BS: UFOs in the news

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 18 May 08 - 05:50 PM

I can't argue with any of that, LH.

I would suggest that, until a few years ago, the odds for the existence:non-existence of extra-terrestrial intelligence were about 50:50. Now that planets have been observed orbiting other stars the odds are now slightly more in favour of the existence of ETIs. My instinct says that reports of UFOs tell us nothing about these odds - but, of course, I could be wrong!

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 May 08 - 02:34 PM

Yes, of course I am advancing hypotheses, Shimrod. That's because I am keenly aware that I don't already know everything! ;-)

It's a pity more people weren't like that. Most people act like they already have all the answers they will ever need about anything they've got an opinion on. Have you ever noticed that? That's why they don't bother using words like "may", "might", and "could" when they pontificate on about unproven matters on which they have formed a strong opinion.

I am interested in the subject of alien vehicles precisely because I know that I don't know much about it yet, despite having had a couple of very interesting sightings of my own...nor do most people know much about it. But that doesn't stop them being arrogant enough to not bother with using words like "may", "might", or "could", does it?

Oh no, they are dead sure about the rightness of their unfounded opinions...which are generally based on nothing much more than a basketfull of unproven assumptions and similarly unfounded opinions that they already picked up from someone very similar to themselves. No personal experience whatsoever. Just absolute certainty of what they think must be so because that's what they think! And why do they think it? For the same reason that Polly says 50 times a day, "Polly want a cracker!" They heard someone else say it a bunch of times, and they learned to repeat it.

Polly never bothers to wonder about that, and neither does the parrot-like average person who is devoid of any actual experience of his own that would have any bearing on the matter...but still quite sure regardless of what must be true.

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Bobert
Date: 18 May 08 - 08:16 AM

meself,

Opps... So I did tell the story... Oh well???

The do exist...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 18 May 08 - 04:56 AM

"May", "might", "could", LH? May I remind you that none of those words indicate any sort of "truth" - they merely indicate that you are advancing hypotheses (which may contain more than a dash of wish-fulfillment ...?).

The fact is that I have been a reader of (serious) Science Fiction for most of my life and have also read a fair number of non-fiction books on the subjects of interstellar travel and the possibility of extra-terrestrial intelligence (I am fascinated by these ideas). Frankly, beside a lot of this stuff the "UFO literature" seems to me to be a load of tawdry, ignorant, quasi-religious twaddle!

Note that I am not denying the reality or veracity of any experiences that you may have had - I just don't think that you will shed any light on those experiences through reading the "UFO literature".

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Amos
Date: 17 May 08 - 10:54 PM

Say, Art, what brand of conundrum do you use?


A

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Art Thieme
Date: 17 May 08 - 10:32 PM

Donuel under cover),

"Information in the form of balls of light will, in my opinion be a significant revelation in the conundrum of ufology."

More likely, balls of light are not a conundrum. They are a symptom "revealed" for which you go see, not your ufology guru, but you had best see your urologist, and pronto to boot!!

He will probably prescribe something like a condom-undrum for you to use, or at least think about using. ------ No conundrum there about that I don't think...

Art

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 May 08 - 09:48 PM

Indeed. Besides which, various forms of genetic exchange or "seeding" of lifeforms on different planets may have occurred in very ancient times. Earth's humans may not be solely of Earthly origin in their genetic makeup. We might have distant relatives out there somewhere. The humanoid form might have spread itself to many planets rather than simply evolving in isolation on this one. And that process could have occurred over literally millions of our Earth years.

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Amos
Date: 17 May 08 - 09:44 PM

ANy evolutionary path that starts in a universe governed by certain constants -- such as the relationship of mass to gravity, the speed of light, and the nature of acceleration, just for examples -- is likely to face the same broad categories of hurdle that critturs here do--collisions, explosions, eaters of various kinds, the boundaries of liquids, solids and gases, and so on. So even a silica-based life form has a certain number of possible evolutionary trails to take in the quest for survival and sexual selection. The mechanisms of our parts have also proven adaptable to many changing conditions.

