ResistETIntervention

If gravity affected the frequency of light, but not its speed, you might want to ask yourself whether the light beam would still travel the same amount of distance in a given amount of time in vacuum in the presence of gravity, and whether you are personally able to provide accurate data based on repeatable experiments on your claim, or whether you are merely relying on other people's claims, data obtained from experiments that you yourself cannot perform, or thought experiments? If I were lying about my sighting, I must be in some sort of conspiracy with millions of other people in the world. I actually did not know there were other people who had such sightings until after I sighted such and then searched online for an explanation. If I think I saw an object that achieved a superluminal speed but am mistaken, why are you unable to provide a concrete explanation for what I sighted - because you know that is precisely what you yourself would observe, if you had sighted a brilliant object achieving a superluminal speed from a stationary position? When you study a theory for which you find no algebraic or logical flaw, you start by investigating the statement of the theory. The problem with Einstein's theory is in the statement - in the assumptions that are labeled as postulates which people erroneously presumed as an irrefutable, absolute, universal fact. The definition of the word "postulate" is a thing suggested or assumed as true as the basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief an assumption used as a basis for mathematical reasoning In mathematical theorems which are generally stated as "If ----, then ----," the "if" statement is not considered an absolute, universal truth, but the postulate in the statement of a theorem that is used in reasoning to derive the "then" statement. For example, if a statement of a theorem begins with "If a function f is continuous," you do not presume that a function is always continuous. The time dilation theory begins with a statement such as following: This would be the "if" statement that you presume in order to derive the "then" statement in the theory. What has been misconstrued is that those postulates are absolute, universal truth that no one should question. Unlike mathematical theorems in which certain results are derived under certain assumptions without violating any physical phenomena or raising questions about them, however, due to the nature of the statement regarding the physical universe, the postulates of Einstein's theory forces us to either accept the "if" statement along with the "then" statement of the theory as absolute truth or dispose the postulates along with the conclusion and corollaries of the theory as false - the results, and thus, the postulates, which the human technology at the time (and perhaps even now...at least, to the extent that the general public is led to believe) did not evolve enough to dispute its veracity by achieving the luminal or a superluminal speed. In case you are one of the people who assert that the veracity of the postulates has been verified, I'd ask whether you validated its accuracy yourself, or you're accepting someone else's word as absolute truth without verifying it yourself through repeated experiments. Are such scientists the only ones who are privy to such data obtained from experiments that none of you can personally perform repeatedly? You have two choices here: you can either remain passive and defend a theory that has apparently been disproved by the counterexamples from many people's observations in the world; or you can become more open-minded and proactive, and explore the new technology and the science behind it that have been presented to us by their experiences and contribute to advancing science and technology for future generations. What is necessary in considering the theory isour humility in recognizing that we do not know everything there is to know and the human race has not attained the pinnacle of scientific and technological evolution in the universe, and indeed, we are very far from attaining it; our compassion in considering the experiences of many people in the world, rather than utterly and disrespectfully disregard them for the sake of upholding a theory, or we end up undermining what the world is trying to tell us through them; our objectivity in reconsidering the theory that apparently has been disproved by such experiences; our open-mindedness If we all practiced the above (humility, compassion, objectivity, and open-mindedness) in all situations in life, the human race would be that much closer in recognizing all global issues and uniting to resolve them collectively in facing the greatest challenge of human history.

In case, you want to claim that light is not subject to gravity, consider the reason that even light cannot escape black holes - due to their gravities.

If I sighted an object (not mechanisms that can be controlled remotely or otherwise) that fell from a height took a vertically upward path, rather than a vertically downward path, I would say I had a counterexample to F = mg and s(t) = -0.5gt2 + s0. If millions of others had also sighted such objects, the disproof of F = mg and s(t) = -0.5gt2 + s0 would have been verified multiple times. Your dismissing my claim does not make the theory any less false. No, y = ct is not a formal assumption in the statement of the theory, but it is, nevertheless, a critical assumption that was used in proving the theory. The reason that the height of the right triangle used in proving the theory should be ct - 0.5gt2 (rather than y = ct) is the same as that for anything else that is subject to gravity, isn't it? In case, you want to claim that light is not subject to gravity, consider the reason that even light cannot escape black holes.

Fellows, don't get excited. I'm just saying Robittybob1 would be able to catch a ball thrown vertically upward in a moving vehicle. Robbitybob1, in order to disprove Einstein's theory, all I need to do is to provide one counterexample and I already gave one. In case, any of you decides to retaliate on my sighting, consider what you'd observe if you had sighted a brilliant object achieving a superluminal speed from a stationary position. There are many people in the world who have had such sightings, so there are many counterexamples to the theory. The astronaut Edgar Mitchell also gave his testimony on his sightings and stated that Einstein's theory is already known to be false. Given these facts, what we need to do collaboratively is to reconsider the theory and see what went wrong with the proof the theory, rather than upholding it for the sake of preserving it stubbornly. That would be the correct attitude of true scientists. Here is another faulty assumption made in the theory: that the height of the right triangle used in the proof of the theory is y = ct. In reality, it should be ct - 0.5gt2. Though in most practical situations with small velocities (in comparison to that of light) of any manmade vehicles, we may be able to approximate it as y=ct , any infinitesimal difference here could make all the difference in what is considered here and cannot be ignored. Then accordingly, the hypotenuse of the right triangle would also need to be corrected.

By your logic, you would be able to throw a ball vertically upward and catch it while on a skateboard, say. I already gave an explanation as to what went wrong in the theory.

A light beam emitted vertically upward isn't seeking to hit the point B directly above its source at the point A. It would simply travel vertically upward and end up hitting the point C.

The vehicle has a velocity. It is moving. It does not need to accelerate. If it did accelerate, the scenario certainly could not be explained in a triangle, for the path of the ball, as observed by the passenger, would not even be a straight line. The ball shot from a mechanism does not "know" that it is in a moving vehicle, once it is "airborne." While it is in midair, the vehicle would have moved a certain distance x meters, say. Thus, the ball will hit the point C on the ceiling that is x meters away from the point B on the ceiling that is directly above the mechanism at the point A on the floor.

