• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

UFO's and Aliens


  • Please log in to reply
111 replies to this topic

#61 solbanger

  • Guest
  • 215 posts
  • 11

Posted 31 January 2008 - 05:52 PM

UFOs" would still be confined to laws of physics, and therefore are not supernatural or magical, and there is some evidence for their existance,

What if they're from another dimension and order a totally different set of physical laws and they produce what we consider to be supernatural?

Even if these hypothetical beings found a way to tunnel through to our Universe, they'd still be constrained by the physical laws of this Universe and would therefore have to map themselves into a form that is compatible with those laws if they wished to interact in any way with our baryonic world. I'm not sure if it would be possible to actually change the physical laws within a localized region of space-time, but if they could it may cause a bit of a mess of the surrounding environment. And imagine if they got their calculations reversed and instantiated as anti-matter? Boooooooooom!


I don't think that we can rush to judgement yet on this question simply because we don't know all the laws of physics of this Universe yet. For all we know a thousand loopholes may exist for creatures that have progressed pass the 3rd dimension. They may not be constrained by anything. Especially if an entity found a way to cross universes (if "Universe" in concept is a singular frame, which I doubt.) I think that our understanding of space/time is so rudimentary that we have a ridiculously narrow concept of the potential of matter, or for that matter what matter matters?;) Remember what is considered nearly absolute, such as our linear observation of time, breaks down at the extremes of space time - from our perspective.

Edited by solbanger, 31 January 2008 - 11:41 PM.


#62 rippinit

  • Guest
  • 21 posts
  • 0
  • Location:San Antonio, Texas

Posted 01 February 2008 - 05:12 AM

UFOs" would still be confined to laws of physics, and therefore are not supernatural or magical, and there is some evidence for their existance,

What if they're from another dimension and order a totally different set of physical laws and they produce what we consider to be supernatural?

Even if these hypothetical beings found a way to tunnel through to our Universe, they'd still be constrained by the physical laws of this Universe and would therefore have to map themselves into a form that is compatible with those laws if they wished to interact in any way with our baryonic world. I'm not sure if it would be possible to actually change the physical laws within a localized region of space-time, but if they could it may cause a bit of a mess of the surrounding environment. And imagine if they got their calculations reversed and instantiated as anti-matter? Boooooooooom!


Well, how many dimensions are there? The last I heard quantum physicists were rounding the corner at 10. Hmmm... Even more thought provoking is that some scientists are now theorizing that space time is variable rather than constant. Hmmm...

There actually a long list of recent discoveries that have all but eliminated any hope of finding a GUT. Man's knowledge is still rather puny.

#63 Alien65

  • Guest
  • 115 posts
  • 3
  • Location:Phoenix, Arizona

Posted 01 February 2008 - 05:17 AM

In 1963 I was in USAF intellegence working in a lead encased vault on a SAC base. Our vault was connected to a vault on another base via lead encased cables. I was working the cryptograph machine and began receiving unusal messages. Three saucer shaped objects were hovering over the missle silos on the other base. Because of the EMP effect from the crafts, all things electrical in the immediate area ceased working including the ability to scramble jet fighters. The exception was the vault where the occupants would go outside for visual observations and then report their sightings to us via cryptograhy. After about 20 minutes, the crafts lifted up and lights came back on in the area. Fighters were dispatched and came within visual distance whereupon the craft disappeared in an instance. Electronic circuitry in the missle silos was damaged and put temporarily out of order. I was told by my superior officer to shred the documents.
A similar incident occured in 1967. Please see http://www.cufon.org...strom/malm1.htm

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#64 rippinit

  • Guest
  • 21 posts
  • 0
  • Location:San Antonio, Texas

Posted 01 February 2008 - 05:21 AM

UFOs" would still be confined to laws of physics, and therefore are not supernatural or magical, and there is some evidence for their existance,

What if they're from another dimension and order a totally different set of physical laws and they produce what we consider to be supernatural?

Even if these hypothetical beings found a way to tunnel through to our Universe, they'd still be constrained by the physical laws of this Universe and would therefore have to map themselves into a form that is compatible with those laws if they wished to interact in any way with our baryonic world. I'm not sure if it would be possible to actually change the physical laws within a localized region of space-time, but if they could it may cause a bit of a mess of the surrounding environment. And imagine if they got their calculations reversed and instantiated as anti-matter? Boooooooooom!


