Could they really keep ETs secret?

KellyPrettyBear
reply to post by The GUT

 

I've been researching the following issue:

"why do sentient light beings who have existed on earth for untold
thousands of years, and who influence the general direction of most
human thought, want to fake UFO's coming to visit us?"

That is the very uncomfortable question that things have distilled
down to. That question by the way, has trashed my entire life
in a manner of speaking.. the reality behind that question was
something I've always known some about.. but the extent and the
'horror of it' was something I was in partial denial about.

The answer? Well there's only one answer.. there's only one answer
to anything in this world.. power and control and misdirection..
and ultimately worship... and since worship is just a being feeding
on another, vulnerable being.. this is all about controlling the cattle
across religious, atheistic and agnostic lines with a common control
phenomenon ('ET's').

What makes it so 'horrible' is that these trickster beings created ALL
the world's religions.. ALL the cast of characters both 'good' and 'evil'.

I never wanted this point of view.

KPB

Profoundly put.........and uncomfortably at the center of what we all have to ask ourselves. I think most people over look this because it is a reality that is truly the single most difficult and horrifying thing to ascertain in any world if you are any kind of being with a conscience. This seemingly endless game has taken captive a corner of the universe if not the universe itself???

So I guess if we want to play this game and never escape we then must choose a side that has in turn been playing this game out from the beginning (what ever that is?) but to what ends???

And where in all of this do our Spirits truly dwell at the end if we make it through the narrow gate?

Is there a narrow gate?

I wonder if the 'Greys' actually exist, or if they are perhaps an implanted memory from shady spooks doing MK-ULTRA style experiments, then covering their tracks.

cuckooold
I wonder if the 'Greys' actually exist, or if they are perhaps an implanted memory from shady spooks doing MK-ULTRA style experiments, then covering their tracks.

You mean these guys?

Zeta Reticuli thread





Actually, the mathematical probability of the "Gray"s existing is significantly higher than your "mk=ultra", and very nearly as high as the probability that your burn diesel in you car. And, the probability that they are "implanted" is quite low.

reply to post by tanka418

Actually, the mathematical probability of the "Gray"s existing is significantly higher than your "mk=ultra"

We have physical evidence that Mkultra existed which is better than mathematical probability.

And, the probability that they are "implanted" is quite low

Given what we know about the activities of these military groups I would say the probability is quite high that that the image we have of "the Grays" has been implanted into our minds one way or another.

gortex
reply to post by tanka418

 

We have physical evidence that Mkultra existed which is better than mathematical probability.

Oh, okay; I have physical evidence as well...at least 3 known planets inside the habitable zone of two of those stars. 'Sides, probabilistic data is every bit as good as your "physical".

Then again, How sure are you of your physical evidence? Have you been able to examine it? (anyone can examine the astronomical data for Zeta Reticli).

Given what we know about the activities of these military groups I would say the probability is quite high that that the image we have of "the Grays" has been implanted into our minds one way or another.

When did the CIA become a "military group"? How much corroborative data do you have?

Bythe way; I'm not denying MK-ULTRA; I telling you that my evidence is every bit as good and valid as yours, perhaps better. I can draw on data from several different governmental groups (NASA, European Space agency, etc.), and universities around the world for corroborative data. Given the data I have it becomes highly probable, and quite logical that the Zeta Reticulans, Tau Cetians, and perhaps others are quite real, AND visiting.

What exactly is MK-ULTRA based on?

Interesting thread. S&F.

I suppose secrets - by their very nature - are only known about when either uncovered or accidently revealed. On that basis, I suppose we don't have any idea how good governments truly are at keeping secrets.

That said, I think the only way a government or goverments could keep a secret this big is if only a very small group of people knew about it. I guess it's entirely plausible that a small, elite group could keep ET secret - but then that raises the question of what value that knowledge would actually have if you were unable to do very much with it to maintain it's secrecy?

For me, I don't believe any earth government has any contact with or contemporary knowledge of any alien group. I think it's possible that earth has been visited, perhaps in the past (that Mexico ancient aliens thing is quite compelling, imo) and I think it might also be possible that there is some evidence for such a thing happening that governments are aware of - but I don't think there's a 'big secret' they're hiding.

reply to post by tanka418

Then again, How sure are you of your physical evidence? Have you been able to examine it? (anyone can examine the astronomical data for Zeta Reticli)

I don't doubt the astronomical data for Zeta Reticuli being a real Star system but that data doesn't say people from Zeta Reticuli are coming here.
I have however seen evidence that the US military may well have tried to give that impression and the whole Zeta Reticuli tale probably originated from them through Richard Doty and other military operatives.
www.serpo.org...

