what do u guys think?

[Royolistic]

so do u guys think that aliens exist? supposedly there have been rumors i dont know if its true or not that the government has set up this secret base outside of nevada called Area 51, where they study aliens and UFO's. So what do u guys think, they do or they dont exist?

 

[Blue_UK]

I think there must be ET life somewhere.

I don't believe any of this Area 51 rubbish though. That was just a research base and the whole roswell muck was probably just some test craft.

Thats just an opinion but how do you keep such a big secret when so many people must have known? Also, where are all the other ufos? Apprently they're incompetant enough to crash, it's a wonder they made it this far.

Agree or disagree?

 

[Tezcatlipoca's Hat]

Here are my thoughts on this admittedly thorny issue:

A) I certainly hope there's ET life somewhere, because if there isn't, then the Universe (or deity of your choice) has put all of its eggs into a rather unsteady basket.

B) I live near Dayton, home of Wright Patterson Air Force Base and, presumably, alien corpses in Hanger 13. I haven't seen any alien corpses, but then again I don't look to closely at the gift shop help:

"Your total comes to ze-blorb igmafa...um, I mean, $13.65."

C) In an ironic twist, the UFOs and their transports were abducted by other, marginally smarter, aliens during the trip from Nevada to Ohio.

Beyond that, don't ask me. I'm still waiting to be abducted, if only for the free robe.

 

[hotsexyangelprincess]

i think there probably is life out there, and tetchilitopicoca has a point with (A), nature would most likely create multiple sources of life. :m:

 

[invert_nexus]

Lifeforms somewhere in the universe other than the planet Earth? Absolutely. That doesn't mean they're here handing out anal probes though.

 

[cosmictraveler]

We are aliens to anything else so therefore yes.

 

[SkinWalker]

so do u guys think that aliens exist?

I live in Texas and can tell you that they do, indeed, exist. And if you speak Spanish, you can ask them for yourself.

All kidding aside, in all probability the universe is teeming with life at various stages of development. To think that we are alone as beings is aburd. The idea that these beings are visiting our fair planet is unlikely and to "know" they are is also absurd, since there is no physical evidence or artifact to suggest as much. There are those within this forum, however, who will argue against that point, perhaps because hope springs eternal. They want it to be true so they believe it to be even without real supporting evidence.

supposedly there have been rumors [...] that the government has set up this secret base outside of nevada called Area 51, where they study aliens and UFO's.

This base exists. But its an installation protected by national security where the latest military aircraft are test-flown. Not flying saucers. Of course, the believers will quickly state, "you can't prove they're not, so therefore they are."

It can't be proved that dinosaurs didn't line-dance on Saturday nights either.

 

[kmguru]

Suppose the first Alien starship does not land for 100 years on a diplomatic mission. Are we going to keep arguing till then?

 

[coolmacguy]

The idea that these beings are visiting our fair planet is unlikely and to "know" they are is also absurd, since there is no physical evidence

Pure rubbish. There are thousands of cases with very clear physical evidence. Ignorance of that does not mean it does not exist.

They want it to be true so they believe it to be even without real supporting evidence.

Again, pure rubbish. I am not one to believe in wild speculation and unsubstantiated theories. I have however spent a great deal of time researching this subject and the "supporting evidence" is there for those that want to take the time to look. You definitely aren't going to here about it on CNN, so if that's all you use to get your information then I don't see your viewpoint changing.

Many well respected scientists (supposedly what this forum is about) have taken the time to look as well, and their conclusions are almost always the same when they do.

 

[Lemming3k]

so do u guys think that aliens exist?

Personally i think they exist but havnt visited.

supposedly there have been rumors i dont know if its true or not that the government has set up this secret base outside of nevada called Area 51, where they study aliens and UFO's.

You were correct until you mentioned aliens and UFO's, Arear 51 does exist(in fact i think the location is known as theres a large fence around it and its always gaurded, sort of gives it away a bit) but is mostly accepted as a research base with no relation to ET's.

