The UFO Conspiracy

[kdwebber]

Originally posted by 911fever


but not believing in God is taking a leap of faith that we were created out of nothing, through a "big bang".

You make the same assumption that God was created out of nothing, or did he create himself?

[Feruk]

Originally posted by kdwebber
You make the same assumption that God was created out of nothing, or did he create himself?

No way, he just existed. Duh! To believe that we "just existed" is blasphemy, but for God it's obvious that he always "just existed"!

[LollerBrader]

Originally posted by mushi_mushi


That is a good point but who knows how many intelligent civilizations there may be.

Required reading:
---------------------
Drake equation
Fermi paradox
Poul Anderson’s Answer to Fermi
http://seedmagazine.com/content/arti...aks_for_earth/

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by TKRIS
The Demon Haunted World.

Read it.

^This x 10.

BTW-There's a theory that so called,"Probed alien abductees", are actually sexual assault victims. Think about it.

[mushi_mushi]

^^^

Im a huge KITH fan so Im loving the reference. Some of you made excellent points. I have read The Demon Haunted World (never finished it though) and I disagree with some of what Sagan said. I'll post a more detailed reply later when I have more time.

[mushi_mushi]

Originally posted by LollerBrader


Required reading:
---------------------
Drake equation
Fermi paradox
Poul Anderson’s Answer to Fermi
http://seedmagazine.com/content/arti...aks_for_earth/

The drake equation is just an estimation as to how many planets could possibly have some form of intelligent life. New information is constantly pointing to the fact that our planet is not as rare as we originally thought.

As for where are they or why havnt we seen them. There are many possible answers to that but I dont think it would be accurate to say someone has a solution to the fermi paradox, all we have at this point are hypotheses.

Some possibilities of why we have seen an alien presence are discussed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox under the
Explaining the paradox theoretical section.

I can understand Sagan's skeptisim when it comes to things like UFOs. Science is based on conclusions derived from evidence and experimentation. Currently there is no physical proof that has been verified by anyone in the scientific community. All we have with the ufo phenomena is people who have observed something unexplained. In science observation carries the lowest weight in as a form of evidence.

I for one believe we have been visited. As for why I could believe such a stupid thing. I have seen ufo's, keep in mind im not claiming they what I saw was alien, but it sure as hell wasnt a plane, helicopter or natural phenomena. Like some of you have mentioned, the US has a defence budget that exceeds the defence budgets of the other top 13 countries. Im sure now days there have been huge technical leaps in technology that have lead to crafts we can only dream of.

These technologies however were not available 70 years ago. During the second world war many pilots from both sides witnessed bright luminous orbs that performed aerial manoeuvres that still cant be done today. So for me there are two possible explanations, we had this technology in the 40's or these vehicles are someone else's.

The allies (US and Russians) did capture key German scientists after the war and brought them over to work for them. However I doubt the German's had anything capable of what was being reported.

Sagan also talked about Roswell, and explained how it would be unlikely that these advanced beings would travel millions of miles only to crash on our front lawn. I dont agree with this idea, because no matter how intelligent you are, there is always an element of error.

We are intelligent enough to send rockets to the moon, to fly planes from one contenant to another, but each one of these tasks is reliant upon many pieces of machinery working together, even if one little thing goes wrong it could spell disaster. We do have safety measures in place to prevent these things from happening but planes still crash, rockets still explode. As our technological feats grow bigger and bigger the margin for error grows smaller and smaller. There is always the possibility of human error, so no matter how intelligent aliens may be they would still be prone to making mistakes.

I dont know what crashed at roswell. I think 99% of ufo cases can be explained or are utter bullshit, but the remaining 1-2% are very interesting. Most people that claim to know anything probably dont. There are a lot of people who have profited in one way or another from the ufo craze. So people write science fiction and pass it off as science fact because it sells and makes money.

I realize Sagan couldnt talk about every single ufo case but there many interesting cases out there, many of them with physical evidence, the problem is no one has looked at these cases.

Some of the ones I find interesting are:

- Washington DC Ufo's over the white house 1957
- Los Angeles ufo 1942
- Rendlesham forest 1980
- Kecksburg 1965

I'll follow up this post with my thoughts on alien abduction and facts that work against the alien hypotheses.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by mushi_mushi


The drake equation is just an estimation as to how many planets could possibly have some form of intelligent life. New information is constantly pointing to the fact that our planet is not as rare as we originally thought.

As for where are they or why havnt we seen them. There are many possible answers to that but I dont think it would be accurate to say someone has a solution to the fermi paradox, all we have at this point are hypotheses.

Some possibilities of why we have seen an alien presence are discussed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox under the
Explaining the paradox theoretical section.

