What about empirical evidence?

Hello,...

I usually don't easely start threads myself if it can fit in a specific one, but I think this is a justified question:

I would like to know If empirical evidence is of any value to prove anything,...to oneself and/or to others

If not, could you please be so kind to tell me why not?

If this empirical evidence is confirmed by others with whom I share no connection, but have had similar experiences, would that be of some value, or is that making a logical error? (in validating your own experiences)

I know that a mind tries to make up for missing pieces of the puzzle, but that already taken into account,...

What is YOUR subjective/objective opinion? (please difer)

Thx,
Fuku

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Say, for example, you relay a tale concerning Alien Abduction (I presume this is something to do with where you're going with this). I respond to your description of events with the statement: "Actually, this exact same experience happened to me, and that's why I'll never grow another beard again as long as I live..."

That latter bit might remain irredeemably irrelevant forever and then some, but my simply confirming your experience by me claiming it happened to me is empirical evidence of absolutely bugger all.

There is no evidence being proffered.

Empirical evidence means, by its very definition, that if I propose a specific method and describe a specific outcome arises as a direct consequence of what I did, in following that precise method anyone doing so will observe a similar outcome.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Definition of the term 'empirical' : the adjective 'empirical' means 'based upon experience'. In philosophy the term empiricism refers to the theory that all concepts are derived from experience and that all statements which express knowledge must ultimately derive their justification from experience; those who hold that view are referred to as empiricists thus originating in or based upon observation or experience; capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment.

I did not say what kind of an experience, so please refrain from presumtions as much as possible, however I do not want to spoil all the fun of this discussion, so maby I should say: presume as much as you can,...and check if it would possibly be able to confirm it empirically!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

you say that for example, I would relay a tale to you,...but that goes WAY beyond my initial pretext: 'with whom I do not share any connections' so I would NOT be relaying any story to you. It would be two seperate empirical experiences. And since all theoretical explanations in science must be backed up by empirical evidence, it must be pretty damn important no?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

... "Definition of the term 'empirical' : the adjective 'empirical' means 'based upon experience"....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

... A definition which also dictates demonstration, more specifically, experience of the demonstration of the method or theory proposed.

And, with regards to "and check if it would possibly be able to confirm it empirically!", we're here in the Pseudoscience section Fukushi - are you alluding here the conversation isn't leading towards extraterrestrials?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Of course, it's bad form of me to presume, for which I apologise unreservedly, but every experience of this forum dictates, subjective experiences as a topic of conversation herein most usually lead towards ET.

But, that aside. I gather here you're getting at the notion of you reading an account by someone else and finding within the same similarity to personal experiences of your own, correct?

 

not nescessarely! It can be that you observe something and try to find a fitting theary for it, isn't it!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

the perception of reality as we percieve it and understand it, depends largely on what we have learned already, imprints and reproducible awareness of things,...etc.
But what about new experiences?

And I'm still not alluding at abduction procedures, trying to maintain a neutral position here, sceptical, dry, clean, crystal,.. OOH wel, alright then!

What we percieve to be reality must be real, if not, our perception = false and this means: that we can't draw conclusions to most of the perceptions we have and the percieving/uderstanding we do (implement/connect a conclusion to it)

eeeh, wel, not precisely but fair enough!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What I'm trying do answer is the notion that what people experience is only a part of the whole truth,...

So this could mean people who've NOT have had PERSONAL experiences, must therefore refrain from believing things that are plausible to their imagination: like for instance: if they didn't see a UFO themselves, then how could they ever convince themselves of the reality of UFO's? Story's? Books? Al not viable in my point of view...correct?

But this also implies that those that are scepticle, are people in need of experience themselves: and until that personal experience comes around, they'll probably stay sceptical under most circumstances? no?

Then now people must understand and confirm to those that do hold empirical evidence, that they've had a wonderfull experience, but one that is not viable as a reality to other human beings,...(in short)

this would imply that everyone is living in it's own reality, appart from other's perceptions, what may hold value in 'their' univers is of utterly nihil importance in that other ones univers.

