The real cost of real UFOs

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by phlogistician
So why do they come here so much?

Who knows? How can we ever guess without more information...if they are here.

Ah, so their existance relies on the shadows in science! Just like God! See, we have gotten to the core of this, UFOlogy is merely another belief system. If we have to entertain the idea of ETs and UFOs because we don't have a complete description of science, we have to entertain all other hypotheses that we also cannot disprove, if we are being truly open minded, and that gets absurd.

Again, you ignore the primary IF - THEN statement. IF they are here, THEN this is some speculation as to how. This only responds to your limiting statements about technology.

Radar is not not 'hard' data, it's an intangible. Part of a UFO would be be 'hard'. Radar isn't perfect, and one thing I'm certain of, if that the radar traces for UFOs are always incomplete, popping onto radar, being tracked for a while, and vanishing. So, incomplete data isn't good data either.

So lets ignore the data because we don't like it. If these systems were so unreliable, then we should have planes falling from the sky like rain. considering that we use RADAR to detemine whether or not to start WWIII, it seems that others give this data a little more credibility than you do.

Was it 8, or 10 orbs?

I'm not sure...it was a flying V formation with 4 or five orbs along each leg.

I learned physics in physics lectures and in physics labs, performing experiments, and getting repeatable data, which matched hypotheses. NONE of this can be said for UFOs. We'd have mathemtical models, if there were good 'hard' data, but we don't.

This only means that our approach is too limited. Where does it say in the physics books that all real phenomenon are repeatable on demand? Naive falsification.

Yep, everybody knows about the misquote, and rash of copycat sightings, which is a major discrediting factor of UFO sightings. Why would aliens keep visiting the earth, over thousands of years as some claim? The one constant over all this time, is human fallability and imagination. If ETs are sufficiently advanced to build near light speed craft, their technology must have advanced in other areas too, and I really doubt earth has much to offer them, bar tourism. Why would tourists adbuct humans though?

So then the basis for your position is your intimiate knowledge of ET's motives. OK, now who is making rash assumptions?

 

[(Q)]

science is full of fraud and stupidity.

More precisely, science is hampered by fraud and stupidity:

http://skepdic.com/tijunk.html

 

[(Q)]

Where does it say in the physics books that all real phenomenon are repeatable on demand?

Have you actually picked up and read a physics book? If so, you would realize just how much your ET visiting Earth ideas are contradicted by physics.

But I’m sure you haven’t the time to read anything aside from UFOlogy reports, right?

 

[spookz]

ET visiting Earth ideas are contradicted by physics.

lay them out and i will expose them to be erroneous. i dare you!

More precisely, science is hampered by fraud and stupidity:

More precisely, ufology is hampered by fraud and stupidity...namely the pseudo skeptical garbage that is passed off as rational critique. it appears that all you can muster is emotional and religious rants.

i tell ya man, how is it the ufo kooks are the reasonable and objective ones here? i believe the establishment should send more able reps if they wanna prevail. pathetic!

 

[VRob]

Originally posted by spookz
i tell ya man, how is it the ufo kooks are the reasonable and objective ones here? i believe the establishment should send more able reps if they wanna prevail. pathetic!

LOL Spooks!

I was just thinking the same thing.

 

[spookz]

Originally posted by (Q)
When you're ready to talk about the real issues and the real science surrounding interstellar travel, let me know.

Going beyond the limits of an existing technology requires a pioneering spirit. It requires imagination to envision future possibilities. Pioneering requires confronting ignorance and creating new knowledge rather than just apply existing knowledge. It requires intuition and subjective judgments to navigate in the absence of an established knowledge base. And because progress is unpredictable and the returns on investment are long-term, it requires the ability to take risks.

worms,warp and other shit

i dont think you can hack it q

 

[phlogistician]

OK, let's get some backgound here.

I'll go first. I lived on a an airforce base during the cold war. I never saw UFOs buzzing around, policing the stockpile of nuclear weapons kept there. Pilots I knew never said they saw UFOs. Radar operators never said they saw UFOs.

I trained as a physicist, and later worked in the aerospace industry, with guys that built satellites, and other guys that analysed satellite data, and met astronauts, and ground based observers. You know, real rocket scientists.

