Ancient Aliens Testable Predictions

page: 5
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Suppose we asked the government to show us all evidence bearing on the existence of the Higgs Boson. They would rightly say, we have no evidence of the existence of the Higgs yet. Does that mean we should not look for the Higgs Boson? Does it mean that we should shut down the LHC? -- The answer to both questions is no.

Suppose we asked the government to show us all evidence bearing on the existence of superconductors with critical temperatures above 300K? They would rightly say, we have no evidence of the existence of superconductors with critical temperatures above 300K. Should we then quit all research on high temperature superconductors? -- The answer is no.

I have argued with skeptics who reason in a circular manner: anomalous phenomena should not be researched until we get more evidence. Yet, I ask, how can we get more evidence, yes or no, without doing more research? There would be no point in doing research if we had sufficient evidence. - What use would it serve to search for the Higgs Boson if you have already found it or shown that it cannot exist?

The question then becomes what kinds of theoretical or anomalous phenomena deserve research and experimentation? Simply because certain theoretical phenomena has a strong theoretical backing, does not mean it exists and conversely simply because certain anomalous phenomena does not have a strong theoretical backing does not mean it does not exist. - It is nature that decides what phenomena exists.

This brings up another question, scientists find it unfamiliar to ask government agencies to verify or falsify the existence of phenomena. It should be equally strange to ask a government to explain dark matter as it is to ask them to explain what appear to be ET visitations. A possible reason why the scientific community may not view it as strange is because, up to now, only governments had the resources and equipment necessary to collect sufficient data. Moreover, the main purpose of these resources and equipment is not to collect data on ET visitations, so much data relevant to ET researcher may be ignored.

Most fields of research do not require the approval of government agencies to be considered legitimate. For example, which government approved physics to be a legitimate field of research? How about medicine? Or mathematics? These fields are considered legitimate because they have proven themselves to give testable, repeatable, falsifiable predictions. (in the case of mathematics, proofs)

The only real way to make progress is find testable, repeatable, falsifiable predictions about ET visitations. Then design, build, and test your own equipment and test the theories. Like I said in the beginning of this entire post, the only real way you will ever get disclosure is if you go out and get the data yourself, with your own equipment. Whether it be sending up your own satellite or rover and sending and receiving signals with your own antennas, designing a passive radar, doing spectroscopy with a DSLR camera, or simply doing historical research.




posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Given the admissions by the Air Force in 1952:

Air Force Admissions

The April 7, 1952 Life Magazine article, where LIFE magazine in cooperation with the Air Force lay out the case for ET visitations!!:

Life Magazine UFOs

By the way, don't the Lubbock lights, on page 80, look quite similar to the Phoenix lights?

Phoenix Lights

One might wonder, why it seems that the present day Air force has "reversed" its policy on UFOs? According to the late Dr. Hynek, a former scientist and consultant to the Air force, it is due to an unwritten policy to downplay and debunk any and all UFO sightings:

Dr. Hynek

Note, how the video producer does a good job of contrasting the 1966 interview of Dr. Hynek with the 1979 interview with Dr. Hynek. In the 1979 interview you have Dr. Hynek claiming that he was part of a panel that crafted the unofficial policy of the air force, which included downplaying and denying any and all UFO cases. Furthermore, he stated that the most interesting cases were not released to the media.

In the 1966 interview you clearly see the very same Dr. Hynek following the unofficial policy of the Robertson panel; claiming he was not in "cahoots" with the air force, that all UFO sightings are simply weather balloons, meteors, aircraft, birds, etc. You have air force officials ALSO following the unofficial policy, claiming that they have not withheld anything from the public in regards to UFOs, when in fact they did. All lends credence to the claim that the US air force DID and probably still DOES withhold important ET UFO information.

Not to beat up on air force officials, NASA, or Dr. Hynek too much, many of them were simply following orders and/or doing a job. It is not as if they took it upon themselves to mislead the public, they mislead not because they wanted to, but because they HAD to.
edit on 20-11-2011 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-11-2011 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-11-2011 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-11-2011 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   
There is a theory out there that claims that SOME of the best UFO cases may be explained by living creatures. Though this may be plausible, there may be SOME unknown creatures in the upper atmosphere, it cannot account for most of of the best UFO sightings.