Einstein's conclusion is based on his thought experiment and the computations made by assuming certain suppositions; some of which are outlined in the initial post. The theory was not obtained from the traditional scientific method as no data can be produced to prove that the luminal speed cannot be attained - at the time. The ball could be shot from a mechanism vertically upwards right in front of the passenger who will not observe the ball hitting at the point on the ceiling directly above the mechanism but a spot slightly next to that point in the opposite direction from that of the vehicle.

Adjustment isn't necessary. You get a right triangle from Einstein's thought experiment with its hypotenuse as the distance that light travels from the floor to the ceiling as observed by the external observer, its height as the distance the light beam travels from the floor to the ceiling as observed by the passenger, and the base as the distance the vehicle travels as observed by the external observer. This right triangle is attained by assuming at least three items which should not be presumed. The other thought experiment is just to visualize it better.

The idea of the thought experiment is to get a better visualization of Einstein's thought experiment. The ball is sent off vertically from its source on the floor - the same way a light beam was emitted from its source on the floor of the vehicle in proving that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.

What went wrong in the proof of the theory that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light? In a “normal” size vehicle, let say with the height of the interior of the vehicle (the distance from the floor to the ceiling) is about 3 m (≈3.28 yards), the time it takes the light beam emitted from its source on the floor to hit the ceiling is 10-8 of a second – literally a split bit of a second. The right triangle used to prove in the theory above is obtained under the assumptions that: Light would travel at the constant speed c=3×108 m/s regardless of the frame of reference. From the external observer’s perspective, light would hit the ceiling of the vehicle at the point B on the ceiling directly above the point A where the source of light is on the floor. Two different frames of reference (the passenger’s perspective and the external observer’s perspective) could be related in one single diagram. The first assumption would seem to hold in the case the velocity of the vehicle is insignificant compared to the speed of light: v≪c which is the underlying assumption which leads to the same conclusion. But what if v≈c? From the perspective of the passenger, would the light beam still seem to travel at the constant speed c=3×108 m/s? The second assumption is made under the presumption that the light beam emitted from its source at the point A on the floor will hit the point B directly above it on the ceiling. Once “airborne,” the light beam does not “know” that it is in a moving vehicle. Thus, it will travel in a straight, vertical path. Again, if v≪c, then it would seem that the light beam would hit the point B on the ceiling directly above the source on the floor, as it would if the vehicle were stationary. Indeed, it would seem insignificant where on the ceiling the light beam hits because it would require nanotechnology to measure the infinitesimal distance between the point C on the ceiling where the light beam actually hits and the point B which is directly above the light source at the point A on the floor. However, this insignificant distance is actually the length of the base of the right triangle used in describing Einstein’s thought experiment. So, as insignificant as it may seem, it must be noted that the light beam will not hit the point directly above its source, but towards west (if the vehicle is traveling in the east direction) and distance x away, where x=vt0 is the distance traveled by the vehicle in time t0 it takes the light beam to hit the ceiling, about 10-8 second, as observed by the external observer. Assume, for the moment, the third supposition above – that the scenario can be described in a triangle by combining the two different frames of reference – is justifiable. Then the right triangle used in proving the theory above is as follows, where z is the distance the light beam traveled in time t0 that it takes for the light beam to hit the ceiling, as observed by the external observer, x is the distance traveled by the vehicle in time t0, again, as observed by the external observer, y is the distance the light beam traveled in time t1, as observed by the passenger traveling in the vehicle Note that x≪z is in any realistic situation, since in the best of scenarios, even if manmade, supersonic vehicles attain ten times the speed of sound (Mach 10), this right triangle would be so skinny (y≈z) that it would be almost a vertical line segment, rather than a triangle. However, there is no reason to presume that v≪c before anything is proven yet. In that case, there is no reason to make the first two assumptions. For the sake of observing accurately, suppose both the passenger and the external observer can observe the scenario in an extremely slow motion, slow enough that the scenario which occurs within 10-8 second can be viewed over, say, 10 seconds. Then, what would be true is that From the perspective of the passenger, the light beam would not travel directly from the point A to the point B directly above it, but to the point C which is x meters to the west away from the point B on the ceiling, where x=vt0 is the distance traveled by the vehicle in time t0 it takes the light beam to hit the ceiling, about 10-8 second, as observed by the external observer. That is, the passenger (traveling in east direction in the vehicle) would see the light beam as traveling northwesterly direction to the point C. On the other hand, from the external observer’s perspective, the light beam which does not “know” that it is in a moving vehicle, would travel in a straight path vertically and hit the ceiling at the point C, rather than at the point B directly above the point A, since the vehicle would have moved x meters. Then, again, assuming that the scenario can be described by combining two different frames of reference, the right right-triangle (or the correct right triangle) would be then one with y as the hypotenuse, and x the base and z the height. Here, this new right triangle (again, very skinny in any practical scenario, almost like a vertical line segment) can be used in two different cases: one in which the distance traveled by the vehicle is from the external observer’s and another in which the distance traveled by the “ground” is from the perspective of the passenger’s (if the vehicle is transparent, say). This is by retaining the third assumption made in proving the theory above. In the first case, then z is the distance the light beam traveled in time t0 , as observed by the external observer, x is the distance traveled by the vehicle in time t0, again, as observed by the external observer, y is the distance the light beam traveled in time t1, as observed by the passenger traveling in the vehicle In the second case, z is the distance the light beam traveled in time t0 , as observed by the external observer, x is the distance traveled by the “ground” in time t1 that it takes for the light beam to hit the ceiling, as observed by the passenger, y is the distance the light beam traveled in time t1, again, as observed by the passenger traveling in the vehicle Since we do not presume that the vehicle cannot travel at the luminal or a superluminal speed, we also do not presume that the passenger sees the light beam as traveling at the speed of c=3×108 m/s. We will label it as s for speed. Then, by applying the Pythagorean Theorem on the right triangle in two different cases above yields the following. In the first case, (vt0)2+(ct0)2=(st1)2, and in the second case, (vt1)2+(ct0)2=(st1)2. Setting the two left-hand-sides equal to each other, we see that t0=t1. That is, there is no time dilation. The time that it takes for the light beam to hit the ceiling is the same as observed by the external observer, as well as by the passenger. And the speed at which the light beam would seem to be moving away from the perspective of the passenger is s is the value that satisfies s2=v2+c2. This is not the actual speed of the light beam, but only the perceived speed of the light beam, as observed by the passenger who thinks the light beam is traveling in a diagonal fashion, rather than in a vertical fashion. This perceived, non-actual speed of the light beam computed is a result of combining two different perspectives in one equation, which is an assumption made in “proving” Einstein’s theory: that the two different frames of reference can be combined to describe the scenario in a single diagram. If we do not retain that assumption, then there is no triangle to describe the scenario, let alone a right triangle. Whether we retain that assumption or not, we do not arrive at a result that precludes any object from traveling at superluminal speeds. In the correct right triangle, what does the distance y actually mean then, if it is to have any meaning in the diagram above without producing a non-actual, perceived quantity due to combining two difference references of frame? z is the distance the light beam traveled in time t0 , as observed by the external observer, x is the distance traveled by the vehicle in time t0, as observed by the external observer, y is the distance between the source of the light beam on the floor and the head-end of the light beam at time t0, as observed by the external observer With this diagram which includes only one perspective, that of the external observer in a non-moving frame of reference, there is no non-actual, perceived quantity produced in computations. This scenario may be more easily visualized if we change it by exchanging a small ball with a light beam. Here is a thought experiment. A thought experiment: Consider a vehicle with a ceiling of 100 m, traveling at a speed of v=100 m/s. Assume that in the vehicle is vacuum and with no gravity. A ball is emitted vertically upward at a speed of c=1000 m/s (v<c), 100 m/s (v=c), or 10 m/s (v>c). What path of the ball does a passenger in the vehicle observe and an observer outside the vehicle observe? Once “airborne,” the ball does not “know” that it is in a moving vehicle, and it will travel in a vertical fashion as observed by an external observer, though it will seem to the passenger that it is traveling diagonally to where it hits on the ceiling.

