UFO Phenomenon - Any real scientific material

Myrddin · 12-04-2013 11:46am

Deleted User wrote: »

If you then present the documention written up by the military saying they what was seen was military flares . I will present you with 2 people from the US military under oath stating that aliens are real and that they have seen UFO's!

That still doesn't mean it wasn't flares though? And for those two people who say there are aliens...they're thousands in the military that say otherwise. Do we just put more stock in what we want to believe, rather than the more likely reality?

maninasia · 12-04-2013 1:11pm

Rob Humanoid wrote: »

One thing I find very strange about many people who claim to see UFOs or other preternatural phenomena is that they immediately jump to a supernatural conclusion instead of using 'Occam's Razor'. Which should always be the first port of call. Just because you can't explain it at that time, location or personal view point.

A really good example of this is the 'Phoenix lights incident'. Virtually everyone swore it was a massive triangular craft including Police officers. In fact, a couple of them even tried to follow it. A string of military flares was the true explanation, and that's been very well documented imo (just take a look at the evidence). But yet there are still a few hardcore people who think it's a conspiracy/cover up. You can't really talk to these people...

.....

I'm sure alien life exists out there somewhere, but I doubt they have ever been to our tiny infinitesimal planet.

Actually you are jumping to conclusions about the Phoenix lights, I am led to believe there were two separate events about an hour apart. Some people saw some type of craft. Actually this is very believable, as there have been many many sightings of 'black triangle' craft in the US (and in NATO countries including UK and Belgiun) over the years, going on until this day, and they are very possibly secret aircraft belong to the military.

As for Occams razor, it's a handy principle, but it's often dead wrong. Why?

a) The simplest explanation is not always right. So when it's wrong, it's 100% wrong
b) the definition of the simplest explanation changes as our knowledge base changes

So using Occam's razor I reached a very different conclusion than you have. That's because I am more knowledgeable regarding 'black triangle' sightings than you are. You seem to think that 'huge' means it wasn't secret aircraft, it's an arbitrary judgement on your part due to your lack of research in this area. The Phoenix Lights could easily fit into a pattern of sightings over many decades, it is simply one of the most famous ones. The Hudson Valley sightings and 1000s of other less famous sightings reports have been made of generally low flying slow moving huge craft moving around at nighttime.

Apart from thousands of reports of 'black triangles' there is information available publicly on hybrid lighter than air aircraft and there are even private contractors that were working on contracts for the US military. LHV have an advantage in that they could carry huge amounts of cargo relatively cheaply and can stay aloft for much longer than conventional aircraft. I'll let you think a bit more about that one.

If there is alien life in our galaxy there is almost 100% certainty that they have spread throughout the galaxy. In fact we may be offspring of the aliens, in terms of bacteria that landed on Earth billions of years ago. Our current scientific understanding means we should have an alien presence in our vicinity (given our understanding of evolutionary processes, billions of planets in this galaxy alone, billions of years of existence prior to our evolution including many older solar systems, mixing of material as we travel through the galactic plane and planets and comets are ejected into space), why we haven't detected them yet, I can't tell for sure, but most likely it's due to our very limited current technological capabilities.

Myrddin · 12-04-2013 1:19pm

maninasia wrote: »

Actually you are jumping to conclusions.....

....If there is alien life in our galaxy there is almost 100% certainty that they have spread throughout the galaxy. In fact we may be offspring of the aliens, in terms of bacteria that landed on Earth billions of years ago

Just saying

Occams Razor is by no means infallible, but in this case its either

1) Miltary flares, with admission of this by said party.
2) Covert craft, obviously of unknown design
3) An alien craft

I'd say Occams Razor would be spot on for number 1, certainly possible for number 2, with 3 being the most unlikely {but not impossible} scenario

maninasia · 12-04-2013 1:27pm

EnterNow wrote: »

Just saying

Occams Razor is by no means infallible, but in this case its either

1) Miltary flares, with admission of this by said party.
2) Covert craft, obviously of unknown design
3) An alien craft

I'd say Occams Razor would be spot on for number 1, certainly possible for number 2, with 3 being the most unlikely {but not impossible} scenario

What do you mean 'just saying'?
The likelihood of alien life spreading through the galaxy is close to a 100% as life doesn't just stick around where it started, it tends to move and diversify and speciate and look for new resources. Once a life form managed to evolve to live in space it can spread through the entire galaxy, what would stop it? Do you think a fish just stays in his part of the ocean

?.
That's just passive spread like bacteria on comets or in dust clouds, advanced civilizations can do it in a much more directed way.