Much of the best UFO data indicate that:

1. These objects are solid, are capable of moving at 1000's of mph in the lower atmosphere.

2. Can accelerate from 0 mph to 1000's mph in 1 - 2s.

3. Can move at and accelerate to 1000's mph in the lower atmosphere with NO SONIC BOOM.

3. They Fly in formation.

4. Some objects are very large 0.25 mi long, in some cases.

5. They produce much heat, sometimes to the point of burning.

6. Some craft have been reported to be highly radioactive.

7. They are attracted to nuclear power plants (the air force "conceded" this in 1952)

8. NASA footage has shown these objects flying and maneuvering in space.

So let's test the "creature explanation" against the data.

1. How does the creature move? What propulsion system does it use? Most flying creatures use the flapping of wings, which cannot provide the performance.

2. What biological and chemical processes can furnish the energy to move these creatures? They would have to eat a tremendous amount, if these creatures are the size of whales, they would have to eat all the time. Not to mention if these creatures live in the upper atmosphere then there is very little food. If they use solar power or electromagnetic energy then their metabolism must be explainable or at least addressable by known biological and chemical processes.

3. If these creatures are material, which all known creatures are, then how could they explain the fact that when they accelerate to 1000 mph in the lower atmosphere no SONIC BOOM is heard. Any and all man made craft going faster than the speed of sound the lower atmosphere create a sonic boom. So how do these creatures not create a sonic boom when traveling faster than the speed of sound?

4. How could biological creatures account for the cases where the craft are radioactive. Radioactivity often destroys living tissue. Also how could they account for the fact that these creatures are seen more often around nuclear power plants? Unless these creatures have radiation detectors, how would they know that certain human built structure is a nuclear power plant - this may indicate the UFOs are intelligent enough to recognize human built objects.

5. There is no known biological process that can create a skin about the size of jet that can withstand the temperatures of aerodynamic heating. While traveling at 1000's mph or greater in the atmosphere air friction will heat up the skin of the craft often to very high temperatures. The SR-71 needed to use titanium to withstand the temperatures, what biological process can make a metallic or ceramic - like shell that can withstand those temperatures?

6. Speaking from a strictly evolutionary standpoint, how did these creatures evolve? The upper atmosphere is not very hospitable to ANY form of life, if these creatures evolved (which we believe all or most creatures did) then how did the proto-creatures survive in the upper atmosphere? High levels of radiation harm living tissue, though simple organisms maybe able to survive, how do complex organisms survive with constant high radiation?

7. NASA footage has shown what appear to be UFOs in space, outside the atmosphere. This raises other problems, first how do these creatures move outside the atmosphere? What food source is there in the vacuum of space? How do these creatures withstand reentry?

With all these questions, it seems unlikely that living creatures could account for all UFO sightings.
edit on 2-12-2011 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Happy New Year everyone, well it's 2012 and what a start!! I have many new ideas on how to attain close encounters of the 3rd kind, also anomalous phenomena that is visible with the telescope, etc, etc.

Before I begin though, there is some potentially serious news regarding ET-UFOs and attaining 3rd kind encounters. It is the National. Defense Authorization Act.

Coast to Coast AM recently did an informative show on the NDAA:

www.coasttocoastam.com...

Apparently the language in the NDAA is sufficiently vague as to allow almost anyone to be detained indefinitely, for vague reasons.

- Pretty scary,

Apparently if you so much as furrow your brow to a government official - it's a possible indefinite detention for you!! This type of government action was characteristic of dictatorships throughout the world, anyone with enough notoriety who opposed the government "disappeared".

So what does this have to do with ET-UFO's and 3rd kind encounters? Throughout the history of modern UFOlogy, reputable researchers have commented that it appears as if the U.S. Government takes actions to discredit researchers, to make the most rigorous and convincing researchers discredit themselves (willingly or unwillingly), or to "influence" the researchers to put "distance" between potential ET-UFOs and the average person.

UFOlogy never posed a serious threat as long as the general public remained ignorant of one key idea:

Any individual can, with their own efforts and equipment, gain sufficient evidence to conclusively prove or disprove the existence of ET-UFOs.

You no longer have to wait for the government disclosure, you can get your own disclosure.

This one idea is what makes UFOlogy a testable field of study and hence it now poses a threat. Some may argue why does it pose a threat? Many books and radio shows have focused on this topic, several researchers stand out:

Richard Dolan has written several, well-written, well-researched books on UFOs and security state:

Richard Dolan Books

He also makes guest appearances on Coast to Coast AM:

Richard Dolan Radio

The show that, I believe, best explains why ET-UFOs may pose a threat is the following:

www.coasttocoastam.com...

Another great researcher is Leslie Kean:

Possibily the best book on ET-UFOs, Chapter 15 deals with ET-UFOs and the national security problem.

