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 Implausability of UFOs Being Alien in Nature

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Desertopa

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood

As for techtonic theory - where to begin? - what force is it do you suppose that moves continents about like dogem cars over the planets surface, such that India wanders about willy nilly then crashes into Asia with such force that it creates the Himalayas - geologists certainly don't know, they gave up on magma convection a while ago then ludicrously proposed subduction as the driving force, seeing as thats thier only other possibility, though why a less dense ocean floor would 'sink' into a denser medium requires some very creative physics!

There is very little direct evidence for subduction and certainly nowhere near enough of it to account for the massive (and accelerating) increase in continental seafloor over the last 250 million yrs.

Strangely enough though if you were to watch one of Niel Adams animations - the whole of the continal land masses contact neatly into a complete crust, one third of the present size, without traveling anywhere or rotating. www.youtube.com...


Just as compelling (and not mutualy condtradictory) is the triple geospheres model of the earth blog.hasslberger.com...


Can you provide any citations for the claim that scientists have "given up on" convection as a driving force for plate tectonics? We can observe sea floor spreading at mid ocean ridges, measure the age of sea floor through radiometric dating (it's oldest near continental margins, where subduction occurs, with the oldest sea floor dating back roughly 250 million years.)

Slab Pull is considered by many to be the dominant, or even the only, driving mechanism for plate tectonics. Subduction zones typically occur a long distance away from spreading centers, where the plates have had plenty of time to cool off. Lower temperature makes the plate more dense than the material beneath it, causing it to subduct into the mantle. As the plate edge is drawn under, it pulls the remainder of the plate behind it.

webspinners.com...

The continental crust is not denser than oceanic crust. It's thicker, but the felsic rock of which it is composed is less dense than the basaltic rock of the oceanic crust.

I said oceanic floor was supposed to be subducted down into the mantle, not continental crust.

The decay of radioactive elements in Earth's mantle and core (most naturally occurring radioactive elements are very dense and are much more abundant in the mantle and core than the crust), and heat released from solidification of molten matter onto earth's core, could readily provide the energy to drive magma convection. What do you suppose would cause the Earth to continually expand? For it to expand several time over over time without generating new mass, or for it to create new matter, both require processes unknown to modern physics. What makes you consider this hypothesis less problematic than plate tectonics?

see the triple geospheres model, where the interior is of ultrametal hydrides, with the protons forced into the electron shells of the metal lattice, resulting in a very dense material - when plumes of metal hydrides ascend to the 5Gpa pressure region (continental crust) the hydrides dissociate, and react with the oxidised crust producing vocanism etc - there is plenty of room for expansive processes there, though I personally tend to believe there is some unknown process of direct condensation of matter going on in the interior of the earth, maybe direct condensation from the astral realms at the end of an age (yugas)

Also, if the earth were expanding over time, then we should expect that either 1) surface gravity has decreased over time, as the surface has become further from the center of mass without the total mass increasing, or 2) surface gravity has increased over time, since mass has a cubic relationship with volume, and surface gravity is proportional to the square of the distance from the center of mass. If I can devise an experiment to test whether Earth's surface gravity was significantly different in the past, and the results indicate that it was not, would you accept the expanding Earth hypothesis as falsified?


A lesser surface gravity in the past goes a long way to explaining the sheer size of the dinosaurs, the height achieved by treeferns, wingspans of dragonflies and pterodactyls etc - all of this is explained in the links provided far better than I can - I assume it means you have not looked at them!




posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by JohhnyBGood
 


You assume wrongly. Also, you didn't answer my question. If I can devise an experiment that would determine whether the surface gravity of Earth has changed over time, and the results indicate that it has not, would you accept the expanding Earth hypothesis as falsified? It's easy to cherrypick data points that seem to be in accordance with a model, but that doesn't mean that the model is correct. It's not as if the size of dinosaurs is inexplicable if we assume that Earth's surface gravity hasn't changed over time, and if you assume a lesser surface gravity in the past, you're defying conservation of energy on a tremendous scale.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Desertopa
reply to post by JohhnyBGood
 


You assume wrongly. Also, you didn't answer my question. If I can devise an experiment that would determine whether the surface gravity of Earth has changed over time, and the results indicate that it has not, would you accept the expanding Earth hypothesis as falsified? It's easy to cherrypick data points that seem to be in accordance with a model, but that doesn't mean that the model is correct. It's not as if the size of dinosaurs is inexplicable if we assume that Earth's surface gravity hasn't changed over time, and if you assume a lesser surface gravity in the past, you're defying conservation of energy on a tremendous scale.


