Thread: do you think the UFO exists?

in this thread, we are going to decide if the UFO actually exists or not using the DIALECTIC method i.e. thesis, antithesis and synthesis.

first thesis: the UFOs are seen over the sky. many photographs are available. therefore UFO must exist.

please note that only those who are interested in this discussion should participate and reply.

thank you.

You need to define what you mean by "UFO" first.

If you mean Unidentified Flying Object then, yes, obviously they exist in the sense that people report seeing things in the sky that cannot be identified. Whether those exist as "objects" or are optical phenomena, illusions, tricks, hoaxes of some sort is (of course) undertermined as they are unidentified. All such sightings that have been identified, turn out to have quite mundane explanations.

If you mean "UFO" as a shorthand for aliens, time travellers, dragons, angels, or the many other things people associate with the term, then you need to be explicit about that. However, there is no credible evidence for any of these.

please note that only those who are interested in this discussion should participate and reply.

Huh?

Strange has said everything I planned to say, but just in case you missed the point I'll say it anyway.

Unidentified Flying Objects certainly exist. I have seen several. In each instance I was able to identify them shortly after first sighting them: birds, planes, balloons, (but never superman).

I am concerned as to how we can have a meaningful dialectical discussion when your opening thesis is so loaded with ambiguity. What do you mean by UFO? Since we have already trivially demonstrated the reality of UFOs, one is inclined to believe that you intend the colloquial meaning of alien spacecraft. Clarification should be your next step in this discussion.

Finally, why would anyone not interested in the discussion bother to participate and reply? I worry that what you actually meant was 'Only those who are willing to close their minds and accept the reality of aliens need participate and reply'. I am quite ready to be corrected by your further explanation, but that is my working hypothesis.

first i am sorry, i have to clarify my terms.

UFO means " alien spacecrafts" therefore

first thesis: UFO that is seen on the sky is alien spacecraft because no human spacecraft can perform the activities these flying saucers are performing. besides no human spacecraft has this shape. therefore they must be alien spacecraft.

there are many people who does not believe or know that UFO does not exist. they sometimes post irritating comments. so i urge those people who are interested in this discussion to participate in it.

Originally Posted by xxx200

there are many people who does not believe or know that UFO does not exist. they sometimes post irritating comments. so i urge those people who are interested in this discussion to participate in it.

I do not believe it is likely that UFOs as you have defined them exist.

I am interested in this discussion, but that means I shall be posting what you consider to be irritating comments. For example, I shall challenge your statement that the observations must be of alien spacecraft. You offer only a single option: human spacecraft. There are many other possibilities:

1. Human aircraft
2. Unmanned spacecraft.
3. Misidentification of atmospheric phenomena.
4. Misidentification of astronomical phenomena.
5. Hallucinations.
6. Hoaxes.
7. Birds

Even if you were to eliminate all of these as possibilities it does not mean that alien spacecraft are proven to exist.

In summary, your thesis is wholly unfounded and contradicted by such evidence as does it exist. Only by clsoing your eyes can you entertain the probaility that UFOs are alien spacecraft.

it cannot be Hoaxes,Birds because here the picture is very clear.

adamski_type_ufo.jpg

UFO Picture Taken in the United Kingdom in 1954

here you see it is clearly a flying saucer kind of thing. it is not astronomical or atmospherical phenomena. as seen in the pic, it is clearly a flying object.

it is not Hallucinations because millions of people around the world have seen them.

synthesis/thesis: it may be human or unmanned space craft or may be alien space craft.

Originally Posted by xxx200

first thesis: UFO that is seen on the sky is alien spacecraft because no human spacecraft can perform the activities these flying saucers are performing.

All of the reports are based on subjective impression of size, distance and speed. Therefore, the judgement that they are performing "impossible activities" has no useful evidentiary basis.

besides no human spacecraft has this shape

"This shape"? Reports vary so much that there is no single and consistent type or shape of object described. It is probably pointless to talk in generalities. You need to provide specific examples and supporting evidence.

Originally Posted by xxx200

it cannot be Hoaxes,Birds because here the picture is very clear.

It is a very clear picture of a hoax. If you are so gullible that you accept this as genuine without rigorous questioning then it is impossible to have a meaningful scientific discussion with you.

Originally Posted by xxx200

it cannot be Hoaxes ... because here the picture is very clear.

So you want to use thesis, antithesis and synthesis, but you are throwing logic out of the window?

Exactly how "unclear" must a hoax be? And why?

xxx200; take a look at this video: Michael Shermer on strange beliefs | Video on TED.com

Notice how real the UFO foto looks later in the video and how easy it was for him to fake it.

i remember when i was little and we were camping on a field, about 100 m in front a forest, i was lying down looking up. i've seen something what, according to its look, would be a meteor or komet.

the only weird thing was, it was traveling in a straight line(as it was shot) about 10m above the tree line, and not moving in an angle from up to down.

i never thought of it as being an UFO, just wondered about the way it moved.

and why, if aliens are visiting us for at least 58 yrs according to that picture, would they do so with no reason?

