Five Good Reasons To Believe in UFOs:(or what is going on @ National Geo?)

reply to post by LightAssassin

I was drunk earlier, no excuse i know however i apologised but people just thought i knew nothing.
Maybe i presented it that way, who knows i will have to check out my posts from pages back.

reply to post by denver22


Regarding the isotope ratio, it seems more evidence of off-world activity. You seem to be confirming my beliefs, not debunking them.

Originally posted by LightAssassin
reply to post by denver22

 

Care to construct what you know in more detail? Even do a thread on it.

Maybe when less busy, as sometimes i am busy working lol.

Originally posted by LightAssassin
reply to post by denver22

 

Regarding the isotope ratio, it seems more evidence of off-world activity. You seem to be confirming my beliefs, not debunking them.

Well the off world aspect is not set in stone as remember the body is a marvellous construction
made from elements atoms stars metors etc.

It does not mean aliens put them there however, if you get my point.
Remeber not to be with your cheeky smile winks because you never know what or how i can surprise
you with and how i address it etc.

I am on a dongle stick and the reception is bad it keeps cutting out on me.

A few remarks on this list.

1: The long, documented history of sightings.
This is a history of reported ufo encounters, not a history of extraterrestrial spacecraft. And since we don't know what proportion of UFO reports ought to be genuine, the number of reports is totally meaningless.

2: Numerous modern sightings by credible, well-trained professional observers.
Who is well trained in spotting alien spacecraft? Someone at NORAD or someplace like that might be able to discern, by tracking its flight path, that an object didn't originate from earth. As far as I know, nothing like that has ever happened.
3: Consistencies in the descriptions of purported alien ships
This point is the least convincing of all. First of all, they aren't consistent, unless you only consider the "genuine" sightings to be the ones involving flying saucers and little grey men. Secondly, details could be easily transmitted culturally and projected consciously or unconsciously by the witnesses.
4: Possible physical evidence of encounters with alien spacecraft.
?
5: Documented physiological effects on UFO witnesses
Irrelevant firstly because there aren't any known physiological effects of spaceship encounters, and secondly, because of confirmation bias. Anything unusual the witness happens to be suffering from that day is going to be interpreted by someone as evidence of the UFO encounter.

"What constitutes proof of extraterrestrial encounters?" A question often asked, but seldom answered in any useful way. A good place to start would be: "has an object been detected arriving at Earth from outer space?"

I love the responses... Keep it up.
I see a bit of discussion on UFO's and what constitutes a UFO.

I could not find the thread where I had brought this topic up but I will try to summarize.

At what point do we as a human race or large group say it is a true UFO? If someone knows what it is but isn't saying (a spy vehicle, drone, secret thinger...)

Someone could release a spy drone over an area and a 1000 people might spot it (a poorly designed spybot!) and they are all scared and/or amazed etc.

But the person or group who made/launched that vehicle know what it is... So...

The the one group runs around saying UFO and the other saying Nope...

OR will it take a larger event, observed or documented and absolutely no person or gov't claims to know what it is.....everyone saying WTF was that?

To me, it most likely will take a landing/visiting or crashed remains to make it an official UFO/Alien vehicle.

I do watch the skies a lot and I see crap flying all over the place-up in "space". All flying in pretty much straight lines/paths. For me.. when I see that one that stops and then turns like 90 degrees and speeds off ... a UFO.

reply to post by LightAssassin


Not so fast remember this regarding halloysite:

Halloysite, a naturally occurring aluminosilicate nanotube, has been undeservedly forgotten. Halloysite (Al2Si2O5(OH)4•2H2O) is a two-layered aluminosilicate, with a predominantly hollow tubular structure in the submicron range and chemically similar to kaolin1,2. The neighboring alumina and silica layers, and their waters of hydration, curve and form multilayer tubes due to a packing disorder. Halloysite my friend is an economically viable material that can be mined from the corresponding deposit as a raw mineral on earth.2 As for most natural materials, the size of halloysite particles varies within 1-15 microns of length and 10-150 nm of inner diameter, depending on the deposits. , If i were to use halloysite G produced by Atlas Mining, Nanoclay Technology Division and available -----. This material has an average tube diameter of 50 nm and inner lumen diameter of 15 nm . Typical specific surface area of this halloysite is 65 m2/g; pore volume of ~ 1.25 mL/g; refractive index 1.54; and specific gravity 2.53 g/cm3.

See what i am saying Now ...
Forget the math if you want but pay attention to the natural composition of halloysite
Being of earth and also found in implants.

reply to post by denver22


Hey Denver just curious, do you know what the Drake equation is?