None of the people I met believed in ETs being the cause of UFOs.

Why was that do you think? That the people with the appropriate level of education in related fields and with access to the relevant data saw nothing in it?

And spookz, it's easy to diss science, but it was science that brought you the computer you are posting from. it wasn't belief that achieved the microchip, nor a prediliction towards conspiracy theories, or distrust of government, or a few grainy photos. It was scientific research spin offs from the space program. Science provides tangible results, and you know it!

If you want to know more, see all the data that you think is witheld, get yourself a PhD and go work for the people that have it, and see for yourself. Leak it, make people aware. If you think science is a fruad, get inside and find out for yourself, put the effort in.

But like I have said, I've never been cut in on the conspiracy if there is one.

 

[spookz]

OK, let's get some backgound here.

why? all that matters is what you put down on paper. opinions and judgements based on this is all that matters. for the record, i am a homeless bum on the beach (self educated to boot)

Pilots I knew never said they saw UFOs. Radar operators never said they saw UFOs. ........None of the people I met believed in ETs being the cause of UFOs.

selective....something. watch me do the same.....

• 
  
  *On May 11, 1962 NASA pilot Joseph Walker said that one of his tasks was to detect UFOs during his X-15 flights. He had filmed five or six UFOs during his record breaking fifty-mile-high flight in April, 1962. It was the second time he had filmed UFOs in flight. During a lecture at the Second National Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Space Research in Seattle, Washington he said:
  
  "I don't feel like speculating about them. All I know is what appeared on the film which was developed after the flight." - Joseph Walker
  
  * In 1979 Maurice Chatelain, former chief of NASA Communications Systems confirmed that Armstrong had indeed reported seeing two UFOs on the rim of a crater. Chatelain believes that some UFOs may come from our own solar system -- specifically Titan.
  
  "The encounter was common knowledge in NASA, but nobody has talked about it until now."
  
  "...all Apollo and Gemini flights were followed, both at a distance and sometimes also quite closely, by space vehicles of extraterrestrial origin - flying saucers, or UFOs, if you want to call them by that name. Every time it occurred, the astronauts informed Mission Control, who then ordered absolute silence."
  
  astronaut sightings

wanna comment?

Why was that do you think?

i aint gonna bite

Science provides tangible results, and you know it!

ahh cmon now, i am just having fun.

If you want to know more, see all the data that you think is witheld, get yourself a PhD and go work for the people that have it, and see for yourself. Leak it, make people aware. If you think science is a fruad, get inside and find out for yourself, put the effort in.

now that is excellent. perhaps we can imagine a scenario.

sciforums has a decent readership. imagine this guy, well placed to effect change, comes across a post by say....ives or ivan. mind is stimulated, curiousity aroused, engages in own research, makes a big stink.

do you see how we all, in our own little "pathetic" ways, work towards a common goal, whatever that may be? this is making "people aware"

besides, our collective dissonance about ufo's is at such a level that it will take nothing less than an announcement from the prez verifying their existence. in a major issue such as this, any less would be useless. all one has to do is eyeball the ineffectual attempts of others in the past.

*pretty good at excuses, aint i?

But like I have said, I've never been cut in on the conspiracy if there is one.

this is frikkin tiring. lets roleplay. you are the frikking head of defense. now what do you do when ufo's come a calling? gimme a few scenarios!

i simply do not see any need to acknowledge ufo's if they stick to their usual routine. it is different if they present us with a business card. their "cat and mouse" shit simply doesnt warrant causing any upheavals in earther society. i do not see any benefits at this time to disclose shit!

i dont give a damn if accused of conspiracies and cover ups. to hell with the hysterical masses anyway. dont they know that big brother knows best anyway?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by phlogistician

OK, let's get some backgound here.

I'll go first. I lived on a an airforce base during the cold war. I never saw UFOs buzzing around, policing the stockpile of nuclear weapons kept there. Pilots I knew never said they saw UFOs. Radar operators never said they saw UFOs.

Well, I don't see how this is relevant. I know someone who grew up in Iran and who first saw a camel at the San Diego Zoo.

