PDA

View Full Version : "Are UFOs (specifically, flying saucers) Real?"



Lorcan Faol
2004-Jan-29, 07:33 AM
Tonight, at my school, a debate was held between an ex-USAF pilot, now astronomer, James McGaha and nuclear physicist Dr. Stan Friedman. Dr. Friedman was on the pro-UFO side, while Jim McGaha was on the other side. It went for about two hours, and was a really interesting debate.
Dr. Friedman gave the most convincing evidence and lecture I've ever heard on the subject. Even people who did not believe in UFOs admitted that his presentation was much more convincing and well done than McGaha's. After it was over, I bought a copy of Project Blue Book Special Report No.14, and then went to dinner with the group who invited them to speak, as well as the two of them. It was great, and I got to talk to Dr. Friedman a bit about aliens and UFOs, and he gave some more of his support and reasonings for his thoughts. He's been researching UFOs for 39 years now, and has a lot of interesting information.

Dr. Friedman is on a tour right now, lecturing around North America, he said. But I am not sure if it is this debate that is on tour, or just him. Either way, he's a very good speaker, and I'd reccommend everyone try to see the debate if it comes close, or just attend his lecture. Very interesting stuff.

Lorcan Faol
2004-Jan-29, 07:38 AM
I hope this isn't the wrong forum for this. :oops:

Humphrey
2004-Jan-29, 08:06 AM
Can you sum up a couple of his poiints to prove the existance of extra-terrestrial UFO's?

JimTKirk
2004-Jan-29, 01:56 PM
Dr. Freidman is a very intelligent man. Still, conjecture and supposition is more easily stated than datum and fact. I'm sure it would have been much harder to debunk anything said for anyone just walking into the fray cold-turkey. I'm not on either side at the moment on the UFO subject, but lean to a purely natural or explainable reason for all observed phenomena.


[edit to fix spelling]

daver
2004-Jan-29, 08:13 PM
I hope this isn't the wrong forum for this. :oops:

It might be--Against the Mainstream seems a bit more on topic.

Lorcan Faol
2004-Jan-29, 09:01 PM
Can you sum up a couple of his poiints to prove the existance of extra-terrestrial UFO's?


The basic outline of what he covered is shown at http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/sfchlng.html , but he had a lot more to tell and explain, it seemed, than the time allowed, and he covered a lot more than what is on that site. McGaha's counter-arguement was really not very convincing in the least, and was basically based around just the absence of his own significant research and data on the topic. His main arguement was "I have not seen evidence that convinces me" and "fake UFO pictures are easy to make on your own, in just a short time... thus, aliens have not visited Earth." Of course, I may be pretty biased, since I really want to believe that aliens have visited Earth before, and that UFOs are not fictional.
The main point of the discussion was whether or not intelligent life had visited Earth before, not just if UFOs are real.
Nothing Friedman said, of course, was cold, hard proof of intelligent life visiting our planet, but it was strongly suggestive of it and supportive of such a theory... but I suppose it ultimately depends on what you wish to believe. Even if I did not want to believe it, and was in agreement with McGaha, I'd still have to say Friedman lectured much better, presented more convincing arguements and evidence, and seemed to be more confident and knowledgeable in what he was debating.

Astronot
2004-Jan-29, 09:29 PM
Lorcan, as you are fairly new to the board, welcome!

I am skeptical of the notion that crafts from other worlds have visited our planed. The distances are simple too vast and the energy and time needed to cover such distances so great. Not to say that it is not possible, it may be. But a little sound theoretical physics or hard physical evidence would go a long way in this case, and if anyone can show these many people would be very interested.

Friedmanís ideas appear to be more of the same cover-up mentality that we so regularly find in the Lunar Conspiracies board. His site's home page mostly claims a cover-up conspiracy and disparages people that disagree with him. And oh yes, the side bar selling his books and videos. Now I will admit that this is a quick read of his site, but this kind of a beginning is a turn off for me.



1. The evidence is overwhelming that Planet Earth is being visited by intelligently controlled extraterrestrial spacecraft. In other words, SOME UFOs are alien spacecraft. Most are not.