Link

-SAP-

The equation

The Drake equation states that:

where:
N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible;
and
R* = the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fℓ = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space[4]
[edit]R factor
One can question why the number of civilizations should be proportional to the star formation rate, though this makes technical sense. (The product of all the factors except L tells how many new communicating civilizations are born each year. Then you multiply by the lifetime to get the expected number. For example, if an average of 0.01 new civilizations are born each year, and they each last 500 years on the average, then on the average 5 will exist at any time.) The original Drake Equation can be extended to a more realistic model, where the equation uses not the number of stars that are forming now, but those that were forming several billion years ago. The alternate formulation, in terms of the number of stars in the galaxy, is easier to explain and understand, but implicitly assumes the star formation rate is constant over the life of the galaxy.
[edit]Alternative expression
The number of stars in the galaxy now, N*, is related to the star formation rate R* by

where Tg = the age of the galaxy. Assuming for simplicity that R* is constant, then and the Drake equation can be rewritten into an alternate form phrased in terms of the more easily observable value, N*.[5]

-SAP-

(sorry for all the edits )

Originally posted by anon72
I love the responses... Keep it up.
I see a bit of discussion on UFO's and what constitutes a UFO.

I could not find the thread where I had brought this topic up but I will try to summarize.

At what point do we as a human race or large group say it is a true UFO? If someone knows what it is but isn't saying (a spy vehicle, drone, secret thinger...)

Someone could release a spy drone over an area and a 1000 people might spot it (a poorly designed spybot!) and they are all scared and/or amazed etc.

But the person or group who made/launched that vehicle know what it is... So...

The the one group runs around saying UFO and the other saying Nope... .. a UFO.

Pretty good post i like it.
Some tribes still worship the plane, 'cant blame them' they didn't see one back then.
We know it is just a plane, but you try tell the tribesman. You may get a spear in the small
of your back for your troubles lol.

I think you owe everyone a star you think deserves one, if you like the responses so far

reply to post by SloAnPainful


Probability of a mathmatical equasion that says times the number of planets there age
what condition whether it be a dwarf planet per se is a possability of life.. yes a little not alot.

You more or less answered it in your post i like it good post.
Question have you tried planet hunters yet it is a site that lets you look for
planets in the" goldilocks zone"? little off topic nut relevent

reply to post by denver22


No actually I haven't but I'll look into that, Thanks for the heads up, wasn't aware. Not really off topic though considering we are talking about E.Ts and this does fit into that. (somewhat)

-SAP-

We can do without these gas giants allthough they are relativley easy to detect as the emit
light curvatures easy to pick up on etc.

Must find something like earth to go on Since water is the source of life we need
some on these planets.Near us at least if we are to find other life out there with our
intelligence and needs that i can say.

reply to post by SloAnPainful


Just google planethunters and start searching using keplars readouts and light passes etc.
Gas giants, 10x the mass of earth you can see with the dip in the light curve, which you will
see when you start planet hunting.I found a gas giant along with hundreds of others.

Sometimes, you can get lucky and find a planet that fits earths desciption .
Anyways it is 3:30 in the morning i must go to bed i have to be up in four hours.

Will be on tomoro .

reply to post by denver22


glad you like the thread.

I do give stars... boat loads.. when deserved or earned.

But not to one line replies-rarely anyway.

Believe it or not, I was just getting ready to draft you a U2U message to commend you on your .... arguments/post.

But, I guess this is better.. but not as much as I would have put in a U2U.

Tie a good one on for me.....

reply to post by anon72


I agree, this is a great thread. ATS alien forum is filled with crap 90% of the time. "UFO over New York City 6/28/12" and it's some blurry video of a plane. Great job Anon. One of the only threads in the alien forum I've been following.

-SAP-

reply to post by SloAnPainful


Thank you. Better than I had expect, on many levels but I am surprised some "know-it-alls" haven't chimed in.

But, maybe that is a good thing.

Since I started this thread, I see that Fox News and I think it was ABC ran stories about UFO/Aliens & the National Geo attempt to ... expose or investigate the phenomenon.

AND to the Crop Circle Folks.....

Most of these people who claim they make crop circles do it in a single evening (or even two nights) but they REFUSE to prove it in any way-during day light. (not to say some of the cirlces aren't done by humans in a night or two).

I have long contended that ATS should hold a contest of some type that would call the "crop circle makers" out.
I bet my bottom dollar they couldn't do this pic in the day let alone at night (especially with rope and boards..... PROVE ME WRONG!!!


An amazing four-dimensional crop circle has appeared in field of wheat at Clay Hill, Warminster, Wiltshire
or


Which got me to thinking... Maybe some of the England ATSers could make a huge ATS Crop Circle. Now that would be fun to see.

I personally love shows like this. It's a guilty pleasure of mine.

They made it seem a little campy, so I can't wait.

And the crop circles above me are mind blowing.

Man are you people gonna to be let down when you see the hokey crap involved with this one.



Unbelievably asinine. Not to mention the nerd ball bone heads it employs.

i think i watched that show yesterday (chasing aliens or chasing ufo's - whatever it's called). it was surprisingly very good. i'll watch it again.

Originally posted by randyvs
Man are you people gonna to be let down when you see the hokey crap involved with this one.

Unbelievably asinine. Not to mention the nerd ball bone heads it employs.

edit on 29-6-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

You are a debunker or non-believer?

-SAP-