I trained as a physicist, and later worked in the aerospace industry, with guys that built satellites, and other guys that analysed satellite data, and met astronauts, and ground based observers. You know, real rocket scientists.

None of the people I met believed in ETs being the cause of UFOs.

Who made this an ET argument? Also, I have a physics degree, I worked on the National Missile defense program, a stealth boat, and innumerable high tech industries as a result of my work. I have spoken with or listened to hundreds of military and high tech people who do believe in UFOs.

 

[phlogistician]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking

Who made this an ET argument?

In one of my posts, I made the point, that if you say you believe in UFOs but not that they are ETs, you are really saying that you believe in terrestrial stealth aircraft. As we know stealth aircraft exist, this point of view is rather fruitless, and doesn't really need saying at all.

What people who say this are doing, is introducing doubt, to get credibility, to come over as rational, by distancing themselves from the ET hypothesis at first. A case of softly softly, as an upfront 'I believe ETs are visiting earth' puts a lot of people off.

And I am being strict on the definition of UFO here, the Flying part. I'm not talking about people who witness an odd glow, shooting star, or whatever, but rather the phenomenon of controlled flight.

If they are terrestrial in origin, so what? As you are well aware with your background, we occasionally find it necessary to keep secrets. There is stuff we aren't supposed to know or tell. Terrestrial explanations therefore, fall into this, and while they might be technologically fascinating, there is no real mystery. Unless we start getting metaphysical and start talking about angels and demons, of course, and not flying machines.

So, if you have met people who do believe in UFOs, do they believe in the ET origin? Or being in the military, that they are terrestrial, and probably advanced aircraft? For a military person or defense contractor, surely the last opinion is a no brainer.

Therefore, my only issue is with the ET hypothesis. I'm sure there are advanced aircraft capable of things we find amazing being test flown (I recall being totally f*cking amazed when I saw an Sukhoi Su-27 in action, and that is a pretty _old_ design now), so these advanced military craft aren't 'unidentified', but just secret.

So when we talk UFOs therefore, we really are talking about ETs I think. And that begs a lot of questions.

As a physicist, you are only too aware of the issues of interstellar travel. Let's debate those, not grainy photographs, and eyewitness reports. Plenty of people report having had probes shoved up their arses by aliens. I don't believe them, I doubt you do, so eye witness reports don't get us very far, unless we are selective. But then all we are debating, is our selection threshold, not the subject matter.

 

[(Q)]

As a physicist, you are only too aware of the issues of interstellar travel. Let's debate those, not grainy photographs, and eyewitness reports.

I have repeatedly asked this same question, yet the believers are not willing to discuss the issues. Why is that?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by phlogistician
In one of my posts, I made the point, that if you say you believe in UFOs but not that they are ETs, you are really saying that you believe in terrestrial stealth aircraft. As we know stealth aircraft exist, this point of view is rather fruitless, and doesn't really need saying at all.

There is no basis for this conclusion. The most interesting and credible reports do not indicate that this could be the explanation. I look to some other rare and incredibly energetic natural phenomenon for a non-ET solution.

What people who say this are doing, is introducing doubt, to get credibility, to come over as rational, by distancing themselves from the ET hypothesis at first. A case of softly softly, as an upfront 'I believe ETs are visiting earth' puts a lot of people off.

No, this is how the skeptics produce ad hominem arguments to avoid the issue and to discredit the good evidence, and mostly anything they don't like. I don't have to prove the existence of interstellar travel in order to consider military reports of UFOs.

And I am being strict on the definition of UFO here, the Flying part. I'm not talking about people who witness an odd glow, shooting star, or whatever, but rather the phenomenon of controlled flight.

There could be some completely unknown phenomenon that meets none of the above requirements.

If they are terrestrial in origin, so what? As you are well aware with your background, we occasionally find it necessary to keep secrets. There is stuff we aren't supposed to know or tell. Terrestrial explanations therefore, fall into this, and while they might be technologically fascinating, there is no real mystery. Unless we start getting metaphysical and start talking about angels and demons, of course, and not flying machines.

I think the mystery goes beyond the mundane and is worth knowing. No way do military craft account for the evidence.