Does this makes sense?

 

We can know reality by obsevation,...thus we 'know' if we see something flying in the sky that it couldn't be an airplane because it doesn't fly like one, doesn't look like one, doesn't sound like one,....

We are therefore not believers in ufo's but 'knowers'

 

UFO - Unidentified Flying Object

I question, how do you know that it's "Flying" since I would suggest flight means under it's own power and not "Gliding" or "Floating" or acting as a "Projectile"?

How do you know it's an "Object"? What if it was nothing more than a thermal vortex similar to a Tornado? (Thermals can distort light as proven with tarmac or sand on a hot day.)

If you can Identify that it's an "Object" and that it's "Flying", then obviously it's no longer "Unidentified".

(In fact a "UFO" would be a good example for an Arificial Intelligence to attempt to draw a conclusion from for the above reasons.)

I state that there is no such thing as a UFO.

Maybe some different acronyms like:
sIO - semi-Identified Object
ASc - Alien Spacecraft
MFP - Millionaire Flyboy Project
MCA - Misidentified Commercial Airliner
CWB - Clandestine Weather Balloon
FoYI - Figment of Your Imagination

 

Hmm, flight under it's own power,...then what about those microwave craft, powered by remote microwaves? Would that count as own power?

I know Gliding and Floating and it's both a part of flight,...even a projectile has a flight-path, and I've seen mortars and rockets fly so I know that they make a certain distinct sound, just like Ultra-light-planes and Delta wings etc,...

An object we define by a solid mass or if it seems to have proportions. This can easely leed to misInterpretations yes, I'll grant you that. I've never ever seen a thermal vortex, could you elaborate on that? Do they have a specific color? And do they 'fly'? I mean: do they move in a straight line or curves, do they wobble, flash lights on and of, hover ect ect?

No, it still means that it's an unindentified flying object of some sort.
just because you can't identify it, doesn't mean it's from another planet, of course,...but mostly it seems like some outherworldly technology is at play, or else the military have a monstruous responsability in the worlds technological retardness.


and I think you forgot one class of aircraft:
SMP - Secret Millitary project.

 

Fukushi - my apologies for the delay in responding, wanted to give you a proper answer and that takes a bit of time and thought...

Here goes.

No. The correct technical term for that is an Hypothesis... Though the term Theory works just as well.

A Theory of itself doesn't constitute proof. It's a suggestion, an idea. If that Theory suggests the possibility of applying the idea in some manner where by one can demonstrate its actual workings then one has what one can term proof of the Theory...

The problem is of course, no matter how good the Theory, how does one prove that it is actually what underlies the thing it is your trying to prove in the first place?

A classic example here would be UFO propulsion.

Now, over the years many, many people have suggested all sorts of Theories concerning quite what it is that lies at the heart of your average UFO's propulsion system - some good, some bladdy awful.

The problem lies here not with the Theories proposed, but with the nature of your average UFO - simply put, they don't tend to hang around long enough for you to be able to pop the hood and take a peek under the bonnet.

If we ascribe, for example, some form of microwave pulse drive as being the engine of choice for your more sportier and discerning of extraterrestrial, then we can say "Okay, how would such a thing work?" and then we can go ahead and figure out to our hearts content exactly how such a means of propulsion can be undertaken and make to work.

So far, so great. We have a working hypothesis - a specific theory concerning UFO propulsion and a method by which it can be brought about.

But, and this remains the question. Once we have the theory, how exactly do we know that the UFO actually applies such a method at all? In order for us to know that for a fact, we have to capture a UFO, pop the hood and have a poke around under the bonnet. Once we locate the mechanisms clearly associated with the propulsive methodology our Theory dictates, then we have both poof and validation of the Theory proposed...

Until then, what we've got is simply just a jolly good idea.

And that's all we've got.

If, and it's a big if, our specific Theory concerning Microwave Pulse Drive, or whatever, is based on actual science, then there remains no reason why the theory can't be applied and demonstrated. If such remains the case, we have proof of the theory and means of verifying the theory empirically via demonstration.