A documentary (History Channel): "SECRET ACCESS: UFOs on the records" shows several most intriguing government record of UFO sighting gathered from several (still living) credible witnesses, the report shows an eerie consistency of UFO behaviour and pattern that is unlike other random UFO vid which we saw (UFO vid and pic is pointless because it is physically ambiguous; eg: a light on swamp could be methane gas instead of UFO unless you got radar to corrobrate that). From the documentary it is deduce-able (IMO) that UFO is indeed somesort of persistent illusion but manifestated by something real; it tend to look non-solid, tried to persist on fixated point of field of vision (like dragonfly following its prey), contextually ambiguous (can always be discredit-able), but when compared to much bigger context/complex interconnect system like: air traffic radar & voice record or time comparision between similar event & actual sighting, then they seems to yield a physical presence & not an illusion (IMO). It might be better to look for that doc in Youtube and see what I mean, IMO... UFO is abit beyond-advance for us because any (previously much bigger) investment on researching this UFO doesn't get people anywhere (it is almost like a waste of time & resources)..

Oh yeah, using a History Channel Documentry as a source of sciende is a GREAT idea....NOT.

IT'S ENTERTAINMENT!!!!

Just because a documentary appears in a certain venue does not add or detract from its veracity.

Logically, if creatures from other planetary systems have technology superior to ours, implied by their ability to visit our star, they have nothing to fear from our technology- hence, no reason to hide from us. Plus Earth is far from being the most valuable real estate in the Solar System, why anyone else should covet it or us is unimaginable.

That's not what I said. I said using that as scientific support is foolish, because it is primarily an entertainment show.

Do I believe in intelligent extraterrestrial life ? - Yes.
Do I believe they are coming here in UFOs ? - Not really.
Why ? - Because they have no reason to. There is nothing here that is in any way special, or that cannot be found elsewhere much easier, and without interference from humans.
The most I concede is that a small, small number of UFOs might be unmanned probes. And even that I find hard to swallow given the HUGE amount of resources needed to get here in the first place.
Seriously, I think we are just not ( yet ) interesting enough for anyone to bother.

On the other hand though it is dangerous to surmise that an alien civilization shares similar thinking processes, values, morals and mores with us. How are we to know what they are interested in, or even if the concept of "interest" holds any meaning for them at all ?
None of these questions will be answerable until we have made contact.

i enjoyed the logic by calvin and hobbles. "the best proof that there is intelligent life out there is that they stay away from earth"

but ye, a more technologically advanced race, would be very much more technologically advanced race, say they learned the power of communication (which pretty much lead to a boom of technology and research on earth) 1000 years earlyer. 5000? million. considering the history of humanity is really really short in comparison to earths history, a race developed a million years before us would be very much a possibility.

where will we be in a thousand years?

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

That's not what I said. I said using that as scientific support is foolish, because it is primarily an entertainment show.

There is no reason why information cannot be both informative AND entertaining- indeed, this is the goal of some educators. I will concede that peer-reviewed articles in stuffy journals allow greater depth and documentation of the essential points. No offense meant, kind sir.

An example of superior entertainment: Cosmic Voyage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

That's not what I said. I said using that as scientific support is foolish, because it is primarily an entertainment show.

Searching for something unrelated just now, found this- not to belabor the point or digress unduly, just though it was interesting.

Science and Celebrity: Humphry Davy's Rising Star | Chemical Heritage Foundation

Originally Posted by Arthur Angler

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

That's not what I said. I said using that as scientific support is foolish, because it is primarily an entertainment show.

There is no reason why information cannot be both informative AND entertaining- indeed, this is the goal of some educators. I will concede that peer-reviewed articles in stuffy journals allow greater depth and documentation of the essential points. No offense meant, kind sir.

An example of superior entertainment: Cosmic Voyage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah, except the credibility of the source kind of comes into question when a majority of their shows are on big foot and ancient alien astronomers.

Originally Posted by TheObserver

Originally Posted by Arthur Angler

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

That's not what I said. I said using that as scientific support is foolish, because it is primarily an entertainment show.

There is no reason why information cannot be both informative AND entertaining- indeed, this is the goal of some educators. I will concede that peer-reviewed articles in stuffy journals allow greater depth and documentation of the essential points. No offense meant, kind sir.

An example of superior entertainment: Cosmic Voyage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah, except the credibility of the source kind of comes into question when a majority of their shows are on big foot and ancient alien astronomers.

