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.

 

TOP 5 Types of "Good Evidence" -or- What "Undeniable Evidence" of ETs on Earth Would Look Like

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 01:49 PM
link   

I'm working on a small piece of the puzzle...

Please tell. What exact area are you working on and what are your qualifications for doing so?

I'm not totally sure that 'summoning up' space ships (sometimes, and without any proof) qualifies as an evidential dataset...




posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 02:12 PM
link   

TerraLiga

I'm working on a small piece of the puzzle...

Please tell. What exact area are you working on and what are your qualifications for doing so?


Establishing mathematical probabilities for ET and his home worlds, as part of a larger project. My qualifications: 40 years as a software engineer and data analyst (MSCS).



I'm not totally sure that 'summoning up' space ships (sometimes, and without any proof) qualifies as an evidential dataset...


Only in context.

edit on 17-12-2013 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 02:32 PM
link   

tanka418

TerraLiga

I'm working on a small piece of the puzzle...

Please tell. What exact area are you working on and what are your qualifications for doing so?


Establishing mathematical probabilities for ET and his home worlds, as part of a larger project. My qualifications: 40 years as a software engineer and data analyst (MSCS).


What are your astrobiological qualifications?

You're essentially doing the same work Drake, Sagan, Seager, et al. have already done but without (as far as you've said) no background in any astrobiological discipline.

So unless you have some other data source, other than things like, the rate of star formation and life cycles, habitable zones, planetary characterization, Kepler Data, etc then you're not doing anything groundbreaking or new.

And if you do have some sort of information or data that has been missed or overlooked by Drake, Sagan, Seager etc would you kindly share what it is and why it has validity?
edit on 17-12-2013 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 03:30 PM
link   

JadeStar
What are your astrobiological qualifications?


And just where, pray tell, do you think your software comes from?




So unless you have some other data source, other than things like, the rate of star formation and life cycles, habitable zones, planetary characterization, Kepler Data, etc then you're not doing anything groundbreaking or new.


Yeah much of that, I have a reasonable collection of database tables available n my SQL server. What I don't have is a table that relates star age. I fear I may have to construct such a thing. I have virtually all of NASA's tables.

I never said what I was doing was "groundbreaking" or even new. However, the methods and technique that I may apply are probably going to be vastly different than your "astro" boys, since I'm not an Astronomer. Instead I will apply "rules", methods, etc. originating in Data Sciences, something Sagan and the others could / can not do.

Differently trained eyes may "see" something that you may miss.


edit on 17-12-2013 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 07:10 PM
link   

tanka418

JadeStar
What are your astrobiological qualifications?


And just where, pray tell, do you think your software comes from?


Irrelevant.

You haven't listed your ASTROBIOLOGICAL qualifications.

Just because someone works on code for software does not make them well versed in astrobiology. Its part of the common fallacy undisciplined minds have that because someone is smart/talented in one area they are smart/talented in all areas they choose to dive into whether the are qualified or not.

Wrong. Astrobiology is a multi-diciplinary field with very important studies that have NOTHING to do with your software programming.

Would you let someone who is structural engineer operate on a loved one's heart?

edit on 17-12-2013 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 07:40 PM
link   

JadeStar

tanka418

JadeStar
What are your astrobiological qualifications?


And just where, pray tell, do you think your software comes from?


Irrelevant.

You haven't listed your ASTROBIOLOGICAL qualifications.

Just because someone works on code for software does not make them well versed in astrobiology. Its part of the common fallacy undisciplined minds have that because someone is smart/talented in one area they are smart/talented in all areas they choose to dive into whether the are qualified or not.

Wrong. Astrobiology is a multi-diciplinary field with very important studies that have NOTHING to do with your software programming.

Would you let someone who is structural engineer operate on a loved one's heart?

edit on 17-12-2013 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)


It would appear that you have absolutely no idea how software "becomes". Your "just working on code" is not what I or indeed any software engineer does. We have to understand the task at hand, frequently better than those we are designing the system for. We have to be able to "see" issues, "uses", and "cases" that you may entirely overlook. But; be that as it may, what we learn in extension is usually very "spotty", since what we do know is specific to an application.

Your "structural engineer" analogy is entirely inappropriate.

The point I was trying to make is that other disciplines may develop other insights, that you may not.

Finally; your comment about "undisciplined minds" is uncalled for, inappropriate, inaccurate, and insulting. Software, data engineering; computer science actually takes a kind of mental discipline that those without can not even begin to imagine.



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by JadeStar
 

I think your numbers 1, 2, and 3 are flawed.

