then, HOPEFULLY FOR THE REST OF US, a nice spaceship ride back to your home planet!



You haven't looked at the data! I'm sure you think you have, but, you have failed to understand the nature of what it is saying. IF you had been paying attention, you would realize that the DNA and the actual person are not, by the evolution of Human genetics, compliant. Hint: check out the Human populations with similar DNA, compare that to the population I would belong to if I were human.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 10:10 AM
link   
So, Old Dragger, your point is that video and photographic 'evidence' is too easily faked and that sworn or written testimony by witnesses is unreliable and therefore neither of these constitute any real 'evidence', right? What then, does constitute evidence? Can you, without the use of photos, or videos, or 'testimony' PROVE that we landed on the moon? For that matter, a good portion of our 'known' history is based on photo's, videos or films, or someone's testimony or record. It seems to only boil down to who you wish to believe, whose testimony you wish to accept, and whose photographic 'evidence' you wish to accept.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by BlackbearSpook
 


I would tend to agree that photographic and video evidence is easy to 'fake'. With the software available today, almost anyone can make a video that shows anything. Older photos and films, not so much, if they were made "back in the day' the faking of what is seen in them is much harder and much easier to detect. So I too would tend to take 'images' with a huge grain of salt.

On the other hand, "CGI" is the new cop-out reason for not accepting any image as evidence. I see many people who will scream "CGI"! simply because they don't like the image.

But, then again, there are many who will say that the evidence is fake whether they have looked at it or not, simply because it goes against what 'they' want to be true. Too many will not do the work to determine if evidence is real or not.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by BlackbearSpook
 


Not even close.
My point is not that there is no "evidence".
It's that there is no proof!
and there isn't!



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by black cat
 



The stars are perfect white dots. If this were time exposure wouldn't they be extended as well?


no , to even make those stars visible you need a long exposure shot. The photo looks identical to the moon stay in denial all you want.


[edit on 15-7-2010 by yeti101]


You're missing the point. The Earth isn't going to stop moving, so if those stars showed up over a long exposure period why aren't there star trails in the picture?



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackbearSpook
So, Old Dragger, your point is that video and photographic 'evidence' is too easily faked and that sworn or written testimony by witnesses is unreliable and therefore neither of these constitute any real 'evidence', right? What then, does constitute evidence? Can you, without the use of photos, or videos, or 'testimony' PROVE that we landed on the moon? For that matter, a good portion of our 'known' history is based on photo's, videos or films, or someone's testimony or record. It seems to only boil down to who you wish to believe, whose testimony you wish to accept, and whose photographic 'evidence' you wish to accept.


No that's not really his main point at all. I don't understand why so many of you aren't getting this? His point in this thread, which I happen to agree with, is that real UFO sightings and even UFO crashes are not proof in of themselves that ET's are flying these objects.

With the knowledge we now how of the work that Tesla was doing all the way back in the late 1800's, it's very possible and most likely IMO, that these "other worldly" UFO's have been our own the entire time. Including the crash in Roswell. I believe there is a sinister agenda from whatever powers that be, that is using and concealing this technology for deception.....and it will continue to increase in the very near future.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by black cat
 
Which 'moves' faster across the night sky?

The Moon or stars?



[edit on 15-7-2010 by butcherguy]



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by black cat
 


I answered this a few pages back. a camera or telescope with a motorized drive would stay tracking stars, while the moon moves at a different rate.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Very strange...that you spell "Pleiades"...incorrectly.

Also, if I were going to have such a vivid imagination, to include creating in my mind all of these species, I'd pick a more suitable...ummm...."home system"....not a star cluster consisting of seven major dominant, hot blue-white stars that just formed, a mere ~100 million years a go, or so:


The cluster is dominated by hot blue and extremely luminous stars that have formed within the last 100 million years.


en.wikipedia.org...(star_cluster)

To wish people to believe in a VERY technilogically advanced species native to a star cluster that young, is somewhat insulting to their intelligence.

OR, if the alternate claim is that they aren't "native" but only settled there...well, the levels of cosmic radiation are likely to be extremely unsuitable for biological entities.


WELL, anyway..., a real pretty "map":


Any astonomers out there, who wish to chime in and comment on the plausibility or lack thereof)??


