Alien's Real or Not?
- Thread starter sderenzi
- Start date
Very well. No argument there. But why exclude the nature of extraterrestrial visitations in this so call "progress"? Progressive ideas need progressive involvement, and like it or not, the only involvement had with our extraterrestrial "experiences" is material that is scant, unapparent, and bizarre at best -- like all new progressive thinking.
Mainly because it's not a measurable phenomenon. Ocurrences are too far apart, too fleeting and too subject to eye-witness testimony to have any reliable data gathered from them.
I'm sure I've said it in this thread somewhere, but even those who sincerely believe they are alien spacecraft can't agree on anything about them: shape, construction, propulsion, etc. let alone origin. So what little "hard data" (if any) there is gets swamped in totally unjustified speculation as to where they're from or what their motives are.
It's impossible to make any predictions based on the sightings, or anything else science requires. So they remain in the Pseudoscience section and get vastly inflated by the woo-woos.
Personally I think it'd be really neat if they were alien, but the buggers could at least stop and say hi.
Progress needs more than just speculation with no identifiable testable basis (Martillo comes to mind here). Progressive thinking is great, but if it doesn't actually produce anything useable then what's the point?
I'm sure I've said it in this thread somewhere, but even those who sincerely believe they are alien spacecraft can't agree on anything about them: shape, construction, propulsion, etc. let alone origin. So what little "hard data" (if any) there is gets swamped in totally unjustified speculation as to where they're from or what their motives are.
It's impossible to make any predictions based on the sightings, or anything else science requires. So they remain in the Pseudoscience section and get vastly inflated by the woo-woos.
Personally I think it'd be really neat if they were alien, but the buggers could at least stop and say hi.
Progress needs more than just speculation with no identifiable testable basis (Martillo comes to mind here). Progressive thinking is great, but if it doesn't actually produce anything useable then what's the point?
Hitch key-word: reliable.
Second hitch word: produce.
Again, very well; no argument there. However (my key-word), however, by its very nature, extraterrestrial evidence can not be, at this time, reliable and productive, can it? So all we're left with are spurious and unavailable conclusions. However, there are ample stories to be patched together, classified, qualified by means of patterns, concurrence, affiliation, etc. To consider something doesn't necessarily mean absolute commitment, so what's there to lose? Surely, the modern human mind can accommodate this and differentiate between a flying sleigh and a flying saucer? In the meantime, there are incredible stories -- perhaps important stories -- that are pushing ahead into the complex, and none of them are being aired because the argument is still stuck at the north pole.
Second hitch word: produce.
Again, very well; no argument there. However (my key-word), however, by its very nature, extraterrestrial evidence can not be, at this time, reliable and productive, can it? So all we're left with are spurious and unavailable conclusions. However, there are ample stories to be patched together, classified, qualified by means of patterns, concurrence, affiliation, etc. To consider something doesn't necessarily mean absolute commitment, so what's there to lose? Surely, the modern human mind can accommodate this and differentiate between a flying sleigh and a flying saucer? In the meantime, there are incredible stories -- perhaps important stories -- that are pushing ahead into the complex, and none of them are being aired because the argument is still stuck at the north pole.
The trouble is, there are MORE than ample stories. Every nutter (for want of a better word
) has his own story and his absolutely-true-and-all-others-are-misguided explanation of what he saw.To sift through the "evidence" would be a full time job -who's going to pay?
The government studies are immediately dismissed by the more extreme believers as disinformation and cover-up, the few independent studies I've seen (which aren't that "independent" - some of them are written by marvelously credulous people who won't even check numbers they're given - I got into an email "discussion" with one editor who is actually a food writer and takes every single thing he's given as undisputable fact, even when the internal numbers contradict each other) end up contradicting any other independent study...
It's a mess.
And if you set up a truly independent body there'd be someone with an agenda against you because you wouldn't agree with their "findings"...
Hey give me the job, guarantee me a living income and I'll go to it. But I can state this with certainty: whatever I publish at the end SOMEONE (or several someones) will claim I'm covering up (simply becuase I contradict or don't include their own speculations). It's a no-win situation.
Well, I'm certainly having no congestion problems myself: I barely read through three quarters of what's being voiced... but there's always the one story that I'll remember and that will eventually, or already had, correlate in some way with another, or with something, somehow, mysteriously. I don't think I'm suggesting an almanac be written, but that, if interested, allow individuals -- not the benefit of the doubt -- but allow them to at least discuss things without shutting them up prematurely and calling them woo-woos.
