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.

 

WHY are all UFO's infinitely connected with Aliens?

page: 7
4
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeskoWhirligan
 


Zesko ---- I think that you are barking up the wrong alley, on your assumption that -- near FTL speeds, FTL speed and FTL speeds are a "fantasy."

Radio Astronomers have just discovered a black hole in the center of some faraway galaxy. It has locked it's powerful magnetic field onto a wayward star; and has started to suck the fiery plasma from the doomed star. The "active" black hole has developed an acretion disc, that includes the spewing jet of light coming OUT, from both of the black holes magnetic poles; at very near the speed of light.

All you have to do is --- Send yourself on a probe to that black hole, vector it, to one of the spewing photon jet streams; and viola-----Your ship will have achieved a speed very near the speed of light. [Of course.... you will need a powerful magnetic shield, to protect your starship from getting torn apart.]

You just might be then hollering: "Gigadee, Gigadee, Gigadee --- Lets go racing boy's!!!"



Cheers,

Erno86
edit on 18-1-2012 by Erno86 because: added a word




posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by dilly1
 


Well, becuse the man says so.
I have found the unnamed man to be in the 1% of the 1% that the 99% crowd
on Wall Street Occupy have no knowledge of.
The reason for infinite Aliens with UFO ships for the 99%, two words:
Free Energy
The proof is in the Tesla ship and all the rest of the Tesla legendary works.
The followers of Einstein and Relativist also steer you away at the behest of the .01%.
The infinite Alien Story tellers are just trying to earn a living going with the flow of the
mighty dot zero one percent.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by dilly1
 



Was wondering Why (and How) UFO's are infinitely connected with Aliens? I have never seen any evidence to confirm this strange marriage. Wouldn't it be best to con-join UFO paraphernalia with "man-made" igenuity????


Mostly because if it was manmade ingenuity, then in the over half century of modern sightings, SOMEONE would have a commercial variant out by now.

So, if it wasn't made by us, or our enemies, then an off-world intelligence seems to be the only other answer.

Not to mention, CE3 and CE4 cases where an alien is either seen, or interacted with (or so the witnesses claim). So, no wonder the two are firmly linked.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Semperly
reply to post by spinalremain
 

How are they not?? The first idea that is conceived in anyone's mind when one utter's "U.F.O." is a flying saucer comanded by a crew of extraterrestrials. I'm sure if you surveyed any 10 random people, at least 9.9 of them would agree.



They would all be incorrect. Common jargin suggests that UFOs are alien craft, but that is not what the acronym stands for, nor is it accurate even, when 99 percent of UFOs are explained away as domestic or Earthly craft, birds or balloons.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeskoWhirligan
 


I agree, as I've said all along we are still infantile in our evolution so in a billion years who knows what discoveries will be made. From horse and cart to space exploration in 100 years is an amazing amount of advancment, yes we still have a lot to learn, nobody is disputing that. To assume we now know it all would be foolish, anyone who knows anything about physics knows at least that much to be true.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeskoWhirligan
 


Zesko --- A starship.... would probably only need to use its anti-grav field, when it is near planetary object's and in defense against tractor beams.

My hypothesis.... on the function of an other-worlder starship, based mainly on my own eyewitness UFO event.

I don't know whether you heard my hypothesis before --- so if you want --- you can search my other post's; just in case I've left anything out.

Search for a mini-black hole in the cosmos. Blow the BH up with an anti-grav antimatter bomb. Refine the BH dust particles, in some factory on an asteriod. Mix the BH dust particles onto a concave ceramac plate, intended as the bottom plate of a flying saucer.

The flying saucer performs the same function of a BH --- only that this one is a mobile free-bird!!!

The flying saucer sucks in light photon's from a distant star, that the photon reciever is locked onto. The photon's are spewed out by one of the flying saucer's magnetic pole's, by a revolving thruster, [90 degree turns and instant stops and starts,] -- and also by the top and bottom exhaust ports.

