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.
Originally posted by andre18
Originally posted by FlySolo
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1f76b82eb432.jpg[/atsimg]edit on 19-4-2011 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)edit on 19-4-2011 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)
I don't understand any of that, i'm horrible at math. Is that meant to be some sort of evidence of aliens?
Originally posted by WillNiendick
Originally posted by andre18
I am sorry, you are saying there is no scientific evidence for aliens? You need to read up my man, you are a sheep in a shopping mall of truth.
I would provide links, but most the websites are blocked on this school computer. I might care enough to edit my post when I get home. But I think trying to convince you is a lost cause.
Originally posted by PhotonEffect
What's the scientific evidence for aliens? This I have to see.edit on 20-4-2011 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by FlySolo
Originally posted by andre18
Originally posted by FlySolo
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1f76b82eb432.jpg[/atsimg]edit on 19-4-2011 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)edit on 19-4-2011 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)
I don't understand any of that, i'm horrible at math. Is that meant to be some sort of evidence of aliens?
You don't need to understand it. I don't. But this is just another example of all the stuff out there you don't know about. While you take stock in what the scientists tell you, which is fine BTW, you also need to investigate the other side of the story. You can't be biased when you are a skeptic.
That my friend, is a mathematical equation given to an abductee explaining how to bend space-time. While it is pointless to debate who he is and how he came up with that formula, seeing there will always be people attempting to debunk any evidence, you have to consider the possibility that this formula is correct.
You can read about it here.
www.rense.com...
Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Of course he has only a 5th grade math competency... other wise it would render the entire story bunk now wouldn't it?
I don't buy it. But I'd be curious as to why you believe that to be proof of alien visitation. Why are you buying into that story?
I read it and don't find it all that amazing, to be honest.
Do you have any others that might provide better proof of alien visitation?
Originally posted by alphabetaone
Originally posted by yic17
Then I thought that IF the government knows the existence of the greys. As human beings - what reason could they have to deceive their own people instead of gather the strength of people to fight back? Why spend so much resource to cover up this topic instead of using the resource to fight them?
Hi again yic, with respect to the above quote, (and taking a LOT as a huge IF) it would be easy to explain why they would hide it from their own people. For precisely the same reason they would hide an impending comet strike on an E.L.E. scale... because it would cause undue panic.
We all like to assume that the TRUTH is something we want....but I would ask that you reconsider that for a moment. There are over 1 billion Catholics, many Billion Muslims, and many other faiths that believe in a supreme being that is the end all creator of life. With respect to these religions, the core of that, is that human kind (on earth) is the center of the universe around which we were allegedly created in the supreme beings image (whether it be Allah, God, nome du jour of the creator). Now can you imagine the fallout that would be created by there actually BEING a disclosure, making the assumption that it is being covered-up in the first place?
It would throw the world into absolute turmoil most especially from a religious perspective...religion is by FAR, the absolute most powerful force on Earth next to mother nature herself...religion fuels war, it fuels hope, it fuels life and it fuels death...disclosing ET's would mean, to religion, that we in FACT, are not the center of the universe around which all religion is based.
Originally posted by FlySolo
reply to post by PhotonEffect
Friend, the answer is in the details. Details!
Read the link posted. All of it, then come back and debate this. I don't want to spoon feed you but I will give you a hint. He used his own formula to derive an exact answer out of Drake's equation. His method can not be found in a text book, yet the result is the same. It lends credence.
Edit to add:
You don't buy it because he only has 5th grade math? How does that make any sense? Its like saying the clear pictures must be hoaxed because the quality is too good. And the blurry pictures are hoaxed because the quality is too poor.
Stop the madness
On July 19 and 20, 1952, eight flying saucers flew directly over the White House, the Capitol building, and the Pentagon. They flew over restricted airspace, and they were tracked visually from the ground. The people in the control towers at Bolling Air Force Base, Washington National Airport, and Andrews Air Force Base all saw them as well. The radar at all three bases picked up the saucers as solid objects. Commercial airline pilots saw them and so did virtually every citizen in Washington DC.
Then to make matters worse, the saucers left, only to reappear one week later on July 26 and 27. Later investigations would show that over fifty saucers flew over Washington D.C. on a single day, May 23, 1952.
