Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: February 02 2004
Location: South England
Status: Offline
Points: 14693
Posted: April 23 2013 at 11:24
Dean wrote:
ArturdeLara wrote:
Furthermore our presence in this planet would be easily detectable for a sufficiently advanced civilization (without mentioning the direct panspermia hypothesis ).
if you can give a valid explanation of the panspermia hypothesis that would lead to UFO sightings and aledged alien abductions then fire away
I'd be happy if someone could just tell me how to pronounce "panspermia hypothesis" - everytime I try, it sounds like the Hungarian for "my spacecraft is full of eels"
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: April 23 2013 at 11:07
dr wu23 wrote:
Dean wrote:
dr wu23 wrote:
I'd like to believe that people are open minded enough to consider possibilities but obviously many are not.
That's not answered my question - do you want to believe?
dr wu23 wrote:
Currently you are right in no one knows for certain what the ufo phenom represents. Aliens, unknown beings, a mental aberration in humans or something else.
I would like to see some serious comments on 'alien' motivation and the ufo phenom in general rather than just glib remarks of disbelief or belief.
If we (okay I) am of the conviction that none of the evidence presented thus far gives any indication that aliens exist or that they are present amid us then the question of their motivation is simply not valid. This would be like giving an opinion on the motivation of the Tooth Fairy.
dr wu23 wrote:
And your comment about physics imo is simply a lack of understanding on your part. We discover new processes and techniques every day in case you haven't noticed.
I suggest you carefully explain to me in very simple terms what this lack of understanding on my part constitutes then.
The laws of physics explain how things do work based upon all the known data, coming up with new laws of physics will not affect how things work. Gravity is still the same gravity of Aristotle, Newton and Einstien even though each of them had a new take on what the law of gravity actualy was - changing the laws of physics concerning gravity did not change how gravity acts - trip over and you will still fall to the ground. New processes and techniques of how to do things do not affect the existing laws of physics that explain how things work, how things worked in the past and how they will work in the future.
No...I don't 'want to believe', but I'd like to know the truth if there is some to find here.'...what's your agenda Dean..? Do you want to 'not believe'..?
Nope. I seek plausibility and rationality - if aliens exist (and I am open to the possibility that they do based purely on the scale of numbers alone) I accept that the distances involved prohibit us ever knowing. If they are here then I want to know how and why they are here and how and why they got here and how and why they knew to come here. Nothing has provided even the merest glimpse of an answer to any of those fundamental questions or any incontrovertible evidence that such an event has ever happened.
dr wu23 wrote:
Speculating about alien motivation is certainly valid if we are discussing possible aliens on earth, and since the vast majority of scientists do believe in the very strong likelyhood of intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy it's once again a valid topic.
Believing there is a strong likelihood of life elsewhere in the universe is not quite the same as believing in the very strong likelihood of intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy. The magnitudes of probability difference in those two statements is huge (astronomical even). Neither of these two statements have any bearing on speculating about alien presence on Earth and their motivations.
dr wu23 wrote:
What makes you think that we know all there is to know about physics and the various aspects and 'laws' involved. Just a few hunderd years ago we thought rocks could not fall from the sky and the earth was flat. We may learn that our understanding of thsoe 'laws' is incomplete.The point is that we will certainly discover new scientific techniques and principles that allow space travel in the future unless you think we are forever doomed to remain on earth. Ergo a race many centuries beyond us may have discovered means of interstellar travel.
We have known the earth is roughly spherical for millennia and we have known about rocks falling from the sky for equally as long - you need to un-bookmark where you get this stuff from. Neither of those "myths" changed physics or altered how we do stuff. New scientific techniques are not new laws of physics. I do not doubt that interstellar travel will one day be possible, I do however, have doubts about whether this will live up to the expectations of Science Fiction and FTL travel regardless of how better our understanding of physics becomes. Wishful thinking is not wish fulfilment.
