Ufo NUtCAsEs

This is a pure speculation and nothing more and my own opinions.

Thank You.

As humans today have cars and can travel to other states within hours or days.

Humans in 1,000 years might be able to travel to other states within seconds and other solar systems within hours or days.

ET Aliens that are 1,000 to 1 million years more advanced than humans could be possibly have the concept of traveling to other solar systems whithin hours or days.

Just imagine that you can travel to another location on earth within hours on your own "car"
, for these aliens their space shuttle could be their own "car" since they are so more advanced and a space shuttle costs nothing, its just like a car to them. (This is possible that its not even funny, in early 19th century only rich people had cars, now everyone can have, samething, you see)

The problem arises when these ET aliens each individual could easily use their "car" and get here within hours or days. Other science exploration vessels such as we saw those large UFOs and then smaller UFOs just for 3 people or so (I mean exploration is very fun, admit it, these aliens can't resist exploring or even humans trying ways to have interstellar travel)

Just imagine 4 different species visiting us, and each species has a population of 20 billion for example, just imagine how many would be interested in taking a look at us, just like we want to take a look them in 1,000 years..

Its all speculation, but this explanation can be compared to our own history, thats why this is very good speculation.
 
The People who fake their videos really make me doubt the existence of ETs, theirs just too many floating around.
 
The key reason I believe UFO's are real is NOT the photos, not the videos, not all the eyewitnesses, it's the history. People have been depicting beings inside of flying vehicles for thousands of years, from cave art, to midevil frescos, to modern times. Most pseudoskeptics would love you to believe that it all started with Kenneth Arnold, but in reality, the phenomenon is far older. Their was the "Airships" of the late 1800's, and even earlier. Flying objects are described in the Bible. Midevil frescos show vehicles flying amoung starry skies with human persons inside them.

The idea of beings comming from the sky is a very old story. Them being associated with the stars is also a very old story. That people have seen things in the sky they cannot explain is also an old story. However, someone claiming that they can attribute every unknown to natural causes is a very new and perhaps unprecidented thought. This point of view in fact, did not come around until the Condon report. Sure their were skeptics before hand, but they did not make a claim as to the nature of the phenomenon.
 
Last edited:
Xevious:

<i>People have been depicting beings inside of flying vehicles for thousands of years, from cave art, to midevil frescos, to modern times.</i>

Of course they have. Gods have traditionally lived in the sky. You only need to look at birds to dream of flying beings.

<i>The idea of beings comming from the sky is a very old story. Them being associated with the stars is also a very old story. That people have seen things in the sky they cannot explain is also an old story.</i>

Yup. No necessary link to alien beings there, though.

<i>However, someone claiming that they can attribute every unknown to natural causes is a very new and perhaps unprecidented thought.</i>

Show me an unnatural cause.
 
The UFO phenomena itself is real..

People see all the time flying Objects..

Some days ago 2 sightings occured in the same time in two
areas of my country, and it seems the phenomena passed from one area to another..

There is no doubt this things happen, a lot of eyewitness,

The question is that there is NO evidence to be ETS..
Yes the phenomena is there, but it can be anything! A meteor passing, a military plane, a buroreal phenoma or any rare natural stuff, or indeed who knows an Extraterrestrial Object of some kind..

The problem might persist for years, one day we might have enought hard evidence... but until that day, ufos, flying fairies and angels are just an expeculative explanation for that, not to take that serious until we know what it is..

Over and out..

Ertai
 
If you were to claim to have purple dragon hidden away in your garage, the burden of proof would not be on me to show.. it would be on you.

The problem is.... people are going around with burnt fingers, stating that this is their proof of the purple dragon who breaths fire.

But for the sake of argument, what consists of 'investigation' as far as you are concerned about unidentified flying objects?
 
