Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

Alien Messages

Page 6 of 6 [ 89 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Previous topic | Next topic

Dilbert
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Mar 2009
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,728
Location: 47°36'N 122°20'W

18 Jul 2011, 4:53 pm

Wait... those docs are really on the official NSA site?

That's either an inside joke at their offices to see how UFO crackpots will react, or some kind of a social experiment they are running.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

19 Jul 2011, 8:21 am

Dilbert wrote:
Wait... those docs are really on the official NSA site?

That's either an inside joke at their offices to see how UFO crackpots will react, or some kind of a social experiment they are running.


That's what I'm trying to work out. Let me put it this way, if it was a mind exercise for bored NSA operatives why did it take 30 years for the NSA to de-classify the document?

The original submission for FOI was made in 1980!!



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

19 Jul 2011, 8:24 am

Dilbert wrote:
That's either an inside joke at their offices to see how UFO crackpots will react


Unlikely the American taxpayer would find it funny.



dancing_penguin
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2011
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 178
Location: out of the loop

04 Aug 2011, 11:52 am

Thanks for the original articles; they were pretty neat. I thought they were totally awesome evidence of something important until I looked up the guy who wrote them and came across this article which explains what's going on: cached version of explanation (the original link from google is currently not functioning).

To sum up, apparently the original article, "Extraterrestrial intelligence" (item 42) is meant as a training exercise for rookie cryptographers interested in UFOs. Consider it a simulation, a case of "let's pretend we have these signals and see if you can crack them."

The rather exciting (out of context) article "Key to the extraterrestrial messages" (item 41) is simply a solution key to the original article, and appears no more intended to be authentic than an exercise in a math book like:
"Joey and Kat want to cross the Kazoo River (width = 50m). They have a slingshot and 2 vines, length 60m and 70m, and there is a branch 5 m over head. Can they get across the river?" There is no Joey or Kat, and they do not intend to actually cross the river.

The "this is an exercise" implication is most telling in item 41, where we are simply told, "Recently a series of radio messages was heard coming from outer space." I mean, come on, that's all we get? There is no analysis of how we got the messages or alternate theories on where they might have came from. Also consider the article cited at the beginning of this article, by Callimahos (Cllimahos article. On p. 111, he gives an example of a message he has "devised to be typical." These are very similar to the examples given in the following articles.

So, to conclude, the original articles are not fakes, but are not evidence of anything, either. They are educational tools for cryptographers who would want to analyze real signals when/if they come in.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

04 Aug 2011, 8:49 pm

dancing_penguin wrote:
Thanks for the original articles; they were pretty neat. I thought they were totally awesome evidence of something important until I looked up the guy who wrote them and came across this article which explains what's going on: cached version of explanation (the original link from google is currently not functioning).

To sum up, apparently the original article, "Extraterrestrial intelligence" (item 42) is meant as a training exercise for rookie cryptographers interested in UFOs. Consider it a simulation, a case of "let's pretend we have these signals and see if you can crack them."

The rather exciting (out of context) article "Key to the extraterrestrial messages" (item 41) is simply a solution key to the original article, and appears no more intended to be authentic than an exercise in a math book like:
"Joey and Kat want to cross the Kazoo River (width = 50m). They have a slingshot and 2 vines, length 60m and 70m, and there is a branch 5 m over head. Can they get across the river?" There is no Joey or Kat, and they do not intend to actually cross the river.

The "this is an exercise" implication is most telling in item 41, where we are simply told, "Recently a series of radio messages was heard coming from outer space." I mean, come on, that's all we get? There is no analysis of how we got the messages or alternate theories on where they might have came from. Also consider the article cited at the beginning of this article, by Callimahos (Cllimahos article. On p. 111, he gives an example of a message he has "devised to be typical." These are very similar to the examples given in the following articles.

So, to conclude, the original articles are not fakes, but are not evidence of anything, either. They are educational tools for cryptographers who would want to analyze real signals when/if they come in.


Thanks for taking the time to read the articles. I appreciate your feedback. Yeah I was beginning to suspect it was training material. Still, the presentation form of the journal article appears slightly confusing, particularly since it assumed the existence of a department for extra-terrestrial intelligence.



Tom_Kakes
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 342

07 Aug 2011, 5:53 am

cyberdad wrote:
dancing_penguin wrote:
Thanks for the original articles; they were pretty neat. I thought they were totally awesome evidence of something important until I looked up the guy who wrote them and came across this article which explains what's going on: cached version of explanation (the original link from google is currently not functioning).