Have certain scientists in the past and present been artificially and unduly elevated to a celebrity position where they were/are revered by their peers, followers, and thus, laymen with no expertise in their fields, so that the statements of such people (no matter what they claim) could not be disputed? People must learn to question what they are told: - “Do I really know what I’m being told is true, or am I just assuming that it is true?” - “Have I looked into the subject matter deeply enough or am I mindlessly accepting it?” - “Who or what are the authority figures in my life that are influencing my thoughts and behaviors – governments, parents, friends, experts, religious beliefs, advertisements, scientific beliefs, trending topics on the internet,…?” - “Is there an ulterior motive behind the propaganda that is being cast upon me and the human race, and if so, what is that motive?” Instead of being satisfied with the immediate answers that come to their minds, they must try to be with the questions and see what experiences or insights they gain from them. Have you ever pondered upon the Special Relativity Theory? It is the theory that "precludes" any objects from travelling at superluminal speeds. Often the opponents of the ET Intervention claim that no such visitation by extraterrestrial races is possible because of the theory. I invite you to consider the theory from a new perspective. ---------------------------------------------- A vehicle traveling at a speed of v m/s for t seconds traveled a distance of x=vt . Suppose this vehicle had a mirror in the ceiling and floor. The passenger in the vehicle sees the light traveling from the floor to the ceiling at the luminal speed of c=3×10^8 m/s in T seconds for a distance of y=cT meters. An observer outside the vehicle sees the light traveling at the luminal speed for t seconds for a distance of z=ct meters when the light beam hits the ceiling. The assumption made here is that the situation can be described by a right triangle above and thus, the two (different) times, t and T, can be related by the Pythagorean Theorem as below: t=T/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2), where "sqrt" is a symbol we use here to indicate the square root. As v→c, the radicand 1-(v/c)^2→0, making the left-hand-side of the equation approach infinity. If v>c, the radicand 1-(v/c)^2<0, and thus an imaginary number in the denominator of the quantity. Hence, the assertion that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light is “proved.” The equation in Special Relativity “precludes” any object from traveling at any speed close to the luminal speed, and thus, v≪c. Then, in the time t that it takes for the light beam to hit the ceiling as observed by an outside observer, the distance traveled by the vehicle and the distance traveled by the light to the ceiling as observed by an outside observer are significantly different, and the situation cannot be described by a right triangle because the distance x is significantly less than the distance z. The Pythagorean Theorem used to “prove” the theory does not apply in the situation where the distance from the floor to the ceiling is insignificant compared to the distance z as well. On the other hand, for the Pythagorean Theorem to be applied in the situation, the speed of the vehicle v must be quite close to the luminal speed c in order to form a right triangle as above. But then the theory indicates that the value v cannot be anywhere near c. It is a contradiction either way. Regardless of the faulty assumption made in “proving” the theory, the fact that I have sighted an object that accelerated to a superluminal speed from a stationary position within a second or two is already a counterexample to this theory, which disproves it. The fact that many other people in the world have sighted such phenomenon verifies the disproof of the theory multiple times.

You guys are still loved.

A free pdf file can be downloaded from here: http://www.alliesofhumanity.org/allies-of-humanity-book1.pdf The book is also translated and available to download for free in these languages: French, Portuguese, German, Spanish, Korean, Swedish, and Italian so far. You can find the translations here: http://alliesofhumanity.org/allies1/

A free e-book of LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE can be requested from here: http://www.newmessage.org/nmfg/The_New_Message_from_God.html

I'm trying to get humanity to prepare for the Great Waves of change. If anyone would like to know about it, please let me know. The moderators apparently have not read the two statements carefully to realize that they were different.

