Print Page | Close Window

The UFO Phenomenon

Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General discussions
Forum Description: Discuss any topic at all that is not music-related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=93124
Printed Date: January 06 2025 at 01:01
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: The UFO Phenomenon
Posted By: dr wu23
Subject: The UFO Phenomenon
Date Posted: April 21 2013 at 20:40
I've been interested in the UFO Phenomenon for over 30 years and while posting in the 'what have you read lately ' thread I noticed another member mentioned the ufo phenom so I  thought I would start a thread about the enigma.
The phenom covers several aspects including but not limited to the following: day and night sightings of ufos, close encounters with ufos as well as 'aliens', and the so-called abduction phenomenon. These have been classified as CE (close encounters) 1,2,3, and 4. There are also paranormal events often associated with the enigma which makes it even more interesting in some cases that are usually called 'high strangeness' cases.
Many books have been written over the last 50 years covering all of the various better known cases, events,  and theories which include the ETH-extraterrestrial hypothesis, the  EDH-extradimensional hypothesis, and the PSH-the psychosocial hypothesis. There are of course many books  on famous cases like the Roswell event, the Rendlesham-Bentwaters events,  the Walton abduction and the Hill abduction. There are also several good articles at Wiki and at various online web sites for those who want more background.
I suspect  that those who wish to get into this probably have a working knowledge of the subject already but if anyone wants me to point them to some books or web sites just give me a heads up.
 
I think the best place to start is for those who want to disucss this to say right up front what their position or belief is about the phenom. For me I'll say that the UFO phenom for me is a legitimate phenom that has been experienced worldwide for a very long time . I believe, as does Dr J Vallee who's ideas I tend to agree with, that the phenom has been with mankind for millenia in one form or another . Whatever is behind what we call the UFO enigma is not new and only a modern phenom but something that has been appearing to humans for thousands of years .
Some think it's space aliens/ET-the ETH, some think it's a paranormal/occult issue or interdimensional beings-the EDH, while others think it's merely a figment of human imagination, folklore, mythology, and psychological problems-the PSH.
 
What do you think?
 


-------------
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin



Replies:
Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: April 21 2013 at 20:48
My position is probably of the skeptic.  I absolutely believe there is life on other planets.  Far too many galaxies, stars and therefore, planets for us to be alone in the universe.  However, unless Einstein was completely wrong or things like warp drive are possible, the distances seem far too great for us to be experiencing visitations from other planets.  Further, I really doubt we have much to offer a species that does have such capabilities, so why would they bother coming here if they were advanced enough to travel interstellar distances?  Strictly for comedic value? 

Finally, ever notice that these aliens never actually visit leading scientists, world leaders or artists?  No, they always visit some hick out in a cornfield. 

That said, I won't rule it out 100%, and I do find UFO stories fascinating and will also admit that some of them do leave a lot to be explained.  And mere psychological or meteorological explanations don't really work. 


-------------
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?


Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: April 21 2013 at 21:22
I've always been interested but more of a sci fi hobby for fun, I don't actually believe in it.

As Doc said I'm quite sure there's some type of life in the universe (though who knows what level of advancement) but yeah...unless they found a way to break the speed of light rule I don't think they've been here.
UFOs are always something else, and always at night when we can't see quite right, ya know?

Was once rudely awoken by this white light filling my room and some crazy ass looking thing out the window!
After 2 seconds of adjusting it was a helicopter....circling around town and at that moment just had its search light pointed in my room. If ya were from a distance though it'd be freaky as hell because it was some hovering thing that moved strangely and took off quickly.

There was one time I saw a strange sight but I'm 100% sure it was a military aircraft (esp since its direction was heading towards the AFB) but at 4 am, when its dark and you're not fully conscious these things are scary!


Abduction stories fascinated me more when I was young but again, there's always very logical explanations.
Getting older sucks : (


Posted By: presdoug
Date Posted: April 21 2013 at 21:22
I experienced a daytime sighting of what looked like a spacecraft around 23 years ago. It had a conical top and a tire tube like bottom, and was gold in color. It moved horizontally and with no sound. It moved behind a cloud, and that was it. (i had to leave and go visit someone, so left it at that)
        Now, what i saw could have been a real craft from another world, or it could have been a practical joke concocted to fool me. I am inclined to think the latter.
        I feel it is possible that aliens have visited us in the past, or will in the future, but i don't know for certain, so i sit on the fence about this.
          Interesting that just last nite, i saw the Fire In The Sky movie.


Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: April 21 2013 at 21:24
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.



Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: April 21 2013 at 21:30
Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

My position is probably of the skeptic. I absolutely believe there is life on other planets. Far too many galaxies, stars and therefore, planets for us to be alone in the universe. However, unless Einstein was completely wrong or things like warp drive are possible, the distances seem far too great for us to be experiencing visitations from other planets. Further, I really doubt we have much to offer a species that does have such capabilities, so why would they bother coming here if they were advanced enough to travel interstellar distances? Strictly for comedic value?

Finally, ever notice that these aliens never actually visit leading scientists, world leaders or artists? No, they always visit some hick out in a cornfield. 

^ I pretty much agree with Herr Doktor. Thumbs Up

The distances that would need to be traversed are MUCH too vast, and if aliens are visiting here, their supposed behavior up to now has been nonsensical.