Investigation of UFO's beings along the same lines one would begin a police investigation of an alleged incident. The given sighting has taken place already, and the person investigating must first consider the source of information. While many skeptics believe that one should not nessassarily take the eyewitness at their word, this is contrary to the procedures of a Police Department - the person making the report is ALWAYS assumed at least at first, to be giving valaid information. To assume that every guy comming to you has a reason to lie clouds one's judgement, and sets the credibility of the investigation in doubt. After all, how would any private investigator or Police Department ever solve a case if the investigator did not accept as reliable the witnesses he had? If the observation is falsible, then that will quite often be found out during the course of the investigation. Remember that it is true that many UFO videos and "evidence" have indeed been discredited. This is because a combination of science and open-minded reasoning works well in investigating transient phenomenon. The skeptic need not loose his faith in the scientific method, but must remember that transient phenomenon like UFO's are not something he is going to lock in a laboratory any time soon, and furthermore should not assume that the witnesses and believers are all crackpots and dilusionals, as is often the case. This is a psycologically unhealthy state. "You're all against me!" "You all are liars!" "I know what is right and you don't!" Listen carefully to those kinds of statements, and consider how you yourself might sound to the other person! That kind of negative and finger-pointing reasoning is obviously not going to win a lot of followers, and for certain you are going to have a more difficult time getting people who haven't heard either side of the debate before to listen to you. You might not think so, but you need not be reminded that the viewpoint that UFO's and beings from another Planet are purely a mythic fairy tail is in the minority. This is not a point of stating the unbelieving skeptic is entirely wrong, but to state that how the unbelieving skeptic presents his beliefs has a very large impact on if it is accepted or not.

The conclusion one draws at the end is based on two key factors which are to be taken in relation to each other. 1) Reliability of the source, 2) The quality of any evidence presented. As mentioned before, the reliability of the witnesses or document is paramount. If I was for example, to show you declassified FBI documents on a reported cattle mutilation with veteranary reports stating the cattle were not mutilated by any known predator, or said mutilation was caued by some form of high heat source, then obviously the source of the information would be considered highly reliable. On the flip side, if someone comes to you and has been known to say they have seen UFO's hundreds of times, or knows the aliens, ect. but offers no photographs, videos, or physical evidence, then the extrordinarity of their claim overwhelms the amount of available evidence. In the middle, if you met someone who claimed they saw something, give you a location, maybe a few photographs, and then a local airport reports that an object was on Radar in that spot but did not identify it, then you have no reason thus far to discredit the witnesses report.

One thing the Skeptic must remember is that when the claim is made, the Skeptic does bear some responsibility to investigate the claim if he wants his opinion to be fair. For example, one of the biggest skeptics of the Marfa Lights phenomenon claims that their is no historical information on the phenomenon, and yet he did not visit the Marfa town historian during his visit to the town, nor did he ask the Texas Historical Comittie for copies of the documents they have referenced in their historical marker, or visit any of Marfa's local museums. When asked why, he said he didn't want to waste his time. This is nothing short of intellectual laziness and it is not the responsibility of those making the claim to cater to such a pseudoskeptic on a silver platter. Skeptics must present to the claimants a better additude if they really are interested in what is going on. Think about the actions of the above-mentioned skeptics: He made no attempt on his own to verify the historical claim of the phenomenon, he demanded that those stating the phenomenon existed nesassarily check with the town historian or the State Comission FOR him. At this point, he still has the option of stating that the documents are false, because as long as he doesn't have them in his hands directly from the original source, the source of the evidence can still be quesitoned.

The skeptic looking in must then make it his personal effort to consider the hundreds of books writen on the subject, from the historical books of the 19th century, to the Biblical accounts, to modern books on the subject. He must use his judgement to decide what is reliable and what is false and do so in a mannor which is free of bias. Unfortunetly, this is very hard for many scientifically minded people, because they are inherrantly uncomfortable with the idea of their not always being physical, laboratory testable data which cannot be placed in any other context. They need be reminded that this is also sometimes the case in criminal investigations, and obviously our justice system can still convict people in such situations.
 
Originally posted by Xevious
Investigation of UFO's beings along the same lines one would begin a police investigation of an alleged incident. The given sighting has taken place already, and the person investigating must first consider the source of information.
Click to expand...

