UFOs

[EndLightEnd]

Just want to see where people stand.

[Lemming]

Just want to see where people stand.

the idea fascinates me, i would love to find out if we're the only people in the universe, i would hope not!

[clusteringflux]

I have a poll too.
See, right here.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=77620

[mrow]

Is other a choice?

[EndLightEnd]

Why would other be a choice, simple answer, YES or NO.

[draqon]

they are both man-made and extra-terrestrials.

[mrow]

Why would other be a choice, simple answer, YES or NO.

Because I think there is life elsewhere but not necessarily in the form of flying saucers.

[Read-Only]

Just want to see where people stand.

Of course there are Unidentified Flying Objects. There are plenty of other objects that are also unidentified by the people who see them.

BUT trying to stretch it from there to aliens takes a lot of imagination or a lot of childish belief - as in things like Santa and the Easter Bunny.

Sure, there are lots of adults that believe in aliens - but just because they've lived a lot of years doesn't mean they are mentally mature.

[cosmictraveler]

If you actually "see" an object in the sky, wouldn't it then be "identified" by just the act of seeing it? :shrug: You might not know what it is exactly but you know that it is there and where it is.

[Simon Anders]

If you actually "see" an object in the sky, wouldn't it then be "identified" by just the act of seeing it? :shrug: You might not know what it is exactly but you know that it is there and where it is.
You haven't identified it.
I saw someone go into the room and take the TV.
I saw Frank Hudson walk in the room and take the TV.
In the later case you have identified the tv taker.
If the issue is species then 'someone' - generally indicating a homo sapian - is an identification.

So in a very weird philosophical sense, if you 'identify' 'it' as an object - rather then some other category of (______?), you have identified it. But pretty much everyone would consider 'object' insufficienct information for identifiication.

[Simon Anders]

I voted for the Yes, but unexplained natural phenomena. All phenomena are natural. I do think that whatever they are are beyond what we have catalogued in science right now. Or, to be more precise, that amongst the many kinds of UFOs there are many that are not swamp gas, or airplanes or weather balloons, etc. That something we would consider strange and new is taking place. I am not exactly sure what that is.

[Stryder]

U.F.O. means "Unidentified Flying Object" for the most part however people see something in the sky and they don't know what it is. Therefore all they really have is something "Unidentified". After all it might not be flying (It could be atmospheric, it could be the reflection off glass if seen from inside a building) and it's likely not an object. (After all if it's gas then it's not a solid and therefore not an object.)

I think it's more believable for people to say "I saw something in the sky the other night, I don't know what it was" rather than just saying "I saw a UFO." The latter is used more by people that are just trying to hoodwink people, making the listener to this "psuedo-observer" a stooge in this "prank".

It's been mentioned a number of times in the Pseudoscience forum that the percentage chances are higher for Manmade and Natural phenomena than any extraterrestrial origin.

You just have to weigh up certain points if you are looking at the chances of alien visitation, for instance:

Mankind has a limited number of spaceships, they cost a fortune, they require a large amount of resources and research. It's not something that a couple of guys could knock up in their back yard (Although the X-Prize was to prove otherwise). Currently it's a feat for our spacecraft to reach our own moon, let alone another planet in our star system or in fact a completely different star system all together. The number of star systems in the universe is a very large number (Feel free to count) so what are the chances that an alien race could amass a "space trip" just to spy on us, remaining silent/hidden from the masses and only showing themselves to yokel hicks.

I guess you can say that it's such an outsider in regards to betting odds, that I know full well not to bet any money on there being alien visitations to this planet. (Any budding mathematicians up for a bit of fun, feel free to calculate the odds)

[EndLightEnd]

Heres UFO technology invented by Tesla.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=82244

[clusteringflux]

Look, we're gatting to a point where half of the global population believes in "manned" crafts flying around that far exceed known technologies.
There is a mountain of video footage of strange things in the sky that aren't easily explained away by even the largest skeptics and professionals.

Real or hoax, true or imagined, this is a serious subject and science can only run the other way for so long.
It's unethical to blacklist everyone who entertains this subject and eventually the population will DEMAND answers from the science world. Swamp gas isn't going to cut it, this time around.

[Enmos]

I can't vote, because in order be able to vote in accordance with reality concerning this matter you should have made a multi-option poll.
Answers 1, 2, and 3 are true. Answer 4 is false.

1. Some certainly are crazy.
2. Some are natural phenomena.
3. Some are man made.
4. None are made by aliens.

[Read-Only]

Look, we're gatting to a point where half of the global population believes in "manned" crafts flying around that far exceed known technologies.
There is a mountain of video footage of strange things in the sky that aren't easily explained away by even the largest skeptics and professionals.

Real or hoax, true or imagined, this is a serious subject and science can only run the other way for so long.
It's unethical to blacklist everyone who entertains this subject and eventually the population will DEMAND answers from the science world. Swamp gas isn't going to cut it, this time around.

So??????

People have been seeing "things" in the skies for probably thousands of years. And in all that time, no one has ever - EVER! - come forward with a piece of real evidence of aliens. Not one piece of material, not one piece of a cadaver.

And don't give us that old bull about government cover-up - that's nothing but immature or paranoid delusional thinking! The government cannot even keep it's own blunders under wraps for long and there's NO chance they could hide (and why would they want to?) something of this magnitude.

[cosmictraveler]

You haven't identified it.
I saw someone go into the room and take the TV.
I saw Frank Hudson walk in the room and take the TV.
In the later case you have identified the tv taker.
If the issue is species then 'someone' - generally indicating a homo sapian - is an identification.

So in a very weird philosophical sense, if you 'identify' 'it' as an object - rather then some other category of (______?), you have identified it. But pretty much everyone would consider 'object' insufficienct information for identifiication.

I "saw" an object flying in the sky.

It zig zagged like a UFO.

It hovered stationary over a tree.

