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.

 

A Challeng to ATS's most brilliant Mathamaticians

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Why do you assume it's any sort of math formula? It's could be a simple set of pictograms, used to designate the sort of vehicle this is. In a perhaps multi-species universe, this would be a good generic way to identify a craft. I'd guess it has nothing at all to do with trying to communicate with us.

Is far as WHAT they mean, it would be utter guesswork. Without the Rosetta Stone, deciphering hieroglyphics was impossible by language experts for a very long time. Without a key, it's near impossible.

If language experts for decades were unable to decipher HUMAN hieroglyphics, I find it laughable you would think that the "brilliant" minds on ATS could decipher alien ones, if that is what they are.




posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by fleabit
 


I posted the link to the video and at the bottom of the screenshot, you can see the time that the screenshot was taken. I thought that people would go to the video and watch that part.

The investigator took the symbols to a mathematician for analysis. I assumed that perhaps someone with a better knowledge of math than I, could help design a similar set.

This seemed to be a reasonable action to me, apparently I was wrong and I am now attempting to create a simple diagram.



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   
I watched the entire video (the 9 parter), and I thought it was an enormous stretch to assume what these meant. He is guessing, nothing more. He is basing it on his own theories. He could be 1 million miles off the mark. They probably are pictograms, but I doubt he is guessing correctly. I think it would make more sense to take them to a linguist, but again, I doubt they could, without a key, make any sense of it at all.



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by fleabit
 


I thought that his interpretation of the ship and the orbit were interesting. I know that the producers and directors of this type of show, have a habit of editing out important information. They will edit out what the expert says to fit in with the shows premise. They probably told the expert how to interpret the designs before asking him to do it. I don't believe his interpretation is any more accurate that anyone else.

I do still believe that the members of ATS could come up with a design to fit the purpose that it is needed for, At least I had hoped that we could.

The biggest problem for me, is that I have actually begun to dread reading every response to my threads. I have come to the conclusion that no one wants to attempt first contact, whatever their reasons, believers do not want this. I can understand why skeptics think attempting first contact is a waste of time but I am confused by the believers reaction.

I have actually requested that this thread and my Center for Human Initiated Communication thread be locked or deleted. For whatever the reason, the moderators refuse to delete the threads.

I thought that I had a good idea but people disagree. I am ok with people not being interested in this idea and I am ready to put this effort behind me.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by ChicUFO
 


What are you talking about? You seem to be lumping all "believers" (though a definition of such would be as nebulous as the premise, IMO).

You want your thread deleted? You are disappointed in the response you are getting? Why? How could you conclude blanket apathy when only a tiny fraction of ATS contributors and observers (whether they are believers, non-believers, or fence-sitters) have even responded.

You had a good idea. It is still good. Why throw in the towel when it is still barely into the first moments of your query?

Just a guess, but your thread title may have discouraged more participation. It assumes that only "brilliant mathematicians" need stop by. Rather, upon reading your posts, it appears you are more interested in developing a workable methodology for inviting space-faring travelers to pay you (us) a visit. So start with that. As you've realized by now, it is what your thread is migrating towards in any case.

It is a healthy discussion. With such comes healthy debate. What's wrong with that? It may yield new insights and encourage you to modify your thinking, perhaps provide you with answers ans solutions you had not considered.

I suggest you carry on. Invite additional input. Do not be discouraged by those that question your motives, techniques, or expectations.

Do not give up. Your thinking may have some flaws, but it is still worthy. Welcome feedback and make adjustments. Then take the next step forward.

We need more inquisitive, energetic protagonists such as yourself. Pick up your banner and move forward. To do otherwise would be unfortunate indeed...




 
3
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join