Other forms of Evidence: The Smartphone Challenge to Alien Contactees/Abductees/Experiencers

a reply to: Prime0X

Wow, I like you, someone willing to admit when they're out logiced... you are a rare internet breed indeed. Kudos to you. You lost the debate but won the internets, you're awesome.

originally posted by: game over man
What about Betty and Barney Hill?

Considering the real world probabilities involved...the map at any rate is very good evidence.
I've done the "math" and the research...

originally posted by: Puppylove
I love this logic, the aliens can supposedly come here from other stars, break the laws of physics as we know them, but yet the concept they can stop you from taking pictures with your phone while right next to them, or erase your pictures is too much.

Faster than light travel, no problem, but how do I work this damn smart phone?

Did you know that ET doesn't need FTL, nor need he "break' any laws of physics. There are plenty of compatible stars within travel distance...say 128 "stationary" (Earth) years. The only thing ET needs is to live long enough.

a reply to: tanka418

I was exaggerating to make a point. I'm a fan of the concept of space arks myself actually.

Either way, the point stands, if they supposedly have the tech and intellect to figure out how to get here, a smart phone should not be something outside the ken of their comprehension.

a reply to: JadeStar

From this rather valuless bit of opinion I can discern nothing except your foregone opinion that UFOs don't exist.

So silly that you ignore the evidence military and civilian images over the decades, many with detailed description from the photogs and other witnesses, radar returns and physical traces and they want pics of ETs to be a proof? Nothing is going to convince you and you know it. After all, we have movies (Avatar is one) almost wholly made from CGI and images Photoshopped up the old wazoo, so why would So why in the world bother to act like if you had an image or two or two dozen of an ET, you could jump on board the belief wagon?

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: game over man
What about Betty and Barney Hill?

Considering the real world probabilities involved...the map at any rate is very good evidence.
I've done the "math" and the research...

Well besides your research are you willing to part with your math equations,I'm not implying i'm a mathematician and my life goal is to debunk your research.I'm a software engineer from Canada and this subject gained my interest a few years ago.

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: JadeStar

From this rather valuless bit of opinion I can discern nothing except your foregone opinion that UFOs don't exist.

So silly that you ignore the evidence military and civilian images over the decades, many with detailed description from the photogs and other witnesses, radar returns and physical traces and they want pics of ETs to be a proof? Nothing is going to convince you and you know it. After all, we have movies (Avatar is one) almost wholly made from CGI and images Photoshopped up the old wazoo, so why would So why in the world bother to act like if you had an image or two or two dozen of an ET, you could jump on board the belief wagon?

His opinion is of no value,if that were true what determines your's as any value?
Witnesses are unreliable,radar verifies that an object was indeed in that vicinity(an object dosen't declare it an alien craft),physical traces(Of what exactly,if your going to include physical evidence can you link your source).As you've stated absolutely nothing will convince him till a body(a corpse,not a pic)will convince him.Just as without any evidence of anything you've said has already convinced you to otherwise and to quote you (you know it).
[

originally posted by: Prime0X

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: game over man
What about Betty and Barney Hill?

Considering the real world probabilities involved...the map at any rate is very good evidence.
I've done the "math" and the research...

Well besides your research are you willing to part with your math equations,I'm not implying i'm a mathematician and my life goal is to debunk your research.I'm a software engineer from Canada and this subject gained my interest a few years ago.

Actually, "doing the math" is more an expression, than anything literal. However, if we compute the simple probabilities of a selection of 14 objects out of 2988 we find the probability of random is "vanishingly small". For clarity; that is a group of 14 stars selected from a field of 2988. 14 stars from the Hill map, and 2988 stars from Hipparcos within 31 parsecs.

Here is the original Hill map:


this is a reconstruction using Hipparcos data...


There are a plethora of finer points, but, this should be all you really need to see that the whole thing is highly probable.
My disclaimer: this is not definitive proof.

a reply to: tanka418

I applaud your work and programming.

However you do know that you can load custom lists of stars into both Celestia and Space Engine right?

Simply edit the config files.

Space Engine also has a very nice 3D map system which is zoomable from a few kilometers out to millions of light years.

But anyway, moving on. You mentioned you use python. Have you checked to see if any of your targets fall upon the CCD of the Kepler K2 mission?

There is a NASA/STSCI package of tools to do that which use python. If you want a link to them, let me know.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Prime0X

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: game over man
What about Betty and Barney Hill?