For #1 I would agree when talking about the average person. There are so many things people misinterpret in the sky as something else. However there are very good eye witnesses that know earth aircraft capabilities and looks enough to rule them out. From there it can be easier to rule out meteors planets orvswamp gas.

For #2 there are ways to analyze videos and pics for tampering. If scrutinized enough a video or picture could be outstanding proof.

For #3 the further back in time you go the less spare time anyone had. All time would be occupied with day to day survival when yiu go back far enough. It is only because of our free time that we have so many things to spend it on playing games, using cell phones, using our imagination so much.

I would agree for the most part with everythingelse you said. For me though a personal eexperience/sighting has convinced me aliens or something with capabilities far beyond ours has been here.



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by inquisitive1977
 



For #2 there are ways to analyze videos and pics for tampering. If scrutinized enough a video or picture could be outstanding proof.


Actually, JadeStar is correct here. Through the use of appropriate software One can create an absolutely "seamless" image or video of anything they can create through 3D. Poser is such an application, and is not only easy to use, produces photo quality images and videos, it is rather inexpensive. All it takes is some practice and a fast computer.



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by tanka418
 


Well that is interesting, and I really dont know enough about it to dispute what you said. If true I did not realize that and I might be able to agree on that point.

I just cant stand the normal "pic or it didnt happen" ignorant rant.



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 12:03 AM
link   

tanka418


Perhaps if you didn't pleasure yourself in this manner; you might learn something.


I learn plenty.



Probability suggests this is wholly made up; curse we don't need probability to figure that out.

Lets look at this way, my data is as good as your data since neither can be examined.



Is that not what investigators do? Go around and collect all the evidence and data into a single location, so that it may be examined?

OK. lets examine. No? it doesn't exist. I see. As a software coder, im sure you have written loads of vapor ware. Basically that's what you are selling here.


I'm working on a small piece of the puzzle;

You seem more preoccupied with blowing vaporware up everyone's butt.


what are you doing?

taking a break from doing stuff.


That is other than attempting to discredit the evidence

I cant discredit something that cant be examined.


data

vapor


and researchers that you don't like.

I like you just fine.



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


when you have something intelligent and constructive to say please return.

until then you are just noise.



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by tanka418
 


I believe his/her objection isn't coming from the direction of doubting you're qualified to develop what are essentially very sophisticated documents for Microsoft Access (obviously with much more complexity than such a simple database management tool can accomplish). His problem comes with your "understanding the problem to be solved".

Astrobiology is a notedly interdisciplinary field. I believe he/she is questioning your qualifications with regard to understanding what makes one planet more 'probable' to support life rather than another.

As for myself I would have interest in studying your results, being something of an armchair mathematician myself. Is your work available for examination?

Edit adds: Also, I believe his/her "undisciplined minds" comment was directed to an unknown and generalized third party (or parties), and not at yourself.
edit on 18-12-2013 by FreshKale because: Marked



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 12:28 PM
link   

FreshKale
reply to post by tanka418
 


I believe his/her objection isn't coming from the direction of doubting you're qualified to develop what are essentially very sophisticated documents for Microsoft Access (obviously with much more complexity than such a simple database management tool can accomplish). His problem comes with your "understanding the problem to be solved".


How about we just drop that "part"; y'all consistently underestimate the complexity, and requirements of the task.



Astrobiology is a notedly interdisciplinary field. I believe he/she is questioning your qualifications with regard to understanding what makes one planet more 'probable' to support life rather than another.


Actually I don't have to; Astrobiology has already defined a starting point for the parameters; all I'm doing is providing more sophisticated search and reporting methods. While don't have a formal education in astrobiology, that by no means; means that I am not educated in the field(s).

Also; what I was tying to illustrate is that some of these "things" that was said to "possibly indicate" ET are things anybody with the requisite skills and data can do.

I've already used these skills and tools to predict a planet and a civilization around Zeta 2 Reticuli. And I've also seen evidence for real world homes for Sirius and Orion ETs. Though, I'll confess; I had to revise my ideas on how far away ET can be...


edit on 18-12-2013 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Analysis Report on Metal Samples from the 1947 UFO Crash on the Plains of San Augustine,New Mexico: Author of analysis report: Steve Colbern: Conclusion: Isotope ratios not of this earth. Metal Sample Analysis Report Steve Colbern...Steve Colbern



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by tanka418
 


"Y'all considerably underestimate the complexity of the task", eh? Fair enough.

Here's a complex task for you - respond to the second-to-last graph of my previous post, since you responded so thoroughly to the rest of it.

Edit adds: My participation in this thread is not meant to be taken in an adversarial way. I just have the corresponding lack of polish that comes with my particular profession.
edit on 18-12-2013 by FreshKale because: Added final (marked) graph.



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 09:25 PM
link   

tanka418
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


when you have something intelligent and constructive to say please return.

until then you are just noise.
So far you have not presented any data. you claim to have data or will have data. What you have is a lot of words about the data that we cant examine. That is noise. I'm just pointing it out. It requires no intelligence on my part since there is nothing there to analyze except for your words which have no value since there is no data to back you up. Access? really?



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 01:24 AM
link   

FreshKale
reply to post by tanka418
 


I believe his/her objection isn't coming from the direction of doubting you're qualified to develop what are essentially very sophisticated documents for Microsoft Access (obviously with much more complexity than such a simple database management tool can accomplish). His problem comes with your "understanding the problem to be solved".

Astrobiology is a notedly interdisciplinary field. I believe he/she is questioning your qualifications with regard to understanding what makes one planet more 'probable' to support life rather than another.

As for myself I would have interest in studying your results, being something of an armchair mathematician myself. Is your work available for examination?

Edit adds: Also, I believe his/her "undisciplined minds" comment was directed to an unknown and generalized third party (or parties), and not at yourself.
edit on 18-12-2013 by FreshKale because: Marked


Correct on all counts. And I'm a girl who is an astronomy and astrobiology major. The problem I brought up with tanka is that there is so much that even experts in astrobiology don't know about the origins of things like life and intelligence (but are working very hard to figure them out), simply running a database of stars through a modified Drake equation is not going to do much because other than the first three things (Rate of star formation, fraction of stars with planets, fraction of those planets which are Earthlike) everything else is a guess still.

We simply need better data from instruments that are on the drawing board or designed but not yet built or operational before we can fill in other bits of that or similar equations.

That's what I hope to in some small part be able to do after I graduate.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 01:28 AM
link   

meteorlima
Analysis Report on Metal Samples from the 1947 UFO Crash on the Plains of San Augustine,New Mexico: Author of analysis report: Steve Colbern: Conclusion: Isotope ratios not of this earth. Metal Sample Analysis Report Steve Colbern...Steve Colbern


I read that some time ago. The problem with his report is that he did not go one step further and cross reference it with known meteoric isotopic ratios.

There's a database that is suitable for this purpose called MetBase:
MetBase - Meteorite Information

I would be highly interested in whether it is a close match to anything in MetBase before I'd declare that analysis proof that a spacecraft manufactured by extraterrestrials crashed in the New Mexico desert.

The conclusion of the analysis basically states a separate isotopic ratio study should be done.
edit on 19-12-2013 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 09:49 AM
link   

JadeStar
The problem I brought up with tanka is that there is so much that even experts in astrobiology don't know about the origins of things like life and intelligence (but are working very hard to figure them out), simply running a database of stars through a modified Drake equation is not going to do much because other than the first three things (Rate of star formation, fraction of stars with planets, fraction of those planets which are Earthlike) everything else is a guess still.


I'm not using a "modified Drake equation" though I have developed one. Though I leave out some of the "early" terms. Rate of formation, and fraction with planets are, given the context, irrelevant. We work only with existing stars; and presume all stars have planets. (another prediction of mine: planets are ubiquitous); this really tends to simplify the whole.




We simply need better data from instruments that are on the drawing board or designed but not yet built or operational before we can fill in other bits of that or similar equations.

That's what I hope to in some small part be able to do after I graduate.


Typical of other sciences! The cry for more. I will reiterate: collect your data together in a single location, and in the case of Astronomy; reorganize your data. Mine it! I promise you will have your mind blown as to how much you truly have, and the questions and issues answered.

I wish you all the great luck in the Universe in your career. I hope you do at least as well as I did (I was part of the development of the PC and modern auto manufacture).


edit on 19-12-2013 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-12-2013 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 09:54 AM
link   

We simply need better data from instruments that are on the drawing board or designed but not yet built or operational before we can fill in other bits of that or similar equations.

That data is becoming a reality with launches like this today:
www.bbc.co.uk...

I too have been studying this subject for many years but my result has an error factor of -100/+~1,000,000%. My calculations (which almost all of the data was assumed and logically applied) estimates that over 50% of likely advanced species are close (+/-20LY) to the central core of our galaxy, with the remainder spread along the arms of the spiral. Assuming that is correct, then we can safely say that we are a LONG way from the nearest civilisation, in the order of 50LY.

However, having another civilisation in our galaxy does not mean that they have been here. On the contrary I would say. There are two massive hurdles to overcome – how do they find us and, once they do, how do they get here?




top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join