Not made on Earth: The Atomic Structure of UFO Debris Analyzed at Stanford University

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: NightVision

blah blah blah, apparently you didn't read the very first paragraph from your own link. pull your goggles up.

from your link. the last sentence of the first paragraph.

But the panel was not convinced that any of this evidence points to a violation of known natural laws or the involvement of an extraterrestrial intelligence.

pitiful, blind trying to lead the blind

I never claimed it was extra-terrestrial. I see you missed that part while you were busy barking and reacting at all the passers-by. Hilarious.

a reply to: NightVision

So, nothing to do with the topic then.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: NightVision

So, nothing to do with the topic then.

You asked for the info. I gave it you.

You ask questions, and complain when you don't get the answer you want.

Not my problem.

I was demonstrating that Valee's research and Greer are 2 separate entities, and trashing Greer doesn't damage Valee's credibility. Valee simply found an object and had it Scientifically analyzed.

I'm sorry that upsets you and Houndoggie.

a reply to: NightVision

You asked for the info. I gave it you.

Ah, I see the problem. You misunderstood.

I was asking for a paper pertaining to the topic, a video with Dr. Jacques Valle and Dr. Garry Nolan. I said I would rather see a paper than a video.

a reply to: Phage

Wrong again. I posted the Peer-reviewed paper when you asked for it. Scroll back and look under the word 'Source' in my post response.

You misunderstood.

a reply to: NightVision

I posted the Peer-reviewed paper when you asked for it. Scroll back and look under the word 'Source' in my post response.

I did so. I even quoted from it. It's from 2001 and has nothing to do with Dr. Garry Nolan.

a reply to: Phage

You asked for a Peer-reviewed paper from Jaques Valee. You never mentioned Gary Nolan.

Ask better questions. Get better answers.

a reply to: NightVision

You asked for a Peer-reviewed paper from Jaques Valee.

Why would I do that? The analysis was performed by Nolan.
But did you provide a peer-reviewed paper from Valee?

Ask better questions. Get better answers.

Doubtful.

a reply to: NightVision

.I never claimed it was extra-terrestrial.

then why are you going on about this, if you don't think or believe it is?


the title of the thread is Not made on Earth: The Atomic Structure of UFO Debris Analyzed at Stanford University

so if your not claiming it is. then again i ask why are you going on about this?
i replied to what the OP's said about greer, and the flim flam man he is. you started making the snide remarks and started going on about something i wasn't even talking about.

then post a link that said it doesn't violate known natural laws or the involvement of an extraterrestrial intelligence, in the very first paragraph.

where's is your disconnect, remember the title of the thread, and what the panel said?


you maybe need pull your goggles back down and pass on by if you can't understand what people are referring to.

I see you missed that part

oh and by the way nice try at trying to save face, you missed it plain and simple in trying to hush my barking.

Pitiful, Just Pitiful.

a reply to: Phage


I suppose it's worth asking what your criteria are for a sample to be considered extra-terrestrial? Containing elements not found on this earth? Is that what you are looking for?

a reply to: hounddoghowlie


Doggie, you are out of your element...

a reply to: NightVision

I'm looking for Nolan's paper. Waiting, actually, since it doesn't seem to have been published yet.

a reply to: Phage

Ok then that's my mistake, I thought you were looking for analysis directly from Valee's samples.

Let's say for the sake of the discussion you had a sample of your own directly from Nolan, where would you take it to get analyzed? Battelle Institute?

a reply to: NightVision

Ok then that's my mistake, I thought you were looking for analysis directly from Valee's samples.

I am.

Nolan analyzed Valee's sample. Rather than watching a video about that analysis, a video which seems muddled, I would like to see the paper which Nolan has submitted for review. You know, the paper about the analysis of Valee's sample. The paper which should be published soon, since it was under review in February.

You had me at Greer
/

a reply to: Waterglass

You can never be certain, back in the 70's the Russians were putting up lots of spy satellites and so too were the US, France and just about anyone else that could do so.

So this one could have just been a bit of Disinformation but what if?.


I am quite certain that our planet has been visited and there is a possibility that if more than one species is interesting in our world there may even have been violent encounters between some of them.


Still waiting for the Rational crowd to come in and explain what those Russians were claiming was a destroyed alien space ship (and despite the videos picture of choice it had nothing to do with the Black Knight or the thermal Blanket if we accept that one).

originally posted by: Silcone Synapse
a reply to: Waterglass

So in this video,Dr Nolan says his machine has shown the materials are "put together" on the atomic scale with 253 different elements,whereas on our world we only have 80.