I don't think that we can rush to judgement yet on this question simply because we don't know all the laws of physics of this Universe yet. For all we know a thousand loopholes may exist for creatures that have progressed pass the 3rd dimension. They may not be constrained by anything. Especially if an entity found a way to cross universes (if "Universe" in concept is a singular frame, which I doubt.) I think that our understanding of space/time is so rudimentary that we have a ridiculously narrow concept of the potential of matter, or for that matter what matter matters? ;) Remember what is considered nearly absolute, such as our linear observation of time, breaks down at the extremes of space time - from our perspective.


I like this video that was used in a few commercials for Sci-Fi before it was yanked. The commercials invited you to visit Sci-Fi were the footage would be explained. It wasn't there for long.



So what are the white streaks descending from the high center to the left? There are three barely visible in the video. Barbara "whomever" never discussed them nor did Sci-Fi. What is interesting, as you may realize as you watch, is that Barbara and the pilot were actually filming the white streaks when the UFO appears from behind the tower (at the same spot of the 2nd impact). I am partial to believing that the UFO is real and Barbara was forced or convinced to change her story. Definately wouldn't be the first time an elaborate cover up was employed.

Edited by rippinit, 01 February 2008 - 06:11 PM.


#65 rippinit

  • Guest
  • 21 posts
  • 0
  • Location:San Antonio, Texas

Posted 01 February 2008 - 05:26 AM

In 1963 I was in USAF intellegence working in a lead encased vault on a SAC base. Our vault was connected to a vault on another base via lead encased cables. I was working the cryptograph machine and began receiving unusal messages. Three saucer shaped objects were hovering over the missle silos on the other base. Because of the EMP effect from the crafts, all things electrical in the immediate area ceased working including the ability to scramble jet fighters. The exception was the vault where the occupants would go outside for visual observations and then report their sightings to us via cryptograhy. After about 20 minutes, the crafts lifted up and lights came back on in the area. Fighters were dispatched and came within visual distance whereupon the craft disappeared in an instance. Electronic circuitry in the missle silos was damaged and put temporarily out of order. I was told by my superior officer to shred the documents.
A similar incident occured in 1967. Please see http://www.cufon.org...strom/malm1.htm


I suppose some of us know there is more than what is on the surface.

#66 basho

  • Guest
  • 774 posts
  • 1
  • Location:oʎʞoʇ

Posted 01 February 2008 - 11:30 AM

In 1963 I was in USAF intellegence working in a lead encased vault on a SAC base. ...

I suppose some of us know there is more than what is on the surface.

It's not that people are prejudiced against you on these things, but think about what Carl Sagan said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."* Now remember that Sagan was very interested in UFOs, and he was the guy who conceived of the idea of placing a universal message on space probes leaving the solar system, on Pioneer 10, on Pioneer 11 and the Voyager Golden Record on the Voyager space probes. Its worth reading this interview with Sagan on the topic where he discusses the justification for seeking evidence and treating the topic scientifically.

*This quote is also known as the principle of Laplace (Pierre-Simon Marquis de Laplace 1749-1827): "The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness."

An extract:

I personally have been captured by the notion of extraterrestrial life, and especially extraterrestrial intelligence from childhood. It swept me up, and I've been involved in sending space craft to nearby planets to look for life and in the radio search for extraterrestrial intelligence...

It would be an absolutely transforming event in human history. But, the stakes are so high on whether it's true or false, that we must demand the more rigorous standards of evidence. Precisely because it's so exciting. That's the circumstance in which our hopes may dominate our skeptical scrutiny of the data. So, we have to be very careful. There have been a few instances in the [past]. We thought we found something, and it always turned out to be explicable...

Precisely because of human fallibility, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

And my second point is that to the extent that extraordinary claims require extraordinary investigations, those investigations must be true to the spirit of science. And that means highly skeptical, demanding, rigorous standards of evidence.

If someone came to me with compelling, bona fide evidence that we're being visited, my reaction would be "Whoopee!" And I'd want to play a role in analyzing the evidence. I would try very hard to bring in the absolute best scientists in the world to study it.... I don't think that scientists are prejudiced to begin with. Prejudice means pre-judging. They're post-judice. After examining the evidence they decide there's nothing to it. There's a big difference between prejudice and post-judice.

