BertBonsai
Registered Senior Member
Stop it, Doreen, you're making too much sense. Besides, JamesR is a drive-by poster.
UFO Sighting over Eastern Australia
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
Just say for a moment that E.T. Type UFO's a actual.
consider the following:
So if they exists why don't they make a conclusive entry into world affairs do you think?
My answer : Paranoia, mass hysteria and the human propentisty to shoot what you fear first and then ask questions later.
or
they don't exist any way.
IMO the only way we would know of their presense would be in the manifestation of "halucination" [ dreams ] hence the abduction theorists paranoid ramblings.
consider the following:
- They have managed to travel in excess of 5 light years to get here.
- They have the technology to manage such a flight usually and supposedly utilizing some sort of hyper space or worm hole function, technology or natural phenomena.
- They would be experts at hiding, using sophisticated stealth technology. [hovering in hyper space as supreme voyeurs for one example]
- They would be experts at information management, i.e. propaganda.
- They would be, given the level of technology, far superior in ethics and morality simply because the technology would destroy them if they weren't.
- If they did visit it would be to take genetic samples and other sophisticated materials for their unknown use and knowledge base.
- They would offer no threat to the world because if they did they could have conquered, destroyed the planet ages ago but haven't.
- If they were inclined to destroy the planet they would not have had the ethics required to manage their own level of technology with out destroying themselves.*
So if they exists why don't they make a conclusive entry into world affairs do you think?
My answer : Paranoia, mass hysteria and the human propentisty to shoot what you fear first and then ask questions later.
or
they don't exist any way.
IMO the only way we would know of their presense would be in the manifestation of "halucination" [ dreams ] hence the abduction theorists paranoid ramblings.
Last edited:
Doreen:
No. But it should slow their shouts of "The aliens are here!" every time something like this happens. I mean, this stuff has been going on for 60 years, since flying saucers became popular in fiction, and there's not a shred of reliable evidence for alien spacecraft visiting Earth.
Agree?
No. But it should slow their shouts of "The aliens are here!" every time something like this happens. I mean, this stuff has been going on for 60 years, since flying saucers became popular in fiction, and there's not a shred of reliable evidence for alien spacecraft visiting Earth.
Agree?
Labeling is not enough. You need to show how they are specious.Ah yes, the hallmark of the crank .... specious analogies.
Someone was called dumb because they were skeptical about an explanation for a phenomenon. Is that a line of reasoning you want to support?
The guy in question did not say: It is an alien craft. He was skeptical about the hypothesis.
I am not sure why you decided to attack via ad hom, rather than discuss something. Is there a reason you break the rules here like this?
Last edited:
I really don't know. I have never made an effort to see why these people believe these are alien craft. I have, however, seen quite a bit of immediate explanations and these are often really ludicrous, given the people seeing the things, in some cases have been pilots, law enforcement, etc.
You don't have isolated individuals, here. You have two cultures crashing in the media - one that jumps early to conclusions it is anomalous and one that immediately explains away AS IF they could know. These two patterns feed on each other. However officials and scientists bear more responsibility. The former because of their position. The latter because of their methodology which they are not adhering to when they leap to conclusions.
No one seems to do very well with 'unidentified.'
it is sort of ironic that the so called skeptics of E.T. are labeling a persons skepticism of information as crank! [Chuckle]
yeah I know it stems from intense cynicism developed over years of unsupported E.T. claims etc etc... but being a cynic defeats the notion of honest skepticism does it not?
OK. Fair enough. I did a little back search through news reports to see how experts responded early on, and, in fact, they did not express certainty and were generally on the money with their guesses. But in general I think the phenomenon exists where rapid explanations come in from experts too early and too certain.
Thank you. I mean James R. did end up implying a kind of rule that I dont think he would want to generalize.
Ultimately. Otherwise it is a kind of faith, which cynicism is.
I once watched a documentary on the Hudson River sightings (of UFOs). The documentary filmmakers would cut from witnesses to officials - military, airport, government, scientists - the witnesses would say what they saw and then the experts would say what it was. I remember distinctly two police officers who described a football sized something about 100 meters up, moving maybe 10 miles per hour. They got out of their car watched it, then drove underneath it, getting out of their car again. The two officers never said it was an alien spaceship. They carefully described what they saw or seemed to see. Then we cut to a scientist who said it was a formation of jets flying at 1000 feet. Then they cut back to the police officers, who looked, well, skeptical.......
What struck me was that the witnesses were not making a claim about the object and the experts were SURE. And what they were sure about seemed an ill fit. And they at least could have mentioned the issue of the colored lights the officers saw. Frankly it sounds more like some sort of low flying blimp with advertising lights not in a specific pattern.
Did I come away thinking an alien spaceship had flown over the officers? No. However, I did come away feeling like it is not helping anything presenting certainty, especially early on. I am sure some of this is a misguided sense that the public needs to be calmed down. But I think this pattern has only added to the sense there is some kind of cover up.
By the way, a good number of the UFO guys do not believe in aliens. They think these things are government secret projects.
Last edited:
Apples to oranges, everyone knew the WMD thing was bullshit.
'directly' being a dishonest caveat. I dislike the term UFO. It's too broad. Some dumbass can't identify Venus, or a rocket launch when he's been given all the relevant information, and it gets labelled UFO. Some then take the supposed "UFO'' and it's ambiguity to mean there is a possibility that simply because we cannot identify it, and rule out all of the possibilities, it could, just could, be an extra-terrestrial craft.
There is too much implication and extrapolation from the term UFO.
But no, I don't believe in UFOs. I think they all have a mundane explanation. I just think a certain percentage of woowoo dumbasses see things that aren't flying, and say they are UFOs (The 'F' meaning the object _must_ demonstrate controlled flight, for starters), or out of focus camcorder footage, and manage to convince themselves there's 'something out there'.
I called the guy dumb because he dismissed what was the correct explanation for the sighting. If the guy cannot examine and understand reality, he has no hope of discerning anomalies. Got that?
Look, the term 'UFO' is dishonest. He was from a 'UFO' research group. Which means they believe in extra-terrestrial visitation, but hide behind ifs buts and maybes, and the grey shadow cast by the term UFO.
We are watching the sky all the time, in various wavelengths, from various satellites, and ground based observatories. We do not see alien craft. But
a woowoo, with an imagination, and a camcorder, can see them often. What does that tell you?
Then it's not unidentified, it's secret. Different ball of wax.
Look, we cannot label something 'Unidentified' just because the observer doesn't know what it is. Can you name all the stars in the night sky? I doubt it. Are they 'unidentified' stars then? No, they have names, they are catalogued, and known about, by people who know about such things.
So some guy sees a secret military aircraft. It's secret, but it's catalogued and known about, by people who know about such things.
Anyway, like I said, the term UFO is unhelpful. UFO investigators hide behind the idea there are almost certainly secret military aircraft being flown, and use this ambiguity that we cannot be sure about what we're looking at, to infer the possibility of alien visitation. It's abstraction to absurdity.
UFOlogy falls into a few distinct categories.
Meteorology.
Astronomy.
Plane spotting/defense analysis.
Aberration of perception events.
Are UFOlogists experts in every field? No. But like CSS, they think they know everything about everything, and they don't half wriggle and excuse stuff when science contradicts them, because they are more fond of their pet theory than reality.
Yeah I agree that the UFO thingo has way too many connotations these days however it still means what it means I guess. No solution for this one hey?
The media of course love it as they can play with as they wish.
And just in case there was any doubt you’re a woo-woo crank, out come the oft-reguriposted unverifiable “quotations” that various astronauts are supposed to have made.
:facepalm:
:facepalm:
None of these quotes seem to be sourced from anywhere. Did you make them up?
No, these have been doing the rounds for years. They are routinely trotted out by UFO nuts in countless forums across teh interweb. She's reguriposted them from a website somewhere.