The Three Clinchers for Proof of Alien Life

reply to post by jkrog08


There is no way to know what there motivations would be there are unusual sightings every day of all kinds of truly strange things that doesnt make it real. On the flip side doesnt make it fake either just makes it an unknown. Heres a sighting for you

Police Launch Full-Scale Investigation Into Gnome Sightings


Recent sightings of a gnome lurking around in a town in Argentina [SN Reported] has terrified so many people that a full-scale investigation by police has been launched by the mayor. Despite his own skepticism, he said can't rule out their existence.

"People here believe in them and we have to respect that. I do not think that it is completely impossible. Gnomes are part of our culture here." he said. Gnome sightings go back decades from hundreds of witnesses, including the detective in charge.

"I personally believe in gnomes as I saw one when I was a child. But so far we have not been able to determine whether the figure on tape was real or not." said José Luis Núñez, Police Commissionaire.

heres a leprechaun sighting in Mobile Alabama was on news heres video:


Just because people claim they see something doesnt mean we need to accept it without proof And you shouldnt either. You were talking about pseudo skeptics id like to reverse that your a pseudo believer.





[edit on 4/11/09 by dragonridr]

reply to post by HolgerTheDane


I use quotes from very credible sources and you bring me something from wiki. Im offended

I disagree, it can sound like anything, but it is what it is. You are looking for some extravagent detail that doesnt even exist within the nazca planes(except this organ). When I look at the pictures and I look at the lines they do indeed look similiar. It is when I try to create an image based off of a "detailed" description, I cant find a resemblance because the glyphs "arent in great detail". Im pretty sure this is how you came to your conclusion. But you should note, this isnt my opinion, these are the opinions of mathematicians and scientist who have a deep understanding of the field. So.....
.....Its not recinulei, so what it is, oh thats right you dont have any facts, you just wanted to let me know I was wrong. So can you tell me whats right?

reply to post by dragonridr


Your youtube video isn't working,did you put in the number right?


EDIT to add:No I'm not a pseudo-believer either,although I admit I am a strong one.

[edit on 4/10/2009 by jkrog08]

Originally posted by AKINOFTHEFIRSSTARS
reply to post by HolgerTheDane

 

I use quotes from very credible sources and you bring me something from wiki. Im offended

You failed to post your link to this very credible source. All you did was throw a name in the ring. Many credible sources do this to lend credability to their claims.
As far as Wikipedia is concerned I hold that vastly superior to most UFO sites.

I disagree, it can sound like anything, but it is what it is. You are looking for some extravagent detail that doesnt even exist within the nazca planes(except this organ). When I look at the pictures and I look at the lines they do indeed look similiar.

The spider family in question are described as "tick-like". How do you make this tick-like spider look anything close to the Nazca spider?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/525677435c2e.jpg[/atsimg]

EDIT: PPT by David B. Richman - Curator of The Anthropod Museum - New Mexico State University - Department of Entomology, Plant Pathology and Weed Science.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f811ba99a109.gif[/atsimg]

Had you tried to tell us that it was very like the Sun spider, THEN I would have agreed that it COULD resemble the Sun spider.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/90b2aefc295d.jpg[/atsimg]

It is when I try to create an image based off of a "detailed" description, I cant find a resemblance because the glyphs "arent in great detail". Im pretty sure this is how you came to your conclusion.

We have now established that the Nazca spider is in fact stylized. Very good. You are on the track to become a true sceptic.

I came to my conclusion because the two segments of the body are very large. The "tick-like spider" has a very fat fore body almost not different from the aft body.
The Nazca spider has what looks like a slender fore section and very prominent mouth parts.
The "tick-like spider" has its mouth parts covered.

But you should note, this isnt my opinion, these are the opinions of mathematicians and scientist who have a deep understanding of the field. So.....

Please tell me the name of these mathematicians (that are experts on aracnidae) and scientists.

.....Its not recinulei, so what it is, oh thats right you dont have any facts, you just wanted to let me know I was wrong. So can you tell me whats right?

I wanted to have you look at your source with a critical mind and judge by yourself. You did that and as a true believer you discard facts not found on your favourite sites.



[edit on 11.4.2009 by HolgerTheDane]

reply to post by jkrog08


That case is interesting, but it looks (from the information on the video) that an alien explanation was somewhat forced on the case.

