Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Inversion5

The Phenomena is Confirmed

350 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

psyche101

The only conformation we get from two dodgy blokes selling an app that tells dreamers what they want to hear is the quote made famous by PT Barnum.

There's a sucker born every minute.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Area201
On 11/30/2017 at 11:48 AM, toast said:

Yeah, hundreds of people published hundreds of books on the subject but dont you wonder why we dont have any proof of alien live forms, alien rechnology or any other kind alien presence yet? Not one lousy single image, not one fantastic new technology and no alien messages taken to the people of the world that would prove at least one of the hundreds/thousands of claims given? And, do you really think that a third row musician will enlighten the world "on the subject"?

I`m getting tired about the "high level officials", "experienced pilots", "former NASA employees", "police officer" blahbla because its so outdated and only naive persons give it a value. And yeah, 70 years of "disclosure" meanwhile but, nothing extraordinary has been disclosed so far, right? Why not? I tell ya.

A guy is talking 15 minutes, so what? There are thousands of similar vids on YT. If you have seen one of them, you know them all.

 

 

Proofs 1: locked up at one or more of the unacknowledged military bases such as Area51 or its vicinity (essentially evidence confiscated and hidden from public). 2. Implants found in abductees showing non Earth found properties (ongoing testing atm). 3. protocols for contact done by some have yielded results which are documented. Dr Steven Greer has gone over this stuff. Countering it's "Dr Greer" (stop here no more talk) is not a good, sound argument makes you sound like foolish. Specifics.

Your second and third paragraphs here have been extensively explained by Greer's 4 hour lecture from 2015 and the 15 minute video. Right the video of an alien taking a p*** with the shaky camera is the same as the military video released by Delonge. Right you seen one you seem them all. You really do sound like you have a brick for brains when you talk like this. smh 

The "guy" Cameron didn't believe in ufos or aliens, but when you have a direct contact that changes your position. Even member dr wu who I know from old AlienHub forum, who's one of the biggest skeptics you will find, actually watched the video(s) and was able to comprehend and accept much of what is presented in light of the recent "disclosure". 

 

 

Edited by Area201

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast
1 hour ago, Area201 said:

Proofs 1: locked up at one or more of the unacknowledged military bases such as Area51 or its vicinity (essentially evidence confiscated and hidden from public).

What proof exactly? Its a characteristic of military bases to not be a public area. Especially facilities like Groom Lake/Nellis where new military technology get developed and tested. Until today there is no proof of ET creatures/technology/existence on Earth or elsewhere.
 

Quote

2. Implants found in abductees showing non Earth found properties (ongoing testing atm).

You placed the ET implant joker now? Again, until today there is no proof of ET creatures/technology/existence on Earth or elsewhere. The claim that "implants" have been found in "abductees" is an unbacked one, no matter if someone claims to received implants and/or is conducting "tests" on it.

Quote

3. protocols for contact done by some have yielded results which are documented.

Beside other skills, I`m a certified ISO Quality Manager, so you would like to tell me that documented results are absolute because they are documented? Hell, you are a such funny person, go ahead and make my day.

Quote

Dr Steven Greer has gone over this stuff. Countering it's "Dr Greer" (stop here no more talk) is not a good, sound argument makes you sound like foolish. Specifics.

That logic is an idiotic one. "Dr Greer" is a know fraud and nothing of what he claimed has ever been proven as to be evidence for ET creatures/technology/existence on Earth or elsewhere. He spends a well financed life, gladly financed by the global bunch of naive followers and you are one of his sponsors, at least by advertising him and his business model. You have to understand, it is a business model.

Quote

Your second and third paragraphs here have been extensively explained by Greer's 4 hour lecture from 2015 and the 15 minute video. Right the video of an alien taking a p*** with the shaky camera is the same as the military video released by Delonge. Right you seen one you seem them all. You really do sound like you have a brick for brains when you talk like this. smh

Words and shaky vids are what they are, words and shaky vids but no evidence. Never.

Quote

The "guy" Cameron didn't believe in ufos or aliens, but when you have a direct contact that changes your position.

This tactic is well known and often used: "I never believed in aliens but after my first contact, my mind has totally changed." If you jump on such train, its on you, but it delivers no evidence of ET creatures/technology/existence on Earth or elsewhere.