Leslie Kean Book

She has also made several guest appearances on Coast to Coast AM:

Leslie Kean Radio

There are many other rigorous and logical researchers. Most comment that ET-UFO contact is a national security threat, not because of invasion, but because of energy. Nearly all of the best ET-UFO reports make some mention that it appears as if the ET craft do not use any form of fossil fuel combustion to power their craft, this begs the question, where do they get their energy from? If the ET-UFOs have discovered or developed energy technology that does not need fossil fuel, or any type of energy source known to modern humans it poses a threat to the largest industry in the world. An industry that the U.S. is willing to defend with military force.

This is similar to the movie Total Recall. The U.S. government - Corporation alliance is starting to act like Cohagen.
edit on 23-1-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-1-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-1-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-1-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Now, in order to research potential ET-UFOs safely and legally, it is best to obtain expert legal help to assess the legal limits of our research.

I looked up the the National Defense Authorization Act Bill online:

NDAA

There are two versions of the bill, the version that passed is:

NDAA Passed

The controversial section is Sec 1031:

NDAA Sec 1031

I would rather leave the interpretation up to a legal expert. Though an unofficial reading of that section of the bill:



(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.


does not necessarily include people who peacefully research ET-UFOs. The vague phrase basically is "including any person who has committed a belligerent act"- what does that mean?

According to Dictionary.com, belligerent means:

1. warlike; given to waging war.
2. of warlike character; aggressively hostile; bellicose: a belligerent tone.
3. waging war; engaged in war: a peace treaty between belligerent powers.
4. pertaining to war or to those engaged in war: belligerent rights.

The problem is that belligerence is also a way to describe character.

The synonyms are:

2. pugnacious, truculent, combative, quarrelsome, antagonistic, contentious.

So, in other words anyone who has a quarrelsome character may be construed as committing belligerent acts? This would include many people, I think. The problem is that the wording makes it seem as if anyone who speaks out against government officials or government explanations may be construed as belligerent. Belligerence is subject to many interpretations, expert legal help is needed.


edit on 23-1-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-1-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-1-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-1-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Some may have seen the following news story:

Possible USO?

Some people may have even speculated it is an ET-USO (extra-terrestrial unidentified submerged object). Though, now that I give it some thought, there is really no substantial indications that it is of ET origin, other than a low-resolution sonar image.

It's not very clear whether the most significant natural causes have been eliminated. For example strange rock formations, etc. Or whether, human causes or animal causes have been eliminated. For example sunken objects, etc.

Furthermore, some of the strongest evidence for ET craft, comes from their performance characteristics. This is because very few, if any, human made craft can even come close to matching the characteristics and no publicly available civilian craft or remote controlled craft can match the characteristics. Since the sonar image can only convey very limited information about the possible performance characteristics and it isn't clear whether other causes have been eliminated, we cannot induce that it may be an ET-USO.

Though I believe that ET-UFOs and USOs are currently visiting the planet, we have to make absolutely sure that as many non-ET causes as we can find or think of, have been eliminated or reduced, in a meticulous, rigorous, and logical manner, before claims are made.
edit on 31-1-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   
It's going to be increasingly difficult to study the UFO phenomenon in the United States. The government has requested that the FAA make room in the airspace for drones:

FAA Drones

The reason for widespread use of drones isn't very clear and the reasons they give "Their appeal is they can fly anywhere it's too dangerous or remote for people, and they cost less than piloted helicopters or planes." aren't very convincing. Is the need for viewing remote areas that important for police departments? It seems to me they want better tools to track people. Furthermore, it seems to me this legislation was crafted in response to some of the ideas presented on this website.

This isn't the only piece of surveillance technology they use, public science is getting close to reading your "minds voice":

Brain Eavesdrop

They are able to identify words with 89% accuracy.

I've experienced this myself, this technology was around before 2011, my experience with it began around 2009-2010, in my apartment. Politicians want a sense of control, this includes knowing what you are thinking and in many cases taking your best ideas and giving them to people they consider worthy.

Some news stories may say that the technology is not sufficiently developed so that your "inner voice" could be received from a distance of a couple of feet in public buildings. This may be true for technology available to the public researchers, but military research and technology is usually 10-20 years ahead of what is available to the public and let me tell you they can listen in to your "inner voice" from more than a couple of feet in buildings!!

The way I dealt with it was to say, if they are willing to "steal" my best ideas and give them to whom they consider worthy, then the only solution is to work on ideas they can't or won't make public, hence my focus on observable, testable, and repeatable methods to establish the existence of ET visitations.

What is needed are technologies designed to block the ability of the "brain scan" technology from reading your "inner voice" and to disable the ability of drones to follow people.

