Thoughts on NASA in touch with Aliens for years?

[DocL]

Mea culpa. Yes, much of the original footage of the first moon landing was regrettably destroyed.

NASA says that the tapes were written over to record satellite data. This does not seem like an unreasonable possibility.

There does exist hours upon hours of quality footage from the later missions as well.

Now I can jump into this debate. If we did infact land on the moon, why hasn't there been any pictures taken of the cr@p that we left there taken in the last decade? If the scientists can look at Pluto and determine that it no longer is a planet, I'm sure they can take a picture from a satellite and show us the lunar vehicle. Right?

Sorry to distract from the original topic.

 

[enkrypt3d]

Now I can jump into this debate. If we did infact land on the moon, why hasn't there been any pictures taken of the cr@p that we left there taken in the last decade? If the scientists can look at Pluto and determine that it no longer is a planet, I'm sure they can take a picture from a satellite and show us the lunar vehicle. Right?

Sorry to distract from the original topic.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/experiments/lrr/

we have been to the moon dood .....lets not get into that pointless debate...

If they were never on the moon, how would this retroreflector exist on the surface that we can bounce lasers off of it to measure the distance of the moon from the earth...??

 

[DocL]

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/experiments/lrr/

we have been to the moon dood .....lets not get into that pointless debate...

If they were never on the moon, how would this retroreflector exist on the surface that we can bounce lasers off of it to measure the distance of the moon from the earth...??

I'm not saying we never went. I just want to see a picture to prove it. Remember the guy here who said he imported a RHD NSX into the USA and people got all heated up. Well he showed us a picture and everyone backed the eff off. :biggrin:

 

[flaminio]

Now I can jump into this debate. If we did infact land on the moon, why hasn't there been any pictures taken of the cr@p that we left there taken in the last decade? If the scientists can look at Pluto and determine that it no longer is a planet, I'm sure they can take a picture from a satellite and show us the lunar vehicle. Right?

Well, wrong, actually. Here's a good article that explains why telescopes can not image lunar vehicles, including Hubble. Warning: there's math involved.

Various landing sites have been imaged by the LRO. Here's a link to some of the images. But I doubt they'll be sufficient to sway any folk who think the landings were a hoax. Indeed, I don't think anything would -- even the clearest, highest resolution picture would just be dismissed as a 'shop.

EDIT: Another link with higher resolution pictures of Apollo 14 landing site.

 

[YellowHaze]

Upon coming across this thread, briefly viewing the video (27-40 minute mark), and reading the first two pages of posts, I was intrigued with the rapid response this thread has garnered. I was also impressed with many of the well stated comments. That is, unit it got bogged down into a religious argument.

I did a quick background check on this Bob Dean guy. Former army sergeant who witnesses classified NASA photos and then goes on a publicity crusade to let the world know about alien intelligence evidence, etc., etc. As a science buff and lover of science fiction, I will keep my comments on topic and brief.

First, I have learned to question everything. Who knows if any of those photos displayed are genuine or not. Second, much interpretation about globs of light in fuzzy photos is conveniently deduced to be an alien ship 400 miles across, as one example. Bob's dialogue about the true objective of the Voyager mission was most intriguing. Space ships the size of our moon hovering around Saturn is the stuff of Arthur C. Clarke in his epic and greatest movie of all time (IMO), "2001 - A Space Odyssey".

Frankly, Bob Dean does not make a compelling case. He does make for compelling science fiction. FWIW, I do believe in greater intelligence beyond our solar system. To think we're the only ones in the universe as we know it would surely be a waste of space. :wink:

 

[MAJOR STONER]

Technology comes from aliens. Language, writing, math, astromomy, etc. were given to man by aliens. There is no evidence of these things evolving from humble beginnings.
The Egyptian Empire, Roman Empire, British Empire, and the US Empire were built using alien technology from ancient Atlantis. That is the reason you will find a egyptian oblisk in Giza, Rome (Vatican), Britain (the London Needle on the Thames River), and in Washington (the Washington Monument).
A plan has been pushed forward through the past 500 years to regain the lost technology of Atlantis, hense the space shuttle names: "A Columbian Enterprise to Endeavor the Discovery of Atlantis, and all Challangers will be destroyed."
The first appearance of an alien in popular culture, before Roswell, is in the Bugs Bunny cartoon, note that the alien is wearing Roman style dress.

