 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Feb 20, 2017 - 1:40 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Joe 1956
(Member)
|
With all the cameras nowadays, within reach of most people, and with web cams and dash cams and millions of permanently mounted security cameras operating 24/7 all over the globe....
Well, where are they?
They're not about to travel staggering distances just to play Peek-A-Boo and practice nocturnal proctology.
UFO's sell books and magazines and videos and make for sometimes good movies and campfire yarns, but that's all.
Most cameras of which you speak are mounted so as to capture images of *us*, not the sky. They are not pointed skyward. Now, acknowledging that visual sightings are less scientifically valid than something like, say, radar records (cough cough), we do have a raft of recordings. Ummm, do an Internet search for UFO videos. I suspect you might get a few hits. Which ones are genuine as opposed to hoaxes? Ahh, now you enter the challenging stage.
Nonetheless, to claim we have a dearth of video of these craft/devices is incorrect.
Most TV stations have "weather cams" aimed at a fair piece above the visible horizon. I'd guess that most of the world does the same. Why can't the MUFON types set up a web page with a few camera links, since it's well within capability?
I grew up reading the old paperbacks. I remember all the famous old pictures, and noticed even then that they were always different shapes.
I very well remember the last "flap" back in '73. There's never been a resurgence of sightings since. And nowadays there's so many other ways to get your 15 minutes of fame.
I pretty much live on YouTube, and perhaps have seen it all. That's where I found the "hairy ceiling fan". Gotta say I'm impressed with what some of those kids can do with whatever today's version(s) of the Video Toaster is. But even their UFO's never look alike.
As for radar, I'm no techie, but do understand temperature inversions and false echoes. That's honestly all I can say about it.
But I'm soon to be 61, and haven't seen anything yet and don't personally know anyone who has.
And yes, I've read Klass.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Feb 20, 2017 - 4:54 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Warlok
(Member)
|
... I do not entirely understand how a proposition that radar contact data can be mis-interpreted to the extent that such things become matters for speculation supports openess to my perspective. Radar is hard science, with limitations of course, yet nonetheless hard science. I thought I laid out the argument for that fact often here. But in any event... .
It's premature to use the term 'misinterpretation'. We could use the term 'creative interpretation'. Is it a misinterpretation for example to interpret something provisionally in terms of what similar phenomena have been known to be in the past? Using the available data, it's the logical thing to do. So if x is caused normally by y, then x will be reasonably assumed as y until more data. If y is normally a flying vehicle, then it's not technically 'wrong' to assume x was thus caused, until proven otherwise. But it might not be.
One thing I always wondered about is how, typically, a UFO, having been observed and challenged, allegedly will suddenly whizz off at an impossible speed. It does make one think of how a flashlight spot will suddenly whizz up the wall, when a flashlight carrier wants to switch it off ... just his wrist movement holding the torch will do that before he switches it off. Imagine the Bat-Signal moving like AA lights around the clouds.
That makes me think of 3D holograms suddenly withdrawn. If the US military wanted to test 3D hologram projections ('lots of military uses for that!) then a good double-blind test would involve not letting the pilot subjects in on it, initially. Holograms wouldn't show up on radar unless there was a physical element thus carried somehow.
I disagree with the idea that operators of radar would as a matter of routine view contacts that execute beyond-right-angle turns at supra-human device speeds, hover, etc. etc. as 'merely anomalous' for whatever reason. Certainly to the extent that that response became the norm, but I understand your view. I also understand a theory about 3D projection into the atmosphere. I simply severely doubt that, especially in cases where eyewitness corroboration exists, and where fighter pilots engaged in a measure of (one-sided) dogfight with these craft.
I will not say, "It is more likely that," but instead say isn`t it more *reasonable* to conclude 'controlled craft'?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Feb 20, 2017 - 6:53 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Warlok
(Member)
|
Alongside irrefutable radar evidence is the irrefutable Roswell, 1947 incident. I shall explain why, again using logic.
To be honest, your repeated use of the word 'irrefutable' is starting to make your posts sound like a tract.
And the long, boring, complicated conspiracy-type explanations are exactly the kind of thing you get when someone tries to obfuscate bullshit, or tries to justify the bullshit they genuinely believe.
I believe the rancher contacted the base, Marcel met the rancher, reported back to his base commander, and the base commander informed the base press officer/public relations officer, who passed on the information to the press. Resulting in the news story/report.
I stand by a belief in the validity of radar record, but I also stand by a belief in the base competence of various members of our species, as well as in the established fact of the treachery and untrustworthiness of those in positions of power. The former demands an astounding level of incompetence in a whole chain of individuals whom we otherwise trust (in the case of Roswell as well as a slew of others), the latter demands we ignore historical record of mankind, its record of rulership & conflict, and the conspiracies throughout history that indeed make up that history. To me both together are absolutely unreasonable.
I believe ET life is likely simply because of the number of stars out there. However, I believe alien contact to be highly unlikely. The chance of life evolving is low. The chance of slime evolving into intelligent life is low. The chance of intelligent beings evolving to achieve interstellar travel (which is not only beyond our technology, it's beyond our current conception of physics) is probably just as low. The compound probability of these events is so low it's not even worth considering.