Joined: August 22 2010
Location: Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 20642
Posted: April 23 2013 at 10:53
Dean wrote:
dr wu23 wrote:
I'd like to believe that people are open minded enough to consider possibilities but obviously many are not.
That's not answered my question - do you want to believe?
dr wu23 wrote:
Currently you are right in no one knows for certain what the ufo phenom represents. Aliens, unknown beings, a mental aberration in humans or something else.
I would like to see some serious comments on 'alien' motivation and the ufo phenom in general rather than just glib remarks of disbelief or belief.
If we (okay I) am of the conviction that none of the evidence presented thus far gives any indication that aliens exist or that they are present amid us then the question of their motivation is simply not valid. This would be like giving an opinion on the motivation of the Tooth Fairy.
dr wu23 wrote:
And your comment about physics imo is simply a lack of understanding on your part. We discover new processes and techniques every day in case you haven't noticed.
I suggest you carefully explain to me in very simple terms what this lack of understanding on my part constitutes then.
The laws of physics explain how things do work based upon all the known data, coming up with new laws of physics will not affect how things work. Gravity is still the same gravity of Aristotle, Newton and Einstien even though each of them had a new take on what the law of gravity actualy was - changing the laws of physics concerning gravity did not change how gravity acts - trip over and you will still fall to the ground. New processes and techniques of how to do things do not affect the existing laws of physics that explain how things work, how things worked in the past and how they will work in the future.
No...I don't 'want to believe', but I'd like to know the truth if there is some to find here.'...what's your agenda Dean..? Do you want to 'not believe'..?
Speculating about alien motivation is certainly valid if we are discussing possible aliens on earth, and since the vast majority of scientists do believe in the very strong likelyhood of intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy it's once again a valid topic.
What makes you think that we know all there is to know about physics and the various aspects and 'laws' involved. Just a few hunderd years ago we thought rocks could not fall from the sky and the earth was flat. We may learn that our understanding of thsoe 'laws' is incomplete.The point is that we will certainly discover new scientific techniques and principles that allow space travel in the future unless you think we are forever doomed to remain on earth. Ergo a race many centuries beyond us may have discovered means of interstellar travel.
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: April 23 2013 at 10:39
dr wu23 wrote:
I'd like to believe that people are open minded enough to consider possibilities but obviously many are not.
That's not answered my question - do you want to believe?
dr wu23 wrote:
Currently you are right in no one knows for certain what the ufo phenom represents. Aliens, unknown beings, a mental aberration in humans or something else.
I would like to see some serious comments on 'alien' motivation and the ufo phenom in general rather than just glib remarks of disbelief or belief.
If we (okay I) am of the conviction that none of the evidence presented thus far gives any indication that aliens exist or that they are present amid us then the question of their motivation is simply not valid. This would be like giving an opinion on the motivation of the Tooth Fairy.
dr wu23 wrote:
And your comment about physics imo is simply a lack of understanding on your part. We discover new processes and techniques every day in case you haven't noticed.
I suggest you carefully explain to me in very simple terms what this lack of understanding on my part constitutes then.
The laws of physics explain how things do work based upon all the known data, coming up with new laws of physics will not affect how things work. Gravity is still the same gravity of Aristotle, Newton and Einstien even though each of them had a new take on what the law of gravity actualy was - changing the laws of physics concerning gravity did not change how gravity acts - trip over and you will still fall to the ground. New processes and techniques of how to do things do not affect the existing laws of physics that explain how things work, how things worked in the past and how they will work in the future.
Joined: August 22 2010
Location: Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 20642
Posted: April 23 2013 at 10:29
Gerinski wrote:
dr wu23 wrote:
I'm curious as to how everyone has come to their own positions. Have you read articles, books, online web sites...or are you forming an opinion based on cultural information via the media?
I recommend these books to get a good overall picture of the enigma:
There are plenty of books and sites about irrational subjects, astrology, the new testament, life spontaneous generation, levitation, telekinesis, devil possession or whatever. The existence of books on a subject proves nothing.
Why do you consider life on other planets and the possibility they have come here to be irrational.?