2. The subject of flying saucers represents a kind of Cosmic Watergate, meaning that some few people in major governments have known since July, 1947, when two crashed saucers and several alien bodies were recovered in New Mexico, that indeed SOME UFOs are ET. As noted in 1950, it's the most classified U.S. topic.

3. None of the arguments made against conclusions One and Two by a small group of debunkers such as Carl Sagan, my University of Chicago classmate for three years, can stand up to careful scrutiny.

4. The Flying Saucer story is the biggest story of the millennium: visits to Planet Earth by aliens and the U.S. government's cover-up of the best data (the bodies and wreckage) for over fifty years.


[Edited for punctuation]

Edymnion
2004-Jan-30, 12:04 AM
I like to think of myself as a skeptic that wants to believe.
I would like nothing more than to see a UFO myself, up in the sky doing things that no known object could possibly do. It would be like seeing a Fairy or a Dragon, something that simply should not exhist, but does.

But, I know the horrible limitations imposed by physics as we know them means that for a ship to bring living creatures even from our nearest star means that those beings would be so incredibly advanced as to make us look like retarded monkeys in comparison, or more frightening yet, they found a source of unlimited energy. Or both.

If they are subject to the laws of physics as we know them, they can't go faster than light. The distance to the nearest star is over 4 light years, so that is absolute minimum of a 4 year voyage. If they're from farther, the trip could literally take hundreds, thousands, even millions of years. Only way that wouldn't be an unbelievable investment is if the beings are effectively immortal (aka, they don't die from old age).

If they can go faster than light, they would have to have a control over space and time to a degree our most brilliant minds can only begin to comprehend. It isn't as simple as jumping into the Enterprise and jamming the Warp Drive up to max.

I'll be honest. When it comes to REAL alien life, intelligent, and that far ahead of us in technology? My genetic tendancy towards xenophobia kicks in BIG time. I want to think I could handle seeing even a classic Gray face to face. Then I think about. I REALLY think about it. And I realize something. The thought scares the living bejesus out of me.

I'm all for exploration of space, colonization of other worlds, and the whole nine yards. But the idea of meeting a truely alien being (as in not Star Trek 99.99% human looking but so utterly differant we can't even imagine it yet) fills me with dread. If alien life is here, its doing the right thing about keeping itself as hidden as it can. Humanity simply isn't ready for them. I mean, I'm a sci-fi fan, a space nut, and I have no problems with understanding it all, but that deep seated human fear won't go away.

And if it scares ME this much, I don't even want to think about the reaction of the masses when confronted by the knowledge of other sentient beings in the universe. All of human society and religion would collapse virtually overnight.

For the good of mankind, I truely hope they aren't out there, or at least not close enough for us to encounter.

Doesn't stop me from running SETI@home and hoping to find something though.

aurora
2004-Jan-30, 12:10 AM
If you want to see an alien intelligence, look an Octopus in the eye.



:P

tuffel999
2004-Jan-30, 12:16 AM
UFO's have been covered ad nausem here, in the BA's book, and elsewhere.

Are there UFO's? Yes

Are they flying saucers piloted by aliens come to abduct people, mutilate live stock, and carve circles in crops? Probably not.

The easiest way to ask this question is if they where so advanced why haven't these things happend:

1. Made contact in a real public way

2. Given up on us as to immature a group and stopped visiting

and why have these happened:

1. They supposedly mutilate cattle. Why, they are advanced enough to fly here you mean they have to keep mutilating cattle to figure out what a cow is?

2. They are so advanced that they cannot evade our radar, which even some of our own craft can, or our shaking sony camcorders.

It just doesn't make any kind of sense. Besides what are the chances of them finding this planet? How many stars with how many planets would they have to go through? Our EM transmissions have traveled that far yet for them to home in on those.

Edymnion
2004-Jan-30, 12:24 AM
How many stars with how many planets would they have to go through?Depends, what is the Sagan/Drake Equation up to now?
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/dimg39.gif

aurora
2004-Jan-30, 12:27 AM
The easiest way to ask this question is if they where so advanced why haven't these things happend:


I want to know why they knock down circles of wheat, and why they traveled many light years to Earth just to teach us how to build piles of stone with stone tools.

