There's no evidence that extraterrestrial visitation has occurred

reply to post by inquisitive1977

Wow yoi really know very little about the topic which may be why you cannot accept possibilities.

It was stated that things are possible. Here is a short list of possibilities:
Aliens visiting earth
Jim Morrison still being alive
The Eagles winning a super bowl
I have a three way before I die

now there is only one that a "probability" can not be assigned to. The others involve known entities. We know Jim Morrison was a real person. We know the Eagles win on occasion and have made it to the super bowl. People do have three ways, I have seen many documentaries.

Aliens are not known to actually exist yet. We can only speculate and imagine that some "unknown" thing is due to aliens. But aliens are not the only thing we can speculate about. We also have knowledge of known things that have explained things that were once unknown things. Likelihood can only be assigned to things that are known to have occurred. The only way to assign likelihood to alien visitation is to make assumptions and speculate about their existence. That is how it works.

reply to post by inquisitive1977

Wow yoi really know very little about the topic which may be why you cannot accept possibilities.

Really, so you cant read is that your issue, how are you responding to some things then?

Let me quote myself in case you missed it

Everything and anything is possible in my universe.

What apart from everything and anything do I not accept as being possible?

We KNOW and have identified near 2,000 planets outside earth.

2700 is a more accurate number I believe.

But we are discussing habitable planets earth like arent we?

Thats well docimented and known but you apparently can't be bothered by actual knowledge.

here is a couple links for you to show how much cant be bothered

www.space.com...

news.nationalgeographic.com.au...

www.abc.net.au...

It is well documented, but you seem to be misinterpreting what is said that has been discovered.

Get off the study/ investigate thing, it makes you sound ignorant. The PHENOMENON has been studied/investigated. there is no difference.

To you it might sound ignorant, That is your issue, I know how I sound and what I say.

By the way I never said where the milutary got anything. You like to make up arguments where none exist. It does NOT matter who makes it for the military it still would be a military project.

and red is blue I guess.


Enjoy hearing my ignorant sounds

reply to post by ZetaRediculian

People do have three ways, I have seen many documentaries.

You know the ATS UFO forum saying, hey we are in the UFO forum

Pics or it doesn't count


Sorry I couldn't help myself.

Delete this Post if you must, but a bit of humor need to be interjected every now and then

reply to post by InhaleExhale


I think you are arguing with someone that is confusing possibility and probability or at least overvaluing what "possibility" is exactly. And I think you are right, you can't really "study" something "unknown". Its like saying "I am studying people that have evolved wings and can fly".

reply to post by neoholographic

People try to belittle eyewitness accounts when it comes to this area, but any good Investigator gives weight to eyewitness accounts and the credibility of the witnesses. This plays out in Police Investigations to a Jury. But in the area of U.F.O.'s were supposed to throw logic and common sense out of the window and treat eyewitness testimony like it's meaningless

It may seem like "belittling" eyewitnesses but to me its not. In most cases witnesses are describing what they saw to the best of their ability. People misidentify things. We know that. We also know that something that is ambiguous can be described differently by different people. I don't know of any "evidence" for ET that is not ambiguous. Why should I Assume that what any witness describes is not their own personal interpretation? I don't envy the task of trying to convey this type of information.

I also know of no court cases where the goal would be to identify something that is not known to exist. How would this work? If there are 10 police officers saying they saw a ufo and all of them "believe" it to be ET, does that make it so or does that only make what they saw "unidentified"?

I agree that it shouldn't be treated like its meaningless but a clear distinction needs to be made between what is subjective belief and what isn't.

reply to post by InhaleExhale

Maybe we aren't as far off as it seemed but you still do not have all of the information. A NASA study determined about 22% of the stars in the milky way are like ours and have earth like planets as far as close in size composition and in the habitable zone. That leads to 10s of billions of possibilities of chances to develop life as we know it. Do a search for billions of earths and you will see news releases from every major news organization basically.

Life is literally everywhere on our planet and we simply are not that special. Life will be everywhere in our galaxy as the growing evidence keeps showing as more likely. We will find life in places not as we know it also im sure.