First of all, the way they say that the children "had little or no exposure to TV or popular press accounts of UFOs" makes me wonder why they called it a "saucer" on this drawing.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b566ce75bdb8.jpg[/atsimg]

Also, I know from an distant relative that lived in Zimbabwe and that came to visit my mother in the 80s that Zimbabwe was one of the most (probably the most) advanced country in Africa, that relative of my mother had an electronic card with his medical record, so the doctors in any hospital could have instant access to his record, so it was not out typical idea of Africa.

The differences between the drawings are too big for what should be the same thing, as we can see here.

The interview looks a little "directed" (but this may be only a result of the way the video was made), for example, when the John Mack asks "how many of these strange beings did you see?". The children only talk about "persons", not "beings".

That the children say that the "message" was that "something is going to change", that "the war is going to end" or that "we must not get too technological" makes me think that each child thought of his own message.

But what I find most important is the answer of the last girl when the investigator asked what she would say to people that think that this was all made up, and she answers "I havent been influenced by any of my friends, I have seen what I have seen", she is not answering the question. I was expecting her to say something like she had not imagined it, not that she was not influenced by her friends, and that makes me think that there was something more that we were not told.

Considering this happened 15 years ago, it would be interesting if someone could find any of these children today.

reply to post by ArMaP


That is a possible explanation that I think is at least 50% likely.I did notice the same things you mentioned.I didn't realize that that country was that advanced though,shows how much I know about Africa,lol.

reply to post by jkrog08


Yes, Zimbabwe was a very advanced country before the internal wars that started in the end of 1980s and that made it one of the most dangerous countries to live in.

I found this page that has some interesting things about the case.

- There were no marks on the ground of any landing.
- According to one boy the UFO followed some power lines near the school.
- Cynthia Hind had 22 copies of the 30-40 drawings the children gave to John Mack, and she only had those because she thought that "some of the craft are very obviously 'flying saucers', and I wonder how many of these children have had access to the media"

I suppose these are from Dominique Callimanopulos, John Mack's assistant.
- The beings were described as black with long heads, "eyes as big as rugby balls," with thin arms and legs.
- Many of the younger children were very scared and cried. "At first I thought it was a gardener," one fourth-grader told us. "Then I realized it was an alien."

The 62 kids in Zimbabwe is solid.

You could always ask questions. You can ask questions about a case that's been tried and the guy is on death row.

Just because you can ask questions is not evidence of anything. There's question still being asked about the speed of light and gravity. So, you can always ask questions about things.

The thing that makes the kids case solid, is there's no evidence that these kids were lying. At least I havn't seen any.

Everyone from their school headmaster to those who have investigated the incident has thought the kids were telling the truth.

So the evidence says the kids saw what they said they saw unless someone can present evidence beyond "I think they may be lying" to the table.

The next questions are who or what did they see and did any of the kids change their story.

If there's any counter evidence that suggests something different occured, I would like to see it

Originally posted by platosallegory
You could always ask questions. You can ask questions about a case that's been tried and the guy is on death row.

Just because you can ask questions is not evidence of anything. There's question still being asked about the speed of light and gravity. So, you can always ask questions about things.

Yes, and that is what a sceptic does.

The thing that makes the kids case solid, is there's no evidence that these kids were lying. At least I havn't seen any.

I haven't seen any evidence that they were lying, my doubts are more about the adult's intentions than about the children testimonies

For example, when John Mack (or his assistant, I don't remember) talks about the drawings it looks like the kids made the drawings because they wanted to, while Cynthia Hind says she talked with John Mack and he told her to ask the kids to make drawings of what they saw.

It's things like this that make doubt, not about the cases but about how they are presented to us, it looks like UFOlogists are hiding something.

Yes, and that is what a sceptic does.

There's nothing wrong with asking questions. I was just pointing out that questions are not evidence against anything.

I haven't seen any evidence that they were lying, my doubts are more about the adult's intentions than about the children testimonies

For example, when John Mack (or his assistant, I don't remember) talks about the drawings it looks like the kids made the drawings because they wanted to, while Cynthia Hind says she talked with John Mack and he told her to ask the kids to make drawings of what they saw.

It's things like this that make doubt, not about the cases but about how they are presented to us, it looks like UFOlogists are hiding something.

How does this mean that the ufologist are hiding something?

Just because two people may see the way an event unfolded differently is not evidence of anything. Two witnesses of a car accident can have two different stories but that doesn't mean the accident didn't occur.

Maybe Mack talked to Hind and he never told his assisstant what they talked about.

Secondly, Hind didn't talk to the kids about the drawings. She talked to the headmaster Colin Mackie.

She said:

I had suggested to Mr. Mackie prior to visiting the school and before the children had been interviewed, that he let the children draw what they had seen and he now has about 30-40 drawings, some of which are very explicit and clear, although some are rather vague.

pic1.piczo.com...