Quote

Even member dr wu who I know from old AlienHub forum, who's one of the biggest skeptics you will find, actually watched the video(s) and was able to comprehend and accept much of what is presented in light of the recent "disclosure". 

See above and, opinions of third parties are irrelevant, facts are of relevance and so far: there are no facts.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

The implants claim is simply funny. They turn out to bits of broken glass and other "trash" if you will. The fact that these little bits do not appear to be anything of interest makes them escalated to technology we cannot comprehend at the moment. They should be seen to be trash, but apparently trash is so sophisticated that we cannot understand it. Weird right?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Area201
On 12/4/2017 at 5:30 AM, toast said:

What proof exactly? Its a characteristic of military bases to not be a public area. Especially facilities like Groom Lake/Nellis where new military technology get developed and tested. Until today there is no proof of ET creatures/technology/existence on Earth or elsewhere.

It's a perfect cover and symbiotic relationship - the military classified technology and ET technology/existence all in the same restricted unacknowledged zone compartmentized to the 10th power. Those guys who put it together very clever.

On 12/4/2017 at 5:30 AM, toast said:

The claim that "implants" have been found in "abductees" is an unbacked one, no matter if someone claims to received implants and/or is conducting "tests" on it.

LOL That statement makes a lot of sense. (sarcasm). If multiple "peer reviewed" tests are made concluding objects found in multiple humans possess characteristics not found on Earth or that could be made here naturally, the Almighty Occam Razor answer is a meteor hit them during sleep while they had a crazy alien abduction dream?

On 12/4/2017 at 5:30 AM, toast said:

Beside other skills, I`m a certified ISO Quality Manager, so you would like to tell me that documented results are absolute because they are documented? Hell, you are a such funny person, go ahead and make my day.

Good for you. We are getting off track with the proofs. Those should be separate threads to discuss in greater detail. Here lets focus on Delogne.

On 12/4/2017 at 5:30 AM, toast said:

That logic is an idiotic one. "Dr Greer" is a know fraud and nothing of what he claimed has ever been proven as to be evidence for ET creatures/technology/existence on Earth or elsewhere. He spends a well financed life, gladly financed by the global bunch of naive followers and you are one of his sponsors, at least by advertising him and his business model. You have to understand, it is a business model.

How is he a "known fraud". I didn't know that. Are you going to show me a picture of a moth that some spy took at one of his retreats for sole purpose to discredit him? that's funny. Try again. What do you got? The material is free (minus ads) the 4 hour lecture from 2015 is really the full extended backend material for the movie Unacknowledged. The previous Sirius, along with many of the witness testimonies is shown for free (minus any related YT ads). The buying of the movie or book is voluntary. You don't have to pay thousands of dollars either to get scammed. There is a $6 app that uses the same tools they use for making contact if someone wants to experiment themselves. There's nothing fraudulent about it. You're logic and accusations are both weak and idiotic, maybe delusional? Back up your claims.

On 12/4/2017 at 5:30 AM, toast said:

Words and shaky vids are what they are, words and shaky vids but no evidence. Never.

Quote

Yeah I was making fun of those hoax videos. 95% of them are fake. Still you are left with the 5% unaccounted for, that are not natural or hoaxes, that need further explaining.

On 12/4/2017 at 5:30 AM, toast said:

This tactic is well known and often used: "I never believed in aliens but after my first contact, my mind has totally changed." If you jump on such train, its on you, but it delivers no evidence of ET creatures/technology/existence on Earth or elsewhere.

"Tactic" lol Ridiculous. 

On 12/4/2017 at 5:30 AM, toast said:

See above and, opinions of third parties are irrelevant, facts are of relevance and so far: there are no facts.

I can multi quote too, see. 

Edited by Area201

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Area201
On 12/4/2017 at 3:53 PM, stereologist said:

The implants claim is simply funny. They turn out to bits of broken glass and other "trash" if you will. The fact that these little bits do not appear to be anything of interest makes them escalated to technology we cannot comprehend at the moment. They should be seen to be trash, but apparently trash is so sophisticated that we cannot understand it. Weird right?