Given these things it make sense that life forms will develop eyes, fingers, opposable thumbs, jointed limbs, and that evolutionary forces will favor those who are built to deal with the rocks and shoals. The primate body form is a beautiful combination of levers, lenses, springs, switches, and chemistry which has proven all its bits and pieces over millennia. So I don't see why other life forms believed to travel interstellar distances (which presumably means they have conquered energy systems and synthetic environments) should not be somewhat similar.

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 May 08 - 09:36 PM

Had a look at the Casbolt site. Hmm. Well, there's a lot to think about there all right. Nasty stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: meself
Date: 17 May 08 - 09:26 PM

'Whew...

I was afraid to open this thread for fear it was one from way back when I told my UFO story...'

Sorry to do this to you, but - look up, look waaay up - No, not at the sky, up this thread; your story is there - at least, it was a couple of days ago (cue eerie music) ...

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Bobert
Date: 17 May 08 - 06:02 PM

I haven't heard of Casbolt either, Jeanie...

As one who was "cursed" to see a true "flying saucer" very clearly I have ever since wished I had not... I think alot of folks who have seen them fall into that category... Especially the cynics among us, which I fully admit to being... I would rather be the guy who is pokin' the UFO sighters than one who has seen one...

And for the record, I wasn't alone...

And for the record, Part B: I would be willing to undergo polygraph and hypnosis to prove that I saw one...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 May 08 - 05:52 PM

Bill, there have been encounters that involved large groups of people...enormous numbers of people...entire cities, for God's sake. You know what happens then? There's a fuss about it locally for a few days in the local media, but no official explanation is ever offered that clears the matter up. It may get brief mention on the national or world news for a day or two. Then it is filed and forgotten, except by those who were actually there. The rest of the country goes on worrying about Branjelina, Brittney Spears, Miley Cyrus, Obama and Hillary, etc. Life goes on.

The Phoenix Lights were seen by many thousands of people in Phoenix, including the mayor, the police, doctors, professionals of all kinds, and they all were pretty sure that they were seeing absolutely gigantic, silent, unearthly vessels passing over their city, the mayor included. You can find books about it now. But how often do you hear about it anymore on your national news? Virtually never. There were mass sightings over Washington D.C. in the 50s. There were mass sightings in Toronto when my Mother was in her teens, and she remembers that. Nothing has ever been done about it at the governmental level...that is, nothing in the sense of any open disclosure to the public or any adequate explanation of what happened. Just a big silence.

Bill, there is a coverup at the highest levels and that is why this stuff is not given any sustained recognition by the government or the mass media...with the exception of the odd offbeat "entertainment" show like Art Bell. The authorities don't want people to know about it, and they are in a perfect position to see that most people don't.

Nevertheless, despite their efforts, it seems that a majority of people (according to national surveys) now think it probable that we are being visited by alien vessels. That means that the coverup has not been as successful as they would have liked, and I think it's quite possible that at some point the government will decide to say there ARE such aliens, but when they do they will shape the information in such a way as to achieve some domestic or international political objective that suits their ongong agenda, and their ongoing agenda is NOT to have an informed and aware and free public. Anything but that. Their ongoing agenda is to have a controlled and submissive flock of sheep that will not ask questions, and will eat exactly what's put on their plate.

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Peace
Date: 17 May 08 - 05:49 PM

"If they are able to be seen and 'experienced' (that is, ground level "close encounters") by occasional individuals or small groups, my next question runs along the lines of "why do 'clear & unmistakable' encounters never happen to LARGE groups? Like, at Hollywood & Vine, or the White House lawn?"

I believe that a LARGE crowd saw a UFO (or more than one) in Rome many years back.

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Bill D
Date: 17 May 08 - 05:33 PM

If they are able to be seen and 'experienced' (that is, ground level "close encounters") by occasional individuals or small groups, my next question runs along the lines of "why do 'clear & unmistakable' encounters never happen to LARGE groups? Like, at Hollywood & Vine, or the White House lawn?

Here's my problem....with many thousands, over decades & centuries, of reports , drawings, fuzzy photos, claims of 'wreckage' or bodies and just plain cryptic occurrences, we have not one clear close-up photo, piece of wreckage, dead body or even "close encounter" by LARGE groups of observers.