When did the CIA become a "military group"? How much corroborative data do you have?

They are not a military group but they do use military personnel for some operations , Psy-ops being just one.

I telling you that my evidence is every bit as good and valid as yours, perhaps better

You have no evidence for Alien visitation or existence from Zeta Reticuli or anywhere else.

I don't doubt that intelligent life is abundant throughout our Galaxy but I have seen no real evidence that any of it has visited this particular rock.

I will always be 50/50 on this. On one hand I believe ETs must exist, the evidence is vast. On the other hand, most humans are about as dumb as can be, and I find it hard to believe they could hide something this big from us.

gortex
reply to post by tanka418

 

I don't doubt that intelligent life is abundant throughout our Galaxy but I have seen no real evidence that any of it has visited this particular rock.

A few posts above is a video. The subject of that video is your evidence. Given the reality of that "map" there is an almost zero probability that it was "random"; meaning, short, gray skinned, bald guys from Zeta 2 Reticuli "gave" it to Betty Hill. Heck; we even have the approximate location that "view" is from (see video or paper)).

So, while I don't have ET "in-the-flesh" I do have his home.

cuckooold
I wonder if the 'Greys' actually exist, or if they are perhaps an implanted memory from shady spooks doing MK-ULTRA style experiments, then covering their tracks.

They don't have to be an implanted memory for non-experiencers.

Spread viral rumors, stories, and such about any old silly thing presented as reality among the common folk, and even if one or two of the nuttier ones pop up claiming to have first hand experience and get laughed at, the seeds get planted and people start to believe.
Generations down the line, grandparents, for grins, will tell their grand children about the time they saw, or took a ride on an alien space ship or met a grey alien, or something, but, shhhh, don't say anything about it because they'll call you crazy.

Thing fables and superstitions get rooted into social consciousness quite easily.
The common folk are common clay to be molded, manipulated, steered, and influenced to believe any old thing from how great their nation is, how safe they're suppose to think they are in their homes at night, what direction heaven lies who's in it and how to get there, etc.

roncoallstar
I will always be 50/50 on this. On one hand I believe ETs must exist, the evidence is vast. On the other hand, most humans are about as dumb as can be, and I find it hard to believe they could hide something this big from us.

That's exactly "how" it is hidden. Most humans [I]are[/I] as dumb as you say; and they all give the "story" their own little "twist", its not even intentional, but the story changes a little. Before long it is complete BS. Fortunately science and logic can cut through the BS when applied.

Then of course you throw in some "truly nice and helpful" person to intentionally obfuscate the whole thing and you have one each secured secret. And, its all out n the open.

Clever these "Humans".

AliceBleachWhite
Thing fables and superstitions get rooted into social consciousness quite easily.

But then again; fables and superstitions aren't well supported by science.

Zeta Reticulans (Grays) and Tau Cetians are.

tanka418

AliceBleachWhite
Thing fables and superstitions get rooted into social consciousness quite easily.

But then again; fables and superstitions aren't well supported by science.

Zeta Reticulans (Grays) and Tau Cetians are.

edit on 22-12-2013 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)

Actually, we know that fables and superstitions exist as artifacts of Psychology.

Aliens?
No.
Not really.
Perhaps in some ambiguous somewhere in the vast reaches of our galaxy or Universe, but, stopping in for slurpees slushee drinks and some cattle mutilations on the way to Wolf359?
No.
I haven't seen one.
I haven't poked one with any kind of stick.
I've not measured or detected any sorts of Aliens of any color or lack of color with any instrumentation.
There's no credible independent verification, and there's certainly absolutely zero reliable replicability.

If they only had something so primitive as a Skype account, we could give them a chirp and wherever they are they'd still be safe from all the spooky Humans with nuclear weapons and downer vibes.

The likelihood for the existence of greys is higher for them existing as an artifact of modern mythology than any corporeal actuality.

I like what Feynman has said on the matter:


To paraphrase: UFOs/Aliens are more likely to be the product of the KNOWN irrational value of the Human Mind, as opposed to the unknown rational value of any speculated Alien mind.

This has strayed so far from the original premise! Given the evidence that middlemen could not block basic identity information on UFO witnesses, is it plausible that they and superiors were stewards of ET secrecy?

I'd say no.

Even with nothing more than speculation, military officers spilled their feelings on alien visitors being responsible for flying saucers. When this information was presented to Retired Maj. Donald Keyhoe, he spun straw into gold, and that speculative fantasy still dominates the UFO field today, generations later. It makes for an interesting story. All that is missing is reality.