Except that in crimes that are considered very serious, such as homicide, eyewitness testimony is typically not enough unless you have a room full of people. Otherwise, the fleeting glimpse of the suspect is used as corroberating evidence and investigatorial leads only.

Certainly this type of evidence is good for leads and corroberation in UFO cases, but all too often it is all that is relied upon. I applaud the sincere efforts of some 'ufologists' who are actually attempting to obtain hard evidence, such as in the Hessalden Project. Good luck to them.

But the burden of proof is still not upon me, the skeptic, to make the case. It is upon the claimant. If I, as a skeptic, go investigate even one claim, I become a 'ufologist,' albeit a skeptical one. That's fine for some people, and might even be interesting. But that makes me the researcher and puts the burden of proof on me.

If this were AIDS research and not UFO research, and I made a claim that I found the cure for AIDS, wouldn't you want me to bear this out in evidence before you fund me? If I said I'm close to finding the cure, wouldn't you want to see what evidence I had to date?

Therein lies the problem with UFO 'research.' Many, many, many claims about the answer but no supporting, credible, testable evidence. I'm reminded of the guy in another thread (perhaps even this one) who made the broad and bold statement that he knew UFOs were alien craft that were visiting our planet because we were a former colony and we've gone astray and they're going to come in guns blazing, etc. He also stated that their craft was robotically controlled by nanotechnology...

Many very specific claims with no supporting evidence to even suggest he was on the right track. But he wants you to believe all of the UFO videos he has clips of on his site. Clips that you can find the full versions, or CD compilations of, for sale at his or other sites.

Without hard, tangible, testable evidence, I say, "balderdash."
 
Xevious:

<i>Is their truly no evidence, or have you not investigated the issue?</i>

The bottom line is: there is a whole heap of evidence for alien visitations, but <b>none</b> of it is compelling. Photos are always blurry. Witnesses are invariably mistaken or unreliable. There are no artifacts. There's no good evidence of alien influence on any culture on Earth, either now or in the past.
 
I think someone was looking for this: From the TechTV Website

Geek Library: Possibility of Intelligent Life Elsewhere in the Universe

Our Geek Library selection is a 1977 federal report prepared for Congress' Committee on Science and Technology

By Tom Merritt

Here's the full title in all its glory:

Possibility of Intelligent Life Elsewhere in the Universe, Report prepared for the Committee on Science and Technology U.S. House of Representatives, October, 1977 (revised). Prepared for the committee on Science and Technology, US House of Representatives, 95th Congress, first Session US Library of Congress, Science Policy Research Division; 1977

Marcia S. Smith wrote this classic summation of the topic in 1975 and revised and lengthened it in 1977. In the report, Smith wrote a clear and comprehensive summation of all extraterrestrial research up to the date of the writing. Because she had to write in language that legislators could understand it serves as a great introduction for newbies in the SETI field.

It features the Carl Sagan's formula on the likelihood of intelligent life, that he revised from the original Drake's equation.

It also contains lots of cool illustrations, including one of the plate affixed to the Pioneer 10 spacecraft depicting humans and their location in the universe.

Another excellent element is an excerpt from the Smithsonian magazine article (October 1974) on animals in alien biospheres. Some of you may have seen these on exhibit at the Air and Space Museum in Washington.

You can't buy it in stores so you'll have to head down to your local Federal Depository Library and ask for it by name. The SuDoc number is DOC Y 4.Sci 2:95/0.

Calculation of Intelligent Civilizations

The very first meeting in modern times to discuss the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligence was held by the National Academy of Sciences in November 1961 at Green Bank, West Virginia... Eleven prominent scientists met... to discuss extraterrestrial intelligent life and interstellar communication....

The product of the meeting was a formula to determine the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligence. Each variable in the equation is subject to different qualifications, however, and five years after the meeting Dr. Carl Sagan came to a different conclusion from that of this meeting. The two results are compared below:

N=R*fpnefefifcL

N is the number of extant civilizations possessing interest and the capability for interstellar communication.