I'm with you on this and I would need to go the direction that if there were aliens then we are related or created by them. The reason is that the odds are astronomical for a random encounter, but until we get more info it is all a wild ass guess any way you look at it.

When I suggest the odds are extreme I base this on many known limiting conditions, and I'll name a few.

1. Stars: Not just any star can support life. It is not as easy as saying that with a big or hot sun just move the planet farther away, or closer with a cooler sun. It is not really correct in thinking that stars give off light, but more that they give off radiation. If a sun is about the same temperature of ours (about 6000k degrees) it would give off radiation in the form of light, but a cooler sun would have longer waves of energy like microwaves and a hotter sun would have shorter wave such as x-rays. As far as we know there are no examples of life, much less complex intelligent life, thriving off of microwaves or x-rays. I’m not one to say it is impossible but one surely sees radiation outside of light as being much more inhospitable. Big suns also do not last very long to allow evolution to work its long process, so within our galaxy of 200 billion stars as we filter out big stars, stars too young and stars that are too hot or cold that big number stars to look much smaller.

2. Planets: Like stars not just any planet will work. Evolution takes time as we know it, so to go from simple microbes to us it is a long process and we need a planet that will allow evolution to work its magic. The right planet needs three conditions of the right density/size, position and stability. Complex life has its limitations and gravity cannot be extreme on either end so the density will have limits. Since a sun must be within a rather narrow temperature band this also creates a narrow habitable zone for a planet to create complex life. The planet also needs a liquid core for a very long time and Mars is a great example of “almost”. Mars had water and most likely the building blocks to make life but the core solidified too quickly killing off the planet. Venus is another “almost” but its out of control Greenhouse makies it surface temps hotter than Mercury and so limits life to microbes at best. So we need a planet not too hot/cold, reasonable gravity with a stable liquid core/atmosphere. There are many other variables to help or hinder life, and as one example it is suggested that a solar system needs a planet like Jupiter to help create the right size planet and to protect it like a giant magnet. Jupiter is really not a planet as much as a failed star that just didn’t get big enough to have a nuclear reaction, but it played some very important roles in why the planets closer to the sun are different than the farther planets are and it has protected earth in not having many more life resets that has help evolution to do its job.

3. So talking life, let’s say we have the right planet/sun/conditions and life grows, which is great, but we are interested in intelligent space fairing life. To say any life we open up unlimited variables, but once we start to dictate the conditions of that life we really narrow down the possibilities. Even on earth we know there has been billions of different life forms, but so far one life form that may become space fairing, us.


This above does not create a picture that there is a Star Trek utopia out there even if life in general is somewhat common. We still have unimaginable distances to overcome even if there was a way to find another race. Finding is a big problem for we are not a big disco ball in the sky but one sun of 200 billion, and even transmission of our radio waves will only last about 100-150 years from our first, and this is because technology has shifted our communications to more focused forms that do not leak out into space. We are rapidly becoming as silent as we were before radio was invented.




[edit on 15-7-2010 by Xtrozero]



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by black cat
 


why was your original reason for dismissing the photo " doesnt look like the moon to me" ?



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by black cat
 


why was your original reason for dismissing the photo " doesnt look like the moon to me" ?



Because it didn't look like the moon? The photograph was of a long dirty looking tubular shaped object suspended near earth while the moon is typically a round or crescent shaped white object fairly high in the sky.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldDragger
reply to post by BlackbearSpook
 


Not even close.
My point is not that there is no "evidence".
It's that there is no proof!
and there isn't!


He has you there, I am afraid. If there were proof we would not be here debating the subject. We would probably be signing up for junkets into space instead....or not.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by black cat
 
Which 'moves' faster across the night sky?

The Moon or stars?

[edit on 15-7-2010 by butcherguy]


Not fast enough to not leave at least a small star trail with that length of exposure. Did you see how long the object is? How is it possible to have an exposure that long without there being any star trails?



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by rusethorcain
 


do you think the photo is good evidence for the ETH, do you think the photo is a craft or some other extra terrestrial manufactured object?

[edit on 15-7-2010 by yeti101]



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by black cat
 
Dragger already covered that part of the question, here...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



new topics

top topics



 
85
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join