I am inclined to look for the answers in human psychology -- that, and good old lying/lust for fame. (Always try is ascertain if any money is being made by those with a story to sell.)

Only the ultra-religious get "possessed," only the religious folk of the middle ages saw angels in the sky. (Old testament prophets seeing talking burning bushes and hearing "god" talk to them would be quickly identified as schizophrenic today.)

These days, in a technological age, people "see" extraterrestrial machines and their pilots in the sky. People seem to see what they want and/or expect to see. (That's not to say that people don't sometimes see things that they cannot immediately explain)


-------------
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.


Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: April 21 2013 at 21:42
Originally posted by Peter Peter wrote:

People seem to see what they want and/or expect to see. (That's not to say that people don't sometimes see things that they cannot immediately explain)


That is pretty much 100% right.
There's a reason that certain people always get abducted, and the more intense people are into the UFO culture they see and experience more crazy things.

Also most abductions are fuzzy and dream like and "details" emerge later after being coaxed. Not that it isn't sincere what they think they recall. Also that some universal traits tend to be very similar to stories and movies...and how different regions of the world  have seen different types of aliens that happened to be based off the types of sci fi they had. etc etc etc

Basically, it's dark, we're tired, we have tons of sub conscious ideas floating around our heads, and the more you want to believe you will. As well as other possible ideas like the DMT theory.

I will say though, IF they have found a way to beat the speed of light limit, have shape shifting physical machines and all this crazy stuff....we gotta pray they are friendly!! LOL With technology like that, if they wanna kill us we have no slight hope of stopping em.



Posted By: TheGazzardian
Date Posted: April 21 2013 at 21:50
Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

My position is probably of the skeptic.  I absolutely believe there is life on other planets.  Far too many galaxies, stars and therefore, planets for us to be alone in the universe.  However, unless Einstein was completely wrong or things like warp drive are possible, the distances seem far too great for us to be experiencing visitations from other planets.  Further, I really doubt we have much to offer a species that does have such capabilities, so why would they bother coming here if they were advanced enough to travel interstellar distances?  Strictly for comedic value? 

Finally, ever notice that these aliens never actually visit leading scientists, world leaders or artists?  No, they always visit some hick out in a cornfield. 

That said, I won't rule it out 100%, and I do find UFO stories fascinating and will also admit that some of them do leave a lot to be explained.  And mere psychological or meteorological explanations don't really work. 

Apparently there is theoretical science that is making theoretical advancements. I'm not enough of a scientist to know how valid this is but I saw it the other day and thought it was neat:  http://io9.com/5963263/how-nasa-will-build-its-very-first-warp-drive" rel="nofollow - http://io9.com/5963263/how-nasa-will-build-its-very-first-warp-drive


Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: April 21 2013 at 21:55
 ^ when I watch the old ST series I'm more impressed at how accurate their theoretical physics and space science was-- generally much better than Star Wars.



Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: April 22 2013 at 00:43
Interesting subject.

The Rendlesham forest incident in the UK in 1980 is fascinating, and the testimony of the witnesses seems quite reliable and consistent.

Please watch! :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZSZKGh_9kM" rel="nofollow - Rendlesham forest

-------------
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 22 2013 at 05:21
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?


Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: April 22 2013 at 07:20
Originally posted by Dean 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.

-------------
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 22 2013 at 07:58
Originally posted by Blacksword Blacksword wrote:

Originally posted by Dean 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.


-------------
What?


Posted By: ArturdeLara
Date Posted: April 22 2013 at 08:11
Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

I've always been interested but more of a sci fi hobby for fun, I don't actually believe in it.

As Doc said I'm quite sure there's some type of life in the universe (though who knows what level of advancement) but yeah...unless they found a way to break the speed of light rule I don't think they've been here.
UFOs are always something else, and always at night when we can't see quite right, ya know?

Was once rudely awoken by this white light filling my room and some crazy ass looking thing out the window!
After 2 seconds of adjusting it was a helicopter....circling around town and at that moment just had its search light pointed in my room. If ya were from a distance though it'd be freaky as hell because it was some hovering thing that moved strangely and took off quickly.

There was one time I saw a strange sight but I'm 100% sure it was a military aircraft (esp since its direction was heading towards the AFB) but at 4 am, when its dark and you're not fully conscious these things are scary!


Abduction stories fascinated me more when I was young but again, there's always very logical explanations.
Getting older sucks : (

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.


-------------
"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


Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: April 22 2013 at 08:52
Utter bul*t, sorry. If aliens would have visited us (which is rather unlikely but I will not say impossible) they would want us either to know or not to know.
How funny that they visit us precisely in ways where just some rather unreliable people and in unconfirmable circumstances do experience the visit, but in no instance they allow uncontroversial experience by other people or instruments.
Why would they do that? Do they want us to know that they exist or not? are they just so incompetent that they don't want us to know but they fail at hiding? Are they here just to play a game of hide and seek and have a laugh at us?

p.s. I guess that 'unconfirmable' is not a proper English word, sorry but I can't come up with one right out of my head. 




Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 22 2013 at 09:03
Originally posted by ArturdeLara 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.


-------------
What?


Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: April 22 2013 at 09:58
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?


-------------
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 22 2013 at 10:35
Originally posted by dr wu23 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.


-------------
What?


Posted By: Vibrationbaby
Date Posted: April 22 2013 at 10:42
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.
 


-------------
                


Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: April 22 2013 at 11:12
Originally posted by dr wu23 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.