Right an experienced Podiatric surgeon can't tell what a piece of broken glass is, and the skeptical investigator Joe Nickell making that allegation is to be believed instead because he knows more about it being a professional skeptic and all. Anyway, I am more interested in testing done by actual independent parties without an agenda (to debunk for example), but to be open to whatever outcome is found to be. I'm keeping track of the Jeremy Corbell Patient Seventeen results and will post with findings. 

Edited by Area201

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
34 minutes ago, Area201 said:

Right an experienced Podiatric surgeon can't tell what a piece of broken glass is, and the skeptical investigator Joe Nickell making that allegation is to be believed instead because he knows more about it being a professional skeptic and all. Anyway, I am more interested in testing done by actual independent parties without an agenda (to debunk for example), but to be open to whatever outcome is found to be. I'm keeping track of the Jeremy Corbell Patient Seventeen results and will post with findings. 

An experienced surgeon can't tell an object is a piece of glass. That is correct.

What you have here is an appeal to authority. You suggest that regardless of the lack of evidence the statements of a person need to be accepted due to their position.

What has happened is that these pieces of glass and other debris cannot be shown to be devices so they must be so high a tech we can't determine that. You realize how ridiculous that is. I'm sure you do.

The other claim here is that Nickell has an agenda to debunk. False. Those with a failed agenda rely on the "debunking" argument to suggest that there is something worthwhile to their story. That's incorrect.

The simple fact of the matter is none of the objects have been shown to be anything other than ordinary degree. Labeling it does not count. Where is the evidence that anything is something other than ordinary debris?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'mConvinced
1 hour ago, Area201 said:

Yeah I was making fun of those hoax videos. 95% of them are fake. Still you are left with the 5% unaccounted for, that are not natural or hoaxes, that need further explaining

Can you give some examples of the 5% you consider need further explanation please? Just one you consider unexplainable would suffice but more would be great, thanks.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
Quote

Yeah I was making fun of those hoax videos. 95% of them are fake. Still you are left with the 5% unaccounted for, that are not natural or hoaxes, that need further explaining.

This is an example of residualization. That is the claim that despite all of the useless fluff being out there, a residue is left behind if the fluff is removed. Residualization assumes the existence of the residue without pointing out any instances of members of the residue. This idea of residualization is found in many areas including UFOs , crop circles, esp, BF, lake monsters, etc.

I image residualization in which a group of farmers pile up as much manure as they possibly can. Then they step back and view this monstrous pile and decide that a pile that big and steamy cannot be just manure. There must be some gems  in there someplace. No, it's still just a giant pile of manure.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Area201
1 hour ago, stereologist said:

What you have here is an appeal to authority. You suggest that regardless of the lack of evidence the statements of a person need to be accepted due to their position.

 

I'm aware of appeal to authority, it's very common. Starting out with an authority relevant to the subject may be a wise starting point, then followed up by independent scientific results - this should satisfy all parties skeptics and authorities. In this case someone has an object inside their bodies to be removed and an authority on removing them does the procedure. This person has seen all kinds of objects (like grass probably very common) and has a general idea what it's not, like glass. Now comes the important part, get multiple analysis by labs without an agenda. Then assess the results. 

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

What has happened is that these pieces of glass and other debris cannot be shown to be devices so they must be so high a tech we can't determine that. You realize how ridiculous that is. I'm sure you do.

If we had another thousands or millions of years to advance our technology wouldn't we have much more advanced technology than today. So if another civilization from another planet did this they too would be in possession of  so high tech not understandable by us today. No I don't realize how ridiculous that is. That makes a lot of sense. Now if these are glass then that's a hoax being pulled by the ufologists or they are fooling themselves. But results show otherwise

Even if there was a lodged meteorite made up of exotic elements that somehow got into this man - his is patient Seventeen. So all those other patients had similar exotic samples. Whatever it is it's not glass. One can argue these are classified military chip technology used to track people using some form of radio frequency tuning control of the patient, etc, that is not known in the public sector. Even in that case, then one has to entertain the idea that some faction of the military is staging alien abductions to insert these implants into people. Then we go down the rabbit hole of what Dr Greer's assessment of the cover operations. 

The Excision - What did they actually remove?