Preposterous perspective. I apologize for perhaps partially repeating myself here, but I shall try to be fresh.
1. Contention
Current Laws Of Physics Constitute THE understanding of the universe.
-quantum physics unveil new depths and quandaries to established understanding all the time
-the speed of light is immutable! Except for that lab in the US, where they recently (past 2 or 3 years?) adjusted the speed of photons (light), slowing them and even stopping them
-Alcubierre cracks the math for a warp bubble, concludes the energy required for doing so equals the sum energy of Jupiter; NASA researcher and EagleWorks team leader Dr. White figures out how to reduce that energy requirement by several magnitudes to where it is within the realm of possibility; a "Manhattan Project" style program is now underway, at a particle level (as was the Manhattan Project, initially)
-transparent aluminum is a flight of fantasy most famously featured in Star Trek IV... but just recently developed by a private American group who now seek to get NASA contracts to replace craft glass with it
-we are about to visually directly observe the black hole at the astoundingly distant and obscured center of our galaxy using aforementioned imprecise and unreliable, open-to-interpretation radar technology
-EM (microwave) propulsion proven to function... scientists do not understand why
-space/time is described as a 3-dimensional fabric. Can that fabric not conceivably be compressed, squeezed, torn, stretched, spread, or bent?
-modern technological leaps have occurred over the course of the last 100 years; how old is the universe? Can any other intelligent life be older than us? Of course... absurd position to take
2. Contention
The probability of intelligent life forming in eminently hostile environments is prohibitive.
-extremophiles, that is NOT single cell germs but multi-cellular animals, live in incredibly low, high, and pressurized realms here on Earth
-microbes carried up on our spacecraft have been found alive after re-entering the earth from the vacuum of space, hibernating in a fashion
-what gives rise to intellect? Good question. We have nothing that yet dictates that the Earth is the key, vitally necessary component to that development; an absurdly centrist self-important view
And their mysterious, unknown purpose for visiting Earth doesn't seem to have had any noticeable effect for the 60 years since the foo fighter days. What have they been doing all this time? Dodging planes? Why? Taking over the world leaders one by one and replacing them with shape-shifting lizards?
Scientific study? Maintaining their distance from an untrustworthy, unstable, usury race whose first impulses will be to see what they can plunder? I don`t think any enlightened species would be in too great a rush to engage with us, given our history. At the very least they would be cautious. A 'slightly trust but verify' approach. Beyond that, yes, we do not know what their intentions are/have been. We would have to ask them.
Further to the idea about an utter RAFT of encounters, under spotlights and whatnot, if in the course of studying the Earth they get spotted here and there, is that really impossible? Of course it is not.
And... since you reference it but then totally ignore it, what of those Foo Fighters? As usual, an inconvenience one conveniently ignores... the point being if you seriously consider the bigger issue, you cannot simply ignore such.
There's been no evidence I've seen worth a crap. I'm just not interested enough to follow the labyrinthine, historical, anecdotal waffle I've come to associate with conspiracy theories.
I am not picking on you/singling you out. But this is my favourite. Being brief:
3. Contention
All observations and deductions are simply elements of zany conspiracy theory.
Secrets cannot possibly be kept. Especially important ones.
History *IS* conspiracy. 2 or more people acting towards a common end. Learned minds cull documents to arrive at the clearest possible understanding of what has happened, in order to do that very thing and to inform us as to what may yet happen, what is happening, and why. Historians too are "conspiracy nuts". An effect of the denial program of (particularly) US agencies is to belittle scholarly study in this field. If they are believed, nobody in modern world politics conspires to do anything.
Nobody,
-conspired to replace/murder legitimately democratically elected government in Iran in order to directly control and profit from oil reserves
-nobody conspired with the Nazis to profit from organized slave labour at Nazi Death Camps during WWII... especially not American Wall Street industrialists
-nobody conspired to lengthen the duration and involvement of the West in the Vietnam War
-nobody conspired to instigate a full-on invasion of Cuba via a proposed operation called Northwoods, wherein American military and covert forces stage spectacular attacks on US citizens (killing them...)... except for General Lemnitzer and CIA Director Allen Dulles, who get subsequently fired by John F. Kennedy for so suggesting
-nobody conspired to overthrow Jacobo Arbenz of Guatamala, so that the American Fruit Company (?) could bypass ownership/benefits to the Guatamalan citizenry, and associated annoyances, which culminated in the establishment (and coining of the phrase) of a banana republic; all under the watchful, forceful gazes of the Dulles brothers, amazingly enough
-nobody conspired to commit treason in the later stages of WWII by negotiating with intelligence and SS personnel a distinctly separate peace arrangement/agreement for post-WWII... except Allen Dulles and associates operating out of Switzerland
-nobody ever conspired to take hapless Canadians entering a medical facility for mere depression or anxiety, to take them and attempt to wipe their minds such that they could be "programmed" to do things utterly contrary to their natures, except elements of the CIA in Operation MKULTRA
-Julius Caesar anybody?
