Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Ancient Aliens Testable Predictions

page: 6
13
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 12:49 AM
link   


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.


One of the conclusions of Project Blue Book was:

1. No UFO reported, investigated and evaluated by the Air Force was ever an indication of threat to our national security.

Project Blue Book

Interesting, we have the USAF stating that their "best" scientific study of UFOs concluded that none of the UFOs they studied indicated a threat to national security, yet you believe that the reason for the hostility towards UFO research is because of national security, this is not supported by the "official" data.
edit on 21-4-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Looks like the CISPA bill has passed the House of Representatives, now it is under debate in the Senate.

Google News Search


The bill allows internet companies to share information about it's users with government agencies. One of the public reasons for such a bill is to strengthen cybersecurity, which is valid, though it does NOT define any criteria that would enable the company to decide what information bears on cybersecurity and what information does not.

Though cybersecurity is a reason for such a bill, does it really necessitate a bill the effectively leads to warrant less internet "wiretapping"?

Something like this has happened before:

According to CNET




President Richard Nixon, plagued by anti-Vietnam protests and worried about foreign influence, ordered that Project Shamrock's electronic ear be turned inward to eavesdrop on American citizens. In 1969, Nixon met with the heads of the NSA, CIA and FBI and authorized an intercept program. Nixon later withdrew the formal authorization, but informally, police and intelligence agencies kept adding names to the watch list. At its peak, 600 American citizens appeared on the list, including singer Joan Baez, pediatrician Benjamin Spock, actress Jane Fonda and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.


Are they inspired by Richard Nixon?

Furthermore the NSA has had close relationships with communications companies:



This apparently has continued. In his 2006 book titled "State of War," New York Times reporter James Risen wrote: "The NSA has extremely close relationships with both the telecommunications and computer industries, according to several government officials. Only a very few top executives in each corporation are aware of such relationships." In a recent Wired article, author James Bamford described how the NSA is currently building the nation's biggest spy center, a $2 billion facility in the Utah desert. Bamford quoted William Binney, a former NSA official, as saying the NSA's backdoor into the U.S. telecommunications network goes far beyond AT&T's facility on Second Street in San Francisco. "I think there's 10 to 20 of them," Binney said. "That's not just San Francisco; they have them in the middle of the country and also on the East Coast."


Even though the NSA probably already monitors nearly all internet communication, not every government agency has access to whatever information they obtain. Most likely this bill would allow all the other government agencies to obtain access to information without having to ask the NSA, they simply ask the companies. The problem is that it is up to the companies to release as much or as little as they want, it is unclear what the criteria is and this is a problem.

Anyway here is a partial list industry groups that support the bill:


American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers - Interesting

American Petroleum Institute Supports CISPA - Interesting

11 Financial Trade Associations Support CISPA

AT&T - Yes, I would expect something like this from them.

Boeing

BSA

Business Roundtable

CSC

COMPTEL

CTIA - The Wireless Association

Cyber, Space & Intelligence Association

Edison Electric

EMC

Exelon

Facebook - This is somewhat of a surprise

The Financial Services Roundtable

IBM - I can see them doing something like this.

Independent Telephone & Telecommunications Alliance

Information Technology Industry Council

Intel - This is a surprise

Internet Security Alliance

Lockheed Martin

Microsoft - I can see this coming from them.

National Cable & Telecommunications Association

NDIA

Oracle

Symantec

TechAmerica

US Chamber of Commerce

US Telecom - The Broadband Association

Verizon - Time to change your carrier


Here is a link to the full list:

CISPA Letters of Support

Many of the industry groups are directly related to online communications, though the two OIL groups are quite a surprise. Does cybersecurity affect the interests of the OIL industry sufficiently to warrant support of an unpopular bill? It's not enough that much of our geopolitical strategy is based around the needs of the OIL industry we have to modify our online privacy as well?

We have seen, in one decade, compromise after compromise on the part of the American people in the areas of access to accurate information about world events, privacy, freedom of expression, unreasonable search and seizure, etc. It seems as if all the compromises have been on our part and very few if any on the part of the government, multi-national corporations, and the military industrial complex.

This may be a government BY the people, but not necessarily a government FOR the people.
edit on 29-4-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 05:36 AM
link   
It would benefit everyone if we read the actual CISPA bill:

CISPA Bill

Mashable has presented a good explanation of the CISPA bill:

mashable.com...