Posted By: Jim Garten
Date Posted: April 22 2013 at 11:29
Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

The existence of books on a subject proves nothing


You mean all that time I spent reading The Bible, The Q'ran & The Talmud was wasted?

-------------

Jon Lord 1941 - 2012


Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: April 22 2013 at 12:06
Originally posted by Jim Garten Jim Garten wrote:

Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

The existence of books on a subject proves nothing


You mean all that time I spent reading The Bible, The Q'ran & The Talmud was wasted?
 
To say nothing of Action Comics #1 and The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe.  Cry


-------------
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?


Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: April 22 2013 at 12:25
It's useful to remember that we can't travel to Mars. And we belong to a species which have survived improbably long itself. 

-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "


Posted By: Vibrationbaby
Date Posted: April 22 2013 at 12:32
We could if our species hadn't made such a mess of itself. Technology is there.

-------------
                


Posted By: Dean
Date 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.
 


-------------
What?


Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: April 22 2013 at 13:54
Originally posted by Jim Garten Jim Garten wrote:

Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

The existence of books on a subject proves nothing


You mean all that time I spent reading The Bible, The Q'ran & The Talmud was wasted?

Oh not at all! Fiction books can be great, if we would despise fiction literature and cinema we would be living in a very boring world! 


Posted By: ArturdeLara
Date Posted: April 22 2013 at 14:01
Originally posted by Atavachron 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


Posted By: tszirmay
Date 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.


Posted By: ArturdeLara
Date Posted: April 22 2013 at 14:08
Originally posted by Dean 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 Wink).
 
 
Originally posted by Dean 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


Posted By: ArturdeLara
Date Posted: April 22 2013 at 14:13
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Blacksword Blacksword wrote:

Originally posted by Dean 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. 


-------------
"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


Posted By: ArturdeLara
Date Posted: April 22 2013 at 14:13
Originally posted by tszirmay 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 Thumbs Up


-------------
"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


Posted By: ArturdeLara
Date Posted: April 22 2013 at 14:18
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by ArturdeLara 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 Censored 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.



-------------
"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


Posted By: ArturdeLara
Date Posted: April 22 2013 at 14:23
Originally posted by Vibrationbaby 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.


-------------
"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


Posted By: ArturdeLara
Date Posted: April 22 2013 at 14:25
Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

Originally posted by dr wu23 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


Posted By: ArturdeLara
Date Posted: April 22 2013 at 14:41
For everyone claming there is no evidence for "real" ufos, watch this, it's a little long but it's worth it:






-------------
"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


Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: April 22 2013 at 14:42
Originally posted by ArturdeLara 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,


Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: April 22 2013 at 15:05
Originally posted by ArturdeLara 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.


Posted By: ArturdeLara
Date Posted: April 22 2013 at 15:50
Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

Originally posted by ArturdeLara 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


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 22 2013 at 17:58
Originally posted by ArturdeLara 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.


-------------
What?


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 22 2013 at 18:11
Originally posted by ArturdeLara 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?
 
 
 


-------------
What?


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 22 2013 at 18:40
Originally posted by ArturdeLara ArturdeLara wrote:

Originally posted by Dean 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.
I am assuming nothing of the sort, I'm certainly not assuming they come from other planets. If I am assuming anything, it is that they have a more rational and down-to-earth explanation.
 
However, the "other planet" idea would be the explanation that most "believers" would go for. 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?
 
 
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?
 
Originally posted by ArturdeLara ArturdeLara wrote:

 Furthermore our presence in this planet would be easily detectable for a sufficiently advanced civilization (without mentioning the direct panspermia hypothesis Wink).
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.
 
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.
 
Originally posted by ArturdeLara ArturdeLara wrote:

 
Originally posted by Dean 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.
More than some, less than others it would appear. Geek

-------------
What?


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 22 2013 at 19:46
Originally posted by ArturdeLara ArturdeLara wrote:

Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

Originally posted by ArturdeLara 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.

The Journal of Scientific Exploration does not constitute a peer-reviewed scientific journal, its contents are not listed on the Web Of Science index of scientific journals and because it delves into fringe topics it is viewed by academics as being a journal of pseudoscience.


-------------
What?


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 23 2013 at 05:44
Originally posted by tszirmay tszirmay wrote:

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.

This major distinction is one that science arrived at sometime ago and such ideas should be kept in two distinctly separate folders and regarded as two separate disciplines.

Originally posted by tszirmay tszirmay wrote:

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.

Wow. Quite a lot going on here and none of it proof of external influence on human history beyond poor supposition and unsubstantiated guessing.
 
