PDA

View Full Version : ET Visitors: Scientists See High Likelihood



Pages : [1] 2 3

A.DIM
2005-Jan-14, 02:05 PM
A Featured article today on
Space.com (http://www.space.com/searchforlife/et_betterodds_050114.html).

Ya'll know what I think...
what say ye?

Do current "rigorous" astrophysics really support this?

soupdragon2
2005-Jan-14, 02:28 PM
I linked to the Haisch article in another thread. I think he some very interesting ideas.

http://www.ufoskeptic.org/JBIS.pdf

The www.NARCAP.org web site explains some of the stigma which attaches to the UFO/UAP problem.

A.DIM
2005-Jan-14, 03:07 PM
While I keep Haisch's site bookmarked(and have cited him before), I'd not seen the JBIS article until this morning. And I agree; I find his ideas on the matter more balanced than most scientists'.
But your post went largely ignored (surprised?) in that other thread and since credible(?) space.com published the article today, I felt it needed its own thread.

We'll see how it goes...

Swift
2005-Jan-14, 03:56 PM
It's an interesting piece, but it is, IMHO, a little self-contradicting

Therefore, the researchers explain in their JBIS article that an average alien civilization would be far more advanced and have long since discovered Earth. Additionally, other research work on the supposition underlying the Big Bang -- known as the theory of inflation -- shores up the prospect, they advise, that our world is immersed in a much larger extraterrestrial civilization.
So they are saying there should be ETs all around us and we should have met them. Ok, but...

"The dismissal has several causes, all reinforcing each other," Haisch responded. "Most of the observations are probably misinterpretations, delusions and hoaxes. I have seen people get confused by Venus or even Sirius when it is flashing colors low in the sky under the right conditions. Having been turned off by this, most scientists never bother to look any further, and so are simply blissfully ignorant that there may be more to it," he said.

Deardorff, the lead author of the JBIS article, points out in a press statement: "It would take some humility for the scientific community to suspend its judgment and take at least some of the high quality reports seriously enough to investigate…but I hope we can bring ourselves to do that."
They argue that there are some (a few) high quality reports and the scientific community has just ignored them. I'm far from an expert, but that does not wash with my opinion. I've seen some serious investigations of some of these and have never seen one that was close to proving something. If these guys are scientists, and they don't like the work other scientists have done (or not done), then pick a high quality case, do an investigation, and get it published in a referred journal.

A.DIM
2005-Jan-14, 09:00 PM
It's an interesting piece, but it is, IMHO, a little self-contradicting

Therefore, the researchers explain in their JBIS article that an average alien civilization would be far more advanced and have long since discovered Earth. Additionally, other research work on the supposition underlying the Big Bang -- known as the theory of inflation -- shores up the prospect, they advise, that our world is immersed in a much larger extraterrestrial civilization.
So they are saying there should be ETs all around us and we should have met them. Ok, but...

"The dismissal has several causes, all reinforcing each other," Haisch responded. "Most of the observations are probably misinterpretations, delusions and hoaxes. I have seen people get confused by Venus or even Sirius when it is flashing colors low in the sky under the right conditions. Having been turned off by this, most scientists never bother to look any further, and so are simply blissfully ignorant that there may be more to it," he said.

Deardorff, the lead author of the JBIS article, points out in a press statement: "It would take some humility for the scientific community to suspend its judgment and take at least some of the high quality reports seriously enough to investigate…but I hope we can bring ourselves to do that."
They argue that there are some (a few) high quality reports and the scientific community has just ignored them. I'm far from an expert, but that does not wash with my opinion. I've seen some serious investigations of some of these and have never seen one that was close to proving something. If these guys are scientists, and they don't like the work other scientists have done (or not done), then pick a high quality case, do an investigation, and get it published in a referred journal.

Agreed, which is why I look for such articles as this; some that are helping to lend credibility to the issue.
Don't forget that the "little green men" laugh-factor is pervasive to this day, with many giving it a low a priori probability to start. Hence, very little serious scientific inquiry has been done.
I'm optimistic, though, we continue to see these sorts of news pieces about "life out there" and ETs, and IMHO they serve as a desensitizing mechanism.

eburacum45
2005-Jan-15, 01:41 AM
Haisch and Puthoff are desperately trying to find a way of reducing inertia, with the aim perhaps of inventing a reactionless drive;

I wish them luck, but doubt they will be successful.

This pdf
http://www.ufoskeptic.org/JBIS.pdf
suggests that extraterrestrials might already have similar technology, making getting to Earth easier than one might suppose; they then suggest that alien intelligences would fly around the skies of Earth with all their lights on, showing themselves to small groups but hiding from the governments and scientists of the world in order to 'prepare' us mentally for eventual contact?

That seems a pretty unusual strategy if you don't mind me saying so. Dear Mr ET, we need proper contact now, not all this sneaking around.

A.DIM
2005-Jan-15, 02:43 PM
Haisch and Puthoff are desperately trying to find a way of reducing inertia, with the aim perhaps of inventing a reactionless drive;

I wish them luck, but doubt they will be successful.

I'm curious, what do you mean by "desperately?"


This pdf
http://www.ufoskeptic.org/JBIS.pdf
suggests that extraterrestrials might already have similar technology, making getting to Earth easier than one might suppose; they then suggest that alien intelligences would fly around the skies of Earth with all their lights on, showing themselves to small groups but hiding from the governments and scientists of the world in order to 'prepare' us mentally for eventual contact?

That seems a pretty unusual strategy if you don't mind me saying so. Dear Mr ET, we need proper contact now, not all this sneaking around.
I don't mind, but Part 6. Inferring an ET Strategy, dealt rather well with this aspect, I think. I see no reason why we shouldn't infer that an exceedingly advanced species possesses an equally advanced ethical base, lending credence to a couple of the hypotheses described. Then again, if they're anything like us, chances are they're paraoid and secretive. :wink:

Haisch's "Some Thoughts on Keeping it Secret" is relevant and interesting too.

A.DIM
2005-Jan-15, 02:47 PM
The ET Equation, Recalculated (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/life.html).


Now, I thought about posting this in the PX forum. :wink:

eburacum45
2005-Jan-15, 04:24 PM
eburacum45 wrote:
Haisch and Puthoff are desperately trying to find a way of reducing inertia, with the aim perhaps of inventing a reactionless drive;
I wish them luck, but doubt they will be successful.

I'm curious, what do you mean by "desperately?"


Reactionless drives are fringe ideas; these people have been writing papers on related topics for years, with no results. In this paper they consider the situation that might occur if one or another of the blind alleys they have been exploring turns out to enable interstellar travel of some sort; they then extend this thinking to suggest that the bizzare apparent behaviour of unidentified aerial phenomena is 'ethical' and a prparation for eventual overt contact.
Well, many of the people who experienced the great UFO flaps of the 1950's are not prepared for contact, but instead they are nearly all dead now. There would be nothing rational or ethical about persuing such a 'leaky embargo' strategy for decade after decade;
and of couse nothing of the sort has been happening.

Despite the opinions expressed in this paper, all UFO reports are in fact the result of misidentifcation of natural phenomena or man made phenomena, hoaxes or hallucinations.
There is no need to have an extraterrestrial hypothesis at all.

algorithms
2005-Jan-15, 05:12 PM
Bernard Haisch is a UFO "free-energy" crackpot. Its unfotunate his article has gotten so much media play and attention. His assertions that prevalent thinking in cosmology and physics shold have us believe that extraterrestrials are visiting earth are simply not true. In fact, its precisely the opposite. What we know about the universe and its underlying physics makes it very unlikely that E.T. is here and attempting to phone home.

Plat
2005-Jan-15, 06:34 PM
All I know is that I dont believe we are alone in this universe, I dont even think we are alone in the Milky Way

Jorge
2005-Jan-15, 06:47 PM
All I know is that I dont believe we are alone in this universe, I dont even think we are alone in the Milky Way
I agree, so much space... we can't be alone!

couse that would be wasting space!

algorithms
2005-Jan-15, 09:08 PM
Well, the likelihood that there is extraterrestrial life eslewhere in the universe is pretty high. But for exactly the same reasons this is likely, it is improbable that E.T. has dropped in for a visit here. This is the mistake Mr. Haisch makes in his article.

Plat
2005-Jan-15, 09:48 PM
Yeah, I believe that there are billions and billions of alien life (sentient and non-sentient) out there and millions upon millions of alien civilizations existing at the same time but STILL...I doubt that any alien race have discovered us

Outcast
2005-Jan-16, 08:00 PM
Bernard Haisch is a UFO "free-energy" crackpot. Its unfotunate his article has gotten so much media play and attention. His assertions that prevalent thinking in cosmology and physics shold have us believe that extraterrestrials are visiting earth are simply not true. In fact, its precisely the opposite. What we know about the universe and its underlying physics makes it very unlikely that E.T. is here and attempting to phone home.

talking about vacuous commentary... mr "algorithms" do you have anything else besides your invective commentary to show us how exactly Bernard Haisch is a crackpot or did you just wanted to amaze us with your less than brilliant insights into the impossibilities of the underlying physics of the Universe that "we" currently know?

Outcast
2005-Jan-16, 08:09 PM
Well, the likelihood that there is extraterrestrial life eslewhere in the universe is pretty high. But for exactly the same reasons this is likely, it is improbable that E.T. has dropped in for a visit here. This is the mistake Mr. Haisch makes in his article.

so according to your logic, the fact that the existence of ET life in the Universe is extremely high is proportional to the improbability of them visiting us. that is not logical at all. in fact, the mistake you made in your argument was creating a perfectly baseless and senseless oxymoron.

R.A.F.
2005-Jan-16, 11:01 PM
...did you just wanted to amaze us with your less than brilliant insights...

WHY do you consider it necessary to continue to "berate" others opinions on this board. We certainly don't do that to you. All that we've ever asked is that you provide EVIDENCE to support your claims. And it seems like every time we ask, you come back with some "form" of insult. If you don't understand why we consider "free energy" to be woowoo, just say so without the personal conmmentary.

algorithms
2005-Jan-16, 11:25 PM
Mr. Outcast,

I suggest that you do a little personal research on Mr. Haisch and his flight-by-night outfit he calls the "California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics."

As for my reasoning about the probability of E.T., let me explain it in simple terms...

Given the vast size and sheer scale of the universe, there may be innumerable places where life might have originated and evolved into intelligent creatures. But it is this very same vast size and and sheer scale that makes it very unlikely that any extraterrestrial intelligence would have found us and then traveled over incredible distances to drop in for a visit. The number of places and the distances we are talking about are beyond our own human comprehension. Consequently, there is an inverse relationship between the likelihood of extraterrestrial intelligence elsewhere in the universe and the possibility of E.T. dropping by earth to phone home.

A.DIM
2005-Jan-17, 01:37 AM
eburacum45 wrote:
Haisch and Puthoff are desperately trying to find a way of reducing inertia, with the aim perhaps of inventing a reactionless drive;
I wish them luck, but doubt they will be successful.

I'm curious, what do you mean by "desperately?"


Reactionless drives are fringe ideas; these people have been writing papers on related topics for years, with no results. In this paper they consider the situation that might occur if one or another of the blind alleys they have been exploring turns out to enable interstellar travel of some sort; they then extend this thinking to suggest that the bizzare apparent behaviour of unidentified aerial phenomena is 'ethical' and a prparation for eventual overt contact.
Well, many of the people who experienced the great UFO flaps of the 1950's are not prepared for contact, but instead they are nearly all dead now. There would be nothing rational or ethical about persuing such a 'leaky embargo' strategy for decade after decade;
and of couse nothing of the sort has been happening.

Despite the opinions expressed in this paper, all UFO reports are in fact the result of misidentifcation of natural phenomena or man made phenomena, hoaxes or hallucinations.
There is no need to have an extraterrestrial hypothesis at all.

I disagree.
We ourselves are already ETs.
Are you suggesting that either we are the first and only species to have accomplished this, or are you saying that no further breakthroughs in propulsion will occur, at least none that might be supported by Haisch's "fringe ideas," to make interstellar travel more feasible?
Actually, IMHO, it is those very fringe ideas that often bring about discovery. What comes to mind is a recent remark I made about how often what was once Science Fiction is now Science Fact.

A.DIM
2005-Jan-17, 02:00 AM
...did you just wanted to amaze us with your less than brilliant insights...

WHY do you consider it necessary to continue to "berate" others opinions on this board. We certainly don't do that to you. All that we've ever asked is that you provide EVIDENCE to support your claims. And it seems like every time we ask, you come back with some "form" of insult. If you don't understand why we consider "free energy" to be woowoo, just say so without the personal conmmentary.

Who is this "we" you're talking about, RAF? Are you a "mouthpiece" of some sort?
And what are you on about with the EVIDENCE thing? Did Outcast make some claim about the ETH being factual?
And did you see algorithms provide any "EVIDENCE" to support his, what appeared to be, pseudoskeptical stockshelf remark about "free energy crackpots?"
I suggest both of you read the definition of "skeptic," from Haisch's site no less:
"Skeptic - One who practices the method of suspended judgment, engages in rational and dispassionate reasoning as exemplified by the scientific method, shows willingness to consider alternative explanations without prejudice based on prior beliefs, and who seeks out evidence and carefully scrutinizes its validity."

Now, neither your nor algorithm's response strikes me as a "dispassionate .... willingness to consider alternative explanations...." No, instead I see the usual missives about "crackpots" and "woowoos."

Are all these scientists (http://www.etcontact.net/Other/QuotePages/QuotesScientists.htm) "crackpots and woowoos" too? And what about Frank Drake's "recalulating" article I linked too? Should I consider him a "crackpot" or "woowoo" too?
I think Outcast's abrasiveness stems from continually seeing this kind of nonsensical response flaunted in the name of "skepticism" and "science."

A.DIM
2005-Jan-17, 02:15 AM
Mr. Outcast,

I suggest that you do a little personal research on Mr. Haisch and his flight-by-night outfit he calls the "California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics."

I did, and you know what I found?
Haisch was among many "crackpots and woowoos" presenting at the AIAA Joint Propulsion Conference 2001 (http://users.erols.com/iri/AIAAJPC2001.htm).
According to that, the "crackpots and woowoos" are everywhere! NASA offices, US Dept of Energy, and countless Contractors immersed in "free energy" propulsion research! :o

What's a "woowoo" to do?


As for my reasoning about the probability of E.T., let me explain it in simple terms...
Given the vast size and sheer scale of the universe, there may be innumerable places where life might have originated and evolved into intelligent creatures. But it is this very same vast size and and sheer scale that makes it very unlikely that any extraterrestrial intelligence would have found us and then traveled over incredible distances to drop in for a visit. The number of places and the distances we are talking about are beyond our own human comprehension. Consequently, there is an inverse relationship between the likelihood of extraterrestrial intelligence elsewhere in the universe and the possibility of E.T. dropping by earth to phone home.

In not many more words, Haisch's the "Speed of Light Limit Argument" is more convincing, and certainly more skeptical.

algorithms
2005-Jan-17, 04:01 AM
So Haisch did an univited fifteen minute conference presentation? Big deal. Doesn't make the man any more credible on this subject. Of course, what's interesting is his association with the "California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics." It doesn't really exist. Its an office and a website - nothing more. It sounds fancy, but its just an empty suit.

The man bases his claims that we are currently being visited by E.T. upon his belief that our "friends" travel via wormholes and branes. And you find that more "convincing.?!?"

Here is his paper: http://www.ufoskeptic.org/JBIS.pdf

Sorry but, the man is a crackpot. Perhaps a smart crackpot. But a crackpot just the same.

Enzp
2005-Jan-17, 06:20 AM
This started to look interesting until it devolved into indignation and who can play by the rules better than whom.

Nonetheless, with all the billions of billions of opportunities, it seems likely to me that life is elsewhere. Trying to quantify that seems pointless in the face of almost no data. I don't automatically assume such life is on the train to technology. This earth did fine without "intelligent" life for billions of years.

DOlphins and elephants are smart, but how long would it take for them to evolve into something technological like us, and what environmental evolutionary pressure would cause it? CHimps are darn smart, and given their close relation and their existing predeliction to tool use, given a long while they might evolve into something us-like. It happened once already. But why should I assume that would happen universally? Evolution is all about surviving and replicating. Technological intelligence is only one path. There is nothing less evolved about a whale than us. She fits her environment just fine - at least until WE destroy it.

But even so, I suspect there are other technologically intelligent life out there. But then there is the problem of getting it here for the visit. It is a mighty long trip even to the next door neighbor. It is not a given we will ever find magic worm holes to attach or space ships to - Scotty notwithstanding. The energy needed to bend space is huge, and to tear a hole in it, and a hole you can control to boot requires energies and forces of unimaginable scale. Yes of course I could be proven wrong tomorrow, but space warping and what not falls on the less likely end of the spectrum in my humble view.

But lets say ET has leaped all those hurdles. He now is here flying about our night sky appearing mostly as a bright light, but occasional interacting with a trailer park here or there. As a card carrying rural myself and one who might fall in the category of "w**** trash" I feel I can use the term. Once I get the plumbing 100% I will be waiting for ET though.

I gotta think either ET has the capability to get here but is so stunningly incompetent he gets spotted all the time when he would prefer to hide. Or he really wants us to know he is there but is so stunningly incompetent he can't figure out how.

I suppose they might be trying to lay it on us slowly to lessen the blow, but really, would even they think 50 years of peek-a-boo was an effective strategy? Perhaps young ook''lk will lose his license when dad finds out he did a bat turn and three blinks over Phoenix in the family cruiser, but I would like to think ET could do better.

But maybe they are just supremely patient and work on a glacial time scale like HArry Turtledove's lizards. So possibly the reports are true and some of us really have been abducted. All they seem to care about is our genitals. Granted, many of us are the same way. But wouldn't it make more sense to explore our other parts? When we disect something new, we look at all the other stuff too. The again maybe I am being too homo-centric. Or is that sapio-centric?

"It's sapiens to be homo." WHose line was that? Heinlein maybe?

SO if there is life elsewhere, and if it is intelligent, and if it is technological, and if it overcomes the huge problem of interstallar travel, and if it finds us, and if it is not stunningly incompetent really does want to neet us, and if it never sees the Anna Nicole show, and if they lose theur shyness in my remaining years, I suppose it is possible I might see ET.

I genuinely hope I see ET in my lifetime, and I am not so sure I have all that many years left in which it might happen, but it would be thrilling. Damned unlikey but thrilling.

R.A.F.
2005-Jan-17, 09:27 AM
This started to look interesting until it devolved into indignation and who can play by the rules better than whom.

I must take "partial" responsibility for that, and I apologize.


SO if there is life elsewhere, and if it is intelligent, and if it is technological, and if it overcomes the huge problem of interstallar travel, and if it finds us, and if it is not stunningly incompetent really does want to neet us, and if it never sees the Anna Nicole show, and if they lose theur shyness in my remaining years, I suppose it is possible I might see ET.

You've "put your finger" on why I have a problem with the idea of "alien visitors". Just look at all the "if's" in that paragraph. With the exception of the Anna Nichole "if" :), all of the other "if's" have to actually happen or else there are no "visiting ET's".

How many "if's" are too many? I get real suspicious at one.

A.DIM
2005-Jan-17, 02:28 PM
So Haisch did an univited fifteen minute conference presentation? Big deal. Doesn't make the man any more credible on this subject. Of course, what's interesting is his association with the "California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics." It doesn't really exist. Its an office and a website - nothing more. It sounds fancy, but its just an empty suit.

According to California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics (http://www.calphysics.org/aboutcipa.html) there are numerous Research Fellows and PostDoc Fellows. Have you checked with any of them to substantiate your "empty suit" claim? Or are we to accept what you say and consider them crackpots too?
Moreover, was Haisch not Science Editor for Astrophysical Journal for almost 10yrs? Should we now consider such an apparently refereed journal as "fringe full o' crackpots?"
Additionally: How do you know his was an "univited fifteen minute conference presentation?" Can you tell us if either of the NASA offices', or the Dept. of Energy's, presentations were invited and more than fifteen minutes?
Ah, no matter, according to NASA (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/research/warp/possible.html) themselves, they sponsored that conference. And at least considers Haisch's ideas among other "emerging intriguing physics."
But wait, should we now consider NASA as fringe for doing so?


The man bases his claims that we are currently being visited by E.T. upon his belief that our "friends" travel via wormholes and branes. And you find that more "convincing.?!?"
Here is his paper: http://www.ufoskeptic.org/JBIS.pdf
Sorry but, the man is a crackpot. Perhaps a smart crackpot. But a crackpot just the same.

Thanks, I read the JBIS paper; hence the reason I started this thread.
But I find nowhere in his work a "belief" in our "friends," as you put it. All he has said is that according to recent astrophysics observations, we should take the idea more seriously than in the past.
And what I find convincing is his apparent objectivity.
Are you suggesting, then, that he has some ulterior motives in forwarding the ETH?

algorithms
2005-Jan-17, 04:11 PM
A.DIM: According to California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics there are numerous Research Fellows and PostDoc Fellows. Have you checked with any of them to substantiate your "empty suit" claim?

If you review the resumes of those individuals listed as "CIPA-Funded External Research Fellows," you'll note that not a one lists any association with California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics. In fact, only one listed as a "CIPA Postdoctoral and Senior Postdoctoral Fellow" includes CIPA in his resume.

CIPA is a fake organization. Its a storefront office with a website. It is not engaged with original research. Nor is it associated with any university. Haisch's wife, Marsha Sims, is listed as the "executive administrator." And its currently broke.


A.DIM: Moreover, was Haisch not Science Editor for Astrophysical Journal for almost 10yrs?

So it appears. There's probably a good reason why he is no longer serving in this capacity. He also served as the editor of the less respected Journal of Scientific Exploration for twelve years and got bumped there about the same time. You'll notice he doesn't list this disreputable association in his current resume. Probably an interesting story there to follow up on.


A.DIM: Additionally: How do you know his was an "univited fifteen minute conference presentation?" Can you tell us if either of the NASA offices', or the Dept. of Energy's, presentations were invited and more than fifteen minutes?

Most conferences of this type provide an opportunity for a myriad of people to briefly present their unpublished papers or posters. That's what the agenda you provided describes. These are usually offerred on a first-come, first-served basis, with only modest scrutiny. Nothing wrong with it, but you don't have to be a rocket scientist to get a spot on the agenda. Of course, the real question to ask is why Mr. Haisch's participation in other professional conferences so limited.


A.DIM: But I find nowhere in his work a "belief" in our "friends," as you put it. All he has said is that according to recent astrophysics observations, we should take the idea more seriously than in the past.


Actually, Mr. Haisch has been involved with "UFOlogy" for a very long time and can be accurately labeled a non-skeptical believer. He's dabbled in crop circles, abductions and sightings. He often wraps his views carefully in the guise of a skeptic, but that's just a rhetorical trick he employs in the hopes of being taken seriously.

But the main problem with Haisch's claims in this most recent article is that they're just plain wrong. Haisch claims that "our best modern physics and astrophysics theories predict that we should be experiencing extraterrestrial visitation." This is patently wrong. There is nothing about modern cosmology that infers that E.T. is here on earth. Therein lies the problem with Mr. Haisch's claims. He just makes it up and then fails to justify his assertions.

'nuff said

scourge
2005-Jan-18, 09:30 AM
It’s sad that this topic is so emotionally charged and divisive, because I think the evidence poses a genuinely intriguing question for our time…one that requires a cool head to assess with proper scientific skepticism. I try not to submit to ‘belief’ or ‘disbelief’ in this matter, but having witnessed an unexplained aerial phenomenon at a young age, I do tend to think there is something happening that we haven’t accounted for yet (I witnessed a pair of lights in the sky, with five of my neighbors, execute fast acute-angle maneuvers, in formation, in broad daylight for about a minute one day, and I’ve still never seen anything that might account for it).

Historically, Fermi's Paradox was presented in response to the growing consensus among scientists, over fifty years ago, that our galaxy should be teeming with intelligent life, and in fact, that the galaxy should have been completely colonized by now. To which Fermi responded, well, 'Where are they?'

Many took this argument at face value, and figured, 'since they're not walking down the street right now, they mustn't exist at all.'

Those who consider the issue for more than the five seconds it takes to reach that assumption, suggest that perhaps they -are- here, but they're staying somewhat out of our awareness because we're obviously not quite ready to meet them. This answers Fermi's Paradox, if you're willing to accept this explanation.

It could be that extraterrestrial 'people' are appearing in our skies to get us ready for contact, sociologically. If they are, it's working. Over the last fifty years, the percentage of people who believe that extraterrestrial craft are visiting our planet has risen to over 50%.

It's also worth noting that astronomers have accumulated enough spectral data from the stars in our vicinity to suggest that there could be Earth-like planets around most stars. Combine that with current data suggesting that simple life forms may exist right now on Mars...and the prospect of intelligent alien life visiting us seems more like a strong possibility, imo.

If we accept that the evolution of intelligent life in our system is not a miraculously unlikely event, then our best guess describes a galaxy that has been teeming with intelligent life for millions of years. Ours is a fairly young system in our galaxy, so we'd be the new kids on the block. In fact, several species may have had plenty of time to survey the entire galaxy long ago, encountering each other along the way, as well as developing planets in the process. So they would know how to do this without compelling us to violence, either toward them or ourselves. And two attributes I think you could count on a million year-old interstellar civilization having, are patience and subtlety. That sure seems to fit the 'sighting' paradigm of the last few decades like a glove.

I find that the more I think about how I would handle making first contact with a primitive planet like ours, if I were an advanced alien intelligence, the more it resembles what's actually happening.

For example--consider the topic of 'physical evidence,' the 'smoking gun' most scoffers demand as proof before they accept the idea of alien visitations. They want a ufo to look over at the lab. Well, if an advanced race of creatures were slowly prepping us for first contact, they sure as heck wouldn't slip up and leave a chunk of impossible technology sitting on our front lawn. We can count on this much--if such folks have been doing this kind of thing for a few hundred thousand years or more, there's not going to be any incontrovertible evidence of their presence until they're good and ready to be known to us.

Here's my hunch on this matter--if we are being prepped for contact, I bet my socks they're waiting until we trust the eyewitness accounts -of our own people-, before they come a-knockin'. It only stands to reason--how can they expect us to be trusting of Them, in any way, if we can't even trust each other. Right?

We have a mountain of testimony from qualified observers as well as respectable laymen, and heaps of photographic evidence to back them up. Shame on us if we're too cynical to take a step back and say 'y'know, there might be something to this, let's keep an open mind til we know enough to arrive together at a sound conclusion.' Isn't that what the spirit of scientific investigation is all about?

A.DIM
2005-Jan-18, 01:43 PM
A.DIM: According to California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics there are numerous Research Fellows and PostDoc Fellows. Have you checked with any of them to substantiate your "empty suit" claim?

If you review the resumes of those individuals listed as "CIPA-Funded External Research Fellows," you'll note that not a one lists any association with California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics. In fact, only one listed as a "CIPA Postdoctoral and Senior Postdoctoral Fellow" includes CIPA in his resume.

CIPA is a fake organization. Its a storefront office with a website. It is not engaged with original research. Nor is it associated with any university. Haisch's wife, Marsha Sims, is listed as the "executive administrator." And its currently broke.

But have you checked with any of the Fellows themselves to validate your assumption based on what is listed on CIPA's website?
Are you suggesting that CIPA lists these people, as well as the countless scientific articles they've published, to advance a "fake organization?"
To what end?
At most, I suspect you'll discover legitamacy; at least, you'll alert those "fellows" to Haisch's use of their work in promoting his "fake organization."



A.DIM: Moreover, was Haisch not Science Editor for Astrophysical Journal for almost 10yrs?
So it appears. There's probably a good reason why he is no longer serving in this capacity. He also served as the editor of the less respected Journal of Scientific Exploration for twelve years and got bumped there about the same time. You'll notice he doesn't list this disreputable association in his current resume. Probably an interesting story there to follow up on.

A little follow-up produced Haisch's resume (http://www.calphysics.org/haisch/resume.html).
According to this, you didn't even look at his resume, and yet felt compelled to suggest "probably a good reason" he got "bumped." :-?

Sorry, algorithms, but this reinforces my opinion that here you exhibit pseudoskepticism in a shameless degree.



A.DIM: Additionally: How do you know his was an "univited fifteen minute conference presentation?" Can you tell us if either of the NASA offices', or the Dept. of Energy's, presentations were invited and more than fifteen minutes?

Most conferences of this type provide an opportunity for a myriad of people to briefly present their unpublished papers or posters. That's what the agenda you provided describes. These are usually offerred on a first-come, first-served basis, with only modest scrutiny. Nothing wrong with it, but you don't have to be a rocket scientist to get a spot on the agenda. Of course, the real question to ask is why Mr. Haisch's participation in other professional conferences so limited.

Yeah, I attend such Expos and Conferences for the Public Works, Paving and Engineering communities often. But never are they on a "first come first serve" basis. More often than not one (or one's organization) must have at least an Associate Membership with one or another groups in order to "present." And it seems logical that NASA, having sponsored the conference in question, would have at least "weeded out" any pseudoscience so as to gather pertinent and reaslitic ideas and possibilities, not waste time allowing "crackpots" to present themselves. Oh, but wait, according to Haisch's resume, he was a Lockheed staff scientist for 20yrs. Do "crackpots" maintain such tenure within such institutions? Is he lying?



A.DIM: But I find nowhere in his work a "belief" in our "friends," as you put it. All he has said is that according to recent astrophysics observations, we should take the idea more seriously than in the past.


Actually, Mr. Haisch has been involved with "UFOlogy" for a very long time and can be accurately labeled a non-skeptical believer. He's dabbled in crop circles, abductions and sightings. He often wraps his views carefully in the guise of a skeptic, but that's just a rhetorical trick he employs in the hopes of being taken seriously.

I'd like to see something that might convince me that he can be "accurately labeled a non-skeptical believer." Your bolded opinions aren't enough.


But the main problem with Haisch's claims in this most recent article is that they're just plain wrong. Haisch claims that "our best modern physics and astrophysics theories predict that we should be experiencing extraterrestrial visitation." This is patently wrong. There is nothing about modern cosmology that infers that E.T. is here on earth. Therein lies the problem with Mr. Haisch's claims. He just makes it up and then fails to justify his assertions.

'nuff said

Not really, I'd like to know how he is "patently wrong."
I started this thread precisely to find out others' ideas and insight into these theories that he claims support the ETH.
Just making such an assertion in bold isn't very scientific, and certainly not very skeptical, in the correct sense of the word, of course.

A.DIM
2005-Jan-18, 01:48 PM
It’s sad that this topic is so emotionally charged and divisive, because I think the evidence poses a genuinely intriguing question for our time…one that requires a cool head to assess with proper scientific skepticism. I try not to submit to ‘belief’ or ‘disbelief’ in this matter, but having witnessed an unexplained aerial phenomenon at a young age, I do tend to think there is something happening that we haven’t accounted for yet (I witnessed a pair of lights in the sky, with five of my neighbors, execute fast acute-angle maneuvers, in formation, in broad daylight for about a minute one day, and I’ve still never seen anything that might account for it).

Historically, Fermi's Paradox was presented in response to the growing consensus among scientists, over fifty years ago, that our galaxy should be teeming with intelligent life, and in fact, that the galaxy should have been completely colonized by now. To which Fermi responded, well, 'Where are they?'

Many took this argument at face value, and figured, 'since they're not walking down the street right now, they mustn't exist at all.'

Those who consider the issue for more than the five seconds it takes to reach that assumption, suggest that perhaps they -are- here, but they're staying somewhat out of our awareness because we're obviously not quite ready to meet them. This answers Fermi's Paradox, if you're willing to accept this explanation.

It could be that extraterrestrial 'people' are appearing in our skies to get us ready for contact, sociologically. If they are, it's working. Over the last fifty years, the percentage of people who believe that extraterrestrial craft are visiting our planet has risen to over 50%.

It's also worth noting that astronomers have accumulated enough spectral data from the stars in our vicinity to suggest that there could be Earth-like planets around most stars. Combine that with current data suggesting that simple life forms may exist right now on Mars...and the prospect of intelligent alien life visiting us seems more like a strong possibility, imo.

If we accept that the evolution of intelligent life in our system is not a miraculously unlikely event, then our best guess describes a galaxy that has been teeming with intelligent life for millions of years. Ours is a fairly young system in our galaxy, so we'd be the new kids on the block. In fact, several species may have had plenty of time to survey the entire galaxy long ago, encountering each other along the way, as well as developing planets in the process. So they would know how to do this without compelling us to violence, either toward them or ourselves. And two attributes I think you could count on a million year-old interstellar civilization having, are patience and subtlety. That sure seems to fit the 'sighting' paradigm of the last few decades like a glove.

I find that the more I think about how I would handle making first contact with a primitive planet like ours, if I were an advanced alien intelligence, the more it resembles what's actually happening.

For example--consider the topic of 'physical evidence,' the 'smoking gun' most scoffers demand as proof before they accept the idea of alien visitations. They want a ufo to look over at the lab. Well, if an advanced race of creatures were slowly prepping us for first contact, they sure as heck wouldn't slip up and leave a chunk of impossible technology sitting on our front lawn. We can count on this much--if such folks have been doing this kind of thing for a few hundred thousand years or more, there's not going to be any incontrovertible evidence of their presence until they're good and ready to be known to us.

Here's my hunch on this matter--if we are being prepped for contact, I bet my socks they're waiting until we trust the eyewitness accounts -of our own people-, before they come a-knockin'. It only stands to reason--how can they expect us to be trusting of Them, in any way, if we can't even trust each other. Right?

We have a mountain of testimony from qualified observers as well as respectable laymen, and heaps of photographic evidence to back them up. Shame on us if we're too cynical to take a step back and say 'y'know, there might be something to this, let's keep an open mind til we know enough to arrive together at a sound conclusion.' Isn't that what the spirit of scientific investigation is all about?

Indeed it is!
Excellent post, scourge!

algorithms
2005-Jan-18, 02:21 PM
Mr. A-DIM,

You want to keep ignoring one simple fact, the "California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics" doesn't really do anything. Its not involved in original research. It has no staff to speak of other than Haisch's wife. Its not associated with any colleges or universities. Simply posting people's names and resumes on a website doesn't make it so. CIPA is just something Haisch attaches to his own resume. It sounds fancy, prestigious and official.

You'll notice that Mr. Haisch isn't gainfully employed in the field of physics or astrophysics today. Perhaps he once had a future in the field when he was younger, but appears to have fallen from grace, probably due to his outlandish crackpot ideas, his asssociation with UFOs and cropcircles, and his questionable promotion of CIPA. In this respect, he's much like Tom VanFlandern who devolved from astrophysics to computer consulting, but still uses his former credentials to promote his crackpot ideas about exploding planets and faces on Mars through his "MetaResearch" website.

As for Haisch's case...he doesn't make it. He simply states that's what is now being generated in the fields of physics, astrophysics and cosmology supports the concusion that earth is being visited by E.T. He makes some vague references to superstring dimensions, wormholes and branes and then leaves us guessing as to how to associate these with E.T. on earth. The gullible and uninformed read this stuff and believe it at face value.

But the fact is that studies into superstring dimensions, wormholes and branes say nothing about the possibility that earth is being visited by E.T. Nothing whatsoever. For that matter, neither has Mr. Haisch, really, except to give the gullible and believers hope that the funny lights in the sky they sometimes hear about is E.T. coming to offer us salvation. I hope you've renewed your membership in Heaven's Gate and are ready for them.

Algorithms

eburacum45
2005-Jan-18, 03:21 PM
If we consider the ET hypothesis, the 'Leaky Embargo' theory given by Haitsch et al is not the only explanation for the lack of communication by the supposed occupants of these supposed vessels.

As an exercise, and from the point of view of an amateur sci-fi writer, here are some more theories that explain their lack of communication.

The 'Dolphin Language' theory; despite decades of trying, we have been entirely unsuccessful in decoding the apparently complex communications of cetaceans. Perhaps the dolphins do not have a structured language at all, rather their calls are more akin to birdsong; complex but with little information content. The hypothetical UFO ETs may be unable to decode our language, and may have decided that our communications in fact have little or no information content.

The 'Decadent Empire' theory; the ETs have an old civilisation, jaded and corrupt; the only reason they visit us is to torment us by barnstorming our cities, dogging our aircraft, scaring simple country folk, mutilating our cattle (I won't mention the probes). Cheap thrills for a decadent society.

The 'De-evolved Species' theory; with Circovic, I think that not all intelligent alien races will remain intelligent and civilised forever; after achieving interstellar flight and a stable society intelligence functions might atrophy, and the UFO ETs that arrive in our skies might be no longer fully intelligent; they might simply behave in a fashion dictated by instinct or imperfectly transmitted custom, but lack the self awareness to realise that the Earth holds an intelligent race at all. They fly around oblivious to our civilisation, perhaps fascinated by the lights of our cities and aircraft. In this case they are not worth contacting, although they are worth studying.

The 'Space Madness' theory; there need not be any method of travelling faster than light available; the UFO ETs might have travelled here in a space ark full of saucers. However the centuries or millennia of travelling have driven them to psychosis; they can no longer act in a rational manner, which explains the barnstorming, aircraft teasing, on-off radar invisibility, cattle mutilations, badabing, badaboom.

And so on, as Kurt Vonnegut liked to say.

If I may give an opinion, actually I think that so far all sightings of UFO's can be explained by:

misidentification of natural phenomena
unknown but mundane natural phenomena
misidentification of manmade phenomena
hallucinations of various sorts
and hoaxes.

There is no need for an extraterrestrial or extradimensional hypothesis at all.

Nevertheless these things are certainly worthy of study; especially the unknown natural phenomena, which I have included because of the proliferation of new forms of lightning discovered recently. No doubt there are more of these; perhaps pietzoelectic effects for instance.

But the psychological aspects of UFO phenomena are the most important; why do people misidentify aerial phenomena, then convince themselves they are observing things like alien spacecraft, and edit their own memories in order to do so?
There are implications for aircraft safety that have to be considered if competent pilots cannot identify, or misidentify, aerial phenomena.

Additionally the psychological reasons for wilful misidentification and hoaxes are also interesting. I have been in a crowd of people all convinced that they have seen a UFO, which I could see was a weather balloon; (to be entirely fair, of course, it could have been me that was wrong, but I don't think so somehow).

UFO's are an intriguing subject, but the ET hypothesis contributes almost nothing of value, in my own opinion.

Astronomy
2005-Jan-18, 03:22 PM
It’s sad that this topic is so emotionally charged and divisive, because I think the evidence poses a genuinely intriguing question for our time…

In terms of scientific evidence, there really isn't any. There's a lot of personal accounts and anecdotal evidence, but nothing that can be independently verified or tested.

It may be the nature of the beast, or it may be mass delusion. Either way, until there is independent verification, it's going to remain fringe.


one that requires a cool head to assess with proper scientific skepticism. I try not to submit to ‘belief’ or ‘disbelief’ in this matter, but having witnessed an unexplained aerial phenomenon at a young age, I do tend to think there is something happening that we haven’t accounted for yet (I witnessed a pair of lights in the sky, with five of my neighbors, execute fast acute-angle maneuvers, in formation, in broad daylight for about a minute one day, and I’ve still never seen anything that might account for it).

These kinds of "sightings" are reported to my department all the time. The problem is, there is no way for me to say what exactly you saw or what anyone saw unless it was a green flash or some other naturally understood phenomena that fits the description. There are any number of natural and manmade phenomena that can explain a "pair of lights" and "fast acute-angle maneuvers". I'm sorry I cannot offer you anything better than that.

What I can say is that there is an entire community of professional and amateur astronomers that watch the skies on a daily basis: both daytime and nighttime. If this phenomena were as supposedly ubiquitous as is claimed, it could only mean that we were all in a massive cover-up conspiracy sponsored for some reason I can only guess at.

I look at the sky for hours nearly every night and oftentimes for hours during the day. I have yet to see something that was truly puzzling.


Those who consider the issue for more than the five seconds it takes to reach that assumption, suggest that perhaps they -are- here, but they're staying somewhat out of our awareness because we're obviously not quite ready to meet them. This answers Fermi's Paradox, if you're willing to accept this explanation.

This is, of course, the so-called "Zoo Hypothesis" resolution to Fermi's Paradox.

One thing that should be realized is that we don't have a good objective measure for "life" let alone "intelligent" life. The only attempt to do that was made by the Drake Equation, and that little bit of flight-of-fancy basically has no scientific value whatsoever. There's no way to tell what "life" would look like, whether it would consider "communication" important, or whether it would develop "technology" in the anthropomorphic sense we developed technology. Basically, all you can say is that we only have one datapoint, and extrapolation beyond this is highly prone to error.


It could be that extraterrestrial 'people' are appearing in our skies to get us ready for contact, sociologically. If they are, it's working. Over the last fifty years, the percentage of people who believe that extraterrestrial craft are visiting our planet has risen to over 50%.

I have a friend who is a sociologist who studies this phenomenon. It is a fact that the interest in UFOs increased when human beings began spaceflight. Suddenly, people spent more time looking at the sky, but in our modern world the "sky" was an unfamiliar place. People who weren't used to looking at the sky were suddenly forced to try to explain phenomena and observed flying objects that they had no expertise in identifying. It's no wonder that these objects were "unidentified".


It's also worth noting that astronomers have accumulated enough spectral data from the stars in our vicinity to suggest that there could be Earth-like planets around most stars.

I wouldn't say that as of yet. Spectral data can indicate the presence of a dusty disk, but that hardly indicated an Earth-like planet.


Combine that with current data suggesting that simple life forms may exist right now on Mars...and the prospect of intelligent alien life visiting us seems more like a strong possibility, imo.

Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, this particular opinion is not based on scientific evidence but rather on incredulity and a jumping to conclusions that can only be described as wishful at best.


If we accept that the evolution of intelligent life in our system is not a miraculously unlikely event, then our best guess describes a galaxy that has been teeming with intelligent life for millions of years.

Evolution of "intelligent" life is something that has only occupied our particular ecological niche for a brief instant in biological time. There's nothing to indicate that it should be anywhere else except for idle speculation.


