What's your general theory?

reply to post by ThinkingHuman


2) I will look into the Nurnberg event, I believe I have at least heard it mentioned in passing, but I've done no actual research into the event. This is very interesting to me, as I now pay more attention to the events that are not constantly brought up in books/documentaries.

I could very well see a "super-power" existing in the ET world just as we have here, I wonder if it would change as frequently as it does here on Earth.

4) I think that cloning technology works much like the movie "Multiplicity" (which ties into the slow-leak theory involving Hollywood), the first generation of clones or so were probably relatively similar to the original species and there was no worry about the long term issues that may arise. As time went on and they continued cloning, the time passed where they would be able to use genetic engineering to save themselves without combining another race's (ours, or maybe even another race they have genetically engineered in another star system) DNA with theirs.

I do wonder why the cloning process would have started in the first place though. Maybe an interest in immortality?

5) I agree, we can actually take that even further back as well, for example the Roman Empire. All of these empires have something in common though, they end, America is well into that phase and seemingly China will become the new superpower (at least if you don't believe that America took out Al-Qaeda to restart the opium growth in Afghanistan, one of the things Osama stopped, or at least slowed down significantly, in his reign, to regain our power over China).

10) Very good question. I definitely do not have an answer for you, or even a thought that seems plausible to myself.

Perhaps just as we believe life started as a single cell organism (I'm not completely against the idea of evolution, it's pretty obvious to me that to some extent it does exist, I just don't believe that us humans evolved from primates without any interference) perhaps so did the universe and over time it expanded into what we have now (last I heard, we believe that the universe is still expanding), with what I think of as the "creator" being the nucleus or "brain" of the organism.

Not an entirely new idea to me, as I've always thought of the human race as a "virus" or a "cancer" (what else has an exponential population graph, barring the dent of the Black Plague), but I've never thought of the universe as a whole as a single organism that we live inside of, although seemingly it could explain alternate or "parallel" universes. But then the question becomes what kind of organism are we part of? Is there another "dimension" that they are part of, just like us humans have this universe? Does the cycle ever end? I'd assume this isn't even close to the reality of our universe though.

13) I'm still not so sure this is the case. I still feel as if the views we currently have on "psychic" abilities are similar to the disbelief the populace shares on the UFO/ET phenomenon, and I don't feel as if this is just coincidence.

It is theorized that the Atlanteans forced the Annunaki (at least into hiding) off of Earth through the use of crystal "lasers" (based off of ancient pots with the depiction of some sort of weapon in their hands), and seemingly ever since our psychic abilities have degenerated.

If indeed the Atlanteans were in as much control of their psychic abilities as certain accounts seem to indicate they were, I believe that the ETs (whether or Annunaki or another), perhaps in collusion with government, have induced this disbelief throughout the populace to limit our growth as a whole and keep us in a state where we can be used for whatever they need, without having much, if any, resistance.

15) That is indeed a very interesting take on the situation. Very possible this is the case, I'm just not sure what use we are to them if this is the case. As you mention we ride horses into battle, I don't see what we would be able to offer in an intergalactic war to be honest.

16) I think this may honestly tie into #15. Helping us advance technologically doesn't seem as if it would pose much of a threat to the ETs, while it would increase what we have to offer in an intergalactic war.

I would definitely agree that the chances of us making it to the moon the first time were probably astronomical without any help from an outside force. Especially considering it is said that the first shuttle had less technology than most wristwatches today.

reply to post by FormerSkeptic


Various Races of E.T.'s have been coming to Earth for Eons. Depending upon what Race we are talking about there are different agendas. As far as most people are concerned the thought od Aliens may be a joke but I assure you it is not.

After the Roswell Incident President Truman tasked Ike with developing a committee of the best and brightest in a variety of fields. Their purpose was to develop a set of protocols that would allow a yet to be developed Agency to have the proper knowledge in how to handle specific E.T. related events.

