• Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.

Thoughts on NASA in touch with Aliens for years?

Most do NOT know that, because it's not true. The earth is somewhat flattened at the poles but it's still almost a perfect sphere. Only the Quran makes the claim it's egg shaped (and that claim is rather recent as older translations never made that claim). When some Islamists were presented with proof the earth was indeed spherical and not egg shaped, the response was that 'you haven't considered that some eggs are spherical and the specific type of egg was not mentioned in the Quran.

actually the shape of the earth changes as the moon goes around it... that and the centrifugal forces as the earth spins its "fatter" near the equator than it is at the poles.... this wasn't in any religious book (thats the last place I would look for any scientific data) it was actually on the discovery channel or science channel I can't remember which....
 
I was quoting Batman, not you Enkrypt.

Here's some more specific info

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Geodetic_System

As of the latest revision, the WGS 84 datum surface is a pole-flattened (oblate) spheroid, with major (transverse) radius a = 6,378,137 m at the equator, and minor (conjugate) radius b = 6,356,752.314 245 m at the poles (a flattening of 21.384 685 755 km, or 1/298.257 223 563 ≈ 0.335% in relative terms). The b parameter is often rounded to 6,356,752.3 m in practical applications.

0.335% off from being a sphere. Close enough for me :).
 
I was quoting Batman, not you Enkrypt.

Here's some more specific info

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Geodetic_System

As of the latest revision, the WGS 84 datum surface is a pole-flattened (oblate) spheroid, with major (transverse) radius a = 6,378,137 m at the equator, and minor (conjugate) radius b = 6,356,752.314 245 m at the poles (a flattening of 21.384 685 755 km, or 1/298.257 223 563 ≈ 0.335% in relative terms). The b parameter is often rounded to 6,356,752.3 m in practical applications.

0.335% off from being a sphere. Close enough for me :).

yea thats all japanese to me but yea the earth is not a total sphere.... the earth is not a perfect sphere its dynamic.....
 
Ezekiel 1:16 -- "This was the appearance and structure of the wheels: They sparkled like chrysolite, and all four looked alike. Each appeared to be made like a wheel intersecting a wheel."

ezekiel.jpg


Link.

Seems to be a bit out of context. Ezekiel was a prophet, and being that, even if you take his vision at face value, it still could have been something he foretold of seeing in the future, not actually present and experienced.

But there's so much symbolism in that chapter that a vision is most likely all it was. The different animals symbolize different characteristics. Light and fire indicate holiness. The eyes, omniscience.
See, everything you read in the Bible has symbolism littered throughout. Ezekiel may very well be describing the characteristics of God from the only way he knew how to tell it, symbols that meant something to the people he told. Because after that, Ezekiel was tasked to be a prophet to the people.

Very intriguing passage. Could be extraterrestrial contact, but the rest of the Bible suggests not. There's multiple passages in Revelation that could be miscontrued as well. Mentions huge metal machines with the likeness of a locust ( helicopters? )
 
yea thats all japanese to me but yea the earth is not a total sphere.... the earth is not a perfect sphere its dynamic.....

The Earth is more of a sphere than most precision ball bearings. For all intents and purposes it's round.
 
The Earth is more of a sphere than most precision ball bearings. For all intents and purposes it's round.

I guess we're not taking into account the fact that the earth is 75% water and that water doesn't stand still... the tidal forces and the centrifugal forces on the oceans causes a bulge near the equator... the moon also pulls on land masses as it orbits the earth sometimes causing plate tectonic shifts... so no its not a perfect sphere as water is not a solid.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/05/040520065656.htm


“The Earth isn’t a perfect sphere,” Blewitt noted. “It bulges at the equator because it’s spinning. If the position and height of that bulge changes slightly — even a few millimeters — we can pick it up.”
 