So you can see that many of us here really want the existence of alien civilizations to be proven. But there has to be some credible evidence.

#67 rippinit

  • Guest
  • 21 posts
  • 0
  • Location:San Antonio, Texas

Posted 01 February 2008 - 12:26 PM

In 1963 I was in USAF intellegence working in a lead encased vault on a SAC base. ...

I suppose some of us know there is more than what is on the surface.

It's not that people are prejudiced against you on these things, but think about what Carl Sagan said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."*


So if you say that you have a migraine headache throughout your entire body I can say you are wrong because you are unable to provide what I would deem as irrefutable evidence??

I would not deem Carl Sagan as the preeminent mind of mankind incapable of being completely wrong. To the contrary, I think Sagan was very wrong about alot of things. The fact that the standard atomic theory is now complete junk is only one clear example of how seemingly intelligent people get it flat wrong.

One may need to see past obstructions to see credible evidence.

Edited by rippinit, 01 February 2008 - 12:31 PM.


#68 basho

  • Guest
  • 774 posts
  • 1
  • Location:oʎʞoʇ

Posted 01 February 2008 - 12:42 PM

So if you say that you have a migraine headache throughout your entire body I can say you are wrong because you are unable to provide what I would deem as irrefutable evidence??

I would not deem Carl Sagan as the preeminent mind of mankind incapable of being completely wrong. To the contrary, I think Sagan was very wrong about alot of things. The fact that the standard atomic theory is now complete junk is only one clear example of how seemingly intelligent people get it flat wrong.

One may need to see past obstructions to see credible evidence.

Fail.

#69 basho

  • Guest
  • 774 posts
  • 1
  • Location:oʎʞoʇ

Posted 01 February 2008 - 12:55 PM

Posted Image


Edited by basho, 01 February 2008 - 12:57 PM.


#70 rippinit

  • Guest
  • 21 posts
  • 0
  • Location:San Antonio, Texas

Posted 01 February 2008 - 03:18 PM

So if you say that you have a migraine headache throughout your entire body I can say you are wrong because you are unable to provide what I would deem as irrefutable evidence??

I would not deem Carl Sagan as the preeminent mind of mankind incapable of being completely wrong. To the contrary, I think Sagan was very wrong about alot of things. The fact that the standard atomic theory is now complete junk is only one clear example of how seemingly intelligent people get it flat wrong.

One may need to see past obstructions to see credible evidence.

Fail.



Just because we have no proof of something doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist.


Logically, it does. The positive existential proclamation bears the burden of proof. This is why a prosecutor must prove a crime was committed and then who committed the crime. The logical default for the positive prmise that a crime has been committed is not "yes" or even "maybe" but "no".

I think Scott Peterson would disagree with you on that as he now sits on death row without direct proof. Circumstantial evidence though it my be circumstantial is still evidence. It would of taken a fool to not see that Scott Peterson was guilty though there was no smoking gun. The prosecutor in his case relied solely upon circumstantial evidence. Your example is poor.

If I loudly proclaim that I have an invisible dragonin my garage, the logical default for that proposition, barring evidence, is "no".

I don't care what people believe. I care when people pervert logic to support the mistaken idea that their belief is logical when it is not.


If you knew there was a dragon in your garage (and there was) you would be right even if others didn't believe you. If Scott Peterson perverted evidence so he could not be convicted it would take people of intelligence to be able to construct the truth despite the attempted cover up. That would be more difficult for you to do though if you had an interest in Scott Peterson being free.

If one of your neighbors heard roars coming from your garage, felt the ground shaking, and saw a giant green thing breathing fire and smoke through cracks in the garage door he might suspect there was a dragon in your garage. But, if one neighbor had bet another neighbor $100,000 that the police were going to come and put you in a straight jacket on your way to the loony bin that neighbor would have interest in continuing to deny any possibility of dragons existing at all despite any evidence.

Edited by rippinit, 01 February 2008 - 05:44 PM.


#71 marcopolo

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 128 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Fair Oaks, California

Posted 13 February 2008 - 02:19 AM

So if you say that you have a migraine headache throughout your entire body I can say you are wrong because you are unable to provide what I would deem as irrefutable evidence??