This Agency has had help from a large number of people who for some reason have made up storys about being abducted as well as other fringe events. Although abductions do occur the number of people claiming to have been abducted is rediculous in it's huge number. Thus anyone who may have a legitamate Alien encounter is labeled crazy or a lunatic.

Split Infinity

Misread the OP, apologies. Please delete.

Originally posted by McGooferson

15) That is indeed a very interesting take on the situation. Very possible this is the case, I'm just not sure what use we are to them if this is the case. As you mention we ride horses into battle,

You referred to psychic abilities. This suggests a form of energy beyond the physical. When our physical body dies, the non-physical may survive... What if this energy is what they raise us for? (while horses are being raised for the energy to carry us into battle)

They may have robots to address any physical/mechanical issues. But psychic/spiritual energy requires living organisms. What do you think?

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by FormerSkeptic

 

After the Roswell Incident President Truman tasked Ike with developing a committee of the best and brightest in a variety of fields. Their purpose was to develop a set of protocols that would allow a yet to be developed Agency to have the proper knowledge in how to handle specific E.T. related events.

Which committee or agency was that?

Non-human (not necessarily aliens, i.e beings from ANOTHER planet) sentient beings more advanced than us exist. This is a FACT not a theory.
The probability for it is too enormous for it to don't be a fact.

Another fact is that UFOs are real.
There are too many testimonies corroborated by radar detection (testimonies alone are too unreliable to consider as truth. People can make mistakes and, well, lie).
Too many agencies all across the world that have been and still are looking into the subject, too many incidents involving UFOs that have been hidden away and/or denied, too many (more or less) ancient drawings, texts, myths, religions treating of this topic (the very concept of ‘angels of light‘ is derived from UFOs sightings)… For it to be just dismissed.
The convergence of evidence is staggering.

BUT, anything else, beside direct PERSONAL proof like meeting one in person -not simply seeing an UFO-, is conjecture and beliefs.
We can make hypothesis but believe as truth anything 'researchers' say is stupid and useless, if not damaging since it closes you to other possibilities.
Besides, pretty much ALL of these 'researchers' and 'truth seekers' are shills or simply misguided (far) enough (from any truth), and are, therefore, of little to no help in uncovering any real info or secrets.

The ones that have discovered or theorized some truth are 'disappeared' or are not known or credible enough (by and for the people interested in the matter). They are not a nuisance to the ptb (anymore).

Good luck finding the truth in the enormous amount of (dis)info on the subject. Distinguishing between disinfo, BS, mistakes, agendas and potential facts has become a tremendous, if not overwhelming, task.
So, from which of these 'facts' would you like us to build a descent logical and VALID theory???

The only thing we can do is try and spot obvious lies and illogical theories based on pseudo or doctored science (like time travel and quantum physics).

Originally posted by 1Agnostic1
Non-human (not necessarily aliens, i.e beings from ANOTHER planet) sentient beings more advanced than us exist. This is a FACT not a theory.
The probability for it is too enormous for it to don't be a fact.

Things don't "work" that way, something is only a fact when it stops being just a probability and is confirmed.
Using words with the meaning we want them to have instead of their real meaning is, at least, misleading.

reply to post by ArMaP


Theorically I agree completely with your statement.
But pragmatically and empirically a probability of 1.0000000000001/1 is a fact.
The number of planets having liquid water on their surface is enormous (by the trillions). 'Scientists' try to hide that FACT. ALL of these planets have life. Millions, if not billions have sentient life.
The scarcity of life is nothing but a myth and militaro-religious propaganda.

reply to post by 1Agnostic1


Belief and fact are two different things , I believe there's plenty of life in our Galaxy and probably solar system to given the available evidence , but until we have a sample of that life or at least positive readings that that life exists it isn't a fact as we have no solid evidence .