First off the intelligence of the human race (and by that I'll confine it to the species of ape known as homo sapiens sapiens) has not changed throughout history - the brain that put a man on the Moon and created digital watches and the internet is the same brain that formulated the theory of gravity, painted the Mona Lisa, created the Roman Empire, built the Pyramids, invented iron smelting, discovered fire and created all the language, art, literature, technology and history since that naked ape first walked off the African savanna to migrate around the world (or from wherever they came form - Africa is the best candidate at the present).
 
taking your examples one by one:
 
Admiral Piri Reis’ map - not unexplained and not developed in isolation from other previous/contemporary maps and cartographers There are no valid reason to assume help from ET
 
Distances between planets measured by Mayans ... I'm not aware that they had measured the distances between planets and can find no evidence of this that isn't based upon applying modern methodology and understanding to Mayan data. The Mayans believed in a geo-centric model and therefore could not have calculated the distance between planets because their model was as wrong as the Greek one of Ptolemy. What they measured was the periodicity of Venus and Mercury (ie their orbits) and that does not require any specialist knowledge, technology or insight, not the distance between them... [which if you think about it constantly varies as their orbits around the Sun are different, you cannot even produce a mean distance between them]
 
Linguistic coincidences (?) [...] (Aztec and Basque), ... are not surprising given a common ancestry of all the races on earth. Homo sapeins sapeins has always been capable of language and it is disingenuous to presume that "caveman" communicated in grunts and crude gestures, we cannot know what that early language was like, but it is not too fanciful to assume that a lot of the vocabulary was common and migrated with them, especially those words that were originally onomatopoeic in origin (even if that onomatopoeic root has long-since been lost).
 
Massive monuments that have similar characteristics thousands of miles apart... are not surprising if those monuments were modelling natural landscape features such as mountains, and/or whose construction methods predefined the logical shape they would adopt. For example a pyramid or neolithic burial mound could be man's attempt to manufacture a mountain - the shapes of mountains is predetermined by how nature, erosion and gravity affects their formation (no one questions why a mountain in China can look like a mountain in Sweden and a mountain in Chile - we don't assume that those mountains had a common architect). When man echos that structure in man-made earthworks or masonry they will be governed by the same affects of gravity - there are examples of failed pyramids whose proportions and slope angles were simply wrong - they fell down. Another more mundane example is the pitch of rooves found around the world, here the pitch angle is governed by what will fall on it (be that mainly snow or rain) and the annual quantity of that (a lot, a little, none), so it is not surprising that roof pitches will be similar between regions of similar climate to the extent that regions of little rainfall have flat rooves.
 
the Nazca lines... not that old (1500 years) and proven several times to have been man-made requiring no specialist skills, as are all other geoglyphs found around the world.
[I'll stop there as we need not get embroild in a long discourse on teh bible or any other religious text]
 
Originally posted by tszirmay tszirmay wrote:

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.
Confused The British government purchased a commercially available Enigma machine in 1927, the Polish Cypher Bureau made several breakthroughs in decoding the German military version of the Enigma machine in 1932, this information they shared freely with the British and French governments just prior to the outbreak of war, including the duplicate machines they had created. Again human ingenuity does not require external influence.
 
The same is true of the London Blitz, how, when and why this occurred is all a matter of public record - the "trigger" bomb did not fall on Buck House. The Luftwaffe had problems locating targets at night - counter-espionage fed-back false information to German Intelligence network regarding the actual locations of bombing strikes - with the aim was to keep German bombers away from airfields, docks and factories. Don't underestimate how ruthless Churchill could be, remember it was Göring who said that "if one enemy bomb should fall on Berlin...", and Hitler who said "When the British air force drops two or three or four thousand kilograms of bombs, then we will in one night drop 150, 230, 300 or 400 thousand kilograms - we will raze their cities to the ground". None of this requires external influence or manipulation.

Originally posted by tszirmay tszirmay wrote:

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.

The flying saucer phenomenon started long before that (H G Wells, Orson Wells, Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon).
 
The technology used in the Horten Ho 229 was pre-existing before the outbreak of war, this aircraft was not the direct predecessor to the F-117 or the B-2 (or the SR71 come to that) - Frank Whittle patented the jet engine in 1930, experiments into flying wing technology began in 1910 in Germany, then in the 1930s in the USA and UK. Again with the development of the Avrocar - the lineage of this is well documented and employs pre-existing technology - none of this requires help from ET or is evidence of alien influence in human development.

Originally posted by tszirmay tszirmay wrote:

These are not coincidences!

No, they are not, but not in the way you are implying. Every human event is preceded by a history of related human events, each new discovery is built upon earlier discoveries - even an egotist like Issac Newton acknowledged this. This is not indicative of a conspiracy, covert or otherwise, it's just how stuff works.
Originally posted by tszirmay tszirmay wrote:

The entire UFO phenomenon has 3% of reality (like the craft intercepted by Belgians fighters)

Not reality - the Belgian "triangle" is far from being a reality - there is a severe lack of coherence in the eyewitness accounts, confessed hoaxed photographic evidence, the fighter plane observations are consistent with equipment failure and the alleged subsequent scientific investigation is about as unscientific as it gets.
 
If there was a figure (pulled out of the top of someone's head) like 3% of reality then that would be 100% incontrovertible proof, and that is simply not the case - there is no incontrovertible proof and that 3% is in reality 0%.
 
Once again unidentified does not mean unexplained (or unexplainable).
Originally posted by tszirmay tszirmay wrote:

[...]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.
This is pure conjecture and wild guessing, neither of which can be called "ongoing realities" by any definition of the phrase.
Originally posted by tszirmay tszirmay wrote:

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 ………

...or not, it could just be wishful thinking.Wink


-------------
What?


Posted By: ArturdeLara
Date Posted: April 23 2013 at 07:26
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by ArturdeLara 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.


-------------
"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


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 23 2013 at 07:31
Originally posted by ArturdeLara ArturdeLara wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by ArturdeLara 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.


-------------
What?


Posted By: ArturdeLara
Date Posted: April 23 2013 at 07:44
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by ArturdeLara 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?
 
