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.

 

Did this former NASA astronaut accidentally reveal the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations?

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   
I was checking this article where the former NASA astronaut Edward T. Lu, talks about the Project Tugboat, which consists in prevent the rendezvous of hazardous asteroids with Earth, by taking them out of their orbits with spacecrafts and he made this curious observation:


All civilizations that inhabit planetary systems must eventually deal with the asteroid threat, or they will go the way of the dinosaurs. We need to predict in advance when impacts are going to occur and, if necessary, shift the orbits of threatening asteroids. In effect, we must change the evolution of the solar system.

www.scientificamerican.com...
www.cbsnews.com...




"All civilizations that inhabit planetary systems"...

Judging by the context of the article I don't think he's talking about hypothetical civilizations, but actual ones.



+10 more 
posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   
What he said is common sense, not any type of disclosure.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Razimus
What he said is common sense, not any type of disclosure.



Common sense among NASA astronauts, would be if he had said "A civilization that inhabits a planetary system". And he sounded more like implying than disclosing.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   
I know you were trying real hard here, but I think you are just spinning his words. I am certain that one day credible information will be released, if in fact other civilizations exist, but today is not that day.

My take is that he was simply making a broad statement of common sense, rather than implying secret knowledge.
edit on 8-12-2011 by jburg6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1AnunnakiBastard

Originally posted by Razimus
What he said is common sense, not any type of disclosure.



Common sense among NASA astronauts, would be if he had said "A civilization that inhabits a planetary system". And he sounded more like implying than disclosing.


Sounds like you are reading way more into the statement to find something to fit in with your beliefs and interests. What the astronaut said made perfect sense and is indeed common sense. Even if we take it out of contect it is still not a reveal, why is an astronaught any more of a reveal than other people such as pilots.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1AnunnakiBastard
Common sense among NASA astronauts, would be if he had said "A civilization that inhabits a planetary system". And he sounded more like implying than disclosing.

He was making a categorical statement. A civilization that inhabits a planetary system refers only to one. There could be more, but that cannot be logically concluded from the statement. All civlizations refers to the entire category of civilizations that inhabit planetary systems.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard
 


I think you are reading too much into this. He is speaking in generalities so as to make our choice acceptable. If "all civilizations" do such a thing, we should, too. I think he assumes other civilizations exist, as do many, but to say that his statement is akin to 'my reptilian pals from gamma Reticulum modify asteroid orbits all the time' is a stretch.
edit on 12/8/2011 by pteridine because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   
youre just trying to find something out of nothing. i think he is just speaking in general terms of anything thats a planet and has people on it. not really anything else but that and i doubt hes saying there are known alien civilizations or hinting at anything.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard
 


nothing in the context of the article calls for the interpretation you favor. It could easily be just a way of bringing the point across. My interpretation goes something like this:

- if there is life out there elsewhere
- if that life is intelligent enough to manipulate the course of things (like dealing with stuff that might hit the planet)
- then that form of life has to prepare for such an event if it wants to survive.

- if there's no life on that planet, that doesn't chance the fact that the planet will be hit by another astral object. All it changes are the consequences.

the nice thing about interpretations is that they might differ :-)



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
He is just being pragmatic, the situation is real and needs to be dealt with. At this stage we are getting to the point to be able to deal with it, which is just as well, since we are also nearly at the stage of knowing when a nasty rock is heading our way. Funny though, that Scientific American article, had it been posted here by a member, and in the same form would have had certain people protesting it as scaremongering.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 



Funny though, that Scientific American article, had it been posted here by a member, and in the same form would have had certain people protesting it as scaremongering.


Only if the headline were: "Bible predicts giant asteroid Planet X/Nibiru to crash into Earth on 11/12/13!!!! 100% PROOF!!!"



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Razimus
What he said is common sense, not any type of disclosure.



I agree.
Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.

edit on 8/12/2011 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by smurfy
 



Funny though, that Scientific American article, had it been posted here by a member, and in the same form would have had certain people protesting it as scaremongering.


Only if the headline were: "Bible predicts giant asteroid Planet X/Nibiru to crash into Earth on 11/12/13!!!! 100% PROOF!!!"


Do you mean as in the bible,

"the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken." Mark 13:25

That wasn't written by anybody here, it was written by earnest scholars of the day. Now, if this bible, with these words, is part of your faith, do you embrace it or ignore it? I choose to see it as a possible event, but not as a prediction in faith.

The Scientific American title is "Stop the killer rocks" the writer is a scholar, yet he is making predictions, because as he admits, the cataloguing is incomplete. So what's the difference? none. There is only the distinct possibility of a rock, or perhaps many rocks hitting earth. What the bible says can be put down as mumbo jumbo made up from PAST events. What the guy in Scientific American says IS scary, if you want to be scared.
edit on 8-12-2011 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Razimus
 


Not at all.