As life started on Earth almost immediately after Earth's crust cooled, it seems very possible that bacteria landed on Earth from somewhere else (almost anywhere we look we can find bacteria, Kms beneath the land or ocean crust, in the oceans, in the ice, in the atmosphere, there are also bacteria than can withstand space vacuum and very high radiation levels). It's not the only possibility, but it's certainly up there (the universe has existed for almost 14 billion years so it was already almost 10 billion years old before Earth's crust cooled). The idea that we couldn't be related to other life forms in the galaxy is very shortsighted.

Agreed on your relative probabilities for the Phoenix lights, but the chance of no.2 is fairly high, probably much higher than most people realise.

Myrddin · 12-04-2013 1:38pm

maninasia wrote: »

What do you mean 'just saying'?

You just there a few mins ago pulled up another poster for jumping to conclusions, & then you go on about intergalactic advanced civilizations. Given that we've yet to find a single cell of life outside our Earth, its nothing but speculation...no matter how probable...to talk about such advanced civilizations.

The likelihood of alien life spreading through the galaxy is close to a 100% as life doesn't just stick around where it started, it tends to move and diversify and speciate and look for new resources. Once a life form managed to evolve to live in space it can spread through the entire galaxy, what would stop it?

Well life forms {bacteria} certainly can survive in space...and yet as far as we know, we're still alone...certainly in this part of space anyway.

Do you think a fish just stays in his part of the ocean ?.
That's just passive spread like bacteria on comets or in dust clouds, advanced civilizations can do it in a much more directed way.

How do you know there are any advanced civilizations? How do you know we arn't of the more advanced ones? What about relativity, the speed of light, the galactic levels of energy required to make theoretical wormholes? Its all speculation.

As life started on Earth almost immediately after Earth's crust cooled, it seems very possible that bacteria landed on Earth from somewhere else (almost anywhere we look we can find bacteria, Kms beneath the land or ocean crust, in the oceans, in the ice, in the atmosphere, there are also bacteria than can withstand space vacuum and very high radiation levels). It's not the only possibility, but it's certainly up there (the universe has existed for almost 14 billion years so it was already almost 10 billion years old before Earth's crust cooled).

Yes thats all very probable stuff, but it still doesn't show us there's any life out there

Agreed on your relative probabilities for the Phoenix lights, but the chance of no.2 is fairly high, probably much higher than most people realise.

I agree, the US Black Budget is funding some quite incredible stuff I would think

Rob Humanoid · 12-04-2013 1:39pm

EnterNow wrote: »

I'd say Occams Razor would be spot on for number 1, certainly possible for number 2, with 3 being the most unlikely {but not impossible} scenario

Bhadda bing!!

Perfect...

I'm also not saying that there's no alien life in the universe. I just don't think they have ever visited earth based on the evidence I've seen.

And of course there's uber secret military vehicles flying about too, and I'm sure they are frequently. But at that size for the phoenix lights incident. I find it very unlikely... Again, the onus is really on the believers to provide evidence for their claims.

Pretty much everything that Enter Now has already said.

maninasia · 12-04-2013 1:48pm

I didn't say I have all the answers, I am giving my reasoned hypothesis and getting away from an Earthcentric approach, the 'we are special' approach. There's no reason I can think of that we are so special among billions of planets.

I said that Occam's razor is just used as a justification according to your own knowledge base. As soon as the first bacteria is found on Mars or wherever, Occam's razor says alien life is extremely likely and everybody will go 'duh', Occam's razor says blah blah blah.

There have been plenty of scientific papers explaining how civilisations or even bacteria could spread through the galaxy in a relatively short-time WITHOUT employing speed of light or faster than speed of light technologies!

A civilisation that has a directed approach can spread through the galaxy in 100,000- 1 million years.