What Im saying is that it is not only possible that ETI pilots (or built) these well known and well documented unknown craft but also probable with the evidence/knowledge we have from studying the well knownb phenomenon.

It is far less like an earth based group or groups developed such advanced technology without using it to gain money, power, fame or any combination. We also have no history of tanks and machine guns beinf stockpiled in the middle ages, basically the equivalent of the claims now.

ETI is a valid theory with the available evifence, it may not be conclusive or fact and may have to evolve over tome with more evidence. The fact is people get attacked for even proposing it.

Since we have the stupidesy argument in the world and you have nothing valid to refute you attack yhe word study. An actual definition is the pusuest of knowledge by reading, OBSERVATION, or reasearch. Another includes investigation as a means to pursue knowledge.

Again the Phenom enon is known, documented and unidentifiable. In trying to determine what it is it has been studied, researched investigated however you want to say it.

inquisitive1977

What Im saying is that it is not only possible that ETI pilots (or built) these well known and well documented unknown craft

That some are saying that unknown, undocumented ET's piloting (or building) well-known, well-documented unknown craft is possible is well known and well documented.

reply to post by InhaleExhale


By the way yes this entire time you have shown an absolute inability to comprehend what you read. You argue words without checking yhe ddefinition and fail to offer any real arguments that qould make ETI unlikely. Yes it isn't proven but still would be the most likely answer, even though the subject is taboo.

You throw out information ob planets that of course I actually know already having an interest in the topic. You conveniently drop previous statements showing your lack of knowledge regardong mars and moons in our own solar system. You have no idea of recent findings by NASA and keep trying to say how unlikely actual habitablr planets are. You point out how many have been found with possibilities to be habitable while ignoring the limited ammount of stars studied or why those stars were chosen to be studied. Where we did study and what we learned was not only to try and find possibly habitable planets but also to be able to estimate overall possibilities.

reply to post by inquisitive1977

What Im saying is that it is not only possible that ETI pilots (or built) these well known and well documented unknown craft but also probable with the evidence/knowledge we have from studying the well knownb phenomenon.

Yes I cannot comprehend what I am reading.



Its not because I have comprehension issues either.

reply to post by inquisitive1977

By the way yes this entire time you have shown an absolute inability to comprehend what you read.

When I find it hard to understand what a person posts I ask a question,

You posted this

Actually we hace learned through scientific analysis that there are likely billions of earth like planets in our galaxy alone Along with highly likely chances life developed on two planets in our own solar sytem both with earth like conditions. On top of that another planet is theorized to have non earthlike oceans and potentially life.

And I replied and asked a few questions for you to clarify this,

Here they are again

Intelligent life that have their own technology and craft? What life, what 2 planets that have earth like conditions in our Solar system are you talking about? Is this in our solar system as well?

Now you seem to give a slight indication of what you trying to say in that other post here

You throw out information ob planets that of course I actually know already having an interest in the topic. You conveniently drop previous statements showing your lack of knowledge regard ong mars and moons in our own solar system.

You mention Mars, Has Mars got Earth like conditions, You could go for a vacation there as you would to any destination on Earth if travel there was common?

And now its moons, Are you talking Europa and did you mean that before when you said a planet to have non earth like oceans and potential for life?

Yes I am having trouble comprehending much of what you say because you talk of piloting ET craft and life being everywhere, and make vague statements about earth like planets in our own solar system.

Is this life everywhere you have said previously intelligent life that is technologically advanced and piloting craft?

Isn't what this thread is about, ET visiting earth?

Who cares if bacteria or other forms of basic life can be found in abundance in places, are these intelligent and visiting earth that might be creating the UFO phenomena?

What info have I thrown out, What statements have I dropped that show a lack of knowledge regarding Mars and other moons in our solar system?

You didn't make any statements about moons in our solar system but about 2 or possibly 3 earth like planets in our solar system,

I asked about the 3rd, you never answered, so who is conveniently dismissing things?

draknoir2

inquisitive1977

What Im saying is that it is not only possible that ETI pilots (or built) these well known and well documented unknown craft

That some are saying that unknown, undocumented ET's piloting (or building) well-known, well-documented unknown craft is possible is well known and well documented.

edit on 5-3-2014 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)

congratulations. You have earned the right use super genius as your title.