Considering the real world probabilities involved...the map at any rate is very good evidence.
I've done the "math" and the research...

Well besides your research are you willing to part with your math equations,I'm not implying i'm a mathematician and my life goal is to debunk your research.I'm a software engineer from Canada and this subject gained my interest a few years ago.

Actually, "doing the math" is more an expression, than anything literal. However, if we compute the simple probabilities of a selection of 14 objects out of 2988 we find the probability of random is "vanishingly small". For clarity; that is a group of 14 stars selected from a field of 2988. 14 stars from the Hill map, and 2988 stars from Hipparcos within 31 parsecs.

Here is the original Hill map:

this is a reconstruction using Hipparcos data...

There are a plethora of finer points, but, this should be all you really need to see that the whole thing is highly probable.
My disclaimer: this is not definitive proof.

How do you exclude the selection bias of Marjorie Fish? Remember she focused on nearby solar class (G) stars. I will agree with you on one point. The map is unique in that you can not get quite the same match [unless you use a group of stars the nearest of which are 400 light years away.

As you know, Ms. Fish made around 17 models before arriving at the one we are familiar with. I have gone through over 2,000 via very fast computers at the university and the best and nearest match is still the one she originally came up with by hand and a Gliese catalog 50 years ago.

Regarding 39 Tauri.... It's only around a billion years old. Kinda on the young side?

You're a celestial cradle robber!

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: JadeStar

From this rather valuless bit of opinion I can discern nothing except your foregone opinion that UFOs don't exist.

I can only discern from this statement that you don't understand what the acronym UFO actually means.

Hint: The U means UNIDENTIFIED, not necessarily extraterrestrial.

Of course UFOs exist. Until they become IFOs.

So silly that you ignore the evidence military and civilian images over the decades, many with detailed description from the photogs and other witnesses, radar returns and physical traces and they want pics of ETs to be a proof?

None of which represents conclusive evidence to support the might large claim of extraterrestrial visitation.

Nothing is going to convince you and you know it.

Plenty would convince me.

Anything which is testable and can be examined to the point where ever earthly explanation of it were ruled out would convince me.

Would you like a list of such things?

After all, we have movies (Avatar is one) almost wholly made from CGI and images Photoshopped up the old wazoo, so why would So why in the world bother to act like if you had an image or two or two dozen of an ET, you could jump on board the belief wagon?

Well if you looked at what I wrote, the ET selfie would be the lowest on my evidence list. But if you had a good picture taken off world which could be examined, EXIF data and all, that would go a long way.

Could such things be simulated? Yes but there are tell-tale signs that such fakers would not know but which would pop out by good photo analysis by astronomers.


It's easier to create a 6 foot tall blue alien than a photo-realistic night sky from an extraterrestrial perspective.*


*For now.... in 3-5 years it will probably be possible if done with great care.

originally posted by: Prime0X

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: JadeStar

From this rather valuless bit of opinion I can discern nothing except your foregone opinion that UFOs don't exist.

So silly that you ignore the evidence military and civilian images over the decades, many with detailed description from the photogs and other witnesses, radar returns and physical traces and they want pics of ETs to be a proof? Nothing is going to convince you and you know it. After all, we have movies (Avatar is one) almost wholly made from CGI and images Photoshopped up the old wazoo, so why would So why in the world bother to act like if you had an image or two or two dozen of an ET, you could jump on board the belief wagon?

His opinion is of no value,if that were true what determines your's as any value?

Her not his but otherwise I agree with your response.

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Prime0X

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: game over man
What about Betty and Barney Hill?

Considering the real world probabilities involved...the map at any rate is very good evidence.
I've done the "math" and the research...

Well besides your research are you willing to part with your math equations,I'm not implying i'm a mathematician and my life goal is to debunk your research.I'm a software engineer from Canada and this subject gained my interest a few years ago.

Actually, "doing the math" is more an expression, than anything literal. However, if we compute the simple probabilities of a selection of 14 objects out of 2988 we find the probability of random is "vanishingly small". For clarity; that is a group of 14 stars selected from a field of 2988. 14 stars from the Hill map, and 2988 stars from Hipparcos within 31 parsecs.

Here is the original Hill map:

this is a reconstruction using Hipparcos data...

There are a plethora of finer points, but, this should be all you really need to see that the whole thing is highly probable.
My disclaimer: this is not definitive proof.

