My beef with ETI

Larry, but probes of 1 – 2 miles in size would not be practical.
You don’t see a need for millions of abductions, too bad that wasn’t the actual case because there are reported millions of abductions so someone thinks there is a need. So specimens would not be the case either for say their Museum of Earth or whatnot.
 
Many UFO sightings have shown ships far bigger than 1-2 miles also, some as big as 25 miles in diameter.

There are as many possibilities about WHY ETI or “probes” are here as there are ideas. The PROBABILITIES are far fewer because of the process eliminating by reasoning the possibilities.

UFO’s just being ETI “probes” does NOT fit the majority of the evidence.

Using all the evidence of UFO’s and ETI there emerges a pattern and agenda that is easily recognizable by open minded ones. The problem is so many have these preconceived ideas from religions and science “theories” that are accepted as FACTS and are not. “It is not what you know or don’t know, it’s what you KNOW that isn’t so that will hurt you.” (Will Rogers) The word that comes to mind is DECEPTION.

As most just shine me on when it comes to mentioning the bible as evidence and a probable cause of UFO / ETI visitation and interaction with humans, it still remains in my mind as the highest probability of reality and truth as to the WHY they are here.
 
FieryIce said:
...but probes of 1 – 2 miles in size would not be practical.
Click to expand...
Why? What (unsupportable) assumptions are you making regarding the technology level and resource availability of your alien visitors?

:m: Peace.
 
Hello all: Scout probes could be the size of a baseball for all I know, maybe
even smaller now. The really large craft sometimes reported could be
mothercraft in one model, one which releases and retrieves the 'probes' if
you want to credit that.

I have maps online of various types of craft seen from my database.
Look for that on this Thematic Maps Menu:

http://www.larryhatch.net/THEMEMAPS.html

Best -Larry
 
That is very amusing, a craft the size of a small town designed for just the release and retrieval of baseballs, ops mini probes. R_I_G_H_T.....
 
Larry,

I differ with you here. I think you have rigidly confined yourself to the observable universe, and some of your limitations, are only self-imposed and derived from current human feasibility. I think you should ask yourself:

What will an Alien species be like: their philosophies, biology, environment, history, emotional and mental mark-up, flaws and more importantly, evolutionary development.

What does the unobservable universe hold: I think we can agree, the universe is a wondorous place, seething with all kinds of mysteries and phenomena, that have fascinated us since time immorial. We know so little about it. All we know, is what we can see, and what we can see , leaves a whole universe to be desired.

Can you imagine a new colour? No? Nor can I. Yet, if we could perceive beyond what we could see, or experience a completely different EMR spectrum, there may well be new colours. Similarily, can you imagine a new phenomena? No? Nor can I. Yet, does that mean that phenomena does not exist? No.

Do not let limitations limit you. Those limits are there to test you. At least take the test before you fail it - and if you fail it - don't think that the test cannot be beaten.

A ball falls because something is attracting it. When it is not being attracted? It floats. There is a cause; it's gravity.

A coil is shoved in a magnetic field and it causes an electrical current. When a piece of paper is shoved in a magnetic field? Nothing happens. There is a cause; its electromagnetism.

A Uraniumm 235 isotope in a cloud chamber causes a disruption in the cloud chamber. If I place a block of iron? Nothing happens. There is a cause; it's radioactivity.

Leave two metal plates close to each other in a vacuum, they eventually pull into each other? There is a cause; it's the casimir effect of the quantum vacuum

Accelerate a mass, it gains mass and it's time slows down. Leave it still? Nothing happens. There is a cause; it's relativity.

All of the above causes are themselves causes of unobservable phenomena, and all causes are the effects of other causes(e.g. more weight = more gravity; more coil = more current) hence all causes can be manipulated, and this chain of cause and effect regresses infinitely until we find a causality.
I am sure as another scientist, you can see, how logical that is.

It's about finding a universe within a universe, and what we know, is analogous to how much universe we have explored. Henceforth, just like some older ET civilizations would have uncovered far more universe than we have, similarily, they would have uncovered far more of the inner-universe than we have.

I am not asking you to be so open-minded, that everything you know falls out. I am not asking you to defy laws of physics. What I am asking you is: please do NOT try to apply the laws of the observable universe to the unobservable universe, as and ET's belong to an unobservable universe.

We do know this much: They are here. Leave it at that, and let the rest be dictated by the facts; not our limitations or opinions.
You cannot just ignore heaps of data of their visual presence and actions, just so that you can entertain a pet model of ET probing, or just because it does not conform to your feasibility models.

I would like to add a further criticism on your pet model: Advancements in nanotechnology and nuclear engineering would allow nanoscopic probes, that could perform the same job as UFO crafts. Hence, why would they use relatively large UFO crafts for probing? Much less, occasional motherships appearing over mass populated areas.