Ours is a fairly young system in our galaxy, so we'd be the new kids on the block.

Actually, ours is a fairly middle-aged system.


In fact, several species may have had plenty of time to survey the entire galaxy long ago, encountering each other along the way, as well as developing planets in the process. So they would know how to do this without compelling us to violence, either toward them or ourselves.

Can you see how this is basically just going way out on a limb here? You've decided that the biology of elsewhere takes on taxonomic structure like out own (species) that there are "several" of them, that there was plenty of "time" (which is limited by the immense distances between stars), that there is a predertermined goal of "survey" for these "species", that more than one of these "species" had the same goal, that "development" of planets had to occur as a result of this, that they would have an ethos of prevention of violence, and that they would have an interaction cross-section for other supposed "intelligent life". This is just too far out on a limb -- it's fun to speculate about but there's no more reason to assume that this idea is true than an idea that all the aliens killed each other in a massive galactic war. I could name thousands of equally unsubstantiated scenarios and there would be no way for you or myself to prove the veracity of the points.

When you cannot decide based on lack of evidence, all you can say is we don't know. But one thing we do know is that if aliens are contacting human beings, they are chosing to do it in a way that carefully avoids the scientists that would be the most excited to find them.


And two attributes I think you could count on a million year-old interstellar civilization having, are patience and subtlety.

Again, way out on a limb here.


That sure seems to fit the 'sighting' paradigm of the last few decades like a glove.

Depends on who you talk to. There's a large contingent of MUFON folk that believe the aliens are malevolent. I'll let you argue it out with them, though.


I find that the more I think about how I would handle making first contact with a primitive planet like ours, if I were an advanced alien intelligence, the more it resembles what's actually happening.

I think it's very presumptive of you to put yourself into the shoes of something for which you have no descriptive category. You don't know what an "advance alien intelligence" is like. It's all well-and-good that you have used circular logic to declare your position sound, but make sure you are clear about it being a very personal opinion and not one easily verifiable.


For example--consider the topic of 'physical evidence,' the 'smoking gun' most scoffers demand as proof before they accept the idea of alien visitations. They want a ufo to look over at the lab.

Actually, I'd settle for a signal.


Well, if an advanced race of creatures were slowly prepping us for first contact, they sure as heck wouldn't slip up and leave a chunk of impossible technology sitting on our front lawn.

Of course, there are those MUFON folks that think they have left the impossible technology in the form of bits of metal in people's buttocks, for example. Who are you to claim that they are wrong?


We can count on this much--if such folks have been doing this kind of thing for a few hundred thousand years or more,

Where'd you get the number "hundred thousand years"?


there's not going to be any incontrovertible evidence of their presence until they're good and ready to be known to us.

If that's the case, then I'll be more than willing to admit you're right when the time comes. Until then, the rational thing to do is point out the incredible inconsistencies.


Here's my hunch on this matter--if we are being prepped for contact, I bet my socks they're waiting until we trust the eyewitness accounts -of our own people-, before they come a-knockin'.

Sorry, no dice here. I'm not going to trust eye-witness accounts because I know just how fallible an "eye-witness" testimony can be. I had a good friend of mine convicted of a crime he was later proven not to have committed because a jury decided to believe "eye witness" testimony. It's a notoriously bad source of evidence.


It only stands to reason--how can they expect us to be trusting of Them, in any way, if we can't even trust each other. Right?

Well, you can kiss first contact goodbye, in this case, because blind trust has never been a move that has benefited the progress of intellectual progress.


We have a mountain of testimony from qualified observers as well as respectable laymen,

I'm not inclined to think a "qualified" observer exists with respect to determing what, if anything, a bit of alien technology looks like.


and heaps of photographic evidence to back them up.

So many forgeries, so many fakes, and so many photos that are just plain crummy makes me not accept it as evidence -- especially regarding the fact that there were apparently "photos" that have convinced people that Planet X was in our skies last year.


Shame on us if we're too cynical to take a step back and say 'y'know, there might be something to this, let's keep an open mind til we know enough to arrive together at a sound conclusion.' Isn't that what the spirit of scientific investigation is all about?

No. There are just too many people out there with pet ideas that are completely unverified for science to be about keeping an open mind about everything. You're going to have to content yourself with staying on the fringe. If and when scientific evidence shows up, you can have the "I told you so". But I've studied science enough to be willing to bet my entire lifesavings that scientific evidence that aliens are visiting us will not be found.

R.A.F.
2005-Jan-18, 04:10 PM
Here's my hunch on this matter--if we are being prepped for contact, I bet my socks they're waiting until we trust the eyewitness accounts -of our own people-, before they come a-knockin'. It only stands to reason--how can they expect us to be trusting of Them, in any way, if we can't even trust each other. Right?

So let me see if I understand what you're saying. ET is not directly contacting "us" because they are waiting to see if/when we will accept non-conclusive evidence? And if we DO accept eyewitness reports at "face value", then they will?

That raises the question as to why ET's would want to contact a race of people who behaved in such an irrational manner.

01101001
2005-Jan-18, 07:35 PM
So let me see if I understand what you're saying. ET is not directly contacting "us" because they are waiting to see if/when we will accept non-conclusive evidence? And if we DO accept eyewitness reports at "face value", then they will?

That raises the question as to why ET's would want to contact a race of people who behaved in such an irrational manner.
Spot on. The wise alien wouldn't deem us fit for contact until the percentage of those with beliefs based on flimsy evidence dropped to zero.

Wolverine
2005-Jan-18, 07:53 PM
Are all these scientists (http://www.etcontact.net/Other/QuotePages/QuotesScientists.htm) "crackpots and woowoos" too?

No, not all; however there are several pseudoscientists listed amongst those who've done outstanding work. Neither appeal to authority nor quote-mining provides empirical evidence demonstrating the existence of extraterrestrials nor their often-claimed presence here on Earth. Do remember that the possession of a PhD does not automatically guarantee the validity of one's claims and/or research -- and more importantly, that the plural of anecdote is not data.

As an example, I had the opportunity to hear Dr. Leo Sprinkle (http://www.emergenceconference.com/sprinkle.html) and his claims on an Internet-based "radio" program back in the fall of 2003. His methodology is ultimately flawed and conclusions wholly unsupported empirically. Here is a verbatim transcript of my interaction with Sprinkle (and if anyone's interested, I do have the audio file for this but not enough room to host it):

---------------------------
Me: Dr. Sprinkle, earlier in the program when you were describing how some of your viewpoints weren't very well recieved by others in academic circles, in response to the criticisms, you introduced the question "Is this the way science is supposed to work?"
Sound scientific methodology, as I'm sure you're aware, attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experimenter when testing a theory or hypothesis. Since, over the course of tonight's program, you've openly described personal biases and speculations in your approach to this research, how can your work ultimately yield empirical data when it seemingly disregards crucial elements of the scientific method of inquiry?

Sprinkle: Thank you very much for your question.

(program host) Jim Hickman: Wow...[laughs]

Sprinkle: In my opinion, uh, you are using an outdated, uh, model of science. It used to be thought that the experimenter should be separate from the experiment. Nowadays, the physicists, uh, are saying that, uh, the observer, uh, influences the uh, the behavior of the photon... uh, whether it's particle or wave is partly based upon the consciousness of the physicist. And so most, uh, psychologists tend to follow biologists, most biologists tend to follow, uh, physicists, and so, uh, I'm claiming [clears throat], and if you are interested, uh, there's a man named Rosenthal, Robert Rosenthal, he's now at Riverside, uh, University of California, Riverside, he used to be at Harvard, and I knew him when he was at the University of North Dakota back in the 60s. He's written many books, uh, including one called, uh Exp... the uh... let's see ... it's about experimenter bias, and it's about uh, I think it's called Exper... Experimenter and... uh the Laboratory, the Laboratory and the Experiment, something like that, Appleton/Croft/Century 1966 book. And uh, [clears throat] and he found that EVERY OBSERVER, EVERY EXPERIMENTER IS BIASED. LISTEN TO ME SIR, EVERY EXPERIMENTER IS BIASED. And the best way to deal with it is to be AWARE of one's bias. If one is aware of one's bias then one can help safeguard against... uh, finding, uh, data that are inappropriate or that are a distortion of, what, uh is going on. But I'm trying to be aware of my bias, [clears throat], and I'm claiming that your bias is, uh, that you believe the experimenter is separate from the experiment, and in my opinion, the experimenter cannot be separate because ESP studies show there is still a connection. So if we are aware of our bias, then we can help ourselves by looking through our lens, just like I have glasses, and uh, they... they're not my natural eyesight but my natural eyesight is not as good as if I have my spectacles, so if I know that my bias is, I can look at things through that bias and see if that's the way other people are looking at it. And uh...

Hickman: My question to...

Sprinkle: Yeah, go ahead...

Hickman: ... to scientists is "how can we apply the scientific method to UFOs that pop in and out of the sky?"

Sprinkle: [Laughs] That's a beautiful question, and the only way we can do it, in my opinion, is to get acquainted with who's popping in and out of the skies.

Hickman: [Laughs]

Sprinkle: [Laughs]
---------------------------

[-X Sprinkle is no more a scientist than I'm an astronaut.

IMHO, the probability for the existence of some variety of extraterrestrial life in the universe is significant, given our present understanding of its vast expanse. That being said though, mere belief in same does not satisfy the criteria required to demonstrate such. Skepticism is definitely warranted where extraordinary claims are concerned, regardless of one's personal desire to embrace them as true.

scourge
2005-Jan-19, 12:10 AM
We’re all out on a limb with this issue because the facts are limited. We don’t know how common life is, or intelligent life for that matter, or even intelligent technologically inclined life. But the point of the article, and much of the discussion that follows is simply—if you take our situation on Earth as more of an ordinary possibility, than a miraculously unlikely one, then the odds are high that we’re not the most advanced form of intelligence in our galaxy. I’m not saying that line of reasoning consists of any sort of proof, but it’s far from unscientific. It seems more unscientific to claim that we are essentially a miraculously unlikely occurrence, statistically.

Not all the observations and evidence are based on ignorance and bad camera work mixed with wishful thinking. How about last year’s footage taken by the Mexican Air Force?

The BBC story here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3707057.stm
The Reuters story here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1106371.htm
Video footage here: http://www.ufoevidence.org/specialfeatures/mexicanairforce/mexicanAFvideos.htm

It takes some effort to sift through the available information, but there are gems. I’d think astronomers would understand that sometimes this is required to find meaningful patterns and arrive at a hypothesis.

I’ve looked hard for any phenomena that could explain my observation, and nothing ‘natural’ fits the bill. It’s possible, though I think unlikely, that we have technology that can fly in close formation at high speed and execute sharply acute turns without any visible change in velocity. These things moved like they were bouncing off of an invisible wall, like ping pong balls, and they did this several times, mapping out a very linear zig-zag pattern in the sky. If someone here can offer –any- explanation for this experience (short of calling me a liar or a fool/delusional), I’m all ears. I’ve looked to science for nearly thirty years now, and come up with nothing that fits. But some of the video footage people have taken of objects they believe to be extraterrestrial; I’ve seen similarities there.

The point is—there’s nothing unscientific about considering the possibility that we’re being visited, period. What we have does not amount to proof, granted. But we do have a reasonable theoretical argument, some compelling testimony, and some very difficult-to-classify photos and footage. This is even more than we had twenty years ago regarding ball lighting, I should add. And it’s a black eye on the scientific community that the evidence now vindicates the people who were ridiculed and dismissed for their claims then. We should remember that we’re at the beginning of the process of scientific discovery, not the end.

I wish that my experience had been granted to a trained physicist or an aerospace engineer, but there’s nothing I can do about that. But I’ll tell you guys who claim that nothing remarkable happened in the sky that day—you wouldn’t be so quick to judge, if it had been you watching the sky that bright afternoon with five people you know. Thank your lucky stars it didn’t happen to you—because it’s exactly zero fun to be called a fool or a liar for seeing something that is currently unexplained and being forced to consider extraordinary models to account for your experience.

My thanks to those here who listen with an ear toward discussing, rather than ridiculing. Being a great person is a better thing than being a great scientist...I wish more people could be both.

Wolverine
2005-Jan-19, 12:18 AM
Not all the observations and evidence are based on ignorance and bad camera work mixed with wishful thinking. How about last year’s footage taken by the Mexican Air Force?

Bad example. Been there (http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-09/campeche.html), done that (http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic07-24-04.html).

hewhocaves
2005-Jan-19, 12:44 AM
I think this thread is interesting, in a strictly speculative sense (and downright enjoyable if you skip past the CIPA posts).

I read the original article and was fairly underwhelmed by it.
I agree with the posters that say that the evidence that has been presented so far has been crummy at best. The last time that we got a really god scare that there were ETs was when we discovered pulsars. Astronomers (ro and ameateur) turn thousands of telescopes to the sky nightly, nevermind binocs or naked eye observations. And still nothing. Why? Probably because there's nothing there.

In fact, I've only seen two things in the sky that I couldn't explain at the time.

The first was when I was eight. My friend and I saw these glowing disks making sharp turns and loops every four or five minutes just under the cloud layers. It turned out to be spotlights from a nearby car dealership.

Hey. we were eight. And for the record, I can't see how people can confuse Venus with UFOs, and yet I've been present when people have said it.

The second time was a few years ago, just after dusk. While scanning directly overhead a really bright light appeared out of nowhere, crossed about 10 degrees of the sky in a straight line and then disappeared. Yes, it was sunlight reflecting off a sattelite. I had just started observing the night sky again and I didn't know about flares like that. I found out a few hours later, surfing the net.

Another point I'd like to bring up regards old alien cultures and visitation. I like the idea of there being cultures that have existed for millions, maybe even billions of years. I think it's pretty plausible. And with that kind of time (and probably a lot less) I'm sure this galaxy has been mapped back to front a thousand times. The point being is that at some juncture, these maps are going to get passed down from species to species. no doubt somewhere in the Milky Way there is THE map of the galaxy and it only gets updated when necessary. So unless there's a species just next door that just figured out FTL or cryogenics or is really desperate to get here we're not getting visited.

Think I'm talking out my posterior? Consider driving from Salt Lake City to LA. Think of all those miles along the interstate. Imagine that's the Milky Way. Now think of the earth as being a mile off the highway. What are the odds of us being seen? What are the odds of someone saying 'hi'? Slim to none. What if there's a hill in the way? Now were never being seen. There are a million and one reasons why we're not being visited, being with the fact that we're boring or off the beaten path.

No, if we're going to meet ETs it'll be out there. And maybe thats what they are waiting for (if indeed there are any to wait). Maybe there's a nice signpost out by the heliopause (to heck with the Oort cloud - any shmuck with a probe can get there) giving us directions. After all, they're probably not sadistic. They wouldn't mind giving us a hand at that point. It would also, buy the way, remind us who really is in charge.

John

scourge
2005-Jan-19, 02:23 AM
Bad example. Been there (http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-09/campeche.html), done that (http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic07-24-04.html).

Great links, thanks—although it was indeed a bad example on my part, it’s a great example of the kind of good science we need to sift the wheat from the chaff. Unfortunately, at this point, it takes international recognition to get footage put through a thorough analysis like this. But if the people who claim to have extraordinary experiences, and the scientific community, could come to a cease-fire, then we’re going to learn some interesting things. We’ll learn a lot more about atmospheric effects, and we may even learn that some of these sightings are of truly extraordinary origin. Derision and dismissal aren’t going to teach us anything new, but investigation is profitable.


Astronomers (ro and ameateur) turn thousands of telescopes to the sky nightly, nevermind binocs or naked eye observations. And still nothing. Why? Probably because there's nothing there.

First of all, there have been loads of naked eye observations, and some fraction of the thousands of captured images offer something of real interest.

And consider this—if there are, say, one to six craft visiting our planet for a few minutes per year, the odds are witheringly small that we’re going to observe them with professional telescopes or cameras. A fast-moving object between say 10 and 30 meters across is going to be really tough to spot.


In fact, I've only seen two things in the sky that I couldn't explain at the time.

Night sightings are fairly easy to dismiss for reasons like those you discovered—even if someone did see an object of alien origin at night, it would be essentially impossible to prove. What I saw occurred at 3pm on a bright cloudless day—those events are much harder to explain, because the object either has to be reflective or emitting a lot of light, to be seen so brightly in mid-day. Add to that, a seeming disregard for momentum, and it’s a beguiling puzzle.


So unless there's a species just next door that just figured out FTL or cryogenics or is really desperate to get here we're not getting visited.

I always feel like an ancient Greek when considering issues like this—think of how steeply our perspectives on travel have changed in just two thousand years. I don’t think we even know how to ask the right questions regarding interstellar travel yet. We’ve only reached space now for a few decades. We can’t even fathom how we’ll think about this issue in a thousand years. But for argument’s sake, what if they have great medicine, and can live for several hundred years or longer? Also, doesn’t GR predict that if you travel close to C, time will pass more slowly on board your craft, so that from your POV, you can reach a star a few light years away with only a few hours of subjective travel time? If your home base ages a few hundred years while your away, maybe that matters less to a civilization that’s tens of thousands of years old and where the people live several hundred or thousands of years. And that’s all assuming that we don’t make some radical revisions to our physics along the way, which isn’t a bet I’d want to make, given our recent scientific history—today’s ‘impossibility’ is tomorrow’s toy.


Now think of the earth as being a mile off the highway. What are the odds of us being seen?

Pretty high if ‘they’ have been traipsing around the galaxy for quite some time, and higher if they’ve had a scout ship within about fifty light years anytime recently, given the endless stream of radiowaves trickling away from our planet.


There are a million and one reasons why we're not being visited, being with the fact that we're boring or off the beaten path.

We still keep tabs on remote aboriginal tribes—why wouldn’t they do the same? Especially if they know we’re going to be heading into the big city sometime soon ;)


They wouldn't mind giving us a hand at that point. It would also, buy the way, remind us who really is in charge.

Funny. But poignant too—I really wonder how much of our resistance to the idea that we’re being visited is attributable to our egos—I don’t think many people like the idea of coming this far, only to find that we still haven’t crawled out of the cradle. I wouldn’t mind it though—if humanity is the shining jewel of the Milky Way, it would be a very disappointing state of affairs.

hewhocaves
2005-Jan-19, 03:20 AM
First of all, there have been loads of naked eye observations, and some fraction of the thousands of captured images offer something of real interest.

And consider this—if there are, say, one to six craft visiting our planet for a few minutes per year, the odds are witheringly small that we’re going to observe them with professional telescopes or cameras. A fast-moving object between say 10 and 30 meters across is going to be really tough to spot.

This is a common fallacy found among UFOists. First you say there have been "loads" of naked eye observations, then you say that there are almost none. Which is it? If the former, then why haven't astronomers seen them and recognized them as such? And if the latter, then why are there so many 'anecdotal observations'? The answer should be fairly obvious. The best you can hope for is that there are a very very few sightings and these have been missed by everyone. The point is that if there's anything that's going to be seen it's going to be the astronomers who will see it. They're the ones best suited to properly differentiate what is useful and garbage in the night sky.


Night sightings are fairly easy to dismiss for reasons like those you discovered—even if someone did see an object of alien origin at night, it would be essentially impossible to prove. What I saw occurred at 3pm on a bright cloudless day—those events are much harder to explain, because the object either has to be reflective or emitting a lot of light, to be seen so brightly in mid-day. Add to that, a seeming disregard for momentum, and it’s a beguiling puzzle.


So there's this hill in western NJ where I can see something strange in the sky with pretty consistant regularity. What it looks like is contrails from rocket launches the next township over. Don't ask me why, but for some reason jet contrails near the horizon look completley vertical from this vantage point. Now I knew that the people in the next down haven't got ICBMs but I still did a doubletake when I see it. What would someone less knowledgeable and more credulous make of that sighting? Daytime observations should be taken with just as much skepticism than nighttime ones. The daytime sky is terrrible, absolutely terrible for determining distance and scale. What is that shiny thing up there? Is it some rare cloud type (lenticular, for example) at some weird angle? Is it some kid's helium balloon? A parachutist? A hot air balloon? Someone's radio controlled airplane? A box kite? Or is it space aliens? There's a lot to go through before you even arrive at space aliens and odds are you're never going to get there if you search thoroughly enough. Of course, it may be something secret and military and you might be screwed and never find out (I wonder how many B2 bombers or F117 stealths were misidentified as UFOs). But to conclude that it's space aliens because it doesn't conveniently fit what you think it ought to be is making too much of a leap.
On a similar topic, you should also remember that eyewitness accounts are ridiculously unreliable. The human brain is not a good device for accurate remembering of details. Studies have shown that it's prone to suggestion after the fact and can be easily persuaded. Furthermore, goin over somehting in your own head more or less "rewrites" the memory in your head. The more you try to recall something, the more it becomes that ideal you were looking for in the first place. This isn't just you, it's everybody. Thats why such an emphasis is placed on physical evidence.





I always feel like an ancient Greek when considering issues like this—think of how steeply our perspectives on travel have changed in just two thousand years. I don’t think we even know how to ask the right questions regarding interstellar travel yet. We’ve only reached space now for a few decades. We can’t even fathom how we’ll think about this issue in a thousand years. But for argument’s sake, what if they have great medicine, and can live for several hundred years or longer? Also, doesn’t GR predict that if you travel close to C, time will pass more slowly on board your craft, so that from your POV, you can reach a star a few light years away with only a few hours of subjective travel time? If your home base ages a few hundred years while your away, maybe that matters less to a civilization that’s tens of thousands of years old and where the people live several hundred or thousands of years. And that’s all assuming that we don’t make some radical revisions to our physics along the way, which isn’t a bet I’d want to make, given our recent scientific history—today’s ‘impossibility’ is tomorrow’s toy.

why do these things always turn into 1930 serials plots? If someone more advanced wanted to observe us, a telescope from the Jupiter would be fine. heck, something from a lunar orbit would be fine. There is no need to enter our atmosphere. How many years do you think it will be before we will be able to image our own lunar landers? I expect to see those photos in my lifetime. I agree with you that today's impossiblity is tomorrow's toy, but I also remind you of A.C. Clarke's statement that "Any species technology, sufficiently advanced, will be to us indistinguishable from magic." And again, any race that advanced will see us as just another culture with the very rudiments of space travel. If they've been around that long, we're old hat. Not that interesting. And so we get back to that human conceit that we're somehow important.




Pretty high if ‘they’ have been traipsing around the galaxy for quite some time, and higher if they’ve had a scout ship within about fifty light years anytime recently, given the endless stream of radiowaves trickling away from our planet.

if they're moving about the galaxy that much, they've long since catalogued us, maybe when the Romans were big, or maybe when we're Austrolopithicines. You can't possibly expect me to beleive that they've waited all this time for us to develop chemical rockets? Nbo, they've done what we do - drop a probe and read telelmetry.



We still keep tabs on remote aboriginal tribes—why wouldn’t they do the same? Especially if they know we’re going to be heading into the big city sometime soon ;)

Agian the "humans are on the cusp" conceit. How do you know an FTL drvie is arund the corner? How do you know that any of the planets within 50LY are massive urban areas for some advanced culture (assuming an advanced culture is still stuck to it's homeworld - which I doubt). and even if they were, this isn't a Harry turtledove novel. The aliens are not within conveinient reach. We pose no threat or even concern.

enjoyable topic :-)

john

scourge
2005-Jan-19, 05:16 AM
First of all, there have been loads of naked eye observations, and some fraction of the thousands of captured images offer something of real interest.

And consider this—if there are, say, one to six craft visiting our planet for a few minutes per year, the odds are witheringly small that we’re going to observe them with professional telescopes or cameras. A fast-moving object between say 10 and 30 meters across is going to be really tough to spot.


This is a common fallacy found among UFOists. First you say there have been "loads" of naked eye observations, then you say that there are almost none. Which is it?

Great, now I’m a ‘uofist’ because I told my story, lovely. I said that some fraction of the reported naked eye sightings are likely to offer ‘something of interest,’ which includes natural and ‘unnatural’ phenomena. Some of those may turn out to be alien craft. If some are, I would think six or less per year. See? No contradiction, though I admit it’s all totally speculative, as is the topic, but that's one of the reasons it’s so fun.


If the former, then why haven't astronomers seen them and recognized them as such? And if the latter, then why are there so many 'anecdotal observations'?

Like I said, I think that if some sightings really are extraordinary craft (or even some kind of holographic projection, who knows?), they’re not common. And even if one is sighted professionally, chances are it’ll be a smudgy photo at best. I think most observations are indeed failures to identify conventional events, others are more interesting, and some may be more than just ‘interesting.’


The answer should be fairly obvious. The best you can hope for is that there are a very very few sightings and these have been missed by everyone. The point is that if there's anything that's going to be seen it's going to be the astronomers who will see it. They're the ones best suited to properly differentiate what is useful and garbage in the night sky.

That doesn’t hold water—first of all, astronomers aren’t looking for fast objects in the atmosphere, and presumably, much faster ones nearby. And there aren’t enough astronomers to see the whole sky—probability dictates that your random Joe looking up is more likely to witness a rare, fleeting event in the atmosphere. I would think radar technicians would be most likely to witness events like this, but if the ‘visitors’ are as smart as we would assume, and they didn’t want to be seen on radar (which is easy to detect), they could simply absorb the radar waves. I think that if ‘they’ are here, they let us see only what they want us to see.


Daytime observations should be taken with just as much skepticism than nighttime ones.

It takes a lot more light to see something in the daytime sky, and things lights can be attached to, like wings, don’t show up well at night. Misidentifications are less likely in daytime.


The daytime sky is terrrible, absolutely terrible for determining distance and scale. What is that shiny thing up there? Is it some rare cloud type (lenticular, for example) at some weird angle? Is it some kid's helium balloon? A parachutist? A hot air balloon? Someone's radio controlled airplane? A box kite?

‘Flight characteristics’ seems like a good place to start, it’s my first litmus test of a claim. Linear movement punctuated by either sudden stops or unusual accelerations can weed out most conventional explanations, and all of those you’ve mentioned. I have a videotape of various sightings, and some of them show objects moving extremely fast and stopping on a dime a few times, then leaping away at incredible speeds. If that footage isn’t faked, it’s –really- hard to explain with any conventional science. But that’s the point—there’s nothing unscientific about the possible visitation of aliens to Earth. It doesn’t require any violation of scientific postulates to arrive at this idea. The resistance scientists have to the possibility that this could be happening is at least as speculative as the idea that we may be under surveillance from outside intelligences. Science itself doesn’t forbid the possibility, not in any way. Whether or not it’s actually happening is a matter of opinion, not science. I’m not asking anyone to ‘believe’ that we’re being visited, and I don’t think anyone who says to ‘disbelieve’ has a leg to stand on either. Folks like those at CSICOP have it right—let’s not waste time bickering about ‘who’s right,’ let’s examine the claims that come up. Neither side has a superior position right now, so we should keep an open mind, but investigate with skepticism, and with enough analysis, we’ll figure it out.


Or is it space aliens? There's a lot to go through before you even arrive at space aliens and odds are you're never going to get there if you search thoroughly enough. Of course, it may be something secret and military and you might be screwed and never find out (I wonder how many B2 bombers or F117 stealths were misidentified as UFOs). But to conclude that it's space aliens because it doesn't conveniently fit what you think it ought to be is making too much of a leap.

It’s been nearly thirty years—don’t you think that if we had something that could defy the laws of inertia, we’d have some glimmer of that by now? I don’t rule it out completely, that we may have craft that could maneuver as I witnessed, but with every passing year it looks more unlikely that this is what I saw.


On a similar topic, you should also remember that eyewitness accounts are ridiculously unreliable. The human brain is not a good device for accurate remembering of details. Studies have shown that it's prone to suggestion after the fact and can be easily persuaded. Furthermore, goin over somehting in your own head more or less "rewrites" the memory in your head. The more you try to recall something, the more it becomes that ideal you were looking for in the first place. This isn't just you, it's everybody. Thats why such an emphasis is placed on physical evidence.

I understand this, but we all saw the same thing and described it the same way, and it was as shocking at the time as it is to me now. Details can be exaggerated and times and places can be forgotten sometimes, but you don’t forget or ‘rewrite’ a memory of fast zig-zagging lights moving together in the daytime sky, it sticks with you like glue. Believe you me—I’d Much rather have physical evidence for the very reasons you mentioned, but at the time, people didn’t have camera phones and video cameras on their pockets. I figure, if this phenomena wasn’t unique, there should be a significant up swell in photographic evidence over the next decade or so.


If someone more advanced wanted to observe us, a telescope from the Jupiter would be fine. heck, something from a lunar orbit would be fine. There is no need to enter our atmosphere.

Unless someone intends to get us slowly used to the idea that they’re around, which seems to make sense. They may also want samples, no?


How many years do you think it will be before we will be able to image our own lunar landers? I expect to see those photos in my lifetime. I agree with you that today's impossiblity is tomorrow's toy, but I also remind you of A.C. Clarke's statement that "Any species technology, sufficiently advanced, will be to us indistinguishable from magic." And again, any race that advanced will see us as just another culture with the very rudiments of space travel. If they've been around that long, we're old hat. Not that interesting. And so we get back to that human conceit that we're somehow important.

Oh come on—when your neighbor has a newborn, it’s old hat, and the thing has exactly –nothing- of interest to say to you, but you drop by to see the funny little critter anyway. It’s alive, and full of unknown potential, so we’re curious. Besides, if it’s evil, we want to be ready when it comes out to play with our kids!


Pretty high if ‘they’ have been traipsing around the galaxy for quite some time, and higher if they’ve had a scout ship within about fifty light years anytime recently, given the endless stream of radiowaves trickling away from our planet.


if they're moving about the galaxy that much, they've long since catalogued us, maybe when the Romans were big, or maybe when we're Austrolopithicines. You can't possibly expect me to beleive that they've waited all this time for us to develop chemical rockets? Nbo, they've done what we do - drop a probe and read telelmetry.

I never said those craft were necessarily ‘manned’—I agree, it seems more likely they’d be probes. Really, really sophisticated probes, or remote controlled perhaps, but yeah, I’d rather hang out safely by the Moon and watch with a cup of coffee, than risk my butt in the airspace of a decidedly militant species. And they may have been dropping in for a long, long time now—weird depictions of aerial phenomena and even, apparently, astronauts of a sort, go back to cave-painting days.


We still keep tabs on remote aboriginal tribes—why wouldn’t they do the same? Especially if they know we’re going to be heading into the big city sometime soon ;)



Agian the "humans are on the cusp" conceit. How do you know an FTL drvie is arund the corner?

Hey—even a few hundred years is ‘right around the corner’ on galactic timescales. There’s nothing ‘conceited’ about noting that we’ve only recently advanced into space, and will likely get much better at it pretty soon. And I don’t know if FTL travel is possible, but if they have it, they probably have a much better idea of how close we are to developing it than we do.


How do you know that any of the planets within 50LY are massive urban areas for some advanced culture (assuming an advanced culture is still stuck to it's homeworld - which I doubt). and even if they were, this isn't a Harry turtledove novel. The aliens are not within conveinient reach. We pose no threat or even concern.

Your assumptions are as baseless as mine, pal—who’s to say what’s ‘convenient’ for a galactic civilization? (And I agree, planets are unstable and so immobile—better to make one with engines, and greater structural integrity. And when you want some entertainment, fly a few probes over a primitive planet and play chicken with their aircraft) Or whether another species might look askance at our flying plutonium out to Saturn and beyond, or whether they’d be concerned about the distinctive fission detonation signatures we were up to last century… ‘The devil you know,’ you know?


enjoyable topic :-)

Indeed. I hope we’ll develop a new improved propulsion method sometime soon, and find out who, if anyone, is out there laughing at us ;P

Wolverine
2005-Jan-19, 05:50 AM
The answer should be fairly obvious. The best you can hope for is that there are a very very few sightings and these have been missed by everyone. The point is that if there's anything that's going to be seen it's going to be the astronomers who will see it. They're the ones best suited to properly differentiate what is useful and garbage in the night sky.

That doesn’t hold water—first of all, astronomers aren’t looking for fast objects in the atmosphere, and presumably, much faster ones nearby. And there aren’t enough astronomers to see the whole sky—probability dictates that your random Joe looking up is more likely to witness a rare, fleeting event in the atmosphere.

Pardon my interruption, I was just wondering if you're familiar with this thread (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=13195), or perhaps saw this post (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=258194#258194) in particular? (Concerning a discussion of The BA's article published in the May '04 edition (http://skyandtelescope.com/shopatsky/detail.asp?catalog%5Fname=SkyPub&category%5Fname=S ky+%26+Telescope+Magazine&subcategory%5Fname=Back+ Issues&product%5Fid=Sky0405) of Sky & Telescope.)

There are significant numbers of eyes spending vast hours observing, cumulatively, and definitely not limited to time spent looking through an eyepiece -- and considering these numbers described are confined only to the United States, perhaps you underestimate their numbers? Just a thought.

gzhpcu
2005-Jan-19, 06:10 AM
Friedman Stanton debated Seth Shostak this year.

Debate (http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2004/07/21.html)

A more interesting debate would be to see one between Stanton and the BA.

A.DIM
2005-Jan-19, 01:08 PM
Mr. A-DIM,
You want to keep ignoring one simple fact, the "California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics" doesn't really do anything.
***snip***

Honestly, I wasn't interested in a debate over the author's credentials or other alleged "disreputable" associations, as so often becomes the case in these discussions. I was interested in, and still am, what people think about current astrophysics supporting the idea.
Apparently, the JBIS paper is the first in nearly 20yrs to be published in a mainstream science journal, and since mainstream space.com published an article dealing with it, someone "credible" appears to lend credence to the ideas.


As for Haisch's case...he doesn't make it. He simply states that's what is now being generated in the fields of physics, astrophysics and cosmology supports the concusion that earth is being visited by E.T. He makes some vague references to superstring dimensions, wormholes and branes and then leaves us guessing as to how to associate these with E.T. on earth. The gullible and uninformed read this stuff and believe it at face value.

But the fact is that studies into superstring dimensions, wormholes and branes say nothing about the possibility that earth is being visited by E.T. Nothing whatsoever. For that matter, neither has Mr. Haisch, really, except to give the gullible and believers hope that the funny lights in the sky they sometimes hear about is E.T. coming to offer us salvation. I hope you've renewed your membership in Heaven's Gate and are ready for them.

"Nothing whatsoever?" It seems I recall the PBS Origins series dealing with these very issues only a few months ago. Tell me, shall I now think of PBS as liberal media pushing pseudoscience to the "gullible and uninformed?"
And as far as my "membership:" Ridiculous remark; were I ever a member, I'd not be here now.

A.DIM
2005-Jan-19, 01:23 PM
There is no need for an extraterrestrial or extradimensional hypothesis at all.

I respectfully disagree. As I mentioned before, we ourselves are now "ETs" and are apparently on the verge of important discoveries in propulsion and dimensional realities. While at present we cannot harness the energy to experiment, what precludes another advanced species from doing so?


Nevertheless these things are certainly worthy of study; especially the unknown natural phenomena, which I have included because of the proliferation of new forms of lightning discovered recently. No doubt there are more of these; perhaps pietzoelectic effects for instance.

Great point. 50yrs ago the idea of ball lightning was scoffed at by scientists.


But the psychological aspects of UFO phenomena are the most important; why do people misidentify aerial phenomena, then convince themselves they are observing things like alien spacecraft, and edit their own memories in order to do so?

Indeed, and its not a modern phenomena!


There are implications for aircraft safety that have to be considered if competent pilots cannot identify, or misidentify, aerial phenomena.

Yeah, UAP are rather common according to NARCAP. The most impressive being Radar-Visual cases.


UFO's are an intriguing subject, but the ET hypothesis contributes almost nothing of value, in my own opinion.

I see. Personally, I'm interested in it because not only have earthlings become a space faring species "overnight" in evolutionary terms, but that Mythology is replete with tales of "those from heaven to earth came." Earthling have been talking about ETs for millennia and yet it is still considered an "extraordinary claim." :)

A.DIM
2005-Jan-19, 01:29 PM
It’s sad that this topic is so emotionally charged and divisive, because I think the evidence poses a genuinely intriguing question for our time…

In terms of scientific evidence, there really isn't any. There's a lot of personal accounts and anecdotal evidence, but nothing that can be independently verified or tested.

According to UFO Evidence (http://etcontact.net/) there's more than "personal accounts and anecdotal evidence."
Peruse the "Physical Evidence" articles for more insight.
"Evidence" exists. It comes down to what one considers evidence, IMHO.

A.DIM
2005-Jan-19, 01:37 PM
Are all these scientists (http://www.etcontact.net/Other/QuotePages/QuotesScientists.htm) "crackpots and woowoos" too?

No, not all; however there are several pseudoscientists listed amongst those who've done outstanding work. Neither appeal to authority nor quote-mining provides empirical evidence demonstrating the existence of extraterrestrials nor their often-claimed presence here on Earth. Do remember that the possession of a PhD does not automatically guarantee the validity of one's claims and/or research -- and more importantly, that the plural of anecdote is not data.
Cute anecdote.
But I didn't proffer them as "empirical evidence." I only wanted to show how baseless a dismissal like "crackpot" is.
And I agree about the Phd thing; conversely, not having a PhD doesn't make ones claims invalid. However, we often see "skeptics" use such an argument to support their arguments, do we not?


IMHO, the probability for the existence of some variety of extraterrestrial life in the universe is significant, given our present understanding of its vast expanse. That being said though, mere belief in same does not satisfy the criteria required to demonstrate such. Skepticism is definitely warranted where extraordinary claims are concerned, regardless of one's personal desire to embrace them as true.
Again, I don't necessarily consider the ETH as "extraordinary."
So it's all relative, I guess.

A.DIM
2005-Jan-19, 01:39 PM
Not all the observations and evidence are based on ignorance and bad camera work mixed with wishful thinking. How about last year’s footage taken by the Mexican Air Force?

Bad example. Been there (http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-09/campeche.html), done that (http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic07-24-04.html).

I think neither of those sufficiently explains the event.
I'm skeptical and withhold judgement.

Astronomy
2005-Jan-19, 02:47 PM
And I agree about the Phd thing; conversely, not having a PhD doesn't make ones claims invalid. However, we often see "skeptics" use such an argument to support their arguments, do we not?

Most of the time it's when someone is claiming to have an explanation for a scientific phenomenon or is making baseless scientific claims that have obvious physical flaws. When this occurs, it can be sometimes confusing for the layman reading to determine why exactly the pseudoscientist is wrong. Appealing to the academy serves as a guide in this regard, but it isn't a prerequisite for a good idea.

I have known a few brilliant scientists who don't have PhDs. Nobody went to any lengths to discredit them because their work was good. It's only when the science is bad that people begin to question credentials.

algorithms
2005-Jan-19, 02:52 PM
A-DIM: "I think neither of those sufficiently explains the event.
I'm skeptical and withhold judgement."

Actually, the Scheaffer and Smith explanations make a heck of a lot of sense. At a minimum, they offer a perfectly prosaic explanation that cannot be ruled out. And, they are certainly more complete and detailed than anything any UFOLogist has attempted to provide...whose best statement can only be that some funny looking "lights" showed up on infrared imagery that wasn't visible to the naked eye or discernible under conventional imagery.

"Unidentified Flying Objects" are, by definition, "unidentified." One cannot conclude what any one UFO is until and unless it has actually been "identified." To date, not a single UFO has ever been identified as being a vehicle from outer space carrying extraterrestrials visitors. After over fifty years of so-called "sightings," that fact alone, should raise doubts amonge even the most strident "UFOlogist." People have been straining at gnats for decades to prove that funny lights in the sky are evidence of E.T. One would think that, by now, if there were anything to such assertions, we'd something more substantive in the way of real evidence.

Jorge
2005-Jan-19, 09:37 PM
ok, i still don't feel confortable poting here(becouse most stuff i say will probebly be wrong, but i got to learn somehow 8-[ )

well i've been reading this few a few days, so i'll awnser in well an alian perspective...

if i was an advance ET species, i well, would want to protect myself, world...
so first thing i would do was look for any treads nearby lets say every thing +- 5 Lightyears for my homeplanet. if thats is safe i would well start deploying probes to other parts, if i find something.

I would send more probes, and closly monitor then for a while/
If there a thread, i would try to
1) get them at my side
2) destroy it
if there not, i would watch them closly and there developement. maybe i'll try ant learn things from then. for example if my homeworld doest have water, there's does... i would see how they handle it, i may be 1000 time more advance but i never developed ship's and stuff, so that would be very interesting.

and if i find them ready for and encoutner i would start slowly.
give them a few hits and see what they do, if thew act threaten i'de leave em alone for a while. if the react interested i'de give em more stuff to work with... till i find them ready to show myself.

ok this is a weird post but well, this is what i would do if i was in charge of a larg group of 'humans'.

hope i didn't make a to big of a fool out of myself

Wolverine
2005-Jan-20, 01:52 AM
Friedman Stanton debated Seth Shostak this year.

Is that Friedman Stanton, Physicist Nuclear? :D

Wolverine
2005-Jan-20, 02:07 AM
Not all the observations and evidence are based on ignorance and bad camera work mixed with wishful thinking. How about last year’s footage taken by the Mexican Air Force?

Bad example. Been there (http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-09/campeche.html), done that (http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic07-24-04.html).

I think neither of those sufficiently explains the event.
I'm skeptical and withhold judgement.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. However (and to phrase it as delicately as possible, as I mean no offense), from having followed many of your posts spanning multiple subjects, I'm left with the impression that you primarily appear skeptical of skeptics. While I'd concede this might be an errant perception on my part, I don't consider your stance to be one denoting skepticism, but rather indicative of confirmation bias.

Wolverine
2005-Jan-20, 02:08 AM
Most of the time it's when someone is claiming to have an explanation for a scientific phenomenon or is making baseless scientific claims that have obvious physical flaws. When this occurs, it can be sometimes confusing for the layman reading to determine why exactly the pseudoscientist is wrong. Appealing to the academy serves as a guide in this regard, but it isn't a prerequisite for a good idea.