It had blinking lights.

It was very dark out because of nighttime.

After reading that explination would you consider that "object" a UFO then?

Or could it have been just a helicopter??

[clusteringflux]

You're exactly right and that is the most diturbing thing. The news stations here are talking about it all the time.The Governments are are are releasing classified info. the cable TV shows are on board. WHY are their shows on the "History Channel" that support this stuff like it'e real?
Read, if the Government came out said that it was ET, what would you think then?

[cosmictraveler]

WHY are their shows on the "History Channel" that support this stuff like it'e real?

Because it is easier to make shit up rather than have a story line, actors, script writers, make up, set up crews, and many other things that a "real" show would take to produce.

[Read-Only]

You're exactly right and that is the most diturbing thing. The news stations here are talking about it all the time.The Governments are are are releasing classified info. the cable TV shows are on board. WHY are their shows on the "History Channel" that support this stuff like it'e real?
Read, if the Government came out said that it was ET, what would you think then?

What would I think? That the government offical who made that announcement hadn't taken his medication for a day or two, that's what I would think. :D

[pharaohmoan]

This link from NASA is quite cool

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pawTzpNKW4

[draqon]

youtube is not NASA

[Enmos]

youtube is not NASA

That's what they want you to think.. meh.. huh ? Whatever.

[EndLightEnd]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nB31wd3mPSQ&feature=related

Watch that.

[Stryder]

Look, we're gatting to a point where half of the global population believes in "manned" crafts flying around that far exceed known technologies.

Indeed there are developers of "prototypes" that sometime unveil them at airshows (Well technically Air Expo's that the general public doesn't get access too where they sell future aircraft to large Air companies or attempt to get backing to see their "prototype" accepted on a larger scale. Often these shows don't get press details because they are "Customer" invite only. One such prototype is the "hovercar" which as you can tell is not mass produced to this date.)


There is a mountain of video footage of strange things in the sky that aren't easily explained away by even the largest skeptics and professionals.

There are rational answers in every given instance, however irrational minds prefer to go with the Long shot, no matter if the long shot will never win the race.


Real or hoax, true or imagined, this is a serious subject and science can only run the other way for so long.

The only time I'd worry about an Unidentified thing in the sky is if maybe it was some flying animal that had eaten some food that disagreed with it and it couldn't hold out on it's bowls any more and had to take an enormous dump. Otherwise in all essence you'd be "chasing ghosts" to believe them to be anything extraterrestrial. (Incidentally Ghosts aren't real either)


It's unethical to blacklist everyone who entertains this subject and eventually the population will DEMAND answers from the science world. Swamp gas isn't going to cut it, this time around.

Nobody's blacklisted, you might however be categorised depending on your level of obsession and what you put forwards as your perception of reality.

Like I said previously look at the resources necessary to send a man into space and to say land on the moon, now tell me that some alien race out there is going to have "day trippers" going on picnic's in obscure remote locations around the earth while cattle prodding hitchhikers.

[Simon Anders]

4. None are made by aliens.
Wow you must have done an incredible amount of research to state this so clearly. What technology do you have access to check such things? It is amazing what people claim to know.

[Enmos]

Wow you must have done an incredible amount of research to state this so clearly. What technology do you have access to check such things? It is amazing what people claim to know.

There's no evidence whatsoever to suggest otherwise.
Normally, it is then held to be not true until evidence to the contrary is uncovered.

[USS Athens]

they are both man-made and extra-terrestrials.

That is true. Many of the photos have been "de-bunked" as hoaxes. But not all...

[Read-Only]

There's no evidence whatsoever to suggest otherwise.
Normally, it is then held to be not true until evidence to the contrary is uncovered.

Agreed. Incidentally, I once saw an unidentified animal while jogging through a city park. It was most likely a medium-sized dog but I couldn't say for sure.

However, some of our "true believers" might try to claim it was an alien since I couldn't identify it. Wonder what the odds on that would be?!?! :D:D:D

I would just classify it as an UMO - Unidentified Moving Object. Heh!

And another thing - how many sensible people figure, as I do, that the "true believers" are basically bored (and boring) people who are unconsciously trying to add some excitement to their otherwise dull lives. The vast majority of them ARE simpletons, you know. The same kind of people who buy the tabloids at the supermarket check-out counter.

[Simon Anders]

There's no evidence whatsoever to suggest otherwise.
Normally, it is then held to be not true until evidence to the contrary is uncovered.
No, normally it is held to be unknown.
It is unscientific to make statements like the one you made.
Try publishing a paper in a scientific journal using your line of reasoning.

[Simon Anders]

Agreed. Incidentally, I once saw an unidentified animal while jogging through a city park. It was most likely a medium-sized dog but I couldn't say for sure.

However, some of our "true believers" might try to claim it was an alien since I couldn't identify it. Wonder what the odds on that would be?!?! :D:D:DMust be satisfying to take care of that straw man. If someone claimed to have seen a mountain lion in the park and scientists said that the best evidence is that there are no mountain lions in that region and there is no evidence there was a mountain lion a reasonable person could say something like "it was probably another kind of animal like a dog" but to go further and say that none of the sightings in a certain region were mountain lions is not scientific - unless you have some proof that it is not possible. Together you and Enmos are coming up with a poor methodology.

And there are untold numbers of instances where what seemed extremely unlikely turned out to be true.

To state like you both are that where there is a lack of evidence for something we can state this something does not exist is poor logic.

Think of the all the advances and science that make this look as foolish as it is.

There is no evidence we can turn matter into energy (says the 19th century scientist) therefore it cannot be done.

I am sure you can think of your own examples.

[Simon Anders]

And by the way, both of you are 'true believers'.

