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.

 

We Haven't Been Visited? Examining Arguments Against ET Visitation.

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Tearman

Ross 54
It seems likely that some extraterrestrial intelligences are more technically advanced than we are, by millions or even billions of years. It also seems probable that we would hold only a limited interest for such civilizations.
Agree completely. We will have basically nothing to offer such an ancient civilization.


We should realize, though, that there is an implied range of development in civilizations in the galaxy. If some are billions of years old, some millions, there should also be some of intermediate age, between those and ourselves. Those only thousands or hundreds of years our senior might find us of considerable interest.
But we would be MUCH less likely to run into them than the older ones. Let's examine some reasons why:

1) Older civilizations are more likely than younger ones to be engaged in activities that we would notice against the natural background of space. If for no other reason than their greater capacity to engage in such activities.

2) Older ones are on average going to encompass a much greater volume of space, and be expanding at a greater rate. So they are more likely than the younger civs to come to visit the earth..

3) Older civilizations will be less likely than younger ones to be wiped out by a series of calamities due to the fact that they are more likely to be spread out farther apart. Therefore older civs will be disproportionately represented in the whole population of civilizations.

4) We are more likely to run into older civilizations purely on account of their age. I think this has to do with the size of their temporal cross-section, and may also be related to how you are more likely to run into numbers starting with a leading 1, than numbers starting with any other number, in any random set of data. I'm not sure how the math works on this point.

5) Older civilizations, being on average more technologically sophisticated and having more resources at their disposal, will be more likely to survive hostile encounters with younger civilizations than the other way around. Another reason older civilizations will have a disproportionately greater presence within the whole population of civilizations.

There must be other reasons I can't think of right now.
edit on 26-1-2014 by Tearman because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-1-2014 by Tearman because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-1-2014 by Tearman because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-1-2014 by Tearman because: (no reason given)

All of these five points are valid in a general way, of course. Yet if we want to consider the species that might be more likely to seek us out or purposely bring themselves to out attention, I strongly suspect that those nearest our level of development are the likelier candidates.
To use that trusty anthill analogy--Imagine an anthill under a sidewalk (pavement) with an entrance through a tiny crack. Thousands of persons walk over it, unheeding, every day. The ants take very little or no notice of the human passersby, either. What species is likely to explore that crack and encounter the ants? Something like themselves; other ants or other small social insects.

So it would be with ourselves, I imagine. We would, it seems, be much more likely to interest a relatively young space-faring extraterrestrial species; one with which we still have a good deal in common, rather than unimaginably advanced super-beings.




posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 05:34 PM
link   

tanka418
There are mathematical / statistical methods that can "Infer" the "unknown" with extreme high accuracy. Method we all use in our day-to-day living, methods that the entire Human population relies upon for survival and daily activities.

Yeah, but mathematical probability doesn't apply when it comes to something like existence. Either something exists, or it doesn't. If it exists, it shares the same properties of other things we agree exist. And while we can run the numbers, and say that there is a 99.99999 percent chance of "aliens" existing, until we find absolute and agreed-upon confirmation that they exist, the .000001 percent carries equal weight, because there is still a chance, however slim, that they don't exist. In the real, non-mathematical world, things generally don't "half exist."

So we wait to either discover proof or have it presented to us.

edit on 27-1-2014 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Hmmm, actually somewhat shocked no one brought this up:

Perhaps, the ETs choose not to visit publicly because the last time that happened our society wrote a few books that has set human growth back ever since?

Yes, I am indeed saying maybe the ancient religious texts are based on what should have eventually become our equals (Jesus was a child of God, is that not how we're classified as well?), but instead we closed our minds and thought of their power as god-like and unreachable; while I believe those powers mentioned were "god-like," the unreachable part is what comes into question. I've always strongly been against organized religions as it only takes a few weeks of visiting different churches to realize they offer the same stories with a few basic differences in their beliefs, regardless of denomination.

This could explain some of us having powers of the occult (if you choose to believe in such things) while others have blocked out (or perhaps not unlocked) theirs.

If this theory were to be true though, I'm not sure we can ever reverse the damage that has already been done by this (radical Islamists, "Bible belt" Christians, etc.), so hopefully it's not the case? Or hope this mass awakening that some theorized the end of the Mayan calendar would bring, comes pretty soon.
edit on 27-1-2014 by McGooferson because: grammar



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by tanka418
 


I talk to extra-terrestrial, I have seen over 1500 UFO's, I am mind controlled by extra-terrestrial's (www.jamesmacleod.org)

The extra-terrestrials are known by most as God's, as they created many religions. Joseph Smith spoke to extra-terrestrials in the 1840's. I have only evidence of visitations through out our history from one breed, they are higher in intelligence!



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by RUInsane
 

Evidence is the key word here but are you sure you know what the evidence should look like to fit your expectations for E.T.H. visitation?