After making a small incision just below the patient’s knee and having a surgical poke around, Leir removes an extremely tiny black object from Patient Seventeen. About the size of the end of a matchstick. 

The sample is then sent to an Electron Scanning Microscopy Lab to undergo a range of tests to determine what the object is. Alien implant or a small shard of metal that somehow became lodged in the patient’s limb?

sample-4-patient-seventeen.jpg

The sample underwent analysis at SEAL Laboratories (now EAG) in, Los Angeles, CA. 

It appears the only tests undertaken here were to simply determine the chemical composition of the object. From here the crew and Patient Seventeen took the sample to someone else to have those results interpreted. 

Corbell & Leir take the sample to, Steve Colbern, a material scientist who works with nanotechnology.

After some research we discovered Colbern is listed as, “Senior Member of Technical Staff” at YTC America since March of 1999.

He also appears to hold several patents under his name for work with carbon nanotubes. Colbern also holds a degree in Chemistry from UCLA, class of 89. 

Colbern states - “It’s probably a sophisticated nanotechnological device, rather than just a fragment of something”.

sample-1-patient-seventeen.jpg

The next step is for the sample to undergo ICP analysis which will give the team isotopic ratios and tell them, “whether the material is from off-planet”.

Watch the full documentary - Patient Seventeen

The Results - Is it Alien or Earthly?

Colbern on reading the results:

“We’ve got quite a few elements here...I see boron, sodium, magnesium...titanium...iron’s a major component”.

He continues:

“Cobalt, nickel, copper, zinc, gallium, germanium….”.

Colbern then states - “Gallium and germanium are indicative of the presence of meteoric iron”.

They also find, ‘Lanthanum’ and ‘Yttrium’, rare earth elements. The team also find palladium, again indicating the presence of meteoric iron.

Patient Seventeen - “Could that be a piece of steel fragment from my past or…?”

Colbern - “We have a total of 36 elements here, so that is quite complex”. Colbern then states, “most industrial allows don’t have nearly that many elements in them”.

“The isotopic ratios of Zinc 64 and Zinc 66 would indicate that these elements are not made from materials found here on Earth”.

Based on the ICP analysis of the object, Colbern is convinced they have enough evidence to confidently claim the object is made from materials not normally found on Earth

Whilst this doesn't prove it was made by an Alien race, it does give more weight to the argument that the object is potentially composed of material not normally found on this planet. It wouldn't be impossible though for a meteorite made up of exotic elements to land on Earth. 

Edited by Area201

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Area201
18 minutes ago, stereologist said:

This is an example of residualization. That is the claim that despite all of the useless fluff being out there, a residue is left behind if the fluff is removed. Residualization assumes the existence of the residue without pointing out any instances of members of the residue. This idea of residualization is found in many areas including UFOs , crop circles, esp, BF, lake monsters, etc.

I image residualization in which a group of farmers pile up as much manure as they possibly can. Then they step back and view this monstrous pile and decide that a pile that big and steamy cannot be just manure. There must be some gems  in there someplace. No, it's still just a giant pile of manure.

When I see a reply by you, it's a big pile of crap. But sometimes there is a gem or two in there too if one looks hard enough. :rofl: B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
7 minutes ago, Area201 said:

I'm aware of appeal to authority, it's very common. Starting out with an authority relevant to the subject may be a wise starting point, then followed up by independent scientific results - this should satisfy all parties skeptics and authorities. In this case someone has an object inside their bodies to be removed and an authority on removing them does the procedure. This person has seen all kinds of objects (like grass probably very common) and has a general idea what it's not, like glass. Now comes the important part, get multiple analysis by labs without an agenda. Then assess the results. 

If we had another thousands or millions of years to advance our technology wouldn't we have much more advanced technology than today. So if another civilization from another planet did this they too would be in possession of  so high tech not understandable by us today. No I don't realize how ridiculous that is. That makes a lot of sense. Now if these are glass then that's a hoax being pulled by the ufologists or they are fooling themselves. But results show otherwise

Even if there was a lodged meteorite made up of exotic elements that somehow got into this man - his is patient Seventeen. So all those other patients had similar exotic samples. Whatever it is it's not glass. One can argue these are classified military chip technology used to track people using some form of radio frequency tuning control of the patient, etc, that is not known in the public sector. Even in that case, then one has to entertain the idea that some faction of the military is staging alien abductions to insert these implants into people. Then we go down the rabbit hole of what Dr Greer's assessment of the cover operations. 