How do you exclude the selection bias of Marjorie Fish? Remember she focused on nearby solar class (G) stars. I will agree with you on one point. The map is unique in that you can not get quite the same match [unless you use a group of stars the nearest of which are 400 light years away.

As you know, Ms. Fish made around 17 models before arriving at the one we are familiar with. I have gone through over 2,000 via very fast computers at the university and the best and nearest match is still the one she originally came up with by hand and a Gliese catalog 50 years ago.

Remember when I said my application allowed for a custom search of Hipparcos?

Although, I didn't use that feature on this...as it turns out there are far to many to iterate through all of the possibilities...there are on the order of 10E52 combinations of 14 out of 2988, and that is the easy set...

It is a bit easier to either construct a set of SQL queries and view each one...this is done by developing a position spread of some arcseconds and allowing the SQL engine to return a dataset. We can see where a star is "supposed" to be, with in some small area, so we can see what else is there.

Or, using the existing interpretation, and "verifying" it. If we do this, however, we must constantly remind ourselves that the fact that only "habitable stars" appear on the map by design...after all they were selected that way. After we have completed the SQL method we can draw better conclusion. I'm developing a method to find "stellar companions" in the Hipparcos data, this will also work for finding alternates for the stars in the map.

The only truly curious thing I've found so far is the relationship between Upsilon Andromeda and Hip7918. They are right next to each other. Obviously Ms. Fish didn't know abut Upsilon And. What I find interesting is that Upsilon And. has planets, and Hip7918 is in HabCat. Its almost like; "flip a coin to decide which has the most advanced life."

By the way; my software isn't intended to "draw' images of stars in space. It is intended for surveys of discrete regions of space, star sets. The output is a Python script to render a 3D image with Sol as reference, and a joinable SQL data table showing a few (hopefully) key data elements. This table is setup to use HIP IDs as a "key"

Regarding 39 Tauri.... It's only around a billion years old. Kinda on the young side?

According to XHIP 39 Tauri / HIP 19076 is 3.7 billion years...perhaps not so young...

originally posted by: JadeStar
It's easier to create a 6 foot tall blue alien than a photo-realistic night sky from an extraterrestrial perspective.*


*For now.... in 3-5 years it will probably be possible if done with great care.

Actually, the most significant thing to producing a photorealistic imag is the detail and resolution of textures being used, and a little bit of rendering "magic", Both are easy to deal with using modern software. The system I use "Poser" in its latest incarnation can handle textures of very high resolution. And, just a few short months ago I was informed of a new rendering engine for Poser...a photorealistic render engine. The images I saw were absolutely stunning!

Although, producing a truly good "fake" is a great deal of work, and attention to detail. I would doubt that most are up to it...

a reply to: JadeStar

You have presented a logical approach to find disclosure JadeStar.
To 1 what you ask would require a ET/ID or Advanced Terrestrial that would be interested and "permitted" in sharing their existence here, knowing they would be at risk.
If they were allowed visiting secretly outside the eye of the general population their craft parked out of site or cloaked and their bodies covered in some disguise plastic/rubber/unknown skin material or light bending nano reflective technology to hide their actual form, they would jeopardize their visit and those who may allow them visitation if they allowed a image of them by someone not cleared to have an image... So until the World plan is issued the objective for them may be to remain hidden. Somewhat?

This is if they are compliant with Dimensional &/or Planet Star system & Galaxy rules.

If they are attempting to be undetected, pirate or immediate in need of technological, educational, ethereal or biological material/resources for whatever reason and are really just stopping through, 1 does not think they would seek to be imaged especially if they are being followed-tracked and they may use blind technology to block/clear any pre-assessed planet imaging technology that would cause image malfunction or blur if not total burnout of the mechanism used to image them...

Again you present a logical approach to attempt to find TRUTH but there may be more dynamics at play. Good luck

NAMASTE*******

mods will probably remove this post, but I'm sure they'll at least agree. This is a real stupid thread.....

originally posted by: gunshooter
mods will probably remove this post, but I'm sure they'll at least agree. This is a real stupid thread.....

Why? Because you said so?

Or because you don't see the value in thinking of other types of evidence which could be offered by those who allege they travel to other planets with their space brothers to actually substantiate their claims?

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Prime0X

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: game over man
What about Betty and Barney Hill?

Considering the real world probabilities involved...the map at any rate is very good evidence.
I've done the "math" and the research...