While admitting that it is 'possible' that aliens are so clever they allow us to see only what they wish, and that 'the authorities' are hiding the truth, and that there are laws of physics we just haven't tumbled to yet, it still remains that most reports can have causes which DO have known antecedents. (delusions, reflections, fraud, mistaken identity, 'real' stuff like secret test aircraft ....the whole list.)

   I know there are people who have had personally intense experiences, and that other people are actively engaged in trying to find that elusive "smoking gun"...and I am willing to keep a window in my mind open, just in case. Until then, I remain a skeptic...which simply means 'not convinced'. I am calling NO ONE a liar, or denying the possibility of aliens....I just see too many other ways to explain some/most of it.

Maybe the reason I do remain a skeptic is that I hope so strongly it IS true! I hate the very IDEA of 'belief' that never pans out.

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 May 08 - 05:08 PM

I haven't seen the Casbolt material, Jeanie. I'll have a look at that when I get a chance.

Shimrod, I haven't been doing much reading of that sort in some time. I think the most interesting thing you might check out is the "Disclosure Project". Look up their website on Google and do some reading there. I don't expect it to convince you of anything, but it will provide many useful references and possibilities.

I have met too many personal witnesses of what were probably alien vehicles...people I felt I could trust...plus having my own experiences along that line. Accordingly, I have little reason to doubt their existence, and the fact that there are some obvious charlatans in the field simply annoys me. They are muddying the waters, and that doesn't help. Some of them may even be deliberate plants (agents) on behalf of the people who would like to discredit the entire subject. Disinformation can be very useful when discrediting or covering up anything.

**********

Heric, I can navigate very efficiently from here across Canada in my car. That does not mean that I am immune to accidents and mishaps along the way. White Star could navigate very efficiently across the Atlantic in the age of the great liners. Nonetheless, the Titanic hit an iceberg in 1912 and sank. Nuclear subs have been lost at sea in peacetime, due to mishaps. It's rare, but it happens. Why would visiting aliens be immune to suffering accidents and mishaps in their travels? Does being more technologically advanced than we are make you infallible or bulletproof? Does it make your machines infallible or perfect. ;-) I doubt it.

How do you know they have not also lost ships and crew in deep space? I'm sure they have, if they're out there at all. Travel always involves some degree of risk. That doesn't stop us from traveling, does it?

And it wouldn't stop them either.

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: heric
Date: 17 May 08 - 04:31 PM

If they can navigate across galaxies, meteor paths, past black holes, by comets and nebulae, but can't navigate the airspace over Kansas or Arizona, they may be a little lacking in pragmatism, or common sense.

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Jeanie
Date: 17 May 08 - 04:03 PM

Bobert & Little Hawk: I don't know if you have ever come across things written by James Casbolt on your internet travels ? He has his own website, and also pops up in other places where UFOs are being discussed. "Interesting...." is just one of the words that could be used to describe what he has to say.

- jeanie

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 17 May 08 - 04:03 PM

"This might well indicate that we have been visited by not one lot of aliens, but several different lots of them. Why should there be only one lot of aliens capable of interstellar travel? Would there be any particular reason for only one? I can't see why. If there are any, there may be many. Some may be humanoid in appearance, and some not."

LH, this is similar to the point that I made in my post of 16 May 08, ie.

"In a galaxy containing around 100 billion stars there are likely to be more than two (us and the UFO pilots) intelligent, technologically sophisticated species and all possible body plans (whatever they are) could be represented."

A little clumsily expressed, I admit, but a very similar point all the same.

As for reading about UFOs - most of the books that I have read on the subject seem to have been written by fairly obvious charlatans - can you recommend some books that you consider to be credible?

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 May 08 - 02:22 PM

The possibility of secret government vehicles is a strong one, and it probably does account for some but not all of the reported sightings.

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Bobert
Date: 17 May 08 - 02:17 PM

Whew...

I was afraid to open this thread for fear it was one from way back when I told my UFO story...