I need to share a message of vital importance with you. The e-book attached here is about our world, our environment and climate, our future, and our security as a civilization here on Earth. The Great Waves of Change speaks of the biggest problems facing our planet: the growing environmental and economic instability, the rising shortages of food, water, and energy, and the growing risk of widespread war and upheaval. Perhaps more importantly, this book has shown me how to respond to the changing world without fear or desire, but from the deeper wisdom that lives in the heart of every person. The Great Waves of Change will save lives as the world becomes more unstable. The publisher is sharing this book for free because of the great urgency of our time. You're welcome to forward it to anyone who might be interested. http://www.greatwavesofchange.org/free/great-waves-of-change--marshall-vian-summers.pdf http://www.greatwavesofchange.org/free/great-waves-of-change--marshall-vian-summers.mobi http://www.greatwavesofchange.org/free/great-waves-of-change--marshall-vian-summers.epub

In disputing the reality of the phenomenon, some statements have recurred in the thread: anecdotal evidences are not scientific approach the presence of the ET Intervention is an unproved conclusion superluminal speed is not possible because of a physics theory which precludes it Suppose an earthquake of magnitude 7.5 on the Richter Scales occurred, which was videotaped and covered by the media extensively, and studied in depth by geologists at the epicenter (the area of the earth’s surface directly above the place of origin, or focus, of an earthquake) after the effect. If those who did not experience the incident relied only on geologists’ findings, can they really conceive what sort of damages such earthquakes can have on human civilization? Surely scientific approach does not disregard people’s experiences. In the absence of human beings’ experiences of any earthquakes (say, because they occur only in remote places away from all human civilizations and do not affect human beings in any way), would it be even necessary for geologists’ to study them? So testimonies of those who experienced it, findings of geologists, and even the media coverage all help people understand the incident, learn from it, and work to discover preventative measures (constructing buildings that could withstand earthquakes, e.g.,), prepare for earthquakes, and learn the survival skills in such events, etc. Taking actions certainly cannot occur, if people deny the reality of earthquakes by rejecting anecdotal experiences, geologists’ findings, and the media coverage, etc. In the case of the UFO/ET phenomenon, testimonies of those who sighted UFOs/extraterrestrial spaceships or experienced abduction by ETs are particularly important and even crucial because of the nature of the phenomenon. The ETs have traveled a vast distance humanity cannot even imagine is possible by the science and technology that are known to us. They possess aerial vehicles that can maneuver in ways that seem to defy physics laws. These extraterrestrials are clearly more advanced technologically than human beings. However, their strength lies not in technology, but in their skills to manipulate and persuade in the mental environment, the environment of thought and mental influence. While sightings of UFOs and extraterrestrial spaceships all over the world indicate global invasion by extraterrestrials, abductees’ testimonies and physical implants found in their bodies followed by their abduction episodes verify and confirm their covert invasion into human societies with sinister intentions. Many here repeatedly stated that the phenomenon is an unproved conclusion based on sightings of mere lights behaving strangely in the sky. However, that is ignorance resulting from not delving into the subject at all. They can find plenty of conclusive evidences, if they are willing to do further research into the topic. There is enough information in this thread alone to start on. This is not the time to be squabbling over every word stated, in an attempt to reject the reality of the whole phenomenon based on it. Such behavior is injudicious at best, but more like juvenile. In order to see the phenomenon clearly and objectively, we need to stop such immature behaviors first. We must also realize that old scientific theories can be and have been discarded in favor of new theories. The simple fact that our current technology cannot enable performing experiments which provide counterexamples to a theory doesn’t indicate that the theory is an absolute truth. It is an ignorant stance to claim that “This theory precludes an object from traveling at superluminal speeds,” when there are observed evidences which indicate otherwise. A more intelligent response would be that “In light of such evidences and the phenomenon itself, we must reevaluate such theories.” This is what the CERN lab was built for. Demanding scientific evidences from individuals that they know lack the access to high-tech equipment necessary to observe and collect data is absurd at best. Rejecting the data collected by those who do have the access to high-tech equipment will continue to keep oneself in the dark about the phenomenon that could potentially have a permanent, devastating consequence to humanity as a whole. We must recognize that, in terms of scientific methods regarding the phenomenon, most of us are at the first step, observing and hypothesizing, because the current science and technology known to us simply aren’t advanced enough yet. This is the reason that abductees’ testimonies and implants found in their bodies become crucial evidence of the phenomenon. Unreasonable demand from other people to provide evidences or adamant refusal to accept even scientific evidences collected is an utterly incorrect stance now. We live at a time when we must reevaluate many of our beliefs in light of the Extraterrestrial Intervention. Our minds refuse to believe that extraterrestrials are present in our world because we are used to being the preeminent beings on this planet; we are used to regarding ourselves as very intelligent; we are used to thinking that our science and technology are highly advanced; we are used to thinking from the anthropocentric perspective; we, in this culture particularly, do not want to believe that there are other entities that can potentially destroy us and that we are perhaps completely helpless in the situation. It humbles us and renders us to realize that we must first correct such attitudes in order to face this reality. Some will attempt to hold on to old theories and refuse to accept the experiences of people and even results obtained by scientists, with some vapid excuses. Some will derogate and lash out at those who are aware of the phenomenon, because they themselves simply cannot face the reality of the phenomenon itself. Even the attempts to explain the phenomenon scientifically will be based on new unfounded theories and conjectures. There will be a lot of disputes, disagreements, arguments, and even squabbles against each other’s stances regarding the phenomenon. The phenomenon will seem to shake the foundations of systems of beliefs that people have been upholding; and I don’t mean just in science. It will engender conflicts within oneself as well as among each other during this uncertain transition from pre-phenomenon to beyond. Can we be truly honest and have the integrity enough to face the phenomenon reevaluating our beliefs, willing to correct our stances, and observing objectively without preferences or fears? If you truly understood the circumstance humanity is faced now, you can’t afford not to. These extraterrestrials do possess technology many thousands of years more advanced than that of human beings. If you consider how much advancement humanity has had in science and technology in the past century, or even in the past few decades, then you can gauge the difference in the levels of our technology and theirs. Yet, that is not even their advantage over us, but their sophisticated skills to manipulate and persuade people’s thoughts. We are quite adept at functioning in the physical environment, but most people are not aware of the mental environment in which we live, even though we constantly influence each other with our thoughts. There is much to learn about these extraterrestrials: about their strengths, weaknesses, what restricts them, the methods they employ, their activities in our world, reasons for their activities, life in the universe, etc. They may seem invincible only to those people who believe that defeating adversaries is possible only with more advanced technology and armaments than the foes. This is not the case. That is not to say, we trivialize their skills and technology, for that would be imprudent. What we need is an education about them and the preparation to deal with them.

