UFO Lights Filmed Descending Into Woods In India
- Thread starter common_sense_seeker
- Start date
None visiting here.
Normally, 'absence of evidence would not equal evidence of absence', but given the amount of hardware watching the skies, if something were there to be seen, I think we'd see it.
I also think SETI should have detected their radio signals from their era of development that was similar to ours by now.
So what are we left with? Aliens are getting here before their radio signals, ... FTL Travel. Hmmm, an alien race finds a shortcut in relativity, builds a craft, travels to Earth, and then, .... well, abduct people and mutilate cattle? Given the HUGE leap in technical capability required for FTL Travel, why would they need to do such things? They'd sure'y have surveillance technology that could harvest DNA for them, micro-robots, genetically engineered virii, etc. It doesn't add up to form a coherent picture, does it?
The hoaxers you mentioned. I assumed you speaking of the Rendlesham case. That seems to be what I am talking about. What are you talking about?
You could have quoted my post, making it easier to know what you were talking about, ...
Meanwhile;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/east/series3/rendlesham_ufos.shtml
You do realise the simplest test for UFOlogy magazines and their credibility of actually following up stories is easily tested, in fact it's tested constantly by skeptic's, I mean who do you think comes up with the stories and writes the articles, People that actually saw something???
Phlog,
Agreed, no extrodinary evidence of that at least.
Well what I was getting at is that there could be an alien probe buried 50 feet in mud that landed here 100,000 years ago.
There could be nano-sized probes in our space right now but there could also be an invisible elf in my pocket.
The speculation is endless because the possibilities are endless. And time is a very interesting and important factor here because they could have come and gone a million years ago.
Time will only tell, the discovery is either there to be made or not.
LOL, yes it's amazing how far some have taken lights in the sky and run with it.
Which is why we are more likely to encounter a probe and not have a meeting with green men on the white house lawn.
I am sure they would have done similar things as us considering the predicament. Send out probes, local manned travel. Monitor the skies.
Unless they have a way to cheat the laws of physics, which I am not willing to assing them such magical qualities.
But you hit the nail on the head IMO regarding the way they would go about obtaining information of a far away planet, and that would be to send probes.
Which is why I suggested they may be out there, and know about us or not. But they have no need to or have no way to get here other than by unmanned probes. One could be on it's way now not to be discovered for 50 years. Who knows.
Agreed, no extrodinary evidence of that at least.
Well what I was getting at is that there could be an alien probe buried 50 feet in mud that landed here 100,000 years ago.
There could be nano-sized probes in our space right now but there could also be an invisible elf in my pocket.
The speculation is endless because the possibilities are endless. And time is a very interesting and important factor here because they could have come and gone a million years ago.
Time will only tell, the discovery is either there to be made or not.
LOL, yes it's amazing how far some have taken lights in the sky and run with it.
Which is why we are more likely to encounter a probe and not have a meeting with green men on the white house lawn.
I am sure they would have done similar things as us considering the predicament. Send out probes, local manned travel. Monitor the skies.
Unless they have a way to cheat the laws of physics, which I am not willing to assing them such magical qualities.
But you hit the nail on the head IMO regarding the way they would go about obtaining information of a far away planet, and that would be to send probes.
Which is why I suggested they may be out there, and know about us or not. But they have no need to or have no way to get here other than by unmanned probes. One could be on it's way now not to be discovered for 50 years. Who knows.
you are one tired old hack, aint ya?
/sneer
@
now
despite conde's disavowal of original acct, phlog insists that conde stick to his original story.
it blows the fucking mind how utterly irrational and pathological pseudoskeptics can get.
Last edited:
i see you highlight this.....
One of the most important points about the tape, which has been over-looked many times, is that the animals in the forest and on a nearby farm go into a 'frenzy' only seconds before the UFO is spotted. In my opinion, this is too much of a coincidence............
you seem to support the correlation be pushed here. can you substantiate?
this is of course a farm situated near an raf base, correct? do we have any info on animal behaviors when terrestrial crafts fly by?
to people without an open mind its all a hoax and it wouldnt matter who said it there credibility will be gone. the fact that there are cases out there less than 5% that are real UFO sightings. unknown flying objects. that have all the data that skeptics would want. a credible witness mass witnesses that describe the same exact thing. police and radar conformation yet still not good enough. the only think that will make skeptics believes " the ones who are fucking restarted" would be a ufo landing in broad daylight and sit there untill they could touch it.. i had an idiot when i was in track that said i didnt run a 48sec 400 in highschool even tho the electronic gun clocked me at that along with about 30 more people he still said they were all wrong
Define "credible witness".