I look at the evidence for expansion and conclude that it is overwhelming - there is no doubt in my mind that this has occured - the mechanism for it, and how to explain it, is another matter entirely. I understand that scientists academics, have theories, reputations and positions to defend - and will simply ignore the blatantly obvious unlessl they have a mechanism to explain it.

As for your experiment - sure, I simply go wherever the evidence points - I presume you have something up your sleeve here, so fire away!



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood

Originally posted by Desertopa
reply to post by JohhnyBGood
 


You assume wrongly. Also, you didn't answer my question. If I can devise an experiment that would determine whether the surface gravity of Earth has changed over time, and the results indicate that it has not, would you accept the expanding Earth hypothesis as falsified? It's easy to cherrypick data points that seem to be in accordance with a model, but that doesn't mean that the model is correct. It's not as if the size of dinosaurs is inexplicable if we assume that Earth's surface gravity hasn't changed over time, and if you assume a lesser surface gravity in the past, you're defying conservation of energy on a tremendous scale.


I look at the evidence for expansion and conclude that it is overwhelming - there is no doubt in my mind that this has occured - the mechanism for it, and how to explain it, is another matter entirely. I understand that scientists academics, have theories, reputations and positions to defend - and will simply ignore the blatantly obvious unlessl they have a mechanism to explain it.

As for your experiment - sure, I simply go wherever the evidence points - I presume you have something up your sleeve here, so fire away!





I haven't come up with anything in advance, no. If I had already come up with the experiments and performed them, I would have said so.

Generally speaking, scientists do not ignore the blatantly obvious even if they don't have a mechanism to explain it. Few things bring a scientist more status than replacing an old model with a new one that resolves discrepancies. As a result, there are nearly always at least a few scientists trying to pick apart models and replace them, and occasionally they turn out to be right, and gain considerable renown in the scientific community. But far more often, the new hypotheses are simply wrong.

If you look at the history of science in hindsight, you get a very skewed view of how it's gone. New theory comes around, replaces the old. Then another one comes around, replaces that, so on and so forth. They don't teach you in school about all the times old theories have been challenged, and the new theories have turned out to be wrong, and this happens much, much more often. It gives the erroneous impression that every time a new hypothesis comes along that has anything to recommend it, it's a legitimate revolution, but in fact this is rarely the case.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
here is an excellent page to convince yourself beyond doubt that this is in fact so: www.thecrowhouse.com...
I started reading that and was looking for a modern map of Antarctica showing it matches the The Bauche Map of 1737 as claimed in that pdf, have you got one? I have been unable to confirm the actual shape of Antarctica is like that map as the pdf claims it is, I even searched for the 1958 surveys it referenced and can't find anywhere they documented that shape.

Also the Piri Reis map probably shows the distorted coastline of South America, not Antarctica as claimed, but it clearly doesn't show either very realistically:

www.uwgb.edu...


an azimuthal equidistant map centered on 0, 0. The fit of Africa and Spain is far better and the fit with Brazil is surprisingly good. Features on the South American coast down to southern Brazil can be identified with certainty. Beyond that, though, the map is fantasy. It doesn't match either South America or Antarctica very well.
That's the outline of the Piri Reis map in purple, and that coast is way too high to be Antarctica.

The author of that pdf says not to take his word for it and to research his evidence for yourself. Unfortunately when I do that, the "evidence" falls apart and doesn't show what he claims.

Of course he also claims our ancestors ("the dummies"), were too stupid to figure out how to cut big rocks and move them around(among other things). I've seen Wally Wallington move huge stones around all by himself using nothing but sticks and stones and sand. The brains of people that lived a few thousand years before us were about as intelligent as ours so why is it so hard to think they could have cut some big rocks and moved them around?

That has to be the worst possible reason to invoke "aliens must have done it" I can think of.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I think theres a difference between shifting a few blocks compared to... say... 2.5 million 20-200+ tonne blocks 480ft high. (AKA the Pyramids.)



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by RaKais
I think theres a difference between shifting a few blocks compared to... say... 2.5 million 20-200+ tonne blocks 480ft high. (AKA the Pyramids.)
What difference?