:lol:

AGN Fuel
2004-Jan-30, 01:20 AM
If you want to see an alien intelligence, look an Octopus in the eye. :P

You got that right. I saw something on TV a number of months ago where an octopus had to negotiate an ever-increasing series of barriers/mazes etc in order to earn a morsel of food. Truly surprisingly impressive problem solving skills.

(Mind you, I then raced down to the pet store to get an octopus to help me complete my calculus homework. Frankly, it was disappointing. Although he provided a useful supply of ink, his differentiation skills were primitive and he insisted on converting everything to base 8.) :lol:

On the subject of UFO's, Seth Shostak wrote a very easy-to-digest synopsis of the whole alien scene a couple of years ago (IIRC, it was called 'Sharing the Cosmos' or something similar). Well worth a read.

Lorcan Faol
2004-Jan-30, 02:02 AM
UFO's have been covered ad nausem here, in the BA's book, and elsewhere.

Are there UFO's? Yes

Are they flying saucers piloted by aliens come to abduct people, mutilate live stock, and carve circles in crops? Probably not.

The easiest way to ask this question is if they where so advanced why haven't these things happend:

1. Made contact in a real public way

2. Given up on us as to immature a group and stopped visiting

and why have these happened:

1. They supposedly mutilate cattle. Why, they are advanced enough to fly here you mean they have to keep mutilating cattle to figure out what a cow is?

2. They are so advanced that they cannot evade our radar, which even some of our own craft can, or our shaking sony camcorders.

It just doesn't make any kind of sense. Besides what are the chances of them finding this planet? How many stars with how many planets would they have to go through? Our EM transmissions have traveled that far yet for them to home in on those.


He covered all of that in his lecture, but wasn't really granted enough time to go into enough detail. I'm skeptical, of course, because there is no actual proof of any of this. But he's been doing his research on this for 39 years, and frankly, I am pretty sure he has seen more information about this than most people. That doesn't necessarily make him right, obviously, but he seems to be more informed about this subject than anyone else I've ever talked to, read anything by, or heard speak about the subject. I'm very willing to believe it... and I think all the "this would mean all the laws of physics would be violated" arguements are somewhat invalid, in a way. Some of what would be 'violated' would be theories, not laws, and it is very likely, in fact, that a race of superior intellect (I mean thousands of years of superior intellect) could figure out how to manipulate physics to their advantage. It is also possible that all that we know about physics is not completely correct or accurate... and we've still got a lot more to learn, which IS true. Perhaps these beings have figured much of that out already. I'm just saying that is a possibility.
I find it kind of strange that a lot of people, especially people in science fields, label things that require knowledge and evidence out of their grasp to be impossible... it is almost as if they are unaware of history.

Lm Wong
2004-Jan-30, 03:44 AM
Talking about UFO is like opening a Pandora`s box.
Here another theory.
http://www.think-aboutit.com/Omega/files/omega17.htm
http://www.think-aboutit.com/Omega/files/omega23.htm
Full text
http://www.think-aboutit.com/aliens/omega_file_txt.htm
To the inevitable question why the Germans have not win the war if they have that technology?The author reply is because they were not in the position to produce them in mass and they were developed to late before the end of the war.

But as usual that is only a theory. :wink:

tuffel999
2004-Jan-30, 04:10 AM
He covered all of that in his lecture, but wasn't really granted enough time to go into enough detail. I'm skeptical, of course, because there is no actual proof of any of this. But he's been doing his research on this for 39 years, and frankly, I am pretty sure he has seen more information about this than most people. That doesn't necessarily make him right, obviously, but he seems to be more informed about this subject than anyone else I've ever talked to, read anything by, or heard speak about the subject. I'm very willing to believe it... and I think all the "this would mean all the laws of physics would be violated" arguements are somewhat invalid, in a way. Some of what would be 'violated' would be theories, not laws, and it is very likely, in fact, that a race of superior intellect (I mean thousands of years of superior intellect) could figure out how to manipulate physics to their advantage. It is also possible that all that we know about physics is not completely correct or accurate... and we've still got a lot more to learn, which IS true. Perhaps these beings have figured much of that out already. I'm just saying that is a possibility.
I find it kind of strange that a lot of people, especially people in science fields, label things that require knowledge and evidence out of their grasp to be impossible... it is almost as if they are unaware of history.

