You say that we don't live in the same world. I put it to you that I am the one living in the real one. The figures regarding this wave came from SOBEPS, a Belgian UFO invstigation group who throughout the wave were given access to work very closely with the Belgian gendarmrie and military. Yes, I don't doubt that some people jumped on the bandwagon and reported things of their own but we are talking about a huge number of sightings here. The first sightings in that wave were made by two gendarmes near Eupen. They said that they witnessed a huge black triangle that flew soundlessly and hovered very low above them. They followed the thing for a long time and were able to observe it closely. Other gendarmes reported the exact same object (just as many police,military personel, and civilians did in Britain a year later). Why should these people, many in positions of trust, want to report such a crazy story? Also, why, if the whole thing was just media hype as you say, did your military say that there was something going on in their airspace that they could not explain? The fact that there was a media flap was a direct result of what was going on. Cause and effect in that order, and not in the way you suggest. You also question the validity and source of my information. As well a good deal of litrature, I have video recordings of the actual press conference in which your miltary gave a full explanation of the events and admitted that they were baffled. I have also heard an interview with one of the F16 pilots involved. I am sorry Plato, but as far as I can see the fact that you put all these events down to a media hype is simply ridiculous. Remember, you started this post by asking for some evidence. I am trying to provide it for you and you appear to simply disregard it. This, unfortunately, is the classic response of the debunker and simply closing your eyes and ears to this mystery will not make it go away. [This message has been edited by Spadge (edited June 24, 1999).] [This message has been edited by Spadge (edited June 25, 1999).]
look here guy, you can do as much research as you want on this, the only thing you are doing is making a list of stuff people saw or claim they saw. If you like to fill your time with that, fine by me but you are not doing any thing with the data ! Do you have a scientifical way of filtering the data, pulling out ways to set up an experiment ? If you do then I 'm interested, I want to know more. As long as you are just filing away strange stories, you are nothing more then a collector of stamps, nice but not interesting. ------------------ we are midgets standing on the backs of giants, Plato
Plato No, I do not have ways of setting up an experiment unfortunately. Due to the nature of the subject itself it is a little bit difficult to do. However, that does not mean it has no validity whatsoever. You say you're not interested in these 'strange stories.' Well I am because I geniunely believe them to be important. So don't get on your high horse with me and try to belittle my interest when far more intelligent people than you and I also believe this to be the case. Nearly all of the questions I have put to you in the debate have been avoided. The ones you did try and address have been answered without the correct facts at your disposal. Don't blame me for pointing this out. I'm not just doing this to wind you up. By the way, there is no need to address me by the sarcastic term of 'guy'. You asked for a debate and as far as I'm concerned you've got one. So far you're losing buddy. [This message has been edited by Spadge (edited June 24, 1999).]
Plato, I do think there is room to speculate on what technologies an advanced alien culture would use. I believe that there are limits on how far technology can go in terms of pure technological capability. Sure after most of technological capabilities have been taken care of technologies will been optimized and repackaged indefinitely. The need for lateral thinking (creative thinking) will never disappear. What kinds of technologies might an advanced alien culture might possess? Advanced nanotechnology. This is the ability to build anything out of atoms and molecules. Nanotechnology also includes the ability to break down any material into its component parts. I imagine that nanomachines networks would be used (like a sattelite communication network, but with tons of invisible sattelites of greater cabilities nearly at ground level). Advanced computers. Aliens would likely have computers billions to quadrillions faster than our own. Advanced AI. Artificial intelligences are very hard to create, but the aliens will have a lot of time. Virtual reality. VR would likely be merged with the real world to reduce energy consumption. Spacecraft. Subliminal definitely. Nuclear fusion, lasers, advanced chemical fuels, solar sails, gravitition assists, and antimatter. Antimatter would be one of the most difficult substances to create but it promises time dilated subliminal star travel. The aliens may have long acceleration tubes connecting different solar systems. The aliens may have fully developed K2 civilizations (fully developed solar systems -- asteroid belts fully populated) before they go for K3 status -- populating an entire galaxy. Furthermore, I believe that if there are aliens cultures more advanced then us, they are likely millions of years past our development -- and possibly a K3 civilization if not more.
