'No evidence' for extraterrestrials, says White House,....

I don't need to give you links. I can recite plain old history for you and if at any time you feel the need to look it up, you can. You won't find a flaw anywhere.

Also, Memorandums are very difficult to ''fake''. Some memorandums are given security codes which authenticate their reality. Of course, it can be argued that the person writing the memorandum was ''faking it'' but in all due respect, most of the people who write their memorandums could not have their integrity questioned because they are such high official ranking officers. Faking such things would have warranted their expulsion from their jobs. And most of these men are in very reputable jobs.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That would definitely have been me.

It's based upon an entire philosophical synopsis which identifies certain evident traits about ourselves, our sciences and our anthropological direction which all conclude the universe itself is our own creation.

I've posed points about the future of any sufficiently advanced civilisation is the control over their environment (And this doesn't mean limiting it to turning up the aircon or even terraforming)

I also posed the point that our sciences would not be replicated the same by any other civilisation elsewhere in the universe, the only way it would be possible is if they observed our sciences and that would require them to become sufficiently advanced to begin with.

Aliens never had Archimedes, Galileo, Newton, Einstein and the other Philosophers, philanthropists, Scientists, Inventors and the like. Which means aliens sciences would be completely different from ours, which also likely would suggest their observations of the universe would also cause differences, like making them "Non-tangible" to our universe. In essence even if they did exist, they wouldn't here.

I also stated that there are a myriad of ethical and philosophical points in regards to "If a civilization built a universe, would they allow other civilisations to exist?". The fact remains we would never introduce a potential threat and it would be unethical to produce a civilisation "beneath us" just to satisfy "believers". (After all we wouldn't want to start another bout of slavery, we've only just started to make progress at eradicating those chains of bondage or the stigma that surrounds it)

As for having aliens "make us"... well in all honesty do you think the human species is going to let some alien attempt to stick us in bondage by claiming they made everything. I think you'd see what resistance would occur.

I also pointed out that to express the likelihood that the theory that the universe is part of a giant recursive emulation is greatly enhanced by taking into consideration the giant "accumulator" that life spontaneously coming into existence actually is.

It required:

• Space to exist
• Energy to magically appear
• Energy to fluctuate enough to establish matter (gravity, fields, particles)
• Those composites created to create established stable atomic systems
• Those atoms to "bond" with other atoms to form molecules
• Those molecules to form substances that created "the building blocks of life".
• Those building blocks to not just be arranged but placed into a "homeostasis" where they could continue to act as "Life" and "reproduce"
• Those life forms to evolve
• Evolution to involve enough intelligence to develop Sciences (which could only occur after the blossoming of civilisation)

If back on day zero I could have placed $5 on the bookies that this would happen (and without their foreknowledge that these events would coincide so evidentially), I'm pretty sure I would be a gazillionaire.

The fact remains that it's such an outside long shot that it would never come in (although observantly it has) would imply pretty much a rethink of an Einstein quote.

"God doesn't play dice with the universe"

I'm not implying there is a god, however I will imply that if you are going to make a universe, you aren't going to leave room for chance, after all you are technically the house and the house always wins. So you'd load the dice.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The ''official statement'' from the FBI for instance, in October 1973, by FBI director Clarence M. Kelly explained to an enquirer that ''the investigation into unidenified flying objects is not and has never been within the jurisdiction of the FBI.''

It was only years later, in 1976 the FBI released some 1,100 documents and memorandums on UFO-related incidents, some being classified as ''beyond top secret''.

Now why did the FBI hide it to begin with? You only hide something when there is something to hide. If people within the circles of the FBI where so aware of how much the UFO culture was ''a load of hoolah,'' then why all the need for secrecy... they obviously knew more than what they were telling.

On a similar investigation into cover-up tactics and denial, comes from a statement made by NASA in an information sheet, serial number 78-1, prepared by the LFF-3/Public services branch, office of external relations, NASA headquarters in washington, that ''NASA is not engaged in any type of research program involving UFO activity.''

However, contradictory to this rather straightforward statement, two pages from a NASA instruction kit: issued originally by Kurt Debus , Director of John F. Kennedy Space Center in June 1967, explains that UFO's are to be reported immediately to control, and that the outcome of the investigation wiLL not be discussed with the caller.

