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: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: April 22 2013 at 13:28
This is neat:
... and pause it at 100 light-years (about 1:30)
- the region of space shown at 100 light-years contains all the stars (and planets and maybe civilisations) that would know we exist if they had the capability to detect our man-made EM transmissions [radio/tv/etc] ... which would be a major technological achievement in itself given the relative weakness of the signals we radiate out into space and the dratted inverse square-law that they are subjected to. [signal strength decreases in proportion to the square of the distance from the source]. We also don't know the shielding effect that the Oort cloud would have on any signals.
To put that into perspective, with our best telescopes we cannot see all the stars in that volume of space and they radiate EM radiation at colossal powers - our Sun radiates EM radiation with a power of 400 septillion Watts (400,000,000,000,000,000 kilowatts) and it's not the brightest crayon in the box by a long stretch. Imagine now trying to detect a radio transmission of say 100 kilowatts emanating from a small planet in that 100 light-year spherical volume of space.
Why is this important? Well, to visit us an "alien" would need to know we are worth visiting - random chance is not cost effective even if they could warp space or travel by interstellar osmosis. Assuming that there are 200,000 stars in that region of space (estimates vary - 200,000 is above the best guess so far) then finding a technologically advanced species in that volume is very difficult - we know of only one. They would have the same problems detecting us that we have in detecting them, and the argument put forward is they would recognise us as worth visiting because of the man-made EM noise we spew into space, but even this is tenuous given the physics of electromagnetic transmission. In practically terms the ability to detect us also follows an inverse square law of distance - the more distant the "alien" planet is from us the less chance they have of discovering we exist and the less reason they have for visiting.
Joined: April 06 2012
Location: Faro, Portugal
Status: Offline
Points: 124
Posted: April 22 2013 at 14:01
Atavachron wrote:
I've been looking into it for many years, started when I was about nine back when "UFO research" was mainly a few bad books with fuzzy pictures and dubious stories. The one legit and intelligent book was The Interrupted Journey which chronicles the Hills' story as drawn-out by their psychologist. Finally in the late 80s Whitley Strieber began publishing his recollections. Strieber is a brilliant writer and was able to relay the experience in thoughtful and vivid terms. I'm not too keen on much of the other mainstream work by Bud Hopkins and others, it seems to have an agenda attached.
As far as what I believe about sentient aliens having visited Earth, I don't believe anything, which is to say it is a mystery. As far as "U.F.O.s" go, that is a different matter; there is no doubt someone, probably on Earth, is experimenting with all number of airborne craft. You wouldn't have so many credible witnesses claiming sightings and the amount of credible (non-hoaxed) video evidence.
~
The idea that all "real" ufos are experimental craft is refuted by a large amount of evidence to the contrary). I used to think like you until I started delving deeper into the subject.
"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: August 17 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 6673
Posted: April 22 2013 at 14:07
Having majored in philosophy, I guess the fascination about the
UFO subject has been haunting my thoughts for the past 50 years or so, and as
is often the case with constantly acquired information, one’s opinions can
morph easily into something a bit more precise. First of all, I have come to
realize that there needs to be a major distinction: On one hand, there are UFOs
and on the other, “Life” beyond our planet. I have come to believe that the two
are not necessarily foldered into one neat file, that is just plain silly and
nefarious.
There is little doubt that there must be somewhere in the
galaxies, a civilization that has not only thrived beyond the distant stars but
may have also influenced Earth’s progression from caveman to atom bomber. Our
planet is littered with visual proof, be it in architecture, literature,
history and arts. From Admiral Piri Reis’ cartography that is simply
unexplainable, to distances between planets measured by Mayans being proven
correct by laser equipment left on the moon, through linguistic coincidences
(?) that are simply incredible (Aztec and Basque), massive monuments that have
similar characteristics thousands of miles apart, the Nazca lines and of
course, the greatest source of “divine” intervention, the Holy Bible, as imaged
as it is….. There is little doubt in my mind that we have been coached, tutored
and observed by alien life forms, perhaps even our ancestors who have evolved
elsewhere (Noah’s ark if true, sounds like an evacuation!) but UFOs are a
totally different kettle of fish. As a
history student, I am convinced that relating specifically to WWII, there were
various incidents that seemingly were random but what if they were somehow manipulated.
The war had just started and an Enigma decoder was already in British hands! The
war turned on the German Luftwaffe blitz accidently dropping bombs on Buckingham
palace and thus attacking London and not the factories.