 

Starting out with an appeal to authority is not a wise move. Avoid it and get to the evidence. An authority of removing objects from the body can be anyone in the medical profession. Recognizing the type of object is not a surgeon's specialty. The idea that a lab without an agenda is the sort of notion only those with a failed idea demand.

The recognition of an object as being an advanced technology does not require knowing what it does. The purpose of use are not required in identifying the object as being high tech. So it is ridiculous.

These objects have turned out to be glass and even RFIDs for pets. The latter not a high tech product by today's standards.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

So now on to the analysis. The article you quoted is the one here:

http://www.insightnewsmag.co/articles/Has-Patient-Seventeen-actually-given-us-any-credible-proof-for-the-existence-of-Extraterrestrial-Life

The article is really fairly weird. It continue to repeat " indicating the presence of meteoric iron." The same elements are found right here on Earth. In fact, boron suggests it is not meteoric iron. Sulfur compounds and magnesium and silicon are found in meteorites. Gallium and germanium can be used to distinguish types of meteorites, but are not indicative of meteorites. Here are meteorite minerals.

http://www.meteoritemarket.com/mineral.htm

The article you linked to is an obvious stinker which shows nothing. In fact, it does not show the chemistry of the debris piece. The article claimed " chemical composition." Clearly, they don't know what that means.

They point out alloys often do not have a variety of elements such as seen here. That suggests that this is unlikely to be a purposely made alloy. Instead, it appears to be piece of clinker or slag.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
23 minutes ago, Area201 said:

When I see a reply by you, it's a big pile of crap. But sometimes there is a gem or two in there too if one looks hard enough. :rofl: B)

Yes you do reply with a big pile of crap. Hopefully, you can improve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
doctor wu
On 12/4/2017 at 1:16 AM, Area201 said:

...........

The "guy" Cameron didn't believe in ufos or aliens, but when you have a direct contact that changes your position. Even member dr wu who I know from old AlienHub forum, who's one of the biggest skeptics you will find, actually watched the video(s) and was able to comprehend and accept much of what is presented in light of the recent "disclosure". 

 

 

I missed this apparently....but at any rate I did watch the Cameron video and my point was not that I support any claims from him about 'aliens' on earth  but that his suggestion that groups like Delonge's might be manipulated or even founded (behind the scenes) by govt agencies for disinformation reasons to be a possibility. This has happened before and written about by some well known level headed people over the years. That doesn't mean 'aliens' are necessarily involved or that any meaningful disclosure will come out of such groups. I don't think that's the case.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Area201
5 hours ago, doctor wu said:

I missed this apparently....but at any rate I did watch the Cameron video and my point was not that I support any claims from him about 'aliens' on earth  but that his suggestion that groups like Delonge's might be manipulated or even founded (behind the scenes) by govt agencies for disinformation reasons to be a possibility. This has happened before and written about by some well known level headed people over the years. That doesn't mean 'aliens' are necessarily involved or that any meaningful disclosure will come out of such groups. I don't think that's the case.

Right that's how I understood your previous comments here. I was pointing you out as someone who is far on the skeptical end but is willing to watch a 15 minute presentation, despite being on sham youtube. User ChrLzs somehow thinks he's above that and not worth watching despite it's complete relevance to the thread topic and shows a perspective on the Cameron statements that even you, to a degree, accept as possibility. Generally things are entertained as a possibility for you but no certainty, yes I'm aware of that.

Edited by Area201
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Area201
5 hours ago, stereologist said:

Yes you do reply with a big pile of crap. Hopefully, you can improve.