I have known a few brilliant scientists who don't have PhDs. Nobody went to any lengths to discredit them because their work was good. It's only when the science is bad that people begin to question credentials.

Excellent post.

R.A.F.
2005-Jan-20, 02:12 AM
...from having followed many of your posts spanning multiple subjects, I'm left with the impression that you primarily appear skeptical of skeptics.

Would that make A.DIM a pseudo-pseudoskeptic? :lol:

gzhpcu
2005-Jan-20, 03:03 AM
Friedman Stanton debated Seth Shostak this year.

Is that Friedman Stanton, Physicist Nuclear? :D

Your point being what?

Wolverine
2005-Jan-20, 03:14 AM
Friedman Stanton debated Seth Shostak this year.

Is that Friedman Stanton, Physicist Nuclear? :D

Your point being what?

Only that Friedman is the surname. :wink:

gzhpcu
2005-Jan-20, 05:13 AM
Friedman Stanton debated Seth Shostak this year.

Is that Friedman Stanton, Physicist Nuclear? :D

Your point being what?

Only that Friedman is the surname. :wink:

I had a premonition I shouldn't have asked... :oops:

Wolverine
2005-Jan-20, 05:42 AM
All in fun, no worries.

scourge
2005-Jan-20, 08:03 AM
Heh—a word to the wise: Google first…ask questions later :wink:


I was just wondering if you're familiar with this thread (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=13195), or perhaps saw this post (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=258194#258194) in particular?

That discussion was long before my time, Wolverine, thanks for bringing it to my attention—interesting stuff. It’s good to learn that there are so many amateur astronomers out there looking for ufos (/kidding!).

But oddly, nothing in that post/thread refutes what I’ve said here. This specifically, from the BA’s cited post:

“The conclusion is therefore obvious: at least most of the UFOs reported by people not familiar with the sky are mundane phenomena being misinterpreted. And even people who are familiar with the sky can be fooled; I was once. So it is even more likely that even if an amateur reported a UFO, it may still have been something mundane under unusually odd circumstances.

So I stand by my conclusion: if UFOs are not misinterpreted mundane phenomena, then amateurs should should see more than just about anyone. They don't, which indicates UFOs are overwhelmingly misinterpreted phenomena. I am not saying every single one is, or even saying anything at all about the extraterrestrial hypothesis. I am saying that most UFO sightings are mundane objects.”

As I said earlier, I think most are misidentifications (i.e. ‘mundane’), some fraction are ‘interesting’ (meaning they could be unusual atmospheric/optical phenomena or military craft or whatever), and my tentative guess regarding objects that may be extraterrestrial in origin is six or less per year around the planet, each event spanning mere minutes. So the observations of astronomers (including amateurs, as you’ve pointed out) of such events would be higher than the average bus driver for example, but in fact their ‘sighting’ reports are lower, because they’re more apt at weeding out known phenomena. Nothing surprising there. Also, if most ‘genuine’ sightings have characteristics like the event I witnessed, it’s going to turn anybody’s head--erratic movement registers even on a layman’s peripheral vision. And if the number of truly extraordinary objects in our skies is small, which seems reasonable, the statistical number of astronomers who see them isn’t going to be significantly higher than nonastronomers. Consider the Tunguska event—did more astronomers see that than anyone else?—no. Why? Because with rare, visually alarming events, it’s more about being in the right place at the right time, than who’s doing the being there.

And if what I’ve seen personally has some terribly mundane explanation, the silence is deafening. I saw two bright lights in broad daylight, with five other people I knew well, execute rapid, linear, acute-angle maneuvers with no apparent change in velocity. I promise you—if you’d been there, you’d remotely consider the possibility of some outrageously advanced top secret military project (though why they’d fly them over a heavily populated area, and risk crashing them by flying them with such acrobatic precision, would stick in your craw), or something truly novel, possibly even extraterrestrial. There aren’t many other options on the table, and I think it would be foolish to not consider them all very earnestly.

Compound that with a best guess that we’re not the most advanced life forms in our galaxy—and that we should even –expect- other forms of advanced life to exist somewhere around here, and you’re looking at a plausible explanation, not some ridiculously unlikely fantasy.

Tell you what—maybe I’m off-base with the whole supposition that other advanced races should exist in our galaxy and have ample opportunity to come around from time to time--truth be told, I’ve never crunched the numbers myself. It always just seemed that out of 1-400 billion stars, the odds looked pretty good that we’re not alone--I'm of the camp that the most scientific position to take is that our situation is fairly unexceptional, until real data becomes availaible to prove otherwise. I’m willing to go over those odds with a skeptical view and see what we come up with. If the math really does indicate that we shouldn’t expect others to be out there, then I’ll admit that the possibility that what I saw could have been extraterrestrial was unfounded. You (or anyone) game?

It would be good to work through this with the consensus of members of this board, and arrive at some ballpark figures that would allow us to consider the results objectively.

A.DIM
2005-Jan-20, 01:23 PM
And I agree about the Phd thing; conversely, not having a PhD doesn't make ones claims invalid. However, we often see "skeptics" use such an argument to support their arguments, do we not?

Most of the time it's when someone is claiming to have an explanation for a scientific phenomenon or is making baseless scientific claims that have obvious physical flaws. When this occurs, it can be sometimes confusing for the layman reading to determine why exactly the pseudoscientist is wrong. Appealing to the academy serves as a guide in this regard, but it isn't a prerequisite for a good idea.

I have known a few brilliant scientists who don't have PhDs. Nobody went to any lengths to discredit them because their work was good. It's only when the science is bad that people begin to question credentials.

Fair enough; though I suspect those non-PhD scientists' work stayed within accepted mainstream paradigms.

But are you suggesting the JBIS paper is "baseless" with "obvious physical flaws?"

If so.... how so?

A.DIM
2005-Jan-20, 01:49 PM
Not all the observations and evidence are based on ignorance and bad camera work mixed with wishful thinking. How about last year’s footage taken by the Mexican Air Force?

Bad example. Been there (http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-09/campeche.html), done that (http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic07-24-04.html).

I think neither of those sufficiently explains the event.
I'm skeptical and withhold judgement.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. However (and to phrase it as delicately as possible, as I mean no offense), from having followed many of your posts spanning multiple subjects, I'm left with the impression that you primarily appear skeptical of skeptics. While I'd concede this might be an errant perception on my part, I don't consider your stance to be one denoting skepticism, but rather indicative of confirmation bias.

Likewise, and none taken.
I find myself more and more skeptical of "skeptics." There appears to be as much an industry of "debunking" as there is pseudoscience. And from what I've witnessed here over the last couple of years is many so-called "skeptics" of the ETH are as uninformed and rooted in "belief" as they so often suggest the "woowoos" are, exhibiting high degrees of subjective thinking when considering the ETH.
I believe I've pointed out a couple of good examples here in this very thread.

hewhocaves
2005-Jan-20, 02:23 PM
And if what I’ve seen personally has some terribly mundane explanation, the silence is deafening. I saw two bright lights in broad daylight, with five other people I knew well, execute rapid, linear, acute-angle maneuvers with no apparent change in velocity. I promise you—if you’d been there, you’d remotely consider the possibility of some outrageously advanced top secret military project (though why they’d fly them over a heavily populated area, and risk crashing them by flying them with such acrobatic precision, would stick in your craw), or something truly novel, possibly even extraterrestrial. There aren’t many other options on the table, and I think it would be foolish to not consider them all very earnestly.

See Scourge, this is the very real problem. You're asking us to try and ID something that is nearly impossible to ID. If you were totally convinced that it was Russian Migs scouting out your hometown for a parachute drop we couldn't help you any more than if you had said it was space aliens. I agree that what you saw was at least mildly enigmatic, but I can't get excited about it. Why? There's nowhere near enough evidence in your experience to begin to make an educated guess. Most of us on this board know the hazards of trying to figure out what's in the sky and how difficult it is to ID stuff when it's difficult to see or just a collection of lights. (Personally, I now always carry binoculars in my car so I can attempt to satisfy my curiosity.) I'm not saying you should stop trying to figure out what it was, but even if, as you say, it would be really stupid for an experimental military craft to be conducting test flights over a populated area, that possibilty is still much, much more likely than it being space aliens.

Have you conclusively eliminted the possiblity of the military? Have you concusively eliminated the possibility of some sort of private stunt pilots? Of someone deliberately hoaxing you? Someone trying to hoax the whole area? I mean, these are very unlkely circumstances, I agree, but each and every one of these is MUCH more likely than it being an alien craft.

See, it's always difficult to prove something by negatively proving it. (i know, I could have said that better). What I mean is that you're trying to say that its probably space aliens because it's not a natural phenomenon or can't have been accomplished by people on earth. Unfortunatley, and this is probably the most basic premise that the UFOers singuarly fail to grasp: it's almost impossible to prove something this way. I can always come up with a scenario that is possible, no matter how preposterous it sounds, that is more likely than sace aliens. It could be a collection of ballons, several miles away, each with powerful lights attached to the bottom of it that wink in and out making it seem like sharp angle turns. Et cetera, et cetera.

Yes, we do ask for extrordinary evidence. After all, it's an extrortdinary claim.

John

algorithms
2005-Jan-20, 02:51 PM
A-DIM: I find myself more and more skeptical of "skeptics." There appears to be as much an industry of "debunking" as there is pseudoscience. And from what I've witnessed here over the last couple of years is many so-called "skeptics" of the ETH are as uninformed and rooted in "belief" as they so often suggest the "woowoos" are, exhibiting high degrees of subjective thinking when considering the ETH.

Most skeptics I know are willing to accept the possibility - even if a remote one, but don't feel the evidence is particularly compelling. And, to date, not a single Unidentified Flying Object has ever been postively and unequivocally Identified as a vehicle from outer space containing intelligent extraterrestrials. Therein, lies the problem. Its great to speculate on the possibiities, but without clear, unequivocal and independently verifiable evidence that identifies an unidentified flying object as something of extraterrestrial origin, no one can reasonably conclude we are being visited by E.T.

And yes, invectives like "woowoos" and "crackpots" may suggest bias, but the trouble is "UFOlogy" is full of such characters, from Pru Calabrese, who "remote viewed" a spaceship in the tail of Hale Bopp to Richard Hoagland, who still claims there is a face on Mars. "UFOlogy" sports no standardized methodology and has no standards of proof by which a body of systematically organized evidence may be assembled. Its simply "science" by anecdotes, which isn't science at all. Running around collecting ephemeral "sightings" reports about fuzzy objects in the sky and excusing the lack of any real evidence on so-called government cover-ups, doesn't cut it.

Its not up to the "skeptics" to prove the advocates wrong. Its up to the advocates to prove their right. Those who truly think there is a case to be made need to do a better job of making their case. I'm willing to be convinced with something truly convincing.

Wally
2005-Jan-20, 06:14 PM
OT for a second guys, if you don't mind.

Hewhocaves. a few posts back you say this:


How many years do you think it will be before we will be able to image our own lunar landers? I expect to see those photos in my lifetime.

I thought I had read where it'll never be possible to view the landers from Earth. This being due to the distance, size of target and the properties of light. "Diffraction limited" is the term used to describe this for scopes, I believe. . .

Is this incorrect?

hewhocaves
2005-Jan-20, 06:56 PM
OT for a second guys, if you don't mind.

Hewhocaves. a few posts back you say this:


How many years do you think it will be before we will be able to image our own lunar landers? I expect to see those photos in my lifetime.

I thought I had read where it'll never be possible to view the landers from Earth. This being due to the distance, size of target and the properties of light. "Diffraction limited" is the term used to describe this for scopes, I believe. . .

Is this incorrect?

yes, i've heard that said as well. however, we've done such wonderful things with adaptive optics in the last few years I wonder if that sentiment shouldn't be revised.

Never is a really strong word to use. I'm 32. Where were we, telescope- wise 50 years ago? (1955) We still had people debating canals on Mars. We could point the Keck at Mars today and knock out that idea. We could probably point any number of ameateur scopes with a CCD on it and do it as well.

And if I can head off what I perceive as the inevitable counter-argument; I don't think any of us on here have said that we will never be visited by ETs, we're just saying that the evidence presented that we have already been visited is shaky at best

John

scourge
2005-Jan-20, 07:15 PM
Previous posts explain why I see this situation as a true conundrum, rather than an amusing footnote. Because a phenomenon like this is –perhaps by its very nature- scientifically indemonstrable, since the one thing required to reach a consensual conclusion is the one thing we will probably never get—a piece of whatever is moving in the sky. Nothing less is going to be taken seriously by the scientific community. But I think some of these reports, especially those by trained observers, hold profound significance worthy of conscientious, rigorous scientific investigation. So it’s a Catch-22.

What I think we need here is a special category of scientific inquiry for phenomena that, by their very nature, cannot produce irrefutable physical evidence, so we can at least –look- at a phenomenon like this without resorting to name-calling and knee-jerk accusations of foolishness/delusion/lies.

Some people are trying to do this, but since precious few scientists are willing to risk their reputations and livelihoods by associating themselves with such investigations, and since their work has to be funded almost entirely by their own savings accounts, little if anything significant is getting done. But I have faith in science, and I think if we had some support by the scientific community to conduct a solid investigation, we may not end up with the ‘smoking gun’ to establish exactly what is going on—but I think we’d be able to demonstrate conclusively that in fact –something extraordinary- is going on. I seem to recall that even Project Blue Book concluded that some small number of reported sightings fell into exactly such a category, but it fell on deaf ears. Why? Since when has science turned its nose up at any unsolved mystery?

So what we’re left with, for the most part, is a very loosely organized group of nonscientists attempting to do something that scientists themselves won’t dare to attempt—make an extraordinary case with nothing more than photographic evidence, some good stories, and an occasional odd soil/plant sample or midnight sunburn of the face. It’s not right—of course their efforts are fumbling, because rather than helping, most scientists would rather sit back and laugh at the show. I’m sorry, but that kind of behavior seems kinda contemptible to me—it’s like watching the neighborhood bully beat up the stuttering girl, and passing the popcorn. And God forbid some poor sucker tries to jump in and help—we’ve seen the apparently well-meaning Dr. Haisch get torn to shreds before our very eyes right here.

And a salient point that seems to keep sailing over the heads of the ‘disbelievers’ here is: how can you say that an extraterrestrial craft is ‘more unlikely’ than a military craft defying the known laws of physics, when Fermi’s paradox was born from the scientific conclusion that ‘they’ –should- be here, right now? If indeed our best guess (and I’d like to take a long hard look at this issue if anyone’s game) is that our galaxy ought to be essentially teeming with intelligent life, then why it is so freakin unlikely that we might actually see ‘them’ from time to time? It’s not scientific—you can’t have it both ways, viz ‘well yes, we’ve concluded that it’s highly probable that we’re the new kids on the block, but you’re a fool if you think we’re going to ever see our neighbors. It’s much more likely that someone around here is performing physics experiments we’ve deemed impossible.’ ?

Algorithm--you're asking non-scientists to make a positive ID of something the scientific community doesn't even acknowledge may exist--doesn't that strike you as a little disingenuous? Can you put the shoe on the other foot and see what a bind you'd be in if -you- saw something that defied conventional wisdom?

Sure, maybe what I saw, and what other people have seen, was nothing more than advanced military aircraft. But if we go with that—then our own government is holding back a few chapters from our modern physics books, and that’s hardly an acceptable state of affairs now is it? Or if what I saw was some radical form of ball lighting or something? Well dang—what if one of those struck a passenger plane? Or worse, showed up on Korean radar during delicate nuclear weapons negotiations? Or as someone suggested earlier—what if it was some unknown kind of mass delusion…something that could happen to pilots and send them into a collision? We should know.

For these and many more reasons, it’s not only unbecoming, but it’s irresponsible of the scientific community to dismiss the reports in question. Nobody’s going to back a responsible investigation without your support, because answering observed enigmas is your field. But until you acknowledge that there is a question, the rest of us are left out in the cold, reluctant to even share our observations under threat of public humiliation and downright derision. We’ve been waiting for a long time, would it really be so bad to lend a helping hand?

alfricnow
2005-Jan-20, 07:33 PM
amen

hewhocaves
2005-Jan-20, 08:46 PM
Wow... where to begin?


...since the one thing required to reach a consensual conclusion is the one thing we will probably never get—a piece of whatever is moving in the sky.


Not necessarily. But you are at least partly correct in that the world will want something more than an easily fakeable light and sound show


What I think we need here is a special category of scientific inquiry for phenomena that, by their very nature, cannot produce irrefutable physical evidence, so we can at least –look- at a phenomenon like this without resorting to name-calling and knee-jerk accusations of foolishness/delusion/lies.

so what you're asking for is a science without the scientific method. Good luck there. I think Creationism ascribes to that idea. You should talk to them



But I have faith in science, and I think if we had some support by the scientific community to conduct a solid investigation, we may not end up with the ‘smoking gun’ to establish exactly what is going on—but I think we’d be able to demonstrate conclusively that in fact –something extraordinary- is going on.

Another problem here that's pretty commonplace: the idea that if just enough scientists 'believe' in somehting, it suddenly becomes 'good' science. That's a really misdirected view on how science works.



So what we’re left with, for the most part, is a very loosely organized group of nonscientists attempting to do something that scientists themselves won’t dare to attempt—make an extraordinary case with nothing more than photographic evidence, some good stories, and an occasional odd soil/plant sample or midnight sunburn of the face.


I'll admit the first part of this actually irked me. But look at the second part. Is that a good body of data? Heck no! I can accomplish the same thing on any given evening. I can take terrible pictures with my digital camera, go digging in a landfill, tell stories around a campfire and break into a tanning salon at midnight.


but that kind of behavior seems kinda contemptible to me—it’s like watching the neighborhood bully beat up the stuttering girl, and passing the popcorn.
and right off the deep end we go... there's no point in debating this kind of bitter name calling.


And a salient point that seems to keep sailing over the heads of the ‘disbelievers’ here is: how can you say that an extraterrestrial craft is ‘more unlikely’ than a military craft defying the known laws of physics,

again, you're assuming that you, the observer, have not made any sort of mistake in your observation, that you haven't been fooled by some perspective of vision, that you are not the unlucky recipient of some hoax and that you are a qualified expert in all poissible obects that you can view in the sky. That's an impressive resume then.


, then why it is so freakin unlikely that we might actually see ‘them’ from time to time?

how many eskimos are australain pygmys likely to see? Just because something *should* be there does not mean that it *must* be there. In fact, if it isn't there, then there's probably a very likely reason for it. And while hte UFOists are sitting there complaing that the astronomers are doing nothing, it is in fact the astronomers who are finding the exoplanets, understanding the other planets in our solar system and digging deeper into the fundamental principles under which our galaxy is ordered. Yes, they're really "beating up the stuttering girl". And in fact, when all is said and done, I think you'll find that it's the long, slow, methodical approach that will eventually come up with the final, correct answer - not some woowoo with a camcorder along a state highway.



Sure, maybe what I saw, and what other people have seen, was nothing more than advanced military aircraft. But if we go with that—then our own government is holding back a few chapters from our modern physics books, and that’s hardly an acceptable state of affairs now is it? Or if what I saw was some radical form of ball lighting or something? Well dang—what if one of those struck a passenger plane? Or worse, showed up on Korean radar during delicate nuclear weapons negotiations? Or as someone suggested earlier—what if it was some unknown kind of mass delusion…something that could happen to pilots and send them into a collision? We should know.


or maybe its just a confused eyewitness.



For these and many more reasons, it’s not only unbecoming, but it’s irresponsible of the scientific community to dismiss the reports in question. Nobody’s going to back a responsible investigation without your support, because answering observed enigmas is your field. But until you acknowledge that there is a question, the rest of us are left out in the cold, reluctant to even share our observations under threat of public humiliation and downright derision. We’ve been waiting for a long time, would it really be so bad to lend a helping hand?

Wow. that's a real textbook case of a persecution complex. And what happens if your sghting is investigated and its proven to be "observer error" or a natural phenomenon. Are you going to say "Wow, gee. I guess I was wrong! Thanks, science for clearing that up. All I really wanted to know was what that thing in the sky was. Golly, I'm sure glad it was all readily explainable. What a silly mistake it all was!" No, of course not. You're going to want another test, then another test, then another test and etc... Then you're going o pore over the results, look for something that could be misinterpreted as something else, misinterpret it and then say "Oooh Science screwed up because I observed it and I have to be right because my eyes can't possibly be fooled by something because I'm the observer and my fertile imagination has already settled on 'space aliens' as the answer and I won't stop until the data is 'cooked' to the point where it supports my claim.

Hmm.. that may have been a tad harsh. I wish the aliens hadn't told me to write that. I hate when they make me help cover up the conspiracy.

John

R.A.F.
2005-Jan-20, 10:07 PM
What I think we need here is a special category of scientific inquiry for phenomena that, by their very nature, cannot produce irrefutable physical evidence, so we can at least –look- at a phenomenon like this without resorting to name-calling and knee-jerk accusations of foolishness/delusion/lies.

so what you're asking for is a science without the scientific method.

There's already a "category" without the scientific method...it's called pseudo-science.

A.DIM
2005-Jan-20, 10:07 PM
And if what I’ve seen personally has some terribly mundane explanation, the silence is deafening. I saw two bright lights in broad daylight, with five other people I knew well, execute rapid, linear, acute-angle maneuvers with no apparent change in velocity. I promise you—if you’d been there, you’d remotely consider the possibility of some outrageously advanced top secret military project (though why they’d fly them over a heavily populated area, and risk crashing them by flying them with such acrobatic precision, would stick in your craw), or something truly novel, possibly even extraterrestrial. There aren’t many other options on the table, and I think it would be foolish to not consider them all very earnestly.

See Scourge, this is the very real problem. You're asking us to try and ID something that is nearly impossible to ID. If you were totally convinced that it was Russian Migs scouting out your hometown for a parachute drop we couldn't help you any more than if you had said it was space aliens. I agree that what you saw was at least mildly enigmatic, but I can't get excited about it. Why? There's nowhere near enough evidence in your experience to begin to make an educated guess. Most of us on this board know the hazards of trying to figure out what's in the sky and how difficult it is to ID stuff when it's difficult to see or just a collection of lights. (Personally, I now always carry binoculars in my car so I can attempt to satisfy my curiosity.) I'm not saying you should stop trying to figure out what it was, but even if, as you say, it would be really stupid for an experimental military craft to be conducting test flights over a populated area, that possibilty is still much, much more likely than it being space aliens.

Have you conclusively eliminted the possiblity of the military? Have you concusively eliminated the possibility of some sort of private stunt pilots? Of someone deliberately hoaxing you? Someone trying to hoax the whole area? I mean, these are very unlkely circumstances, I agree, but each and every one of these is MUCH more likely than it being an alien craft.

This is a perfect example of what I was talking about and scourge pointed it out as well: You are automataically applying a low a priori probablity to the ETH.
I see this as the crux of the matter.
Why?
Because even in the "scientific method" one must make assumptions to test a theory, and it is in these assumptions that personal bias can shows itself.
The "scientific method" is supposedly "objective" but within the method itself allows for subjectivity to creep in.
Hence the low a priori probability "skeptics" like yourself apply to the ETH.
Here, we have a seemingly mainstream journal publishing a paper that says, according to modern astrophysics, that we should be immersed in a galactic Civ, AND YET, "skeptics" still think the prosaic explanations are "MUCH" more likely.
I see this as the reason that "Science" has alienated (pun intended) the masses. People worldwide have experiences such as scourge's and yet "science" tells him he's a "crackpot" misidentifying some mundane event.

***SNIP***


Yes, we do ask for extrordinary evidence. After all, it's an extrortdinary claim.

John

I disagree. As I pointed out earlier, humans have been writing about "those from heaven to earth came" for millennia, replete in our Religious and Mythic texts. They've also documented countless "sightings" through the ages into our very own day. In the blink of an eye, evolutionarily, humans became a space faring species. Presently, we have scientists saying that modern astrophysics demands ET is all around us.
So what exactly is so "extraordinary" about such a claim?

hewhocaves
2005-Jan-20, 11:01 PM
This is a perfect example of what I was talking about and scourge pointed it out as well: You are automataically applying a low a priori probablity to the ETH.
I see this as the crux of the matter.


lol.. you made me use the dictionary. bad you.

Seriously, I see your point, and you do have a valid point. Yes, we do tend to look at ETs as the absolute last case scenario for something inexplainable. But I personally don't see a problem with that, nor do i see it as "science" conducting a crusade against the UFOists.

Look, it's really simple. When you're trying to figure out what something is, one of the easiest ways to do so is deciding what it's not and working from there. So you start with the easiest things to eliminate. Is it a plane? Is it a star? Is it Venus? Is it a weather balloon? Is it an RC glider? Parachutist? Good Year Blimp? Comet? Meteor? Ball Lightning? frisbee with a laser pointer taped to it? Etc... And if it passes all those and you can conclusively prove that it isn't any of those AAANNND you have useful data to analyze you can start making some general assumptions about it based on the data. That is: size, speed, altitude, etc... keeping in mind the limitations of the data that you possess.

Those last couple of sentences are where IMHO most UFOers go horribly, horribly wrong. They eliminate the obvious and then presume that it's space aliens. So you've got some lights in the sky. Fine. Some people saw them. Great! Were there any photographs taken - and I mean useful ones, not what you tend to see on the Sci-Fi channel. Were the five people standing next to each other, or were they miles away. I'd like to be able to triangulate this thing to see how far and how high up it was. Did you see anything except lights? Could you see a craft? Or have the space aliens perfected interstellar glowsticks?

It doesn't take long (and I'm sorry scourge for using your example - believe it or not, I believe you saw something odd in the sky that day - I just don't know what) before you realize that there's very little substance to the sighting. Without data to analyze, theres little for the scientist to do. And that's frustrating, because the witness desperately wants to know what he/she saw, especially if it is aliens. I mean how cool would that be? Nevermind the appearances on Letterman, the permanant entry into the history books, the cash lecture tour - just to know that we're not alone, well that in itself is damn comforting. We could ask their advice. "How did you survive the nuclear age? The Red Sox winning the world series? The almost-collapse of civilization?"

But it's preciscely because it's such an enticing idea that we HAVE to be extra skeptical. What a disservice we would be doing if we blew the whistle too early, if we misidentified something natural as aliens? What would people think? And then if we mistakingly convinced ourselves that there were aliens actively watching us from low orbit or closer and we tried to contact them and there was no one to respond... Then what?

You know, theres a lot of flack about science "alienating" people. And yet, people gladly embrace the fruits of science - the technology, the advances, etc... UFOists have been studying this same phenomenon for over fifty years now. In that time, science has gone from vacuum tubes to tablet PCs, from the moon to the edge of the solar system, from an average death at sixty to almost eighty. And yet the UFO "evidence" today is as shabby as it was fifty years ago. You talk about science being such a terrible thing, but it has one thing going for it. It works. Somehow, in the midst of the greatest revolution in the history of humanity, the UFO movement has completely and totally stood still. IMHO it's not science that has alienated the masses. they love us. We give them IPods. It's you guys.

John

Wolverine
2005-Jan-21, 02:01 AM
Science works well indeed. I agree quite strongly with the following (from this article (http://www.csicop.org/si/9601/logic.html)):


Science is not a panacea for all explanation, but regarding paranormal claims it remains, by far, the best method. Let's not fall into the trap of abandoning science and logic because of curiosity and imagination. Rather, let's use curiosity and imagination as a springboard to the scientific method in order to draw accurate conclusions regarding mysteries of the universe.

algorithms
2005-Jan-21, 03:55 AM
Woverine,

That is a great quote. A fertile imagination and an open mind are wonderful things, but they are only the beginning steps towards knowledge and wisdom. Rigor and discipline are necessary to complete the process.

Regards,
Algorithms

scourge
2005-Jan-21, 06:15 AM
Science works well indeed. I agree quite strongly with the following (from this article (http://www.csicop.org/si/9601/logic.html))

I agree with that article completely Wolverine, especially this part:
"the scientific method must be employed as the basis for drawing conclusions regarding paranormal claims." But if most scientists abide by this, then why are they not particpating in the inquiry more actively?

I like science; it’s the best thing since soap. I’m saying we need to apply it to the ‘sighting’ phenomenon, rather than leaving it up to the cranks to draw wild-eyed fantasies about it. But ever since Project Bluebook was closed, the only place people have to turn, even if they have a compelling case happening right in front of them, is to the –least qualified- people in the country. Am I the only one here who appreciates this problem?


But it's preciscely because it's such an enticing idea that we HAVE to be extra skeptical.

This is why I’m saying we need –scientists- to look at this stuff, because the layman isn’t equipped or qualified to meet this high standard of skepticism. You’re asking the layman to do the work of a group of top-notch scientists. The scenario itself is fundamentally flawed, which is why it’s been leading nowhere but to greater division on this issue. The scientific community has left ‘us,’ the witnesses, with nobody but the ‘UFOists’ as you call them--the cranks and the crackpots and the pseudo-scientists, to investigate the issue. So of course the field of inquiry harbors no respect. I come here to calmly discuss the issue, and I get flamed for making claims I’m not even making. All I’m just saying is we should look into it, and suddenly I’m one of ‘them’--the hoaxsters/crackpots/knuckleheads. If we can’t even look at the question objectively, and without prejudice, how are we –ever- going to have solid answers?


...since the one thing required to reach a consensual conclusion is the one thing we will probably never get—a piece of whatever is moving in the sky.



Not necessarily. But you are at least partly correct in that the world will want something more than an easily fakeable light and sound show.

Such as? Tell me what an average person could bring to your attention that would make you think twice about this issue, short of a chunk of alien technology.


What I think we need here is a special category of scientific inquiry for phenomena that, by their very nature, cannot produce irrefutable physical evidence, so we can at least –look- at a phenomenon like this without resorting to name-calling and knee-jerk accusations of foolishness/delusion/lies.



so what you're asking for is a science without the scientific method. Good luck there. I think Creationism ascribes to that idea. You should talk to them

That was uncalled for, and you too R.A.F., with the ‘pseudo-science’ crack. We accept far more tenuous evidence for astronomical phenomena—we often don’t even have –photos- of things we assume to exist because of secondary or tertiary effects, such as black holes, and somewhat less so, 'dark matter.' The evidence is far from ‘irrefutable physical evidence,’ yet we move forward with those investigations with the banner of empirical reductionism flying high. So is that ‘pseudo-science’ too? Of course not. So really, this is about a double-standard, in principle anyway. It’s a conceit of those scientists who don’t feel they need further evidence to base their opinions upon, viz ‘I don’t need to know what that is because I’m pre-convinced that it’s not what you think it could be.’ This, despite a reasonable theory that backs up the claims of eyewitnesses. Your 'Creationism' slur only validates the public perception of scientists as self-aggrandizing, belligerent, patronizing priests of ‘The One and Only Truth,’ which is horribly tragic, because the scientific enterprise is probably the single most heroic undertaking of human history. Your words, John, soil the nobility of that endeavor.



But I have faith in science, and I think if we had some support by the scientific community to conduct a solid investigation, we may not end up with the ‘smoking gun’ to establish exactly what is going on—but I think we’d be able to demonstrate conclusively that in fact –something extraordinary- is going on.


Another problem here that's pretty commonplace: the idea that if just enough scientists 'believe' in somehting, it suddenly becomes 'good' science. That's a really misdirected view on how science works.

Don’t lecture me about science, I probably appreciate its essential nature better than you do. Where have I ever asked anyone to ‘believe’ or ‘disbelieve’ –anything-? Never. We know what we know, the rest is guesswork…and you don’t know there’s nothing interesting going on, that’s an opinion, and you know what they say about those. By support, and I specified this, I mean a sound investigation. The Air Force felt this was justified in the Sixties, but now you proclaim that it’s beneath science to investigate these unidentified phenomena…based on nothing more than belief and supposition. I was always taught that there’s no such thing as a foolish question, because not asking is the foolish alternative. The sightings issue is an open question, but you make me out to be a fool for asking it. That isn’t wisdom, and that isn’t science.



So what we’re left with, for the most part, is a very loosely organized group of nonscientists attempting to do something that scientists themselves won’t dare to attempt—make an extraordinary case with nothing more than photographic evidence, some good stories, and an occasional odd soil/plant sample or midnight sunburn of the face.



I'll admit the first part of this actually irked me. But look at the second part. Is that a good body of data? Heck no! I can accomplish the same thing on any given evening. I can take terrible pictures with my digital camera, go digging in a landfill, tell stories around a campfire and break into a tanning salon at midnight.

This is ‘armchair refereeing.’ This is not scientific thinking—you expect to sit back and wait for people who are not scientists to fumble forth with whatever paltry evidence they can muster on their own, and then proclaim how inadequate it all is from your pillowed throne. The investigative spirit is at least half of real science—you have to be available when opportunity knocks, to go out there and take samples and photos and castings and bring them back to the lab and scrutinize the evidence you collect. I went over this. The general public doesn’t have the know-how or the technology to bring solid findings to your doorstep. They need help, scientific help, to find answers that explain what they’re observing—they can’t convince anyone of anything without some inside help—and—you’re already predisposed to Not believe them when they tell you what they’ve experienced. Thus, the Catch-22. The scientific community in general refuses to help, and the public thinks less of them for it—and they’re right.

The hoax scenario you just described is appalling, because it assumes that the evidence is faked, when in fact most people who see these things are as good and honest, and sometimes as careful at observing, as anyone on this board. To justify –not even looking- at what they have, because ‘it could have been faked’ does –all- of those good people a profound injustice.

Do you see the hypocrisy at work here—you’ll assume that if it didn’t come from Lawrence Livermore Labs, it’s probably a fake, or useless or whatever. But Lawrence Livermore isn’t looking. This is an untenable situation—and you can’t blame the public for it—it’s the ‘ivory tower’ mentality of much of the science community that has barred the doors to honest investigation.


but that kind of behavior seems kinda contemptible to me—it’s like watching the neighborhood bully beat up the stuttering girl, and passing the popcorn.

and right off the deep end we go... there's no point in debating this kind of bitter name calling.

What? Okay, I see--the analogy slipped by you: the bully is the difficult task of trying to wrestle with an enigma without the facilities, tools, or training, the stuttering girl is the group of people trying to wrestle with that insurmountable task, and the scientific establishment en masse is passing the popcorn rather than helping out. No name-calling, just a fairly fitting analogy.


And a salient point that seems to keep sailing over the heads of the ‘disbelievers’ here is: how can you say that an extraterrestrial craft is ‘more unlikely’ than a military craft defying the known laws of physics,



Again, you're assuming that you, the observer, have not made any sort of mistake in your observation, that you haven't been fooled by some perspective of vision, that you are not the unlucky recipient of some hoax and that you are a qualified expert in all poissible obects that you can view in the sky. That's an impressive resume then.

And you, the armchair referee, are assuming that I have been mistaken/fooled/etc. Besides, that’s my entire point—I’m not qualified to draw scientific conclusions from my observations, that’s why we need scientific help to establish what’s going on. I’m not saying I know what it is. But five people I knew well saw exactly the same thing, and there are –thousands- of people who report similar sightings. Are they all liars or deluded? Do you have any idea how conceited it sounds to hear you dismiss –all of these incidents- without so much as a nod that there –might- be something happening that –you don’t know about-? And you didn’t even answer the question, jeez. You can’t say the ETH is ‘unlikely,’ when scientists have been saying for decades that they should be here right now, under our noses.


, then why it is so freakin unlikely that we might actually see ‘them’ from time to time?


how many eskimos are australain pygmys likely to see? Just because something *should* be there does not mean that it *must* be there.

I never said it *must* be there, I said it ‘might’—we won’t get on better footing until good science takes the reigns from the quacks. And don’t twist my words, that’s dirty pool.


In fact, if it isn't there, then there's probably a very likely reason for it.

And ‘if’ cows could fly, then there’d probably be good reason for that too, heh. This is parabolic logic, at best.


And while the UFOists are sitting there complaing that the astronomers are doing nothing, it is in fact the astronomers who are finding the exoplanets, understanding the other planets in our solar system and digging deeper into the fundamental principles under which our galaxy is ordered.

This is all emotional topic-shifting—I never said that astronomers aren’t doing their work, and doing darn good work at that. I’m proud of the work scientists do...the progress they make with modeling the intricacies of the universe, it’s all a magnificent and majestic undertaking that I support 100%. A couple of my closest friends are brilliant scientists, and I’m proud to say it.


Yes, they're really "beating up the stuttering girl". And in fact, when all is said and done, I think you'll find that it's the long, slow, methodical approach that will eventually come up with the final, correct answer - not some woowoo with a camcorder along a state highway.

Ahh, the demon shows it’s face…so now everyone who videotapes something unusual in the sky, is a ‘woo-woo.’ That kind of prejudice is woeful. I think this will be my last reply to you. Anyway, for the millionth time, I’m not saying that science is flawed; I’m saying that we should apply it to the sightings of our people, because that’s how we’ll get answers. Science isn't going to find those answers if it doesn’t –look-, and it’s –not looking-. Man, I feel like a broken record, but this is just not getting through. And I don’t know where you came up with this ‘scourge vs. science’ malarkey, I guess it was that analogy you misinterpreted—to reiterate, I accused the scientific establishment of sitting on the sidelines of the debate, not beating anyone up, sigh. A refreshing exception was the Mexican Air Force case, but it took world-wide press to get that done, and better cases every year are relegated to the likes of Hoagland.



Sure, maybe what I saw, and what other people have seen, was nothing more than advanced military aircraft. But if we go with that—then our own government is holding back a few chapters from our modern physics books, and that’s hardly an acceptable state of affairs now is it? Or if what I saw was some radical form of ball lighting or something? Well dang—what if one of those struck a passenger plane? Or worse, showed up on Korean radar during delicate nuclear weapons negotiations? Or as someone suggested earlier—what if it was some unknown kind of mass delusion…something that could happen to pilots and send them into a collision? We should know.



or maybe its just a confused eyewitness.

And you’d know this…..how? By sitting back and willfully –not investigating the consensual claims of thousands of rational people-? Thought so.



But until you acknowledge that there is a question, the rest of us are left out in the cold, reluctant to even share our observations under threat of public humiliation and downright derision. We’ve been waiting for a long time, would it really be so bad to lend a helping hand?


Wow. that's a real textbook case of a persecution complex.

Imagine that. After having to deal with countless people who’d rather call me an idiot than get off their haunches and look at the situation, for thirty years… It’s not a 'complex' if you really –are- being persecuted, and most of your post here proves the point.


And what happens if your sghting is investigated and its proven to be "observer error" or a natural phenomenon. Are you going to say "Wow, gee. I guess I was wrong!

Sure, though I'm not saying I know one way or the other, so I can't really be 'wrong'--I can only be 'sure,' which is more than I can be now. Anyway, I’m not talking about my sole experience; I’m talking about a phenomenon that’s basically sweeping the globe. I’ll probably never come any closer to knowing for sure what it was I saw with my neighbors and friends that day, but that’s ultimately irrelevant. Sightings are going on nearly every day, and some of those may have something amazing to teach us. We need to focus on those—cases that are fresh, have some kind of evidence, photographic, radar, whatever. Strike while the iron’s hot, and maybe we’ll get to the bottom of it. If it all is just some weird synaptic design failure of the species, at least we’ll learn more about that…who knows what else that understanding could lead to…but in any case, it would be valuable knowledge (and put a lot of people’s mind at ease in the process, to have solved the riddle).


Thanks, science for clearing that up...blah blah blah…the answer…yammer yammer yammer …and I won't stop…natter natter natter…until the data is 'cooked'…yap yap yap …supports my claim.
Hmm.. that may have been a tad harsh. I wish the aliens hadn't told me to write that. I hate when they make me help cover up the conspiracy.

Okay, so you’re obviously not a scientist, thanks for clearing that up. You’ve taken all the calm, rational discussion I’ve presented previously, and brewed it through your contempt filter for the entire field of inquiry we’re discussing, then heaved out a meaningless string of ignorant biases that have nothing whatsoever to do with what I’ve said through this whole thread. “Harsh” doesn’t even begin to cover it, that was downright abusive, not to mention deeply insulting.

I’ve done nothing more than tell my story, and request a fresh look and careful examination of the issue at hand using the rigors of the scientific method that I have grown to love and respect. For some, like yourself, the words aren’t heard, and anyone attempting this is obviously going to be subjected to your preposterous abusive nonsense. When Wolverine showed me evidence that the Mexican Air Force footage was actually plumes from oil platforms, I accepted it (gratefully, I might add). But when I ask you to consider that thousands of your neighbors, friends, family, and countrymen might be telling the truth about some fascinating sightings they’ve experienced, you go on some potty rampage about how I’ll never accept any explanation other than little green men and all that, pfft. So of the two of us, who holds a more sincere and unqualified interest in finding the truth?

gzhpcu
2005-Jan-21, 06:43 AM
Threads like these are interesting and, when intelligently argued, useful. Even though I have never seen either side convince the other (the lines are drawn apparently), they are useful in that they allow the lurkers and fence-sitters to arrive at their own conclusions based on the arguments presented.

alfricnow
2005-Jan-21, 07:35 AM
I'll admit I beleive that almost all sightings are miss understood government experiments...
... but with that said I also do not see any reason why we could not have been visited by et explorers or et scientists who just want to study the primitave humans.

algorithms
2005-Jan-21, 08:07 AM
alfricnow: "...but with that said I also do not see any reason why we could not have been visited by et explorers or et scientists who just want to study the primitave humans."

I think the strongest arguement against UFO phenomena being E.T. visitors is the immense size of the universe along with the unimaginable distances between stars.

Intelligent life with the capability of space travel is likely very rare. And, given the trillions of places there are to visit, its not likely any one rare race of intelligent extraterrestrials would find us.

But most compelling are the vast distances that must be traveled...definitely too far for conventional means. And, suggestions of travel by spacewarps and wormholes is even less likely given the enormous energy requirements that might be necessary to create such things, assuming they can actually be created.

Now this doesn't completely rule out E.T. visits to earth, but the probabilities involved argue convincingly for other explanations for UFO phenomena.