So, if you have met people who do believe in UFOs, do they believe in the ET origin? Or being in the military, that they are terrestrial, and probably advanced aircraft? For a military person or defense contractor, surely the last opinion is a no brainer.

Most people avoid conclusions; and rightly so I think.

So when we talk UFOs therefore, we really are talking about ETs I think. And that begs a lot of questions.

No no no! This is not necessary. This again only persupposes a solution that you yourself argue against.

As a physicist, you are only too aware of the issues of interstellar travel. Let's debate those, not grainy photographs, and eyewitness reports. Plenty of people report having had probes shoved up their arses by aliens. I don't believe them, I doubt you do, so eye witness reports don't get us very far, unless we are selective. But then all we are debating, is our selection threshold, not the subject matter.

I simply take things as they come. I feel that at this time it is fallacious to apply any hypothesis to something so ellusive and nebulous. We need more information.

These are the kind of reports that interest me:

http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo20.pdf

http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo17.pdf

 

[Ives]

phlogistician,

First of all, I appreciate your presence here. I don't have much time today, but a week or so ago I posted a long piece to which you responded. While you disagreed with me, I recall you did so courteously. I am not a scientist, yet I don't think that should function as a bar to discussing UFOs. Should not the issue be able to be framed in a way so that ordinary people can discuss it and understand some of the issues? I invited disagreement, and you gave it, which is why some of us come to places like this. To try out our positions and arguments. I learned from your responses.

I didn't learn anything from you, Q, except to disregard your rude and insulting posts. You can pontificate all you want about there is no need for courtesy, but if you are not here to inform or help others, what is your purpose? If you are responding to “believers”, I assume you have some goal in responding. If your goal is to educate people, you failed. Your hostile approach and repeated attempts to re-characterize the positions of others causes whatever your message is to get lost. No one enjoys being treated the way you do. You’ve claimed to be a defender of science, but again, the message is lost in the hostility. You can claim that that’s the believer’s problem, and that they can leave if they don’t like your abuse. That’s fine, but every good communicator knows how to adjust to his or her audience in order to achieve their goal. You failed again. If your goal is to make people feel bad about themselves, you’ve failed again, since I think that increasingly your approach is causing people to tune you out. If your goal is to compensate for some insecurities, I would guess mission accomplished, in a sad way. But if your goal was to make people see how smart you are, you failed once more. You just don’t look that smart. You oversimplify and cannot accept an opponent’s argument on its own terms. You’re also short on knowledge on many patterns of UFO sightings that come from credible sources and have corroborating evidence. Perhaps you should explain to everyone what you’re accomplishing here.

phlog, I must take exception to the contention I see here that UFO "believers" (whatever that vague term means) have some kind of closet agenda of promoting the ETH while masking their belief. Can you quantify reasons for this assertion? I think that's a rather broad brush with which to paint all those who are interested in the subject but perhaps not taken with various official explanations. It seems to be an awfully handy and easy “argument” to brandish without any evidence for it.

I have never seen a UFO, much less an alien. I have no personal experience that gave birth to my interest. I am interested, however, and wish to know the nature of the phenomenon. There is enough of a record over the last 50 years to make one wary of official explanations. When I stated I was drifting away from the ETH, I was telling the truth. What do I have to gain by claiming this if is not so?

Also, on this: "As a physicist, you are only too aware of the issues of interstellar travel. Let's debate those, not grainy photographs, and eyewitness reports."

I don't know any rational person who does not acknowledge the hurdles involved in interstellar travel. But it is you, as the skeptic, who turns the discussion to the ETH by asking this question. Constantly turning to the difficulties in interstellar travel seems like an excuse not to review the data from sightings, which consists of much more than grainy photographs and eyewitness reports. To a lay person like me, it sounds like “lets not trouble ourselves with the data, let’s concentrate on my theories of why we shouldn’t look at the data in the first place”.

