UFO Thread

[skwdenyer]

tuscaneer said:

Very long winded and thorough...but that still doesn't explain what I highlighted in bold .. why "must" they be different to human hip bones due to their size? A spider monkey, for example, is a tiny creature with ball and socket hip joints...

I'll not be drawn in any further as none of this matters one jot... When someone proves that these creatures are aliens , not " we have DNA, we don't know what it is but it's weird" then wake me up because until then this looks like a load of old bks yet again .... Just like every single bit of "evidence" that's been presented in this thread so far

I didn’t say they just be different to human hip bones; only that they *could* be different on account of having far lower loads to transmit.

I don’t think anyone needs to prove these creatures are aliens. How could they? But it may be provable that (a) they’re coherent wholes, as opposed to an assemblage of parts; and (b) that they’re not an unusual example of any other known creature.

We have to wait and see.

[dukeboy749r]

skwdenyer said:

tuscaneer said:

Very long winded and thorough...but that still doesn't explain what I highlighted in bold .. why "must" they be different to human hip bones due to their size? A spider monkey, for example, is a tiny creature with ball and socket hip joints...

I'll not be drawn in any further as none of this matters one jot... When someone proves that these creatures are aliens , not " we have DNA, we don't know what it is but it's weird" then wake me up because until then this looks like a load of old bks yet again .... Just like every single bit of "evidence" that's been presented in this thread so far

I didn’t say they just be different to human hip bones; only that they *could* be different on account of having far lower loads to transmit.

I don’t think anyone needs to prove these creatures are aliens. How could they? But it may be provable that (a) they’re coherent wholes, as opposed to an assemblage of parts; and (b) that they’re not an unusual example of any other known creature.

We have to wait and see.

Do you have any view on what they might be?

If not a particular creature, then from Earth?

I keep saying that whilst I believe there are other, non-Earthly life forms, they are not (sadly) on Earth.

For now, at least, the distances involved are too great for us and whilst that may not be true for an ‘alien’ civilisation, I don’t think they would visit as two foot high tiny monkey like creatures on the QT.

[skwdenyer]

dukeboy749r said:

skwdenyer said:

tuscaneer said:

Very long winded and thorough...but that still doesn't explain what I highlighted in bold .. why "must" they be different to human hip bones due to their size? A spider monkey, for example, is a tiny creature with ball and socket hip joints...

I'll not be drawn in any further as none of this matters one jot... When someone proves that these creatures are aliens , not " we have DNA, we don't know what it is but it's weird" then wake me up because until then this looks like a load of old bks yet again .... Just like every single bit of "evidence" that's been presented in this thread so far

I didn’t say they just be different to human hip bones; only that they *could* be different on account of having far lower loads to transmit.

I don’t think anyone needs to prove these creatures are aliens. How could they? But it may be provable that (a) they’re coherent wholes, as opposed to an assemblage of parts; and (b) that they’re not an unusual example of any other known creature.

We have to wait and see.

Do you have any view on what they might be?

If not a particular creature, then from Earth?

I keep saying that whilst I believe there are other, non-Earthly life forms, they are not (sadly) on Earth.

For now, at least, the distances involved are too great for us and whilst that may not be true for an ‘alien’ civilisation, I don’t think they would visit as two foot high tiny monkey like creatures on the QT.

We think in terms of our own evolution and technological development. We might imagine breakthroughs in scientific understanding, but that they are perhaps centuries or millennia into the future. And then - in our typically human way - we sort of assume the rest of the universe must be similar. The point at which "intelligent life" developed on Earth is something of a random event. The period during which we've been aware of even a portion of the physics required for - say - FTL travel is perhaps a little over a century - 100 years out of 4.543 billion! If (and it is a big if) FTL travel is possible, why should it not have been cracked in other places a billion years in the past, or not for a billion years into the future? Maybe we've missed all the local civilisations, which ave died out? Maybe they haven't evolved past bacteria yet.

So the first problem is that the chances of us missing a large number of other developed species in the universe is pretty high. Star Trek presented a sort of colonial idea of the universe, with species developing over broadly similar timelines (give or take a few centuries), as if the evolutionary race started at the same point on every world and 4.5 billion years was the magic number. Utter rubbish!

Given that, and given the broadly infinite number of worlds in the universe, the chances that there is not (or has not been, or will not be - the temporal element makes the language a touch clunky in English, although not all historical languages distinguish between past, present and future) another intelligent species seems very low. Given the enormous time periods in question, the chances that humans and those other species will overlap also seems very low.

So if there have been "visitors" then I'd expect them to be most likely in our past (or maybe our future). And, with so many worlds to visit, the chances of them coming back anytime soon if they encountered Earth in a pre-technology context also seem pretty low.