What caught my eye was the following:



The two parts of CISPA these groups consider most offensive are a national security clause and a liability clause. The first, they say, would allow CISPA to be used in any case where national security is deemed at risk — a potentially broad category. The second would protect any business that shares cybersecurity information from lawsuits — including suits from users who think their private information may have been shared without justification.


Who makes the decision whether or not some data puts national security at risk? The company handling the data? Do they have the resources to make such a decision? Who defines what is or isn't national security? Will the companies be in contact with the US government, how will the government know to ASK a specific company about a specific dataset? Will government agencies simply ask companies for large datasets which they simply mine through?

Also, it protects companies from lawsuits, even when users believe that their information may have been used unjustifiably!! What kind of law is this?

Why is it that we the people have to make nearly all the compromises? It's not enough with vague language in NDAA and drone surveillance of population centers, they have to look through all of our data as well? Who are they protecting? The threats, while real, don't seem to necessitate the level of surveillance they are calling for.

I find it amazing that when the finance industry quite literally destroys the US and world economy, there is no shortage of bail-outs and legislation meant to help the finance industry. Very few if any were held responsible and take note that very little legislation, if any, legislation was passed demanding constant surveillance of those in the finance industry, no drones monitoring their every move, no vaguely worded laws meant to catch any and all who may try to defraud the public, no wiretapping and demands for large datasets of finance information.

Yet, god forbid, that the public try to defraud those with the money.
edit on 30-4-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   
It looks as if the FBI is telling major websites to install features that would make it easier for them to wiretap:

CNET News

Isn't it interesting how these government agencies can act on their own without any legislative oversight?



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   
I'm back, I've been busy as of late and I have quite a backlog of testable UFO ideas. A little review is in order. Strange phenomena associated with the moon has been observed going back at least 1000 yrs, this is known as transient lunar phenomena:

Transient Lunar Phenomena

Such phenomena has been observed by multiple independent witnesses and/or reputable scientists. Apollo 11 observed TLP during it's mission as well as astronomers in 1992. So, it may be worthwhile to look at the moon for anomalous phenomena.

The most valuable anomalous phenomena is that which is repeatable for then it is testable. Independent investigators can with their own equipment and processing verify the existence or non-existence of such phenomena. Furthermore, once the phenomena is established more and more experiments could be performed to determine the different aspects of the phenomena.

One such phenomena associated with the moon is what appear to be large objects crossing the sight line of the moon and the earth:

Moon Orb 1

I made mention of such "Moon Orbs" in a previous post. If these orbs are physically real objects then independent observers should be able to view these orbs with the proper equipment. So, there may be other observers who recorded phenomena with characteristics similar to these moon orbs, sure enough there are. Doing a little search on youtube I found several independent observers that have recorded phenomena with characteristics similar to that of "Moon Orbs":

Moon Orb 2

Moon Orb 3

Moon Orb 4

Moon Orb 5

Moon Orb 6

Take note that nearly all of these videos were taken at different times, at different places on earth, with different equipment.

One person has an extensive library of these moon orbs, some of the video are quite recent (May 25, 2012)

Moon Orb Vids

First, it does not appear to be a hoax, given that completely independent observers in different parts of the world at different time have seen them. - Though digital forensics is necessary.

Not to mention it is testable, simply point a camera or telescope at the moon and record the moon whenever it appears in the sky. Then simply corroborate, if indeed the orb is real it should also appear in your own data.

Some people may think these are simply camera artifacts, either optical or digital, though to have the exact same artifacts with the exact same characteristics with complete different equipment is quite difficult - though to be fair more investigation is necessary.

Another explanation is that it may be birds, airplanes, or satellites between sight line of the camera and the moon, this is easy enough to test, there are limits to how high birds or (regular) planes can fly also satellites have definite orbits, simply locate the cameras or telescopes far enough away so that if a bird, plane, or satellite appears in one it won't appear in the other. Also satellites have a definite orbit so if they are not geosynchronous it should appear and disappear on a regular basis, if it is geosynchronous then it should not move at all.

What leads me to believe that the bird or plane explanation is not complete is that in one of the videos the object is observed to jump, which is very difficult for a bird, plane, or satellite to perform.