Outcast
2005-Jan-21, 09:01 AM
I come here to calmly discuss the issue, and I get flamed for making claims I’m not even making. All I’m just saying is we should look into it, and suddenly I’m one of ‘them’--the hoaxsters/crackpots/knuckleheads. If we can’t even look at the question objectively, and without prejudice, how are we –ever- going to have solid answers?

scourge, you better get used to it. allthough this is a self entitled science forum the fact is its filled with pseudo-skeptics, some of them quite vicious and very effective. it will be them who will come out of the woods to attack any idea or opinion that doesnt "conform" and disrupt any serious discussion with circular logic and personal insults.

nevertheless i appreciate your input. those are very well grounded arguments and its a shame that you only get contempt and bad mouthing in return.

its a sign of the times i guess. while more than half of the world plundges in middle ages religious beliefs to phsycologically escape the hardening of our daily life conditions the other side, the "scientific", has built an air tight ivory tower, where pumped by rich corporations, they can distance themselfs from the rest of the people.

worst of all, if one dares to question their dogmas one will surely find himself quickly ostracized, if not ridiculed or even ruined. its a fact, which the armchair skeptics do not seem, or dont want, to realize and its a damn shame that our suposedly civilized societies still engage in witch huntings.

Outcast
2005-Jan-21, 09:41 AM
I think the strongest arguement against UFO phenomena being E.T. visitors is the immense size of the universe along with the unimaginable distances between stars.

that is only a problem based on the limitations of our current technology.
arguing the limitations of an advanced civilization technology based on the accomplishments and example of only one species leads nowhere. its a mute point.


Intelligent life with the capability of space travel is likely very rare.

and you know this... how? there is no known way to apprehend this today, unless we can go outhere and explore the Universe, or we find a way of detecting inteligent life across the extent of the Universe. im sorry, but even if looking for radio signals is a valid idea its not necessarily the only way to find other intelligent species.


And, given the trillions of places there are to visit, its not likely any one rare race of intelligent extraterrestrials would find us.

another vacuous argument. its precisely the fact that intelligent(?) life exists in this planet that might make it an interesting place to visit and study. after all, we're taking our first steps towards being a space faring civilization ourselfs. untill now, our war centered and belicist civilization has been confined to this planet due to our technological limitations, if an advanced civilization exists relatively near us i dont find it very strange that they would like to keep an eye on us.


But most compelling are the vast distances that must be traveled...definitely too far for conventional means.

well, you've answered your questioning yourself. our "conventional means" are not enough yet. that obviously accounts for our incapacity of visiting other planets, however its not usefull as an argument against ET visitation.

Lianachan
2005-Jan-21, 11:33 AM
Intelligent life with the capability of space travel is likely very rare. And, given the trillions of places there are to visit, its not likely any one rare race of intelligent extraterrestrials would find us.

Well, we've been advertising our presence for a while now. There must be a bubble of TV and radio broadcasts about 60 light years across surrounding us by now - likely to arouse suspicion in any alien within that area. Although they wouldn't understand the broadcasts, it's apparent output would make the Sun would look like an extremely peculiar star altogether and would attract study.

R.A.F.
2005-Jan-21, 11:41 AM
Because even in the "scientific method" one must make assumptions to test a theory, and it is in these assumptions that personal bias can shows itself.

Emphasis mine...

Assumption 1...That other life exists in the universe.

Assumption 2...That they are capable of multi-light year space travel.

Assumption 3...That they have some "reason" for visiting us.

Assumption 4...That they actually ARE visiting us.

These examples are simplified, of course, there are many more...the question remains...

How many "assumptions" are you willing to allow and continue to call it science???

R.A.F.
2005-Jan-21, 11:52 AM
allthough this is a self entitled science forum the fact is its filled with pseudo-skeptics, some of them quite vicious and very effective. it will be them who will come out of the woods to attack any idea or opinion that doesnt "conform" and disrupt any serious discussion with circular logic and personal insults.

Your arguments concerning ET are without the slightest bit of supporting evidence.

Tell me Outcast, just how is this statement pseudo-skeptical or a personal attack???

soupdragon2
2005-Jan-21, 11:59 AM
Emphasis mine...

Assumption 1...That other life exists in the universe.

Assumption 2...That they are capable of multi-light year space travel.

Assumption 3...That they have some "reason" for visiting us.

Assumption 4...That they actually ARE visiting us.

These examples are simplified, of course, there are many more...the question remains...

The Big Bang rests on many more assumptions. At very best some of them remain mere interpretations of evidence. But many have sold their souls to the BB, and become very irrrational when it is challenged. The Paradigm Police, however, consider it 'scientific'.

How many more assumptions are they prepared to accept? Double standards I fear!

scourge
2005-Jan-21, 12:03 PM
Because even in the "scientific method" one must make assumptions to test a theory, and it is in these assumptions that personal bias can shows itself.

Emphasis mine...

Assumption 1...That other life exists in the universe.

Assumption 2...That they are capable of multi-light year space travel.

Assumption 3...That they have some "reason" for visiting us.

Assumption 4...That they actually ARE visiting us.

These examples are simplified, of course, there are many more...the question remains...

How many "assumptions" are you willing to allow and continue to call it science???

We're on equal footing here R.A.F., because it takes an equal number of assumptions to arrive at the opposing conclusion (which I should add, we -haven't arrived at yet-, we're only considering the options with an open mind here, I hope, and suggesting very careful analysis of available information):

Assumption 1...There probably isn't life nearby in the universe.

Assumption 2...If there is, they're equally or less advanced with space travel as we are.

Assumption 3...Even if they -could- send a craft our way,they wouldn't be motivated by the same curiousity that inspires us to send probes to places like Titan.

Assumption 4...So they mustn't be visiting us.

So what makes -this- 'better science?' Your preconceptions, or the scarce facts available? As I see it -we just don't know- which is more plausible, because we have no firm basis to determine any of these answers yet...though in absence of more data, it seems to me that taking our situation as a fairly mundane occurence is the more scientific position to take, not that we're the product of some miraculously unlikely confluence of circumstances. After all, our star is fairly average, maybe our planetary system and our conditions for life and evolution are as well. It seems to me, that in this case, the burden of proof for claiming that we're some extraordinarily exception in these ways falls upon the nay-sayers, not the genuine skeptics.



scourge, you better get used to it. allthough this is a self entitled science forum the fact is its filled with pseudo-skeptics, some of them quite vicious and very effective. it will be them who will come out of the woods to attack any idea or opinion that doesnt "conform" and disrupt any serious discussion with circular logic and personal insults.

nevertheless i appreciate your input. those are very well grounded arguments and its a shame that you only get contempt and bad mouthing in return.

Thank you for your thoughtful words Outcast--burning at the stake is a far less agonizing experience when someone's willing to jump into the flames with you, heh.

I admit, I wasn't prepared for the skewering I've gotten over the ideas I've presented. I figured that kind of rancor was reserved for those making outrageous claims, not those offering constructive suggestions. The scientific minds I've been fortunate to befriend have always been open to discuss any issue with patience and depth. I was foolish to take them for granted, even among those in their field.

It's agonizing to see some practitioners of the endeavor that freed us from the confines of fundamentalist theology, adopt parallel tactics, but I'll hold on to the hope that they are the most vocal, and not the most prevalent, among the community.

And that’s a solid point Lianachan—we’re advertising our presence every day with our broadcasts. But moreover, we’re starting to learn how to detect Earth-like planets in other systems now—so it’s not unreasonable to think that another civilization could have gotten quite sophisticated at detecting systems with viable life-producing planets like our own, perhaps even long ago. And the difficulty of sending a probe our way is inversely proportional to the level of technological sophistication. Any way you shake it, there’s no reason to scoff at the idea that others may very well know we’re here, even if we haven’t found them yet. Even if it takes a few centuries for a probe to reach us and take samples/make observations, there’s no reason to believe that no-one is making that level of effort. If we could, we would—and soon, we will.

We have every right to be proud of our advances—but I think we’d be wise to consider that we may not be the ultimate technological civilization in the neighborhood. Despite what some people say, it is a perfectly viable hypothesis at this time.

Fram
2005-Jan-21, 12:32 PM
I come here to calmly discuss the issue, and I get flamed for making claims I’m not even making. All I’m just saying is we should look into it, and suddenly I’m one of ‘them’--the hoaxsters/crackpots/knuckleheads. If we can’t even look at the question objectively, and without prejudice, how are we –ever- going to have solid answers?

scourge, you better get used to it. allthough this is a self entitled science forum the fact is its filled with pseudo-skeptics, some of them quite vicious and very effective. it will be them who will come out of the woods to attack any idea or opinion that doesnt "conform" and disrupt any serious discussion with circular logic and personal insults.

nevertheless i appreciate your input. those are very well grounded arguments and its a shame that you only get contempt and bad mouthing in return.

its a sign of the times i guess. while more than half of the world plundges in middle ages religious beliefs to phsycologically escape the hardening of our daily life conditions the other side, the "scientific", has built an air tight ivory tower, where pumped by rich corporations, they can distance themselfs from the rest of the people.

worst of all, if one dares to question their dogmas one will surely find himself quickly ostracized, if not ridiculed or even ruined. its a fact, which the armchair skeptics do not seem, or dont want, to realize and its a damn shame that our suposedly civilized societies still engage in witch huntings.

If you or anyone get any personal insults, PM the BA. He'll warn or ban the offender. If anyone uses circular logic, point it out. This has been done in this discussion, and that is good, like when it was pointed out that you have to make too many assumptions to be certain that ET's exist and are here, but that you have to make as many assumptions to be certain that they don't. Then you can go on to discuss which has the higher probability, but noone will be able to say that his side is absolutely true (if you want to stay in the boundaries of science, that is).
There are pseudo-skeptics and pseudo-scientists here, but there are in my experience a lot more scientists and sceptics (I'm a sceptic, not a scientist). They will point out flaws in logic and proofs that are wrong, but if you consider that 'attacks', that's too bad, that's just the way science and scepticism works. Loads of 'accepted' scientific ideas get discussed here, and rarely does everybody agree. For example, A.DIM starts about the Anunnaki in almost every discussion he participates in, but noone (I hope) has said him to bugger off with his ideas. Most of us (I think) don't agree with him, but we ignore him or we discuss with him.
But if you take every discussion, every post that points to a flaw in your reasoning, as a personal attack, then I can believe that this board is not the place for you, as it is dedicated to discussions based on arguments and evidence, based on science and logic, not on beliefs and hopes.

N C More
2005-Jan-21, 01:04 PM
This all seems to boil down to why certain unprovable assumptions have to be considered as invalid until there is irrefutable proof for such claims. When it comes time to decide what to accept as being "true" if we did not assume these unprovable assumptions were false, we'd have to decide which unprovables to believe by some totally arbitrary means. This would be engaging in "belief by whim". We'd have to assume that all such statements are true. Now, you say, we could believe true those unprovables that do not contradict other proven statements or that do not contradict each other. Even if we do this we still have no grounds for choosing which of two contradictory unprovables we will choose to believe! Back to "belief by whim". Even if you add in these provisions, this policy would result in a great number of ridiculous beliefs (one could say that there are large purple elephant aliens somewhere in the universe and by this reasoning it would be valid). When you finally have to form a method to decide what to believe, it is obviously the best policy is to assume that all unprovables are false, until they can actually be proved. In other words, it is reasonable not to believe an assumption when there is no evidence, even if it is somehow "less false" than other assumptions which are contradicted by evidence. Although it may not be a certainty it is still reasonable to regard them as false so long as we've examined the evidence and don't ignore any new evidence that comes along. Hopefully, this will clear up why we don't just assume that aliens exist and are visiting (or have visited) the earth.

algorithms
2005-Jan-21, 01:36 PM
Lianachan: "Well, we've been advertising our presence for a while now. There must be a bubble of TV and radio broadcasts about 60 light years across surrounding us by now - likely to arouse suspicion in any alien within that area. Although they wouldn't understand the broadcasts, it's apparent output would make the Sun would look like an extremely peculiar star altogether and would attract study."

60 light years is an exceptionally small portion of the universe, almost infinitessimal. Yet it is still an incredibly huge distance. What this means is that it is very unlikely that a race of intelligent beings exist within this distance (using the variables in the Drake equation). And, even if there did, it is is even less likely that they would possess the technology to travel such interstellar distances.

Keep in mind that we should be able to "hear" anyone who is able to hear us. To date, we've not heard from anyone.

This is really a question of probability. Its highly probable that there are other intelligent lifeforms elsewhere in the universe. But we'd be enormously lucky to have anyone close enough to us to be able to find and eventually visit us. One cannot rule out the possibility, but one can reasonably assert that it is improbable and that other explanations for UFOs are far more probable.

lek
2005-Jan-21, 01:42 PM
Assumption 1...That other life exists in the universe.

Assumption 2...That they are capable of multi-light year space travel.

Assumption 3...That they have some "reason" for visiting us.

Assumption 4...That they actually ARE visiting us.





Assumption 1...There probably isn't life nearby in the universe.

Assumption 2...If there is, they're equally or less advanced with space travel as we are.

Assumption 3...Even if they -could- send a craft our way,they wouldn't be motivated by the same curiousity that inspires us to send probes to places like Titan.

Assumption 4...So they mustn't be visiting us.

So what makes -this- 'better science?'

That logic won't fly.

R.A.F's assumptions were all required,comparing to yours which aren't dependant of each other.

It's basically a comparison between:
Assumption1 AND Assumption2 AND Assumption3 AND Assumption4
to:
Assumption1 OR Assumption2 OR Assumption3 OR Assumption4.

Doesn't seem to be quite equal...

Lianachan
2005-Jan-21, 01:53 PM
Lianachan: "Well, we've been advertising our presence for a while now. There must be a bubble of TV and radio broadcasts about 60 light years across surrounding us by now - likely to arouse suspicion in any alien within that area. Although they wouldn't understand the broadcasts, it's apparent output would make the Sun would look like an extremely peculiar star altogether and would attract study."

60 light years is an exceptionally small portion of the universe, almost infinitessimal. Yet it is still an incredibly huge distance. What this means is that it is very unlikely that a race of intelligent beings exist within this distance (using the variables in the Drake equation). And, even if there did, it is is even less likely that they would possess the technology to travel such interstellar distances.

Keep in mind that we should be able to "hear" anyone who is able to hear us. To date, we've not heard from anyone.

This is really a question of probability. Its highly probable that there are other intelligent lifeforms elsewhere in the universe. But we'd be enormously lucky to have anyone close enough to us to be able to find and eventually visit us. One cannot rule out the possibility, but one can reasonably assert that it is improbable and that other explanations for UFOs are far more probable.

I am aware exactly how small a 60 light year bubble is - I was only saying that any aliens that happen to be within it will have noticed something peculiar about our star by now, assuming they use radio astronomy of course. I was implying neither that there are aliens within that area, nor that (in the unlikely event that there are) they would visit us or be able to. The point I originally was responding to was one that said, and I paraphrase, "Why us? Why consider our star system different?" and I was giving an example of one way in which it would look different within a certain radius. That's all. Of course, within another hundred years or so we may not be using electromagnetic communication and instead of a constantly expanding sphere we may have emitted a "shell" of radio noise a couple of hundred light years thick, before and after which we look like a normal star. Other aliens, in the unlikely event that they exist, may have done this and we simply hadn't invented radio astronomy yet when their "radio shell" passed us.

I do agree with you, that the odds are stacked against aliens visiting us - but I do see reasons why this could be the case, without saying we are alone in our neck of the woods let alone the universe as a whole. Of course, if an alien civilisation situated 60 light years away has detected our radio noise and thought the best way to say hello was to reply in kind then we won't have picked up the signal yet. So I suppose that makes the effective bubble within which an alien civilisation could have detected us and replied even smaller - if they wanted to reply at all.

algorithms
2005-Jan-21, 02:19 PM
Lianachan,

Thanks for your reply and clarification. Sounds like there's much that we agree upon.

I think that the probability arguement is a particularly useful one. People who assert that the high probability that there is other intelligent life elsewhere in the universe makes it highly probable that some UFOs are extraterrestrial visitors often miss the fact that the same variables that make extraterrestrial intelligence highly probable, also make it improbable that they've made their way to our little planet. What that should do is reinforce the need for real, bonafide evidence before anyone concludes that any UFO might be an extraterrestrial visitor.

Regards,
Algorithms

Lianachan
2005-Jan-21, 02:29 PM
Lianachan,

People who assert that the high probability that there is other intelligent life elsewhere in the universe makes it highly probable that some UFOs are extraterrestrial visitors often miss the fact that the same variables that make extraterrestrial intelligence highly probable, also make it improbable that they've made their way to our little planet.

Absolutely - that's a point I repeatedly make on other boards. Are there aliens in the universe? Almost certainly. Do they visit us? Almost certainly not. You can't prove or disprove either, of course, and that's one of the main reasons why this is a topic that keen UFOs are aliens advocates can run all day with.

:)

hewhocaves
2005-Jan-21, 02:33 PM
Thanks, science for clearing that up...blah blah blah…the answer…yammer yammer yammer …and I won't stop…natter natter natter…until the data is 'cooked'…yap yap yap …supports my claim.
Hmm.. that may have been a tad harsh. I wish the aliens hadn't told me to write that. I hate when they make me help cover up the conspiracy.


This is uncalled for. In all the times I've been on this board, I've never seen a direct quote changed and then presented as an actual quote. :evil: That's lower than low, Scourge. You don't want an intelligent discussion, you want a name calling game. And when it doesn't go your way, you "cook the data". Congratualtions. You've just proven how trustworthy your "anecdotal evidence" is.

Regarding your sighting, and about sightings with only anecdotal evidence to go by. Repeat after me:

There... Is.... Nothing.... To.... Study.
There... Is.... No.... Data.

Even if the scienctific community were banging down your door to look this over, there's nothing for them to look over. I'm sorry, really sorry that there isn't. But that's just the way it is.

John

Johnno
2005-Jan-21, 05:34 PM
I’m saying we need to apply it [science] to the ‘sighting’ phenomenon, rather than leaving it up to the cranks to draw wild-eyed fantasies about it.

Um, why? Unless the "sightings" are well documented, and I mean video footage (not shakycam), close up pictures (not blurry low res, or photoshopped), RADAR/IR (and if they're enemy test planes, would the airforce tell the public?), etc, you wouldn't have a case for the scientists to look at. If all they get is shakycam, blurry lowres and eyewitness accounts saying "it moved like nothing I've seen before, really fast".... what exactly can they do? Nothing.




This is why I’m saying we need –scientists- to look at this stuff, because the layman isn’t equipped or qualified to meet this high standard of skepticism.


If a scientist looked at "it" and said it was complete bunk, would you accept it? Would the public? No, I think they rather have their imaginary flying saucers.



You’re asking the layman to do the work of a group of top-notch scientists. The scenario itself is fundamentally flawed, which is why it’s been leading nowhere but to greater division on this issue.

But what exact work is there to do? See above, without data to look at, what can the scientists say?
I have yet to see a single piece of convincing UFO footage that isn't a) clearly faked b) very low res/far away. Have you?



The scientific community has left ‘us,’ the witnesses, with nobody but the ‘UFOists’ as you call them--the cranks and the crackpots and the pseudo-scientists, to investigate the issue.

Depends, you see, scientists have more important things to do than investigate shakycam footage of lights in the sky, or blurry pictures. Especially when the UFOs don't seem to be doing any harm. No laser beams, no gravity cannons... cattle mutilation? oh come on... abductions? get real, the people are always returned, and never more insane afterwards than they were before.

What if the scientists would investigate the incidents? would you be happy then? In most cases they would have to say not enough evidence/data, remains unidentified.

You have to take into consideration the amount of UFO hoaxes. We'd be spending big bucks on investigating them...



All I’m just saying is we should look into it, and suddenly I’m one of ‘them’--the hoaxsters/crackpots/knuckleheads. If we can’t even look at the question objectively, and without prejudice, how are we –ever- going to have solid answers?

"We" ? How about YOU look into it? Hire a staff of scientists you think could do the job, pay them fat salaries, then have them look through the UFO data, and see what they find. What's that, don't have the cash?

How about you take some student's loans, and get a degree of yourself. Start investigating, researching, see what you find. Why should anyone else spend their time on something that proves to be a hoax, or can't be explained cause of the lack of data.

I love it how after studying space science at a university level for a few years all that people ask is "what do you think about this UFO claim", or tell me I'm a government disinformation agent. Or that all scientists (me included because I've actually studied at a higher level than high school) are in a worldwide conspiracy to hide the truth about UFO/Planet X/Reptilians....

Lianachan
2005-Jan-21, 06:27 PM
I love it how after studying space science at a university level for a few years all that people ask is "what do you think about this UFO claim", or tell me I'm a government disinformation agent. Or that all scientists (me included because I've actually studied at a higher level than high school) are in a worldwide conspiracy to hide the truth about UFO/Planet X/Reptilians....

:lol:

Oh, I understand where you're coming from alright. I actually work for the government, and my work is covered by the official secrets act, so I get that kind of thing a lot.

Johnno
2005-Jan-21, 06:36 PM
Oh, I understand where you're coming from alright. I actually work for the government, and my work is covered by the official secrets act, so I get that kind of thing a lot.

Yeah, and it doesn't really help that I spent almost a year watching RADAR screens in the air force either..... GRIN

soupdragon2
2005-Jan-21, 08:01 PM
I once knew a pilot who "Flew for over 25 years without sighting anything remotely approximating a UFO!"

However, he added: "At least not until one of my last few flights when we were 'buzzed' by a small silver disc which demonstarted preposterous manouevarability. Even though I was very close to retirement I dared not make an official report for fear of my sanity being questioned."

Of course, such anecdotes remain merely that -- anecdotal! So let's just forget that anything like this could ever happen...

Johnno
2005-Jan-21, 08:31 PM
However, he added: "At least not until one of my last few flights when we were 'buzzed' by a small silver disc which demonstarted preposterous manouevarability. Even though I was very close to retirement I dared not make an official report for fear of my sanity being questioned."

Guess the poor guy was upset that he had no good stories to tell, and made it up. Co-pilot? Navigator? Passangers? No, didn't think so....
How about you use Occam's Razor on the guy. Will you admit it's more probable that he made it up/hallucinated, than the fact that a alien craft, from another world, travelled light years, and for some reason didn't have cloaking technology, or just wanted to show themselves for no special reason?

Of course, you're can make up a complex explanation... doesn't make it any more probable.


Of course, such anecdotes remain merely that -- anecdotal! So let's just forget that anything like this could ever happen...

Well, imagine sitting in a plane, and suddenly falling through your seat and the plane's fuselage, and falling to your death. They check the plane later, nothing wrong with it, at all. What happened? Answer: every single atom in your body, the seat, and the plane's fuselage under your seat aligned perfectly, and made you drop right through. It could actually happen. But what're the chances? Has it ever happened before? Still, it *could* happen. Doesn't mean it has, or will ever happen.

Just because it *could* happen doesn't mean we should investigate every single UFO sighting/claim, that'd just eat up funds and time.

I still haven't seen a single piece of convincing UFO evidence. Any of you feel like pointing me to some? Remember, no shakycam, no low res, and oh yeah I need a point of reference in the video to know how fast the UFO is travelling. Anyone?

algorithms
2005-Jan-21, 09:37 PM
Johnno: I still haven't seen a single piece of convincing UFO evidence. Any of you feel like pointing me to some? Remember, no shakycam, no low res, and oh yeah I need a point of reference in the video to know how fast the UFO is travelling. Anyone?

Dittto. Of course UFO advocates often claim their evidence is "circumstantial" and that circumstantial evidence is allowable in a court of law and, thus, should be accepted here. The only problem with this is that no UFO evidence has ever met the test of actually being circumstantial evidence. Most advocates have no idea what circumstantial evidence actually is but claim they have it because it sounds good to say.

soupdragon2
2005-Jan-21, 10:10 PM
Guess the poor guy was upset that he had no good stories to tell...

:lol:

I can't rule this possibility out, or the other one. I remain skeptical about both.

Please don't patronise me with Occams Razor references. I know a little bit about this philosophical tool, honest I do...

scourge
2005-Jan-22, 12:03 AM
Man, the sharks are really circling now.

Look. Roughly –Half- the people who share the surface of the Earth with you, think it’s likely that we’re being visited by extraterrestrials, right now.

Half.

Now, the only profession on the surface of the planet that is qualified or equipped to investigate the issue, is science. But science would rather relegate Half the world to the crackpot/liar/huckster file, than investigate. And where do our leaders look, to help them form opinions and policies on this kind of thing?—to science. So as long as the scientific community maintains the conclusion that there’s nothing to look at, even though they’ve never really looked, then any unexplained event in the sky slips completely under the radar. Sure, a witness can call MUFON or any of half a dozen completely useless reporting centers that at most can record your call, whoopee. But is there any chance of getting any kind of evidence that would make any difference—of course not, because ordinary people can only get photos, footage, and a story—and all of that is disqualified, pre hoc, ad hoc.

So what’s the alternative? It has to start right here, with you, with the science community. All you need to do over the next few years, is to be completely honest, actually. When one of your own profession says that the ETH is not altogether illogical or unfounded--that’s true, admit it. Fermi’s paradox wouldn’t have happened at all, if the ET hypothesis didn’t have scientific merit. You may not personally –believe- that it’s probable, but it’s neither irrational nor even bad science—it’s a possibility. Then one day the Advisor to the President’s Special Subcommittee on Unexplained Aerial Phenomena calls you up and asks ‘Could some of these sightings really be extraterrestrial craft?’ at least say ‘I don’t know.’ That’s honest, because you don’t know. Right? Admitting what we don’t know is the spark of every honest inquiry.

Then a few years later, when the emotional climate around the issue has shifted, and we can all say ‘y’know, we don’t know. People say they’re seeing things up there…tell you what, let’s see if we can puzzle this one out with some good science and some government funding. Dr. X calls Presidential Advisor Y, yadda yadda, a provision on a bill goes through, and suddenly we have a fully equipped and teamed new National Institute for the Investigation of Unexplained Aerial Phenomena. Give ‘em some pull with the Air Force so they can check radar records, and if warranted, send a jet out to take footage/sensor readings/whatever. Move fast, collect facts, adapt to new data, and devise new tests, get busy for a few years and beat this horse to death. We don’t know what we’re going to learn until we do it, so let’s just do it and find out instead of arguing about it.

If we’d had this going for us sooner, we’d have known about ball lighting in short order (which is, even today, fairly cutting-edge -plasma physics- for cryin’ out loud). Instead, the scientific community sat back and proclaimed ‘ahhh, yer a woo-woo, seeing funny lights in the sky. What do you know anyway? You’re mistaken, or you’re lying. Floating orbs of light—hah!’

If things had gone down differently, and scientists had been like ‘Wow, really? Did you get pictures? Tell me everything in detail and I’ll go correlate your observations with the database, and we’ll see if we can figure this out,’ then you guys would have come off like heroes, champions of the people. And you’d have made an amazing scientific advance—who knew plasma could form a self-contained sphere of charge in nothing more complex than normal atmospheric conditions?

It’s all so clear in hindsight—but who knew then? All we had were some stories, a few crappy photos, and some burn marks around Granny’s kitchen drain. All of which –could have been faked-, but weren’t. Oops. So now what are you gonna do? Repeat the same mistake? Continue to alienate Half the world by calling them fools and liars? Or are you gonna be heroes this time out, and take the people at their word, and work –with- them, instead of against them.

We probably won’t find what we expect to find out there, but I bet my shoes we’ll find something extremely interesting, and maybe even something of profound scientific value.

I also think we should pass stiff laws against frauds/hoaxsters/wiseguys. It discredits the majority of the witnesses who are good souls. And once we have a modern new Institute to check out these claims, it’d be easy to reveal the liars and see how much they like a fat fine and a few months in the slammer.


Guess the poor guy was upset that he had no good stories to tell, and made it up.


This is how cynics are destroying the nobility of the scientific quest for understanding--if they can’t explain it, you’re a liar, or incompetent. It’s disgusting.

Science is not a tool to rationalize a personal, contemptible level of cynicism. You’re wielding it like a hammer, Johnno. Like any tool, science is abusive in the wrong hands. It’s supposed to be a tool to –increase understanding-, not to destroy it.


I still haven't seen a single piece of convincing UFO evidence. Any of you feel like pointing me to some? Remember, no shakycam, no low res, and oh yeah I need a point of reference in the video to know how fast the UFO is travelling. Anyone?

Wait—you’re not a scientist; you’re just riding the flame-wagon with the nay-sayers to sound like one. You can’t gauge the speed of an object with merely ‘a point of reference.’ You also need to know the orientation of the object to the point of reference, which is often simply –impossible- without knowing how large the object your looking at, really is.

I haven’t seen a –single, stand-alone- piece of evidence that is completely convincing, but the sum of good photos, stories, and footage, makes for a very compelling case that –something- is moving around the sky, with similar, unexplained, flight characteristics.

Consider this—how many ‘convincing’ shots of experimental military craft have you seen? We –know- those exist…but we’d be hard-pressed to –prove it- if we didn’t already know they existed, right? If the shots aren’t taken by the military, they’re of no better caliber than the ‘ufo’ shots you mention. The quality of the evidence does Not indicate that the objects don’t exist, it indicates how difficult it is to photograph/film fast vehicles in the atmosphere.

Give me a list of people who have a scientific-resolution videocamera with flawless auto-focusing technology and a tripod in their pockets, and I’ll get you that flawless footage you asked for.



Dittto. Of course UFO advocates often claim their evidence is "circumstantial" and that circumstantial evidence is allowable in a court of law and, thus, should be accepted here. The only problem with this is that no UFO evidence has ever met the test of actually being circumstantial evidence.

And exactly how much of this evidence has even been looked at by qualified people? .01%? .0001%? The work hasn't been done yet, but you guys go on and on about how there's been all this scientific investigation and nothing has been convincing—ahem, newsflash—it hasn't happened yet folks.

R.A.F.
2005-Jan-22, 01:16 AM
Look. Roughly –Half- the people who share the surface of the Earth with you, think it’s likely that we’re being visited by extraterrestrials, right now.

Half.

...and to that I say, so what! Argument from majority concensus is meaningless to me unless that majority can provide testable evidence...so far there is no evidence that validates the "visiting ET" hypothesis.


Wait—you’re not a scientist; you’re just riding the flame-wagon with the nay-sayers to sound like one.

I would be very cautious in "characterizing" any poster on this board without first knowing exactly what those posters' qualifications might be.

algorithms
2005-Jan-22, 01:18 AM
scourge: "And exactly how much of this evidence has even been looked at by qualified people? .01%? .0001%? The work hasn't been done yet, but you guys go on and on about how there's been all this scientific investigation and nothing has been convincing—ahem, newsflash—it hasn't happened yet folks."

Perhaps the question to ponder is why it is that "qualified people" aren't really interested in this subject. Perhaps, they're confident that there's not much to look at in the first place - precisely because they're qualified to know the difference between something that's worth investigating and something that's not.

Johnno
2005-Jan-22, 02:04 AM
I can't rule this possibility out, or the other one. I remain skeptical about both.

Right. Nice dodge. You first post a story/quote from a pilot, point to it being an anecdote, sarcastically say we should just forget about it being able to happen, and now you're claiming you're skeptical of his claims? Nice discussion technique.

I'm skeptical of your skepticism.



Please don't patronise me with Occams Razor references. I know a little bit about this philosophical tool, honest I do...

So why don't you use it instead of making silly claims, which you then have to dodge from supporting?

Johnno
2005-Jan-22, 03:04 AM
Look. Roughly –Half- the people who share the surface of the Earth with you, think it’s likely that we’re being visited by extraterrestrials, right now.


And a few hundred years most than half of the people on earth *knew* that the planet was flat. What exactly is your point?


Now, the only profession on the surface of the planet that is qualified or equipped to investigate the issue, is science. But science would rather relegate Half the world to the crackpot/liar/huckster file, than investigate.

Not really. I'm sure the Air Force would be far more succesful in investigating UFOs, compared to "science". Or maybe your definition of hires pictures/video and RADAR is science?



Give ‘em some pull with the Air Force so they can check radar records, and if warranted, send a jet out to take footage/sensor readings/whatever.

LOL, radar records? You keep records over there? Either you have completely different systems over there, or you have no clue how AF RADAR surveillance works. I'm betting on the latter (having done AF RADAR surveillance service myself).

Footage, right, but sensor readings? what exactly are you thinking about there?


I also think we should pass stiff laws against frauds/hoaxsters/wiseguys.

And mental illnesses, and stupidity. Defenitely stupidity. Nice pics of an airplane, we sent out two F-18 Jets to do "sensor readings" and spent hours looking through "radar recordings", you're going to jail punk.


This is how cynics are destroying the nobility of the scientific quest for understanding--if they can’t explain it, you’re a liar, or incompetent. It’s disgusting.

Funny, even the guy who's friend it was says he's skeptical about the claims. Yep, disgusting.

But come on, what data did he have? Pictures? Video footage? Other eyewitness accounts? He himself chose not to report it. How can you verify any part of his story? I'd love to hear your explanation on why it's disgusting to say that he was making it up, when he himself chose not to report it, and has no other evidence.

You can't scientifically investigate his claim, can you? So why is it so disgusting?


Wait—you’re not a scientist; you’re just riding the flame-wagon with the nay-sayers to sound like one. You can’t gauge the speed of an object with merely ‘a point of reference.’ You also need to know the orientation of the object to the point of reference, which is often simply –impossible- without knowing how large the object your looking at, really is.

*gasp* I'm not a scientist? But this is a scientific community! So hang on... why aren't you asking a real scientist, instead of some guys on a internet forum?

As for point of reference, say the UFO is flying between a mountain and yourself, the mountain is your point of reference, you know how far off it is. There's smoke rising from the mountain, and the UFO passes through it, and you see the smoke twirling around it. Point of reference? noooo, not at all. You need to know how big the object is.

We could go into camera angles and other objects, but I don't really see the point. You failed to show me any convincing UFO footage. I rest my case.



I haven’t seen a –single, stand-alone- piece of evidence that is completely convincing, but the sum of good photos, stories, and footage, makes for a very compelling case that –something- is moving around the sky, with similar, unexplained, flight characteristics.

Okay, good photos? good footage? then show us some. I'm sure someone would've compiled all those good photos and pieces of footage into a neat collection of "ultimate evidence of alien visitors" or some such. But wait, there's a catch. It costs $29.99. That's right, final proof of alien visitors, and you have to pay for it. Wait, what did you say about scammers?

Why do you think the government is reluctant to investigate and make it public? Military test aircraft.



Consider this—how many ‘convincing’ shots of experimental military craft have you seen?

I could dig up tons, except they're taken by the military, and released once the planes were no longer prototypes/cancelled.


We –know- those exist…but we’d be hard-pressed to –prove it- if we didn’t already know they existed, right?

Wait, you can prove that they exist because you know that they exist, but can't prove they exist if you don't know they exist? doesn't make sense. Either you can prove that they exist, or you can't, knowing that they exist does not help any proof. You can't just say "we know they exist, so you must accept this proof" when in fact you're handing them a picture of a DC-9.

Either you get good pictures/footage, which is hard because they fly from remote locations at night, or you set up a RADAR station and track them, in which case you'd get a air to surface missile down your throat because you're tracking them.

These things are *supposed* to be secret, that's why we don't know a lot about them. UFOs are supposed to be public, they don't mind if you videotape them, or take pictures, my question is, why don't they ever land in populated areas? why do they say hi to the one guy out in the woods? how hard is it finding a large city?



If the shots aren’t taken by the military, they’re of no better caliber than the ‘ufo’ shots you mention.

Right, because the military have sooper dooper teleobjective lenses on their cameras, with motion trackers, yes?

I guess you're not much into photography either.




The quality of the evidence does Not indicate that the objects don’t exist, it indicates how difficult it is to photograph/film fast vehicles in the atmosphere.

The quality of the evidence indicates why people believe they have just seen a flying saucer, because they can't make out what it in fact is. Have you even seen UFO videos? They're all taken with shakycam, it's not like the object zips by in half a second, how would they ever get the camera up and aimed in that direction?

Poor quality of photographs can not be explained with how fast the object is moving. If it's really really fast you need to get extremely lucky being able to take a picture of it. And then it would depend on what kind of camera you use. Again, show me a UFO picture that you find convincing, that you think is really a flying object that can not be explained, and that is not faked.



Give me a list of people who have a scientific-resolution videocamera with flawless auto-focusing technology and a tripod in their pockets, and I’ll get you that flawless footage you asked for.

Hang on, earlier in your post you claimed the amount of good quality pictures and footage made it a compelling case. Yep, that's what you claimed. And now you're claimed you need "scientific-resolution" with "flawless auto-focusing" and tripods............... you're falling over yourself for explanations, aren't you?

soupdragon2
2005-Jan-22, 03:08 AM
So why don't you use it instead of making silly claims, which you then have to dodge from supporting?
Tell me about Occams Razor, then, or at least your understanding of it...

Johnno
2005-Jan-22, 03:10 AM
Tell me about Occams Razor, then, or at least your understanding of it...

You should be a quarterback the way you dodge! :roll:

soupdragon2
2005-Jan-22, 05:13 AM
Tell me about Occams Razor, then, or at least your understanding of it...

:-?

You should be a quarterback the way you dodge! :roll:
I'm the next best thing ... without all the poncy padding!

gzhpcu
2005-Jan-22, 06:57 AM
Would anyone care to comment on this:

NARCAP (http://www.narcap.org/reports/technicalreports.htm)

Star Pilot
2005-Jan-22, 07:17 AM
Look. Roughly –Half- the people who share the surface of the Earth with you, think it’s likely that we’re being visited by extraterrestrials, right now.

Half.

...and to that I say, so what! Argument from majority concensus is meaningless to me unless that majority can provide testable evidence...so far there is no evidence that validates the "visiting ET" hypothesis.


Can you define exactly what would be the "evidence that validates the "visiting ET" hypothesis." ?

I have an irritating question in mind to all.
If those "visiting ET" are real...
Do you think than an official contact betwen humanity and eventual ET visitor(s)can be a good thing for us?

scourge
2005-Jan-22, 08:47 AM
Look. Roughly –Half- the people who share the surface of the Earth with you, think it’s likely that we’re being visited by extraterrestrials, right now.


And a few hundred years most than half of the people on earth *knew* that the planet was flat. What exactly is your point?

That if they're wrong, they deserve good science to change their minds, not simply an opinion. We proved the world was round with science—let’s stick with what works and use science, not bias, to address the issue at hand.


Now, the only profession on the surface of the planet that is qualified or equipped to investigate the issue, is science. But science would rather relegate Half the world to the crackpot/liar/huckster file, than investigate.

Not really. I'm sure the Air Force would be far more succesful in investigating UFOs, compared to "science".

I don't think you've given much thought to the issue, frankly--the Air Force is not an investigative body, and it’s subject to extreme political pressures and bias, and knows little of the open debate policy that makes science work—see the Air Command research paper excerpt at the end of this post for further discussion on this.


Give ‘em some pull with the Air Force so they can check radar records, and if warranted, send a jet out to take footage/sensor readings/whatever.

radar records? You keep records over there?

I’ve read references that indicate we do, though if anyone has details, I’d like to know how much we keep on record and for how long.


Footage, right, but sensor readings? what exactly are you thinking about there?

I saw an interview with a military pilot who flew reconnaissance missions in the Fifties to investigate the ufo phenomenon, and they had taken all the armaments off their plane, and retooled with every kind of instrument they could think of to record data if they encountered something unusual. Seems like a good idea to me—infrared and ultraviolet cameras, magnetometers, spectrometers, whatever might help us understand what we had encountered.


I also think we should pass stiff laws against frauds/hoaxsters/wiseguys.

And mental illnesses, and stupidity. Defenitely stupidity. Nice pics of an airplane, we sent out two F-18 Jets to do "sensor readings" and spent hours looking through "radar recordings", you're going to jail punk.

So you don’t see why it should be a criminal act to intentionally defraud the public? You think this is equivalent to an honest mistake? Hmm, somebody’s morality meter seems to be broken…


This is how cynics are destroying the nobility of the scientific quest for understanding--if they can’t explain it, you’re a liar, or incompetent. It’s disgusting.

Funny, even the guy who's friend it was says he's skeptical about the claims. Yep, disgusting.

Wrong. And, a disingenuous argument. Seems like I have to deal with lot of this around here lately. There’s obviously a Huge difference between admitting –you aren’t sure- because the evidence isn’t conclusive (i.e. skepticism), and loudly proclaiming that the guy’s a liar. Maybe you should look up the definition of ‘skepticism,’ you seem to think it’s a synonym for ‘cynicism.’


But come on, what data did he have? Pictures? Video footage? Other eyewitness accounts? He himself chose not to report it. How can you verify any part of his story? I'd love to hear your explanation on why it's disgusting to say that he was making it up, when he himself chose not to report it, and has no other evidence.

Because you have no basis to call him a liar until you have more facts. As it stands, it’s only an unknown, and that’s –all- you can honestly say about it, scientifically anyway. Anything beyond this is prejudice, pure and simple.


You can't scientifically investigate his claim, can you? So why is it so disgusting?

Maybe you can investigate further, but that’s not the point. The point is, that leap-froging over the actual act of investigating, to proclaim that you have any idea what the truth behind that story is, is cynicism, not scientific skepticism. Personally, I’d like hear that guy’s story in person. Maybe the thing showed up on radar, or perhaps the copilot saw it too. Maybe a sighting or two were reported in that vicinity at around the same time. Or maybe he would confess that it was just a fish tale. But the fact is, that to conclude that he’s a liar because you personally find his story incredible is purely prejudicial.


why aren't you asking a real scientist, instead of some guys on a internet forum?

I have discussed it with the scientists I know personally, they were very sincere and insightful. But they don’t feel comfortable discussing the issue with most other scientists because they don’t get open minds on the issue, they see more ridicule than honest examination of the topic. Of course, there’s none of that around here, thank god…


As for point of reference, say the UFO is flying between a mountain and yourself, the mountain is your point of reference, you know how far off it is. There's smoke rising from the mountain, and the UFO passes through it, and you see the smoke twirling around it. Point of reference? noooo, not at all. You need to know how big the object is.