And pawnbrokers and alligator wrestlers, don't forget. Still, "Modern Marvels" and similar shows make it a personal favorite of mine. You cannot blame the channel for trying to keep viewers long enough to improve those viewers' standards. We have celebrity scientists but for every Stephen Hawking there are scores of famous jocks/criminals and mediocre singers/criminals. The public taste is abysmal. HC is trying to buck this trend, as far as I can see.

now i feel less inferior for not having a tv, than the usual "how can you live without one?'

how do you know that the picture is a hoax? if the picture is a hoax then millions of observers of UFO who are trained observer e.g. pilot, police, military, govt. people might either have difficulty in the eye or they have difficulty in their equipment.

this pic is not fake.

now the question is : is it an alien spacecraft or human spacecraft?

alien has advanced technology, they have no reason to hide from us, they have no reason to visit us.... these are pointless, fallacious arguments because we don't know what they have in their mind. neither we have any means to know.

if they are human spacecraft, then any govt. can claim or pilots or army people can understand easily. they say that this thing is unidentified which means they never have seen this thing before.

so it is an alien spacecraft.

Or hubcap.

Or possibly hubcap from alien spacecraft landing gear, thereby conclusively proving alien invasion arriving in 1942 De Sotos any day now.

it may be but surely it is not a hoax or human flying machine.

Originally Posted by xxx200

it may be but surely it is not a hoax or human flying machine.

Amazing.

you did not show any evidence that it is a hoax arthur. how scientific you are? you just say that it is a hoax.

Originally Posted by xxx200

you did not show any evidence that it is a hoax arthur. how scientific you are? you just say that it is a hoax.

Nope, I said, "Amazing", and before that, something about hubcaps, which to me is what your alien spacecraft quite coincidentally resembles. I am not very scientific, ask anyone. I did not say, "hoax", or "big fat hoax", or anything like that about your alien spacecraft, which is obviously filled with Grays from the Crab Nebula who have come to give prostate exams to redneck Mensa rejects for reasons which are both inscrutable AND interstellar.

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

Oh yeah, using a History Channel Documentry as a source of sciende is a GREAT idea....NOT.

IT'S ENTERTAINMENT!!!!

pffft... I didn't say "History Channel will deliver pure UFO science to you!"... duh... *facepalm*. I am saying that it contain claims that is difficult to dismiss. *sarcasm* Oh, but this OK for you because you don't even need to sift through all the media for any documentary worthwhile to watch: so you can just rely on 10 ton of books in library for sources...

Originally Posted by msafwan

.. researching this UFO doesn't get people anywhere (it is almost like a waste of time & resources)..

Indeed. Big books in library! What of interest could such antiquated technology contain? You can bet that Supreme Battle Leader Thrackazog has no such books on the hubcap Mothership!

Originally Posted by xxx200

this pic is not fake.

Prove it.

When was it taken? Where? By whom?

The onus is on you, as someone making a claim, to provide evidence to support your claim.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by xxx200

this pic is not fake.

Prove it.

When was it taken? Where? By whom?

The onus is on you, as someone making a claim, to provide evidence to support your claim.

Not to quibble, but I think you misspelled "anus". Obviously, this is a REAL photograph, taken with a REAL camera taken somewhere on this planet, after WWII, probably by a human or other terrestrial primate. That makes it a completely authentic photograph of- something that looks like a hubcap.

Originally Posted by xxx200

it may be but surely it is not a hoax or human flying machine.

It's actually a well known hoax, IIRC.

Originally Posted by msafwan

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

Oh yeah, using a History Channel Documentry as a source of sciende is a GREAT idea....NOT.

IT'S ENTERTAINMENT!!!!

pffft... I didn't say "History Channel will deliver pure UFO science to you!"... duh... *facepalm*. I am saying that it contain claims that is difficult to dismiss. *sarcasm* Oh, but this OK for you because you don't even need to sift through all the media for any documentary worthwhile to watch: so you can just rely on 10 ton of books in library for sources...

Actually, just like many other sources, books are out there to make money. Some are good, some are crap. If you want real science, rigorously peer reviewed journals are the place to go.

Not that submissions to such journals are entirely free of the profit motive, of course. "Publish or perish", isn't that how the saying goes?

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Do I believe in intelligent extraterrestrial life ? - Yes.
Do I believe they are coming here in UFOs ? - Not really.
Why ? - Because they have no reason to. There is nothing here that is in any way special, or that cannot be found elsewhere much easier, and without interference from humans.
The most I concede is that a small, small number of UFOs might be unmanned probes. And even that I find hard to swallow given the HUGE amount of resources needed to get here in the first place.
Seriously, I think we are just not ( yet ) interesting enough for anyone to bother.

On the other hand though it is dangerous to surmise that an alien civilization shares similar thinking processes, values, morals and mores with us. How are we to know what they are interested in, or even if the concept of "interest" holds any meaning for them at all ?
None of these questions will be answerable until we have made contact.

I have a similar stand on the subject. I'd disagree about them having little reason to explore Earth: Thirst for knowledge? Interest in the study of biotic life on other planets? Interest in the study of intelligent life and society? Perhaps in search of useful resources? - Do we not maintain interests in lifeforms as unimportant as the flukeworm?

You're also kind of assuming that their mode of travel is not efficient enough to justify the long journeys - when it might actually be very efficient and not much of a cost in resources. I'd assume that if ETs are intelligent enough to travel as far as they'd have to.. They'd probably be smart enough to devise considerably cost-effective methods.