That still doesn't prove anything whatsoever regarding UFO's, but at least you've learned something new and interesting from the whole exercise...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

... A good point, well said. The statement depends entirely though on what it is we believe it is we're observing or experiencing in the first place.

Lets stick with the UFO motif here. Face it, no one who ever actually reported a UFO ever actually did so because they genuinely believed that the object they were observing actually was the errant weather balloon or the simple misidentification of the perfectly ordinary subsequent investigation into the matter later reveals to have been the most probable case in the circumstance described.

And both these criteria remains a fact in by far and in large the vast majority of all reported UFO sightings.

Every time a UFO report is made it is done so wholly in the belief that the object observed was actually a vehicle of some description originating from another world.

The problem here isn't what is being observed, its the assumption the observer makes regarding its nature....

If a child wakes in the night and perceives in the dark and shadows the form of a monster slouched at the foot of the bed they scream for their parents not just piss them off - they react the way they do because what they observe dictates to the evidence of their reason a creature meaning them hard. The experience is real, it is profound, the sense terror the form observed elicits, palpable.

Yet, when the hallway lights go on and a bleary eyed parent stumbles in response to the child’s calls into the bedroom that same light reveals the monster to have been nothing more than the shape of a chair with the child’s cloths draped across it, exactly as it was when the child first went peacefully to sleep earlier that same night.

Now - if your statement as it stands merits scrutiny, it dictates that actually that chair is really no such thing at all. It's a monster with the ability of cloaking itself as a common or garden household object in the light when adults are around, reverting back to its actual form only later when the child is alone and helpless in the dark.

We could debate the various mechanisms of that, the mechanics involved. We could, from what we perceive in these speculations, distil all manner of theories regarding the various means and motives of monsters in general - and lets face facts here, millions of children on a regular basis experience monsters and goblins and all manner of crawly nasties each and every night until they grow out of it - but if we proceed what we are exploring here is not reality as reality actually is, it's the reality of our own imagination we are addressing.

The line of reasoning our own mind dictates, not the nature of the actual thing we observe at all. But us.

And we can know this remains the case regarding UFO sightings, because you yourself have experienced the fact time and time again probably without even realising you've been seeing it.

Have you ever watched a conventional plane fly?

You can tell a lot from just lying in the grass on a warm summers day and watching a plane fly on its way overhead - from its position relative to the sun you can working out its current course and heading, if its throwing out a contrail that dictates its a jet, also goes a good way to pegging its altitude and speed. You can make a lot of very good, pretty much accurate conclusions from such simple and common observation as this.

But the one thing you can't possibly know from observing such a craft whilst observed in transit during part of its journey like this is specifically what airport did the plane take off from.

Neither can you actually tell or know what airport that plane is eventually destined to land.

Even if you happen to be an air traffic controller and have there in your hand a filed flight plan of the plane in question - unless you can visually confirm by eye that the plane you are observing is actually the same as the one listed on the flight plan, you can't possibly know the answer to either of these two questions.

Nobody that ever lived ever possibly could, and this remains perfectly true with the observation of any moving vehicle observed in passage be it plane or boat or car or bicycle or anything at all - unless of course the object being observed happens to be a UFO.

Then, suddenly. miraculously, the world and his dog develops the preternatural ability to do exactly this - to know with absolute certainty that the object they are observing originated from a place no body can possibly see by eye or even telescope and yet [know absolutely all the same exactly where the object observed in transit originally came from.

And whichever way one cuts it, there's simply no way around that fundamental flaw in "The Knowledge" concerning such things.

And that is the place where everything concerning UFO sightings begins. The differences between what is possible to actually observe and actually be able to know from the observation.

The fundamental question one always has to ask oneself is precisely how is it possible for a person to be able to know the things they claim based on their own account of how they came by the information in the first place.

That's the start point one takes if one wants to actually find out anything about anything...