R* is the mean rate of star formation averaged over the lifetime of the galaxy. The Green Bank (GB) group said this was the total number of stars in the galaxy divided by the lifetime of the galaxy. By their values this was

1010/1010 or 1

Sagan used 1011 as the total number of stars, so his value for R is

1011/1010 or 10

fp is the fraction of stars with planetary systems. GB said the value for this would be either 0.4 or 0.5; Sagan said 1.

ne is the mean number of planets in each planetary system with an environment favorable for the origin of life. Feeling that our sun was unexceptional in this regard for a star of its class, GB said between 1 and 5; Sagan uses 1.

fl is the fraction of suitable planets on which life does develop. Agreeing that life on such planets would be inevitable, both use the value of unity, 1.

fi is the fraction of life-bearing planets on which intelligence accompanied with manipulative ability appears. Here the issue of dolphins arises, for although they are considered by many to be intelligent beings, they have no manipulative ability, and therefore do not fit this equation. Using the same arguments to deduce their answers, GB and Sagan come to different conclusions: the former uses 1 and the latter 10-1.

fc is the fraction of planets on which an advanced technical civilization evolves. Both GB and Sagan adopt a 10-1 value for fc.

L is the lifetime of the technical civilization and the most difficult variable to determine. (The L period of Earth just recently began with the development of the radio telescope, since only then did we become capable of communicating with other civilizations in space).

At Green Bank they considered the two extremes of a civilization destroying itself in less than 1,000 years, or overcoming its crises and lasting almost indefinitely, or more than 100 million years.

For the Green Bank group, then, the lower limit for N would be:

1 X .4 X 1 X 1 X 1 X .1 X 1000 = 40

The upper limit would be

1 X .5 X 5 X 1 X 1 X 1 X .2 X 100,000,000 = 50,000,000.

Sagan chooses the extremes of L less than 100 or greater than 108, assuming an average of 107. His lower limit for N is therefore:

10 X 1 X 1 X 1 X 10-1 X 102 = 10

His upper limit is:

10 X 1 X 1 X 1 X 10-1 X 10 -1 X 107 = 106

Excerpted from Possibility of Intelligent Life Elsewhere in the Universe, Report prepared for the Committee on Science and Technology U.S. House of Representatives, DOC Y 4.SCI 2:94-1-r, 1975. Pages 6-7.

Originally posted April 11, 2001
 
Tablestone,

The question is not about Inteligente Life on this universe...

Is inteligent life, getting here on planet earth with UFOs and creating all this logic/unlogic stuff..

I mean, HOW many versions of ET storyies based on Grays, Tall blonds, reptiles have you heard?
All of them with "proff", photos and testimonies?


The problem is not the lack of information or "proff"
Its the excess, the hoaxes and all the desinformation..

Ufology Is probably the most messy place to talk about theories..
Even parapsichology, cold fusion,anti gravity or teleportation have more conclusive ideias...


Mathematicaly there is about 99,999% probability of finding other inteligent life on the universe... because Its LARGE, and even if it was a slim chance like life on earth happened to be!

The question is, Are they here messing with us or not?

Im a very open minded person, I believe in many "not-normal" stuff, but only very proved stuff, that is quite conclusive and as been target of good research, etc..

Now, They could be ETs... but there is so much mess on Ufology that is better to just step aside until some truly ET mass landing occurs in our planet

;)
 
Except that in crimes that are considered very serious, such as homicide, eyewitness testimony is typically not enough unless you have a room full of people. Otherwise, the fleeting glimpse of the suspect is used as corroberating evidence and investigatorial leads only.
Click to expand...

The majority of these said crimes are convicted entirely on circumstantial evidence. Rarely is their a "smoking gun" to be found in any of these kinds of cases, much less in the UFO phenomenon.