[Enmos]

Must be satisfying to take care of that straw man. If someone claimed to have seen a mountain lion in the park and scientists said that the best evidence is that there are no mountain lions in that region and there is no evidence there was a mountain lion a reasonable person could say something like "it was probably another kind of animal like a dog" but to go further and say that none of the sightings in a certain region were mountain lions is not scientific - unless you have some proof that it is not possible. Together you and Enmos are coming up with a poor methodology.

And there are untold numbers of instances where what seemed extremely unlikely turned out to be true.

To state like you both are that where there is a lack of evidence for something we can state this something does not exist is poor logic.

Think of the all the advances and science that make this look as foolish as it is.

There is no evidence we can turn matter into energy (says the 19th century scientist) therefore it cannot be done.

I am sure you can think of your own examples.

I said it is normally held to be not true.
I didn't say it is not true.
There's slight difference you know...

[Enmos]

And by the way, both of you are 'true believers'.

What, you mean simpletons.. ? lol

[Simon Anders]

What, you mean simpletons.. ? lol
No believers in a theory that has no proof.

[Simon Anders]

I said it is normally held to be not true.
I didn't say it is not true.
There's slight difference you know...
I really feel like I am dealing with a child playing with words to get out of what he's done.


4. None are made by aliens.
This is a clear, unequivocal statement that no UFO has been made by alien tech.

[Read-Only]

Must be satisfying to take care of that straw man. If someone claimed to have seen a mountain lion in the park and scientists said that the best evidence is that there are no mountain lions in that region and there is no evidence there was a mountain lion a reasonable person could say something like "it was probably another kind of animal like a dog" but to go further and say that none of the sightings in a certain region were mountain lions is not scientific - unless you have some proof that it is not possible. Together you and Enmos are coming up with a poor methodology.

And there are untold numbers of instances where what seemed extremely unlikely turned out to be true.

To state like you both are that where there is a lack of evidence for something we can state this something does not exist is poor logic.

Think of the all the advances and science that make this look as foolish as it is.

There is no evidence we can turn matter into energy (says the 19th century scientist) therefore it cannot be done.

I am sure you can think of your own examples.

Oh, strop trying to be so cute - you're unable to pull it off well anyway. Of course it might have been a mountain lion!! I never said it wasn't! Just that it was about the size of a medium-sized dog - and that the probability is very high that it was. But the probability of it being an alien from another planet is VERY low.

It's you who is attempting to strain logic in an unreasonable manner.

Just show us some solid evidence that the Earth has had visitations of intelligent life-forms from another planet - or stifle yourself! Because until that's done, the whole idea remains within the realm of most likely being just fiction and/or over-active imaginations.

[Read-Only]

And by the way, both of you are 'true believers'.

"True believers" in what? That YOU are attempting to push something for which there is no real evidence of any kind? Yep, you're right - we are true believers in that, alright!

[Simon Anders]

"True believers" in what? That YOU are attempting to push something for which there is no real evidence of any kind? Yep, you're right - we are true believers in that, alright!
You are true believers in that you are sure, for some reason, that none of the incredibly large number of UFOs are not alien spacecraft. I don't know how you can be sure of this.

And guys, this is pretty basic reasoning we are talking about here. I answered the poll question with my opinion. I am not pushing anything. I noticed you guys stating you knew something that you do not know and I pointed it out. And since you are supposedly coming from the side of reason and rationality, I find it amusing you know so little about it.

[Simon Anders]

Oh, strop trying to be so cute - you're unable to pull it off well anyway. Of course it might have been a mountain lion!! I never said it wasn't! Just that it was about the size of a medium-sized dog - and that the probability is very high that it was. But the probability of it being an alien from another planet is VERY low. I was pointing out the inadequacy of your analogy.

It's you who is attempting to strain logic in an unreasonable manner.
What I am doing is pointing out the obvious: neither you nor Enmos knows or has any reason to state with certainty that no UFO has actually be an alien spacecraft.

You do understand why that is ridiculous, right?

I am not making a case for UFOs being spacecrafts. I am focusing on the fact that you both have asserted something as if it were fact, which it is not. And notice how slippery Enmos was. He states, clearly, that no UFO is an alien spacecraft and then later pretends he wouldn't make such an assertion.

Just show us some solid evidence that the Earth has had visitations of intelligent life-forms from another planet - or stifle yourself! Because until that's done, the whole idea remains within the realm of most likely being just fiction and/or over-active imaginations
No. I am not interested in trying to convince you. I am pointing out that you are asserting you have knowledge you do not.

[Simon Anders]

Let's make it simple.

Enmos stated
4. None are made by aliens. referring to UFOs.

Enmos: do you know this?
If not, they why say it?

Read-Only: do you know this?
If not, then why agree?

My sense is you think the other side is irrational so you get to state what you think is extremely likely as if you know it is a fact.

If you admit that you do not know, this does not mean I have cornered you or proven anything, except that you stated something as if you knew, when in fact you don't and that for some reason continued to defend this.

If you admit you were talking out of your ass in this way, it does not mean I now have some proof UFOs are alien spacecraft. Is that what you are afraid of? That I will suddenly say: see they are made by aliens. Nah. I will just be pleased you are mature enough to admit you don't know this is a fact. I would just say 'thanks' for admitting that and drop the topic. Not start 'pushing' something on you as Read-Only seems to fear.

Be adults, admit you don't know and that Enmos went too far in stating as a fact something he does not know.

Jesus, you guys are childish.

[Read-Only]

Let's make it simple.

Enmos stated
referring to UFOs.

Enmos: do you know this?
If not, they why say it?

Read-Only: do you know this?
If not, then why agree?

My sense is you think the other side is irrational so you get to state what you think is extremely likely as if you know it is a fact.

If you admit that you do not know, this does not mean I have cornered you or proven anything, except that you stated something as if you knew, when in fact you don't and that for some reason continued to defend this.