His language isn't pointing towards a hypothetical assumption, rather the opposite actually.

If he was simply generalizing, it would have been more appropriate to have said:

"ANY (as opposed to ALL) civilizations, that MAY inhabit (as opposed to THAT inhabit) planetary systems WOULD eventually (as opposed to MUST eventually) have to deal with the asteroid threat, or they WOULD (as opposed to WILL) go the way of the Dinosaurs."

It's all in the language. See how innocent it sounds written the way it is above? Compare the two, and the difference is obvious.

The question is though, was he attempting to be sensationalist in his choice of words to garner support for his Asteroid busting agenda? Or did he reveal more than he was 'authorized' to reveal?



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 



His language isn't pointing towards a hypothetical assumption, rather the opposite actually.


All unicorns have one horn. Work that one out.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
All unicorns have one horn. Work that one out.


So they do exist... Good one. I have to agree that people are reading too much into his choice of words. I think it is pretty simple to figure out. Is the guy still around? Did he lose his job? I mean if he had just accidentally or no, let out some deep dark secret that the government has spent years, and billions to cover up he would at very least have lost his job, and more that likely lost his life in some accident or something.

If it is shown that he was dismissed from NASA or died in some freak accident or something just after that statement I might be more inclined to believe that he let something slip. Otherwise I feel like he was just making a simple statement. Maybe when he said it he was secretly chuckling to himself thinking about how many in the conspiracy community would call it disclosure... Just saying.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   
There is a stark difference between what he was implying and what you have inferred.

No planet-bound civilization survives a certain magnitude of asteroid impact. None.

Does that statement imply that there are civilizations that exist only as space-bound caravans? No, it doesn't.

You're inference seems to have drawn some opposition.

In defense of the astronaut, I suspect he is wisely advising the otherwise distracted-by-stupidity leaders of this planet that this is not an issue you can put on the back-burner. We had better come up with some reasonably achievable strategy to deal with this scenario... one that works for the civilization... not just a handful of useless eaters.

There... I have successfully implied a conspiracy.... have I not?



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
All civilizations that inhabit planetary systems must eventually deal with the asteroid threat, or they will go the way of the dinosaurs. We need to predict in advance when impacts are going to occur and, if necessary, shift the orbits of threatening asteroids. In effect, we must change the evolution of the solar system.
........................................................................................................................................

Well Mr. OP, it seems you are on the short end of the stick, and not nearly as qualified to know what the astronaut might have been saying, or implying, as is everyone else here.


The astronaut probably doesn't have a clue anyway, because he, in addition to being an astronaut, only has a double doctorate, in Applied Physics, and in Electrical Engineering. With no more education than that, who could expect him to even know, that when he says "all civilizations that inhabit planetary systems", that there would be some people dumb enough to think he meant just what he said, which would mean something greater than one?? He just obviously didn't know (dumb engineer) that the "all" meant plurality (more than one) and the "s" on the end of civilizations also means plurality (also more than one).

And that is my "tongue in cheek" bit for the day, and I am sticking with it!

On the other hand, I credit Astronaut Lu with having the sense of mind to say just what he means to say. And, in this case, that would be he is directly, either implying having a knowledge that there are more civilizations inhabiting planetary systems, or he "believes there may be" other civilizations, besides the one on Earth.

Of course, this conversation is really moot, because only Dr. Lu can say what he actually was meaning to say. Why don't some of you ask him????
edit on 8-12-2011 by rdunk because: correction



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by Razimus
 


Not at all.

His language isn't pointing towards a hypothetical assumption, rather the opposite actually.

If he was simply generalizing, it would have been more appropriate to have said:

"ANY (as opposed to ALL) civilizations, that MAY inhabit (as opposed to THAT inhabit) planetary systems WOULD eventually (as opposed to MUST eventually) have to deal with the asteroid threat, or they WOULD (as opposed to WILL) go the way of the Dinosaurs."

It's all in the language. See how innocent it sounds written the way it is above? Compare the two, and the difference is obvious.

The question is though, was he attempting to be sensationalist in his choice of words to garner support for his Asteroid busting agenda? Or did he reveal more than he was 'authorized' to reveal?


While I lean to pragmatism essentially, you do have a point in the use of the language. As for being sensationalist, there is no doubt, without any tie to the inclusion of other ET civilisations. Thinking again, I now find that a kind of a 'double whammy' is going on, and does give the OP some scope in interpretation.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Razimus
 


Indeed. This is no more an admission of alien life than the Kadashev scale or the Drake equation are. All planets are in danger of asteroid collisions and if there are civilizations out there they face that threat. Let's just hope there's an alien version of Bruce Willis to save the day.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join