Now, I will conceed that the evidence to support the ET argument in reguards to UFO's is not as yet conclusive, however I do feel their is far too much in it's favor for any skeptic to state that the phenomenon is not a possibility. If anything, the best conclusion I feel is due is "Possible", not "Definative" or "Impossible". The skeptic who says that the lack of evidence warrents that the entire phenomenon be considered false must come up with an explanation free of such blanketing claims such as mass dilusion, greed, fame-seeking, ect. Only a case by case answer to the specific evidence he is given is proper, and he can then justify his response by answering the data he is offered.

For the record, some Sciforums skeptics do just that - they participate in the UFO discussions actively by proposing natural and other alternetive explanations. The skeptics who have seen me post here before know that I have in many of the cases where photographs and the like are presented, sided WITH them, or even propose they are a hoax or natural phenomenon before the unbelieving skeptics have joined the discussion. I applaud this brand of skeptic - "Let me see what you have." and they answer the topics presented. However, when a reference for information is cited and a skeptic does not look up the cited information (as in the Marfa Lights "Pseudoskeptic" example) then he has not reviewed the evidence he has been given. This is what I was comming to with reguards to being intellectually lazy.

This is a never ending debate, and right now both sides are fairly even in the playing field. Their is enough evidence for the intelligent believer to say that SOMETHING exists, but their is a sufficient lack of evidence for the skeptic to say that the most extrordinary claim is UNPROVEABLE. Right now as I see it, this is where the matter rests. I think that even if some of the fine points are disagreed upon, both the reasonable believers and open skeptics of this debate can agree with this conclusion.
 
if someone wants to really believe something they will unrationably follow it. There we go, if you want to see silver disks then you will. Now there is the other part that adds to the UFO phenomenon "Stupid People" i have labeled it. It is when someone with an obvious impairment says they have seen a ufo and overreact upon their "sighting"
 
Originally posted by AlexKN1
This is a pure speculation and nothing more and my own opinions.

Thank You.

As humans today have cars and can travel to other states within hours or days.

Humans in 1,000 years might be able to travel to other states within seconds and other solar systems within hours or days.

ET Aliens that are 1,000 to 1 million years more advanced than humans could be possibly have the concept of traveling to other solar systems whithin hours or days.

Just imagine that you can travel to another location on earth within hours on your own "car"
, for these aliens their space shuttle could be their own "car" since they are so more advanced and a space shuttle costs nothing, its just like a car to them. (This is possible that its not even funny, in early 19th century only rich people had cars, now everyone can have, samething, you see)

The problem arises when these ET aliens each individual could easily use their "car" and get here within hours or days. Other science exploration vessels such as we saw those large UFOs and then smaller UFOs just for 3 people or so (I mean exploration is very fun, admit it, these aliens can't resist exploring or even humans trying ways to have interstellar travel)

Just imagine 4 different species visiting us, and each species has a population of 20 billion for example, just imagine how many would be interested in taking a look at us, just like we want to take a look them in 1,000 years..

Its all speculation, but this explanation can be compared to our own history, thats why this is very good speculation.
Click to expand...

unless they live in an anarchist society then i really doubt the aliens would allow that unless their govt gave them permission to do so, no matter how you think of it, traveling light years IS a big deal, especially when it could possibly change the fate of a whole entire race
 
if someone wants to really believe something they will unrationably follow it. There we go, if you want to see silver disks then you will. Now there is the other part that adds to the UFO phenomenon "Stupid People" i have labeled it. It is when someone with an obvious impairment says they have seen a ufo and overreact upon their "sighting"
Click to expand...

What a pointless and useless things to say. "You see what you want to see" or "People who see UFO's are stupid" - these are not useful statements. Their is no factual data to back them up, they are purely emotionalist. Sure you have some UFO people who are so excited about what they see that they have a hard time thinking rationally, but the pseudoskeptic who displays a lot of ego and the same emotionalist behaviors he accuses UFO believers of is no better.
 
There are no artifacts. There's no good evidence of alien influence on any culture on Earth, either now or in the past.
Click to expand...