I think I get where your going here - as a process what your describing here is Chinese Whispers. One person relays a message to the next, the next passes it on and so on and so forth. At the end of the line you compare the message you started with the message relayed back to the original message sender and, invariably, one thing transforms into something entirely completely different.

Moreover, everyone in the chains perception of the message being relayed is quite different from the next...

When you're dealing with a subject by in large anecdotal in evidence inevitably you end up dealing with a game of Chinese Whispers and indeed, pretty much as relayed above, thought, research and debate invariably tends to concern and address issues regarding human assumption and expectation regarding such matters as extraterrestrials and what have you, rather than actually addressing the matter to hand.

People tend to forget, before the term UFO or Flying Saucer was ever coined, there existed an established belief already amongst certain members of the Fortean Society (that bastion of all things otherworldly) that the earth was being visited by extraterrestrial beings - pre-1947 and the Kenneth Arnold sightings which really sparked off the whole original Flying Saucer phenomena, the tenants of this particular belief sighted examples from the bible as being "evidence" that what man perceived as Angels and God were actually the work of astronaughts and space ships.

Pre-Kenneth Arnold there came the occasional report of aerial sightings of objects termed as Ghost Rockets from around the 1930's, subsequently there also came tales from WWII aircrews describing Foo-Fighters, neither of which convey in any way a description conforming to that of unidirectional, disc-like craft in the slightest, but sightings all which the very same individuals that after Kenneth Arnolds original modern-day Flying Saucer observations would be trumping in the national press the loudest about how the objects described by this Arnold chap were exactly the sorts of things they had been talking about for decades before - even though there remains a marked disparity between the physical description of a Ghost Rocket and that of a flying disc...

One never wants to let a mere fact get in the way of an almost faultless hypothesis.

But what so-called UFO researchers tend to conveniently forget the most is the simple fact that, though this Kenneth Arnold chaps original sightings of 9 objects (8 crescent shaped, one large disc) observed over the Mount Rainer area indeed sparked off the modern UFO phenomena we have today, they tend to leave out the very reason this chaps sightings actually got picked up and published in the national newspapers to begin with.

It was never anything at all to do with the belief in extraterrestrials to begin with - it was all to do with a chap called Chuck Jaeger and the US's attempts to break the speed of sound.

In October 1947 Jaeger would become the first man in history to fly a plane over the threshold of the sound barrier, Mach 1. And it was an American x-plane in which he did it. By that time the Cold War was already well established and it was Americas already well avowed public intent to lead the way in what would eventually become termed as The Space Race - after WWII America and Russia emerged with literally all of the stuff of science fiction of the pre-war era developed as actual physical reality. Rockets and Jets were the marvel of the age, and America’s attempts at being the first to break what was at the time the greatest barrier of all, the Sound Barrier, was well documented and well speculated upon throughout the world.

The attempts leading up to that final success were well covered in the press throughout the period of 1946-47, and Americas failure up until that point a matter of public knowledge.

So, when in June of that same year a chap reports seeing objects travelling at a speed considerably over the speed of sound, something in the region of 1000 mph I believe the original report claimed, naturally that caught the presses attention.

Have we succeeded, is it the Russians? These are the questions actually people were initially asking themselves regarding the Kenneth Arnold sighting - but the fact that it was public knowledge that the no one had as yet broken the sound barrier and yet here is a description from a reasonably respectable individual concerning objects which apparently could and more, disclose nothing by way engines in order to do it, rapidly alerted the attention of the sorts of people who did hold with the belief in extraterrestrial visitations at the time and suddenly they found themselves with a national platform from which they could speak.

After all, it was a fact, no man made craft had ever breached the sound barrier, right?

The day after the Kenneth Arnold suddenly the world is being invaded from out of space, but actually on the day of the publication if Kenneth Arnolds actual observations, no one was saying anything of the sort...

But it’s the perception that colours the public’s imagination the most, as well as that of your merely average UFO investigator...

It all starts with Flying Saucers. And simply because a thing doesn't look, act or behave in anyway like a conventional plane or jet certainly that provokes a few interesting questions, but its a considerably stretch to simply take an observation like that and conclude that that same object, simply because it doesn't behave like a conventional aircraft must as simply consequence be capable of interplanetary (latterly, interstellar) flight.