Do interplanetary flying saucers make the best case for explaining what witnesses claim to see?

tanka418

gortex
reply to post by tanka418

 

I don't doubt that intelligent life is abundant throughout our Galaxy but I have seen no real evidence that any of it has visited this particular rock.

A few posts above is a video. The subject of that video is your evidence. Given the reality of that "map" there is an almost zero probability that it was "random"; meaning, short, gray skinned, bald guys from Zeta 2 Reticuli "gave" it to Betty Hill. Heck; we even have the approximate location that "view" is from (see video or paper)).

So, while I don't have ET "in-the-flesh" I do have his home.

Tanka,

You and I have both researched this subject and you've based part of your video on part of my research however you've omitted one important detail about the map in your video and that is that the stars on it were selected by Marjorie Fish -because- they were Sunlike.

As for the fact that two, perhaps three of those systems have habitable planets that should be expected based on the fact that 22% (+/- 8%) of F, G and K stars have habitable, Earthlike planets based on the Kepler survey. We do not yet know if other stars on the map have habitable zone planets but if they rise above the 22% (+/- 8%) figure then that map may become a lot more significant.

The research is ongoing and we should know a lot more about those stars once the TESS and PLATO space telescopes launch in 2017.

I wish you wouldn't overstate the significance of the Betty Hill/Marjorie Fish star map because it's still an open question, though an interesting one which has gotten more interesting with time but the jury is still out.

You got to see a sneak peek at my video and no where in it did I state unequivocally that there are grey space aliens which come from Zeta Reticuli.

What I -have- done is start building a case that the map is not simply based upon a random sample of stars, that it is interesting some of the stars on it have habitable planets and that -if- such beings existed, how they might have discovered the Earth and us tying in what we know about the universe and how we plan to explore it in the years to come telescopically.

Please keep in mind that what we have now is still not quite good evidence but it could turn into good evidence in support of the HIlls. And please, please, please do not overstate it. It is due to this type of overstatement that research into the map from academia pretty much stopped in the 1970s.

In science we DO NOT rush to judgement. We build upon discovery adding to a knowledge base which can answer a fundamental question.

In the case of the Hill map the fundamental question is "Is it real?".

Can we at least try to be methodical in slowly building up the case for or against it rather than jumping to conclusions??


What you've done is almost the direct opposite of what those who considered the map no more than a random set of stars did. You've jumped the gun and rushed to judgement holding it up as evidence when its not quite at that level.

It does nothing for credibility of research if one rushes through their research. Please, I know you are passionate about the map but you have to reign that passion in sometimes for the sake of having better evidence down the road.

And when I say better evidence I'm talking about something which may pass peer review and be published in a reputable astronomical journal.

reply to post by JadeStar

As for the fact that two, perhaps three of those systems have habitable planets that should be expected based on the fact that 22% (+/- 8%) of F, G and K stars have habitable, Earthlike planets based on the Kepler survey. We do not yet know if other stars on the map have habitable zone planets but if they rise above the 22% (+/- 8%) figure then that map may become a lot more significant.

3 of 14 stars is 21.4% Given the original report, Zeta 2 necessarily has such a planet, raising the initial "count" to 4 (too include Z2R) makes this 28% and change (that's a fraction of a planet short of your max for chance).

Something that Terrestrial science is in the process of learning; planets are ubiquitous. If you see a star, it has planets. The next thing you will learn is that "IF" life has even the remotest of a chance; it becomes.

Yes, I push the envelope; it needs it!! I also use non-standard sensory methods to get some of my info. And, I cheat when it comes to data; I use the original / raw data and conduct my own queries.

And, I'm sorry; I didn't know you put upsilon Andromeda where it is; I sort of thought that was Nature. But, ya know, if ya like I can waste the 10 minutes it will take to write the query and run it. We both know that won't yield any useful results.

Finally, You are using astronomy, I'm using probability. You get cautious over a high probability that doesn't "sound" right, I go with the raw probability. And, one of us needs to be cautious.

Think of some of what I say as "predictions".

In the case of the Hill map the fundamental question is "Is it real?".

Probabilistically; this is not a question.

tanka418
reply to post by JadeStar

 

As for the fact that two, perhaps three of those systems have habitable planets that should be expected based on the fact that 22% (+/- 8%) of F, G and K stars have habitable, Earthlike planets based on the Kepler survey. We do not yet know if other stars on the map have habitable zone planets but if they rise above the 22% (+/- 8%) figure then that map may become a lot more significant.

3 of 14 stars is 21.4%

Which is right in line with the Kepler statistical figure. It's nothing to get excited about on its own.

Given the original report, Zeta 2 necessarily has such a planet, raising the initial "count" to 4 (too include Z2R) makes this 28% and change (that's a fraction of a planet short of your max for chance).