But the definately do exist... I'm not certain that they aren't some secret US Govt thing but they do exist...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 May 08 - 01:34 PM

The reported alternatives exist in considerable variety, Shimrod. Rather than asking me about it, why don't you read many of the interesting literature that is out there about reported sightings. Now, most sightings do not involve people seeing the occupants, only the vehicles, but there have been sighting of occupants too and as I say, the alternative descriptions of same have varied quite a bit.

This might well indicate that we have been visited by not one lot of aliens, but several different lots of them. Why should there be only one lot of aliens capable of interstellar travel? Would there be any particular reason for only one? I can't see why. If there are any, there may be many. Some may be humanoid in appearance, and some not. Why should we assume they're all humanoid? On the basis of what? Why should we assume they're not? On the basis of what?

Why should we assume anything about it? On the basis of what?

The assumptions most people make about stuff they don't actually know about firsthand are nothing more, usually, than an assumption they picked up from other people....who picked it up previously from other people.

In other words, the parrot repeats what it has heard others say. This is all most people do.

If you ever have the actual experience of seeing an alien craft...or of encountering its occupants face to face, then you will no longer just repeat what others have said. You will KNOW something about it from that point on. That's a whole different ballgame from making assumptions based on other people's assumptions based on other people's assumptions, which is all most people ever do.

Many things are deemed impossible...until they are done. Many other things are deemed highly unlikely...until they have been done and people have gotten used to them. Then they are deemed quite "normal", and are not seen as unusual anymore. They are taken for granted, just the way you or I take radio or TV for granted now.

Such will one day be the case, I'm sure, with interstellar travel...just from our point of view as Earthlings, I mean. I'm sure that for some other beings out there it is as normal as it would be for us to drive the car downtown to the mall. If so, they probably look in on a lot of different planets as much for curiosity and scientific investigation as for anything else. They probably find us kind of interesting...if not too terribly important in the larger scheme of things.

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 17 May 08 - 12:20 PM

"They are not always reported as humanoid, guys, nor are they all reported as spindly with big heads and large eyes."

So what are the reported alternatives, LH? The problem is coming up with a FEASIBLE alternative - one that would work in evolutionary and biological terms.

And yes, we know that an airliner would appear mircaculous to a native of Borneo etc. But interstellar travel is several orders of magnitude more difficult than powered flight (millions or billions of times more difficult). This doesn't mean that it's impossible, of course, but the airliner/Borneo analogy is always invoked in these types of discussion and I suspect that it doesn't really give the right perspective. I also suspect that an intelligent species might have to survive several thousand years of continuous technological evolution before it could even contemplate something so hard as interstellar travel.

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 May 08 - 11:31 AM

Yes, Jeanie, I think you are being prepared for something, bit by bit. None of these things happen by accident.

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: GUEST,donuel under cover
Date: 17 May 08 - 10:00 AM

NPR covered this release today in a brief, repectful yet light hearted way.   they did include tape from the Randlesheim forest incident which was to their credit.


to the virus idea... information in the form of balls of light will in my opinion turn out to be a significant revelation in the conundrum of ufology.

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Jeanie
Date: 17 May 08 - 04:47 AM

What I would like to know is *why* the Ministry of Defence have decided *now* to release the official reports of UFO sightings in the UK on their website for the first time. Are we being prepared for something ?

- jeanie

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: open mike
Date: 16 May 08 - 09:08 PM

the petrified picture link leads to this:
Sorry, the page you were looking for could not be found.
Suggested Actions    * Check the URL that you have typed and retry.

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 May 08 - 06:32 PM

Yes, Bill, of course you can take someone from Borneo and teach him all about our modern stuff and make him realize it's not witchcraft. Naturally. And this has been done with millions of people.

Likewise, a complete skeptic and nonbeliever in the idea that there are visiting alien craft to this planet can be taken and taught...by his own direct experience...to change his mind radically about that. And that's what happened to me in the late 60s. It only worked for me, though, because I had the experience. And why should my experience suffice to convince anyone else? I don't expect it to. No, let them have their own experience. Then they will be convinced. And if they never have that experience? Fine. Does it matter?