The starship... is protected by the BH's powerful magnetic field --- One to protect the starship, from the fusion generated lighted fiery plasma that power's the photon engine; because.... in case of the lack of starlight---- and another outer magnetic shield to contain the fusion plasma. The fuel used for the fusion reaction ---- is common seawater.

Since the starship spews out the light photons --- used as thrust --- it can easily achieve the speed of light --- and even many times the speed of light, when thrust factor's exponentially "square," the light photon thrust to FTL; because.... the nut's and bolt's flying saucer is not a light photon.


Cheers,

Erno86


edit on 18-1-2012 by Erno86 because: added a few words

edit on 18-1-2012 by Erno86 because: grammar



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit

Perhaps. From the time our species first developed our mental faculties, it took us about 200,000 years to travel 300 miles, from the surface of the Earth to low Earth orbit. Once into the realm of microgravity, it took us another 10 years to reach the Moon. So, realistically, from the time we evolved into Homo sapiens, it took us over 200,000 years to travel 250,000 miles.


Except you are not being realistic. If you want to use snarky math and say all the years we didn't have the ability or means to create space travel, by all means do. The reality is since the advent of flight, which is just over 100 years, we are planning trips to Mars, have been to the moon several times, have an active space station, and are contemplating life in other galaxies using huge radar arrays and massive telescopes. While you say it's "fantasy" to consider FTL or to travel across our galactic disk, it's actually studied by prominant scientists, universities and organizations. They don't think it's fantasy. But of course, I'm sure you know more than they do, since you "know your science," right? You should call NASA, ESA, and all other major research facilities, to let them know they are wasting time and money on something that is clearly impossible. You know this for a fact, right?

In a tiny span of time, we've made huge leaps of advancement. If you want to play Carl Sagan, and say because it's not been discoved how to travel great distances yet, then it's clearly impossible, feel free. To say that you know without a doubt that it is and will always be impossible really IS ignorant however. You can't possibly know that. It may be a shock to your ego, and if so, I apologize in advance, but you really don't know everything about what is and isn't possible with space travel, or what will be possible in the future. Fantasy as you call it, in regards to space travel, has often become reality in the past.
He is being very realistic. He is no way being influenced by hope. You on the hand have nothing but hope. "Hope" that some day in the future(near or distant) humans will be advanced enough for space travel. "Hope" that prominent scientist (currently) are truly contemplating human space travel . You think they are cause you see them on networks hyping up the possibility or reading it on subjective magazines. Its all to steer you into one direction.

Off course! these prominent scientist don't think its a fantasy. Why would they say that when they are getting paid to speak on TV, interviewed in articles or selling a book.

There is nothing wrong saying we will never accomplish space travel,let alone travel past our moon. Maybe some day we could . But the "some day" is so far from "now" it doesn't matter what anyone says or thinks. Remember this statement is not based on hope ,versus yours is.


Understand being to the moon is an accomplishment for the 60's and early 70's. But Not for the present or for the future. So even saying IT is actually an oxymoron. Its an insult to the human race if anything.

"Hey man we already made it to the moon ,, we're getting close"......lol... You didn't say that but that the tone you project. Which is actually pretty pathetic.


The prominent scientists you see and read are not the pinnacle of any field. They are literally whores,willing to act and say specific things for the sake of the networks agenda. YOU literally blindly believe what you see on Discovery, Science channel, NatGeo and HistoryCH. These networks pick and choose the content and scientists to project a certain biased way at looking at the cosmos and our future. How convenient our future,from a scientific POV, is always positive. Never a negative.

You are being played and to defend them not ever question or research the one obvious point no one wants to talk about: That we are not even close to knowing to travel in space,,and we are betting on our grand children's children's that they will discover "new physics".