 
 

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?


-------------
"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


Posted By: ArturdeLara
Date Posted: April 23 2013 at 07:53
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by ArturdeLara ArturdeLara wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by ArturdeLara 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?


-------------
"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


Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: April 23 2013 at 08:01
Originally posted by ArturdeLara ArturdeLara wrote:


Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:


Originally posted by ArturdeLara ArturdeLara wrote:


Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by ArturdeLara 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....



-------------
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!


Posted By: ArturdeLara
Date Posted: April 23 2013 at 08:08
Originally posted by Blacksword Blacksword wrote:

Originally posted by ArturdeLara ArturdeLara wrote:


Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:


Originally posted by ArturdeLara ArturdeLara wrote:


Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by ArturdeLara 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 Ermm


-------------
"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


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 23 2013 at 08:09
Originally posted by ArturdeLara 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.


-------------
What?


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 23 2013 at 08:09
Originally posted by Blacksword Blacksword wrote:

Originally posted by ArturdeLara 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.


-------------
What?


Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: April 23 2013 at 08:14
Originally posted by ArturdeLara 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 Confused

Oh wait, maybe they are blind so they can't tell the difference between our night darkness and their lights Tongue



Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 23 2013 at 08:17
Originally posted by ArturdeLara ArturdeLara wrote:

There's always the hoax possibility, but the same can be said about everything Ermm
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.


-------------
What?


Posted By: ArturdeLara
Date Posted: April 23 2013 at 08:41
Originally posted by Dean 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 Stern Smile
 
 
Originally posted by Dean 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... 


Originally posted by Dean 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:

  1. Satellite and radio signals sent to space (for a sufficiently close civilization).
  2. 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).
  3. The fact that our planet has all the proper conditions for life could draw an alien civilization's attention.
  4. 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 LOL).
Originally posted by Dean 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.

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

More than some, less than others it would appear. Geek

Are you calling me a geek? I'll take that as a compliment Big smileHug


-------------
"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


Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: April 23 2013 at 09:11
Originally posted by ArturdeLara ArturdeLara wrote:

 

Some possible ways for an alien civilization to detect us:

  1. Satellite and radio signals sent to space (for a sufficiently close civilization).
  2. 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).
  3. The fact that our planet has all the proper conditions for life could draw an alien civilization's attention.
  4. 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 LOL).

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.

4.  LOL.


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 23 2013 at 09:29
Originally posted by ArturdeLara ArturdeLara wrote:

Originally posted by Dean 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 Stern Smile
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.
 
Originally posted by ArturdeLara ArturdeLara wrote:

 
Originally posted by Dean 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... 


Originally posted by Dean 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:

  1. Satellite and radio signals sent to space (for a sufficiently close civilization).
  2. 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).
  3. The fact that our planet has all the proper conditions for life could draw an alien civilization's attention.
  4. 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 LOL).

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.

Originally posted by ArturdeLara ArturdeLara wrote:

 
Originally posted by Dean 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.

Originally posted by ArturdeLara ArturdeLara wrote:

 
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

More than some, less than others it would appear. Geek

Are you calling me a geek? I'll take that as a compliment Big smileHug
Nope. Geek would be the last word on my list. Tongue


-------------
What?


Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: April 23 2013 at 10:27
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by dr wu23 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


Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: April 23 2013 at 10:29
Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

Originally posted by dr wu23 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


Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: April 23 2013 at 10:30
Originally posted by Jim Garten Jim Garten wrote:

Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

The existence of books on a subject proves nothing


You mean all that time I spent reading The Bible, The Q'ran & The Talmud was wasted?
 
Dean would certainly say so....
 
Wink


-------------
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 23 2013 at 10:39
Originally posted by dr wu23 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?
Originally posted by dr wu23 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.
Originally posted by dr wu23 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.


-------------
What?


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 23 2013 at 10:46
Originally posted by dr wu23 dr wu23 wrote:

Originally posted by Jim Garten Jim Garten wrote:

Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

The existence of books on a subject proves nothing


You mean all that time I spent reading The Bible, The Q'ran & The Talmud was wasted?
 
Dean would certainly say so....
 
Wink
Why? Reading fiction is always a pleasure and never a waste. Tongue


-------------
What?


Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: April 23 2013 at 10:53
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by dr wu23 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?
Originally posted by dr wu23 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.
Originally posted by dr wu23 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


Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: April 23 2013 at 10:54
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by dr wu23 dr wu23 wrote:

Originally posted by Jim Garten Jim Garten wrote:

Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

The existence of books on a subject proves nothing


You mean all that time I spent reading The Bible, The Q'ran & The Talmud was wasted?
 
Dean would certainly say so....
 
Wink
Why? Reading fiction is always a pleasure and never a waste. Tongue
 
You....read fiction...?  Never.....simply doesn't fit your profile.
 
Wink


-------------
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 23 2013 at 11:07
Originally posted by dr wu23 dr wu23 wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by dr wu23 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?
Originally posted by dr wu23 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.
Originally posted by dr wu23 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.
Originally posted by dr wu23 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.
Originally posted by dr wu23 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.


-------------
What?


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 23 2013 at 11:09
Originally posted by dr wu23 dr wu23 wrote:

 
You....read fiction...?  Never.....simply doesn't fit your profile.
 
Wink
Shows how little you know fo me then Tongue


-------------
What?