I can understand Sagan's skeptisim when it comes to things like UFOs. Science is based on conclusions derived from evidence and experimentation. Currently there is no physical proof that has been verified by anyone in the scientific community. All we have with the ufo phenomena is people who have observed something unexplained. In science observation carries the lowest weight in as a form of evidence.

I for one believe we have been visited. As for why I could believe such a stupid thing. I have seen ufo's, keep in mind im not claiming they what I saw was alien, but it sure as hell wasnt a plane, helicopter or natural phenomena. Like some of you have mentioned, the US has a defence budget that exceeds the defence budgets of the other top 13 countries. Im sure now days there have been huge technical leaps in technology that have lead to crafts we can only dream of.

These technologies however were not available 70 years ago. During the second world war many pilots from both sides witnessed bright luminous orbs that performed aerial manoeuvres that still cant be done today. So for me there are two possible explanations, we had this technology in the 40's or these vehicles are someone else's.

The allies (US and Russians) did capture key German scientists after the war and brought them over to work for them. However I doubt the German's had anything capable of what was being reported.

Sagan also talked about Roswell, and explained how it would be unlikely that these advanced beings would travel millions of miles only to crash on our front lawn. I dont agree with this idea, because no matter how intelligent you are, there is always an element of error.

We are intelligent enough to send rockets to the moon, to fly planes from one contenant to another, but each one of these tasks is reliant upon many pieces of machinery working together, even if one little thing goes wrong it could spell disaster. We do have safety measures in place to prevent these things from happening but planes still crash, rockets still explode. As our technological feats grow bigger and bigger the margin for error grows smaller and smaller. There is always the possibility of human error, so no matter how intelligent aliens may be they would still be prone to making mistakes.

I dont know what crashed at roswell. I think 99% of ufo cases can be explained or are utter bullshit, but the remaining 1-2% are very interesting. Most people that claim to know anything probably dont. There are a lot of people who have profited in one way or another from the ufo craze. So people write science fiction and pass it off as science fact because it sells and makes money.

I realize Sagan couldnt talk about every single ufo case but there many interesting cases out there, many of them with physical evidence, the problem is no one has looked at these cases.

Some of the ones I find interesting are:

- Washington DC Ufo's over the white house 1957
- Los Angeles ufo 1942
- Rendlesham forest 1980
- Kecksburg 1965

I'll follow up this post with my thoughts on alien abduction and facts that work against the alien hypotheses.

v

Sagan wants empirical evidence,.

I'm cutting down a tree in my backyard, but a Robin came and made french toast.,

Interesting....aliens have the ability to travel interstellar space, but they can't avoid crash landing on earth.

[mushi_mushi]

Originally posted by Seth1968
v

Sagan wants empirical evidence,.

I'm cutting down a tree in my backyard, but a Robin came and made french toast.,

I can understand the need for empirical evidence but I think the level of proof that some people expect is unrealistic. I agree with Sagan that the bigger the statement, so should be the level of proof.

There are several problems with this. How would we distinguish an alien artifact from our own? It would be alien to us, we have no frame of reference. There is physical evidence associated with the ufo phenomena, these objects show up on radar, there are landing marks associated with a physical object, high radiation levels etc. Im not saying that all of these point to alien visitation, but these things don't get investigated. If there are aliens who have visited earth, but havnt left anything behind, how would you validate their existence?

Short of a space craft landing with alien occupants what kind what kind of physical proof would you need to validate such a major statement?

I will admit as far as an arguments go the argument based on empirical evidence is pretty weak here. Its kind of like Richard Dawkins and god, "how do we know there isnt an imaginary tea pot orbiting mars"

Interesting....aliens have the ability to travel interstellar space, but they can't avoid crash landing on earth.

Like I said we have the ability to send man to the moon, our rockets sometimes explode, planes crash etc. Each of these things deals with something that has a high degree of complexity and small margin for error. Im not say whatever crashed at roswell was alien, I just dont agree with the premise of the argument that just because aliens may possess a higher degree of intelligence that they would be impervious to making mistakes.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[projekz]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
Do I believe there is life elsewhere than Earth? With the size of the universe, it is pretty much undeniable.

Do I think they travelled all this way to Earth to do stunts in the sky and make circles in our crops? Um, yeah... no.

I don't believe we have been visited, nor do I expect such a thing to occur anytime soon if at all before our species has wiped itself out.



It is the TV signals, they start tuning in and get distracted while piloting...

Distracted driving...you'd think if they can make it here they'd have bluetooth or something

[LollerBrader]

Originally posted by mushi_mushi


Im not say whatever crashed at roswell was alien,

I'm doing everything I can to resist the temptation.

[nismodrifter]

Originally posted by LollerBrader



I'm doing everything I can to resist the temptation.

sorry my friend, it has to be done...

[LollerBrader]

Originally posted by nismodrifter


sorry my friend, it has to be done...

No worries - Thanks for getting me off of the hook.