What's not science? The laboratory results? If it's not clear which meaning of the word "prove" I used where, please let me know. Definition of "prove" (according to Webster's New World College Dictionary) (vt.) 1) to test by experiment, a standard, etc.; subject to a testing process; try out 2) to establish as true; demonstrate to be a fact 3) to establish the validity or authenticity of (esp. a will) 4) to show (oneslef) to be capable, dependable, etc. 5) [Archaic] to experience; learn or know by experience 6) to test or verify the correctness of 7) Printing to take a proof of (type, etc.) (vi.) 1) to be found to shown by experience or trial; turn out to be 2) [Archaic] to make trial

Pwagen, have you read any scientific papers? Scientists do not state or imply that “I have proven this theory,” or “This theory is, thus, proven (in a way that it will never be modified or disproved in the future).” No scientific theory is ever stated as proven that way. Also, when scientists have a new finding, they do not claim that “I have a new finding which is an absolute truth that nobody can ever dispute now or in the future.” As you and all the other members here must know, science is an evolving field, a changing field. It changes, not in an accumulative way necessarily, but in ways that, sometimes, old theories are completely discarded in favor of new theories. So, scientific theories are either generally accepted as likely or plausible by the contemporary people in the field or rejected and discarded. That is the reason that there are never scientific theorems, but only scientific theories. It seems that the only way you’d accept the reality of the phenomenon is by actually seeing before you some extraterrestrial beings or extraterrestrial spaceships – come to think of it, I think some of you might even reject that as a proof. It’s quite mindboggling. However, I certainly hope that none of you would see either of them up close, for it could mean that you were abducted. No laboratories will ever provide a report that states that “We proved that this sample contains extraterrestrial substances.” They will take a vague stance from which they can bail out, if need be, particularly if the tests involve sensitive issues such as substances of extraterrestrial origin. In fact, that is precisely what New Mexico Tech did. The following is a quote from “The Aliens and the Scalpel” (Leir, 160) Do you see the difficulties in attempting to establish scientific evidence of the UFO/ET phenomenon? Any prestigious organizations would attempt to withdraw and refuse to associate themselves to the phenomenon, even when the results were obtained by them themselves. No, the underlying problem is your null hypothesis that Extraterrestrial “visits” are NOT real. I don’t know what “opposite of science” means, but your claim that the extraterrestrial “visits” are not occurring, despite six decades of evidence of many sightings including even extraterrestrial spaceships and many people’s abduction incidences including those followed by the appearance of sudden scars or implants in their bodies which cannot be explained away, seems to fit your phrase. How can “the Extraterrestrial Intervention is occurring" be a null hypothesis? Unfortunately, it is a reality. The first step of scientific method is to observe and hypothesize, so it would not have been scientifically incorrect for you to have made such hypothesis. Yet, I didn’t make the assumption that ET was visiting when I first sighted the three-colored lights in the night sky. Do you think it was that simple? I sought answers voraciously because I, too, did not believe that extraterrestrial visits were possible. Researchers have gathered data upon data upon data regarding the UFO/ET phenomenon particularly in the past six decades. I assure you lack of data is not the issue with people’s denial of the UFO/ET phenomenon as reality. Scientists do not actually require proof, but only general acceptance in the field with what they know so far. If you’re scientifically inclined at all, you’d know this. Air force officers have come forward to provide their testimonies after their retirement from military service when the non-disclosure agreements were no longer in effect. As “Split Infinity” has mentioned, yes, information regarding the phenomenon has been leaked. Yes, so again, how do you propose studies can be done on objects that jump around in the sky, move vertically up and down on a straight line, remain stationary, attain a superluminal speed, separate into several vehicles from one or vice versa, and are able to maneuver in various ways. Some UFOs were spotted by air force officers navigating in the sky, who attempted to launch missiles at the target (when they suspected them as non-human vehicles) and failed to do so because the launch functionalities were deactivated apparently by the navigators of the UFOs. Astronomers can study stars that are relatively stationary or moving slowly enough for them to observe because their objects do not disappear at their whim. Geologists can study earthquakes by visiting the epicenters after the effect. They cannot take their objects into the lab, so they take themselves to the objects. How would scientists go about studying such erratic objects? They can neither take the objects into the lab, nor can they take themselves to the objects. By the way, there are reasons that neither astronomers nor geologists, for example, know everything about what they study. Also, it is purported that there are those who have not only studied crashed extraterrestrial vehicles but also worked on reverse engineering from them. I’ll ask you the same question I asked another member here. What do you propose that people who have sightings or abduction experiences do so that they are not accused of ignoring “the rules regarding the rigor of the process”? I cannot personally do any experiments on abductees, for example, and laymen without the access to the necessary devices and facilities cannot be expected to attempt to observe and record videos of UFOs. Also, there have been many videos/photographs obtained in such manner by those whom you might call reliable sources, even in this thread. However, what have you gained from the evidence? Your stance is still that you don’t jump to conclusion that extraterrestrials are visiting us. There are scientists who have attained strong, physical evidence of the abduction by extraterrestrials. Yet, because you have already assumed that the UFO/ET phenomenon is not real, you are refusing to even bother to do any searching for the results of researches, data, and evidence that are already available out there. You’re taking an easy way out of this; sit there and make various accusations and denigrate me for raising awareness here, without doing any research. That’s asking for special treatment. I already have done research, came to a conclusion that this is a real event, and even came to make peace with myself regarding it. There was a member named “Split Infinity” who claimed to know without a doubt that UFO/ET phenomenon is real, but I didn’t see anyone accusing him/her of not providing evidence to that effect. S/he’s very much mistaken about the existence of benevolent of extraterrestrials willing to help humanity fight other extraterrestrials present in our world currently. However, s/he did state that UFO/ET phenomenon is definitely occurring, which is