Posted By: Jim Garten
Date Posted: April 23 2013 at 11:24
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by ArturdeLara ArturdeLara wrote:

Furthermore our presence in this planet would be easily detectable for a sufficiently advanced civilization (without mentioning the direct panspermia hypothesis Wink).
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"

-------------

Jon Lord 1941 - 2012


Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: April 23 2013 at 12:16
God bless you Dean.

-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "


Posted By: ArturdeLara
Date Posted: April 23 2013 at 13:31
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

God bless you Dean.

Oh the irony LOL


-------------
"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


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 23 2013 at 14:44

Originally posted by ArturdeLara ArturdeLara wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

God bless you Dean.

Oh the irony LOL
It appears you know Pat as well as you know me LOL



(Thanks Pat... Right back at ya)


-------------
What?


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 23 2013 at 16:57
You would think that given all the sources of radio transmission we have (radio, TV, radar, cell-phones, wifi, bluetooth, garage door openers, microwave ovens, remote control, remote monitoring, emergency bands, GPS, ship to shore, air traffic control, walkie-talkies, cb-radio, ham radio, military comms, etc) that our technology fingerprint would be huge and would be broadcasting our presence into space like a huge flashing beacon announcing "HERE WE ARE" with such emphatic disregard for the peace and quiet of our interstellar neighbours it is little wonder we've not had a visit from the intergalactic police requesting us (very politely of course) to turn the bloody noise down.
 
The problems of detecting our technological finger-print from the vast distances of space is more than just a problem of distance. As has already been commented, the electromagnetic radiation we produce are very weak. Just how weak these are cannot be overstated - we know that we are producing a lot of EM radiation here on Earth, we just have to buy a radio receiver to detect it. When you consider that each of the 44,000 FM radio station in the world broadcasts with a typical power of 100kW (giving a total of 4.4 billion watts), each of the 6 billion cell phones that exist in the world are transmitting with a typical power of ½W each (giving a total of 3 billion watts) then the gross amount of EM radiation we are producing when you factor in the really powerful stuff like communication satellite up-links and general satellite broadcasts such as TV and GPS and the cell-phone networks, it easily runs to numbers that can be measured in terawatts. Surely this is easy to detect from space?
 
The problem for the extraterrestrial listener is that much of this EM radiation does not leave the local confines of the Earth. How much is determined by the kinds of antenna used by the various transmitters we have and how powerful those transmitters are.
 
An ideal point-source transmitter radiates radio waves equally in all directions (x, y and z) and are called "isotropic" and are barely more than theoretical - the closest we have to the theoretical isotropic radiator are the spark-gap transmitters of the 19th century experiments into radio broadcasting - and they are an extremely inefficient use of power when what you are trying to do is communicate between two points on the surface of the Earth, plus any signals transmitted up into the sky (the z-axis) are a waste of power. These transmitters are not only inefficient, they are also very low powered, permitting communication of a few hundred metres at best. Even though these antenna are isotropic and therefore radiate upwards, the radio waves produced would not be powerful enough to be detected from beyond our atmosphere.
 
The next kind of antenna is a dipole, this aerial only transmits in the x and y axis in a doughnut shape giving a more efficient use of transmitter power - most radio uses this method (broadcast AM & FM radio, non-satellite TV, cell-phones, home wifi hubs, bluetooth devices, military and aircraft comms etc) - we call these "omnidirectional" but in reality they only transmit horizontally (x and y) and not into space.
 
The third kind of antenna has reflectors and directors to focus the beam of radio waves into a cone shape (often cardioid due to the inefficiencies of the reflectors), these are sometimes called "beam" or "directional" and only transmit in the x-axis. Variants on these are parabolic dishes and the like that we use in radar and to communicate with satellites. When it comes to satellite communications the only source we need consider is up-link, since any down-link (TV and GPS) is obviously pointing to the Earth and not out into space.
 
Next thing to consider is transmitter power itself - a ½W cell-phone is not going to reach more than 30km at best (and those of us who live in rural areas find even that to be optimistic), most FM radio stations have a range of less than 100 miles - and since the antenna used in both those transmitters does not radiate upwards we can discount them as a source for our alien to detect, along with wi-fi, bluetooth, microwave ovens, aircraft comms, emergency band and many other low power terrestrial point-to-point radio communication routes.
 
Since radio waves travel in straight lines one would assume that the Earth-based omnidirectional and directional antenna would beam their signals towards the horizon and keep going through the atmosphere and out into space allowing our distant alien to eventually detect them. Unfortunately it's not as simple as that.
 
One of the layers of the atmosphere of interest to radio specialists is the Heaviside layer, this is a layer of ionised gases some 90-150 km above the surface of the Earth - lower to medium frequency radio waves have a tendency to bounce off this layer back down to Earth, this is why we can receive radio transmissions from beyond the horizon, and it is also why little of these transmissions will leave the Earth and radiate into space.
 
Another problem with radio waves is they are easily attenuated by anything that gets in their way - we all know that anything conductive can shield radio waves, this goes for anything with a high water content such as clouds, and we know that for higher frequencies any solid object can block the wave (X-Rays) and others objects can bounce or reflect them (radar).
 
Atmospheric events can also disrupt radio transmission, solar flares, aurora, electrical storms, rain... all affecting how any stray signals can leak out into space. Another barrier has to contend with for any signals that manage to escape the Earth's atmosphere is the Van Allen radiation belt, which can also attenuate or generally affect the signals, and as I said in a previous post, we really don't know what effect the Oort cloud will have on these EM waves.
 