They all have some similarity and they all difer in some (usually many) aspect(s). And that's where the arguments start. I've read a (probably) significant proportion of UFO literature (the result of being taught to read before I started at school and having seven local libraries). Every single author has his own theory on what they are, where they come from, why they're here and how they're powered.
So we're either faced with a minimum of one alien race per author (many claim multiple origins) or a smaller number of publicity-seeking deluded individuals (woo-woo for short). And the fact is that self-delusion in humans is a proven, documented trait.
I've (as I've said before on this forum) seen a "UFO", met a "ghost" and been "pyschic"- but I'm not positing explanations which have no basis... They were just "shit that happened and can't be explained".
I am interested, but when I get told that, without a doubt and without evidence, they're from X, Y or Z location and that, equally inarguably and unsubstanstiably, they use A, B or C for propulsion etc then I either become as credulous as that author or label him a woo-woo.
As soon as someone makes claim that cannot be proven (and therefore has to be taken on the word of the originator) then that's when woo-wooism kicks in.
And if you'll note, very few are "shut up", especially prematurely - the majority of posts following such assertions are "what evidence is there?". The shutting up happens (if at all) when continued assertions are made with no supporting (or at best spurious) data...
So we're either faced with a minimum of one alien race per author (many claim multiple origins) or a smaller number of publicity-seeking deluded individuals (woo-woo for short). And the fact is that self-delusion in humans is a proven, documented trait.
I've (as I've said before on this forum) seen a "UFO", met a "ghost" and been "pyschic"- but I'm not positing explanations which have no basis... They were just "shit that happened and can't be explained".
I am interested, but when I get told that, without a doubt and without evidence, they're from X, Y or Z location and that, equally inarguably and unsubstanstiably, they use A, B or C for propulsion etc then I either become as credulous as that author or label him a woo-woo.
As soon as someone makes claim that cannot be proven (and therefore has to be taken on the word of the originator) then that's when woo-wooism kicks in.
And if you'll note, very few are "shut up", especially prematurely - the majority of posts following such assertions are "what evidence is there?". The shutting up happens (if at all) when continued assertions are made with no supporting (or at best spurious) data...
Oli said:
simple fact, if all "authors" agreed, then they would all be spouting the same material over and over again. With such "duplication of effort" there wouldn't be much of a captivated audience because everything would be explained and the novelty would wear off.
However having something that can never be agreed upon, that has all these twists and turns created by "eye witness accounts" continues to manifest a culture that while being nurtured continues to be a Publications firms livelihood.
In all essense there are probably people out there creating disinformation, but the truth they are hiding is the one that would stop books being written and stop films being made which currently earns them money in the long run.
On the other if every single "witness" agreed on the specifics it might indicate that there was something "real" as opposed to individual delusions.
If they were all claiming the same thing they they might be able pool resources and find out if it's real, as opposed to "my aliens are more real than yours".
If they were all claiming the same thing they they might be able pool resources and find out if it's real, as opposed to "my aliens are more real than yours".
And those who simply speak largely disagree on detail and specifics. Very, very few just say "Hey I saw something that I can't explain. I found it interesting, and that's all". They then go on to pile conjecture on top of speculation...
I can understand looking at all this from the outside: everything appears broken-up, jagged, and dissociated. But note something in your attitude: you question the myriad stories out there with suspicion but group all "story-tellers" into a single category (woo-woos, demented attention-seekers and what not, but basically all cray-zee) and then wish to God that they could all agree on a single script for an enormously complex issue! But isn't that the very crux of its most unusal characteristic thus far, that there are facets and angles and enigmatic intricacies involved — a drama equal to the myriad complexity that is the Universe itself.Oli said:
Hmmm. Not quite how I'd phrase it myself...
Yes it's a big subject, but the stories have very little if anything in common, giving no start point for a "serious" investigation - it appears that there is far more one phenomenom involved, if they're all true, or even a fraction of them, so what to start with?
A good majority have been demonstrated to be woo-woos, a small percentage are "cause unknown", but the extremists (the real woo-woos) cloud it for those who may have genuinely seen something worth investigating.
They start claiming this and and that, throwing chaff into the mix and obfuscating the issue so much that it appears to me that the whole subject either needs filing under "wait for more data" or dismissing altogether. Now personally I'd go with the wait for more data option, but we have so many people out there adding conjecture to speculation (as I've said) that it is rapidly becoming not worth the candle...
Yes there are lights in the sky, yes the RAF/ MoD has done an investigation (among others), and their conclusion was that no conclusion is possible on the limited number of cases where the things aren't obviously explicable.
The phenomenon doesn't occur often enough or for long enough to get any real data, so it's left as "unexplained". But some people are so unhappy with that they invent the rest themselves - which spoils it completely.