Some years ago, when the burying of nuclear waste was being considered, the question was posed: if we need to ensure that future civilisations, perhaps in thousands of years, don't dig the hazardous waste up, how should we achieve that? Signage fades. Languages and civilisations fade. It is perfectly possible that, in 2000 years' time, anything we write now will either be unreadable or indecipherable. The conclusion reached was that myths and legends were the most effective way of keeping a story alive across thousands of years. Even if the original cultural context has been lost, the hope would be that curious minds would wonder *why* one shouldn't explore a particular area, for instance. As Aaron Sorkin said, the most effective delivery mechanism for an idea ever invented is the story.

It is sometimes instructive to consider the myths and legends of the last few thousand years against in that context. What if they're not all just tales invented to scare children or make sense of an uncertain world? When one looks around, there are some striking - maybe even startling - similarities between the myths and legends of civilisations that we simply don't believe would have had contact with each other. Gods, angels, mythical creatures, bright lights, extraordinary capabilities. Many of the depictions are remarkably similar.




The same is true of art. Take this illuminated manuscript, Livre des Bonnes Meurs,, from 1430:



Is that a hot air balloon in 1430? On its own, that would be a startling re-telling of technological history. But maybe something else entirely?

Or maybe this Aboriginal rock art, in an area occupied by humans for at least 50,000 years (and some estimates put it as far back as 174,000 BCE):



and:



(one of many showing this style of being). Ah, people say, didn't the Aboriginals paint "representative" pieces rather than accurate depictions? Well, they had a long history of making "contact art" - here's an example related to the arrival of Westerners:



Those boats seem pretty accurate. So why should the first image be dismissed?

In Japan, why around 3000 years ago, during the late Jōmon period, were there vast numbers of "dogū" made? What were they symbolising?



Or, more relevantly, another common form of Dogū statues, here presented alongside one of the "mummies":



There are countless other examples. Many of us were brought up on tales of gods, angels, superhuman power, lights and apparitions, and so on. Many of those stories are strongly correlated with similar stories in other cultures - only the protagonists and victors have changed.

Why shouldn't we wonder whether pieces of strange art from ancient history aren't the sort of quaint, representational pieces that we've tended to believe, but instead were related to something else entirely? Why would that be any less credible, given everything we know?

There's a tendency for modern man (especially Westerners) to imagine that anything from the past is to be dismissed as archaic; that myths and legends have no historical basis, based solely on our inability to explain how they could be anything else; and - far worse still IMHO - there's the plague amongst "intelligent" folk of equating pessimistic skepticism with credibility - that dismissing that which doesn't fit our present world-view is a sign of intelligence, not closed-mindedness.

Remember that, when told of the new-fangled railway train that could travel above 30mph, the greatest scientific minds of the day declared that all souls aboard would surely perish because at such an extraordinary speed all the air would be sucked out of the carriages...

[dukeboy749r]

A very comprehensive response. Thank you.

[duckson]

Skeptisk said:

When the report from the US congress was released, throwing cold water on all the fevered speculation about hidden alien tech and the like, the believers on this thread were very quiet. They seem to be crawling out from the woodwork again with more regurgitated nonsense.

If you are pinning your banner to that very poorly compiled (to say it mildly) document then well, more fool you.
And it wasn't from Congress.

I'd personally say I'm 75% believer, 25% sceptic on this subject.
The objects seen by trained and vastly experienced commercial and military pilots sound by and large not of human tech, to say they are mistaken (in alot of cases) doesn't add up to me.
The sceptic side comes in for things like this mummy business for example, that seems like complete rubbish to me!

[RustyMX5]

duckson said:

If you are pinning your banner to that very poorly compiled (to say it mildly) document then well, more fool you.
And it wasn't from Congress.

I'd personally say I'm 75% believer, 25% sceptic on this subject.
The objects seen by trained and vastly experienced commercial and military pilots sound by and large not of human tech, to say they are mistaken (in alot of cases) doesn't add up to me.
The sceptic side comes in for things like this mummy business for example, that seems like complete rubbish to me!

I'm in the same boat but with the percentages swung the other way round. My view is that if these sightings are real, that implies that the cosmos is absolutely teeming with highly intelligent life with the ability to traverse incomprehensible distances.

In the grand scheme of things we are a fairly young species (in terms of planetary age) who have only begun to get a grasp of physics over the last 150 years. Our ability to journey beyond our atmosphere is something we only managed to do 63 years ago. Our current understand of physics is such that interstellar travel is a virtual impossibility.

I most certainly fall into the 'I want to believe' category but the cynic within me has serious doubts.

