The Proof for ETI

[crazymikey]

Mikey if i ever said it wasnt evidence i apologise and i shall edit the post, i believe i said it wasnt CONCLUSIVE evidence on its own(at least thats what i meant). Also the radar reports that you provided i consider inconclusive because you gave 3 different travelling speeds for the object, if it cant even be agreed how fast the object was travelling how can we debunk the claim? Also you provided no evidence for ETI, only UFO's, which as the name so aptly says, are unidentified. Persol mikey is right about the high probability of aliens being out there, but theres a considerably lower probability they have visited(thats not to say they havnt or cant).
In reality you need to believe 3 things to believe that aliens have visited:
1. There is life out there.
2. It is advanced enough to have FTL travel or can travel through wormholes.
3. That despite being so advanced, they managed to crash their ship which we now examine.


Although this wasnt aimed at me and i didnt say it was, can you conclusively prove it isnt?
Can i point something out about stealth, my understanding of it is that it isnt actually invisible, stealth aircraft simply cant be seen on radar(well actually some show up just stupidly small).

Finally lets say these thousands of claims of UFO's you say are out there(might not have been you but someone said it earlier) and produce some as ETI evidence are right, thats 1 thousand claims minimum, over 50 years, thats a minimum 20 Alien crafts a year, how comes we dont hear about them more often because thats what, 1 every few weeks minimum?
Though again this only proves there are unidentified objects flying around, not aliens, and i dont think many of us doubt UFO's only aliens.

Lemming, first I would to congratulate you, on making the first coherent and sensible skeptical argument. I am glad you are dealing with issue head on now.

Also the radar reports that you provided i consider inconclusive because you gave 3 different travelling speeds for the object, if it cant even be agreed how fast the object was travelling how can we debunk the claim? Also you provided no evidence for ETI, only UFO's, which as the name so aptly says, are unidentified.

I disagree Lem, it would be inconsistent, IF multiple Radar's were mapping the same UFO at the same point in time, and showing different speeds. However, that is not the case.

It is unreasonable to assume, UFO's travel at a constant velocity, or have a fixed velocity whenever they appear. Much like it would be unreasonable to assume the same for any of our vehicles.

Persol mikey is right about the high probability of aliens being out there, but theres a considerably lower probability they have visited(thats not to say they havnt or cant).

Thank you for conceding that. Now, to say it is a low probability for them visiting may not be accurate.

1: You do not know how abundant life is within our galaxy, anywhere within 2-1000(predicate of the drake equation based on known figures) intelligent species out from 4 to 1000 light years, would mean travelling at 10-50% speed of light, they would be able to complete an interstellar mission in 20 to 5000 years. This could be via a generation ship, or slowly colonizing planets, moons or building bases in the path, to effectively shorten the distance.

This type of approach would only suit nearby civilizations of 4 to 100 light years that can make the trip in 20-500 years. This is a relatively short time-frame, though it would take decades. A civlization commited to this sort of exploration, and can manage the costs. I call this a type 1 civilization - (We are a type 0 civilization)

Anything far beyond 1000 light years would require superluminal speeds/light speed or advanced physics, like wormholes, quantum teleportation, interdimensional travel. A discussion of this will follow later. To say that is impossible is very limiting, considering only 100 years ago, we were still riding on horses.

3. That despite being so advanced, they managed to crash their ship which we now examine.

The probability for error, wether external(atmosphere, magnetic field, or shot down) or internal(computer failiure, drive failiure, accident, EMF pulse) maybe made very rare, but it is unreasonable to say it can be completely eliminated. The aliens maybe technologically far superior, but they are are not exempt from the laws of the universe, nor should they be invincible. UFO's have been seen for centuries, maybe even a millenium, from this, we only have one "recorded" crash incident. In fact it could also be, the crash was deliberate, compare this to the attritions of our crafts, and it would come to thousands. That should put it into perspective.

Finally lets say these thousands of claims of UFO's you say are out there(might not have been you but someone said it earlier) and produce some as ETI evidence are right, thats 1 thousand claims minimum, over 50 years, thats a minimum 20 Alien crafts a year, how comes we dont hear about them more often because thats what, 1 every few weeks minimum?
Though again this only proves there are unidentified objects flying around, not aliens, and i dont think many of us doubt UFO's only aliens.

