Aliens, yay or nay?

[bombadil.360]

How are they verifiable? Whose going to step up and say "Oh yes we have a top secret military craft we were testing that we were hoping to keep secret from you guys"? As for the plane off course, I would think that as a pilot, if you see something you think shouldn't be there the first step would be to rule out other planes and so verifying it as a plane not where it is supposed to be is what starts to make it a UFO, what seals the deal is if you can't make radio contact. U = unidentified, not unkown although it might be unknown as well as unidentified. If the pilot seeing them was sure it was a secret military craft or a plane off course he wouldn't report it as a ufo. you seem to be operating under the assumption it gets seen by the pilot so clearly that he can analyze it in great detail.

Now this I agree with and I hope you realize I'm just being fair, you seemd to be jumping too quick for the banana technology option

if you want to keep an airplane secret, first, you are not gonna fly it above populated areas, much less on airplane routes, which are easily avoided, as well as any other place where there are other planes, since you have radar.

lets take my sighting as an example, this was in the Venezuelan Andes, in a city, which is in-between a bunch of mountains, and around the city all you have is mountains and more mountains, mostly national parks and almost uninhabited.

so if what I saw was a secret military test plane, why fly it directly over a densely populated area? why not just fly it over the national park mountains? save the chance of anyone spotting it?

why would you fly a highly advanced technological plane close to a regular run of the mill plane when you have sophisticated radars designed to detect other airplanes if you want to keep your secret military plane secret?

makes no sense.

also, a pilot when seeing some aircraft where it should not be, does his best to identify it, since there are rules and regulations in the aerial space, and if anyone is infringing those, they are subject to fines and other sorts of punishable offenses; since doing such endangers other planes who are indeed following all regulations.

so if we really understand this, saying any ufo should be secret military or merely a pilot's way to file away a plane that should not have been where it was, such justifications also fall way short.

so we're either left with extraterrestrials or banana-tree tech, since we can easily identify what these ufos were not.

peace

 

[Harry Gypsna]

can you send me in the direction so ican find this my self cause i´ve never heard that

OK, I've gone against what I said about not coming back to the thread..
Here you go

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/03/us/cia-admits-government-lied-about-ufo-sightings.html

 

[legalizeDK]

OK, I've gone against what I said about not coming back to the thread..
Here you go

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/03/us/cia-admits-government-lied-about-ufo-sightings.html

thanks for the link
those lying bastards

but stil dont think all sightings is covert millitary ops
the sightings ive had wasn´t saucers unless the millitary are flying around orbs of light

 

[bombadil.360]

OK, I've gone against what I said about not coming back to the thread..
Here you go

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/03/us/cia-admits-government-lied-about-ufo-sightings.html

The C.I.A. study says the Air Force knew that most reports by citizens and aviation experts were based on fleeting glimpses of U-2 and SR-71 spy planes, which fly extremely high.

sr 71

u2

''Over half of all U.F.O. reports from the late 1950's through the 1960's were accounted for by manned reconnaissance flights'' over the United States, the C.I.A. study says. ''This led the Air Force to make misleading and deceptive statements to the public in order to allay public fears and to protect an extraordinarily sensitive national security project.''


over half? so not all of them...

plus, the sphere I saw was pretty close and did not have any wings...

 

[Growcephus]

the sphere I saw was pretty close and did not have any wings...

Aviators, especially career aviators, are IMO, one of THE best sources for UFO sightings for a couple of reasons.

First, they understand the dynamics of powered flight, and are familiar with the control surfaces required to control an aircraft.

The overwhelming majority of fixed wing aircraft have, and require:

1. Wings, for lift.
2.. Ailerons on the wings, for roll.
3. Horizontal stabilizer with elevators, for pitch (nose up/down).
4. Vertical stabilizer with a rudder, for yaw.
5. Propellers, or jet engine intake/exhausts.

While there ARE exceptions (B2 bomber and other "flying wings"), these exception are extremely rare in the aviation world.

