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.

 

ET's Did Not Crash At Roswell, Most Likely This Did

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 01:16 AM
link   
It was this > A Satellite like probe. As I watched the Discovery channel and seen Theorist say that their must be life in other solar systems, but their so far away far away that humans in this day in age just couldn't survive the journey. The closest solar system is a about a few hundreds if not thousands of years away-and thats traveling at the speed of light for us. (not sure of actual distance)

They said the first form of contact we might have with and extraterrestrial is threw a probe like the one on Mars, packed with an encyclopedia of our whole history, DNA sample/structure, forms of communications we used, and Arts.

I think for an ET to crash land on Earth after their remarkable journey threw possibly time,space, and perhaps another dimension is just plain STUPID.

I think the U.S did receive Extraterrestrial knowledge but now the way we think. I think the ETS could of sent a probe just like the one I mention aboved(packed with goodies). Ever since 1947 technology boosted so fast that its called the biggest technological advancement ever in recorded history.

Think about it? The ''Metal that folded back to shape" found by the rancher in the infamous photo with the military personnel holding the aluminum foil, could be like the 'golden metal' around the satellites that we use today. the hieroglyphics could be Extraterrestrial. Area 51 is were they decoded most of the Alien Data and tried it. The rest is unknown history!!

I posted this thread very fast so forgive me if its seems a little all over the place I just thought of this a few minutes ago. What do you guys think? I have something going here? Because if we did capture ET's I think our lives would be entirely different. Were still probably decoding most of their data who knows, nano tech could have just been decoded and it was here for decades.



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 01:22 AM
link   
This is an interesting theory. Though I find it much more plausible than the popular one (the one involving an alien corpse), both need to be taken with a grain of salt.



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by king Pop!p
It was this > A Satellite like probe. As I watched the Discovery channel and seen Theorist say that their must be life in other solar systems, but their so far away far away that humans in this day in age just couldn't survive the journey. The closest solar system is a about a few hundreds if not thousands of years away-and thats traveling at the speed of light for us. (not sure of actual distance)

They said the first form of contact we might have with and extraterrestrial is threw a probe like the one on Mars, packed with an encyclopedia of our whole history, DNA sample/structure, forms of communications we used, and Arts.

I think for an ET to crash land on Earth after their remarkable journey threw possibly time,space, and perhaps another dimension is just plain STUPID.

I think the U.S did receive Extraterrestrial knowledge but now the way we think. I think the ETS could of sent a probe just like the one I mention aboved(packed with goodies). Ever since 1947 technology boosted so fast that its called the biggest technological advancement ever in recorded history.

Think about it? The ''Metal that folded back to shape" found by the rancher in the infamous photo with the military personnel holding the aluminum foil, could be like the 'golden metal' around the satellites that we use today. the hieroglyphics could be Extraterrestrial. Area 51 is were they decoded most of the Alien Data and tried it. The rest is unknown history!!

I posted this thread very fast so forgive me if its seems a little all over the place I just thought of this a few minutes ago. What do you guys think? I have something going here? Because if we did capture ET's I think our lives would be entirely different. Were still probably decoding most of their data who knows, nano tech could have just been decoded and it was here for decades.


a lot of people always make the mistake of comparing any aliens to us...there will be millions of other intelligent species in the universe that are far older than we are...

time and distance do not play any role in whether or not we have been visited...it always amazes me when a so called expert claims they do..



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 01:41 AM
link   
What i find stupid is this idea that somehow we know all there is to know about the physical laws of the universe and all technology possible. As michio kaku is fond of saying " we have to consider that extraterrestrial civilizations may be thousand or even hundreds of thousands of years older than us". Lets face it OP we are still in the process of figuring out the universe, things like extra dimensional travel, folding of space, may be on the horizon for us and may have been discovered and put in use by et civilizations long long ago. It's arrogant and ignorant to believe that we're the height of technology in the galaxy or universe.

we may find that we are alone some day, maybe not, but it's time for a humility check for the human race. and i'm just plain tired of hearing that "it's impossible to travel vast distances in the universe". who knows, maybe they have generation ships, maybe they can bend space, maybe they can use dimensional travel, maybe we're wrong about the lightspeed barrier, maybe they've figured out a way to use quantum entanglement on a macro scale. the cold hard fact is we don't know. physics and the laws of the universe are ever evolving in our academic world, we can't say with 100% certainty what's possible or not when we haven't even mastered the sciences.