That is wrong. It has not been a minimum of 1000 claims. There are hundreds of thousands to millions of UFO sightings and abductions. Many are unreported, and tens of thousands cannot be explained. And we do hear about them, if we didn't, we would not be having this discussion now.

Although this wasnt aimed at me and i didnt say it was, can you conclusively prove it isnt?

The burden of proof lies with the originator of this statement. They have made a statement, it is a con, without proof. If no proof is produced, their statement logically can be eliminated.

 

[Lemming3k]

Lemming, first I would to congratulate you, on making the first coherent and sensible skeptical argument. I am glad you are dealing with issue head on now.

Actually that post was pretty much a repeat of what i've already said in this thread, which makes all my arguements sensible.

I disagree Lem, it would be inconsistent, IF multiple Radar's were mapping the same UFO at the same point in time, and showing different speeds. However, that is not the case.
It is unreasonable to assume, UFO's travel at a constant velocity, or have a fixed velocity whenever they appear. Much like it would be unreasonable to assume the same for any of our vehicles

I didnt say it travelled the same speed, i said 3 different speeds were given, 3 different estimates of speed, 3 independent people couldnt agree on how fast the object travelled.

A discussion of this will follow later. To say that is impossible is very limiting, considering only 100 years ago, we were still riding on horses.

Impossible wasnt mentioned, nor ever has been, and we had been riding horses for 5000 years before that, a races technology can evolve quickly and slowly(technology advanced more in the last 50 years then the 5000 before it), its perfectly possible a race has been around on another planet longer than us and is less advanced. Also i said from the start i believe life to be out there due to probability, i conceded that in the first few pages, even in my first few posts, i wonder did you read any of them as this is all a repeat?

As for the next section of your post, theres been hundreds of thousands of reports of UFO's, and 1 crash, i thought you said even at their technology level they have malfunctions, 1 in over 100000, pretty impressive rate of attrition i'd say, strange there hasnt been a second crash over a thousand years though.

Many are unreported, and tens of thousands cannot be explained. And we do hear about them, if we didn't, we would not be having this discussion now.

I said why dont we hear about them more often? Especially considering how many are around, the more that have visited the higher probability of crashes/conclusive evidence.

The burden of proof lies with the originator of this statement. They have made a statement, it is a con, without proof. If no proof is produced, their statement logically can be eliminated.

You also made a statement, it is not a con, and cannot prove it, your statement can logically be eliminated. Proof does fall to the person making the claim, if you say it may be a con, but most likely isnt, you arnt conclusively saying it is or isnt and wouldnt require proof, you said it wasnt a con, i'd say that statement requires proof.
Also i shall repeat, proof for UFO's isnt proof for ETI, keyword unidentified.
I dont dispute UFO's, i've seen plenty of things in the sky i couldnt identify, i dispute the visiting of ETI. Please address the issue at hand as you made a statement in the title of this thread and need to prove it to us, by now you know im open to persuasion and if you read my posts again you'll find i have been from the start, its just a case of evidence.

 

[Lemming3k]

And based on mikeys new claims evidence, i shall revise the mathematics from:
1 thousand claims minimum, over 50 years, thats a minimum 20 Alien crafts a year, how comes we dont hear about them more often because thats what, 1 every few weeks minimum....
To:
1 hundred thousand claims, over 1 thousand years, thats now 100 claims a year(that we know of) thats just under 2 a week. So in theory we should hear about them even more often than i originally calculated, thankyou mikey for the new figures.

 

[crazymikey]

Actually that post was pretty much a repeat of what i've already said in this thread, which makes all my arguements sensible.

Ah well, I knew It was not going to last. If I thought they were sensible, I would have said, like I said now. Your views about yourself is subjective, much like a creationist believes he is sensible and right. It is a part of our human program. This also shows you, I have nothing against skepticism against Aliens and UFO. You have a right to be skeptic, and you should be skeptic. Just don't be stupid. You won't stupid in the above post. No comment for the others.

I didnt say it travelled the same speed, i said 3 different speeds were given, 3 different estimates of speed, 3 independent people couldnt agree on how fast the object travelled.