One way to block the "brain scan" technology is to use Faraday cages:

Faraday Cage

There are many plans and descriptions on how to build a Faraday cage available on the internet, here is a useful link:

Faraday Cage Design

Another good use of a Faraday cage is to block signals from leaving the cage.

There are a few moves in a larger strategy, to slowly but surely restrict the ability of individuals to make contact with possible ET-UFOs. My question is, who are they to restrict this from us? Who gave them the right to keep that knowledge to themselves? Imagine what advances they could be keeping from us and worse yet for whose benefit?

There seems to be a flurry of anti-privacy legislation passed within the last couple of months, what has prompted this? There doesn't seem to be any increase in external threats? Furthermore, much of this legislation is focused on the public at large, as if the American Public is the enemy. The American public is slowly starting to realize that the government isn't here to serve us, we are here to serve it.
edit on 6-2-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
The construction of the Faraday Enclosure is critical to it's ability to block out E&M fields as well as to stop E&M fields from leaking out. RF analysis and simulation should also be a part of the Faraday Enclosure design process. In addition there are many other details regarding the practicality of the Faraday Enclosure that may go unnoticed or unaddressed and may lead to RF signals leaking in or out.

So, it may be helpful to look at professionally designed Faraday Enclosures:

Professional Faraday Enclosures

One of the most informative websites is the following:

Faraday Cages.com

By analyzing Professional Faraday Enclosures one can glean ideas on how to construct your own high quality enclosure.

They have solutions for different applications, the application of most interest to the private party is the following:

Private Party Solution

Many of the websites sell professionally designed individual components to construct your own Faraday Enclosure.
edit on 10-2-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 10-2-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 10-2-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 04:39 AM
link   
There have been some recent news articles trying to posit that the ET-UFOs are linked to metaphysical entities or are simply a creation of top secret government operations.

There are several problems with these explanations, first there is a difference between physically possible entities and metaphysical entities. Exo-biologists do admit the possibility of advanced, material extra-terrestrial creatures, though no science, as of yet, can adequately define, test for, or admit the existence of metaphysical creatures. Since Descartes science has looked for material causes and explanations, loosely modeled on geometry. It was this approach that lead to the nearly 400 years of advances in science.

The biggest problem with metaphysics in general is that it is not testable, in a repeatable, observable way. How can one test for "powers" or "tendencies" that are "behind" physical phenomena? How could one distinguish these "powers" or tendencies from actual physical laws? Also, what exactly are these powers anyway? What are we looking for?

Creatures that are significantly advanced may posses knowledge of physics and technology so far ahead that they appear to fit our notions of metaphysical entities. Just in the same way that modern societies may be seen as gods by cultures that may not posses or know of our science or technology. Our technologies fit their notions of what "powers" their supposed metaphysical entities would posses. This may be at the root of the confusion between physically possible entities and metaphysical entities.

The best cases of UFO activity does have a significant physical component. They have been detected on well-functioning radar, have left landing traces, emit EM radiation and light, have been seen by commercial and military pilots, can affect electronic components, and may be related to cattle mutilations. Some may say that these UFOs are simply top secret experimental craft, but this doesn't fit the facts. First, these craft have been seen before the invention of heavier than air craft and in many cases have been seen before the invention of lighter than air craft as well!:

Historical UFOs

One of the earliest photographs of a potential UFO was taken in 1870, before the invention of heavier than air craft. These propeller-less craft were seen before the invention of the Jet engine. With performance parameters outside of lighter than air craft.

Also, Jacques Vallee's book:

Wonders in the Sky

has some compelling evidence of potential ET-UFO encounters throughout history. Mr. Vallee took special care in the selection of the sources to ensure that people were describing an event that actually occurred. The accounts describe craft in ways that are very similar to modern UFO encounters. These encounters occurred far before the invention of aircraft.

Second, it is implausible that someone would fly top secret aircraft over the White House, which is restricted airspace, not inform the president, elicit a shoot-down order and let it get to the point where the air force is placed on 24 hr alert:

Shoot Them Down

Also, why would these top secret craft fly and hover over airports, fly recklessly near commercial air craft, fly in foreign countries on a regular basis and draw endless attention to themselves? Also, these craft exhibit performance characteristics beyond even our most advanced propulsion systems (as far as the public is concerned). Acceleration from 0 to 1000's mph in the atmosphere in 1-2 seconds, sharp nearly 90-degree turns at 1000's of mph without slowing down both of which have been seen on radar:

Radar Tracking

None of this performance is even on the horizon of public propulsion systems. Not to mention that similar performance characteristics have been reported by eyewitnesses throughout history.