....to me that sounds a bit irrational.
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin
Joined: August 22 2010
Location: Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 20642
Posted: April 23 2013 at 10:27
Dean wrote:
dr wu23 wrote:
A good mix of answers..some pro, some con , and some neutral.
I'm curious as to how everyone has come to their own positions. Have you read articles, books, online web sites...or are you forming an opinion based on cultural information via the media?
I recommend these books to get a good overall picture of the enigma:
The UFO Experience by Dr J Allen Hynek
Dimensions by Dr J Vallee
UFO's And The National Security State by R Dolan.
Abduction:Human Encounters with Aliens-Dr John Mack
While there are many books on ufos and the later abduction 'syndrome' , I found these to be thorough, well written, and fair minded.
As to a few comments above about alien motivations....imo it's impossible to say why a truly alien species would want to visit earth or what their agenda might be. One can certainly speculate and the ufo arena is full of that.But if we had the technology I have no doubt we would be buzzing around the galaxy checking out the other residents also.
Regarding the tech itself, again it's impossible to say for certain how advanced such beings could be. They could easily be 100,000 years or more ahead of us (or even a million years) and have discovered laws of physics new to us or learned how to bend them.
I don't necessarily accept the ETH (though I have no doubt there are sentient races out there.)....but imo 'something' is interacting with mankind and has for a very long time. For me the question is what does it truly represent?
Can I ask you, do you want to believe?
The glib answer is No One Knows - but when there is a plausible answer within what is possible and an implausible one requiring what is impossible then the onus is on the non-sceptic to demonstrate that the implausible is plausible and the impossible is possible for it to be more feasible than the plausible answer.
No one has seriously commented on "alien" motivation - all the comments on that topic have been derisive, flippant and dismissive.
And... "Laws of physics new to us" won't change how stuff works, that's simply a poor understanding of how physics works.
I'd like to believe that people are open minded enough to consider possibilities but obviously many are not.
Currently you are right in no one knows for certain what the ufo phenom represents. Aliens, unknown beings, a mental aberration in humans or something else.
I would like to see some serious comments on 'alien' motivation and the ufo phenom in general rather than just glib remarks of disbelief or belief.
And your comment about physics imo is simply a lack of understanding on your part. We discover new processes and techniques every day in case you haven't noticed.
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: April 23 2013 at 09:29
ArturdeLara wrote:
Dean wrote:
So, what is your explanation? The makers of these craft have lived amongst us all along? They come from the dark side of the Moon? Under the sea? Beneath the polar ice caps? They materialised out of a pan-dimensional Universe containing a parallel Earth?
3 words: I DON'T KNOW
That is the only valid answer, made even more valid when you don't assume to know that aliens are present on Earth at this time.
ArturdeLara wrote:
Dean wrote:
Or perhaps they are just everyday objects (insects, birds, balloons, kites, model aircraft, real aircraft, airships/blimps, ball-lightning, St. Elmo's Fire, will-o'-the-wisp, marsh gas, bolides, contrails, clouds, lighthouses, beacons, radio masts, flares, fireworks, reflections, refractions, aurora, deliberate hoaxes, etc.) being misinterpreted?
Probably most of them, yeah...
Dean wrote:
Please explain how our presence on this planet would be easily detectable - please feel free to be as technical as you like, it's been 30 years since I studied telecommunications at University but I'm sure it will all come back to me.
Some possible ways for an alien civilization to detect us:
Satellite and radio signals sent to space (for a sufficiently close civilization).
Nuclear fission products in a quantity that could possibly be achieved only as the consequence of nuclear fission technologies (nuclear weapons and energy for instance).
The fact that our planet has all the proper conditions for life could draw an alien civilization's attention.
This is an entirely speculative hypothesis but it's funny as hell: an advanced civilization could have perfected it's mind to a point where it could search for other intelligent beings via remote viewing (God i actually can't believe I made this one up, it's genious ).
None of these overcome any of the problems of intersellar distances.