 

[Stryder]

Heres a point on "Area's" in general, due to both what they do out there and what they have potentially stored in the way of materials (being volatile) large area's around the initial infrastructures are taken.

(This is why alot of "Public space" was reclaimed)

For instance if a test crafted was downed over someones land, they could have problems keeping the test craft a secret, or problems in retrieval since alot of busybodies would want to know about it.

Also if for instance a Silo existed then it's suggested a range of area around it is reserved in case of accidents limiting the number of civilian casualities and evacuations in an emergency.

As for "Aliens", Aliens do exist elsewhere in the universe, since if you played a game of darts you would have a chance of getting a bullseye, you might not get it everytime however law of averages suggest it happens more than once. Admittedly the variables for life in the universe are greater, however the number of solar systems in the universe counters that by giving you more bullseyes to hit.

As for people seeing aliens/ being abducted. If aliens are real wouldn't they leave a genetic trace behind, for instance in real crime scenes Hair/cothing fibre/skin cells are left behind by the villians, don't you think the same would be said of aliens?

Okay so an Aliens, shaved bald, wears no cloths but does that mean they utilise a reptilian DNA where they Shed there skin, wouldn't that mean there would be skin sheads somewhere? On top of that, wouldn't the Alien being created to deal with the lack of Hair/Clothing fibre/Skin cells samples be nothing more than an engineered avatar?

(Personally I think it's the mind control lot messing with peoples heads, but thats up to you to realise which is true)

 

[SkinWalker]

Pure rubbish. There are thousands of cases with very clear physical evidence. Ignorance of that does not mean it does not exist.

Really? Then perhaps you have the data of just one that indicates how much it weighs. What's it's physical measurements? Mass spectrometry results? Did anyone dust it for fingerprints? The only rubbish is that "there are thousands of cases with clear physical evidence." If that were true, UFO/ETI would be mainstream science not psuedoscience and kookery.

Again, pure rubbish. I am not one to believe in wild speculation and unsubstantiated theories.

You can't tell from where I'm typing.

 

[ylooshi]

Area 51 is a very enigmatic site. Check this link out: http://www.area51zone.com/aircraft/switchblade.shtml

I think they have all sorts of crazy aircraft that is being researched, which may or may not be reverse engineered UFOs.

But if you think switchblade doesn't exist... take a look at the attached photo.

http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3038&stc=1

 

[Star_One]

That photo looks fake????

 

[coolmacguy]

Really? Then perhaps you have the data of just one that indicates how much it weighs. What's it's physical measurements? Mass spectrometry results? Did anyone dust it for fingerprints?

You are again making the mistaken assumption that if something can't be examined in a lab, then it does not exist.

The only rubbish is that "there are thousands of cases with clear physical evidence." If that were true, UFO/ETI would be mainstream science not psuedoscience and kookery.

No it wouldn't be. Mainstream science has many times in the past refused to recognize the truth in the face of overwhelming evidence simply because it didn't want to hear it or it went against established thought. Why do you think it took so long to overturn the many scientific fallacies of Aristotle?

 

[SkinWalker]

You are again making the mistaken assumption that if something can't be examined in a lab, then it does not exist.

No, sir. I'm making the assumption that if something is not quantifiable, then by definition it is not physical evidence. You said, "thousands of cases with clear physical evidence." I challenge you to list 25 of them with their quantifiable (that would be measurable) evidence. I'm sure that the only thing you will produce, however, is anecdotal account of physical evidence, which is not quite the same.

No it wouldn't be. Mainstream science has many times in the past refused to recognize the truth in the face of overwhelming evidence simply because it didn't want to hear it or it went against established thought. Why do you think it took so long to overturn the many scientific fallacies of Aristotle?

And speaking of fallacy, that sounds like an appeal to authority. Anecdotes and bold statements do not make science. Evidence does. Comparing ancient intellectuals to modern scientific method is a bit laughable and a whimpy way to make your point. Even up to a hundred years ago, the number of highly educated scientists in the world were few. Worldviews were deeply rooted in thousands of years of religion and superstition. In the last hundred years, science and scientific method has advanced to a point in which it is not dependant upon the traditional worldviews to exist.