Actually, there are 94 naturally occurring elements. Many elements have more than one isotope. An isotope has the same number of protons but a different number of neutrons. When you add up all the number of different isotopes of the 94 elements, it comes to 253.

originally posted by: NightVision
a reply to: Phage


I suppose it's worth asking what your criteria are for a sample to be considered extra-terrestrial? Containing elements not found on this earth? Is that what you are looking for?

It seems to have disappeared from the internet, but I remember reading about a scientist who performed an analysis on material which was suspected of being possibly extraterrestrial.

The scientist analyzed the material and found that the isotope ratios of the material did not match the naturally occurring isotope ratios of materials found on Earth, therefore he said it must be extraterrestrial. He apparently lost his job at the university where he was teaching, I'm guessing because the extraterrestrial claim was unsupported when he apparently failed to consider the various manufacturing processes on earth which can change isotope ratios. If anybody remembers that and has links to the details, please post because I used to be able to find that story in search and can't find it anymore.

In that context, it's good to see Jacques Vallee make such clarification about the possibility of isotope ratios not natural to Earth being manufactured in his statement quoted here:

originally posted by: mirageman
Oh dear Stephen Greer!! The Grift that just keeps grifting.

Here's some bits and pieces that you can search yourselves on the internet for more detail if you so wish.

The video....It looks like a clip from Naked Gun. But that isn't Frank Drebin with a French accent.

What is said isn't "Not made on Earth"...but

... I intend to use the information to try to build something. To try to understand a physical principle that we don't know today. This material was manufactured. It's not natural to the materials that we have around us in the lab or on the earth. It does not mean that it was necessarily made some place in outer space. It just means that it was manufactured specially for a particular purpose that we don't understand and we want to understand it...

So, if the scientist who lost his job for claiming his analysis showed the material was not from Earth had stated his findings the way Jacques Valle states the findings, he wouldn't have lost his job for failing to consider manufacturing processes and therefore losing credibility.

originally posted by: Waterglass
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Can you provide specific incidents?

The moth purported to be an alien and the invisible space ship are two such incidents: There are entire threads on ATS trashing Greer for very good reasons where he lost many of his few remaining supporters on ATS because of the blatant nature of his deception, This first link is about the moth alleged alien:

[HOAX] Steve Greer (CSETI) Photograph ET Being

In this thread the ATS admin noted that Greer's deception was so bad, they were moving Greer threads to the "HOAX" forum:

Greer is a proven hoaxer

originally posted by: rajaten
admin edit:

As we have stated for months now, based on Dr. Greer's most recent activities and "presentations" any threads that are germane to said "recent work" will be moved to the ATS [HOAX] Forum...

Another example those threads mention is that Greer says a bush is an alien. They are old threads but he brought it up again in his informercial video on CE5, that was posted here about a year ago. He's literally crazy if he actually believes the bush is an alien. More likely, he knows it's not, but he likes all the money he gets from selling people on invisible space ships and bush aliens and moth aliens, so he tells the stories that put money in his pocket.

This is his thread from a year ago on Greer's CE5 "documentary" which was really more of an "infomercial" for the upcoming "app" he promised to sell us, I think the price for the app was $10 so if a million people bought it that would generate revenue of $10 million.

Close Encounters of the Fifth Kind

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit
Yes, he is very questionable now,

Indeed, he's still up to his old tricks. Remember the moth that he said was an alien? He didn't show the moth alien in the CE5 video, but he showed what looks to me like some bushes, with some stray light hitting them creating a pattern of reflected light off the leaves, and shadows:

Then by enhancing some pareidolia he outlines the alien, who told Greer his name is Bijou and he's from the Andromeda Galaxy:

Great thread, I'm a fan of Greer and have seen Sirius and its a very good documentary in my opinion, as are his other ones. I see the typical shill trashing going on, pretty sure they have never checked his stuff out (not an open mind I suppose or c_a style amateur hour discrediting going on because they don't want people to know any of this material and ya know, keep people ignorant. I wonder if any of them saw any of the witness testimonies on his yet page? Are they lying too? Lol) To each their own I guess. These materials that are being studied were in all likelihood made off world with isotopes of different elements we don't see here on earth or haven't discovered as of yet. S&F OP thanks!