the alien agenda

[Pincho Paxton]

It doesn't solve anything to say that higher intelligence created lower intelligence. This is what people say to easily solve a problem. There are many solutions that work better backwards than forwards...

"A universe created this Universe."
"A Chicken created an egg."
"An alien created man."
"God created everything."

Just simple solutions for the lazy people.

 

[nietzschefan]

It doesn't solve anything to say that higher intelligence created lower intelligence. This is what people say to easily solve a problem. There are many solutions that work better backwards than forwards...

"A universe created this Universe."
"A Chicken created an egg."
"An alien created man."
"God created everything."

Just simple solutions for the lazy people.

Goofy.

It would solve our origins. Humans at least.

 

[nietzschefan]

Not unless all life on earth is alien. The DNA we share with all other life on earth makes that very clear.

Yup except for about 200 base pairs. Genetics people chalk it up to bacteria fucking with us. Not sure if I believe them. I wonder if any other species are missing as much "ancestral" DNA as us....

 

[Stryder]

Goofy.

It would solve our origins. Humans at least.

Not really, Science has entire schools devoted to mankind, Such as medicine, history, biology, philosophy etc. It could be postulated that over time mankind would amass such a wealth of knowledge on the subject of "Self", that the very creation of the universe and themselves would be the outcome.

I guess you could imply that our existence is our own question for which we, ourselves, look for the answer to.

Why would there be a third-party involvement in a history and existence that does not concern them?

 

[nietzschefan]

The theory is we are a DNA farm. Didn't say it was a good theory.

 

[KilljoyKlown]

Okay, what if it was aliens that tinkered with our DNA in the past. What would their motivation be for doing that? What would they have to gain by doing that? How much is it costing them to do that?

I don't know what the answers to the first two questions might be. But I can make a good guess about that third question, and considering the time and distance involved in using this planet as a lab over millions of years. It is a considerable investment, more than the entire gross product of the human race sense we started farming to some distant time in the future. So the answers to 1 & 2 becomes very important if we are still thinking aliens are involved.

 

[Arioch]

If the aliens are advanced enough to cross intergalactic distances in a relatively short period of time(such as a thousand years or less) then why would they not be equally advanced in the area of genetics? Why are they so hopelessly backwards in genetics that they have to use living beings as "DNA farms"? Why not just synthetically create it themselves(even we can do this, though we still need to use yeast to stitch the synthetic DNA together)? And why do they use DNA anyways(if they evolved on a different planet, under what's likely to be different environmental conditions and subject to different circumstances then they would very likely use some other form of genetic information)?

These are questions that need to be answered.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

well there is evidence that aircraft are flying around doing breakneck maneuvers being tracked on radar...

No there isn't.

fringe is actually correct in this one case. There is a video attached to the page of Britain's released UFO files (courtesy of their Freedom of Information Act). The part you would be interested in starts at 4:52 on the video's timeline.

The rest of fringe's stuff is classic woo naturally.

 

[Arioch]

Well there's evidence that radar equipment recorded such things, but no actual validation that it was aircraft creating those readings. The best explanation is equipment failure.

 

[Dywyddyr]

fringe is actually correct in this one case. There is a video attached to the page of Britain's released UFO files (courtesy of their Freedom of Information Act). The part you would be interested in starts at 4:52 on the video's timeline.

Um, no.
His claim is that there are aircraft tracked on radar doing these things.
Admittedly there are radar returns that indicate "something" appears to be doing these manoeuvres but we cannot tell if they are craft at all. Or even if it is a "continuously existing phenomenon". In other words a radar sweeps the sky. "Something is at position X on one sweep, and something (possibly something else altogether) is at position Y on the next.
There is no evidence that what is at position X at time 1 is is actually the same thing that is at position Y at time 2.
Bear in mind that radar is capable of tracking many things, not all of which are "material"...

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Well there's evidence that radar equipment recorded such things, but no actual validation that it was aircraft creating those readings. The best explanation is equipment failure.

The case I pointed out was detected by radar in 2 different countries (Britain and the U.S.). What can be said is that it wasn't radar failure, it was airborn, it could follow a British aircraft, and it could move at speeds that modern day aircrafts are incapable of.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Um, no.
His claim is that there are aircraft tracked on radar doing these things.
Admittedly there are radar returns that indicate "something" appears to be doing these manoeuvres but we cannot tell if they are craft at all. Or even if it is a "continuously existing phenomenon". In other words a radar sweeps the sky. "Something is at position X on one sweep, and something (possibly something else altogether) is at position Y on the next.
There is no evidence that what is at position X at time 1 is is actually the same thing that is at position Y at time 2.
Bear in mind that radar is capable of tracking many things, not all of which are "material"...

I understand where you are coming from. You are correct in that a radar can track a multitude of airborn phenomena that could end up looking like a sequence of motions from a single object. What I pointed out doesn't share this description. My apologies for not posting the website in my last post. It is:

http://ufos.nationalarchives.gov.uk/

The video I am referring to is the Podcast on the upper right of the page.

 

[Arioch]

Nothing there removes mechanical failure as a possible explanation, and given that it's the explanation that requires the fewest assumptions it's the best explanation we have available. Unless, of course, you can show that FTL travel is possible, that it is technically feasible, and produce an actual extra terrestrial.