Explain this:
1955 vs. 2009
The Hiller Flying Platform was designed in 1955...
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yi5QDHKk9AY&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yi5QDHKk9AY&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
For the doubters, here is another source for video documentation - on display at the U. S. Air Force Museum...
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bOVh-vlUius&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bOVh-vlUius&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Martin Jetpack flight demonstration April 2009...
<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kLccl_NWDQE&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kLccl_NWDQE&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

 

[C-speed]

Technology comes from aliens. Language, writing, math, astromomy, etc. were given to man by aliens. There is no evidence of these things evolving from humble beginnings.
The Egyptian Empire, Roman Empire, British Empire, and the US Empire were built using alien technology from ancient Atlantis. That is the reason you will find a egyptian oblisk in Giza, Rome (Vatican), Britain (the London Needle on the Thames River), and in Washington (the Washington Monument).
A plan has been pushed forward through the past 500 years to regain the lost technology of Atlantis, hense the space shuttle names: "A Columbian Enterprise to Endeavor the Discovery of Atlantis, and all Challangers will be destroyed."
The first appearance of an alien in popular culture, before Roswell, is in the Bugs Bunny cartoon, note that the alien is wearing Roman style dress.

Interesting points! I've heard of that theory before as well.

Not too sure what you're eluding to with the video's though? Is it that Germany didn't have jet propulsion technology back in WWII? If so, they did...

 

[MAJOR STONER]

If gravity worked the way most people think it works, the planets would be smashing into each other, but they don't.

Germany had jet propulsion, it also had 'black ops', the equivalent of todays Area 51, built into the sides of mountains. After WWII, the Nazi scientists were brought to the US under Operation Paperclip. What were the Nazis and British looking for digging throughout Eqypt? Alien technology.

When Atlantis submerged, they got in thier boats and spread across the earth. That is why you have pryamids all over the world. There is also evidence of periodic 'pole shifts', where the earth flips it's magnetic poles every 13,000 years/half a 26K galactic cycle. This causes floods, and shifts of the earths mantle over the core. A glacier formed Long Island, NY, because Hudson Bay was once the north pole. Buried before the great flood that submerged all but the tip of the Great Pryamid, which remains intact despite earthquakes because it lacks water damamge

The Great pryamid had no king in the chamber, it was not for burial. The Pharohs copied the Great pryamid, but failed. 160,000 pound rocks cut so straight that a credit card doesn't fit in between, and showing no tool marks from placement. There is not enough air, and no traces of any torch having been burned inside the great pyramid, and it couldn't stay lit. The Pryamids are constructed encoded with the mathamatical formaula of PI (3.1415...).

 

[Vega$ NSX]

Technology comes from aliens. Language, writing, math, astromomy, etc. were given to man by aliens. There is no evidence of these things evolving from humble beginnings.
The Egyptian Empire, Roman Empire, British Empire, and the US Empire were built using alien technology from ancient Atlantis.

Are you stating this as fact?

 

[YellowHaze]

Are you stating this as fact?

Umm... here we go.

And with your avatar, you must be from a planet of the Vega star system.

 

[john@johnhudakracing]

Umm... here we go.

It's no contest. NSXPRIME is all the proof I need that aliens have recently visited planet earth. Where do you think all the body kits and electronically actuated exhaust technologies came from that we depend upon? That came on the last payload!

DUH - Believe me, car enthusiasts were talking to aliens LONG before NASA ever was.

 

[MAJOR STONER]

As far as aliens and technology goes, I heard that strange things are afoot in building number 7 on the Microsoft campus.

 

[Vega$ NSX]

And with your avatar, you must be from a planet of the Vega star system.

All your base are belong to us!

 

[nsxotic911]

One of the fascinating things I find is that very often, belief in aliens, atheism and theism often have glaring problems and even contradic themselves, yet few are willingto admitit. For ex:

1.) Many atheists don't believe in God, yet they insist that there must be intelligene in the Universe - we just haven't seen it. However, they don't believe that even though intelligence must exist in the Universe, intelligence couldn't have possibly put the Big bang in motion, quite weird.
2.) Many theists believe that there was an Intelligent Creator before the Big Bang, but that we are the only ones in this Universe. If there is an Intelligent Creator, and we are intelligent, couldn't there be other intelligent life (yes), and if so, what restricts it to this earth? Most responses are purely derived from religious texts.
3.) People that believe in aliens seem to fall in both camps.. but I'd say tend to lean towards atheism. Point #1 applies then.

