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.

 

I'm a skeptic but it's not my fault. (Also regarding the Moon, Saturn and the First Contact)

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Ehhhh, finally, 20 comments. I tried not to be a spammer and write only of things i know or i can talk about. Harder then I tought. Also, the forum's structure is crazy, hundreds of new threads and no discussion being followed for more than a day.

brace for it, it's going to be a long post..

I'm a skeptic. Not because I rule out extraterrestrial intelligence or life beyond this little rock in the vacuum. My job involves space as an designer and engineer. nobody in the field believes much differently than me. Actually we believe it maybe more than you might think because we pursue that, every astronomer studies the stars because of the belief there is life out there (and possibly being the first to spot it is a plus), every skunk engineer like myself wants to bring sci-fi into reality. Damn, you give me one real hint at how those supposed UFO crafts fly and I'll devote my life to develop it.

Unfortunately, there are no such hints. And I work in the big league, I'm part of that special club of 500+ members, so if there was, i would know it.
I've seen in my life how people with space related jobs lost the aforementioned job by going out and screaming "I believe!", so I'll not do it. For now. Sorry for that. If in the future I'll have to speak in public and declare I have proof or something, it will mean I have rock solid proof, not just ramblings about reticulans and brown dwarfs or so called close encounters. Take my word or whatever.

The reason I'm writing here is because I'm a skeptic, my scientific background makes me a skeptic about all this trend in saucer crashers and YOs in e




posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
I think you are thinking of "Saturn" not "Jupiter"....

edit: and you are an "aerospace engineer" and you confused Saturn and Jupiter?...Couldn't be a typo as you consistently referred to Saturn as Jupiter...


edit on 18-4-2011 by Sly1one because: (no reason given)


2nd edit: finished reading the entire thread. Decent thread aside of the Jupiter/Saturn mix-up you have going on there.
edit on 18-4-2011 by Sly1one because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Sly1one
 


My fault, actually it's the Juno and JEO fault! I started writing this post at lunch while talking, finished in the evening! I don't even know the total of typos in it! Thanks for the remark!



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by nostringsattached
 


so we cannot reject the possibility that the solar system has been made artificially ?

(great disclosure thanks, you from nasa correct ?)

If you leave open the possibility that the solar system could be artificial, you also have to leave open the possibility that our perception of reality is completely missing the big picture, and therefore that reality could be absolutely anything...

absolutely anything

am I right ?

but hmmm... wait...

so that means also that after all, we (nasa first) just don't have a clue about nothing !

conclusion : can we say that this thread is, at last, the disclosure from a Nasa employee that noone can trust nasa because nasa don't know s***



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   
I'm not a skeptic, also not my fault. Been having experiences since childhood after seeing one of them. They don't look human, more like this:

www.unsuspectedtruth.com...

4.bp.blogspot.com...

Though more stick like body, and move in ways we could never duplicate. Not to mention I can attest to Nazi's, the US Navy and ETs on the moon in the 60's even.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by XmikaX

conclusion : can we say that this thread is, at last, the disclosure from a Nasa employee that noone can trust nasa because nasa don't know s***



Not exacly from NASA, but very very close if not better (That place is the bottom of human efficiency!). I'm writing here in this forum (but i know other people that work there and write here and do have by far more knowledge of it, i think even a few 35NGs are in here. But again, you speak publicly about it and you are an outcast) because sincerely I'm mad at the whole conspiracy theory surrounding space operations. Like we are New World Orders working everyday in covering the truth or whatever.

There is no space agency that knows a frack about UFOs. There is the desire to understand anomalies and the struggle to avoid over-optimistic or biased theories because science is peer-reviewing, you botch once and you are out forever. I believe the job of the people not involved into the actual business of sending probes and manned vehicles in space is to discover elements of Intelligence, not gray aliens. The search for something else should be more science and less you tube videos. And it's not a criticism, it's more frustration. Because since a month ago I wasn't even looking at those videos, I was thinking of course, every day, how cool it would be to meet an ET, and this is the constant topic of discussion here. But yet there is no sign, and I'm not debunking or something: take any scientist, give him/her a proof of something revolutionary such as proof of alien Intelligence and you will see that very piece of information on every newspaper the day after. Scientists are driven mostly by the desire of success, personal egoistic success, and there is no conspiracy that can keep them from getting it if they can.

Also, astronauts are not bond by any secret or officer's oath, they can speak freely about anything, the security is.. at best.. lax if non existent. We live normal lives, we go to work, rise families, fly around, try to find solutions on the borders of our technical capabilities and scientific knowledge. Most of the successes are simply not understandable by anyone except the scientists and engineers directly involved, we managed to get out of the solar system for example. How many people know that? The voyager team pierced the heliosphere and collected incredible data, informations that point at a total different view of the star systems and how is space beyond th grav pull of the star itself. Maybe, in 10-15 years we will understand that outside a star system, movement is possible in a much faster fashion. And in that day it will be all thanks to the efforts of designers and researchers 34 years (since today) ago. With such a scope and perception of "history" we are forced to work in, how could anyone think space agencies are part of a conspiracy??