Since I have never seen an alien, I cannot claim that they exist anywhere. Since I have never seen a UFO, I cannot argue even for their existence from my own experience. But 50 years of sighting reports reveal fairly consistent patterns of people, including civilian and military pilots, seeing, and by all appearances “interacting” with something that acts like no known natural phenomenon. They have very often been described as having physical structure to them, although I concede that does not mean they actually had it. They have also been described as being reactive to human presence. None of this leads to the conclusion that aliens are involved. It does lead to a conclusion that something worth investigating is happening. Although individuals like Q feel free to make claims like ‘ET visiting the Earth is fiction’, or words to that effect, do we really know that much about the Universe yet? Science, dealing with probabilities, doesn’t rule anything out. We really don’t know what forms intelligence could take, how it came to be or where it might be from. Shouldn’t we be on the lookout? When something suggestive happens, shouldn’t we investigate and try to learn more? Isn’t that one of the best parts of our nature as human beings?

 

[Ives]

Spookz

I read your post about the Apollo astronaut sightings. While I cannot reply with specificity, my own approach is to be careful about these "sightings". I think most, if not all of those stories have an "urban legend" quality about them, where they are repeated so often that they are assumed to be true. I've seen Oberg elsewhere demand reliable sources for these quotes and stories, and I don't recall ever being impressed by the responses.

 

[spookz]

shit
i agree. it sounds frikkin manufactured and quite convenient.
(lets just keep that b/w us ok?)

anyway i was being lazy, for every naysayer, a yaysayer can be found so really...this "my guys are better than yours" trolling is a waste of time

 

[(Q)]

You oversimplify and cannot accept an opponent’s argument on its own terms.

What terms? Baseless assertions? Wishful thinking? Unfounded claims? Jumping to conclusions?

You’re also short on knowledge on many patterns of UFO sightings that come from credible sources and have corroborating evidence.

Now who is oversimplifying?

The rest of your post is a humorous display of schoolyard attempts at insults, very funny. At least I can take whatever you want to dish out and let it roll off my back. Ivan on the other hand has resorted to kindergarten tactics. Spineless.

But I would like to comment on this statement:

I am not a scientist, yet I don't think that should function as a bar to discussing UFOs.

One does not have to be a scientist to discuss UFO’s. But at the very least, one should take the time to understand some, if not all of the issues surrounding this alleged phenomenon, but I have yet to see that from believers. They aren’t even interested in asking those questions, even though we have a lot of members here who could explain much of these issues in layman’s terms.

And your response to that:

To a lay person like me, it sounds like “lets not trouble ourselves with the data, let’s concentrate on my theories of why we shouldn’t look at the data in the first place”.

The so-called data is not conclusive nor does it suggest anything non-terrestrial. The theories are sound and their results have been reproduced experimentally.

It does lead to a conclusion that something worth investigating is happening.

Here’s where my hostility gets active. How can you make that statement while admitting you don’t know anything about science? Who the hell are you to demand UFO claims are worth investigation? What gives you the right to demand that valuable funding goes towards investigating these claims?

Although individuals like Q feel free to make claims like ‘ET visiting the Earth is fiction’, or words to that effect, do we really know that much about the Universe yet?

It is up to you to find out what is known, and what is valid, and what is verifiable in the universe. Once you begin to understand these things, then perhaps you can talk with an informed opinion.

Science, dealing with probabilities, doesn’t rule anything out.

Science rules out that which has no evidence, ET visiting Earth for example.

We really don’t know what forms intelligence could take, how it came to be or where it might be from.

This is another branch of science that believers need to understand. Evolution does not demand intelligence therefore although other life forms could exist; it is unlikely they have formed intelligence.

Shouldn’t we be on the lookout?

OK, but what exactly are we on the lookout for?

When something suggestive happens, shouldn’t we investigate and try to learn more?

What would be the point of investigating every Tom, Dick and Harry who claim to have seen ‘something?’ And since so many claims have been put to rest with no evidence to suggest even remotely the existence of ET, why should we further consider more claims?

But to give you the benefit of the doubt, please show us all what exactly we’ve learned so far from the bazillions of claims already made? Anything?

 

[phlogistician]

Originally posted by Ives
But it is you, as the skeptic, who turns the discussion to the ETH

Yep, like I keep saying, if these are U.F.O.s and FLYING (not stars, planets, northern lights etc) then they have two origins, terrestrial, and non terrestrial. Non terrestrial means some type of aircraft, kept secret, with some interesting capabilities.