A passively spreading organism could take from 1 million to 10 million years.

What's the age of the universe again? Approximately 14 billion years old. See what I'm saying?

It's a common misunderstanding that we are isolated from other solar systems, but actually we are moving through space at incredible speeds and moving up and down through the galactic plane, interacting with material that orginated in remote parts of the galaxy. There are also likely to be millions of planets that have been thrown out of their original orbits and wandering through space. Then there are comets that travel in massive orbits through the galactic plance and molecular dust clouds we could interact with. There is a lot going on without needing any special physics models.

maninasia · 12-04-2013 1:58pm

Rob Humanoid wrote: »

I'm also not saying that there's no alien life in the universe. I just don't think they have ever visited earth based on the evidence I've seen.

Well we (as in all life on Earth) are the possible evidence that Earth may well have had aliens visit in the form of bacteria. So the evidence could be in front of you but you don't understand what you are seeing. I don't mean you only but many people seem to fixate on life from Earth when life from Space is equally if not more plausible.

A lot of this is to do with perspective, taking an EARTHCENTRIC APPROACH or a UNIVERSAL APPROACH. In history we have seen a constant widening of perspective towards the UNIVERSAL PERSPECTIVE and consequent downgrading of the EARTHCENTRIC PERSPECTIVE.

So instead of thinking that we are at the special centre of it all we should move to thinking that we are nothing special at all (excuse my rather clumsy analogies below). We should be part of a greater whole, and the early start of life on Earth may support that hypothesis. And if we are nothing special at all that means that life should be all around us, in one form or another. We haven't detected that life yet, but I would weigh in that it's likely because we just haven't had the technological ability to do so.

a)Earth>Moon>Planets>Sun>Galaxy (when the Sun went around the Moon)

we went to this now (when the Earth went around the Sun and life started on Earth and life is very special to Earth)
b)Sun>Planets>Earth>Moon

and next we will go to this viewpoint

c)Milkyway Galaxy>Sun>Planets>Earth>Moon (and very possibly we are part of a bigger galactic ecosystem and life not that special at all)

and someday to this

d) Universe>Galaxies>Milkyway Galaxy> Sun>Planet>Moon (and MAYBE we are part of a universal ecosystem)

and then even to this

e) Multiverse>Universe>Galaxies>Milkyway Galaxy> Sun>Planet>Moon

Where do we fit in terms of special in this progression?

Rob Humanoid · 12-04-2013 3:00pm

maninasia wrote: »

Well we (as in all life on Earth) are the possible evidence that Earth may well have had aliens visit in the form of bacteria. So the evidence could be in front of you but you don't understand what you are seeing. I don't mean you only but many people seem to fixate on life from Earth when life from Space is equally if not more plausible.

Again, I'm not really disputing your position here per se. Sure, microbes/bacteria from an asteroid or whatever could have hit the Earth. But that's not really what were talking about here... Another thing to consider, just because the evidence 'could' be there doesn't mean that it is.

I also don't really take your point about that our vision just being Earth centric. Scientists are constantly looking outside the box (so-to-speak) and have been doing so for a very long time.

And of course our technology is in a constant state of flux, and we will be widening our vision of the universe with every leap.

'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'.

These are all given factors.

In general, I think pretty much everyone agrees that life exists out there in some form or other. That's not really an issue. What we are talking about is the evidence (or lack of) intelligent beings visiting our solar system and Earth.

The scientific consensus is that they haven't (that's the general opinion, and no the, 'on the fringe' loners). Or that the sufficient evidence has not yet been presented. If it is, I'm sure they will be first to change their opinion.

Until then the people who are making such claims must provide evidence that can be tested or analyzed if they want such opinions to be taken seriously. Until then we will remain ant an impasse...

'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'.

maninasia · 12-04-2013 3:30pm

I also don't really take your point about that our vision just being Earth centric. Scientists are constantly looking outside the box (so-to-speak) and have been doing so for a very long time.

I don't want to pick holes in your arguments for the sake of it and our positions are not that far off.