And by the way no.. nobody has a clue about aliens and saucers. There are lots of unexplained phenomenons occurring in many missions, but still no clue about them, or else. I have no idea what the MoD knows, but by experience they usually come here to make the questions.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by nostringsattached
 


Welcome, it's nice to have some more educated, professional members...and your first thread tossed out many intriguing ideas, mostly spot on. I cannot agree, however, on ANY of the "artificiality" claims, RE: our Solar System, and its various celestial components.....i.e., the Moon and Saturn, and her rings.....Saturn, though will leave for later...the "hexagon" specifically. (However, I have read some theories, in fluid and gas dynamics, that might be a plausible explanation starting point for that......)....

But, I am somewhat stunned (and dismayed) by this:



You see, it's frankly impossible that our satellite is the only one of the whole solar system that has the perfect position and shape in order to create a total eclipse with such a frequency.



This seems rather an ignorant claim, coming from someone of your knowledge sets. Perhaps as an engineer, you are too specialized, in your field, and need to expand your knowledge base more? I know that the field of design/engineering tend to gravitate (pun) towards seeing things from that slant. No offense.

There is really no logical foundation to assert it an "impossibility" for the Moon to of such a size and distance to coincidentally happen to cause Solar eclipses. (BTW....you may wish to study that further....you will find very large variations in the "totality" of coverage, for any given eclipse event. Would not one think that an "artificially" placed Moon would be a bit more precise????)

Or....isn't it reasonable to realize that the variation in the Moon's elliptical orbit, causing its distance from Earth to vary a fair amount, and its NOT perfect tidal locking rotational period (we can actually see roughly 59% of the Moon's nearest hemisphere...well, "hemisphere" is 50% by definition, so that means we get a "sneak" look at another ~9% of the "other side" too....but, I digress.

If I wanted to, I could link to any number of online sources that discuss this...but, of course, so can you....take particular note of the fact that the Moon is spiralling away....by inferring and extrapolating this backwards, you can see it is merely an interesting coincidence that WE are alive and aware at this geological point in time.....had we evolved 100,000,000 years ago (let's say) then the Moon would have been a bit closer....(and we'd probably STILL have people saying they thought it was "placed" there!!!).


Now, this next line really stopped me cold, in my tracks:


And it's not mine, it's every astronomer's opinion!


"every" astronomer's opinion??

Excuse me, but I call "bogus" on that.

This too....I contest:


The moon from a scientific point of view looks artificial...



>sigh< This sort of comment is just likely to re-fan the flames of idiotic claims, here on ATS. It seems to come in waves, and the same nonsense (usually found from the many crackpot sites on the Webz) is recycled.

Such ignorance of the real science of astronomy, and the information gleaned from Apollo ---- the landing missions, the samples returned, the experiments left behind have all contributed greatly to our overall understanding. There is, of course, still much to learn....heck! We have a lot still to learn about the Earth, too! And we LIVE on it!

But, the additional, up-close-and-personal-data orm the Moon dispelled many theories, and refined others. The "Ancient Impact" hypothesis is still the best one, to explain the Moon's creation. Roughly 4.5 Billion years ago, when the entire Solar System was full of havock, and constant change, as it was "shaking itself out", planets accreting and forming, to reach the relatively stabilized system it is today. Lunar samples from Apollo have been very useful at refining that event, and the mechanishms and processes that must have occurred.









edit on 18 April 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Now, this next line really stopped me cold, in my tracks:


And it's not mine, it's every astronomer's opinion!


"every" astronomer's opinion??

Excuse me, but I call "bogus" on that.


Hi nostringsattached,

I was similarly somewhat taken about by your comments, particularly coming from someone beginning his thread title with the words "I'm a skeptic ..."

Can you name a few specific prominent astronomers that share the opinions you expressed in the OP about the moon?

Until then I'm, well, skeptical.


For ease of reference, the bit I'd like you to attempt to justify is:


You see, it's frankly impossible that our satellite is the only one of the whole solar system that has the perfect position and shape in order to create a total eclipse with such a frequency. And it's not mine, it's every astronomer's opinion!


By the way, is your background in engineering rather than planetary physics?

All the best,

Isaac
edit on 18-4-2011 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by nostringsattached
 


Welcome, it's nice to have some more educated, professional members...and your first thread tossed out many intriguing ideas, mostly spot on. I cannot agree, however, on ANY of the "artificiality" claims, RE: our Solar System, and its various celestial components.....i.e., the Moon and Saturn, and her rings.....Saturn, though will leave for later...the "hexagon" specifically. (However, I have read some theories, in fluid and gas dynamics, that might be a plausible explanation starting point for that......)....