Lol, right--a smoking mountain…very common, that. Hah hah…and you think –my- reasoning process has jumped the tracks…man, I’ve heard better arguments from Hoagland, lol.


We could go into camera angles and other objects, but I don't really see the point. You failed to show me any convincing UFO footage. I rest my case.

You’re not making a case, you’re dodging one. Anyway, I have a videocassette that’s a collection of amateur footage of this topic, and several cases were quite compelling, especially when seen as a group. It cost me about ten bucks, iirc. Which is more trouble than you’ve gone to, apparently. I’m currently trying to sift through the stuff on the web to put up some links to interesting footage, but the field is so rife with flotsam, it’s hard to find the gems. The biggest problem is, it seems like few, if any, really skeptical scientists are involved in any way, collecting the interesting footage and photographs and related material. Right now, it’s a huckster paradise. Which is why I’m suggesting the involvement of more scientific minds. The good footage and cases are out there; they just need to be evaluated with a trained eye. And the problem is, the trained eyes can’t get involved without eliciting the rancor of folks like yourself. So you’re creating a self-fulfilling disconfirmation scenario—you won’t look at the evidence yourself, and you won’t let anyone you’d listen to look at it either, without attacking them personally and professionally. Then you rail about how there’s nothing to see. Cripes, it’s –worse- than an ostrich sticking its head in the ground, cause you’ll attack anyone else trying to pull their head out of the sand!


I haven’t seen a –single, stand-alone- piece of evidence that is completely convincing, but the sum of good photos, stories, and footage, makes for a very compelling case that –something- is moving around the sky, with similar, unexplained, flight characteristics.

Okay, good photos? good footage? then show us some. I'm sure someone would've compiled all those good photos and pieces of footage into a neat collection of "ultimate evidence of alien visitors" or some such. But wait, there's a catch. It costs $29.99. That's right, final proof of alien visitors, and you have to pay for it. Wait, what did you say about scammers?

And this is because we haven’t allowed a more credible forum for the dissemination of this footage/etc, to exist. Like I said, I was willing to fork out a few bucks to see what was out there—someone has to pay for the acquisition and compilation and production of the work. And some of what I saw was fascinating; I think it was worth the cash.


Why do you think the government is reluctant to investigate and make it public? Military test aircraft.

I was thinking about that tonight, and it seems unlikely the military would fly ‘test aircraft’ in unrestricted air space—but I’ve never served in the forces, I’d like to hear an insider’s perspective to better understand whether this is a legitimate concern. Seems to me—why fly a craft that you don’t want anyone to know about over places it can be publicly filmed? Once it’s over your house, any footage is pretty much public domain, no?


Consider this—how many ‘convincing’ shots of experimental military craft have you seen?

I could dig up tons, except they're taken by the military, and released once the planes were no longer prototypes/cancelled.

Excuse me, I meant to say ‘advanced military aircraft.’ The relevant aspect here is--how much footage of these craft do we get by civilians, and is this any better than supposed ‘flying saucer' footage? I think that if we got footage of advanced military aircraft on video, it wouldn’t be any better than footage of ‘ufo’s’ because of the difficulty recording aerial objects. Which makes a strong case for why we don’t have the ‘smoking gun’ style of footage you demand to be delivered to your mailbox one fine day.


We –know- those exist…but we’d be hard-pressed to –prove it- if we didn’t already know they existed, right?

Wait, you can prove that they exist because you know that they exist, but can't prove they exist if you don't know they exist? doesn't make sense. Either you can prove that they exist, or you can't, knowing that they exist does not help any proof. You can't just say "we know they exist, so you must accept this proof" when in fact you're handing them a picture of a DC-9.

Exactly--I was pointing out the irony of the situation—we only accept ‘proof’ when the military releases information that claims it’s a real craft, for exactly the reasons above—photographic evidence from civilian ground observers isn’t clear enough, even of ordinary high altitude military aircraft, to constitute proof. We only deem it as such after we’re told what it was, viz, ‘yup, we’re flying the new B-2 over your area, that’s what you’re photographing.’ Since the military can’t claim phenomena they’re not responsible for, we accept none of the evidence for craft that aren’t claimed by them. So we don’t accept footage of –any aerial phenomenon- as proof, we defer to the military to –tell us- what’s ‘real.’ And that makes anything we see in the sky, that the military doesn’t claim, ‘woo-woo.’ And that’s a real pickle.


my question is, why don't they ever land in populated areas? why do they say hi to the one guy out in the woods? how hard is it finding a large city?

We went over this earlier in the thread, but I’ll briefly recap the counter-argument: For the sake of argument, let’s say there are alien craft entering our atmosphere now and then. The situation would be analogous to us sending an observational jet over a tribe of people in some remote isolated area who are not as advanced as we are technologically. We know that they have no notion of aerodynamics, or even manned flight. In fact, our very –presence- among them would completely turn their primitive civilization on its head. But, we would like to make contact one day, without totally disrupting/invading their delicate cultural psychology. So what’s the reasonable course of action? Rather than land a jet or a helicopter in the center of Congo Square, irrevocably destroying their way of life (without their consent, I should add), we have a more subtle, noninvasive approach. We decide to fly a jet or two overhead once, maybe twice a year, to get them thinking. Over the course of a few decades, we can increase the frequency and proximity of these fly-bys, but we won’t do anything to give them sound, physical, irrefutable proof of our existence until we’re sure they’re ready for it. Following this program, we find (perhaps by monitoring their communications with telescopic microphones), that over the course of fifty years, half of the people of the tribe believe that the silver birds they see flying overhead, are actually some kind of chariot created by a more advanced tribe. Perhaps a great divide begins to form among them, as to the validity of this hypothesis. And eventually, they realize that the only way they can settle the dispute, is by letting their best minds observe and investigate the claims of these sightings, to determine what, if anything, they really are. In time, through careful observation and analysis, a consensus is reached that the things reported in the sky are (some of them anyway) quite real, and probably extraordinary devices of some kind, possibly even manned by -someone-. Perhaps at that point, the tribe decides to try to communicate with the people of the silver craft flying overhead, and send them an invitation to come visit, maybe using smoke-signals. At which point, we can, with some hope of safety, land a vehicle nearby and introduce ourselves to these people, without completely shocking the heck out of them, and begin friendly negotiations.

Sure, this is a somewhat fanciful little tale—but honestly—wouldn’t we act with a similar level of caution, if we were presented with such a situation? If we had discovered a tribe of methane-based creatures on Titan, using bows and arrows to hunt down and consume big Titan mites or something--wouldn’t we proceed with a similar program of non-interference? Heck, we’d probably make it a first priority to go retrieve the Huygen’s Probe, to be sure we didn’t contaminate the natural evolution of these creatures toward their own technological age.

Sorry that was so long—I just wanted to point out that subtlety and patience seem like reasonable protocols for a first contact scenario from another world—and dropping in for tea at the White House without some prep work would very probably create a great number of problems for both sides.


If the shots aren’t taken by the military, they’re of no better caliber than the ‘ufo’ shots you mention.

Right, because the military have sooper dooper teleobjective lenses on their cameras, with motion trackers, yes?
I guess you're not much into photography either.

Um, patronizing much? Crikes. I was referring to the fact that the military usually takes close-ups of craft –on the ground- and from other planes –flying right next to them-. And no, I’m not a photographer, but I do appreciate the difficulties of taking shots of an object half a mile away, moving erratically, with a handycam, which seems like more than you can say.


The quality of the evidence does Not indicate that the objects don’t exist, it indicates how difficult it is to photograph/film fast vehicles in the atmosphere.

The quality of the evidence indicates why people believe they have just seen a flying saucer, because they can't make out what it in fact is.

To some extent this is true, and as I said I think most ‘sightings’ are honest misidentifications, or worse, outright hoaxes. But you’re neglecting the fact that many of these sightings involve movement dynamics and behaviors that appear to outclass every form of technology known to man. As I said earlier in this thread, I’ve had the dubious honor of witnessing an event that fits this description; the pertinent aspect being a series of rapid, zigzagging directional changes that didn’t involve any apparent change in velocity. The only place I’ve seen any kind of maneuver like this, is among a few pieces of footage people have credited to extraterrestrial craft (I’m not convinced that this is the answer, but it seems like one possible explanation). I’ve scoured through every explanatory possibility I could find to account for this motion, to no avail. And I’ve scanned the skies tirelessly for decades, ever since, wondering if I’ll ever see anything like it again. I haven’t. In fact, I’ve never seen anything that even remotely suggested something extraordinary moving through the atmosphere since then, and doubt I ever will again. Whatever it was, it’s a –rare- phenomenon. But it’s an unmistakably striking one.


Have you even seen UFO videos?

Yes.


They're all taken with shakycam, it's not like the object zips by in half a second, how would they ever get the camera up and aimed in that direction?

Not true, though the web seems to be chock full of this kind of shaky evidence—I gather that’s all you’ve seen. Some footage I’ve seen was reasonably steady, actually. I wish I’d had a cam that day myself—the lights I saw at afternoon moved extremely fast, but they were visible for about a minute because they zigzagged several times in a region spanning about 40 degrees of the sky. If I could have gotten that on tape, it would have been an intriguing piece of documentation.


Poor quality of photographs can not be explained with how fast the object is moving.

Focusing is a serious issue, for one thing, and trying to do so manually (autofocus is useless for a fairly small object moving rapidly and changing directions erratically) while being shocked by what you’re witnessing, makes for a difficult time and generally bad images. Heck, even taking a decent shot of a jet is tricky, and they move pretty slowly and in smooth arcs and straight lines. And without a telephoto lens, lighting-fast film, and a calm photographer with a rock-steady hand (or a tripod, which usually isn’t nearby), a close-up is going to be fuzzy at best.


If it's really really fast you need to get extremely lucky being able to take a picture of it. And then it would depend on what kind of camera you use. Again, show me a UFO picture that you find convincing, that you think is really a flying object that can not be explained, and that is not faked.

Okay, but I’ll have to dig around on the web a bit, like I said, the web is a bad place to find good evidence—the crackpot quotient is really high on the web and I don’t want to post links to junk. I’ll see what I can find this weekend and post links of potential interest in a few days.


Give me a list of people who have a scientific-resolution videocamera with flawless auto-focusing technology and a tripod in their pockets, and I’ll get you that flawless footage you asked for.

Hang on, earlier in your post you claimed the amount of good quality pictures and footage made it a compelling case.

Good in my estimation, but not flawless, because they can’t be by nature, as I’ve explained above. There’s enough good photographic and video footage to pose a strong case for further investigation, imo, but if you require crystal clear images as you requested, you’re not going to be satisfied. It’s the nature of the beast—the photography issue itself.


And now you're claimed you need "scientific-resolution" with "flawless auto-focusing" and tripods............... you're falling over yourself for explanations, aren't you?

..................Nope. You’re demanding a quality of evidence that is impossible for non-specialists to acquire. Average cameras, used by average citizens, cannot yield irrefutable-quality images, as you demand. I’m not making unreasonable demands on the limited technology we have at our disposal, you are. Given those limits, I think we have some very good evidence, all things considered. But, like you, I think we need to do much better if we’re going to make a convincing case to people who -believe- that there is nothing interesting going on in our atmosphere now and then. Which is why I suggest that we be more open, even encouraging, to the prospect of a proper, skeptical investigation by professional scientists. Some would be quite interested in doing the work, if they didn’t fear the malign rancor of their peers.

I’d like to include this quote, to support my suggestion that an earnest scientific investigation of the ‘ufo’ phenomenon be undertaken, free of the political biases of, and pressures upon, the military. Excerpt from the ‘Air Command and Staff College Research Study, Air University: Should the USAF Reopen Project Blue Book,’ conclusions section(http://www.cufon.org/cufon/afrstdy1.htm):

“It is apparent to the writers that Project Blue Book suffered from bias, faulty research, political pressure, an inadequate staff, and a shoddy, antiquated filing system. In short, Project Blue Book lacked the necessary scientific methodology warranted by an important study of this nature.
The writers feel that their research has proven a new UFO study is definitely warranted. Any new study, however, should profit from the mistakes of Project Blue Book and the Condon Committee and incorporate the lessons learned from their failures. Any new UFO program should be free from bias and political influence; it should also transcribe all old and new input concerning UFO sightings to data processing and a central memory bank. Any new UFO study should carefully employ scientific methodology in their investigation and should maintain a stable, well-qualified, highly motivated leadership. But once again, the writers must ask the question: If a new UFO study is warranted, who should undertake it?
It is doubtful that the Air Force, or any DoD agency could conduct a truly scientific study in this politically volatile subject, considering the past history of Project Blue Book. Any new UFO study should be independent of the military and should be undertaken by Prominent scientists and astronomers in the United States. Ideally, these scientists could form a national organization whose prime purpose would be the investigation of UFOs. Such an organization could cooperate and exchange information with scientists and astronomers throughout the world, as well as with private agencies such as Dr. J. Allen Hynek's Center for UFO studies. Such an organization should be financed by the government and should report to a congressional sub-committee. Hopefully, this would free the organization from political influence, bias, and pre-judgment, and would encourage an open discussion of questions and findings. Ideally, such a national organization would divide the United States into regions or sections. Each area should maintain transportation which would be available whenever needed to investigate UFO sightings and landings within a few hours of their occurrence.”

This is how a scientific treatment of this subject could and should be done. I’m alarmed that anyone here would object to investigating any phenomenon of interest, in fact. Not only might we find something truly intriguing, but it would also take most of the pressure on astronomers to answer these questions, and focus that curiosity toward an organization dedicated to the topic.

I see no merit is arguing against research, even in a field as hotly disputed as this one—in fact, the divisive, antagonistic charge of this matter seems all the more reason to examine it with consummate care and the highest professional scientific standards.



Look. Roughly –Half- the people who share the surface of the Earth with you, think it’s likely that we’re being visited by extraterrestrials, right now.
Half.
...and to that I say, so what! Argument from majority concensus is meaningless to me unless that majority can provide testable evidence...so far there is no evidence that validates the "visiting ET" hypothesis.

You and I clearly have a different perspective on what it means to have a gift, in this case, a scientific one. In my mind, and in my life, I see a gift not as a privilege to wield like a weapon, but a responsibility to use for the good of all mankind. In my mind, we are gifted to serve, not rule or demean our fellow humans.

But pointedly, you’ve ignored my posts regarding this issue R.A.F., in which I’ve pointed out that the science community’s attitude, for the most part, is that the average citizen should perform a task which requires scientific tools and a keen scientific mind—that gift I mentioned. Photographs, footage, and testimony are, yes, somewhat tentative ‘testable evidence,’ but they are testable to some extent, if you –know how- to do so, and have the proper tools. Most people can’t even perform enough trigonometry to calculate the apparent velocity of an aerial object—that’s a test. So they ask their friends and neighbors (if they are brave enough to risk the impending wave of ridicule) for assistance. Would you come to their aid to help them out? It’s sure looking like –not-.

So really, who’s to blame for the quality of the evidence—the witnesses, or the people who have the gift of scientific talent, who could help analyze the evidence, but don’t?


Can you define exactly what would be the "evidence that validates the "visiting ET" hypothesis." ?
I’ve asked that question Star Pilot, but it’s been evaded, unfortunately…I don’t think any of the nay-sayers want to admit that nothing short of a chunk of alien technology, or video footage of impossible resolution revealing a disc-shaped craft flying through a plume over a ‘smoking mountain’ would suffice…lol.


I have an irritating question in mind to all.
If those "visiting ET" are real...
Do you think than an official contact between humanity and eventual ET visitor(s)can be a good thing for us?
Not yet, sadly. With fundamentalist Christians –still- running the White House, political policies of deceit still ruling the day, and a scientific community that would be clamoring that the news footage is a hoax, contact now could be the straw that broke the camel’s back. I think a shockwave of fear would be the likely reaction these days.

But some day, I hope, we’ll be inspired to learn that our galactic neighbors have a lot to share with us, and just maybe, us with them.

alfricnow
2005-Jan-22, 09:42 AM
you just gotta love the its too far theory.
lol
well lets see if they are even 50,000 years our senior they would( as lonfg as they are intelegent) have things we just dont understand yet
whos to say older species of et arent able to travel vast distances?

scourge
2005-Jan-22, 01:55 PM
Would anyone care to comment on this:

NARCAP (http://www.narcap.org/reports/technicalreports.htm)

Yes--this is exactly the kind of work I've hoped to see, thanks for the link gzhpcu. Here's a diverse group of scientific and, specifically, aviation-minded professionals who see the need to better explore the range of aerial phenomena being reported by credible observers...without the balderdash of the mainstream, media-hungry sheister types who've discredited the entire area of inquiry.

They're not advocating any specific interpretation, just reporting the facts provided by pilots and radar technicians and soforth, with an eye toward eventual explanation. Now, maybe we'll get somewhere with all of this...and learn that badgering the witnesses isn't a substitute for responsible investigation. I should add that CSICOP is also doing excellent work, as Wolverine pointed out.

With efforts like these, maybe we'll eventually do away with the stigma of sightings of unclassified phenomena, and meet them instead with the spirit of analytical objectivity that they deserve.

N C More
2005-Jan-22, 02:11 PM
Lots of people have seen things that they can't explain, I've seen something myself. However, to take what amounts to a huge "leap of faith" and say, "hey, it was probably alien space craft" is not the most reasonable conclusion to come to. It really doesn't matter what 50% of the people or even all of the people believe, what matters (in science) is what you can prove.

The situation as it now stands is that there exists no irrefutable evidence for the claim that ET has been or is buzzing the skies of our planet. Sure, there are people (myself included) who have seen things that leave us scratching our heads. In these situations the very real possibility remains that there could be more earthly explanations for seeing things that seem unusual (ball lightening is a good example of this). It also seems quite reasonable to say that military activity, especially that involving new technology, could be very likely.

Now, even if there were ET craft "taking a look at the earthlings", I seriously doubt that we'd be able find proof of this via photography or radar images. Any beings able to traverse the incredible distances involved in "paying us a visit" would have to be so far in advance of us that their technology would, to paraphrase Arthur C. Clark, be (to us) indistinguishable from magic. So, folks, if visitation either has or at some point does take place the ball will be entirely in their court, not ours. JMHO.

scourge
2005-Jan-22, 02:41 PM
Lots of people have seen things that they can't explain, I've seen something myself. However, to take what amounts to a huge "leap of faith" and say, "hey, it was probably alien space craft" is not the most reasonable conclusion to come to. It really doesn't matter what 50% of the people or even all of the people believe, what matters (in science) is what you can prove.

I've reached no conclusion, indeed, I continue to repeat the fact that -I have no clue what I saw-. The ETH is another matter altogether. It's a reasonable hypothesis. Has it been proven?--of course not, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. All I've been saying is, we need to gather better data regarding these sighting reports with the tools and expertise of first-rate scientific minds. Maybe the evidence we acquire with these tools and human resources will validate the ETH to some degree, maybe it won't. But with a significant number of reports by reliable witnesses, which is growing all the time, I think the matter merits greater analytical effort.


The situation as it now stands is that there exists no irrefutable evidence for the claim that ET has been or is buzzing the skies of our planet. Sure, there are people (myself included) who have seen things that leave us scratching our heads. In these situations the very real possibility remains that there could be more earthly explanations for seeing things that seem unusual (ball lightening is a good example of this). It also seems quite reasonable to say that military activity, especially that involving new technology, could be very likely.

I agree with all of that. None of the evidence to date, with regard to the ETH, is irrefutable, but some of it is suggestive, even fascinating in some cases. The radar/visual cases in particular are downright riveting.


Now, even if there were ET craft "taking a look at the earthlings", I seriously doubt that we'd be able find proof of this via photography or radar images. Any beings able to traverse the incredible distances involved in "paying us a visit" would have to be so far in advance of us that their technology would, to paraphrase Arthur C. Clark, be (to us) indistinguishable from magic. So, folks, if visitation either has or at some point does take place the ball will be entirely in their court, not ours. JMHO.

That's probably all very true--but does that justify not making a more concerted effort to gather information? I don't think so, because, for one thing--we may miss lots of important data that has nothing to do with ET's, like the ball lightning you mentioned--we may yet discover atmospheric phenomena vital to safe aerial transport. Additionally--if some of these sightings are in fact ET in origin, and they're trying to slowly acclimate us to their existence, then making the effort to detect them demonstrates that we're ready for more solid evidence of their existence. Not to mention how cool it would be to have some fairly close-up footage of one of these things doing acrobatics around an observational jet ;)

Would you mind sharing your story? I'm always looking for consistencies/inconsistencies with these reports, in hopes that they'll help me better understand what people have seen...

N C More
2005-Jan-22, 03:23 PM
Here you go. (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=176833&highlight=#176833) Don't think it will do much good though. Either, we saw something unusual or 16 people were confused and misidentified something in a big way. I've had people tell me I am lying, delusional, crazy, ignorant, confused, misinformed...etc.

However, at no time did I jump to any conclusions about what I saw. Frankly, I no longer really care about the opinions of most people regarding this. I refuse to don a "tin foil hat" and join the ranks of the "true believers". So, if you're a MUFON investigator (or something similar) please just access the newspaper records. I will also not accept any explanation that doesn't fit the size of the object and position changes that we witnessed. Therefore, further discussion is irrelevant in my opinion.

R.A.F.
2005-Jan-22, 04:41 PM
Can you define exactly what would be the "evidence that validates the "visiting ET" hypothesis." ?

I'll know it when I see it, and I haven't seen it yet.

OK...that's not a "fair" answer...how about...evidence that's convincing! As it stands right now, the evidence for "visiting ET's" is the same as the evidence for the existence of ghosts...i.e. photos of white blobs, and personal stories. It's simply not enough!


If those "visiting ET" are real...
Do you think than an official contact betwen humanity and eventual ET visitor(s)can be a good thing for us?

It would be a very good thing...my question is, If ET's have been visiting us for 50+ years, why haven't they contacted us, already? Oh, I've heard the "reasonings" to explain away this lack of contact, and I just don't buy them. There is no reason for ET's to play games with us, unless one is willing to make LOTS of assumptions as to their motives...I am unwilling to make those unsubstantiated, circular reasoned assumptions.

Johnno
2005-Jan-22, 05:23 PM
That if they're wrong, they deserve good science to change their minds, not simply an opinion. We proved the world was round with science—let’s stick with what works and use science, not bias, to address the issue at hand.

That's the problem though, science as far as I'm concerned _is_ biased. We stick to what we know, or think is possible. We "know" that faster than light travel is not possible. And if there was a alien species near us we'd be swamped in radio signals from them, we'd just have to detect them of course. But even then, if we stick to FTL travel being impossible, we can conclude that there are no planets near us that would support life. I'm sure the closest stars were checked for planets first...

So this brings up to super advanced races, coming from far. Problem? Travel time. Sure, they could have some new power sources which takes care of the power issue, they could have cryo tubes or whatever, takes care of the people, but there's still the problem of close to light travel being very hazardous in space because of other objects. High power lasers to shoot everything in front of the ship? high power shield?

But of course, there could be other phenomenon, ball lightning and whatnot, sure they'd be interesting to investigate/research, but really depends on the scientists, doesn't it? Up to them to decide what's important and whatnot.

You're right about the reluctance of the scientific community, but that's because we're all people. Why is it so rare that a actual scientist gets to see a UFO? Probably because they spend their time indoors glued to books, eh? ;) What about astronomers? Even if just hobby skywatchers. Tons of em around, watching the skies. What're the odds that someone out in the woods sees a UFO, compared to someone who daily/weekly stares at the skies for a hours?


the Air Force is not an investigative body, and it’s subject to extreme political pressures and bias, and knows little of the open debate policy that makes science work


Just saying they'd be the ones equipped, RADAR, IR, etc. They could intercept and photograph, as you'll point out later, compared to land based photography a mile off.


[radar records] I’ve read references that indicate we do, though if anyone has details, I’d like to know how much we keep on record and for how long.

I'm sure that'd be a military secret. I've never heard of them keeping records, but of course, they could be, I doubt it's for very long though, even if it's complete records. There's really no point, either the radar observer calls UFO, fighter jets intercept and investigate, or it leaves the screen never to be spoken about. They'd need someone sitting and looking through the records, and someone watching him to be sure he doesn't leave anything out, and someone watching the first two making sure they don't work together to hide things, and some....... etc ;)



I saw an interview with a military pilot who flew reconnaissance missions in the Fifties to investigate the ufo phenomenon, and they had taken all the armaments off their plane, and retooled with every kind of instrument they could think of to record data if they encountered something unusual. Seems like a good idea to me—infrared and ultraviolet cameras, magnetometers, spectrometers, whatever might help us understand what we had encountered.

Interesting. I guess you could do that.



So you don’t see why it should be a criminal act to intentionally defraud the public? You think this is equivalent to an honest mistake? Hmm, somebody’s morality meter seems to be broken…

The public? Heh, what does it matter if the public thinks they saw a flying saucer? they'll keep paying their taxes anyway. Intentionally defraud though? The thing is, did it do any harm? Did they panic and commit suicide because they thought they were going to be alien slaves for the rest of their lives? Or did they simply figure, hey, neat light show, and go on with their lives?

Consider someone wanting to put lights on their kite because they want a light show of their own, shoud it be illegal because it could make someone think there was a UFO on the way?

Then again, you said intentionally. You'd have to prove that the person doing the "fraud" knew how it would affect the audience, and that he/she intentionally did so to get some kind of result.

I doubt that happens a lot.


There’s obviously a Huge difference between admitting –you aren’t sure- because the evidence isn’t conclusive (i.e. skepticism), and loudly proclaiming that the guy’s a liar. Maybe you should look up the definition of ‘skepticism,’ you seem to think it’s a synonym for ‘cynicism.’


Did I proclaim that he was a liar, or did I hint at the possibility that it might have been the case? Same thing? So, I guess we shouldn't be allowed to hint at other possibilities that make other people look bad. Such as drunk driving. Clear wide road, no ice, no kids in the backseat, no heart attack, no sudden dizzy fits, shouldn't we be able to hint at drunk driving?

You have to remove all doubts you can, and then see what's the most reasonable explanation.

I admit it, maybe I jumped the gun, maybe I should've asked first if there was video/other evidence, and THEN said maybe he's just making things up. But sure, call me a cynic, I don't mind.


Because you have no basis to call him a liar until you have more facts. As it stands, it’s only an unknown, and that’s –all- you can honestly say about it, scientifically anyway. Anything beyond this is prejudice, pure and simple.

Yeah, but had more facts been put forward I would've admitted that I was wrong, but as long as I'm not wrong I don't really mind, you can go ahead and call me prejudice, but hey, I'm still right! ;)


But they don’t feel comfortable discussing the issue with most other scientists because they don’t get open minds on the issue, they see more ridicule than honest examination of the topic. Of course, there’s none of that around here, thank god…

Well, maybe they too are tired of loosely based claims, with little data/facts to back them up. It's like with me and the moon landings, I've debated hoax believers for years, and in the end, when they can't come up with their own claims, just copy others, and don't bother doing any research on their own, I easily go toward ridiculing them.



Lol, right--a smoking mountain…very common, that.

Mt St Helens, january 3rd, 2005. Latest UFO claim I looked at.

I just put forth an explanation as how to it wouldn't be impossible, with a point of reference. Will you admit that with a proper point of reference like this, you could examine the video evidence without necessarily digging up "radar records" ?

I'd have to see UFO footage to be able to decide if it has a good point of reference or not.



[UFO video casette]Which is more trouble than you’ve gone to, apparently.

Each to his own. When is the last time you bought a video tape about the moon landings to examine a claim about an astronaut being suspended by a wire, or a shuttle video because there was supposedly a flying object in view during one of the EVAs?



The good footage and cases are out there; they just need to be evaluated with a trained eye.

But that's all they'll be able to do. Evaluate it. And you already stated yourself it would be impossible to figure out the speed of the object (and I said without a point of reference). Eyewitnesses? Pictures? All you'll get in the end is a compelling case. And that's it.


So you’re creating a self-fulfilling disconfirmation scenario—you won’t look at the evidence yourself, and you won’t let anyone you’d listen to look at it either, without attacking them personally and professionally.

"You" being the "scientific community" ? Or me personally?

Personally? I'm not interested enough in the phenomenon to do any looking up. If I had a experience myself, I'd get fuelled to do so (like with various other things). Because I know I won't be able to "investigate" something enough to come to a conclusion.



Seems to me—why fly a craft that you don’t want anyone to know about over places it can be publicly filmed? Once it’s over your house, any footage is pretty much public domain, no?

Yes but remember, it's going to be low resolution shakycam footage because the plane is moving so fast! ;)



Excuse me, I meant to say ‘advanced military aircraft.’ The relevant aspect here is--how much footage of these craft do we get by civilians, and is this any better than supposed ‘flying saucer' footage?

Define "advanced military aircraft" for me please. Are we talking aurora project here? B-2? F-117?



Sure, this is a somewhat fanciful little tale—but honestly—wouldn’t we act with a similar level of caution, if we were presented with such a situation?

Regarding sightings and native tribes and whatnot. No, we wouldn't. US Seahawk went in to check on some natives down in south east asia after the tsunami, got chased off by bows and arrows. Go Air Force!


I just wanted to point out that subtlety and patience seem like reasonable protocols for a first contact scenario from another world—and dropping in for tea at the White House without some prep work would very probably create a great number of problems for both sides.


Well, what's your idea of prep work? 50 years? 100?
almost 60 years since roswell....



Um, patronizing much? Crikes.

Just a bit ;)


I was referring to the fact that the military usually takes close-ups of craft –on the ground- and from other planes –flying right next to them-

It would really depend on how close the object was, what speed it was travelling at, and so on. I've read several accounts of hovering crafts close by, yet, no convincing evidence. I've taken pictures of aircraft flying low during air shows and landings and whatnot, turned out allright.



And no, I’m not a photographer, but I do appreciate the difficulties of taking shots of an object half a mile away, moving erratically, with a handycam, which seems like more than you can say.

Do you know it's moving erratically, or that the camera is shaking? You don't. The most of the footage I've seen is zoomed in as close as possible, and shaky. There's no way of telling how the object is in fact moving. Suggestions? Zoom out and hold the camera steady in one position. if the object is moving, sure go after it.



But you’re neglecting the fact that many of these sightings involve movement dynamics and behaviors that appear to outclass every form of technology known to man.

That's what the eyewitnesses say, personally I haven't seen any footage indicating this (that's not faked or otherwise).



Not true, though the web seems to be chock full of this kind of shaky evidence—I gather that’s all you’ve seen. Some footage I’ve seen was reasonably steady, actually.

Yes, as I explained before, not a big passion of mine. I'll gladly look at any footage you have to offer though.


Okay, but I’ll have to dig around on the web a bit, like I said, the web is a bad place to find good evidence—the crackpot quotient is really high on the web and I don’t want to post links to junk. I’ll see what I can find this weekend and post links of potential interest in a few days.

Thanks.


Good in my estimation, but not flawless, because they can’t be by nature, as I’ve explained above. There’s enough good photographic and video footage to pose a strong case for further investigation, imo, but if you require crystal clear images as you requested, you’re not going to be satisfied. It’s the nature of the beast—the photography issue itself.

I can't be bothered to go through the posts, did I ask for crystal clear, or hi res? I believe I asked for hi res. I'll give "good" footage a look anyday.



You’re demanding a quality of evidence that is impossible for non-specialists to acquire.

See above. You're free to quote me (or tell me approximately where in what post I demanded what quality).


Average cameras, used by average citizens, cannot yield irrefutable-quality images, as you demand.

I think I said hi res, which changed to crystal, which now changed to irrefutable. Which one is it?



I’m not making unreasonable demands on the limited technology we have at our disposal, you are.

What exact demand did I make that was unreasonable? I don't think I clearly stated what kind of resolution (except high) was needed. Most digital cameras today take high resolution images. Problem is people compress them before putting them online.

But again, I'll wait for you to post any image of video you feel is compelling and warrants further investigation. Post anything you like, and I will tell you if I think it's low res/shakycam, or if I too find it compelling.

You're asking the scientific community to react, to investigate. How about you put forth a case you find compelling, and we'll see if we think it's worth investigating.

algorithms
2005-Jan-22, 05:27 PM
Star Pilot: Can you define exactly what would be the "evidence that validates the "visiting ET" hypothesis." ?

How about something that is independently verifiable as being unequivocally extraterrestrial in origin? Physical evidence that met that standard would be useful. After over fifty years of alleged "sightings" and claims of "abductions" shouldn't we have something a little more concrete than fuzzy pictures and anecdotal observations that can't be proven to be anything?

I have a standing invitation for E.T. to drop by for a beer (I particularly favor Belgian Lambic ales) and talk superstrings - now that would convince me. A crop circle on my overgrown front lawn might be nice also.

eburacum45
2005-Jan-22, 05:33 PM
NARCAP has great potential, if it is done correctly.

It would certainly be a good idea to look carefully at these phenomena; the fact that pilots of aircraft have been reporting them consistently has distinct safety implications.
Especially if, as I suspect, those sightings which are not hoaxes are all explained by misidentification of known phenomena or unknown but mundane phenomena, including various eyesight and neural problems that can produce apparently real objects in the field of view, and by the well-known unreliability of memory.

Since it is possible to study transient phenomena like gamma ray bursts and sprite lightning jets then the sort of transient phenomena we are talking about can almost certainly be studied too.
However I have a feeling that when investigated fully even the most intractable cases would have a mundane explanation.

One area that could bear fruit is a wide ranging statistical analysis of radar only or radar/visual cases; I suspect, but cannot prove, that there is a correlation between the equipment used and the type of radar sighting- many early radar sightings were caused by the state of the art at that time, and would not be (and are not being) reported by todays radar systems; meanwhile more up to date reports are of targets that would not have been detected by the early systems because they are at the edge of resolution.
Just an idea; a preconception or prejudice if you like. But it seems strange to me how inconsistent the radar detection of unidentified aerial phenomena appears at first glance; If these things are extraterrestrial craft are they transparent to radar or not? Is this transparency dictated by an alien whim or what?
There may well be some hidden statistical significance in radar detection reports that needs to be revealed.

The Bad Astronomer
2005-Jan-22, 05:47 PM
If I were in somewhat less of a good mood, I could ban several people just from the last two pages of this thread.

Specifically, scourge and hewhocaves, calm down. You are both attacking each other, and I will not have that on this board. Discuss things calmly, or discuss them somewhere else. Got it?

There are other examples with other people too, so I strongly urge people to review what they have said here and then read the FAQ of this board.

To everyone posting: this thread may be beyond redemption already, but here are some very good points being made, so I want it to remain open. Behave yourselves.

Sheesh.

R.A.F.
2005-Jan-22, 06:07 PM
After over fifty years of alleged "sightings" and claims of "abductions" shouldn't we have something a little more concrete than fuzzy pictures and anecdotal observations that can't be proven to be anything?

Totally agree. 50 years of "bad" evidence is just the same as 50 years of NO evidence.

On a side note...If we were being "prepared" for contact (or conquest), the question arises...

How "prepared" do we have to BE before they arrive??

Daffy
2005-Jan-22, 06:15 PM
Usually, I just lurk here...I enjoy the discussions a LOT, but usually don't have much to add....but I wanted to weigh in on this one. In 1973, I saw a UFO. In the daytime, and I was not under the influence of anything chemical or biological. It was there, it was very weird, and I have never, ever been able to come up with a plausible explanation for it. Now, that said, I tend---and this is very hypocritical, I suppose---to dismiss out of hand anyone else's experience, however similar, simply because there is no way to use the scientific method to examine the data.

So what am I left with? I rarely talk about it, because there is nothing I can supply to convince anyone it really happened. And they are quite right to dismiss it. But, on the other hand, it certainly did happen. So, is it possible that a lot of the reports are similar to mine? How can I, or anyone else ever know? If intelligence is directing these events, how can we possibly use scientific method to examine data that is being deliberately withheld by that, presumably, more advanced intelligence?

Dismissing all the goofy, tin hat stuff, we are still left with some unexplained phenomena. My guess is, these are NOT interstellar craft....how would they get across such unthinkable distances? But what ARE they? I'd really love to know and, sadly, most of us are not permitted to even ask the question in any serious way. I'm not sure it CAN be examined in any serious way.

Just my 2 cents.

Johnno
2005-Jan-22, 06:43 PM
I'd really love to know and, sadly, most of us are not permitted to even ask the question in any serious way. I'm not sure it CAN be examined in any serious way.

It's the sad truth. The thing is, no matter what we want to know, if we're not doing it ourselves, it's up to someone else to decide what to tell us. Even if we ask, they can always lie and/or withhold evidence.

Now when is a invetigation worth it? When half of the people who read the information accept it? Therein lies the problem, who should we convince, and for what reasons? Just because someone wants to know but doesn't want to pay for it, should it be publically investigated?

I would suggest that anyone who wants UFO investigations, starts a say website, and ask people to join up and pay a yearly fee/donation that goes into UFO research. The problem? who to trust. How would you know someone was honest and was going to spend the money on investigations.

So how could it be done? We'd need a public well known and trusted company to do the investigating. Question is, would people be happy with the results, and believe them?

Someone still needs to start the ball rolling. If enough UFO believers/abductees/eyewitnesses got together and threw their money at "scientists", I'm sure they'd get their investigation.

Daffy
2005-Jan-22, 07:07 PM
I'd really love to know and, sadly, most of us are not permitted to even ask the question in any serious way. I'm not sure it CAN be examined in any serious way.

It's the sad truth. The thing is, no matter what we want to know, if we're not doing it ourselves, it's up to someone else to decide what to tell us. Even if we ask, they can always lie and/or withhold evidence.

Now when is a invetigation worth it? When half of the people who read the information accept it? Therein lies the problem, who should we convince, and for what reasons? Just because someone wants to know but doesn't want to pay for it, should it be publically investigated?

I would suggest that anyone who wants UFO investigations, starts a say website, and ask people to join up and pay a yearly fee/donation that goes into UFO research. The problem? who to trust. How would you know someone was honest and was going to spend the money on investigations.

So how could it be done? We'd need a public well known and trusted company to do the investigating. Question is, would people be happy with the results, and believe them?

Someone still needs to start the ball rolling. If enough UFO believers/abductees/eyewitnesses got together and threw their money at "scientists", I'm sure they'd get their investigation.

It's a nice idea...but as you point out, who would accept the results (positive or negative)? I do like the idea, though.

I have no idea what's going on...although I don't really believe there are interstellar craft in our skies. But I find it equally hard to believe that ALL the millions of sightings---every single one of them, no exceptions---are the reports of the misinformed and/or delusional. That seems to be equally unlikely as any overly anal fixated Martians.

hewhocaves
2005-Jan-22, 07:18 PM
scourge wrote:
Give ‘em some pull with the Air Force so they can check radar records, and if warranted, send a jet out to take footage/sensor readings/whatever.

johnno wrote:
LOL, radar records? You keep records over there? Either you have completely different systems over there, or you have no clue how AF RADAR surveillance works. I'm betting on the latter (having done AF RADAR surveillance service myself).

Footage, right, but sensor readings? what exactly are you thinking about there?


I think he's thinking of tricorder scans. I'll get Lieutenant Tucker right on it.



scourge wrote:

Not yet, sadly. With fundamentalist Christians –still- running the White House, political policies of deceit still ruling the day, and a scientific community that would be clamoring that the news footage is a hoax, contact now could be the straw that broke the camel’s back. I think a shockwave of fear would be the likely reaction these days.

But some day, I hope, we’ll be inspired to learn that our galactic neighbors have a lot to share with us, and just maybe, us with them.



Scourge has a very good point. There's really very little we can do with a social and political climate like this. If only we had a climate conducive to scientific exploration, like.. like in the Renaissance. Gallileo had it so easy.

Seriously, any organization that is serious about finding out "the truth" as it were, has to do a LOT more than just check out old photos. It has to become experts in the fields of photography, weather, physics, astronomy, aircraft identifiacation and probably a handful of other fields. They also have to be saavy enough to be able to distinguish hoax from truth, to be able to conduct an unbiased investigation and recognize the limitations of the data. In short, they have to know that their job will be a long, frustrating, probably completley unfufilling (from the 'finding space aliens' point of view) career. Is it any wonder why it's difficult to get PhDs to jump at this chance?

BTW, I would also suggest that this organization also needs to be proactive. It needs to go out there and "create hoaxes" so that it can sudy them. It needs to try to create scenarios where observed phenomenon can be mistaken for UFOs.

Of course all this will cost money. And probably lots of it. Funny, UFOs are a multimillion dollar industry in this country alone. The UFO people are not a cottage industry, much as they'd like you to believe. Go compare the relative sizes of the New Age section in any book store and the Science section and you'll see. Quite frankly, IMHO, the UFOers have no excuse whatsoever. They have numbers, they have money, they have free time. If they choose to spend the money and effort lining their own pockets, thats their own business. But it's going to be difficult for the rest of us to have any sympathy for them when they continue to milk themselves and others for all they are worth and yet have the audacity to demand that the PhDs of the world drop their own research to check out some blob on a phoograph for FREE.

But of course, it's impossible to explain that to any of them.

John

Johnno
2005-Jan-22, 07:30 PM
I have no idea what's going on...although I don't really believe there are interstellar craft in our skies. But I find it equally hard to believe that ALL the millions of sightings---every single one of them, no exceptions---are the reports of the misinformed and/or delusional.

I have to agree. I'm sure misinformed/delusional people make up for some of those claims. Misinformed could be a wide range of things though, everything from hoaxes and airplanes to ball lightning. I'm sure a lot of things people see are real, and not hallucinations, but they could be so many different things, and not flying saucers from outer space.

Ok so lets weed out the hoaxes (faked footage/pictures) and the hallucinations. We're left with the real stuff, that people really did see. Could be anything from kites with lights, radio controlled "flying saucers" (have one on my desk as we speak), to aircraft.