Having said that, there is now a system in which "clear physical evidence" would speak for itself. It matters not what processes and methods the ancients once used or who laughed at or riduculed them ("they laughed at/oppressed Galileo/Copernicus/Wright Bros./etc"), what matters is what the evidence says and how it is presented.

Indeed, Mainstream Science is comprised of scientists. Scientists are people. Deep down, they feel as others do. They want us to not be alone in the universe or to find other worlds. Moreover, I cannot image what scientist, when faced with "clear physical evidence," wouldn't jump at the chance to announce to the world his/her findings in order to advance to a higher status.

But what you have is a belief system and, along with millions of others, you are not to be discouraged. The only information that is acknowledged is that which supports your belief system -all else is ignored. This is the same driving force found in politics, religion, superstition, etc. Believers of all these and other areas say the same thing about those who view the beliefs skeptically or with actual critical thinking: they seek only to discredit and will say anything to further their "beliefs." The believers think that skepticism is a belief system when, in fact it is a method.

So to your "rubbish," I say, "poppycock."

 

[coolmacguy]

I challenge you to list 25 of them with their quantifiable (that would be measurable) evidence.

That would be extremely easy. Researcher Ted Phillips compiled more than 2200 such cases in his Physical Trace Catalog publication. More than 600 of those he investigated himself. Dr. J Allen Hynek who was a well respected mainstream scientist also investigated hundreds of cases involving physical evidence. Then there is the Sturrock Panel which was composed of mainstream professional scientists. They examined physcial evidence from UFO sightings and investigations. They reached no final conclusion on it but did deem the evidence intriguing and worthy of more study.

In the last hundred years, science and scientific method has advanced to a point in which it is not dependant upon the traditional worldviews to exist.

The scientific method is not what is at fault here. When the method is applied vigorously and thoroughly to the UFO question, as it has been for many years, it renders an unknown as the result of the analysis. If this were not the case, there would no longer be a question as to the origin of UFOs.

Having said that, there is now a system in which "clear physical evidence" would speak for itself.

It definitely would. But people can still choose not to listen.

what matters is what the evidence says and how it is presented.

For once we agree.

Moreover, I cannot image what scientist, when faced with "clear physical evidence," wouldn't jump at the chance to announce to the world his/her findings in order to advance to a higher status.

Many have done exactly that. However, their status was not subsequently advanced. That is in part why others are reluctant to do the same.

But what you have is a belief system and, along with millions of others, you are not to be discouraged. The only information that is acknowledged is that which supports your belief system -all else is ignored.

This is where you are most definitely wrong. I have no "belief system" with regard to UFOs. It is not a religion. That comparison is ridiculous. What I have is a large body of evidence regarding this phenomenon. This evidence includes (but is not limited to):

1. statements from credible observers regarding objects they have observed in flight that perform in unusual ways

Many of these observers are highly trained and very qualified to analyze aerial vehicles and maneuvers. Some of them are aeronautical engineers, professional pilots, military pilots, and respected scientists.

2. analyses of evidence recovered from the ground and surrounding area where objects were observed to land or operate near the ground

3. documents of the US government relating to their investigations and analyses into these phenomena.

4. testimony and interviews from expert witnesses (many who held high governmental and industrial positions) relating to the various knowledge that has been obtained about this topic through research over many years

All of this amounts to thousands of pages. I am not going to call you ignorant but I would be willing to bet that I have spent significantly more time than you looking at the evidence.

I personally do not care whether we are alone, whether aliens exist, what secret government programs are operating now, or why people see what they see. I just want to find out the answer to what these objects are and/or what they represent. But like so many others, after spending a great deal of time trying I am unable to postulate any explanation that is explainable in ordinary terms. That is why I still take an interest in the topic. It is still an unknown.