I would not deem Carl Sagan as the preeminent mind of mankind incapable of being completely wrong. To the contrary, I think Sagan was very wrong about alot of things. The fact that the standard atomic theory is now complete junk is only one clear example of how seemingly intelligent people get it flat wrong.

One may need to see past obstructions to see credible evidence.

Fail.



Just because we have no proof of something doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist.


Logically, it does. The positive existential proclamation bears the burden of proof. This is why a prosecutor must prove a crime was committed and then who committed the crime. The logical default for the positive prmise that a crime has been committed is not "yes" or even "maybe" but "no".

I think Scott Peterson would disagree with you on that as he now sits on death row without direct proof. Circumstantial evidence though it my be circumstantial is still evidence. It would of taken a fool to not see that Scott Peterson was guilty though there was no smoking gun. The prosecutor in his case relied solely upon circumstantial evidence. Your example is poor.

If I loudly proclaim that I have an invisible dragonin my garage, the logical default for that proposition, barring evidence, is "no".

I don't care what people believe. I care when people pervert logic to support the mistaken idea that their belief is logical when it is not.


If you knew there was a dragon in your garage (and there was) you would be right even if others didn't believe you. If Scott Peterson perverted evidence so he could not be convicted it would take people of intelligence to be able to construct the truth despite the attempted cover up. That would be more difficult for you to do though if you had an interest in Scott Peterson being free.

If one of your neighbors heard roars coming from your garage, felt the ground shaking, and saw a giant green thing breathing fire and smoke through cracks in the garage door he might suspect there was a dragon in your garage. But, if one neighbor had bet another neighbor $100,000 that the police were going to come and put you in a straight jacket on your way to the loony bin that neighbor would have interest in continuing to deny any possibility of dragons existing at all despite any evidence.

Lack of proof doesn't mean proof of lack of existence and I think this applies somewhat for UFO's. Many people seem to take an extreme view either way, similar to religion. Either we are being visited, there is a vast govt coverup and conspiracy, etc. or we definitely aren't being visited and it is all hogwash. The reality is there is evidence for it but not yet proof.
One thing I find funny with the die hard debunkers is that they will argue that it is impossible we are being visited because the distances between the stars is too far to travel for alien lifeforms. Then they will turn around and bring up Fermi's paradox and say it is unlikely there is technological life in the galaxy otherwise we would have been visited. After they say this I bring up that there is some evidence we have been visited, and they say that it is a bunch of hogwash because travel between the stars is too impractical. :~ ??

#72 basho

  • Guest
  • 774 posts
  • 1
  • Location:oʎʞoʇ

Posted 13 February 2008 - 08:27 AM

Lack of proof doesn't mean proof of lack of existence and I think this applies somewhat for UFO's.

Let me highlight Carl Sagan's statement again since he covers it extremely well. And I will repeat, Sagan was the guy who conceived of the idea of placing a universal message on space probes leaving the solar system, on Pioneer 10, on Pioneer 11 and the Voyager Golden Record on the Voyager space probes. That is not the action of a person who believes alien life is impossible.

I personally have been captured by the notion of extraterrestrial life, and especially extraterrestrial intelligence from childhood. It swept me up, and I've been involved in sending space craft to nearby planets to look for life and in the radio search for extraterrestrial intelligence...

It would be an absolutely transforming event in human history. But, the stakes are so high on whether it's true or false, that we must demand the more rigorous standards of evidence. Precisely because it's so exciting. That's the circumstance in which our hopes may dominate our skeptical scrutiny of the data. So, we have to be very careful. There have been a few instances in the [past]. We thought we found something, and it always turned out to be explicable...

Precisely because of human fallibility, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

And my second point is that to the extent that extraordinary claims require extraordinary investigations, those investigations must be true to the spirit of science. And that means highly skeptical, demanding, rigorous standards of evidence.

If someone came to me with compelling, bona fide evidence that we're being visited, my reaction would be "Whoopee!" And I'd want to play a role in analyzing the evidence. I would try very hard to bring in the absolute best scientists in the world to study it.... I don't think that scientists are prejudiced to begin with. Prejudice means pre-judging. They're post-judice. After examining the evidence they decide there's nothing to it. There's a big difference between prejudice and post-judice.