Notice I never labeled anything impossible. In the early 40's going faster than the speed of sound was widely thought to be impossible. Turns out it wasn't. Science is most forgiving in being able to take something that when there is DATA to support it through out the theory opr idea nad adopt the one that works and fits the data. The problem with UFO's is that they don't have any data. A few grainy pictures from a cheap camcorder, a story about a friend of a friend of a friend who was probed, or a crop circle. Really if aliens can fly to earth why do they need crop circles to navigate? It just doesn't work. Hell all they need is a compass once they are on earth just go pick a boyscout's pocket and leave my corn alone! Anyway, none of the 'evidence' every holds up once you look at it. Now with the wide spread use of computers and fairly good digital photo analysis most of those video and pictures can be taken apart very easily. However, you will notice the UFO's proponents never do it.

Charlie in Dayton
2004-Jan-30, 04:31 AM
The simple and rather pedantic answer?

Yes.

There are Unidentified Flying Objects out there.

BUT -- that does not automatically make them flying saucers piloted by little green men.

A UFO is simply that -- something flying around which has yet to be identified. Once it's been shown to be Hammacher from the planet Schlemmer tooling along in his bright silver Interplanetary Motors econo-hatchback, it ceases to be a UFO because it's been indentified.

This is a problem in linguistics where a phrase has been co-opted into meaning the exact opposite of original. Big problems with this.

Do I believe in UFO's? That's like asking a guy "Did you sleep with her?" You know darn well what that euphemism means, and sleep has very little if anything to do with it. The terminology needs cleaned up drastically.

Diamond
2004-Jan-30, 10:43 AM
The simple and rather pedantic answer?

Yes.

There are Unidentified Flying Objects out there.

BUT -- that does not automatically make them flying saucers piloted by little green men.

A UFO is simply that -- something flying around which has yet to be identified. Once it's been shown to be Hammacher from the planet Schlemmer tooling along in his bright silver Interplanetary Motors econo-hatchback, it ceases to be a UFO because it's been indentified.

This is a problem in linguistics where a phrase has been co-opted into meaning the exact opposite of original. Big problems with this.

Do I believe in UFO's? That's like asking a guy "Did you sleep with her?" You know darn well what that euphemism means, and sleep has very little if anything to do with it. The terminology needs cleaned up drastically.

There's something wrong about this last paragraph that I can't quite put my finger on.... #-o

sts60
2004-Jan-30, 01:23 PM
Does Friedman really still use Roswell? That has been rather conclusively debunked, and if he uses it as evidence or proof, that speaks poorly of his ability or objectivity as an investigator.

Lorcan, he is a True Believer, and like many True Believers can pour out a complicated tale mixing facts, innuendo, and falsehood much faster than anyone can debunk it. Such debates are a singularly poor way for science to get done.

There's still no tangible evidence of visitation by extraterrestrials. There have been claims of contact and abduction, but all have more prosaic explanations. There have been unexplained sightings of things, but the fact that no particular explanation exists is not evidence that they are alien spacecraft - especially given the distances and physics involved, and other problems mentioned above in this thread.

Does extraterrestrial life, in particular sentient life, exist? I'm quite sure of it. Has it been here? Probably not. Despite the claims of Friedman and the other True Believers, the evidence is, as Carl Sagan put it, "crummy".

I would love to be proved wrong, though...!


"It's not that I don't believe the government would try to hide dead aliens; it's that I don't think the government would succeed, since every time the government tries to do anything secretly, as in the Iran-contra arms deal, it winds up displaying all the finesse and stealth of an exploding cigar at a state funeral. If there really were dead aliens, I figure, there also would be daily leaks about it from High-level Officials, and huge arguments among influential congresspersons over whose district the multimillion-dollar Federal Dead Alien Storage Facility would be located in." - Dave Barry

russ_watters
2004-Jan-30, 05:07 PM
McGaha's counter-arguement was really not very convincing in the least, and was basically based around just the absence of his own significant research and data on the topic. His main arguement was "I have not seen evidence that convinces me" and "fake UFO pictures are easy to make on your own, in just a short time... thus, aliens have not visited Earth." You have to be careful with that interpretation. He did not say he hasn't seen any evidence, he said he has not seen convincing evidence. Two very, very different things.