Chances are high that there's a Planet out there relatively close with an intelligent species looking up at the stars and asking the same question we are , all we have to do is find it .

reply to post by gortex


Who is "we"?
What makes you think 'they' didn't find it already.
And, yes, an enormous probality is a fact. As long as the factors used to calculate this probability are sound (which is far from being self-evident and is the reason why probability and statistics are so often manipulated and meaningless).
Think digital fingerprints and DNA to convict people. They are used as fact, still there are not. They are evidence judged probable enough to make a definitive empirical decision.
Also, I can prove you, if you want to go this road, that NOTHING is a fact.
You would have to define the studied phenomenon or occurence PERFECTLY for it to be proved as a fact or not.
For example, if you say: "the sun exists, it's a fact."
I would ask you what is your definition of the "sun" and demonstrate you don't even know what it (the sun) is (I don't either, nor anybody).
So, how could you say "THIS" is a fact when you don't even know what "THIS" truly is.
You understand?

That's why I say, as much as theoritically, a very high probability isn't indeed a fact, pragmatically and empirically, for all instance and purposes, it IS.

SENTIENT ALIENS AND UFOs EXIST. FACT.

But "Are they related (UFOs are not necessary proof of ALIEN (not earthly sentient non-human beings) existence)? Have ALIENS visited earth and interact? Do they rule our world ( )...? "
Any answer to these questions and the "WHYs" that go with them are all conjectures.

reply to post by 1Agnostic1

Theorically I agree completely with your statement.

Why, then, do fact and theory not agree in this case? Where does the error lie, do you suppose?

But pragmatically and empirically a probability of 1.0000000000001/1 is a fact.

You have stated a nonsensical number to support your case. I assume you wish to state that the odds of there being intelligent life in the universe are certainty. This statement would be correct, as we know of at least one planet that harbors intelligent life: Earth. Unfortunately, we have no way of determining how frequently the necessary factors for its evolution occur, therefore it is impossible to make a truly meaningful calculation of the number of times intelligent life has evolved in this, or indeed, any other possible universe.

The number of planets having liquid water on their surface is enormous (by the trillions).

Name one, besides Earth. (Martian water is currently stored in the form of permafrost.)

'Scientists' try to hide that FACT. ALL of these planets have life.

This is a preposterous allegation which you have not provided any evidence to support. If anything, the current trend among scientists is to over estimate the possibilities for extra-terrestrial life. Something to do with swaying popular opinion in order to get funding.

Millions, if not billions have sentient life.

Here on ATS you will find it necessary to provide supporting evidence for a statement like this.

The scarcity of life is nothing but a myth and militaro-religious propaganda.

Intriguing. Rather than explain the concept of a "militaro-religious" complex here, perhaps you could start a new thread on it. You have nearly enough posts now.

reply to post by 1Agnostic1

I would ask you what is your definition of the "sun" and demonstrate you don't even know what it (the sun) is (I don't either, nor anybody). So, how could you say "THIS" is a fact when you don't even know what "THIS" truly is. You understand?

The Sun is a giant fusion reactor , I know what it is and science knows how it works through observation , unfortunately we haven't had chance to observe Extraterrestrial life yet .

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by 1Agnostic1

 

Theorically I agree completely with your statement.

Why, then, do fact and theory not agree in this case? Where does the error lie, do you suppose?

But pragmatically and empirically a probability of 1.0000000000001/1 is a fact.

You have stated a nonsensical number to support your case. I assume you wish to state that the odds of there being intelligent life in the universe are certainty. This statement would be correct, as we know of at least one planet that harbors intelligent life: Earth. Unfortunately, we have no way of determining how frequently the necessary factors for its evolution occur, therefore it is impossible to make a truly meaningful calculation of the number of times intelligent life has evolved in this, or indeed, any other possible universe.

The number of planets having liquid water on their surface is enormous (by the trillions).

Name one, besides Earth. (Martian water is currently stored in the form of permafrost.)

'Scientists' try to hide that FACT. ALL of these planets have life.

This is a preposterous allegation which you have not provided any evidence to support. If anything, the current trend among scientists is to over estimate the possibilities for extra-terrestrial life. Something to do with swaying popular opinion in order to get funding.

