Astronomers acknowledge the probability of ETI-UFOs

[VRob]

There is some speculation in your new link, but an article in a popular magazine hardly constitutes a peer-reviewed theory. Lets wait a see more before you start creaming your jeans about visiting other stars. Like anyone, I'm hopeful. But hope is not a method in science. Still, I'll concede that with such speculations, FTL might be possible and, of course, alien visitation is thus possible. Now, where are they?

Yes, the old 'peer-reviewed' stamp of approval. In other words, the good old boy network. Until something has been been peer reviewed, and OK'd by all the other 'Scientists', it can't possible exist, or be occuring.

And once again Skinwalker, if I new where they were, would we still be having this discussion?

Perhaps he used the word "impossible," but I challenge you to cite a post where I did. I've always maintained that it is possible that we are being visited by extraterrestrial intelligent beings. It simply isn't very likely nor is there any evidence that can be tested or reproduced to show it.

Ahh, readily testable evidence. I'll take this as you're acknowledging the fact that evidence is available.

You're too busy being pissed at me for asking the right questions of people who just blindly accept the woo-woo nonsense about abductions, visitations, cattle mutilations, etc., etc. -even when they are demonstrably false or unlikely.

Where did you ever get the idea that I was pissed at you?

Additionally, I have stated multiple times that the rediculous claims by the Woo-woo's are far more damaging to this subject than any debunker could hope to be.

My message to those debunkers is to understand the Woo-woo factor too, and to examine EACH incident on its own, and to not prejudice yourself because of all the Woo-woo's.

 

[Communist Hamster]

My message to those debunkers is to understand the Woo-woo factor too, and to examine EACH incident on its own, and to not prejudice yourself because of all the Woo-woo's.

I cannot recall an incident on this forum where a user has declared some UFO events to be real, and some not. It all seems to be either w00-w00 or not, and no "analysing each event without prejudice" anywhere.

 

[VRob]

I cannot recall an incident on this forum where a user has declared some UFO events to be real, and some not. It all seems to be either w00-w00 or not, and no "analysing each event without prejudice" anywhere.

Oh I do, over a year ago, a poster started a thread on the Belgium Incident complete with direct links to the Belgium air Force's investigation and analysis. This included Radar returns, both ground, and air showing speed, direction, exceleration, ect.. of the craft.

Most of the opposition to it consisted of rediculous attacks from Q, and a few others. But there was little doubt that a vehicle was in the Belgium Air space, and performed manuevers that would kill a human under the current known aironautical technologies.

Ironically, the thread appears to be lost. Must have ruffled too many egos.

 

[Communist Hamster]

I do apologise.

 

[wesmorris]

i only insult those who deserfe it. those whose religon is dropping snide innuendos about people, and blatantly calling them every name under the sun. people they aint even met. and YET have a bit of ribbin with them and they scream..."OHHHHHHHH. how very daaaare you. you insulted me'!

now. what is your argument ...SIR?!

argument? sir? deserfe?

religion?

duendy, you only make sense to you as far as I can tell.

good for you then.

i haven't posted an argument in this thread. i posted a description of how I relate to the topic material. in your infinite wisdom, you decided that I'm in denial and said I can't think for myself. somehow i'm not supposed to be insulted by that, and I'm supposed to respect that it's a very intelligent response to my post, which was both honest and heartfelt. please forgive my ignorance for assuming that reaching a conclusion such as yours based on my post is indicative of someone who isn't very bright. you should be able to freely insult me without my formulation of a negative opinion of your intellect. were I to doubt your superior mental agility for one second, I should surely keep it to myself. certainly telling you that you aren't very bright is the last thing I should do given the circumstances, and every insult you've slung my direction was only for my own good, so I can free myself from this crippling denial and be more duendendic, as more duendy is better for everyone.

it is fair for you to insult me, hear my assessment of your insult and then insult me evermore, for I threaten everything you hold dear with my warmongering, mongish, sheeply ways of denial indulgance, and sheer stupidity coupled with unbridled ignorance.

go fuck yourself.

 

[wesmorris]

Oh I do, over a year ago, a poster started a thread on the Belgium Incident complete with direct links to the Belgium air Force's investigation and analysis. This included Radar returns, both ground, and air showing speed, direction, exceleration, ect.. of the craft.

Most of the opposition to it consisted of rediculous attacks from Q, and a few others. But there was little doubt that a vehicle was in the Belgium Air space, and performed manuevers that would kill a human under the current known aironautical technologies.

Ironically, the thread appears to be lost. Must have ruffled too many egos.

I think you offer pretty reasonable stuff Vrob. I think stories like the belgium thing are pretty compelling. Actually even that peter jennings thing from a year ago or whatever was pretty compelling, but to me for a claim this large, direct witness is the only means I could have of believing it to be necessarily true. I think it's possible, but unlikely that visitation is occuring and that more than likely there are other explanations for things people have seen. In part though, I hope I'm wrong. I'd like to see something irrefutable for myself so I could join the other side of the argument, but I got nuthin.