Sorry I messed that analogy up a bit. My bad. I meant if we look at a list of all your replies together at once it appears to be one big pile of crap. But I'm sure there are some gems in there, so it is with UFOs and sightings. :D

5 hours ago, stereologist said:

So now on to the analysis. The article you quoted is the one here:

http://www.insightnewsmag.co/articles/Has-Patient-Seventeen-actually-given-us-any-credible-proof-for-the-existence-of-Extraterrestrial-Life

The article is really fairly weird. It continue to repeat " indicating the presence of meteoric iron." The same elements are found right here on Earth. In fact, boron suggests it is not meteoric iron. Sulfur compounds and magnesium and silicon are found in meteorites. Gallium and germanium can be used to distinguish types of meteorites, but are not indicative of meteorites. Here are meteorite minerals.

http://www.meteoritemarket.com/mineral.htm

The article you linked to is an obvious stinker which shows nothing. In fact, it does not show the chemistry of the debris piece. The article claimed " chemical composition." Clearly, they don't know what that means.

They point out alloys often do not have a variety of elements such as seen here. That suggests that this is unlikely to be a purposely made alloy. Instead, it appears to be piece of clinker or slag.

 

An ICP anaysis shows nothing? I see. Apparently you are a bigger expert than anyone on any given subject, that is impressive a stinker. Apparently the lab that does this as a business knows nothing. The specialist "Senior Member of Technical Staff" in material science company who read the results know nothing. It's fake news! That's it. :wacko:

"ICP Atomic Emission Spectroscopy (ICP-AES) is a technique that can determine concentrations of trace to major elements and can detect most elements in the periodic table. Reliable results can be obtained for about 70 elements with detection limits in the parts per billion range."

"Based on the ICP analysis of the object, Colbern is convinced they have enough evidence to confidently claim the object is made from materials not normally found on Earth"

I don't claim to know all this material science, but if I see multiple results and assessment showing exotic materials found in patients who claim to have been abducted, I put the dots together or at least can deduce a likelyhood of this is some technology that was put in the patient, for reasons unknown, by persons/beings unknown. 

 

Edited by Area201

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
1 hour ago, Area201 said:

Sorry I messed that analogy up a bit. My bad. I meant if we look at a list of all your replies together at once it appears to be one big pile of crap. But I'm sure there are some gems in there, so it is with UFOs and sightings. :D

An ICP anaysis shows nothing? I see. Apparently you are a bigger expert than anyone on any given subject, that is impressive a stinker. Apparently the lab that does this as a business knows nothing. The specialist "Senior Member of Technical Staff" in material science company who read the results know nothing. It's fake news! That's it. :wacko:

"ICP Atomic Emission Spectroscopy (ICP-AES) is a technique that can determine concentrations of trace to major elements and can detect most elements in the periodic table. Reliable results can be obtained for about 70 elements with detection limits in the parts per billion range."

"Based on the ICP analysis of the object, Colbern is convinced they have enough evidence to confidently claim the object is made from materials not normally found on Earth"

I don't claim to know all this material science, but if I see multiple results and assessment showing exotic materials found in patients who claim to have been abducted, I put the dots together or at least can deduce a likelyhood of this is some technology that was put in the patient, for reasons unknown, by persons/beings unknown. 

 

The issue is what was called the analysis. For example, it lists elements yet calls it a chemical analysis. Don't people know the difference?

ICP can identify elements. It does not identify how the elements are related. Furthermore it is not a method for isotope determination. The determination of materials being extraterrestrial or not is not done in such slipshod fashion. The objects are never shown up close. Where is the microscopic analysis? Where is the Raman spectroscopy? Where are the non-destructive analyses? Did you realize they used a destructive technique? Such methods are used on things like soil analysis or motor oil analysis. Instead they used it on a small object which is likely to be completely gone.

Their claim of it being extraterrestrial is bad. They really didn't show that to be the case. Instead they used a destructive technique normally reserved for the analysis of materials that are readily available. Maybe they could have used tis technique: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy-dispersive_X-ray_spectroscopy

Or what about this technique: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_microtomography

There are plenty of techniques available that are not destructive that would have also shown the structure of the object.

This case is a stinker.

PS provide links and not just quotes. That is required to avoid copyright issues.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
2 hours ago, Area201 said:

Right that's how I understood your previous comments here. I was pointing you out as someone who is far on the skeptical end but is willing to watch a 15 minute presentation, despite being on sham youtube. User ChrLzs somehow thinks he's above that and not worth watching despite it's complete relevance to the thread topic and shows a perspective on the Cameron statements that even you, to a degree, accept as possibility. Generally things are entertained as a possibility for you but no certainty, yes I'm aware of that.