Millions, if not billions have sentient life.

Here on ATS you will find it necessary to provide supporting evidence for a statement like this.

The scarcity of life is nothing but a myth and militaro-religious propaganda.

Intriguing. Rather than explain the concept of a "militaro-religious" complex here, perhaps you could start a new thread on it. You have nearly enough posts now.

1. This is a very complex subject.
Let's say that to qualify a theory as fact you need to prove it DEFINITIVELY. Then, there is no such thing as scientific fact since science evolves (or, should I say, should be evolving) all the time and a today's fact is a tomorrow's mistakes.
Furthermore, for you to declare something as a fact, you have to rely on scientisits' interpretations and theories to do so. You have NO WAY to prove nor disprove them. So, what you do is BELIEVE what they say is a fact.
Even, if indeed it is for them, it's a belief for you.

There is a lot to say on the topics of phenomenon, fact, theory, belief...

My stance, though, is that, sometimes, fact can be proven by logic alone. Empirical evidence being a bonus or confirmation. Problem is, I concede, logic is a word used very loosely by people and even scientists.
That's why, as my username states it, I'm an agnostic. Not only in religious matters, but for everything.

Still, for any discussion and thought/cognitive processes to be meaningful, we need some axioms and facts that are accepted as true.
In this case, we can say there are, for a fact, trillions upon trillions of planets in the universe and that we are a sentient species living on one of these planets.

Now, to your second point:

2. This number is pretty conservative actually. It means that for us to be the only sentient species in the universe the odds would be a trillion to one. If you prefer to BELIEVE these odds it's your prerogative. FACT is this is statistically IMPOSSIBLE. Get it?

3. Did you go to Mars to verify the claim that it's only permafrost? So, how can YOU state it's a fact?
Any objective geologist would accept, simply looking at some Mars pix that there have been liquid water on Mars. There also have been an atmosphere. So, at least, life were there. Also, where there is ice (on any planet or moon), there is water... and most probably liquid water underneath.

4. Water (+amino acids) + atmosphere = life.
This is simplified to the extreme but still true. There is no inert body when water is in the mix. Heck, life can even be present without water and in silicium form (instead of carbon).

5. That's the answer to the question: "To whom profit the crime?"
Military because they don't want you to believe they MAY be powerless. (They surely don't want to admit that to themselves either). For the purpose of keeping you in check.
(Abrahamic) Religions because then their Bibles would be known as complete BS.

reply to post by gortex


Well, you see, you're most likely wrong. The sun isn't a giant thermonuclear reactor. But not the debate here.

Anyway, this only proves that you have NO WAY of qualifying "scientfic facts" as facts. You simply BELIEVE what the majority of scientific community tell you is true. You BELIEVE them. This is, then, no fact for YOU.

if they may be indeed facts, you have no means to confirm or infirm it, to validate or invalidate their claims. You rely on BELIEFS.

As for scientists themselves, every fact is one... until proven wrong. The concept of "scientific fact" is almost meaningless.
"Logical fact" should be used instead. And, believe me, there would be a lot less facts and a lot more theories (that can change, evolve and be disproven).
But, still, the fact that we, human beings, exist and that we are not alone in this universe composed of trillions of planets would remain!

reply to post by 1Agnostic1

1. This is a very complex subject.

Agreed, which is why your over-simplifications are unworthy.

Let's say that to qualify a theory as fact you need to prove it DEFINITIVELY. Then, there is no such thing as scientific fact since science evolves (or, should I say, should be evolving) all the time and a today's fact is a tomorrow's mistakes.

You keep using the word "fact." I'm not sure you understand what it actually means. In science, a "fact" is a verifiable observation.

Furthermore, for you to declare something as a fact, you have to rely on scientisits' interpretations and theories to do so.

No, you need to have a repeatable experimental protocol that always produces the same results.