To sum up, apparently the original article, "Extraterrestrial intelligence" (item 42) is meant as a training exercise for rookie cryptographers interested in UFOs. Consider it a simulation, a case of "let's pretend we have these signals and see if you can crack them."

The rather exciting (out of context) article "Key to the extraterrestrial messages" (item 41) is simply a solution key to the original article, and appears no more intended to be authentic than an exercise in a math book like:
"Joey and Kat want to cross the Kazoo River (width = 50m). They have a slingshot and 2 vines, length 60m and 70m, and there is a branch 5 m over head. Can they get across the river?" There is no Joey or Kat, and they do not intend to actually cross the river.

The "this is an exercise" implication is most telling in item 41, where we are simply told, "Recently a series of radio messages was heard coming from outer space." I mean, come on, that's all we get? There is no analysis of how we got the messages or alternate theories on where they might have came from. Also consider the article cited at the beginning of this article, by Callimahos (Cllimahos article. On p. 111, he gives an example of a message he has "devised to be typical." These are very similar to the examples given in the following articles.

So, to conclude, the original articles are not fakes, but are not evidence of anything, either. They are educational tools for cryptographers who would want to analyze real signals when/if they come in.


Thanks for taking the time to read the articles. I appreciate your feedback. Yeah I was beginning to suspect it was training material. Still, the presentation form of the journal article appears slightly confusing, particularly since it assumed the existence of a department for extra-terrestrial intelligence.


There is no other reason to spread miss-information, in such a way, other than to confuse people.

This happened 2 miles from me the other night:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14387365

I haven't slept properly for 4 nights for wanting to see it. I know its highly unlikely it will visit this area again. Though I think other life DOES visit earth, I think this was military.

As for aliens breeding with humans? I think this is as likely as me impregnating a blade of grass Lmao.

Don't give up!



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

07 Aug 2011, 7:29 am

Tom_Kakes wrote:
There is no other reason to spread miss-information, in such a way, other than to confuse people.


The actual documents are real. I still think the jury is out on what their intended purpose was? I agree with dancing penguin there is some evidence they were designed as training material. However there remains unanswered questions like
- if it's innocuous hypothetical stuff for NSA ops to practice on then why the secrecy?
- Why did it take the NSA more than 30 years to declassify the docs?
- Why the reference in the document to an apparently real department in the NSA dealing with extraterrestrial intelligence? assuming this is training material they are still preparing for a possible scenario then the operatives need to still follow protocol. My conclusion is the Dept of EI appears real.

Tom_Kakes wrote:
This happened 2 miles from me the other night:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14387365


Yeah I saw this. Unless the BBC reporter (Mike Sewell) is fishing for cheap publicity (working for the BBC this is highly unlikely) I have no reason to believe he has a motive for lying.

Tom_Kakes wrote:
As for aliens breeding with humans? I think this is as likely as me impregnating a blade of grass Lmao.


Yet hundreds of thousands of sane people around the world from vastly differently cultures claim to have had this almost identical experience. I think this is at the very least a very weird psychological phenomena which deserves more attention than it gets. When small children of 5 yrs old can testify to psychologists seeing aliens in their school then we are dealing with something almost certainly beyond a hoax.



Tom_Kakes
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 342

07 Aug 2011, 7:54 am

Imho I would like to believe stories of alien abduction but find most evidence purely anecdotal at very best. I also have children myself and know how powerful a 5 year olds imagination can be.

If I were to take a witness statement as true, it would have to be something like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlkV1ybBnHI

Alien abduction incidents all too often are reported by nuts with delusions of self grandure. I would welcome any truly viable evidence though.

;)



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

07 Aug 2011, 7:48 pm

Tom_Kakes wrote:
Imho I would like to believe stories of alien abduction but find most evidence purely anecdotal at very best. I also have children myself and know how powerful a 5 year olds imagination can be.

If I were to take a witness statement as true, it would have to be something like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlkV1ybBnHI

Alien abduction incidents all too often are reported by nuts with delusions of self grandure. I would welcome any truly viable evidence though.

;)


My daughter just turned 6 a month ago. I know the 5yr old mind well. It would be impossible for her to recount a story of an alien abduction or visitation without embellishing it with fluffy toys or cartoon characters.

As you have children you might want to view these interviews with children in an African school who were apparently involved in a mass sighting of an alien. According to the Harvard psychiatrist (Professor John Mack) the probability the little children conspired to hoax or confabulated this is extremely unlikely.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRnwB-YJmrQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuIJJsh3phk