Other explanations may include large rocks in orbit around the moon or asteroids striking the moon, etc. If a rock does orbit the moon then we can determine it's radius by carefully analyzing the video then determine its orbital period. So if we look at the moon long enough and the object is truly an orbiting body then we should see performing an orbit, though no orbiting body can perform a jump. Another explanation is a body striking the surface of the moon, though in one of the videos two large bodies are seen leaving the moon and once again meteorites striking the moon don't usually perform jumps.

Parallax could be used to determine how far away the object is, this way objects not near the moon could be ruled out.

I am currently looking for an archive of video of the moon taken by "official" sources, that way we can corroborate, though we can always take video of the moon with our own equipment.
edit on 1-6-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-6-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 07:48 PM
link   
One of the most important, if not the most important, aspects of any scientific research is to determine, account for, and reduce phenomena that could interfere with the phenomena under investigation. Specific phenomena rarely occur in isolation, often there are many other competing phenomena that can "drown out" the phenomena in question, often this is known as noise. If not addressed this noise can cast doubts on any data and/or conclusions, since people could always argue that almost any piece of data could be noise.

So, in order to reduce "noise" we need to investigate every element in the chain of data collection.

When it comes to UFOs the most important piece of equipment is the camera, both still and video. This element should known down to the smallest detail, this way nearly all sources of "noise" could be identified and eliminated from the data.

First we have the optics of the camera:

Applied Photo Optics

Quite possibly the most comprehensive book on photographic optics.

Then we have the CCD:

CMOS/CCD Sensors

Very recent publication on Digital Sensors.

Under regular circumstances the digital camera processes the image and stores it, though this too could be modeled, it is often difficult to determine exactly what algorithms are used. So, instead, it is preferable to work with data that is processed as little as possible, a "digital negative" if you will, this is possible through the "raw" format:

Raw Image Format

So if we use the Raw format the entire imaging chain could be modeled:

Modeling the imaging chain

This will allow the researcher to account for and hopefully eliminate nearly all artifacts both digital and optical.

The resolution of any imaging system is mostly determined by the MTF or Modulation Transfer Function:

Optical Resolution

If the MTF could be known with sufficient precision, then it is possible to determine the imaging limits of the camera and thereby enable the researcher to keep data that falls within the limits of the MTF.

There is much more that needs to be done, but at least we have taken the first steps to making UFOlogy more rigorous.

Next time I will present a three camera setup that will make it possible to determine the angles and distance to an object, so that we could determine if it falls within the MTF limits.
edit on 1-6-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   
In regards to the "moon orbs" the author of the "space machines" video also recorded objects near the moon, with characteristics similar to "moon orbs":

More Strange Moon Business

More importantly, he made it a point to note that he focused on the moon first, then the objects also came into focus indicating that they may not be local.

It is important to account and eliminate any phenomena not close to the moon, like insects, birds, planes, etc this could be accomplished by recording from two widely separated distances, local phenomena that appears in one should not appear in the other, at the same time. There may also be astronomical phenomena that should also be researched and accounted for.



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by deloprator20000
 


I wish I could think of something to add here. Something on topic. Your thread being what it is. All I can say is damn good effort. Star and a flag. I look forward to more posts from you.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Thank you Randyvs.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 03:53 AM
link   
It looks as if the business-corporate-government cabal is adamant in passing anti-privacy laws for the internet:

Try, Try Again

Granted, this is simply an opinion piece, though it may reflect the underlying desires of the cabal.

I wonder what is driving this push for a completely insecure internet? It is unpopular and the reasons they give are very far fetched and weak, Russian Mafia turning off your power? Not any worse that the power outages in California in 2000

California Energy Crisis

and yet we didn't see draconian laws passed.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   
In this posting I will show a simple way to monitor the skies nearly 24hrs a day. One of the simplest ways to monitor the entire sky visible from a certain position is to use an All-Sky Camera. All sky cameras have a special lens that allows the camera to record an entire hemisphere, though the image is severely distorted:

Google Shopping:

All Sky Cameras Google Shopping

They can be quite expensive, so I found an inexpensive all sky camera:

Inexpensi ve All Sky Camera

Much of the time all sky cameras are used to detect and track meteors, hence there is commercially available software that detects, analyzes, and outputs data of almost any object in the sky. In fact one company advertises its software as “UFOCapture”. Their UFOAnalyzer V2 software allows the researcher to extract position and velocity information about an object captured by the camera:

UFO Analyzer

There are entire networks of all sky cameras, many of them are live:

Live All Sky Cameras

UFO researchers can use these All Sky Camera networks to look for potential ET-UFOs. Some of the networks keep an archive of camera data, some don't, but the individual researcher can monitor these networks and record the data for themselves for later analysis.