You have NO WAY to prove nor disprove them.

Yes, one can simply repeat the experiment or make the necessary observations in the field.

So, what you do is BELIEVE what they say is a fact.
Even, if indeed it is for them, it's a belief for you.

I think what you mean to say is that if one accepts the report of a series of experiments of observations or experiments as factual without repeating them as fact, your acceptance of them is an irrational belief. This is, of course, wrong. It is merely an act of trust. Trust that the person publishing the results is honest, and trust in the peer review process to eventually expose any fraud.

There is a lot to say on the topics of phenomenon, fact, theory, belief...

Entire libraries have been devoted to them.

My stance, though, is that, sometimes, fact can be proven by logic alone. Empirical evidence being a bonus or confirmation. Problem is, I concede, logic is a word used very loosely by people and even scientists.
That's why, as my username states it, I'm an agnostic. Not only in religious matter, but for everything.

An axiom is an assumption, a fact is an observation. One can create many internally consistent logical systems, but not all of them necessarily conform to the observed behavior of what, for current purposes, we can call the "observable world."

Still, as for any discussion and thought/cognitive processes to be meaningful, we need some axioms and facts that are accepted as true.

Okay....

In this case, we can say there are, for a fact, trillions upon trillions in the universe of planets and that we are a sentient species living on one of these planets.

We can say for a fact that our current understanding of the universe suggests that there is probably a very large number of planets in the universe, and that we know of only one that is inhabited by sentient life.

Now, to your second point:

2. This number is pretty conservative actually. It means that for us to be the only sentient species in the universe the odds would a trillion to one. If you prefer BELIEVE these odds it's your prerogative. FACT is this is statistically IMPOSSIBLE. Get it?

There is no such thing as "statistically impossible," only statistically unlikely. We do not have a large enough sampling of planets, let alone inhabited planets, to make any meaningful calculation of the prevalence of life in the universe.

3. Did you go to Mars to verify the claims that it's only permafrost. Any objective geologist would accept, simply looking at some Mars pix that there have been liquid water on Mars. There also have been an atmosphere. So, at least, life were there. Also, where there is ice (on any planet or moon, there is water... and most probably liquid water underneath.

In other words, no, you cannot name a single other planet that has liquid water on it.

4. Water (+amino acids) + atmosphere = life.

You are leaving out minor details like self sustaining organizational structure, metabolism and the ability to reproduce. Scientists assume that life can evolve spontaneously given the right combination of elements and environment. That does not make it a fact.

This is simplified to the extreme but still true. There is no inert body when water is in the mix. Heck, life can even be present without water and in silicium form (instead of carbon).

Speculation.

5. That's the answer to the question: "To whom profit the crime?"
Military because they don't want you to believe they MAY be powerless. (They surely don't want to admit that to themselves either). For the purpose of keeping you in check.
(Abrahamic) Religions because then the Bibles would be known as complete BS.

I'm not sure I follow you on this one, but you are welcome to your beliefs.

reply to post by FormerSkeptic

well my current belief is that there are true extraterrestrials visiting earth and they account for some of the unexplainable ufo sightings(I also follow the theory that only 10% of ufo sightings are unexplainable) the rest are top secret government craft being tested, they developed this craft most likely without reverse engineering. the governments are also covering up certain parts of alien activty as well.

thats what I have now come to think after all my reaserch

reply to post by ThinkingHuman


Watch this....www.youtube.com...

Split Infinity

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by 1Agnostic1

Agreed, which is why your over-simplifications are unworthy.

You're right, but I won't post a book. So I have to oversimplify.

You keep using the word "fact." I'm not sure you understand what it actually means. In science, a "fact" is a verifiable observation.

You're incorrect. I mean, it would be true if the observed penomenon was defined/interpreted correctly in the first place.
But this phenomenon never is since our knowledge is very limited and subject to change. What was called the sun 2000 years ago is NOT what the scientist community thinks to be the sun today, and they are still wrong.
So, what « observation » do you verify, exactly, when stating (for example) that the ‘sun’ exists?
Meaning if you don’t even know the NATURE of the observation, how can you define ‘it’ properly and say ‘it’ occurs and then is validated?

