UFOs?

[b.c.]

The incidents that I personally find most intriguing are the reported sightings by aircraft pilots (Air Force, NASA, etc.), incidents documented by recorded communications, of objects of unknown origin.

They may not necessarily have been aircraft, but "swamp gas" or not, they obviously saw something flying about, that they could not identify.

Hey, I'm not saying aliens walk among us, or we've been visited by beings from another world. I'm saying there are documented phenomena of an unexplained and unidentified origin generally described as "flying objects". Hence, UFO's.

Ref. http://www.hyper.net/ufo/video-documentaries.html

 

[breeze]

The incidents that I personally find most intriguing are the reported sightings by aircraft pilots (Air Force, NASA, etc.), incidents documented by recorded communications, of objects of unknown origin.

They may not necessarily have been aircraft, but "swamp gas" or not, they obviously saw something flying about, that they could not identify.

Hey, I'm not saying aliens walk among us, or we've been visited by beings from another world. I'm saying there are documented phenomena of an unexplained and unidentified origin generally described as "flying objects". Hence, UFO's.

Ref. Best UFO documentary videos - military and pilot UFO sightings

The scientists or at least some of them at stanford agree with you.

There was a study by stanford of ufos a few years back. They paired ufo believers and their strongest cases with stanford scientists. The stanford people concluded that although their intent was sincere the believers didn't have the scientific backgrounds to investigate the cases.

The study concluded that ufos are real but there is nothing to indicate they are alien aircraft. None of the cases they studied broke scientific laws. The study concluded that the mystery of ufos will be solved someday but the explantations will be complex.

But the usaf has studied over 10,000 ufo cases and basically solved most of them or claimed to. And they add if they are given time they can explain the small number of unexplained cases or all of them.

If they are unregistered aircraft or saucers over our airspace its a very serious situation. And in light of 9/11 i would think the government would take ufos ,if they were aircraft of any soft, even more seriously. I think the response to unregistered aircraft approaching the united states is to have united states jets intercept them and them have shot down if they don't respond. The response to 9/11 might have slower because it was an unexpected internal incident.

 

[185248]

Look... its not anthropomorphizing. Its intelligence and understanding.
ANY creature from any planet that is capable of building interstellar craft STILL EVOLVED, under the exact same selection pressures that drove the development of our intelligence. (i.e. for the same advantages in survival )

I don't care what fantasy of other life form you want to postulate... they eat, they excrete, they reproduce ( otherwise no evolution ) and they live or die on RESOURCE MANAGEMENT.

This means that resources have value... and they really can't fly to other planets without massive investments in resources. ( and don't give me your wild fantasies of "hyperspace" et al. PHYSICS is not mutable. )

Its gonna cost them...
And they are going to do that for WHAT reasonable purpose? Because, really, if they are evolved, and intelligent, and capable of the science and manufacturing involved, then they HAVE to have REASON.

So, really... why fly here? To "study us"? how much easier would it be to study us if they said hello?


Your "belief system" is to dismiss Every actual realistic consideration involved with the wave of your hand mumbling about how we can not possibly fathom ALIEN intentions....

But that is precisely the same meritless 'argument' that excuses the immoral acts of a imagined GOD by saying 'his ways are mysterious.'

See how UFO believers are identical to any other religion?

You all just want to pretend that there is a smarter, wiser, more powerful force in the universe... And the "technology" you imagine to ascribe to these 'aliens' is no different than the 'powers' ascribed to Gods or the supernatural. You make them up as needed to evade the need for proof.



But all of that aside... regardless of the stupidity of mistaking fantasy for reality in excusing the ridiculously stupid "actions" of these aliens...

The fact still stands that there is not one iota of un-ambiguous evidence for their existence... and TONS of ambiguous, out of focus, and faked hubcap, and "recovered memory" evidence...

And, sorry, but to anyone who actually Thinks, this is precisely the pattern of evidence you get when Every honestly obtained piece of evidence that is clear and in focus and unambiguous reveals that there is not an alien spaceship.

When all that is left is the crap that proves nothing... what you have is folks IMAGINING they see something in the crap.