It's a conclusion, certainly.

But based on what? Fact, knowledge, or simply just belief?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

you have to look for clues everywhere...........your analogy of the child and the chair in the dark is good regarding the potential of subjective imagnation, but when a UFO is recordedin film that's a different matter, no?

today it is most possibly harder than anyting to be able to tell if a video, photo, is doctored cause technology is so good. this goes for 'talking terrorists' too....after all they can make pigs talk on film...riiiiiight?

so maybe films made pre a certain time, and by whom would hav e to be included in the criteria of possible real evidence

also things like that dude who was recently arrested for hacking into the secret US files. he is supposed to have read there being used anti-gravity craft secret technology

so......why would he say that? wht does he benefit for saying that? it wouldn't exactly help him. the US are threatening
extradition of his person with possibility of al least life in jail!

it is PLAUSIBLE that their might be advanced technology we haven't been told about?...ie., are you aware that your governing body keeps things from you, and in fat gets a kick out of manipulating you. tis field demands another area of inquiry as part of your investigation about this. so specialization allowed!

Also--what about AREA 51? what do you suppose has gone on/is going on there? any ideas?

what i a saying is tis. what else can a person do when faced with unusual phenomena than --if having one--readh for the recording equipment??...seriousoy. what else can they o? i am asking you'll

shout at the occupants to trow down some metal?? what what?

so they record it.

now. IF one's hypothesis is all about craft that hae to go faster than light to travel from Nebula xxyx etc, then surely that is complicating things isn't it?,,,,geyt me?
rather look at te clues we have, even in tis little space. tat the possibility is recorded craft may be MAN-made.......

 

Area51...
Okay well as you know during the Mid to Late 1940's the US continued their Testing of Atomic weapons. From the test locations they realised that Nuclear explosions could be quite devistating not just from force but fall out.

This would suggest when they eventually build such weapons on a larger scale they should be housed somewhere "Remote" to lessen the Civillian Casuality's should either a bomb accidentally explode or the place housing them became a target.

This increased the number of "Area's" and of course the size of the "Area's". (Area 51 isn't the only "Area".)

It is possible that Area 51 continued Weapons development projects that could be no longer housed in Civillian Laboratories or Universities due to security protocols. (Afterall it's documented that during the Atomic bomb creation/tests the Civillian Researchers involved didn't like the amount of Secrecy/Military rulesets applied to them and their work as it felt suffocating to them.)

Obviously in recent years there was alot of talk about "Prototype Stealth Bombers", considering the first non-test Bombs were dropped by an aircraft it only makes sense that such Area's could still house payloads and explain why such Area's are "Remote Locations".

 

Hello duendy, sorry to paraphrase your post here, can’t abide it m’self when people just pick lines at out of context and break the whole thing down so the sense of the original posters reply is completely lost.


I trust I’ve gotten the gist of the beginning. It’s a good point, and it’s important to remember.


It’s possible, likely actually, that indeed there does exist genuine, untampered film footage of objects which conform to UFO Classification. And perfectly correctly, I’d say the further back you go, the less sophisticated the opportunities for jiggery-pokery available become, the likelier the genuine nature of the material.


This isn’t to say that older material hasn’t been faked. There have been some remarkably well put together hoaxes which only today’s advanced image processing capabilities have brought to light which have served as Ufology greatest trump cards for decades until exposed. And it isn’t as if the people who supported them as genuine knew the truth. They didn’t. UFO debunkers told them they were fake for years well before the exposure, but in the final analysis the arguments the debunkers used often times turned out to be actually as hoakey, if not hoakier (if such an adjective exists) than many of the claims the UFO believers were actually making in their support for what ultimately turned out to be…

Nothing at all. Nothing real.


But yes, there may yet still indeed be genuine footage. The real McCoy. And let us say that me and you are actually looking at it, the genuine thing…


What is it that we actually see?