The Flying saucer phenomenon is directly related to the US
getting their hands on German prototype planes such as the Horten Ho 229
(better known today as the F-117 and B-2 bombers) and the presumption of flying
machines such as the very real Hannebau and Bell saucers which turned into the
failed post-war Avrocar project. These
are not coincidences! The entire UFO phenomenon has 3% of reality (like the
craft intercepted by Belgians fighters) and the balance is orchestrated
misinformation intended to deviate public interest from 2 ongoing realities 1-
Human governments and aliens have met and have been doing so since Adam and Eve.
2- The military/scientific complex have been working on information and
technology that goes beyond our “conventional “knowledge, such as tachyon
propulsion and quantum physics and in order to keep the silence, an
interplanetary alien conspiracy needs to be primed and fueled , thanks to good
old Hollywood magic.
To me, looking at this issue with simplistic black and white
lenses is kind of primitive! Fifty years of interest and research have led me
to believe that there are various scenarios and multiple options that often
intersect, which is why there is no real, direct answer. I daresay this is done
on purpose by both sides of the equation, us and our creators. Strange thing
though, one has never discovered a truly atheist tribe anywhere on the planet,
which can only mean that someone must be watching ………
I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth.
Joined: April 06 2012
Location: Faro, Portugal
Status: Offline
Points: 124
Posted: April 22 2013 at 14:08
Dean wrote:
There is a good probability that somewhere in the Universe there exists life that is not of this Earth. The chances of that life being smarter than an amoeba is quite probable. For it to be at our stage of intellectual evolution or higher is less probable. If it is has surpassed our level of technical development is thus fairly improbably. Of it being capable of interstellar space flight is even more improbably. The chances of it finding us on a tiny wet planet orbiting a nondescript star in the outer suburbs of one galaxy out of billions of galaxies in the vastness of space is highly improbable.
You are assuming that ufos originate from other planet. Furthermore our presence in this planet would be easily detectable for a sufficiently advanced civilization (without mentioning the direct panspermia hypothesis ).
Dean wrote:
All UFO sightings can be (and have been) explained by fully understandable natural explanations not requiring visitors from other worlds - Unidentified does not mean Unexplained.
No they haven't... You clearly never payed much attention to the evidence.
"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: April 06 2012
Location: Faro, Portugal
Status: Offline
Points: 124
Posted: April 22 2013 at 14:13
Dean wrote:
Blacksword wrote:
Dean wrote:
There is a good probability that somewhere in the Universe there exists life that is not of this Earth. The chances of that life being smarter than an amoeba is quite probable. For it to be at our stage of intellectual evolution or higher is less probable. If it is has surpassed our level of technical development is thus fairly improbably. Of it being capable of interstellar space flight is even more improbably. The chances of it finding us on a tiny wet planet orbiting a nondescript star in the outer suburbs of one galaxy out of billions of galaxies in the vastness of space is highly improbable.
That's not scepticism, that's just being rational.
All UFO sightings can be (and have been) explained by fully understandable natural explanations not requiring visitors from other worlds - Unidentified does not mean Unexplained.
What was the explanation for the Rendlesham Forest incident? It appears to have been left unexplained and sigificantly covered up from what I can gather. Then I suppose it depends who you ask.
Precisely. Not looking too closely into this (and I haven't the time to see a 1½hr documentary during working hours):Why ignore the Orford Ness lighthouse (which apparently can be seen from the forest) rotating on a 5 second period, which just happens to be the same time interval of the appearance/disappearance of the light described on the tape - why do none of the eyewitnesses mention seeing two lights (the UFO and the lighthouse)? [for example]
Nighttime disorientation and group hysteria can account for quite a lot. The eyewitness accounts do not corroborate each other and seem to be somewhat unreliable, I'm inclined to discount any testimony given under hypnosis (whether you believe hypnosis induced statements or not, I don't). Failure of the authorities to take it seriously (for example the local police) does not constitute a cover-up or conspiracy. Much of the after the event analysis of the site shows strong indications of confirmation bias - they saw what they wanted to see - for example does this look like a mark made by an axe or a burn made by a UFO to you?
Just because people chose to ignore feasible (ie non-ET) explanations it does not mean that the feasible explanations are false. Once a plausible non-extraterrestrial explanation exists the onus is on the "believer" to prove his explanation, not ignore the "sceptic" and his plausible explanation.
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.