Last edited:
I guess we're not taking into account the fact that the earth is 75% water and that water doesn't stand still... the tidal forces and the centrifugal forces on the oceans causes a bulge near the equator... the moon also pulls on land masses as it orbits the earth sometimes causing plate tectonic shifts... so no its not a perfect sphere as water is not a solid.

The overall change in the shape/height of the oceans is negligible compared to the almost 8,000 mile diameter. Nobody is saying it's a perfect sphere, it's not, but it's so darned close that it doesn't really matter unless you're dealing with something like the GPS system. If you want to get all technical, its a sphere with a bunch of tiny, tiny spikes sticking out (mountains) and tiny holes in it (canyons). But even the height of Mt. Everest is only 0.07% of the diameter of the Earth. Even if you drained the oceans, the deepest point being around 7 miles, you're still dealing with only a fraction of a percent of the diameter of the Earth. The tides make very little difference in the overall shape of the Earth.

I'd say that a 0.4% deviation from a perfect sphere shape would still allow one to refer to the earth as being a sphere without being incorrect. However referring to it as egg shaped (chicken) would be totally incorrect.
 
The deepest points in the ocean are only 7 miles deep? Wow would have thought it was a lot more than that..

Yeah, I had to look it up myself. I also thought it was deeper.

The Mariana Trench is the deepest part of the world's oceans, and the lowest elevation of the surface of the Earth's crust. It is located in the western Pacific Ocean, to the east of the Mariana Islands. The trench is about 2,550 kilometres (1,580 mi) long but has a mean width of only 69 kilometres (43 mi). It reaches a maximum-known depth of about 11.03 kilometres (6.85 mi) at the Vityaz-1 Deep and about 10.91 kilometres (6.78 mi) at the Challenger Deep, a small slot-shaped valley in its floor, at its southern end.[1] If Mount Everest, the highest mountain on Earth at 8,848 metres (29,029 ft), were set in the deepest part of the Mariana Trench, there would be 2,076 metres (6,811 ft) of water left above it.[2]
 
The deepest points in the ocean are only 7 miles deep? Wow would have thought it was a lot more than that..

Challenger Deep, 35,994 feet, or 6.8 miles. Mt Everest is 29,029 feet high, so the scope from lowest to highest point is only 65,023 feet, or about 12 miles -- 10 minutes driving at highway speeds.

Not only is the Earth spherical enough for precision ball bearings, it is also smooth enough.
 
The pyramid is a fairly basic shape, and so it is unsurprising that several disparate cultures independently constructed monuments based on the pyramid shape.

Wow! Just came across this thread. Actually, I can't think of any other shape. Given ancient tools to construct, is there any other shape that could have been built to reach those heights as easily or more logically? Each layer serving as the the working surface for the next, slightly narrower layer. A basic square base also being the easiest to work with? Also, in an earlier post, missing placement of the pyramid by 2 miles can easily be due to variances in significant digits by the architect, but how can an alien race (capable of space travel) or a divine being (capable of perfection) allow that to happen? I'm not Egyptian, but to assert that in over a thousand years time, there was not enough cumulative intelligence in Egypt to problem solve how to build a pyramid is frankly insulting.

Regards,

Danny
 
The overall change in the shape/height of the oceans is negligible compared to the almost 8,000 mile diameter. Nobody is saying it's a perfect sphere, it's not, but it's so darned close that it doesn't really matter unless you're dealing with something like the GPS system. If you want to get all technical, its a sphere with a bunch of tiny, tiny spikes sticking out (mountains) and tiny holes in it (canyons). But even the height of Mt. Everest is only 0.07% of the diameter of the Earth. Even if you drained the oceans, the deepest point being around 7 miles, you're still dealing with only a fraction of a percent of the diameter of the Earth. The tides make very little difference in the overall shape of the Earth.

I'd say that a 0.4% deviation from a perfect sphere shape would still allow one to refer to the earth as being a sphere without being incorrect. However referring to it as egg shaped (chicken) would be totally incorrect.

