I asked a direct question. You guys went off into the weeds about specific numbers.
I don’t know if UFOs have anything do to with space or the universe. I am speaking to putting scientific discipline to the facts we do have. And there are a TON of cases worth studying.
You’re wrong about that. Theoretical physics has used the assumption of visitation by alien life forms to create models that have created discussion about time/space scenarios, worm holes, etc. I don’t know if these will bear fruit, but the convo can’t hurt. As I said before, science requires hypothesis.
My answer to this is that the two subjects put together breed an unhealthy skepticism and the “experts” in each field have vastly different backgrounds. With the higher degree of skepticism, science faces obstacles that occupy time that could be used to get to the bottom of whatever a phenomena might actually be.
You are right about it being a reach. Please, notice that I didn’t claim UFOs had anything to do with aliens, space, or extra-terrestrial anything. That was a projection on your part. And I made the “U” point earlier. So, on that we agree.
I wasn’t offering evidence of UFOs or of the paranormal. In fact, I think if you look back it is you who was incredulous - so much so that you just got around to actually answering the original question. Okay, I let myself be dragged off topic too, but as for what I “believe” or not, I never actually stated. And if you’re saying that one has to believe in a conclusion before they see the need for answering questions, on that we don’t agree. Lastly, I’d say that if you think the study of UFOs is based on a “feeling” you haven’t read on the subject. And I admit total ignorance on the paranormal front. That’s why I asked the question. I was hoping somebody would say something that might explain the link, but that doesn’t seem to be happening. Still and all, thank you for your opinion on the original question.
There are no facts, it’s just unknown. Visual perception is unreliable. Things seen out of the corner of your eye, in odd circumstances, poor lighting can all contribute to perfectly normal objects being unidentifiable. Even in our own homes we can see things that aren’t there at all.
If there really is alien visitation, that can be seen with the naked eye, why do we have no record whatsoever of these visits, except for these sightings? Where are the camera phones finally kicking in with recordings?
Extraterrestrial intelligence is not the same thing as UFOs. Life on other planets seems pretty likely just according to the law of averages. Life on other planets in the visible universe that somehow transverses the lightyears to come to Earth is another thing. Finding more exoplanets doesn’t make it more likely that there are beings on other planets coming to Earth.
Yes, I’d say UFOs-as-alien-craft belong in discussions of the paranormal. My impression is that people believe in them and think they see them for the same general reasons.
But I would like to see these models (and the names of these people practicing “theoretical physics”) generated from the assumption of visitation by alien life.
My guess is that rather than theoretical physics models, what you have are a few people (maybe even a few physicists) making up scenarios involving alien visitations that are plausible given our current understanding of physics.
Those aren’t models. Those are just stories made up to fill time on cable TV.
You’re making a lot of hand-wavy arguments about “credible witnesses” and “theoretical physics” but not offering a whole heck of a lot of citations, evidence, or anything else. Mainly a lot of “just-so” justifications.
Really? Your earlier posts seem to imply it pretty well, along with a healthy dollop of incredulity. In fact, it’s kind of what got this ball rolling:
We have studied them, and time after time they have come up with perfectly normal explanations. What makes you think we haven’t looked into this. No UFO sighting has even been shown to have an extraterrestrial origin. We’ve done what you ask, repeatedly, and nothing other than the standard explanations have ever been needed.
What additional research should we apply to the subject now? And why not give the same scrutiny to all ghost, pixie, and Sasquatch report? The answer is that we have limited resources and it’s better to invest that effort into potential useful research. Researching UFO reports is wasted time and effort.
We were speaking to the evolution of one species over another as an answer to how a civilization other than ours might be able to accomplish travel that we cannot. Time and age might be relevant there, especially when you’re talking about the potential of millions of years of evolution.
Every UFOlogist I’ve read agrees that the vast majority of sightings are not what people think (or hope) they are. The question is about those that are truly different.
Again, you have not read on the subject. I only started three weeks ago for an article I was working on and I can tell you there IS hard evidence and there is expert eyewitness accounts from people who not only have nothing to gain, but who sacrifice their reputations (or worse) to tell what they’ve seen. You are ruling out evidence because it can’t prove a specific conclusion. That’s not how it works. You put the evidence together and go where it leads you. You are ASSUMING there is no evidence when there is. If you want to read on the subject, I seriously recommend looking at “The Disclosure Project”. I think you’ll see that these aren’t the people you’re expecting. It is at the very least, interesting.