I sincerely suggest you re-evaluate your model. It does not concur with any of the data, including your own, nor with the observable universe you are confined too. I'm sorry; it just doesn't work on it's own.

A quick point on your remark on cryogenics: My friend, everything is dangerous. Yet, that has never stopped us, and rest be assured, it won't tomorrow either.
 
Last edited:
Accelerate a mass, it gains mass and it's time slows down. Leave it still? Nothing happens. There is a cause; it's relativity.
Click to expand...
Wow... more unsubstantiated claims. The above however is science tested everyday in partical acelerators, and not something you can yet again argue with.
 
goofyfish said:
Why? What (unsupportable) assumptions are you making regarding the technology level and resource availability of your alien visitors?

:m: Peace.
Click to expand...

Obviously, the only resources left to these ETI that are here is use humans and our abilities.
:D
 
Hello all:

I have one _really_ large UFO on record here, witnessed by a
Japan Airlines pilot and crew.

#14969: 1986/11/17 18:10h d=45m 145:16W 66:34N 3333
S/Ft.YUKON,AK:HUGE WALNUT PACES JAL 747:GND+AIR RDRS:

Sources:

/r160 MUFON UFO JOURNAL Mutual UFO Network, USA.
Monthly. JAL case covered in issues #225 + 226

/r41 HALL, Richard H,: The UFO EVIDENCE II Scarecrow Press
Inc. Lanham MD. 2001. ISBN 0-8108-3881-8 .. on paage 142;

/r25 HALL, Richard: UNINVITED GUESTS. Aurora Press, Santa Fe,
NM 1988. Page unknown, see index..

/r210 The APRO BULLETIN. (J & C Lorenzen) Volume 33 Issue 5

.. and no doubt many others. The /r## numbers refer to the
list of hundreds of sources on this web page:

http://www.larryhatch.net/USOURCE.html

I suggest people read the literature before making wild
claims. Having gone thru those hundreds of sources, some
of them journals dating back to the 1950s, I cannot recall
any UFOs "the size of a small town". The JAL Walnut was
described as 1 or 2 miles in size .. a definite anomaly
in these data!

Would anyone like to substantiate claims of " Many UFO
sightings have shown ships far bigger than 1-2 miles also,
some as big as 25 miles in diameter." .. with _references_?
I'm hoping for something less evanescent than the Weekly
World News of course.

As for " That is very amusing, a craft the size of a small
town designed for just the release and retrieval of
baseballs, ops mini probes. R_I_G_H_T....."

I must absolutely insist that nobody put words in my mouth.
That is dishonest and insulting.

Nowhere did I make such a statement. I can see very large
craft where appropriate, perhaps way out in the asteroid belt
.. but even that is sheer speculation on my part. IF that's
true, medium sized craft could come to Earth, perhaps carrying
really small scouting probes to snoop here and there.

Once as a guest at the home of Jacques Vallee (and half
juiced on some nice red wine) I tossed out the question
whether there might be a lower limit to the size of
UFO craft. Vallee immediately retorted that "The lower
limit is the molecule!"

Now for "millions of abductions" (presumably alien ABDs)

That is a world class "extraordinary claim" if I ever
saw one, and as often said, it requires extraordinary proof.
Can anyone substantiate that? Small numbers of ABDs are
at least consistent with a scientific survey of Earth.

ABD experiencers would give _anything_ to fully substantiate
just ONE abduction, to the point where the authorities take
notice. They have worked long and hard to do just that, and
with virtually zero success. Now we have "millions" of them
tossed up as if by proclamation! Sources please! If the
WWN doesn't count (believe me it doesn't), than neither do
late nite talk shows, would-be cult leaders, nor 'blogs' full
of semi-literates parroting one another's BS.

My method is one of cautious conservatism. By presenting
data without wild and unsubstantiated claims, I hope that
others will be gently persuaded to look at the data ..
I mean level headed people who are undecided on UFO matters.

Then out come the yahoos with wild claims, making the
whole field look like complete and utter trash. I must say
that is very frustrating after 20 years of research.


best wishes

- Larry Hatch

http://www.larryhatch.net
 
Larry, I agree with you 100%. Would you be willing, or have the time to be moderator
of the Pseudoscience thread?
 
Dear 2inquisitive:

I am very flattered by your suggestion that I moderate
the Pseudoscience thread. Like the fat lady said,
"Flattery will get you everywhere!"

Naturally I have a lot of questions best discussed offlist.
Please sticky me your email address, and I will do the
same. I will ask lots of questions like:

a) How much time might this take? (very important)
b) Are the people I responded to, more or less typical?
b) Do you have a good wine selection?
d) Why did the last guy quit? Does this relate to b)?