PS I may class them all as crazy, I am 100% certain a good number of them are. But I'm still reading...
Yes it's a big subject, but the stories have very little if anything in common, giving no start point for a "serious" investigation - it appears that there is far more one phenomenom involved, if they're all true, or even a fraction of them, so what to start with?
A good majority have been demonstrated to be woo-woos, a small percentage are "cause unknown", but the extremists (the real woo-woos) cloud it for those who may have genuinely seen something worth investigating.
They start claiming this and and that, throwing chaff into the mix and obfuscating the issue so much that it appears to me that the whole subject either needs filing under "wait for more data" or dismissing altogether. Now personally I'd go with the wait for more data option, but we have so many people out there adding conjecture to speculation (as I've said) that it is rapidly becoming not worth the candle...
Yes there are lights in the sky, yes the RAF/ MoD has done an investigation (among others), and their conclusion was that no conclusion is possible on the limited number of cases where the things aren't obviously explicable.
The phenomenon doesn't occur often enough or for long enough to get any real data, so it's left as "unexplained". But some people are so unhappy with that they invent the rest themselves - which spoils it completely.
PS I may class them all as crazy, I am 100% certain a good number of them are. But I'm still reading...
Stryder:
Stryder, the reason you don't drive a flying saucer to work is because they are kept secret. You're not in their pathetic ring of power, so you don't get to have one. They'd rather you handed them your wallet to buy a helicopter and fuel, if indeed it was a flying machine you wanted.
Did you know that as soon as Tesla died, the FBI came in and confiscated an amount of Tesla's notes and scientiffic data that would fill up a rail car with paper, then to cover that up, they said he "didn't need to take notes" because he was so smart his mind was the paper. Only an absolute FOOL of a scientist doesn't take notes and make diagrams of his creations and experiments. Since Tesla was indeed a genius, he was obviously smart enough to take notes. No one on this planet can sit down and accurately memorize a whole life's time worth of scientiffic notes, research and data. To take this part of the human saucer theory a step further, I know an author who went to the facility which contains (contained?) all of Tesla's notes, they refused him because he didn't have propper "security clearance." ( SECRECY clearance) After he was refused this information, he went to a local college and found fully detailed plans of how to make a nuclear bomb.
Why are Tesla's notes top-secret, and yet you can find out how to make a nuclear bomb so easily? ANSWER: Because Tesla's flying machine is so basic in make that your average electrician could build it if he had the plans. The nuclear bomb on the other hand, requires highly refined uranium, and I don't have any connections that could yield that, and neither do you.
Stryder, the reason you don't drive a flying saucer to work is because they are kept secret. You're not in their pathetic ring of power, so you don't get to have one. They'd rather you handed them your wallet to buy a helicopter and fuel, if indeed it was a flying machine you wanted.
Did you know that as soon as Tesla died, the FBI came in and confiscated an amount of Tesla's notes and scientiffic data that would fill up a rail car with paper, then to cover that up, they said he "didn't need to take notes" because he was so smart his mind was the paper. Only an absolute FOOL of a scientist doesn't take notes and make diagrams of his creations and experiments. Since Tesla was indeed a genius, he was obviously smart enough to take notes. No one on this planet can sit down and accurately memorize a whole life's time worth of scientiffic notes, research and data. To take this part of the human saucer theory a step further, I know an author who went to the facility which contains (contained?) all of Tesla's notes, they refused him because he didn't have propper "security clearance." ( SECRECY clearance) After he was refused this information, he went to a local college and found fully detailed plans of how to make a nuclear bomb.
Why are Tesla's notes top-secret, and yet you can find out how to make a nuclear bomb so easily? ANSWER: Because Tesla's flying machine is so basic in make that your average electrician could build it if he had the plans. The nuclear bomb on the other hand, requires highly refined uranium, and I don't have any connections that could yield that, and neither do you.
They took SOME of his papers since he was supposedly working on a death ray. Not by any means a rail car full.
Some actually don't...
That's an inference, but in this case you're right:
He did and a good number were released - hence the number of people building Tesla coils etc.
If the FBI denied there were any notes then how come someone knew where to find them?
They aren't anymore. Thirty seconds of googling found this:
http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/tesla.htm
declassified FBI papers, Tesla's notes.....
Tesla had many inventions, not all of which are known to society. As you may well know, government does what it wants to, so they don't declassify the really shameful stuff they have done. (covered up) Why would they uncover what they have spent so much resources to cover?