Their is clearly a lot of books and documentaries you have missed, but I can appriciate your point of view. The casual person who scratches the surface of the UFO phenomenon will come up with just photos. Those willing to take more of a walk on the wild side might be uncomfortable with what they will find.
 
Originally posted by JoojooSpaceape
unless they live in an anarchist society then i really doubt the aliens would allow that unless their govt gave them permission to do so, no matter how you think of it, traveling light years IS a big deal, especially when it could possibly change the fate of a whole entire race
Click to expand...

Do you need government permission to go to the forest and look at some animals? It was a big deal to cross the atlantic hundreds of years ago, now we can over it in hours..
 
I think people misunderstand the enormity of just our own galaxy. If it were possible to walk to the moon, it would take 65 years. If it were possible to walk to Mars, it would take about 10,000 years.

Even traveling at the speed of light (nothing else is faster), it would take about 10 years to get to the nearest star.

The expense on resources for a civilization to travel to another world (assuming they even know we exist) is tremendous. What would be the point of that expense? Exploration?

Faster than light travel is not possible. Unless there is discovered some means of taking a short-cut, the main obstacles are distance and time. But still, traveling fast means lots of energy, which, in turn, means lots of fuel. Not only to accelerate, but to brake as well.

Now, assuming that they did travel that far, why go through the trouble and then stay secret? Why not at least contact a government or governing body? This certainly hasn't happened... the evidence on this is clear.
 
Originally posted by SkinWalker
I think people misunderstand the enormity of just our own galaxy. If it were possible to walk to the moon, it would take 65 years. If it were possible to walk to Mars, it would take about 10,000 years.

Even traveling at the speed of light (nothing else is faster), it would take about 10 years to get to the nearest star.

The expense on resources for a civilization to travel to another world (assuming they even know we exist) is tremendous. What would be the point of that expense? Exploration?

Faster than light travel is not possible. Unless there is discovered some means of taking a short-cut, the main obstacles are distance and time. But still, traveling fast means lots of energy, which, in turn, means lots of fuel. Not only to accelerate, but to brake as well.

Now, assuming that they did travel that far, why go through the trouble and then stay secret? Why not at least contact a government or governing body? This certainly hasn't happened... the evidence on this is clear.
Click to expand...

This is a perspective from a typical person from a civilization where computers only began ~50 years ago. Why would you see you need a large amount of energy to travel faster than speed of light...read up on the latest science articles...in many cases ..things traveled faster than light.

Just like going to space for a regular civilian currently is almost impossible and for commercial space flights is little too expensive too.

You assume many things, I am backing up my claims with historical facts most of the time. People started crossing the atlantic, people began using high speed trains, then cars came..., and finally planes that allowed to be somewhere within hours. Why do you assume year 2003 will stop, by saying that those things are not possible, you are saying year 2003 will stay still, that there will never be commercial space flight, that NASA's astrounats will never go to Mars, that computers will always stay 3Ghz. Humans make progress buddy, welcome to the real world.

Currently human are in their very early stages of adolescence. If we want to mature, we will need to make progress, and its not really the progress in technology, its the progress in opening your minds. Its not really opening minds about ETs, its about your mind about the Universe. Its trying comprehend that there is more than to earth. We are in our very dangerous stages in of adolescence where its like we are running with real guns (nuclear weapons), as kids do. We cannot be part of the rest of the galaxy or the universe if we can't comprehend that there is something more to earth. Again I am not talking about ET aliens, lets even assume there are no aliens we are alone, but the picture is .. go take a telescope and look at all those stars, look at the hobble telescope pictures of other galaxies. The galaxy is there, there must be other planets there obviusly, its a mystery what could be there..we cant reach those things. Obviusly if in our galaxy planet earth formed with living creatures, may be ... other galaxies formed planets like ours. Are we that special that our planet was the only planet in the whole universe that supports intelligent life. :bugeye: We exist, that gives proof that there its possible that other planets can support life.

I believe that good % of UFOs are ETs, and they don't go announcing because we are not ready. Technology makes progress in our mind, but its slow progress. There are already people who are ready.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top