Second, they are familiar with flight performance and characteristics. Regardless of what you are flying, physics STILL rules in the air, and both aircraft and pilot are susceptible to G-loading.

Pilots have reported seeing aircraft zipping around that have NONE of the control surfaces humans NEED to put on aircraft to control flight.

They have reported witnessing aircraft move at speeds beyond the capabilities of known human technology, and more importantly IMO, they have witnessed aircraft perform flight maneuvers that no known human craft could perform [90 degree turns at speed, etc], and more importantly, that no human could survive due to the detrimental effects of G-loading.

So, while some of the aircraft reported by pilots as UFO's has certainly been shit like research balloons, experimental and classified government aircraft, SOME of these aircraft have no logical human source due to their design and / or flight characteristics.

What are they? Fuck if I know.

Looking at our own experience with aviation and space travel, I would imagine that the majority of any "foreign" aircraft encounters would be unmanned, so maybe these things are exploratory drones.

All I know is that I have met and talked with some aviators who saw some shit over the years, and I believe they saw what they said they saw.

 

[MJBadger]

Gotta agree with Hash Z , umpteen billion trillion stars planets out there . Some of them are bound to have life . Remember there is more chance of a human meeting an alien than there is of proving god exists . Aliens are possible , god is just a fairy story .

 

[gaiusmarius]

The C.I.A. study says the Air Force knew that most reports by citizens and aviation experts were based on fleeting glimpses of U-2 and SR-71 spy planes, which fly extremely high.

sr 71

View Image


u2
View Image


''Over half of all U.F.O. reports from the late 1950's through the 1960's were accounted for by manned reconnaissance flights'' over the United States, the C.I.A. study says. ''This led the Air Force to make misleading and deceptive statements to the public in order to allay public fears and to protect an extraordinarily sensitive national security project.''


over half? so not all of them...

plus, the sphere I saw was pretty close and did not have any wings...

thats all very well but there is no way to mistake those airplanes for space ships. what people relate seeing is normally a round ball or saucer shape, more recently some gigantic triangle shapes are described too. but those things in the pics are clearly air planes, what ever angle you see them from there is no making them round.

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

Actually my understanding is your last statement is false. I believe Voyager or one of the early probes was just recently reported as now leaving the solar system. In fairness to your point though that wasn't by plan or design. To be completely accurate though it would probably be better to say we've not intentionally gotten a probe beyond our solar system yet.

http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/news/voyager_1_new_region.html

Almost out of the solar system. we are on the last stretch.

Gotta agree with Hash Z , umpteen billion trillion stars planets out there . Some of them are bound to have life . Remember there is more chance of a human meeting an alien than there is of proving god exists . Aliens are possible , god is just a fairy story .

I just agree with Carl Sagan.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/c/carl_sagan.html

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people. -Carl Sagan

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

addressing ufo's I think a lot of what people think are ufo's or ghosts is a phenomenon called ball lighting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_lightning

The reason I dont think ufo's are aliens is also based on math. the chance of any other life finding our planet is like finding an atom in a haystack the size of the galaxy. As time goes on the universe expands and all matter moves away from it's self. The force of gravity is weaker than the force of expansion. eventually things will be so far apart that even with the best scientific equipment most galaxies with life will think they are the only thing out there and they will think they are the center of the universe based on scientific observation. the future is bleak. lol

 

[Anti]

Yeah but you still have to believe first, justification of a belief comes after believing not before or simultaneously. Newton saw an apple fall and came to believe there is a force called gravity that made it happen. To date there is no justification for this belief because we have not found a way to see, taste, smell, touch, hear or measure gravity and our only understanding exists in matmatical equations. Some day that may change and on that day then our belief in gravity will be justified.

The newton apple thing is a myth. Newton formulated a hypothesis and then gathered evidence to support that hypothesis and then others confirmed it and it became a theory.

I do not have to believe in aliens in order to look at evidence. I do not have to believe in flying unicorns to look at evidence.