If you can do something once why can't you do it a million times?



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   
One point of evidence which I forgot to bring up before strongly favors continental drift over expanding Earth.

Most rock contains at least trace amounts of iron. When the rock solidifies from a molten state, the iron becomes magnetized due to Earth's ambient magnetic field. It's possible to determine what latitude a piece of igneous rock formed at by measuring the degree to which the iron in it is magnetized. Since we can only look so far back by measuring sea floor, this is one of the main methods we use to trace the movement of continental plates over time; by checking igneous rocks that were extruded in the time period we want to look at, and measuring what latitude it formed at.

Not only would we not see the patterns of latitude shift in continental plates that we observe if the Earth were expanding in a uniform manner (which would be necessary for it to retain a spheroid shape,) if the Earth had been smaller in the past, then its magnetic field at the surface would have been more intense, and this would have been reflected in the geological record. The record indicates no such decrease.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Desertopa

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood

Originally posted by Desertopa
reply to post by JohhnyBGood
 


You assume wrongly. Also, you didn't answer my question. If I can devise an experiment that would determine whether the surface gravity of Earth has changed over time, and the results indicate that it has not, would you accept the expanding Earth hypothesis as falsified? It's easy to cherrypick data points that seem to be in accordance with a model, but that doesn't mean that the model is correct. It's not as if the size of dinosaurs is inexplicable if we assume that Earth's surface gravity hasn't changed over time, and if you assume a lesser surface gravity in the past, you're defying conservation of energy on a tremendous scale.


I look at the evidence for expansion and conclude that it is overwhelming - there is no doubt in my mind that this has occured - the mechanism for it, and how to explain it, is another matter entirely. I understand that scientists academics, have theories, reputations and positions to defend - and will simply ignore the blatantly obvious unlessl they have a mechanism to explain it.

As for your experiment - sure, I simply go wherever the evidence points - I presume you have something up your sleeve here, so fire away!





I haven't come up with anything in advance, no. If I had already come up with the experiments and performed them, I would have said so.

Generally speaking, scientists do not ignore the blatantly obvious even if they don't have a mechanism to explain it. Few things bring a scientist more status than replacing an old model with a new one that resolves discrepancies. As a result, there are nearly always at least a few scientists trying to pick apart models and replace them, and occasionally they turn out to be right, and gain considerable renown in the scientific community. But far more often, the new hypotheses are simply wrong.



They most certainly do ignore what they have no explanation for - and that is completely different story than simply proposing a new theory! - all of paranormal phenomina fall into this category! - as did say the fact that rocks fall from the sky sometimes, at one point. As for Geology Archeology - new theories famously have to wait for thier current adherrants to die first before being accepted!



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by JohhnyBGood
 


That is a famous saying that is, generally speaking, not actually true. Paranormal "sciences" are researched at a number of universities, but they have an extremely poor track record for producing proper evidence or results.

Are you familiar with what the body of evidence for plate tectonics is? There's quite a lot of it at this point, and any alternate theory would also have to explain it. Expanding Earth does not, and if you want I can explain why.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Desertopa
 


Sure go ahead - explain why the present (preferably direct) evidence rules out an expanding earth.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Desertopa
One point of evidence which I forgot to bring up before strongly favors continental drift over expanding Earth.

Most rock contains at least trace amounts of iron. When the rock solidifies from a molten state, the iron becomes magnetized due to Earth's ambient magnetic field. It's possible to determine what latitude a piece of igneous rock formed at by measuring the degree to which the iron in it is magnetized. Since we can only look so far back by measuring sea floor, this is one of the main methods we use to trace the movement of continental plates over time; by checking igneous rocks that were extruded in the time period we want to look at, and measuring what latitude it formed at.

Not only would we not see the patterns of latitude shift in continental plates that we observe if the Earth were expanding in a uniform manner (which would be necessary for it to retain a spheroid shape,) if the Earth had been smaller in the past, then its magnetic field at the surface would have been more intense, and this would have been reflected in the geological record. The record indicates no such decrease.


So if the Earth expands and suface mag field decreases - you would no doubt interpret that as a lattitude shift.