We, our race is just discovering or on the verge of minaturization. In the short time I have been alive computers have gone from filling buildings to sit on a desk, and then to hold in the palms of your hands. How long do you think it will be before we have the technology to shrink the human body to travel in space? Even now developing nanobot technology along with the mapping of human DNA are slowly coming into fact from fiction... will these things allow in the future, the possibility to decrease the size of humans so a more efficent, economical form of space travel may be possible. Specially bred astronaughts?

Maybe also it would explain why the majority of supposed aliens that have been sighted are between 3 and 4 feet tall. Maybe another race has already done it? Would it be economical to decrease your travel costs by half?

 

[LuciferChild]

humm could we might have beings living outside the atmosphere?? we have beings in the deep ocean where we though live was impossible, so I dunno, we might be between two different worlds.

what can i tell is that i always "cry" automatically when i watch or read about this stuff (im in tears now), is a strange feeling, because I dont make for it, i just get a feeling in my spine and my eyes starts to watering, never understood why this happens, should be anxiety or a silent fear that im not aware in my conscience? dunno....do any of you have this?

did you remember when it was the most recent case of close encounters?? nowadays with everyone having a mobile with camera should be easier to see PROPERLY a ufo or alien case, or now that we are more technically advanced they decide not appear? hummm

 

[Phil Ayesho]

Well.....Why are all of the pictures of UFO's shown out of focus...because most people have NO fucking idea how to take a good picture! Couple that to the fact they are excited to see whatever it is.....and you get shit! Blurry images, moving about....Focus...Focus....focus! I saw a UFO once, and unfortunelty , it was when we used film...and I was fresh out.

Well, what you "saw" is meaningless... your brain is a pattern recognition device. When presented with vague information, it seeks thru its archives for anything that seems to have a similar pattern and once it "thinks" it has a matching pattern, you Literally Stop Seeing it accurately... your brain imposes upon your perception its belief in the pattern.

The truth is that you actually Had a UE... and Unidentified Experience.
Because you quite truthfully did not have any wayof determining that what you saw was an "object" nor that it was, in fact ' Flying". ( clouds and ball lightening are not 'flying')

Had you had film, and gotten a shot, one of two things would have occurred.

1- you would have gotten a clear photo that later examination revealed to be nothing unusual. You would have dismissed this as a mistake on your part, but would not allow the greater ramification, ( that 'seeing' UFOs is not actually evidence that they are there ) to alter your core tendency to believe in UFOs.
In short- you would, like most UFO believers, tend to credit your powers of perception more than the power of clear photography.

OR

2- you would have gotten a photo that was just as ambiguous and indecipherable as your experience in the moment... which means that your brain would have continued to impose its believed pattern on the image and you would have continued to believe it was evidence of a UFO, even tho the image would NOT be clear enough to convince anyone who did not also want to believe in UFOs and was similarly willing impose that belief upon their perceptions.

In Short... even tho it would not prove anything, you would tend to imagine that it was valid evidence, simply because it re-inforced your immediate reaction at the time.

These are the only two possible outcomes. I say this because this is precisely the only two outcomes from EVERY SINGLE SIGHTING, and every honestly intentioned observer capturing photos.

The one thing that HAS NEVER OCCURRED is someone taking a photo of a UFO they saw, and having the picture be clearly, unambiguously, that of a non-teresstrial artifact.

Crop circles are made by pranksters with boards and ropes.
Not super intelligent aliens from a distant star who are trying, but failing, to communicate with us... when any toddler knows how to build communication from nothing but pointing and noises.

Folks need to stop WISHING for the world to be more wonderful, mysterious, or magical than it actually is and LOOK AT THE MACHINE YOUR READING THIS ON....

Its PLENTY wonderful, mysterious and magical as it is.

 

[bobbyboyle]

Agree entirely with Phil's comments.

Our modern atom smashers that the government has spent billions on, have proven to their best ability that there are at least 10 dimentions.

No, no they have not. It's illuminating that you peddle misinformation as part of your argument (either you are being intentionally dishonest, or someone else was when they told you that non-fact and you never bothered to check if it was true or not).

 

[b.c.]

I think the world can be wonderful, mysterious, and magical even without the technology. But I don't support logic that dismisses the unknown as non-existing simply because we not yet have evidence to conclusively prove its existence.

It turned out (only not so long ago) that the Earth was indeed "round" (more or less) and not the center of the universe.