In the meantime they should be willing to at least accept the possibility that there's something out there that they don't already know about...and the possibility that it does not meet their expectations in the least.

I don't find that willingness in most skeptics. I find in them instead an apparently irresistible, downright arrogant and even sadistic urge to marginalize and ridicule people whose stories are about something outside their own mental box.

(I am not speaking of you when I say that, Bill, I'm just speaking in general terms about what happens in society. The main reason so many eyewitnesses are quite reluctant to speak openly about their sightings of what they took to be alien craft is simple: they expect to be scorned, picked on, and ridiculed by various other people and by people in the media, and they figure it's simply not worth the trouble.)

Then you have those who will speak out regardless, and they take the flak for all the others. (And you have some outright cranks and phonies and attention-seekers too...as you do in any existing field of inquiry. They are a real pain for the honest witnesses, but a delight to the skeptic, and he searches diligently to find them so that he can throw the baby out with the bathwater.)

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Bill D
Date: 16 May 08 - 05:22 PM

"..just imagine some natives in Borneo speculating..."

But we 'could' take someone from Borneo, and given a bit of time, show & demonstrate the basic principles involved, and at least get them to understand it is not just witchcraft or illusions.

Of course we dare not say that we have learned all the possible 'principles' of physics, but neither should we assume that there ARE principles and techniques that would allow travel between the stars...or galaxies!

There's fine line between an 'open mind' and gullibility. I try to get as close to it as I can without committing myself to 'belief' in stuff that I have fervently wished for these 60 years I have read Sci-fi.....

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 May 08 - 04:14 PM

Ah ha! I think you are onto something, bobad. (Or just ON something.) *g*

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: bobad
Date: 16 May 08 - 03:35 PM

"can we be sure< that the aliens are not insects?"

Or viruses?

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 May 08 - 03:28 PM

As many species as there are in our world, can we be sure< that the aliens are not insects?

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Peace
Date: 16 May 08 - 03:15 PM

Anyone with a knowledge of art history will know that 'UFOs' have appeared in paintings for hundreds of years. This ain't news.

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 May 08 - 02:51 PM

They are not always reported as humanoid, guys, nor are they all reported as spindly with big heads and large eyes. You're simply repeating images you've seen commonly in the popular press when you say that...and these styles come and go in waves of popularity. A good many aliens have been reported seen that look very similar to us, with our proportions, our facial features, hair on their heads, etc...so much so that were they dressed properly they could probably pass among us quite unnoticed. And there are others a bit different in one way or another, but not of the spindly head, large eye variety...and I know exactly what you mean by that.

The type you are referring to, Bill, are one specific lot known as "the Greys", and they have been getting a lot of attention and popularity in the last couple of decades in books, magazines and media reports. They have become the official pictorial representation of an "alien", just like the official caveman figure with his one-shoulder animal skin and fat wooden club that we see all the time in cartoons (a rather silly looking apparition, I must say, probably not much like a real caveman at all). Why the Greys are so popular now, I can't say. Maybe Whitley Strieber is to blame for that or maybe it's the National Enquirer or Hollywood that has done it. ;-)

When speculating as to how they could possibly travel so far and so fast...just imagine some natives in Borneo speculating on how we could possibly fly over them at 35,000 feet in an airliner that's going several hundred miles an hour...! ;-)

If you can't do it yourself and you haven't heard of anyone who can, it probably seems totally unbelievable to you...because you have no knowledge of how it could possibly be done. Ignorance is the perfect cushion to provide anyone with certainty of what is and is not possible.

When I say "ignorance" in that context I don't mean anything insulting by the word...I simply mean "not having any knowlege or experience about a certain matter".

We are all ignorant of a great many things.

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Donuel
Date: 16 May 08 - 01:59 PM

All true, but we still can't build a Machu Pichu today either.
The trick is in the details.

As for fuel in space travel one should not assume the fuel must all come from the starting point.

Better minds have made allownces for plot feasability in Star Trek by allowing for singularity engines and sub space warp travel.

However it may be done, if it is done,

the devil is in the details.