Presumably, in viewing genuine film footage of some form of metallic object, roughly unidirectional in airframe, singularly lacking in any external means of propulsion, wings, tail, etc, capable of travelling at appreciable speed and incredibly high (nay, many would claim impossible) manoeuvrability you would, to your mind, be observing evidence possibly of some form of secret military project utilising radically advanced propulsion principals not seen in evidence anywhere else in the world.

Were you a believer in extraterrestrials, you may possibly be inclined to expand upon that.


Looks like nothing else on earth, behaves like nothing else on earth…. Can’t be explained in terms of any known method of propulsion…. What else could it possibly be we are witnessing here except either a genuine example of extraterrestrial technology in action, or else the application of extraterrestrial technology acquired… who knows how, but it however it was it probably began with an R and rhymes with Boswell, right?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And this differs from the reaction of the-child-in-the-dark-to-the-chair how, precisely?


Remember, we’re looking at the footage of the real McCoy here, the genuine-100%-accept-no-substitutes article: and depending upon ones proclivities regarding what it is we believe we are seeing, we see the evidence of our own personal belief.


You see evidence of what you already believe regarding such objects, a believer in extraterrestrials see the same thing in precisely the terms of their own belief…. Absolutely no different from believing that monsters can exist, therefore what I see at the end of my bed in the dark is a monster, not a chair.


Yet you are observing non-subjective evidence. Even better. Genuine film footage of an actual UFO….

And so we answer the question posited in opening:

‘Fraid not in the slightest. Hell, if a UFO actually parked itself in Times Square and just sat there long enough for every news crew the world over to film it twice before getting bored and buggering off again as eerily and mysteriously as it first arrived – sure, you’ve captured evidence irrefutable that UFO’s are real beyond any possible shadow of a doubt.


But y’still don’t know what it is, where it came from, what it’s made from, how it actually works. You’ve got no clue as to its purpose, I believe we’ve already covered the bit concerning its function, and you remain absolutely, completely, utterly non-the-wiser for the entire affair.


The reason being, everyone perceives UFO’s to be representations of certain things. Advanced this, extraterrestrial that. Type in the term UFO on Google. There are actually more sites on the net dedicated to the beliefs concerning UFO’s than to good quality hi-resolution facials...


And they are all different.


And I'm not talking about the facials here.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So we go beyond just the mere evidence of simple film footage, we experience the actual thing. We even get to reach and touch the bladdy thing and still all we see is what our belief tells us UFO’s are, not at all the actual UFO itself.


And this is the problem with UFO’s.


It’s nothing to do with them.


It’s us.


We are the problem. We are the ones who set impossibly high expectation on the merest of “evidence” in the hope that what we belief and hope and dream is somehow real because of them.


At the end of the day, presuming such things which conform to UFO Classification actually do transpire to be vehicles of some description – big deal, what you’ve got is a very nifty means of getting about, but that’s all you’ve got.


Unconventional, sure.


Now. Where’s the rest…?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The question this thread posits concerns the nature of empirical evidence… But evidence of what, precisely? Reality as it is, or merely what we believe reality to contain?

 

i think you make things too complicated. let us be simple. many poeple hve recorded craft. some of this footge canot be explained.....someof these pics of UFOs seem to comply with range of distance, light, etc............so ther is the evidence. what else cold the eveidencer have done? fl after it nd get some metal?....no. he used the technology at hand to record it

tese so-caled scpetics here who THEN claim that ALL reoiorted sighting, including those recorded are ALL KNOWN to be 'false'...I then ask, so where is YOUR evidence for that bold assertion. a simple question

some will ten trow in ETs into their hyopthesis tat UFOS cannot be even possibly cause of the vast difference, and limitations of physics--going faster tan light etc--. SO i thn say, but why include te ET stuff? that is superfluous as such (thoug i respect poeple who assume ET contact, that is not 'proof' as a RECORDED pic/video of a craft, rigt?)........so i say...why not MAN-made craft? so then we look at tis aspect. we leave the oter stuff and investiage thepossibility of tis. tis means NO specialization. being flexible in approach right?

the few autors ho have looked at tis reveal that te CIA are involved in TWO sides of the UFO debate....they bot fund the 'fors' and the'againsts'.....this is like political scam of 'left' and 'right' where BOTH parties belong to the same source
so...are you gong with me....w e are collecting clues. clues that might bring us closer to some kind of answer to whats going on....

