My interest in UFOs has cost me a few friends over the years; and need I say how those us with an honest interest get attacked on the internet. To even mention the subject is considered heresy or lunacy in many circles. I realized this some years ago, but for me the subject is too interesting and compelling [by the evidence] to pass up.

One lesson learned early however [about 20 years ago for me now] is that when first convinced of the UFO phenomenon most people are surprised to discover that friends and family often react with raised eyebrows and muffled giggles; not with the anticipated objective interest and trust normally to be expected. God help the person who actually sees one of these things.

An interesting subplot of [i]Close Encounters of the Third Kind"

Man sees UFO; it ruins his life in every measurable way.

This is one aspect of the UFO phenomenon that is largely ignored. Those who claim a sighting can expect a lot of grief over their claims. Those who follow the subject must be very careful about whom they wish to share this interest. Ives and I have discussed this on a few occasions.

Comments?

It depends on how you report what you saw. immediate claims of 'I SAW A UFO!!!!!' will be met with derision, for certain.

But saying you witnessed something you found odd and relaying the experience, without drawing conclusions will get you a more open and honest debate.

Saying things like 'It didn't make any sound' isn't a good report, but saying 'I couldn't hear any engine noise' is more accurate, and assumes less.

So, just report what you saw, don't mention UFOs, as that term carries far too much baggage. Let people offer explanations, and when they run out, and nobody can offer an explanation that matches all the phenomena witnessed, you can start thinking about claiming a sighting of a UFO.

But clarity is everything, report in a clear, concise style, and anticipate the questions people will ask you, and try and make your report answer the obvious questions, so you put across a full report, not allusion.

Unfortunately, you are absolutely right.
However I would like to say that only one who will laugh at you is one who is ignorant and not wize.
Some people don't even want to consider the subject , perhaps because they are too affraid of it (unconsciously or not).
I personaly don't even care what other people think, no matter who they might be, because (as I said) the last thing a wize man will do is laugh at the subject of ufos .
For me the evidence is overwelming and "the thruth is out there" ;)

when first convinced of the UFO phenomenon [I didn’t say ET]

Herein lies the problem with UFOlogists continually contradicting themselves. What other reason would they have aside from finding ET? What is so ‘convincing’ about the UFO phenomenon from a terrestrial nature?

Although UFOlogists like to place disclaimers about ET in their posts, their motives are not in favor of terrestrial explanations.

Originally posted by (Q)
when first convinced of the UFO phenomenon [I didn?t say ET]

Herein lies the problem with UFOlogists continually contradicting themselves. What other reason would they have aside from finding ET? What is so ?convincing? about the UFO phenomenon from a terrestrial nature?

Although UFOlogists like to place disclaimers about ET in their posts, their motives are not in favor of terrestrial explanations.

maybe some of them yes , however most of the serious ufologist are dedicated to finding facts and not fiction , for example you could read any book of respectable ufologist such as Timothy Good

My interest in UFOs has cost me a few friends over the years; (ivan)

no worries. you make new ones. (preferably those that lack hypocrisy and superficiality)

Originally posted by (Q)
their motives

but of course. fame and fortune i presume? youse a tired old hack

*just kidding pal;)

most of the serious ufologist are dedicated to finding facts and not fiction

OK, what "facts" are you referring?

As far as ET visiting Earth is concerned, its all fiction.

shoots q with a death ray

Originally posted by (Q)
when first convinced of the UFO phenomenon [I didn’t say ET]

Herein lies the problem with UFOlogists continually contradicting themselves. What other reason would they have aside from finding ET? What is so ‘convincing’ about the UFO phenomenon from a terrestrial nature?

Although UFOlogists like to place disclaimers about ET in their posts, their motives are not in favor of terrestrial explanations.

Here's the problem: If like me one becomes convinced that in fact something real is the source of many "UFO events" - something that is very energetic, very strange, very rare, and something that we don't understand - since we lack any sufficient explanation to account for these events, it becomes difficult to ignore the personal testimony and supporting information that if true would leave no doubt that ET is here. Needless to say, even the potential for a visiting ET is something pretty hard to ignore. Conversely, it is easy to see a true disbeliever [alleged skeptics] - those who believe practically on religious grounds that this [ET] can’t be true. They never acknowledge the potential significance of this phenomenon. To me this shows either a distinct lack of objectivity, or at least a lack of exposure.

Unless he or she has seen an ET up close, I think that this is what drives the objective person: The potential significance; not a belief in ET. I realized many years ago that if ET is here the rest of science likely pales by comparison. How can we ignore even a small chance for a revelation of such magnitude? Because of the potential significance, to me there is no greater question in science than the truth of UFOs. The mature Ufologist also realizes that if ET is here, it could be a very, very bad thing. Over the last 20 years, I have spent at least one or two nights consumed in thought of the horrors of what an ET could bring.

Edit: There are no known terrestrial explanations. That's the point. I have tried to discuss plasma phenomenon as an explanation in places like earth sciences, but we never get past the most elementary "there's nothing to it" arguments to address more earthly explanations. This is mostly because of people like you Q. You and thousands like you make science nearly impossible for this subject. Q, you are responsible for Art Bell's popularity as much as anyone.

I am looking for non-ET solutions. Look how you have treated me from the start. You gave my position no chance for fair consideration.

Originally posted by (Q)
[i]As far as ET visiting Earth is concerned, its all fiction.

Prove it.

Q, why must you put words in the mouths of others? Even when they disclaim the ETH, you appear to maintain that they secretly are still hoping to find aliens. Why else would they be interested in UFOs. . . . .

Where is your sense of curiosity? It appears from the time you spend here that you devote more time to mocking those interested in UFOs that most "believers" devote to the subject itself. That's far more pathetic, Q. I recall you tried to force the ETH down my throat as well when I first visited here, because I was willing to admit a hunch that ET was behind some sightings, as though that rendered me incapable of rational analysis.

Well, if it makes you feel any better, I have drifted further from the ETH, as Ivan can tell you from exposure to different forums. I'll probably regret this, but here is a reproduction of my post on this very subject: (These posts contain some casual references to other posters on other boards)


"Over time, I'm gradually leaning further and further away from the ETH as an explanation for which I can articulate support. Part of this process was simple evaluation of the evidence coupled with some difficult examination of what appeals to me vs. what inferences and conclusions I can logically make.

Don't mistake this for a decision on my part that there is nothing to the UFO mystery. Quite the contrary.

Rather than re-invent the wheel, I'm going to reproduce a portion of an email I recently sent to Ivan seeking on the ETH, which would be the best I could do to construct an argument in support of the ETH:

". . as I've said before I do have a sneaking hunch that ET is behind at least a part of the phenomenon. But I'm finding difficulty in translating that hunch into something I can quantify on paper. And I think the argument would be extremely tricky to construct.

One of the elements in my hunch is Paul Hill's book "Unconventional Flying Objects". I'm sure you've heard of it. Some of the more technical information was far over my head. However, two of his main points have always stuck with me.

1. The behavior of UFOs in many sightings, including "tilt to move", the "falling leaf motion", and more, is consistent with an object using some kind of field that counteracts gravity. Considering your background, and better understanding of the sciences than I have, you should read this analysis.

2. His explanation of the "on-board time factor". Hill regarded the "distance between the stars" arguments as a great fraud perpetrated on the American people. His basis was the slowing of time on board a fast moving ship. Now, I'm taking this from memory and am not a scientist, so take this with a grain of salt. But Hill calculated that a ship going 99% of the speed of light would be able to traverse not only the galaxy but the known Universe in almost no "on-board" time at all.

I found this to be relevant to any analysis of UFOs (assuming they are interstellar ships, or at least that the mother ships are) since arguments against them usually center on the great distances between the stars. Even recently I heard some "scientist" quoted in the press as saying that any interstellar ships would have to be multi-generational. No! Hill argued. Time would be slowed on-board.

Debunkers actually turn their argument around on themselves and argue that even at sub-luminal speeds, the galaxy could be colonized in 5 to 50 million years. (Scientific American, Nov. 2000, page 8). Fermi asked "Where are they?" And other debunkers followed up on this, claiming that aliens, if they were there, should have colonized Earth eons ago. This directly contradicts arguments that aliens could never get here because of the time factor, so the Fermi argument is really an argument that there is no intelligent space-faring life elsewhere in the Universe, or that they are not colonizers. In any event, Fermi based "where are they" arguments and "the distances are too vast" arguments are inconsistent with each other. And the debunkers have the gall to accuse the believers of cherry-picking their arguments and theories!

The long and short of all that is that interstellar travel, at subluminal speeds appears to be possible, and could easily happen within a single biological lifetime (as we know them).

So, a) interstellar travel is possible. 2) UFOs behave in a manner consistent with the laws of physics within our atmosphere, assuming that a kind of gravity-negating field is possible, and Hill believed that it was just a matter of time before even we could achieve that.

Now is when I take a deep breath and step back, and consider whether this really is an argument in support of ET, or just carefully selected facts and theories I've constructed to support the ETH."

So, that's the best I can do to support the ETH. I am inviting disagreement, because it is becoming increasingly difficult for me to understand how any rational, logic-based argument could arrive at a firm conclusion of ET. I find it fascinating that the problems in the early studies of the UFO found staffers that were leaning heavily toward the ETH, and found that the study in which they were participating already knew the answer, and it wasn't ETH. The Condon Committee in particular suffered from this problem.

In regards to witness sightings of UFO occupants, there are certainly some intriguing incidents out there, witnessed by people without obvious credibility problems. But the bulk of quality evidence for UFOs, and it is out there, comes in the form of multiple witness sightings that are corroborated by other means, like radar, photographs. No body of evidence exists for occupants of UFOs the way the evidence exists for the UFO itself. So that evidence for ET doesn't have the persuasive power that the evidence for the UFO itself does.

In my email to Ivan, I attempt to justify the ETH largely by trying to make a case that the ETH isn't impossible. And that's not very compelling, frankly.

So if one believes there is a genuine UFO phenomenon, but finds the evidence for ET lacking, where does one go?

Vallee at least gives some direction. I wonder how many people interested in UFOs truly understand the caliber of analysis this man has devoted to the subject for many, many years now. I'm currently reading this 1991 book Revelations, which is quite good. Vallee is skeptical about the ETH, not necessarily because he believes that the ETH is impossible, but because he believes we may have jumped to one of the more mundane conclusions about the core identity of UFOs.

Vallee constructs some pretty compelling arguments, given with extreme common sense and carefully thought out logic, that some of the major UFO events of the 20th Century, including the Bentwaters 1980 incident, were in fact carefully constructed hoaxes by elements within the US military complex, probably with the intent of testing the ability to manipulate human belief systems. He also maintains that all of us out here arguing back and forth about the evidence for ET are doing the bidding of those involved in the coverup. And that MJ12, as well as Gulf Breeze, may be perfectly fine with them, as part of their disinformation program.