Anyone else notice that I'm not saying one camp is completely wrong or right, I just find that juxtaposition(?) funny.

 

[MAJOR STONER]

How do you define alien?

A being that comes from a foreign place or planet, AND/OR perhaps lives right beside you in spectrums that your five senses cannot register. Many cultures have mystics and shamans taking drugs that alter consiousness (brain waves), and allows them to communicate with spirits/angels/demons/aliens.

So, they may not be as far away as we think. Afterall, the idea that beings get into a craft for fifteen plus years to come here for no reason is silly. No big fleets of ships heading this way according to Hubble. If they came here, it was for a reason. If they are here, then they are hidden. This doesn't make the alien seeders of life, and the aliens here now, the same "species" of alien, there could be several.

Likewise, a UFO can be a man-made secret military flying object, or of an alien nature. If it is not man-made, than it could be a living enity, or a living machine. The plot of the Six Million Dollar Man's season three may not have been so silly afterall-The sasquatch/Bigfoot could be a biologically engineered moonwalker, made to gather samples in an environment that is hostile to little green men. Or, maybe, something even more stranger.

 

[Arshad]

The plot of the Six Million Dollar Man's season three may not have been so silly afterall-The sasquatch/Bigfoot could be a biologically engineered moonwalker, made to gather samples in an environment that is hostile to little green men. Or, maybe, something even more stranger.

Oh man, I still remember being blown away with the sasquatch episodes. I'm sure if I watched it now, it would suck, so I'll stick to my childhood memories

 

[MAJOR STONER]

 

[flaminio]

1.) Many atheists don't believe in God, yet they insist that there must be intelligene in the Universe - we just haven't seen it. However, they don't believe that even though intelligence must exist in the Universe, intelligence couldn't have possibly put the Big bang in motion, quite weird.

Not saying that "intelligence" could not have possibly put the Big Bang in motion; just saying that up until this point, there exists no evidence to suggest so. Without evidence one can make up anything one likes -- perhaps the universe was farted out of the anus of a chromatic unicorn. Silly, but there is just as much evidence for that as what is put forth by most "intelligent design" proponents.

As far as life in the Universe, while I tend to think that with the countless billions of stars in countless billions of galaxies, having the Earth be the sole location of life would be, as has been said, a tremendous waste of space. But I do have some concerns, and the mostly involve the Moon. Modern theories suggest that the Moon was formed by the collision of the Earth with a Mars-sized object during the period of heavy bombardment. This seems like a fairly rare happenstance; at least, it didn't happen for the other three terrestrial planets. What I wonder is what effect a large moon played on the history of life on Earth. The early Moon was much closer to the Earth than it is now, and would have generated monstrous tides. This constant sloshing would have been a great mixer of the organic building blocks of life. How dependent is the formation of life on the presence of a large moon? Is it a requirement (which would make life quite rare) or actually a hindrance (maybe we would already be traveling the stars if it wasn't for the dang Moon).

I find these questions much more interesting than calculating baselines of pyramids.

 

[TurboLexus]

Been reading this thread intently since posted, figure now's a good time to post my 2 cents. I think most of us agree that the sheer size of the universe and the vast number of galaxies/stars/planets within would lead one to believe that the odds are in favor of life existing elsewhere, just by the sheer numbers involved. Has that life visited Earth? I would tend to believe that said life is many many light years away, either too far to travel to see us dumb apes, or so advanced that they could just open up a wormhole to get here...and therefore so ahead of us technologically that I wonder if they'd have interest in us. Perhaps yes...the way we would want to visit early life on our own planet if we could. The evidence, such as it is, is not terribly conclusive...but there are artifacts that beg some very serious questions. Here's a few that have been bouncing around in my dome for awhile, pls check into them if you haven't, and I apologize if I mention something that's already been brought up in this thread, or if I am in error on a fact.

1. The Piery Ries map - hundreds of years ago they accurately mapped parts of the world that they weren't supposed to be aware of? How did he map Antartica as if he had ground penetrating radar to see through the ice? Some theories exist.

2. The Bagdad Battery - so it's proven the Egyptians apparently had a power source, albeit a 'low voltage' one. No question on whether it existed, just what is was used for. Some say to power light bulbs, since there is no evidence that can be found re: how they lit the inside of the pyramids while building them. Torches would have left soot on the ceilings, of which there is none. Some say they were just used for electroplating, regardless that's pretty darn advances for a couple thousand years ago.