Again, why did they cover up that they investigated UFO's? This is not the only case. Well, one NASA test pilot called Joseph Walker who test flew the rocket-powered X-15 planes revealed it was one of his duties to look for UFO's and even take pictures of them. So if the phenomenon is one which is not real, which NASA would have you believe, why have someone under you represent the dedication of looking into such objects?

There is an obvious symmetry between the two cases. Of course, with that said, the FBI's case is much more startling. 1,100-odd documented cases of UFO activity is a far cry from being ''outside their jurisdiction.''

Of course, the most famous case of denial was the Roswell Incident; Originally Military Personnel reported that they had in their possession a saucer-shaped craft. This statement was later denied by higher ranking officials. I think competent Military Personnel would know the difference between a weather balloon and a saucer shaped craft, no?

Well, we have evidence that something almost certainly happened at Roswell according to a previously top-secret memorandum. It was an office memorandum, dated march 22 1950, from Special Agent Guy Hottel to J. Edgar Hoover the FBI Director, which seemed to admit the existence of disks which where retrieved in new mexico during that momentous day. However, this memorandum was released recently (again) causing a great hype in the UFO community, though no true skeptic aware of the facts denies that the memorandum was real. Such detail that is put into the memorandum, as short as it is, it is quite a startling peice and arguably the ''smoking gun'' according to Nick Pope, who was an investigator for the Ministry of Defense into the UFO phenomenon.

There are also STS-videos (filmed by NASA into the deep of space) and even looking into the Earth's atmosphere (where the integrity of the video cannot be refuted) and real objects are in view which takes in all conventional pictures of UFO's (saucer-shaped and metallic)?

NASA washes every case (more than several cases of UFO's that have been filmed) as identifiable objects. But many professionals outside of NASA have came forward and expressed views that their explanation don't wash half the time. Of course, taking into consideration that they have already lied about their involvement in UFO activity, who'd really believe their explanations anyway?

Scott Carpenter, a former US Navy test pilot, intelligence officer and astronaut claims he had seen UFO's on the Mercury 7 flight on may 24th 1962. It is said that Carpenter later denied this, but in a transcript of Lovell's Flight on Gemini 7, an object was in fact encountered.

Maurice Chatelain, a former NASA communications specialist who says that all Apollo and Gemini flights had been closely monitered by UFO's, but the mission was sworn to absolute secrecy.

Wilbert Smith a senior radio engineer who worked in secret defense projects, and who corrolated with Dr. Vannevar Bush who was the presidential scientific advisor in 1947, was elected head of a top-secret investigative panel of scientists, a project by the name of ''project magnet'' - his team was to investigate the possibility of advancing propulsion systems based on magnetic principles. Smith is reported as saying:

''Whether the phenomenae be due to Natural Magnetic Causes, or Alien Vehicles, there would probably be associated with some sighting some magnetic or radio noise disturbance. Also there is a possibility of gamma radiation being associated.''

Not to mention, UFO's have been caught on radar, so refuting their physical corporeal existences can be easily disproven. In an interim on project magnet, Smith Concluded:

''If it appears evident, the flying saucers are emissaries from some other civilization, and actually do operate on magnetic principles, we have us before the fact that we have missed something in magnetic theory.''

Smith was a very prominent investigator into the UFO phenomenon, and in 1960 reported that he and his scientists had came into posession of what was alleged a peice of a flying saucer:

''We have done a tremendous amount of detective work on this metal... we have something which was not brought here by plane, nor by boat, nor by helocopter... we are speculating that we are in posession of a portion of a much larger device which came into this solar system - we don't know when, but it has been in space for a long time. We can tell this by the micrometeorites embedded in the surface.''

The documents however which can prove Wilbert Smiths claims, are unfortunately still calssified under the department of transport, most likely.

Let us not forget the 1952 UFO mass-sighting over Washington. Here a link is provided of this rather extraordinary event which has similar overtones to the Pheonix Incident which is also linked

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_Washington_D.C._UFO_incident

(go to youtube for original footage)

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

As I said, remarkable overtones. Especially when you see original footage of both incidents.