 

[Calboner]

I don't support logic that dismisses the unknown as non-existing simply because we not yet have evidence to conclusively prove its existence.

(1) Although I did not review all the previous posts in this thread before replying to yours, I do not recollect any that can be described as "dismissing the unknown as non-existent." So you seem to be attacking a straw man.

(2) What has been dismissed is the belief that there have been extra-terrestrial visitors. It has been dismissed not because there is no conclusive evidence to support it but because there is no sound evidence at all to support it--no evidence sufficient to warrant the belief.

It turned out (only not so long ago) that the Earth was indeed "round" (more or less) and not the center of the universe.

I don't see how this bears on the issue, unless perhaps you are concerned with the issue whether there is intelligent life somewhere in the universe apart from our planet. That is entirely distinct from the issue whether intelligent extraterrestrial beings have visited earth, or whether we have reason to believe that they have done so. Obviously, they can't come here if they don't exist. But to deny that there is any reason to believe that they have ever come here is not to deny that they exist--or even, for that matter, to deny that they have ever come here. It is simply to reject the last-mentioned belief as unwarranted.

 

[185248]

There have been some credible witnesses over the years, and some not so credible. Many sightings seem to have coincided with a time when we started to broadcast a lot of noise, also when we where beginning to take our first steps outside the limits of our atmosphere. Maybe we attracted attention for a short time.

 

[b.c.]

(1) Although I did not review all the previous posts in this thread before replying to yours, I do not recollect any that can be described as "dismissing the unknown as non-existent." So you seem to be attacking a straw man.

(2) What has been dismissed is the belief that there have been extra-terrestrial visitors. It has been dismissed not because there is no conclusive evidence to support it but because there is no sound evidence at all to support it--no evidence sufficient to warrant the belief.

The difference being....... ????

My statement regarding the unknown was not limited to extraterrestrial visitation alone, but on that one note, you argue extraterrestrial visitation has been dismissed because "there is no sound evidence at all to support it" (i.e. "non-existent"). Conversely, have you sound enough evidence to prove that it hasn't occurred?

I don't see how this bears on the issue, unless perhaps you are concerned with the issue whether there is intelligent life somewhere in the universe apart from our planet. That is entirely distinct from the issue whether intelligent extraterrestrial beings have visited earth, or whether we have reason to believe that they have done so. Obviously, they can't come here if they don't exist. But to deny that there is any reason to believe that they have ever come here is not to deny that they exist--or even, for that matter, to deny that they have ever come here. It is simply to reject the last-mentioned belief as unwarranted.

Until more evidence was found, belief that the Earth was NOT the center of the universe was also "unwarranted". So what's the problem with my analogy?

 

[Calboner]

The difference being....... ????

The difference being just what I said: between dismissing the existence of X, which I take to mean denying that X exists (perhaps you mean something else by the phrase?), and dismissing the belief in the existence of X, which means denying that the belief that X exists is warranted.

It should not be difficult to see that these are not equivalent. E.g., if someone categorically affirms that the star Tau Ceti has an earth-like planet orbiting it, a claim that is, so far as I can tell, supported by no evidence whatever, I will dismiss that belief as groundless. I do not thereby deny that such a planet exists: I merely deny that the belief is warranted. Someone who is informed of the absence of evidence but persists in this belief can only do so from non-rational causes: either he is caught in a confusion or delusion about what the evidence is or he doesn't much care about aligning his beliefs with reality.

My statement regarding the unknown was not limited to extraterrestrial visitation alone, but on that one note, you argue extraterrestrial visitation has been dismissed

I am not sure what you mean by "arguing that extraterrestrial visitation has been dismissed"; but if you mean arguing that there has been no extraterrestrial visitation, that is not correct. To continue:

because "there is no sound evidence at all to support it" (i.e. "non-existent"). Conversely, have you sound enough evidence to prove that it hasn't occurred?

Of course not; neither have I sound evidence to prove that there is no earth-like planet orbiting Tau Ceti; for all that, I quite rightly dismiss that belief as unwarranted, because there is no evidence of any such thing.

There are pertinent differences between the two cases, of course. So far as I know, there is nothing strongly attractive about the idea that an earth-like planet orbits Tau Ceti. It could lead to wonderful discoveries if we learned that there is such a thing, but it is not the sort of thing that fits into people's emotional and imaginative lives in the way that a belief in extraterrestrial visitors to earth does. Accordingly, people do not fall into the grip of the belief that there is such a planet, give testimony of how they have personally encountered the planet, form associations with other people who believe in it, generate theories about how The Government has concealed the evidence of its existence, and so forth.