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.... duendy, I assure you I’m with you all the way when it comes to chucking out the ET stuff – if your average UFO report consisted of the witness giving a detailed account how they first saw the UFO they’ve reported take off from Zeta Reticuli or wherever and wing its way across the galaxy to here and, presumably, back again, then subsequent thought has to go into explaining UFO’s in terms of interstellar travel because that is what the eyewitness sees…


The fact that your average UFO report doesn’t relay anything of the sort and frankly never has (not even the truly whacked out UFO nut goes quite that far) does indeed imply Ufologists have been looking in all the wrong places for answers all along and only really looking at UFO’s in the first place as a means by which the presence and existence of extraterrestrials can be facilitated and maintained in terms of the belief in intelligent extraterrestrial life goes –


But you were discussing the viability of certain sorts of evidence.


Rather than do the usual, in addressing your question I not only conceded to the point concerning genuine film footage as evidence, I suggested why not chuck the need for evidence altogether and suggested a scenario where the need for evidence becomes irrelevant.


In terms of simplicity, an actual UFO touching down in broad daylight in Times Square it surely doesn’t get more clear cut than that short of a fully illustrated guided tour and a description of a UFO in terms of standard applied physics –


In the interests of even greater simplicity, I draw your attention to the following, HERE .


No need to argue over evidence whatsoever, a UFO as a vehicular means described in terms of standard applied physics – short of set of engineering schematics, it’s even better than the real thing when it comes to a scientifically acceptable explanation of what a UFO is and how such a thing actually works. You can apply the actual physics and build your own.


But the point, duendy, is this: here’s a UFO. Not contesting its reality. The above link contains everything you need to know about how a UFO operates and why it behaves the way eyewitness describe. The real and actual deal…


The question is, okay. You’ve got a UFO. But what do you actually see. It, or what it represents to your way of thinking?

 

not sure we are meaning the same ting.......let me be clear whati am saying then then u can decide....i am saying, or exploring, cause i dont know--that there's a possibility that advaned technology is being hidden from us........

that this secret technology uswes some form of anti-gravitational free-energy

that the reason it IS suppressed i that allowing public knowledge and thereby use, this would greatly strip away the power of the fascstic elite forces controlling us and this planet

that eventually they will use tis sedret technology as a means to totally take over...ie., their proposed 'new world order'. so we can see who benefits from suppressing this technology....no?

so, i a looking at a bigger picture. not just 'UFOology' or what ever you want to call it

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

... Not a bit duendy, that's exquisite. Thank you for your candour, actually that's precisely what I've been getting at...

To your point of view UFO's themselves represent a deeper, larger, more encompassing mystery.

I get that. That's the problem, here's the rub of it...

Fukushi begins this thread enquiring about the nature of empirical evidence regarding UFO's - and in asking the question highlights a problem fundamental to the whole issue regarding the subject which is this -

Fundamentally, no body actually gives a crap about UFO's.

Least of all the people that profess some form of belief or interest in them.

The point I'm trying to get at here is that the only purpose UFO's serve in themselves is as a means towards some deeper, deeper mystery. In the case of believers in extraterrestrial visitations, proving the existence of UFO's means a way of proving the existence of visiting ET's. In the case of people like yourself who don't prescribe to the ET scenario, UFO's are, as you so admirably put it, a means of a way of proving the existence of secret technology and global domination by a sinister interior force...

So, in seeking "empirical evidence" ostensibly to do with Unidentified Flying Objects, actually what people are looking for is proof of something else entirely, an ice berg of various concepts UFO's themselves manifest only as evidence of the very smallest part of all the hidden rest.