They walk amongst us ... trust me on that one! You would never know though, unless for some reason they decide to reveal themselves.

I cant help thinking of sleep paralysis ... yes that old chestnut!! Ask a Doctor about it and see what reaction you get! actually ask as many Doctors as possible and draw up a grid of responses. You might have spoken to an alien and not even realised.


hx

EnPassant

AliceBleachWhite

Pladuim
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite

 

" made a personal subjective judgement in favor bias for something you want to believe in."

I'll have to say "Ditto" and leave it at that. Your reply was as expected, thank you.

Pladuim

Um, no, unless by 'bias' you mean basing my position on actual independently verifiable replicable valid and legitimate evidence.

A bit from another of our members detailed in the thread I linked previous:

OccamsRazor04

Here are some facts.

DNA testing done in 1999 by BOLD found 100% human X and 100% human Y chromosomes. Meaning the mother and father were both 100% human.

DNA testing done in 2003 found the mtDNA was 100% human. This is consistent with the testing done in 1999.

Steven Novella, an assistant professor at Yale University Medical School determined the skull was of a child that had congenital hydrocephalus, and the cranial deformations were from the accumulat of cerebrospinal fluid within the skull.

Now the FOXP2 gene testing is evidence of fraud. There are about about 3 billion base pairs in the human genome. One of Pye's tests consisted of a sample of only 400 base pairs. He tested 400 pairs out of 3 billion and then concluded the DNA couldn't be human. Pye also concluded it's impossible for an abnormality like this of the FOXP2 gene to exist in humans. Here is proof that is a complete lie.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

From THIS POST

Additionally, from another member in that same thread:

raymundoko

the Starchild’s mitochondrial DNA was relatively easy to recover and showed it had a human mother

Dr Matthew Brown, a Dentist in London, made close-up x-rays images of the maxilla in September 2004. He states that the roots of unerupted teeth are consistent with those of a child who was about 4½ yrs old.

Dr David Hodges, a radiologist, stated that the suture lines were open and growing at the time of death. Dr.David Sweet, an internationally renowned forensic pathologist at the University of British Columbia, was of the opinion that the skull was that of a 5-6 year old, based upon the dentition in the right maxillary fragment

Their DNA research from 2003 shows that it was a human that was part of en.wikipedia.org...

DNA testing in 1999 at BOLD (Bureau of Legal Dentistry), a forensic DNA lab in Vancouver, British Columbia found standard X and Y chromosomes in two samples taken from the skull, "conclusive evidence that the child was not only human (and male), but both of his parents must have been human as well, for each must have contributed one of the human sex chromosomes."
Further DNA testing in 2003 at Trace Genetics, which specializes in extracting DNA from ancient samples, isolated mitochondrial DNA from both recovered skulls. The child belongs to haplogroup C. Since mitochondrial DNA is inherited exclusively from the mother, it makes it possible to trace the offspring's maternal lineage. The DNA test therefore confirmed that the child's mother was a Haplogroup C human female. However, the adult female found with the child belonged to haplogroup A. Both haplotypes are characteristic Native American haplogroups, but the different haplogroup for each skull indicates that the adult female was not the child's mother.

from THIS POST
Some of the material quoted above came from
THIS SOURCE, which contains links to other sources and Citations as well.

In short, testing conducted by the Bureau Of Legal Dentistry of the "Starchild" skull conclusively found the skull belonged to a HUMAN Male child, and that the parents of the child were both Human as well.
Further, the child belonged to Haplogroup C

Despite any and all of this, Pye continued his desecration of these human remains in exploiting them to promote his sensationalist sideshow spectacle of the "Starchild", which due the never ending supply of ready willing dupes continued to turn him a profit.