Edited by ArturdeLara - April 22 2013 at 14:14
"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: April 06 2012
Location: Faro, Portugal
Status: Offline
Points: 124
Posted: April 22 2013 at 14:13
tszirmay wrote:
Strange thing though, one has never discovered a truly atheist tribe anywhere on the planet, which can only mean that someone must be watching ………
Religion is in our genes, faith is an intrinsic and subjective product of the human mind. That is the same as saying that since everyone has a concept of beauty, therefore beauty must be something real and independent from our subjectivity. That's not a valid argument. I agree with the ancient astronauts hypothesis though
Edited by ArturdeLara - April 22 2013 at 14:37
"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: April 06 2012
Location: Faro, Portugal
Status: Offline
Points: 124
Posted: April 22 2013 at 14:18
Dean wrote:
ArturdeLara wrote:
There are dozens, if not hundreds, of ufo cases which cannot be explained in any conventional means. Of course there are many hoaxes and misidentifications but they don't explain all sightings (Rendlesham forest, Phoenix lights and so many others are still unexplained). The truth is that ufos are a real phenomena (whatever their origin may be) that deserve proper scientific study and should not be treated as a pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community.
Really? All these have been explained - if you chose to ignore the explanations that is doesn't change anything.
The human eye, especially at night, is very poor at judging distance of a single point of light that has no other reference points to give any indication of size or speed. An aircraft light, a planet such as Jupiter and a distant star all look the same size to us as we see them in the night sky - we cannot tell just by looking at a single point of light in the sky whether it is small or large, close or very far away. Even if it is moving we cannot be sure whether it is close and moving slowly or far away and moving very fast, for example the International Space Station takes 4 minutes to cross the visible region of sky compared to an aircraft that can do it in half that time and a bird in less time than that - the bird is very close and flying at 40mph (63km/h), the aircraft is in the atmosphere and is travelling at 400mph (630km/h) whereas the ISS is far away and travelling at 17,239mph (27,743km/h).
This means that eyewitness accounts can be misleading and inaccurate, for example in the Rendlesham Forest event a high-speed meteor or Russian spy satellite falling into the North Sea 200-300 miles away can look like a slow-speed "UFO" crashing into a nearby forest. And in the 1st Phoenix Lights event a fast moving formation of high-altitude aircraft can look like a slow moving "UFO" flying at lower altitude and in the 2nd event a very slow falling string of (parachute) flares can look like a faster moving formation of "UFO"s flying into the distance.
If you ignore these explanations then you have not achieved anything and certainly the mainstream scientific community will rightfully dismiss this as pseudoscience.
Oh come on, not that flare again. Please watch the Phoenix lights video. The lights have absolutely nothing in common with flares.
Please show me a video with parachute flares behaving like this.
Edited by ArturdeLara - April 22 2013 at 15:03
"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: April 06 2012
Location: Faro, Portugal
Status: Offline
Points: 124
Posted: April 22 2013 at 14:23
Vibrationbaby wrote:
It's funny they have perfected trans-dimensional travel but have to abduct us in order to perform medical experiments in order to understand how we proliferate our species. Until the mothership lands on the lawn of the Whitehouse and alittle green man emerges and demands " take me to your leader " I'm sorry kids : NO ALIENS.
And why would that happen? Oh sorry, I forgot, because the Wite House is the center for world supremacy and domination and the American people are the highest form of intelligence on this planet. Also, because Hollywood movies always come true.
Edited by ArturdeLara - April 22 2013 at 15:58
"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: April 06 2012
Location: Faro, Portugal
Status: Offline
Points: 124
Posted: April 22 2013 at 14:25
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.
What about peer-reviewed scientific journals? Btw, telekinesis is very probably a real phenomenon.
"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: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
Posted: April 22 2013 at 14:42
ArturdeLara wrote:
What about peer-reviewed scientific journals? Btw, telekinesis is very probably a real phenomenon.
Peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals confirming in a scientific way (that is, with reproduceability confirmed by peers) the existence of UFO's understood as machines built by extraterrestial civilisations and visiting us? Let me know which ones please, I'm highly interested.
Would you please also explain the probability of telekinesis being a real phenomenon?
Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
Posted: April 22 2013 at 15:05
ArturdeLara wrote:
For everyone claming there is no evidence for "real" ufos, watch this, it's a little long but it's worth it:
Well I guess that your definition of 'evidence' does not match with mine. Again let's not define UFO's as just unexplained sightings by people, if we do then I agree that there may be several of them.
