Have You had Contact with an Alien?

Doing some research and just came across this. Its about a pre-SETI communication via radio transmission and a corresponding 'matching' crop circle response apparently not done by human hoaxers.

We Made Contact by by Dustin D. Brand

We made contact - with aliens that is - this time they responded.

It all started in 1974, before SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) was even formed (1984), but at the beginning of the Arecibo project. At this time, upgrading the Arecibo station in the US Territory of Puerto Rico was done with the help of Frank Drake and Carl Sagan.

The Arecibo radio telescope dish to the left is the largest in the world. The first pulsar in a binary system was discovered in 1974 using Arecibo, leading to important confirmation of Einstein's theory of general relativity and a Nobel Prize for astronomers Russell Hulse and Joseph Taylor in 1993........

See whole article with photos here:
www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

a reply to: AlienView

Doing some research and just came across this. Its about a pre-SETI communication via radio transmission and a corresponding 'matching' crop circle response apparently not done by human hoaxers.

See whole article with photos here:
www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

Not this again.... If you're actually looking for answers, why do you choose UFO biased websites for your research? Do you just read an article and say "Okay.. must be true" without the need for further research? Do you apply any of your own common sense and logic to these stories?

So, Frank Drake beams this radio freq. signal out and it is received by an intelligent alien species. As evident by this "crop message", they obviously posses the capability to receive, interpret, and understand the signal. So, even knowing that's how we communicate, "they" decide to send back a signal in a completely different format? In the graphic form of a crop circle... not in digital signal form? How illogical is that? A message that suspiciously shows up next to a radio telescope. A message that's laid out just as it is in a book. A message they want us to see, but, still sneak around at night to create it. I guess it's a group of jokester aliens?

If they understand the binary code sent, they understand our language. An equal signal would have been sent back the same way.

This is what Frank Drake said when questioned about the Chilbolton message:
youtu.be...

Drake- I think there's no chance whatsoever this is a legitimate message. It's some kind of joke or fun thing or maybe a challenge that somebody made to one another... to somebody to do. And there... two reasons for this, good reasons- One is the version of the message they have here, which I'm about to hold up, contains in it information that is clearly wrong. Such as the structure the DNA molecule and some of the other part to this message make no sense whatsoever. Or are chemically impossible. The other is that, as we saw on the original picture, this message appeared about one hundred meters away from a radio telescope. Now, if you would come to Earth to deliver a message, you would have gone to the door the radio telescope and knocked on the door and given them one of your books or something. You wouldn't have gone out the cornfield and spend a great deal of effort cutting down stalks of corn.
Interviewer ....How do you know... How do you know how the aliens think?
Drake- Well, what I do know is that they're intelligent. Because they somehow got to earth, if this is really from an alien. And they will know better than to try to communicate with humans in this ridiculous way.

Data, data, and more data, how can those debunkers ever sleep?

Again from the same article "We Made Contact":

................In alien DNA, Silicon Oxygen 4 SiO4, the Tetrahedron, is the bond between each Deoxyribose Sugar. This is compared to our Human DNA in which each Dexyribose is bond to a Phosphate creating the nucleotide.

The important visual representation of the layout of the DNA molecular structures are that the molecular DNA structures actually form the building blocks for DNA. The Binary Molecular DNA confirms this with each Deoxyribose having 3 less Hydrogen Atoms in it's formula, effectively indicating the bond to each SiO4 in Alien, and each Phosphate in Humans both above and below as well as the 3rd hydrogen to the DNA Base making the nucleo Sides in the center.

This effectively shows the complete molecular structure by showing their missing Hydrogen Atoms which actually indicate the Hydrogen Bonds between each molecule and the molecular structure of DNA. This is also evident in the DNA Bases in the center which all have a molecular structure of 1 less Hydrogen Atom showing their Hydrogen Bonds which form the Base Pairs. In the Human DNA, I have shown this in the image by indicating the point of the Hydrogen Bonds.

You might want to take this time to scroll back up and view the Alien Template side by side the Human Template to view the DNA Helix differences. In the Alien DNA, remember, I discovered the Silicon Oxygen 4 Tetrahedron in the place of the Phosphate in Human DNA, which would allow for the sharp angles the DNA strand takes when twisted on one side, while the other side remains curving like our DNA does.

Ask Richard C. Hoagland or any geneticist how important having this SiO4 Tetrahedron is in the Alien DNA. Because the Alien DNA is shown with left and right points with a curve remaining on one part of the twist, the tetrahedron is a molecular structure that can do this.

