[guest39538]

In this observational evidence there is no UFO's


caveman.jpg (79.78 kB . 480x370 - viewed 4816 times)

The rudiment of thinking about technology, the start of science and Physics.  To plant a thought is to grow a seed.

[atbsphotography]

In this observational evidence there is no UFO's


caveman.jpg (79.78 kB . 480x370 - viewed 4816 times)

The rudiment of thinking about technology, the start of science and Physics.  To plant a thought is to grow a seed.

I seem to remember seeing a similar picture that people thought proved the existence of UFO's, though in reality it could be classed as an IFO, seen as it is identified. Though in this case, it was in Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphs. I'll see if I can find it now.

[guest39538]

In this observational evidence there is no UFO's


caveman.jpg (79.78 kB . 480x370 - viewed 4816 times)

The rudiment of thinking about technology, the start of science and Physics.  To plant a thought is to grow a seed.

I seem to remember seeing a similar picture that people thought proved the existence of UFO's, though in reality it could be classed as an IFO, seen as it is identified. Though in this case, it was in Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphs. I'll see if I can find it now.

That is an ancient picture and a IFO.  Logic says P=1 of alien existence , this single picture is enough proof .  They did not draw just a UFO, they drew what they sore in some great detail. 
In this picture it looks like the aliens are showing the hunters how to hunt , helping  them with food. Or on the other hand they could be pissed off because the hunters have killed.

[atbsphotography]

In this observational evidence there is no UFO's


caveman.jpg (79.78 kB . 480x370 - viewed 4816 times)

The rudiment of thinking about technology, the start of science and Physics.  To plant a thought is to grow a seed.

I seem to remember seeing a similar picture that people thought proved the existence of UFO's, though in reality it could be classed as an IFO, seen as it is identified. Though in this case, it was in Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphs. I'll see if I can find it now.

That is an ancient picture and a IFO.  Logic says P=1 of alien existence , this single picture is enough proof .  They did not draw just a UFO, they drew what they sore in some great detail. 
In this picture it looks like the aliens are showing the hunters how to hunt , helping  them with food. Or on the other hand they could be pissed off because the hunters have killed.

They could well be angry of our ability to hunt to eat, I should think if they are an intelligent race then they must, in theory, have found ways to source nutrition without hunting animals, or animals may not exist in their alternate reality.
If P=1 and then Q+P=1 then Q must be fact if P=1 is existence. So this picture may point to Q+P=1 and being a factual existence of aliens.

[guest39538]

In this observational evidence there is no UFO's


caveman.jpg (79.78 kB . 480x370 - viewed 4816 times)

The rudiment of thinking about technology, the start of science and Physics.  To plant a thought is to grow a seed.

I seem to remember seeing a similar picture that people thought proved the existence of UFO's, though in reality it could be classed as an IFO, seen as it is identified. Though in this case, it was in Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphs. I'll see if I can find it now.

That is an ancient picture and a IFO.  Logic says P=1 of alien existence , this single picture is enough proof .  They did not draw just a UFO, they drew what they sore in some great detail. 
In this picture it looks like the aliens are showing the hunters how to hunt , helping  them with food. Or on the other hand they could be pissed off because the hunters have killed.

They could well be angry of our ability to hunt to eat, I should think if they are an intelligent race then they must, in theory, have found ways to source nutrition without hunting animals, or animals may not exist in their alternate reality.
If P=1 and then Q+P=1 then Q must be fact if P=1 is existence. So this picture may point to Q+P=1 and being a factual existence of aliens.

Well the logic involved is simple.  At that time the P=0 of somebody having a creative thought to draw a flying saucer. The thoughts on flying at the most could of been about birds... This is a shared memory rather than a subjective thought.


And sorry what is Q representing?

[atbsphotography]

In this observational evidence there is no UFO's


caveman.jpg (79.78 kB . 480x370 - viewed 4816 times)

The rudiment of thinking about technology, the start of science and Physics.  To plant a thought is to grow a seed.

I seem to remember seeing a similar picture that people thought proved the existence of UFO's, though in reality it could be classed as an IFO, seen as it is identified. Though in this case, it was in Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphs. I'll see if I can find it now.

That is an ancient picture and a IFO.  Logic says P=1 of alien existence , this single picture is enough proof .  They did not draw just a UFO, they drew what they sore in some great detail. 
In this picture it looks like the aliens are showing the hunters how to hunt , helping  them with food. Or on the other hand they could be pissed off because the hunters have killed.

They could well be angry of our ability to hunt to eat, I should think if they are an intelligent race then they must, in theory, have found ways to source nutrition without hunting animals, or animals may not exist in their alternate reality.
If P=1 and then Q+P=1 then Q must be fact if P=1 is existence. So this picture may point to Q+P=1 and being a factual existence of aliens.

Well the logic involved is simple.  At that time the P=0 of somebody having a creative thought to draw a flying saucer. The thoughts on flying at the most could of been about birds... This is a shared memory rather than a subjective thought.