Of course here I focus on crimes. People conspire all the time. In modern days we conspire most to make money, which alone should be an insight to many machinations.
Furthermore, deductive reasoning is the foundation of our justice system. Without reasonable conspiracy, prosecutorial efforts (and intelligence ones) would grind to a halt. Put enough elements together and the coincidences are no longer coincidences. Some believe that in certain instances we should suddenly suspend that part of the logical process.
Secrets. If secrets of import cannot be kept, why then classify anything? The entire endeavour is fruitless, correct? Absurd.
D-Day. Enigma. The fact a nuclear torpedo was aboard the Russian submarine most central to the blockade of Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The identity and location of special forces personnel.
The state of mankind and its governance does not at all disqualify extraterrestrial visitation. Citing such, pointing out conspiracy as ridiculous, serves to highlight ignorance about our own history both ancient and modern, and little else.
Further, speak to investigative journalists and present your theory about conspiracies to them, see how they respond. If conspiracy is generally just bullshit, then these people are remarkably incompetent (again, there's that idea...) and out of jobs.
I am trying to illustrate the validity of my position in a myriad of logical ways.
Modern governments may not acknowledge UFO validity because:
-competing governments might demand access
-the potential for profound advances and superiorities in military capabilities from reverse-engineering
-a distrust in the capacities of the public to grapple with such reality
-a fear of criminal prosecution for whatever acts may have been taken in pursuit of the secrecy
-financial gain by entities privileged enough to have been made part of the loop, slowly bleeding out and squatting upon technology that may benefit them or that may undercut their current sources of revenue (i.e. fossil fuel industry and renewable energy); modern government is corrupted by money, therefore etc. etc. etc.
An Aside: I would recommend a book called "An Introduction To Planetary Defense", written by four PhD (3 plus a non-PhD`d engineer of sorts) military contractors Taylor, Boan, Anding, and Powell. Just of interest.
(oh my God that's a long post)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone who understands science would ask, "Why do aliens look like us?". Why do they have a head, two eyes, one mouth, two arms and two legs? If they come from another world then they would have evolved differently based on the conditions they thrived in. The most intelligent life out there maybe some alien jellyfish.
The 'popular' notions of aliens are irrelevant. We're trying to ascertain if they might exist, not how they'd look. You're debunking the popular conception, but that has nowt to do with anything real.
Having said that, given the millions of years it took to evolve human sentient beings, it might be argued that that is precisely what it takes, and for those beings to be able to communicate and manipulate the 3D environment, for all we know, our earthly model may well be the 'necessary' and even only evolution for them to get things done. Anyone who 'understands science' as you say, is as likely to stay conservative in his approach to how biological forms evolve, as to go wildly diverse. When we don't know something, we really don't know it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Still, there's way too many variations of their "ships". So are they flying the latest, or are they bringing along anything that could be taken out of mothballs and cranked up?
You can't have it both ways.
You say the aliens should have many evolved shapes beyond the few stereotypes the sci-fi folk flog to death, but they can't have diverse ship forms?
And anyhow, you're projecting our corporate standardisations onto these aliens. And they could be using models from many generations. And there could be several different 'civilizations' at work ...
It's harder to debunk than people think ....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's harder to debunk than people think ....
Nothing needs to be debunked . . . until those asserting that aliens have visited Earth offer up some proof. Instead, we're supposed to believe that a government that can't keep a one-on-one Presidential phone call secret for more than a day has kept the knowledge of alien visitations to Earth secret for 70 years.
For myself, I'm viewing this as a debate about whether we have been visited by extraterrestrial life. The huge cloud of stuff about popular stories, anecdotal sightings, sci-fi stereotypes ... that stuff is all irrelevant. As are conspiracy theories. The original thread was about radar anomalies.
This does need saying. In the US there has been a climate now for a few decades to polarise everything. You either believe in illuminati plots, Mexican cow-ripping monsters, alien abductions, little silver men ....or you decide alien life is utterly impossible, could never have visited, is madness. As ever, as with politics, everything else, it's all or nothing. High School debating stances, 'fer it, or agin' it'.
Reputable scientists are humble enough to take neither of these positions, because neither of these positions is viably justified. Not all of us were brought up in a womb lined with 'Fantastic Tales' comics, we're not reacting against that, because we don't care about that. That's a straw man.
I've been arguing almost on both sides, but I can't come down on either, because really no-one can. Not yet. We can only have opinions, but opinions mean prejudices and agendae unless we take care. A lot of the argument on this thread is people presenting a self-image, nothing more.
It's not bad to sit on fences, though I think in America that's considered some sort of weakness. Real life is built on paradox. Look at Jehannum: if there's one guy on here who thrives on Occam's razor, it's he, he lectures on mathematical probabilities etc., yet even with his radical rationalism, he stops short of saying it's impossible. He just thinks that statistically it's highly unlikely. We can say no more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