There we are ! Indeed, if an intelligent species has enough time it might uptain a K3 or more level of society. But that means that entiere galaxies and are populated with the species. If there is a K3 society in our galaxy, why don't we observe it ? First of all they must know we are here, it's stupid to think a fully develloped K3 doesn't know of all it's possible rivals in it's own galaxy. So why don't they come and exterminate us ? Possibly because they are not of one species but are themselves a society of species evolved on all kinds of different planets so they would welcome us in their society. But then why don't they reveal themselves ? Are they waiting for us to make the first move and thus deming us ready for the big game or what ? Second why don't we see them, they must use huge amounts of power but still camuflage it for infant species like us not to worry. But in using this amount of energy they must be deplating our galaxies energy soures quite fast so star's must be dying all over the place, we observe nothing of this kind. So where are the K3 's ? Is it perhaps impossible for any species to obtain this fase of evolution ? Or maybe they just leave... god knows where, 'transcendent' like the Boeddist notion ? Again, we don't have enough data on the subject to do anything more then speculate. Spadge, I really ticked you off didn't I ? OK, I'm sorry I didn't wanted to get personal but you were kind of arrogant yourself in saying that everyone who doens't know all the ufo stories should shut up about the subject. I really don't agree on this, it's like saying I should first read all the poems of Keats to know he's a wonderfull poet. I read enough about ufo's (and used to be a believer in them myself) to discuss them. What I really dislike about the alien hypothesis is the complexification of the problem. Once you agree that ufo's are alien vessels you are left with more questions then you began with. If ufo's are natural phenomena then once you understand the phenomenon you have again solved a piece of the big puzzle. But how are you to understand an alien ? What you are doing is animating nature again. In the sense of the ancient ones who saw a god and a spirit after every lightingbolt or earthquick. About experimenting, the phenomena that you are interested in are a bit as unpredictable as are gamma bursts. Now, recently astronomers developped a technique in which they could almost view a gamma burst at will. It involves a network of satellites and ground observatoria who monitor permenently the sky in a certain wavelength. If there would be enough money maybe something similar could be done for the ufos. If all the believers out there would be willing to share a bit of their wealth for the cause, you might pull this off. ------------------ we are midgets standing on the backs of giants, Plato
Plato Fair comment I suppose. Maybe that last posting did come across as sounding a bit stronger in its tone than I intended. I was only trying to stir up a bit of feeling to help fire up the debates a bit. I have since edited it to make it slightly less inflammatory. With regards to your Keats argument. Surely, if I had read Keats then my opinions on his poems would be of far greater value than the opinions of someone who has not. I would be able to say that I TRULY knew him to be a great poet instead of just quoting what I had heard from someone else. I don't choose to know all of the stories as you put it. I look for the cases which I believe to be the most compelling, especially the ones containing evidence of a more tangible type. For example, radar contacts, ground traces, video footage etc. I don't see the point in listening to eyewitness reports that are not backed up by somne other evidence. With regards to your experiment comments. I would like to see a major scientific study carried out on the 3000 odd videos that have come out of Mexico since 1991. I am sure that we could at least establish what these objects are not. That would at least be a start. [This message has been edited by Spadge (edited June 25, 1999).]
Plato, May I interject here with a notion of why it is that you frustrate some, including me. There is NO DOUBT that you are one smart cookie. Some of the earthly knowledge that you have imparted on this forum is really impressive. What is frustrating though, is that you depend 100% on the knowledge that you ALREADY HAVE. It's like there's no room for anything that you don't understand already. Like I said before, you look for God under a microscope. You look for aliens through a telescope. You want to conduct an experiment that will "prove" the existance of either. Why don't you understand that our conventional ways of looking at things and proving things here on earth may be sooooo short-sided, that you really stand no chance in hell of ever realizing anything about either. It seems like you are caught in a paradigm of the scientific method, and just can't see anything beyond that, and that will not benefit you when trying to discuss things, such as these, that are "out of the realm". The way you talk about science makes me think that you have made a RELIGION out of it. Does that make sense? ------------------ God loves you and so do I!