OK sure buddy


Nasa and ESA are pulling your chain. If they didn't there would be thousands of "occupy nasa" campaigns. The whole alien fantasy helps them to exist. The alien fantasy gives blind hope. These prominent scientist give great detail on the possibility of life existing elsewhere . When that day arrives the connection to intelligent life elsewhere will be branded as fact, with not a shred of evidence(hell, its happening now with there enormous amount of planets being discovered daily)---With out once explaining to the public how difficult it is to travel in hostile space. How bleak it truly is for us.


I know for sure its impossible to travel in space,because of the factual 3 points I have given hundreds of time before in my past posts. Those 3 points are universal. It doesn't pertain to the "Being's" indigenous planet. It pertains to the vicious laws of space. And whomever is successful at it will be god-like. And we all know too well,what happens when some being thinks it is god.


I suggest you read again my past posts and stop being so biased . Just because your opposition on ATS are not whoring themselves on Science Channel doesn't mean you shouldn't take us seriously.

And FYI , no human has ever accomplished space travel. Orbiting is not considered space travel. Nor is it flying either. Space travel is To only use one's own power to trump the forces of space,,,,Not use them. And you shouldn't use "human advancement" here on earth as a measuring tool as to how far we have come in-regards to space exploration.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickyrrr
reply to post by dilly1
 


The only instance where a UFO, to me, hints at the possibility of alien is when and if such a UFO exhibits performance characteristics that are not achievable by propulsion. any kind of propulsion. noiseless flight and high G turns, if possible, require technology that is not known.

The Propellant-less part of the description is simply not accepted by physics at the moment. So you either have aliens or you have a secret government with secret machines several decades ahead. Or maybe both.

With that said, some people who believe UFO's are of alien origin (alien meaning not earth, but origin could be another planet or another "dimension") base those beliefs on more information than you and I have at our disposal, and more than just sighting testimony.

I believe that I don't have all the information. Not having all the information, then who am I to say either way?

-rrr
Are you an aeronautical engineer? I think not...

How the hell are you even qualified to decide what is and isn't achieved by propulsion?

You do understand if it is a real UFO ,,,Its an object in our skies. Our skies !!

When you brand a ufo as alien ; Do you even know what you are saying. Do you even understand how outrageous that claim truly is. You literally see something in our skies,it does some weird maneuvers,you then compare it to the maneuvers from the movie "top gun" , and you come to the conclusion it has to be alien cause you are a self taught "aeronautical engineer" and you know what's the pinnacle of human flight. So Then you brand it "a alien-ufo".


Not only do you sound delusional but the core substance of every delusion is "wishful" thinking.


There is no aliens nor a secret government. Its called our government or any government has the right to tell you (the average freakin jack) whatever they want. Governments do not need to explain to you what they are experimenting , researching, bla bla ,,,bla bla,,,,,.... Am I making it clear for you. Is my dumbing it down helping you? I hope ,because your imagination has totally ruined your perception of your surroundings.


Who are these people that have more information than us ? The government? If it isn't the government how the hell do you know these people and how do you know what they have is real,not some fabrication. I hope you don't say some UFOlogist, cause there is no such thing.....

There really isn't any alien evidence considered to be factual. The only evidence is the obvious pitfalls that space entails. Learn the pitfalls of space and you will see the WHOLE alien option is completely 100% BUNK.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Erno86
reply to post by ZeskoWhirligan
 


Zesko ---- I think that you are barking up the wrong alley, on your assumption that -- near FTL speeds, FTL speed and FTL speeds are a "fantasy."

Radio Astronomers have just discovered a black hole in the center of some faraway galaxy. It has locked it's powerful magnetic field onto a wayward star; and has started to suck the fiery plasma from the doomed star. The "active" black hole has developed an acretion disc, that includes the spewing jet of light coming OUT, from both of the black holes magnetic poles; at very near the speed of light.

All you have to do is --- Send yourself on a probe to that black hole, vector it, to one of the spewing photon jet streams; and viola-----Your ship will have achieved a speed very near the speed of light. [Of course.... you will need a powerful magnetic shield, to protect your starship from getting torn apart.]