[Skeptisk]

duckson said:

Skeptisk said:

When the report from the US congress was released, throwing cold water on all the fevered speculation about hidden alien tech and the like, the believers on this thread were very quiet. They seem to be crawling out from the woodwork again with more regurgitated nonsense.

If you are pinning your banner to that very poorly compiled (to say it mildly) document then well, more fool you.
And it wasn't from Congress.

I'd personally say I'm 75% believer, 25% sceptic on this subject.
The objects seen by trained and vastly experienced commercial and military pilots sound by and large not of human tech, to say they are mistaken (in alot of cases) doesn't add up to me.
The sceptic side comes in for things like this mummy business for example, that seems like complete rubbish to me!

Having just checked it appears the report was prepared by the Pentagon for Congress (at the request of Congress).

Poorly compiled? Please do share any substantive criticisms you have of the report with independent evidence to support your contention and f where it is lacking.

[duckson]

For example;

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/beltway...

[skwdenyer]

Skeptisk said:

Having just checked it appears the report was prepared by the Pentagon for Congress (at the request of Congress).

Poorly compiled? Please do share any substantive criticisms you have of the report with independent evidence to support your contention and f where it is lacking.

It is mainly lacking because it appears to state that, in the absence of data to the contrary, it is assumed that most / all UAPs could be explained away if only better data were in fact available.

This is proof by assumption or, if you like, analytical bias. It doesn't say (in a scientific fashion) "there's insufficient data to take a view either way," but instead seems rooted in saying "there's no data, but don't worry, we're sure they're nothing to worry about." Which isn't really the same thing.

[juliussneezer]

skwdenyer said:

It is mainly lacking because it appears to state that, in the absence of data to the contrary, it is assumed that most / all UAPs could be explained away if only better data were in fact available.

There's nothing wrong with that assumption. For extraordinary claims you require extraordinary evidence (data).

Without that then occams razor prevails. Jumping off the deep end is for children.

[thegreenhell]

juliussneezer said:

skwdenyer said:

It is mainly lacking because it appears to state that, in the absence of data to the contrary, it is assumed that most / all UAPs could be explained away if only better data were in fact available.

There's nothing wrong with that assumption. For extraordinary claims you require extraordinary evidence (data).

Without that then occams razor prevails. Jumping off the deep end is for children.

No, you just need ordinary evidence.

A UAP/UFO sighting without sufficient data or evidence is the very definition of a UAP/UFO. It is literally unidentified. To claim that you can identify it as something ordinary without any data is just as absurd as claiming it's an alien craft without any data. It's not scientific method. If you don't have data to identify it then it's unidentified.

[skwdenyer]

juliussneezer said:

skwdenyer said:

It is mainly lacking because it appears to state that, in the absence of data to the contrary, it is assumed that most / all UAPs could be explained away if only better data were in fact available.

There's nothing wrong with that assumption. For extraordinary claims you require extraordinary evidence (data).

Without that then occams razor prevails. Jumping off the deep end is for children.

As a way for the (wo)man in the street to live their life, your view is fine and reasonable. As a piece of scientific analysis (which is what the thing we're talking about purports to be) it is rather lacking.

[Skeptisk]

thegreenhell said:

juliussneezer said:

skwdenyer said:

It is mainly lacking because it appears to state that, in the absence of data to the contrary, it is assumed that most / all UAPs could be explained away if only better data were in fact available.

There's nothing wrong with that assumption. For extraordinary claims you require extraordinary evidence (data).

Without that then occams razor prevails. Jumping off the deep end is for children.

No, you just need ordinary evidence.

A UAP/UFO sighting without sufficient data or evidence is the very definition of a UAP/UFO. It is literally unidentified. To claim that you can identify it as something ordinary without any data is just as absurd as claiming it's an alien craft without any data. It's not scientific method. If you don't have data to identify it then it's unidentified.

If you have 1000 cases and UAP and where you have reliable and adequate information then 800 are shown to be natural phenomena, man made or observer error then it really is a leap of faith to assume that the 200 with missing information are aliens. If aliens really were visiting us then with high probability then some of the cases that could be cleared up would be confirmed as being aliens.

[Mr Whippy]

RustyMX5 said:

duckson said:

If you are pinning your banner to that very poorly compiled (to say it mildly) document then well, more fool you.
And it wasn't from Congress.

I'd personally say I'm 75% believer, 25% sceptic on this subject.
The objects seen by trained and vastly experienced commercial and military pilots sound by and large not of human tech, to say they are mistaken (in alot of cases) doesn't add up to me.
The sceptic side comes in for things like this mummy business for example, that seems like complete rubbish to me!

