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 Rising Against
\
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/249afed1de6d.jpg[/atsimg]
reply to post by Jdawg9909
Why the similarities? You would think that if two species advanced so far apart in the universe, that our symbology would be "alien" to each other, not so similar in appearance.
Originally posted by ladyteeny
these ones confound me! what i'd love to learn from being able to read their languages!!
here's a link to the craft and it's occupants that the OP mentions in his first post.
www.viewzone.com...
Originally posted by thetiler
Originally posted by ladyteeny
these ones confound me! what i'd love to learn from being able to read their languages!!
here's a link to the craft and it's occupants that the OP mentions in his first post.
www.viewzone.com...
That backwords object sticking out looks kinda like this famous pic (viewzone link). It is what people call a submarine. But is it a remnant of a moon flying ufo that was dumped.
vejprty.com...
Originally posted by hrmmm
Im haveing similar thaughts about these markings. Why would ufo's have markings?
They would not need identifiers on craft as humans do on aircraft. Think about it a little.
So back to the language. The language is actually a "functional blueprint". The forms of the shapes, symbols and arrangements thereof is itself functional. What makes it all especially difficult to grasp is that every element of each "diagram" is dependant on and related to every other element, which means no single detail can be created, removed or modified independently. Humans like written language because each element of the language can be understood on its own, and from this, complex expressions can be built. However, their "language" is entirely context-sensitive, which means that a given symbol could mean as little as a 1-bit flag in one context, or, quite literally, contain the entire human genome or a galaxy star map in another. The ability for a single, small symbol to contain, not just represent, tremendous amounts of data is another counter-intuitive aspect of this concept. We quickly realized that even working in groups of 10 or more on the simplest of diagrams, we found it virtually impossible to get anything done. As each new feature was added, the complexity of the diagram exponentially grew to unmanageable proportions. For this reason we began to develop computer-based systems to manage these details and achieved some success, although again we found that a threshold was quickly reached beyond which even the supercomputers of the day were unable to keep up. Word was that the extra-terrestrials could design these diagrams as quickly and easily as a human programmer could write a Fortran program. It's humbling to think that even a network of supercomputers wasn't able to duplicate what they could do in their own heads. Our entire system of language is based on the idea of assigning meaning to symbols. Their technology, however, somehow merges the symbol and the meaning, so a subjective audience is not needed. You can put whatever meaning you want on the symbols, but their behavior and functionality will not change, any more than a transistor will function differently if you give it another name.