Of course, let's not allow something like Science get in the way of allowing anyone to believe what they want to believe.

edit on 2/24/2014 by AliceBleachWhite because: (no reason given)

You are working under the assumption that the difference must leave a genetic trace, but the changes need not be in terms of genes at all. Apparently people's minds or brains can be altered to reflect alien characteristics. This would not show up in the genes. One abductee was told that a child was altered during gestation. Also, many abductees acquire psychic abilities as a result of their experiences. This does not require genetic changes per se. In other words, the hybridisation or star child phenomena, may be operative on a psychic rather than genetic level.

edit on 24-2-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)

However, we don't have evidence that any of that is possible nor is from anywhere but science fiction. The "starchild" could have been miracled into being, but we don't have evidence that this is possible. +

NavyDoc

EnPassant

AliceBleachWhite

Pladuim
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite

 

" made a personal subjective judgement in favor bias for something you want to believe in."

I'll have to say "Ditto" and leave it at that. Your reply was as expected, thank you.

Pladuim

Um, no, unless by 'bias' you mean basing my position on actual independently verifiable replicable valid and legitimate evidence.

A bit from another of our members detailed in the thread I linked previous:

OccamsRazor04

Here are some facts.

DNA testing done in 1999 by BOLD found 100% human X and 100% human Y chromosomes. Meaning the mother and father were both 100% human.

DNA testing done in 2003 found the mtDNA was 100% human. This is consistent with the testing done in 1999.

Steven Novella, an assistant professor at Yale University Medical School determined the skull was of a child that had congenital hydrocephalus, and the cranial deformations were from the accumulat of cerebrospinal fluid within the skull.

Now the FOXP2 gene testing is evidence of fraud. There are about about 3 billion base pairs in the human genome. One of Pye's tests consisted of a sample of only 400 base pairs. He tested 400 pairs out of 3 billion and then concluded the DNA couldn't be human. Pye also concluded it's impossible for an abnormality like this of the FOXP2 gene to exist in humans. Here is proof that is a complete lie.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

From THIS POST

Additionally, from another member in that same thread:

raymundoko

the Starchild’s mitochondrial DNA was relatively easy to recover and showed it had a human mother

Dr Matthew Brown, a Dentist in London, made close-up x-rays images of the maxilla in September 2004. He states that the roots of unerupted teeth are consistent with those of a child who was about 4½ yrs old.

Dr David Hodges, a radiologist, stated that the suture lines were open and growing at the time of death. Dr.David Sweet, an internationally renowned forensic pathologist at the University of British Columbia, was of the opinion that the skull was that of a 5-6 year old, based upon the dentition in the right maxillary fragment

Their DNA research from 2003 shows that it was a human that was part of en.wikipedia.org...

DNA testing in 1999 at BOLD (Bureau of Legal Dentistry), a forensic DNA lab in Vancouver, British Columbia found standard X and Y chromosomes in two samples taken from the skull, "conclusive evidence that the child was not only human (and male), but both of his parents must have been human as well, for each must have contributed one of the human sex chromosomes."
Further DNA testing in 2003 at Trace Genetics, which specializes in extracting DNA from ancient samples, isolated mitochondrial DNA from both recovered skulls. The child belongs to haplogroup C. Since mitochondrial DNA is inherited exclusively from the mother, it makes it possible to trace the offspring's maternal lineage. The DNA test therefore confirmed that the child's mother was a Haplogroup C human female. However, the adult female found with the child belonged to haplogroup A. Both haplotypes are characteristic Native American haplogroups, but the different haplogroup for each skull indicates that the adult female was not the child's mother.

from THIS POST
Some of the material quoted above came from
THIS SOURCE, which contains links to other sources and Citations as well.

In short, testing conducted by the Bureau Of Legal Dentistry of the "Starchild" skull conclusively found the skull belonged to a HUMAN Male child, and that the parents of the child were both Human as well.
Further, the child belonged to Haplogroup C

Despite any and all of this, Pye continued his desecration of these human remains in exploiting them to promote his sensationalist sideshow spectacle of the "Starchild", which due the never ending supply of ready willing dupes continued to turn him a profit.