Originally posted by yic17
Okay, makes sense. I am not a huge believer of religions but I can understand how people will react to it.
Originally posted by lme7898354
I think there is too much irrefutable evidence
ir·ref·u·ta·ble /ɪˈrɛfyətəbəl, ˌɪrɪˈfyutəbəl/ Show Spelled[ih-ref-yuh-tuh-buhl, ir-i-fyoo-tuh-buhl] Show IPA –adjective that cannot be refuted or disproved: irrefutable logic.
Originally posted by lme7898354
I think there is too much irrefutable evidence showing someone or something has been visiting the earth for a long, long time. If you look at some of the early cave drawings you don't see pictures of cars, tv's or appliances but you do see pictures of men dressed in space suits and flying discs.
Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Originally posted by FlySolo
reply to post by PhotonEffect
Friend, the answer is in the details. Details!
Read the link posted. All of it, then come back and debate this. I don't want to spoon feed you but I will give you a hint. He used his own formula to derive an exact answer out of Drake's equation. His method can not be found in a text book, yet the result is the same. It lends credence.
Listen fella-
I read it, and the comments at the bottom. I'm not buying it. And when I saw Richard C Hoagland I knew something was fishy.
If that's your best hand then I'm afraid you're not going to win.
You don't even know what it means. You have no proof of who actually wrote those supposed equations. You're just blindly buying the story.
Originally posted by FlySolo
Listen fella? Be careful with your words. I don't care much for Hoagland either but can you have any weaker of a straw man argument? What does hoagland have to do with it? Nothing. Very very poor rebuttal and typical. Try actually "thinking"
And no, I don't understand the atomic level of mathematics and I don't need to. Others do, and I read what they have to say about it. Get it yet, fella?
Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Relax with the threatening tone buddy. Why are you getting so bent out of shape?
I have no reason to buy into this story. None what so ever. And I only asked what your reasoning is. Abduction cases are the most questionable of the bunch to find truth in, in my opinion.
It's a man claiming to have been visited and then suddenly he can write these elaborate equations on his window with inly a 5th grade math competency. I love it! And you happened to figure out it has something to do with the drake equation. Well great. What's that supposed to mean? Should it make this story any more believable? Why?
An electric charge in motion generates a magnetic field. This equation describes the relationship between the moving charge and the resulting magnetic field. B is this field, J is a flowing group of charges, and E/T_ is the time rate of change of the electric field produced by those charges. _ is the magnetic permeability of free space, normally written as _o, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum, 3 x 1010 cm/sec. What is interesting about the form here is that the symbol 1/c2 is not usually used-in fact, I have never seen it written this way in any textbook, even though it is correct. 1/c2 is equal to _o_o where _o is the permittivity of free space. Since Stan uses _ instead of _o, I would expect to see __ instead of 1/c2 here. This is how it is written in the textbooks. This may seem like a small point, but it does indicate to me a working knowledge of Maxwell's equations, and not just something copied from a textbook.
Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Originally posted by alphabetaone
Originally posted by PhotonEffect
We should have the cold hard proof by now. But we don't. We're still searching. Some think they've been here for thousands of years... I'm not buying it, sorry...
I agree with some of what you said, (especially the unimaginable, almost unfathomable number of threads on UFO/Alien/Sightings and all the respective documents and supporting evidence) however, I am a believer of life beyond our own planet. I simply don't believe there are any ET life forms living amongst us, nor is our Government or any society living with them.
I am more a believer that "they" are likely in the same boat we are; we know it's out there, but we simply can't reach it.
The real evidence, to me, and in reality, is simply mathematics....billions upon billions of galaxy's which house billions upon billions of stars....mathematically, the likelihood that there is a life sustaining and life friendly solar system is unbelievably high. For it NOT to be true is more ignorant than it is false (given that).
Star.
I agree wholeheartedly with everything you said.
They're out there. Just not here.
There had to be a very distinct chain of events that needed to occur in order for me to exist and have the ability to communicate with you at this moment in time as we are.
For one thing it took 14 billion years to get to this point. So chances are that other life forms similar to ourselves are bound by the same sort of constraints as we are...