Now for some more preciously classified top secret goverment memorandum and articles and similar documents.

A US Air Force Security Service article about the encounter by Pilots of the Imperial Iranian Air Force in Sep. 1976 published in the Miji Quarterly testified to UFO's being encountered.

Air Cheif Marshall Lord Dowding, Commander-in-Cheif of the RAF fighter has been reported to state that over 10,000 sightings have been observed concerning UFO's and that most of them denied any credible explanation (in 1954).

An existing Memorandum from Colonel Charles Halt testifies to sensational events in Woodbridge in dec 1980.

Lord Mountbatten testified to observing the landing of an unknown craft at his estate in Hampshire in 1955.

A previously top-secret Dep. of State memorandum testifies to the Ghost Rocket phenomenon in 1946.

General Nathan Twining, who as Commanding General of Air Materiel Command in sep 1947 testified and signed in front of witnesses that the UFO phenomenon was a reality.

I have plenty more where that came from. I will let you sink your teeth into this first.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I completely agree with this. I am pretty sure Carter tried. And point of fact, I'm probably sure he suspected, and worked for people that knew, but they probably just told him not to ask. So he probably just did the best he could to loosen up the system and protect those who would come forward and speak up.

But yeah, there can be not official disclosure until the people in the shadow government that's behind the US and EU governments say there will be a disclosure.

Some of the reading I have been doing indicates that if they don't do it. . . eventually China might become powerful enough to do it. . . What ever that means. I would have thought the shadow government controls all of earths civilizations. http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/02/07/01353.html huh :shrug:

What journalists in India have dug up. . .

Secret Moon and Mars missions in collaboration with extraterrestrial UFOs using much advanced technologies


Major space agencies of the world cooperating to reveal the truth about UFOs in 2012 – why in 2012?

 

Neh... I doubt it very strongly. The reason why is because of one fact: It has been reported from officials that one reason why the UFO phenomenon is secret and more secret than the H-Bomb is because it will lead to a new technology.

Now, if the reports can be taken at face value, Military Personnel have even reported that these objects have been shot at, but have failed to bring them down. There was an account during the war that a UFO had been seen in the sky slowly truncating the clouds. Explosive ammo was shot at the object after warning signals had been issued, but the object failed to be brought down. There is also reports from people within the Military that these objects have even disarmed nuclear warhead

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So if this technology is as great as many think it is, the last thing the US shadow government would want to do is share it with the likes of China. No doubt, the US have came into contact with these ships and tried reverse engineering on them, but that is like expecting a 10th century civilization to conduct a reverse engineering on a clock watch. The information they would get from it, would be limited.

So I doubt the Shadow Government has any interests in America to expand their horizons to anyone outside their own country, for sake of any country coming to the ultimate grips behind these dynamics, they would literally, rule the world.

But I like your thinking.

 

I am sorry, but I disagree with everything you have said.

How would they be so outside quantum mechanics, that they are incorporeal? I don't even know what this means.

Aliens will be subject to the same laws of physics as we would be. It doesn't mean however they will use the same technologies as we do... but in light of this, competent scientists today are attempting scientific breakthrough's in propulsion systems which will become a reality of the future, whether near or far. No scientist denies this.

All you need is one civilization, evolved a bit earlier than us so that they have had enough time to develope whatever technology which will allow them to travel the vast of spacetime.

We will reach that day too, assuming we don't blow ourselves up.

 

The X Files was only a TV show folks.

 

Yes.. we are not talking about Dana Scully (Gillian) and Fox Mulder (David) who are actors

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

@Mister --

I prefer the links, it allows me to independently verify what I'm being told. It would be highly remiss of me to just accept something because someone told it to me, especially since I give people a lot of flak when they do the same for other things(such as the existence of god). While I appreciate that you have a good memory, the ability to fact check a thing myself is something that I'm not willing to give up in any debate, let alone a debate about a topic where frauds and hoaxes abound.

Not true, they're easy to fake, however whether or not they'll stand up to rigid scrutiny is another matter all together.

This is exactly the kind of information I was talking about. I want to see the documents and I want to see that this sort of thing has been verified and that they're genuine. Anyone can type up something that looks official(hell, I know a dozen people who have old typewriters that I could use to turn out a document that looks official), I want to know for a fact that they are official.