This however, is completely moot. Because I am on the fence when it comes to whether or not we're being visited. I am of the opinion that intelligent ET life must certainly exist, but I'd doubt ET life is much more advanced than we are. I am sure some are, and some are not - but capable of travelling light years in short periods of time? I guffaw at the possibility, while I also concede that I would have no way of knowing how possible or impossible that would be.

Edit: One of your last passages actually brings a friend of mine to mind. He is a firm believer in 'Greys'. The theory he insists is that their 'interest' is in genetic material. That Greys horde genetic materials from other planets in order to create more diversity within their own genetic material. I thought it was interesting, if not amusing..

I would think that we will be altering our genetic material long before we are travelling the galaxy. I really doubt ET's would have a harder time chemically altering their genes than breaking the light barrier.

Based on what. Pure speculation? That's not a New Hypothesis, it's speculation. There IS a difference...

Originally Posted by xxx200

here you see it is clearly a flying saucer kind of thing. it is not astronomical or atmospherical phenomena. as seen in the pic, it is clearly a flying object.

Why that conclusion. Do we know anything that flies that is of that shape? I don't. Even assuming it could develop lift to fly from it's shape, there aren't any obvious control surfaces. It appears quite unlikely to be flying at all.

It could be a buoyant object, of which there are many examples from Hindenburg sized dirigibles down to a helium filled balloon toy. Since the object has no scale reference even the size can't be determined.

Originally Posted by TheObserver

I would think that we will be altering our genetic material long before we are travelling the galaxy. I really doubt ET's would have a harder time chemically altering their genes than breaking the light barrier.

We are closer now to altering genes than we are to relativistic propulsion, e.g. recombinant human insulin vs lousy chemical rockets, so, this seems a reasonable point of view, as far as I know. The implication that aliens would collect in the field what is more easily and economically synthesized in a laboratory makes no sense at all.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Since the object has no scale reference even the size can't be determined.

0:20-0:27An Inconvenient Truth (6/10) Movie CLIP - Hurricane Katrina (2006) HD - YouTube

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Since the object has no scale reference even the size can't be determined.

Really? 1:00 An Inconvenient Truth (5/10) Movie CLIP - Drastic Rise in CO2 Concentration (2006) HD - YouTube

Funny you should say that.

That is very interesting.
And returning to the topic:
http://www.thescienceforum.com/trash...5972-risk.html

Originally Posted by Arthur Angler

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Since the object has no scale reference even the size can't be determined.

0:20-0:27An Inconvenient Truth (6/10) Movie CLIP - Hurricane Katrina (2006) HD - YouTube

What the hell does that clip have to do with a scale reference for a hoax UFO image?

Originally Posted by Arthur Angler

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Since the object has no scale reference even the size can't be determined.

Really? 1:00 An Inconvenient Truth (5/10) Movie CLIP - Drastic Rise in CO2 Concentration (2006) HD - YouTube

What the hell does that clip have to do with a scale reference for a hoax UFO image?

Originally Posted by Arthur Angler

Funny you should say that.

Are you talking to yourself about two nonsensical posts in a row?

there is alien being is a possibility and not speculation.

Originally Posted by xxx200

there is alien being is a possibility and not speculation.

So provide some good solid evidence, then. Just repeating your belief isn't very persuasive.

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

Originally Posted by Arthur Angler

Funny you should say that.

Are you talking to yourself about two nonsensical posts in a row?

Charts in clips have no scale reference- did you not notice? It is not nonsensical, it is two further examples of the point that scale reference should be included to accurately judge magnitude. Excuse me for trying to back you up.(Edit: Sorry, was actually trying to back up LF, but would gladly do the same for any good point made by you, MW. Best regards, no offense meant.)

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by xxx200

there is alien being is a possibility and not speculation.

So provide some good solid evidence, then. Just repeating your belief isn't very persuasive.

This is not even the point at issue- which seems to be that Earth has been recently visited by such beings. You have yet to prove this is the case. Moreover "speculation" is the stock in trade of this forum, where any possibility may be considered. But rather than wallow in semantics with me, why not put up some convincing EVIDENCE to make your case?

Originally Posted by Arthur Angler

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Since the object has no scale reference even the size can't be determined.

Really? 1:00 An Inconvenient Truth (5/10) Movie CLIP - Drastic Rise in CO2 Concentration (2006) HD - YouTube

First off the scale is on the left side of the graph.... It might be a good thing for you to actually watch vidios that you post.

Second, it has nothing to do with the scale of the photograph--so stop trolling.

Originally Posted by Arthur Angler

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

Originally Posted by Arthur Angler

Funny you should say that.

Are you talking to yourself about two nonsensical posts in a row?

Charts in clips have no scale reference- did you not notice? It is not nonsensical, it is two further examples of the point that scale reference should be included to accurately judge magnitude. Excuse me for trying to back you up.(Edit: Sorry, was actually trying to back up LF, but would gladly do the same for any good point made by you, MW. Best regards, no offense meant.)