We can even take this further, we can correlate the UFO reports from the National UFO reporting center with the location and visibility range of the all sky camera network:

National UFO Reporting Center Database

If some of these objects appear in one or some of the all sky cameras, then we can use the software to analyze the movement of the objects to determine if they are potential ET-UFOs.

Some of the drawbacks from all sky cameras is that it may be difficult to extract spectral information about any objects seen, (color spectrum), also it may miss objects that radiate outside the visible spectrum, the range of such cameras may be limited, and it may be difficult to extract visual information about the craft's appearance, etc.

One of the key elements in making a strong case for potential ET-UFOs is that the object is Solid, because man made and even natural solid objects usually cannot perform the maneuvers characteristic of the best UFO cases. 0-1000's mph under 1 second, sharp 90 degree turns without slowing down, and no sonic boom. If the object is not solid then it can perform the maneuvers above - this is the problem, we have to make sure the objects seen in the video are solid objects.

We can take this further, many of the methods used to detect and track potential ET-UFOs are very similar to the methods used to detect and track meteors. So we can use many of the techniques from meteor research:

Meteor Research

Note, they have links to well-researched papers and links on video analysis, radio tracking analysis, and spectroscopic analysis.

Aside from strictly visual data, there is much radar and other measurement data available on the internet. The NCDC has Doppler radar data available from 1991 to 1 day present:

NCDC Radar Data

Though weather radars are not designed to detect aircraft, it is possible to do so with statistical signal processing:

Signal Processing

It would be better to get Raw Airport Radar Data, though I haven't found an archive yet.

Some of the best UFO cases indicate high levels of radiation associated with the UFOs, whether it be alpha, beta, neutrons, or gamma rays. There are many such radiation detector stations throughout the world that keep archives of data:

Cosmic Ray Data 1

Cosmic Ray Data 2

What we are looking for is a statistically significant increases in radiation near the place and time when such craft were seen.

This data, if analyzed properly, and used in conjunction with UFO reports, visual data, and possible radar data could be used to present a strong case for a potential ET-UFO. I will keep on looking for more data sources with archives and present them as I find them.
edit on 13-6-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-6-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-6-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Many may have noticed that in order to get repeatable, testable, rigorous proof of potential ET-UFOs requires some pretty involved mathematics, physics, and computer programming. So it may benefit to learn the basics required to learn and analyze both the data and physics of ET-UFOs. Back around 2005 I created a website dedicated strictly to learning mathematics and physics:

Math and Physics Website

Yes, I have to work on the html, but anyway I provided methods on how to learn and master mathematics and physics along with a list of some of the best textbooks from which to learn.

The emphasis is on theoretical physics rather than on experimental physics, so I may consider creating a list of websites and books that focuses on the physics, programming, and technology useful in UFOlogy.

What is most important, is that the student learn how to learn, this way the student won't be limited strictly to what you learned formally, you can learn and master the physics and programming as you need it.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Since the UFO phenomena is not strictly physical phenomena, studying only the physics may restrict the ability for the researchers to study the phenomena in real time.

Other fields may also need to be studied, for example investigative journalism, since there are very few reliable physical records, knowing how to find information whether in newspapers or officially is also important.

Furthermore, since there is a human element involved in UFOs, it may also be useful to study the methods of Private Investigators. Knowing how to judge a person's testimony as true and whether certain sources can be trusted is also important. Also, piecing together different parts of testimony, newspaper reports, official documents, and physical data requires a mindset somewhat akin to an investigator.

All of these fields should be unified to provide a strong and rigorous methodology to study UFOs.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   
I'm back after a little hiatus. To begin the list of books useful for rigorous, scientific, and methodical UFO investigations we first have to make sure that the data we obtain is accurate and uncorrupted. This is often an issue in regards to UFO videos, especially in recent years. The proliferation of powerful personal computers coupled with sophisticated CGI software presents the possibility that any video that purports to show evidence of a UFO could be a result of CGI software manipulation.

There is an advantage in using video in the computer era, namely that nearly every action in which data is recorded, processed, manipulated, and/or erased leaves a record in the computer or device. Since many of the UFO videos are found on the internet, there are also many other records aside from those inside the personal computer, for example, records of IP addresses kept inside a router, records kept by the ISP, records on the website on which the video was originally posted, etc, etc. So in principle there is a "digital chain of evidence" that could be traced back to the original post, then to the original computer, and to the camera, though it may require quite a bit of work.