But I think scientists have not been looking outside the box much in terms of the origins of life on Earth. There has been a big focus on trying to think of ways that life would have started on Earth but very little on the idea that life arrived here from somewhere else. The people who research the panspermia hypothesis are thought of as a bit outside the norm, and in my opinion this is very unfair, illogical and IS a result of Earthcentric thinking.

Myrddin · 12-04-2013 3:40pm

maninasia wrote: »

I didn't say I have all the answers, I am giving my reasoned hypothesis and getting away from an Earthcentric approach, the 'we are special' approach. There's no reason I can think of that we are so special among billions of planets.

I said that Occam's razor is just used as a justification according to your own knowledge base. As soon as the first bacteria is found on Mars or wherever, Occam's razor says alien life is extremely likely and everybody will go 'duh', Occam's razor says blah blah blah.

There have been plenty of scientific papers explaining how civilisations or even bacteria could spread through the galaxy in a relatively short-time WITHOUT employing speed of light or faster than speed of light technologies!

A civilisation that has a directed approach can spread through the galaxy in 100,000- 1 million years.

A passively spreading organism could take from 1 million to 10 million years.

What's the age of the universe again? Approximately 14 billion years old. See what I'm saying?

It's a common misunderstanding that we are isolated from other solar systems, but actually we are moving through space at incredible speeds and moving up and down through the galactic plane, interacting with material that orginated in remote parts of the galaxy. There are also likely to be millions of planets that have been thrown out of their original orbits and wandering through space. Then there are comets that travel in massive orbits through the galactic plance and molecular dust clouds we could interact with. There is a lot going on without needing any special physics models.

But you yourself are using Occams Razor, without even knowing it.

1) God created the Universe & all life in it
2) God created all life on Earth
3) Life evolved on Earth through a unique set of circumstances
4) Life evolved on Earth through a common set of circumstances
5) Life likely evolves anywhere where the circumstances are right

Occams razor would suggest number 5 is the simplest, most likely scenario & we both seem to agree with it. Despite the fact that you seem to feel Occams Razor is flawed...the thing you have to realise is, Occams Razor doesn't profess to be anything. It simply says the simplest explanation is the most likely one, it doesn't rule out all the other options. Yes it changes by knowledgebase, but thats simply changing the parameters....likelihood still remains the most explainable one.

I too believe life is out there, & I'd love to think it visits us...but I'm not convinced it does. I'm open to the possibility, but until I see something more convincing than lights in the sky, I'll remain skeptical about the whole UFO's are Aliens thing. I''m far more inclined to believe those lights are of a terrestrial nature

maninasia · 12-04-2013 4:14pm

My main point about Occam's razor is don't get too attached to it because it mainly reinforces the majority view at the current moment and it often depends on your own background understanding as to how you reach conclusion as to what is 'the simplest' explanation. I simply don't like people pulling the line 'according to Occam's razor' as if it was that simple that everybody's Occam's razor was i)the same and ii) most likely correct.

Myrddin · 12-04-2013 4:31pm

maninasia wrote: »

You say no.5 is the most likely, but that's your conclusion. I disagree,and I have good reasons from my perspective for doing so. If life so easily popped up everywhere how come all life on Earth is related and descended from one common ancestor and we don't observel life readily on other planets..yet. Life started on Earth 4.5 billion years ago but doesn't seem to have started on other neighbouring planets. Even if it is observed it's very likely, to my mind, to be related to bacteria here on Earth due to mixing of material in the solar system (and beyond the solar system). I've assembled the current evidence and come to my biased conclusion on the limited evidence available

I didn't say life pops up everywhere, I said it in all likelihood takes hold where the conditions allow it to...the thermal vents on the bottom of the ocean for example.

I still say life will take hold where the conditions to allow it to arise. Why? Because it's already happened here. Yes it probably needed an extraordinary set of circumstances to happen in the first place...but the Universe is a big place. Statistics in a near infinite medium would say no event is unique.

Why don't we see it anywhere else? Show me a planet that has an sun, solar system, atmospheric composition & surface composition that ours has...it life hasn't take hold there then I'll hold my hand up & say I was wrong. Whats that? Oh you can't show me another planet like ours...well, that brings us back to speculation again then doesn't it.