[codetrap]

Originally posted by kdwebber
You make the same assumption that God was created out of nothing, or did he create himself?

Originally posted by Feruk
No way, he just existed. Duh! To believe that we "just existed" is blasphemy, but for God it's obvious that he always "just existed"!

Man created god.

[revelations]

Originally posted by v2kai
bump from the dead.

Well known events, but includes some new difficult to refute evidence and reputable eye witness accounts.


I'd give my left nut to witness what some of these people have seen.

Thats gotta be one of the best FACTUAL videos out there. Take away the 95% and just focus on the 5% that is REALLY well documented by professionals.

I dont know if witnessing these things would do anything for me, except raise more questions?

[mushi_mushi]

Originally posted by nismodrifter

sorry my friend, it has to be done...

Im surprised we made it this far without that pic, and I somehow managed to blindly walk right into it

[Supa Dexta]

Imagine if we are the only planet capable of life... whoa.

Quite a mess we're making of it.

[J-hop]

This thread is getting pretty close to a face palm. There is zero concrete evidence out there to suggest ETs have ever visited earth and if they ever have then the chances of them doing donuts across the sky with flashing colored lights on display for every nut job in the area to see is pretty damn unlikely.

Why does everyone assume alien ships are going to have bright flashy landing lights?? What the hell would it need them for? That's an earth constraint...

[v2kai]

Originally posted by J-hop
This thread is getting pretty close to a face palm. There is zero concrete evidence out there to suggest ETs have ever visited earth and if they ever have then the chances of them doing donuts across the sky with flashing colored lights on display for every nut job in the area to see is pretty damn unlikely.

Why does everyone assume alien ships are going to have bright flashy landing lights?? What the hell would it need them for? That's an earth constraint...

Why do you assume they wouldnt have 'flashy lights'? Who's to say they would or wouldnt? Assuming extra terrestrial life has the technology and capability to traverse vast quantities of space and time to visit our planet and outmaneuver our best technological efforts to keep pace, using methods which would essentially appear as magic to us given our current level of understanding of the physics of the known universe, on what basis do you feel you are an authority on the topic to question as to why a craft would or would not have external lights?

I dont think anyone assumes or is adamant that ET craft MUST have flashy landing lights and do donuts in the sky, but the large majority of observed unexplained aerial phenomena does involve lights; be it ET or terrestrial in origin.

Almost all manmade forms of transportation on earth seem to have lights of some shape or form for guidance or identification or for many other reasons. You dont think it gets dark anywhere else but earth or that another form of intelligent life might not benefit from having external lights on their crafts as well?

You are correct there is no publicly known concrete evidence of ET visitation, but there certainly are a lot of unexplained phenomena and very intriguing cases throughout history and across the globe that without a doubt indicate something has happened and we have no clue what it is. If you take the time to research the truly intriguing and substantial cases (quite a few of which were reviewed in that youtube video) you quickly see that not all unexplained aerial phenomena are so easy to dismiss. I'm betting you didnt even watch it.

At the rate science and our understanding of the vastness of the universe and probability that ET life exists is growing, the likelihood that there may be a connection to these unexplained cases becomes more and more plausible.

Do you turn off your headlights and run stealth mode when you drive in the forest so the crazy squirrels and bunnies dont see you doing donuts?

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by v2kai


Why do you assume they wouldnt have 'flashy lights'? Who's to say they would or wouldnt? Assuming extra terrestrial life has the technology and capability to traverse vast quantities of space and time to visit our planet and outmaneuver our best technological efforts to keep pace, using methods which would essentially appear as magic to us given our current level of understanding of the physics of the known universe, on what basis do you feel you are an authority on the topic to question as to why a craft would or would not have external lights?

I dont think anyone assumes or is adamant that ET craft MUST have flashy landing lights and do donuts in the sky, but the large majority of observed unexplained aerial phenomena does involve lights; be it ET or terrestrial in origin.

Almost all manmade forms of transportation on earth seem to have lights of some shape or form for guidance or identification or for many other reasons. You dont think it gets dark anywhere else but earth or that another form of intelligent life might not benefit from having external lights on their crafts as well?

You are correct there is no publicly known concrete evidence of ET visitation, but there certainly are a lot of unexplained phenomena and very intriguing cases throughout history and across the globe that without a doubt indicate something has happened and we have no clue what it is. If you take the time to research the truly intriguing and substantial cases (quite a few of which were reviewed in that youtube video) you quickly see that not all unexplained aerial phenomena are so easy to dismiss. I'm betting you didnt even watch it.

At the rate science and our understanding of the vastness of the universe and probability that ET life exists is growing, the likelihood that there may be a connection to these unexplained cases becomes more and more plausible.

Do you turn off your headlights and run stealth mode when you drive in the forest so the crazy squirrels and bunnies dont see you doing donuts?

Either you went way out of your way to be sarcastic, or