I am not on a crusade to prove the existence of alien life. Such a characterization is flawed in it's understanding. I simply want to find an answer to one of the most interesting mysteries of the modern era. If someone came up with irrefutable proof of what these objects were that was of a prosaic nature, I would be fine with that. The mystery would be solved and I could move on to something else. No one has been able to do that as yet though. The last time mainstream science tried was the Condon Report. The 5 page summary of that study that was distributed to the media basically stated that there was nothing to it. However, the study itself was unable to find any explanation for over 30% of the cases it examined. Even with the entire resources of the science departments at the University of Colorado and $500 million in funding, there were a great many cases that defied conventional explanation. There was also a very pronounced contradiction between the body of the report and the conclusion. Many modern scientists have also attested to this.

I simply want to give the issue a fair hearing. I want people to look at the evidence before deciding there is nothing to the whole matter. You seem to be saying "if the evidence was that compelling, everyone would already know." While that may be a logical assumption, but it is unfortunately not correct.

 

[craterchains (Norval]

What do we guys think?
Well, some do think, and then obviously some do not think.
But, I think you got some answers that show you many sides to the issue of what you asked.

Some want you to find out, some don’t.

 

[SkinWalker]

That would be extremely easy. Researcher Ted Phillips compiled more than 2200 such cases in his Physical Trace Catalog publication.

The problem with Physical Trace Catalog is that it succombs to the same detraction that is common throughout the ufo culture: it relies largely on anecdote. Of the few actual physical "evidences" that are presented, it ignores alternative hypotheses and rests its case on the fallacy that says because something is unexplained it is therefore inexplicable. And since you brought him up, it was Aristotle that said, "the sum of coincidences equals certainty." But people have a tendancy to recall the meaningful coincidences while discarding the insignificant ones. Phillips did just that in Physical Trace, he pointed out the data that supported what he wanted to see, rather than all data.

I can give you one or more examples directly from Physical Trace if you want, but that would be splitting hairs. The point is, Physical Trace was written something like 25 years ago (the actual publication date eludes me for the moment) -one would think that if the evidence were truly convincing, it would have spoken for itself to science.

They reached no final conclusion on it but did deem the evidence intriguing and worthy of more study.

I'm in agreeance with that. The evidence which does exist (almost all anecdotally reliant) does merit some study. Chemists can look at the alleged trace; astronomers can do the math; etc. But expect the anthropologists to look at the Ufo culture.

The scientific method is not what is at fault here. When the method is applied vigorously and thoroughly to the UFO question, as it has been for many years, it renders an unknown as the result of the analysis. If this were not the case, there would no longer be a question as to the origin of UFOs.

I have to disagree here. It appears to me that "when the method is applied vigiorously and thoroughly to the UFO question," it often reduces the probability of ETI. That there is still a question about UFOs is indicative of belief systems. While not necessarily a result of an established or traditional religion, the UFO/ETI movement does have many religious characteristics.

This is where you are most definitely wrong. I have no "belief system" with regard to UFOs. It is not a religion. That comparison is ridiculous.

Is it? Ultimately the comparisson might not hold up, but I wrote this paper (unpublished) exploring the concept. I think I successfully demonstrate that there is some religiosity to the UFO belief system.

1. statements from credible observers [...] Many of these observers are highly trained and very qualified ...

Yet as fallible as anyone else. It has been successfully demonstrated many times that one's status and position within society doesn't necessarily create the perfect witness. They are subject to the very belief system fallacies as the rest of us. Indeed, President Reagan (arguably one of the greatest world leaders of the 20th century) often consulted the advice of astrologers. That doesn't give additional credibility to astrology -it still suffers from the same problems from the standpoint of science.

2. analyses of evidence recovered from the ground and surrounding area where objects were observed to land or operate near the ground

This is where I appear snide but I assure you I'm asking out of genuine interest when I say, "point me to the citations of the journal articles written on the analyses."

3. documents of the US government relating to their investigations and analyses into these phenomena.