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by optimus primal
 


hello

im convinced there is no light speed barrier.

another point...wasnt the speed at which the universe expanded directly after the big bang many times higher than the speed of light?



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 02:18 AM
link   
Ha! We're still in the process of figuring out that what we think we know is actually wrong. Look at the state of cosmology. www.nytimes.com... It's been turned on its ear. Look at the recent report on how we have to rethink DNA.www.digitaljournal.com... I wish I could recall where I read it but someone was quoted as having said that our most recent information puts us back some 500 years. So much of what we believe is true is being disproved at astounding rates.

The mere fact that we're so confident in our science makes me pretty sure we're wrong. It's too complicated, too disjointed, too inconsistent and too incomprehensible. Do you honestly think the truth lacks elegance? I suspect that Archimedes, Da Vinci, Einstein, et al are looking at us and shaking their heads - but amused as hell. But they understand. We're only human.



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by CosmicEgg
Ha! We're still in the process of figuring out that what we think we know is actually wrong. Look at the state of cosmology. www.nytimes.com... It's been turned on its ear. Look at the recent report on how we have to rethink DNA.www.digitaljournal.com... I wish I could recall where I read it but someone was quoted as having said that our most recent information puts us back some 500 years. So much of what we believe is true is being disproved at astounding rates.

The mere fact that we're so confident in our science makes me pretty sure we're wrong. It's too complicated, too disjointed, too inconsistent and too incomprehensible. Do you honestly think the truth lacks elegance? I suspect that Archimedes, Da Vinci, Einstein, et al are looking at us and shaking their heads - but amused as hell. But they understand. We're only human.




uh huh..when none of the evidence agreeswith you, just question the whole magilla! tried and true strateg of refutation! Not.

However I disagree that a space probe crashed at Roswell either.
I agree with the USAFs mogul balloon explanation.

a man named Klopf wrote a good book outlinging this.



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by alienesque
reply to post by optimus primal
 


hello

im convinced there is no light speed barrier.

another point...wasnt the speed at which the universe expanded directly after the big bang many times higher than the speed of light?



Im pretty sure it didn't.......?

You would think that if the universe is larger then its age allows because nothing can travel faster then light it would seem not to make sense, but it does.

I can't remember what its called and but it does work. Someone i'm sure could explain it better then i can



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by drock905
 


yep..its probably got something to do with the fact the universe makes space as it expands..maybe this is the reason it can expand at what would seem to be above light speed.

but..this also shows us that there are situations where these speeds are possible..



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by king Pop!p
 


For traveling hundreds or thousands of light years one need not travel at the speed of light.

ALiens are know to warp space and time for such travel using artificial gravity

Check out these websites
Bob lazar
Gravity Warp Drive

What crahed at Rosewell is still not public but I believe that aliens are and have been visiting us for centuries now


[edit on 4-12-2008 by sunny_2008ny]



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by NavalFC
uh huh..when none of the evidence agreeswith you, just question the whole magilla! tried and true strateg of refutation! Not.

However I disagree that a space probe crashed at Roswell either.
I agree with the USAFs mogul balloon explanation.

a man named Klopf wrote a good book outlinging this.


Dude! Way to kick my butt! That was awesome the way you so eloquently, poignantly and authoritatively sunk my battleship!


You needed to shoot me down to make your opinion known? "When none of the evidence agrees with you..." WTF was that? Those are the kind of communication skills that cause divorces. I gotta tell you too, your typing skills are kinda borderline apelike too.

I suppose you think we're at the top of the wood heap because of our unique "opposable thumb".



There. I'm done here. This thread requires more faith in the human intelligence than is warranted.



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by NavalFC
 


Off topic here... Dude! may I suggest switching your browser to firefox and installing the english dictionary add on
every other word in your last post would of had a little red squiggle under it!! all you would of had to do is right click the word and presto, a list of REAL words



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Ah, I see you fall into the same mental trap I fall into - when I'm not careful. You referred to what a theorist said. No facts presented. It's a THEORY. To quote what's-his-name on that old 80's cop show... "let's be careful out there!"