How about quoting the piece you are referring too, so I can see, how valid your point is, or isn't.

Impossible wasnt mentioned, nor ever has been, and we had been riding horses for 5000 years before that, a races technology can evolve quickly and slowly(technology advanced more in the last 50 years then the 5000 before it), its perfectly possible a race has been around on another planet longer than us and is less advanced. Also i said from the start i believe life to be out there due to probability, i conceded that in the first few pages, even in my first few posts, i wonder did you read any of them as this is all a repeat?

I did not say you said it was impossible, I am lashing out the others, who think, they understand the universe already. No, that was not a repeat post, and I know you've been saying Aliens can exist, in fact, many of your kind, have said that. It is that you dealt with the issue head on, and recognised the evidence. Prior to this, you and co, were equivocating. That is why I congratulated you, for that partial opening of your mind.

As for the next section of your post, theres been hundreds of thousands of reports of UFO's, and 1 crash, i thought you said even at their technology level they have malfunctions, 1 in over 100000, pretty impressive rate of attrition i'd say, strange there hasnt been a second crash over a thousand years though.

We will never know, if any others crashed.

I said why dont we hear about them more often? Especially considering how many are around, the more that have visited the higher probability of crashes/conclusive evidence.

I am not sure what you are trying to say, so before I say anything. Answer this: Are you saying, there should be more crashes?

You also made a statement, it is not a con, and cannot prove it, your statement can logically be eliminated. Proof does fall to the person making the claim, if you say it may be a con, but most likely isnt, you arnt conclusively saying it is or isnt and wouldnt require proof, you said it wasnt a con, i'd say that statement requires proof.

No, I've not said it's not a con actually. I've only produced the evidence and said their claims should be investigated. So if you want to prove it's a con, you need to deal with the claims head on. The DP alone, would not make me believe in ETI and UFO's, despite how overwhelming it is.

Now, saying it is a con, without no evidence, only just because you don't like their claims, is not proof for anything, other than, foolishness. So we will not argue over this issue. Either the originator, back's their statements up, or zips it.

Also i shall repeat, proof for UFO's isnt proof for ETI, keyword unidentified.
I dont dispute UFO's, i've seen plenty of things in the sky i couldnt identify, i dispute the visiting of ETI.

Seeing something in the sky, that you don't identify? That is not technically a UFO. Please revert to my Physical proof post, to read the descriptions of a proper UFO sighting. Some people mistake weather baloons, baloons, frisbees for UFO's. Some people have close encounters, and see actual balls of light, or metallic disks floating above them, and then zooming of. Some people, or pilots, see these metallic saucers alongside them, cruising with them, or sometimes circling them, and then suddenly zooming away from them beyond supersonic speeds. Some people see them on radar. Some people see than on radar, and see them at the same time. Some people chase them through the sky, see them clearly, and see them on radar too. So what you cannot quite discern when you look above into the sky in the wonder, is not the same at all

Now, the proof of a UFO, is not proof for ETI? Say, the next day, it's proven, UFO are flying metallic craft, travelling from mach 4 to mach 265, that shoot of into out of space. What do you think that is, if not ETI? Do you think humans had this technology in the 1940's?

Say it is proven UFO abdunctions are taking place, and seeing as UFO's are synonymous with abductions - what else would explain that? Humans, abducting people, for experiments? That can project imagery in front of them, and beam them up into a ship?

Please address the issue at hand as you made a statement in the title of this thread and need to prove it to us, by now you know im open to persuasion and if you read my posts again you'll find i have been from the start, its just a case of evidence.

I have always been addressing the issue. Welcome.

 

[crazymikey]

And based on mikeys new claims evidence, i shall revise the mathematics from:
1 thousand claims minimum, over 50 years, thats a minimum 20 Alien crafts a year, how comes we dont hear about them more often because thats what, 1 every few weeks minimum....
To:
1 hundred thousand claims, over 1 thousand years, thats now 100 claims a year(that we know of) thats just under 2 a week. So in theory we should hear about them even more often than i originally calculated, thankyou mikey for the new figures.

I said hundreds of thousands to millons, in which case, the sightings per week should be even greater However, what makes you think, 20 sightings cannot happen in one week, and none in another week.