I am indeed speculating. Instead of arguing for or against a point of view, sometimes I enjoy generating alternatives. Personally, I tend to lean a more sceptical viewpoint but that besides the point. On the question 'Is there life other than us somewhere in the universe?', I can see many alternatives: 1. We are alone 2. Only primative life is out there 3. Intelligent life is out there, but the light revealing their existance hasn't reached us yet 4. Intelligent life did exist but was destroyed 5. The aliens are on a different plane of existance (they can't interact easily with us), perhaps living on a neutron star or in a different universe 6. Intelligent life exists but they are xenophobes or do not wish to interact with us. 7. Intelligent life is studying our world, in great detail, without our knowledge. 8. Aliens have indeed landed on our planet and are perhaps here in the stereotypical ways that believers think they are. Which do you see as most likely alternative? How many alternative answers to the question have I missed? [This message has been edited by Brent (edited June 24, 1999).]
Lori, when does something turn into a religion for someone ? I think that happens when there are dogma's involved that are accepted as they are. Did I forwarded a dogma as in believing that science holds all the answers ? I hope not ! I will try clearify my relation with the scientific method. First of all science as we know it is not older then 400 years, it is still a fairly new way of looking at the universe but it has known lot's of success in those 4 centuries. Success can lead to blindness and overconfidence in its own capabilities. For example we can now build weapons who can destroy an entire city in an eyeblink, we soon (or probably are) will be able to clone human beings and tailor make our own kids. All these excesses are also possible because of scientific progress. Like every other thing the scientific method is imperfect and if something better comes up we shouldn't hesitate to embrase it. But until that I think we should try to use it to the best of our abilities and try to make the most out of it. Spadge, about the piramids, honest now. Have you read anything else about the ancient Egyptians or any other people of the third and second millenium BC then the books that talk about them being remnants of old civalisations ? I have recently seen a documentary of these guys who claim that the sfinx was actualy a statue of a lion that looked to it's celestial image. But you must know that the name lion to the astral configuration is something that came from the babylonians, the Egyptians where not interested in the stars. The first zodiacal depictions in temples were from the Ptolemaic period and they had it from the Babylonians which were also conquered by Alexander. About the hieroglyphs, some writings are still debated by experts so if these guys claim they understand perfectly what is written on the walls they must be very clever indeed. Now, there never has been any writing found that is older then 5500 years, why is that do you think ? How can a civilisation that is so advanced as you say exist for thousands of years without leaving any trace ? Look 10000 years ago the last ice age, which was a very long (30000 years) one just ended. Does this look as an obvious time for an advanced civilisation to exist ? They claim that it is silly that something like Egyption culture would come out of nothing but it is even more stupid to think an advanced civilisation would have sprang into existance during the harsh climate of the iceage. Even Egypt, which lies more south was very cold and had a tundra climate. ------------------ we are midgets standing on the backs of giants, Plato
I tend to side with Plato. Assigning the phenomena to extraterrestrials does not augment our understanding of them one little bit. After all, I imagine it's knowledge and understanding that we all look for in this matter. I am also of the opinion that the overwhelming majority of 'evidence' presently available is either fake or misinterpreted. But the little of it that is undeniably unexplainable is sporadic and random. What is needed here is a systematic investigation. Not just an investigation of the evidence itself, but an effort to actually generate evidence in a robust and cross-examined manner. We need a global, coherent, multi-wavelength, multi-instrument, technologically diverse and multi-medium surveillance effort. We need active tracking and global data depositories to discover any patterns in activity. We need observations from the ground, air and space all coordinated and covering the entire atmosphere 24/7. I do believe that the evidence for something unexplained happening is significant enough to demand such a massive investigation. I believe our governments should be willing to put just as much resources into it as they do into fusion research, or into space research -- because the potential benefits of such research cannot be overstated. <hr> As for the plea to sidestep science and 'trust your feelings, Luke': get real, people. Your senses are no less scientific instruments than a telescope or a microscope. Your brain itself is an instrument -- a sort of an exotic supercomputer. Scientific learning is the *only* way to acquire any practical knowledge. As a species we have always intrinsically used the scientific method; we just never were able to rigorously formulate it or use it with any consistency until fairly recently. Ever been around children? Ever see how they would drop something, watch you pick it up, then drop it again? Ever see them pulling at things, and chewing on things, and making a mess of things everywhere they go? There's scientific enterprise for you -- biologically embedded in us as curiosity to explore and know -- straight from birth and perhaps even before birth. Everything practical that we know -- how to walk, talk, think, speak, reason, behave -- has been achieved through experimentation, through scientific method. We are all scientists at heart; it's just that some of us are more willing to be consistent than others. ------------------ I am; therefore I think.
