Or this may just be evidence - compelling or otherwise - for the existence of oil rigs?
north writes:
> We saw a metallic, disk shaped object, it was stationary but seemed to be
> spinning, hovering over a lake without any noticeable sound. We observed it for
> about 5 or 6 minutes until it moved laterally for a short distance and then shot
> upwards at a 90 degree angle at an incredible rate of speed. Now if that defies
> the laws of physics then this object was guilty of it. I can’t say for sure that it
> was alien, or controlled by aliens because I didn’t see any aliens. It just felt
> alien. I know that doesn’t make any sense and is not scientific in the least, but
> that’s how it felt watching it. It felt totally out of place. It could have been man
> made I suppose, but if it was, somebody is holding out on us big-time. It wasn’t
> a flock of ducks either I can tell you that. Yeah, I guess it’s within the realm of
> possibility that we misinterpreted the misinterpretable, and if someone thinks
> we did, that’s fine with me. I have nothing to lose or gain by that judgment.
O.K., there is the second actually interesting post. I’m sorry, but your arguments have been completely unconvincing. Learning what you’ve read and what you’ve experienced has been much more interesting. So let’s have some more details. What time of day was this? What time of year? How far from you was the disk? How high above the lake was the disk? How big was the disk? How do you know how far it was from you and how big it was? That is, was there something immediately below it, like a boat, so that you could compare the size, or were you just guessing at the distance? Did the disk cause any change in the water as it lifted up? That is, were there any waves or such in the water as it went away? Was there any noticeable turbulence in the air as it went away? What was immediately behind the disk in your field of vision. That is, was there sky behind it, or mountains, or whatever? When it took off upwards, what happened to it in your field of sight? Did it go all the way up into the sky and shrink into a dot? Or did it disappear before shrinking to a dot? Or did it actually head into the horizon? If so, in which direction? To your right, to your left, or straight away from you? How long did it take when it went up before it disappeared? Was it just a disk-shaped object, or was there any other sort of shape to this object, like something sticking out? What color was it precisely? Silver? Gold? Dull metallic? Were there any markings on it? If not, how do you know it was spinning? How many of you observed this event? How old were each of you at the time? Did you discuss it afterwards and compare notes? What did the others observing it think it was?
*O.K., there is the second actually interesting post. I’m sorry, but your arguments have been completely unconvincing.
*
No need to be sorry; I am completely unaffected by you being unconvinced by my arguments. As I have said I have nothing to lose or gain by your opinions.
The sighting took place on a remote lake in Northern Canada in the province of Labrador where I was born and lived for many years. My friend and I were on a fishing trip to a number of remote lakes which we accessed by helicopter. I did take notes after the sighting, but as I do not have them in front of me right now (I am living in Europe at the moment) I will attempt to answer your questions from memory.
The sighting took place on a remote lake in Northern Canada in the province of Labrador where I was born and lived for many years. My friend and I were on a fishing trip to a number of remote lakes which we accessed by helicopter. I did take notes after the sighting, but as I do not have them in front of me right now (I am living in Europe at the moment) I will attempt to answer your questions from memory.
- Time of Day: Late morning between 10-10:15 am.
- Time of Year: Late June. Clear skies. Sunny with no surface winds.
- How big was the disk: It looked to the size of a small aircraft.
- Distance of disk from us: Approx 150-200 meters away.
- How high above the lake was the disk: Approx 50 to 60 meters high.
- How do you know how far it was from you and how big it was? It’s a visual estimate.
- Was there something immediately below it, like a boat: No. We were the only people on this remote lake as far as I know. Labrador is a large, remote place to begin with.
- Change in water: None that we noticed.
- Was there any noticeable turbulence in the air as it went away: None that we noticed.
- What was immediately behind the disk in your field of vision? Sky with a tree line below it as I remember.
- When it took off upwards, what happened to it in your field of sight? Did it go all the way up into the sky and shrink into a dot? Or did it disappear before shrinking to a dot: As I said it moved horizontally for a few meters until took off vertically at a (90 degree angle) incredibly fast. It was more like a streak of light than shrinking into a dot.
- How long did it take when it went up before it disappeared: 1 to 3 Seconds as I remember. It was hard to follow it.
- Was it just a disk-shaped object, or was there any other sort of shape to this object, like something sticking out: Disc shaped. None that we could see.