Therefore while we are indeed creating terawatts of EM radiation here on Earth, not very much of that gets out into space and what little that does has to contend with the inverse-square law when traversing the large distances between stars. As Pat and I have said, our radio signals are very weak and space is very big.
 
So, what if our alien civilisation is very advanced had has some really sensitive receivers? In the old days of terrestrial broadcast television I could easily demonstrate the next problem the alien has to negotiate, and that is static. De-tune an analogue TV set and you can see and hear the static being received - a lot of that static is thermal noise and about one-third of it is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation of the big-bang, once the signal you are looking for disappears below that it is lost. As we know from Earth-based radio and TV reception, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise_%28radio%29" rel="nofollow - only way to improve reception (and therefore range) is to increase transmitter power , not receiver sensitivity.


-------------
What?


Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: April 23 2013 at 17:02
^WHOA! That's a whole lotta words.  Ermm

-------------
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 23 2013 at 17:54
Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

^WHOA! That's a whole lotta words.  Ermm
It gets worse.
 
I've just calculated¹ the transmitter power needed to send a signal to our nearest stellar neighbour (Proxima Centauri ) 4.2 light-years away that will arrive there with the same energy density as the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation... and it's 240 zettawatts (240,000,000,000,000,000,000KW). Shocked
 
 
...and our Sun is only 1,680 times more powerful than that.
 
So based upon that we are essentially invisible to any alien civilisation no matter where they are.
 
 
 
¹ I have to admit the number surprises even me, I may have made a silly error, so anyone who can confirm or deny my calculations is welcome to have a go.


-------------
What?


Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: April 23 2013 at 18:41
That number seems high.  Please show your work.  Wink


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 23 2013 at 18:48
P = I(ave)*4*PI()*r^2 ... where r is 4.2 lightyears in metres and I(ave) is the CMBR average power intensity

-------------
What?


Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: April 23 2013 at 18:50
What is I(ave)?  Treating it as a noise and assuming a temperature of 2.725 K, I get around -224 dBW/Hz.


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 23 2013 at 18:57
I(ave) is the average energy density (40 femtoJ/m³) times the speed of light
 
 
 
 
/edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensity_%28physics%29" rel="nofollow - Intensity(Physics)


-------------
What?


Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: April 23 2013 at 19:07
Don't know enough about CMBR so I need to google for a bit.

If I just use thermal noise at ~ 300K I get something on the order of 50 TW, still an insane amount of power.

Don't forget that antenna gains can mitigate some of this requirement.


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 23 2013 at 19:17
...for it to produce pocket-size tranmitter powers I(ave) would have to be really really small given that r^2 is really really big.
 
4.2 light years = 39.73E+15 metres, so r^2 would be 1.6E+33 ... and that's a mahoosive number.


-------------
What?


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 23 2013 at 19:44
Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

Don't know enough about CMBR so I need to google for a bit.

If I just use thermal noise at ~ 300K I get something on the order of 50 TW, still an insane amount of power.

Don't forget that antenna gains can mitigate some of this requirement.
Sure - I'm assuming that the Earth would be an isotropic radiator so a decent radio telescope antenna pointed directly at Centauri would give a 50dB improvement just for starters.

-------------
What?


Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: April 23 2013 at 20:26
Even if we could do it, it would be too annoying for me to have to wait 8.4 years for a response after saying "Hi".  Wink


Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: April 23 2013 at 22:17
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

P = I(ave)*4*PI()*r^2 ... where r is 4.2 lightyears in metres and I(ave) is the CMBR average power intensity


Perhaps it would be easier if you just read us "Horton hears a Who", Dean. Same message, but simpler for the mathematically disinclined.  LOL


-------------
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...


Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: April 23 2013 at 22:19
Sorry.  Normally this is the sort of thing Dean and I could work out at the pub, but there's a big pesky ocean in the way.


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 24 2013 at 01:32
Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

Sorry.  Normally this is the sort of thing Dean and I could work out at the pub, but there's a big pesky ocean in the way.
To the inevitable dismay of our respective partners and anyone else drinking with us, this would be true.
 
We'd propbably work out how long the journey would take at Warp 8 and when Voyager 1 will get there for good measure.
 
Anyway, just done a quick dimensional analysis check on the formula I used and the value I calculated has units of J/s, which is power. Can't see an error in the magnitudes of the numbers either so I'm sticking to 240 zettawatts, a high-gain antenna would reduce that to 2.4etawatts if the power didn't vapourise it at switch-on.


-------------
What?


Posted By: Jim Garten
Date Posted: April 24 2013 at 02:25
Originally posted by Dean <strong><u>Today at 06:32</strong></u> Dean Today at 06:32 wrote:

Anyway, just done a quick dimensional analysis check


Dean - for gods' sake - at that time of the morning, I was trying to work out which way was up! Do you have some kind of external brain-drive to store extra capacity?

I think by comparison, mine is akin to my first PC - a 286 with a 20mb hard drive

-------------

Jon Lord 1941 - 2012


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 24 2013 at 02:34
^ Jim forgot to put the clocks forward LOL
 
Welcome to BST Jim.


-------------
What?


Posted By: Jim Garten
Date Posted: April 24 2013 at 02:43
Git!