I can prove that the above Alien Templates binary grid placements in 23/73 are 100% correct - each of the 1679 blocks is located in it's proper grid point. I can prove this by none other than the original aerial and ground photographs taken by Steve Alexander, Lucy Pringle, Charles Mallett, and others by cross verifying each binary grid placement with it's immediate grid neighbors.

Have I been to Chilbolton on the ground next to the wheat?

No, but others have and they have taken physical photos (facts) which I used in my research, and perhaps not being there has been better for my research. I defy anyone to prove my data false, and I know I have already proven many many others data false. For my Human Template reproductions, you may ask Frank Drake yourself if I'm correct (I AM). Frank Drake is an original sender and constructor of the Arecibo message and can personally validate my data.

It has been an enormous pleasure to decode this Alien Message, and I feel a great sense of accomplishment. I only hope that my contribution to science brings us in fact closer to science and the understanding of this vast Universe we live in, with neighbors closer than they may seem possible. It is purely arrogant and in fact ignorant to believe we are alone here. We are not, and we made contact.

There has been way too much false data on the Alien Template binary data, and even false Original Arecibo Binary Data floating around. I left my speculation, quite well supported I might add, to what the entire message is saying, with factual binary data in hand. I defy anyone to prove my grid placements incorrect, or any other part of my scientific interpretation of the Alien Template wrong.

As a Software Engineer, my background is science, math, and computers. It has been my passion for the last 2.5 weeks to understand this contact, which I sincerely think I've proven is indeed contact from extraterrestrials. I only want and desire the truth, and that is all I want for you the reader as well.

See rest of article with pictures here:
www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

Tell me...do you ever evaluate data based on the data itself, or do you always evaluate the data based on its source?

originally posted by: tanka418
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

Tell me...do you ever evaluate data based on the data itself, or do you always evaluate the data based on its source?

Data is easy to manipulate, one must check the source to see they are not being fed GMOs if you catch my drift.

originally posted by: tanka418
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

Tell me...do you ever evaluate data based on the data itself, or do you always evaluate the data based on its source?

It sounds to me that in the post to which you replied, he was evaluating the data based on critical thinking.

Sure -- he first said this:

"why do you choose UFO biased websites for your research? Do you just read an article and say "Okay.. must be true" without the need for further research?

but then he also added this:

Do you apply any of your own common sense and logic to these stories?

...And then went on to evaluate the claim you referenced with logic and critical thinking.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: tanka418
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

Tell me...do you ever evaluate data based on the data itself, or do you always evaluate the data based on its source?

It sounds to me that in the post to which you replied, he was evaluating the data based on critical thinking.

Sure -- he first said this:

"why do you choose UFO biased websites for your research? Do you just read an article and say "Okay.. must be true" without the need for further research?

but then he also added this:

Do you apply any of your own common sense and logic to these stories?

...And then went on to evaluate the claim you referenced with logic and critical thinking.

Sorry man; none of that addresses the data

Only if HUMAN CREATOR Creations are considered ALIEN too

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: tanka418
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

Tell me...do you ever evaluate data based on the data itself, or do you always evaluate the data based on its source?

It sounds to me that in the post to which you replied, he was evaluating the data based on critical thinking.


Sure -- he first said this:

"why do you choose UFO biased websites for your research? Do you just read an article and say "Okay.. must be true" without the need for further research?

but then he also added this:

Do you apply any of your own common sense and logic to these stories?

...And then went on to evaluate the claim you referenced with logic and critical thinking.

Sorry man; none of that addresses the data

But he wasn't evaluating it just based on the source, as you claimed.

Instead of automatically believing the information as presented at face value, he approached the information from a neutral viewpoint and applied his own critical thinking and logic to evaluate the actual information.

You could argue whether his critical thinking and logic were proper or not, but you can't argue that he dismissed the information based solely on the source.

originally posted by: tanka418
Now... 1. "summon", and "predict" ufo sightings...ya know slim...I've done that. recorded it publically.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

"Something UFO-related will be reported somewhere on the planet within a 2 week period"

Well guess what, slim... we all have the same predictive powers.

originally posted by: tanka418
2. Yes the "starchild" skull may not be quite terrestrial...

... if any evidence to that effect should ever surface in the future.

originally posted by: tanka418
3. In as much as I spent fro the age of 4.5 to around 47 being abducted on a semi-regular basis; yes absolutely some abductions are real.

Says you.

originally posted by: tanka418
4. Actually; I know this for a fact, and, with enough resources I could prove it.