As for why all life on Earth has a common ancestry, well why wouldn't it assuming evolution is more than a theory? The fact that every living thing on Earth evolved from one common ancestor is nothing but a testament to how adaptable life is to its environment given enough time. Also how do you know there wern't other competitors to that ancestor, different single cell life that just didn't make it due to conditions here/survival of the fittest?

Anyway, aliens!

Rob Humanoid · 12-04-2013 4:39pm

maninasia wrote: »

My main point about Occam's razor is don't get too attached to it because it mainly reinforces the majority view at the current moment and it often depends on your own background understanding as to how you reach conclusion as to what is 'the simplest' explanation.

I see what your saying here... But I take Occam's razor from my own perspective, or at least try to, and on the best information available to me at the time as well as through my own deductions.

That is to say, I'll generally take the rout of the most logical outcome. Which could, in theory, be different to the majority depending on the position.

However, I agree with you, it's not something that you take for granted if there is further or more accurate information available. A true skeptic should always keep an open mind.

That said, you could say the same for the counter argument. Why leap to a paranormal conclusion if you've not examined a wide spectrum of information beforehand?

[Deleted User] · 12-04-2013 5:10pm

EnterNow wrote: »

Do we just put more stock in what we want to believe, rather than the more likely reality?

Why put any stock in it at all ? We dont know what it is none of us can prove it otherwise. Its an endless argument between believers and non believers.

Myrddin · 12-04-2013 5:18pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Why put any stock in it at all ? We dont know what it is none of us can prove it otherwise. Its an endless argument between believers and non believers.

Exactly. But that has its own flaws, such as if thats the case..prove to me there's no fairies or goblins roaming around the countryside.

o1s1n · 13-04-2013 2:42pm

Well that's the crux of it for me. As the saying goes -

'The burden of proof lies with the claimant'

If you are claiming that UFOs exist and are extra terrestrial life/God(s) /Faries and goblins/Ghosts exist well then you need to provide proof for your claim. Proof which stands up to close scrutiny.

You do not need to provide proof if you are coming from the 'anti' side as you aren't claiming anything.

You start with nothing.
Someone makes a claim (IE - God exists!)
That person then needs to prove their statement
They can't simply prove it by saying 'prove god doesn't exist!' as that is pushing the proof requirement to someone who isn't making any claim in the first place. (Which makes zero sense)

Really interesting thread by the way. Was reading it from the beginning on the commute home the other evening

One of the main things I find interesting about this is the human perception element. What's a show of god's power to pre historic man is just an eclipse/aurora borealis/Earthquake to modern man. I'm sure you can say the same thing for 99% of UFO sightings.

The last 1%, well... I have my 'Welcome to Earth!' greeting kit ready for this

[Deleted User] · 16-04-2013 12:32am

EnterNow wrote: »

Exactly. But that has its own flaws, such as if thats the case..prove to me there's no fairies or goblins roaming around the countryside.

Prove to me there is an Iceland, remember pictures can be Photoshopped, documents can be falsified and Witnesses can be lying.
If i dont want to believe there is an Iceland, there is nothing you can do to prove it to me.

What is funny though, your asking me to prove there are "no" fairies or Goblins

maccored · 16-04-2013 10:29am

o1s1n wrote: »

That person then needs to prove their statement

Theres the problem there I think. In reality, no-one needs to prove anything to anyone. People really should understand what they 'believe' in from studying the subject themselves - not rely on someone else to 'prove' it to them.

Myrddin · 16-04-2013 1:34pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Prove to me there is an Iceland, remember pictures can be Photoshopped, documents can be falsified and Witnesses can be lying.
If i dont want to believe there is an Iceland, there is nothing you can do to prove it to me.

What is funny though, your asking me to prove there are "no" fairies or Goblins

Well you could, actually go there? There's a very real way of finding out if Iceland exists or not.

I used toe Fairy/Goblin point to show you just how you can validate anything with the 'no proof either way' argument.

maccored wrote: »

Theres the problem there I think. In reality, no-one needs to prove anything to anyone. People really should understand what they 'believe' in from studying the subject themselves - not rely on someone else to 'prove' it to them.

Does that go for religion too?

maccored · 16-04-2013 2:14pm

who cares if it goes for religion? I certainly dont give a toss.