If you admit you were talking out of your ass in this way, it does not mean I now have some proof UFOs are alien spacecraft. Is that what you are afraid of? That I will suddenly say: see they are made by aliens. Nah. I will just be pleased you are mature enough to admit you don't know this is a fact. I would just say 'thanks' for admitting that and drop the topic. Not start 'pushing' something on you as Read-Only seems to fear.

Be adults, admit you don't know and that Enmos went too far in stating as a fact something he does not know.

Jesus, you guys are childish.

No, you're the one being childish about it. Certainly UFOs exist - but attributing them to aliens is taking it a bit too far. And saying none of them can possibly be of alien origin is also taking it too far.

I've been very logical in everything I've said here and I am also a very reasonable individual by nature - and have been for all of my 60+ years, for that matter.

And what's all this "fear" business?????? I fear nothing from you nor anyone else. To resort to such terms is what I call TRULY being childish!! This is not some testosterone contest - it's supposed to be an adult conversation with the purpose of expressing viewpoints.

You are still nothing but a junior, Junior. I finished college long ago but was persistent in keeping up with the developments in many fields throughout my entire professional life - and even though I'm retired now, I still like to stay up-to-date.

So if you want to play with the true big boys, get with the program and drop the references to things like "fear" and "being childish." You are WAY out of your league.

[clusteringflux]

Jesus, you guys are childish..

Jesus will show you the answer concerning UFOs.

[Enmos]

No believers in a theory that has no proof.

You mean evidence..

[Enmos]

I really feel like I am dealing with a child playing with words to get out of what he's done.
Convince yourself of anything you want.
If you cannot see the difference between those two statements it is you that is being obtuse.

This is a clear, unequivocal statement that no UFO has been made by alien tech.
Yes.
It is common language for: there isn't a single shred of evidence whatsoever in the whole of the universes history known to man to support the idea that UFO's are made by extraterrestrial beings.

[Enmos]

Let's make it simple.

Enmos stated
referring to UFOs.

Enmos: do you know this?
If not, they why say it?

Read-Only: do you know this?
If not, then why agree?

My sense is you think the other side is irrational so you get to state what you think is extremely likely as if you know it is a fact.

If you admit that you do not know, this does not mean I have cornered you or proven anything, except that you stated something as if you knew, when in fact you don't and that for some reason continued to defend this.

If you admit you were talking out of your ass in this way, it does not mean I now have some proof UFOs are alien spacecraft. Is that what you are afraid of? That I will suddenly say: see they are made by aliens. Nah. I will just be pleased you are mature enough to admit you don't know this is a fact. I would just say 'thanks' for admitting that and drop the topic. Not start 'pushing' something on you as Read-Only seems to fear.

Be adults, admit you don't know and that Enmos went too far in stating as a fact something he does not know.

Jesus, you guys are childish.

What about facts ? Facts can be overthrown if evidence to the contrary is uncovered.

"Fact does not always mean the same thing as truth. Fact is a generally agreed-upon and seemingly obvious observation. It is a fact that things stick to the earth, without regard to why that happens. It was once a fact that the planets changed direction from time to time, and that the sun, planets and stars circled the earth once daily. This seemed obvious, and was generally agreed to be the case.

In time, the fact was changed, and it was then said that the earth circles the sun, and the planets only appear to change direction as they are passed by the earth in their orbits, or vice versa."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#Fact_in_science

Simon, it's a fact that pink flying hippos do not exist. Until there is any evidence to support that they do exist there is no reason to assume they do exist.
Or do you wish to remain agnostic about the existence of pink flying hippos ?

[Read-Only]

Or do you wish to remain agnostic about the existence of pink flying hippos ?

Enmos, we are dealing with someone who appears to think he knows most everything - yet he doesn't even know enough to ask himself the proper questions.

[clusteringflux]

Jesus will show you the answer concerning UFOs.

Hah, I was half kidding when I wrote that and then I got this link. lol

http://www.bibleufo.com/anapaint2.htm

Just old artwork. Some are pretty sweet. I like "Illustration From
Gulliver's Travels 1732"

[Simon Anders]

Simon, it's a fact that pink flying hippos do not exist. Until there is any evidence to support that they do exist there is no reason to assume they do exist.
This is a strawman argument. I am not saying that you should assume they exist. In fact I made it very clear that if you admit you do not know for sure this does not mean you are admitting the existence of UFOs that are alien spacecraft. The fact that you say the above makes it clear you are still confused.
If you had said
'I see no evidence that there some UFOs are alien spacecraft.'
or
'I consider it unbelievably unlikely that.....(etc.)'
it would be one thing.

But to state that None are made by aliens is a claim of a different kind. You are claiming to know something for sure.

It means, for example, you know that it is impossible that an alien species has technological capablities greater than ours and has come here.

You know this is the case.

If you want to back up your case with how few planets you think will support life and what you think an alien species would do if they came here and so on, you are speculating. Fine, speculate.

But to know for sure this has not happened is a statement of psychic ability or clairvoyance or that you are privy to information or technology that is not available to most people.

[Simon Anders]

Enmos, we are dealing with someone who appears to think he knows most everything - yet he doesn't even know enough to ask himself the proper questions.
See this is just more bullshit.

Here was my first post in answer to the poll.

I voted for the Yes, but unexplained natural phenomena. All phenomena are natural. I do think that whatever they are are beyond what we have catalogued in science right now. Or, to be more precise, that amongst the many kinds of UFOs there are many that are not swamp gas, or airplanes or weather balloons, etc. That something we would consider strange and new is taking place. I am not exactly sure what that is.
(emphasis added now for the lazy reader)

I say 'I think'. I claim not to know 'exactly what' it is.' (and in fact, I am not convinced any of them are alien spacecraft.)

So this idea that I 'appear to think I know most everything' is just BS since I even make it clear I am not sure what is going on in my first post.

Enmos made a claim, without qualification, that no UFO has been an alien spacecraft. Period.

I am done with you two since you seem to have some psychological need to project your own feelings of omnicience onto others. This is just the old pattern where people hate those qualities in others that they deny having themselves, but which they have in spades.