You just might be then hollering: "Gigadee, Gigadee, Gigadee --- Lets go racing boy's!!!"



Cheers,

Erno86
edit on 18-1-2012 by Erno86 because: added a word


They think they have found a black hole.. THINK

Black holes are theoretical. Look it up..

You need to stop watching TV.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by dilly1
 



Was wondering Why (and How) UFO's are infinitely connected with Aliens? I have never seen any evidence to confirm this strange marriage. Wouldn't it be best to con-join UFO paraphernalia with "man-made" igenuity????


Mostly because if it was manmade ingenuity, then in the over half century of modern sightings, SOMEONE would have a commercial variant out by now.

So, if it wasn't made by us, or our enemies, then an off-world intelligence seems to be the only other answer.

Not to mention, CE3 and CE4 cases where an alien is either seen, or interacted with (or so the witnesses claim). So, no wonder the two are firmly linked.


Sorry, but I don't see how a commercial or movie or tv show could come out and preach against the grain. The alien propaganda is definitely part of the "powers it be's" agenda. They own everything that has to do with media. How one could pull it off would be nearly impossible. And if one did he/she couldn't compete.

Alien propaganda is to steer one away from the obvious.
And speaking of the obvious , one only has to logically observe how difficult it is to travel in space.


So because someone hasn't made commercial of the variant , the alien option is somehow the obvious??. I call that a huge stretch.

Ce3,4 cases? You mean eyewitness accounts? I don't see how that is even considered evidence. Can you tell me how.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by spinalremain

Originally posted by Semperly
reply to post by spinalremain
 

How are they not?? The first idea that is conceived in anyone's mind when one utter's "U.F.O." is a flying saucer comanded by a crew of extraterrestrials. I'm sure if you surveyed any 10 random people, at least 9.9 of them would agree.



They would all be incorrect. Common jargin suggests that UFOs are alien craft, but that is not what the acronym stands for, nor is it accurate even, when 99 percent of UFOs are explained away as domestic or Earthly craft, birds or balloons.


Another guy with %'s. Why do you people do that. And common jargon does think all ufo are connected to aliens. Why do think ufo's are so famous. If it wasn't no one would give a crap about a flying object in OUR skies.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by dilly1

They think they have found a black hole.. THINK

Black holes are theoretical. Look it up..

You need to stop watching TV.



You mean wormholes, right? Black holes are very real physical phenomena and many experiments conducted plus astronomical observations have proven them to be real.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   
I am starting to agree..
edit on 18-1-2012 by greyer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Diablos

Originally posted by dilly1

They think they have found a black hole.. THINK

Black holes are theoretical. Look it up..

You need to stop watching TV.



You mean wormholes, right? Black holes are very real physical phenomena and many experiments conducted plus astronomical observations have proven them to be real.
There's no real physical proof. Until we send a device close enough to confirm it,,it will be a theoretical.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by dilly1There's no real physical proof. Until we send a device close enough to confirm it,,it will be a theoretical.

Are you serious? It is one thing to reject wormholes and antigravity as they have yet to be observed physically, but there is physical proof from telescope observations of the large gravitational fields of black holes and their affects on light, also they have been replicated on a microscopic scale in the laboratory and fit all of the characteristics of the theoretical model (the Schwarzchild solutions to Einstein's general relativity equations).

This isn't science fiction, but scientific established fact that has been backed up by countless experimentation. Only a very simple minded person who knows little about the scientific method would propose something as ridiculous as a device approaching a black hole to confirm its existence.



edit on 18-1-2012 by Diablos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Diablos

Originally posted by dilly1There's no real physical proof. Until we send a device close enough to confirm it,,it will be a theoretical.

Are you serious? It is one thing to reject wormholes and antigravity as they have yet to be observed physically, but there is physical proof from telescope observations of the large gravitational fields of black holes and their affects on light, also they have been replicated on a microscopic scale in the laboratory and fit all of the characteristics of the theoretical model (the Schwarzchild solutions to Einstein's general relativity equations).