Until more evidence was found, belief that the Earth was NOT the center of the universe was also "unwarranted". So what's the problem with my analogy?

I take it that you intend to imply that beliefs that are, at one time, unsupported by the available evidence can later turn out to be true--or at least, can later become warranted by the available evidence. This is true. It does not follow that it is equally reasonable to believe what is unwarranted by the evidence and what is warranted by it.

 

[b.c.]

^Look, I'm really not all that interested in splitting hairs over the existence of extraterrestrial visitation, the belief in the existence of it, or in extraterrestrials in general. I thought my observation about not dismissing the unknown was rather straightforward enough. Perhaps had you read through the other posts you'd have better understood the basis for it. Maybe this will make it clearer:

There were suggestions in previous posts that the existence of aliens (whether they've visited or not) was a stupid idea (as stupid as angels) and UFO believers were the same as believers in any other religion, presumable (from what I gather of the arguments) because of the absence of credible evidence. I merely stated that I don't agree that such things should be dismissed because of the absence of evidence. Pure and simple. Don't matter a hill of beans whether we're talking about the existence of it, or the belief in the existence of it.

For sake of this discussion allow me to group what we know or perceive into three categories: fact, theory, faith.

Facts are obvious: the sun, the stars, the moon, etc. are there.

Faith falls into what people believe and is that for which (aside for what people believe to have seen or experienced) there is no "proof" (using the term in the way it has been applied thus far in this thread). I'm sure there are some who'd disagree about the "proof".

Now theory is belief too, isn't it? But belief based on a range of accepted scientific facts used to support the theory. Evolution Theory for example, the Big Bang Theory - both based on scientific evidence that supports them as a "logical" conclusion.
But still there's no 100% bona fide PROOF that the universe, for example, started with a cosmic bang. Regardless most people accept both as if they were fact.

Sightings of something of unknown origin are a fact. They have been reported, documented, recorded, perhaps even photographed. There are at least a few reasonably reliable testimonies of people who have seen "something" whether extraterrestrial or not.

So, if one chooses to dismiss these events as people's desire to give form to the inexplicable, or to reject the evidence because of inconclusive proof, or to determine it not likely on the basis of our perceptions of economy, motivation, time, and other human considerations - FINE. That's a PERSONAL choice. I respect it.

All I've said is that I'M not inclined to so quickly dismiss the phenomena of UFO's as objects of unknown origin that are flying or appear to be. That's my choice.

 

[185248]

For all the "intellectual talk". I for one can not dispute a witnesses sightings, because I was not here "there". This is a sighting that took place in Papua New Guinea in the late 50's. For some reason to me it stands out. Why? Because of the remoteness of the sighting and number of people involved.

Papuans were use to objects flying in the sky, some of the heaviest fighting of WW2 occurred over their country. Many planes fell to earth there. Also, it took some time for this sighting to reach investigators because of the remote location.

No flying object of the time would exhibit the physics this object showed. I can not dispute this sighting, I was not there, nor were any that would, or could dispute it. One thing is certain, these people saw something, in a remote location, away from press and current affairs hype of the time that could not be explained.

So, are these people liars? Too much Kava? Night after night? I for one will not dismiss their sighting or any other credible sighting as waffle....just because I was not there to observe it or dispute it.
1959-The Papua, New Guinea UFOs

 

[185248]

Besides, I reckon half the people on LPSG are from another planet We are born with no memory, supposedly...yet, the healthy mind remembers just about everything until the body dies...Why is that? What is the point of our minds doing this? Why do we remember youth as an old person, like it was yesterday? Huh? If it was all to disappear and mean nothing? To remember to no avail? Makes no sense. Or does it?


<<<<To hard basket. To easy basket >>>>>>

VVVV

Basket Case

 

[185248]

A little of topic...but when our children are born, we all see the physical similarities. The way they look, act, walk and even the sound of their voice.

Yet, it is so hard for us to understand that they, us, may carry our past lives, emotions, loves, desires, those of our distant ancestors as well.

Yeah, I question lots of stuff.