The problem is that people want others to watch a 15 minute, 30 minute, even 2 or 3 hour show which has information that could be read in 1 minute or less.

I hardly ever watch videos because the people that present them are unwilling to tell me why I should waste a lot of time watching a video. If you can't tell people where to look in a video and why it is relevant then chances are it is not relevant.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

{Chuckling at the 'analysis'... }

Quote

User ChrLzs somehow thinks he's above that and not worth watching

Yep.  And Stereo, who bravely took the bullet and bothered to look, has now shown I wuz dead right

Area201, you can laugh all you want and slang off at me, but one day you're gunna realise that folks like Steve Colbern (and his mate Roger Leir, or is that 'Liar'..) rely on the fact that their target audience will mostly post this drivel at forums where other similarly gullible people will cheer them on and lap it up, having insufficient knowledge to recognise bullshmanure.

 

This is NOT such a forum.

 

Do a bit of actual research, and see just how many times Steve Colbern has made these claims, all on equally laughable grounds.  You're being suckered.  How long it takes for you to realise that is up to you.  At least don't spend on any money on them in the meantime, but hey, it's your choice...

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

BTW, for those who love this sorta stuff, here's a link:

http://badufos.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/implants-and-aliens-and-scalpels-oh-my.html

A 'Steve Colbern' even turns up in the comments, and .. well... he got very shy when asked to provide support for *any* of his claims - he even latched onto the 'hollow moon' stupidity, which was debunked here and elsewhere long ago...

 

Anyway, have fun with it!   This stuff is solely for entertainment.

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
7 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

BTW, for those who love this sorta stuff, here's a link:

http://badufos.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/implants-and-aliens-and-scalpels-oh-my.html

A 'Steve Colbern' even turns up in the comments, and .. well... he got very shy when asked to provide support for *any* of his claims - he even latched onto the 'hollow moon' stupidity, which was debunked here and elsewhere long ago...

 

Anyway, have fun with it!   This stuff is solely for entertainment.

What a great story. Loved the Colbern comments about the hollow Moon. Clearly, this is ludicrous. The mass of the Moon can be determined using physics and algebra. The article below describes how this is done.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-scientists-measure/

From that we determine that the Moon is 7.342 times 1022 kg.

The diameter of the Moon is determined by knowing the distance to the Moon and its angular diameter. This can be used to determine the volume of the Moon.

2.2 times 1010 km3

This allows us to compute the mean density of the Moon. 3.344 g/cm3. This is not the density of any particular object. Densities will vary and often with a wide range. Think of the Earth. The density of the oceans and the core go into a mean density of the Earth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon

From here we see the density of Moon rocks.

http://www.psrd.hawaii.edu/CosmoSparks/July12/Lunar-rock-densities.html

These range from 2.36 g/cm3 to 3.46 g/cm3.

From these surface samples Colbern in all of his poor thinking pretends that this shows that the Moon is 40% hollow. Where did this number come from? If the Moon is 40% hollow then the real mean density of the Moon is 5.57 g/cm3. The increase here is that he is claiming that the volume of the Moon is 60% of what is computed using the diameter. Is Colbern so inept that he thinks that the density of surface samples describes the density of interior minerals?

Here is what he wrote:

Quote

Everything that was said at the MUFON OC meeting that you attended was correct, to the best of my knowledge and belief, including my statement that Earth's Moon contains approximately 40% empty space.

Clearly, he's clueless.

Here is more clueless commentary. Is ringing for hours a long time? Not on the Earth.

Quote

The Apollo seismic data showed that the Moon "rings" for hours after an impact, and the seismic waves do not die out quickly, as on Earth!

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/earths-mysterious-ringing-explained/

Quote

Earthquakes can cause the planet to ring, too, for days to months at a time. The vibrations from the 2004 earthquake off Indonesia were recorded for five months and caused tiny distortions in the shape of the Earth.

Once again we verify that he is clueless.

Then is the quote from Gordon MacDonald of NASA. What is not told to us is important and that is the date of the comment. It comes from 1962. That is from before the Moon landings and other explorations such as the GRAIL mission. The low density of the Moon has always been of interest. Why is the Moon so different from the Earth. A number of explanations have been tried and discarded. The current theory is that there was an impact that ejected the material and formed the Moon. This differentiated the material into two bodies: higher density Earth and lower density Moon. The quote from MacDonald does not relate to the current understand of the Moon. It is repeated by those that want to lie to others.