On to the "unexplainable" things. Close up flying objects that we have no knowledge about, and far off moving objects that zigzag in straight lines at high speeds.

I'm not going to speculate until I see one myself, or see convinving evidence. Until then I don't mind calling people liars. If you (not you personally Daffy) know you can't back up their evidence, don't bring it up unless you're ready to be assumed lying/hallucinating/mistaken.

It's like with any other thing that's not accepted common knowledge. If you can't have someone else replicate the results, people won't necessarily believe you.

As for your experience Daffy, I'd love to know too ;)

algorithms
2005-Jan-22, 07:49 PM
Daffy: I'd really love to know and, sadly, most of us are not permitted to even ask the question in any serious way. I'm not sure it CAN be examined in any serious way.

Unfortunately something you observed over thirty years ago will likely remain a mystery. And, I doubt that "investigations" of any more contemporary "sightings" reports will ever offer satisfactory explanations. I've never seen a "UFO." But I have seen objects in the sky that could have easily been misconstrued as UFOs.

The only serious examination of this phenomena, "The Condon Report," essentially came up empty handed. But even Peter Sturrock's pro UFO "Physical Evidence Related to UFO Reports" (JSE, 1998) admits that "there was no convincing evidence pointing to unknown physical processes or to the involvement of extraterrestrial intelligence."

I think if people believe we are being visited by extraterrestrials, they ought to work on producing more compelling evidence than they have been able to do to date. This means setting standards for analysis and evidence that presently do not exist among "UFOlogists." However, there's probably a good reason these standards don't exist - because proponents know that standards require a level of rigor they are unwilling and unable to achieve. Its too convenient to explain away the lack of evidence upon the incrutable motives of our alien friends or on the government, who for some inexplicable reason, wouldn't want us to know about them. And so long as one can still command a gullible audience, why bother working harder at it?

Regards,
Algorithms

Daffy
2005-Jan-22, 07:59 PM
I'm not going to speculate until I see one myself, or see convinving evidence. Until then I don't mind calling people liars. If you (not you personally Daffy) know you can't back up their evidence, don't bring it up unless you're ready to be assumed lying/hallucinating/mistaken.

It's like with any other thing that's not accepted common knowledge. If you can't have someone else replicate the results, people won't necessarily believe you.

As for your experience Daffy, I'd love to know too ;)

Well, you see my dilemma...I have no corroborating evidence (and it's a perfectly reasonable request to ask for some). And I have no desire to be called a liar.

I saw something in broad daylight (I saw no lights on it) that was quite large (unless lower down and smaller which, I concede, is a possibility). I watched it for about 30 seconds. Then it suddenly accelerated from nearly motionless (about like a blimp which is what I, at first glance, thought it was), to a speed that took it completely over the far horizon within 2 seconds; and I was at the top of a mountain range with an unobstructed view for what I estimate to be at least 20-30 miles.

I have no idea what it was (if I did it would be an IFO). I am reasonably certain it was not a hallucination; if it was, it was the only one I have ever experienced in my life. It certainly was not ball lightning, or swamp gas reflecting Venus or some such, since, as I say, it was an opaque object with no lights. And, I am not lying.

So there you are. What can I, or anyone else do with this anecdotal report? Exactly nothing. Does that mean it didn't happen? Not as far as I am concerned.

eburacum45
2005-Jan-22, 08:01 PM
It seems very likely, to me, that all the sightings are mundane in origin; I have seen several UFO-like objects myself, and I wonder how many other people saw those same objects and still think they have seen aliens.

A weather balloon; a brilliant bolide, a close conjunction between Mars and Jupiter, a number of beautiful and otherworldy parhelia, an AWACS head-on; some of these were seen by people I know who really thought they were extraordinary phenomena, and If I had not explained them those people may well have come away with the impression that they had seen extraterrestrial craft.

The conjunction between Mars and Jupiter sounds unconvincing, but actually was very spooky; I had a phone call in the middle of the night, reporting a cigar shaped object- when I went outside I could see it too.
Mars and Jupiter were so close that the mind's eye was fooled into filling the gap between them with a half glimpsed optical illusion, a cigar shape (or so it seemed).
This illusion was not visible on the previous night nor the next night as the two planets moved together then apart.

The common observation of point-like objects in the sky moving in an erratic or 'falling-leaf-like' pattern can be explained by a well known biological phenomenon;


From the Fortean Times Print edition
Other problems occur with point sources of light; stare at a bright star or planet long enough and it will seem to move in weird, box-like patterns. Many UFO witnesses describe the lights they see as doing this, when what they are really seeing is the motion of their own eyes. This side-to-side motion is translated by the brain into movement by the object, creating an illusory effect known as autokinesis.

and try to video that same star or planet on a hand-held camera and you will record even more erratic movements.


And the study of parhelia is a fascinating pastime; this website is one of the best on the net;
http://www.sundog.clara.co.uk/atoptics/phenom.htm
it details the incredible range penomena that can be seen in the sky and atmosphere in exquisite detail;
these are just the frequent parhelia-
http://www.sundog.clara.co.uk/halo/common.htm
there are many other sundogs that are more rare and elusive, and ready to lead the observer astray.
http://www.sundog.clara.co.uk/halo/unusual.htm

Keep watching the skies; but there are strange and misleading things up there.

N C More
2005-Jan-22, 08:08 PM
I have no idea what's going on...although I don't really believe there are interstellar craft in our skies. But I find it equally hard to believe that ALL the millions of sightings---every single one of them, no exceptions---are the reports of the misinformed and/or delusional. That seems to be equally unlikely as any overly anal fixated Martians.

Ditto, Daffy. There were 16 of us who saw the object I saw and one of them was a police officer. One heck of a mass delusion there, huh? Basically, I'm through with trying to figure it out. I'm not even sure if this sort of thing ever will (or for that matter, can) be "figured out". Chalk it up as just "one of those things".

gzhpcu
2005-Jan-22, 08:15 PM
The only serious examination of this phenomena, "The Condon Report," essentially came up empty handed. But even Peter Sturrock's pro UFO "Physical Evidence Related to UFO Reports" (JSE, 1998) admits that "there was no convincing evidence pointing to unknown physical processes or to the involvement of extraterrestrial intelligence."

Sturrock's analysis of the Condon report:


The "Condon Report," presenting the findings of the Colorado Project on a scientific study of unidentified flying objects, has been and remains the most influential public document concerning the scientific status of this problem. Hence, all current scientific work on the UFO problem must make reference to the Condon Report. For this reason, it remains important to understand the contents of this report, the work on which the report is based, and the relationship of the "Summary of the Study" and "Conclusions and Recommendations" to the body of the report. The present analysis of this report contains an overview, an analysis of evidence by categories, and a discussion of scientific methodology. The overview shows that most case studies were conducted by junior staff; the senior staff took little part, and the director took no part, in these investigations. The analysis of evidence by categories shows that there are substantial and significant differences between the findings of the project staff and those that the director attributes to the project. Although both the director and the staff are cautious in stating conclusions, the staff tend to emphasize challenging cases and unanswered questions, whereas the director emphasizes the difficulty of further study and the probability that there is no scientific knowledge to be gained.

Concerning methodology, it appears that the project was unable to identify current challenging cases that warranted truly exhaustive investigation. Nor did the project develop a uniform and systematic procedure for cataloging the large number of older cases with which they were provided. In drawing conclusions from the study of such a problem, the nature and scope of which are fraught with so much uncertainty, it would have been prudent to avoid theory-dependent arguments.

The report: Sturrock on Condon (http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/ufo_reports/sturrock_condon/1.html)

The Sturrock Report:


The panel made the following observations:


The UFO problem is not a simple one, and it is unlikely that there is any simple universal answer.

Whenever there are unexplained observations, there is the possibility that scientists will learn something new by studying those observations.

Studies should concentrate on cases which include as much independent physical evidence as possible and strong witness testimony.

Some form of formal regular contact between the UFO community and physical scientists could be productive.

It is desirable that there be institutional support for research in this area.

The GEPAN/SEPRA project of CNES (Centre National d'Études Spatiales - the National Center for Space Research) in France (see Appendix 1) has since 1977 provided a valuable model for a modest but effective organization for collecting and analyzing UFO observations and related data.

Reflecting on evidence presented at the workshop that some witnesses of UFO events have suffered radiation-type injuries, the panel draws the attention of the medical community to a possible health risk associated with UFO events.
The panel also reviewed some of the conclusions advanced in 1968 by Dr. Edward U. Condon, director of the Colorado Project. He asserted that "nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to scientific knowledge," and that "further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby." While agreeing with the first conclusion and its extension to the present, the panel considers that there always exists the possibility that investigation of an unexplained phenomenon may lead to an advance in scientific knowledge.

The panel considers that the chances of such an advance are greater now than they were in 1967 because of the advances in scientific knowledge and technical capabilities, and in view of the GEPAN/SEPRA model for data acquisition.

Sturrock Report (http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/ufo_reports/sturrock/toc.html)

Johnno
2005-Jan-22, 08:17 PM
Well, you see my dilemma...I have no corroborating evidence (and it's a perfectly reasonable request to ask for some). And I have no desire to be called a liar.

Exactly. But as I said, the problem is it's not really common knowledge, it's not accepted, so as far as people are concerned, it didn't really happen.

The whole UFO phenomenon has been blown out of proportion though, people are seeing them everywhere.


I saw something in broad daylight (I saw no lights on it) that was quite large (unless lower down and smaller which, I concede, is a possibility). I watched it for about 30 seconds. Then it suddenly accelerated from nearly motionless (about like a blimp which is what I, at first glance, thought it was), to a speed that took it completely over the far horizon within 2 seconds; and I was at the top of a mountain range with an unobstructed view for what I estimate to be at least 20-30 miles.


Would've loved to see it myself, I really would. My problem with UFOs is that people who want to see them never do, or don't tell about them, probably because like you they don't want to be ridiculed, they're smart enough to know the consequences of actually telling about their experience. People who do tell about them often have weird backgrounds and/or reasons for telling about them. I know, discredits the phenomenon itself.


I have no idea what it was (if I did it would be an IFO). I am reasonably certain it was not a hallucination; if it was, it was the only one I have ever experienced in my life. It certainly was not ball lightning, or swamp gas reflecting Venus or some such, since, as I say, it was an opaque object with no lights. And, I am not lying.

Well, my problem is that I'm skeptical and pessimistic. Moreso than I should be. I don't take things at face value, even from close friends, I don't mind debating them, and do so frequently. I'd just want to see these things for myself.

I've never seen ball lightning, the light of venus reflecting off swamp gas, or any other phenomenon I didn't know what it was. I've seen Venus though, didn't know what it was at first, got my binocs out, didn't make any more sense, and then I checked a starchart. Yep, venus.


So there you are. What can I, or anyone else do with this anecdotal report? Exactly nothing. Does that mean it didn't happen? Not as far as I am concerned.

Yeah, there's nothing we can do about it.

Star Pilot
2005-Jan-22, 10:18 PM
Can you define exactly what would be the "evidence that validates the "visiting ET" hypothesis." ?

I'll know it when I see it, and I haven't seen it yet.

So, only a personal observation can convince you.


OK...that's not a "fair" answer...how about...evidence that's convincing! As it stands right now, the evidence for "visiting ET's" is the same as the evidence for the existence of ghosts...i.e. photos of white blobs, and personal stories. It's simply not enough!

What do you make about Ufo observed on radar screen and by eyewitness at the same time



If those "visiting ET" are real...
Do you think than an official contact betwen humanity and eventual ET visitor(s)can be a good thing for us?

It would be a very good thing...my question is, If ET's have been visiting us for 50+ years, why haven't they contacted us, already? Oh, I've heard the "reasonings" to explain away this lack of contact, and I just don't buy them. There is no reason for ET's to play games with us, unless one is willing to make LOTS of assumptions as to their motives...I am unwilling to make those unsubstantiated, circular reasoned assumptions.
How can you be sure than contact was never made betwen military and those ET visitors but was keep secret for security reasons?

N C More
2005-Jan-22, 11:14 PM
How can you be sure than contact was never made betwen military and those ET visitors but was keep secret for security reasons?

There's not really any way to prove thinking such as this. It's frequently used by those who choose to believe in the ET hypothesis. However, since this is a science based site everyone here will tell you, "It's not what you believe but rather, what you can prove".

Star Pilot
2005-Jan-22, 11:29 PM
How can you be sure than contact was never made betwen military and those ET visitors but was keep secret for security reasons?

There's not really any way to prove thinking such as this. It's frequently used by those who choose to believe in the ET hypothesis. However, since this is a science based site everyone here will tell you, "It's not what you believe but rather, what you can prove".
It is a fact than military keep things secret for security reasons.

N C More
2005-Jan-22, 11:45 PM
It is a fact than military keep things secret for security reasons.

Absolutely, but there's no way for us to know if this is in fact what is happening regarding UFOs. I hazard to say this is an "unprovable statement" (at least at this point in time) and therefore, until some sort of evidence proving this comes forth it can not be considered to be true. I went into this here (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=401922#401922). Now, that said, everyone is (obviously) free to decide what they will accept for "personal proof" but the level of evidence needed for "scientific proof" is quite rigorous and hasn't been met for the acceptance of UFOs as ET space craft.

Edited once because I can't seem to spell!

Johnno
2005-Jan-22, 11:55 PM
How can you be sure than contact was never made betwen military and those ET visitors but was keep secret for security reasons?

Right. Maybe I'm an alien. Maybe I have green skin because I use sunlight as a energy source so I don't have to eat. No wait, that kinda fails cause I lived above the arctic circle for a few years. Okay, so I have gray skin, big black insectoid eyes and 4 arms.

How can you be sure I'm not telling the truth?

You can't. You're right, we can't be sure. But because we can't be sure is not positive evidence, neither does it warrant investigation.

Bottom line, UFOs aren't doing any harm.


It is a fact than military keep things secret for security reasons.

It's a fact that Microsoft keep things secret for security reasons. It's a fact that our local grocery store keeps their door codes secret for security reasons. I could go on.

Should we investigate Microsoft regarding what they keep secret? Should we investigate what really goes on in the grocery store's back room?

No, I think not.

N C More
2005-Jan-23, 12:15 AM
... Should we investigate what really goes on in the grocery store's back room?

No, I think not.

Wow, now that's a really scarey proposition! :o I "think not" as well (I might actually want to eat in the near future!).

Wolverine
2005-Jan-23, 01:11 AM
Science works well indeed. I agree quite strongly with the following (from this article (http://www.csicop.org/si/9601/logic.html))

I agree with that article completely Wolverine, especially this part:
"the scientific method must be employed as the basis for drawing conclusions regarding paranormal claims." But if most scientists abide by this, then why are they not particpating in the inquiry more actively?

It's important to bear in mind that investigating the possibility of extreterrestrial life and searching for evidence of past or present life elsewhere in the solar system is one of NASA's main scientific objectives, a goal shared by counterparts spanning the globe. Future missions in addition to those currently ongoing demonstrate the concerted effort underway to identify extrasolar planets (http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/planets/searches.html) and determine habitability. The ramifications for astro/exobiological discoveries are, needless to say, quite significant at the very least.

If compelling, empirical evidence (not anecdotal/testimonial (http://www.skepdic.com/testimon.html), not shoehorned mythologies) of anomalous aerial activity were compiled and offered to the scientific community, I'm of the opinion that it would attract interest -- and it would stand on its own merit. To the best of my knowledge, this has yet to occur. I find myself in agreement with Seth Shostak's comments¹:


To convince researchers, who are inherently skeptical, unambiguous and repeated detection of flying objects by satellites or ground-based radar would be required. Better yet would be some indisputable physical evidence, such as the landing lights from an alien craft. In other words, something better than witness testimony is necessary, since such testimony isn’t good enough, no matter how credible the witness.

Consider the fact that lots of people claim to have seen ghosts, and will be pleased to tell you what they saw. But the case for the existence of these shrouded spirits isn’t what you would call convincing. You don’t read a lot about the parameters of ghosts in scholarly journals.

Until and unless better evidence is collected, few scientists are inclined to accept the premise that the Fermi Paradox can be resolved by the claim that aliens are either soaring through the stratosphere, or are stashed away in meat lockers at Area 51.

I don't find it odd that the scientific community is skeptical of UFO/ET claims. Consider this, which I've pointed out in previous discussions: the very origin of the phrase "flying saucers" from Kenneth Arnold's 1947 sighting was a misnomer (http://www.debunker.com/texts/SaucerError.html).


"Well, they flew erratic, like a saucer if you skip it across the water." The intent of the metaphor was to describe the motion of the objects not their shape. Arnold stated the objects "were not circular."

Yet, "flying saucers" were popularized, and not surprisingly, that's what people claimed to see afterward despite the description bearing no physical resemblance to what Arnold claimed to witness.

I contend that scientists would not only be interested in but also pursue investigations if credible evidence existed suggesting some such phenomenon. With scientific funding being painfully scant as is, why divert capital from priority areas of scientific research when the vast majority of "sightings" are attributable to mundane events and errant perceptions on the part of the observer(s)? Given the scientific community's interest in extraterrestrial life in any form, past or present, I find it curious that UFO advocates insinuate or accuse mainstream science outright of being dogmatic on the issue.


Sturrock Report

Yes, I recall our previous discussion on the subject (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=14426) when you'd joined the BABB. Despite your dislike of Phil Klass, the report is still problematic.

I came across another critique, not only of the Sturrock report, but Haisch and SSE (http://www.scientificexploration.org/) (relevant also to the OP). Certain participants in our discussion may invariably dislike or disagree with the source, author, and/or content, but IMHO valid points are presented. So, for your consideration:

UFOs, Scientists and Stanford University (http://www.tampabayskeptics.org/v11n2rpt.html) -- and Part II (http://www.tampabayskeptics.org/v11n3rpt.html).

Thoughts?


___________________
¹ from the third installment of these commentaries: Part I (http://www.space.com/searchforlife/shostak_paradox_011024.html); Part II (http://www.space.com/searchforlife/shostak_fermi2_011108.html); Part III (http://www.space.com/searchforlife/shostak_fermi3_011129.html).

Wolverine
2005-Jan-23, 01:36 AM
How can you be sure than contact was never made betwen military and those ET visitors but was keep secret for security reasons?

How can you be sure there aren't giant purple space shrimp populating the Kuiper Belt? :D

Seriously though, strikes me as argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Johnno
2005-Jan-23, 01:42 AM
Thoughts?

No thank you, I prefer to keep my mind free of pollution.

Kesh
2005-Jan-23, 01:57 AM
What do you make about Ufo observed on radar screen and by eyewitness at the same time

In at least one case, a hoaxer built a 'UFO' out of a model helicopter and some other materials. It not only caused a stir in observations, but some of the material gave it a blurry radar signature. When he landed the 'UFO', it disappeared from radar, lending to cries that the UFO moved faster than we could measure.

So, even that is not evidence.

Johnno
2005-Jan-23, 02:33 AM
In at least one case, a hoaxer built a 'UFO' out of a model helicopter and some other materials.

Hehe, there are actually radio controlled toys nowadays that are marketed as "flying saucers" (have one on the desk next to me). Small engine with plastic prop, even flashing LEDs, lightweight materials, pretty funny thing.



It not only caused a stir in observations, but some of the material gave it a blurry radar signature. When he landed the 'UFO', it disappeared from radar, lending to cries that the UFO moved faster than we could measure.

Well, depends on how the radar system works, can't go into deep detail, but I can tell you that there are different systems, and it wouldn't be "blurry" on several of them. Either it's registered, or it's not.

Disappearing from radar can be instantanious without the object being too fast. You can fly out of coverage (behind a mountain for example), or below coverage, without crashing. Depends on the equipment.

Another thing is SSR transponders (secondary surveillance radar), if the aircraft doesn't have one, it's a UFO pretty much, I think most countries require SSR transponders bring turned on during flight (those who actually have radar surveillance).

scourge
2005-Jan-23, 02:59 AM
What do you make about Ufo observed on radar screen and by eyewitness at the same time

In at least one case, a hoaxer built a 'UFO' out of a model helicopter and some other materials. It not only caused a stir in observations, but some of the material gave it a blurry radar signature. When he landed the 'UFO', it disappeared from radar, lending to cries that the UFO moved faster than we could measure.

So, even that is not evidence.

Sure, but some cases I'm starting to dip into at NARCAP's database (http://www.narcap.org/reports/tr-4c.doc) seem to indicate that the radar readings described 'hard radar confirmation' of targets, that corresponded with the accounts of the flight paths described by eyewitnesses. I think such cases merit closer examination...

I think it’s really interesting that so many of the people here have had notable sighting experiences, because the caliber of mind that frequents a science board like this is more likely to differentiate an atypical phenomenon from something 'mundane,' than the average Joe.

I also think that it’s much to the credit of these witnesses that –none of them, including myself- are making any claim whatsoever that they’re in a position to categorize their experience of these observations. Their minds remain open and curious—and that’s a very rational stance, probably more rational than reflexive dismissal.


I saw something in broad daylight (I saw no lights on it) that was quite large (unless lower down and smaller which, I concede, is a possibility). I watched it for about 30 seconds. Then it suddenly accelerated from nearly motionless (about like a blimp which is what I, at first glance, thought it was), to a speed that took it completely over the far horizon within 2 seconds; and I was at the top of a mountain range with an unobstructed view for what I estimate to be at least 20-30 miles.


I’ve seen footage of an event precisely like this. Iirc, it was on the video collection of footage I have, but I don’t think that tape provided the name of the photographer, so I don’t know how to see if it’s been analyzed or not. I'll have to dig that up and see. It was just as you described—daylight footage of a surprisingly close, apparently disc-shaped object, hovering near the ground—and it suddenly darted into the distance at high velocity. The characteristic that was so striking, was that it didn’t appear to go through an apparent period of acceleration, it just jumped from a dead stop to a constant velocity, as if it had no mass. But it clearly appeared to be solid. This is similar to the bright (objects?) I saw in the sky that afternoon—they followed acute angle, linear trajectories with no apparent change in velocity, as if they had no mass. This is also very similar to NC More’s account. This is why I’ve considered some form of opaque hologram as an explanation, because no solid object I’ve ever seen could execute this kind of maneuver.

Anyway—thanks for courageously sharing your story before the ‘narrow eyes watching,’ there’s some valuable insight among these correlations…I just wish I knew what it was…

Maddad
2005-Jan-23, 03:03 AM
Given the vast size and sheer scale of the universe, there may be innumerable places where life might have originated and evolved into intelligent creatures. But it is this very same vast size and and sheer scale that makes it very unlikely that any extraterrestrial intelligence would have found us and then traveled over incredible distances to drop in for a visit. The number of places and the distances we are talking about are beyond our own human comprehension. Consequently, there is an inverse relationship between the likelihood of extraterrestrial intelligence elsewhere in the universe and the possibility of E.T. dropping by earth to phone home.Bingo. While life, even intelligent or spacefaring life, may be common in the galaxy, it is a very large galaxy.

Just to cross it, not stopping anywhere inbetween, would take 100,000 years at the highest possible speeds. Another 100,000 years to come back home with the results of your exploration. Now, if you want stop and smell the roses at the side of that road, then you'll take a bit longer. Since there are a quarter trillion stars to investigate, and on average each one is going to be 50,000 years away from you, and you'll have to investigate about half of them before stumbling across us, you'll have to look for 6,000,000,000,000,000 (6 quadrillion or 6 x 10^15) years before discovering Earth. If you say that there's a whole pile of ET's doing the looking, say 6,000,000 of them, then you still need a billion years for any of them to find Earth.

Finally, you have the problem that the one successful ET is going to knock on Earth's door when we are not home. How long has Man been around? 50,000 years? Earth has been here 100,000 times longer than that, which means ET's not going to find us when he does find Earth. He'll most likely find pond scum algae instead.

scourge
2005-Jan-23, 04:01 AM
Y’know, an interesting thought about this apparent ‘nullification of mass’ aspect of these accounts just crossed my mind, I hope you won’t object if I speculate on this for a moment, just to see where it leads.

Let’s take these accounts at face value and assume that the sighted objects in question were in fact solid craft of some kind, and that they actually possessed the ability to enter into a condition that reduced their inertial mass to zero. That would mean that the object would not be subject to the force of gravity, right? Which could explain how they seem to hover without propellant.

But what would this mean in terms of propulsion physics? I know this is wild speculation, but why not, it’s fun. If I understand this properly, Relativity only limits –mass- to velocities less than C, and if an object could somehow nullify it’s own inertia, it wouldn’t be subject to this limitation. So under this condition of effective ‘zero mass,’ an object could travel at the speed of light. And since it has no ‘effective mass,’ it could go from one velocity to another without a period of acceleration, because it wouldn't be subject to momentum. This sudden ‘jump’ to high velocity has been a characteristic of some of the accounts here, and elsewhere, which I think is interesting.

If an object could do this, 'nullify' it’s inertial mass somehow, and travel at the speed of light or extremely close to it—what effect would this have on the passage of time within the craft? I seem to recall that time dilation effects would slow time aboard the craft, relative to the initial condition, and a journey to a distant position would appear to take very little time for the occupants on board. Is that right? If you were to travel 100 LY’s at a velocity of 99.99999% the speed of light, how much time would pass on a clock on board?

While we’re way out on a limb, I guess we could also ask—if the inertial mass of an object can somehow be reduced to zero, what if it was dropped to a negative value? Could it then move faster than C?

Eh, I thought it might be fun to look at it this way and consider what the implications and questions might be along the way. Feel free to disregard all of it, it was simply intended as a thought exercise if nothing else.

Star Pilot
2005-Jan-23, 04:10 AM
It is a fact than military keep things secret for security reasons.

Absolutely, but there's no way for us to know if this is in fact what is happening regarding UFOs. I hazard to say this is an "unprovable statement" (at least at this point in time) and therefore, until some sort of evidence proving this comes forth it can not be considered to be true.

Edited
There are leakage coming from ex military and civils who can be corroborated by many events since the end of WW2.And it is strange than many of them were killed after revealing too much...i don`t talk here about the Disclosure Project.


I went into this here (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=401922#401922). Now, that said, everyone is (obviously) free to decide what they will accept for "personal proof"

You have a point here.


but the level of evidence needed for "scientific proof" is quite rigorous and hasn't been met for the acceptance of UFOs as ET space craft.

Indirect evidences is sufficiant for assuming the existance of dark matter that is not so quite rigorous.

gzhpcu
2005-Jan-23, 04:20 AM
Thoughts?

Well, one point I that I see is the tendency to attack the sources. In this case, making the whole subject seem cooky by mentioning investigations conducted of the paranormal. This usually turns me off rather quickly, since it is the Philip Klass approach. The articles are interesting, but do not personally convince me that the subject is not worthy of further investigation.

This thread also demonstrates to me the emotional factor involved in discussing this issue. Which again makes me wish the subject would be investigated in a professional fashion.

Wolverine
2005-Jan-23, 04:47 AM
Well, one point I that I see is the tendency to attack the sources. In this case, making the whole subject seem cooky by mentioning investigations conducted of the paranormal. This usually turns me off rather quickly, since it is the Philip Klass approach.

The author in this case doesn't attempt to portray the subject matter in a poor light by mentioning the paranormal investigations -- instead, he's illustrating that previous issues of SSE's journal embrace or endorse several fringe areas despite lack of supporting evidence or significant evidence to the contrary. Identifying bad science and/or flawed methodology simply further demonstrates why skepticism is warranted, and that folks shouldn't be too eager to embrace claims made by the group, regardless of their vitae. Some might view this as an attack, but it is not; it represents a useful indicator of the quality and substance of SSE's efforts. Possessing beliefs is all well and good, but skewing scientific methodology to support those beliefs is not.

* Edited to correct an inadvertently chopped quotation

Outcast
2005-Jan-23, 04:34 PM
what if the UFOs are not comming from the other corner of the Galaxy and are really close to us? they could, for example, have been in Proxima Centaury or another close by solar system doing reconaissance or scientific work when they spoted human activity. there could be dozens of civilizations traveling across the Galaxy doing what we would like to be doing if we had the means.

a UFO does not necessarily need to have come from far away. the simple fact that UFOs seem to be small ships in my opinion, points to the idea that they are just small reconaissance ships. just a thought.

Nicolas
2005-Jan-23, 04:49 PM
a UFO does not necessarily need to have come from far away. the simple fact that UFOs seem to be small ships in my opinion, points to the idea that they are just small reconaissance ships. just a thought.

IMO If you can hop from Proxima Centauri to here in a small ship on a reconnaisance, you can go much, much farther too, as it would mean you'd be going faster than light (unless a 8.5 year retour trip is just a reconnaisance...).

When talking about traveling these distances, it appears to me (roughly said) that either you can go anywhere or nowhere.

hewhocaves
2005-Jan-23, 05:13 PM
a UFO does not necessarily need to have come from far away. the simple fact that UFOs seem to be small ships in my opinion, points to the idea that they are just small reconaissance ships. just a thought.

IMO If you can hop from Proxima Centauri to here in a small ship on a reconnaisance, you can go much, much farther too, as it would mean you'd be going faster than light (unless a 8.5 year retour trip is just a reconnaisance...).

When talking about traveling these distances, it appears to me (roughly said) that either you can go anywhere or nowhere.

Not necessarily. The navies of the world didn't give up coal depots until the start of the 20th century.

Daffy
2005-Jan-23, 05:19 PM
[

I’ve seen footage of an event precisely like this. Iirc, it was on the video collection of footage I have, but I don’t think that tape provided the name of the photographer, so I don’t know how to see if it’s been analyzed or not. I'll have to dig that up and see. It was just as you described—daylight footage of a surprisingly close, apparently disc-shaped object, hovering near the ground—and it suddenly darted into the distance at high velocity. The characteristic that was so striking, was that it didn’t appear to go through an apparent period of acceleration, it just jumped from a dead stop to a constant velocity, as if it had no mass. But it clearly appeared to be solid. This is similar to the bright (objects?) I saw in the sky that afternoon—they followed acute angle, linear trajectories with no apparent change in velocity, as if they had no mass. This is also very similar to NC More’s account. This is why I’ve considered some form of opaque hologram as an explanation, because no solid object I’ve ever seen could execute this kind of maneuver.



Thanks for the kind words...your description does sound very similar. Was it the same? I'd give a LOT to know!

Astronomy
2005-Jan-23, 05:39 PM
what if the UFOs are not comming from the other corner of the Galaxy and are really close to us? they could, for example, have been in Proxima Centaury or another close by solar system doing reconaissance or scientific work when they spoted human activity.

There's a lot of assumptions playing here. First of all, you assume that The Alpha Centauri star system is "close". Well, compared to the other corner of the galaxy, sure it is, but compared to any form of propulsion that I'm aware of it is very far away.

Obviously, you think the aliens have a new propulsion system, but since you dont know what that entails, we can hardly guess as to whether that makes Proxima Centauri "close".

Secondly, how does someone spot human activity? I suppose by radio transmission. But then, why don't we see any radio transmission from them? If they can spot a radio signal from us, why don't they send one? It's a bit ridiculous to simply claim that they are just hiding themselves from us in the radio band but then send spaceships here for us to see with our eyeballs.


there could be dozens of civilizations traveling across the Galaxy doing what we would like to be doing if we had the means.

Maybe, maybe not. How do you know? Maybe it's so prohibitively expensive that everybody stays home.


a UFO does not necessarily need to have come from far away. the simple fact that UFOs seem to be small ships in my opinion, points to the idea that they are just small reconaissance ships. just a thought.

How do they communicate with one another? How come we can't pick-up on those signals?

dgruss23
2005-Jan-23, 06:03 PM
Maybe, maybe not. How do you know? Maybe it's so prohibitively expensive that everybody stays home.

And if its not that expensive then we must be talking about some radically new physics that we haven't yet discovered or learned how to utilize.

Nicolas
2005-Jan-23, 08:11 PM
a UFO does not necessarily need to have come from far away. the simple fact that UFOs seem to be small ships in my opinion, points to the idea that they are just small reconaissance ships. just a thought.

IMO If you can hop from Proxima Centauri to here in a small ship on a reconnaisance, you can go much, much farther too, as it would mean you'd be going faster than light (unless a 8.5 year retour trip is just a reconnaisance...).

When talking about traveling these distances, it appears to me (roughly said) that either you can go anywhere or nowhere.

Not necessarily. The navies of the world didn't give up coal depots until the start of the 20th century.

Can you explain what you meant exaclty with that remark?

hewhocaves
2005-Jan-23, 08:56 PM
a UFO does not necessarily need to have come from far away. the simple fact that UFOs seem to be small ships in my opinion, points to the idea that they are just small reconaissance ships. just a thought.

IMO If you can hop from Proxima Centauri to here in a small ship on a reconnaisance, you can go much, much farther too, as it would mean you'd be going faster than light (unless a 8.5 year retour trip is just a reconnaisance...).

When talking about traveling these distances, it appears to me (roughly said) that either you can go anywhere or nowhere.

Not necessarily. The navies of the world didn't give up coal depots until the start of the 20th century.

Can you explain what you meant exaclty with that remark?

Sure (and someone can tell me whether or not I'm totally of base on this).

After most navies converted from wood and sils to steel and steam, ships were powered by coal. Any oceangoing vessel could reasonably go around the world without a problem (i.e. assuming they ddn't get unlucky and run headlong into a typhoon or somethign like that), but every ship in the world was limited by the amount of fuel (in this case, coal) that they carried on board. As a result, naval superpowers needed overseas bases to refuel thair ships. Thats what made Hawai'i so special. It's smack dab in the center of the pacific.

Yes, wooden sailing ships could still circumnaviate the world ad nauseam without refueling, but the geopolitical / technological advances of the age made steel and steam a much more attractive option. (and most would argue - a necessity).

The same could be the same for interstellar travel. Considering that we don't know how species 'X' might travel and what their power requirements might be, we shouldn't automaticall y rule out the assumption that space travel might be limited by some sort of fuel requirement.

I agree that a species advanced enough would have overcome that problem, but I also think that we'd never know if we were being visited by that species. No, if someone's going to make a mistake in secretly observing us, it'll most probably be someone who is just getting started themselves.

John

Nicolas
2005-Jan-23, 09:08 PM
Hewhocaves,

I wasn't talking about fuel requirements. I was talking about the miminum physical time needed to do the round trim (8.5 years, head-on trajectory). That ain't just a reconaissance for me. So they would somehow have broken light speed and done it faster if it is just a reconaissance coming from nearby Proxima Centauri. Given they can brake the speed of light, I assume that you are advanced enough (...) not longer to limit yourself to 4 lightyears instead of, say 3000 lightyears. It would be a bit stupid to break through the borders of physics but only by a small margin. It's like being able to go back in time, but no more than 10 minutes ago. If you can go back in time, the amount should pose less problems than the fact itself.

hewhocaves
2005-Jan-23, 09:17 PM
Hewhocaves,

I wasn't talking about fuel requirements. I was talking about the miminum physical time needed to do the round trim (8.5 years, head-on trajectory). That ain't just a reconaissance for me. So they would somehow have broken light speed and done it faster if it is just a reconaissance coming from nearby Proxima Centauri. Given they can brake the speed of light, I assume that you are advanced enough (...) not longer to limit yourself to 4 lightyears instead of, say 3000 lightyears. It would be a bit stupid to break through the borders of physics but only by a small margin. It's like being able to go back in time, but no more than 10 minutes ago. If you can go back in time, the amount should pose less problems than the fact itself.

Yes, I understand what you are saying. However, there is theorey and then there is engineering. Theorey may get you somewhere faster than you could have gotten to before, but it's not the be all / end all. You can't presume that just because you can go FTL that you can go everywhere. Coal ships could go from NYC to Bermuda no problem - easy reconissance. However, going from NYC to Honolulu would have been an entirely different thing.

Do you see what I'm saying now?

John

Nicolas
2005-Jan-23, 09:58 PM
I see your point. But I believe there is a difference between assuming things existing a bit beyond your technical capabilities (ships going from NYC to Honolulu) but not way beyond (ships crossing the atlantic in 12 seconds); and things a bit beyond your theory but not way beyond, while still breaking that theory (a ship engine propelling a ship for one hour without using any energy source might be possible, but not for years). That's just my opinion. That opinion does not stand in the way of the possibilities of Aliens existing and ever visiting us in the future.
I just used the ship example because I could think of no other that fast :)

Star Pilot
2005-Jan-23, 10:41 PM
a UFO does not necessarily need to have come from far away. the simple fact that UFOs seem to be small ships in my opinion, points to the idea that they are just small reconaissance ships. just a thought.

IMO If you can hop from Proxima Centauri to here in a small ship on a reconnaisance, you can go much, much farther too, as it would mean you'd be going faster than light (unless a 8.5 year retour trip is just a reconnaisance...).

When talking about traveling these distances, it appears to me (roughly said) that either you can go anywhere or nowhere.
Why assuming than they return to their home planet.
Imagine a vanguard force.They carry some operational bases disguised as asteroids in tow with hundred of small ships.
When arrived on Earth they use ressources available here(biological and other)for their needs.
After they can build underground and underseas bases.

Here something who describe that kind of operation.OK, I know... No proof than that is really happening but that is a logical description of an operation of that kind. :-k
http://www.humanunderground.com/archive/mj12.html
Exerpts.


In 1953 Astronomers discovered large objects in space which were
moving toward Earth. It was first believed that they were asteroids.
Later evidence proved that the objects could only be Spaceships.
Project Sigma intercepted alien radio communications. When the
objects reached the Earth, they took up a very high orbit around the
Equator. There were several huge ships, and their actual intent was
unknown. Project Sigma, and a new project: Plato, through radio
communcations using a computer binary language, was able to
arrange a landing that resulted in face to face contact with alien
beings from another planet. Project Plato was tasked with
establishing diplomatic relations with this race of space aliens.


:-k

Johnno
2005-Jan-23, 11:14 PM
Why assuming than they return to their home planet.
Imagine a vanguard force.They carry some operational bases disguised as asteroids in tow with hundred of small ships.
When arrived on Earth they use ressources available here(biological and other)for their needs.
After they can build underground and underseas bases.


Ok, lets stop and think for a while. Lets be reasonable.

A interstellar fleet, with hundreds of "small" ships, travels light years. Lets assume that FTL travel is not possible. For the sake of the argument.
Now then, they travel for years and years, maybe hundreds of years. They have advanced space flight, shields, laser cannons. I'm sure they could grow their own food. So what needs would they have on earth?

What needs would they have for underground and undersea bases? To survey mankind? Why exactly? I doubt we have anything at all they could need.

What could they possibly need from us? I'd be interested to know.

We have satellites in orbit that can see a stamp at ground level. Why would they, a far more technologically superior race, need to send crafts down to buzz around people's heads? If they're coming from space, it's easier to stay in space.

Wolverine
2005-Jan-23, 11:17 PM
http://www.humanunderground.com/archive/mj12.html


Careful -- that site (http://www.humanunderground.com/) is choc full of Bravo Sierra.

Nicolas
2005-Jan-23, 11:39 PM
Why assuming than they return to their home planet.

* For the sake of argument of a "reconaissance"
* because the alternative needs a large part of the universe to be "colonized" by aliens, while the orginal Proxima Centauri argument was understood by me as a "small scale advanced alien race" argument.

scourge
2005-Jan-23, 11:40 PM
Maybe, maybe not. How do you know? Maybe it's so prohibitively expensive that everybody stays home.

And if its not that expensive then we must be talking about some radically new physics that we haven't yet discovered or learned how to utilize.

Not necessarily--I recently posted a link to a NASA paper that proposes how antiprotons can easily and cheaply be enticed right out of vacuum fluctuations. True, we haven't tried it yet, but the science and the method appear to be sound and well within our reach.

If it works, that would mean that a ship would be capable of drawing energy from empty space at every point along its flight path, rather than have to carry all the energy it needs with it, from its departure point. Like I said, it is still theoretical, but its a sound, scientific theory, not some hair-brained scheme.

Paper here (http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2001/CR-2001-211116.pdf).

And, there's always fusion. Granted, that seems to be a more difficult process to master, but it's accepted science. And again, the fuel source could be the hydrogen atoms of the interstellar medium. I know we use rare hydrogen isotopes presently, but we know that H1 works in stars so a technology should be possible to do as well.

scourge
2005-Jan-23, 11:47 PM
http://www.humanunderground.com/archive/mj12.html


Careful -- that site (http://www.humanunderground.com/) is choc full of Bravo Sierra.

Lol!

Star Pilot
2005-Jan-24, 12:52 AM
Why assuming than they return to their home planet.
Imagine a vanguard force.They carry some operational bases disguised as asteroids in tow with hundred of small ships.
When arrived on Earth they use ressources available here(biological and other)for their needs.
After they can build underground and underseas bases.


Ok, lets stop and think for a while. Lets be reasonable.

A interstellar fleet, with hundreds of "small" ships, travels light years. Lets assume that FTL travel is not possible. For the sake of the argument.
Now then, they travel for years and years, maybe hundreds of years.

Cloning the pilot and the crew solve the problem and is the solution for space travel.


They have advanced space flight, shields, laser cannons. I'm sure they could grow their own food. So what needs would they have on earth?

What needs would they have for underground and undersea bases? To survey mankind? Why exactly? I doubt we have anything at all they could need.

Conquest can be a goal.


What could they possibly need from us? I'd be interested to know.

Based on the info in the page linked.
They are a degenerative race.This was caused by the abuse of their clonage who have weakened their race.So they come here to find a mean to regenerate their race via the human race.You know those abduction stories...clones ect.

Nicolas
2005-Jan-24, 12:56 AM
They are a degenerative race.This was caused by the abuse of their clonage who have weakened their race.So they come here to find a mean to regenerate their race via the human race.You know those abduction stories...clones ect.

So they travel a large distance, which needs cloning, in order to find a solution for their cloning problem...I would have expected something wiser from those aliens. They let me down again. :)

Star Pilot
2005-Jan-24, 12:58 AM
http://www.humanunderground.com/archive/mj12.html


Careful -- that site (http://www.humanunderground.com/) is choc full of Bravo Sierra.
You better try to make a research about the author and why he was murdered.
http://www.sierratimes.com/archive/files/nov/06/arwc110601.htm

Star Pilot
2005-Jan-24, 12:59 AM
They are a degenerative race.This was caused by the abuse of their clonage who have weakened their race.So they come here to find a mean to regenerate their race via the human race.You know those abduction stories...clones ect.