Vallee maintains that there is a valid phenomenon, and that all indicators suggest intelligence behind it. As to the nature of the intelligence that may or may not be trying to send a signal to us. . . . . Vallee address that in the recent essay posted on this board entitled "Incommensurability and the Physics of High Strangeness".

There are so many layers to this subject. It is sometimes tempting to just toss it all away. But I think Vallee is trying to tell us to keep with it, for the answers may be wondrous and make bug-eyed aliens seem as mundane as lawn grass."

That's the end of the original post. I recently followed up, having finished Revelations and Night Siege over the holiday weekend:

"I had time to finish most of two books over the holiday weekend; one was Night Siege, on the Hudson Valley sightings, which occurred primarily in the 1980s. The other was Revelations, by Vallee.

I was particularly taken with Revelations, and what I took to be some of the best analysis anywhere of the UFO phenomenon. I've been noticing that the debunkers aren't quite as harsh on Vallee as they are on other UFO writers. Even Klass seems to pay some respect. I can certainly see why, although there is a certain irony to this. I'll explain.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with Vallee, there is no doubt his analysis of the phenomenon is advanced. Much of his writing is remarkably consistent with the debunkers, except that it is done better. I laughed several times at the common sense approach he takes to dubious claims, including one of an enormous underground facility in which thousands of aliens and people worked. “Who takes out the garbage? He asked, pointing out that such a large facility would have impacts difficult to ignore. The difference I see between Vallee and so many debunkers is that he does not start with a default position that there is nothing to the phenomenon. He believes that there are a core of cases which demonstrate a real phenomenon that by all indicators demonstrates intelligence. Yet he does not wish to suffer the fools of UFOLOGY.

John, you and I may not be so far apart as you think. I lack your subjective experience, so UFOs are for me an academic and epistemological exercise. I’m not arguing that in the long run, some UFO reports may turn out to be extraterrestrial. What I’m saying is that making that assumption may derail the proper line of inquiry. It causes us to engage in speculation as to why “they” are here, and the motives of interplanetary visitors might be vastly different from intelligences from other sources.

Vallee is quite emphatic that somebody wants us to believe the extra-terrestrial theory, and as I stated earlier, that many well-known incidents, including Bentwaters, were hoaxes designed to test the ability to manipulate belief systems.

Vallee refers to the entire inquiry as entry into a hall of mirrors, and I can see his point. As I was finishing Revelations, I was also working through Night Siege. Is this book widely read among Whisperians? I found it to really be a shocking book, in many ways. For the hell of it, I went to Amazon.com, having predicted to myself that someone would have posted there arguing that, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that all the sightings really were of ultralight planes flying in formation. The investigators involved in Hudson Valley, including Hynek himself, worked so hard to either rule in or rule out this theory that it strains credulity to continue to argue that all of the sightings were ultralight hoaxes. Yet there it is 6 or 7 reviews down. By someone claiming to have “knowledge” of what was really happening. The reviewer didn’t seem to feel a need to prove the basis of his inside knowledge.

Having said that the debunkers do not attack Vallee as much as others are, Magonia managed to get this jab in, in one of their online rants:

“. . . . they babble about UFO manifestations coming from "other dimensions" or having "higher rates of vibrations". They employ many other strange terms which all have one thing in common. They can sound good, especially if you can say them with apparent sincerity, and without getting the giggles, but they are utterly meaningless.
There are numerous examples in the UFO literature. Take Jacques Vallee, for instance. In his book Revelations he writes: "The genuine UFO phenomenon . . . is associated with a form of nonhuman consciousness that manipulates space and time in ways we do not understand" and "The entities could be multidimensional beyond space-time itself. They could even be fractal beings." (1) If any readers can make any sense of this the Pelican would be delighted to hear from them. Indulgence in this sort of nonsense can ruin what would otherwise be useful contributions to the subject, particularly where alien abduction stories are concerned.”

What Magonia fails to recognize is that Vallee is admittedly engaging in theorizing, but is doing so on the basis of what is probably the best empirical analysis of UFOs yet done. Magonia tries to make Vallee look like a fool, but he is way over their heads. He didn’t start with the assumption that all UFO reports are nonsense. A glimpse of Magonia’s true attitude is revealed in that same piece: “There is only one rational approach to ufology and that is - yes, you are way ahead of the Pelican here - the Psychosocial Hypothesis (PSH).” Okay, here’s my response to the PSH: What about the evidence itself? I think a good response to the PSH would be to use Magonia’s own words: “They employ many other strange terms which all have one thing in common. They can sound good, especially if you can say them with apparent sincerity, and without getting the giggles, but they are utterly meaningless.”

For the heck of it, I looked into the terms “fractal beings”, and found this:

“Fractals
French mathematician Benoit Mandlebrot discovered that there is a dimension of geometric forms between the spaces of our 3-D world. He called the space or intervals between our three dimensions, ‘fractals dimensions’. The word “fractal” is taken from Latin and means ‘to break into fragments’. He proved mathematically that the fourth fractal dimension lies between the first three, and he gave us the now famous formula for the calculations of fractals (z -> z^2 + c).”. This discussion of fractals is from something called StuartWilde.com. I don’t endorse the site. The point is that Vallee, unconvinced of the ETH as the sole or actual explanation for UFOs, is at least trying to engage in speculation as to the source of the undeniable intelligence behind the core of genuine UFO sightings. This is invalid to Magonia, because to them there is no genuine core of UFO sightings. They are the ones uttering the nonsense while pretending to be the defenders of science and reason. The hypocrisy of Magonia never ceases to sicken me; my first exposure to them was when they reviewed “UFOs and the National Security State,” written by historian Richard Dolan, and critiqued him for being “mired in the past” or words to that effect. An historian is examining the past? Shameful!

Night Siege gives us an opportunity to look at a long-running and remarkably consistent pattern of UFO reports given by credible witnesses. The incidents, taken at face value, certainly seem to justify, or in the minds of some, even prove the ETH. Yet I felt that reading these books together gave me more insight into Hudson Valley than I would have had I read it in a vacuum. As I read, I kept asking myself:

Why would extra-terrestrials fly low at night, flashing their lights, changing the color of their lights, chasing cars and scaring people by the thousands?

Is there any way that, after all is said and done, this could be an extraordinary hoax? I had wondered if perhaps some of these “craft” were far smaller than they appeared. Perhaps in the dark, and in the sky, it is difficult to judge size or height, and a smaller remote controlled craft might appear large, and would be able to give the illusion of great speed since it would grow even smaller rapidly as it moved away. I really doubt this, since some of the sightings were so widespread that people were pulling off highways and seeing the objects at the same time from various distances.

Many of the witnesses were extremely credible people with backgrounds and educations suggesting that they were anything but UFO buffs. Moreover, this would have to be a “hoax” spanning decades in that area alone, with an ability to launch objects of considerable size and hide them again before dawn. What I found particularly intriguing about the Hudson Valley sightings was the apparent lack of military interest. Can someone argue that our national security apparatus was unaware of a long-term incursion of unidentified objects, seen by literally thousands of people over heavily populated areas of the northeast? These sightings show how difficult it is to make sense of the entire UFO issue. Besides the lack of military involvement, the authors of Night Siege also noticed the lack of press involvement. As Terry Hansen would observe years later in his book “The Missing Times”, the local media reported the events but the national media did not. The authors of Night Siege noted that in this day in age, trivial events (like, perhaps, the arrest of a celebrity, or someone’s facelift) are all over TV and newspapers, yet these remarkable, repeated incidents failed to make the national news save for one network. Why? Why so little military interest? Why so little press interest?

It all goes to show you: the deeper you get into this subject, the less sense it makes."

That's the end of that follow up post. I would say that as time goes on, I'm realizing the truth of the old adage that "the more you know, the more you know how little you know."

Q, what is mildly fascinating about you is your mocking attitude in light of what is a very, very strange body of evidence. Please don't bother to write it off with generalized statements of prosaic explanations; as Vallee puts it, that attitude is the hallmark of one of the great intellectual failures of the 20th Century. The body of evidence of good, corroborated sightings by credible witnesses is simply to vast to justity your simplistic dismissals as genuine argument. Your kind lost this debate long ago, but sadly doesn't realize it.

Also sadly, too many toil endlessly under the assumption that the ETH is the explanation for UFOs. You yourself have stated, somewhere on this board, that it was arrogant for humans to think they were the only local form of intelligence. Strangely, you were almost agreeing with Vallee, and suggesting an even more bizzarre explantion for UFOs than the ETH.

If someone is arguing that the ETH has been proven, I agree that there are great flaws in their reasoning. You seem to extrapolate that problem into a broader belief that all those who express an interest are "nutters" or some other dismissive term. Instead, why don't you review some of the actual evidence and have a genuine, good-faith discussion about it?

By the way, how do you come by such absolute knowledge that ET visiting Earth is all fiction? I see no proof for it either, but your contention has a finality about it as though the matter were settled.

It isn't.

Ivan

it becomes difficult to ignore the personal testimony and supporting information that if true would leave no doubt that ET is here.

It is if you allow your imagination to run wild while ignoring critical thinking.

Needless to say, even the potential for a visiting ET is something pretty hard to ignore.

It is if you really, really believe in ET visiting Earth.

those who believe practically on religious grounds that this [ET] can’t be true.

What ‘religion’ would you be referring – the Church of Reason, perhaps?

They never acknowledge the potential significance of this phenomenon. To me this shows either a distinct lack of objectivity, or at least a lack of exposure.

It shows me an aptitude for common sense.

I realized many years ago that if ET is here the rest of science likely pales by comparison.

I’ve heard this so many times from believers who dream about being picked up by ET and flown around galaxy learning the secrets of the universe.

How can we ignore even a small chance for a revelation of such magnitude?

It’s easy when you understand that ET is not visiting Earth and most likely never will.

Because of the potential significance, to me there is no greater question in science than the truth of UFOs.

Spoken like a true believer who could care less about real science and would rather chase the proverbial ‘pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.’

The mature Ufologist also realizes that if ET is here, it could be a very, very bad thing.

That should confirm to you that ET is not here.

Over the last 20 years, I have spent at least one or two nights consumed in thought of the horrors of what an ET could bring.

How very sad – it appears you’ve wasted 20 years of your life. Usually people learn from their mistakes.

There are no known terrestrial explanations. That's the point.

Using your logic, we can therefore conclude there is nothing left to learn or discover.

You and thousands like you make science nearly impossible for this subject.