 

[Gustav]

Ironically, the thread appears to be lost. Must have ruffled too many egos.

oh
it remains

bentwaters deserves a fresh examination. perhaps i will get motivated

 

[Gustav]

but to me for a claim this large, direct witness is the only means I could have of believing it to be necessarily true.

what? surely you would trust your president if he were to make the claim?

 

[wesmorris]

what? surely you would trust your president if he were to make the claim?

I'd be more prone to believe it if the government officially made the announcement "aliens are visiting earth", but I'd still be skeptical actually until I saw something first hand that compelled me to believe it to be factual.

 

[Gustav]

i think you give too much weight to an et visitation
they really could be quite unremarkable little fuckers coming here in a cranky old jalopy. perhaps bush could make them democratic and free and whatnot

 

[wesmorris]

i think you give too much weight to an et visitation

and perhaps you give too much weight to the interest we might hold for them, or to the likelihood they could come here even if they wanted to.

but then again without the facts, we're both stuck with speculation. as I've said, I'd rather be wrong unless of course they aren't friendly, in which case I hope i'm right.

they really could be quite unremarkable little fuckers coming here in a cranky old jalopy.

of course. but you don't know do you? i don't either.

perhaps bush could make them democratic and free and whatnot

cheap, pointless shot.

 

[Gustav]

sorry wes
here, kick me

 

[wesmorris]

hehe, nah. if you really want kicked, I'm sure there are plenty of folks ready to help you out.

 

[shaman_]

oh
it remains

bentwaters deserves a fresh examination. perhaps i will get motivated

I often see claims that threads have been deleted or locked because the skeptics were supposedly losing an argument or something like that. I haven't seen it happen.

Is the Bentwaters case the one from 1956?

 

[phlogistician]

Oh I do, over a year ago, a poster started a thread on the Belgium Incident complete with direct links to the Belgium air Force's investigation and analysis. This included Radar returns, both ground, and air showing speed, direction, exceleration, ect.. of the craft. ... But there was little doubt that a vehicle was in the Belgium Air space, and performed manuevers that would kill a human under the current known aironautical technologies.

So what would any of that prove? A foreign aircraft may have been in Belgian airspace, I'll agree to that. It performed some manouvers that would kill a human? Not so sure about that one, radar trails don't show such sharp detail, but various nations do fly unmanned drones, so why would the craft have to be piloted? There's no evidence for that, in fact, your statement that it's manouvers wold kill implies the opposite.

So we don't necessarily have a pilot, and therefore (from the pov of this thread) cannot imply ETI. So we're left with the woolly and apologetic term 'UFO'. Well, it was most likely a terrestrial stealth aircraft, buzzing a foreign power to see what they can get away with. Even if it was piloted, you have to prove that it's manouvers would kill. Got the links to the Belgian Airforce site again?

 

[Mr Anonymous]

I often see claims that threads have been deleted or locked because the skeptics were supposedly losing an argument or something like that. I haven't seen it happen.

Is the Bentwaters case the one from 1956?

Em, the 80's. If I recall, a group of USMP's went out to the woods surrounding the base to investigate a suspected break in incident - lights were seen, this was back during the hight of the anti-nuke protest movement. They claimed they came across a very bright, highly unusual object suspended in the air. One of the properties described being that it seemed to be either melting or leaking in some fashion. What elevated the case above most others of its ilk was the fact the entire incident was logged officially, including full copies of alleged RT traffic between the group involved.

If I recall correctly the chief argument for the debunker's seemed to rest with the fact that there's a lighthouse stationed some miles off in the direction in which the MP's were originally observing the initial sighting which prompted them to investigate, a feature unlikely to have not been witnessed at anytime previously and yet on this occasion sufficient in confounding these poor chaps obviously addled brains entirely.

And, with regard to VRobs claims regarding this forums treatment of the subject, indeed, RAF Brentwaters has routinely cropped up both as a topic of conversation over the course of the years and within the course of many others, and indeed many of these containing such discussion have indeed found themselves locked - the reason unilaterally being, instead of any form of discussion taking place it turned into a slanging match.

Any suggestion that a thread has been locked on the part of the Management simply because the evidence in support of the claims of the Brentwaters 6 proved too inconvenient to handle should be an accusation best put to the management itself directly.

It would be best to either back that up with some kind of evidence or else reword such sentiments in slightly less inflammatory and suggestive terms. An apology for the misunderstanding might not go amiss either.

 

[shaman_]

Ah thank you. I was thinking of a different sighting.

I don't know if VRob was implying that. I may have misunderstood...

It's not that important anyway.

 

[Mr Anonymous]

In the greater scheme of things, these things never are old man, but in the interim some do like to make out that its otherwise and if indeed you have been reading VRob incorrectly it's an inexactitude everyone else has been reading as well.

Any comments regarding that are directed wholly in the direction of VRob, no one else.

And yes, the more infamous of UK UFO incidents do generally tend blob together in the memory with disconcerting ease - it's always RAF Somewhere-Or-Other, rarely anywhere of distinction...