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.

 

Life Spotted on Venus - Russian Scientist

page: 17
102
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 10:50 PM
link   
I just found this new article, with a set of pictures of a "scorpion like" UFO, over Spain, in August of 2011. ( Though I think it looks more like a high-tech frisbee of some sorts... )

examiner.co m

I'll try to find the link to something I saw this morning about someone claiming to have worked with Ksanfomaliti, and him being a generalist in everything, with no systems on which he worked able to function...




posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by AmatuerSkyWatcher
I hope we get some answers, although I highly doubt it now (I think that window has come and gone), because as it stands, this story is just damn right odd.


The story was published 17:45 on Friday the 20th... today its still only Sunday evening here in Vegas. It may come as a shock to you but the whole world doesn't operate 24/7



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 11:25 PM
link   
Ummm... You know, that might resemble a scorpion, or....



...we might have a lot more to worry about.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   
If scientific theories are right... everything adapts. Natural selection. Who says that our planet is the only planet with sufficient atmospheric and geothermic conditions to contain life? Just because we thrived on these conditions doesn't mean that somewhere else, with different atmospheric conditions, temperatures, that some other life form could survive and indeed thrive. Just because our world has shown us that oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere in this certain way and how we use it in our bodies gives us the way we live, doesn't mean that somewhere else, some other life form CAN and WILL thrive under different conditions. We have to believe and be open to these processes because all our science and studies are based on our earth only.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by NickSab67
We have to believe and be open to these processes because all our science and studies are based on our earth only.


Well, when you believe that there must be Life elsewhere in the Universe WITHOUT EVIDENCE, that's called Faith. As in, Faith that God exists, as well.

Faith is knowledge and certainty without physical evidence.

Science hates Faith. Science has no room for Faith.

I know this because skeptics and cynics and, yes, scientists tell me that Science only allows for that which we have definitive proof. By this logic, we cannot assume that Life thrives throughout the Universe, because we have no proof that Life exists anywhere except on Earth.

As far as Science — REAL Science — is concerned, Earth is the ONLY planet capable of sustaining Life. If you claim that Life MUST exist elsewhere in the Universe, then you must provide evidence.

The late Carl Sagan is often cited for his dire remark: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Which implies that Life DOES NOT exist beyond the Earth because, to date, nobody has provided the extraordinary proof to back up the extraordinary claims.

I know, I know, every day you hear scientists speculating on extraterrestrial life — but speculation is NOT Science. Speculation is just FANTASY unsupported by physical evidence.

I mean, if we just automatically ASSUME that the universe is teeming with Life and intelligent Life in varying stages of evolution and sophistication, then we must ALSO assume that God or gods do, indeed, exist. Because an intelligent species with technology that is, say, a billion years older than Humanity could rightly be identified as a God-race.

So Science must be very, very particular in where it places its Faith.




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



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by NickSab67
 



If scientific theories are right... everything adapts.


The thing is, life adapts its surroundings to it. Earth's plentiful oxygen is courtesy of its plant life. There is reason to believe that some of Mars' atmospheric cycles are the result of life; the same with some of the Moons in the outer Solar System. Venus is the product of a runaway Greenhouse Effect. There is little sign of biogenic effects.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeskoWhirligan
I know this because skeptics and cynics and, yes, scientists tell me that Science only allows for that which we have definitive proof. By this logic, we cannot assume that Life thrives throughout the Universe, because we have no proof that Life exists anywhere except on Earth.

As far as Science — REAL Science — is concerned, Earth is the ONLY planet capable of sustaining Life. If you claim that Life MUST exist elsewhere in the Universe, then you must provide evidence.

The late Carl Sagan is often cited for his dire remark: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Which implies that Life DOES NOT exist beyond the Earth because, to date, nobody has provided the extraordinary proof to back up the extraordinary claims.

I know, I know, every day you hear scientists speculating on extraterrestrial life — but speculation is NOT Science. Speculation is just FANTASY unsupported by physical evidence.


As a skeptic, I'm going to have to respectfully (but only partially) disagree with you here. "I don't know one way or another" is a scientifically and skeptically valid statement in the absence of evidence or proof. In fact, a skeptic cannot make an assertion, including the assertion that there cannot be life anywhere outside of our planet, without proof. As no such proof for that claim exists at this time, it would not be consistent with skepticism. Scientists likewise are allowed to say, "We don't know yet." They are also allowed to formulate theories that could logically explain or describe scenarios, mechanisms, forces, etc. which could result in hypothetical outcomes. So in that sense, you could say that scientists are allowed to speculate.

They just can't make assertions of fact without proof. A skeptic cannot say "extraterrestrial intelligence does not exist" currently. They can however say, "I have yet to see any evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence so far."

However, I do agree with you that saying "there must be life elsewhere" is not a skeptically or scientifically valid statement, since right now we don't know with absolutely certainty. We can only say, "Evidence suggests a mathematical probability that life exists elsewhere." And we also have to acknowledge any margin for error even in that.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


that is the official story that the planet is boiling hot.

