The Thing about UFOs...

Origin of UFOs

  • Extraterrestrials

    Votes: 10 20.0%

  • Man-made

    Votes: 10 20.0%

  • Both

    Votes: 21 42.0%

  • Neither

    Votes: 9 18.0%
  • Total voters
    50
Eyesight can be proof, and I already explained, i am not talking about trickery. I am talking about a phenomena that seems to be beyond trickery.

You should have picked up on that one from my post.
 
What audacious person can trick the UFO phenomenon? Who can ascend bright lights into the sky, make them perfom impossible tasks, before seeing them move away from each other, which no search light can artificially create?

Who can seriously, in these days and ages, honestly say that the Roswell Incident never really happened, despite the number of witnesses? Who can say any incident did not happen, which was mere illusion, or group dilluional optical histeria?

Nonesense.
 
No, eyesight is never "proof".
Eyewitnesses are the lowest order of evidence available.
 
Now, the military may have somethin to do with it. As i reported, my hometown witnessed itself strane lights in the sky that defied all resonable explanation; but, my hometown is a notorious mitaria-based area... is that a link? I don't know.

All i know, is that these things are real, and should never be shrugged off, by merely saying ''strange shit happens.''
 
Oli-

You are wrong. Eyesight is a valid proof in physics, especially when more than one scientist observes it. I can name countless experiements that work on such concepts.
 
Reiku said:
Oli-

You are wrong. Eyesight is a valid proof in physics, especially when more than one scientist observes it. I can name countless experiements that work on such concepts.
Click to expand...

No, eyesight may indicate that there's something that needs investigating.
Eyesight on its own is not proof.
Name the experiments...
 
And that is why UFO's need to be investigated with an open mind, because the eyesight, or rather, what is CERTIANLY observed, begs the question itself.

Name an experiment? Fine... hold on.
 
Home
UK News
MADELEINE
World News
Politics
Business
Money
Comment
Living
Strange News
Weather
Traffic
News In...Video
Live TV/Events
Pictures
Podcast
RecommendedSky News Quiz
Sky Sports Site
Sky Showbiz Site
Lunchtime Live
ExtraRadio
About Sky News
Sky News Panel
Blogs
Feedback
Contact Us
ToolsText Alerts (SMS)
Desktop Alerts
Vista Gadget
Web Feeds

More from Sky News on Channel 501
Site Web Search: Advanced Search Browse Archive Could Time Travel Actually Be Possible?
Updated: 05:51, Thursday August 16, 2007

Scientists claim to have broken the ultimate speed record - by making photons travel faster than light.
Exceeding the speed of light, 186,000 miles per second, is supposed to be completely impossible.


....................


This is a claim, by two scientists who observed a photon tunnel through a spatial and temporal barrier in the fabric of the continuum. Many scientists do not deny their observation.
 
Oh dear oh dear oh dear.
What a poor choice.
They SAW this happen?
Or the instruments they used recorded it?
Their eyesight was the arbiter, or laboratory equipment that wasn't sunject to optical illusion and preconceptions.
 
Oli said:
Oh dear oh dear oh dear.
What a poor choice.
They SAW this happen?
Or the instruments they used recorded it?
Their eyesight was the arbiter, or laboratory equipment that wasn't sunject to optical illusion and preconceptions.
Click to expand...

Bad choice? Are we going to pick and choose all of sudden?

Get back to reality Oli. The phenomena is real, and it is observed. Science, and at that, many scientists observe phenomena with their aparatus' which may require more observations, but science usually accepts it when a scientist claims to have seen an event.

Why? Because scientits don't tend to make these things up.
 
Reiku said:
Bad choice? Are we going to pick and choose all of sudden?

Get back to reality Oli. The phenomena is real, and it is observed. Science, and at that, many scientists observe phenomena with their aparatus' which may require more observations, but science usually accepts it when a scientist claims to have seen an event.

Why? Because scientits don't tend to make these things up.
Click to expand...

I'm not picking and choosing: you claimed to have examples of EYESIGHT being proof.
That wasn't one.
 
Read-Only said:
Yet another more stupidity from you. I specifically said the answer would have to include that AND manmade objects.
Click to expand...

You avoided the question. Explain what is going on in the third video I posted if not intelligent control of a craft.

Read-Only said:
I have no doubt YOU would be. I would not unless there were sparks flying from his head or he was carrying an obvious weapon.
Click to expand...

Blatant lie to cover your insecurities. EVERYONE would freak out to an extent if confronted with an extraterrestrial (especially since you do not even believe in them, how would you reconcile that?), you cannot deny this.
And things would have to be blatantly obvious for you wouldnt they?
Unable to read between the lines you are.

Read-Only said:
I'm having a big laugh out of this and all at your expense.
Click to expand...

Well thats the difference between you and me I suppose. You laugh and live at other peoples expense. Good going, good way to live your life.:rolleyes:
 
It was. 'THEY' observed this phenomena.

What part of ''they'' or ''observed'' did you now understand?
 
Reiku said:
It was. 'THEY' observed this phenomena.

What part of ''they'' or ''observed'' did you now understand?
Click to expand...

Reiku said:
You are wrong. Eyesight is a valid proof in physics, especially when more than one scientist observes it. I can name countless experiements that work on such concepts.
Click to expand...

Keep trying.
Their instruments obvserved it.
They watched the instruments.
Eyesight proved nothing.
They couldn't even see the damn thing with their eyes...
 
Sorry, but when did instruments not being a viable tool?

You are clutching onto straws. Give it up, unless of course, you suddenly have proof that instruments have a mind of their own, and will lie in a result?

Whatever oli. What the fuck ever.
 
A scientific intrument, is considered an observational tool.

Learn some science, before commenting on it.
 
Instruments are a valid tool.
Your contention was eyesight.
Make your mind up.
Instruments record, then others can see the results.
 
Lets stay on topic. I agree eyesight alone is not evidence enough. But I feel that the sheer number of sightings from people from all walks of life counts for something.

We can argue all day about what they are and get no where.

There is NO PROOF.

I just want people to acknowledge this as real phenomena which deserves more attention than our govt is giving it. (Or perhaps it has their full attention and they are not telling us.) Just because you have not seen one yourself does not exclude it from reality.

I have never known anyone who has observed a UFO until recently when my buddy (who is an aerospace engineer) observed one on his drive to Colorado. He described an object which made a turn smaller than 90 degree, and changed colors in doing so, from blue to red he said.
He initially brushed it off as a meteor (because there was a meteor shower that night) but when I asked him if ANY of the other meteors he observed changed color OR changed direction and he said NOTHING was like what he saw. This is a guy who builds and designs spaceships.

This fits in perfectly with what I was saying on how the media conditions us to just ignore these things, and immediately find alternate (and more complicated) explanations than the simple truth, IT WAS A UFO.
 
Oli said:
Agreed, but they are not eyesight.


Ho ho ho.
The way you have?
10% science and 90% belief?
Click to expand...

At least i understand that scientific methods cannot answer for a man mde object as we have observed these strange phenomena. At least i don't believe it is some mass-trick (and god knows how that would be pulled off.) At least i don't beleieve there is some kind of mass-histeria, involved with such a proposed disllusionary event(s).

Take a step back, weight the evidence properly, then propose proper questions. Otherwise, you are following theyellow brick road to again, the over-zealous factor of not taking in the complexities of what has been talked about today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top