So they travel a large distance, which needs cloning, in order to find a solution for their cloning problem...

Degenerative problem to their race caused by the abuse of cloning.


I would have expected something wiser from those aliens. They let me down again. :)
I have also mentioned conquest.

Nicolas
2005-Jan-24, 01:15 AM
I have also mentioned conquest.

Serious answer: Let's assume that no place in the solar system other than earth houses (by evolution) life capable of spaceflight (sounds reasonable). That would mean any aliens coming towards us to conquer us would be rather high-tech, considering the distances they can travel. What reason would they have to conquer those [SImpsons mode]"stupid earthlings"[/Simpsons mode] if they don't need anything from us? I mean are we a threat to aliens coming from a planet we can't even reach? Would we be a threat if our inferior technology would reach them anyway? If they'd wanna stop us before we ever got advanced enough to be a threat, they would have less work in destroying us instead of conquering. That would be achievable with an un-aliened mission I hope, it's not that difficult to make a remote controlled bomb or strong virus if you'd want. So the only reason I can see for aliens conquering (as in: not killing us, but ruling over us) us is their need for something from us. My question is: What do they need? WHile being a cyniic response, I meant with my last point that their cloning problem would be a rather indirect way of handling. IN another case, Aliens able to travel long distances could have gone to an uninhabitted (at least not by reasonably intelligent life) planet to harvest whichever goods they needed. So the only reason left for conquer is humans themselves. I assume they have enough technology not to need us as slaves. What remains are abduction stories then (using us to procreate themsselves, or to grow medicines on us or something like that).

Any further elaboration of these thoughts is welcome.

My opinion: the only way I ever see aliens truly visiting us, is in an inspective way and after some other way of contact. I believe in the non-violent non-desparate alien (that is, IF there would ever be alien contact) :).

Star Pilot
2005-Jan-24, 01:38 AM
So the only reason left for conquer is humans themselves.

They need humans as a biological product -our genes-... in their desesperated attempt to regenerate their race.That explain the abduction scenario.They are not here for studying us.
So that explain why they have not eliminated us.An insidious conquest is a better alternative don`t you think?
I have only summarized the info you can find here.
http://www.humanunderground.com/archive/mj12.html

N C More
2005-Jan-24, 02:01 AM
I have only summarized the info you can find here.
http://www.humanunderground.com/archive/mj12.html

Personally, I find this a pretty desperate attempt to explain something (aliens) that we don't even know for certain exists let alone their "motivation" and form of "conquest".

Wolverine
2005-Jan-24, 02:51 AM
http://www.humanunderground.com/archive/mj12.html


Careful -- that site (http://www.humanunderground.com/) is choc full of Bravo Sierra.
You better try to make a research about the author and why he was murdered.
http://www.sierratimes.com/archive/files/nov/06/arwc110601.htm

Excuse me, you're on quite thin ice here. Are you seriously claiming William Cooper was murdered? Cooper had been previously indicted for tax evasion, was a known felon, and fired on police when they attempted to serve a warrant for his arrest, severely wounding a sheriff's deputy. I seriously suggest that you should reconsider what you've posted here, and encourage you to examine all the details involved from a legitimate resource rather than those that pander to conspiracy theorists.

Star Pilot
2005-Jan-24, 04:52 AM
http://www.humanunderground.com/archive/mj12.html


Careful -- that site (http://www.humanunderground.com/) is choc full of Bravo Sierra.
You better try to make a research about the author and why he was murdered.
http://www.sierratimes.com/archive/files/nov/06/arwc110601.htm

Excuse me, you're on quite thin ice here. Are you seriously claiming William Cooper was murdered? Cooper had been previously indicted for tax evasion, was a known felon, and fired on police when they attempted to serve a warrant for his arrest, severely wounding a sheriff's deputy. I seriously suggest that you should reconsider what you've posted here, and encourage you to examine all the details involved from a legitimate resource rather than those that pander to conspiracy theorists.
Edited
I did not claiming anything but that seem to be the rumor cited in that internet publication but I admit than my use of the word "murdered" is not good -shooting down- is what I should have writed in my text intro.
http://www.sierratimes.com/archive/files/nov/06/arwc110601.htm
If he was indicted for tax evasion like you said why sending police for that?
Is it a commun mesure to arrest people at their home for tax evasion?


You better try to make a research about the author...

Here Coopers background....among other thing he was trained by Naval security in intelligence...
http://j_kidd.tripod.com/b/55.html


It wasn't long after that I was trained by Naval security in intelligence...
....
When I left Viet Nam I was eventually attached to the head- quarters staff of the Commander in Chief of the United States Pacific Fleet at Macalappa, [sp] Hawaii, which is a little hill overlooking Pearl Harbor, it's a beautiful white building up there, and I was specifically attached to the Intelligence Briefing Team of the Commander in Chief of the United States Pacific Fleet."

"It was during this tour of duty that, in the course of my duties, documents were placed in my hands that were so unbeliev- able and so incredible that it took me quite a while to adjust to the fact that what I was seeing was real. Now for those of you who don't understand how I could come to see this informa- tion let me give you a little short course in security clearance and "the need to know" and how you get to see classified infor- mation if you're in the military or in the government, it does- n't matter which, the rules are the same."

"Number one you need a security clearance, and you've got to have clearance at the level that the information you want to see is classified at. In this instance it was classified `Top Sec- ret, Magic, Restricted Information,' which I came to find out later is the highest security classification in the Nation. To get that type of clearance, all you have to have is a Federal Bureau of Investigation background check...

gzhpcu
2005-Jan-24, 05:24 AM
Cooper was a crackpot. Read this:

Cooper (http://www.forteantimes.com/articles/155_cooper.shtml)

An Apache County sheriff’s deputy may be paralyzed after being shot in the head by a so-called militia member, who was shot and killed by officers. The incident happened in the town of Eagar, which is located in the eastern part of the state, close to the New Mexico border. Sheriff's deputies were trying to serve an arrest warrant on William Cooper, who has reportedly been known to be hostile toward law enforcement. In order to approach the home, deputies disguised themselves as a bunch of rowdy teenagers in the back of a pick-up truck in hopes of luring Cooper out of his home and it apparently worked.

"However, when Cooper realized what was happening, he reportedly pulled a gun and shot the 40-year-old deputy in the head. During the gunfight, Cooper was reportedly shot and killed. Officials say Cooper belongs to a militia movement and has published several articles in anti-establishment (publications). He also reportedly has a Web site and on it, acknowledges there is an arrest warrant for him, but writes 'Any attempt by federal government or anyone else to execute the unlawful arrest warrants will be met with armed resistance. Any person who attempts to kidnap our children will be shot upon discovery.'"

Anyone exploring the ‘dark side’ of the conspiracy or UFO fields of the last 15 years will recognize the name of Milton William Cooper and remember a loud and angry voice on the fringes. For most of these years, I have watched Cooper’s 'de-evolution'; never a pleasant person to begin with, he spiralled downwards as both his incipient paranoia and long list of enemies grew. This is my attempt to gather together some strands of his public life that might illuminate his state of mind prior to that violent death.



The article concludes:


As an observer of this tawdry story for the last 13 years, my fear is that Bill Cooper will be elevated by the misguided and the far-right as a martyr who fought the ‘evil’ Federal Government. The truth is that Cooper was simply a thuggish, armed felon resisting arrest. He shot a police officer and the rest returned fire, killing him. Any other interpretation is pure hogwash… and we heard enough of that from Bill Cooper.

Star Pilot
2005-Jan-24, 05:48 AM
Cooper was a crackpot. Read this:

Cooper (http://www.forteantimes.com/articles/155_cooper.shtml)


Down the page you can read this if you click the link
Kenn Thomas writes in defense of Bill Cooper
http://www.forteantimes.com/articles/155_cooper2.shtml


KENN THOMAS speaks up in Bill Cooper's defense

Milton William Cooper’s book Behold A Pale Horse was regarded by many as the revealed word on US government involvement with flying saucers and alien invaders. Cooper presented himself as a former member of a US Naval Intelligence briefing team who had seen top secret documents from a group called 'MAJESTYTWELVE' – "No space between majesty and twelve," he insisted – that revealed plans for a joint alien-secret government to subdue the world. It did not take much for Cooper’s critics to dismiss his writings as crazy, but he attracted large crowds at UFO conferences and ignited interest in conspiracy research as few others have.

Cooper did not invent the idea of 'Majesty 12', 'Magic', 'Majic 12' or 'MJ12', with or without the space. The infamous secret group plays a prominent role in UFO history as related by such lecture circuit veterans as Stan Friedman and, more recently, Ryan Woods. They bring to their lectures documentation of varying levels of credibility. An 'MJ12 Special Studies' group appears in a document held by the US National Archives. Its dates line up closely with a UFO document among the papers of Eisenhower kitchen-cabinet member Lew Douglas, as documented in the book Wilhelm Reich and the Cold War by Jim Martin.

Moreover, Cooper’s claims of connection to the US intelligence community are not contradicted by the known historic record. His photograph appears in the yearbook for the USS Oriskany – a ship that served as part of the Western Pacific fleet in Vietnam. A shipmate recalls that Cooper was assigned to the navigation division and thus had access to tactical and strategic intelligence. Cooper was a second-class petty officer, and according to the shipmate was quiet and withdrawn, "not the typical party-hungry sailor."

You can also read


Long before he was killed by local sheriff’s deputies in Eager, Arizona, Cooper had been under surveillance by the FBI. According to friends, in previous years the agency had set up shop in a house down the block from Cooper's residence to monitor 'The Hour of The Time', Cooper’s shortwave broadcasts. The FBI determined that Cooper was too flaky to bother with and apparently decided to let local police take care of 'a local nuisance'. At the time of his death, several federal warrants for tax evasion were outstanding against Cooper.

It was a botched police raid. Cooper had lost a leg in a motorcycle accident many years before. He was overweight and not terribly skilled with weapons. The FBI and the local police had had years to develop a more peaceful way to subdue him, if that is what they wanted. They either didn’t want that or, more likely, they didn’t care. In the end, Cooper was not a victim of a New World Order/federal government on the attack. He died from federal neglect and bullets-before-brains local police tactics.

Johnno
2005-Jan-24, 06:38 AM
Cloning the pilot and the crew solve the problem and is the solution for space travel.


Solve what problem? Solution for space travel?

Why would they need to clone themselves? Why not bring a healthy population, after all, they have hundreds of ships and asteroids and whatnot. With their interstellar propulsion technology they could actually just take one big asteroid, add engines, and then build facilities inside (read Gregory Benford's Across the Sea of Suns).



Conquest can be a goal.


Right, for which they need underground and undersea bases, buzzing saucers around people's heads, yet they seem to do no harm. Wouldn't it be easier to just shoot down the ISS, announce your arrival, demand mankind to surrender, and then if necessary bomb our cities?
After all, we already assumed they had laser cannons and shields to protect them from incoming debris when flying close to speed of light.



Based on the info in the page linked.
They are a degenerative race.This was caused by the abuse of their clonage who have weakened their race.So they come here to find a mean to regenerate their race via the human race.You know those abduction stories...clones ect.

Cloning is never the answer, and I'm sure aliens would know. Why would they even need to start with cloning instead of normal reproduction?

You make up a claim, and then theorize to the causes behind it, grasping for straws. I can do the same with the purple space shrimp in the kuiper belt (credit to Wolverine).

Star Pilot
2005-Jan-24, 07:28 AM
Cloning the pilot and the crew solve the problem and is the solution for space travel.


Solve what problem? Solution for space travel?
....
Why would they need to clone themselves? Why not bring a healthy population, after all, they have hundreds of ships and asteroids and whatnot. With their interstellar propulsion technology they could actually just take one big asteroid, add engines, and then build facilities inside

Surviving the long distance trip is the problem for space travel.Cloning the pilot and the crew members when necessary solve this little problem.




Conquest can be a goal.


Right, for which they need underground and undersea bases, buzzing saucers around people's heads, yet they seem to do no harm. Wouldn't it be easier to just shoot down the ISS, announce your arrival, demand mankind to surrender, and then if necessary bomb our cities?
After all, we already assumed they had laser cannons and shields to protect them from incoming debris when flying close to speed of light.

I have already answered that on the other page


Nicolas wrote:
So the only reason left for conquer is humans themselves.

star pilot:
They need humans as a biological product -our genes-... in their desesperated attempt to regenerate their race.That explain the abduction scenario.They are not here for studying us.
So that explain why they have not eliminated us.An insidious conquest is a better alternative don`t you think?




Based on the info in the page linked.
http://www.humanunderground.com/archive/mj12.html
They are a degenerative race.This was caused by the abuse of their clonage who have weakened their race.So they come here to find a mean to regenerate their race via the human race.You know those abduction stories...clones ect.

Cloning is never the answer, and I'm sure aliens would know. Why would they even need to start with cloning instead of normal reproduction?

They surely not have started with cloning but ended with it.Who knows maybe their womens became tired of normal reproduction. :D

Johnno
2005-Jan-24, 08:09 AM
Surviving the long distance trip is the problem for space travel.Cloning the pilot and the crew members when necessary solve this little problem.


Why would survival be a problem, if you have good enough technology to take a large asteroid, and mine out rooms for facilities inside it. Then accelerate/decelerate it at 1G (or whatever your homeworld gravity is) and you'll have a nice artificial gravity as well.

Cloning doesn't solve anything. You can solve any of the problems without cloning. You're just grasping for straws trying to make up reasons.



I have already answered that on the other page


No you haven't, I checked. You have made up a reason for conquest, but not a reason for the way of the conquest. Now how about you explain why a race coming from far away would be so scared of just having mankind surrender, and take what they want from earth, compared to "conquest" in the way of abducting people and building underground bases.




They surely not have started with cloning but ended with it.Who knows maybe their womens became tired of normal reproduction.

Translation: I have no idea, I'm just making this up as we go.

Star Pilot
2005-Jan-24, 08:31 AM
I have already answered that on the other page


No you haven't, I checked. You have made up a reason for conquest, but not a reason for the way of the conquest. Now how about you explain why a race coming from far away would be so scared of just having mankind surrender, and take what they want from earth, compared to "conquest" in the way of abducting people and building underground bases.

They don`t even need to conquest and causing the risk of nuclear reply from us wich can irradiate their live stock...they already have all they need via the abductions.
You have definitively not reading this ...you should.
http://www.humanunderground.com/archive/mj12.html

scourge
2005-Jan-24, 08:59 AM
Hmm...is this thread still on topic? :-k

I find it interesting that this thread has grown so fast—the subject certainly inspires a lot of adversarial debate and exploration of fringe ideas. Which seem like a very good thing. Because even though the subject isn’t accepted as ‘good science’ for various reasons (at least not yet, anyway), it moves people to investigate scientific ideas and to ‘think outside the box.’ I know from personal experience that my sighting experience has motivated years of inquiry into physics and astronomy with an open and insatiably curious mind. It changed me (for the better, I hope) 8-[

Maybe that’s reason enough to address the topic of the potential of extraterrestrial life, and specifically the prospect of visitations, with greater scientific rigor than ever before—because as long as the question remains, young minds will be spurred to learn about and investigate a wide range of scientific fields with an eye toward constructive speculation.

That’s why I think that if there is a ‘they’ taunting us with glimpses of possibilities beyond our present technological reach, they’re doing us a favor. And maybe, just maybe, they’re demonstrating for us the clues we need to discover a new form of propulsion—one that will allow us to get out there and meet our galactic neighbors on their turf…

Nicolas
2005-Jan-24, 09:42 AM
That’s why I think that if there is a ‘they’ taunting us with glimpses of possibilities beyond our present technological reach, they’re doing us a favor. And maybe, just maybe, they’re demonstrating for us the clues we need to discover a new form of propulsion—one that will allow us to get out there and meet our galactic neighbors on their turf…

Then they should have thought things over BEFORE they demonstrated us the wonderfull world of fuzzy handycam filming :D

Seriously, I don't think so. It is a bit playing with fire, doing peek-a-boo with your fancy spaceship. They can never know just how we might react to that. I think they would just decide not to come at all, or to come and show themselves full front. Besides, seeing glimpses of a craft going very fast will not bring me 1 step closer to building one, except for the certainty that it is possible. It seems like a very inefficient method to teach us to me.

Just my 2 cents.

Outcast
2005-Jan-24, 09:45 AM
so, can we at least agree that the possibility of these beings being closer to us, maybe closer than Proxima Centauri, maybe even on our kuiper belt doing some mining on Sedna, solves the problem of large distance traveling and even explains the small size of their ships?

Outcast
2005-Jan-24, 09:52 AM
as for reasons for their presence... i have debated with myself the possible reasons. now, what im going to hint at next is highly debatable but in my mind makes a certain sense. the Book of Enoch describes the voyage of the prophet into "gods" spaceship on heaven. while in there he is given a tour of the place. later he is presented at what to me is a disturbing sight, the Angels apparently collect the souls of humans after they die in large mettalic cillinders. they say the reason is to present "judgement" on humans for their sins after they die. but could there be a more macabre reason behind their actions. i'll try and post the relevant passages here later so as to give a context for this idea.

scourge
2005-Jan-24, 09:59 AM
Well, there's also the possibilty of a nearby mothership rather than a local base, and also the beguiling possibility that their technology allows them to fly several light years with only brief subjective flight times.



That’s why I think that if there is a ‘they’ taunting us with glimpses of possibilities beyond our present technological reach, they’re doing us a favor. And maybe, just maybe, they’re demonstrating for us the clues we need to discover a new form of propulsion—one that will allow us to get out there and meet our galactic neighbors on their turf…

Then they should have thought things over BEFORE they demonstrated us the wonderfull world of fuzzy handycam filming :D

Seriously, I don't think so. It is a bit playing with fire, doing peek-a-boo with your fancy spaceship. They can never know just how we might react to that. I think they would just decide not to come at all, or to come and show themselves full front. Besides, seeing glimpses of a craft going very fast will not bring me 1 step closer to building one, except for the certainty that it is possible. It seems like a very inefficient method to teach us to me.


Well, I think that knowing something is possible is a big help, especially in this case, since, if we take the best reports at face value, these things seem to violate conservation of momentum, among other laws we hold sacred. So we probably wouldn't even attempt such a thing, if we didn't see an example of a physics 'loop-hole' of some kind that permits this behavior.

And I can see wisdom in the idea that a demonstration to individuals is one thing, and 'irrefutable proof' or schematics, is another--the latter is a huge responsibility, culturally. By leaving it up to individuals to figure the operating principles out for themselves, you don't precipitate the same level of culture shock that something more consensually convincing would entail.

Nicolas
2005-Jan-24, 10:12 AM
these things seem to violate conservation of momentum, among other laws we hold sacred.

How does a fast moving spaceship in our atmosphere violates any physical law? With enough thrust in all directions, and a skin capable of withstanding enormous heat, it seems to me that lightspeed is the physical boundary. Acceleration/decelleration can be enormous, but does not violate any law. Am I missing physical boundaries in this reasoning?

Johnno
2005-Jan-24, 10:20 AM
That’s why I think that if there is a ‘they’ taunting us with glimpses of possibilities beyond our present technological reach, they’re doing us a favor. And maybe, just maybe, they’re demonstrating for us the clues we need to discover a new form of propulsion

Why would they? We'll figure it out ourselves sooner or later. As I asked before, what could they possibly gain from this. What's on earth that can't be found elsewhere? Liposuction? Makeup?

People have come up with complex things on their own, it doesn't take an outside influence. If this was true, where did the first ever intelligent race get their inspiration from? God?

I've heard this reasoning before, basically you're saying we couldn't possibly do it on our own, so we need a outside influence. Just because *you* don't know how to, doesn't mean other people can't figure it out.
Silly reasoning if you ask me.


so, can we at least agree that the possibility of these beings being closer to us, maybe closer than Proxima Centauri, maybe even on our kuiper belt doing some mining on Sedna, solves the problem of large distance traveling and even explains the small size of their ships?

Possibility? Sure. There's a 1^-5060990 (or any insanely large random number) chance. So yes, I agree, there is a possibility. Doesn't make it true, doesn't say it will ever happen, but yes, the possibility is there.

Mmmm, purple space shrimp...*drool*

As for gods, angels, sins, judgement, you're getting into religion. Stick to science, no need to involve religion into this subject.


So we probably wouldn't even attempt such a thing, if we didn't see an example of a physics 'loop-hole' of some kind that permits this behavior.

Yes we would. We just need to be able to attempt it. There's always someone crazy enough to try something new, putting their life on the line, to figure out if it's possible or not. Breaking the speed of sound by airplane for example.

Johnno
2005-Jan-24, 10:43 AM
Am I missing physical boundaries in this reasoning?

No. The crew just has to be able to withstand the acceleration/deceleration.

Nicolas
2005-Jan-24, 10:47 AM
Am I missing physical boundaries in this reasoning?

No. The crew just has to be able to withstand the acceleration/deceleration.

That 's what I thought. The requirements on ship and crew support might be big, but it does not open our eyes into a whole new world of physics.

scourge
2005-Jan-24, 11:14 AM
these things seem to violate conservation of momentum, among other laws we hold sacred.

How does a fast moving spaceship in our atmosphere violates any physical law? With enough thrust in all directions, and a skin capable of withstanding enormous heat, it seems to me that lightspeed is the physical boundary. Acceleration/decelleration can be enormous, but does not violate any law. Am I missing physical boundaries in this reasoning?

Yes--if you take the most compelling reports at face value.

For one thing, they appear to emit no propellant. So it seems that they violate conservation of momentum. We currently have no physics model that would explain how these things can hover and rapidly accelerate without emitting propellant, because we rely on action/reaction for thrust.

Also, they appear to jump to high velocity without an acceleration period. They also stop on a dime, and, they execute zigzag maneuvers without slowing, or curving their trajectories. In short, they appear to defy their own inertial mass, which by current physics standards is impossible.

These are, in my estimation, the aspects that witnesses find most riveting and haunting, because no device we've ever created has these performance characteristics. It's impossible to forget something like this, because it 'should be' impossible for it to happen at all.

This is why I often entertain the hologram interpretation---because a projection could easily behave in this manner. But for a massive object to do so requires a couple of new chapters in the physics books.



That’s why I think that if there is a ‘they’ taunting us with glimpses of possibilities beyond our present technological reach, they’re doing us a favor. And maybe, just maybe, they’re demonstrating for us the clues we need to discover a new form of propulsion.


Why would they? We'll figure it out ourselves sooner or later. As I asked before, what could they possibly gain from this.

The point made was--we wouldn't look very hard for a way around seemingly inviolable physical laws unless we entertained the possibility that it could be done. So by showing us that it can be done, they could be helping us save centuries toward that objective.

Why would they bother? I like to think it would be because they want to help us get out there. And maybe aspects of the science they utilize could have additional benefits for mankind, like the energy crisis. Or maybe they generally encourage civilizations to become star faring because it makes the galaxy a more interesting place? Or maybe because if they give us a slight nudge in the right direction now, we'll have a better basis to establish cooperative relations in the inevitable future when we get out there among them. Or maybe the see the distinct possibility that we may wipe ourselves out soon, and want to spare our species extinction by getting some of us off the planet before we go up in smoke. Or maybe they've seen species in our situation before, and know that we'll have a better chance of pulling our act together if we can migrate into the galaxy and meet our neighbors as equals, more or less. Lots of possibilities, but they all seem benevolent.


People have come up with complex things on their own, it doesn't take an outside influence. If this was true, where did the first ever intelligent race get their inspiration from?

Let's be reasonable even if we are being wildly speculative. It takes longer to make something happen if you don't know what you're after, in this case, a propellantless propulsion principle that may also entail some influence on the behavior of mass itself. Given current physics, this isn’t the kind of thing we're likely to investigate if we didn’t hear rumors that it can be done. Sure, eventually, we'd probably get there anyway--which is why a little subtle interference doesn't violate our technological evolutionary process and impose an outside will upon our development, to any radical degree anyway. But maybe getting there sooner rather than later has some significant upsides. I know that I, and everyone on this board, would love to see some radical advance in propulsion technology happen in their lifetimes. It may also involve the solution to other problems as well.


So we probably wouldn't even attempt such a thing, if we didn't see an example of a physics 'loop-hole' of some kind that permits this behavior.


Yes we would. We just need to be able to attempt it. There's always someone crazy enough to try something new, putting their life on the line, to figure out if it's possible or not. Breaking the speed of sound by airplane for example.

The current situation indicates differently, for the most part (and as for the rest, it may be creditable to our flying disc buddies for putting us on track, hypothetically-speaking). The only scientifically accepted investigation that I know of, to explore revolutionary new forms of propulsion, was NASA's dearly departed Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program. Which, probably for the very reason that we still regard effective propellantless propulsion systems to be impossible, was woefully under-funded and short-lived.

scourge
2005-Jan-24, 11:29 AM
There's always someone crazy enough to try something new, putting their life on the line, to figure out if it's possible or not. Breaking the speed of sound by airplane for example.

This is a bad example, because we didn't think it was contrary to the laws of physics to break the 'sound barrier,' just that the sonic shockwave would be life threatening to the pilot/crew.

Nicolas
2005-Jan-24, 11:34 AM
There's always someone crazy enough to try something new, putting their life on the line, to figure out if it's possible or not. Breaking the speed of sound by airplane for example.

This is a bad example, because we didn't think it was contrary to the laws of physics to break the 'sound barrier,' just that the sonic shockwave would be life threatening to the pilot/crew.

In fact we DID. Subsonic aerodynamics predict infinite drag at the speed of sound. Hence the name sound "barrier". The idea that these laws lost their validity at transsonic speeds wasn't proven. Only after experiments it turned out that the sound barrier was in fact just a drag rise. Afterwards, theory was adapted to this new findings.


Yes--if you take the most compelling reports at face value.

For one thing, they appear to emit no propellant. So it seems that they violate conservation of momentum. We currently have no physics model that would explain how these things can hover and rapidly accelerate without emitting propellant, because we rely on action/reaction for thrust.

Also, they appear to jump to high velocity without an acceleration period. They also stop on a dime, and, they execute zigzag maneuvers without slowing, or curving their trajectories. In short, they appear to defy their own inertial mass, which by current physics standards is impossible.

Do you SEE acceleration of a bullet? Do you SEE wind blowing? If a jet engine would be sound dampened and using no afterburner, do you SEE something being expelled? I have never seen fuel being expelled from a non-afterburning jet engine on airshows. IF a 747 does not make contrails due to atmospheric conditions, I see absolutely no propellant being expelled, eventhough it uses a LOT of it. I do realise the difficulties of making a craft like that, but very fast acceleration and decelleration does not brake any law, given that you can provide enough thrust to allow for such a change.

scourge
2005-Jan-24, 11:41 AM
Yes--if you take the most compelling reports at face value.

For one thing, they appear to emit no propellant. So it seems that they violate conservation of momentum. We currently have no physics model that would explain how these things can hover and rapidly accelerate without emitting propellant, because we rely on action/reaction for thrust.

Also, they appear to jump to high velocity without an acceleration period. They also stop on a dime, and, they execute zigzag maneuvers without slowing, or curving their trajectories. In short, they appear to defy their own inertial mass, which by current physics standards is impossible.


Do you SEE acceleration of a bullet? Do you SEE wind blowing? I do realise the difficulties of making a craft like that, but very fast acceleration and decelleration does not brake any law, given that you can provide enough thrust to allow for such a change.

I don't SEE what wind blowing has to do with it. And I may not be able to watch the bullet accelerate, but there's an obvious explosion to explain the force. These craft, if that's what they are, change vector with no apparent slowing or curving, and no visible or audible indication of propulsion method. Do you see the challenge to physics here? Your questions don't address the questions at hand--if we take these cases at face value, we don't have the physics to explain them. I suspect that we're somehow asking the wrong questions, because the answers are not forthcoming.

edit: Also, no reports I've ever read or heard of have indicated air flow associated with these craft. They don't make wind and they don't expel propellant. It's a true physics conundrum--if the accounts are accurate.

Nicolas
2005-Jan-24, 11:56 AM
What wind blowing has to do with it:
http://www.globalcomposites.com/jec/upl/helios.jpg
this.

No propellant is being expelled. Stil, thrust is generated by the action/reaction principle: the propellors blowing wind from front to back.

A bullet has an explosion related to it, that's true. But no physical law limits the size of an acceleration. The bullet was just an example of very fast acceleration, so fast that you can't see it with your eyes. The fact that you don't know how a spaceship obtains its acceleration, does not mean it breaks physical laws. If I hit a baseball with a bat, it changes direction almost instantaneously, so these kind of changes are physically possible. We just don't see how it happens.

An example that combines wind blowing and seeing acceleration (a bit of a bad example because it is too slow in fact, but anyway). I let go a balloon, it slowly ascends. Suddenly, a there is a small hole in the side. The balloon "instantaneously" changes direction, with no propellant seen expelled.

What I want to say: the amount of acceleration is no problem to physical laws. That we don't know how they are achieved is no problem to physical laws.

All this is of course assuming that ETs would visit us and that their craft would exhibit that kind of behaviour.

scourge
2005-Jan-24, 12:18 PM
Take NC More's sighting, for example, which is similar to many others. Here's a large metallic object hovering over the ground for some 20-25 minutes. It would have to be displacing its weight in air if we're going to accept the aerodynamic concept you're forwarding, but in none of these cases has anyone ever seen the trees/grass below, blowing or moving in any way.

And I don't think any of the cases I've encountered describe venturi's or ports from which air could blow--they're always described as smooth, ventless objects. They also often move in directions at some angle to the ground, which would require ports on the bottom and the side, neither of which are visible.

So it would seem that the only idea we have to explain this, air/gas flow, is out. And that leaves us with, well, nothing to explain how these things hover and move. I think this is a key reason why scientists abhor the whole subject--because we don't have a good explanation for what these things are described as doing.

Johnno
2005-Jan-24, 12:35 PM
For one thing, they appear to emit no propellant.

As you said, they don't appear to do so, neither do they need to. As Nicolas has pointed out, airplanes don't appear to emit propellant either. Even so they can fly.


So it seems that they violate conservation of momentum. We currently have no physics model that would explain how these things can hover and rapidly accelerate without emitting propellant, because we rely on action/reaction for thrust.

What propellant does a helicopter emit?



Also, they appear to jump to high velocity without an acceleration period.

Have you ever seen a rocket fired at 120G from a stationary position? I have. There is a acceleration period, you just can't see it.

What you would need to support your claim is video footage of a craft doing just that, taken with a high speed camera.

I'm still waiting for convincing pictures/videos.


They also stop on a dime, and, they execute zigzag maneuvers without slowing, or curving their trajectories.

Do they now. How about you show us some footage of them doing so?
And while at it, do you have a theory for the zigzagging?



In short, they appear to defy their own inertial mass, which by current physics standards is impossible.

Except you don't know their mass, so you can't tell if they're defying it or not. It just takes force to change direction.


Why would they bother? I like to think it would be because they want to help us get out there. And maybe aspects of the science they utilize could have additional benefits for mankind, like the energy crisis. Or maybe they generally encourage civilizations to become star faring because it makes the galaxy a more interesting place?

Problem here is we're using our reasoning to apply to a alien race far more advanced than us. Greed, Friendliness, it doesn't really apply. We can imagine, we can theorize, but it's still just a regular "what if" argument.

We won't know how a alien race thinks until we encounter them, and interact with them. They may have completely different values and ideas.



Or maybe because if they give us a slight nudge in the right direction now, we'll have a better basis to establish cooperative relations in the inevitable future when we get out there among them.

But what exact purpose would that serve? Is there anything we can supply them with? Probably not. So sure, you can imagine that they want to play a game, they want to supply us with superior technology, and then have a war game. Or you can theorize that they're bored and want another race to interact with.

But it's wishful thinking, they could just as well think the opposite, and just slaughter us all. What you're doing is making a history, a backstory for your beliefs. You think there are alien crafts visiting us, so you need to make up a reasoning why they would be doing so. I think the opposite, and can reason in that way. Neither of us will get any closer to the truth until we have a actual breakthrough. And unless the aliens actually want to interact with us, we won't be able to find out anything about them.

Unless you build a SAM site and shoot down a UFO, to find out if it's a russian spy craft, USAF test craft, or aliens.



Or maybe the see the distinct possibility that we may wipe ourselves out soon, and want to spare our species extinction by getting some of us off the planet before we go up in smoke.

Still wishful thinking. They'd have no reason to do so. Why save mankind if we can't save ourselves?


Given current physics, this isn’t the kind of thing we're likely to investigate if we didn’t hear rumors that it can be done.

That's all they are. Rumours. We don't know if it can be done or not. We're not going to investigate it, because we don't have the technology to make it happen.

Nicolas
2005-Jan-24, 12:41 PM
Consider the following object:

A shell, very strong and lightweight. Inside there's a space which can be filled with air or be pumped to a variable amount of vacuum. When full vacuum, the total structure has less density that air, hence ascends. When full air, the structure descends. Somewhere in between, it hovers.

For fast moving, another means should be applied. Fully laminar propellant release seems highly difficult to observe to me. the fact that you don't see vents does not mean there are no vents: maybe they are very small, probably they are very well worked into the form of the craft considering the speeds at which it moves through the atmosphere. (do you see a pitot tube on a Harrier hanging still 100 meters away from you?). To move at an angle, you could use thrust vectoring, or move your center of gravity to give a thrust moment. If sound is an objection, generating anti sound is completely within physical laws. The fact that you don't see grass moving could mean that the exhaust streams only work very locally. A Helicopter hovering at 500 meters will do little to the grass. Now scale this effect down, a spaceship hovering at several meters can as well within physical laws disturb very little to the grass. Also, if there's some wind, the grass moves already and little more will be disturbed. (side point: which eye witness looks at the grass at the moment a spaceship is no longer hovering but zipping all over the place? it's not that they arre that common sights).

An observer on the ground can never see the complete surface of the ship, unless the ship would be tumbling on all 3 axis. So there could even be large vents on a part he can't see.

My point: if we assume that what people saw happening in the sightings was in fact what really happened (which I don't believe but assumed here for the sake of argument) there still is no absolute need to brake the laws of physics. I'm not saying all our physical laws and theories are 100% sound. But I don't think we should conclude that alien spaceships manoeuvres necessarily brake our physical laws.

R.A.F.
2005-Jan-24, 12:43 PM
Take NC More's sighting, for example, which is similar to many others. Here's a large metallic object hovering over the ground for some 20-25 minutes.

I could be wrong because I haven't checked N C's post, but I don't seem to recall N C describing what was seen as being metallic.

The phrase "metallic object" has the problem of (A) the assumption that whatever is sighted is an actual, physical object and (B) that the ""object" is actually made of some form of metal. These are both unproven assumptions.

Johnno
2005-Jan-24, 12:46 PM
Take NC More's sighting, for example, which is similar to many others. Here's a large metallic object hovering over the ground for some 20-25 minutes. It would have to be displacing its weight in air if we're going to accept the aerodynamic concept you're forwarding, but in none of these cases has anyone ever seen the trees/grass below, blowing or moving in any way.

Maybe because they're looking at the big shiny object? Define over the ground. 10 ft? 100ft? 1000ft?

Now if we actually had a incident, where someone had videotaped a large ufo, say 50 ft off the ground, and it had been confirmed by IR/RADAR, you could see the ufo's shadow, and know the altitude for a certain (range finder?), you'd have a case.

I've seen things and remembered them wrong, I can barely remember what someone looks like who I met just 15 minutes ago. I'd recognize them if I saw them again, but I'd be darned if I could remember their name. Memory is a tricky thing.


And I don't think any of the cases I've encountered describe venturi's or ports from which air could blow--they're always described as smooth, ventless objects. They also often move in directions at some angle to the ground, which would require ports on the bottom and the side, neither of which are visible.

Yet there is no hires footage of this. How would the human eye be able to detect these things, if a camera couldn't? Sure the human eye is an amazing tool, but even so.



So it would seem that the only idea we have to explain this, air/gas flow, is out.

No, since you have no evidence for the contrary, you can't say it's out. What we have to go by are eyewitness reports, so far at least. I can explain away every single eyewitness report, doesn't make it true. I can say that they're all lying. 10 people? 50? It's a conspiracy. Doesn't mean it's true just because I have an explanation.

Eagerly waiting for footage and pictures.

Star Pilot
2005-Jan-24, 03:31 PM
Well, there's also the possibilty of a nearby mothership rather than a local base,

The perfect camouflage for hiding a space operational base is disguising the base as an asteroid.
http://www.humanunderground.com/archive/mj12.html

An ex officer in Naval security in intelligence specifically attached to the Intelligence Briefing Team of the Commander in Chief of the United States Pacific Fleet reveal all the story about the US governement implications with the aliens visitors.
http://j_kidd.tripod.com/b/55.html

R.A.F.
2005-Jan-24, 04:09 PM
An ex officer in Naval security in intelligence specifically attached to the Intelligence Briefing Team of the Commander in Chief of the United States Pacific Fleet reveal all the story about the US governement implications with the aliens visitors.

Using the "ravings" of a man like William Cooper is not what a rational person would consider evidence. I mean he's "all over the map". MJ12, the Kennedy assasination, secret bases on Mars. Just how do you expect us to take this seriously?

The funniest thing I read on that site was the idea that the USA and the USSR have been allies since the end of WWII! I mean really. :roll:

N C More
2005-Jan-24, 04:17 PM
Is it just me or have we entered "The Twilight Zone" here? Is this a scientific discussion or have I missed something and we're now talking about science fiction?

There is no solid evidence presented by anyone (ex-Navy/Army/Airforce) that we have been visited/contacted/invaded by aliens. If this discussion has now turned to speculation of of such and various conspiracy scenarios then be prepared to have people here not take you very seriously.

Nicolas
2005-Jan-24, 04:22 PM
Part of the (fragmented) discussion whas about the necessity of braking current laws of phyics in order to explain the behaviour of crafts in sightings (asuming the craft were craft and did waht was seen for the sake of argument). I guess one can be taken serisou when he tries to explain why that behaviour still does not need new physical laws, as he leans on known science.

As for the asteroid base/undersea stories: :roll:

:)

Johnno
2005-Jan-24, 04:59 PM
Is it just me or have we entered "The Twilight Zone" here? Is this a scientific discussion or have I missed something and we're now talking about science fiction?

Depends how scientific you want to keep it. There would be no problem with an asteroid base, or even a interstellar asteroid ship, but what scourge suggests (breaking laws of physics) is indeed scifi.

Nicolas
2005-Jan-24, 05:03 PM
Depends how scientific you want to keep it. There would be no problem with an asteroid base, or even a interstellar asteroid ship, but what scourge suggests (breaking laws of physics) is indeed scifi.

Unnecessary scifi from a technological point of view, that the best part :)

Johnno
2005-Jan-24, 05:17 PM
Unnecessary scifi from a technological point of view, that the best part

The fun thing is how scourge thinks it would be breaking the laws of physics, but has no theories on how it would be done, what exact forces would be at work. I could cook together a fun explanation... it's not that hard.

Either way, laws were made to be broken ;)

Now if I had the money I'd make some experiments, compile a list of close range sightings, take out the average values of those (altitude/distance), then try to build a craft that could actually hover, make it as silent as possible, and then see what kinda noise it'd put out, and how it would disturb the area it was hovering over.

Making it insanely fast etc would be a whole other deal. Would be interesting to see what kind of acceleration you could get, if the craft was at a standstill, hovering, and you floored the gas practically getting a vacuum in the direction you were heading for because you sucked all the air from there and put it out the other side of the craft at a extremely high rate. Wonder what kind of air deplacement capability it would take.

Ideas?

Nicolas
2005-Jan-24, 05:24 PM
Unnecessary scifi from a technological point of view, that the best part

The fun thing is how scourge thinks it would be breaking the laws of physics, but has no theories on how it would be done, what exact forces would be at work. I could cook together a fun explanation... it's not that hard.

Either way, laws were made to be broken ;)

Now if I had the money I'd make some experiments, compile a list of close range sightings, take out the average values of those (altitude/distance), then try to build a craft that could actually hover, make it as silent as possible, and then see what kinda noise it'd put out, and how it would disturb the area it was hovering over.

Making it insanely fast etc would be a whole other deal. Would be interesting to see what kind of acceleration you could get, if the craft was at a standstill, hovering, and you floored the gas practically getting a vacuum in the direction you were heading for because you sucked all the air from there and put it out the other side of the craft at a extremely high rate. Wonder what kind of air deplacement capability it would take.

Ideas?

Idea for a silent hovering machine:

disc shaped balloon

About the fast going craft: When sucking all air in front of you to a vacuum, remember that pressure differences are moving through the air at the speed of sound. Filling in that gap would give "a bit of noise" I guess. Also, if you'd fly through the vacuum you just created, you would lose lift (given that it is a aerodynamic lift craft) and you would lose height.
But I think this is getting too far off topic.

Next post: on topic :)

Star Pilot
2005-Jan-24, 07:46 PM
Surviving the long distance trip is the problem for space travel.Cloning the pilot and the crew members when necessary solve this little problem.


Why would survival be a problem,

Effectively who cares about that.


if you have good enough technology to take a large asteroid, and mine out rooms for facilities inside it.

You meant with swimming pools and tennis courts like the Queen Mary
That is the dream for all space travelers, imagine a fancy vacation on these space ships.WoW! :D



Cloning doesn't solve anything. You can solve any of the problems without cloning. You're just grasping for straws trying to make up reasons.

Cloning is the cheapest way for a succesfull mission by the way they already use cloning for their reproduction.

R.A.F.
2005-Jan-24, 07:57 PM
...by the way they already use cloning for their reproduction.