I still fail to see your point, but maybe it's me...

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

Originally Posted by msafwan

pffft... I didn't say "History Channel will deliver pure UFO science to you!"... duh... *facepalm*. I am saying that it contain claims that is difficult to dismiss. *sarcasm* Oh, but this OK for you because you don't even need to sift through all the media for any documentary worthwhile to watch: so you can just rely on 10 ton of books in library for sources...

Actually, just like many other sources, books are out there to make money. Some are good, some are crap. If you want real science, rigorously peer reviewed journals are the place to go.

What about Condon Committee? can their report to be considered peer-reviewed report? Condon Committee wikipedia definition: "The Condon Committee was the informal name of the University of Colorado UFO Project, a group funded by the United States Air Force from 1966 to 1968 at the University of Colorado to study unidentified flying objects under the direction of physicist Edward Condon. The result of its work, formally titled Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects, and known as the Condon Report, appeared in 1968."

I'd say that their report showed that UFO exist. Below are the 2 cases which (I think) prove UFO exist. Both cases was a visual + radar sighting, and radar sighting make visual sighting more believeable because radar is a measurement tool...

Condon Report, Case 5: B-47 Crew, Radar/Visual Sighting
Condon Report, Case 2: USAF/RAF Radar Sighting

Well... UFO do exist (it has high probability to exist), and the report concluded that "study of UFOs ... unlikely to yield major scientific discoveries" (quoted from wikipedia). The reason people don't want to believe in UFO is because they don't trust any of the witnesses and wanted physical evidence, but the problem is: there's no physical evidence, so you cannot do scientific studies without physical evidence. So there's no scientific studies possible... (except scientific answer like: swamp's methane discharge, lightning ball, plasma ball, radar defect, reflective ice crystal in atmosphere, cloud formation, venus, weather balloon, or YF-12 crash site near Area 51)

Originally Posted by msafwan

I'd say that their report showed that UFO exist.

U = unidentified, not little green men from Xargax.

If it had been identified as, say, aliens it wouldn't be a UFO. It would have been identified.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by msafwan

I'd say that their report showed that UFO exist.

U = unidentified, not little green men from Xargax.

If it had been identified as, say, aliens it wouldn't be a UFO. It would have been identified.

Oho... I understand. We don't want to acknowledge UFO because it would be Scientologist thing.... hahaha... lol

Originally Posted by msafwan

Oho... I understand. We don't want to acknowledge UFO because it would be scientologic.... hahaha... lol

Look it's quite simple. A UFO is an unidentified object. That means there is insufficient evidence to determine what it is. If you want assume it is a unicorn or angels or aliens that is up to you. But there is not enough evidence to support that. That is why they are unidentified.

When you say "scientologic" do you mean these crazy ideas that stupid rich people believe in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu

Without a doubt, the potential forexistence is high.
Not having direct contact or proof, I can only say probability says that theydo exist.

You can say there's a high probabilty, but that doesn't make it true.

Originally Posted by Jack1941

Without a doubt, the potential forexistence is high.
Not having direct contact or proof, I can only say probability says that theydo exist.

Without a doubt, the potential forexistence is low.
Not having direct contact or proof, I can only say probability says that they do not exist

Life is probable elsewhere, IMHO. Intelligent life certainly possible. Flying alien craft aroud earth, highly unlikely unless everything we understand aboyt physics is wrong.

I do say the potential for intelligent life beyond Earth is very high. And so does all of the statitical speculation. The number of galaxies is staggering, as well as the number of solar systems. Sytatistics predict that the number of planets that can support life is such a large number that one can predict that there is a very high probability that intelligent life exists beyond Earth. My question is; when is the intelligent life coming to Earth?

"Flyingalien craft around earth, highly unlikely unless everything weunderstand about physics is wrong."


All we know is not a very strong argument for anything. There is some evidencethat alien life has visited Earth. Many of the early civilizations havereported that this phenomena did occur.

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

Life is probable elsewhere, IMHO. Intelligent life certainly possible. Flying alien craft aroud earth, highly unlikely unless everything we understand aboyt physics is wrong.

More likely our physic is incomplete. If it was completed then we would solve the witness account already, but we can't; because we have no idea what it is (worse: we'd assume the witness were all delusional and fabricating stories). The condon report did indeed marked some cases as High-Probability-of-UFO (there is only 2 class: Identified phenomenon OR a UFO, and UFO means we don't know! seriously...)

Originally Posted by msafwan

we'd assume the witness were all delusional and fabricating stories

We should assume that. People have been witnessing unearthly beings throughout recorded history; typically these abduct or otherwise render blameless the witness in some way: succubi, devils, witches, possessing spirits, alternate personalities... latest scapegoat before those elusive aliens I guess was gremlins. We should assume that people *will* invoke zany yet well-known excuses for having skipped town, gotten pregnant, gotten an abortion, shown up at grandma's without any pants... and so forth. So, taking your side, isn't it strange people stopped resorting to this sort of BS just as aliens entered the scene?