That's not an argument that I would make unless the officer in question had a documented history of perpetrating fraud. And for me no one is above having their integrity questioned. I don't care how unlikely it may be for a high ranking officer to fake such documents, it's still a possibility that must be looked into, if only to account for as many variables as possible.

I'm a Navy brat, I get that. But I also know that no system is foolproof(they're so damn ingenious) and there's no way to completely prevent fraud and counterfeiting. Hence why I want that data.

-----

There's an underlying problem in your evidence, but I'll get to that later, for now let's review the two links individually.

In your first link the entire argument appears to be nothing but the Nirvana Fallacy, where because the explanation offered isn't perfect it is rejected and another is substituted. Even though the USAF explanation is not perfect, it is at least workable in that unusual presentations of common phenomena could cause all of the things reported(including the radar contacts). Every single criticism of the USAF explanation is along the lines of "but that doesn't normally do that", which doesn't rule it out as an explanation. Sure, it makes it less likely, but the USAF explanation fits the facts and is still more likely than alien visitation is given the hurdles involved(which I've already talked about plenty).

In your second link the explanations given are that the first event was caused by a formation of aircraft(according to the only eyewitness with actual observation equipment, a telescope) and that the second event was caused by flares dropped by military planes during a training sortie. The first explanation is from an eyewitness and the only eyewitness who had equipment for observing, he claimed that he saw planes when he looked at the lights through his telescope. Given that a later event(in 2007) was also caused by a formation of aircraft this seems like a plausible explanation. That the Air Force denied having any aircraft in the air is easily explained by typical military secrecy(hiding a new aircraft design or the testing new a new type of missile, that sort of thing). Given what we know this is a very plausible explanation. The second explanation was confirmed by one of the pilots taking place in the training exercise, so I fail to see what's left to explain here.

Now, on to the major flaw I mentioned earlier. The entire argument for ETs seems to be just like the argument for the existence of ghosts or other paranormal activity. The argument goes something like this, "I don't know what's causing that so it must be aliens/ghosts/god/leprechauns/etc." It's also an internally inconsistent argument because what you're basically saying is that because you can't explain something you can explain it. Such arguments just don't cut it, especially in the face of what appear to be virtually insurmountable obstacles to aliens getting here in the first place(let alone even wanting to come here in the first place).

A lack of an explanation is never going to be evidence for alien visitation, that's not the way it works.

 

No. I will not post links.

I have exhausted quite a lot at this forum today, even writing a humble reply to you. If you want to put the information to the test, please, be my guest. I think I've earned enough today to say ''do some work for yourself.''

 

Also, I cannot post the memorandum copies I have which have the security numbers. But I assure you, each memorandum, I think by the law of system, has these. Go study some of them on the FBI website. They should have an array of them displayed for the public.

 

''and that the second event was caused by flares dropped by military planes during a training sortie.''

I can't resist this however. Considering the low altitude of the light observed, flares would have been seen falling through the horizon. I actually predicted this would be a response from you.

Check the video evidence for yourself. Judge for yourself. Don't take a Military's word for it. You just need to look at their deception of Roswell to question it fully.

 

@Mister --

No, I will not take your statements on faith.

See how fun this is?<voice drips with sarcasm>

I didn't say that I need the links now, they can come at your convenience(like, say, the next time you feel like posting on this thread), however the "do some work yourself" comment made me wince. That's not the way this works, you made the statement so it's on you to support it, not on me to disprove it. This is what's called the burden of proof.

Also, going through the links and fact checking them is work. It's actually more work than just posting the link in the first place because I need to go through and check sources as well as look for flaws in the accounts.

I've been courteous until now, but this sort of response tends to set off my sarcasm and reductio ad absurdum functions. It's incredibly defensive and just bad form in a debate.

Then you can't use them as evidence in these debates. Surely copies of them exist online already, all you'd have to do is find the copies and post a link. But unless I can see them and check them for myself I have no way of knowing whether or not they're genuine.

