Dont let the New age ever gets its paws on Ufology again.

tanka418

AliceBleachWhite

That would imply that there's knowledge of an ET presence, which, there isn't.

Unfortunately; science, mathematics, common sense, and logic cannot support your hypothesis.

In fact; science is increasingly realizing that both extra solar planets, and life are ubiquitous. Given the high probability of earth like planets, and other factors, it almost seems more intelligent to "presume" the existence of and visitation by extraterrestrials. Though, probably not in the numbers of individuals and species reported.

I did a little work recently; developed a "drake like" equation to "predict" the number of extraterrestrial species that "should" be visiting; the result was 10.5. I believe that value to be very low (perhaps < 50%). And of those 10.5 I can demonstrate the existence of two.

So while the numbers aren't quite what some would like to believe; its not like there is no knowledge or evidence.

Post your work please.

Also is that 10.5 over the course of the entire history of the planet or presently?

tanka418

I did a little work recently; developed a "drake like" equation to "predict" the number of extraterrestrial species that "should" be visiting; the result was 10.5. I believe that value to be very low (perhaps < 50%). And of those 10.5 I can demonstrate the existence of two.

So while the numbers aren't quite what some would like to believe; its not like there is no knowledge or evidence.

DEMONSTRATE AWAY.

I don't discount the possibility of life, even up to and including numbers in the Billions of civilizations all over the great wide ambiguous vastness of the Universe, but, visiting Earth?
No.
There is no KNOWLEDGE of any such, and thus far, no one has demonstrated anything such beyond speculation, ignorance of a phenomenon, and/or charlatanism.

It's wonderful and nice fun and all to pull out a magical 10.5 number and probably popular at parties to make claims that such TWO out of that number can even be DEMONSTRATED.
What happens when, as JadeStar has asked, someone asks to see your work?
Where did this magical 10.5 number come from?
Show Your Work.
You also claimed an ability to demonstrate.
Please, by all means DO.

Oh evidence, how evasive you are.

There is one case that purports to have physical evidence, and on the following link you can even see the DNA result patterns and such. The only problem is I don't know the first thing about DNA samples and can not verify the points that are claimed to be made by said evidence.

It still made for fun reading for me however. But in all cases of fantastical, unfathomable claims, you probably would have to be there with your own eyes to believe.

For your viewing pleasure:
The case of Peter Khoury, and the Alien hair DNA sample

For those who like credentials of respectable people, Pulitzer Prize winning and Harvard Medical Professor: Prof. John Mack was involved in investigating this case.

reply to post by spleenika


That's a long way to go for an alibi.

DNA proves it's a blond human hair from an Asian chick.


And Mack's "hypnotic regression" techniques are controversial at best.

draknoir2
DNA proves it's a blond human hair from an Asian chick.

And you think nothing of this?

It doesn't seem a bit strange that an Asian has blond hair?

Course then again, the whole story could be much less about selling books and more about the truth. For instance, they could have actually given us real DNA test results. I'd like to see the autosomal work, and the MtDNA results as well. There are other DNA markers I'd like to see as well. And it would be these results that will determine IF its just an "Asian chick with blond hair."

That's as opposed to a knee jerk originating from ignorance.

draknoir2
reply to post by spleenika

 

That's a long way to go for an alibi.

DNA proves it's a blond human hair from an Asian chick.

Right. Cause we all know Asian's are blond naturally? No, if what they report is true, there is something very odd about the hair.

And I have to agree with you strongly about Mr. Harvards hypnotism. I've never trusted any information that has origins entirely from a hypnosis session.

Also, I am not the OP, so I am not the one in need of an alibi. I'm just presenting something for examination. And frankly even someone claiming to be a DNA expert that would corroborate this hair sample was exotic, would still be viewed with extreme skepticism. People would want to see his/her diploma, or resume. Do they have a financial link to the story? Plausible hard evidence that could convict someone to death for murder would not stand up to an individuals preconceived notions of fact, no matter what evidence is provided.

My point is that with some subjects there is no winning. The strong skeptics would like to believe that if solid evidence existed of something like alien contact, the world would go nuts and history books would be re-written. Headlines all over the globe would trot this evidence about. There would be UNDENIABLE proof. Problem is that all proof is deniable. Peer reviewed science that is agreed upon gets retracted when some other peer reviewed evidence comes out disputing the initial accepted findings.