So, we all agree on one cause. It's the other that we don't agree on. That is where the debate lies. If you don't think UFOs are ET in origin, can you define succinctly what you do believe? Well, tell us either way.

Personally, I acknowledge that top secret stealth aircraft need to be tested, and that sightings of many strange objects could be attributed to these craft.

I do believe there is life on other planets. Intelligent life most probably.

However, I don't believe that it is very likely that aliens have visited earth, and certainly not that they are regular visitors enough to explain the number of sightings, abduction stories etc. I think the vastness of space, and difficulties of travelling at speed may well be fundamental problems which cannot be overcome. Real, verifiable science is telling us the latter, any loopholes are theory, and don't tie up with the observations.

 

[spookz]

I think the vastness of space, and difficulties of travelling at speed may well be fundamental problems which cannot be overcome. (phlog)

i claim that the physical sciences support interstellar travel. it is theoretically possible. it contravenes no known laws. at this time we only lack the technology (yet)

what is your position apart from placing unecessary limitations on knowledge? what are the..."fundamental problems which cannot be overcome" critique the theories that are offered up as possible solutions

 

[Ives]

What terms? Baseless assertions? Wishful thinking? Unfounded claims? Jumping to conclusions?

More of Q's fluff here; I note he refers to nothing specific. Good, broad generalizations that "help" his position.

Now who is oversimplifying?

This was in response to my accusation that he is short on knowledge of patterns in UFO sightings. Q is often accusing "believers" of avoid talking about the problems that physics presents for UFOs. Once again, it is Q insisting that we are talking about spaceships. To some degree, he has a point, in that any discussion of UFOs as interstellar craft should be held in the context of physics that make such an event extremely problematic. Unfortunately, Q believes that this step ends the conversation. Unfortunately, there are still mountains of data, which Q simply ignores or mischaracterizes. Like most debunkers, he likes to avoid talking about specifics. It was also interesting to note that Q is not really ready to discuss UFOs himself, since he demonstrated no knowledge of Paul Hill, author of Unconventional Flying Objects. He referred to him as "Paul" in his post and asked silly questions about him. This goes to show that Q was lying when he claimed he had "been there and done that" in regards to debating the pros and cons of UFOs. Not only a liar, but an ineffective one. He also came up short on knowledge of Vallee, and tried to label him as well.


One does not have to be a scientist to discuss UFO’s. But at the very least, one should take the time to understand some, if not all of the issues surrounding this alleged phenomenon, but I have yet to see that from believers. They aren’t even interested in asking those questions, even though we have a lot of members here who could explain much of these issues in layman’s terms.

To exactly what degree, Q, should one advance one's knowledge of physics in order to meet your qualifications? Being educated in physics hasn't prevented many from an interest in UFOs, or even examining the ETH. Hynek, Vallee and Sturrock come to mind.

The so-called data is not conclusive nor does it suggest anything non-terrestrial. The theories are sound and their results have been reproduced experimentally.

So what if the data is not "conclusive"? Here we go with the standard debunker line; the subject of UFOs is not valid even for discussion until the reality of the core identity of the phenomenon has been proven. Such a scientific approach you have there, Q. I can't think of another topic on which its own reality must be proven before it can be discussed. As for not suggesting anything non-terrestrial, this is an exercise in splitting hairs in attempt to invalidate the discussion. What the evidence "suggests" is that on countless occasions, credible human observers have encountered something that appears to be under intelligent control yet does not reasonably appear to be of human origin. If you wish to contest that statement, then I and other "believers" you loathe so much can produce many incidents in which there is no basis to impeach the credibility of the witnesses.

Here’s where my hostility gets active. How can you make that statement while admitting you don’t know anything about science? Who the hell are you to demand UFO claims are worth investigation? What gives you the right to demand that valuable funding goes towards investigating these claims?

Oh, your hostility is active all right. Who the hell are you to demand that only scientists shall decide if UFOs shall be investigated? As a lay person, how shall my faith in "scientists" be manifested? In tobacco company scientists? Debunkers? Scientists defending artificial sweeteners? My point is that you suggest that the rest of us should just leave this to the scientists, because their motives are always pure. Care to defend that?