Originally Posted by Pong

We should assume that. People have been witnessing unearthly beings throughout recorded history; typically these abduct or otherwise render blameless the witness in some way: succubi, devils, witches, possessing spirits, alternate personalities... latest scapegoat before those elusive aliens I guess was gremlins. We should assume that people *will* invoke zany yet well-known excuses for having skipped town, gotten pregnant, gotten an abortion, shown up at grandma's without any pants... and so forth. So, taking your side, isn't it strange people stopped resorting to this sort of BS just as aliens entered the scene?

If there is no radar record, then sure; they might've been conjuring image because they are scared (IMO people will imagine scary image when they are scared, especially in the dark). BUT If we have radar record, then we can prove that they saw something. And... radar record do indeed exist! (they said...)

But, why shouldn't we trust air traffic controller and pilots? they are the people who saw alot of aviation thing (light & airplane), and they should be the least likely person to make an id mistake. If someone watch the same thing over and over again (like them), then they should be more proficient at id-ing anomalies/outliers... so if they do saw something odd, then it has some credence.

Well first of all, radar is just a tool. It detects reflections. Of aircraft, birds, temperature contrasts, insects, air pollution, objects on the ground... It is not infallable.
And pilots make lousy witnesses. Many have been fooled by Venus, mirages, etc. And they have huge "My intepretation is always right" egos. Now that's not necessarily a bad thing, it's almost a requirement of their job. But it has also led to horrible plane crashes (see Tennerife, Buffalo, etc...). They "assume" anything they see is in their airspace, since that is where they work, when it might not be correct.

Well... that is a very powerful argument. DA would win many case with that. ... >_>

Air traffic controllers are actually quite likely to see and report UFOs, for the same reason birdwatchers see plenty of what they call "LBB"s (Little Brown Birds). It means no clear ID, but should report anyway.

It might be airplane without ID or a ground feature.... sure, they might suspect the same. But if it is UFO then they do know...

No if it's a UFO it's UNIDENTIFIED, not LGM.

Originally Posted by msafwan

But, why shouldn't we trust air traffic controller and pilots? they are the people who saw alot of aviation thing (light & airplane), and they should be the least likely person to make an id mistake. If someone watch the same thing over and over again (like them), then they should be more proficient at id-ing anomalies/outliers... so if they do saw something odd, then it has some credence.

People make terrible witnesses. If you have ever served on a jury, you will know this first hand. "Experts" don't become any better as observers of things they don't recognize or understand.

Even if they did see "something odd" which cannot be identified then all we know is that they have seen "something odd" which cannot be identified. Now if you want to make the logical leap (with no supporting evidence) that this is a flying unicorn or a man from Mars, then feel free. But don't expect anyone else to share the fantasy.

Originally Posted by stander-j

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Do I believe in intelligent extraterrestrial life ? - Yes.
Do I believe they are coming here in UFOs ? - Not really.
Why ? - Because they have no reason to. There is nothing here that is in any way special, or that cannot be found elsewhere much easier, and without interference from humans.
The most I concede is that a small, small number of UFOs might be unmanned probes. And even that I find hard to swallow given the HUGE amount of resources needed to get here in the first place.
Seriously, I think we are just not ( yet ) interesting enough for anyone to bother.

On the other hand though it is dangerous to surmise that an alien civilization shares similar thinking processes, values, morals and mores with us. How are we to know what they are interested in, or even if the concept of "interest" holds any meaning for them at all ?
None of these questions will be answerable until we have made contact.

I have a similar stand on the subject. I'd disagree about them having little reason to explore Earth: Thirst for knowledge? Interest in the study of biotic life on other planets? Interest in the study of intelligent life and society? Perhaps in search of useful resources? - Do we not maintain interests in lifeforms as unimportant as the flukeworm?

Thirst for knowledge is certainly reason enough. If they didn't crave knowledge, then probably they would never have developed high technology in the first place.

One thing to add is that, those professionals who go down to places like Africa trying to document the behaviors of animals in the wild have consistently found they get the best results if the creatures to be observed DON'T KNOW THEY ARE THERE.

Originally Posted by curious mind

i remember when i was little and we were camping on a field, about 100 m in front a forest, i was lying down looking up. i've seen something what, according to its look, would be a meteor or komet.

the only weird thing was, it was traveling in a straight line(as it was shot) about 10m above the tree line, and not moving in an angle from up to down.

i never thought of it as being an UFO, just wondered about the way it moved.

and why, if aliens are visiting us for at least 58 yrs according to that picture, would they do so with no reason?

Perhaps they were aware of our efforts toward developing nuclear weapons, and decided they might want to step up their rate of data collection before there aren't any more humans left to observe.

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

Life is probable elsewhere, IMHO. Intelligent life certainly possible. Flying alien craft aroud earth, highly unlikely unless everything we understand aboyt physics is wrong.