In reality, there was a parachute that survived the descent and came back out unharmed, the info was published in a new york news paper but quickly taken down.

In truth what the government does not want the public to know is that VENUS is an extra terrestrial reptillian planet.

It is said by abductees and people who have gathered all the information that there are 7 domed structures on the surface, 1 for each rank of the Draco alien leadership.

They go by a color code. Green being lowest. Brown and Red being medium and Albino pale white being considered the ROYAL LINE of their leadership. Above that they have the Annunaki. They control all ET races that are hostile. Greys are basically mindless worker drones. haha



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by AceWombat04
In fact, a skeptic cannot make an assertion, including the assertion that there cannot be life anywhere outside of our planet, without proof.


Well, of course, I never said Life cannot exist elsewhere. I said that, based on the available evidence, the Scientific position is that the Earth is the only planet capable of sustaining Life. And that's beyond dispute.


Originally posted by AceWombat04
Scientists likewise are allowed to say, "We don't know yet." They are also allowed to formulate theories that could logically explain or describe scenarios, mechanisms, forces, etc. which could result in hypothetical outcomes. So in that sense, you could say that scientists are allowed to speculate.


Yet isn't it odd that they never speculate favorably on the the likelihood that a God or gods exist? Science is forever avoiding the issue on the grounds that it can't be proven or disproven without evidence.

Yet, as I mentioned before, if we're going to speculate that Life is a constant in the Universe, and if we're going to speculate that Evolution is a constant, and if we're going to speculate that there may be thousands of intelligent civilizations in varying stages of sophistication in our galaxy alone, then we MUST speculate that some civilizations may be so extraordinarily advanced beyond us as to be perceived as Gods.

But we never hear scientists speculating on God races, even though that is a speculative probability. In fact, renowned physicist Stephen Hawking has gone so far as categorically state that God does not exist — his bias and his disdain for God theory is obvious, but it also limits his ability to speculate.






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



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeskoWhirligan
I said that, based on the available evidence, the Scientific position is that the Earth is the only planet capable of sustaining Life. And that's beyond dispute.


I disagree. The scientific position and skeptical position - if they're being honestly and genuinely scientific and skeptical, that is - should be that Earth may be the only planet capable of sustaining life. Science and skepticism are allowed to use the words "may be" and "we don't know." It's not a zero sum proposition, and since our evidence is not exhaustive or conclusive yet, to make the assertion one way or the other is certainly disputable in my opinion.


Originally posted by AceWombat04
Yet isn't it odd that they never speculate favorably on the the likelihood that a God or gods exist? Science is forever avoiding the issue on the grounds that it can't be proven or disproven without evidence.


If they're being intellectually honest, the most they can say is, "I see no scientifically valid evidence of a God or gods, but I cannot rule out the conceivable possibility that such an entity could exist." You might be surprised to learn that there are a lot of religious and spiritual scientists, as well. (No, the two are not mutually exclusive.) They just delineate between a belief and a fact. They can believe anything they want and still be rigorous scientists. They just can't make scientific conclusions or assertions without proof about those beliefs. They can say, "I choose to believe a deity exists, but I cannot prove it, so I cannot assert for a fact that a deity exists." As long as they acknowledge that they could be wrong, and that there’s no proof on which to base their belief, it’s valid. Some might argue that that isn't really belief, but I would argue that that's all any belief is. A choice to place faith in something for which there is no proof. If there's proof, it then becomes a self-evident fact that everyone has to accept because it’s been proved.


Yet, as I mentioned before, if we're going to speculate that Life is a constant in the Universe, and if we're going to speculate that Evolution is a constant, and if we're going to speculate that there may be thousands of intelligent civilizations in varying stages of sophistication in our galaxy alone, then we MUST speculate that some civilizations may be so extraordinarily advanced beyond us as to be perceived as Gods.

But we never hear scientists speculating on God races, even though that is a speculative probability. In fact, renowned physicist Stephen Hawking has gone so far as categorically state that God does not exist — his bias and his disdain for God theory is obvious, but it also limits his ability to speculate.


Yes, I disagree with Hawking, technically. Although I suspect he was using a bit of hyperbole when he likened it to a fairy tale, it would have been more scientifically and skeptically sound for him to have said, "I don't know with certainty, but I see no evidence or proof of a deity, and one is not required for the existence or functioning of the universe as we observe it today, necessarily."

I choose to be extremely rigorous in my skepticism of things, to the extent possible as a layperson at least. Which means I can't make an assertion like "God does not exist” unless I can prove it, and neither should anyone who calls themselves a skeptic or scientist in my opinion. (Unless they qualify it by saying that’s merely a belief on their part... which is one reason I do regard atheism as a belief system, not merely the lack of belief. It’s the active belief that there are no deities.)