We can assume man made all electronics/technology, ufos, alien abductions, ufos, and implants but that sounds ridiculous.
Types of potential evidence that are popping up in my mind:
-technology-After Roswell, we had a surge of new technologies pop up out of nowhere. You can't just have a new technology pop up without some groundwork or failed tests but plenty of them appeared without a developmental history. How odd is that?
www.alien-ufos.com...
-implants-How can a credible doctor Roger Leir remove implants from patients and discover metal that contains isotypes that are not of this world????
www.alienscalpel.com...
-abductee marks-Some abductees are left with implants, scoop marks, spontaneous fetus removals, spontaneous healings, visions that come true, etc. UFO ships have been known to leave deep marks in the ground that could only be created by an extremely heavy object that weighs tons...explain that?
-ufo/alien imagery on art/folklore throughout history- Civilizations all over the world have encountered ufos and aliens with similar descriptions. Have you seen the greys on the pyramids?
In fact-who really created the pyramids and how??
-out of place artifacts-scientists have discovered an old spark plug that could be over 500,000 years old. Could this be a sign of aliens handing us technology in the past? or alien time travel?
www.alienscalpel.com...
-ufo footage all over internet-how many ufo objects do people have to record with their camera to prove something is up?
-President Barak Obama hires alien advisor-why do this if they don't exist?
-Alien object diverted energy from the sun-did you read that one??
www.dailytelegraph.com.au...
-"Non-Terrestrial Officers"-Gary Mckinnon hacked into Pentagon files and found the list for non-terrestrial officers-he could not find the meaning for that term anywhere. www.theguardian.com...



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 09:29 PM
link   

foxykittybiteTypes of potential evidence that are popping up in my mind:
-technology-After Roswell, we had a surge of new technologies pop up out of nowhere. You can't just have a new technology pop up without some groundwork or failed tests but plenty of them appeared without a developmental history. How odd is that?


That's not quite accurate. There was a "surge" of technology post 1946 / 1947, but it had nothing to do with ET or UFO's. You speak of "developmental groundwork" yet you wouldn't be "privy" to any of those records.

In 1947 the single most important invention till the microprocessor was announced; it was the bipolar transistor. This single device changed technology greatly and paved the way to what we all take for granted...modern electronics. BUT; this device had a long and storied development history, though it may be difficult to find those records today.



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by tanka418
 


In 1947 Roswell happened but UFO events did take place before that. Maybe the Egyptians were given technology by the aliens too? They lit up the hallways of the pyramids but their wasn't any soot. That means the Egyptians didn't use fire to lite their hallways. If you look at the big picture their is a definite interference of alien intervention between man and aliens since the beginning of man.

edit on 28-1-2014 by foxykittybite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 11:02 PM
link   

foxykittybite
reply to post by tanka418
 


In 1947 Roswell happened but UFO events did take place before that. Maybe the Egyptians were given technology by the aliens too? They lit up the hallways of the pyramids but their wasn't any soot. That means the Egyptians didn't use fire to lite their hallways. If you look at the big picture their is a definite interference of alien intervention between man and aliens since the beginning of man.

edit on 28-1-2014 by foxykittybite because: (no reason given)


No, your right; they used incandescent light. But, the technology wasn't advanced, not even for the time. They used very primitive batteries. and probably carbon impregnated silk for filaments, no need for Extraterrestrial tech.



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by tanka418
 


Let me go a step further, part of our DNA is alien. Would if our DNA was manipulated by aliens since their is proof we were hairless apes long time ago.



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 12:21 AM
link   

foxykittybite
reply to post by tanka418
 


Let me go a step further, part of our DNA is alien. Would if our DNA was manipulated by aliens since their is proof we were hairless apes long time ago.



Actually there isn't any serious evidence to support the "alien DNA" components of Terrestrial DNA. And, current Terrestrial Human DNA goes back some 200, 000 years or more. So...it is unlikely that there was any actual "manipulation" of Terrestrial DNA.

However; there was a colonization attempt some 8,000 years ago or so. and when the colonies failed, some of the Colonists were assimilated by the native Human population. So while this probably shouldn't be characterized and a "manipulation" of Terrestrial DNA, it most certainly should be considered a contamination of the Terrestrial gene pool. This contamination is observable in the Y-STR areas of Terrestrial DNA.



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by tanka418
 

This is absolute proof most of our genetics our non-terrestrial in origin and that it was created by an extra-terrestrial programmer. DNA says it all-aliens do exist.

rense.com...
Professor Chang is only one of many scientists and other researchers who have discovered extraterrestrial origins to Human
A group of researchers working at the Human Genome Project indicate that they made an astonishing scientific discovery: They believe so-called 97% non-coding sequences in human DNA is no less than genetic code of extraterrestrial life forms.
www.agoracosmopolitan.com...



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by tanka418
 



tanka418
There are mathematical / statistical methods that can "Infer" the "unknown" with extreme high accuracy. Method we all use in our day-to-day living, methods that the entire Human population relies upon for survival and daily activities.


Yes and ALL of the day-to-day statistical methods are based entirely on KNOWN outcomes to predict the "unknown" outcomes. There are ZERO known aliens so it is impossible to "infer" them with any accuracy. Probability ALWAYS involves known outcomes otherwise, you have to make up the known outcomes which is called "speculation".