And if I were to assure you that I'd sell you the Golden Gate Bridge for one hundred grand would you believe it? I have no reason to take your assurance seriously. Also, anyone can add a string of numbers, and even letters, to the bottom of a document, I would need to check to see that the security numbers match those of actual documents(fortunately I have friends with the necessary access).

Unfortunately for you your refusal to submit these leads me to conclude that you are either unwilling to do so, which would suggest that they're not genuine, or that you're unable to do so, which would suggest that you don't actually have them. So either pony up or retract the claim in accordance with Sciforum rules.

And this helps me verify that the documents are genuine how?

You must have missed the part in your link where it said this:

"Cognitech, an independent video laboratory, superimposed video imagery taken of the Phoenix Lights onto video imagery it shot during daytime from the same location. In the composite image, the lights are seen to extinguish at the moment they reach the Estrella mountain range, which is visible in the daytime, but invisible in the footage shot at night. A broadcast by local Fox Broadcasting affiliate KSAZ-TV claimed to have performed a similar test that showed the lights were in front of the mountain range and suggested that the Cognitech data might have been altered. Dr. Paul Scowen, visiting professor of Astronomy at Arizona State University, performed a third analysis using daytime imagery overlaid with video shot of the lights and his findings were consistent with Cognitech."

And whether you predicted the response or not is irrelevant, the explanation works and fits the facts.

I did and I saw nothing that couldn't be explained. Now, if the lights had suddenly darted upward at supersonic speeds(complete with sonic boom) that would have been something, but this is actually kind of boring. Hit me with something interesting.

I did. That I came to the same conclusion as other skeptics doesn't mean I'm "blindly following the crowd like a sheeple". All it means is that I looked, saw what happened, looked at the explanation and saw that it fit the events, and reached the same conclusion. Multiple people reaching the same conclusion while looking at the same evidence isn't proof of a conspiracy to hold down your pet theory, it's a sign that the conclusion is valid, that it follows logically from the data.

Funny, and just a little while ago you were telling me to take your word for something. Now why should I take your word that the documents you speak of are genuine but not "a military's" word that this isn't ETs?

Of course, this is a rhetorical question designed to highlight a logical inconsistency in your posts. First taking things on faith is good(when it agrees with you or means that you don't have to do as much work to fulfill your burden of proof) and then it's bad(when it disagrees with you). Inconsistencies like this don't help your cause, they hurt it.

OH SWEET EVIL JESUS!!!

It was a fucking weather balloon! Oh come on, you can't expect me to take this seriously. The reason for all of the secrecy was that our government were putting recording equipment on weather balloons and using them to spy on the Soviets(much cheaper than high altitude aircraft and they don't put pilots at risk, it's a win win), but they couldn't publicize that fact because then the Russians would have known and it could have meant an all out war(which would have killed everyone). You can't seriously be ignorant of this, I'm almost tempted to call you a Poe here.

 

You know, you're very defensive for someone who supposedly believes what they're spewing. If you don't care enough about your topic to back it up, exactly why did you decide to talk about it in the first place?

 

Dude, Roswell was a balloon. It was recognised that there's a clear air channel high up, that sound travels though cleanly, around the globe. The USA were listening for nuclear detonation sound signatures, so they could spy on the Soviet nuclear program.

If the USSR knew the USA were doing this, they'd have taken steps to hide their tests (like subterranean detonations), so it was vitally important for the USA to not show their hand.

And now onto your credibility. If you cling onto events like Roswell, which have prosaic explanations, nobody is going to take you seriously. You need to be more discerning. A mass of blurry out of focus photographs, and urban myths, retold time upon time do not add up to being evidence, and certainly do not reinforce a single viewpoint or explanation.

Here's a question for you. Right now, there are more cameras in the hands of the populace than ever before, thanks to mobile phones, and digital photography in general, making photography instantly rewarding and more affordable. So why are we not seeing more, better quality UFO pictures? My (old) digital camera has a 10x optical zoom, and 4mp sensor. My Partner's, is half the size, 10x Optical zoom, and 7mp. We both have 5mp cameras in our cellphones, but without optical zoom. We have never snapped ET. There are telescopes pointing up at the sky, and satellites looking down, and in fact, I used to work in a Physics department with Astronomers that analysed Satellite and Telescope data, and down the corridor was the Earth Observation department. We looked up, they looked down, and nobody ever saw ET. There are more flights in the air than ever before, air travel is cheap, and popular. How come passengers don't see ET?

Show me a decent picture. Some video, that's in focus, that shows something truly inexplicable. That's all we want, _some evidence_.

 

Definition: without body or substance; intangible.

You are using your very human observations to govern the universe just by stating this, which again proves my point.

Let me put it within something you might be able to understand. There is a condition in the world called Synaesthesia, it's where a persons neurons didn't gain the disconnections from one another during infancy and where a person has a composition of difference senses relaying information from one sensory input. In other words where you hear music, they might see, taste, feel or even smell it too.

If I was to place an Orange in front of you and them, both of you would state "It's an orange" likely because of what you have been taught, however when it comes to "can you describe to me what it is you see in front of you with as much detail as possible", your explanation might be of the fruit that people come to expect to hear, where as those with Synaesthesia will describe the fruit differently because of how their observation is different to your own.

Obviously you'll imply "But the fruit is still bound by the same physics" but please remember this example is based upon a Human with a life altering condition that is still existent within a world where they have learnt potentially exactly the same as you from shared observations.

Aslong as people need jobs and are competing in areas to try and find some niche that isn't overwhelmed by already renowned gross market share holders, they will attempt to enter into fields of science and make their mark. In other words, your competent scientists are just trying to find their niche.

Why learn to transverse something you don't have full control over? I mean imagine you design an engine to go super quick, you've then got to have sensor systems linked to a super quick computer to make course alterations when you are approaching stars, planets or astral bodies (asteroids etc) to make sure that their gravity doesn't effect your trajectory or that you'll plough into them.

Also when you enter a gravitational field and then decide to alter course it's going to apply G-Force to any occupants, so this too could have a limiting effect on any speed achieved.

Alternatively it's just understanding that the universe is likely something that has been created within an Emulator and realising the rules to the universe can be changed by the emulator itself, this could mean negating the problems of attempting to travel distances at speed or work out where bodies are placed. I guess you could say it's a work around for Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. (Of course only possible with Human Science)

 

You've been corteous until now? Lol.... You're the one who asked for information of ''this evidence'' - I was corteous enough to sit down and write all that out for you. I didn't need to you know.

I am that confident in all my assertions and historical notes that I don't even think about needing to post links. Are you confident enough to find the appropriate information and realize it was all truth? Whatever that means?

 

Is that right?

So why did competent military personnel originally say they had in their possession a flying saucer?

If you can come up with a credible explanation for why this happened, I will bow down. Even the special agent Guy Hottel Memorandum offers tangible evidence towards something really happening that day.

 

No I am not... well... Yes I am human, but that is beside the point. I am using a well known principle of quantum mechanics, that being the laws of physics do not change anywhere for anyone. Do you understand this principle?

It would mean aliens would be subject to the same physical laws. This is so close to the truth, I don't know where you extracted your belief from.

 

@Mister --

Yes, I have, up until my last post that is. One might even say that I've been polite.

You mean the evidence you were obliged by Sciforum rules to produce? Next time should I just immediately report you for not supporting your statements of truth rather than giving you a chance to defend yourself?

No, you didn't, but you did need to support your assertions under Sciforums rules. However other than the two links you gave me, both of which already have adequate explanations and thus don't count as evidence of ETs, you haven't provided me with shit.

You've made some claims and that's it. I can make claims too you know, in fact, so can anyone. So why should I take your claims any more seriously than Deepak Chopra's or Kent Hovind's?

Whether you think about it or not doesn't change the fact that you need to support your assertion with evidence, that's how science works. You need to do the work to support your claims and fulfill your burden of proof. End of discussion.

Either provide the evidence or admit that you can't support your claims and that they're merely your opinion. There is a third option, you can continue on this path and I can report you, but those are really your only options.

Wait, you still want me to do your damn work for you? Are you the laziest SOB on the face of the planet?!? It's your claim, you back it up.

Well that's simple enough. It was a practical joke. Humans do this sort of thing all the time.

So show us this fucking evidence already. You claim you have the evidence? Well I'm calling your bluff.