And sorry what is Q representing?

Sorry I had it the wrong way round it should have been P+Q=1 which means P is thought and Q is fact, both together would mean 1 is evidential rather than just thought or fact on their own.

[guest39538]

In this observational evidence there is no UFO's


caveman.jpg (79.78 kB . 480x370 - viewed 4816 times)

The rudiment of thinking about technology, the start of science and Physics.  To plant a thought is to grow a seed.

I seem to remember seeing a similar picture that people thought proved the existence of UFO's, though in reality it could be classed as an IFO, seen as it is identified. Though in this case, it was in Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphs. I'll see if I can find it now.

That is an ancient picture and a IFO.  Logic says P=1 of alien existence , this single picture is enough proof .  They did not draw just a UFO, they drew what they sore in some great detail. 
In this picture it looks like the aliens are showing the hunters how to hunt , helping  them with food. Or on the other hand they could be pissed off because the hunters have killed.

They could well be angry of our ability to hunt to eat, I should think if they are an intelligent race then they must, in theory, have found ways to source nutrition without hunting animals, or animals may not exist in their alternate reality.
If P=1 and then Q+P=1 then Q must be fact if P=1 is existence. So this picture may point to Q+P=1 and being a factual existence of aliens.

Well the logic involved is simple.  At that time the P=0 of somebody having a creative thought to draw a flying saucer. The thoughts on flying at the most could of been about birds... This is a shared memory rather than a subjective thought.


And sorry what is Q representing?

Sorry I had it the wrong way round it should have been P+Q=1 which means P is thought and Q is fact, both together would mean 1 is evidential rather than just thought or fact on their own.

Yes I suppose so but I was using P in the sense of a probability answer based on the evidence of the factual picture of an observation.
The probability of alien existence concluded from this drawing is P=1 which is 100%.   

By using what you are referring to as logical statement and evidence  q and p .

[Kryptid]

Given that the image you posted is actual artwork done by someone as an art history class assignment, it doesn't prove anything about aliens: https://jack-lambert.deviantart.com/art/Cave-Painting-324650059. 

[guest39538]

Given that the image you posted is actual artwork done by someone as an art history class assignment, it doesn't prove anything about aliens: https://jack-lambert.deviantart.com/art/Cave-Painting-324650059. 

Well that's not where it said it was from what I read, I read it is 700 thousand years old and in Africa.  But never mind there is plenty more of these that are evident.


UFO-Egyptian-Alien-Hieroglyphics.jpg (39.23 kB . 591x373 - viewed 3451 times)

[guest39538]

history.jpg (15.16 kB . 400x305 - viewed 3431 times)

[Kryptid]

That hieroglyphic image looks as though it could have easily been computer generated. The fact that the other hieroglyphs are all of fairly uniform size whereas the "UFO" is several times larger than all of the others suggests that it's a fake as well. It's probably just a stock image. The second image is so generic that it could be many different things (a hat, a cymbal, a shield or whatever else). If ancient pictures are proof of the existence of something, then I guess all of those carvings and paintings of Horus, Baal, fairies and dragons are proof that they are real as well?

[guest39538]

If ancient pictures are proof of the existence of something, then I guess all of those carvings and paintings of Horus, Baal, fairies and dragons are proof that they are real as well?

We both know these type pictures do exist on cave walls and are very ancient although the pics I provided may be ''fake'' and not the exact pictures.
I think you have a very valued point which I have quoted which would cause me some concern about the logic I mentioned. I would now have to redefine my probability to P=0.5

I will have to research the topic furthermore to see if I can reach P=1 again. 

[guest39538]

I started with Horus who could well be just some guy in a mask.  So the drawings of Horus would be accurate to memory.

[guest39538]

Baal , again accurate to memory and just a man.

Fairies I can not find, I am back to P=1 . There is nothing you have shown that disproves the observation of an identified alien present in our past.

[Kryptid]

I am back to P=1 . There is nothing you have shown that disproves the observation of an identified alien present in our past.

First of all, I am not trying to disprove ancient interactions between humans and aliens. I allow for the possibility of it even though I can't say for sure one way or another. I can say that it definitely hasn't been proven. Second of all, you are shifting the burden of proof. It is not for others to prove you wrong, it is up to you to prove yourself correct. All you have done is shown inconclusive (and at least one fake) image(s). That's not proof of anything.

[guest39538]

I am back to P=1 . There is nothing you have shown that disproves the observation of an identified alien present in our past.

First of all, I am not trying to disprove ancient interactions between humans and aliens. I allow for the possibility of it even though I can't say for sure one way or another. I can say that it definitely hasn't been proven. Second of all, you are shifting the burden of proof. It is not for others to prove you wrong, it is up to you to prove yourself correct. All you have done is shown inconclusive (and at least one fake) image(s). That's not proof of anything.