Plato the universe could be teeming with life or ouf solar system for that matter. however it is plausible that these would be simple organisms. Now I know what your going to say , given the age of the universe & the age of the solar system ours could be yhe simple life. Possible our speices originated on a distant plant , such as sirius according to ancient Eygiptians , and eventually found its way to earth. Of course this is speculation but it is possible. Also it is my feeling that the age of the universe is younger than the current estimates. Brent those are all good possibilities but the number of possibilities are limited only by your or our imaginations. the actual anwsers may be beyond this limitation.
Plato OK...I would have to admit that I am certainly no expert on early civilisations and I'd like to point out now (as I was obviously a bit misleading in some earlier postings)that I am in no way convinced of most of the ideas I've voiced. On many occasions I've simply been playing the Devil's Advocate role. I am however, intrigued by the many odities around the world that seem to give evidence to an earlier civilisation (the weathering of the Sphinx for example but, like you, I cannot understand why we don't see more traces of this civilisation. I do however, think that the Egyptians were trying to build a representation of the constellation of Orion on Earth. (As we discussed in the Evidence In The Pyramids thread)I currently believe this theory because for me there is no doubt the pieces fit extremely well. If, in the future, I learn more that allows me to question this or someone comes along with a theory that fits even better then I will adjust my beliefs accordingly. Remember, this theory does not have anything to do with any earlier civilisations. It also does tie in quite closely with your 'burial mounts' belief. By the way what heiroglyphs were you referring to? You do point out that the stars were not important to the Egyptians. If this is the case why is the constellation of Orion mentioned clearly in the Pyramid texts (The Egyptian Book Of the Dead) in the pyramid of Saquarra? It also says time and time again that the Pharaoh, after death, will join his father Osiris as a star in the constellation of Orion. Also, the celing of the pyramid is completely covered with stars. Lori Even after Boris's excellent response, I agree with what your getting at. I think that sometimes science is unable to get to grips with the paranormal simply because of the very nature of the area itself. How does any paranormal investigator prove a strange phenomena exists. He may employ all of the scientific methods at his disposal to do this. But what if the phenomena is not quantifiable with any known method. What ever science has taught us it currently does not have the answers to everything. It may well be that in 50 years we will have the knowledge that will make it possible to explain many areas of this field in a scientific way. [This message has been edited by Spadge (edited June 28, 1999).]
Ok, I might have exaggerated a bit in saying that the Egyptians didn't care about the stars, but what I was trying to say and am quite convinced of the truth was that the Egyptians were less concerned with the stars then the babylonians. There whole world revolved around the River. I also have to stay sceptical regarding their relation with Orion, first of all I'm not that certain that 5000 years ago the constellation had the same shape as it has now, star's also have a relative velocity you know, and I must admid I haven't heard of these writings that associates Osiris with Orion. I do know however that Osiris is a god of the earth and of plants, he was kind of reincarnated and represents life after death. Not really a god associated with stars, wouldn't you say so ? But I must agree, the anomalies is what makes is all so interesting ! The more the merrier. ------------------ we are midgets standing on the backs of giants, Plato [This message has been edited by Plato (edited June 28, 1999).]
Hey Spadge, are we not giants standing on the back of midgets? Get off Plato's back Guy. You have no way of proving anything that you say. No need to antagonise every time your back is in a corner!!!
Gap...butt out pal! You've totally misread the situation here. I have simply been arguing my point of view. I certainly have not been trying to antagonise anybody and if that's how it came across then I can only say that it was not meant to sound like that. For a start both Plato and I gave as good as we got in what I felt, for the most part, to be a good debate. Come to think of it, I don't remember feeling I was "in a corner" either! You either haven't read all of the postings correctly, or you've misread the tone intended (in all but one of them). Try reading them again with this in mind. I'm new here and you're newer still. In the time I've been here I have already become well aware of Plato's ability to fight his own battles. It's a shame you felt you had to get involved in this way as there was no need really. And by the way, you'll find that it's a fact that neither Plato, I or anybody else here can prove our points of view. [This message has been edited by Spadge (edited July 01, 1999).]