[edit]

Anyway - even at 07:32, I'd (probably) worked out which way was up & was then working on the multitasking conundrum that is first coffee & cigarette of the day!

That's as far as I get of a morning.



have I called you a git, yet?

-------------

Jon Lord 1941 - 2012


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 24 2013 at 03:05
Originally posted by Jim Garten Jim Garten wrote:


have I called you a git, yet?
More than once. LOL


-------------
What?


Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: April 24 2013 at 07:55
Originally posted by Jim Garten Jim Garten wrote:

Git!

[edit]

Anyway - even at 07:32, I'd (probably) worked out which way was up & was then working on the multitasking conundrum that is first coffee & cigarette of the day!

That's as far as I get of a morning.



This + I'm still trying to convince myself that it wouldn't just be better for all concerned if I called it a day and went back to bed. 


-------------
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?


Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: April 24 2013 at 09:36
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

Sorry.  Normally this is the sort of thing Dean and I could work out at the pub, but there's a big pesky ocean in the way.
To the inevitable dismay of our respective partners and anyone else drinking with us, this would be true.
 
We'd propbably work out how long the journey would take at Warp 8 and when Voyager 1 will get there for good measure.
 
Anyway, just done a quick dimensional analysis check on the formula I used and the value I calculated has units of J/s, which is power. Can't see an error in the magnitudes of the numbers either so I'm sticking to 240 zettawatts, a high-gain antenna would reduce that to 2.4etawatts if the power didn't vapourise it at switch-on.

Units are indeed correct, but the magnitude implies that if I have a 1 m2 antenna I would be receiving a power of -19.2 dBm from the CMBR, which can't be true.


Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: April 24 2013 at 09:38
My brain just melted. 

-------------
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?


Posted By: Jim Garten
Date Posted: April 24 2013 at 09:49
Don't worry about it Chester

Quote I have a 1 m2 antenna I would be receiving a power of -19.2 dBm from the CMBR


They're just putting together random collections of numbers & letters now.

Personally I thought it was self evident that a +/- ratio of Pi to the power of x/y (where y is a constant N factor, of course) would result if an amplitude gain sufficient to reach Proxima Centuri.

See?

-------------

Jon Lord 1941 - 2012


Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: April 24 2013 at 09:56
^LOL I should've known.  -19.2 dBm. CMBR.  Pah! It doesn't even sound like real stuff, now that my morning fog is starting to lift finally.

-------------
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?


Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: April 24 2013 at 10:01
VOGON CAPTAIN:
There's no point in acting all surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display at your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for fifty of your Earth years so you've had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaints and its far too late to start making a fuss about it now. 

MANKIND:
[Louder yells of protest] 

VOGON CAPTAIN:
What do you mean you've never been to Alpha Centauri? Oh for heaven sake mankind it's only four light years away you know! I'm sorry but if you can't be bothered to take an interest in local affairs that's your own regard. Energise the demolition beams! God I don't know…apathetic bloody planet, I've no sympathy at all… 

Tongue


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 24 2013 at 10:07
Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:


Units are indeed correct, but the magnitude implies that if I have a 1 m2 antenna I would be receiving a power of -19.2 dBm from the CMBR, which can't be true.
 
Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

That number seems high. Please show your work. Wink
 


-------------
What?


Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: April 24 2013 at 10:09
10*log10(40e-15 * 3e8) + 30


Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: April 24 2013 at 10:11
Here, try plugging some numbers into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friis_transmission_equation" rel="nofollow - this and see if your zettawatt number makes sense.


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 24 2013 at 10:39
Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

Here, try plugging some numbers into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friis_transmission_equation" rel="nofollow - this and see if your zettawatt number makes sense.
 
 
Okay did that - arrived at -136dBW, which equates to 21.7fW
 
That would look like snow on my old Sony TV


-------------
What?


Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: April 24 2013 at 10:49
OK, so thermal noise at 300 K is -204 dBW/Hz.  I'll give you 1 kHz of bandwidth for transmission, so that gives us -174 dBW noise floor.  So you have an SNR of 40 dB, a pretty whopping signal.

I'm not saying you don't need a shedload of power - you most obviously do, we're probably quibbling over a few orders of magnitude of power levels that exceed that what the entire planet consumes.

Bottom line is we agree on the broader point that thanks to all this geekery I've now forgotten.


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 24 2013 at 11:16
Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

OK, so thermal noise at 300 K is -204 dBW/Hz.  I'll give you 1 kHz of bandwidth for transmission, so that gives us -174 dBW noise floor.  So you have an SNR of 40 dB, a pretty whopping signal.
Well, no - the SNR is zero - I suspect we're now at cross-purposes.
Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

I'm not saying you don't need a shedload of power - you most obviously do, we're probably quibbling over a few orders of magnitude of power levels that exceed that what the entire planet consumes.
Aye, and consumption levels are several magnitudes higher than what leaks out into space.
Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

Bottom line is we agree on the broader point that thanks to all this geekery I've now forgotten.
Aye.
 
Originally posted by Dean 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.
... apparently not as quickly as I would have hoped. LOL


-------------
What?


Posted By: Jim Garten
Date Posted: April 24 2013 at 11:27
Which is as good a time as any for a break & a word from our sponsors



...and we're back

-------------

Jon Lord 1941 - 2012



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2014 Web Wiz Ltd. - http://www.webwiz.co.uk