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 10:50 AM
link   
As far as a theory goes that is more thank likely one of the best scenarios logically for a civilization that is around our age or maybe a bit more advanced.

However, the possibility that there are civilizations in space that are possibly thousands of years more advanced than us is probably bigger and chances are they have already figured out how to bend space to create worm holes and other awesome stuff like that.



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by t12string
Ah, I see you fall into the same mental trap I fall into - when I'm not careful. You referred to what a theorist said. No facts presented. It's a THEORY. To quote what's-his-name on that old 80's cop show... "let's be careful out there!"


Einstein had a theory. I understand it was a pretty darned good one.

Now look at the official definitions given below from Merriam-Webster:
the·o·ry
Pronunciation: \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural the·o·ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theōria, from theōrein
Date: 1592
1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2: abstract thought : speculation
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art
4 a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory
5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption : conjecture c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject


Pronunciation: \hī-ˈpä-thə-səs\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural hy·poth·e·ses \-ˌsēz\
Etymology: Greek, from hypotithenai to put under, suppose, from hypo- + tithenai to put — more at do
Date: circa 1656
1 a: an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b: an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action
2: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences
3: the antecedent clause of a conditional statement

synonyms hypothesis , theory , law mean a formula derived by inference from scientific data that explains a principle operating in nature. hypothesis implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation . theory implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth . law implies a statement of order and relation in nature that has been found to be invariable under the same conditions .

English is getting freer and looser all the time. Does it matter what word you use to describe a particular idea anymore? It seems that it may matter this year, but wait for next year. You can be quoted retrospectively as stating a theory whereas today it's merely your hypothesis. Must we wait for sufficient evidence to be invoked as law before we state our observations? Isn't that why we're here, to discuss freely and openly our thoughts that haven't yet been documented, tested and declared valid? At what point are we allowed to think out loud without fear of intimidation and harassment?



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 02:27 AM
link   
If ETs did indeed crash at Roswell, how could you possibly know that it wasn't carried out on purpose?? For some purpose that goes far beyond our collective knowledge as it stands at this point in history??

I remember this story from a year or so ago which got me thinking about it all again:


Roswell theory revived by deathbed confession

Lieutenant Walter Haut was the public relations officer at the base in 1947 and was the man who issued the original and subsequent press releases after the crash on the orders of the base commander, Colonel William Blanchard.

Haut died last year but left a sworn affidavit to be opened only after his death.

Last week, the text was released and asserts that the weather balloon claim was a cover story and that the real object had been recovered by the military and stored in a hangar.

He described seeing not just the craft, but alien bodies.

He wasn't the first Roswell witness to talk about alien bodies.

Local undertaker Glenn Dennis had long claimed that he was contacted by authorities at Roswell shortly after the crash and asked to provide a number of child-sized coffins.

When he arrived at the base, he was apparently told by a nurse (who later disappeared) that a UFO had crashed and that small humanoid extraterrestrials had been recovered.

But Haut is the only one of the original participants to claim to have seen alien bodies.

...

Towards the end of the affidavit, Haut concludes: "I am convinced that what I personally observed was some kind of craft and its crew from outer space".

What's particularly interesting about Walter Haut is that in the many interviews he gave before his death, he played down his role and made no such claims.

Had he been seeking publicity, he would surely have spoken about the craft and the bodies.

Did he fear ridicule, or was the affidavit a sort of deathbed confession from someone who had been part of a cover-up, but who had stayed loyal to the end?


Full story here

[edit on 5/12/08 by pretty_vacant]



posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by alienesque
 


you're speaking of the theory presented by physicist Joao Magueijo, in his book "Faster than the speed of light", in which he puts forth his case for a varying speed of light in the early period of the universe to answer some of cosmology's dilemmas.


also there is a way around the lightspeed barrier that is actually extremely mainstream science. it's called quantum entanglement, aka einstein's "spooky action at a distance". very interesting stuff, you should look into it.


edited to add quotations around einstein's term for quantum entanglement.

[edit on 6-12-2008 by optimus primal]



posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 04:36 AM
link   
Your right they may have landed. I just gave my thought on it.

Hey you guys should check out my other theory on the Grand Canyon, Anunaki link. Its better then this, it has some interesting facts with images also www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 6-12-2008 by king Pop!p]




top topics



 
0

log in

join