How do you account for the mountains under the ice in Antartica or the the Andes in the absence of plate collisions, the fact that there is no evidence the Pacific is getting smaller, the absence of 'scraped off' sea bed deposits' at suduction zones - or the scarcity of subduction zones compared to expansion zones.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
here is an excellent page to convince yourself beyond doubt that this is in fact so: www.thecrowhouse.com...
I started reading that and was looking for a modern map of Antarctica showing it matches the The Bauche Map of 1737 as claimed in that pdf, have you got one? I have been unable to confirm the actual shape of Antarctica is like that map as the pdf claims it is, I even searched for the 1958 surveys it referenced and can't find anywhere they documented that shape.

Also the Piri Reis map probably shows the distorted coastline of South America, not Antarctica as claimed, but it clearly doesn't show either very realistically:

www.uwgb.edu...


an azimuthal equidistant map centered on 0, 0. The fit of Africa and Spain is far better and the fit with Brazil is surprisingly good. Features on the South American coast down to southern Brazil can be identified with certainty. Beyond that, though, the map is fantasy. It doesn't match either South America or Antarctica very well.
That's the outline of the Piri Reis map in purple, and that coast is way too high to be Antarctica.

The author of that pdf says not to take his word for it and to research his evidence for yourself. Unfortunately when I do that, the "evidence" falls apart and doesn't show what he claims.

Of course he also claims our ancestors ("the dummies"), were too stupid to figure out how to cut big rocks and move them around(among other things). I've seen Wally Wallington move huge stones around all by himself using nothing but sticks and stones and sand. The brains of people that lived a few thousand years before us were about as intelligent as ours so why is it so hard to think they could have cut some big rocks and moved them around?

That has to be the worst possible reason to invoke "aliens must have done it" I can think of.


Well here is a bedrock map of Antartica - though it is not corrected for sea level rise nor Isostatic rebound as it would be if ice free, nor of course re-curvature due to earth expansion.

Shame you picked on the Pirea Riess map because to my mind it is the least convincing, but there are a whole host of similar maps around.

The Bauche Map of 1737
Phillip Bauche was a French geographer of the 18th century who also drew a map that clearly
shows Antarctica except that Bauche's map shows Antarctica two separate land masses, with
detailed shorelines (fig.3). For many years the map was generally considered to be wrong because
when Antarctica was discovered it actually looked nothing what Bauche had drawn.
Then in 1958 a seismic survey of Antarctica was carried out which surprisingly showed that
Antarctica was indeed two archipelago islands covered by a thick layer of ice that made it appear
as only one land mass and not only that, but that the general topography of the lands beneath the
ice matches the drawings on the Bauche map in every detail. So how on earth this can be in any
way possible? This map means that Bauche was in possession of a correct map showing
Antarctica 100 years before it was discovered and not only that, but without any ice on it.
Antarctica has not been in an ice free condition for a minimum of at least 10,000 years and
many scientists believe that the period of time to be more like several million years.

The Franco Rosselli map of 1508.
Franco Rosselli was a renowned Florentine cartographer of the 15th century who created a
relatively small but richly illustrated copperplate engraving, hand colored on Vellum, measuring
just 6 x 11 inches (fig.4).The piece is now kept in the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich.
At the time Rosselli created the map, cartography was still a relatively new and experimental
art which makes the revelations in his world map even more amazing. The maps depiction of
Antarctica is a work of great accuracy and even names the area quite specifically as Antarticus.

cont......www.thecrowhouse.com...

As for moving rocks with sticks and stones - sure ancient peoples could make laughing stocks of modern academics with thier practical knowledge of such things - but the stones at Baallbeck 800 tons - that is just impossible - this is ascribed to the Romans without a scrap of evidence to support it, the heaviest stone they managed to move was 300 tons and it took them 9 yrs to do it! en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by jeddun
 


They (the "aliens") are all from this solar system, and although they have access to advanced technology (that had once existed here) they are not really able to fabricate any new ships. The ships have a temporal distortion field, so they can exist between different time periods - that is, they are from the "future". They need the cows for food - basically they take the parts that are most nutritious, and they turn them into a pulp and "bathe" themselves in it. The reason why they are abducting people is to plant various forms of thought control, they need a kind of "mind matrix" that they use to capture the human imagination and creativity - their goal is to try and escape thier temporal "prison" - because they can live for so long, and they can clone new bodies, they have reached a totally scientific understanding for thier basis of existence, that is, they cannot perceive existence following their deaths. They are almost like automatons, basically gone-crazy, and trying to steer the course of time. Many of them live underground, however various factions are the ones that are responsible for most of the abductions. Also, many of the UFO's are human technology, reverse-engineered. At the moment they are also exploring this "4D" world and are currently engaging in what seems like an "interdimensional war".