When you say "they" are you talking about ET's??

gzhpcu
2005-Jan-24, 08:42 PM
Just one question which just popped into my mind: are all of the military witnesses in Steven Greer's Disclosure Project liars?

eburacum45
2005-Jan-24, 08:50 PM
On a point of order...

there are two interstellar strategies being compared here,
the 'asteroid space-ark generation ship'

versus the 'unmanned frozen clone carrying probe';

there are difficulties and advantages associated with both strategies, but neither has been ruled out as a viable interstellar strategy.

In fact the smaller, lighter, faster frozen clone carrying ship will tend to arrive first, and will consume much less energy; however the technology required for a successful 'unmanned frozen clone' strategy is somewhat more complex.

'asteroid space arks' consume vast amounts of fuel, propellant, and life support energy; and are much slower.
When the space arks arrive they are likely to find the destination system has been already claimed by a group ouf defrosted clones.

Wolverine
2005-Jan-24, 08:59 PM
Just one question which just popped into my mind: are all of the military witnesses in Steven Greer's Disclosure Project liars?

Didn't we already discuss this? ;)

Original commentary (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=263017#263017)
Follow-up (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=281836#281836)

gzhpcu
2005-Jan-24, 09:21 PM
Just one question which just popped into my mind: are all of the military witnesses in Steven Greer's Disclosure Project liars?

Didn't we already discuss this? ;)

Original commentary (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=263017#263017)
Follow-up (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=281836#281836)

We did discuss it, but still we discussed more of Dr. Greer. After looking at some disclosure video clips, I still ask: are all the witnesses liars?

Wolverine
2005-Jan-24, 09:29 PM
Well, unless they release what they claim to possess in terms of "hard evidence", we likely won't be able to answer that question.

Johnno
2005-Jan-24, 09:33 PM
When the space arks arrive they are likely to find the destination system has been already claimed by a group ouf defrosted clones.

Pfft, who cares about some defrosted clones? You've got a huge asteroid with tons of people, orbital weapons, armed walkers, smaller space crafts etc. Just wipe out the clones.

Why would you need clones though? I don't see the point. Either you can "freeze" your crew, or you can't. If you can, it doesn't matter if they're clones or not. If you can't freeze your crew, you just bring a healthy population and a "sperm bank" (or whatever's equal to your reproductive process).

So what's the point of cloning? Now there are several people saying cloning is the solution, but nobody is giving any reasons as to what it solves, and why it would be preferred over another solution.

And IF cloning is the way to go (I don't see why, but lets say so for the sake of argument), don't you think they would be far more advanced in genetics and be able to work out any defects? And why would they need humans anyway? Our DNAs are probably completely different. They could take apes or pigs or sheep. Why humans? Because you want to feel wanted?

I just don't get it.

scourge
2005-Jan-24, 10:03 PM
Take NC More's sighting, for example, which is similar to many others. Here's a large metallic object hovering over the ground for some 20-25 minutes.

I could be wrong because I haven't checked N C's post, but I don't seem to recall N C describing what was seen as being metallic.

The phrase "metallic object" has the problem of (A) the assumption that whatever is sighted is an actual, physical object and (B) that the ""object" is actually made of some form of metal. These are both unproven assumptions.

They're not assumptions R.A.F., I just dropped all the 'apparent,' 'presumably' stuff, for the sake of seeing where it leads if we take many reports of sightings at 'face value.'

The pertinent quote from the original thread http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=176833&highlight=#176833

For about 30 minutes we all stood transfixed as a large silver disk shaped object (complete with rotating lights) hovered outside of Gloversville NY. Finally, it literally darted away in a zig-zag manner with a speed I would not have believed possible by anything.


As I said, I find the idea of a holographic projection interesting because it would solve the movement questions more elegantly than the airflow propulsion idea, imo. But there's big problems with that model--like, how to project a hologram that looks solid (even in broad daylight by some accounts)--it seems that such a holographic technology would be as revolutionary as a new form of propulsion.

My apologies if I ever make it sound like 'these things are alien ships for sure,' because that's not what I mean. I just think it's interesting sometimes to discuss what the implications could be, if we take the testimony and footage for exactly what they say/appear to be, to the witnesses who were there.

scourge
2005-Jan-24, 10:16 PM
Unnecessary scifi from a technological point of view, that the best part

The fun thing is how scourge thinks it would be breaking the laws of physics, but has no theories on how it would be done, what exact forces would be at work.

If I did, it wouldn't entail an apparent 'breaking of physical laws' as we know them, would it? :D

And I'm only discussing the issue from the POV of what we have if we take the accounts at face value, for the sake of argument, which is what we're all doing to some degree or another in order to discuss the subject at all, right?

So okay, try this--if it's so easy to make a craft that exhibits the reported flight characteristics of witnesses, using nothing more than forced air, then why doesn't the miltary replace all of their jet fighters with these things? Sure seems like being able to fly into Iraq at 4000+mph, stop on a dime over a munitions depot and drop a bomb, then bolt off in the direction you came from 'like a bullet leaving a gun barrel,' without making a sound, would have some tactical value 8)

Star Pilot
2005-Jan-24, 10:33 PM
And why would they need humans anyway? Our DNAs are probably completely different. They could take apes or pigs or sheep.

Remember
They also abduct cows.
Strangely these cows were found dead with broken legs like if they were left from high above the ground.

The responsables for mutilating these animals were never found and arrested by local polices or the FBI. :o
http://www.mufor.org/fyffe.htm
FBI disclosed file about
Animal/Cattle Mutilation
http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/ufoanim.htm

R.A.F.
2005-Jan-24, 10:53 PM
Is it just me or have we entered "The Twilight Zone" here?

No...it's not just you.

Johnno
2005-Jan-24, 11:07 PM
scourge, how about you quote whoever said building a craft like we described would be easy, and who said we would be able to survive the G forces involved during violent accelerations/decelerations. I'd love to know.

scourge
2005-Jan-24, 11:13 PM
So here, by request, is what I could find of some interest on the web so far, by way of photographic evidence and reports. Please bear in mind that this is the best I could find on the web in three days of spare time tinkering, so not all of this bears the 'scourge stamp of approval,' but I think it illustrates that there may be something to consider in this area.

Of particluar disappointment, is NICAP's 'come one come all' policy of photographic filing--several of the cases on their website have been convincingly dismissed by skeptics at CSICOP and others, but others remain of interest.

I find cases in different parts of the world that appear similar to be especially interesting so I've pointed some of these out.

Ideally, I'd like to see radar/visual/videotaped cases, but as long as the investigation effort is volunteer and grass-roots that's not likely to happen.

Here's a good page of photos, for overview purposes--I like how you can just scroll down to see additional shots, so I'm posting it here, despite the fact that it contains a few cases that have certainly been explained or debunked: http://unionbell.8k.com/photo2.html

Here’s the link to NICAP’s collection of ufo photos (still no luck finding any video footage online, which is frustrating-- I know some interesting stuff exists because I’ve seen it): http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/cat8.htm

And another link to photos: http://bedlam.rutgers.edu/ufo/pictures/

This 1965 California case: http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/heflinrep.htm, bears a bizarre similarity to this 1974 Yugoslavia case: http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/yugo74.htm
and this 1977 Germany case: http://www.ufocasebook.com/germanylarge.jpg

This link presents an argument that several sightings may be of the same object: http://www.temporaldoorway.com/ufo/catalog/tailedobject/index.htm

This 1954 image taken in France http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/france54.htm is strikingly similar to this 1950 Oregon case: http://brumac.8k.com/trent1.html

And here’s a 2002 NARCAP paper of interest: http://www.narcap.org/reports/TR6pt1.htm “Radar Catalogue: A Review of Twenty One Ground and Airborne Radar UAP Contact Reports Generally Related to Aviation Safety for the Period October 15, 1948 to September 19, 1976”

Also, NARCAP’s catalog of 1302 sighting reports http://www.narcap.org/reports/tr-4c.doc
And their 2001 report http://www.narcap.org/reports/emcarm.htm “A Preliminary Study of Sixty Four Pilot Sighting Reports
Involving Alleged Electromagnetic Effects on Aircraft Systems"

scourge
2005-Jan-24, 11:30 PM
and who said we would be able to survive the G forces involved during violent accelerations/decelerations. I'd love to know.

I don't know, I never said that.

Nicolas
2005-Jan-24, 11:40 PM
2 remarks:

* Why ô why do UFO pictures HAVE to be blurry??

* http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/cat8.htm
One should indeed not give this site too much value. This site lists confessed fakes among their "important incidents". I haven't read through the other sites (I've looked at the pitures), but if that's the level of investigation efforts they go for...

Johnno
2005-Jan-24, 11:40 PM
I don't know, I never said that.


then why doesn't the miltary replace all of their jet fighters with these things? Sure seems like being able to fly into Iraq at 4000+mph, stop on a dime over a munitions depot and drop a bomb, then bolt off in the direction you came from 'like a bullet leaving a gun barrel'

Maybe you meant they would be piloted by AI, or remote controlled?
There'd be the whole issue about jamming communications, not to mention if the control center lost power or was taken out. But we can discuss that if you want to explain your reasoning.

And what about who said it would be easy to build one of these crafts?

Johnno
2005-Jan-24, 11:55 PM
* Why ô why do UFO pictures HAVE to be blurry??

Not to mention from 1965, faded and then scanned at lowres around 1995, and then compressed to jpg around 2003 before being put online. There's no telling what those objects actually are, would be no problem to hang a wooden/plastic model on a fishing line and take a pic, scan it at lowres after developing it, then compressing it further.

Sure the object might be there, but what is it? Could be anything.

Nicolas
2005-Jan-25, 12:08 AM
Google images: "high res UFO" ("high resolution UFO" gave no satisfactory results)

1 positive result.
This: http://ray.onemoremonkey.com/ufo/1-1200.jpg

I guess the only thing being "high res" on that picture is the amount of pixels, but it's just bloated from a smaller photo.

scourge
2005-Jan-25, 12:28 AM
I don't know, I never said that.


then why doesn't the miltary replace all of their jet fighters with these things? Sure seems like being able to fly into Iraq at 4000+mph, stop on a dime over a munitions depot and drop a bomb, then bolt off in the direction you came from 'like a bullet leaving a gun barrel'

Maybe you meant they would be piloted by AI, or remote controlled?
There'd be the whole issue about jamming communications, not to mention if the control center lost power or was taken out. But we can discuss that if you want to explain your reasoning.

And what about who said it would be easy to build one of these crafts?

Well, I've heard we have some kind of special liquid-pressure flight suit so pilots can survive steep accelerations, and apparently you can survive extremely high accelerations if the exposure time is brief. But I tend to favor the 'remote probe' idea, for the smaller craft anyway. Or, another form of propulsion, maybe some kind of asymmetric gravitational field principle. Until we have a better idea of how matter curves spacetime, we can't rule out the possibility of a synthetic gravitational field effect. This would explain all of the current observations, and would also allow for pilots, because the accleration would be uniform within the field.

And you and Nicolas didn't specify that air-driven craft like this would be easy, but if those craft are showing up around the world, and have had plenty of occassion to hover around inhabited civilian areas for fifty years or so, then they couldn't be that experimental at this point either.

I'd love to think that we could make craft like this. I want one.

hewhocaves
2005-Jan-25, 12:29 AM
* Why ô why do UFO pictures HAVE to be blurry??

Not to mention from 1965, faded and then scanned at lowres around 1995, and then compressed to jpg around 2003 before being put online. There's no telling what those objects actually are, would be no problem to hang a wooden/plastic model on a fishing line and take a pic, scan it at lowres after developing it, then compressing it further.

Sure the object might be there, but what is it? Could be anything.

I totally agree. I thumbed hrough some of the pictures and could pick out a handful that I knew right off the bat were fakes. I'm no expert in the field, and to have some pics on there that have filtered down to me as fakes would lead me to conclude that you're pretty hard up for evidence.

One of the pictures (the red orange one in mexico) looked very much like someone had interspersed a pane of glass between camera and landscape. Then they allowed a light source to be reflected off the pane. The effect looks similar to seeing your living room light reflected off a dark window. Great way to make a UFO without tampering with the film.

IMHO remove immediately all of the pics that are
a) just light sources.
b) the people didn't see anything in them UNTIL the photo was developed.
c) are too blurry to not distinguish any details.
d) admitted fakes

I''m fairly certian that gets rid of 80% of the photos. Saves bandwith, too. lol

John

Johnno
2005-Jan-25, 12:40 AM
Well, I've heard we have some kind of special liquid-pressure flight suit so pilots can survive steep accelerations, and apparently you can survive extremely high accelerations if the exposure time is brief.

Who's "we" ?

I heard about the purple space shrimp in the Kuiper belt, from Wolverine.
Where did you hear about these special suits?

extremely high? give me a number. 100G? 150G?
brief? how brief?



And you and Nicolas didn't specify that air-driven craft like this would be easy, but if those craft are showing up around the world, and have had plenty of occassion to hover around inhabited civilian areas for fifty years or so, then they couldn't be that experimental at this point either.

It could just as well be that the crafts are so insanely expensive that there aren't many around. Take the B-2 bomber for example. Good bomber, right? And how many are there? Now multiply the cost with say 50. How many would there be? There's always the cost/gain ratio to consider.

scourge
2005-Jan-25, 12:40 AM
* Why ô why do UFO pictures HAVE to be blurry??

Not to mention from 1965, faded and then scanned at lowres around 1995, and then compressed to jpg around 2003 before being put online. There's no telling what those objects actually are, would be no problem to hang a wooden/plastic model on a fishing line and take a pic, scan it at lowres after developing it, then compressing it further.

Sure the object might be there, but what is it? Could be anything.

I totally agree. I thumbed hrough some of the pictures and could pick out a handful that I knew right off the bat were fakes. I'm no expert in the field, and to have some pics on there that have filtered down to me as fakes would lead me to conclude that you're pretty hard up for evidence.

Or, that the only people posting this stuff aren't scientists, which is my whole point--this field requires scientists who can properly evaluate the most interesting cases. As of today, there's no reputable 'filter.'


One of the pictures (the red orange one in mexico) looked very much like someone had interspersed a pane of glass between camera and landscape. Then they allowed a light source to be reflected off the pane. The effect looks similar to seeing your living room light reflected off a dark window. Great way to make a UFO without tampering with the film.

IMHO remove immediately all of the pics that are
a) just light sources.
b) the people didn't see anything in them UNTIL the photo was developed.
c) are too blurry to not distinguish any details.
d) admitted fakes

I agree, absolutely. I think this isn't happening more because of incompetence than anything. The fact that I could find no reputable collection that has undergone any rigorous evaluation, speaks to the essence of the problem I see.

Nicolas
2005-Jan-25, 01:00 AM
Scourge, the best suits used to date can handle something like sustained 10 G's. While that feels like a dumptruck on your belly, it still does not look like an instantaneous change. Heavy G loads can be dealt with for short periods of time, though you do feel them. A pilot still needs to be able to control his craft: during the load he should not accidentally ove his stick all over the place, he needs to remain conscious, he should not become dizzy...

The acceleration a pilot experiences now is uniform in a dimensional sense, but not in a temporal sense. What were you meaning with your asymmetric gravitational field?

Johnno, if you'd do the price of the B2 times 50, there would be about a half :) I thought there were 20 of them. I once heard someone telling one crashed at an airshow, but that does not appear to be the case. An F-117 crashed at an airshow, but that's a whole other story.

gzhpcu
2005-Jan-25, 01:34 AM
Well, unless they release what they claim to possess in terms of "hard evidence", we likely won't be able to answer that question.

True, but the implication is that they are all liars, isn't it? What motivates so many ex-military personnel to be liars?

gzhpcu
2005-Jan-25, 01:41 AM
P.S. Are astronauts Edgar Mitchell and Gordon Cooper liars or delusional as well?

Wolverine
2005-Jan-25, 01:59 AM
Well, unless they release what they claim to possess in terms of "hard evidence", we likely won't be able to answer that question.

True, but the implication is that they are all liars, isn't it? What motivates so many ex-military personnel to be liars?

I never claimed such -- and stand by my original statement in the previous discussion:


I'm certainly not claiming that they're all mistaken, mentally deranged, or solely seeking profit, but to guarantee the authenticity of their claims, examine what "evidence" they possess, and ascertain whether or not their claims are genuine requires empirical investigation. Their statements cannot simply be taken at face value...


P.S. Are astronauts Edgar Mitchell and Gordon Cooper liars or delusional as well?

As stated previously, I have no idea what their motivations were -- only that there's nothing tangible to substantiate their claims. You agreed previously here (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=281852#281852)...

scourge
2005-Jan-25, 02:14 AM
Absolutely. It's interesting to speculate and take the most credible reports at face value, but it's not really going to help us understand what the real facts are. That requires careful analysis, and I think just as importantly, the means to respond to cases quickly and gather as much data as possible before information becomes lost or twisted.

I would love to see a team of volunteer, top scientists, get some significant funding to conduct a first-rate active investigation over a five year period, without a mountain of political pressure hampering their work. With some well-equipped jets, access to radar confirmation, maybe even satellite photos, I bet we could get some good data to work with.


Scourge, the best suits used to date can handle something like sustained 10 G's. While that feels like a dumptruck on your belly, it still does not look like an instantaneous change. Heavy G loads can be dealt with for short periods of time, though you do feel them. A pilot still needs to be able to control his craft: during the load he should not accidentally ove his stick all over the place, he needs to remain conscious, he should not become dizzy...

The acceleration a pilot experiences now is uniform in a dimensional sense, but not in a temporal sense. What were you meaning with your asymmetric gravitational field?


10 G’s sounds right--those suits have some kind of fluid pressure don;t they? These craft seem to undergo high accelerations for less than a second, so a pilot could endure a lot higher force in that time. I recall 20 to 30 G’s for short intervals like this. 30 G’s for one second is ~670 mph.

The thing is, as impressive as that is, even an acceleration of that magnitude seems unable to explain how a flight path can be a fast, linear zig-zag. Because if the craft is moving at a high speed it has to overcome its momentum. What I saw moved in a fast straight line, then doubled back at an acute angle (about 30 degrees), with no apparent loss of velocity whatsoever. It was like watching a superball reflect off a hard wall, but without the wall. I can’t be sure how far those lights were, but if we take a conservative estimate of their speed, say 1000 mph (or heck, even 100 will make the point), changing direction like that would be like colliding with another object moving twice as fast. If you were in a car moving 100 mph and had a head-on collision with a similar vehicle that was travelling at 200 mph (or a vehicle with twice the mass moving at 100 mph), which is what it would take to change your direction like that, you’d be dead meat, right? No flight suit could save you, and even if it did, you wouldn’t go on to execute several more manoeuvres like that in rapid succession, in perfect formation with an identical craft.

But if your craft was generating a synthetic gravitational field, and if you could manipulate the center of that field to induce acceleration toward that point, you wouldn’t feel a thing as you went through those motions. Every atom in your body and of the craft would be subjected to a uniform acceleration in the given direction. Looking through a porthole, in this scenario, the ground would appear to scroll around beneath you like a zigzagging movie projection, and you wouldn’t even spill your coffee.
Using conventional propulsion techniques, if there were a pilot in these things, why would they subject themselves to the G forces of these movements? Why hover for half an hour at a dead stop, and then whip yourself around with a series of rapid consecutive zigzag motions, instead of making way in a nice smoothly accelerated trajectory in a straight line or a smooth, arcing curve? It doesn’t make sense.

Wolverine
2005-Jan-25, 02:52 AM
Absolutely. It's interesting to speculate and take the most credible reports at face value, but it's not really going to help us understand what the real facts are. That requires careful analysis, and I think just as importantly, the means to respond to cases quickly and gather as much data as possible before information becomes lost or twisted.

My comments were specifically directed toward claims made by the Disclosure Project, and what would be necessary to reach a conclusion about what substance exists to back up their assertions. I don't find the speculation terribly interesting, given the inaccuracy of anecdote and witness testimony, coupled with how easy it's become to manufacture (http://www.csicop.org/si/2003-09/faking-ufo-photos.html) imagery and video. No matter how credible the witness, these offer no value scientifically.


I would love to see a team of volunteer, top scientists, get some significant funding to conduct a first-rate active investigation over a five year period, without a mountain of political pressure hampering their work. With some well-equipped jets, access to radar confirmation, maybe even satellite photos, I bet we could get some good data to work with.

In this post (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=403035#403035), I asked the following question a few pages back, which I never saw answered, so I'll resubmit:

With scientific funding being painfully scant as is, why divert capital from priority areas of scientific research when the vast majority of "sightings" are attributable to mundane events and errant perceptions on the part of the observer(s)?

scourge, I'm somewhat puzzled by what you find so compelling about unsubstantiated anecdote. Since this thread has entertained a tremendous amount of idle speculation, let's explore something further: what reason do you think best explains the gaping void of credible, empirical evidence to demonstrate there being any substance in the "UFO phenomenon" despite noteworthy technological resources at our disposal?

Star Pilot
2005-Jan-25, 03:54 AM
I don't know, I never said that.


then why doesn't the miltary replace all of their jet fighters with these things? Sure seems like being able to fly into Iraq at 4000+mph, stop on a dime over a munitions depot and drop a bomb, then bolt off in the direction you came from 'like a bullet leaving a gun barrel'

Maybe you meant they would be piloted by AI, or remote controlled?
There'd be the whole issue about jamming communications, not to mention if the control center lost power or was taken out. But we can discuss that if you want to explain your reasoning.

And what about who said it would be easy to build one of these crafts?

Well, I've heard we have some kind of special liquid-pressure flight suit so pilots can survive steep accelerations, and apparently you can survive extremely high accelerations if the exposure time is brief. But I tend to favor the 'remote probe' idea, for the smaller craft anyway. Or, another form of propulsion, maybe some kind of asymmetric gravitational field principle. Until we have a better idea of how matter curves spacetime, we can't rule out the possibility of a synthetic gravitational field effect. This would explain all of the current observations, and would also allow for pilots, because the accleration would be uniform within the field.

And you and Nicolas didn't specify that air-driven craft like this would be easy, but if those craft are showing up around the world, and have had plenty of occassion to hover around inhabited civilian areas for fifty years or so, then they couldn't be that experimental at this point either.

I'd love to think that we could make craft like this. I want one.
Here ya go.
Electro-Dynamic Propulsion
http://au.geocities.com/psyberplasmic/ccX-6.html

Don`t you think it look like Adamski flying saucer.I know Adamski was a fraud or more likely was victim of an elaborated machination.

Now here some explanation about how the G acceleration factor is solved.
Using the craft described in the link above.

http://au.geocities.com/psyberplasmic/ccS1-3.html
the text is just above the chapter called THE 'GRAVITATIONAL' EFFECT


If an electric air- or space-craft based on the same principle of resonance were to be suddenly accelerated into a new vector at speeds which would normally break its molecular lattice apart, a 'relative' or 'apparent' 35g acceleration could be easily amortized over a relative 'time-dilation' of 1:35 inside the field of the craft... giving the craft and its crew the relative acceleration of only 1g...! If the reader has been able to grasp the preceding dissertation on time and space, he now knows why 'UFOs' have such incredible performance characteristics. They are only relatively incredible...

scourge
2005-Jan-25, 04:01 AM
Absolutely. It's interesting to speculate and take the most credible reports at face value, but it's not really going to help us understand what the real facts are. That requires careful analysis, and I think just as importantly, the means to respond to cases quickly and gather as much data as possible before information becomes lost or twisted.

My comments were specifically directed toward claims made by the Disclosure Project, and what would be necessary to reach a conclusion about what substance exists to back up their assertions. I don't find the speculation terribly interesting, given the inaccuracy of anecdote and witness testimony, coupled with how easy it's become to manufacture (http://www.csicop.org/si/2003-09/faking-ufo-photos.html) imagery and video. No matter how credible the witness, these offer no value scientifically.

I find that perspective somewhat alarming, but I understand why most science professionals would prefer to work in areas with greater opportunity for the practical advancement of their chosen field. I see any really controversial question to be fertile ground for a properly conducted scientific investigation.


I would love to see a team of volunteer, top scientists, get some significant funding to conduct a first-rate active investigation over a five year period, without a mountain of political pressure hampering their work. With some well-equipped jets, access to radar confirmation, maybe even satellite photos, I bet we could get some good data to work with.


In this post (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=403035#403035), I asked the following question a few pages back, which I never saw answered, so I'll resubmit:

With scientific funding being painfully scant as is, why divert capital from priority areas of scientific research when the vast majority of "sightings" are attributable to mundane events and errant perceptions on the part of the observer(s)?

I never suggested that we divert funding from priority areas of research; in fact, I think that would be a terrible mistake. It doesn’t make sense to pull funding from ongoing work to explore a highly speculative area like unidentified aerial phenomena. I think there are other endeavors we spend our tax money on that could stand a little shaving, however, like imperialistic international military actions, for example. But more practically, given that half the people in our country are inclined to think that there are visitors buzzing our atmosphere, maybe we could put one of those little volunteer funding boxes on the tax forms, viz, ‘if you’d like to pay an additional tax dollar to fund the investigation of aerial phenomena, please check this box.’ Sorry, I don’t really know how to best do this, but I don’t like cutbacks in any scientific field.

If there is something remarkable happening in our skies, and I think there is, though I don’t know what it is, I don’t think it’s common—but I think it’s important for myriad reasons, not the least of which is flight safety.


scourge, I'm somewhat puzzled by what you find so compelling about unsubstantiated anecdote. Since this thread has entertained a tremendous amount of idle speculation, let's explore something further: what reason do you think best explains the gaping void of credible, empirical evidence to demonstrate there being any substance in the "UFO phenomenon" despite noteworthy technological resources at our disposal?

First of all, what ‘noteworthy technological resources’ are you referring to Wolverine? To the best of my knowledge, there really aren’t any significant technological resources at our disposal to address this phenomenon (or more likely, phenomena). This is the central motivation I have to discuss this topic—we haven’t dedicated –any- resources to acquire better data, it’s been left up to kooks and the layman, who have no skills or significant technology. The task of acquiring truly compelling data on a rare and fast-moving aerial phenomenon is, by nature, a challenge of daunting proportions. Nothing short of a highly specialized, equipped, and mobile team of researchers, is very likely to do any better than fuzzy photos and occasional radar confirmation. If we want better, we need to dedicate resources to the project. I agree with the excerpt I posted earlier, from an Air Command research paper that describes how and proper investigation should be conducted, and why:

Excerpt from the ‘Air Command and Staff College Research Study, Air University: Should the USAF Reopen Project Blue Book,’ conclusions section(http://www.cufon.org/cufon/afrstdy1.htm):


“It is apparent to the writers that Project Blue Book suffered from bias, faulty research, political pressure, an inadequate staff, and a shoddy, antiquated filing system. In short, Project Blue Book lacked the necessary scientific methodology warranted by an important study of this nature.
The writers feel that their research has proven a new UFO study is definitely warranted. Any new study, however, should profit from the mistakes of Project Blue Book and the Condon Committee and incorporate the lessons learned from their failures. Any new UFO program should be free from bias and political influence; it should also transcribe all old and new input concerning UFO sightings to data processing and a central memory bank. Any new UFO study should carefully employ scientific methodology in their investigation and should maintain a stable, well-qualified, highly motivated leadership. But once again, the writers must ask the question: If a new UFO study is warranted, who should undertake it?
It is doubtful that the Air Force, or any DoD agency could conduct a truly scientific study in this politically volatile subject, considering the past history of Project Blue Book. Any new UFO study should be independent of the military and should be undertaken by Prominent scientists and astronomers in the United States. Ideally, these scientists could form a national organization whose prime purpose would be the investigation of UFOs. Such an organization could cooperate and exchange information with scientists and astronomers throughout the world, as well as with private agencies such as Dr. J. Allen Hynek's Center for UFO studies. Such an organization should be financed by the government and should report to a congressional sub-committee. Hopefully, this would free the organization from political influence, bias, and pre-judgment, and would encourage an open discussion of questions and findings. Ideally, such a national organization would divide the United States into regions or sections. Each area should maintain transportation which would be available whenever needed to investigate UFO sightings and landings within a few hours of their occurrence.”

Wolverine
2005-Jan-25, 04:06 AM
Here ya go.
Electro-Dynamic Propulsion
http://au.geocities.com/psyberplasmic/ccX-6.html

Don`t you think it look like Adamski flying saucer.I know Adamski was a fraud or more likely was victim of an elaborated machination.

Now here some explanation about how the G acceleration factor is solved.
Using the craft described in the link above.

http://au.geocities.com/psyberplasmic/ccS1-3.html
the text is just above the chapter called THE 'GRAVITATIONAL' EFFECT

Those links sure ring a bell. I remember first seeing them here (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=239260#239260). :-k

scourge
2005-Jan-25, 04:20 AM
I'd love to think that we could make craft like this. I want one.
Here ya go.
Electro-Dynamic Propulsion
http://au.geocities.com/psyberplasmic/ccX-6.html

Interesting coincidence--when I was playing with the ionic wind 'lifters' from the misnamed American Anti-Gravity site, I made a small disc, much like the one illustrated in that article. I used an airfoil silhouette, and rotated it through 360 degrees to contour the 'rotated wing' shape, put the anode top center, and wrapped the foil cathode around the equatorial 'base,' and it created a small force (I'm still not sure if that was because of the reaction force of accelerating the air downward, or because the ionic wind over the curved surface produced a pressure drop on the top). It looked really cool too--the violet halo of ionized nitrogen enveloped the whole disc, lending a very otherworldly look to the little contraption ;)

I haven't read the second link yet, I'll get back to you later on that...

gzhpcu
2005-Jan-25, 05:24 AM
Well, unless they release what they claim to possess in terms of "hard evidence", we likely won't be able to answer that question.

True, but the implication is that they are all liars, isn't it? What motivates so many ex-military personnel to be liars?

I never claimed such -- and stand by my original statement in the previous discussion:


I'm certainly not claiming that they're all mistaken, mentally deranged, or solely seeking profit, but to guarantee the authenticity of their claims, examine what "evidence" they possess, and ascertain whether or not their claims are genuine requires empirical investigation. Their statements cannot simply be taken at face value...


P.S. Are astronauts Edgar Mitchell and Gordon Cooper liars or delusional as well?

As stated previously, I have no idea what their motivations were -- only that there's nothing tangible to substantiate their claims. You agreed previously here (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=281852#281852)...

If there were anything substantial and/or unrefutable proof, obviously this discussion would not be taking place. I still maintain that either they are all lying/or are delusional, or there is something to be investigated. I see no other possibility.

Wolverine
2005-Jan-25, 05:30 AM
If there is something remarkable happening in our skies, and I think there is, though I don’t know what it is, I don’t think it’s common—but I think it’s important for myriad reasons, not the least of which is flight safety.

I appreciate your honesty, and will gladly address the other points in your reply -- before doing so though, you've touched on here what I'm most curious about, and I think it's important to establish before moving forward. What specifically leads you to this conclusion, and would you be willing to elaborate? Was your personal experience instrumental in adopting this stance? (And if I may ask, how old were you at the time?)

Please know that I'm not trying to be confrontaional, rather, trying to better understand where you're coming from and reconcile the difference in appearance between your above statement and this from earlier:


My apologies if I ever make it sound like 'these things are alien ships for sure,' because that's not what I mean. I just think it's interesting sometimes to discuss what the implications could be, if we take the testimony and footage for exactly what they say/appear to be, to the witnesses who were there.

In a nutshell, why do UFO claims constitute a "phenomenon" or "phenomena?"

Wolverine
2005-Jan-25, 05:47 AM
If there were anything substantial and/or unrefutable proof, obviously this discussion would not be taking place. I still maintain that either they are all lying/or are delusional, or there is something to be investigated. I see no other possibility.

I'd consider other possibilities somewhere in the middle, otherwise this conclusion runs the risk of presenting a false dilemma. It's possible, yes, but I don't think three options are enough, since there are numerous psychological processes at work. (Not limited specifically to these...Example 1 (http://www.skepdic.com/falsememory.html), Example 2 (http://www.csicop.org/si/9605/error.html), Example 3 (http://www.csicop.org/si/9505/belief.html).)

gzhpcu
2005-Jan-25, 06:23 AM
If there were anything substantial and/or unrefutable proof, obviously this discussion would not be taking place. I still maintain that either they are all lying/or are delusional, or there is something to be investigated. I see no other possibility.

I'd consider other possibilities somewhere in the middle, otherwise this conclusion runs the risk of presenting a false dilemma. It's possible, yes, but I don't think three options are enough, since there are numerous psychological processes at work. (Not limited specifically to these...Example 1 (http://www.skepdic.com/falsememory.html), Example 2 (http://www.csicop.org/si/9605/error.html), Example 3 (http://www.csicop.org/si/9505/belief.html).)

You make some good points, but my question is did you read the Disclosure book? Most of the incidents can not be covered by the above mentioned links. These are also persons who will testify before congress.

Wolverine
2005-Jan-25, 07:01 AM
You make some good points, but my question is did you read the Disclosure book? Most of the incidents can not be covered by the above mentioned links.

I've viewed all materials pertaining to TDP that're available at no cost (including those long since removed). If the evidence they claim to possess is so conclusive that it "proves that UFOs are real, that some are of extraterrestrial origin," etc., why must I purchase the book (http://www.disclosureproject.org/shop.htm#Disclosure%20Book) or donate a minimum of $5 (http://www.disclosureproject.org/access.htm) just to view more claims, stating they'll only present the complete materials in open Congressional hearings? If these bits are so compelling, as per prior commentary, why do they refuse to present their "full case" to the scientific community? Why do they even need the public to purchase merchandise?


These are also persons who will testify before congress.

Sure, they state they'll testify before Congress. In what way does that substantiate their claims?

scourge
2005-Jan-25, 07:47 AM
These are also persons who will testify before congress.

Sure, they state they'll testify before Congress. In what way does that substantiate their claims?

Isn't the penalty for purjuring testimony before Senate and Congress quite severe? I guess I always figured that if you tried to pull the wool over official eyes, you'd likely do time, or at least pay a hefty fine.



If there is something remarkable happening in our skies, and I think there is, though I don’t know what it is, I don’t think it’s common—but I think it’s important for myriad reasons, not the least of which is flight safety.

I appreciate your honesty, and will gladly address the other points in your reply -- before doing so though, you've touched on here what I'm most curious about, and I think it's important to establish before moving forward. What specifically leads you to this conclusion, and would you be willing to elaborate? Was your personal experience instrumental in adopting this stance? (And if I may ask, how old were you at the time?)

I’d be a liar if I said it didn’t affect the way I think. In fact, it’s inspired an extensive effort into the study of a wide range of sciences, and a sense of wonder regarding the cosmos in general—and those are not bad things. And I relate to the reports of credible witnesses of similar events, naturally, and to the frustration they sometimes feel that they cannot convey their experience to others, so that explanations can be considered and evaluated more effectively.

I wish I had had a high resolution videocamera and a tripod that day, so I could link to it right here and instead of debating the fallacy of memory, we could quickly eliminate the usual host of explanations, most of which fail instantly. Unusual secret aircraft, some unknown form of holographic projection, or some as yet unidentified form of atmospheric phenomenon would be the only remaining ‘conventional’ explanations, and I think that if you could see it as I did, all of those would be seriously subject to question.

I’ll recap the event, and ask only for some small degree of mercy with your reply. I was at the bottom of my home street on a bright, nearly perfectly clear mid-afternoon day, with five of my neighbors, ranging from the age of seven to twelve. I was eight at the time. Perhaps I should add that I was never prone to confabulation—never had any imaginary friends or such, and even then was an adamant naturalist, scholastically noted for a strong talent in science, which earned me a place in the gifted class the following year. We were all discussing what we might do together that day, when my neighbor Bryce, who was twelve, asked what that was in the sky to my left. It was immediately riveting—there was a pair of bright white lights in the sky, one above and to the left of the other, moving fast and zig-zagging in rapid succession within a region covering about 30 degrees of the sky. They maintained their formation as they executed each manouver, and displayed no sign of velocity change. It was like watching a rubber ball reflect off a wall, they way they moved. We talked about it while it was happening, but we didn’t take our eyes off of the sight because they were moving fast enough that if we looked away, we might lose them if they continued off in any given direction. One kid, who was nine, suggested they might be jets. No, jets don’t move like that. Helicopters, no, too fast—we went down the list as we watched until we could only ask the question and offer no answers. It lasted for about a minute, maybe a little longer, then the lights went in front of the Sun, which was about 20 degrees off to the right, and as I stared, I couldn’t see them return from that area, and we all lost sight of them, rubbed our tearing eyes, and excitedly discussed the possibility that we had just witnessed a pair of “ufo’s.” I even ran up the street to my house to get the Polaroid camera, only to discover that it was out of film. I looked again but they were gone.

The experience has certainly influenced my attitude in this matter, as it has many others who have witnessed events like this that they cannot explain. I eventually came to think in more open terms about what happened, and now I think the right answer is that I just don’t know. However, some footage that I’ve seen of unidentified objects darting about in the sky, demonstrates the same kind of erratic flight characteristics of the lights I saw, as nothing ‘conventional’ ever has. Even searchlights, which are a form of projection, follow curves—the mass of the light itself is apparent in the motion of the light it traces on clouds. And of course, there were no clouds in that region of sky to project onto anyway. The fact remains, in my mind anyway, that nothing offered by the science of today, follows this kind of erractic, linear, zig-zag pattern in the sky.

Which leaves a big fat question that continues to provoke my thoughts nearly thirty years later. It’s an itch you just can’t scratch, dang.


Please know that I'm not trying to be confrontaional, rather, trying to better understand where you're coming from and reconcile the difference in appearance between your above statement and this from earlier:


My apologies if I ever make it sound like 'these things are alien ships for sure,' because that's not what I mean. I just think it's interesting sometimes to discuss what the implications could be, if we take the testimony and footage for exactly what they say/appear to be, to the witnesses who were there.

Strange…I don’t see the conflict between those statements. I may not know what I saw that day, or what other people have seen that follows a similar movement dynamic, but I don’t mind speculating about it. Because until I know what it probably was, all possibilities remain open to question.


In a nutshell, why do UFO claims constitute a "phenomenon" or "phenomena?"

Personally, I can only say this—until someone shows me something that fits reasonably well with what I saw, this kind of observation remains in a class by itself. If tomorrow someone posts a link to footage of some crazy kind of dual-flare or something, that can zig-zag around in the sky like that, but only now after thirty years of military classification can be revealed, I’ll be able to close the book on a question that has captivated me for most of my life…and I will smile and be relieved, and save countless hours of my nights up thinking and wondering about what it could have been. But as it stands, nothing to my knowledge can explain it.

eburacum45
2005-Jan-25, 09:33 AM
The topic of interstellar strategy is interesting, but perhaps a bit off topic; but this topic is wandering all over the place, so perhaps that is not so bad in this case.




When the space arks arrive they are likely to find the destination system has been already claimed by a group ouf defrosted clones.

Pfft, who cares about some defrosted clones? You've got a huge asteroid with tons of people, orbital weapons, armed walkers, smaller space crafts etc. Just wipe out the clones.

Yes, the super-ark strategy does have the advantage of arriving at a solar system with massive resources, rather than with practically nothing; To use an ecological simile, in some ways it is the difference between a fern spore arriving in a patch of mud, and an acorn. The fern spores spread more quickly in the wind, and colonise an area first; but the more massive acorns arrive with enough stored energy to start making a tree. Eventually the natural ecological succession leads to a forest of oak trees.


Why would you need clones though? I don't see the point. Either you can "freeze" your crew, or you can't. If you can, it doesn't matter if they're clones or not. If you can't freeze your crew, you just bring a healthy population and a "sperm bank" (or whatever's equal to your reproductive process).
Just laziness on my part. I was using 'cloning' as a shorthand for the strategy of sending genetic information rather than live, or frozen humans. In fact you might not even need to send DNA; just send the recipe and the all-important sequencing information for the various base pairs to construct the required chromosomes; create a new set of zygotes, raise them to term in artificial wombs, then to adulthood in a robot creche (also assembled from a recipe stored on a relatively small hard drive). This information intense strategy would allow the establishment of a human colony (complete with human genetic material and an arbitary amount of transferred cultural information) in a remote planetary system while only requiring a relatively small, unmanned interstellar craft to be built.

So what's the point of cloning? Now there are several people saying cloning is the solution, but nobody is giving any reasons as to what it solves, and why it would be preferred over another solution.As it happens cloning per se has very little to do with this strategy; you would only need to clone if you wanted multiple copies of a particularly useful genotype; most of the rest of the population could be naturally diverse, thanks to in-vitro fertilisation. In fact if the genetic information is stored digitally then new individuals could be created by iteration of the database without any need for that tricky meiosis stuff....

And IF cloning is the way to go (I don't see why, but lets say so for the sake of argument), don't you think they would be far more advanced in genetics and be able to work out any defects? And why would they need humans anyway? Our DNAs are probably completely different. They could take apes or pigs or sheep. Why humans? Because you want to feel wanted?

I just don't get it.

Well, here we are in total agreement; a high tech strategy such as the one I have outlined doesn't need to involve the local fauna at all; and mutilation to obtain genetic information is patently not necessary (nor are probing or any of the other aspects of so-called abduction experiences. Those are simply delusions).
I was not attempting to support the ridiculous ET/cloning theories; simply pointing out that when and if we attempt to spread out into the galaxy, genetic dissemination may have advantages over generation ships.

gzhpcu
2005-Jan-25, 09:34 AM
You make some good points, but my question is did you read the Disclosure book? Most of the incidents can not be covered by the above mentioned links.

I've viewed all materials pertaining to TDP that're available at no cost (including those long since removed). If the evidence they claim to possess is so conclusive that it "proves that UFOs are real, that some are of extraterrestrial origin," etc., why must I purchase the book (http://www.disclosureproject.org/shop.htm#Disclosure%20Book) or donate a minimum of $5 (http://www.disclosureproject.org/access.htm) just to view more claims, stating they'll only present the complete materials in open Congressional hearings? If these bits are so compelling, as per prior commentary, why do they refuse to present their "full case" to the scientific community? Why do they even need the public to purchase merchandise?


These are also persons who will testify before congress.

Sure, they state they'll testify before Congress. In what way does that substantiate their claims?

Again my question: are they liars?