Science rules out that which has no evidence, ET visiting Earth for example.

Really? Interesting. Since the rest of us are so stupid, why don't you educate us and explain how science has ruled that out.

This is another branch of science that believers need to understand. Evolution does not demand intelligence therefore although other life forms could exist; it is unlikely they have formed intelligence. (how intelligence might evolve).

Really? Just us believers don't understand how other forms of intelligence might evolve? Perhaps you can explain it to us.

What would be the point of investigating every Tom, Dick and Harry who claim to have seen ‘something?’ And since so many claims have been put to rest with no evidence to suggest even remotely the existence of ET, why should we further consider more claims?

No one is suggesting every claim, that was apparently another of your mischaracterizations, which again ignores the good data. And so many claims have not been put to rest which remain unexplained, and suggestive of intelligence.

 

[(Q)]

To some degree, he has a point, in that any discussion of UFOs as interstellar craft should be held in the context of physics that make such an event extremely problematic. Unfortunately, Q believes that this step ends the conversation.

You end the conversation by refusing to discuss real science. Instead, you would much rather pour over ‘mountains of data’ – data that has never suggested an ET conclusion. You or anyone else have yet to provide a single example where this can be concluded – you’ve also failed to provide a single example in which science or mankind has somehow benefited from the study of UFO’s - anything yet?

He referred to him as "Paul" in his post and asked silly questions about him. This goes to show that Q was lying when he claimed he had "been there and done that" in regards to debating the pros and cons of UFOs. Not only a liar, but an ineffective one. He also came up short on knowledge of Vallee, and tried to label him as well.

You must be getting desperate pretending to know something about me. Those questions about Paul were directed at you see exactly what you knew about him and his theories – obviously very little it seems if all you can do is throw it back at me. Do you understand what Paul was referring to when he spoke of time dilation?

To exactly what degree, Q, should one advance one's knowledge of physics in order to meet your qualifications?

They are not my qualifications. You can sit idle and continue to pour over your so-called mountains of evidence and remain as ignorant as you please. All I have suggested is to stop reading UFOlogy and start reading some books, preferably related to science. You can also ask questions here.

Being educated in physics hasn't prevented many from an interest in UFOs, or even examining the ETH. Hynek, Vallee and Sturrock come to mind.

So what? Has it ever occurred to you that these guys are in for the money? They take advantage of the uniformed and uneducated in order to make a buck. They got you hook, line and sinker.

And that does not preclude the fact that you don’t take the time to understand exactly what they’re talking about.

So what if the data is not "conclusive"?

Then it is useless.

I can't think of another topic on which its own reality must be proven before it can be discussed.

We’re not talking about proof – we’re talking about conclusive evidence of which there is none.

What the evidence "suggests" is that on countless occasions, credible human observers have encountered something that appears to be under intelligent control yet does not reasonably appear to be of human origin.

So, what is that supposed to tell us? One can come to an endless amount of conclusions based on that statement, none of which would suggest ET – that is unless you allow your imagination to take control of your senses.

If you wish to contest that statement, then I and other "believers" you loathe so much can produce many incidents in which there is no basis to impeach the credibility of the witnesses.

I don’t contest the statement; it is the UFOlogists that draw conclusions of ET that have no credibility that I contest – and loathe.

Who the hell are you to demand that only scientists shall decide if UFOs shall be investigated?

I didn’t say that – I said NO ONE should get funding to investigate UFOs, scientist or otherwise.

As a lay person, how shall my faith in "scientists" be manifested? In tobacco company scientists? Debunkers? Scientists defending artificial sweeteners? My point is that you suggest that the rest of us should just leave this to the scientists, because their motives are always pure. Care to defend that?

I already have, but you seem to missing the point. It is YOU”RE responsibility as an individual to understand these issues. Scientists did not discover tobacco and begin selling it to you.

why don't you educate us and explain how science has ruled that out… Just us believers don't understand how other forms of intelligence might evolve? Perhaps you can explain it to us.

There you go, finally you’re beginning to ask the right questions. However, your questions require quite a bit of discussion, far more than just one post.

I suggest you break it down into separate threads and go from there.