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 09:43 AM
link   

foxykittybite
reply to post by tanka418
 

This is absolute proof most of our genetics our non-terrestrial in origin and that it was created by an extra-terrestrial programmer. DNA says it all-aliens do exist.

rense.com...
Professor Chang is only one of many scientists and other researchers who have discovered extraterrestrial origins to Human
A group of researchers working at the Human Genome Project indicate that they made an astonishing scientific discovery: They believe so-called 97% non-coding sequences in human DNA is no less than genetic code of extraterrestrial life forms.
www.agoracosmopolitan.com...


Have you noticed how the actual "results" (data) that show this are not the least bit forthcoming? Have you ever tried to do a search for this "professor Chang"?

Also, this is very seriously considered BS by most of the scientific (micro-biological) community. And then of course there is the ole: "How did they identify that which can they don't know?"(its kind of hard to identify something One has no exemplar for).



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 10:29 AM
link   

ZetaRediculian
Yes and ALL of the day-to-day statistical methods are based entirely on KNOWN outcomes to predict the "unknown" outcomes. There are ZERO known aliens so it is impossible to "infer" them with any accuracy. Probability ALWAYS involves known outcomes otherwise, you have to make up the known outcomes which is called "speculation".


Absolutely not true!

ne of the techniques I use is Bayesian Inferance...



Bayesian Inference
Bayesian inference is a collection of statistical methods which are based on Bayes’ formula. Statistical inference is the procedure of drawing conclusions about a population or process based on a sample. Characteristics of a population are known as parameters. The distinctive aspect of Bayesian inference is that both parameters and sample data are treated as random quantities, while other approaches regard the parameters non-random. An advantage of the Bayesian approach is that all inferences can be based on probability calculations, whereas non-Bayesian inference often involves subtleties and complexities.
-- www.stat.rice.edu...

Although this is way above the highschool arithmetic you seem to rely upon.

IF we were to actually use your logic then all research would necessarily stop as we would be wholly incapable of learning anything at all. Actual learning, progress, evolution involves embracing the unknown; something your logic doesn't allow.

So, please toddle off...you have nothing of value to contribute.



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by tanka418
 



Statistical inference is the procedure of drawing conclusions about a population or process based on a sample


Please describe what a "sample" is. Is a sample not comprised of "known outcomes"?

The way you are using this is wrong. What you are describing is incorrect. In order to predict an "unknown" with any degree of accuracy, you have to have a sample of "knowns".



Although this is way above the highschool arithmetic you seem to rely upon.

IF we were to actually use your logic then all research would necessarily stop as we would be wholly incapable of learning anything at all. Actual learning, progress, evolution involves embracing the unknown; something your logic doesn't allow.

I am neither swayed nor intimidated by your remarks because it is quite obvious to me that you can not apply YOUR interpretation of Bayes theorem to even a simple example without the use of "knowns" to build upon. Please give one example of where you can use Bayesian inference to predict an "unknown" without a sample of "knowns". Even the definition you posted says exactly that.
edit on 29-1-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 05:56 AM
link   
reply to post by tanka418
 


I found this interesting post about human DNA on ATS:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Our DNA is programmed like a computer code. Something had to intervene and manipulate it.



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 05:44 PM
link   

foxykittybite
reply to post by tanka418
 


Our DNA is programmed like a computer code. Something had to intervene and manipulate it.


Most people who say this know little to nothing about computers.

While there are some similarities between DNA and real computer code, DNA 1s a base 4 number system and computers base 2. Some would think this might be an advantage, but in current day (and foreseeable future) terms, there is no real advantage, yet.

DNA also seems to lack many of the data headers, and descriptors common in software, and much of the structure of software. Though it does seem to provide instructions of some sort for the operation of the biological system.

And when One contemplates the idea that there are millions of base pair of genes in Human DNA, the computer guy thinks; "Is that all?" I develop software for a living, and a few hundred megabytes simply won't do.

I think any parallels between DNA and anything "computer" is premature at best.



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 09:38 PM
link   

foxykittybite
reply to post by tanka418
 


Let me go a step further, part of our DNA is alien. Would if our DNA was manipulated by aliens since their is proof we were hairless apes long time ago.



BINGO!

You got it...

Glad to see you understand who we are and how we came to be.
The bad news is I find it rather difficult to exchange information
with people that have not seen beings not of this world.

There must be others on this forum that have been visited by
aliens and heard them communicate telepathically.

I mean no disrespect to the people on this forum for asking questions,
but I only wish to exchange information with contactees.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by waltwillis
 


Hi WaltWillis- Thank you for your supportive response. Everything I mentioned in this thread is backed by research. The sole debunker who is responding to my posts here refuses to show reference to any scientific links online to support his lack of research. He keeps speaking gibberish but he thinks he is making sense..sad.

edit on 1-2-2014 by foxykittybite because: edit



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Ezekiel s description of 'off world' visitors is very interesting, (hes in the Christian bible) descriptions of space suites, rockets taking off " ascended to heaven on a pillar of fire" reminds me of a space shuttle take of.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join