The real cost of real UFOs

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Ivan Seeking, Dec 3, 2003.

  1. Ivan Seeking Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    957
    My interest in UFOs has cost me a few friends over the years; and need I say how those us with an honest interest get attacked on the internet. To even mention the subject is considered heresy or lunacy in many circles. I realized this some years ago, but for me the subject is too interesting and compelling [by the evidence] to pass up.

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

    An interesting subplot of Close Encounters of the Third Kind"

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

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

    Comments?
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2003
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    It depends on how you report what you saw. immediate claims of 'I SAW A UFO!!!!!' will be met with derision, for certain.

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

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

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

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



    to hide all adverts.
  5. MiTo filosofos Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    100
    Unfortunately, you are absolutely right.
    However I would like to say that only one who will laugh at you is one who is ignorant and not wize.
    Some people don't even want to consider the subject , perhaps because they are too affraid of it (unconsciously or not).
    I personaly don't even care what other people think, no matter who they might be, because (as I said) the last thing a wize man will do is laugh at the subject of ufos .
    For me the evidence is overwelming and "the thruth is out there"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    when first convinced of the UFO phenomenon [I didn’t say ET]

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

    Although UFOlogists like to place disclaimers about ET in their posts, their motives are not in favor of terrestrial explanations.
     
  8. MiTo filosofos Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    100
    maybe some of them yes , however most of the serious ufologist are dedicated to finding facts and not fiction , for example you could read any book of respectable ufologist such as Timothy Good
     
  9. spookz Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,390
    My interest in UFOs has cost me a few friends over the years; (ivan)

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

    Messages:
    6,390
    but of course. fame and fortune i presume? youse a tired old hack

    *just kidding pal

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    most of the serious ufologist are dedicated to finding facts and not fiction

    OK, what "facts" are you referring?

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

    Messages:
    6,390
    shoots q with a death ray
     
  13. Ivan Seeking Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    957
    Here's the problem: If like me one becomes convinced that in fact something real is the source of many "UFO events" - something that is very energetic, very strange, very rare, and something that we don't understand - since we lack any sufficient explanation to account for these events, it becomes difficult to ignore the personal testimony and supporting information that if true would leave no doubt that ET is here. Needless to say, even the potential for a visiting ET is something pretty hard to ignore. Conversely, it is easy to see a true disbeliever [alleged skeptics] - those who believe practically on religious grounds that this [ET] can’t be true. They never acknowledge the potential significance of this phenomenon. To me this shows either a distinct lack of objectivity, or at least a lack of exposure.

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

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

    I am looking for non-ET solutions. Look how you have treated me from the start. You gave my position no chance for fair consideration.
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2003
  14. Ivan Seeking Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    957


    Prove it.
     
  15. Ives Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    88
    Q, why must you put words in the mouths of others? Even when they disclaim the ETH, you appear to maintain that they secretly are still hoping to find aliens. Why else would they be interested in UFOs. . . . .

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    It isn't.
     
  16. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    Ivan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    It shows me an aptitude for common sense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    That should confirm to you that ET is not here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I am looking for non-ET solutions.

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

    Messages:
    957
    Hey Ives, since I am just now getting caught up, I thought to respond here instead of to the original email.

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

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

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

    No doubt.

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

     
  18. Ivan Seeking Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    957
    Q, how sad for you. You are incapable of simple conversation. Are you so lonely and angry that you have nothing else to do?
     
  19. ScRaMbLe Chaos Inc. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    666
    Q - You use only cliche'd arguements and try to twist peoples words against them. These are the tactics of a lawyer who is losing a case and has nothing left but schoolyard tricks. Quite sad and predictable. How can anyone catagorically state that "ET visiting earth is all fiction" when there is substantial historical, religious, anecdotal, and some circumstantial evidence to the contrary? Agreed, its not enough to win a case, but it is enough to warrant further investigation.
    We don't yet have a satisfactory answer one way or the other and only a fool would claim that there is. We have to keep asking questions, either that or sit back and assume there is nothing left to learn.
     
  20. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    This one is simple, a statement of 'I believe in UFOs but that does not imply they are piloted by aliens' equates to 'I believe in terrestrial stealth aircraft' equates to 'DUH!'. We KNOW stealth craft exist. Without an extraterrestrial impilcation, there is not much of a mystery, we are seeing things that are supposed to be secret, which is why we don't know much about them.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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



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

    Messages:
    268
    or are they different races? And if so, how come ALL of them conspire together about each other's secrecy????

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

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

    Messages:
    10,342
    Hmm '57 Varietes', ... where have I heard that one before? ;-)

    Someone, somewhere is having a hearty laugh that people are repeating that figure I'm sure!
     
  23. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    Q, why must you put words in the mouths of others? Even when they disclaim the ETH, you appear to maintain that they secretly are still hoping to find aliens.

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

    Where is your sense of curiosity?

    Firmly placed in reality, thanks.

    I have drifted further from the ETH

    Really? Lets analyze your post for those alleged qualifiers.

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

    No surprises here.

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

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

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

    That stands to reason considering there is no evidence.

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

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

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

    Paul is a conspiracy theorist, as well?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    So, a) interstellar travel is possible.

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

    [iUFOs behave in a manner consistent with the laws of physics within our atmosphere, assuming that a kind of gravity-negating field is possible, and Hill believed that it was just a matter of time before even we could achieve that.[/I]

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

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

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

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

    And yet he does.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Been there, done that.

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

    When you're ready to talk about the real issues and the real science surrounding interstellar travel, let me know. But if you keep spouting the nonsense that Hill and Vallee are spoon feeding, then I'll continue to respond in kind.
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2003

Share This Page