Now why don't you hear about them? You do. Those are reported sightings. This is like a man looking around in a dark room, and he can't see anything; does it mean, there is nothing in the room?

The reported sightings themselves come into hundreds of thousands. Many are unreported, so the actual total sightings may come into millions. You're not one of those people whose seen one. Neither am I. Then again I've never seen a stealth B52 either. That does not make me deny it's existence

 

[Lemming3k]

Ah well, I knew It was not going to last. If I thought they were sensible, I would have said, like I said now. Your views about yourself is subjective, much like a creationist believes he is sensible and right.

Mikey i made no view of myself, i stated a fact, the post was pretty much a repeat of what i've already been saying, and you said it was sensible, same arguements, different opinion from you, need i say more?

How about quoting the piece you are referring too, so I can see, how valid your point is, or isn't.

Certainly, from mikeys post on page 6:

The radar operator estimated the apparent speed of the URE as 4,000 mph; but the transit time of 30 sec yields an estimate of 4,800-6,000 mph, and the operator's estimate of 5-6 mi. covered by the URE between PPI sweeps (2 sec apart) gives an estimate of 9,000-10,800 mph.

So which speed was it?

That is why I congratulated you, for that partial opening of your mind.

Thankyou, but my mind was always open to the right evidence, it just hasnt been provided.

I am not sure what you are trying to say, so before I say anything. Answer this: Are you saying, there should be more crashes?

Im saying there should be more evidence, crashes aswell, especially based on the new mathematics you so kindly provided for me.

Now, saying it is a con, without no evidence, only just because you don't like their claims, is not proof for anything, other than, foolishness. So we will not argue over this issue. Either the originator, back's their statements up, or zips it.

lol i quite agree, to be honest im not really interested in that i was just pointing it out, though i may be interested in what the press comes out of it with.

Now, the proof of a UFO, is not proof for ETI? Say, the next day, it's proven, UFO are flying metallic craft, travelling from mach 4 to mach 265, that shoot of into out of space. What do you think that is, if not ETI? Do you think humans had this technology in the 1940's?

Say it is proven UFO abdunctions are taking place, and seeing as UFO's are synonymous with abductions - what else would explain that? Humans, abducting people, for experiments? That can project imagery in front of them, and beam them up into a ship?

To be honest you never know, but since this is hypothetical, it depends on the proof, i believe a lot of governments are covering up the development of some pretty modern and fancy craft at the moment(i'd be surprised if they werent developing something) question is how far on their developement have they got, and they might be brainwashing people etc(farfetched but some governments have been striving for this kind of thing). Though its perfectly possible some UFO's are ET in origin, its also possible(considering the developed world) that some UFO's are modern, maybe slightly futuristic government developments, dont close your mind to it mikey, UFO's can be anything. Also you did slightly make my point, first line on that quote, 'if tomorrow its proven', it hasnt been proven yet, UFO's are still unidentified, the originality of the name described anything that couldnt be identified, only in the modern world people take it to mean flying saucers and alien craft. I dont.

And there is always the possibility some UFO sightings might be B52's, Of course i do find it just hard to believe people see just as many UFO's each year as they do passanger airliners.

 

[crazymikey]

Certainly, from mikeys post on page 6:



So which speed was it?

Have you noticed that, it is not inconsistent: As in it is NOT three estimations, seperate from each other, with different speeds. The estimation of speed are based on only one initial radar recording, and then further analysed. So they have further calculated its speed from it's transit time in 30 sec sweeps to be 4800-6000 mph. Now using all data, the operators estimate of 5-6mi, and it PPI sweeps(2 secs apart) they have been able to make a more accurate estimate of 9000-10,800 mph.

These speeds are quite consistent with the other Radar cases I have listed. In laymen terms we could just say, it's going damn fast.

Thankyou, but my mind was always open to the right evidence, it just hasnt been provided.

What you see as "right" evidence may not be in my capacity to provide. I've provided a lot of evidence thus far, the strongest is the physical evidence, and the DP case. Now if that's not conclusive, fine, but it does not mean it's "wrong" evidence - no evidence is wrong actually.

Im saying there should be more evidence, crashes as well, especially based on the new mathematics you so kindly provided for me.