And can you see the problem here?

Over the entire course of the last 60 odd years no one has ever once simply sat down and actually thought about UFO's - despite all the books and the films and an internet full of material dedicated to the issue and nothing but - still no one actually gives a flying crap about UFO's themselves, only about them as being evidence of something bigger, larger and completely hidden.

Basically meaning, if the truth were handed to you on a plate, would you actually be able to see it unless it manifestly appeared to lead in the direction you already believe the truth lies?

 

not sure i agree with you

If, say, someone is very very much wanting therer to be some connection between UFOs and ETs, ten tis hope can actually be quit religiousy--the desire for some off-earth intervention to 'save' us etc......now, in that respect i might agree with your take in it

but regarding my own position, no. of course then the craft would be paramount. for it could mean that technology is of human origin. all the ET stuff wouldn't get in te way of observation, etc. you'd be lookin wit a different attitude

HOWEVER....s i keep saying.....i do not know. these are seeking-out questions, orrrrr detective investigations, and i tend to look as far afield as possible so i can see a larger pattern. for example, the behaviours of the power elite, and cui bono, who benefits, an so on

i do not discount that there also could be ET craft and contact. there is a fascinating case of Carlos Diaz :
see: Ships of Light: The Carlos Diaz Experience http://hesemann.watchers.ca/shipsoflight.html

so. i dont want to get caught up in ny 'side'....but to try and be as open about this subject as poss

 

Oh, I've no doubt your a very open minded person duendy, but in what way would your sort of position be particularly different from that of a believer in ET? I mean, as you described your outlook on the matter, previously:

• 
  i am saying, or exploring, cause i dont know--that there's a possibility that advaned technology is being hidden from us........
  
  that this secret technology uswes some form of anti-gravitational free-energy
  
  that the reason it IS suppressed i that allowing public knowledge and thereby use, this would greatly strip away the power of the fascstic elite forces controlling us and this planet
  
  that eventually they will use tis sedret technology as a means to totally take over...ie., their proposed 'new world order'. so we can see who benefits from suppressing this technology....no?

Observations of UFO's specifically date back from as early as June 1947 - that means the fascist elite have been in possession of this "anti-gravitational" free energy and able to harness it for the purpose of ship propulsion specifically for some 58 years now...

I mean, okay. In the early days, whilst your running your prototypes and ironing out all the bugs and so forth, y'can expect sightings to be rare, sporadic things and highly hush-hush. However, in the intervening time conventional science has gone from Nuclear Fusion to Nuclear Fission - and even the Stealth Bomber only took 10 - 15 years to develop from early prototype to production model.

If this technology was up and operational, albeit in prototype form, back in 1947 - from around the mid 60's onwards the technology involved should be in full operational service to the present day.

In fact, by now, the developers should be regarding it as rather old hat...

Y'see, if we pursue the line of logic here, surely we end up spending more time figuring out why the technology of the thing is actually hidden and still not in evidence, rather than just simply address what UFO witness actually describe observing concerning the objects in question as presented in first hand UFO reports?

Besides, what exactly is it about UFO's that dictate secret, "special" physics need to be applied in order to understand what people simply relay in observation?

Surely, the belief that UFO's utilise special, extraordinary physical principals in the first place is an assumption not at all borne out in observation?

Just because a thing doesn't look like a jet and doesn't act particularly like one doesn't necessarily dictate its using a whole new set of physics in order to do that - it's an assumption.

Given that people have been applying that particular line of reasoning for the past 58 years and coming up with bubkis, wouldn't it be a slightly better idea to, instead of Ufologists insisting the world forget everything its ever known and accept whatever radical new theory it happens to be pushing concerning UFO propulsion or whatever, to just try first wrapping their head around what it is the rest of the world does actually know and try applying it sensibly...?

Real world physics may be as dull as old dish water, but at least it has the virtue of being both understandable, demonstrable and, more importantly, it actually works...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

m-------------l---------------/////////

 

>Sigh....!< duendy. All the best with it.

Toodles,

A

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!