Also, is the headmaster part of the ufologist conspiracy?

The headmaster of the school is Mr. Colin Mackie, who was most co-operative, and although he had never been involved with UFOs or a believer in them, said that he believed the children had seen what they said they saw.

pic1.piczo.com...

Like I said, I think it's solid that the kids saw what they said they saw, we just have to build a hypothesis and explore what they saw unless or until evidence is presented to counter these things.

reply to post by ArMaP

The beings were described as black with long heads, "eyes as big as rugby balls," with thin arms and legs.

There is widespread accounts of Greys wearing skintight black jumpsuits.......I don't know if you've been to my "Grey Thread" but you can find more info there.That would account for the "black beings with the large neck and eyes".

Originally posted by platosallegory
There's nothing wrong with asking questions. I was just pointing out that questions are not evidence against anything.

Who said they are?

Secondly, Hind didn't talk to the kids about the drawings. She talked to the headmaster Colin Mackie.

Now that I had the time to re-read that page I see that I said the opposite of what I should have said.

I should not trust my memory in cases like this.

My mistake.

Sorry...

reply to post by jkrog08


I must be more careful with what I write, sometimes I am not as clear as I could be (some other times I do not know how to be clear, but this was not the case).

I mentioned the eyes because of the difference in the drawings, some drawings (at least one) shows a face with large, round eyes, maybe as big rugby balls, but other drawings show eyes with the shape of rugby balls, and that is what made me think.

Could the drawings have been made after a description? Someone talked about "eyes like rugby balls" and some drew eyes as big as rugby balls, while some drew eyes shaped as rugby balls.

Also, the talk about the children not having contact with Aliens and UFOs material, if someone said

"At first I thought it was a gardener," one fourth-grader told us. "Then I realized it was an alien."

to me it looks like he/she knew about aliens.

reply to post by ArMaP


Possibly,but there must be some type of talk at some point in nearly every country on Earth regarding "people not like us from another world",don't you think?

This is all excellent and relevant information to prove or at the very least initiate investigation into extraterrestrial intelligence, and its just the tip of the iceberg of ET evidence.

However the problem is trying to present such information to mainstream science and the media, or anybody that 'doesnt believe'. You cant just cant convince people who have preconceived opinions, people who cant accept the idea of ETI.

reply to post by jkrog08


Yes, but that contradicts the idea proposed on the video that the children had no knowledge of these subjects.

And, rethinking what I said yesterday about someone hiding something, I now think that it was the people that made the video(s) that made them in a way to imply some things and hide other things.

Reading Cynthia Hind and John Mack's accounts of the case we can see that things were not exactly what the video shows, and this shows that the real witnesses accounts are much more important than reports of the witnesses accounts, we never know if something is being withheld, changed or added.

Unfortunately, both Cynthia Hind and John Mack are already dead, so we can not have direct information from them.

Originally posted by Celestial Encounters
This is all excellent and relevant information to prove or at the very least initiate investigation into extraterrestrial intelligence, and its just the tip of the iceberg of ET evidence.

However the problem is trying to present such information to mainstream science and the media, or anybody that 'doesnt believe'. You cant just cant convince people who have preconceived opinions, people who cant accept the idea of ETI.

The hurdle you face getting "such information to mainstream science and the media" is called a "BS filter". That's what stops "serious scientists" from looking into the matters, they realize it's just BS and continue on doing more important work.

By using negative Images,these amateur video back-yard shot stills illustrate the common UFO maneuvers of small craft which group and separate within a mile or 2 high,sen easier at night since they are lit up and slow moving.That allows time for people to grab their cell phone or video camera. Unfortunately,ATS dos not screen for paid disinfo negativity and harrasment of meaningful scientific contributions,and so while seeming like mere skeptics,under cover of"naysaying criticism" they discourage and chase away pro and amateur alike. These are worse than NON-contributors,because they interfer with FUTURE contributions while well-meaning people find elsewhere to post their hot,fresh findings.Lose a friend,lose a customer.

reply to post by Gawdzilla


Yes but MSS(MainStream Science) disregards any and all Ufology events,even the ones that appear legit and aren't what you would call "BS".I think this may be due to the fact that scientist that can't understand something(UFO technology) don't want to deal with it.Also a lot of scientist are so closed headed and stick to the cold hard empirical facts.Only since the progression of quantum mechanics has scientist learned that in some legit science there is not much empirical evidence,or none at all.........just the effects.