Well besides your research are you willing to part with your math equations,I'm not implying i'm a mathematician and my life goal is to debunk your research.I'm a software engineer from Canada and this subject gained my interest a few years ago.

Actually, "doing the math" is more an expression, than anything literal. However, if we compute the simple probabilities of a selection of 14 objects out of 2988 we find the probability of random is "vanishingly small". For clarity; that is a group of 14 stars selected from a field of 2988. 14 stars from the Hill map, and 2988 stars from Hipparcos within 31 parsecs.

Here is the original Hill map:

this is a reconstruction using Hipparcos data...

There are a plethora of finer points, but, this should be all you really need to see that the whole thing is highly probable.
My disclaimer: this is not definitive proof.

How do you exclude the selection bias of Marjorie Fish? Remember she focused on nearby solar class (G) stars. I will agree with you on one point. The map is unique in that you can not get quite the same match [unless you use a group of stars the nearest of which are 400 light years away.

As you know, Ms. Fish made around 17 models before arriving at the one we are familiar with. I have gone through over 2,000 via very fast computers at the university and the best and nearest match is still the one she originally came up with by hand and a Gliese catalog 50 years ago.

Remember when I said my application allowed for a custom search of Hipparcos?

Although, I didn't use that feature on this...as it turns out there are far to many to iterate through all of the possibilities...there are on the order of 10E52 combinations of 14 out of 2988, and that is the easy set...

It is a bit easier to either construct a set of SQL queries and view each one...this is done by developing a position spread of some arcseconds and allowing the SQL engine to return a dataset. We can see where a star is "supposed" to be, with in some small area, so we can see what else is there.

Or, using the existing interpretation, and "verifying" it. If we do this, however, we must constantly remind ourselves that the fact that only "habitable stars" appear on the map by design...after all they were selected that way. After we have completed the SQL method we can draw better conclusion. I'm developing a method to find "stellar companions" in the Hipparcos data, this will also work for finding alternates for the stars in the map.

The only truly curious thing I've found so far is the relationship between Upsilon Andromeda and Hip7918. They are right next to each other. Obviously Ms. Fish didn't know abut Upsilon And. What I find interesting is that Upsilon And. has planets, and Hip7918 is in HabCat. Its almost like; "flip a coin to decide which has the most advanced life."

By the way; my software isn't intended to "draw' images of stars in space. It is intended for surveys of discrete regions of space, star sets. The output is a Python script to render a 3D image with Sol as reference, and a joinable SQL data table showing a few (hopefully) key data elements. This table is setup to use HIP IDs as a "key"

Regarding 39 Tauri.... It's only around a billion years old. Kinda on the young side?

According to XHIP 39 Tauri / HIP 19076 is 3.7 billion years...perhaps not so young...

Ok, that sounds reasonable. And don't sweat the discrepancy between the two ages of 39 Tau. That will likely be further refined in the next 5 years.

Also, i made this for you, just messing around with SE on a rather slow laptop. The hypothetical planet Zeta 2 Reticuli is just that, it doesn't exist but if you go 4 minutes in you can see the Sun would be in the constellation Draco as seen from there. Of course constellations become meaningless once you leave the solar system but it is interesting that our Sun would be a naked eye star to us at around 5.5 magnitude and would be near Vega and eta Draconis.

a reply to: game over man

I think civilians are perfectly prepared, however even if a picture or video was of a REAL ET craft, it would be called out as "a hoax" as per usual. It's incredibly clever. Produce as many hoaxes as possible to then develop a tumor in the minds of man that ALL physical evidence is fake.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: JadeStar
It's easier to create a 6 foot tall blue alien than a photo-realistic night sky from an extraterrestrial perspective.*


*For now.... in 3-5 years it will probably be possible if done with great care.

Actually, the most significant thing to producing a photorealistic imag is the detail and resolution of textures being used, and a little bit of rendering "magic", Both are easy to deal with using modern software. The system I use "Poser" in its latest incarnation can handle textures of very high resolution. And, just a few short months ago I was informed of a new rendering engine for Poser...a photorealistic render engine. The images I saw were absolutely stunning!

Although, producing a truly good "fake" is a great deal of work, and attention to detail. I would doubt that most are up to it...

Keep in mind that if such a contactee had such a photo the camera/smartphone they took it with would be the subject of great examination. Every technical detail of the camera optics and CCD would be known and the image the contactee put forth would have to match what would be expected from these technical details.

Even a good fake would have a hard time passing this test.