Of course, let's not allow something like Science get in the way of allowing anyone to believe what they want to believe.

edit on 2/24/2014 by AliceBleachWhite because: (no reason given)

You are working under the assumption that the difference must leave a genetic trace, but the changes need not be in terms of genes at all. Apparently people's minds or brains can be altered to reflect alien characteristics. This would not show up in the genes. One abductee was told that a child was altered during gestation. Also, many abductees acquire psychic abilities as a result of their experiences. This does not require genetic changes per se. In other words, the hybridisation or star child phenomena, may be operative on a psychic rather than genetic level.

edit on 24-2-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)

However, we don't have evidence that any of that is possible nor is from anywhere but science fiction. The "starchild" could have been miracled into being, but we don't have evidence that this is possible. +

edit on 5-3-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

Yes, but you could start doing genetic tests on China's psychic children and see if they are genetically different. If they are not it is on a purely psychic level.

@OP: There is a lot of evidence of....ongoings.

Would you agree?

ZetaRediculianIt may seem like "belittling" eyewitnesses but to me its not. In most cases witnesses are describing what they saw to the best of their ability. People misidentify things. We know that. We also know that something that is ambiguous can be described differently by different people. I don't know of any "evidence" for ET that is not ambiguous. Why should I Assume that what any witness describes is not their own personal interpretation? I don't envy the task of trying to convey this type of information.

I also know of no court cases where the goal would be to identify something that is not known to exist. How would this work? If there are 10 police officers saying they saw a ufo and all of them "believe" it to be ET, does that make it so or does that only make what they saw "unidentified"?

I agree that it shouldn't be treated like its meaningless but a clear distinction needs to be made between what is subjective belief and what isn't.

You can only take questioning the witness's ability to see what he is looking at so far. For one case, maybe. Maybe they made a mistake. For two cases - well, maybe. But for three or three thousand...it wears a bit thin. People keep describing the same things over and over. They can't all be having the same delusion.

lovebeck
reply to post by ThinkingCap

 

Didn't you hear? They are chinese lanterns that got caught up in a weather balloon and there was swamp gas, too!

Hilarious joke! Do you write your own material?

Don't be surprised if someone steals it and uses it... over and over and over and over and...

EnPassant

ZetaRediculianIt may seem like "belittling" eyewitnesses but to me its not. In most cases witnesses are describing what they saw to the best of their ability. People misidentify things. We know that. We also know that something that is ambiguous can be described differently by different people. I don't know of any "evidence" for ET that is not ambiguous. Why should I Assume that what any witness describes is not their own personal interpretation? I don't envy the task of trying to convey this type of information.

I also know of no court cases where the goal would be to identify something that is not known to exist. How would this work? If there are 10 police officers saying they saw a ufo and all of them "believe" it to be ET, does that make it so or does that only make what they saw "unidentified"?

I agree that it shouldn't be treated like its meaningless but a clear distinction needs to be made between what is subjective belief and what isn't.

You can only take questioning the witness's ability to see what he is looking at so far. For one case, maybe. Maybe they made a mistake. For two cases - well, maybe. But for three or three thousand...it wears a bit thin. People keep describing the same things over and over. They can't all be having the same delusion.

Actually yes, considering how ingrained the abduction myth is in our society and how prevalent it and accounts of it are in the media, it is not surprising that people come up with similar stories at all.

EnPassant

NavyDoc

EnPassant

AliceBleachWhite

Pladuim
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite

 

" made a personal subjective judgement in favor bias for something you want to believe in."

I'll have to say "Ditto" and leave it at that. Your reply was as expected, thank you.

Pladuim

Um, no, unless by 'bias' you mean basing my position on actual independently verifiable replicable valid and legitimate evidence.

A bit from another of our members detailed in the thread I linked previous:

OccamsRazor04

Here are some facts.

DNA testing done in 1999 by BOLD found 100% human X and 100% human Y chromosomes. Meaning the mother and father were both 100% human.

DNA testing done in 2003 found the mtDNA was 100% human. This is consistent with the testing done in 1999.

Steven Novella, an assistant professor at Yale University Medical School determined the skull was of a child that had congenital hydrocephalus, and the cranial deformations were from the accumulat of cerebrospinal fluid within the skull.