Regardless of the images I provided there are plenty of pics and videos out there that show these type illustrations.  I accept these pics themselves are not evidence on there own. However when people are drawing the same type thing in different locations around the world, I think that alone shows us they are all seeing the same thing and drawing what they have seen.


alien.jpg (96.23 kB . 650x400 - viewed 6983 times)

These drawings are certainly alien to the picture.

[Kryptid]

Regardless of the images I provided there are plenty of pics and videos out there that show these type illustrations.

Which are not conclusive to prove the existence of something.

I accept these pics themselves are not evidence on there own. However when people are drawing the same type thing in different locations around the world, I think that alone shows us they are all seeing the same thing and drawing what they have seen.

 [ You are not allowed to view attachments ]

These drawings are certainly alien to the picture.

There are stories all around the world of little people variously known as dwarfs, elves, fairies, leprechauns, menehune, yehasuri and a menagerie of other names. They are all mostly similar, in that they are usually depicted as looking like humans except being much smaller. Likewise, dragons and dragon-like creatures are known from around the world as drakes, lindorns, tatzelwurms, druk, qilin, Shenlong and many other names. Are we to believe that fairies and dragons are real just because many different cultures described them? We should not forget that all human cultures ultimately trace their origins back to the same place and thus it would not be surprising if myths from that original culture were carried with them and distorted over time to become all these different beings. There is no way to tell for sure that any given ancient image is of an alien, one of the "little people" or even a child wearing a mask. The interpretation is subjective. Something objective is needed, like an alien body or a crashed flying saucer.

[The Spoon]

I am back to P=1 . There is nothing you have shown that disproves the observation of an identified alien present in our past.

First of all, I am not trying to disprove ancient interactions between humans and aliens. I allow for the possibility of it even though I can't say for sure one way or another. I can say that it definitely hasn't been proven. Second of all, you are shifting the burden of proof. It is not for others to prove you wrong, it is up to you to prove yourself correct. All you have done is shown inconclusive (and at least one fake) image(s). That's not proof of anything.

Regardless of the images I provided there are plenty of pics and videos out there that show these type illustrations.  I accept these pics themselves are not evidence on there own. However when people are drawing the same type thing in different locations around the world, I think that alone shows us they are all seeing the same thing and drawing what they have seen.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

These drawings are certainly alien to the picture.

Are you really that credulous? The image is faked. See pinterest post with original image and the doctoring of it here:
https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/249598004327326865/

[guest39538]

I am back to P=1 . There is nothing you have shown that disproves the observation of an identified alien present in our past.

First of all, I am not trying to disprove ancient interactions between humans and aliens. I allow for the possibility of it even though I can't say for sure one way or another. I can say that it definitely hasn't been proven. Second of all, you are shifting the burden of proof. It is not for others to prove you wrong, it is up to you to prove yourself correct. All you have done is shown inconclusive (and at least one fake) image(s). That's not proof of anything.

Regardless of the images I provided there are plenty of pics and videos out there that show these type illustrations.  I accept these pics themselves are not evidence on there own. However when people are drawing the same type thing in different locations around the world, I think that alone shows us they are all seeing the same thing and drawing what they have seen.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

These drawings are certainly alien to the picture.

Are you really that credulous? The image is faked. See pinterest pos

I am back to P=1 . There is nothing you have shown that disproves the observation of an identified alien present in our past.

First of all, I am not trying to disprove ancient interactions between humans and aliens. I allow for the possibility of it even though I can't say for sure one way or another. I can say that it definitely hasn't been proven. Second of all, you are shifting the burden of proof. It is not for others to prove you wrong, it is up to you to prove yourself correct. All you have done is shown inconclusive (and at least one fake) image(s). That's not proof of anything.

Regardless of the images I provided there are plenty of pics and videos out there that show these type illustrations.  I accept these pics themselves are not evidence on there own. However when people are drawing the same type thing in different locations around the world, I think that alone shows us they are all seeing the same thing and drawing what they have seen.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

These drawings are certainly alien to the picture.

Are you really that credulous? The image is faked. See pinterest post with original image and the doctoring of it here:
https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/249598004327326865/

I am afraid google search is out of my control, I never noticed that either.  Maybe I will have better luck with a video , pay attention to the last picture 3 mins into the video.

[Kryptid]

Are you really that credulous? The image is faked. See pinterest post with original image and the doctoring of it here:
https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/249598004327326865/

Thanks for that find. We should always be wary of what we see online.

I am afraid google search is out of my control, I never noticed that either.  Maybe I will have better luck with a video , pay attention to the last picture 3 mins into the video.

That's the same image you posted earlier. As I said before, it's far too simple and generic of a shape to say that it's supposed to be an extraterrestrial spacecraft.

Seriously, you opened this thread with a picture you found on the Internet and made the statement that, "the probability of alien existence concluded from this drawing is P=1 which is 100%" when in fact it was a fake picture created by someone as a school project. Then you posted another fake picture (possibly two). You really need to reconsider how you go about doing research and coming to conclusions, because the way you're doing it now clearly isn't working.