Plato, This is quite a hot, scalding subject you've opened here (3 pages long already!!!). It is "hot" for no other reason that it is opened to the vast speculative imagination of whomsoever wishes to sit back and paint a scenario according to human fancy. The entire premise of your opening proposition is, of course, highly unlikely; and i think you were well aware of this when you opened the post. However... You've stated that you are a skeptic at the outset and wish to be convinced through a flagrant demonstration by the aliens of performing that which we must assume an illogical demonstration which would reflect stupidity rather than intelligence. Now that you've heard three pages worth of ideas, where do you stand with respect to your opinion on this subject matter? As to my opinion, i don't really have one. But i must say that authors writing on the subject and defending the "intelligence" of extraterrestrial visitation to our planet have put forth some convincing arguements; convincing to logics, of course. For example, some have imagined some time in the future when our own technology permits us to visit other civilizations in space (yet to be proven, of course). How would we approach such a civilization? Would we quickly impose ourselves and adamantly and stubbornly demand that they take us to their leaders? Intelligence, as you will agree, would not allow this. See, for example, how carefully we quarantined our first men in space when they returned to earth. Our fear was that these men may have been contaminated by some unknown microbe that when introduced to the earth could cause havoc. This was caution on the part of our scientists. And it was a very wise action, you'll agree. I believe that the best course of action is one of extreme caution, as our zoologists admit when studying primates in the wild. One simply doesn't zoom down on a bunch of monkeys and screams a tarzan-like scream! Intelligence wouldn't allow that, as i've said. Witness how absolutely careful the pharmaceutical companies are before marketing a new product; first they make thorough testing and then launch "pilot" markets to further test the consequences of the effects. Once assurance is reached that the product meets expectations, full-scale marketing is launched. So, caution is a mark of intelligence, an offshoot thereof. Logically, then, if a civilization has developed intelligence to such a degree as to be able to create vessels able to travel light years, assuredly they would use caution when visiting neighbours. Note that before you walk into your own neighbour's home first you knock and ask permission. It seems the logical thing to do because it is the moral thing to do and morals, as you know, are conceptions which only intelligent creatures (on the level of human development and above) are capable of. I don't think morallity would escape our hypothetical intelligent extraterrestrials. ------------------ dumaurier
Again, you are underestimating the possibilities of an advanced alien race (or races) who are around for say a million years and have a K2 or more society and their idea of caution. Zoologists as Diane Fossey actually mixed with their objects of study and payed their respect to the dominant male to become accepted in the group. Some thing for anthropologes, they go and live in a tribe for several year in order to study them. Why isn't there a broad spectrum of interaction, why only study the workings of our internal organs ? There is simply nothing we can begin against a K2 civilisation, they use energies who can evaporate our tiny planet so why be afraid of some puny little humans and use extreme caution ? They must have encountered countless other intelligent species emerging and must know pretty much what they are doing in dealing with us. I imagine they would put their exospecialists to work in dealing with us. But how long do you think they need to study us ? If you must believe people like Van Dänicken these guys have been around ever since we drew our first painting on rocks. Just how much experiments does it take before they lay of their paranoid caution ? ------------------ we are midgets standing on the backs of giants, Plato
Plato You point out that there isn’t a broad spectrum of interaction and that these aliens are only studying our internal organs. Surely any alien owning a TV set would have access to a very broad range of human behaviour to study (although I dread to think what these grey guys make of Australian soap operas). Anyway, if these beings really are here, we have no way of knowing who or what they really are. There have of course been a number of ideas ranging from ETs, to inter-dimentional beings, or humans from the far distant future. However, here’s a thought. What if it’s completely impossible for man to begin to understand the answer to UFOs with the knowledge that we currently possess. I’ve heard it described as the Coke Can analogy. Imagine a monkey happily foraging in a forest for food. One day he comes across the strange sight of a can of Coca Cola lying on the floor of the forest. He naturally assumes with his monkey brain that the can has fallen from a tree. Anyway, he drinks the Coke and likes the taste. He decides he wants more and proceeds to spend the rest of his life looking for a Coca Cola tree. I’m sure you see what I’m getting at here. With his limited monkey view of the world he is not equipped to possibly understand the full astounding truth about the Coke can. Maybe we are just like this monkey when it comes to UFOs. If you think this is a crazy theory, I’m not saying I believe it either. However, I do find an interesting idea. One other point, why does everybody always think that if Aliens are here, then they must be thousands of years more advanced than we are. OK..., light speed and travel to the stars is not yet possible. However, look at the astounding advances in science of just this last 100 years, never mind the last millenia. Who knows, in a couple of hundred years we might have the technology to really go places. Maybe, even sooner. [This message has been edited by Spadge (edited July 05, 1999).]