There are mountains and mountains of evidence out there: all if it crap.
Notice I never labeled anything impossible. In the early 40's going faster than the speed of sound was widely thought to be impossible. Turns out it wasn't. Science... No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Though thats the most common example people give for something once thought by scientists to be impossible, actuall being possible, its WRONG.

There is a huge difference between saying something that violates the laws of physics (faster than light travel) is "impossible" and saying something that is technically difficult is "impossible." No respectable scientist in the 1930s would have considered travel faster than the speed of sound against the laws of physics - especially since we'd been firing bullets that fast. It was strictly an aircraft engineering problem.

Lorcan Faol, travel faster than the speed of light is absolutely impossible unless our understanding of physics is massively wrong. And for that reason, the presence of aliens on Earth is extrordinarily unlikely. And no, that knowledge is not outside our grasp, Lorcan - thats one of the more fundamental theories of physics and there are mountains of evidence for it.

I'd challenge either of you to come up with a single example of a major scientific theory being completely overturned since we got the scientific method.

Also, Lorcan Faol, you've fallen into a bunch of separate traps here. The "science could be wrong" arguement is one. The fact that he's been doing his research for 39 years causing you to give him credibility is another. Indeed, the bigger the fruitcake, the more likely he'd be to waste his life searching for flying saucers. Also, he likely makes a lot of money doing what he's doing - so there wouldn't be a lot of motivation to quit even if he changed his opinion.

daver
2004-Jan-30, 06:42 PM
I'd challenge either of you to come up with a single example of a major scientific theory being completely overturned since we got the scientific method.

Phlogiston theory of combustion? (that pretty much depends on when you set the date for scientific method)

Lots of medical theories, of course. Lamarckian evolution was more political than scientific, so that shouldn't count. I don't know if spontaneous generation should count or not.

Electrical fluids?

Luminiferous ether.

tuffel999
2004-Jan-30, 11:12 PM
Notice I never labeled anything impossible. In the early 40's going faster than the speed of sound was widely thought to be impossible. Turns out it wasn't. Science... No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Though thats the most common example people give for something once thought by scientists to be impossible, actuall being possible, its WRONG.

There is a huge difference between saying something that violates the laws of physics (faster than light travel) is "impossible" and saying something that is technically difficult is "impossible." No respectable scientist in the 1930s would have considered travel faster than the speed of sound against the laws of physics - especially since we'd been firing bullets that fast. It was strictly an aircraft engineering problem.

I could have punctuated that better. I meant that from a engineering and metalurgy stand point not from a physical law. Sorry to get everyone in a huff!

tuffel999
2004-Jan-30, 11:24 PM
I'd challenge either of you to come up with a single example of a major scientific theory being completely overturned since we got the scientific method.


The theory that yellow fever was airborne. The theory that yellow fever was spread by the soiled personal effects of people with the disease. The theory that HTLV1 caused AIDS. The theory that the temperature would rise as the North Pole was approached because of the constancy of sunlight. How about the plum pudding atom? The theory that proteins carreid genetic information. .....and on and on.........

milli360
2004-Jan-31, 04:16 AM
I'd challenge either of you to come up with a single example of a major scientific theory being completely overturned since we got the scientific method.
As a theory? That's easy--Newton's.

Diamond
2004-Feb-02, 09:13 AM
I'd challenge either of you to come up with a single example of a major scientific theory being completely overturned since we got the scientific method.
As a theory? That's easy--Newton's.

...ether theory, ether vortex theory, Bohr model of the atom, "plum pudding" model of the atom, phlogiston theory, geocentric theory, "continental fixed theory", everything written by Velikovsky, pretty much everything that was ever considered medicinal in the 18th and 19th Centuries, the Creation myth of the book of Genesis.....

carry on. 8)