You are aware that eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable, I take it.
Police "confirmation"? How does that make your "point"?
Are you also aware that radar can (and does) generate false returns, bounce off transient atmospheric anomalies (temperature inversions etc.) and the like?
the crackpots scurry out of sci's nook's and cranny's like a frikkin infestation
in order to have that be a meaningful proposition it would behoove you to substantiate to a statistically significant rate
you cannot be serious. this "actual knowledge" is represented by a page full of google links of questionable relevance?
lemme ask you this, do you thank god every time you safely land at say...a busy airport?
No. MY actual knowledge is actual knowledge of radars. The relevance of the links is hardly questionable since they concern the reality of false returns.you cannot be serious. this "actual knowledge" is represented by a page full of google links of questionable relevance?
No. I thank the designer of the aircraft and the maintenance crew.
but surely that is not what is being questioned here, is it? lets revisit....
lemme simplify... does radar work more often than not?
False Alarm Rate
From the foregoing description, it seems that the detection range could be increased by lowering the detection threshold to "see" lower signal levels. While this is true, the noise environment described means that, on any given look, there is a finite probability that a noise spike could cross the threshold, causing a false alarm. Thus exists the classical battle between sensitivity and false alarms; that is, the desire to increase the Probability of Detection is offset by the resulting increase in the Probability of False Alarms. The latter is generally quantified in time by using the parameter False Alarm Rate (FAR), which expresses the false alarm probability as a function of time. Thus, all comprehensive radar specifications contain a FAR requirement, say 2 or 3 per day, so that a radar operator is not unduly distracted attending to an alarm that doesn’t really exist. This becomes very important in security systems which combine many radars for perimeter or border protection over long distances, because higher false alarm rates require more responders to chase down the cause of an alarm.
wanna elaborate on the bolded, mr actual knowledge? perhaps more google links?
that article summarizes nicely...
This technical note has presented the major performance parameters which describe how well a radar performs. The design of a radar is primarily one of performance tradeoffs, involving range resolution, search volume, clutter rejection, false alarm rate and revisit time. These issues must be balanced against target types, frequency allocation regulations, size, weight, cost, power and environmental considerations, such as rain, snow, operating temperatures, vibration and shock. A well designed radar represents a delicate balance of many seemingly incompatible factors.
ja
reasonable expectations
i thank people like this since i aint landing in bumfuck peoria....
/snik..er
Which indicates that the acceptable rate of false returns varies with operator requirements.
You think any military is going to publish their acceptable rate in open-source documents?
The point was that false returns can and do exist.
Even from the above example, how many "UFO" reports could be spawned with 2 or 3 false returns per day?
umm
2 or 3?
in anycase, that shit is meaningless without a baseline figure for comparison...
2 or 3 fars per_______readings
what the hell is an "open source doc"?
umm
2 or 3?
Which bit did you not read?
You don't think radars operate more or less 24/7?
Especially military ones.
That's why the FAR is given by time not number of readings.
Non-classified. Available to the public.
jesus wept
you asked a question...
i replied "2 or 3" (rather incredulously hence the goddamn question mark)
You don't think radars operate more or less 24/7?
Especially military ones.
hehe
so?
prove it. give me a citation other than the one i bolded and quoted
this is prt and rather than guess what "rangecells" is, i'll ask you, mr actual knowledge
this is what i ask of all woo woos...stick to conventional terminology. thanks
a rate is the frequency an event is held to occur
a rate is the frequency an event is held to occur over time?
a rate is expressed as a percentage?
a rate is expressed as a percentage of _______?
/confused
i shall ask james to weigh in as i do not trust that dwhatever fellow
a rate is the frequency an event is held to occur over time?
a rate is expressed as a percentage?
a rate is expressed as a percentage of _______?
/confused
i shall ask james to weigh in as i do not trust that dwhatever fellow