true. Swansont, swansont, swansont,….. You’re a dangerous person. You could mislead human beings to accept RFID chip to be implanted in them to track them down. No way in the world should anyone agree to such invasion of privacy. Also, what would GPS transponders do for abductees anyway? You don’t think such devices can be deactivated, if these sinister ETs chose to do so? They can even deactivate nuclear missiles targeted at them before they were launched. You can see that there is much to learn about the ET Intervention and much to prepare for the future that will be unlike the past. Yet, you guys are bogged down by your ambivalence in accepting the reality of their “visiting.” If you just say your equation is A = BCDE, then, it can be an equation as long as the equality holds true for values you substitute for the variables. You can substitute values for A, B, C, and D, and solve for E, for example. However, you were speaking of a formula called “Drake’s Equation.” Variables in the “equation” represent certain quantities. The reasons that it isn’t scientific or mathematical were explained factor by factor in one of the posts above. No, that is not my statistics, but it seems higher than that in my experience of speaking with people on the street. That’s very unscientific of you, isn’t it? What might be a blimp? You trusted the source without seeking any “proof”? That’s jumping to conclusion, I’d say. You want to believe the source if it says it is not a UFO because that gives you comfort that ETs are not present in the world and physics theories you uphold dearly would still seem to be valid. It is your preference that gets in the way of seeing the reality. I’m passed that stage. You only read the appendix and drew a conclusion without reading the whole background and people’s interactions and experiences in the book. I’d call that jumping to conclusion as well. A middle school student made scientific models of atoms, volcano, and soil erosion. What does that prove? Testing models help people understand scientific hypothesis. And yes, testing models are an integral part of science, but again, it doesn’t prove anything. Neither does prediction or elimination. By the way, testing models, prediction, and elimination are all done with the assumption of certain results, that is, you make a conclusion and seek evidence for it through such methods. They may help establish a theory with more certainty or less, but none of them prove anything. In fact, no scientific theories have been definitely proven with absolutely no further need for investigation or modification. When a statement is proved, no new theories or statements should be able to disprove it and there cannot be even a single counterexample. That is not the case in science. I may not have understood your statement, but from what I understood, I’m going to ask again, if some devices were manufactured out of meteorites by whomever, why did they end up in people’s bodies suddenly after they get up from their sleep? WHO put them in their bodies while they were sleeping? How about the strange, grayish biological substance covering the implants, which apparently rendered no inflammations in their bodies? How about the fact that there were no entry wounds? How do you explain those? I’m sorry, what? Then nobody but people with direct access to such information is capable of carrying out any investigation that “meets the threshold of being scientific.” So why are people in the thread making such fuss over the statement? Focus on the fact that the Extraterrestrial Intervention is occurring in the world and there do exist a vast amount of data and evidence regarding it. Also, from what I can tell, you guys would still retort with “some lights or some strange aerial vehicles do not imply extraterrestrial visitation,” even if you were presented with videos/photos taken by what you might call reliable sources with such equipment. You guys sought proofs from me specifically, didn’t you? Did you think I might perhaps have access to such equipment and access to satellites or even people in general might? These are the questions you should pose astronomers. Those are some of the people who would belong to that “except” part in my statement. Please see my response above to your previous post. This is a statement that is made by a person who accepts models, predictions, and eliminations as a proof. Then you must feel like about an inch tall and should have no trouble “getting in the door.” Yes, it is a shame, indeed. However, I do not regard the UFO/ET phenomenon was a fascinating topic, but the greatest event in human history with a potentially very grave consequence. There are people who have done some in-depth researching to attain proofs and answers regarding the phenomenon, and then there are those who haven’t done much researching and simply decided that the phenomenon is not occurring. Which one is a “sane” approach with common sense? Please note that theories and laws of physics have and can be changed or even be discarded. I think fairies and elves entered the conversation as a joke. However, abduction by extraterrestrial beings is real and merits looking further in depth into the subject, so that the discussion can be more productive. I expected this precise question. I’m surprised it didn’t come up sooner. Please see my response to swansont at the beginning of this post. So you drew a conclusion without any scientific evidence? You guys seem to think that any conclusion drawn about UFOs are acceptable as long as the conclusion denies that they are extraterrestrial spaceships, even if they were observed up close from a distance of a few yards. You even jumped to a conclusion that your sighting was “most likely a meteor that broke up.” A lot of jumping to conclusions… You’re now drawing a conclusion about my sighting? Is there anything that you guys don’t jump to conclusion about without investigating? This was in the mountain. The thick beam of light was going towards the ground silently into the mountain where I was driving down from. It seemed that it was no farther away from where I saw than the spherical one was. So your speculation doesn’t hold. Have you not read what I have written about implants found in abductees’ bodies immediately after their abduction experiences? Don’t fool yourself without knowing anything about me or what I have done to try to find answers. Actually, all you guys have done is jumping to conclusions (or maybe even to concussion). Why would you even bother to call them UFOs if most were identified before they went out of sight? Then they are not unidentified flying objects. Jumping to conclusion that there is no possibility that they are extraterrestrial spaceships is far more absurd than drawing an inevitable conclusion that they are because of the erratic manners these objects are capable of maneuvering. However, why are you guys even trying to prove or rather request proofs that strangely behaving lights in the sky are extraterrestrial spaceships? There are many people who have sighted extraterrestrial spaceships up close and there are many people who have been abducted by extraterrestrial beings and were returned with implants in their bodies. Why do you disregard the strong evidence in favor of discussing about those that may or may not be, or even definitely not UFOs in your experiences? Wasn’t this the tactic Neil deGrasse used in the clip in this thread?