That we have a technology finger-print that can be detected at close-range (a few million killometres) is a given.
The question was how does a an alien civilisation detect us implying that it is from a greater distance than our local stellar neighbourhood.
When I suggested you be as technical as you like I was expecting some technical feasibility within the realms of what is possible. You need to be a lot more specific than simply "sufficiently close civilization".
Remote viewing is a complete nonsense up there with astrology and palm-reading.I'll not even dignify that with an more considered answer.
ArturdeLara wrote:
Dean wrote:
And if you can give a valid explanation of the panspermia hypothesis that would lead to UFO sightings and aledged alien abductions then fire away.
I was talking about direct panspermia, which proposes that Life was deliberately inseminated on Earth by an extraterrestrial civilization.
Yeah, we call that guessing and hasn't answered the question.
ArturdeLara wrote:
Dean wrote:
More than some, less than others it would appear.
Are you calling me a geek? I'll take that as a compliment
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
Posted: April 23 2013 at 09:11
ArturdeLara wrote:
Some possible ways for an alien civilization to detect us:
Satellite and radio signals sent to space (for a sufficiently close civilization).
Nuclear fission products in a quantity that could possibly be achieved only as the consequence of nuclear fission technologies (nuclear weapons and energy for instance).
The fact that our planet has all the proper conditions for life could draw an alien civilization's attention.
This is an entirely speculative hypothesis but it's funny as hell: an advanced civilization could have perfected it's mind to a point where it could search for other intelligent beings via remote viewing (God i actually can't believe I made this one up, it's genious ).
1. See Dean's earlier post. Our signals are really weak and space is really big. One light year is a REALLY large distance, and any possible civilizations are many, many light years away.
2. Not sure if there's sufficient amounts of these products to be detectable to the type of spectral analysis one would employ to ascertain a planet's atmospheric composition.
3. This is what we do now - but of course, we can only surmise that a planet could support life - we have no way of detecting what kind of life exists, if it exists at all.
Joined: April 06 2012
Location: Faro, Portugal
Status: Offline
Points: 124
Posted: April 23 2013 at 08:41
Dean wrote:
So, what is your explanation? The makers of these craft have lived amongst us all along? They come from the dark side of the Moon? Under the sea? Beneath the polar ice caps? They materialised out of a pan-dimensional Universe containing a parallel Earth?
3 words: I DON'T KNOW
Dean wrote:
Or perhaps they are just everyday objects (insects, birds, balloons, kites, model aircraft, real aircraft, airships/blimps, ball-lightning, St. Elmo's Fire, will-o'-the-wisp, marsh gas, bolides, contrails, clouds, lighthouses, beacons, radio masts, flares, fireworks, reflections, refractions, aurora, deliberate hoaxes, etc.) being misinterpreted?
Probably most of them, yeah...
Dean wrote:
Please explain how our presence on this planet would be easily detectable - please feel free to be as technical as you like, it's been 30 years since I studied telecommunications at University but I'm sure it will all come back to me.
Some possible ways for an alien civilization to detect us:
Satellite and radio signals sent to space (for a sufficiently close civilization).
Nuclear fission products in a quantity that could possibly be achieved only as the consequence of nuclear fission technologies (nuclear weapons and energy for instance).
The fact that our planet has all the proper conditions for life could draw an alien civilization's attention.
This is an entirely speculative hypothesis but it's funny as hell: an advanced civilization could have perfected it's mind to a point where it could search for other intelligent beings via remote viewing (God i actually can't believe I made this one up, it's genious ).
Dean wrote:
And if you can give a valid explanation of the panspermia hypothesis that would lead to UFO sightings and aledged alien abductions then fire away.
I was talking about direct panspermia, which proposes that Life was deliberately inseminated on Earth by an extraterrestrial civilization.
Dean wrote:
More than some, less than others it would appear.