People like to believe in the existence of exciting and amazing things despite the lack of any rigorous evidence. Sagan points out that he too would have loved to have found extraterrestrial intelligence, and because of this he acknowledges the human fallibility in seeing what you want to see. This is where an increased focus on verifiable evidence can help immensely. People are not saying it is not possible, they are saying it would be such an incredible discovery that we need to treat it with increased seriousness.

#73 basho

  • Guest
  • 774 posts
  • 1
  • Location:oʎʞoʇ

Posted 13 February 2008 - 01:04 PM

And for the record, despite sounding skeptical, I hope we find evidence for the existence of alien intelligences, and find it suspicious in the extreme that we see no definitive evidence. Something is just not right with this -- possibly we are missing something significant with our assumptions and understanding of the Universe, or else we are the subject of an enormous practical joke in which case I will be very pissed off.

Of course, if we find evidence of alien visitations or make contact with an off-world species, and they also turn out to be hot, that will be a bonus.

Attached File  lum.jpg   10.87KB   27 downloads
Figure 1. Example of a hot alien female - Lum- whom Basho hopes to meet.
Lum is the daughter of the Oni alien Invader and is capable of flying and generating
massive electrical discharges, along with strange movements in teenage boys' pants.
The owner of a very sexy body, she has long green hair and wears a tiger-striped bikini
and
Go-Go Boots.



#74 marcopolo

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 128 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Fair Oaks, California

Posted 14 February 2008 - 01:11 AM

And for the record, despite sounding skeptical, I hope we find evidence for the existence of alien intelligences, and find it suspicious in the extreme that we see no definitive evidence. Something is just not right with this -- possibly we are missing something significant with our assumptions and understanding of the Universe, or else we are the subject of an enormous practical joke in which case I will be very pissed off.

Of course, if we find evidence of alien visitations or make contact with an off-world species, and they also turn out to be hot, that will be a bonus.

Attached File  lum.jpg   10.87KB   27 downloads
Figure 1. Example of a hot alien female - Lum- whom Basho hopes to meet.
Lum is the daughter of the Oni alien Invader and is capable of flying and generating
massive electrical discharges, along with strange movements in teenage boys' pants.
The owner of a very sexy body, she has long green hair and wears a tiger-striped bikini
and
Go-Go Boots.


I think Lun looks more like a Japanese alien than one from Oni, but maybe they look similar, or they colonized Japan in ancient times-but what do I know...

What exactly do you consider evidence? Not proof, but evidence? Does evidence require that you are holding a piece of alien technology or biology in your hands, or a verifiable message from out of this world? Are there instances where radar and visual evidence could be, while not proof, still evidence to support the idea that we are perhaps being visited?

#75 solbanger

  • Guest
  • 215 posts
  • 11

Posted 14 February 2008 - 06:14 PM

I hope we find evidence for the existence of alien intelligences, and find it suspicious in the extreme that we see no definitive evidence.


There's tons of evidence. No really TONS of evidence from accepted sources such as NASA and various astronomers of objects in space that regularly exhibit patterns of intelligent control. Go on google video and you'll see what I mean. Even the astronauts from the early Apollo missions reported seeing bizzare shapes hovering in the distance. The way UFOs behave you can infer a little. For one thing, apparently they don't want us to see them since they distinctly seem to have devices that make them invisible to the naked eye - the best footage was seen in infra-red. Secondly they have a hands off approach to our planet. I believe they see humans less as some noble creature that deserves recognition like we see ourselves, but rather as another iteration of DNA on this planet. The human species interacts mechanically with all the other DNA in a dance of energy exchange throughout the global ecosystem. This is why chaos theory, you know a butterfly flaps its wings... eventually causing a hurricane, is really a template for the interconnectedness of energy on planet Earth.