I thank your welcome and I must say I'm a difficult position here, because on one hand I want to speak about stuff, and probably chauvinistically give some details of my work, on the other hand I accept everything I say it's taken with a pinch of salt (and that is what should UFOlogist do everytime, so I'm glad your doing it) because I can't possibly give proof of what I am. So any critic of who I am, any doubt that arises it justified and I bet lots of people boast about improbable jobs or something like that. Also, science is big, it's midnight and I don't have all the time during the day to write properly and in a clear fashion. So any mistake I make, please point it out and I'm glad to explain it. Just like the Jupiter/Saturn typo!

You guys have been doing it for way more than me, and I'm still learning a lot about those supposed events and such.



But, I am somewhat stunned (and dismayed) by this:



You see, it's frankly impossible that our satellite is the only one of the whole solar system that has the perfect position and shape in order to create a total eclipse with such a frequency.



This seems rather an ignorant claim, coming from someone of your knowledge sets. Perhaps as an engineer, you are too specialized, in your field, and need to expand your knowledge base more? I know that the field of design/engineering tend to gravitate (pun) towards seeing things from that slant. No offense.

There is really no logical foundation to assert it an "impossibility" for the Moon to of such a size and distance to coincidentally happen to cause Solar eclipses. (BTW....you may wish to study that further....you will find very large variations in the "totality" of coverage, for any given eclipse event. Would not one think that an "artificially" placed Moon would be a bit more precise????)

Or....isn't it reasonable to realize that the variation in the Moon's elliptical orbit, causing its distance from Earth to vary a fair amount, and its NOT perfect tidal locking rotational period (we can actually see roughly 59% of the Moon's nearest hemisphere...well, "hemisphere" is 50% by definition, so that means we get a "sneak" look at another ~9% of the "other side" too....but, I digress.

If I wanted to, I could link to any number of online sources that discuss this...but, of course, so can you....take particular note of the fact that the Moon is spiralling away....by inferring and extrapolating this backwards, you can see it is merely an interesting coincidence that WE are alive and aware at this geological point in time.....had we evolved 100,000,000 years ago (let's say) then the Moon would have been a bit closer....(and we'd probably STILL have people saying they thought it was "placed" there!!!).


The argument is vast and still not truly understood. I'll just refer to this topic I just found with Google:
Physics Forums: ToG < 1 and ToW value in the Moon and Earth system




Now, this next line really stopped me cold, in my tracks:


And it's not mine, it's every astronomer's opinion!


"every" astronomer's opinion??

Excuse me, but I call "bogus" on that.

This too....I contest:


The moon from a scientific point of view looks artificial...



Ok, the everyone is a writer's mistake. My fault.

Regarding the scientific explanation, well... the Moon is not exactly a moon, but is quite unique. I don't have time to find a link where all the faults of the Earth-Luna system are analyzed, but I'll do it tomorrow. Now I'm in some kind of rush, heading for the bed! :-(



>sigh< This sort of comment is just likely to re-fan the flames of idiotic claims, here on ATS. It seems to come in waves, and the same nonsense (usually found from the many crackpot sites on the Webz) is recycled.

Such ignorance of the real science of astronomy, and the information gleaned from Apollo ---- the landing missions, the samples returned, the experiments left behind have all contributed greatly to our overall understanding. There is, of course, still much to learn....heck! We have a lot still to learn about the Earth, too! And we LIVE on it!

But, the additional, up-close-and-personal-data orm the Moon dispelled many theories, and refined others. The "Ancient Impact" hypothesis is still the best one, to explain the Moon's creation. Roughly 4.5 Billion years ago, when the entire Solar System was full of havock, and constant change, as it was "shaking itself out", planets accreting and forming, to reach the relatively stabilized system it is today. Lunar samples from Apollo have been very useful at refining that event, and the mechanishms and processes that must have occurred.


As I said, I'm no planetologist, but one thing I must say: the recent discoveries somewhat killed many theories. The GIH is still hard to prove, like any other theory about.

Since it seems you have a greater knowledge (And I repeat, I'm no planetologist, neither a scientist, I'm a engineer!), I suggest you those papers regarding the difficulties in really coming up with a comprehensive theory about the Moon's creation:

Nature: Volatile content of lunar volcanic glasses and the presence of water in the Moon's interior/url]
[url=http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/origin98/pdf/4045.pdf]Lunar and Planetary Istitute: Origin of the Earth and Moon Conference


They dwelve into the two biggest challenges to the GIH: Tungsten isotopes and water at a crust level.
Then, again, I never studies the Moon extensively, so I can't prove or disprove anything. My point is regarding the shape and the position of the moon, as Prof. Asimov explains in his theory and later expands in the Tragedy of the Moon, dealing also with the sociological effects the Moon had on Humanity. So you see, I'm not inventing nothing, and I can't say I haven't been influenced by this and other scientific essays that analyse the uniqueness of the moon.









edit on 18 April 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   
when you look at things in a purely materialist way,

of course you are gonna be skeptic.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by IsaacKoi
 


In another reply I've linked some pages and documents. The fact it's been over there since forever doesn't necessary mean it's explained! :-)



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join