The time to believe in something is once you have been satisfied by the evidence. That which satisfies you may not satisfy me.

I'm not really saying anything controversial here. I don't really understand why so many of you are so upset by it.

 

[Anti]

so when they state that what they saw was an Unidentified Flying Object, it actually means that they knew it was none of the known human flying technology capable of such feats.

what does that leaves us with? like I said before: banana-tree technology?

It leaves us with the possibility that it is an unknown human flying technology or a mirage or a misfiring of their brain or a lie or maybe, on the extreme edge, some kind of extraterrestrial flying technology.

The explanation that it is an alien (or angelic) object would require even STRONGER evidence, namely that aliens (or angels) exist in the first place.

 

[Canniwhatsis]

I'm sure it's been touched on, but russia had an extra terrestrial visitor yesterday!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sl_RknL9G-Q

 

[HempKat]

if you want to keep an airplane secret, first, you are not gonna fly it above populated areas, much less on airplane routes, which are easily avoided, as well as any other place where there are other planes, since you have radar.

lets take my sighting as an example, this was in the Venezuelan Andes, in a city, which is in-between a bunch of mountains, and around the city all you have is mountains and more mountains, mostly national parks and almost uninhabited.

so if what I saw was a secret military test plane, why fly it directly over a densely populated area? why not just fly it over the national park mountains? save the chance of anyone spotting it?

why would you fly a highly advanced technological plane close to a regular run of the mill plane when you have sophisticated radars designed to detect other airplanes if you want to keep your secret military plane secret?

makes no sense.

also, a pilot when seeing some aircraft where it should not be, does his best to identify it, since there are rules and regulations in the aerial space, and if anyone is infringing those, they are subject to fines and other sorts of punishable offenses; since doing such endangers other planes who are indeed following all regulations.

so if we really understand this, saying any ufo should be secret military or merely a pilot's way to file away a plane that should not have been where it was, such justifications also fall way short.

so we're either left with extraterrestrials or banana-tree tech, since we can easily identify what these ufos were not.

peace

You're taking what I said too far, you essentially said a pilot would be able to identify known man made tech and therefore if the pilot can't identifiy it, it must be extra terrestrial. The point I'm making is that there are some other possibilities. It could be extra terrestrial, but it could also be unknown man made tech and it could be something that is ordinary but just not where it's supposed to be and the pilot was unable to get a good look at it. You're making broad assumptions about what the pilots are able to do. All I'm doing is to try to be open minded and allow for all possibilities. Piolets are just people and people make mistakes all the time. Maybe the piolet see's something from a distance and going in a direction moving away from his course, maybe he's low on fuel and can't pursue it, maybe he's a passenger pilot and because he has a plane full of passengers expecting to be at a certain place at a certain time he can't pursue it. Also as for the top secret vehicle, maybe it's main secret is it's stealth capability and so they fly over populated areas to see if they can remain unnoticed. Maybe it was trying to avoid populated areas but a malfunction caused it to go off course. I mean there are just a whole lot of other possabilities between the pilot doesn't recognize it and it's extra terrestrial. I'm not saying it can't be extra terrestrial just that you can't jump to the conclusion it is as quickly as you want to.

 

[HempKat]

http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/news/voyager_1_new_region.html

Almost out of the solar system. we are on the last stretch.

Ah okay I stand corrected, I heard it on the radio with a DJ doing one of those "interesting bits of news" they often use to fill space between songs and commercials. His focus in telling it was more on how voyager wasn't really meant to go this far intially but NASA did such a good job that now it's headed out of the solar system and still providing useful data.