Don't be silly. Everything Newton understood about physics didn't turn out to be wrong when Einstein showed up. What makes you think Einstein's successor will render his theories to be totally invalid (instead of partially invalid, or valid but only within certain limits)?

Originally Posted by Strange

Even if they did see "something odd" which cannot be identified then all we know is that they have seen "something odd" which cannot be identified. Now if you want to make the logical leap (with no supporting evidence) that this is a flying unicorn or a man from Mars, then feel free. But don't expect anyone else to share the fantasy.

The problem with you is that you didn't discern UFOs into a class of its own, instead you put it in same category as a natural phenomenon. Witness reported that UFO showed interaction with them (eg: responding to jet maneuver), and showed irregular moves and shape (instant move, triangular, polygonal moves & shape). What this mean is: although natural phenomenon is a subset of all UFOs, social collective has build another meaning for "UFO" as: it includes 'intelligent-flying-object'.

Because that is just semantics! People already know that UFO includes a domain of intelligent-flying-objects. The theory about Little-Green-Men is just a natural consequences of it and shouldn't effect the existent of any intelligent-flying-objects.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by Arthur Angler

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Since the object has no scale reference even the size can't be determined.

Really? 1:00 An Inconvenient Truth (5/10) Movie CLIP - Drastic Rise in CO2 Concentration (2006) HD - YouTube

First off the scale is on the left side of the graph.... It might be a good thing for you to actually watch vidios that you post.

Second, it has nothing to do with the scale of the photograph--so stop trolling.

Excuse me for trying to help. The scale to which you refer is indeed on the left, but ENDS before the point indicated by Mr. Gore, who in fact refers to it as "OFF THE CHART"(forgive me if I am paraphrasing, I found it too painful to watch again). Hence, this is a legitimate example of the absence of scale regarding the magnitude observed, and I stand by it, and you are welcome sir.

A similar error is made by people who mistake domestic cats for large feline predators. People have a yearning for the sensational and the fantastic, perhaps because the mundane nature of their boring little lives is a crushing weight upon their souls. This also is hard to quantify- is there a scale of despair?

Originally Posted by msafwan

The problem with you is that you didn't discern UFOs into a class of its own, instead you put it in same category as a natural phenomenon.

They are in a class of their own: the class of things that can't be identified. Some of them may be natural phenomena, some may be illusions, some may be fakes, some may be hyperdimensional flying unicorns for all I know. WE DON'T KNOW.

People already know that UFO includes a domain of intelligent-flying-objects.

No. People think that. There is no evidence for that conclusion.

Originally Posted by xxx200

how do you know that the picture is a hoax?

The alleged UFO has a striking resemblance to UFOs featured in B-movies of the 1950s. It is a contived, amateurish effort. This should be self evident to anyone with their critical faculties intact.

Originally Posted by xxx200

if the picture is a hoax then millions of observers of UFO who are trained observer e.g. pilot, police, military, govt. people might either have difficulty in the eye or they have difficulty in their equipment.

Point 1: Millions of pilots, police, military, etc have not stated that the picture is genuine, so their views on UFOs are irrelevant to the authenticity of the picture.
Point 2: It is well established, by rigorous scientific investigations, that eye witness testimony is damnably unreliable.

Originally Posted by xxx200

this pic is not fake.

How can you say so with such certainty? You are making yourself look like a fool. You have no idea of the provenance of the picture. Please provide the evidence to demonstrate it is not a fake.

Originally Posted by xxx200

alien has advanced technology, they have no reason to hide from us, they have no reason to visit us.....

Unjustified speculations.

Originally Posted by Jack1941

I do say the potential for intelligent life beyond Earth is very high. And so does all of the statitical speculation. The number of galaxies is staggering, as well as the number of solar systems. Sytatistics predict that the number of planets that can support life is such a large number that one can predict that there is a very high probability that intelligent life exists beyond Earth. My question is; when is the intelligent life coming to Earth?

This is incorrect. My statistical speculation, for one, shows the odds to be extremely low.

i don't know. as far as our galaxy, there maybe once was life on one of those planets before. and if they had advanced technology to travel through space, they decided to go another direction.

or maybe they got wiped out, before being able to develop high enough, to travel around.

or maybe our planet is some kind of a mutant-planet, where only earth beings can live.

it's probably odd to think that our planet is the only one where life is able to exist and evolve. on the other hand, why not?

then millions of observers of UFO who are trained observer e.g. pilot, police, military,

I was trained to observe many things in my 24 years of military service including signs of IEDs, gang symbols in the barracks or on soldiers, artillery impacts locations, storm and weapons damage, the dash of my MRAP, the view through a machine gun thermal site, and a hundred other things---but I must have slept through that UFO observer class :-)

Well, if you look at the sky enough and are curious and investigate and research, everything eventually becomes an IFO

Edit: or an INFO

Dear Arthur Angler. Humans are possibly a food cache for Alien Time travellers. There has been discussion of Worm Holes. Warping Time. If Aliens exist and have reached a high degree of technology and science, what would be more natural then to have cultivated food sources scattered throughout the Cosmos? Humans are a good protein source, we are full of minerals etc. Peroidically they could drop by for a cull. westwind.

if god is real than there could be a good possibility also santa claus and UFOS are real, they all come from the same source: the human mind.

p.s not trying to be offensive towards religious people, if so then im very sorry

Aliens do exist, but aliens on earth maybe 1% possibility, aliens on earth in history I say 20% possibility.
With my knowledge at least, and by aliens I mean anything alien like alien machines, alien bodys, alien creatures, alien spacecraft, alien organisms.