- What color was it precisely: Silver. No markings.
- If not, how do you know it was spinning: I don’t know for sure, but we both commented that it looked like it was spinning afterwards.
- How many of you observed this event? How old were each of you at the time? Did you discuss it afterwards and compare notes: There was only two of us. In our late twenties. Yes of course.
Interesting to note that the next day we saw two fighter jets flying in the area.
North.
So let us assume, for the sake of argument that you saw what you saw, and that your brain correctly interpreted what your eyes saw, and that you remember it correctly after so many years (wow, lots of assumption). Why did that make it an alien spacecraft instead of some weird experimental aircraft? :dubious:
Why? Is it the sole mission of fighter jet to pursue UFO’s? Are they inextricable linked to the presence of said UFO’s? Should I conclude by the appearance of fighter jets in my neighborhood that UFO’s have been here recently?
Why?
We thought it was interesting at the time and who could blame us. We had just seen something freaky the day before plus:
-
We had never seen military jets in that area before or since and we have fished there a lot, spending at least two weeks in that area every summer for years.
-
Although low-level flying takes place in Labrador, the jets are confined to a certain prescribed area and are not allowed to stray from that area because of the disturbance of wildlife and native peoples from the noise of the aircraft. We weren’t even anywhere near that perscribed area.
sure, I still attribute some significance to the appearance (which is my right) although the jets could have certainly been there for other reasons. I am well aware of that.
Should I conclude by the appearance of fighter jets in my neighborhood that UFO’s have been here recently?
Conclude whatever you want with regards to your own neighbourhood. That has absolutely nothing to do with me.
North.
North,
I’m sorry if it isn’t clear from some of our posts to you, but we are constantly searching for evidence for interesting claims made here.
We challenge statements that are not really evidence (for example fighter planes appearing on the following day to a UFO sighting).
We are also wary of eye-witness evidence. Nothing to do with honesty - I’m sure you believe that you saw an alien ship.
Nevertheless there’s a reason why unsupported eye-witness evidence won’t convict anyone in a court. People get excited or nervous. Things happen quickly. There is a video on the Internet of a basketball match. A bunch of University students were asked to count the number of passes made during a period of play. Most got it right. Strangely, nobody mentioned that a man in a full gorilla suit strolled across the court during the game!
When the Aylesbury hoax (UK TV program - I linked to it earlier) was perpetrated, the hoaxers flew one silver ‘saucer’ , about 25 feet across, during the afternoon. Eye-witnesses said things like:
- there were several ships
- one landed :eek:
- they could see portholes and faces looking out
- the spaceship was 200 feet across.
I notice that you have asked for public funding for UFO research. It doesn’t matter to science who claims something, just whether the evidence is there.
Isaac Newton was a fantastic scientist, making discoveries about motion, electromagnetics and calculus. However he also dabbled in astrology, where his authority simply doesn’t count - because there is no evidence astrology works.
A man in a garage who claims to have discovered time-travel (in a deLorean car!)will be judged on his proof, not who he is.
So none of these “six large scale scientific studies, more than ten PhD Theses, and many dozens of published professional papers by professional scientists” were recent? What made this wave of early research die down - could it have been lack of useful results?
BTW, can we see some evidence of these? With such specific numbers I’m sure you have them close to hand.
These will serve well to illustrate the difficulties in studying such reports. On the first point, humans have only three methods for determining distances visually. First, we can determine distances using parallax, thanks to our binocular vision. But this is only good out to about 30 feet or so; beyond that, all you can determine is that something’s more than about 30 feet away. Second, we can use the apparent size of an object. But this will depend on both distance and on the object’s actual size. If you don’t know the object’s actual size, then you can’t determine anything about its distance. Third, we can use comparisons with other objects for which we know the distance. This only works, though, if we have some way of knowing if it’s in front or behind. If you saw this thing splash into the lake, then you’d know that it was at the same distance as the lake. If you saw it moving in front of a mountain in the background, then settle behind some trees, you’d know that it was somewhere between the mountain and the trees. Assuming that you were a perfect eyewitness, we still can’t determine anything from this report beyond the ratio of this thing’s size to its distance.
For the appearance that it was spinning, you can’t tell us anything about it that indicated that it was spinning, just that it looked like it was. I think you can appreciate how unhelpful this is. If you told us that it had markings on it, which you could see moving, that would give us some information. If you aimed a sonar at it, and told us that the echos from the left side were bassshifted while the right was sopranoshifted, there’d be real information there. But all we have is “it just looked like it was spinning”.