I am still waiting for the name of a UFOlogist who made the link. I’ve read about a hundred hours of material and talked to half a dozen people who know A LOT more about this than I do and I don’t think you’re going to be able to link a UFOlogist to the paranormal. And “loosen up” means don’t get sucked into debating whether the universe is 13.7 or 13.2 billion years old when it has nothing to do with the original question. The conclusion or plausibility of one argument doesn’t discount the facts that are out there. I’ve already said it, but out of respect for your time and patience, I’ll say it again. I am not claiming that ANY OF THIS means anything in particular, but if you listen to the people I am talking about I think you will agree that it does mean something. Something scientific? I don’t know. Something alien? I doubt it, but I don’t know. Something stupid? Maybe, but I don’t know. Seriously, if you’ve never read on the subject the most interesting things I’ve come across are these 1) The Disclosure Project testimonies 2) Rendlesham Forest incident 3) Malmstrom AFB incident 4) The Kelly Johnson sighting 5) Hillsdale Michigan sighting of 1966 6) Phoenix Lights of 1997.
Who is “we” and what makes you think resources are scarce for this? I haven’t heard any actual UFOlogists complain about a lack of manpower. Their concerns seem to stem more from a lack of cooperation and being bombarded with nonsense from frauds and skeptics alike. See my post above if you need evidence that there are cases without sufficient answers.
Three weeks? Do you realize you are on a board with people who have been reading about UFOs for decades? I remember being a flying saucer buff back in the 1970s. After Betty and Barney Hill, everything looked promising.
And the more we look at the reports, the more disillusioned we have become. Come back after your initial new-convert enthusiasm wears off.
See my post to Czarcasm for the cases that interest me as far as credible witnesses go. I think Kelly Johnson and his flight crew are credible seeing as how he was he preeminent authority on aviation design at the time of his sighting. I also find two separate missile silo details as pretty credible. It’s worth noting that after their reports, none of them were moved from the silos. Curious if they were hallucinating, grandstanding, or delusional for any reason. And the Rendlesham forest team seems pretty concrete seeing as how they were responsible for the security of two military bases and seeing as how they too were left to serve out their tours of duty in spite of their sighting(s). If they’re not credible you can also find accounts by Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, General MacArthur, Congressman Alexander Hamilton (and family) and a TON more who actually risked their credibility by telling their stories and who didn’t profit from them.
As for the cites for theoretical physics there are a few books by Stanton Friedman where he speaks to theoretical physics and the work done regarding the folding of time and space as well as theoretical worm holes etc. I can find other names, but I won’t waste my time if you’re not asking a serious question. I’d have to dig through reading I’ve already put away.
How does this make him a trained observer of U.F.O.s.? In what way are generals and presidents better at telling spacecraft from cloud? I think you are mistakenly thinking that expertise in one area translates to expertise to another unrelated area.
What makes some of them “truly different?” It’s easy to say ‘that guy’s a UFO kook, but my UFO experience is legit,’ but it doesn’t actually tell us anything about how to evaluate this stuff. Ideally maybe we can discuss this without my having to read a bunch of Wikipedia entries for UFO sitings that are famous to UFOlogists but that the rest of us haven’t heard of in the first place.
What is your single best case, the case with the most evidence, for the existence of U.F.O.s, RadioActiveRich? Give us your best shot to convince us to take the subject seriously.
Your snarky tone notwithstanding, I’m not sure what you think I am “on board” with. Feel free to re-read my posts on the subject, but I never claimed expertise nor a particular position on the subject and my initial question doesn’t require either.
As for Betty and Barney Hill, I am not “on board” with abductions and seeing as how I haven’t attempted to make any link between UFOs and aliens I think you’d see why that is. Also, a lot has been uncovered since 1970 - or do you not read on the subject any more?
There isn’t one case. And UFOs as “unidentified” are not an unproven phenomena. There have been sightings and the crafts are “unidentified”. What is yet to be proven is what they actually are. Again, coming back to my ORIGINAL point lumping in those accounts and evidence with talk about casper and uncle buddy speaking from the dead is not likely to make that any easier.
I have no intention of converting people to believe in UFOs, aliens, etc. I don’t even know what I believe except to say that I have doubts that the subject of UFOs belongs in the same conversation as the paranormal.
It seems those who are into paranormal are also into ufo’s, bigfoots and other unexplainable phenomina. The profile of the followers makes it easy for us to lump them all together at some level.
I wouldn’t completely close the door on anything but I won’t waste any of my own time following any of it either.
A person who gains or profits from a report is less credible than one who sacrifices to make their report. A trained observer is more credible. A person with experience in aircraft (particularly top-secret aircraft) is more credible for obvious reasons. A sighting where multiple unconnected witnesses report the same thing is more credible. I personally put more stake in military personnel (partly because of the reasons above and partly out of respect). Those are but a few examples.
If only one of them is real, we haven’t seen it yet. Which one do you think is the best candidate?
And Friedman makes a lot of money selling books and lecturing. It helps his bottom line if he promotes his ideas even without evidence. It doesn’t make them true.