That is because UFOlogy is not a science – it borders on religion.

Q, you are responsible for Art Bell's popularity as much as anyone.

If it were not for people like you, Art Bell’s show would not exist.

I am looking for non-ET solutions.

Pure crap. You have confirmed my suspicions regarding your motives. You could care less about anything aside from finding ET, so please, don’t insult my intelligence by attempting to cover up your agenda. You’re an ET fanatic, have been for 20 odd years and most likely will continue to be one for the next 20, or until you realize just how much time you’ve wasted.

Hey Ives, since I am just now getting caught up, I thought to respond here instead of to the original email.

Posted by Ives
"Over time, I'm gradually leaning further and further away from the ETH as an explanation for which I can articulate support. Part of this process was simple evaluation of the evidence coupled with some difficult examination of what appeals to me vs. what inferences and conclusions I can logically make.

My path has been sinusoidal; but I have never a true belief in the ETH. I have come very close on a number of occasions.

But Hill calculated that a ship going 99% of the speed of light would be able to traverse not only the galaxy but the known Universe in almost no "on-board" time at all.

Not quite accurate; more like 99.9999999999% of C. The point is still valid. This also ignores more exotic notions of modern physics.

If the press picked up that the government was funding research into time travel, there would either be an outcry at the waste of public money, or a demand the research be classified for military purposes.... We disguise what we are doing by using technical terms like "closed timelike curves", which is just code for time travel... Wormholes, if they exist, would be ideal for rapid space travel. You might go through a wormhole to the other side of the galaxy and be back in time for dinner.

Stephen Hawking: p87 The Future of Spacetime; Cal Tech, 2002.

In any event, Fermi based "where are they" arguments and "the distances are too vast" arguments are inconsistent with each other. And the debunkers have the gall to accuse the believers of cherry-picking their arguments and theories!

No doubt.

2) UFOs behave in a manner consistent with the laws of physics within our atmosphere

See also: Acceleration by Bruce Maccabee
http://www.nidsci.org/articles/maccabee/acceleration.html

Now is when I take a deep breath and step back, and consider whether this really is an argument in support of ET, or just carefully selected facts and theories I've constructed to support the ETH."

[quote]So, that's the best I can do to support the ETH.

For me, one key argument for, maybe not the ETH, but for intelligence, is the seemingly intelligent behavior of the energetic orbs that have interacted with military craft for the last 60 years. Here are a few thoughts on these well documented events; ones that often predate even the alleged events at Roswell.

1) Their behavior is not consistent with any known phenomenon. I have considered that complex aerodynamics, coupled with electromagnetic interactions with the aircraft, with the earth’s magnetic field, and with the local electric fields that exist due to altitude and weather, and due perhaps internal instabilities in a hypothetical plasma phenomenon could explain some strange events. Of course, this is just wild guessing.

2). The pilot’s interpretation of these events often implies intelligent UFO behavior in that the orbs react to or even anticipate the pilots actions. This sometimes includes the spontaneous and temporary loss of weapons systems at critical moments.

3). RADAR data confirms some of this alleged behavior.

4) Pilots, tower operators, and sometimes dozens of eyewitnesses claim to see structured craft within these orbs; the presence of which was confirmed on RADAR.


I have never tried to construct a pro-ET argument. More later.


Vallee is skeptical about the ETH, not necessarily because he believes that the ETH is impossible, but because he believes we may have jumped to one of the more mundane conclusions about the core identity of UFOs.

Now you have entered no man’s land.

the Bentwaters 1980 incident, were in fact carefully constructed hoaxes by elements within the US military complex, probably with the intent of testing the ability to manipulate human belief systems.

Here is my problem with the military hoax explanation. First, I have no doubt that the military uses the UFO phenomenon to their advantage. This no doubt complicates the situation tremendously – “like a hall of mirrors”. However, I have spent a great deal of time talking with and listening to X-military personnel; sometimes of significant rank such as the former base commander of Camp Pendleton [an uncle] who late in his retirement years, and due to his many years of experience in the military, claims an absolute belief in UFOs. The level of conspiracy required to promote such an elaborate hoax make the UFO conspiracy “nuts” sound downright objective. A conspiracy on this level would be impossible to contain; esp. for this amount of time. This would require perhaps tens of thousands of silent conspirators over a span of 50 years. In fact, what we find are an increasing list of death bed testimonials from retired high ranking officers that state just the opposite. I have never heard one military testimonial to the opposite effect.

Query: Is there any legal significance to death bed testimony?


Vallee is quite emphatic that somebody wants us to believe the extra-terrestrial theory, and as I stated earlier, that many well-known incidents, including Bentwaters, were hoaxes designed to test the ability to manipulate belief systems.

This is where I get into trouble, since I don’t buy the military hoax explanations, and since I agree with Vallee - the official explanations for UFO data are often laughable - one wonders if the effort is in fact to convince the public that ET is here. On the other hand, I think this often happens due to the “it can’t be true so it’s not” protocol. When there is no explanation, say something.

Why would extra-terrestrials fly low at night, flashing their lights, changing the color of their lights, chasing cars and scaring people by the thousands?

How can we speculate about the motives for an ET in any sense? We have no information. Perhaps they fly like this when their warp drive overheats…who knows?

The key test for any UFO is extraordinary behavior. If this was not observed, then it could have been almost anything; unless perhaps if we have absolute visual confirmation at close range, in good light, by multiple otherwise unassociated eyewitnesses.

Why so little military interest? Why so little press interest?

As far as the military, how would we know? If they had great interest in a classified event, then of course they’ll play dumb. They might even go so far as to lie to the local media to cover the story. They have denied interest in other events while F18s were seen zipping after the UFO.

It all goes to show you: the deeper you get into this subject, the less sense it makes."

This study of UFOs is not for intellectual sissies.

Q, how sad for you. You are incapable of simple conversation. Are you so lonely and angry that you have nothing else to do?

Q - You use only cliche'd arguements and try to twist peoples words against them. These are the tactics of a lawyer who is losing a case and has nothing left but schoolyard tricks. Quite sad and predictable. How can anyone catagorically state that "ET visiting earth is all fiction" when there is substantial historical, religious, anecdotal, and some circumstantial evidence to the contrary? Agreed, its not enough to win a case, but it is enough to warrant further investigation.
We don't yet have a satisfactory answer one way or the other and only a fool would claim that there is. We have to keep asking questions, either that or sit back and assume there is nothing left to learn.

Originally posted by Ives
Q, why must you put words in the mouths of others? Even when they disclaim the ETH, you appear to maintain that they secretly are still hoping to find aliens. Why else would they be interested in UFOs. . . . .

This one is simple, a statement of 'I believe in UFOs but that does not imply they are piloted by aliens' equates to 'I believe in terrestrial stealth aircraft' equates to 'DUH!'. We KNOW stealth craft exist. Without an extraterrestrial impilcation, there is not much of a mystery, we are seeing things that are supposed to be secret, which is why we don't know much about them.



1. The behavior of UFOs in many sightings, including "tilt to move", the "falling leaf motion", and more, is consistent with an object using some kind of field that counteracts gravity.


Where does that idea come from? As we have absolutely ZERO experience of antigravity fields, any explanation for such observed motion is mere supposition. It is also a huge leap, leaves fall like they do, ... why? Because they use anti-gravity fields? No, because there is a perfectly understandable reason for them to move the way they do.


2. His explanation of the "on-board time factor". Hill regarded the "distance between the stars" arguments as a great fraud perpetrated on the American people. His basis was the slowing of time on board a fast moving ship. Now, I'm taking this from memory and am not a scientist, so take this with a grain of salt. But Hill calculated that a ship going 99% of the speed of light would be able to traverse not only the galaxy but the known Universe in almost no "on-board" time at all.


Right, shrink to fit thinking here. We know that the Universe is vast, and that for ETs to be here, they must have found a way to travel those vast distances quickly. So TWO assumptions are made now, that ETs are here, AND they have mastered near light speed travel. But despite this amazing technology, they get caught on radar (they can travel at 99% the speed of light but never developed stealth technology?) , advertise their presence with flashing lights but hide from making contact, unless that contact is to conspire with world governments to keep themselves hidden?


I found this to be relevant to any analysis of UFOs (assuming they are interstellar ships, or at least that the mother ships are) since arguments against them usually center on the great distances between the stars. Even recently I heard some "scientist" quoted in the press as saying that any interstellar ships would have to be multi-generational. No! Hill argued. Time would be slowed on-board.

So, why would a planet send out scouts to other planets in other solar systems? For science, maybe, for exploration? Ah, but this defeats the time dilation argument. While time passes quickly for the passengers of the craft, it passes at normal speed for their kin they leave behind. So, what benefit is the exploration for those that are left behind? Or are these aliens from conveniently local planets, orbiting Proxima Centauri, or other close stars? So, these ETs, they launch missions that will take at least 8 years, (if they are from really close stars) to several decades , if not centuries before returning infomation home, ASSUMING they pick the right stars to go visit. So what returned benefit is there? Or do we now have three assumptions, ETs are here, they have near light speed travel, are from close enough star systems to make travel here worthwhile.

Limiting the choice to local stars diminishes the likelyhood that we will find advanced intelligent life, of course, broadening our choice of stars increases the chance if life being found, but diminshes the chance they will find earth, as they will have more stars to choose from too.


The long and short of all that is that interstellar travel, at subluminal speeds appears to be possible, and could easily happen within a single biological lifetime (as we know them).


Woah there! What evidence is there for near light speed travel? None, other than the cyclic argument that if ETs are here they must have it, so it must be true, as we believe ETs are here.


So, a) interstellar travel is possible. 2) UFOs behave in a manner consistent with the laws of physics within our atmosphere, assuming that a kind of gravity-negating field is possible, and Hill believed that it was just a matter of time before even we could achieve that.

Woah again! We haven't any evidence that interstellar travel is possible, where did we suddenly get that? UFOs behave according to the laws of physics, well, DUH! of course they do, they HAVE to. What I think you mean, is that they behave as we expect them too, but that contradicts their very nature, in that we assume things are UFOs because they exhibit behaviours we cannot easily rationalize! So what are you saying exactly?


In regards to witness sightings of UFO occupants, there are certainly some intriguing incidents out there, witnessed by people without obvious credibility problems.

Without credibility problems, ah, but only if you ignore the cranks! But why should some people's more exotic claims be dismissed, while the more mundane are deemed more acceptable? Sightings given more credibility that abductions, for instance? Plenty of people report both. This is merely face saving, distancing UFOlogists from obvious nutters like Rael. But who can say his claims are false? Maybe he was abducted and forced to make love to sexy alien robots. If you can accept near light speed travel, protracted alien interest in humans, why not a bit of interacial mingling?



So if one believes there is a genuine UFO phenomenon, but finds the evidence for ET lacking, where does one go?

One says 'DUH!' (or 'I believe in the existance on terrestrial stealth aircraft')


Vallee maintains that there is a valid phenomenon, and that all indicators suggest intelligence behind it.

Woah again! How can we assume intelligence? Many people report Venus as a UFO, or shooting stars, or lenticular clouds. There is definitely NO intelligence behind those phenomena. In footage taken of UFOs where there have been group sightings, I've often seen STATIC objects being filmed, the only movement being recorded when the object is in tight zoom, and what we are actually seeing is camera shake! the 'intelligence' such at is is, is on the wring side of the lens, therefore!


... difference I see between Vallee and so many debunkers is that he does not start with a default position that there is nothing to the phenomenon.

Untrue, I'm a debunker, but what I debunk are the spurious factoids offered as evidence, not the possibility of Extra Terrestrial Life existing, nor that there are objects flying around that we don't understand. Most reports are flawed, most observers embellish far too much. I think it is very likely that there is life on other planets, what I have a trouble with, is how, and why they would come to earth, and why so often, and why they would choose to keep themselves hidden, and conspire with a few world governments. There are some really big questions there, and all the answers so far, little more than loosely woven conspiracy theories. A few facts might be nice.




Night Siege gives us an opportunity to look at a long-running and remarkably consistent pattern of UFO reports.

Consistent, ... far from it. In just fifty years, we've seen the design of ETs craft change radically, from 'cigar shaped objects' to Saucers (although we all know that the spate of 'flying saucer' sightings were copycat sightings, of a mis-reported quote, about how an object moved not looked) to triangular shapes, pretty much mirroring our own technology (Rockets, V/STOL aircraft experiments, and stealth aircraft). Why do ETs redesign their craft so often, or are they different races? And if so, how come ALL of them conspire together about each other's secrecy????

or are they different races? And if so, how come ALL of them conspire together about each other's secrecy????

Id imagine we were being visited by a few diffrent species (in that press relase video , the sgt says 57), id guess the dutton thory is right, as it would make sense for a mothwer ship to be in high orbit and drop diffrent types of smaller craft .

Also people say why would aliens visit us?-Well surely if when we have developed reliable wide spread space travel and we came across a planet at the same stage of evolution as we are now we would be VERY interested and monitor its progress or in our case its destruction and abuse of its home planet
sorry if what i wrote doesnt make much sense, ive got a headache

Originally posted by Star_One
or are they different races? And if so, how come ALL of them conspire together about each other's secrecy????

Id imagine we were being visited by a few diffrent species (in that press relase video , the sgt says 57),

Hmm '57 Varietes', ... where have I heard that one before? ;-)

Someone, somewhere is having a hearty laugh that people are repeating that figure I'm sure!

Q, why must you put words in the mouths of others? Even when they disclaim the ETH, you appear to maintain that they secretly are still hoping to find aliens.

Their disclaimers are BS; I know that and so do you.

Where is your sense of curiosity?

Firmly placed in reality, thanks.

I have drifted further from the ETH

Really? Lets analyze your post for those alleged qualifiers.

Don't mistake this for a decision on my part that there is nothing to the UFO mystery. Quite the contrary

No surprises here.

I do have a sneaking hunch that ET is behind at least a part of the phenomenon

Yeah right, that doesn’t sound much like your “drifting away.”

But I'm finding difficulty in translating that hunch into something I can quantify on paper. And I think the argument would be extremely tricky to construct.

That stands to reason considering there is no evidence.

Paul Hill's book "Unconventional Flying Objects"… Some of the more technical information was far over my head… consistent with an object using some kind of field that counteracts gravity.

That doesn’t sound technical at all – more like unsubstantiated assertions from science fiction. What does Paul know about gravity?

Hill regarded the "distance between the stars" arguments as a great fraud perpetrated on the American people.

Paul is a conspiracy theorist, as well?

Hill calculated that a ship going 99% of the speed of light would be able to traverse not only the galaxy but the known Universe in almost no "on-board" time at all. No! Hill argued. Time would be slowed on-board.

Well, it appears Paul does know something about relativity – if a ship could move at velocities near c, the clock on board the ship would be ticking slower relative to the point of departure, but the time ‘on-board’ would appear normal.

Of course, the problems with interstellar travel are numerous and complicated – does Paul have a solution for them all?

The long and short of all that is that interstellar travel, at subluminal speeds appears to be possible, and could easily happen within a single biological lifetime (as we know them).

So, you base your argument on this single issue? Have you any idea as to what interstellar travel entails? Have you had a look at ALL of the physics involved? If you think that it is merely an issue with current technologies, then you are sadly mistaken.

And the debunkers have the gall to accuse the believers of cherry-picking their arguments and theories!

Perhaps the debunkers are aware of the issues of interstellar travel and the believers are not, or they simply ignore the issues?

The long and short of all that is that interstellar travel, at subluminal speeds appears to be possible, and could easily happen within a single biological lifetime (as we know them).

Yeah, as I suspected, you really don’t know the issues.

So, a) interstellar travel is possible.

Let’s hold judgment on that until you’ve had a chance to understand the problems.



Hill’s assertions are specious at best. He doesn’t appear to have taken the problems of interstellar travel seriously, but instead is relying on wishful thinking.

[I] Vallee constructs some pretty compelling arguments… carefully constructed hoaxes by elements within the US military complex, probably with the intent of testing the ability to manipulate human belief systems. He also maintains that all of us out here arguing back and forth about the evidence for ET are doing the bidding of those involved in the coverup.

Vallee is another conspiracy theorist and wishful thinker who has not taken the time to understand the issues, like most other believers.

Yet he does not wish to suffer the fools of UFOLOGY.

And yet he does.

The body of evidence of good, corroborated sightings by credible witnesses is simply to vast to justity your simplistic dismissals as genuine argument.

Billions of people believe in gods – does that mean gods exist?

Your kind lost this debate long ago, but sadly doesn't realize it.

Or, simply gave up listening to the ranting of the believers.

You yourself have stated, somewhere on this board, that it was arrogant for humans to think they were the only local form of intelligence.

No, I said humans are not the only form of life in the universe. I never said local or intelligence. In fact, I am extremely skeptical that other life forms have intelligence considering intelligence is not part of evolution.

Instead, why don't you review some of the actual evidence and have a genuine, good-faith discussion about it?

Been there, done that.

However, I would like to make that same suggestion to you. Stop reading those ridiculous books by UFOlogists and start reading about the REAL problems of interstellar travel. Of course, a fair amount of physics and biology background is in order, but I’m sure there is enough information for someone like you to understand most of the issues – you’re a smart guy, right? And, there are enough good minds on this board to answer your questions if you don’t understand some of the more complicated issues.

When you're ready to talk about the real issues and the real science surrounding interstellar travel, let me know. But if you keep spouting the nonsense that Hill and Vallee are spoon feeding, then I'll continue to respond in kind.

Ivan

Q, how sad for you. You are incapable of simple conversation. Are you so lonely and angry that you have nothing else to do?

Did my post touch a nerve – too close to the truth?

Originally posted by phlogistician
Woah again! How can we assume intelligence? Many people report Venus as a UFO

Incorrect again.

Many Official reports state that Venus was the object being reported. Venus has been a favorite of the Air Force. It's gotten them out of a lot of explanations. It's just sad that there's actually people out there who continue to accept this official lie.

In one case, the purported UFO was just the planet Venus near the horizon, Tolbert says.

"The lady was absolutely sure it was a UFO," he says. "And she wouldn't let us have the videotape because she was convinced we were a part of a government conspiracy." http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DailyNews/ufo010723.html


:D

Originally posted by (Q)
Did my post touch a nerve – too close to the truth?


Yes it did. Why are you here? I am glad to discuss this subject with almost anyone who wishes to do so, but you offer nothing but mean spirited rhetoric. You use mostly unsupported personal attacks as your answer to evidence, and what little real information you are willing to address is only that which most of us dismiss as useless anyway. I thought that perhaps it was worth one last try, again, to have a civil conversation with you, but you are predicatably hostile and shallow ad nauseam.

Go away. Go be a nasty person somewhere else.

This is my last comment to Q.

Originally posted by phlogistician
This one is simple, a statement of 'I believe in UFOs but that does not imply they are piloted by aliens' equates to 'I believe in terrestrial stealth aircraft' equates to 'DUH!'.

No known physics can explain the maneuvers observed if made by a massive object operated by humans. However, this does not have to mean ET, and surely we have not had craft capable of 20g accelerations for the last 50 years. I think there could be other options.


Right, shrink to fit thinking here. We know that the Universe is vast, and that for ETs to be here, they must have found a way to travel those vast distances quickly. So TWO assumptions are made now, that ETs are here, AND they have mastered near light speed travel. [/b]

I understand your objection, but I think a proper framing of the speculation is that IF ET is here, THEN he must have somehow gotten here. However, I think even this assumes too much.

But despite this amazing technology, they get caught on radar (they can travel at 99% the speed of light but never developed stealth technology?) , advertise their presence with flashing lights but hide from making contact, unless that contact is to conspire with world governments to keep themselves hidden?

Perhaps they really don't give a damn about us either way. Why do you think we would be so important?

So, why would a planet send out scouts to other planets in other solar systems? For science, maybe, for exploration? Ah, but this defeats the time dilation argument. While time passes quickly for the passengers of the craft, it passes at normal speed for their kin they leave behind. So, what benefit is the exploration for those that are left behind? Or are these aliens from conveniently local planets, orbiting Proxima Centauri, or other close stars? So, these ETs, they launch missions that will take at least 8 years, (if they are from really close stars) to several decades , if not centuries before returning infomation home, ASSUMING they pick the right stars to go visit. So what returned benefit is there? Or do we now have three assumptions, ETs are here, they have near light speed travel, are from close enough star systems to make travel here worthwhile.

What is the potential for the technology of a race of beings one million years more advanced than us? If life is common out there, or even if its not so common, this is completely possible...according to the odds. How can we even speculate? Until we have a complete and unified description of all physical laws at the least, we are in no position to set absolute limits on technology.



Sightings given more credibility that abductions, for instance? Plenty of people report both.[/b]

Only UFOs come with confirmed hard data - mostly RADAR that supports visual sightings.

Woah again! How can we assume intelligence? Many people report Venus as a UFO, or shooting stars, or lenticular clouds. [/b]

Well we can infer an implied intelligence if we don't cherry pick our stories to avoid such implications. Some documented events do describe UFOs that seem to anticipate and respond to the pilots actions. Also, UFOs often interact with each other in a seemingly intelligent manner.

In footage taken of UFOs where there have been group sightings, I've often seen STATIC objects being filmed, the only movement being recorded when the object is in tight zoom, and what we are actually seeing is camera shake! the 'intelligence' such at is is, is on the wring side of the lens, therefore!

There are many thousands of hours of such videos. I have also seen clear video of 8 or 10 silver orbs flying in formation, at great speed, and changing postions with each other with obvious precision. With few exceptions, a casual glance at pop TV reveals next to nothing about this subject. This is like saying we should interpret physics according to what we see on TV also.

Consistent, ... far from it. In just fifty years, we've seen the design of ETs craft change radically, from 'cigar shaped objects' to Saucers (although we all know that the spate of 'flying saucer' sightings were copycat sightings, of a mis-reported quote, about how an object [i]moved not looked) to triangular shapes, pretty much mirroring our own technology (Rockets, V/STOL aircraft experiments, and stealth aircraft). Why do ETs redesign their craft so often, or are they different races? And if so, how come ALL of them conspire together about each other's secrecy???? [/B]

Actually the first popular usage of the term "flying saucer" was in June of 1947. A rash of saucer sighting ensued for the next year or so. Cigar shaped objects have been reported since the early 50s; unless or course you count the cigar and saucer shaped reports that go back thousands of years.

Originally posted by VRob
Incorrect again.

Many Official reports state that Venus was the object being reported. Venus has been a favorite of the Air Force. It's gotten them out of a lot of explanations. It's just sad that there's actually people out there who continue to accept this official lie.

Venus HAS been reported as a UFO for definite. I've seen claimed footage of it as a UFO when it's movement was clearly caused by camera shake. This is a known phenomenon, the 'wandering star' effect. If you look at a bright source the area of your retina where the light falls gets tired, and you eye automatically compensates by moving slightly, so the light falls on a less tired adjacent region. Of course, you feel the involuntary movement of your eye, and interpret this as tracking the object. So you see a stationary object as moving! So, you grab the camcorder, start recording, and as it's a tiny light source, zoom, and zoom, and zoom, until you can't zoom any more. At this point camera shake is also magnified, so those subtle movements, now have this object zipping all over the place!

Of course, if you are doing this from a moving vehicle, parallax will make it look like this star is following you, and if you stop, it stops, making it look like it is tracking your movements. But it isn't, it's just parallax.

And, if you are one of those people that bought Sony, you might defocus that tiny light source, as you fumble with your zoom and focus and see, Wow! A lozenge shaped craft! Which is actually the shadow of the lozenge shaped camcorder iris falling on the CCD.

I've seen this one too many times, from too many sources, in various degrees. Sorry, Venus does get reported, it is ignorance, not conspiracy.

And you know, shouting 'conspiracy' every time a half baked report gets debunked, does nothing for your you perceived objectivity or credibility.

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
[B]No known physics can explain the maneuvers observed if made by a massive object operated by humans. However, this does not have to mean ET, and surely we have not had craft capable of 20g accelerations for the last 50 years. I think there could be other options.

Incorrect, physics is physics, and applies everywhere in the universe, so the physics is known. What we don't know, is how to generate 20g of force instantaneously, and survive. Of course, 20g is just a figure plucked out of the air, and has absolutely no backing.


Perhaps they really don't give a damn about us either way. Why do you think we would be so important?

So why do they come here so much?


What is the potential for the technology of a race of beings one million years more advanced than us? If life is common out there, or even if its not so common, this is completely possible...according to the odds. How can we even speculate? Until we have a complete and unified description of all physical laws at the least, we are in no position to set absolute limits on technology.

Ah, so their existance relies on the shadows in science! Just like God! See, we have gotten to the core of this, UFOlogy is merely another belief system. If we have to entertain the idea of ETs and UFOs because we don't have a complete description of science, we have to entertain all other hypotheses that we also cannot disprove, if we are being truly open minded, and that gets absurd.


Only UFOs [in some cases] come with confirmed hard data - mostly RADAR that supports visual sightings.

Radar is not not 'hard' data, it's an intangible. Part of a UFO would be be 'hard'. Radar isn't perfect, and one thing I'm certain of, if that the radar traces for UFOs are always incomplete, popping onto radar, being tracked for a while, and vanishing. So, incomplete data isn't good data either.



Well we can infer an implied intelligence if we don't cherry pick our stories to avoid such implications. Some documented events do describe UFOs that seem to anticipate and respond to the pilots actions. Also, UFOs often interact with each other in a seemingly intelligent manner. [quote]

Parallax, quite simple, and explains some sightings. Formations don't imply intelligence, clouds form regular patterns, the giants causeway is made of regualr shapes, and atoms and electrons are all uniform. nature loves symmetry, so it's not hard to accept that we will occasionally see it on large scales.


[quote]
There are many thousands of hours of such videos. I have also seen clear video of 8 or 10 silver orbs flying in formation, at great speed, and changing postions with each other with obvious precision. With few exceptions, a casual glance at pop TV reveals next to nothing about this subject. This is like saying we should interpret physics according to what we see on TV also.

Was it 8, or 10 orbs? I learned physics in physics lectures and in physics labs, performing experiments, and getting repeatable data, which matched hypotheses. NONE of this can be said for UFOs. We'd have mathemtical models, if there were good 'hard' data, but we don't.


Actually the first popular usage of the term "flying saucer" was in June of 1947. A rash of saucer sighting ensued for the next year or so. Cigar shaped objects have been reported since the early 50s; unless or course you count the cigar and saucer shaped reports that go back thousands of years.

Yep, everybody knows about the misquote, and rash of copycat sightings, which is a major discrediting factor of UFO sightings. Why would aliens keep visiting the earth, over thousands of years as some claim? The one constant over all this time, is human fallability and imagination. If ETs are sufficiently advanced to build near light speed craft, their technology must have advanced in other areas too, and I really doubt earth has much to offer them, bar tourism. Why would tourists adbuct humans though?

Originally posted by phlogistician
Venus HAS been reported as a UFO for definite. I've seen claimed footage of it as a UFO when it's movement was clearly caused by camera shake. This is a known phenomenon, the 'wandering star' effect.

Let me get this straight. Are you saying that the Air Force has NEVER used the planet Venus as an explanation when they couldn't come up with any other? If so, do you really believe Captain Thomas Mantell flew to his death chasing the planet Venus?? :bugeye:

I have no doubt that the planet has been mistaken for an unidentified object many times. However, it cannot be assumed to be the culprit when no other explanation is available.

phlogistican,

You continue to ask the questions....

Why would they be interested in us?

Why wouldn't they be able to avoid our radar?

ect...ect...

You seem to believe that the lack of answers to these questions provides you some evidence that there's nothing to the ET hypothesis of UFO's. IMO, This is bordering on the absurd.

We ourselves have a desire to explore. We did it on our own planet, and will continue to do it outside our planet. I imagine someday, we'll venture out to the stars in search of new life. Be it advanced or microscopic, I think we'd be interested in learning about all of it. Why is it so difficult for you to grasp the idea that another intelligent race might do the same?

Ivan,

I completely agree with your last post.

I'm a relative newcomer to this board, and I've already figured out that Q is not worthy of a response.

Originally posted by VRob
Let me get this straight. Are you saying that the Air Force has NEVER used the planet Venus as an explanation when they couldn't come up with any other? If so, do you really believe Captain Thomas Mantell flew to his death chasing the planet Venus??

The Airforce, ah, you see, assuming that it is the responsibility of the Air Force to provide answers is your mistake, and where you are being misled. They will only have better answers if there is some data to be had, and only then could they conspire. A simple answer for them saying 'it's Venus', is because they have no reason to think it wasn't. By the way, I used to live on an airforce base surrounded by pilots and radar operators. None of them ever mentioned UFOs. Or was my dad part of the conspiracy! I don't think so.


I have no doubt that the planet has been mistaken for an unidentified object many times. However, it cannot be assumed to be the culprit when no other explanation is available.

Of course not, and we can't jump to the conclusion that there is an intelligence behind it either!

And to return your other questions, why would ETs come all the way to earth, abduct people, and repeatedly shove probes up their arses? Or don't you believe people that report abduction, and if not, why not?

Ivan

I am glad to discuss this subject with almost anyone who wishes to do so

That’s not true – you’re only interested in discussing the subject with other believers who nod agreeably in your direction.

You use mostly unsupported personal attacks as your answer to evidence

Again untrue – I have yet to see any evidence therefore I cannot attack it. All I’ve seen so far is wishful thinking and a belief system that would rival most religions.

and what little real information you are willing to address is only that which most of us dismiss as useless anyway.

Yes, I know – reality continues to be dismissed by believers.

you are predicatably hostile and shallow ad nauseam.

Go away. Go be a nasty person somewhere else.

Give me your mailing address and I’ll send you a dollar – then maybe you can go out and buy yourself a spine. Milquetoast.

Rob

I'm a relative newcomer to this board, and I've already figured out that Q is not worthy of a response.

Believers are not able to formulate intelligent responses nor are they able to adequately answer direct questions. They are far too convoluted with finding ET and severely entrenched into their belief systems to warrant reasonable thought to the UFO phenomenon.

No known physics can explain the maneuvers observed

It’s a real treat to watch believers throw around the term ‘physics’ when they attempt to explain UFO’s. It’s even funnier when they state unequivocally that physics cannot explain the observations. It puts into serious doubt their interpretation and validity of the observations and their credibility when discussing physics, especially when they can’t comprehend the blatant flaws in their logic.

Originally posted by phlogistician
The Airforce, ah, you see, assuming that it is the responsibility of the Air Force to provide answers is your mistake, and where you are being misled.

I used the Air Force for lack of a better organization. It is a known fact that many intelligence/military organizations have continued to keep data on UFO reports long after they supposedly stopped. I have no idea the name of the organization who now handles the bulk of the data, or from what branch of the milary/intelligence area they come from. In fact, I suspect much of the data is now researched through private companies that have close ties to the Military industrial complex. But, to save time, I used the Air Force.


And to return your other questions, why would ETs come all the way to earth, abduct people, and repeatedly shove probes up their arses? Or don't you believe people that report abduction, and if not, why not?

I haven't yet determined my opinion on this phenomena. Most of my research has dealt with the Military/intelligence branches, along with pilot/radar sightings. The abduction area is way too murky for me.

BTW: My thoughts on the UFO phenomena are not a belief. It is an opinion that there is indeed something going on based on the thousands of eyewitness, specifically military/intelligence. People who don't have anything to gain by coming forward. People who actually have much to lose by telling there stories. This, along with the history of deception and contradictions from these same organizations.

There is also evidence that this phenomena has been going on for thousands of years.

Analizing all the data that's available, I've come to the conclusion that much more information is being withheld. In fact, I find it very hard to believe that anyone who's followed this topic from the beginning, could come to any other conclusion.

I find it very hard to believe that anyone who's followed this topic from the beginning, could come to any other conclusion.

There are few other conclusions a believer would entertain - that is inherently part of the problem.

Try using some critical thinking and you'll soon find other conclusions begin revealing themselves.

Originally posted by phlogistician
And you know, shouting 'conspiracy' every time a half baked report gets debunked, does nothing for your you perceived objectivity or credibility.

which is why discussions are pointless. adopt my tactics and simply attack the "scientists". if we are responsible for the sensationalist masses and media, let us hold them responsible for their bogus crap. science is full of fraud and stupidity. it is not hard to find. ;)

q can be pons and phlog, fleishman

are'nt you fools reviving "steady state?" desperate for some handouts eh?

lets figure out "the fraud and the damage done"

*cancer and powerlines.
*nasa says bacteria on mars.
*nuclear winter
*piltdown
*whacky statisticians
*y2k
*fenphen
*mtbe
*mutant bees
*asteroids on collision course

thanks for nothing dolts!

oh! what about polchinski at some institute for theoretical physics?...."strings are tiny, branes are huge. if strings are like spaghetti, branes are like lasagna"

what do they do? breed crackpots at these places? enough with the nonsense! cut funding immediately

phlog spouts

Radar is not not 'hard' data, it's an intangible

i'll send some uranium over for christmas. the "intangible" here obviously does not exist

I learned physics in physics lectures and in physics labs, performing experiments, and getting repeatable data, which matched hypotheses.

yah, at that pace we would be still grunting away in the stone age

Why would tourists adbuct humans though?

so you dont wanna loaf around the andromeda galaxy anally probing some cute alien bitches? party pooper!

So, incomplete data isn't good data either.

this is fabulously shortsighted and disingenous. perhaps you just suck at "filling in the blanks"

So why do they come here so much?

umm...looking for the perfect mate? world domination? take yer pick. (i would tell you why but i have been sworn to secrecy by kjggpo the alien)

Incorrect, physics is physics,

heh, i like that. unfortunately it means nothing. just a mindless soundbite. perhaps you want to expand with cool examples? can you come up with instances when and where the laws of physics breaks down? or does that never happen? (you still have your ass covered to cos the breaking down is also acounted for by...."physics is physics", so no worries)

Originally posted by phlogistician
So why do they come here so much?

Who knows? How can we ever guess without more information...if they are here.


Ah, so their existance relies on the shadows in science! Just like God! See, we have gotten to the core of this, UFOlogy is merely another belief system. If we have to entertain the idea of ETs and UFOs because we don't have a complete description of science, we have to entertain all other hypotheses that we also cannot disprove, if we are being truly open minded, and that gets absurd.

Again, you ignore the primary IF - THEN statement. IF they are here, THEN this is some speculation as to how. This only responds to your limiting statements about technology.


Radar is not not 'hard' data, it's an intangible. Part of a UFO would be be 'hard'. Radar isn't perfect, and one thing I'm certain of, if that the radar traces for UFOs are always incomplete, popping onto radar, being tracked for a while, and vanishing. So, incomplete data isn't good data either.

So lets ignore the data because we don't like it. If these systems were so unreliable, then we should have planes falling from the sky like rain. considering that we use RADAR to detemine whether or not to start WWIII, it seems that others give this data a little more credibility than you do.


Was it 8, or 10 orbs?

I'm not sure...it was a flying V formation with 4 or five orbs along each leg.

I learned physics in physics lectures and in physics labs, performing experiments, and getting repeatable data, which matched hypotheses. NONE of this can be said for UFOs. We'd have mathemtical models, if there were good 'hard' data, but we don't.

This only means that our approach is too limited. Where does it say in the physics books that all real phenomenon are repeatable on demand? Naive falsification.


Yep, everybody knows about the misquote, and rash of copycat sightings, which is a major discrediting factor of UFO sightings. Why would aliens keep visiting the earth, over thousands of years as some claim? The one constant over all this time, is human fallability and imagination. If ETs are sufficiently advanced to build near light speed craft, their technology must have advanced in other areas too, and I really doubt earth has much to offer them, bar tourism. Why would tourists adbuct humans though?

So then the basis for your position is your intimiate knowledge of ET's motives. OK, now who is making rash assumptions?

science is full of fraud and stupidity.

More precisely, science is hampered by fraud and stupidity:

http://skepdic.com/tijunk.html

Where does it say in the physics books that all real phenomenon are repeatable on demand?

Have you actually picked up and read a physics book? If so, you would realize just how much your ET visiting Earth ideas are contradicted by physics.

But I’m sure you haven’t the time to read anything aside from UFOlogy reports, right?

ET visiting Earth ideas are contradicted by physics.

lay them out and i will expose them to be erroneous. i dare you!:D

More precisely, science is hampered by fraud and stupidity:

More precisely, ufology is hampered by fraud and stupidity...namely the pseudo skeptical garbage that is passed off as rational critique. it appears that all you can muster is emotional and religious rants.

i tell ya man, how is it the ufo kooks are the reasonable and objective ones here? i believe the establishment should send more able reps if they wanna prevail. pathetic!

Originally posted by spookz
i tell ya man, how is it the ufo kooks are the reasonable and objective ones here? i believe the establishment should send more able reps if they wanna prevail. pathetic!

LOL Spooks!

I was just thinking the same thing.

Originally posted by (Q)
When you're ready to talk about the real issues and the real science surrounding interstellar travel, let me know.

Going beyond the limits of an existing technology requires a pioneering spirit. It requires imagination to envision future possibilities. Pioneering requires confronting ignorance and creating new knowledge rather than just apply existing knowledge. It requires intuition and subjective judgments to navigate in the absence of an established knowledge base. And because progress is unpredictable and the returns on investment are long-term, it requires the ability to take risks.

worms,warp and other shit (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/html/warp/ideachev.htm)

i dont think you can hack it q

OK, let's get some backgound here.

I'll go first. I lived on a an airforce base during the cold war. I never saw UFOs buzzing around, policing the stockpile of nuclear weapons kept there. Pilots I knew never said they saw UFOs. Radar operators never said they saw UFOs.

I trained as a physicist, and later worked in the aerospace industry, with guys that built satellites, and other guys that analysed satellite data, and met astronauts, and ground based observers. You know, real rocket scientists.

None of the people I met believed in ETs being the cause of UFOs.

Why was that do you think? That the people with the appropriate level of education in related fields and with access to the relevant data saw nothing in it?

And spookz, it's easy to diss science, but it was science that brought you the computer you are posting from. it wasn't belief that achieved the microchip, nor a prediliction towards conspiracy theories, or distrust of government, or a few grainy photos. It was scientific research spin offs from the space program. Science provides tangible results, and you know it!

If you want to know more, see all the data that you think is witheld, get yourself a PhD and go work for the people that have it, and see for yourself. Leak it, make people aware. If you think science is a fruad, get inside and find out for yourself, put the effort in.

But like I have said, I've never been cut in on the conspiracy if there is one.

OK, let's get some backgound here.

why? all that matters is what you put down on paper. opinions and judgements based on this is all that matters. for the record, i am a homeless bum on the beach (self educated to boot)

Pilots I knew never said they saw UFOs. Radar operators never said they saw UFOs. ........None of the people I met believed in ETs being the cause of UFOs.

selective....something. watch me do the same.....

*On May 11, 1962 NASA pilot Joseph Walker said that one of his tasks was to detect UFOs during his X-15 flights. He had filmed five or six UFOs during his record breaking fifty-mile-high flight in April, 1962. It was the second time he had filmed UFOs in flight. During a lecture at the Second National Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Space Research in Seattle, Washington he said:

"I don't feel like speculating about them. All I know is what appeared on the film which was developed after the flight." - Joseph Walker

* In 1979 Maurice Chatelain, former chief of NASA Communications Systems confirmed that Armstrong had indeed reported seeing two UFOs on the rim of a crater. Chatelain believes that some UFOs may come from our own solar system -- specifically Titan.

"The encounter was common knowledge in NASA, but nobody has talked about it until now."

"...all Apollo and Gemini flights were followed, both at a distance and sometimes also quite closely, by space vehicles of extraterrestrial origin - flying saucers, or UFOs, if you want to call them by that name. Every time it occurred, the astronauts informed Mission Control, who then ordered absolute silence."

astronaut sightings (http://www.anomalous-images.com/astroufo.html)

wanna comment?

Why was that do you think?

i aint gonna bite

Science provides tangible results, and you know it!

ahh cmon now, i am just having fun.

If you want to know more, see all the data that you think is witheld, get yourself a PhD and go work for the people that have it, and see for yourself. Leak it, make people aware. If you think science is a fruad, get inside and find out for yourself, put the effort in.

now that is excellent. perhaps we can imagine a scenario.

sciforums has a decent readership. imagine this guy, well placed to effect change, comes across a post by say....ives or ivan. mind is stimulated, curiousity aroused, engages in own research, makes a big stink.

do you see how we all, in our own little "pathetic" ways, work towards a common goal, whatever that may be? this is making "people aware"

besides, our collective dissonance about ufo's is at such a level that it will take nothing less than an announcement from the prez verifying their existence. in a major issue such as this, any less would be useless. all one has to do is eyeball the ineffectual attempts of others in the past.

*pretty good at excuses, aint i?:D

But like I have said, I've never been cut in on the conspiracy if there is one.

this is frikkin tiring. lets roleplay. you are the frikking head of defense. now what do you do when ufo's come a calling? gimme a few scenarios!

i simply do not see any need to acknowledge ufo's if they stick to their usual routine. it is different if they present us with a business card. their "cat and mouse" shit simply doesnt warrant causing any upheavals in earther society. i do not see any benefits at this time to disclose shit!

i dont give a damn if accused of conspiracies and cover ups. to hell with the hysterical masses anyway. dont they know that big brother knows best anyway?:D

Originally posted by phlogistician

OK, let's get some backgound here.

I'll go first. I lived on a an airforce base during the cold war. I never saw UFOs buzzing around, policing the stockpile of nuclear weapons kept there. Pilots I knew never said they saw UFOs. Radar operators never said they saw UFOs.

Well, I don't see how this is relevant. I know someone who grew up in Iran and who first saw a camel at the San Diego Zoo.

I trained as a physicist, and later worked in the aerospace industry, with guys that built satellites, and other guys that analysed satellite data, and met astronauts, and ground based observers. You know, real rocket scientists.

None of the people I met believed in ETs being the cause of UFOs.

Who made this an ET argument? Also, I have a physics degree, I worked on the National Missile defense program, a stealth boat, and innumerable high tech industries as a result of my work. I have spoken with or listened to hundreds of military and high tech people who do believe in UFOs.

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking

Who made this an ET argument?

In one of my posts, I made the point, that if you say you believe in UFOs but not that they are ETs, you are really saying that you believe in terrestrial stealth aircraft. As we know stealth aircraft exist, this point of view is rather fruitless, and doesn't really need saying at all.

What people who say this are doing, is introducing doubt, to get credibility, to come over as rational, by distancing themselves from the ET hypothesis at first. A case of softly softly, as an upfront 'I believe ETs are visiting earth' puts a lot of people off.

And I am being strict on the definition of UFO here, the Flying part. I'm not talking about people who witness an odd glow, shooting star, or whatever, but rather the phenomenon of controlled flight.

If they are terrestrial in origin, so what? As you are well aware with your background, we occasionally find it necessary to keep secrets. There is stuff we aren't supposed to know or tell. Terrestrial explanations therefore, fall into this, and while they might be technologically fascinating, there is no real mystery. Unless we start getting metaphysical and start talking about angels and demons, of course, and not flying machines.

So, if you have met people who do believe in UFOs, do they believe in the ET origin? Or being in the military, that they are terrestrial, and probably advanced aircraft? For a military person or defense contractor, surely the last opinion is a no brainer.

Therefore, my only issue is with the ET hypothesis. I'm sure there are advanced aircraft capable of things we find amazing being test flown (I recall being totally f*cking amazed when I saw an Sukhoi Su-27 in action, and that is a pretty _old_ design now), so these advanced military craft aren't 'unidentified', but just secret.

So when we talk UFOs therefore, we really are talking about ETs I think. And that begs a lot of questions.

As a physicist, you are only too aware of the issues of interstellar travel. Let's debate those, not grainy photographs, and eyewitness reports. Plenty of people report having had probes shoved up their arses by aliens. I don't believe them, I doubt you do, so eye witness reports don't get us very far, unless we are selective. But then all we are debating, is our selection threshold, not the subject matter.

As a physicist, you are only too aware of the issues of interstellar travel. Let's debate those, not grainy photographs, and eyewitness reports.

I have repeatedly asked this same question, yet the believers are not willing to discuss the issues. Why is that?

Originally posted by phlogistician
In one of my posts, I made the point, that if you say you believe in UFOs but not that they are ETs, you are really saying that you believe in terrestrial stealth aircraft. As we know stealth aircraft exist, this point of view is rather fruitless, and doesn't really need saying at all.

There is no basis for this conclusion. The most interesting and credible reports do not indicate that this could be the explanation. I look to some other rare and incredibly energetic natural phenomenon for a non-ET solution.

What people who say this are doing, is introducing doubt, to get credibility, to come over as rational, by distancing themselves from the ET hypothesis at first. A case of softly softly, as an upfront 'I believe ETs are visiting earth' puts a lot of people off.

No, this is how the skeptics produce ad hominem arguments to avoid the issue and to discredit the good evidence, and mostly anything they don't like. I don't have to prove the existence of interstellar travel in order to consider military reports of UFOs.

And I am being strict on the definition of UFO here, the Flying part. I'm not talking about people who witness an odd glow, shooting star, or whatever, but rather the phenomenon of controlled flight.

There could be some completely unknown phenomenon that meets none of the above requirements.

If they are terrestrial in origin, so what? As you are well aware with your background, we occasionally find it necessary to keep secrets. There is stuff we aren't supposed to know or tell. Terrestrial explanations therefore, fall into this, and while they might be technologically fascinating, there is no real mystery. Unless we start getting metaphysical and start talking about angels and demons, of course, and not flying machines.

I think the mystery goes beyond the mundane and is worth knowing. No way do military craft account for the evidence.

So, if you have met people who do believe in UFOs, do they believe in the ET origin? Or being in the military, that they are terrestrial, and probably advanced aircraft? For a military person or defense contractor, surely the last opinion is a no brainer.

Most people avoid conclusions; and rightly so I think.


So when we talk UFOs therefore, we really are talking about ETs I think. And that begs a lot of questions.

No no no! This is not necessary. This again only persupposes a solution that you yourself argue against.

As a physicist, you are only too aware of the issues of interstellar travel. Let's debate those, not grainy photographs, and eyewitness reports. Plenty of people report having had probes shoved up their arses by aliens. I don't believe them, I doubt you do, so eye witness reports don't get us very far, unless we are selective. But then all we are debating, is our selection threshold, not the subject matter.

I simply take things as they come. I feel that at this time it is fallacious to apply any hypothesis to something so ellusive and nebulous. We need more information.

These are the kind of reports that interest me:

http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo20.pdf

http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo17.pdf

phlogistician,

First of all, I appreciate your presence here. I don't have much time today, but a week or so ago I posted a long piece to which you responded. While you disagreed with me, I recall you did so courteously. I am not a scientist, yet I don't think that should function as a bar to discussing UFOs. Should not the issue be able to be framed in a way so that ordinary people can discuss it and understand some of the issues? I invited disagreement, and you gave it, which is why some of us come to places like this. To try out our positions and arguments. I learned from your responses.

I didn't learn anything from you, Q, except to disregard your rude and insulting posts. You can pontificate all you want about there is no need for courtesy, but if you are not here to inform or help others, what is your purpose? If you are responding to “believers”, I assume you have some goal in responding. If your goal is to educate people, you failed. Your hostile approach and repeated attempts to re-characterize the positions of others causes whatever your message is to get lost. No one enjoys being treated the way you do. You’ve claimed to be a defender of science, but again, the message is lost in the hostility. You can claim that that’s the believer’s problem, and that they can leave if they don’t like your abuse. That’s fine, but every good communicator knows how to adjust to his or her audience in order to achieve their goal. You failed again. If your goal is to make people feel bad about themselves, you’ve failed again, since I think that increasingly your approach is causing people to tune you out. If your goal is to compensate for some insecurities, I would guess mission accomplished, in a sad way. But if your goal was to make people see how smart you are, you failed once more. You just don’t look that smart. You oversimplify and cannot accept an opponent’s argument on its own terms. You’re also short on knowledge on many patterns of UFO sightings that come from credible sources and have corroborating evidence. Perhaps you should explain to everyone what you’re accomplishing here.

phlog, I must take exception to the contention I see here that UFO "believers" (whatever that vague term means) have some kind of closet agenda of promoting the ETH while masking their belief. Can you quantify reasons for this assertion? I think that's a rather broad brush with which to paint all those who are interested in the subject but perhaps not taken with various official explanations. It seems to be an awfully handy and easy “argument” to brandish without any evidence for it.

I have never seen a UFO, much less an alien. I have no personal experience that gave birth to my interest. I am interested, however, and wish to know the nature of the phenomenon. There is enough of a record over the last 50 years to make one wary of official explanations. When I stated I was drifting away from the ETH, I was telling the truth. What do I have to gain by claiming this if is not so?

Also, on this: "As a physicist, you are only too aware of the issues of interstellar travel. Let's debate those, not grainy photographs, and eyewitness reports."

I don't know any rational person who does not acknowledge the hurdles involved in interstellar travel. But it is you, as the skeptic, who turns the discussion to the ETH by asking this question. Constantly turning to the difficulties in interstellar travel seems like an excuse not to review the data from sightings, which consists of much more than grainy photographs and eyewitness reports. To a lay person like me, it sounds like “lets not trouble ourselves with the data, let’s concentrate on my theories of why we shouldn’t look at the data in the first place”.

Since I have never seen an alien, I cannot claim that they exist anywhere. Since I have never seen a UFO, I cannot argue even for their existence from my own experience. But 50 years of sighting reports reveal fairly consistent patterns of people, including civilian and military pilots, seeing, and by all appearances “interacting” with something that acts like no known natural phenomenon. They have very often been described as having physical structure to them, although I concede that does not mean they actually had it. They have also been described as being reactive to human presence. None of this leads to the conclusion that aliens are involved. It does lead to a conclusion that something worth investigating is happening. Although individuals like Q feel free to make claims like ‘ET visiting the Earth is fiction’, or words to that effect, do we really know that much about the Universe yet? Science, dealing with probabilities, doesn’t rule anything out. We really don’t know what forms intelligence could take, how it came to be or where it might be from. Shouldn’t we be on the lookout? When something suggestive happens, shouldn’t we investigate and try to learn more? Isn’t that one of the best parts of our nature as human beings?

I read your post about the Apollo astronaut sightings. While I cannot reply with specificity, my own approach is to be careful about these "sightings". I think most, if not all of those stories have an "urban legend" quality about them, where they are repeated so often that they are assumed to be true. I've seen Oberg elsewhere demand reliable sources for these quotes and stories, and I don't recall ever being impressed by the responses.

shit
i agree. it sounds frikkin manufactured and quite convenient.
(lets just keep that b/w us ok?)

anyway i was being lazy, for every naysayer, a yaysayer can be found so really...this "my guys are better than yours" trolling is a waste of time

You oversimplify and cannot accept an opponent’s argument on its own terms.

What terms? Baseless assertions? Wishful thinking? Unfounded claims? Jumping to conclusions?

You’re also short on knowledge on many patterns of UFO sightings that come from credible sources and have corroborating evidence.

Now who is oversimplifying?

The rest of your post is a humorous display of schoolyard attempts at insults, very funny. At least I can take whatever you want to dish out and let it roll off my back. Ivan on the other hand has resorted to kindergarten tactics. Spineless.

But I would like to comment on this statement:

I am not a scientist, yet I don't think that should function as a bar to discussing UFOs.

One does not have to be a scientist to discuss UFO’s. But at the very least, one should take the time to understand some, if not all of the issues surrounding this alleged phenomenon, but I have yet to see that from believers. They aren’t even interested in asking those questions, even though we have a lot of members here who could explain much of these issues in layman’s terms.

And your response to that:

To a lay person like me, it sounds like “lets not trouble ourselves with the data, let’s concentrate on my theories of why we shouldn’t look at the data in the first place”.

The so-called data is not conclusive nor does it suggest anything non-terrestrial. The theories are sound and their results have been reproduced experimentally.

It does lead to a conclusion that something worth investigating is happening.

Here’s where my hostility gets active. How can you make that statement while admitting you don’t know anything about science? Who the hell are you to demand UFO claims are worth investigation? What gives you the right to demand that valuable funding goes towards investigating these claims?

Although individuals like Q feel free to make claims like ‘ET visiting the Earth is fiction’, or words to that effect, do we really know that much about the Universe yet?

It is up to you to find out what is known, and what is valid, and what is verifiable in the universe. Once you begin to understand these things, then perhaps you can talk with an informed opinion.

Science, dealing with probabilities, doesn’t rule anything out.

Science rules out that which has no evidence, ET visiting Earth for example.

We really don’t know what forms intelligence could take, how it came to be or where it might be from.

This is another branch of science that believers need to understand. Evolution does not demand intelligence therefore although other life forms could exist; it is unlikely they have formed intelligence.

Shouldn’t we be on the lookout?

OK, but what exactly are we on the lookout for?

When something suggestive happens, shouldn’t we investigate and try to learn more?

What would be the point of investigating every Tom, Dick and Harry who claim to have seen ‘something?’ And since so many claims have been put to rest with no evidence to suggest even remotely the existence of ET, why should we further consider more claims?

But to give you the benefit of the doubt, please show us all what exactly we’ve learned so far from the bazillions of claims already made? Anything?

Originally posted by Ives
But it is you, as the skeptic, who turns the discussion to the ETH


Yep, like I keep saying, if these are U.F.O.s and FLYING (not stars, planets, northern lights etc) then they have two origins, terrestrial, and non terrestrial. Non terrestrial means some type of aircraft, kept secret, with some interesting capabilities.

So, we all agree on one cause. It's the other that we don't agree on. That is where the debate lies. If you don't think UFOs are ET in origin, can you define succinctly what you do believe? Well, tell us either way.

Personally, I acknowledge that top secret stealth aircraft need to be tested, and that sightings of many strange objects could be attributed to these craft.

I do believe there is life on other planets. Intelligent life most probably.

However, I don't believe that it is very likely that aliens have visited earth, and certainly not that they are regular visitors enough to explain the number of sightings, abduction stories etc. I think the vastness of space, and difficulties of travelling at speed may well be fundamental problems which cannot be overcome. Real, verifiable science is telling us the latter, any loopholes are theory, and don't tie up with the observations.

I think the vastness of space, and difficulties of travelling at speed may well be fundamental problems which cannot be overcome. (phlog)

i claim that the physical sciences support interstellar travel. it is theoretically possible. it contravenes no known laws. at this time we only lack the technology (yet)

what is your position apart from placing unecessary limitations on knowledge? what are the..."fundamental problems which cannot be overcome" critique the theories that are offered up as possible solutions

What terms? Baseless assertions? Wishful thinking? Unfounded claims? Jumping to conclusions?

More of Q's fluff here; I note he refers to nothing specific. Good, broad generalizations that "help" his position.

Now who is oversimplifying?

This was in response to my accusation that he is short on knowledge of patterns in UFO sightings. Q is often accusing "believers" of avoid talking about the problems that physics presents for UFOs. Once again, it is Q insisting that we are talking about spaceships. To some degree, he has a point, in that any discussion of UFOs as interstellar craft should be held in the context of physics that make such an event extremely problematic. Unfortunately, Q believes that this step ends the conversation. Unfortunately, there are still mountains of data, which Q simply ignores or mischaracterizes. Like most debunkers, he likes to avoid talking about specifics. It was also interesting to note that Q is not really ready to discuss UFOs himself, since he demonstrated no knowledge of Paul Hill, author of Unconventional Flying Objects. He referred to him as "Paul" in his post and asked silly questions about him. This goes to show that Q was lying when he claimed he had "been there and done that" in regards to debating the pros and cons of UFOs. Not only a liar, but an ineffective one. He also came up short on knowledge of Vallee, and tried to label him as well.


One does not have to be a scientist to discuss UFO’s. But at the very least, one should take the time to understand some, if not all of the issues surrounding this alleged phenomenon, but I have yet to see that from believers. They aren’t even interested in asking those questions, even though we have a lot of members here who could explain much of these issues in layman’s terms.

To exactly what degree, Q, should one advance one's knowledge of physics in order to meet your qualifications? Being educated in physics hasn't prevented many from an interest in UFOs, or even examining the ETH. Hynek, Vallee and Sturrock come to mind.

The so-called data is not conclusive nor does it suggest anything non-terrestrial. The theories are sound and their results have been reproduced experimentally.

So what if the data is not "conclusive"? Here we go with the standard debunker line; the subject of UFOs is not valid even for discussion until the reality of the core identity of the phenomenon has been proven. Such a scientific approach you have there, Q. I can't think of another topic on which its own reality must be proven before it can be discussed. As for not suggesting anything non-terrestrial, this is an exercise in splitting hairs in attempt to invalidate the discussion. What the evidence "suggests" is that on countless occasions, credible human observers have encountered something that appears to be under intelligent control yet does not reasonably appear to be of human origin. If you wish to contest that statement, then I and other "believers" you loathe so much can produce many incidents in which there is no basis to impeach the credibility of the witnesses.

Here’s where my hostility gets active. How can you make that statement while admitting you don’t know anything about science? Who the hell are you to demand UFO claims are worth investigation? What gives you the right to demand that valuable funding goes towards investigating these claims?

Oh, your hostility is active all right. Who the hell are you to demand that only scientists shall decide if UFOs shall be investigated? As a lay person, how shall my faith in "scientists" be manifested? In tobacco company scientists? Debunkers? Scientists defending artificial sweeteners? My point is that you suggest that the rest of us should just leave this to the scientists, because their motives are always pure. Care to defend that?


Science rules out that which has no evidence, ET visiting Earth for example.

Really? Interesting. Since the rest of us are so stupid, why don't you educate us and explain how science has ruled that out.

This is another branch of science that believers need to understand. Evolution does not demand intelligence therefore although other life forms could exist; it is unlikely they have formed intelligence. (how intelligence might evolve).

Really? Just us believers don't understand how other forms of intelligence might evolve? Perhaps you can explain it to us.

What would be the point of investigating every Tom, Dick and Harry who claim to have seen ‘something?’ And since so many claims have been put to rest with no evidence to suggest even remotely the existence of ET, why should we further consider more claims?

No one is suggesting every claim, that was apparently another of your mischaracterizations, which again ignores the good data. And so many claims have not been put to rest which remain unexplained, and suggestive of intelligence.

To some degree, he has a point, in that any discussion of UFOs as interstellar craft should be held in the context of physics that make such an event extremely problematic. Unfortunately, Q believes that this step ends the conversation.

You end the conversation by refusing to discuss real science. Instead, you would much rather pour over ‘mountains of data’ – data that has never suggested an ET conclusion. You or anyone else have yet to provide a single example where this can be concluded – you’ve also failed to provide a single example in which science or mankind has somehow benefited from the study of UFO’s - anything yet?

He referred to him as "Paul" in his post and asked silly questions about him. This goes to show that Q was lying when he claimed he had "been there and done that" in regards to debating the pros and cons of UFOs. Not only a liar, but an ineffective one. He also came up short on knowledge of Vallee, and tried to label him as well.

You must be getting desperate pretending to know something about me. Those questions about Paul were directed at you see exactly what you knew about him and his theories – obviously very little it seems if all you can do is throw it back at me. Do you understand what Paul was referring to when he spoke of time dilation?

To exactly what degree, Q, should one advance one's knowledge of physics in order to meet your qualifications?

They are not my qualifications. You can sit idle and continue to pour over your so-called mountains of evidence and remain as ignorant as you please. All I have suggested is to stop reading UFOlogy and start reading some books, preferably related to science. You can also ask questions here.

Being educated in physics hasn't prevented many from an interest in UFOs, or even examining the ETH. Hynek, Vallee and Sturrock come to mind.

So what? Has it ever occurred to you that these guys are in for the money? They take advantage of the uniformed and uneducated in order to make a buck. They got you hook, line and sinker.

And that does not preclude the fact that you don’t take the time to understand exactly what they’re talking about.

So what if the data is not "conclusive"?

Then it is useless.

I can't think of another topic on which its own reality must be proven before it can be discussed.

We’re not talking about proof – we’re talking about conclusive evidence of which there is none.

What the evidence "suggests" is that on countless occasions, credible human observers have encountered something that appears to be under intelligent control yet does not reasonably appear to be of human origin.

So, what is that supposed to tell us? One can come to an endless amount of conclusions based on that statement, none of which would suggest ET – that is unless you allow your imagination to take control of your senses.

If you wish to contest that statement, then I and other "believers" you loathe so much can produce many incidents in which there is no basis to impeach the credibility of the witnesses.

I don’t contest the statement; it is the UFOlogists that draw conclusions of ET that have no credibility that I contest – and loathe.

Who the hell are you to demand that only scientists shall decide if UFOs shall be investigated?

I didn’t say that – I said NO ONE should get funding to investigate UFOs, scientist or otherwise.

As a lay person, how shall my faith in "scientists" be manifested? In tobacco company scientists? Debunkers? Scientists defending artificial sweeteners? My point is that you suggest that the rest of us should just leave this to the scientists, because their motives are always pure. Care to defend that?

I already have, but you seem to missing the point. It is YOU”RE responsibility as an individual to understand these issues. Scientists did not discover tobacco and begin selling it to you.

why don't you educate us and explain how science has ruled that out… Just us believers don't understand how other forms of intelligence might evolve? Perhaps you can explain it to us.

There you go, finally you’re beginning to ask the right questions. However, your questions require quite a bit of discussion, far more than just one post.

I suggest you break it down into separate threads and go from there.

Q,

Is there no point too low for you to make? Honestly, there are decent debunkers out there. You're not one of them.

So what? Has it ever occurred to you that these guys are in for the money? They take advantage of the uniformed and uneducated in order to make a buck. They got you hook, line and sinker.

Screw you, Q. Your brand of debunkery doesn't even have integrity. I've seen this hollow argument before; any author who disagrees with you on UFOs must be in it for the money. You have zero evidence for that, yet you chide "believers" for making unsubstantiated claims. It's pretty easy to throw out that kind of bullshit as though it means anything, when all it represents is another smear tactic when you can think of nothing with substance to say.

Pathetic. I'm done with you.

If you're unable to attack the facts of the case, attack the participants--or the journalists who reported the case. *Ad- hominem* arguments, or personality attacks, are among the most powerful ways of swaying the public and avoiding the issue. For example, if investigators of the unorthodox have profited financially from activities connected with their research, accuse them of "profiting financially from activities connected with their research!" If their research, publishing, speaking tours and so forth, constitute their normal line of work or sole means of support, hold that fact as "conclusive proof that income is being realized from such activities!" If they have labored to achieve public recognition for their work, you may safely characterize them as "publicity seekers." (daniel drasin) (http://members.aol.com/ddrasin/)

;) how unoriginal q

Ives

I’ve offered to answer questio