Are you calling me a geek? I'll take that as a compliment
"Those who are not shocked when they first come across Prog theory cannot possibly have understood it." - Niels Bohr
"If you think you understand Prog, you don't understand Prog." - Richard Feynman
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: April 23 2013 at 08:17
ArturdeLara wrote:
There's always the hoax possibility, but the same can be said about everything
Hoaxes are common, spooking your mates on the walk back from the pub is not uncommon, the Rendlesham Forest incident has not been immune from claims and admissions of hoaxing. Those that are not hoaxes still have many plausible non-ET explanations that should be given credence long before any extraordinary explanations.
Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
Posted: April 23 2013 at 08:14
ArturdeLara wrote:
Nobody answered to my previous question: if you think aliens have been visiting us, do you think they want us to know or they want us not to know?
It seems clear that they do not want us to know, for if they would they would simply show us that they exist uncontroversially.
But if they don't want us to know and they are supposedly so advanced, how come they would be so sloppy as to miss in such terrible ways as flashing weird lights which can be seen, flying around on brightly lit saucers during night and stuff like that? that does not seem a very good strategy at not wanting to be seen
Oh wait, maybe they are blind so they can't tell the difference between our night darkness and their lights
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: April 23 2013 at 08:09
Blacksword wrote:
ArturdeLara wrote:
So you're saying that it's plausible that dozens of USAF personnel mistook a lighthouse for such an extremely complex incident, which also included physical contact with one of the objects?
I think the simple explanation is that they didn't....
Aye - the two people who claim physical contact give conflicting accounts, which is odd and far from convincing.
The apparent complexity of the incident is only in the eyewitness accounts which as I said earlier can be easily explained by the disorienting effect of being in a dense woodland at night.
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: April 23 2013 at 08:09
ArturdeLara wrote:
The flares in the first video are very different from the Phoenix Lights, and although i agree that smoke and trails can be hard to see, the fact that these ones are moving is very obvious to me. There are no signs of movement in the Phoenix Lights, they appear out of nowhere, one by one, apparently motionless, and disappear exactly the same way. I said before and I'll say it again: show me flares with this modus operandi and I will immediatly admit I was wrong.
PS: By the way, if the lights in the video are flares dropped by an aircraft, where are the aircraft lights? Also, and I'm asking this sincerely because honestly I don't know, are flares supposed to fade before they reach the ground?
As I have said before movement of lights at night are very difficult to judge - within the Phoenix videos you have no points of reference to determine whether the lights are moving or not, even with the city lights in the background the relative distances involved give no indication of relative speeds or distances - in the first video what you are seeing is a hand-held video camera image taken by someone tracking the lights - it is most likely (in fact very probably) that they are moving but you cannot see that because the photographer is holding the image in the centre of the viewfinder.
You can search YouTube as well as I can to find videos of flares, fireworks, parachute flares and aircraft dropped flares to see if any mimic the "m-o" of the Phoenix lights - it will be impossible to find a precise match but examples (picked the first one that came up in a search) such as this:
Place enough doubt over any extraordinary, extraterestrial, psuedoscientific explanation for them to be so low down on any list of possibile causes for them to be discounted from any rational discussion.
Where are the aircraft lights? Out of frame would be the obvious answer. What would your explanation be?
Are flares supposed to fade before they hit the ground? I hope so, last thing I'd want is for a burning flare to bounce off my head/house/car/children.
Joined: April 06 2012
Location: Faro, Portugal
Status: Offline
Points: 124
Posted: April 23 2013 at 08:08
Blacksword wrote:
ArturdeLara wrote:
Dean wrote:
ArturdeLara wrote:
Dean wrote:
ArturdeLara wrote:
These were military and police personnel, not Joe the farmer. I strongly doubt these people would mistake a light house for the extremely complex (with more than one light source) display that they described.
What you are presenting here is an argument from authority - the presumption that the professional credentials of the eyewitnesses renders their testimony infallible and superior to that of someone of a more humble profession. Which is clearly a fallacy - police and military are more than capable of making errors of observation and judgement, they are just as fallible as any other person. If you require evidence of that you need not look too far in the newspapers, on the news channels or on the internet - proof that military and police personnel are capable of making mistakes is easy to find.