Welcome to my ignore list, both of you.

[Enmos]

Touchy there, eh Simon.. ?
If you only knew how to read.. :rolleyes:

[Simon Anders]

To take up the thread from the beginning again.
One of the things I found most interesting in talking to people who had seen UFOs was that often the official explanation was specific and sounded silly, while the 'observers' often did not say 'it was a flying saucer' or ' alien spacecraft'.

I spoke to one of the police officers in the Hudson River sightings who saw and followed what appeared to him and his partner to be a large (100 yard long) metallic object with lights. They followed the slow moving object - easily kept pace with by their cruiser, in fact travelling about 15 mph - for several minutes which appeared to be very low to the ground - around 50 - 100 meters. The officer at no point claimed it was a spaceship, though he considered this possible. One of the official explanations was that it was a formation of military jets.

When you meet sober, professional people whose descriptions make official 'explanations' look silly, it makes you wonder who has the emotional need and who has a lot invested in their theory.

Sure, I've met the tin foil on the head types, the UFO groupies, schizophrenics and so on, who believe in UFOs abductions, etc.

But I focused my research on professionals without mental health histories, especially those with expertise that makes them better than average witnesses - for example pilots, military, especially air force members, scientists and so on. People who came across sober, rational and sometimes confused by what they had seen. They were, in most cases, amused or shocked by the official explanations, because these in no way fit their experiences.

Am I saying there is a conspiracy?

No. I actually doubt there is one. I do think there are a number of natural, psychological reasons why people come up with 'explanations' that in many cases are just plain silly.

I also came away from these discussions not with some conclusion - which my two now put on ignore list debate opponents assumed I had - but with the sense that something was going on in some of these cases that was not on the list of usual suspects: balloons, human made transport machinery, weather phenomena, etc.

I have been accused of 'not asking the right questions', by people, who I doubt have asked any questions at all of people who have had or claimed to have these experiences. I urge people to challenge their own X-files, geeks in a trailor image of the people who have had experiences and you will meet doctors and lawyers and commercial airline pilots and naval officers, etc, amongst others. Many of them either do not make specific claims about what they saw but can describe objects that do not fit official explanations. Many have a sense of humor about it and are well aware of how some people will take their experiences. Basically, rational, intelligent people, most of whom do not want any media attention, in fact avoid it.

I do consider alien spacecraft to be a possible explanation for some of these events. It certainly fits the experiences much better than some of the official explanations, and for me the possiblity that there are other species far more advanced than us seem possible, if not likely - I think only vestiges of monotheistic assumptions would make one sure this is not the case. Their motives for visiting and for not making open contact I do not know. I could speculate, but that seems beside the point. I do not know, but it seems possible.

I would frankly prefer some other explanation, if I have to give a gut reaction.

Be interested in hearing from anyone with more than an armchair general experience.

If you simply want to mock people and ideas you have little knowledge of or contact with, you certainly have an interesting idea of what free time is for. I hope you enjoy it.

[Stryder]

When you meet sober, professional people whose descriptions make official 'explanations' look silly, it makes you wonder who has the emotional need and who has a lot invested in their theory.


It's funny you put this, I one time tried to make a statement at a police station and the police there seemed all too interested in coercing my statement to include "little green men from Mars". Seriously Police like to pull peoples legs more than anyone else (Round where I am anyway) so I really wouldn't class what they say as 100% accurate.

The point I made multiple times and keeps being missed is the basic fundamental of Mathematical Chance. As I simply put the "Betting Odds".

Check the following list of things you'll see in the sky (I'm sure there are things I've missed but it will do for now)

Aircraft (Commercial)
Aircraft (Military)
Aircraft (Private)
Aircraft (Prototype)
Hoaxcraft (Saucer Balloon etc)
Spacecraft (manmade)
Paragliders
Gliders
Stars
Planets
Moon
Satellite
Spacestation
Space Debris
Meteor
Cloud
Heat Vapour
Swamp Gas
Balloon (Manned)
Weather Balloon
Balloon (toy)
Model Aircraft
Blimp/Zepplin
Advertisement balloon
Kite (Which have known to exist for centuries)
Birds
Falling debris from a Twister
Falling debris from a Volcano
Rocket
Projectile when Speed is cancelled out by gravity
Secret Anti-Gravity test*
Alien Space craft with sight seeing anal probing aliens.*

* These don't have any Physical evidence that they exist.

That's 32 potential matches for what a UFO is. Out of those 32 entries only one is an un-established claim of it being "Alien" in origin. That's a 1 in 32 chance. However this chance isn't the end chance, because we have to take into consideration all the other factors that applied to the chance list.

For instance Debris from a Volcano or Twister is rare, but its known to happen. You could perhaps find out the number of times Volcano's or Twisters occur and this would then have a sub figure you'd have to apply to their chance.

In the case of an Alien spacecraft you'd have to identify the number of star systems in the universe, then the number of approximate planets per star system, then the number of planets that potentially have life, then the number of lifeforms that are evolved enough to generate technology to be able to enter into space travel. You'd then have to work out the chances that an entire civilization would put all it's resources into a spacecraft how would they decide what the crafts destination is and how long can it travel for? (The Universe is a big place an you are dealing with and you've approximately 64,440 degree's of vectors you could leave off from. With each degree there is a certain distance before the degree has to be subdivided again. The further you travel the more subdivisions and therefore the more possibilities for direction. In essence picking one of these vectors randomly and heading on it to find an inhabited planet is ridiculous, especially considering that you would have to extend the length of your trip to increase your chances of scoring a hit.)

Basically the Mathematics is so against the odds that aliens visit that it's common sense to acknowledge that the less profound reasons for things in the sky (The rest of the list) is more likely to be the answer.