There should be more? - yet you seem shocked an advanced civilization's craft would crash at all? You do realise, if any others crashed or were shot down(as DP alleges) it highly likely, that you would not hear about it. New mathmatics? Do you even know how rare a crash maybe? Seeing as you can't even hope to know the cause of malfunction. Let me give you an example, let's say the probability of a temporary field disruption is 1 in a trillion(purely arbitary, and ridiculously low to illustrate the point) That one crash, such an event happend. The probability of that happening again is basically not in our life time.

Rare events do happen. Like a super volcano, or being hit by a meteorite the size of texas.

To be honest you never know, but since this is hypothetical, it depends on the proof, i believe a lot of governments are covering up the development of some pretty modern and fancy craft at the moment(i'd be surprised if they werent developing something) question is how far on their developement have they got, and they might be brainwashing people etc(farfetched but some governments have been striving for this kind of thing). Though its perfectly possible some UFO's are ET in origin, its also possible(considering the developed world) that some UFO's are modern, maybe slightly futuristic government developments, dont close your mind to it mikey, UFO's can be anything. Also you did slightly make my point, first line on that quote, 'if tomorrow its proven', it hasnt been proven yet, UFO's are still unidentified, the originality of the name described anything that couldnt be identified, only in the modern world people take it to mean flying saucers and alien craft. I dont.

The hypothesis exits, that this is human technology. However, is it viable?

1: Considering UFO have seen around 1940's and some early sightings from centuries ago.
2: Considering the magnificent accelerations of the UFO's, that would produce enough G force to crush everything on board.
3: Condering the magnificent speeds of mach 4 to mach 265
4: Considering the ability for UFO's to shoot of into out of space, or shoot into water.
5: Considering the complete lack of sonic boom, or noise
6: Consering the gravity defying motions of the UFO
7: Considering all the major wars fought in 1940-60's: World war 2, Cold war, Korean war, Vietnam, using obsolete weaponary
8: All advanced technologies, like supercomputing, superconductor, microchips, night vision, stealth, smart missiles, and particle accelerators, lazers, and the upcoming space planes and space weapons appeared later. This happend quite rapidly, considering how slow past technological growth was. Riding on horseback for centuries, and suddely a quantum leap into space and particle physics. (ETI influence? Could be)

9: Of course considering reporting alien bodies, and unknown metals, at Roswell, and abductions accounts, of people seeing Aliens.

No, it certainly is not a viable hypothesis at all.

 

[Lemming3k]

These speeds are quite consistent with the other Radar cases I have listed. In laymen terms we could just say, it's going damn fast.

I'll agree to that. However i dont see the radar cases as physical evidence of ETI, just a UFO.

There should be more? - yet you seem shocked an advanced civilization's craft would crash at all? You do realise, if any others crashed or were shot down(as DP alleges) it highly likely, that you would not hear about it. New mathmatics? Do you even know how rare a crash maybe? Seeing as you can't even hope to know the cause of malfunction. Let me give you an example, let's say the probability of a temporary field disruption is 1 in a trillion(purely arbitary, and ridiculously low to illustrate the point) That one crash, such an event happend. The probability of that happening again is basically not in our life time.

This is all speculation, but the more they visit the higher the crash probability, their technology must be advancing all the time same as ours so perhaps their would be a lot more earlier crashes? If accounts have been around a thousand years why not crashes in the middle ages?

The hypothesis exits, that this is human technology. However, is it viable?

1: Considering UFO have seen around 1940's and some early sightings from centuries ago.
2: Considering the magnificent accelerations of the UFO's, that would produce enough G force to crush everything on board.
3: Condering the magnificent speeds of mach 4 to mach 265
4: Considering the ability for UFO's to shoot of into out of space, or shoot into water.
5: Considering the complete lack of sonic boom, or noise
6: Consering the gravity defying motions of the UFO
7: Considering all the major wars fought in 1940-60's: World war 2, Cold war, Korean war, Vietnam, using obsolete weaponary
8: All advanced technologies, like supercomputing, superconductor, microchips, night vision, stealth, smart missiles, and particle accelerators, lazers, and the upcoming space planes and space weapons appeared later. This happend quite rapidly, considering how slow past technological growth was. Riding on horseback for centuries, and suddely a quantum leap into space and particle physics. (ETI influence? Could be)

9: Of course considering reporting alien bodies, and unknown metals, at Roswell, and abductions accounts, of people seeing Aliens.