There aren't enough resources in the world to prove you are an Extraterrestrial.

originally posted by: tanka418
5. I personally know just such an extraterrestrial.

You're not an alien.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: tanka418
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

Tell me...do you ever evaluate data based on the data itself, or do you always evaluate the data based on its source?

It sounds to me that in the post to which you replied, he was evaluating the data based on critical thinking.


Sure -- he first said this:

"why do you choose UFO biased websites for your research? Do you just read an article and say "Okay.. must be true" without the need for further research?

but then he also added this:

Do you apply any of your own common sense and logic to these stories?

...And then went on to evaluate the claim you referenced with logic and critical thinking.

Sorry man; none of that addresses the data

But he wasn't evaluating it just based on the source, as you claimed.

Instead of automatically believing the information as presented at face value, he approached the information from a neutral viewpoint and applied his own critical thinking and logic to evaluate the actual information.

You could argue whether his critical thinking and logic were proper or not, but you can't argue that he blew it off based solely on the source.

First he is in the category of professional debunker and will 'always' find some reason to dispute an alien/UFO post.
Second what he said as usual shows bias, and in this case is false.
He said: "Not this again.... If you're actually looking for answers, why do you choose UFO biased websites for your research?" - not a true statement - the information came from a post by the author [scientist/researcher] who lists his home website as amo [all media onlind] [amo.net...] whidh from what I can see has nothing to do with aliens/UFOs.
Third, as a professional debunker he of course will automatically dismiss crop-circle communication as ridiculous and will cite the evidence of some obviously man made ones as the reason - hardly proves anything.
Fourth, some skepticism must be expected in a field where admittedly little has been proven on either side of the issue; but I call him a professional debunker because I could use an AI computer program to write his posts for him
- simply program the machine to find any and all reasons to dispute a hypothetical argument even if there is much anecdotal and observational evidence that indicates the data for the hypothesis is significant and the hypothesis may be in fact true.

originally posted by: draknoir2

"Something UFO-related will be reported somewhere on the planet within a 2 week period"

Well guess what, slim... we all have the same predictive powers.

Think so? Care to demonstrate?

... if any evidence to that effect should ever surface in the future.

Ya know, there already is plenty of evidence, you know what I'm talking about; the evidence you don't like. You pretend that its either "worthless" for some reason, "invalid" for some reason only you understand, or have decided to ignore because it indicated your greatest fear...ET.

"3. In as much as I spent fro the age of 4.5 to around 47 being abducted on a semi-regular basis; yes absolutely some abductions are real."

Says you.

Yep sys me! And unless and until you have anything so-ever that indicates otherwise; you would do well to simply accept. After all, that "acceptance" is what you demand from the world, so it is quite reasonable to expect it from you.

There aren't enough resources in the world to prove you are an Extraterrestrial.

Actually thee are, and the requirement is far less than One might expect. Though, regardless of the outcome of any investigation into that area, we can all be well assured that YOU will not accept any outcome you don't like.

You're not an alien.

Good Lord, man; I didn't say I was! And I wouldn't be referring to myself in that instance anyway...I got nothing to say to the bleedin' U.N. Which is also to say: If I want to address a bunch of Terrestrials, I'll go find a group of intelligent ones!

Be aware of context.

Hi all

I haven't had an experience myself, however I really would love to have one. Add that to the fact that my mind is already "broken" (I have the paperwork to prove it and everything) and I live in the arse end of nowhere, surely ET will want to make contact with me...or maybe they (the ET's) are just sticking to hillbillys and the delusional.

Shame really, as I think they'd love to see the world through the eyes of this mentally ill mofo.

Rev

originally posted by: MarsIsRed
No one to date has ever had contact, apart from the mentally insane.

If that's true, then why haven't "they" contacted me? Am I not mental enough for people not to take me seriously and cast my "experiences" in to doubt?

I should have known that my diagnosis wouldn't be the right one! LOL

Rev

a reply to: tanka418

How many believers on this forum post quotes only from UFO websites or sources? How many research beyond those sites for the actual facts of these incidents? How many apply their own personal logic and common sense to these incidents? How many allow themselves to be led by self-appointed "expert" opinions? You're guilty as anyone of posting links to these UFO websites to help substantiate your arguments. They aren't valid sources because of the bias.

Anyone sincerely searching for facts, won't do so through the eyes of a biased source. I've used this example many times before, but, it makes a point- How many people have relied upon a UFO television show, book, or website for their facts about the JAL 1628 case? Now, how many have searched through the entire 377 page PDF found online? If you search hard enough as I did, it's there. A PDF containing tower to plane transcripts, FAA interviews with the pilot and crew, along with much more information. That's my choice of a source. Not a TV show, book, or website. Wouldn't you agree that this is the method that should be used when evaluating a case?