This is the main reason you get people that aren't going to sit and try to calmly point out that a persons claim of aliens is rubbish because obviously those people that make the claims feel outraged that their claims aren't being taken seriously. However the mathematics clearly points out that their claims can't be taken seriously, this is why they get termed woo-woo's and are usually heckled by people that think they are a waste of "Space".

[nietzschefan]

This is the main reason you get people that aren't going to sit and try to calmly point out that a persons claim of aliens is rubbish because obviously those people that make the claims feel outraged that their claims aren't being taken seriously. However the mathematics clearly points out that their claims can't be taken seriously, this is why they get termed woo-woo's and are usually heckled by people that think they are a waste of "Space".

That's abolutely false. The "Mathematics" you propose, actually shows how impossible it is to prove or disprove the possibility of advanced life spinning out of chaos just like or nearly like us.

Even in our own solar system, even if we knew every event that actually happened in the last 5 BILLION years, we could not mathematically compute the chance of life occuring in our star system, or the probability of HUMANS coming out of the events.

So it is IMPOSSIBLE to say the chances of life out there, particularly when we can barely make out a Jupiter sized planet a few parsecs away. We KNOW nothing about this. Worse than that, we have people like you saying there is nearly zero chance of "life like us" out there, when you actually have no clue at all. NONE.

The "universe" (that small amount we can actrually DETECT) is what 15billion years old? Are you going to account for all the possibilites in that timeframe for all the stars(counting far beyond anyone can calculate)? Are you really that good at math...really?

[Simon Anders]

It's funny you put this, I one time tried to make a statement at a police station and the police there seemed all too interested in coercing my statement to include "little green men from Mars". Seriously Police like to pull peoples legs more than anyone else (Round where I am anyway) so I really wouldn't class what they say as 100% accurate.

The point I made multiple times and keeps being missed is the basic fundamental of Mathematical Chance. As I simply put the "Betting Odds".

I am glad you are so confident in your ability to calculate the liklihood of their being other advanced species in the universe that might visit us. I am glad that you know you can work out the liklihood of that and then calculate using the number of sightings and feel comfortable dismissing ALL of them as really something else. That's good. I notice a pattern. The people who are sure there are no alien spacecraft AND further that whatever it is MUST BE a natural phenomenon we have already studied are so smart and, well, gifted, in math and the possibilities of what life might and must be like in the universe and so on. I find it amazing how sure and confident you are all in these things.

As far as taking what police say 100%, well, I didn't. Nor did I assume pilots and scientists and military people were perfect witnesses. Such things do not exist. I have, after speaking to a large number of these people found their descriptions and explanations were vastly more convincing than the official dismissals.

I also notice that you seem to be taking my posts as saying that some of these are alien spacecraft and then you add in the abduction, anal probe stuff so you can mock me. Why not respond to my posts, which make it clear I have not drawn a conclusion about their being alien spacecraft, and role model both rationality and respect.

[Simon Anders]

That's abolutely false. The "Mathematics" you propose, actually shows how impossible it is to prove or disprove the possibility of advanced life spinning out of chaos just like or nearly like us.

Even in our own solar system, even if we knew every event that actually happened in the last 5 BILLION years, we could not mathematically compute the chance of life occuring in our star system, or the probability of HUMANS coming out of the events.

So it is IMPOSSIBLE to say the chances of life out there, particularly when we can barely make out a Jupiter sized planet a few parsecs away. We KNOW nothing about this. Worse than that, we have people like you saying there is nearly zero chance of "life like us" out there, when you actually have no clue at all. NONE.

The "universe" (that small amount we can actrually DETECT) is what 15billion years old? Are you going to account for all the possibilites in that timeframe for all the stars(counting far beyond anyone can calculate)? Are you really that good at math...really?
Thanks for making this point.

[Enmos]

Simon, the possibility of aliens visiting earth requires some explanations.
- How did they get here ?
- Where are they from ?
- And why did they get here ?

[Simon Anders]

On the offchance that Enmos has quoted me - I have him on ignore - I did change a couple of my last posts. I realized in my haste to respond to Stryder's partial misreading of my posts, I had not carefully read his post, and that some of my response was unwarrented. So I edited them.

[Enmos]

On the offchance that Enmos has quoted me - I have him on ignore - I did change a couple of my last posts. I realized in my haste to respond to Stryder's partial misreading of my posts, I had not carefully read his post, and that some of my response was unwarrented. So I edited them.

You don't have me on ignore.. but whatever :shrug:

[Simon Anders]

I truly wish people took their skepticism and intelligence and aimed equally at the official explanations for specific events after speaking to witnesses.

[Enmos]

I truly wish people took their skepticism and intelligence and aimed equally at the official explanations for specific events after speaking to witnesses.

What makes you think they don't ?

[Loretta]

they are unidentified so anythign we say about them is pure speculation.
but i do think its very unklikely that ufos are spacecraft of extraterrestrials.

[Stryder]

That's abolutely false. The "Mathematics" you propose, actually shows how impossible it is to prove or disprove the possibility of advanced life spinning out of chaos just like or nearly like us.

Even in our own solar system, even if we knew every event that actually happened in the last 5 BILLION years, we could not mathematically compute the chance of life occuring in our star system, or the probability of HUMANS coming out of the events.

So it is IMPOSSIBLE to say the chances of life out there, particularly when we can barely make out a Jupiter sized planet a few parsecs away. We KNOW nothing about this. Worse than that, we have people like you saying there is nearly zero chance of "life like us" out there, when you actually have no clue at all. NONE.

The "universe" (that small amount we can actrually DETECT) is what 15billion years old? Are you going to account for all the possibilites in that timeframe for all the stars(counting far beyond anyone can calculate)? Are you really that good at math...really?

You are taking it out of context, My point is not so much about the chances of life being elsewhere in the universe but the chances of any lifeforms having the technology and the reason to visit the Earth. My point was that it's completely infeasible to suggest day tripping aliens to the planet Earth, entire Civilisations would have to work towards the goal of a visitation and therefore any conspiracy involving governments covering up such information are obviously ludicrous.