Best wishes - Larry Hatch
 
Dear 2inquisitive:

I forgot something: How do I read or write "stickymail"
on this list? I'm new to blogging. Please explain the
details. -LH
 
Larry,

you ignored many of points I made in response to you. As far as I know, from the data I have access to: UFO's come in all kinds of sizes and shapes; they are generally quite lage. However, your hypothesis that they are probes or scouts is rendered completely false on the following grounds:

1, Advances in nanotechnology, nuclear engineering would allow nanoscopic probes.
2. Millions of UFO sightings, thousands of pilot cases of chasing these UFO's, hundreds of mass sightings
3. Abductions and mass abductions as well as eye-witness testimony of the abductions
4. At least 40,000 years of history of UFO's
5. Hundreds of NASA, NSA, CIA, USAF, UN, UA members claiming contact with Alien civilizations.
6. Crashed UFO's and extraterrestrial beings

In addition, the inevitability of alien contact, that I discussed earlier. Why do you persist in pushing this hypothesis, when it clearly is not working.

On Abductions:

Statistics:

http://www.viewzone.com/abduct.html

Roper's representative American sample of about 6000 adults (with a sampling error of 1.4 percent!) showed that one out of every 50 people met the profile of an abductee. This figure suggests that about 33,000,000 individuals had been abducted in America. A closer look at these specific profiles showed that these people were not "average" at all.
Click to expand...

Major Cases to Review:

http://www.ufocasebook.com/alienabductions.html

Travis Walton Abduction
Betty & Barney Hill Abduction
Allgash Abduction
The Betty Andreasson Abduction
Pascagoula, Mississippi Abduction
The Stanford, Kentucky Abductions
Hudson Valley Abduction
Linda Cortile-Napolitano Abduction

My method is one of cautious conservatism. By presenting
data without wild and unsubstantiated claims, I hope that
others will be gently persuaded to look at the data ..
I mean level headed people who are undecided on UFO matters.
Click to expand...

Our claims, however "wild" they are, are only conclusions derived from the data. I also present information, however, I also use that information to form a conclusion. Information on it's own is useless. In other words the claims are substantiated.

I think you are being biassed towards your information Larry. You accept some information of the UFO/ETI phenomenon, but reject the others. You are not being honest with yourself.
 
Dear Crazy:

'Biassed' is best spelled 'biased'. As for you 'lage'
list, I'm sure you mean large. Please forgive me if
I don't take you much too seriously. Frankly, you
sound like a screaming idiot.

Best wishes

- Larry Hatch
 
Larry,

What happened? You were pretending to be polite and mature before? Did I touch a sensitive spot? I make my occasional typos, especially as I feel tired right now, but you do realise correcting peoples typo's is quite sad. I guess you have nothing better to say, as you don't have an argument. Thus, you insult instead. I am disappointed. Reject.
 
Larry, I am just a member here, I have no information as to what time might be needed
or answers to your other questions. Perhaps some of the current moderators would be
able to help. I do not recall there ever having been a moderator of pseudoscience. In
the past, there have been at times some very good discussions of Unidentified Aerial
Phenomena and even touching on such things as the physical anomalies present at
SOME crop circles. I don't know if it is possible to effectively divide pseudoscience
into two sections, one for the discussion of actual scientific evidence, even if it is
'inferred' evidence, and one section for the more purely speculative 'theories' and
free thoughts. Of course, the problem is what is seen as evidence by one individual
is not by another. That is why I thought you might make a good moderator, you have
a good knowledge of the subject matter and seemingly enough knowledge of the
physical sciences to separate the wheat from the chaff. There are some who would
like the position that I believe would be impartial, but lack an extensive knowledge of
the subject matter. JamesR does a good job moderating Physics & Math, for instance,
but he is a physicist. Would someone with little knowledge of Physics be as effective?
Larry, if you haven't noticed it already, there is a thread in Sciforums Open Government section asking anyone interested in the position of moderator of the
pseudoscience forum to nominate themselves. There will then be a period of 'stump
speeches' in which each person will present his ideas of how the pseudoscience section should be moderated and why he thinks he would be best for the position.
Elections will follow, I suppose with each registered member having a vote if he chooses to cast it. As far as the time involved, I suppose that would be up to the
moderator. Some moderators here are very active in their forums, some seemingly
seldom show up. Damn, I just remembered, we did have a moderator of pseudoscience,
but she very infrequently made her presence known.
 
2inquisitive, he's only been here a week or so, and you already think he should be moderator? In spite of his rude behaviour above?
 
I would like to hear his ideas on how pseudoscience should be run. And, golly, you
have no grounds to be criticizing anyones 'rude behaviour', crazymikey!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top