Since you brought up crop circles, put your data aside for a moment and approach this purely from a simple- common sense and logical standpoint. If these aliens have in fact been trying for decades to give us these messages in wheat/corn or whatever. This establishes several things:
- That aliens are here on Earth, within our atmosphere or dimension.
- They want their presence known.
- They are visual beings.
- They create using a physical process.
- They want to convey a message to humans.
So, the simple common sense question is.. If they want to be known, why after decades do they continue to make it a point not be seen creating these circles?

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

How many believers on this forum post quotes only from UFO websites or sources? How many research beyond those sites for the actual facts of these incidents? How many apply their own personal logic and common sense to these incidents? How many allow themselves to be led by self-appointed "expert" opinions? You're guilty as anyone of posting links to these UFO websites to help substantiate your arguments. They aren't valid sources because of the bias.

When did my post grad word at Stanford I found they had libraries all over the lace, like any decent University, many, specialized libraries, and f curse a central ne where One could find just about anything.

I was an Engineering student, so I frequented the Engineering library. Was I wrong to do so? I mean they had only engineering texts; the library was biased! By your standard, I shouldn't trust anything I found there; yet I received my degree, with honors...I guess being that "kind" of biased my not be s bad after all. Places like that tend to concentrate "classes" of data; making the search process easier.

Your logic and common sense has failed you utterly on that one; sorry...

a reply to: tanka418

I was an Engineering student, so I frequented the Engineering library. Was I wrong to do so? I mean they had only engineering texts; the library was biased!

Did engineering exist? Or were these books trying to prove its existence? Were engineers seen only by a few and hoaxed by others. Were most of the engineers balloons?

Aren't skeptical UFO websites still UFO websites that contain information on the same UFO cases? Why are these never referenced?

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
Did engineering exist? Or were these books trying to prove its existence? Were engineers seen only by a few and hoaxed by others. Were most of the engineers balloons?

Aren't skeptical UFO websites still UFO websites that contain information on the same UFO cases? Why are these never referenced?

1. Did engineering exist? Whether or not true engineering exists even at this later date is questionable. I have an idea of what an engineer is and should do, but it seems that my ideas are a bit mythical. So, did or does engineering exist? There seems to be little actual real proof...only a growing collection of designs of doubtful application.

2. were the books trying to prove existence of engineering? Yes absolutely they were trying to prove the existence of engineering. Some of us came away from that experience calling ourselves "engineers", others mainly wasted their time there.

3.were engineers seen by few and hoaxed by others? Again, yes! Real engineers are in fact rare and difficult to find, and, you may easily find any number of others calling themselves; "engineer".

4. Were most engineers balloons? Not sure what to call those who call themselves "engineer". It seems true that they aren't engineers, but what exactly I'm not sure. Although, they do seem to share some of the properties of balloons; over-inflated, stretched out of shape, and nearly to the limit of "popping"...Yeah...I think some modern "engineers" may actually be balloons.

Your next point isn't quite so easy to dismiss; Just "why" are the skeptical UFO sites left unused? Course I can see one reason right off the top; not as many, not as well known...bad, or non-existent marketing. And, that actually brings us to the real reason that pro-ufo sites may not be as good a place for data as one might like, though still better than others.

These pro-ufo sites are actually in it for the money; an attempt to generate income. And unfortunately that leads to the stretching and pulling of reality in an attempt t get better "ratings".

The commercialization of data; never a good thing. On the other side we have the "rabid" skeptic who puts out information designed to "disprove" the "ETH".

Neither can be trusted, both must be evaluated.

So the real issue remains...who to trust. The answer remains the same...trust only One's self, and One's own experience. That is the only "known" thing in our Universe.

Ghosts = yes. Demons = yes. Saints = yes. God Himself = yes. UFOs = yes 3 times. But the actual alien critters inside the UFOS? No. No experience with them.

a reply to: tanka418

Yep sys me! And unless and until you have anything so-ever that indicates otherwise;

so now you are going back to being in regular contact, being abducted is being in contact with these beings is it not, you were aware of the abductions before or is this a recent revelation you have uncovered about yourself?

When I asked you previously why you couldn't have fine tuned your translating abilities after so many years of contact you said there was that one time on your grandparents farm and then the contact stopped and started with a different group around 20 years ago.