Why does it matter if religious / non religious people look at it that way or not? Does it bear any link to UFOs? The main crux is, if you are going to have an opinion on something, make it an educated one. Not an opinion based on what someone else told you.

Rob Humanoid · 16-04-2013 2:47pm

maccored wrote: »

who cares if it goes for religion? I certainly dont give a toss.

Why does it matter if religious / non religious people look at it that way or not? Does it bear any link to UFOs? The main crux is, if you are going to have an opinion on something, make it an educated one. Not an opinion based on what someone else told you.

Yes, you've definitely got to make an informed decision. That said, some information sources is better than others. Also, were not in a position to make an informed opinion on everything. As humans were all very different and can't be good or know everything.

For example, if you go to a Doctor you generally trust their opinion. Why? Because they are well trained, experienced and their knowledge has been refined over a very long time and has proven results.

Same goes for scientist or anyone in a highly skill position. Is it fallible...? Yes unfortunately, as no one is perfect. However, mainstream science is self-correcting. Unlike many of the UFO, Psychics or Paranormal investigators.

Many of these people 'shoehorn' poor information sources to suit their belief system no matter how flimsy it it. Because they want and need to believe in something (whatever it may be).

It matters further when you've got people peddling non-scientific based medicine. Such as fake cancer cures...

Myrddin · 16-04-2013 2:52pm

maccored wrote: »

who cares if it goes for religion? I certainly dont give a toss.

Why does it matter if religious / non religious people look at it that way or not? Does it bear any link to UFOs? The main crux is, if you are going to have an opinion on something, make it an educated one. Not an opinion based on what someone else told you.

But you've expressed this opinion on all matters of paranormal, & religion {considering it encompasses an afterlife, spirits etc} does seem to fall into the paranormal envelope. So I was just wondering if your opinion on people not being qualified to discuss the paranormal unless they've done their own work, rings true for people who believe in & discuss religion?

You've a very strange view on how people are qualified to discuss the paranormal or not. Reading the papers, studies & publications of others in the field seems like the obvious starting point for any serious skeptic...

[Deleted User] · 17-04-2013 5:01pm

EnterNow wrote: »

Well you could, actually go there? There's a very real way of finding out if Iceland exists or not.

Nah whats the point i know it doesnt exist

Myrddin · 17-04-2013 5:41pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Nah whats the point i know it doesnt exist

Bloody armchair skeptics!

dyer · 23-04-2013 11:13pm

Rob Humanoid wrote: »

I take you point, but I think the evidence is far more plausible for flares than not. For one, the craft would have been absolutely huge... Thus putting it far beyond the realms of secret aircraft (for it's sheer size and behavior).

Also, it's been pretty consistent with the behavior, and life expectancy of military flares. Eyewitness accounts are of course fallible and highly inconsistent at the best of times.

People often extrapolate odd conclusions when they are faced with something that they can't explain.

was just reading through this topic again and thought to reply to this post.

there are one or two documentaries on the phoenix lights.. in one of them they did analyse the lights and compare them directly with numerous examples of military flares, performed spectral analysis and other techniques.. the conclusive opinion was that they werent military flares.

btw there were some 10,000 estimated witnesses.. some of which were trained military professional as phoenix hosts a base there. what most people dont know is that the 'phoenix lights' appeared on more than one occasion. the interesting thing is that many people said it was an object that actually blocked out the view of the stars.

Rob Humanoid · 23-04-2013 11:31pm

dyer wrote: »

btw there were some 10,000 estimated witnesses.. some of which were trained military professional as phoenix hosts a base there. what most people dont know is that the 'phoenix lights' appeared on more than one occasion. the interesting thing is that many people said it was an object that actually blocked out the view of the stars.

Thanks, interesting post...

But I dunno... I still side with Brain Dunning and some other stuff that I've read/seen in the past. Unfortunately, many witnesses including military personal can also be fallible. From the footage I saw, it didn't look like it blocked out any of the stars. Also, stars are quite hard to see anyway with all the ambient light that comes form the Earth. Especially in a city...