Don’t get me wrong; I’m not dismissing your experience. I’ll grant that you saw something, and honestly, I’m curious as to what it was. It sounds interesting. But there just isn’t enough information available to say what it was.
While I agree with your point for the most part…
How many things are wrong with this statement?
-
The Theory of Evolution is just a theory. It’s certainly the most likely explanation based on the information we have available, so we should generally treat it as fact for dealing with the world, but that by itself doesn’t make it more than a theory. The proof necessary to get beyond that would be along the lines of witnessing repeated examples and that would likely take thousands of years considering the topic.
-
That which is most commonly referred to as The Theory of Gravity is Einstein’s Theory of Gravity and that is a very complicated theory that has a lot to do with the effects of gravitational fields on each other and very little to do with ‘things falling down.’ It too is just a theory.
-
For proving that “things really fall down,” we look to Newtons Law of Gravity. This is not a theory. Of the three, this is the only one that passes the “reasonable doubt” test.
Not disagreeing with your point, just saying that this one specific line really doesn’t fit and kinda detracts from it.
Chronos, I am well aware of the limitations of visually judging the size and distance of an object from further than 9 meters. A visual estimate is all we had to go on however. As for the spinning I realize stating that “it looked like it was spinning” is quite unscientific but I’m sure you too can appreciate the fact we weren’t exactly in a scientific frame of mind at the time beyond “WHAT THE HELL IS THAT??”. It was just something we both agreed upon after based on the experience.
The significant thing for me personally is that I am not alone when it comes to these “flying saucer” type sightings (although there are many different kinds of objects described). Since mainstream science has failed to explain a high percentage of them, or has chosen to completely ignore or dismiss the issue altogether, where does one go for explanations? I believe the eyewitness data is significant, credible people are seeing these things and although it doesn’t prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt, they should not be totally ignored. Something is going on in the skies. I hope someday we find out what; even if it all just turns out to be a flock of birds.
North
"Now, my suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we
suppose, but queerer than we can suppose… I suspect that there are
more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of, in any philosophy"
- J.B.S. Haldane
Interesting hypothesis, and is quite possibly an explanation. I wonder though, why this wouldn’t be a common and known occurence for these pilots? It seems to me if they were flying in this area all the time (as they do) they would have encountered this before. It should also be easily repeated seeing how the oil rigs are still there.
North.
I don’t think it is significant.
Yes, many people have seen UFO’s.
But none of them have turned into anything more significant.
Nobody is dismissing the issue: posters in this thread are quite comfortable with the idea of aliens being out htere somewhere.
All you have is eye-witness accounts over decades, many of which have been explained. The hoax I mentioned showed how innocent people give truly terrible eye-witness descriptions. Why should we think there is anything going on?
But mainstream has not failed to explain a high percentage, on the contrary, the vast majority are explained very well by perfectly prosaic events.
To go back to one of the first big studies, Project Blue Book, somewhere in the neighborhood of 90% to 95% of the sightings were easily explained. Another couple of percentage points were “probably” this or that mundane event, and (depending on who’s talking) somewhere between 1% or 2% up to 5% or 6% were unexplained.
So look at it this way. 100 similar events are investigated. In every single case where enough detail is known, the event turns out to be something mundane. In 4 or 5 cases, not enough detail is known, and they can’t be completely explained.
Now which is more likely: That those 4 or 5 cases were something completely different and outside of our known science and experience, or that they were also mundane events that we just didn’t know enough about to pin down?
I’m a UFO buff. Have been for 30 years. I’ve read (used to subscribe) to a couple of magazines, read books by Hynek and others, read the original Project Blue Book report when it was made available, and talked on-line with many other enthusiasts.
When I was a teenager, it all seemed so possible. After 30 years of looking for any hard evidence at all, I’m at the point that another sighting story is hardly worth listening to. If you’ve got some physical evidence, trot it out. Otherwise you’re way to late to make much of a splash.
I’d love for it to be true, but I’m not holding my breath any more. I’m willing to listen, but you need something substantial to say.
In addition to what glee said, that there’s a big difference between dismissing the possible existence of alien intelligence on Earth and leaping to a desired conclusion based on what is by any objective measure extremely sketchy and inadequate evidence, I want to point up something else your statement suggests.