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Bill D
Date: 16 May 08 - 01:54 PM

And remember, our 'species' has only about a few million years history..(40,000 years in it's current form)...and for only about 100 years have we been able to create 'signals' and begin to fly. Our entire civilization could fall apart in the NEXT 1000 years.
What are the chances of other civilizations being 'viable' at times we could possible encounter them?


Oh...and why are aliens not only humanoid, but small, spindly, with big heads and large eyes?

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 16 May 08 - 12:48 PM

According to the science fiction writer and physicist Gregory Benford, sending a manned expedition to a nearby star would take around 1000 times the total energy used annually by the US and such an expedition would use 100 million times more energy than establishing settlements on Mars.

Although we could postulate super-beings who have that much energy at their disposal, or who have developed less energy intensive methods of crossing interstellar distances that we have not discovered yet, it seems unlikely to me that they would undertake such journeys in order to take a look, or to anally probe random inhabitants of the Mid-West, or even to build Stonehenge or the Pyramids.

Other random things that fascinate me about UFO pilots/ passengers are:

(i) Why are they always humanoid? Is the humanoid shape universal or are there other alternative body plans (the body plan of Larry Niven's 'Pierson's Puppeteers' is the only alternative that I find convincing).

(ii) In a galaxy containing around 100 billion stars there are likely to be more than two (us and the UFO pilots) intelligent, technologically sophisticated species and all possible body plans (whatever they are) could be represented.

(iii) Radio waves travel at the speed of light and are, hence, not of much use to a star-faring race - hence they might use something completely different - thus current SETI projects may be a complete waste of time (unless they should happen across 'fossil' signals - like ancient TV soap operas or the like).

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 May 08 - 08:46 PM

It will get on the news here at whatever time the government deems it opportune. That could be when they decide we need a phony threat from outside this planet to get us to let them tighten the screws down a bit more...rather than the homegrown types of phony threats we've grown so accustomed to lately, like Noriega, Nicaragua, Castro, North Korea, Venezuela, Saddam's nonexistent WMDs, Al-Queda, Iran...

Yup, I figure there'll come a day when the homegrown threats just aren't good enough to do the trick. Then they will pull out the alien files, finally reveal them to a stunned public and say..."They pose a threat to our entire way of life! We must militarize space at once to save the planet! We must microchip every citizen so that the aliens can't kidnap anyone without us knowing when and where it's happening."

I bet it'll work great too. Even better than Osama Bin Oswald did.

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Art Thieme
Date: 15 May 08 - 08:16 PM

Read Jerome Clark. He is a serious folk devotee too.

Art

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 May 08 - 12:37 AM

Appropo of not much: My brother once said, If anyone doubts that aliens can change one's world, just ask an American Indian.

Thanks for that link, Amos. Isn't it amazing how so many people suffer from simultaneous hallucinations? I agree with Little Hawk, though. My guess is that the British action will cause nary a ripple in our daily news.

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Bill D
Date: 14 May 08 - 06:26 PM

"what if" covers a mighty large list of maybes.....

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 May 08 - 06:06 PM

Well, we don't talk much with the animal life we observe, do we? ;-)

Besides, what if they have talked to "us" already, but most of us never got to hear about it, and if they did hear about it wouldn't believe it anyway...unless the government said so?

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Bill D
Date: 14 May 08 - 06:05 PM

Oh, I like this thread...I was so clear & clever in it!

I had totally forgotten my quote:

"It takes a well-balanced man to sit on the fence."
                  Bill D., 2006

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 14 May 08 - 05:58 PM

If there is intelligent life elsewhere, why would they want to talk with us.

What about Shag Harbour, and the shag Harbour incident? Maybe they just want to shag us?


http://www.geocities.com/area51/cavern/5309/shag.html

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 14 May 08 - 05:06 PM

'Way back at the beginning of this thread, a year ago:

If incontravertible proof of a ufo were to be broadcast world wide at this time, it is my belief it would take a back seat to the rest of the world's woes in the news.