But saying that such sightings amount to evidence of extraterrestial intelligence manufactured devices is completely unjustified.
Joined: April 06 2012
Location: Faro, Portugal
Status: Offline
Points: 124
Posted: April 22 2013 at 15:50
Gerinski wrote:
ArturdeLara wrote:
What about peer-reviewed scientific journals? Btw, telekinesis is very probably a real phenomenon.
Peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals confirming in a scientific way (that is, with reproduceability confirmed by peers) the existence of UFO's understood as machines built by extraterrestial civilisations and visiting us? Let me know which ones please, I'm highly interested.
Would you please also explain the probability of telekinesis being a real phenomenon?
Thanks,
The Journal of Scientific Exploration publishes UFO-related peer-reviewed articles regularly. And I never said that these articles and studies proved that an extraterrestrial civilization was visiting us.
Research on telekinesis has showed that the conscious mind can directly affect elements of the physical world, such as random number generators, magnetometers and even human health. Here are some articles on the subject:
D. Radin, R. Nelson, "Evidence for consciousness-related anomalies in random physical systems", Foundations of Physics, 19(12), 1989, 1499-514.
H Schmidt, "Mental influence on random events", New Scientist, 24 July 1971, 757-8.
R. G. Jahn et al., "Correlations of random binary systems with prestated operator intention: a review of a 12-year program", Journal of Scientific Exploration, 11, 1997, 345-67.
R. Nelson, "When immovable objections meet irresistible evidence", Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10, 1987, 600-1.
D. Radin, D. C. Ferrari, "Effect of consciousness on the fall of dice: a meta-analysis", Journal of Scientific Exploration, 5, 1991, 61-84.
D. Radin, R. Nelson, "Meta-analysis of mind-matter interaction experiments, 1959-2000".
W. Braud, "Wellness implications of retroactive intentional influence: exploring an outrageous hypothesis", Alternative Therapies, 6(1), 2000, 37-48.
René Peoc'h, "Psychokinetic action of young chicks on the path of an illuminated source", Journal of Scientific Exploration, 9(2), 1995, 223.
B.J. Dunne, "Co-operator experiments with a REG device", PEAR Technical Note 91005, December 1991.
R.G. Jahn and B Dunne, "ArtREG: a random event experiment utilizing picture-preference feedback", Journal of Scientific Exploration, 14(3), 2000, 383-409.
R. Jahn, "A modular model of mind/matter manifestations", PEAR Technical Note 2001.01, May 2001.
W. Braud, M. Schlitz, "Psychokinetic influence on electrodermal activity", Journal of Parapsychology, 47, 1983, 95-119.
G. R. Schmeidler, "PK effects upon continuously recorded temperatures", Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research", 67(4), 1997.
C.B Nash, "Psychokinetic control of bacterial growth", Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 51, 1982, 160-97.
R.N. Miller, "Study of the effectiveness of remote mental healing", Medical Hypotheses, 8, 1982, 481-90.
R.C.Byrd, "Positive therapeutic effects on intercessory prayer in a coronary care unit population", Southern Medical Journal, 81(7), 1988, 826-9.
F. Sicher, E. Targ et al., "A randomized double-blind study of the effect of distant healing in a population with advanced AIDS: report of a small scale study", Western Journal of Medicine, 168(6), 1998, 356-63.
W. Harris, "A randomized, controlled trial of the effects of remote, intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients admitted to the coronary care unit", Archives of Internal Medicine, 159(19), 1999, 2273-8.
Not to mention many other studies in this and other areas of parapsychology, including ESP, precognition and remote viewing...
"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: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: April 22 2013 at 17:58
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.
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: April 22 2013 at 18:11
ArturdeLara wrote:
Please show me a video with parachute flares behaving like this.
I assume you mean besides the two you've just shown...
this following video is of a firework that is designed to have specific flight pattern and burn characteristics, this is not the same as the string of military flares (droped from an aircraft) that the Phoenix lights are possibly caused by, but does show that parachute flares don't behave quite as "normal" as you would expect.
If you had seen the display above without knowing it was a firework parachute flare what would you assume it to be?
The only counter-argument that Ufologists have put up is the lack of smoke, but as I have said before - the human eye is terrible at judging speed, size and distance of bright points of light, especially at night - no visible smoke could simply be too far away to see.
Again, why discredit and/or ignore the plausible and the feasible in favour of something of an unproven and implausible extraterrestrial explanation?
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 0.180 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.