 

[Thirdlegproduction]

Do i believe in unidentified flying objects? sure, but flying saucers are always hear say.
There have been many random incidents most of it bs but there are few that raised my eyebrow and wonder.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

I think the world can be wonderful, mysterious, and magical even without the technology. But I don't support logic that dismisses the unknown as non-existing simply because we not yet have evidence to conclusively prove its existence.

It turned out (only not so long ago) that the Earth was indeed "round" (more or less) and not the center of the universe.

You mean you don't support logic.

Okay... but then, the rest of us will not be looking to you to contribute one iota to the progress of science and understanding.

Ignorance is not really a "position"... its just plain lack of accurate
knowledge.

To Wit:
As a matter of fact... It was LOGIC that determined the world was round. The Greeks not only figured that out, they fairly accurately calculated its true circumference.
They figured this out around 400 BC... and the notion that people continued to believe the world was flat up until Columbus is nothing but ignorant myth.
No LEARNED person thought the world was flat.

You make the same ignorant mistake that many do in trying to believe in nonsense, and that is to imagine that, prior to our discovery of a host of new ideas, insights and understandings, that there was 'similarly' NO EVIDENCE as there is for such malarky as flying saucers, bigfeet, and astrology.

Nothing could be further from the truth.
The truth is that previously unknown phenomena only remained unknown as long as we had no idea to even look for them. And that we were, ultimately LEAD to them BY a trail of real evidence.

The fact that the Earth is NOT the center of the universe SEEMED obvious to the casual observer... i.e. those looking had plenty of evidence that that was what they were seeing.... But the CLOSER we looked, the better our instruments for looking and quantifying what we were looking at, the More Evidence piled up that was totally inconsistent with that 'theory'.

Ultimately, we were forced by the weight of evidence to accept a different conclusion.

In the same way, we discovered radio and the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum BECAUSE with our advancing technology and instrumentations we kept bumping into REAL, REPEATABLE EVIDENCE that there was some phenomenon we could not perceive with our ordinary senses.


The fact is that REAL undiscovered phenomena STILL leave evidence of their existence, tho we may, for a time, not be aware of that evidence.


But there is no history of something that exists, being actively searched for, of which not the slightest trace of valid evidence can be found.

We found the Coelacanth and Okapi, despite the fact that NO ONE was looking for them... we stumbled across them.
But decades of searching for Bigfeet, Nessy, and space aliens has not produced the slightest verifiable trace of them.

Just stories.

Here's a clue... the one characteristic that can be said to be "true" of ALL things that Do Not Exist, is that they leave no valid evidence of existing.

The device you are reading this on... the air conditioning in the room you are sitting in, or the glasses you wear to see the world in focus, or the medical care that has ensured you a fairly long and healthy life... these are not the products of folks "believing" in things unseen or unprovable.

They are entirely the result of Proving what is true and discarding what can not be proven to be true.

Anecdotes are NOT evidence.
Medications that show no Valid evidence of working (i.e. statistically better than placebo in reported effect ) really do not work.

And that's why they don't sell them.

Understanding that there is a difference between what really occurs and what people, with their imaginations, Believe to have occurred is the difference between shaking a rattle to scare away the evil spirits... and an antibiotic that actually cures an infection.

Respect science and reason. Without it, you would be gnawing the marrow out of a bone in a cave.

 

[LuciferChild]

what can i tell is that i always "cry" automatically when i watch or read about this stuff (im in tears now), is a strange feeling, because I dont make for it, i just get a feeling in my spine and my eyes starts to watering, never understood why this happens, should be anxiety or a silent fear that im not aware in my conscience? dunno....do any of you have this?

no one? would like to find someone with the same feelings I have, to understand better why this happen.

 

[LuciferChild]

Have you read about the wiki leaks UFO documents? They refer a war at Antarctic ocean, and they have more documents related to UFOs.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-contain-UFO-details-says-Julian-Assange.html

This is from 2010 but is new to me, so I think more will be revealed.

 

[LuciferChild]

I just saw one sightning, when I was drinking coffee with a friend in a balcony hotel on top of the building at night, we saw a ball flying slowly leaving some dust, then in the next day we saw it on the news that ball was seen on several parts of the country and seen on air force radars...

would love to see more...

why people stopped discussing this?