As for definitive evidence, the main problem with all of our video footage is mainly that it is not sharp enough. Our lack of technological sophistication is, logically so, keeping us from catching entities that have technology attuned to avoid human detection. Just wait for video technology to sharpen to the point where we can see people's faces in the windows of airplanes from the ground. Then catching one of these space anomalies should be easy to prove. Finally no reason exists for them to want to reveal themselves to us, even if we know about them. So what if the average American wants, badly, to make contact? Will the beings suddenly abandon their clandestine operations because the natives are aware of some external influence they can't put their fingers on. That's ridiculous. Even people that naively think that the beings would want to be their friends make no sense. Do you think it makes sense to undo probably thousands of years of Earth visitation and experimentation to make friends with the polite human on the street that likes Sci-fi shows? That's human egotistical nonsense. If the creatures want a human friend, they could easily breed a pet somewhere other than on Earth, like how we do with dogs and cats. You don't see people trotting out to the woods to find feral cats as pets.

What purpose would it serve to reveal to primatives capabilities that they have no hope of comprehending? Really what do we have to offer a space faring civilization with enough power in one craft to carve the Earth in two? What? Other than raw DNA and perhaps mental potential, the beings probably have about as much regard for us as a scientist does for ants in an antfarm. The only reason why the beings are hidden is because they chose to be.

Edited by solbanger, 14 February 2008 - 07:38 PM.


#76 thughes

  • Guest
  • 262 posts
  • 120
  • Location:Raleigh, North Carolina

Posted 15 February 2008 - 02:11 AM

I'm not sure a public video site is a credible source of evidence. Too easy to fake stuff, and its plainly clear to me that 1/2 the population can't tell a UFO from a fly in front of their camera (or a ghost from lights shining on the lens for that matter).

Without definitive evidence the rest of the above is all speculation, kind of like saying the evidence is not there because the big government conspiracy hid it. Even though its plausible, and would be cool if right, although I don't really agree with the attitude your speculation gives aliens. If they are here, we must be at least somewhat interesting, and besides, we're technological. If intelligence is rare, that must be cool.

I always wished they'd just freaking land and fix our medical problems for us ...

- Mey

#77 marcopolo

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 128 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Fair Oaks, California

Posted 15 February 2008 - 03:34 AM

As for definitive evidence, the main problem with all of our video footage is mainly that it is not sharp enough.

Debunkers claim the lousy photographic and video evidence is proof enough they don't exist. If they were real, they say, wouldn't the photo or video be of higher quality. The reality is most people are rotten photographers with amateur equipment that isn't meant to capture images in the distance. With a standard focal length lens, about the same as your eyes, the full moon will appear to be a little tiny over exposed dot in the night sky, even though you remember it being this huge orb in all its glorious detail. Not only that, but to try to photograph a moving object at night is even more difficult, due to low light conditions(most lenses are not built for night use), and motion blur/camera shake. Of course they are not going to capture great images in these circumstances. The chances of a professional photographer/videographer being in the right place at the right time, with his professional equipment to capture the sighting, is very slim compared to your average Joe with his camera phone capturing an image of it.

#78 Brainbox

  • Member
  • 2,860 posts
  • 743
  • Location:Netherlands
  • NO

Posted 01 March 2008 - 10:41 PM

About evidence, media manipulations, individual perceptions, priorities, importance of behavioural aspects and issues you never dreamed about:

Attached Files


Edited by brainbox, 01 March 2008 - 10:49 PM.


#79 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,386 posts
  • 240
  • Location:Italy

Posted 02 March 2008 - 01:10 AM

There's tons of evidence. No really TONS of evidence from accepted sources such as NASA and various astronomers of objects in space that regularly exhibit patterns of intelligent control.

I don't think so. If there were a lot of UFOs flying around, why don't airline pilots and amateur astronomers see them all the time? Also, since 5 years there are probably over a billion people carrying a camera around in some form - where are all the new photos?

#80 spaceistheplace

  • Guest
  • 397 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Sacramento

Posted 02 March 2008 - 02:13 AM

There's tons of evidence. No really TONS of evidence from accepted sources such as NASA and various astronomers of objects in space that regularly exhibit patterns of intelligent control.

I don't think so. If there were a lot of UFOs flying around, why don't airline pilots and amateur astronomers see them all the time? Also, since 5 years there are probably over a billion people carrying a camera around in some form - where are all the new photos?


I suppose if you had a high end long range lense, a tripod, and knew exactly where the UFO would be, then you might get a decent photo.