The field of digital forensics has been developing rapidly especially in the last decade:

Digital Forensics

There are many tools and techniques now available to investigate digital data.

There are several journals that may be useful, this is just a partial list:

International Journal of Digital Crime and Forensics

The International Journal of Digital Forensics & Incident Response

In fact there is one recent paper that addresses the issue of CGI manipulation:

Identification of Natural Images and Computer Generated Graphics Based on Hybrid Features

This paper claims "average classification accuracy of 94.29%" this paper may be VERY useful in UFO video research.

Once again, sophisticated mathematical and programming techniques are needed to accurately classify objects within a video.

There are books that can aid in digital forensics:

Digital Forensics with Open Source Tools

A great advantage is that open source tools/software are usually free.

For Windows Systems:

Windows Forensic Analysis DVD Toolkit

Windows Registry Forensics: Advanced Digital Forensic Analysis of the Windows Registry

There are many such books. Since some UFO videos may be recorded on mobile devices it may also be useful to explore the internals of iphones, androids, and other devices:

Android Forensics: Investigation, Analysis and Mobile Security for Google Android

iPhone and iOS Forensics: Investigation, Analysis and Mobile Security for Apple iPhone, iPad and iOS Devices

Granted many of these books and papers are geared towards computer scientists and researchers, it is well worth to know that such fields of study and books exist to aid the UFO research group.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   
After a long hiatus I am back. I moved from the San Francisco bay area to Tempe Arizona, for the most part as part of a Physics PhD program.

A side benefit is that I am near to an area of the country with many UFO sightings. These sightings have been noted through history, many of the local native american legends do make reference to "star beings" that came down from the stars to guide their tribes, in more recent times the US military did note, publicly, that many UFO sightings are concentrated in the Southwest, especially around nuclear power plants.

The San Francisco Peaks in Arizona are considered scared by the local tribes and in some histories are considered to be where the Kachinas reside:

San Francisco Peaks

Now, in order to conduct rigorous research we must be able to separate aspects of the story that may have some basis in physical reality from those that may be mostly fiction. The reason why I give some aspects of these histories credence in the material world, is because these "beings" have been detected with modern technology, around the areas described by oral tradition.

It is interesting to note that the San Francisco peaks, Sedona, Prescott, and Pheonix Arizona almost fall in a line and almost all, have a history of UFO sightings. Furthermore, these places lie mostly along the path were the famous Pheonix lights were seen in 1997.

I am still unpacking and arranging all my belongings and getting aquanited with the PhD program at ASU, so it may be a while before I start setting up all sky cameras, etc. There is much work to be done here, I'll be posting more soon!
edit on 18-8-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Hello everyone, I'm back again. I've been busy as of late and only have time for a minor UFO research update. Recently (25 September 2012) the BBC released a report on UFOs:

UFO hunters: They are still watching

Clearly written by a skeptic, it proclaims that "Of course, it's pseudo-science," he says. "But people have always looked in the sky and seen things that were odd or puzzling. Before aliens, it was angels, ghosts and spirits.

This argument has been around for decades, the basic assumption is that science will explain away "ET-UFOs" as unknown natural phenomena, just as it did with angels, ghosts, and spirits. Of course the problem is that unlike angels, ghosts, and spirits, the UFO phenomena can affect scientific instruments in a consistent, measurable way, with good signal strengths. Furthermore, how does Dr David Clarke know it is natural phenomena?

So, we are led to believe, there are unknown natural phenomena that can materialize or affect solid macroscopic objects (sometimes the size of aircraft) and, under the influence of strictly natural known and unknown forces, often under tranquil conditions, can accelerate and turn in ways that not even some of our best craft can perform? Furthermore this "unknown phenomena" only seems to affect certain objects and not others. The theory of "unknown phenomena", if it did exist, would contradict several well established theories of physics, which in a sense makes it MORE irrational than the belief in ET-UFOs, with advanced technology.

Not to mention that if the phenomena is unknown, then how exactly can you be sure that it was acting at the time when the potential ET-UFO was seen?