Largely demonstrated to be false, hoaxed, or out-of-context. Those that are genuine could refer to any number of other real or even perceived issues, including the UFO question. Even those that did refer directly to UFOs don't in themselves provide evidence of existance, but rather evidence of discussion. The UFO craze isn't new. It was in full swing prior to 1970 and the Cold War mentality created all sorts of cultural norms for government that would seem extraordinary today.

All of this amounts to thousands of pages. I am not going to call you ignorant but I would be willing to bet that I have spent significantly more time than you looking at the evidence.

Perhaps. But you might be surprised to know that I once bought into the UFO/ETI movement. So much so that I even started a website in 1996 to list some of the very same "evidence" that you are pouring over. It took some development of my critical thinking and a fresh look at the UFO question from a different perspective to see the pattern of evidence: anecdote of observation, anecdote of physical objects, anecdote of physical trace, anecdote of anecdote (rumour), hoaxes, bias presentation of evidence, etc. All the traits and characteristics of a belief system.

If someone came up with irrefutable proof of what these objects were that was of a prosaic nature, I would be fine with that. The mystery would be solved and I could move on to something else. No one has been able to do that as yet though.

The presence of a mystery doesn't necessarily imply the paranormal or supernormal. It simply means that the ability to infer or deduce is obstructed by lack of evidence. The Mexico Ufo event of recent months is a good example. Not just to drag this out again, but believers and skeptics were largely polarized over is/isn't ETI. In all actuality, however, there were perhaps 10 decent hypotheses, one of which included UFO/ETI. There were probably hundreds that weren't even considered because there was no evidence to suggest them, but perhaps the evidence was there, just not observed. Or perhaps the evidence was depleted/consumed/unobservable... etc.

However, the study itself was unable to find any explanation for over 30% of the cases it examined.

Being "unexplained" does not mean something is "inexplicable."

 

[coolmacguy]

I can give you one or more examples directly from Physical Trace if you want, but that would be splitting hairs. The point is, Physical Trace was written something like 25 years ago

Actually there was a revised version he completed in 1999 with a lot more cases included.

one would think that if the evidence were truly convincing, it would have spoken for itself to science.

One would think. Unfortunately science decided long ago that evidence in this field was inadmissible to mainstream science no matter what it said.

But expect the anthropologists to look at the Ufo culture.

UFO culture is a misnomer. It paints the picture that everyone who takes this issue seriously is a quack who believes everything the tabloids have to say about aliens. In actuality this is a rather small minority. They sometimes get more attention than is warranted though so that makes it seem like a larger group than it really is.

It appears to me that "when the method is applied vigiorously and thoroughly to the UFO question," it often reduces the probability of ETI.[/quote[

In many cases it does. Even UFO researchers acknowledge that 80-90% of UFO sightings turn out to have a generic explanation when investigated thoroughly. However, there are a core group of cases very similar in nature that upon close study truly defy a conventional explanation.

While not necessarily a result of an established or traditional religion, the UFO/ETI movement does have many religious characteristics.

Agreed, but once again the "ETI movement" as you refer to it represents a few weirdoes who will believe anything anyone tells them about aliens. It is not very large and most definitely not held to by serious researchers in ufology.

I think I successfully demonstrate that there is some religiosity to the UFO belief system.

Same response as above.

It has been successfully demonstrated many times that one's status and position within society doesn't necessarily create the perfect witness.

No it doesn't. Which is why if there were only a few witnesses, they could still easily be dismissed as mistaken/deluded. That is not the case however. When you have thousands of people reporting almost the exact same thing you can't simply ignore that.

They are subject to the very belief system fallacies as the rest of us. Indeed, President Reagan (arguably one of the greatest world leaders of the 20th century) often consulted the advice of astrologers. That doesn't give additional credibility to astrology -it still suffers from the same problems from the standpoint of science.

Once again you are making the mistake of thinking everyone who reports UFOs is a part of this "belief system" you associate with them. That is completely untrue. If you look at firsthand reports and witness statements you find that many were quite skeptical about UFOs before they saw one. Many of them were completely uninterested in the topic and many even remained so after the fact.