Of course, you can provide no evidence at all to support your wild speculation...

Originally Posted by Japith

Aliens do exist, but aliens on earth maybe 3% possibility, aliens on earth in history I say 20% possibility.
With my knowledge at least, and by aliens I mean anything alien like alien machines, alien bodys, alien creatures, alien spacecraft, alien organisms.

What do you mean 3% possibility?? Can I see your calculations please?

Originally Posted by TheObserver

Originally Posted by Japith

Aliens do exist, but aliens on earth maybe 3% possibility, aliens on earth in history I say 20% possibility.
With my knowledge at least, and by aliens I mean anything alien like alien machines, alien bodys, alien creatures, alien spacecraft, alien organisms.

What do you mean 3% possibility?? Can I see your calculations please?

1%, calculations are books, museums, doucumentrys, physics, idk. point is who knows so I say 1% maybe 0.1% I change my mind from 3% I don'y know what I was thinking

so you're 0.1% chance is based on what?

Originally Posted by curious mind

so you're 0.1% chance is based on what?

my "curious mind"

which, after doing research in all the directions you did, would lead to 0%.

i believe UFOs are realthesis I have seen 2 in the same nightthesis 2 they have been reported in many cases, alien presence wise. in WW2 both german and US pilots saw balls of light named fire ball in german and foo fighters.also for every one interested life on alien planets has been proven, nonintelegent but still ET. My theory is [no proof] we are seen as amusing to aliens like animals at the zoo

Originally Posted by linkoftwilight

i believe UFOs are realthesis I have seen 2 in the same nightthesis

What do you mean, you have seen two? Do you mean you have seen 2 UFOs = things that couldn't be identified? That wouldn't be surprising. People frquently see things that can't be identified.

Or do you mean you saw aliens craft? If so, how do you know it was an alien craft? Just because you saw strange lights in the sky does not mean they must be aliens.

2 they have been reported in many cases, alien presence wise. in WW2 both german and US pilots saw balls of light named fire ball in german and foo fighters.

And there is no reason to think they were aliens.

also for every one interested life on alien planets has been proven, nonintelegent but still ET.

Really? I seem to have missed the world-wide headlines that such a discovery would have caused. Do you have a reference for any such proof?

It is funny how so many people seem to think that UFO = Alien Spaceship.

UFO = Unidentified flying object.

Alien Spaceship = Identified flying object.

I would have thought it unnecessary to mention this, but then I read through this thread.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by linkoftwilight

i believe UFOs are realthesis I have seen 2 in the same nightthesis

What do you mean, you have seen two? Do you mean you have seen 2 UFOs = things that couldn't be identified? That wouldn't be surprising. People frquently see things that can't be identified.

Or do you mean you saw aliens craft? If so, how do you know it was an alien craft? Just because you saw strange lights in the sky does not mean they must be aliens.

2 they have been reported in many cases, alien presence wise. in WW2 both german and US pilots saw balls of light named fire ball in german and foo fighters.

And there is no reason to think they were aliens.

also for every one interested life on alien planets has been proven, nonintelegent but still ET.

Really? I seem to have missed the world-wide headlines that such a discovery would have caused. Do you have a reference for any such proof?

answer to first question: I have no proof, I have never seen an earth aircraft, I called it a UFO because I could not identify it at the time
answer to question 2 yes i do have a reference Fossilized Bacteria May Point to Life on Mars | Fox Newst was dead and non-intelligent but still et life

Originally Posted by linkoftwilight

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by linkoftwilight

also for every one interested life on alien planets has been proven, nonintelegent but still ET.

Really? I seem to have missed the world-wide headlines that such a discovery would have caused. Do you have a reference for any such proof?

yes i do have a reference Fossilized Bacteria May Point to Life on Mars | Fox Newst was dead and non-intelligent but still et life

"may point to" does not equal "proven"

Originally Posted by linkoftwilight

answer to first question: I have no proof, I have never seen an earth aircraft,

Really? What do you think those things are that fly overhead and leave contrails? Have you ever heard of airports? They are places where earth aircraft leave the ground and, believe it or not, FLY INTO THE AIR!!!!

Set on earth and said to multiply.The bible could easily depict a much more advanced being organic or not.

WTH are you talking about? What does the bible have to do with jet aircraft?

Bologna Cakes....what??Nvm >;{}