The article was truly biased, the writer, Jon Kelly focused more on the activities and opinions of the individuals at the British UFO Research Association than the actual evidence. Furthermore, the evidence was presented in a way such as to trivialize the subject:

1946 - Polish-born American George Adamski claimed to have seen a large cigar-shaped "mother ship"

1947 - reports of an object crashing near Roswell, New Mexico was thought to be an extra-terrestrial spacecraft. The US army countered that debris recovered belonged to a weather balloon

1980 - The Rendlesham Forest incident, when lights and a craft were reportedly seen in the forest in Suffolk near RAF Woodbridge

This is truly a superficial reading of the evidence.

First, George Adamski was discredited back in the mid-90's if not earlier, nice guy but no tenable UFO evidence.

Second, In regards to the Roswell incident, he failed to mention that the US military at first claimed to newspapers that they indeed did capture a "flying saucer"

RAAF Captured Flying Saucer

Then US military did counter it was a weather balloon, this is DESPITE the fact the people who actually handled the wreckage both military and civilian, stated it did not seem as if it was a part of a weather balloon. This seems tenable, especially given that the pieces of the wreckage that Rancher Mac Brazel did find could not be cut or burned, compare this with the materials that make up the weather balloons.

Third, Jon Kelly failed to mention that the people who "reportedly" saw lights and craft at RAF woodbridge were military personnel, and they went in public and on record that they actually touched what appeared to be a craft.

Of course some of the stronger cases are not mentioned, only opinions about what is or isn't worth studying, what is or isn't science and of course the push to make UFOlogy into a mythology and folklore.

Of course I don't know how mythologies and folklore create radar signatures, close up visual sightings, or actual solid objects with capabilities beyond most if not all human built craft, but apparently the radar recordings, control tower conversations, and visuals are all simply a product of our imaginations. It's funny how perfectly functioning equipment and the applicable laws of physics all of a sudden are ignored when they indicate that which most governments and corporations (like the BBC, okay "a semi-autonomous public service broadcaster" ) don't want to admit may exist.

edit on 26-9-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-9-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-9-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-9-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-9-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-9-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-9-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-9-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-9-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-9-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-9-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-9-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 11:03 PM
link   
So to help out Jon Kelly and the entire BBC staff here are links to some of the best evidence for ET-UFOs:

The USAF admitted in public that they did detect flying saucers and they may be interplanetary craft:

USAF Admissions

The USAF went as far to issue orders for pilots to shoot down UFOs flying over the white house:

USAF Shootdown

April 7, 1952 LIFE magazine in cooperation with the USAF makes the case for ET visitation:

LIFE Magazine UFOs

Note conclusions 3 and 4

Conclusion 3: These objects cannot be explained by present science as natural phenomena-but solely as artificial devices, created and operated by a high intelligence. -- Doesn't look like natural phenomena.

Conclusion 4: Finally, no power plant known or projected on earth could account for the performance of these devices. - Or man made phenomena.

Even Project Blue Book, a scientific study of UFOs by the US government, which was heavily biased to NOT find any UFOs, found that 22% of 3200 cases could not be explained and the more information they received about those 22% the LESS they could be explained.

Project Blue Book Special Report 14

The COMETA Report (a scientific study of UFOs by the French government), released in 1999, indicated that of all the UFO cases they studied about 5% were unexplained AND that the ET Hypothesis fit the unexplained data the best:

COMETA Report

If project blue book and the Condon report supposedly showed that nearly all UFO cases are simply natural phenomena or misidentifications, then why did the CIA study them and call the UFOs, after project blue book? You would think that if ALL UFOs were secret craft, they would have enough resources and clearances to know who or what is flying them?

CIA UFO Docs

Some may claim all UFO are simply military craft, if they are ALL secret craft, why does the military repeatedly fly them, recklessly I might add, over airports, near commercial airliners, in full public view when many people are watching, not just one or twice, but many many times and in other countries!!:

Commercial Airline Pilots UFOs

Even NASA astronauts radioed to Houston about Alien spacecraft:

NASA Aliens

Gordon Cooper wrote a letter to the UN stating his belief in ET-UFOs:

Gordon Cooper UFOs

Apollo 14 EVA 1: We've had visitors again:

Apollo 14 Possible UFOs

These propeller - less craft were seen before the accepted invention of the jet engine:

Historical UFOs
edit on 26-9-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by deloprator20000
 




the reasons for this is that the evidence for the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial beings visiting earth is unreliable.