This is where I appear snide but I assure you I'm asking out of genuine interest when I say, "point me to the citations of the journal articles written on the analyses."

You might check out the Journal of UFO Studies. This is a peer review journal that well represents mainstream ufology and researchers advocating a scientific approach to the issue.

Largely demonstrated to be false, hoaxed, or out-of-context.

This is where you show your true knowledge of this topic. None of the documents I refer to are hoaxed. They are all acknowledged to be completely real even by debunkers. You seem to be referring to MJ-12 of other such unofficial documents that could be hoaxes. I am referring to competely valid documents released under FOIA or found in the various archives. These documents represent thousands of pages. The FBI released over 1600 pages relating to UFOs. The CIA released over 1000. The Air Force analyses and Blue Book investigation documents represent tens of thousands of pages.

Even those that did refer directly to UFOs don't in themselves provide evidence of existance, but rather evidence of discussion. The UFO craze isn't new. It was in full swing prior to 1970 and the Cold War mentality created all sorts of cultural norms for government that would seem extraordinary today.

Much of the discussion in these documents is very mindful of that. You often see military officers saying things like "make sure these witnesses aren't just reporting crazy rumors." Other times they do cite direct evidence and state that it is very compelling, in spite of the hoaxers and loonies.

I plan eventually to write up a detailed summary of the documents and post them as well so everyone can make up their own minds, but that would take much more time than I currently have available.

But you might be surprised to know that I once bought into the UFO/ETI movement.

This is where we differ. I never did. The "movement" as I have already stated is run by individuals who wildly interpret things to fit their desire to believe ETI exists. Serious UFO research is not part of that.

So much so that I even started a website in 1996 to list some of the very same "evidence" that you are pouring over. It took some development of my critical thinking and a fresh look at the UFO question from a different perspective to see the pattern of evidence: anecdote of observation, anecdote of physical objects, anecdote of physical trace, anecdote of anecdote (rumour), hoaxes, bias presentation of evidence, etc. All the traits and characteristics of a belief system.

Well if you truly have looked at the evidence firsthand and reached a different conclusion, then I can respect you for that. I can't respect people who dismiss it offhand as something not even worth their time.

The presence of a mystery doesn't necessarily imply the paranormal or supernormal.

No, but if something remains unexplained over a long period of time it usually gets classified in a paranormal context with other unexplainable phenomena.

It simply means that the ability to infer or deduce is obstructed by lack of evidence.

Not necessarily. There is a great deal of evidence dealing with UFOs. The problem comes from the inability to take it seriously and get serious investigation and analyses performed. If science had been as diligent in this very important area over the last half century as other fields of study, perhaps we would have an answer today. But because science refused to take it seriously after the Condon Report, UFO research is generally relegated to unfunded hobbyists and few qualified scientists.

Even when mainsteam science (The Sturrock Panel) decrees the topic worthy of investigation, it is very difficult to get to that. If a broad spectrum, multidisciplinary approach were taken and a well funded study conducted, we might get some good results.

The Mexico Ufo event of recent months is a good example. Not just to drag this out again, but believers and skeptics were largely polarized over is/isn't ETI. In all actuality, however, there were perhaps 10 decent hypotheses, one of which included UFO/ETI.

There were far less than 10 that even remotely supported the evidence. This also illustrates the difference between serious UFO research and believers/debunkers. The believers immediately proclaimed ETI. The debunkers issued numerous armchair explanations without examining the evidence first. On the other hand, we haven't heard anything from the serious UFO research community. That is because the investigation is still ongoing. What a novel idea! Conduct a thorough analysis before issuing a conclusion. This is still very much an active case. It stalled a bit because one of the military officials researchers were conferring with went on vacation.

Being "unexplained" does not mean something is "inexplicable."

Well many cases are inexplicable with the investigation conducted so far. But as I said above, if we could get some more serious study to happen perhaps we would have more explanations.