No, you need to have a repeatable experimental protocol that always produces the same results..

That's the definiton of a valid theory, not a fact. A fact could occur once and/or not be oberved and still would be a fact. Human verification is NOT necessary for something to actually exist.
And you missed the point about YOU being incapable of verifying the claim, therefore relying on trust/belief (these words are synonyms you know?).

Yes, one can simply repeat the experiment or make the necessary observations in the field.

'One' not being YOU which was my point. And, as I just stated, it's not even required.

It is merely an act of trust.

Trust is nothing more than believing in someone to tell you the truth. You have no way of verifying it for yourself so you believe. It's easier but doesn't make it more valuable nor true.

An axiom is an assumption, a fact is an observation. One can create many internally consistent logical systems, but not all of them necessarily conform to the observed behavior of what, for current purposes, we can call the "observable world."

An axiom is a NECESSARY assumption.
A fact is the RIGHT/valid interpretation of an observation. Not simply an observartion. Again you cannot qualify a something to be true or valid if you don't know its nature.

One can create many internally consistent logical systems, but not all of them necessarily conform to the observed behavior of what, for current purposes, we can call the "observable world."

Agreed.

Me: In this case, we can say there are, for a fact, trillions upon trillions in the universe of planets and that we are a sentient species living on one of these planets.

You: We can say for a fact that our current understanding of the universe suggests that there is probably a very large number of planets in the universe, and that we know of only one that is inhabited by sentient life.

Semantics, your formulation is also correct. Yet, 'facts' are verified and validated only when it suits your belief system it seems.

Me: This number is pretty conservative actually. It means that for us to be the only sentient species in the universe the odds would be a trillion to one. If you prefer to BELIEVE these odds it's your prerogative. FACT is this is statistically IMPOSSIBLE.

You: There is no such thing as "statistically impossible," only statistically unlikely. We do not have a large enough sampling of planets, let alone inhabited planets, to make any meaningful calculation of the prevalence of life in the universe.

Unlikely?? That's a (scientific) way to put it, sure. What about (in lay terms) very, very, very, very... (+1 Trillion) unlikely?
One inhabited planet in the whole universe (again, trillions of planets), yeah, why not?

And we send actual people to prison and to their death on probabilities lower than that. There it’s good enough. But not accept the existence of sentient elsewhere in the universe? Come on, now…

You are leaving out minor details like self sustaining organizational structure, metabolism and the ability to reproduce.

That's called (inevitable) evolution (towards complex organisms) and all it needs are an atmosphere, water and amino-acids + some thunder for electro-chemical reaction.

Scientists assume that life can evolve spontaneously given the right combination of elements and environment. That does not make it a fact.

You're right... Nothing is.

Me: This is simplified to the extreme but still true. There is no inert body when water is in the mix. Heck, life can even be present without water and in silicium form (instead of carbon).

You: Speculation.

‘Life’ in volcanoes/lava for example. Do a research and you'll find out that 'life' always finds its way.

reply to post by 1Agnostic1

You're right, but I won't post a book. So I have to oversimplify.

No, you can simply speak concisely. You could say: given what we now know about the nature of the universe it is highly unlikely that we are the only sentient species. See? That sums things up nicely. It is a reasoned statement of opinion, not fact, and I am inclined to agree with it.

Now what was this about us not knowing what the Sun is?

reply to post by DJW001


It's not the topic but here:
[electric-cosmos.org...]Electric sun[/url]
also read about the theory of the "electric universe", plasma dynamics and electrodynamic field theory for a new and better understanding of astrophysics, This is a relatively new field of science.



I have to add that some qualify this theory is labelled as 'pseudo-science' by skeptics and tenants/enfrocers of the conventional dogams. But who's surprised here.