Colbern writes

Quote

You can believe as you wish, Mr. Shaeffer, but you are contradicting NASA's own statements when impuning my statements at that event.

We know that Colbern is attempting to lie by using a quote out of context. There is no contradiction by NASA. There is a lie by Colbern.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

I happened to see that Colbern did present some information on his thinking many comments down. He bases his ideas on this unsupported claim.

Quote

2) The least dense crustal material on the Moon is about this density, and it is likely that the average density of the Moon is more like 4.0-5.5 g/cm3, the higher figure applying if one is to postulate that the Moon's interior is much like that of the Earth's, as you seem to believe. The average density of the earth is approximately 5.5 g/cm3. The rocks brought back by the Apollo missions were denser than Earth rocks, and contained a lot of free iron and other metals.

First off he begins with the flat out lie that the least dense crustal material is about the mean density. I showed that there are much lighter rocks. Apparently Colbern has no idea what he is talking about since continental rocks run around 2.5 on Earth. Then he comes up with a pretend number of 4.0 to 5.5. He has no basis for this number. He pulls this number out of his nether regions and uses it.

Later he posts a value of 16% empty pace based on the number he fetched from his nether regions. This is a case of garbage in leads to garbage out. Made up numbers lead to made up results.

Then he lies about the GRAIL data.

Quote

5) NASA also has direct evidence of large lunar caverns, or "negative mass concentrations (MASCONS)" as they are called, from the tracking data from the Lunar Orbiter and Apollo Missions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_concentration_(astronomy)

A MASCON is a mass concentration, not an empty space. The lies are pretty obvious I think. Nothing he says can be trusted.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

Why did I place these comments concerning Colbern in this thread? I wanted to show that Colbern is not to  be trusted in any way or fashion. There was an appeal to authority for Colbern.

Quote

Corbell & Leir take the sample to, Steve Colbern, a material scientist who works with nanotechnology.

After some research we discovered Colbern is listed as, “Senior Member of Technical Staff” at YTC America since March of 1999.

He also appears to hold several patents under his name for work with carbon nanotubes. Colbern also holds a degree in Chemistry from UCLA, class of 89. 

Colbern states - “It’s probably a sophisticated nanotechnological device, rather than just a fragment of something”.

It is stunningly obvious that nothing Colbern states is believable. So the following is not a believable statement.

Quote

"Based on the ICP analysis of the object, Colbern is convinced they have enough evidence to confidently claim the object is made from materials not normally found on Earth"

There is good reason not to believe Colbern.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Area201
On 12/6/2017 at 10:56 PM, stereologist said:

The issue is what was called the analysis. For example, it lists elements yet calls it a chemical analysis. Don't people know the difference?

ICP can identify elements. It does not identify how the elements are related. Furthermore it is not a method for isotope determination. The determination of materials being extraterrestrial or not is not done in such slipshod fashion. The objects are never shown up close. Where is the microscopic analysis? Where is the Raman spectroscopy? Where are the non-destructive analyses? Did you realize they used a destructive technique? Such methods are used on things like soil analysis or motor oil analysis. Instead they used it on a small object which is likely to be completely gone.

Their claim of it being extraterrestrial is bad. They really didn't show that to be the case. Instead they used a destructive technique normally reserved for the analysis of materials that are readily available. Maybe they could have used tis technique: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy-dispersive_X-ray_spectroscopy

Or what about this technique: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_microtomography

There are plenty of techniques available that are not destructive that would have also shown the structure of the object.

This case is a stinker.

PS provide links and not just quotes. That is required to avoid copyright issues.

Focusing on the technique and not on the results or completely dismissing results because you don't like them or prefer another "non destructive" technique is side-stepping the results presented. My issue with these results is that I want to see multiple labs and results published/or recorded etc. to compare and analyze, not one, your issue here is the destructive techniques. Something does smell bad indeed.

I'm following this story to see if the director can supply thus. I'm going to go onto your links to attacking the Colbern guy now. See what's going on there.

Edited by Area201

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.