I’m not sure which page you’re looking at. On page 222, Dr. Russell Vernon Clark wrote to Dr. Roger Leir, “It is possible, but not conclusively proven, that both the RR3 and 007KT samples show some isotopic ratios consistent with an extraterrestrial origin.” This is just one of the reports that were included in the book. Since the first edition of the book “The Aliens and the Scalpel” was published, he has done more extraction of implants in abductees’ bodies. However, you would also want to read the background of the abductees who have sighted UFOs or have had abduction experiences on multiple occasions, after which implants appeared in their bodies. Their sightings were much more vivid, clear, and from proximity than my sightings of UFOs from a distance. The appendix of the book only includes so many lab reports. However, the descriptions of these various tiny implants are also of interest: various shapes engineered in precision, unidentified strange oil sac within implants, the ability to change shapes or the ability to change state, the way they fluoresce, the way they are covered by some sort of strange, grayish biological substance, lack of inflammatory responses in the abductees’ bodies, etc. So again, who put these implants in their bodies while they were sleeping? You didn’t bold-face the “except” part in my statement. And do you expect me to have access to all these equipment linked to radar system and the ability to monitor 24/7 from a central control? Again, only those people with high security clearance, who are bound by non-disclosure agreement, may have direct access to these devices and thus, such information. I don’t.

Nobody, in principle or otherwise, is capable of carrying out any investigation that “meets the threshold of being scientific” regarding the UFO phenomenon, except those who are directly privy to the information. But then those people are bound by non-disclosure agreement, are they not? Let me ask you again what I asked four other people in this thread: what would you consider scientific or physical evidence regarding the UFO phenomenon and how would you go about attaining them? Should I catch and bring the light spots in the sky into a laboratory and see whether I could test it to prove that it was, indeed, an extraterrestrial spaceship, in order to “meet the threshold of being scientific”? That is unreasonable to ask of me, don’t you think? Does that seem like an excuse to you? If you want to be taken seriously regarding the phenomenon, you couldn’t possibly ask me specifically to perform scientific experiments or provide scientific or physical evidence regarding the UFO phenomenon. Also, what rules are you referring to, and in what ways am I “pleading for exceptions and special treatment”? So again, what experiments, in principle, can be performed to “prove” this phenomenon? I do not know you, but you seem somewhat scientifically inclined, so let me ask you, swansont. What experiments can I perform to “prove” the phenomenon? By the way, 1=(1/200,000)(1/10,0000)(1/5,000) is not an equation, for example. Also, the factors in the equation must include all possibilities that could ever exist in determining the probability and no factors must be irrelevant. I have explained in one of the posts above why each factor and the formula itself were unscientific and nonmathematical. I am not here to impress or intimidate anyone. I am here to raise awareness of the phenomenon. While raising awareness on the street, I noticed a certain pattern. It is said that about 80% of the world population believes that UFO/ET phenomenon is occurring in the world and about 5-10% of the world population is believed to have sighted UFOs. As the statistics indicates, I found that about 10-15% of the hundreds of people I spoke to have sighted UFOs. Indeed, about 80% to 90% of the people I spoke to were receptive of the notion: they have sighted UFOs, they know of people who have sighted UFOs, they feel that the phenomenon is occurring, etc. However, about 10% to 20% of them were adamantly in denial of the phenomenon despite the sightings of UFOs by many people. They were mostly science majors, psychology majors, or religious people. I know that people’s minds close when they have strong beliefs. Yet, the Extraterrestrial Intervention is real and it is affecting every single person in the world including those who cannot accept that reality. That is why I am here – to raise awareness of the phenomenon. There is much to learn about the Extraterrestrial Intervention which could potentially have a very grave consequence to humanity. Yet, for some, becoming aware of the phenomenon and accepting its reality is the greatest obstacle for them. Here lies the problem. So many people’s effort went into providing physical evidence that undoubtedly and irrefutably proves that extraterrestrial beings are present in the world carrying out some sinister activities covertly including abduction of human beings. Some of them are scientists who risked what other scientists wouldn’t risk in order to provide us with some concrete physical evidence of the phenomenon. You’re now presented with scientific evidence and you even reject that with sarcasm. I have absolutely no affiliation with the author and I couldn’t care less whether you purchased the book or not in terms of making profit for the author or the publisher. I was providing the information and the physical proofs of the phenomenon you guys asked for here. You can choose to remain ignorant, if you wish. However, you would be doing so at your peril. I do mean peril. I do believe “model” is not the same as the physical evidence. I thought everyone knew that “models” and “predictions,” specific or otherwise, are not scientific at all. Results by elimination are also not scientific because you would have to know every single possibility of every single thing that is going on in the universe, ultra-microscopic and macroscopic, in order to prove anything incontrovertibly. Or was that thrown out the window? After eliminating all the possibilities such as weather phenomenon, weather balloons, meteors, meteorites, man-made aircrafts, birds, etc., I’d had to come to the conclusion that at least, some of the UFOs I sighted would have to be extraterrestrial spaceships. Yet, I am quite certain you and some others would retort back with “that is not scientific.” Isn’t that so? Don’t presume that the details of what constitutes scientific evidence will escape me, please do try providing them anyway. Would you care to provide a scientific explanation of what they might have been? Here’re my sightings of UFOs again: three (fuchsia, blue, and golden) huge lights on the positions of vertices of a triangle; they were completely stationary for at least fifteen minutes on a clear night. a brilliant light which reached a superluminal speed within a second or two from a completely stationary position in the sky on a very clear day. It left a trail of light that tapered off towards the location where it disappeared. a brilliant light which "jumped" from one place to another in the sky, and then disappeared on a completely overcast day. a dark spherical object with a "band" in the equatorial region with dots on the band, which was not a weather balloon from my search on the internet after sighting it. a thick brilliant beam of light travelling at a very high speed towards the ground, which I saw in the mountain. It made no sound as you would expect to hear if a huge meteorite fell to the ground. Please feel free to provide scientific explanation as to what they were. Regarding the positive evidence of abduction by extraterrestrial beings, perhaps you did not read all the posts in the thread. So here it is again: Here is a book titled “The Aliens and the Scalpel” (which, as far as I know, is not available to download for free) by Dr. Roger Leir, a surgeon who has been extracting implants from abductees. When these implants were sent to independent laboratories, the results of their analysis proved to be of extraterrestrial nature. Here is a quote from the book: Most of the metallurgy indicates that the structure of these objects has an extraterrestrial origin. If this is indeed the case, we will be able to conclude that some individuals with alien abduction histories have objects in their bodies of extraterrestrial origin. The composition of the objects includes metals whose isotopic ratios are clearly extraterrestrial. Moreover, the form of the objects is clearly engineered and manufactured with precision rather than being a naturally occurring form. In short, we now have the “smoking gun” of ufology: hard physical evidence of an alien presence on Earth! (Leir 161) May I suggest at least not exercising “spin and dirty tricks” on abductees, if you cannot have compassion for them? You do not know what psychological traumas their abduction experiences have on them. Please do not rape them psychologically by playing “spin and dirty tricks” on them. Please see above. Please see above for scientific, physical evidence of the Extraterrestrial Intervention. Also, “anecdotal evidence” is all people in general have. Do you expect them to do some lab experiments to see whether the lights and strange crafts remaining stationary, moving in erratic manners, or achieving superluminal speed in the sky were extraterrestrial spaceships? Could you propose how you’d go about providing a scientific proof, since you’ve also sighted UFOs? Scientific, physical evidence of the Extraterrestrial Intervention does exist. However, regardless, when people are seeing UFOs all over the world, some strange phenomenon is clearly occurring. While some people make those who speak of UFO/ET phenomenon seem absurd, if you ponder upon it for a while, isn’t it more absurd that people are disregarding and not speaking about the UFO/ET phenomenon when there are too many sightings and abductions incidences to ignore the phenomenon and dismissing them as “simply unexplainable” or “lack of data, so don’t explore further”? I’m not sure whether you meant to say so, or it is just a grammatical error, but “UFO fanatics” do not insist that they are extraterrestrial. Also, please refrain from exercising “spin and dirty tricks” on those who have sighted UFOs or speak of extraterrestrial beings. I do not think scientists are fools for not believing them. I think it is very difficult for people with strong beliefs, any strong beliefs, which seem to exclude the possibilities of the existence of intelligent life outside this world or visitation of intelligent beings from outer space, to accept the reality of the Extraterrestrial Intervention despite all the evidence that has been mounting over six decades now. Health Line Clinical Laboratories has been apparently closed down because of some false accusation of billing fraud. This is not the first time I have read of independent labs closing down. It seems that more and more independent laboratories are closing down. At any rate, what you would have found out from Health Line Clinical Laboratories would be a pathology report indicating that there were some small nerve bundles around the tissue sample surrounding the implants and that strangely there was a lack of inflammation. Pwagen, I’m not sure which number you called to contact International College of Surgeons because I was not able to get a hold of anyone. Also, I’m not sure whom you asked what to get a response from the representative there that he was “quite confident that there are no records of such items.” Are you saying they had no records of tissue samples at such laboratories? That’s odd because I’d presume they would have tons of tissue samples. What you would have found out from this laboratory would be a pathology report indicating again no inflammation on the tissue and other biopsy reports. Pwagen, I’m surprised that you would think NIDS would not be an unbiased source because they study anomalies. Their staff consisted of scientists who were willing to study anomalies including various topics other scientists would avoid rather than risking their career and reputation for. In order to attain scientific evidence of paranormal phenomenon, shouldn’t scientists actually embark on such study? Now you’re saying that because scientists worked on such topics, NIDS is a biased source? Do you guys want scientific evidence or not? NIDS, maybe the only organization known to the public that had the funding and willingness to approach anomalies including the UFO/ET phenomenon scientifically, apparently closed down due to many reasons including poor management, poor direction, poor hiring, insufficient funds, and public speculations and expectations, etc. It was founded by a billionaire Robert Bigelow. So, somehow, the first four reasons seem unlikely to me though it is only my speculation. In that case, there may be a nameless organization consisting of scientists who are actually studying paranormal phenomena scientifically - away from the public scrutiny and expectations. What you would have found out from the NIDS would be their communication with New Mexico Tech, etc. I wouldn’t hold your breath if I were you, Pwagen, waiting for responses from The University of Texas at San Antonio or New Mexico Tech. I’ve found from my experiences that research institutes are not likely to give you any definitive answers, if they contacted you at all. What you would have found out from the Univeristy of Texas at San Antonio would be metallurgy report indicating that part of the substances the implant was composed of was amorphous iron. New Mexico Tech had a small sample of the implants to determine the composition of the sample and sent back a report indicating that the substance had hard iron alloys which are found naturally in meteorite samples, except that it contained no nickel, while no iron meteorites contain less than five percent nickel. They did not know that the sample came from an implant from abductees' bodies that was engineered with precision, and thought it was perhaps a fragment of a larger meteorite. There was also a letter from Dr. Russell Vernon Clark with a conclusion of non-terrestrial isotopes. So there you have it. However, again I pose the question: isn’t it extremely bizarre that these normal people would claim to have been abducted by extraterrestrials, and then wake up with anomalous scars or contusion and implants? These implants are not some trace substance, but engineered with precision and consist of substance whose isotope ratios are extraterrestrial? Just the fact that these people sprout out implants in the ankles, arms, necks, etc., is just mindboggling. Who put them in their bodies while they were sleeping?

What do you mean by that? You can see the photocopies of their lab results in Leir's book. Also, can I ask whom you're speaking with at which facilities?

Weren’t you able to get a hold of anyone to speak to over there? Try writing to the publisher at the address I’ve provided in the post above to contact the author directly, if you wish.