In one of my previous messages, I compared the belief in extraterrestrial visitation to religious faith. For believers, it isn’t something you test for veracity; it’s something you know. There is no arguing with a believer, whether it’s in the divinity of Christ, the sacredness of cows, or the presence of visiting aliens. And as I said above, UFO belief falls into two general areas that closely parallel other religious principles: either they’re angels, and they want to save us from ourselves, or they’re demons, and they want to harm us.
Why am I leaping to religion from your statement? Because it is, at its base, a fundamentally religious misconception: where science ends, religion takes over. It’s the old “god of the gaps,” where we need supernatural forces and entities to bridge the spaces we don’t yet understand. This is the way it’s always been: before we comprehended lightning, we had storm gods; before we could fly, heaven was in the clouds; before we understood neurology, mental problems were caused by devils; and so on.
Extraterrestrial mythology fits right into this model, in several ways. First, they are indeed supernatural forces, because the belief that ETs can move between the stars contravenes several physical principles that as far as we can tell are inviolate. Second, and this is where your statement comes in, the edge of scientific understanding is where the religious hypothesizing occurs. (There are some branches of theology and religion that transcend the god-of-the-gaps approach, and wrap the cosmos into a neat philosophical package, science and all, but with few exceptions they’re a relatively recent innovation. Your belief that the unusual event you witnessed is evidence of alien visitation is, pretty clearly, a god-of-the-gaps phenomenon.) Third, the overarching moral implications of extraterrestrials are shoehorned into our pre-existing assumptions and preconceptions, i.e. good vs evil, as I described above. And fourth, one of the basic ideas of religion is that there are things in the world that we do not and cannot understand; this is as true of God and his “mysterious ways” and the witches who persecute Congolese villagers as it is of the aliens who come to our planet and are ineffective either at hiding from us or at making contact.
When you say that science has failed to provide a satisfactory explanation, and that you are therefore looking elsewhere for answers, you are quite explicitly giving in to religious temptation. Science does provide answers, in that (as has been discussed at length in this thread) human perception has been proven to be flawed, human interpretation of perception has been shown to be skewed, and cognitive processing of those multifarious interpretations has been demonstrated to be not entirely trustworthy without an external apparatus to sort the legitimate data and conclusions from the faulty inferences and unconscious biases. Science provides that apparatus, and you disregard it at your peril. Just because the explanation indicated is not emotionally satisfying does not mean the explanation is wrong, and just because a complete explanation has not yet been formulated does not give you carte blanche to invent your own.
If you want to see where we’re coming from on this, please read the following books (some have already been mentioned; I’m collecting them here):
Joel Achenbach, Captured by Aliens
Michael Shermer, How We Believe
Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
Pascal Boyer, Religion Explained
Always question yourself, and question those around you about what they believe and why they believe it. But understand that sometimes, “I don’t know,” or even better “I don’t know yet,” is not a shameful position. For many questions, including the question of whether there’s intelligent life in the universe and further whether it can visit our planet, it’s the only responsible position. Otherwise, on the UFO rock you are building your church.
Cervaise, you rock!!
North- are you going to answer my question in my above post?
May I direct your attention to this thread where **Sentient Meat ** simply and plainly discusses the theory/fact conundrum in posts #2 and #31.
You’ll have to forgive me Dr, ahh…Deth I’m under a lot of fire and can’t get to everyone at once. It’s lonely out here on the front.
I believe I’ve said it could possibly be a man made object in post #139.
North
So let me get this straight Cervaise…if I say that there’s a good chance for there being “intelligent life” in the universe (besides our own) I’m on fairly safe ground with you and all your buddies here (because you’ve all said as much), but if I say that said “intelligent life” might possibly be visiting Earth I’m smack dab in the middle of Santa Clause and the tooth fairy land…at the very least…and am getting close to handing out “watchtower” magazines to all my neighbours at best? That’s kinda what you are saying right?
North
“Round about the accredited and orderly facts of every science there
ever floats a sort of dust-cloud of exceptional observations, of
occurrences minute and irregular and seldom met with, which it always
proves more easy to ignore than to attend to… Anyone will renovate his
science who will steadily look after the irregular phenomena, and when
science is renewed, its new formulas often have more of the voice of the
exceptions in them than of what were supposed to be the rules.”
- William James