Lets pretend the flying saucer is a real flyingmachine which Tesla invented and it can synthesize momentum in any given direction for a very low energy cost. Lets pretend for a moment that our good friends at OPEC know about these and even fly them around. If they released our pretend technology, it would indeed DESTROY their oil empires, since the invention has a little input energy for a large output energy.
The "pretend" flying saucer takes a little bit of energy to start the reaction, kinda like oil, it takes energy to drill for it, to pump it up out of the ground, and it even takes energy to burn the stuff, but in the end you get more energy out of the oil than you put in, right? Right.
(with the exception that you burn the oil, but energy is neither created nor destroyed, so plant matter absorbs the burned oil (CO2) and puts it back together using sunlight and other plant functions, the plant dies and after a long long time the plant matter becomes crude oil AGAIN, and then in a few million years humans drill it out again if they aren't extinct yet)
This takes us to the sun, (doesn't everything?) which is constantly putting out electromagnetic radiation of many varying frequencies, which is then absorbed and RECYCLED by other stars throughout the universe, and since energy cannot be created or destroyed, those other stars in the universe then send out the radiation again, thus the law of energy conservation is explained.
Finally, back to the "pretend" flying saucer. This technology uses a small amount of energy to cause an imballance in the universe which is quickly ballanced out again, the product of which is synthesized momentum, and thus the "pretend" saucer moves forward, and in a way it is "free energy," but not overunity. In somewhat the same way oil is free energy for those who own the oil companies, except that the flying saucer gets its energy in a much less complecated (and NO pollution) process.
Lets pretend the flying saucer is a real flyingmachine which Tesla invented and it can synthesize momentum in any given direction for a very low energy cost. Lets pretend for a moment that our good friends at OPEC know about these and even fly them around. If they released our pretend technology, it would indeed DESTROY their oil empires, since the invention has a little input energy for a large output energy.
The "pretend" flying saucer takes a little bit of energy to start the reaction, kinda like oil, it takes energy to drill for it, to pump it up out of the ground, and it even takes energy to burn the stuff, but in the end you get more energy out of the oil than you put in, right? Right.
(with the exception that you burn the oil, but energy is neither created nor destroyed, so plant matter absorbs the burned oil (CO2) and puts it back together using sunlight and other plant functions, the plant dies and after a long long time the plant matter becomes crude oil AGAIN, and then in a few million years humans drill it out again if they aren't extinct yet)
This takes us to the sun, (doesn't everything?) which is constantly putting out electromagnetic radiation of many varying frequencies, which is then absorbed and RECYCLED by other stars throughout the universe, and since energy cannot be created or destroyed, those other stars in the universe then send out the radiation again, thus the law of energy conservation is explained.
Finally, back to the "pretend" flying saucer. This technology uses a small amount of energy to cause an imballance in the universe which is quickly ballanced out again, the product of which is synthesized momentum, and thus the "pretend" saucer moves forward, and in a way it is "free energy," but not overunity. In somewhat the same way oil is free energy for those who own the oil companies, except that the flying saucer gets its energy in a much less complecated (and NO pollution) process.
Last edited:
Electromagnetism is right. All matter contains electrostatic charges, and in fact, are made up of electric points, which are composed of miniture electric fields, which compose atoms, which compose molecules, and so on.
Im going to somewhat explain to you the inner mechanisms of the "pretend" flying saucer. Indeed, it is relatively simple, but naturally it may be hard for you to believe: A) that flying saucers synthesize momentum B) that they are even real C) That I happen to know how they work.
Tesla coils are put onboard and attached to the metal hull of the ship. The reason many saucers glow in the sky are because they are charged with high voltage electricity. When flying saucers move slowly, they put off a light glow that can range from purple to orange to green, this is because the air around them gets ionized from the high voltage currents and behaves much as a flourescent light, the colors can be effected by the power output, as well as the % amount of different gases in the surrounding air. At high speeds they can glow bright blue, bright white, but is not limited to that. In the day time, if you saw one on the ground you would never suspect it was a flying machine, because it wouldn't be your typical flying machine, without( as Tesla said) Ailerons, propellers, or even wings.
If you want to know the nitty gritty: Tune one Tesla Coil to 1/4 frequency on one end of the ship, tune a separate Tesla Coil to 1/2 or 1/1 frequency on the other side(inside) of the ship. Flip the power on, and away she goes.
I'm no alien, but the PEOPLE who currently own these "pretend" space ships have values which are alien to me, because they would rather see you and the rest of humanity as slaves, rather than free and independent humans. That's a large chunk to chew, keep an eye to the sky, filter out lies and trash, turn off your TV, open up a book. (click on this link to read the book which will explain to you the flying saucer and its inner technologies.)
Good luck.