Also documents from FOIA have shown that government agencies do study UFOs:

UFO Documents

So we see that there is a physical component to the UFO phenomenon and many documents throughout history give good evidence that it is of ET origin.
edit on 15-2-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-2-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-2-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   
The manipulation of potential ET-UFO information is but a part of a larger system, developed to influence the mind of the general public on a range of issues. To learn how such operations function with respect to potential ET-UFOs in particular, we must learn how such operations function in general:


Here are videos that are required viewing:

The following documentaries are by Adam Curtis from his series, Century of the Self:

Century of the Self, Background Information

Century of the Self - All Documentaries

Other informative documentaries:

Manufacturing Consent

Orwell Rolls in His Grave

The aforementioned videos give a glimpse as to how these methods work in general, to see how they work with respect to the ET-UFO question the following video is one of the best presentations:

Manufacturing Ignorance: UFOs, the First Amendment and National Security

Finally, the responsibilities of the knowledgeable:

Responsibility of the Intellectuals

Watch and analyze the documentaries, look at the reasoning process and at the way arguments are structured. Arm yourself with knowledge and methods of reasoning.
edit on 17-2-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-2-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-2-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
History is often far more complex than it is made out to be, in regards to the "invention" of the jet engine, there were developments before 1937 that prefigured the development of the first practical jet engine.

History of the Jet Engine

Ægidius Elling was the first to build a self-sustaining gas turbine in 1903, but due to lack of materials that could operate at sustained high temperatures, it could not be used reliably in an aircraft. The first useable jet engine was constructed and run by Frank Whittle in April 1937.

Some may speculate that secret experimental craft were built before 1937 that used jet power, hence that would explain the propellor-less craft sightings. Though it can't explain how they appeared over the skies of the United States in Oregon and Colorado, when most of the development of the jet engine occurred in Europe? How did they get here and why fly secret craft over a foreign country?

In regards to the photograph before 1900:

Pre-1900

some may speculate it was simply a lighter than air craft, well first it doesn't look like any blimp or balloon made around 1870:

First Balloon flight by the Montgolfier brother in 1782:

First Balloon Flight

Take note, the shape and size of the balloon necessary to provide sufficient lift. The 1870 photograph certainly does not look like a balloon.

Hensen and Stringfellow also flew a heavier than air prototypes in 1848, but note their flying machines bear very little resemblance to the object in the 1870 photo:

Prototypes

Also, take note that the experiments were carried out in Great Britain, not New Hampshire.

The first "blimp" was invented around 1880 - 1900 at least 10 years after the 1870 photograph. Also, if we compare the 1870 photograph with drawings of flying machines:

Images of Flying Machine

We see that the "old-timey" flying machine that looks most like the object from 1870 photograph, was built by Charles F. Ritchel in 1876.

Charles Ritchel Flying Machine

Don't forget, that UFO sightings have occurred throughout history, before 1782, by credible observers.
edit on 20-2-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-2-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-2-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-2-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   
It has been a while since I have posted anything to this forum, I've been very busy doing research (unrelated to UFO studies) and work, but I haven't stopped researching possible avenues to testable, observable, repeatable ET-UFO evidence.

The data and results you can trust the most are those that you have taken, on your own, with your own equipment. The first piece of equipment, probably should be a good telescope. It was possible to track the shuttle and is possible to track the ISS space station:

Shuttle and ISS

So if one can view the ISS with a telescope would it also be possible to view other anomalous objects that followed the shuttle, made 90 right angle turns in space, and circled the Russian Space State? You can see them on this video:

NASA Objects Video

For example, there appear to be objects in orbit that literally transform from one shape to another in a matter of seconds:

Transformer

This video was taken with a telescope, hence it should be possible to verify the existence and movements of the object with your own equipment. These objects are not necessarily ET-UFOs, from what I can see their performance characteristics are like that of human built craft, BUT they do bring up some questions. If they are man-made objects placed in orbit, then when exactly were they put there? Also, if they appear on the telescope they appear to be quite large (further calculations are necessary to determine how far away they may be), what kind of space vehicle took the object or materials to build the object in orbit? If the object is large compared to dimensions of the shuttle, or any other publicly known space vehicle, then it must have required a substantial labor force, logistics, multiple missions and multiple launches, but from where and what missions and what astronauts?