I'm in the same boat but with the percentages swung the other way round. My view is that if these sightings are real, that implies that the cosmos is absolutely teeming with highly intelligent life with the ability to traverse incomprehensible distances.

In the grand scheme of things we are a fairly young species (in terms of planetary age) who have only begun to get a grasp of physics over the last 150 years. Our ability to journey beyond our atmosphere is something we only managed to do 63 years ago. Our current understand of physics is such that interstellar travel is a virtual impossibility.

I most certainly fall into the 'I want to believe' category but the cynic within me has serious doubts.

/op user
/tp alphacentauri



As I’ve said elsewhere in this thread, “life” doesn’t need a reason to do anything.
Life could be particularly complex patterns of gas in a nebula, or in items in other dimensions, or whatever, that exists across time, just intersecting in our 3D and time based perception of the universe.

What we’re witnessing might just be a type of tree that spans across a galaxy, wafting in the interstellar wind, with its branches intersecting and looking like a glowy chrome ball moving at silly speeds and with no inertia.


We have utterly no idea in practice.

The last 100 years show how utterly out of our depth we are… and hubris that we’re now fully informed and we know everything, is leading us once again to underestimate how little we know.

[skwdenyer]

Skeptisk said:

If you have 1000 cases and UAP and where you have reliable and adequate information then 800 are shown to be natural phenomena, man made or observer error then it really is a leap of faith to assume that the 200 with missing information are aliens. If aliens really were visiting us then with high probability then some of the cases that could be cleared up would be confirmed as being aliens.

And you know that’s the ratio?

[tuscaneer]

skwdenyer said:

Skeptisk said:

If you have 1000 cases and UAP and where you have reliable and adequate information then 800 are shown to be natural phenomena, man made or observer error then it really is a leap of faith to assume that the 200 with missing information are aliens. If aliens really were visiting us then with high probability then some of the cases that could be cleared up would be confirmed as being aliens.

And you know that’s the ratio?

But does it REALLY matter if that's the exact ratio? Of course it doesn't!

[skwdenyer]

tuscaneer said:

skwdenyer said:

Skeptisk said:

If you have 1000 cases and UAP and where you have reliable and adequate information then 800 are shown to be natural phenomena, man made or observer error then it really is a leap of faith to assume that the 200 with missing information are aliens. If aliens really were visiting us then with high probability then some of the cases that could be cleared up would be confirmed as being aliens.

And you know that’s the ratio?

But does it REALLY matter if that's the exact ratio? Of course it doesn't!

If the ratio were reversed it would matter.

[tuscaneer]

skwdenyer said:

tuscaneer said:

skwdenyer said:

Skeptisk said:

If you have 1000 cases and UAP and where you have reliable and adequate information then 800 are shown to be natural phenomena, man made or observer error then it really is a leap of faith to assume that the 200 with missing information are aliens. If aliens really were visiting us then with high probability then some of the cases that could be cleared up would be confirmed as being aliens.

And you know that’s the ratio?

But does it REALLY matter if that's the exact ratio? Of course it doesn't!

If the ratio were reversed it would matter.

but it's not though so it's a moot point....the vast majority are explained away as something rational.

[Skeptisk]

skwdenyer said:

tuscaneer said:

skwdenyer said:

Skeptisk said:

If you have 1000 cases and UAP and where you have reliable and adequate information then 800 are shown to be natural phenomena, man made or observer error then it really is a leap of faith to assume that the 200 with missing information are aliens. If aliens really were visiting us then with high probability then some of the cases that could be cleared up would be confirmed as being aliens.

And you know that’s the ratio?

But does it REALLY matter if that's the exact ratio? Of course it doesn't!

If the ratio were reversed it would matter.

Talk about clutching at straws…

It would be interesting to have the numbers to do some statistical analysis.

[skwdenyer]

Skeptisk said:

skwdenyer said:

tuscaneer said:

skwdenyer said:

Skeptisk said:

If you have 1000 cases and UAP and where you have reliable and adequate information then 800 are shown to be natural phenomena, man made or observer error then it really is a leap of faith to assume that the 200 with missing information are aliens. If aliens really were visiting us then with high probability then some of the cases that could be cleared up would be confirmed as being aliens.

And you know that’s the ratio?

But does it REALLY matter if that's the exact ratio? Of course it doesn't!

If the ratio were reversed it would matter.

Talk about clutching at straws…

It would be interesting to have the numbers to do some statistical analysis.

It would indeed, yes. And bracketing the data would be useful, too. “Unexplained light” isn’t on its own a very credible “UAP” in my book - it is just a light you don’t (yet) recognise. The bigger question is how many “UAP” that are described as having characteristics wholly inconsistent with known technology turn out to have innocent explanations. If that number is large then great; if that number is small, it is significant.