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/49145/Through_The_Wormhole__Time_Travel_pt_1_5/

Watch this video...@ around 5:30 into the video, it illustrates my point..... that the earth is neither a static egg shape (all the time) nor is it a static sphere shape all the time. Its dynamic and ever changing...
 
Great series of videos!! Thanks a lot for the post!!

The whole "Through the Wormhole" Series is great... This is episode 3, and I think there are 6 episodes.... really awesome stuff. But for me, its more of a refresher course as I stay on top of this subject on my own... Reading "The Elegant Universe" and other books on this subject....
 
The Earth is more of a sphere than most precision ball bearings. For all intents and purposes it's round.

Even the crummiest level (grade 1000) listed in this chart is spherical to 1 mil. For a 3/8" diameter ball, that's better than the roughly one-part-in-300 variation in the earth's diameter.

Grade 25 (.025 mil sphericity) bearings are sold in bicycle stores.
 
Last edited:
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jMNEP6Vwqs0?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jMNEP6Vwqs0?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
 
Again, the reoccurring misconception of the skeptics like me is that I:

1) Definitively think aliens don’t exist. In face I think most of us have agreed that there is a high likely hood of alien life forms simply based on the sheer odds and percentages.
2) Definitively think there is no evidence of aliens on this planet. There might be there might not, but to say one way or another definitely is folly.

What I've been saying all along is:

1) In order to draw definitive conclusions and statements you must follow a consistent path of scientific analysis and critical thinking in order to draw these conclusions.
2) Using this consistent path of scientific analysis and critical thinking, there isn’t enough data to say definitively that there is proof that aliens have visited our planet. To say that they definitively have would be as foolish to say they definitively haven’t.
3) Because of a lack of this data and evidence, a proper scientific mind would not rush to conclusions regarding whether aliens have visited the planet or not, but rather reserve judgment on that issue until further evidence reveals itself.
4) However, in the meantime, use current scientific understanding to draw the most simplest conclusion, which at this time does not support the idea of aliens having visited the plant.
5) Because if one is to accept this leap of faith and base conclusions based on incomplete scientific analysis, then you open Pandora’s Box of any infinite number of explanations all with equally valid arguments.

Please view the following videos on Critical Thinking and Open Mindedness, which address any claim, whether they are about god(s), aliens, leprechauns etc.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6OLPL5p0fMg?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6OLPL5p0fMg?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/T69TOuqaqXI?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/T69TOuqaqXI?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

The bottom line is when you are convinced of something in your own belief structure, you actually become close minded, even if you are trying to convince other people that they are being close minded themselves. It is what overly religious people do, and what those who are convinced aliens have visited this planet already are doing. The only equalizer is to take a purely open scientific mind and use current understanding with the willingness to continue to adapt that belief as more data arrives. And currently there is no more data to suggest aliens have visited this planet as there is that leprechauns and dragons existed. As I mentioned before, if you don’t, then you open up the universe (pun intended) to any number of explanations and rationales to explain any unknown event, structure or device.

For example, not one person has addressed or refuted my idea that a magical elixir, developed by the ancient Egyptians, increased the strength and intelligence tenfold. However, little did they know, that it caused premature death and hence, they were able to build structures that seemed way beyond their capacity and yet they all mysteriously disappeared. Why is this theory not as valid as aliens? After all the evidence is still there in front of you, giant pyramids, advanced technology, the appearance of superhuman strength. Without proper critical thinking and scientific analysis, this also becomes a perfectly acceptable explanation.
 
Hmm judging from that pic of yours from xpo ..you know the one, where you flexed every muscle in your body simultaneously....have you rediscovered the egyptian elixir???????:biggrin: btw that is code for decadurabalin....just sayin..
 
Last edited:
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jMNEP6Vwqs0?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jMNEP6Vwqs0?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

damn funny, ken... catchy melody!
 
Back
Top