But no such planet has been shown to exist yet. We can't go jumping the gun before data is in on either star of Zeta Ret.

Something that Terrestrial science is in the process of learning; planets are ubiquitous. If you see a star, it has planets. The next thing you will learn is that "IF" life has even the remotest of a chance; it becomes.

That's the prevailing wisdom right now certainly. But still, it's best to be patient. Trust me, if they find a habitable planet on most of the stars on that map it -WILL- get the serious attention it deserves Tanka. And at that point then you can hold it up and say, "See, I told you so!"

But we're not there yet. Be patient.

Yes, I push the envelope; it needs it!! I also use non-standard sensory methods to get some of my info. And, I cheat when it comes to data; I use the original / raw data and conduct my own queries.

If we cut corners and rush to judgement we're in danger of fooling ourselves. Best not to cheat. Cheating is what separates psuedo-science from science.

And, I'm sorry; I didn't know you put upsilon Andromeda where it is; I sort of thought that was Nature.

You, by your admission, used data from the research I did which was posted in the Hill Starmap and Exoplanets thread.

You specifically used my interpretation that one of the stars on the map was misidentified and likely actually Upsilon Andromeda.

In science it's ok to do this AS LONG AS YOU REFERENCE the original researcher.

You didn't do that, but rather passed it off as if it was your own. That's plagiarism. A very bad thing to do.

Researchers who plagiarize lose credibility instantly in science. But I guess this sort of thing is commonly accepted in psuedoscience.

I don't accept it, it's wrong and you should probably apologize and add the reference to the video. A simple link back to the ATS post you lifted it from would suffice.

Finally, You are using astronomy, I'm using probability.

Probability has to be based on -something-

In this case you're basing it on astronomical data. Thus you too are using astronomy, but you're rushing to judgement and basically saying "Because this is probable then it's real." or "Because this -might- exist, it does exist."

That's where you depart from science and that is a line I will not cross. There's still too much we don't know about most of the systems on the map.

You get cautious over a high probability that doesn't "sound" right, I go with the raw probability. And, one of us needs to be cautious.

No, I wait until the data is in before I go to the world proclaiming that the HIll-Fish star map is real and proof that there are aliens living in Zeta Reticuli who abducted a couple in 1966.

Think of some of what I say as "predictions".

Predictive modeling is fine but it is -never- a substitute for observational "ground truth".

Real data is worth waiting for. Just ask Percival Lowell.

gortex
reply to post by tanka418

 

Then again, How sure are you of your physical evidence? Have you been able to examine it? (anyone can examine the astronomical data for Zeta Reticli)

I don't doubt the astronomical data for Zeta Reticuli being a real Star system but that data doesn't say people from Zeta Reticuli are coming here.
I have however seen evidence that the US military may well have tried to give that impression and the whole Zeta Reticuli tale probably originated from them through Richard Doty and other military operatives.
www.serpo.org...

Incorrect.

The whole "aliens from Zeta Reticuli" thing emerged from the Betty Hill-Marjorie Fish star map. The map predates the Serpo and everything else that draws on it (ie: the Alien movie franchise).

See?







Like I said, the jury is still out on the map. There are interesting recent discoveries which I talked about in another thread but nothing definitive yet.

Rushing to judgement on it in the 1970s is why a lot of serious people in astronomy back away from it as they do the whole UFO subject.

I'm just an undergrad so I'm not too worried about any of that.

AliceBleachWhite

Actually, we know that fables and superstitions exist as artifacts of Psychology.

Aliens?
No.
Not really.
Perhaps in some ambiguous somewhere in the vast reaches of our galaxy or Universe, but, stopping in for slurpees slushee drinks and some cattle mutilations on the way to Wolf359?

Psychology has no effect on biology.

Why, prey tell, would ET want to go to a Red Dwarf? NOT a very interesting star.

If you want near by; Alpha Centauri is a virtual twin for Sol; much more interesting. Or Tau Ceti; actually has habitable zone planets, 2 of them.

So, yes; Aliens! Very high probability of Extraterrestrials living within 40ly (multiple species), and visiting.

JadeStar

Like I said, the jury is still out on the map. There are interesting recent discoveries which I talked about in another thread but nothing definitive yet.

Rushing to judgement on it in the 1970s is why a lot of serious people in astronomy back away from it as they do the whole UFO subject.

There is a difference between y'all and me; You want something "definitive". definite...as in "proven", a "sure thing"...the "Ideal Switch". Doesn't exist, all we have are approximations, probabilities. And, all we can do is select for the best probability.

And, in that "Rush to judgment" what was the error rate?