Genuine UFO sightings are quite common, given that a UFO is merely a flying object which has yet to be identified. However the likelihood that these UFOs are the interstellar or intergalactic crafts of extraterrestrials is remarkably low. Higher than, say, a deity creating the universe, but still extremely minuscule.

 

[Dywyddyr]

The case I pointed out was detected by radar in 2 different countries (Britain and the U.S.).

Untrue: it may have been tracked US radar (but it was from the US base at Lakenheath in the UK). (The Venom was incapable of crossing the Atlantic!)

What I pointed out doesn't share this description.

But it may well do. The radar tracking the aircraft (RAF Venoms) was a sweeping (rotating) radar.

And, strangely enough, according to that report (and the transcript) there was only ONE person (Wimbledon) who made this claim: there are no records...

The "similar" story (from Noyes) does not quite jibe with the Wimbledon account.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Nothing there removes mechanical failure as a possible explanation, and given that it's the explanation that requires the fewest assumptions it's the best explanation we have available.

You mis-applied occam's razor there ;3. While it's possible that both countries had the exact same mechanical failure, it's not very likely (correctly applied occam's razor). I am not advocating FTL travel or an alien pilot. What I am pointing out is evidence of an object in the air that was detected, tail-gated a British jet for a while, and was able to move at speeds that modern aircraft cannot. In other words it was a genuine unidentified flying object. That's where the evidence ends.

We can speculate about aliens, advanced U.S. technology, private sector technology, etc. all we want; however, those would be mere speculations.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Untrue: it may have been tracked US radar (but it was from the US base at Lakenheath in the UK). (The Venom was incapable of crossing the Atlantic!)

After listening to the video again and checking the geography, you are 100% correct (my bad). Two radar systems owned by different countries detected it but it wasn't detected across two different countries.

But it may well do. The radar tracking the aircraft (RAF Venoms) was a sweeping (rotating) radar.

And, strangely enough, according to that report (and the transcript) there was only ONE person (Wimbledon) who made this claim: there are no records...

The "similar" story (from Noyes) does not quite jibe with the Wimbledon account.

I'll take a look at the video again.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

But it may well do. The radar tracking the aircraft (RAF Venoms) was a sweeping (rotating) radar.

And, strangely enough, according to that report (and the transcript) there was only ONE person (Wimbledon) who made this claim: there are no records...

The "similar" story (from Noyes) does not quite jibe with the Wimbledon account.

I looked at the video again and tracked the sequence of events. Noyes didn't issue a statement that was for or against Wimbledon's account. Here is what the video stated:

U.S.: Reported fast moving blip.
Freddie Wimbledon (RAF Fighter Controller): Confirmed.
RAF Fighter Command: Ordered a Venom interceptor to intercept.
Venom Interceptor Pilot: Confirmed contact and then lost contact.
Freddie Wimbledon (RAF Fighter Controller): Told the pilot the object was now tailgating him.
RAF Fighter Command: Ordered a 2nd venom Interceptor to intercept.
Freddie Wimbledon (RAF Fighter Controller): Reported that the object zoomed off.
Ministry of Defense: Confirmed that all records of the event were lost or destroyed.
Ralph Noyes: Said he was shown UFO gun camera film from the Venom Interceptors hosted by the MoD.
MoD: Said no trace of these videos exist.
Ralph Noyes: Reported that a spate of U.S. spotted UFO sightings over Washington DC was simply American hysteria (after indirectly investigating them). This spate occured the same year as the event in question.
Ralph Noyes: Said UFOs were not a defense threat.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Noyes didn't issue a statement that was for or against Wimbledon's account. Here is what the video stated:

Ralph Noyes: Said he was shown UFO gun camera film from the Venom Interceptors hosted by the MoD.

From the transcript:

This Lakenheath incident is also mentioned by retired MoD official Ralph Noyes who, in a letter to MoD in 1986, said he had been shown gun camera film of UFOs taken by RAF Venom aircrew at a secret screening in MoD Main Building in 1970.

Is it genuinely the same incident?
No mention of gun camera shots being taken in Wimbledon's account, that simply says "made contact and then (more or less immediately?) lost it again.
There's a considerable range difference between radar detection and opening up with a gun camera.

 

[Arioch]

Radar detecting UFOs is incredibly common and could be anything from an unusual bird migration(tightly packed flocks can appear as a single object on radar) to an unknown type of aircraft as all radar readings have to be compared to known radar profiles. If something with an unknown profile(such as a currently existing aircraft with a modified frame) is detected then of course it's going to be a UFO. Technically every single flying object detected, whether by radar or even by sight, starts off as a UFO. I fail to see what the significance is as just about any explanation, including multiple sensitive systems experiencing identical mechanical failures, is more likely than ETs.

The reason I mentioned ETs in relation to this was that they were the original topic of the thread, not UFOs.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

From the transcript:


Is it genuinely the same incident?
No mention of gun camera shots being taken in Wimbledon's account, that simply says "made contact and then (more or less immediately?) lost it again.
There's a considerable range difference between radar detection and opening up with a gun camera.

Don't know, it was implied but never explicitly stated.