#81 xEva

  • Guest
  • 1,594 posts
  • 24
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 05 March 2008 - 01:25 AM

Hi, I'm Lex and I'm new here. Came to see what modern immortalists are like. Funny that you should have UFOs&Aliens thread.

Anyways, I feel a bit privileged because I happened to see two UFOs back in early 1970s in former Leningrad. I saw them pretty close too, as I was crossing Liteiny bridge on foot late at night and they were following the course of Neva river and flew over the bridge at the height of trolley bus cables. They were silvery saucer type. The thing about them was, they were small - about 60cm diameter only. So, if there were any aliens inside, they had to be very, very small. I dashed toward them when saw them about 30 meters ahead and the closest I got was about 5 meters, already when they were descending toward water and dissolved into darkness.

I tried to talk about it the next day, but no one ever believed me. Laughed at me instead. I never mentioned it again until decades later when I posted my account on a UFO board. What surprised me was that they questioned not what I saw but me, as if it mattered or changed anything.

So I will not be surprised if you too will look at me askance. The thing is, if I never saw it with my own eyes, I'd probably discount all the UFO stories also. It's one of those things - you gotta experience it to believe it.

But then, why not? The Universe gotta be teaming with life and if some of it is very advanced and can come and visit from time to time, it's to be expected. Earth is a fascinating place. As to why they would not want to mess with us - who knows. It is obvious that they don't want to interfere in any way. Maybe they treat us as endangered species, hehe. Whatever their reason, there are too many accounts, many of them quite credible to disbelieve them all.

Edited by Lex, 05 March 2008 - 02:10 AM.


#82 solbanger

  • Guest
  • 215 posts
  • 11

Posted 13 March 2008 - 08:16 PM

There's tons of evidence. No really TONS of evidence from accepted sources such as NASA and various astronomers of objects in space that regularly exhibit patterns of intelligent control.

I don't think so. If there were a lot of UFOs flying around, why don't airline pilots and amateur astronomers see them all the time? Also, since 5 years there are probably over a billion people carrying a camera around in some form - where are all the new photos?


You're thinking in twentith century restrictions. Come back in 10,000 years and you'll comprehend why we're so isolated from the phenomena. Just because advanced technology doesn't fit what you expect based off of your current experience doesn't mean that it won't change. That's like showing a car to a thirteenth century tibetian nomad and him asking "Where does the horse go?" Consider that in all probability if humans were to continue their technological trajectory vehicles will take shape that can warp time /space, and probably even light.

You have to understand that many of the UFOs are cloaked. They operate with the intent of being invisible to the naked eye. Hence the recent video by the Mexican air force of objects only visible in infra-red!

As to why most of them are cloaked is all speculation. Also remember not only the UFOs, but the navigators may have reflexes beyond current human limits, so these vehicles may operate naturally at incredible velocities with ease. Quite difficult to catch with cameras designed to take photos of the family picnic.

Again NASA has video of metal objects hovering in the distance of the space shuttle and they move seemingly under control. Space debris doesn't maneuver.

Edited by solbanger, 13 March 2008 - 08:48 PM.


#83 forever freedom

  • Guest
  • 2,362 posts
  • 67

Posted 15 March 2008 - 06:43 AM

Hi, I'm Lex and I'm new here. Came to see what modern immortalists are like. Funny that you should have UFOs&Aliens thread.

Anyways, I feel a bit privileged because I happened to see two UFOs back in early 1970s in former Leningrad. I saw them pretty close too, as I was crossing Liteiny bridge on foot late at night and they were following the course of Neva river and flew over the bridge at the height of trolley bus cables. They were silvery saucer type. The thing about them was, they were small - about 60cm diameter only. So, if there were any aliens inside, they had to be very, very small. I dashed toward them when saw them about 30 meters ahead and the closest I got was about 5 meters, already when they were descending toward water and dissolved into darkness.

I tried to talk about it the next day, but no one ever believed me. Laughed at me instead. I never mentioned it again until decades later when I posted my account on a UFO board. What surprised me was that they questioned not what I saw but me, as if it mattered or changed anything.

So I will not be surprised if you too will look at me askance. The thing is, if I never saw it with my own eyes, I'd probably discount all the UFO stories also. It's one of those things - you gotta experience it to believe it.