Now clearly there is much space debris that could be mistaken for ET-UFOs, but many of these objects are still functioning, very large, and it is unclear how they got into orbit in the first place. There are many of these objects:

Space Machines Playlist

Now, in accordance with the scientific method, independent verification of the existence and behavior of these objects is necessary. The best way to verify these objects is to view them on your own telescope. I am researching different telescope to determine which type of telescope to buy, here are a good series of videos:

How to Buy a Telescope

With a good telescope and knowledge on how to use the telescope, would it be possible to view what may be "shooting" at these anomalous objects as in the STS-48 NASA video:

NASA STS-48

It has long been rumored there there may be a war in space, it may be possible to verify this with the telescope. Now one could analyze the video further to determine the distances to the objects, trace the trajectory of the projectiles backwards, determine where they originated from, determine the possible orbit of what could be a space weapon, and view it with a telescope!!

Next time I will reveal some anomalous objects, with performance characteristics typical of the best cases of ET-craft, that you can see with a telescope.
edit on 4-3-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 4-3-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 4-3-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 10:42 PM
link   
It may be possible to "create" a UFO hotspot, in the following manner.

The best cases of potential alien abductees indicate that many abductees are taken repeatedly, so if a town, or a university where to recruit those the most credible abductees, then it may be possible to create a UFO hotspot. With enough abductees in one place and time, and with proper attention to statistics, it may be possible to raise the level of UFO activity in a certain geographic area.

Research Universities have the funding and resources to implement such a program, cities and towns may also have funding though it may be more difficult to justify the expenses since they aren't directly related to the functioning of the town or serving public interests.

Another advantage of research universities is that they can bring together a team of experts in their individual fields. They can bring together, psychologists, neuroscientists, physicsts, engineers, etc, to determine if indeed the person does experience actual physical abductions or is simply a false memory, deception, covering up unpleasant memories, etc AND if to determine if indeed abductions take place and develop integrated detection systems.

Preliminary methods to select abductees could include a battery of tests, to determine if their experiences match those of the best cases. Then it could escalate to FMRI and EEG brain scanning combined with deception detection to select the absolute best potential abducteees.

To develop such tests, research of the best available data is in order. Here are some of the best UFO abduction researchers:

The Late Budd Hopkins:
Budd Hopkins

The Late Harvard Professor John Mack:
John Mack

Roger Leir:
Roger Leir

The engineers and physicsts can work on developing passive Bi-Static Radars, electromagnetic, acoustic, gravitational, hyperspectral sensing, and elementary particle detection systems and integrating them into a complete detection system.

If any university or town decides to implement the program and it is publicly advertised, they will attract some of the best researchers and much tourism. -- Hey this may even give rise to an entire sector of tourism -- UFO tourism package deals. What makes this different from Roswell or Area 51 is that you don't have to rely on random potential UFO activity. If enough potential abductees are placed in one area at the same time, then their is a real chance of experiencing UFO activity on a regular basis.

Hey, it may be possible to develop a UFO Cell Phone App. The integrated detection system could be configured to alert everyone when a potential UFO in the vicinity, the App could even provide real time GPS data and directions to the potential UFO activity. Also, if cameras are placed throughout the city the App could even stream real time video of UFO activity!!

When the abductees have been selected (after passing stringent tests) and the detection system is properly configured and working, then all they have to do is wait. When the alarm goes off and it confirmed, then it's time to make history.
edit on 20-3-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-3-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   
It is important to read and analyze UFO skeptics as well as believers, it is far too easy to deceive oneself into thinking something exists or does NOT exist if one has a bias, incentive, etc to believe or NOT to believe. This is not exclusive to UFOlogy, even the most established theories, that have been repeatedly verified, still have skeptics.

Take for example Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, they constitute the two foundations for current physics. Both have been experimentally verified countless times, in certain situations QM and GR are mutually exclusive (very small and very massive), but for most part they are perceived to be quite accurate.

Even in regular scientific research, a critical approach is necessary, since it is easy to make mistakes, especially if the research includes very detailed and meticulous calculations or experiments. Part of the reason why science has made so much progress is because sharp, deep criticism, weeds out the weakest theories and research, BUT also because it is open to NEW and Different theories, which are then rigorously tested.

The accuracy of a fundamental theory (Newton's, Electromagnetics, QM, and GR) is not established through presenting an argument alone, is through testable predictions, repeatable experiments, and presenting an argument that fundamental theories are established. So to best establish the ET-UFO argument and to avoid the pitfalls present in any field of research, it is necessary to read the skeptics.

One of the most famous UFO skeptics was the Late Philip J. Klass:

Philip Klass

Late Harvard Professor, Donald Menzel:

Donald Menzel

The ultimate scientific UFO skeptic report:

The Condon Report

Read the Actual Report:

Actual Report

There are many websites that present skeptical arguments against ET-UFOs, one of the websites that presents some of the best valid pitfalls to avoid is:

midimagic.sgc-hosting.com...