The true aliens that can visit us, are EXTREMELY advanced, and they do not need to "land" any ships, they can project themselves to appear human, and we would not be able to tell that they are really aliens using advanced holograms. Their ships have a much more advanced temporal distortion technology, and their ships are HUGE. To them, we are a very interesting, yet primitive race, and their policy is strictly to observe, as in the past, such visitors were worshipped as "Gods" and created a series of wars over beliefs in such Gods and the promises that they made.

ADDITION: My best guess is that Earth has multiple "parallell" realities, not like parallell timelines per se, but basically there are different "levels" or "versions" of reality. For example, we see a normal building, it might be a video store or something, however, in the "alien" world where they live, it serves an entireley different purpose, it could have hidden rooms that are not accessible to us (they would appear as walls) and even other levels that we can't see, We might see some of the aliens in our perception, but to us they would appear just like regular humans, but in thier world they appear more like themselves. I would imagine that there are many different aspects to this reality that we cannot perceive, that are tangential to our own experience. It could be that us humans live on a particular level, and events that occur on the "upper levels" filter down to our level. It all seems to work very synchronistically, like we have a perceptual "bubble" that cannot be pierced, because it would mean that we would flood over to "thier" world.

ADDITION ADDITION: I beleive that due to the ability to travel between planets, when aliens arrive on Earth, they inhabit thier own kind of temporal relativity, that is there are various temporal relativities, and we live in one of them. However, all of these temporal relativities "overlap" with each other. Most of them overlap horizontally (that is, synchronistic with our "present" and some of them might intersect "vertically" - that is, they can have access to various "gates" or "wormholes" that allow them to bridge between different different "past" and "future" times, across our time relativity, and across other time relativities. In addition to this, there are probably also different physical dimensions, that is, that the light is at an angle to the light that we see, meaning there could be a whole host of other creatures and entities that are in diametrically opposed realities to our own, and of course, the most advanced ones would be able to cross dimensions, and also in those dimensions would exist different temporal relativities.
edit on 23-12-2010 by SystemResistor because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
(snip)
Ant that is exactly how they keep the public from ever being told the truth,



The Shrike: "I have a problem when I read words such as yours. Who is they? What truth is being withheld? How do you know who is holding what truth?"


take for example 'out of place artifacts' any one of which once verified ought to be enough to destroy the whole conventional view of human history.



The Shrike: "Some OOPAs have been "verified" but there has been no aftershock from their discoveries, just interest from some individuals and organizations. The impact has never been a major news item and when it is reported it is more of a curiosity."



(snip)




There are unambiguous pictures and models of planes helicopters, vivid descriptions of nuclear weapons in the Vedas, and the Sumerian tablets, vast sheets of sand fused to glass in the Sinai deserts, radioactive masses of skeletons in india as well as radioactive cities, hundreds of ancient ruins with vitrified walls - 1200 ton blocks of stone that are immpossible to move, - all this is the tip of the ice-berg what you have seen on MSM is just 'gatekeeping' an 'innoculation' to get you to automatically dimiss it as speculative or hearsay.


The Shrike: "You are making mistakes and assumptions not supported by evidence. For example, the objects you quote are not necessarily OOPAs, or have the reality that you surmise. You are reading into them your fantasies. OOPAs are real, you can hold them, they can be x-rayed, they are physical objects than can be examined in a laboratory. The rest are pure conjecture."



(snip)



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Heres a new thread i made about the greys, a species of ET, rather human like. www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 24-12-2010 by sir_slide because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 


Look - it's not difficult, one single find of a hammer embedded in a lump of coal = conventional story is very very wrong!

When it is thousands and thousands of examples, not to mention specific written records, from all over describing, Gods arriving in flying machines, waging nuclear war etc etc etc - then it is simply overwhelmingly obvious!

The implications from these inconvenient objects is being studiously ignored by 'them'


As to who is they - you need to understand how the networks of semi-secret societies work, but I have no doubt you will also find the idea of a NWO - fantastical.