But then, why not? The Universe gotta be teaming with life and if some of it is very advanced and can come and visit from time to time, it's to be expected. Earth is a fascinating place. As to why they would not want to mess with us - who knows. It is obvious that they don't want to interfere in any way. Maybe they treat us as endangered species, hehe. Whatever their reason, there are too many accounts, many of them quite credible to disbelieve them all.



I wish i had the same experience you had with UFOs, but i do believe you. I'm sure that many people have seen weird stuff flying around, and it's just a matter of odds wether someone sees it in their lifetime or not. These are either currently unknown nature phenomena, tricks played on us by our minds, or, indeed, alien ships -i do not belive it's military secret project stuff since they obviously don't have such an advanced tech-.

Believing in UFOs and in advanced alien civilizations out there in the universe doesn't seem much of an unrealistic possibility. Actually, that's very likely to be the case when you think more about it. I hope we as a civilization get, some day, before we blow ourselves up, to the point when an alien civilization may see us as worthy of contact.

#84 Matt

  • Guest
  • 2,862 posts
  • 149
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • NO

Posted 15 March 2008 - 08:29 PM

Some of you might be interested in this show. Lots of interesting talks here... good presenter too
http://radio.seti.org/

#85 gashinshotan

  • Guest
  • 443 posts
  • -2

Posted 16 March 2008 - 04:03 AM

As soon as aliens make contact I'm defecting so I can get into a position of power right away in the human-control bureaucracy they'll put into place :).

#86 gashinshotan

  • Guest
  • 443 posts
  • -2

Posted 16 March 2008 - 04:06 AM

Racist content deleted.

Edited by niner, 16 March 2008 - 04:16 AM.


#87 Matt

  • Guest
  • 2,862 posts
  • 149
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • NO

Posted 18 March 2008 - 12:17 AM

When it comes to contacting ET, SETI scientists do the math. They've been filling in values for the Drake Equation ever since 1961. That's when Frank Drake proposed his simple formula for estimating the number of communicating civilizations in the galaxy. It's one equation that everyone can understand.

We'll talk about the current best estimates for the terms in Drake's famous formulation - from the number of Earth-size planets to the life expectancy of advanced civilizations. Also, with all this number crunching, why haven't we yet heard from ET?

Guests:

* Frank Drake - Senior Scientist, SETI Institute
* Charley Lineweaver - Astrobiologist at the Australian National University
* Lori Marino - Behavioral Biologist at Emory University
* J. Richard Gott - Physicist at Princeton University
* Natalie Batalha - Professor of Physics and Astronomy, San Jose State University, and science team member, Kepler Mission


WMA: http://dlc.sun.com/s...WA_08-03-17.wma

MP3: (higher quality)

Source; http://radio.seti.org/

Edited by Matt, 18 March 2008 - 12:18 AM.


#88 E.T.

  • Guest
  • 183 posts
  • 3

Posted 24 April 2008 - 09:57 AM

See this video

Michio Kaku On Aliens, On Physics ...
http://video.google....5...h&plindex=1

Michio Kaku On Civilizations Types I,II & III
http://video.google....5...h&plindex=1

Both are very interesting and clearly explained :D


He is claiming arbitrary moral stances as absolute by defining Type 1, 2, or 3 civilizations. He is using his personal moral bias to define these types of civilizations, as if such definitions are intergalactically ubiquitous, or even biologically real. I think he should stick to where his expertise lies: general physics, and stop delving into philosophy/religion until he acquires a better understanding. This is just my opinion. He claims that humans are arogant, yet he arrogantly takes the moral high ground by claiming that certain moral systems are the lowly "type 0," while a Marxist system is "type 3" that superior aliens will achieve.

Edited by E.T., 24 April 2008 - 09:59 AM.


#89 Andrew Shevchuk

  • Guest
  • 75 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Tucson, AZ

Posted 29 April 2008 - 01:38 AM

I just want to point out that there is a paper published in prominent astronomical literature on the ability to detect the transit of an artificially-shaped object around a distant star. Just in case anyone is interested of course. :-)

http://www.journals..../10.1086/430437

#90 william7

  • Guest
  • 1,777 posts
  • 17
  • Location:US

Posted 20 December 2009 - 04:18 AM

UFOs - FOX News - Mexican Air Force - CNN News - OVNIs






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users