The person brings up good points regarding visual sightings and RADAR sightings.

When I have some time, I will present responses to some of the skeptics' strongest arguments, and experimental techniques to avoid as many of the pitfalls they present.

It is a good suggestion to read the material and to use it as the ultimate peer review. Analyze them so that we can use their criticism to make the ET-UFO theory stronger, to develop methods of experiment and research to avoid the pitalls they mention.
edit on 31-3-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 31-3-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 31-3-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 31-3-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 02:32 AM
link   
Looks like the government is at it again, they have an obsession with our private lives. It appears as if they are trying to shape and control the American public through increasingly intrusive methods, because it is getting more and more difficult for them to pass off propaganda as reality, then find it necessary to limit our access to sources of information that could reveal what is actually going on.

In late 2011 and early 2012 the congress attempted to pass two internet bills SOPA and PIPA:

SOPA

PIPA

Both bills were defeated with overwhelming public support. They haven't given up, now they have a new bill CISPA:

CISPA

RT news story on CISPA:

RT News

This bill appears to be a little "softer" and less intrusive than SOPA or PIPA, but be on guard, it has vague language that could open a door to more and more restrictions. It could be a long term strategy to incrementally restrict internet freedoms, they saw what happened with SOPA and PIPA, so they are trying an incremental strategy.

This is a new trend in law, they are starting to pass more and more bills with vague language basically to allow the government to do whatever it feels like whenever they feel like doing it. They should pass the "because I feel like it law", since we are talking about highly vague language, they can do whatever they want because you said something you shouldn't to a powerful person, or opposed a corporation, or revealed inaccuracies in statements from a government official, etc.

I find it interesting that when it comes to healthcare the court justices are all powerful, but when it comes to protecting our freedoms all of a sudden they have nothing to say. The American public is starting to realize what has been suspected for a least 60 years, that there are two governments, the government we elect, like the president, house of representatives and the permanent government, made up of trans-national corporations, military industrial complex, etc. We are only in control of certain small things, like healthcare, public school policy, taxes, etc., but we are out of the loop when it comes to really important things.
edit on 8-4-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 11:41 PM
link   
It has been a little while since my last post, I'm busy with work and research, but I found a little time to post more ideas from my UFO idea collection.

In this posting I will present some tools to aid UFO researchers to be better able to extract numerical data from images and videos. It would ideal if radar data was available, but given the often random nature of UFO sightings, we have to settle for analyzing images and videos, this requires more work, though could yield good data.

Both images and videos are basically 2-Dimensional representations of 3-Dimensional objects, because of this, some data about objects are lost, the basic problem is that even if you know the location of the camera at the time the UFO image or video was taken, it is not sufficient to extract the distance to the object or the size of the object. A sufficient condition to determine the distance to the object would be to have 2 cameras at different locations imaging the object, along with the angle the object makes with the horizontal. This method could yield good data. If it works, I'll post the mathematical model and possible simulations.

This method works well for images, but what about videos? Decent quality images could be extracted from the video file that could serve to determine the distance to the object. What if we want data on the velocity and position as a function of time? This is more difficult since both the object and often the camera is moving, there are many software packages that can track objects in video and output movement parameters:

There are some Open Source Video Motion Trackers:

Open Source Video Motion Trackers

I believe that the "Tracker Video Analysis and Modeling Tool" is quite useful:

www.cabrillo.edu...

You may want to explore the entire range of video motion trackers:

Video Motion Tracking Software

I haven't tried it yet, but the WinAnalyze program stands out as a good candidate, it has certain features that make it quite useful, though it may be costly.

This could be used to track potential ET-UFOs.

I have also been exploring the field of surveying to determine if some of their methods could be used to extract accurate numerical data from images and videos. One company that makes very high quality equipment for use in surveying is Leica Geosystems:

Leica Geosystems

They have some very powerful photogrammetry software, though it may be very expensive:

Leica Photogrammetry Software

It maybe possible survey the area where the image or video was taken and extract useful distance information.

There are many videos and images out there that claim to be UFOs, though without digital forensics (background investigation to be reasonably sure it isn't a Hoax of some type), and if reasonably sure it is not a Hoax and the object in the video does not demonstrate any of the performance characteristics that put in the realm of ET-UFOs, then one cannot conclude that it could be a potential ET-UFO.