I also notice that you seem to be taking my posts as saying that some of these are alien spacecraft and then you add in the abduction, anal probe stuff so you can mock me. Why not respond to my posts, which make it clear I have not drawn a conclusion about their being alien spacecraft, and role model both rationality and respect.

You notice wrong, my comments are tongue in cheek they aren't aimed as some sort of personal goad at you. I'm just use to hearing a number of various comments on the subject and no matter how many times people are disproved they will still continue to hash out the same rhetoric.

As for your Comments, they come across as "PRO" and I probably come across as "CON" although in reality, I'm actually neither. I merely state what would be necessary for an entire Civilization to travel such distances and that's an entire planets co-operation. As you can tell on Earth that hasn't always been possible, in fact it's taken many thousands of years to generate the stability we have now (And even then it's under threat from constant military advances) I guess you could say there is a high probability we'll be extinct before we make contact with another civilization that's if we can man or robotically operate craft out of our own star system.

I truly wish people took their skepticism and intelligence and aimed equally at the official explanations for specific events after speaking to witnesses.

I've spoken with some witnesses, some are completely and utterly off their rocker. I mean their stories are just that vivid imaginary conjured events that gain even more "realism" (At least to them) with each time they are told. In fact even their "memory" of what they saw changes with each time it's told. (This technically is a classic problem when people are lieing). Of course not all of them believe they are lieing.

A couple of years back a friend of mine did a study, he created a Hoax sighting and reported it to a number of magazines, he got the local radio station on board and even one of the television channels. They all knew it wa a hoax, however they played it out as the real thing and even gave a contact number for people to add information to the investigation of what it was. Now since the invent was a complete fallacy, it was obvious they knew nothing existed. Yet there were still dozens of phone calls claiming sightings of the Object over the location that was given.... even though there was no object. This is why I know for a fact not to listen to every story that's out there ;)

[EndLightEnd]

Right of course you cant listen to EVERY story. But I think we all agree there are far too many stories to be ignored.
And for the government to completely deny this phenomena, when its clearly present, is beyond me.

[Gustav]

but attributing them to aliens is taking it a bit too far. And saying none of them can possibly be of alien origin is also taking it too far.


sweet
aliens?
do tell

[Gustav]

Right of course you cant listen to EVERY story. But I think we all agree there are far too many stories to be ignored.
And for the government to completely deny this phenomena, when its clearly present, is beyond me.

false on all 3 counts

the tabulation has been done
most are mundane or bogus
it is not denied. just explained away

[Gustav]

This is not some testosterone contest - it's supposed to be an adult conversation with the purpose of expressing viewpoints.


indeed

"a lot of imagination or a lot of childish belief - as in things like Santa and the Easter Bunny.;"

"mentally mature"

"immature or paranoid delusional thinking"

"hadn't taken his medication for a day or two"

"true believers"

"bored (and boring) people who are unconsciously trying to add some excitement to their otherwise dull lives"

"The vast majority of them ARE simpletons"

"The same kind of people who buy the tabloids at the supermarket check-out counter."

"fiction and/or over-active imaginations."


bravo?

[Simon Anders]

Originally Posted by Read-Only
but attributing them to aliens is taking it a bit too far. And saying none of them can possibly be of alien origin is also taking it too far.

Saw this in a quote since Read-Only is on ignore.

Thank you for this reasonable statement.

[Gustav]

probabilities

The probability of winning Powerball (http://www.winningwithnumbers.com/lottery/odds/) is 1 chance in 146,107,962.

Powerball (http://www.powerball.com/powerball/pb_stories.asp) Winners

[Simon Anders]

probabilities

The probability of winning Powerball (http://www.winningwithnumbers.com/lottery/odds/) is 1 chance in 146,107,962.

Powerball (http://www.powerball.com/powerball/pb_stories.asp) Winners

It's nice for statisticians when they have, as in the above situation, such a clear set of variables that they can calculate with. Oddly enough, even those guys set their little calculators aside when making most decisions in their lives. Now why is that?

[Stryder]

It's nice for statisticians when they have, as in the above situation, such a clear set of variables that they can calculate with. Oddly enough, even those guys set their little calculators aside when making most decisions in their lives. Now why is that?

You'd be inaccurate in that assumption too. Some statisticians use their findings in real life, they are the bean counters, they are the guys that say if something can be done or not (esp. when it comes to Government office) If something is proven to cost too much or have too little chance in success then it's likely they will put forwards that information, it's then up to the Government to decide whether to follow through or not.

(When you have gross mistakes like for instance the London Stock Exchange Taurus project which took a number of years to eventually get right after a number of failed attempts and extortionate costs to the tax payer. It's usually caused by an Escalation of commitment, where people have already made decisions and promises fair before any preliminary studies have been carried out, so even when they are told of the impending doom of the situation, they still carry on regardless.)

The most influential businessmen on the planet know to pay close attention to the statistical detail because not doing so could equal the downfall of not just their job but potentially the empire they've attempted to build. (This is proven in a number of situations where products were deemed dangerous and had to be withdrawn from the shelf. Quite simply a Statistician would of "bean counted" if it was cheaper to pay off from any suits caused by their product or cheaper to remove the product from the shelf to lessen the eventual damages. Some instances it was initially pay off's and these equal some of the worst kind of business practices known to man.)

Basically your life is run by numbers even if you didn't know it. I guess you can be blind from it since it doesn't concern you, but to someone else what numbers run in your life affects them in some way. Perhaps they need you walking into their cafe to buy a cup of coffee to make ends meet, or finish off the old stock. Perhaps they need you on a bus so it doesn't get shut down by the local authorities for not making enough of a turnover. It could be any number of things that you will be blissfully aware of, but however is a numeric paper trail of your life.