Can you name a national state institution (or state supported) that not only accepts reports of UFO reports but investigates them and publicly disclosures their findings ?

The government has as part of their duty to protect the national borders from sea to air even the electromagnetic spectrum is a public good managed by the state. Another duty of the government is to inform and work to uplift it's citizens general knowledge, even if there is a general myopic view to focus on tax returning activities some other aspects are pursued, it is even expected that the type of phenomena involving UFOs may generate very lucrative technology even interesting to defense departments (even if we are talking only on unregistered crafts from another nation, there is more to it than simple security interest).

Even politically, since the public interest and preoccupation is so vast, it is strange that there is a general absentia of discourse



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   
In this section we will discuss unbreakable encryption. Given that working the ET field may get the attention of the military industrial complex and that if you do set up equipment and or plan to interact with ET you may have people following you and monitoring all your communications, it is imperative to learn the protocols and invest in technology that will ensure that your communications are secure.

There are various encryption schemes available on the internet, most are based on the inability of most computers to factor very large numbers that are products of prime numbers, in a reasonable amount of time:

Encryption

If you read the Wikipedia article you will see that there are various types of "attacks" to break this encryption. The faster the computer the quicker it will be to break the encryption. Even if the fastest publicly known specialty cracking computer cannot break the key in a reasonable amount of time your communications may still be at risk. It is well known that the military industrial complex usually has access to technology 20-30 yrs ahead of the most advanced technology in the public domain, so if we apply this to specialty cracking computers they could well have a computer that can break almost any encryption based on factoring large numbers.

BUT, there is one encryption scheme that cannot be broken, no matter the processing speed of the computer and that is One Time Pad Encryption:

One Time Pad Encryption

This encryption scheme has been mathematically proven, by the famous Claude Shannon, to be unbreakable, IF IT IS USED CORRECTLY. Even if the adversary has infinite computing power they would still not be able to break the encryption.

One Time Pad Encryption was used in the Washington/Moscow hotline the ETCRRM II to provide completely secure communications. There are many other instances of OTP use:

One Time Pad Machines

Now, one time pad encryption must be used correctly otherwise any mistake in any part of the encryption chain and an adversary will be able to break the code:


1. It requires perfectly random one-time pads, which is a non-trivial software requirement - ONLY use proven EMP shielded hardware random number generators.

2. Secure generation and exchange of the one-time pad material, which must be at least as long as the message. (The security of the one-time pad is only as secure as the security of the one-time pad key-exchange).

3.Careful treatment to make sure that it continues to remain secret from any adversary, and is disposed of correctly preventing any reuse in whole or part — hence "one time". See data remanence for a discussion of difficulties in completely erasing computer media.

Now, there are "extra" requirements that arise from the use of computers.

1. Only use a computer without any form of radio communication - no built in WiFi, no built in Blue Tooth, no built in infrared, make absolutely sure the ONLY way to communicate with the computer is through keyboard, usb port, and CD-ROM. Laptops are the best, since the are portable.

2. Use an EMP shielded Random Number Generator you can buy one or make one:

Hardware Random Number Generator

WhirlyFly

The reason for Hardware RNG is that it is nearly impossible for a computer to be random, computers work via programs and algorithms which for most applications are deterministic.

3. Test your RNG by submitting it to the "Diehard Tests":

Diehard Tests

Make sure it passes all tests.

4. Even if your computer has no communications with the outside world it can still be compromised by gathering and processing emitted EM radiation:

TEMPEST

So invest in a good high quality Faraday cage and other accoutrements, you want your computer to be quite literally like a Black hole any radiation can go in, but no radiation of any type at any frequency can come out - that includes the operator as well (no brain reading devices).
edit on 18-10-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-10-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-10-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-10-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-10-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-10-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   
I'm back, long time no posts! I have been busy at the PhD program here at ASU. I wanted to take a little time to bring Wikipedia to your attention.

Many people have found Wikipedia very useful and informative, what makes it different from other sources of information is that, at the very least, anyone can bring to attention inaccuracies in an article and have a good chance of changing it. (if indeed they are actual inaccuracies).

Right now they need the public's to help raise funds, so give whatever you can to help keep wikipedia independent and free of undue influence from the government or corporations:

Donate to Wikipedia

Please send this link to as many people as you can with instructions that each person who recieves the link to sent it to as many people as they can.
edit on 29-11-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-11-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-11-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-11-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
13
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join