What we are looking for are non-hoax videos that show demonstrable evidence of very high accelerations, sharp 90 degree turns at 1000's mph without slowing down, and no sonic boom though within range to be heard. If you can verify it is not a hoax, AND extract accurate distance data to the object AND you can demonstrate that it exhibits performance characteristics of non-human craft, then chances are it is an ET-UFO.
edit on 19-4-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-4-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-4-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-4-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Other countries have historically been far more open to admitting the possibility of ET-UFOs in their skies than the US. For example in the early 90's there were many sightings of triangular craft in Belgium, it is amazing how they handled the situation, according to Lesle Kean:

Kean (2010) "We must remember that the 1989-90 UFO wave in Belgium was handled rationally, openly, and responsibly by the government." (p. 156)

Kean (2010) "The [Belgian] air force was not only responsive, but was even proactive in it's investigation, looking for craft on multiple radar systems, scrambling F-16s to intercept on 3 occasions, and then holding a press conference to explain all this to the public. In addition state of the art analysis was provided by a number of laboratories on [the photographs]". (p. 156)

Kean (2010) "And to take it even a step further, the Belgian Air Force made all its data and ever resource, including radar stations and even aircraft, available to a highly competent group of civilian scientists." (p. 156)

Kean (2010) "Through it all, the Belgian government did not hide information, issue false explanations, or ridicule witnesses" (p. 156)

None of the common excuses against disclosure came to pass; society didn't crumble, people didn't panic, the economy did not fall, not only in Belgium, but nearly all countries with many UFO sightings. So why has the US government and science establishment been so hostile to the concept of ET-UFOs? They have some serious issues they need to work through.

1. Kean, Leslie. (2010) UFOs Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go On the Record. New York: Three Rivers Press.
edit on 20-4-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by deloprator20000
So why has the US government and science establishment been so hostile to the concept of ET-UFOs? They have some serious issues they need to work through.

The serious issue you're talking about is national security, and they're not in any hurry to "work through" that issue. A little thing like keeping the nation in existence is pretty important to them.

The reason the US is so hostile toward UFO investigation is that for the greater part of the 20th Century there were other countries in the world actively working to destroy the US. That naturally and reasonably made the US a little paranoid. And one thing it didn't need starting with WWII and beyond was a lot of people poking their noses into what could very well be an active playing field for the development and deployment of necessarily strategically secret offensive and defensive weapons.

The government only wants to keep two things secret from their enemies:
1. What they know.
2. What they don't know.

A UFO gets spotted. Is it one of "ours?" Maybe. If it is, the government wouldn't want to tell you on the off chance you're a deliberate or accidental spy who could spill the beans to the Commies. Is it one of "theirs?" Maybe. The government certainly wouldn't want to let people know that the Commies are able to fly their advanced craft into our airspace without consequence. They want to keep it quiet. And if it isn't the Commies, and some unknown potential threat from another planet or time or dimension, they don't want you to know about that either. The government's job is to protect its citizens. Anything that brings that into question is dangerous from a political and social support perspective.

So they really don't need a bunch of people with huge telescopes and night vision goggles driving around on the periphery of their bases taking photos of the things flying around there -- UFOs either "alien" or "home grown." It's hard enough keeping active spies from stealing and selling secrets to the competition, without a bunch of amateurs getting in on the act, too.

The question is always going to be one of the quality of the information you gather. People don't like the information about the Moon they get through the NASA filter because they think it has been manipulated. Some of it has, although essentially for quality purposes and likely not to cover up evidence of alien towers, or whatever. Some don't trust the information they get from other countries because they think the US has bullied them into filtering the information per US wishes. That has yet to be adequately proven. Some want to gather their own evidence and information. That's an expensive proposition, and again, something that might bump them up against US national security concerns.

What we're stuck with, then, is patiently, patiently waiting for The Event. The large, public, Independence Day-sized event that can't be covered up and can't be discounted as something mundane. Anything else is just tail-chasing.

edit on 20-4-2012 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   
edit on 21-4-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 12:47 AM
link   
Or you can have aliens just come to your farm, come out of their space ship and say " Hi were from mars".
And that basically is what happened in Gary Wilcox's case as simple as it sounds. That is the funny thing about advanced beings. The come whey the want, they communicate when they want. I think though they were surprised that their cloaking technology didn't seem to be working on that April 12th day, 1964 ! It probably didn't work with Lonnie Zamora that same day as well. Unless they planned it not to work

And the strange, strange thing about it is Donald Shrum seem to see the same type of uniforms and stature of the beings as well. Of course the big difference between the three is Gary talked with them in his account and they stated they were from mars.

Both with with uniforms from head to toe, both 5 ft tall.





top topics
 
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join