3. Accounts from UFO 'eyewitnesses' - this includes Columbus, who supposedly saw a UFO the night before he discovered the new world, Alexander, etc. Several accounts in the bible can also be interpreted as such. This is the weekest of all, since humans have very vivid imaginations (think about some of your dreams) and when ppl (especially ancient peoples) see something they don't understand they can ascribe supernatural properties to it. These things could be as simple as ball lightning or some other naturally occuring phenomenon such as volcanic activity.

4. Artifacts - now we're on to something. Once an item is proven not to be a hoax, it is simply a matter of interpreting what the heck it is supposed to be. I find some of these artifacts pretty convincing, including the carvings found which mimic fixed wing aircraft. Theories abound, but the fact is these items exhibit modern aerodynamic properties. Could it have been a bird some guy saw, and produced a carving which just happens to look just like our space shuttle? It is possible if you keep your mind open, which you must. The Nazca lines do look like huge runways, but i'm pretty sure a ship capable of interstellar travel wouldn't need a freakin' landing strip. Other artifacts and cave paintings depict what look like 'greys' as well as others which do look just like someone with a helmet on and some sort of breathing apparatus. Look at the lid of Lord Pacal's tomb in Palenque...looks like a dude operating the controls of a vehicle, pedals and all. He lived to eighty BTW, outrageously long for the time. Oh, and there's pyramids and monolithic structures all over the place, not to mention places like Yonaguni, which might be man-made and might not (same can be said of Edgar Cayce's Bimini Road though).

5. The Mayans - these guys had a calendar that was actually more accurate than our own modern calendar. They predicted the whole doomsday 2012 thing, then science discovers there will be an occurence at that time, one which comes around every 26k years. Pole shift? Who knows. Many things about their culture are perplexing. Kukulcan, the serpent god (they believed he helped create the Earth) was supposed to be about six feet tall with long white hair, white skin, Blue eyes...a male caucasion. Their sculptures of him look nothing like the Mayans, which were dark skinned Latins, shorter and with Brown eyes. The Aztec god Quetzalcoatl follows the same pattern.

6. So much garbage out there that it makes it hard to get at the real science. The most famous Nessie photo (the surgeon's photo) was admitted to be a hoax, as were many crop circles, the ppl who took the best bigfoot footage out there refuse to be identified or to reveal the location of the alleged sighting (the Pangboche hand is intruiging though). There's got to be tons of unidentified species still around (mostly in the oceans and rain forrest probably) and some thought to be extinct that might still be around (i.e. the Coelacanth). Japanese scientists hooked a giant squid a couple years ago. Monsters lurking that have yet to be discovered? Maybe, maybe not.

In the end, I think it's important to concentrate on how much we don't know, so our minds stay open and we keep investigating and asking questions. After all, not many greater endeavours than the pursuit of knowledge. That's my shpeel.

 

[Arshad]

I've long held an interest in the Piri Reis map, and there's no question that Admiral Reis was able to compile an extremely accurate map for the time, but upon close examination it also becomes apparent that there's no extra-terrestrial influence there. Here's a good examination of the map where the author refutes the claim that the map shows the northern Antarctic coastline:

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/PiriRies.HTM

 

[nsxotic911]

Not saying that "intelligence" could not have possibly put the Big Bang in motion; just saying that up until this point, there exists no evidence to suggest so. Without evidence one can make up anything one likes -- perhaps the universe was farted out of the anus of a chromatic unicorn. Silly, but there is just as much evidence for that as what is put forth by most "intelligent design" proponents.

As far as life in the Universe, while I tend to think that with the countless billions of stars in countless billions of galaxies, having the Earth be the sole location of life would be, as has been said, a tremendous waste of space. But I do have some concerns, and the mostly involve the Moon. Modern theories suggest that the Moon was formed by the collision of the Earth with a Mars-sized object during the period of heavy bombardment. This seems like a fairly rare happenstance; at least, it didn't happen for the other three terrestrial planets. What I wonder is what effect a large moon played on the history of life on Earth. The early Moon was much closer to the Earth than it is now, and would have generated monstrous tides. This constant sloshing would have been a great mixer of the organic building blocks of life. How dependent is the formation of life on the presence of a large moon? Is it a requirement (which would make life quite rare) or actually a hindrance (maybe we would already be traveling the stars if it wasn't for the dang Moon).

I find these questions much more interesting than calculating baselines of pyramids.

Depending on what values you use in Drake's equation for the probably of life, you either come out with a very high probability, or a very low one, just by flipping a few bits.

If there is a high probability, then that blows as we've seen extremely little evidence of it.
If there's very low probably, then that begs the question of why we are so special - maybe we were intended to be special.

All that I'm saying is that you have to be honest to yourself and realize that a belief in life in the universe with virtually zero evidence, outside the statement of "well, it'd be a waste of space...so..".is in jeopardy as to why there wouldn't be life outside of the Universe. They are both beliefs, not mutualy exclusive and if you believe in one, you must be open to another, or simply dishonest.

Believing in life/intelligence before the Universe does not mean you take on teh mantra of Creationism or ID.

Francis S. Collins's Language of God, C.S Lewis Christian Philosopher all very much accept Evolution as a natural process to life, and there others.
If God exists, there is nothing to limit him on how he brought life into the earth, whether it was by winking, or through a natural process.



PS: How do you explain ["away"] the Anthropic Principle? The problem with evolutionists/atheists it is that it can not be explained by a model of natural biologon evolution" that brought the universe, unlike life together - (which can be argued with biological evolution). The same tool is useless, so you must come up with another, and we're really limited on theories when you marvel and consider the perfect domino effect. Even Stephen Hawkings and other non-theists physicist marvel at the engineering, it's more perfect than even the NSX, and constantly use the term "God" because there just isn't any other term that they can come up with. Since it's become cliqhue to use that term, many have stoped using it..

 

[flaminio]

All that I'm saying is that you have to be honest to yourself and realize that a belief in life in the universe with virtually zero evidence, outside the statement of "well, it'd be a waste of space...so..".is in jeopardy as to why there wouldn't be life outside of the Universe. They are both beliefs, not mutualy exclusive and if you believe in one, you must be open to another, or simply dishonest.

The crucial difference in your premise is that life in the Universe is a testable hypothesis, while life outside the Universe (either prior to the Big Bang or elsewhere) is not; at least, not with our current understanding.

I can devise an experiment to see if life exists in the Universe. I can monitor the spectra of the reflected light of distant planets, I can scan radio frequencies for artificial signals, I can send a probe, and so on. Some of these are within our current technology, some beyond but still not unimaginable. A positive result would be a profound experience; a negative result is equally interesting.

However, for life beyond the Universe, there is no such experiment. This places it beyond the realm of science and into the areas of philosophy and theology. It's fun and interesting to speculate about such life, but until such time as a testable experiment be devised, you can't talk about it in terms of "belief".

So, for life elsewhere in our Universe: given the enormity in the number of planets, combined with the readiness that amino acids form (both in experiments such as the Miller/Urey experiment as well as being found in meteorites), plus the resiliency of life here on Earth (extremophile life is found in even the harshest conditions); I suspect that there are other places in the Universe where life exists. If you want to call that a "belief", go ahead, but that's your word and not mine.

For life beyond the Universe, there's just no evidence for such, no observation that could show any evidence, and no testable and falsifiable experiment to demonstrate such life. If you choose to "believe" that such life exists, knock yourself out. There's all sorts of unprovable stuff that people believe in. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's just not science.

 

[Ski_Banker]

There's all sorts of unprovable stuff that people believe in. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's just not science.

"Science" in this statement is human construct. It has been defined by man (not to say that scientific observations & principals are not True). Man has proven himself, we would all agree, to be imperfect. Thus, necessarily, his construct/definition of "science" and all of its conclusions are susceptible to being less than True.


(Semantics, but illustrative of a larger point nonetheless)

Said more plainly, in a human-built language, and a human-built civilization, the observation/theory/conclusion-of-fact based ideology of "science" is just as error prone as anything else man believes, creates (or attempts to) or destroys (or attempts to).

 

[MAJOR STONER]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2613243/Holidaymaker-takes-picture-of-yeti-on-holiday.html

 

[docjohn]

cmon ski......scientific theory states that for any given experiment different testers need to come to the exact same result using seperate but equal methods.So given your previous statement where are you going.....seems like you are building a case for God and God alone as the answer to all unexplained phenomina.......since iyo we are intrinsicly unable to see the "truth"