People (police, military or even farmers) will make mistakes in observation when what they are seeing is unexpected in the location they find themselves - no one expects to see the light from a lighthouse when they are in a forest, even if they know the forest is only 5 or 6 miles from the sea - how that light is perceived in the disorientating environment of a dense woodland at night can be easily misinterpreted - the complex display could feasibly be nothing more than a trick of the light.
If you fail to consider this explanation as more plausible than an extraterrestrial explanation then you are not doing the search for extraterrestrial life any favours, as I said before - the onus is on the believers to prove their implausible theories, not to disprove any plausible ones. Even if you can prove that it wasn't the lighthouse it does not discount other plausible non-UFO explanations.
Although I agree that my argument has no philosophical validity, it is a question of common sense: these were highly trained people, and their jobs required high levels of preparation in dealing with stressful and adverse situations. Now, this incident wasn't witnessed by just one person, but by dozens of people on two different days. Unless the USAF criteria for the selection of personnel was extremely sloppy and faulted at the time, something real and extraordinary must have happened there.
There is no "must have" at play here. When a logical, rational, plausible explanation exists then it puts any (and every) extraordinary explanation under serious doubt. Ignoring the plausible in favour of the implausible is inexcusible.
So you're saying that it's plausible that dozens of USAF personnel mistook a lighthouse for such an extremely complex incident, which also included physical contact with one of the objects?
I think the simple explanation is that they didn't....
There's always the hoax possibility, but the same can be said about everything
"Those who are not shocked when they first come across Prog theory cannot possibly have understood it." - Niels Bohr
"If you think you understand Prog, you don't understand Prog." - Richard Feynman
Joined: June 22 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 16130
Posted: April 23 2013 at 08:01
ArturdeLara wrote:
Dean wrote:
ArturdeLara wrote:
Dean wrote:
ArturdeLara wrote:
These were military and police personnel, not Joe the farmer. I strongly doubt these people would mistake a light house for the extremely complex (with more than one light source) display that they described.
What you are presenting here is an argument from authority - the presumption that the professional credentials of the eyewitnesses renders their testimony infallible and superior to that of someone of a more humble profession. Which is clearly a fallacy - police and military are more than capable of making errors of observation and judgement, they are just as fallible as any other person. If you require evidence of that you need not look too far in the newspapers, on the news channels or on the internet - proof that military and police personnel are capable of making mistakes is easy to find.
People (police, military or even farmers) will make mistakes in observation when what they are seeing is unexpected in the location they find themselves - no one expects to see the light from a lighthouse when they are in a forest, even if they know the forest is only 5 or 6 miles from the sea - how that light is perceived in the disorientating environment of a dense woodland at night can be easily misinterpreted - the complex display could feasibly be nothing more than a trick of the light.
If you fail to consider this explanation as more plausible than an extraterrestrial explanation then you are not doing the search for extraterrestrial life any favours, as I said before - the onus is on the believers to prove their implausible theories, not to disprove any plausible ones. Even if you can prove that it wasn't the lighthouse it does not discount other plausible non-UFO explanations.
Although I agree that my argument has no philosophical validity, it is a question of common sense: these were highly trained people, and their jobs required high levels of preparation in dealing with stressful and adverse situations. Now, this incident wasn't witnessed by just one person, but by dozens of people on two different days. Unless the USAF criteria for the selection of personnel was extremely sloppy and faulted at the time, something real and extraordinary must have happened there.
There is no "must have" at play here. When a logical, rational, plausible explanation exists then it puts any (and every) extraordinary explanation under serious doubt. Ignoring the plausible in favour of the implausible is inexcusible.
So you're saying that it's plausible that dozens of USAF personnel mistook a lighthouse for such an extremely complex incident, which also included physical contact with one of the objects?
I think the simple explanation is that they didn't....
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.211 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
The UFO Phenomenon
Topic Options
Dean wrote:
).
).