Now the FOXP2 gene testing is evidence of fraud. There are about about 3 billion base pairs in the human genome. One of Pye's tests consisted of a sample of only 400 base pairs. He tested 400 pairs out of 3 billion and then concluded the DNA couldn't be human. Pye also concluded it's impossible for an abnormality like this of the FOXP2 gene to exist in humans. Here is proof that is a complete lie.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

From THIS POST

Additionally, from another member in that same thread:

raymundoko

the Starchild’s mitochondrial DNA was relatively easy to recover and showed it had a human mother

Dr Matthew Brown, a Dentist in London, made close-up x-rays images of the maxilla in September 2004. He states that the roots of unerupted teeth are consistent with those of a child who was about 4½ yrs old.

Dr David Hodges, a radiologist, stated that the suture lines were open and growing at the time of death. Dr.David Sweet, an internationally renowned forensic pathologist at the University of British Columbia, was of the opinion that the skull was that of a 5-6 year old, based upon the dentition in the right maxillary fragment

Their DNA research from 2003 shows that it was a human that was part of en.wikipedia.org...

DNA testing in 1999 at BOLD (Bureau of Legal Dentistry), a forensic DNA lab in Vancouver, British Columbia found standard X and Y chromosomes in two samples taken from the skull, "conclusive evidence that the child was not only human (and male), but both of his parents must have been human as well, for each must have contributed one of the human sex chromosomes."
Further DNA testing in 2003 at Trace Genetics, which specializes in extracting DNA from ancient samples, isolated mitochondrial DNA from both recovered skulls. The child belongs to haplogroup C. Since mitochondrial DNA is inherited exclusively from the mother, it makes it possible to trace the offspring's maternal lineage. The DNA test therefore confirmed that the child's mother was a Haplogroup C human female. However, the adult female found with the child belonged to haplogroup A. Both haplotypes are characteristic Native American haplogroups, but the different haplogroup for each skull indicates that the adult female was not the child's mother.

from THIS POST
Some of the material quoted above came from
THIS SOURCE, which contains links to other sources and Citations as well.

In short, testing conducted by the Bureau Of Legal Dentistry of the "Starchild" skull conclusively found the skull belonged to a HUMAN Male child, and that the parents of the child were both Human as well.
Further, the child belonged to Haplogroup C

Despite any and all of this, Pye continued his desecration of these human remains in exploiting them to promote his sensationalist sideshow spectacle of the "Starchild", which due the never ending supply of ready willing dupes continued to turn him a profit.

Of course, let's not allow something like Science get in the way of allowing anyone to believe what they want to believe.

edit on 2/24/2014 by AliceBleachWhite because: (no reason given)

You are working under the assumption that the difference must leave a genetic trace, but the changes need not be in terms of genes at all. Apparently people's minds or brains can be altered to reflect alien characteristics. This would not show up in the genes. One abductee was told that a child was altered during gestation. Also, many abductees acquire psychic abilities as a result of their experiences. This does not require genetic changes per se. In other words, the hybridisation or star child phenomena, may be operative on a psychic rather than genetic level.

edit on 24-2-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)

However, we don't have evidence that any of that is possible nor is from anywhere but science fiction. The "starchild" could have been miracled into being, but we don't have evidence that this is possible. +

edit on 5-3-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

Yes, but you could start doing genetic tests on China's psychic children and see if they are genetically different. If they are not it is on a purely psychic level.

Chinese are have genetic differences, albeit not much when compared to other species, as are all races of humans, but they will all map out as human.

What "psychic level?" Can you measure it? Prove that the "psychic" even exists in the first place. You can't use a mythological or unproven or unmeasurable yardstick to measure or prove anything.

Science has determined that these "starchildren" were human--deformed but human. "Psychic" difference is not science.

Yes, but you could start doing genetic tests on China's psychic children and see if they are genetically different. If they are not it is on a purely psychic level.

So if you test them and the genes are different, then they've been genetically altered by aliens, but if you test them and the genes are normal, then they've been altered in a non-genetic way by aliens? Seems to me you're proposing a test that assumes aliens either way.