The release of the UK UFO files -
The release of the statement by the vatican on "Virgin Mary sightings" -
The current news on the Myanmar cyclone disaster -
The current news on the China earthquake -

All came AFTER THE HEADLINES on whatever that sports(?) deal is that's going on somewhere(?) at yesterday's MSNBC news site.

(Just so you all know what's important.)

I really wish I knew why the sports (I'm pretty sure that's what it is?) thing is so important, and what it's all about; but I seem to suffer from a failure of comprehension resulting from a recently named syndrome called "IDGAS."

But others must have a better understanding than I do, so I won't ridicule them or question their concerns.

John

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Donuel
Date: 14 May 08 - 04:34 PM

Amos, I have some airline pilot radio recordings of flights encountering UFOs. The show was called black box communication but had no co oberating photos.

Also I listened to 3 airline pilots discussing the same ufo encounter one night 6 years ago on the Art BEll show.

Fascinating and compelling stuff. Its good that English is required for pilot communication.

France is supposed to be next to release their ufo files.

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 May 08 - 03:09 PM

Cool. Thanks for the link, Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Amos
Date: 14 May 08 - 03:06 PM

British Government Releases UFO Files.

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 07:09 PM

Okay, Wolfgang. ;-) You're right, I am extremely touchy about this subject, for reasons that go back almost 40 years.

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 06:58 PM

There are very few non fiction ufo books.
I wonder if the book Uncommon Flying Ojects is still available?

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Wolfgang
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 03:39 PM

LH, you are quite touchy on these subjects but on the other side deal out snide and uninformed remarks about skeptics. But I agree that saying that if you welcome an argumentation is a warning signal was not really nice. I'll try to be nicer from now on.

Amos, your argument would be a strong one if your opponent would categorically exclude the possibility of UFOs being extraterrestrial spaceships. I don't know such people.

I consider it as nearly certain that life also exists somewhere else. I consider it probable that intelligent life has developed elsewhere. But I am much less sure that it coexists at the same time. Maybe, any intelligent life will destroy itself within a relatively short time. They would need completely different laws of physics and/or extremely large sources of energy. That would make good weapons too. If they are remotely similar to us, they would use these weapons sooner or later. If on earth we would develop a weapon that could destroy the planet in a second and if this would become available it would be a matter of hours before the first nutcase would use it. So far, we can say that intelligent life understanding some laws of physics and being able to manipulate large amounts of energy has existed for say 200 years.

The question is how probable it is that UFOs are foreign spacecraft. I know a lot of the UFO-lore and it is enraging to see that even long debunked myths are still reported by believers as if they had never read the alternative explanantions (actually, they may have never read them, for the UFO-lore literature mostly does not mention alternative explanations, whreas the skeptical...).

So, for most of the reports there are good explanations. Are the remaining 5% spacecrafts? Not very likely in my eyes. Unexplained phenomena they are but it would be argementum ad ignorantiam to choose one particular explanation as likely.

The reported behaviour of the UFOs is so unlike any real expedition or reconnoitre that it makes no sense to me. Over many decades, they come to the Earth and are only seen under quite dubious circumstances instead of openly (and fearless, for if they could manipulate energy in a way they would have to in order to travel that far we would be no danger to them) telling us they are here.

Finding evidence of other life outside of the Earth would be the most interesting finding I could dream of (I hope I live to read of this finding), but if intelligent life would visit us closely it would be an Earth shattering experience witnessed by millions and the first news for a month or so.

Until then, I consider the idea the most likely that UFOs are just the interpretation of someone who doesn't know what he has seen. They may not even be flying or objects. I have seen about a dozen UFOs in my life. In all but one case I later (sometimes only seconds later when the plane changed direction) found out what it was that I could not identify. And in the last case? I don't know. Period. I sometimes walk in the woods and something moves and I don't know what it is. I can live (and die) with the feeling of not knowing everything. Shrug. No big deal.

But I read a lot about human perception (the area of my dissertation) and on that subject I am that someone else (who) may know something you don't know. And I am wary of hypnose therapists who believe the stories they are told. I think Mack is the most prominent name here. He is not taken serious by most scientists.

Wolfgang