 

[legalizeDK]

You're taking what I said too far, you essentially said a pilot would be able to identify known man made tech and therefore if the pilot can't identifiy it, it must be extra terrestrial. The point I'm making is that there are some other possibilities. It could be extra terrestrial, but it could also be unknown man made tech and it could be something that is ordinary but just not where it's supposed to be and the pilot was unable to get a good look at it. You're making broad assumptions about what the pilots are able to do. All I'm doing is to try to be open minded and allow for all possibilities. Piolets are just people and people make mistakes all the time. Maybe the piolet see's something from a distance and going in a direction moving away from his course, maybe he's low on fuel and can't pursue it, maybe he's a passenger pilot and because he has a plane full of passengers expecting to be at a certain place at a certain time he can't pursue it. Also as for the top secret vehicle, maybe it's main secret is it's stealth capability and so they fly over populated areas to see if they can remain unnoticed. Maybe it was trying to avoid populated areas but a malfunction caused it to go off course. I mean there are just a whole lot of other possabilities between the pilot doesn't recognize it and it's extra terrestrial. I'm not saying it can't be extra terrestrial just that you can't jump to the conclusion it is as quickly as you want to.

if it is of terrestial origin, where did the ones operating it get the technology from. i dont think humans could develop such technology from the drawing board to the production of flying saucers or giant freaking spaceships like the phoenix sighting

 

[legalizeDK]

It leaves us with the possibility that it is an unknown human flying technology or a mirage or a misfiring of their brain or a lie or maybe, on the extreme edge, some kind of extraterrestrial flying technology.

The explanation that it is an alien (or angelic) object would require even STRONGER evidence, namely that aliens (or angels) exist in the first place.

who are you to judge what is extreme or not. maybe to you it seems extreme and thats cool but you do not define what is extreme

think every one in this thread get the evidence part, and no one can provide the kind of evidence you are talking about. so why keep saying the same thing over and over

 

[HempKat]

The newton apple thing is a myth. Newton formulated a hypothesis and then gathered evidence to support that hypothesis and then others confirmed it and it became a theory.

I do not have to believe in aliens in order to look at evidence. I do not have to believe in flying unicorns to look at evidence.

The time to believe in something is once you have been satisfied by the evidence. That which satisfies you may not satisfy me.

I'm not really saying anything controversial here. I don't really understand why so many of you are so upset by it.

I don't understand why you think people are upset with you just because they keep debating your points.

The Newton story may be a myth but I just used it to illustrate my point since most people are familiar with that myth.

I never said you had to believe to look at evidence. I said you had to believe before you could say evidence justifies belief.

The time to feel your belief is justified is after you've examined the evidence and feel satisfied.

Who said you're saying anything controversial?

 

[Anti]

who are you to judge what is extreme or not. maybe to you it seems extreme and thats cool but you do not define what is extreme

If you claim to have a baseball... this is within a normal human being's experience. It doesn't require extraordinary evidence. Many people would be willing to believe without evidence.

If you claim to have Excalibur, and that it was given to you by the lady of the lake... this is not within a normal human's experience. It requires extraordinary evidence. Most people will not be willing to believe you without some pretty convincing evidence.

think every one in this thread get the evidence part, and no one can provide the kind of evidence you are talking about. so why keep saying the same thing over and over

I keep saying the same things over and over because of the way people are responding to what I am saying. It is not clear at all that everyone in this thread gets the evidence part.

 

[HempKat]

if it is of terrestial origin, where did the ones operating it get the technology from. i dont think humans could develop such technology from the drawing board to the production of flying saucers or giant freaking spaceships like the phoenix sighting

What do you base that opinion on? I remember seeing something back in the 70's in one of those science magazines like Popular science and it was a space craft that was supposed to be based on magnatism and gravitational force or something like that. Now it was just in the early stages and I don't know if it ever got tested but what was particularly interesting to me was that the design was like the classic flying saucer shape. Now this isn't the same thing (I was hoping I might find it with Google) but at a quick glance it looks like it's based on the same ideas.

http://www.geocities.ws/psyberplasm/ch4.html

 

[HempKat]

If you claim to have Excalibur, and that it was given to you by the lady of the lake... this is not within a normal human's experience. It requires extraordinary evidence. Most people will not be willing to believe you without some pretty convincing evidence.

I think Arthur might disagree with you.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOOTKA0aGI0