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 04:59 AM
link   
I am an agnostic skeptic. However, as a skeptic, I refrain from asserting that something "must" or "cannot" be true without proof. To do otherwise is pseudo-skepticism. While the points raised herein are excellent food for thought and may be accurate, they also may not be for all we know. Since there is no open, avowed, proven contact with extraterrestrial intelligence thus far, much of what has been said here could prove to be assumption.

There may be possibilities or scenarios we cannot necessarily conceive of or expect.

For example:


1. Surely a race such as this is capable of replicating what they need from one single sample, no?


This assumes that their intelligence is not only far in advance of our own - which in the absence of any alternative explanation for their hypothesized interstellar capabilities, is fair in my opinion - but also organized similarly to our own. For all we know, the basic concepts with which and ways in which we organize information, linear thought, and other facets of intelligence as we know it that might seem obvious or inevitable to us when considering any extraterrestrial intelligence and what form it might take, could be completely unique to us, or much less common than other traits we cannot even begin to imagine. There could be reasons we cannot imagine or conceive of that would prohibit, or make it ineffectual somehow, to replicate our DNA. Or what we suppose are genetic sampling in so-called abductions (assuming they happen at all) might be for some other, completely different purpose that hasn't occurred to us.


2. DNA Bovine Acquisitions: See above..a Cow's, a Cow's, a Cow.....they (Aliens) haven't figured this out yet?


See above.


3. Visitation: It is HIGHLY implausible that of all the races i read about, from the Reptoids on down to the lowly Greys, and beyond (i have read COUNTLESS different species descriptions in books and media from over the years) would all adapt and adhere to the single Mandate of 'hiding' from the Human species/world population. This just makes no sense to me, and surprisingly I've never read anyone else even mention this as It's so simple. Why would every race of Alien, from God knows where, with no connection to one another even in the Political sense, stick to the same process?


Perhaps they have evolved to be reclusive by nature. Perhaps beyond a certain threshold of intelligence or technological capacity it becomes obvious to any species, however different, that public, direct contact with vastly more primitive life forms can have dangerously disruptive effects. Even our own genius Stephen Hawking has said that extraterrestrials visiting Earth might have an affect similar to that of European colonizers meeting the Native Americans. Perhaps they know this. Perhaps there are reasons we can't even begin to imagine for this commonality (assuming any of the species in question even exist.)


4. Craft Lighting: Ok, why in Hell would any race of beings, hiding from the public, even run a single light aboard these craft? Surely they have a HUD screen where they can see anything they wish, including star system charts (reports over the years describe just this)...so why the anti-collision lights?


Do we know (assuming they exist at all) that the lights are "anti-collision lights?" I certainly don't. Perhaps they're some form of bioluminescence. Do we even know these are mechanical, manufactured craft, and not somehow biological, or bio-mechanical? I don't know that.


5. Power & Diplomacy: Any race able to transverse the interstellar muck MUST have a process of Diplomacy


Not necessarily. What if they are a hive mind, similar to our insects, to which the very concept of individuality or diplomacy might be alien? What if they are not individually vastly superior to us in intelligence, but rather collectively superior? What if their interstellar capabilities are the result of natural evolution, rather than technological prowess? Ant colonies can appear incredibly intricate to us. At times, even architectural in their complexity. How do we know that what looks technological to us, might not simply be natural formations created by their normal behavior, including interstellar travel? What might a hive insect look like if it were a million years more advanced than we are? Do we know? Can we say with certainty? How would one look from another world, with totally distinct, independent evolution? We don't know at all. We can only speculate.

As I said, personally, I'm a skeptic. I do not personally adhere to a belief that extraterrestrial have visited or are now visiting Earth. However, I am open to the possibility, however uncertain I may be, because the inability to imagine a scenario under which something might be true or possible does not definitively render it untrue or impossible. Or even implausible, in some respects.



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
Well here is a bedrock map of Antartica
Where?

I don't see any picture or link? Except for the link to the pdf.



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
Well here is a bedrock map of Antartica
Where?

I don't see any picture or link? Except for the link to the pdf.


en.wikipedia.org...:AntarcticBedrock2.jpg


Description=The above map shows the subglacial topography of Antarctica. As indicated by the scale on left-hand side, blue represents portion of Antarctica lying below sea level. The other colors indicate Antarctic bedrock lying above sea level. Each color represents an interval of 2,500 feet in elevation. Map is not corrected for sea level rise or isostatic rebound, which would occur if the Antarctic ice sheet completely melted to expose the bedrock surface.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join