It is a rare occasion indeed, but I must agree with Spadge. Especially if the aliens are millions of years ahead, we wouldn't recognize their spaceship for what it is even if we saw one. But let me ask you another question: if a civilization has been around for millions of years, evolved to some unimaginable technological heights, and seen hundreds if not thousands of other fledgling and advanced civilizations, and trillions of lifeforms -- why do they even bother studying *us*? By that time, we must be about as interesting to them as a wheel is to us. So I venture that if some civilizations are indeed studying us, they are not all that much more advanced than we are (give or take a few thousand years, that is.) ------------------ I am; therefore I think.
Plato, First off let me say that i really like your name Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Second, i wasn't really underestimating the possibilities; let's just say i'm a little dull around the edges, okay? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! When you mention Diane Fossey, i wonder, did she sneakily perch herself on a branch and the minute the hoard of longarms approached she jumped down and started flirting with the leader? Hmmm...i wonder about this woman Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Nah, just joking, Plato. But you do have to take into consideration the fact that she did take her time before starting the foreplay; she didn't do it immediately. Maybe our little humanoids' sense of time isn't the same as ours. Say, 1000 of our years is equal to 1 hour of theirs? Just a wild guess, of course. (Hey! This is fun Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) Your question, "Why isn't there a broad spectrum of interaction, why only study the workings of our internal organs?" really has me puzzled. I mean, wouldn't you like to publish an anatomical encyclopedia, too? We can't know for sure that there isn't a broad spectrum of interaction. Maybe there is, on different levels (psychical, or whatever). We simply don't know. (Our imagination is really getting out of hand here... snicker...snicker...) It is for sure that if they can use energies which can wipeout our planet they wouldn't be afraid of us. I think only paranoid extraterrestrials would wage an all-out attack on helpless creatures. But don't forget that these guys are supposed to be "evolved" and supra scientifically developed. So i should think that war is out of the question. However, to get back on topic, the caution i underlined had more to do with a no-interference sort of tactic with respect to our development. I assume you know that a foreign body injected within a biologiocally stable system can cause tremendous havoc. Think of what would happen to our own culture by the injection of an absolutely, out-of-mind perspective! Caution is needed. Then again, given the numberless (but conjectured) possibilities of extraterrestrial life developed to the point of making interstellar travel possible, perhaps every reported sighting that has some substance is of a different spaceship or humanoid from a different culture? I mean that perhaps there are millions of extraterrestrials visiting us from time to time and that we never really see the same ones twice because perhaps they only drop by for a second or so (maybe to gas up?). They simply don't have time for any kind of consistent longterm relationship. This brings to mind the Villa Boas case in South America. Ever heard of it? As to Von Dan, have you ever read Crash Go The Chariots? The author disproves most of Von Dänicken's wild theories! My theory (based on the fact that we have still to see some kind of pattern of similarity in it all)is that every object, every flying saucer seen landing, hovering or taking off, is really a human experience with a unique object unrelated to any other. If we could positively conclude from data that out of 1000 UFO sightings 501 were of the exact same object, then we could speculate that the same "race" is here visiting, experimenting, or whatever. But this isn't the case. The details are so disparate that it makes any conclusion impossible. Thousands and thousands of eyewitness accounts are only subjective experiences. But if we could get thousands and thousands of clear polaroid pictures from Italians, Chinese, Africans, Australians, Americans, and so on, then our conclusions may be more intelligent and less based on the sort of speculations we are making here. Spadge: The monkey in search of a coke-can-tree is hilarious but makes a lot of sense. I do believe that in a couple of hundred years our technology will be absolutely unlike anything we know today. ------------------ dumaurier