I've seen plenty of scientists (Kaku, among others) speculate about ways in which deities or entities like deities - or forms of consciousness we can’t even conceive of that might quality as deities - could exist that would be consistent with scientific evidence and theories, though. Many of them have some interesting things to say about consciousness and its nature (or rather, our theories about its nature) for example. I've also seen reputable scientists over the years suggest many times actually that aliens of sufficient advancement as to be god-like or literally, for all intents and purposes at least, gods, could exist.

So I don't think it's accurate or fair to paint all skeptics and scientists with that broad a brush, anymore than it's accurate for some scientists to pain the existence of deities or extraterrestrials with so broad a brush.
edit on 1/23/2012 by AceWombat04 because: Typo



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:25 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:29 AM
link   
Well, I didn't intend to paint ALL skeptics as tunnel-visioned cynics.

But I've been on the Internet since 1995, and the vast majority of those I've encountered who identify themselves as skeptics are, indeed, cynical and closed-minded, to the extent of living in a black & white world, it seems.

It's my personal position that the world is not black & white nor even gradations of gray, but is brilliantly colored with such a diversity of "fact" and "fantasy" and "science" and "magic" that we cannot exclude a few hues of the spectrum because they don't fit into our preferences without completely losing sight of the big picture.

I mean, to focus solely on Science and exclude Religion is an incomplete understanding of the Universe. To focus on Religion to the exclusion of Science is also an incomplete understanding of the Universe.

In a "perfect world," I think, Science and Mysticism would be just different classes on the same subject — excluding one or the other from our education is tantamount to closing our minds on the Universe.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheReligiousHoax
This thread delivers


In following L's train of thought, if the atmosphere of Venus is hot enough to melt lead, how could this lander enter from orbit, face even hotter temperatures on the way in, burst through layers of sulphuric acid, land and then take pictures?


According to your "logic", an "oven" should not exist - let alone an industrial oven which would be able to melt steel.

The melting point of lead is very low compared to other metals.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by GabrielSevenSeals
reply to post by Cassius666
 


that is the official story that the planet is boiling hot.

In reality, there was a parachute that survived the descent and came back out unharmed, the info was published in a new york news paper but quickly taken down.

In truth what the government does not want the public to know is that VENUS is an extra terrestrial reptillian planet.

It is said by abductees and people who have gathered all the information ...


How is that information being gathered? Does it involve a crack pipe?



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 03:29 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by ZeskoWhirligan
 


I actually completely agree with you. I just think it's an important semantic distinction. I would say that anyone making assertions without proof in either direction should not call themselves a skeptic. They're a pseudo-skeptic. If you take a gander at my sig (if you're so inclined) you'll find a topic I wrote about how skepticism and belief are both important to a holistic view of the universe in my opinion. They're two different tools in the tool box of our minds' attempts to understand the universe around it. One deals with verification and rigor, protecting us from deception (including self-deception.) The other deals with possibilities and ephemeral, harder to define, more abstract concepts that we may not be able to prove or even explain, but which for better or worse are nevertheless part of our consciousness as a species.

Even the most skeptical among us can dream or imagine (sometimes even if we don't want to.) Even the most spiritual among us can question and look for proof.

I should pause this line of thought for now though, as I don't wish to detail this topic.

Peace.


edit on 1/23/2012 by AceWombat04 because: Typo



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by ZeskoWhirligan
So Science must be very, very particular in where it places its Faith.


"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

Albert Einstein


Well, when Albert Einstein said that, he wasn't saying anything you can imagine is possible or fantasy is more valuable than fact.

He wasn't saying that.

He was saying that HE himself used "thought experiments" in constructing his various theories on the nature of our existence. He would imagine people falling off of buildings, or hurtling down elevator shafts, or riding a bicycle at Light Speed... Albert Einstein was a daydreamer. He got that from his exceedingly boring job in the patent office.

So, Einstein was saying Your imagination is a tool for understanding the universe. Knowledge is just a collection of data, and that data may be flawed, regardless of popular consensus. Your ability to visualize spatial physics in your mind and describe those physics mathematically can OVERTURN long-held consensus. Therefore, Imagination is more important than knowledge.

I'd like to see that statement rendered mathematically. Heh heh heh But not here.
edit on 23-1-2012 by ZeskoWhirligan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 04:03 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 04:13 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Wow. She's adorable. But Stolichnaya is head and shoulders better woodka than Zyr... Stoli just has a spiciness that Zyr lacks.

Or, rather, its chemical composition hammers my spice receptors.

But this most probably has to do with the fact that Zyr is distilled FIVE times, and Stoli is distilled FOUR times.

They distill the flavor out of Zyr, you see, comrade.




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



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 04:17 AM
link   
reply to post by ZeskoWhirligan

Wouldn't know about that, I drink Navy Rum
But my grandfather was a tenor on the Don Cossack Choir and he could drink that stuff like water



new topics

top topics



 
102
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join