Im going to somewhat explain to you the inner mechanisms of the "pretend" flying saucer. Indeed, it is relatively simple, but naturally it may be hard for you to believe: A) that flying saucers synthesize momentum B) that they are even real C) That I happen to know how they work.
Tesla coils are put onboard and attached to the metal hull of the ship. The reason many saucers glow in the sky are because they are charged with high voltage electricity. When flying saucers move slowly, they put off a light glow that can range from purple to orange to green, this is because the air around them gets ionized from the high voltage currents and behaves much as a flourescent light, the colors can be effected by the power output, as well as the % amount of different gases in the surrounding air. At high speeds they can glow bright blue, bright white, but is not limited to that. In the day time, if you saw one on the ground you would never suspect it was a flying machine, because it wouldn't be your typical flying machine, without( as Tesla said) Ailerons, propellers, or even wings.
If you want to know the nitty gritty: Tune one Tesla Coil to 1/4 frequency on one end of the ship, tune a separate Tesla Coil to 1/2 or 1/1 frequency on the other side(inside) of the ship. Flip the power on, and away she goes.
I'm no alien, but the PEOPLE who currently own these "pretend" space ships have values which are alien to me, because they would rather see you and the rest of humanity as slaves, rather than free and independent humans. That's a large chunk to chew, keep an eye to the sky, filter out lies and trash, turn off your TV, open up a book. (click on this link to read the book which will explain to you the flying saucer and its inner technologies.)
Good luck.
Last edited:
And that is exactly where your argument falls down - if YOU know how it's done, and the book shows how it's done (I'm currently reading that one by the way), then why aren't ordinary people building and flying them?
There's dozens if not hundreds or thousands of websites showing how Tesla coils coils are made, so where's the revolution in power and transport systems?
Surely getting more out than you put in is one definition of overunity?
Oh yes, the government (pick one) is so powerful it can't cover up minor ministers' sexual indiscretions, it's so powerful even minor civil servants can publish books exposing embarassing politico-military cock-ups.
Try this one: if the oil companies "knew" about this technology and I'm damn sure they're already aware that oil is a limited resource which costs them money to get out of the ground and refine, then why don't they just licence the Tesla technology? Simple - all you have to do is put a tax on operating your own flying saucer for which you pay a fee-per-mile or per day or a flat sum per year. It would mean that the oil companies could get rid of most of their expensive employees and drilling rigs, then just sit back and just rake in the cash. If the government wants to make money out something they'll find a way....
Obviously, there are many ways to draw a tree. But I disagree—if you look a bit beyond the colors of the stories, there are similarities: procedurally, manipulatively, operatively, and consequentially (to name a few): telepathic participation during an occurrence; mind games during contacts that consistently follow similar methods; emotional responses before, during, and proceeding an abduction, a contact, or an experience, such as anxiety for one group, fear for another group, inarticulateness for some, or a sense of well-being for the more uncommon individual; a traceable and often innocent commencement stage in the lives of an abductee/contactee/experiencer, followed by an aftermath that points to a full-throttle immersion and/or an engrossment of events too industrious to follow; there are similar dream patterns of similar scenarios or situations, or similar musings of similar concepts, or similar symbols and icons; in many cases the lives of an abductee, a contactee, or an experiencer will be affected by changes that are often mysteriously occasioned out of the blue; complaints of harassment by questionable characters for these individuals are often reported or observed, or non-threatening but curious approaches for others; abductees are people who will identify themselves as such and are practically begging to be released, contactees are people who will identify themselves as such and profess curiosity and adventure, experiencers are people who will identify themselves as such and will drop into an almost spiritual state of transmission and interplay; abductees/contactees/experiencers are rendered prudent, apprehensive, almost paranoid—or abandon themselves to no longer caring. They know this and discuss these feelings amongst themselves.
I garnered these parallels by simply going where the sources lay: in the backwoods—not the limelight.
Serious investigation is what you're after perhaps but it is my impression that it doesn't worry ‘them’ in the least. This is what you and your section can't seem or want to digest, that there are three levels in this affair by three different parties: the un-woo-woos who desire to shut the whole discussion up because it doesn't meet with their approval, the woo-woos who are unwittingly involved regardless of your disapproval, and ‘them’ who are seemingly too aloof to even care for an involvement with you, the so-called ‘sane’ majority. Already, that tells me a lot.
Consider how a rape victim will be psychologically affected, or how bankruptcy will throw a person in a state disarray, or how homelessness will affect a state of numbness, etc—you can't possibly expect people to waltz unaffected! And isn't that, how ‘crazy’ people become, the very proof why this issue is being kept under official wraps?