No, it certainly is not a viable hypothesis at all.

Here are some possible answers for your hypothesis:
1. The sightings from centuries ago arnt backed up with physical evidence and are not conclusive, the 1940's was the height of development of craft due to the ongoing war, its possible they developed one but couldnt arm it(therefore making it useless in war).
2. The technology may exist so that its possible to fly at that speed without getting crushed, also they could be drones.
3. Speed doesnt prove they are ETI, I doubt any country would make it public if they could fly faster than anyone else.
4. Maybe this is also a development? Govenments want craft that can go from our atmosphere to space/water easily, maybe they have one?
5. How does lack of sonic boom prove ETI? If its possible not to have one then humans might be able to do the same(and eventually must be able to).
6. Again something the government would want, a cross between a helicopter and a jet plane, perfect aircraft, who's to say its not advanced hover technology thats being developed?
7. Again arming the craft my be a problem, thoughout time when something is developed it gets adapted for warfare, the first aircraft werent armed for 10 years, who's to say if we develope craft like this fitting weapons will be a doddle. It may be a spycraft.
8. Its possible influence, you know im open to all posibilities, also perhaps a government was developing faster than they let on? It might not even be america, china may have only just got into space but perhaps they have been developing these craft, whose to say america didnt recover a craft at roswell full of chinese immigrants???
9. These are just things you've been told, likewise the accounts from DP say they have physical evidence but dont provide it, it could all be a hoax from the government, perhaps saying aliens landed will justify if they have some superpowerful craft?

In summary if you open your mind enough they can be manmade, as you can see my mind is very open to all posibilities, its possible they are ETI or manmade, or even both and maybe some other things, we wont know until the truth comes out(and i mean conclusive physical evidence not just a few hundred people making claims, if they bring physical evidence with them thats different of course).

 

[coolmacguy]

Stan Friedman's 4 rules of debunkery:

1. What the public doesn't know, we are not going to tell them.

2. Don't bother us with the facts, our minds are made up.

3. If we can't attack the data, we will attack the people; it is much easier.

4. Do one's research by proclamation, rather than investigation. It is much easier and most people won't know the difference.

 

[crazymikey]

I'll agree to that. However i dont see the radar cases as physical evidence of ETI, just a UFO.

Thats great then. If the physical evidence for UFO's proves UFO's are a physical craft:

So UFOs could be:

A:ETI
B: Man-made
C: Time travellers from the future
D: Some bizarre and unknown fluctuation in space time

In reverse order:

D: Extremely far-fetched, and absolutely no reason to believe such a phenomena exists
C: No reason to believe time travel is possible

Leaving us with

A
B

Now let's examine them.

Comparision of A to B

1: Considering UFO have seen around 1940's and some early sightings from centuries ago.

The sightings from centuries ago arnt backed up with physical evidence and are not conclusive, the 1940's was the height of development of craft due to the ongoing war, its possible they developed one but couldnt arm it(therefore making it useless in war

I agree, the sightings from the far past, are inconclusive. As we are considering a completely different time period, in which if UFO's and aliens were even seen, they would be given symbolic names: Like ghosts, demons, flying chariots, fireballs, shields gods, devils, vampires etc. Our job is to decypher their real meanings - are they referring to a fictional god or a ghost, or a modern day UFO and ETI encounter.

Some accounts are very compelling, and almost identical to a modern UFO encounter. So all common skeptical hypothesis would not even apply:

Things like ships were seen in the sky over Italy..... At Arpi [in Italy] a round shield was seen in the sky.... At Capua, the sky was all on fire, and one saw figures like ships....

In Japan, on October 27, 1180, an object shaped like a glowing "earthenware vessel" flew across the sky at midnight. On September 24, 1235, a General named Yoritsume saw mysterious sources of light flying in loops in the night sky (His advisors told him it was merely the wind blowing the stars about). On January 2, 1458, a bright object like a full moon was seen, followed by "curious signs" in the heavens. In 1606, a whirling ball of fire was seen hovering over Nijo Castle, and in 1749 three round objects were seen in the skies over Japan for four days.