NASA could find some bacteria on Mars, and the world would believe that. It would be exciting, and believable. Nasa could land on the moon though, take a hundred pictures and bring back moon rocks, and people will still disbelieve it ever happened.

There is a barrier on the believability of fantastical truths, and if you are waiting for solid evidence of such a controversial thing, you will have to wait until you touch it with your own hands, and see it with your own eyes. You will never believe another persons hands and eyes unless they report what you already accept to be true.

tanka418

draknoir2
DNA proves it's a blond human hair from an Asian chick.

And you think nothing of this?

It doesn't seem a bit strange that an Asian has blond hair?

Course then again, the whole story could be much less about selling books and more about the truth. For instance, they could have actually given us real DNA test results. I'd like to see the autosomal work, and the MtDNA results as well. There are other DNA markers I'd like to see as well. And it would be these results that will determine IF its just an "Asian chick with blond hair."

That's as opposed to a knee jerk originating from ignorance.

The only thing I find strange is the magnitude of the speculative house of cards this guy has built upon a DNA result of "Human".

JadeStar
Post your work please.

Also is that 10.5 over the course of the entire history of the planet or presently?

my equation:

Nv = S * fp * nc * fl * fi * ft

where:

Nv = Number of visiting civilizations.

S = Number of stars.
fp = % of stars with planets
nc = average number of life supporting locations per star system
fl = % of locations that actually develop life at some point
fi= % of life forms that evolve intelligence
ft =% that develop advanced technology capable of interstellar travel.

Some values

We will assign the values to these variables thus:

S = 30. On the "G Class Stars" page you will find our 30 stars. Most located within 30 or so light years, a few as far out as 50ly. This collection of stars is a very small subset of stars available, but, represent perhaps a better than average probability the conditions we need will occur, as they are "G" class stars, save for a very few, further, many of these stars are 4 billion years or older, increasing the probabilities further.

fp = 0.70 Traditional values here range from about 0.25 to .50. However recently science has discovered that planets are quite common about other stars, and multiples at that.
nc = 5 A rather traditional value even if perhaps "high", but we should consider that not just planets can harbor life, as has been fund Here (this solar system) life can begin on moons as well.
fl = 1 Again traditional
fi = 1 Traditional value
fc = 0.10 10% the low end of the traditional values listed at Wikipedia (Drake Equation)

Nv = 30 * 0.70 * 5 * 1 * 1 * 0.10 = 10.5


You will immediately notice that this is necessarily inaccurate. The sample size of stars in no way accurately represents the quantity of possible host stars. This was intended to be an early indicator. I don't like the idea of 57 different species, so I attempted to derive a more accurate value. I should prolly be "shot" for my attempt, after y'all want there to be none, zero, ETs out there, but it just can't work that way...and y'all already know "why".

So...is that enough for now? I promise I will do a paper on the Zeta Reticuli probabilities soon. Though be fore warned; I won't be using highschool probability.

spleenika


Right. Cause we all know Asian's are blond naturally? No, if what they report is true, there is something very odd about the hair.

Some are.



But the blog really didn't say that the hair was determined to be naturally blond.

There was the strange anomaly of it being blonde to clear instead of black, as would be expected from the Asian type mitochondrial DNA. The study concluded, "The most probable donor of the hair must therefore be as (Khoury) claims: a tall blonde female who does not need much colour in her hair or skin, as a form of protection against the sun, perhaps because she does not require it."

And if you don't think Asian girls like to dye their hair you most likely have never attended a comic convention.


This whole blog reads like a crappy attempt to tie several UFO mythologies together with a single blond strand of bad science.

draknoir2

spleenika


Right. Cause we all know Asian's are blond naturally? No, if what they report is true, there is something very odd about the hair.

Some are.

Yep some sure are. Though not bleached blond as you have demonstrated. Some, like you image are albino, in that, like that little Girl have both "albino" genes. And that is a part of the problem with the Khoury case...incomplete DNA reporting. Course that doesn't mean that the real / original results didn't contain that information, only that it wasn't given to us.

By the way...it is entirely probable that ET has virtually identical DNA to Terrestrial Humans. And it is entirely probable that there are "non-terrestrial Humans" as well.

tanka418

AliceBleachWhite

That would imply that there's knowledge of an ET presence, which, there isn't.

Unfortunately; science, mathematics, common sense, and logic cannot support your hypothesis.

In fact; science is increasingly realizing that both extra solar planets, and life are ubiquitous. Given the high probability of earth like planets, and other factors, it almost seems more intelligent to "presume" the existence of and visitation by extraterrestrials. Though, probably not in the numbers of individuals and species reported.

I did a little work recently; developed a "drake like" equation to "predict" the number of extraterrestrial species that "should" be visiting; the result was 10.5. I believe that value to be very low (perhaps < 50%). And of those 10.5 I can demonstrate the existence of two.

So while the numbers aren't quite what some would like to believe; its not like there is no knowledge or evidence.

This is what is so frustrating, there's a plethora of people with a certain amount of knowledge about science and physics and space, then they add it all up with a wonky calculator and a dose of magic beans and come out with their OWN conclusions, as if they were correct!

There's no way in hell you know if extraterrestrial visitors are here or not, neither do any governments. Governments are just formed by people, and people can't keep their mouth shut for very long, especially a juicy secret like this. Plus it would not be possible for one government to hide contact that could occur anywhere around the world..nor is it ever clearly explained WHY a government would do this. It just sounds like a conspiracy and paranoia to me (and therefore no surprise that people with these theories hang out on these forums).

So I agree with the premise that there should be aliens whizzing around space, There are some interesting accounts and stories, but I don't see any concrete evidence for that yet though..and until you can present some actual evidence I don't believe you have any special insight either.

Unfortunately your claims rather seem to point to attention seeking rather than anything concrete.

ManInAsia

So I agree with the premise that there should be aliens whizzing around space, There are some interesting accounts and stories, but I don't see any concrete evidence for that yet though..and until you can present some actual evidence I don't believe you have any special insight either.

Unfortunately your claims rather seem to point to attention seeking rather than anything concrete.

You haven't looked around have you...for evidence that is. It is actually all over the place. Do a serious search for physical trace, and other kinds of physical evidence and you will find plenty. Course, you may have already seen some of this, and don't understand it...therefore it becomes something "non" to you...that is your oversight.

So...please, don't come on here and say there is no evidence when the reality is so obviously different! That is quite simply being lazy to the point of excluding all reason and science. No one learns that way.

kauskau
reply to post by AthlonSavage

 

what a weak argument..

What is weak is you spamming your new age channelling crap in yet another thread that isn't about Bashar.

reply to post by JadeStar


The thread is about new age" clouding "ufology" and channeling

In my eyes THIS IS WRONG. Channeling is the first step of a civilisation before "open contact". And Bashar is proof for this. So its not off topic and my "perspective" falls under free speech in a discussion with different positions. Or is free speech in america now a concept of the past?

"Free speech only as long as it serves the consensus ? "

tanka418
So...is that enough for now? I promise I will do a paper on the Zeta Reticuli probabilities soon. Though be fore warned; I won't be using highschool probability.

Probabilities can't prove existence. Only evidence that satisfies a consensus. Either something exists, or it doesn't. Something doesn't 87 percent exist. You can't fly into space and land on half or 3/4 of the Moon.

And the thing about the Drake Equation is that if just one of the variables is zero, then the equation equals zero. And we don't really even know all the possible variables.

Probabilities ain't pudding.

reply to post by Blue Shift


in a holographic universe which only represents quantum states..Probability is all we are experiencing ...And there is not only existence or non existence.
Black and white thinking like that is only a limitation of our linear perception.

tanka418

JadeStar
Post your work please.

Also is that 10.5 over the course of the entire history of the planet or presently?

my equation:

Nv = S * fp * nc * fl * fi * ft

where:

Nv = Number of visiting civilizations.

S = Number of stars.
fp = % of stars with planets
nc = average number of life supporting locations per star system
fl = % of locations that actually develop life at some point
fi= % of life forms that evolve intelligence
ft =% that develop advanced technology capable of interstellar travel.

Some values

So what you've done is a dumbed down (no offense) version of the Drake Equation which skips essential factors included in the original Drake Equation. You can easily skip these because you make assumptions based on nothing more than wishful thinking at best.

Allow me to demonstrate....

You start with the number of stars but do not include the temporal value of the rate of star formation

S is a known quantity.

fp is a known estimated quantity.

fl, fi and ft are all guesses based on little else other than hopes.

Now there is nothing wrong with that in and of itself but like the original Drake Equation, this should never be understood to provide a definitive answer unless all factors are known.

You're dealing with huge unknowns which you just skate over.

We will assign the values to these variables thus:

S = 30. On the "G Class Stars" page you will find our 30 stars. Most located within 30 or so light years, a few as far out as 50ly. This collection of stars is a very small subset of stars available, but, represent perhaps a better than average probability the conditions we need will occur, as they are "G" class stars, save for a very few, further, many of these stars are 4 billion years or older, increasing the probabilities further.

Why only limit it to G stars? K stars live even longer and are just as good in terms of standard models of habitable zones?

M stars even have been shown to be able to support habitable tidally locked planets. Why not include them as well?

fp = 0.70 Traditional values here range from about 0.25 to .50. However recently science has discovered that planets are quite common about other stars, and multiples at that.

Define traditional value.


Why use fp and a bizarre and speculative "nc" when you could have just use something like "fh" - fraction of planets which are habitable?

These are now known to have concrete values thanks to Kepler.

48% of M stars have a habitable zone planet, terrestrial planet.

22.8% of F, G, K stars have a habitable zone, terrestrial planet.

nc = 5 A rather traditional value even if perhaps "high", but we should consider that not just planets can harbor life, as has been fund Here (this solar system) life can begin on moons as well.

Without knowing of one moon with life nor one moon orbiting an exoplanet you've filled in a factor. Granted moons are probably common in the universe and some may actually support life however we have no proof of either. So here is where you've gone into the realm of sci-fi with your value for NC.

I mean 5? Really? Are there 5 places in our solar system with life?

Earth, Mars (maybe), Europa (maybe), Titan (maybe a stretch), Enceladus (maybe and that's really stretching it!).

Of those maybes only 1 would produce anything other than microbial life. The others are icey moons.

fl = 1 Again traditional

Traditional what? Guess? Speculation.

To assume every place where life can occur it does occur is highly speculative and optimistic.

fi = 1 Traditional value

According to WHO?

No one knows why intelligence evolved. There are lots of ideas but even evolutionary biologists are still figuring this out. Yet you claim to know that life will automatically = intelligence despite the fact that for 99.8% of the Earths history intelligent life didn't exist and despite the fact that dinosaurs which ruled the Earth for MILLIONS of years never evolved anything beyond a bird's brain?

This is where you lose complete credibility.

Sure, it sounds 'sciency' but there is no science there. There's hope and wishful thinking, almost totally disconnected from research in the field.

fc = 0.10 10% the low end of the traditional values listed at Wikipedia (Drake Equation)

fc in the Drake Equation represents COMMUNICATING civilizations not interstellar COMMUTING civilizations.

(facepalm)

Just because a civilization can built a radio dish to send a message does NOT mean they can build a starship.

Your stuff is bordering on science parody. It's sad that you take it seriously.

Blue Shift

tanka418
So...is that enough for now? I promise I will do a paper on the Zeta Reticuli probabilities soon. Though be fore warned; I won't be using highschool probability.

Probabilities can't prove existence. Only evidence that satisfies a consensus. Either something exists, or it doesn't. Something doesn't 87 percent exist. You can't fly into space and land on half or 3/4 of the Moon.

And the thing about the Drake Equation is that if just one of the variables is zero, then the equation equals zero. And we don't really even know all the possible variables.

Probabilities ain't pudding.

Thank you.

So many people misunderstand the Drake Equation and derivatives such as the very poor quality one tanka made.

The Drake Equation was never intended to provide a concrete answer given the unknown fractions. It was designed to break a problem (the needle in the haystack idea of the search space SETI) down into its constituent parts to plan out science experiments to address the unknowns like R (Hubble Space Telescope, Hipparcos, GAIA), fp (Exoplanet studies), ne (Kepler), etc.

kauskau
And Bashar is proof for this. [sic] Or is free speech in america now a concept of the past?

"Free speech only as long as it serves the consensus ? "

Your speech is certainly more free then the "contact crystals" Bashar sells so other people can be contacted by aliens.

However it sounds like you are bordering on SPAM. And I approve of the freely stated disapproval of your posts, by yet the other poster. I also add in my discontent with your spamming posts, with my own free speech.