Unfortunately a lot of the information in many of these UFO cases is very fluid and often changes after the fact. There's a lot of people who will always try and cash in with a new book or something. And they are more than happy to 'retrofit' or change their story to make it more interesting than it actually is. These are the minority of course... But unfortunately people often, and innocently, get caught up with their dubious information.

As for the lights appearing before, that could be down to some other military exercise or more retro-fitting. Or just some other terrestrial explanation. Unfortunately, for me anyway, without testable evidence - it just remains as an anecdote.

Just my two cents...

dyer · 24-04-2013 1:14am

Certainly, military personnel are fallible, but they are also the ones (especially american) who would be familiar with the various aircraft many wouldnt be used to seeing (their characteristics/the sounds they make) and military drills like dropping flares etc. the governor of arizona at the time famously came on tv and downplayed the whole ordeal by making a televised statement and then brought on a staff member dressed as an alien.. he later apologised after moving on from that post and admitted he had witnessed it himself and had no rational explanation for what he saw.

As you well know, its very hard to record anything in the dark even with the best equipment, which is quite unfortunate... and you're right there is quite a lot of disinformation surrounding the subject, but that doesn't mean something isn't happening. It's no secret the US military were hugely interested in the area of anti-gravitics in the late 50s and early 60s and you don't have to look far to find scientists are still looking into the amazing properties of superconductors and thermodynamics, even making headway in invisible cloaking and plasma propulsion technologies. in a hundred years who knows where we might find ourselves? it seems inevitable that we will soon figure out how to build a quantum computer and various research in this field suggests teleportation might even be possible (whether of matter or information). maybe in 50 to a 100 years well turn on our first quantum radio and have a few voicemails waiting for us

people often ask, why would another advanced civilisation have any interest in earth? if life is so rare in the universe, the question i would rather ask is, why wouldnt they?

some interesting stuff for sceptics to gleam over here btw : http://uto.sigsno.org/ufologie.net/htm/science.htm

Rob Humanoid · 24-04-2013 2:34pm

Yeah definitely, I'm sure the Americans are testing Black Ops stuff out all the time. So, you could easily see why they account for a large number of ufo sightings. I know they invest heavily in all sorts of 'out of the box' projects. Remote Viewing is one example, but they didn't really get very far with it and it was dropped. But advanced aircraft will always have an interest because they will be most definitely be using it at some point.

I just don't think a triangular craft of that size would be anywhere near possible, even at the most advanced American Military workshops.
Again, I'd agree with you, that we will see huge advances over the next 50 or 100 years, but what they will be is very hard to predict (form looking back through history). I feel the Aurora is much more believable...Especially, in the recent advances in sub-orbital aircraft.

Personally, I do believe that there is some sentient life somewhere out there in the universe, but I'd say it's very rare (I think the 'Drake equation' is off the mark tbh). That said, I don't think they've visited Earth yet, due to size, rarity of life and physics, etc.

Could there be some 'loop hole' that could allow FTL travel? Not form the evidence that we have so far - Or at least the energy that would be required would 'break' physics as we know it. Were still in our infancy regarding tech. so you never know what will happen in a 1000 years. But I've a bad feeling that we won't ever be able to travel as far as we'd like.

Agree again, I think given our own curiosity about the universe it's very plausible that another advanced race would be interested to meet us too.

So much so in fact, that If they were indeed here I think they'd probably say' hello' - Which I'd love to see! But as all is silent, I think they've not been here...

Cheers,

Rob.

PS - Cheers for that link I'll check it out...

dyer · 26-04-2013 4:11pm

I just don't think a triangular craft of that size would be anywhere near possible, even at the most advanced American Military workshops.

Which is exactly why people are looking for an alternative explanation

The Drake equation is fun to play with, but i think there are too many unknown variables for it to have any scientific validity.

Could there be some 'loop hole' that could allow FTL travel?

Quite possibly, if we can somehow manipulate space itself, we wouldnt break the laws of physics. Distant galaxies are approaching the speed of light and will eventually disappear because those photons would be travelling so fast the light they emit would no longer reach us.

Galaxies near the speed of light!

NASA working on faster-than-light space travel, says warp drives are ‘plausible’
A `warp drive' with more reasonable total energy requirements

UFO Phenomenon - Any real scientific material

Comments