1034 Europe: A rare typeset book from 1493 contains what may be the earliest pictorial representation of a UFO. The book Liber Chronicarum, describes a strange fiery sphere, seen in 1034, soaring through the sky in a straight course from south to east and then veering toward the setting sun. The illustration accompanying the account shows a cigar-shaped form haloed by flames, sailing through a blue sky over a green, rolling countryside. This may be the first work that actually contains actual illustrations of UFO's.

1133 Japan: A large silvery disk is reported to have come close to the ground.

1235 Japan: What might be called the first official investigation of a UFO sighting occurred in Japan in 1235. During the night while General Yoritsume and his army were encamped, mysterious lights were observed in the heavens. The lights were seen in the southwest for many hours, winging, circling and moving in loops. The general ordered a "full-scale scientific investigation" of these strange events. The report finally submitted to him has the "soothing" ring of many contemporary explanations offered for UFO phenomena. In essence it read: "the whole thing is completely natural, General. It is... only the wind making the stars

sway."
The same descriptions more or less, from 200 to 700 years ago, long before the coining of the terms "aliens" and"flying saucers" Long before the invention of flying craft and weather baloons, neon lights, mass media, and the discovery of modern physics. I'm sure this has raised a few eyebrows, if not, what will? Even then the skeptical explanations were as stupid as they are today, "the wind is blowing the stars"[/quote]

2: Considering the magnificent accelerations of the UFO's, that would produce enough G force to crush everything on board.

2. The technology may exist so that its possible to fly at that speed without getting crushed, also they could be drones.

For a UFO to exist, such technology would have to exist. In fact it entails some sort of quantum gravity manipulation or inertial force modficiation They knew this in the 40's? Yet 60+ years of technology and it is beyond the grasp of our physics.

3: Considering the magnificent speeds of mach 4 to mach 265

3:. Speed doesnt prove they are ETI, I doubt any country would make it public if they could fly faster than anyone else.

It's very public of the speeds our known craft can travel at. We also know the speeds of future propulsion planes. The hypersonic air-breathing planes, being developed by US, India, Japan, Russia and China, that are capable of speeds of Mach 7-10.

Also in "development" are light-beam propelled air craft and microwave beam propelled air craft, peaking at Mach 50, and even eliminating sonic boom; and the conceptual model: http://science.howstuffworks.com/light-propulsion2.htm

1940-1950: Mach 0.5 - Mach 1.4
1950-1960: Mach 1.4 - Mach 2.9
1960-1970: Mach 2.9 - Mach 3.6
1970-1980: Mach 3.6 - Mach 4
1980-1990: Mach 4
1990-2000: Mach 4

The subsonic planes used piston engines. The sonic and supersonic planes used jet engines. Hypersonic planes uses air-breathing engines. Megasonic(1-100) will be using microwave beams or light beams. Now UFO's, are travelling from Mach 4 -265. They are not using Piston engines. They are not using jet engines. They are not using air-breathing engines. They are not even using microwave beams or light beams.

Somehow in 1940's and prior, flying crafts are zipping across our skies from Mach 265+ and even in 60+ years of technology, we are only capable of 1.5% of that speed. Even our most ambitious future technologies in the next 50 years will only make 18% of that.

4: Considering the ability for UFO's to shoot of into out of space, or shoot into water.

4. Maybe this is also a development? Govenments want craft that can go from our atmosphere to space/water easily, maybe they have one?

I don't think you understand the physics of such a craft and its role as a powerful force multiplier. Our physics, does not allow an aircraft, built for air travel, to travel underwater, or a submarine built for underwater travel, to travel air. If it was that simple, we'd at least have a conceptual model of such a craft today. Such an ability of a craft that can travel in space/air/water would require advanced physics and an unknown method of propulsion, that is currently beyond our scope. Let alone the scope of 1940's.

5: Considering the complete lack of sonic boom, or noise

How does lack of sonic boom prove ETI? If its possible not to have one then humans might be able to do the same(and eventually must be able to).