[Simon Anders]

You'd be inaccurate in that assumption too. Some statisticians use their findings in real life, they are the bean counters, they are the guys that say if something can be done or not (esp. when it comes to Government office) If something is proven to cost too much or have too little chance in success then it's likely they will put forwards that information, it's then up to the Government to decide whether to follow through or not.

(When you have gross mistakes like for instance the London Stock Exchange Taurus project which took a number of years to eventually get right after a number of failed attempts and extortionate costs to the tax payer. It's usually caused by an Escalation of commitment, where people have already made decisions and promises fair before any preliminary studies have been carried out, so even when they are told of the impending doom of the situation, they still carry on regardless.)

The most influential businessmen on the planet know to pay close attention to the statistical detail because not doing so could equal the downfall of not just their job but potentially the empire they've attempted to build. (This is proven in a number of situations where products were deemed dangerous and had to be withdrawn from the shelf. Quite simply a Statistician would of "bean counted" if it was cheaper to pay off from any suits caused by their product or cheaper to remove the product from the shelf to lessen the eventual damages. Some instances it was initially pay off's and these equal some of the worst kind of business practices known to man.)

Basically your life is run by numbers even if you didn't know it. I guess you can be blind from it since it doesn't concern you, but to someone else what numbers run in your life affects them in some way. Perhaps they need you walking into their cafe to buy a cup of coffee to make ends meet, or finish off the old stock. Perhaps they need you on a bus so it doesn't get shut down by the local authorities for not making enough of a turnover. It could be any number of things that you will be blissfully aware of, but however is a numeric paper trail of your life.
As Wes Morris said elsewhere:
There should be an axiom or theorum or something that says "if you can't wholly model the system to which you're applying statistics, the statistics aren't applicable". Trying to calculate the odds of life having formed on earth or 'in the universe' is only remotely reasonable if you have a sample representative of 'life in the universe' or of course an unquestionable model of life in the universe. Since life can't even be adequately universally defined at this point, I'd say any calculations in this regard thus far are little more than stabs into darkness.

I am not saying that statistics cannot be used. What I am saying is that with an issue like the likelihood of and the behavior of possible extraterrestrial intelligent life forms anyone damn confident they are within a couple of orders of magnitude in their guesses is overestimating their own abilities.

I am sure there are things that statisticians use statistics for, perhaps even on a daily basis, but there are a myriad of decisions they do not for the very practical reason that they cannot be certain of the variables.

If, for example, one knew that the only possible intelligent life in the universe had to come from carbon based DNA like structures and thus needed to come from this or that kind of world and that there are these many of those kinds of worlds and given the age of the universe this many would be well past us in technology and at the same time know for sure some of the limits of what technology is capable of and then toss in some universal anthropology, then one could start crunching numbers.

I do not believe anyone here has those capablities and the knowledge presented above.

I do not care how good the statistician is, on this issue he or she would be making a guess.

I should add that your analogy while fair since I generalized does not match the situation. In the business world statisticians have access to a great deal of hard data and many of the variables are directly measurable - how many married men with __________ in disposible income in the _______region who have purchased vehicles........etc. etc. When you have statisticians getting data from the Enterprise and all the other starfleet ships, OK. But until then we it is guesswork. Otherwise the companies and government agencies gathering the vast amounts of data to give to statisticians are wasting their time.

Statisticians have much more trouble using statistics for the vast majority of decisions in their lives where there are a lot of variable and at least a few they have little data on.

I also think Gustav's example of powerball is disingenuous. The variables are very simple there. We are talking about statistics 101. Hell, we are talking about high school math and no need to do research. I don't think that was a good example at all for the unbelievably complicated issue and set of variables in the issue at hand.

Or do you disagree?

[CutsieMarie89]

I may be mentally immature, but I have seen a "UFO". Of course I have no idea what it was, but it was the strangest thing ever. It was shaped like a bullet sort of and it gave off a strange light. It wasn't moving very fast so my father assumed it was a helicopter at first because it just sort of hovered over the playground I was at it wasn't very high up. And then it turned around and moved so fast I thought it had just disappeared, maybe it did I was just trying to have it make logical sense in my mind. It wasn't a helicopter, though. I don't think it was aliens, but I don't know what it was so I don't rule out any possibilities. I think all stories and legends come from somewhere so aliens are just a little less likely than government experiments to me. I can't speak about the subject of aliens, but the military keeps stuff underwraps all of the time (at least according to my father) so I wouldn't be surprised if the whole Roswell incident was about aliens.

[Yorda]

I believe in the theosophical/occult explanation of UFO's. It makes most sense. http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/ufo4.htm#u11

UFO's and "aliens" have always been around, but in other forms: dragons, fairies, sylphs, flying carpets, flying bulls etc.

"...the incredible diversity of entities and their often weird and eccentric behaviour suggest that the majority are temporary manifestations of shape-shifting elemental entities, moulded by pictures in the earth's thought-atmosphere. Their craft, too, may be temporary manifestations modelled on astral images rather than the product of a technology that has evolved on some other planet."

[Gustav]

I also think Gustav's example of powerball is disingenuous.


i would have preferred if the characterization were deemed "erroneous" rather than "disingenuous". perhaps you would explain why you think i would knowingly propagate false info?

my intent was...despite seemingly insurmountable odds, people do win

[Simon Anders]

i would have preferred if the characterization were deemed "erroneous" rather than "disingenuous". perhaps you would explain why you think i would knowingly propagate false info?

my intent was...despite seemingly insurmountable odds, people do win

My apologies. I misunderstood your slightly hard to 'read' intent in this case. I did not think you were trying to spread false information, but rather to calculatingly compare something incredibly complex to calculate with something rather easy to calculate. Given respect for your intelligence I thought you did or should know better, hence the innappropriate adjective.

[Rick]

Where is the "I don't care" Option :D

Rick