This isn't science fiction, but scientific established fact that has been backed up by countless experimentation. Only a very simple minded person who knows little about the scientific method would propose something as ridiculous as a device approaching a black hole to confirm its existence.



edit on 18-1-2012 by Diablos because: (no reason given)

Dude,go to google or bing and type: are black holes theoretical

There's your physical proof. This is old news

Worm holes are not theoretical . They definitely exist in the quantum level. There is nothing,not a resemblance of a black in the quantum level.


Characteristics of a model? What characteristics?



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by dilly1Dude,go to google or bing and type: are black holes theoretical

Scientific evidence of black holes:
From NASA:
NASA 1
NASA 2

Some of the many experiments performed proving the existence of blackholes.




Originally posted by dilly1There's your physical proof. This is old news

I'm sorry, but making wild outlandish claims that established scientific fact is unproven places the burden of proof on you to show why. I'm not going to do your searching for you. Have any experimental evidence or even theory that contradict the hundreds of experiments conducted that prove black holes are a real physical phenomena?


Originally posted by dilly1Worm holes are not theoretical . They definitely exist in the quantum level. There is nothing,not a resemblance of a black in the quantum level.

Are you joking?
I don't think anyone should take you seriously after saying this. The requirements for any wormhole is "negative matter" or "exotic matter", something that has not been observed in the known universe and many physicists subscribe to the belief that it does not even exist. If it does, it is most likely in the recesses of deep space away from celestial bodies with mass and thus exert a gravity, as gravity has the opposite affect on it. That is assuming in the extreme likelihood that such matter can even exist.



Originally posted by dilly1Characteristics of a model? What characteristics?

For someone as bold to claim that black holes are only theoretical, you don't even understand the theoretical model of a black hole (Schwarzchild's solution to Einstein's general relativity equations of a point-like star)? I don't either nor am I an expert, but I don't make such wild claims as if I understand the theory better than the top experts in the world.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 05:45 AM
link   
reply to post by dilly1
 




post by dilly1
There is nothing,not a resemblance of a black in the quantum level.


Wrong .

The evaporation of quantum black holes would leave very distinctive imprints on the detectors and spectrum of such black holes could be obtained. To study the quantum gravity effects on the black hole spectrum, one can take into account the generalized uncertainty principle. In this paper, employing the Bekenstein-Mukhanov approach, the spectrum of a quantum black hole is obtained.
scialert.net...


A quantum black hole can decays during interval of observer time Δl by a sequence of integers [n1, n2, ..., nj] of length j. During Δl, the black hole first jumped down to n1 elementary levels in one ago, then n2 level, etc. In this process, black hole emits a quantum of some species of energy , then a quantum of energy , etc. Each one of j quanta carries the energy . In average, during Δl, the mass of black hole decreases
scialert.net...



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Diablos

Originally posted by dilly1Dude,go to google or bing and type: are black holes theoretical

Scientific evidence of black holes:
From NASA:
NASA 1
NASA 2

Some of the many experiments performed proving the existence of blackholes.




Originally posted by dilly1There's your physical proof. This is old news

I'm sorry, but making wild outlandish claims that established scientific fact is unproven places the burden of proof on you to show why. I'm not going to do your searching for you. Have any experimental evidence or even theory that contradict the hundreds of experiments conducted that prove black holes are a real physical phenomena?


Originally posted by dilly1Worm holes are not theoretical . They definitely exist in the quantum level. There is nothing,not a resemblance of a black in the quantum level.

Are you joking?
I don't think anyone should take you seriously after saying this. The requirements for any wormhole is "negative matter" or "exotic matter", something that has not been observed in the known universe and many physicists subscribe to the belief that it does not even exist. If it does, it is most likely in the recesses of deep space away from celestial bodies with mass and thus exert a gravity, as gravity has the opposite affect on it. That is assuming in the extreme likelihood that such matter can even exist.