If we can eliminate sonic boom and noise from as eariy as 1940, then why in 60+ years, haven't we? Removing noise, and sonic boom would be a powerful force multiplier. Combined with stealth technology, and the enemy wouldn't have a clue what hit them. If we had this technology, our losses would have been drastically minimized in all the wars we have fought.
If you read the article I posted on the microwave propulsion, it actually talks of how to eliminate it. So it is possible.

6: Considering the gravity defying motions of the UFO

6. Again something the government would want, a cross between a helicopter and a jet plane, perfect aircraft, who's to say its not advanced hover technology thats being developed?

Gravity defying motions of zooming from place to place, in 2 second sweeps, and instantly stopping in mid-air is not possible with jet engines, or helicopters. Having aircraft that can do that, combined with BVR missiles of Mach 265 and you'd never lose an air war. We have lost thousands upon of thousands of aircraft in war. For what? Fireworks?

7: Considering all the major wars fought in 1940-60's: World war 2, Cold war, Korean war, Vietnam, using obsolete weaponary

7. Again arming the craft my be a problem, thoughout time when something is developed it gets adapted for warfare, the first aircraft werent armed for 10 years, who's to say if we develope craft like this fitting weapons will be a doddle. It may be a spycraft.

You obviously have no understanding of the implications of have such technology. It goes far beyond the inferior weaponary of that time. The technology itself is such a powerful weapon, that if used, it could have ended every war we have fought in 60+ years, in minutes

1: The technology to modify quantum gravity, and modify inertial forces and fields - surpassing all the intermediates of superconductors, super computering, particle accelerators.

2: The technology to travel in space/air/water

3: The technology to travel hundreds of times faster than sound, surpassing all the intermediates of jet engines, air-breathing engines, laser beams, microwaves.

4: The technology to completely elminate noise and sonic boom

5: The technology to access tremendous energy

Each one is a powerful force multiplier. You could unleash utter destruction on your opponent. In fact you would be near invincible.

The fact that in 60+ years we have not displayed any such technology, only means, we never had it then.

8:All advanced technologies, like supercomputing, superconductor, microchips, night vision, stealth, smart missiles, and particle accelerators, lazers, and the upcoming space planes and space weapons appeared later. This happend quite rapidly, considering how slow past technological growth was. Riding on horseback for centuries, and suddely a quantum leap into space and particle physics. (ETI influence? Could be)

Its possible influence, you know im open to all posibilities, also perhaps a government was developing faster than they let on? It might not even be america, china may have only just got into space but perhaps they have been developing these craft, whose to say america didnt recover a craft at roswell full of chinese immigrants???

It's not the government who develops science. It's the scientists who further science. I am pointing out, how only in the last century, how science had advanced so unnaturally and dramatically and taking us so far, that even in 1000+ years of human history we could not accomplish what we did in the last 100 years. And it's gets even more ridiculous now; quantum teleportation, string theory, interdimensional travel, zero point physics, cloning, anti-matter, interstellar travel, artificial intelligence. What can explain this sudden quantum leap?

As for the Roswell remark. Im sure people can tell the difference between Chinese immigrants and humonoid life forms. Oh, and if China had this technology, the world would be an extremely dangerous place.


Somehow, in 1940's and prior, you say we got this technology, yet which in 60 years+ is beyond everyone of our capacities. In fact this technology is so advanced, that it maybe hundreds to thousands of years in advance of us(based on future scientific growth)
In 60+ years we have not displayed this technology. In fact, we have gone forth and developed all the intermediate and obsolete technologies and wasted trillions of dollars. We have not yielded any of this power in any of the major wars we fought.

It's not very viable at all, is it?

Compare this to hypothesis A: ETI;

1: It is highly likely ETI exists.

2: Some ETI that have had more evolutionary time, would most likely, be more technologically advanced than us and be capable of physics beyond our scope.

3: UFO's require physics beyond our scope.

Therefore:

4: UFO's belong to ETI

That is the most logical and also the simplest explanation.

Now wether the government has UFO and other advanced technologies now, as DP alleges, based on decades of reverse engineered ETI UFO's and blackprojects, could partially explain how we have become so advanced so quickly. It could also explain that some modern UFO's are indeed manufactured and piloted by humans. If the US were to go to war now with a powerful enemy. I can bet on it, they would unleash the power and technology they have been concealing

 

[crazymikey]

Give this thread a bump: