Well Documented UFO Case

[Reiku]

And could you be any more of a Troll today, seriously

'' and you won't hear any other possibilities''

Who said?

In the other thread, I said I am welcoming any other possibilities which I will take into consideration being a first hand witness to my own account... to which no one even replied.

Don't sit there and accuse someone of something when it is the complete opposite. Seems to be a running theme of yours tonight to misrepresent information... badly at that.

 

[Balerion]

Right... Ok. Yeah... neither statement differs at all. Nice one. I'll grow up when you can understand a simplistic difference.

Straw man. I never said there was no difference, I said they might as well be the same given how neither statement has any evidence to support it. You're trying to distract from what I actually said, but it isn't working.

I know the laws of physics cannot be broken... damn your quick lol

Apparently you don't. You apparently don't know the difference between "your" and "you're," either.

let's re-investigate what I said:

''I said that the directionality of his object he witnessed would defy the physics of normal technological capabilities. Explain why this statement makes me an idiot.''

No, let's "re-investigate" what you actually said:

"As for your sighting, it sounds like the object took a directionality that normally would defy physics."

Your immediate assumption was that he indeed did see something that broke the laws of physics. You never consider any of the countless better explanations there are for what he saw, and simply assume that 1) he saw an object, and 2) it broke the laws of physics.

That's a hell of a jump, and that's what makes you look silly.

Let's study why. The reason why is because it would break a conservation of momentum... a classical case of course. Do you know why? Do you even remember what his observation consisted of?

Yes you should have been hesitant. Quite clear you don't understand english or problems when they are even explained. I have explained that a normal object which is not under any intelligent control to undergo the trajectory as he witnessed it would defy the normal physical laws.

That law would be the conservation of momentum. An object, a classical object does not run off course to go back on course (unless it was deflected) but doing so would result in a loss of momentum and directionality, not a regain of momentum and retrieival of original said path.

I don't know enough about physics to say whether or not that's true (though I do know enough about you to know that you're full of it), which is why I'm not arguing against that point. I'm arguing your assumption that this actually happened, that something actually defied the laws of physics.

Also, don't tell someone they "don't understand English" while butchering the language's grammar in the very same sentence.

 

[Reiku]

They might as well be the same arguements? They are completely different you idiot!

If I say, ''there is a possibility'' there is an inherent difference to saying ''they are''.

You implied the latter when really I said the former.

Sheesh, are you for real?

''Your immediate assumption was that he indeed did see something that broke the laws of physics.''

Nope, go back to my original reply to him and you will see I said the same thing as above. This is what is implied about my statement. I also admitted to sitting there thinking of possible explanations, so don't get all deceiving with me for the umpteenth time in this thread. I said clearly to him originally that the object in question, if it was not piloted could not have made the trajectory it did without defying physics.

''I don't know enough about physics to say whether or not that's true (though I do know enough about you to know that you're full of it), which is why I'm not arguing against that point. I'm arguing your assumption that this actually happened, that something actually defied the laws of physics.''

I'll just take it then you're really simple, because in science, to prove something you sometimes need to prove the impossible. My case above is an analogy to prove it could not have been an object which was not piloted by an intelligence, meaning it could not have been a meteorite for instance falling into the earth's atmosphere.

I am proving the case for him that it was not a natural event, that if IT (capitolized in case you miss it a third time) is a natural phenomenon it would defy physics. Therefore it must have been navigated.

 

[Reiku]

Hence why I explained the conservation of momentum, but my arguement seems to have gone football feilds over your head.

 

[Balerion]

They might as well be the same arguements? They are completely different you idiot!

If I say, ''there is a possibility'' there is an inherent difference to saying ''they are''.

First of all, you call me an idiot again, I'm putting you on my ignore list. Then again, you've already been caught plagiarizing, and now you're name-calling, and you've been back less than a week, so I doubt I'll have to worry about you for long. Either way, watch your mouth.

Secondly, try to follow along: You did not simply say that ET was a possibility, you said they were a strong possibility, which is utter nonsense. How can they be a strong possibility when we don't even know if interstellar travel is even feasible? There is literally no evidence for alien visitation. None. So to say that it's a strong possibility is practically the same as saying you believe they absolutely are alien visitors, because neither statement has any evidence to support it. It would be no different than saying there is a strong possibility that ghosts exist.

Sheesh, are you for real?

I know, right? It sucks when someone actually challenges your worldview, doesn't it?

Nope,

Uh, yes you did. What good is it pretending you didn't say it? It's all there for everyone to see.

I also admitted to sitting there thinking of possible explanations, so don't get all deceiving with me for the umpteenth time in this thread. I said clearly to him originally that the object in question, if it was not piloted could not have made the trajectory it did without defying physics.

That's not what you said at all, Mr. Revisionist History, but you'd be wrong anyway. Who says an object can't make those kinds of maneuvers? How do you know it wasn't simply being tossed around as it fell? You don't even know the nature of the object, yet you've already decided it could not have made those movements without a pilot (and who said it's even capable of being piloted)? Nonsense.

I'll just take it then you're really simple, because in science, to prove something you sometimes need to prove the impossible. My case above is an analogy to prove it could not have been an object which was not piloted by an intelligence, meaning it could not have been a meteorite for instance falling into the earth's atmosphere.

You don't know what an analogy is, but I'm simple? Seriously? You're a joke.

I am proving the case for him that it was not a natural event, that if IT (capitolized in case you miss it a third time) is a natural phenomenon it would defy physics. Therefore it must have been navigated.

You didn't prove anything!

 

[Ripley]

Yup, I'm sure you both saw alien spacecraft.
That's the ONLY possible explanation.
You've totally convinced me with your compelling stories.

I wasn't trying to convince anyone, Adoucette. I was merely enjoying the memory.

Oh BS.
You've now claimed you've had MANY sightings of aliens over a long period of time.

You really need to get a grip.

Really—I don't believe this.

I shared my one "poetic" sighting with Reiku as a gesture of good will and solidarity because I had appreciated his coming out and telling me of his. God, one would think we were gay or something. And I wasn't about to parade the diva for Sciforums' benefit by revealing my life's history. Shit, if anyone should get a grip, it certainly shouldn't be moi.

But to tease you, Adoucette—my last sighting was like something out of Edgar Allan Poe.

As for your sighting, it sounds like the object took a directionality that normally would defy physics. I am sitting here thinking of possible explanations, but immediately from your description I can tell that if anything had deflected the path of an object in such a way, it would have immediately lost momentum or would have continued side-streaking.

That really sounds exciting… because, you see, I'm not – how should I put it – not into physics. But I admire it. I really do. Physics can sound awfully noble at times. But alas, I'm from the forbidden fruit; the abstract crowd—tripping along the unpredictable wavelets of existence, twisting and tilting and stretching. I'd love to experience stability. And that sort of order that only comes from… sparkling predictability.

I recall seeing a UFO show the other night that had one case about a city-wide sighting that turned out to be some kind of balloon drop or some such thing.

How quaint.

I honestly don't remember the details, but the footage looked pretty impressive.

Dear me.

It was dark, the lights were on different levels; it really gave the impression of a single, large object very slowly descending to the ground.

Holy Moses.

And I suppose everybody was grinning profusely from side to side, bowing their heads inanely like in approval and stuff.

Sorry—I can't relate to any of it.

This sounds very much like a Believer talking...

You're not gonna pin that tag on me.

But… I can understand your jumping to conclusions over this, and thereby believing you've figured out my character—all because of my ill-prudently jointless jaunts about our inestimable ET. You conjecture that I'm a wide-eyed and vacant philistine, correct? Fair enough—I forgive you. But only because I never gave you reason to doubt otherwise.

No, I wouldn't call me a "believer". Nor would I call me a "sympathizer".

Perhaps… perhaps a conjuring conjecturer. That sounds about right.

But being a drop-out is probably most accurate. Anyway, it's all very simple really: I propose a scenario, then I live it.

By that I mean I give it authenticity—by lending it my logic and reasoning, my circumspection, my ethics—my aimless mortality. And then I just watch the interplay unfold and accrue between realities—your humdrum reality and a projected semblance of how things could appear from an otherwise splendid "what if" reality. —ET, the muse, has provided me with abundant alternative perspectives to assume and consider. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Feels good to get out into the wild, though.

So I guess sometimes the revelations are so exceptional and extraordinary that I might at times forget that I'm suppose to show allegiance front and foremost to our trite and quaint reality. But big shit, right? It's "only" zealotry.

I think it's hilarious that people making extraordinary claims think they can produce next to nothing to back it up, and then get pissed when people don't agree with them that it means what they are convinced it must.

But you don't understand what I'm up against. I've already taken the step into the final frontier of "outrageous" proposals simply to understand how such almighty suggestions might possibly "fit" into everyday common life, similarly to what Reiku proposed. Yet, like a powerful orbit, I'm still bound… to cumbersome you!

Yes, this is interesting - whence the negativity of the skeptics?

Firstly, Christ had to get out of the way. Now it's ET's turn. What a dilemma ET must pose to their sense of righteous predictability. We mustn't tip their logic askew in any way. So much worldliness depends on it. It's their master and soul. Like Krazy Glue holding it all together.

ion engines? magnetic?
what is the current level of tech in those?

You can be so adorable at times, Gustav. But, yeah.

Well, considering that you and Ripley--just as a for-instance--have both decided you've seen alien spacecraft […] In this sense, you're no different than a religious zealot.

But, what if? What if?

Would you be prepared to meet the ramifications of an ET? Or can't your precisely scientific imagination wrap itself around such conjectural concepts? Too petite? Too prudent? Too barricaded? Too grandiose?

But, hey, it's not my problemo.

 

[adoucette]

All I can say to that rant is you must have

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyhaTQseKTQ

 

[Reiku]

First of all, you call me an idiot again, I'm putting you on my ignore list. Then again, you've already been caught plagiarizing, and now you're name-calling,

You don't know any of the facts. I can't believe I am gonna actually sit and explain this to you!!

My first account I was accused of plaigarizing work.

Guess what, the work linked to was mine. Case closed.

Second case of plaigarism. I was accused, no evidence brought forth.

Case closed.

Got it?


Lastly, you called me idiot first. Do I need to look through our exchanges. But never mind being that, you're a troll good and simple. You make up lies to satisfy debates which you cannot verbally or mentally grasp. And to think I stuck up for you when chips called you a retard.

 

[Reiku]

I shared my one "poetic" sighting with Reiku as a gesture of good will and solidarity because I had appreciated his coming out and telling me of his. God, one would think we were gay or something.

I am. lol

 

[Grumpy]

Seeing something you cannot explain does not justify saying it is an alien spacecraft. There are many reasons aliens is not a reasonable choice for an explanation. Unidentified Flying Object is just that, unidentified. The likelyhood they were aliens is vanishingly small. And there are no 'Squatch in them there woods, either(in all likelyhood), those stupid ghost shows will rot your brain.

Grumpy

 

[Reiku]

Goodness sake, no one is saying that ''seeing something you can't explain'' means it is a UFO. I don't know anyone who will say this.

However, when these objects are being observed on a daily basis, sometimes by the masses of many, where these objects are flying and evading interception at speeds unmatchable by our own standards, then the idea of aliens becomes a possibility.

 

[wynn]

...yet an entirely reasonable proposition is distorted into fanaticism..."must be aliens"
why you do this is puzzling
it is as if that conjecture is forbidden
perhaps blasphemous?
fear?

Firstly, Christ had to get out of the way. Now it's ET's turn. What a dilemma ET must pose to their sense of righteous predictability. We mustn't tip their logic askew in any way. So much worldliness depends on it. It's their master and soul. Like Krazy Glue holding it all together.

I've started a thread for this, but I'm not sure how much attention it will get.


But it is really intriguing - Why should the notion that "perhaps it could be aliens" be so problematic?

I suppose the widely spread belief that modern humans are pretty much as good as life in the Universe gets precludes the consideration of there being vastly more advanced beings with vastly more advanced technology. Hence the downright aggressive resentment against anyone who suggests that there may be other civilizations that are more advanced than ours.

Fear is probably a good motivator for skepticism about aliens, too. Faced with an alien superpower, even if just as a thought experiment, one is forced to acknowledge one's limitations and weaknessess. Not a day in the park.

 

[Read-Only]

I've started a thread for this, but I'm not sure how much attention it will get.


But it is really intriguing - Why should the notion that "perhaps it could be aliens" be so problematic?

I suppose the widely spread belief that modern humans are pretty much as good as life in the Universe gets precludes the consideration of there being vastly more advanced beings with vastly more advanced technology. Hence the downright aggressive resentment against anyone who suggests that there may be other civilizations that are more advanced than ours.

Fear is probably a good motivator for skepticism about aliens, too. Faced with an alien superpower, even if just as a thought experiment, one is forced to acknowledge one's limitations and weaknessess. Not a day in the park.

I'm going to be blunt: the post I've quoted (above) is *very* silly right on the face of it - and even borders on being childish thinking.

No one I know, including myself and the vast percentage of the members of this forum have never spoken out against the possibility of alien intelligence greater than our existing.

Given the VASTNESS of the cosmos, there are billions upon billions of chances for life elsewhere AND given the fact that there are HUGE numbers of galaxies older than the Milky Way, it would be practically insane to hold to a position that - not only are we alone - we're the greatest intelligence the Universe can produce!!

Though I have NO doubt that *some* people actually believe that, the ones that do so most likely believe in things like the Flat Earth also. :shrug:

Edit: I got carried away and forgot to make my MAIN point: Advanced intelligence and technology does NOT necessarily imply actually breaking the laws of physics. There's no reason to think the physical laws aren't the same everywhere.

 

[Reiku]

I'm going to be blunt: the post I've quoted (above) is *very* silly right on the face of it - and even borders on being childish thinking.

No one I know, including myself and the vast percentage of the members of this forum have never spoken out against the possibility of alien intelligence greater than our existing.

Given the VASTNESS of the cosmos, there are billions upon billions of chances for life elsewhere AND given the fact that there are HUGE numbers of galaxies older than the Milky Way, it would be practically insane to hold to a position that - not only are we alone - we're the greatest intelligence the Universe can produce!!

Though I have NO doubt that *some* people actually believe that, the ones that do so most likely believe in things like the Flat Earth also. :shrug:

Edit: I got carried away and forgot to make my MAIN point: Advanced intelligence and technology does NOT necessarily imply actually breaking the laws of physics. There's no reason to think the physical laws aren't the same everywhere.

If there is no limit on intelligence then, then there is no limit on the possibilities, read only.

the arguement for the believers is simple.

 

[Reiku]

In fact, assuming there are intelligent lifeforms out there, you can measure it a scientific way, civilizations, 1,2 and 3. 3 being the most advanced civilizations. Even a civilization 2 could manage deep space exploration.

 

[Reiku]

We are only just becoming a civilization 1 according to Michio Kaku.

 

[Read-Only]

If there is no limit on intelligence then, then there is no limit on the possibilities, read only.

the arguement for the believers is simple.

I've absolutely NO intentions of having a conversation with YOU on any topic!! You've been proven to be a LIAR time and time again AND claiming to possess FAR more education and knowledge than you actually have. I will not reply to you again!

 

[Reiku]

I've absolutely NO intentions of having a conversation with YOU on any topic!! You've been proven to be a LIAR time and time again AND claiming to possess FAR more education and knowledge than you actually have. I will not reply to you again!

Be as you will. Still doesn't stop the facts of my previous post to you. Ok.

 

[Reiku]

For the record, I am actually a very humble guy. I don't go about saying ''I know more than you do.''

Just because I speak confidently about other topics does not mean to suggest I look down on anyone. And if I have lied, it must have been under a different sock puppet. My intentions back then was to spam afterall.

 

[Rhaedas]

That's Robert Zubrin's interpretation of how the Kardashev scale should be used, how far our ability to travel has progressed. Kaku uses the original definition of power capability, and Sagan has used a modified one as well to base the power on communication ability.