Originally posted by dilly1Characteristics of a model? What characteristics?

For someone as bold to claim that black holes are only theoretical, you don't even understand the theoretical model of a black hole (Schwarzchild's solution to Einstein's general relativity equations of a point-like star)? I don't either nor am I an expert, but I don't make such wild claims as if I understand the theory better than the top experts in the world.
Its obvious you want to believe Nasa instead of being objective and searching for the truth correctly. I'm sorry but any device , I don't care how powerful it is, from our orbit cannot give definitive proof on black holes. I saw and read(your links) nothing that gives definitive proof.

The first two links explained what exactly? Data from Hubble ?Diagrams and measurements of light disappearing from a specific area? So that means it must be a BH? That still means its theoretical?

Lol!!!

And third site has a nice big disclaimer in yellow saying: "Citebase is currently only an experimental demonstration. Users are cautioned not to use it for academic evaluation yet. Citation coverage and analysis is incomplete and hit coverage and analysis is both incomplete and noisy"



Its not a outlandish claim because its not a scientific fact. Go ask your high school science teacher what they really think of black holes. Its an educated guess. Could it be true?? very likely ,and I hope Nasa is spot on,but we won't know for sure until we get close enough to confirm it. From orbit we won't know for sure. Its too far away. You are just believing the hype.


Worm holes exist in the quantum level. Do you even know what that means. They are all around us. Quantum level doesn't mean only "corner of the universe". The problem is we don't know how to control one. Even your boyfriend Steven Hawking says they exist. Be objective and look it up.


Dude seriously ,I told you to look up :are BH's theoretical

Its not a lot of work .. You're either stubborn or scared..And you give me these crappy links?. And you have the cojones to tell me ,show you proof?. Stop being so subjective and look it up yourself. I am hear focusing on the main topic here about idiots thinking aliens and ufo's are infinitely connected,,,remember!!


You want to argue about BH's . Create a thread and I promise I will play the pissing contest .



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Erno86
Zesko ---- I think that you are barking up the wrong alley, on your assumption that -- near FTL speeds, FTL speed and FTL speeds are a "fantasy."

Radio Astronomers have just discovered a black hole in the center of some faraway galaxy....et cetera


No, Radio Astronomers haven't "discovered" anything. You can't point to anything that Radio Astronomy has "discovered," because Radio Astronomy is depending on signals that are thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions and even billions of years old.

Everything about Radio Astronomy and Astronomy and Astrophysics in general is THEORETICAL... The Big Bang is theoretical. Black Holes are theoretical. Quasars, Magnetars, Neutron Stars, Gamma Bursts and everything else you can name is theoretical.

Let me tell you something about Astronomy — Every day, astronomers wake up in a new world, not knowing what part of their edifice of THEORY has been destroyed overnight. And astronomers are the first to admit it.

I mean, you can look at the "discoveries" made right here in our Solar System, as our interplanetary probes have drawn back the veil on the various planets, moons, asteroids and cometary bodies... WITHOUT FAIL, the closer we come to the planets and their moons and the various asteroids and cometary bodies, the LESS we find we really KNEW about them. The Voyager probes, for example, REWROTE THE BOOKS on EVERYTHING we thought we knew about the Solar System.

Until we GO ON SITE and observe the planets and stars and galaxies at CLOSE RANGE, we can't say we know ANYTHING about the Universe, okay?

No, what we KNOW about Human Theory is that, as soon as we GO ON SITE and explore FIRST-HAND, our theories are blown out of the water. EVERY time.

That's why it's ABSURD to accept anything from Astronomers as hard, cold fact. Astronomers don't deal in fact.

Ten thousand years from now, when we physically reach the NEAREST stars (just four or six or ten Light Years away), we're going to discover that the astronomers of the 21st Century were LAUGHABLY WRONG about EVERYTHING, okay? In fact, we're going to discover that ALL of the Astrophysical Theory of the next thousand years is laughably wrong.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join