UFO Thread

[AceRockatansky]

skwdenyer said:

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.

Isn't this the whole point of the recent congressional bill that was passed, so now all sightings and reports are public record.

[zek]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SNxIt-7Nik

"The first point and the most important point is that these mummies are real. These have not been artificially assembled and we can see this when we look at the plain film X-rays and the CAT scans both conventional CAT scans and 3D CAT scans that have been done on several of these mummies."

"What you see here are the articular surfaces of these bones are so perfectly aligned and matched and even you can see the joint capsule are intact. So, you know, there's no way that this is an artificially assembled foot and ankle. This is all natural, all very real."

Worth a watch, considering there is a very good chance this is going to re-write history (in my opinion, of course).

Edited by zek on Tuesday 23 April 14:14

[Guvernator]

Yet more internet conjecture from a youtube "expert", second hand reports and unreliable witnesses.

Another 10 minutes of my life I'll never get back, not sure why I even watched it that long tbh.

Can someone wake me up when we have actual, reliable proof please.

[shakotan]

skwdenyer said:

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):

The eye sees what it wants to see. That sphere could just as easily be an abstract representation of the sun. It might not even represent a physical object at all, who knows what artist was trying to represent.

skwdenyer said:

(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?

That first image, to my eye they look like flying insects like a dragonfly or moths inside circles, but then I'm not trying to see UFOs and aliens.

[tuscaneer]

Guvernator said:

Yet more internet conjecture from a youtube "expert", second hand reports and unreliable witnesses.

Another 10 minutes of my life I'll never get back, not sure why I even watched it that long tbh.

Can someone wake me up when we have actual, reliable proof please.

100% agree ... I watched, got nothing, skipped an odd minute, got nothing of note.... Just loads of "according to one of those reports" or "I know him personally and can vouch for his integrity".... Etc etc etc....what an absolute load of bks yet again...

Serious question to the chap who posted this guff.... "Zek"... Surely you can see this is all just guesswork and presumptions? There's no substance to any of it... What am I missing here that you think is some sort of proof?

Edited by tuscaneer on Tuesday 23 April 14:35

[skwdenyer]

shakotan said:

The eye sees what it wants to see. That sphere could just as easily be an abstract representation of the sun. It might not even represent a physical object at all, who knows what artist was trying to represent.

Of course it could. My point was that simply saying "it is this" many centuries later, because it happens to support our belief system, isn't very scientific.

shakotan said:

That first image, to my eye they look like flying insects like a dragonfly or moths inside circles, but then I'm not trying to see UFOs and aliens.

I also agree. And I wasn't saying they were UFOs or aliens. I was saying that we shouldn't be so quick to say that they definitely are not UFOs or aliens just because we haven't encountered any.

[TGCOTF-dewey]

tuscaneer said:

100% agree ... I watched, got nothing, skipped an odd minute, got nothing of note.... Just loads of "according to one of those reports" or "I know him personally and can vouch for his integrity".... Etc etc etc....what an absolute load of bks yet again...

Serious question to the chap who posted this guff.... "Zek"... Surely you can see this is all just guesswork and presumptions? There's no substance to any of it... What am I missing here that you think is some sort of proof?

Edited by tuscaneer on Tuesday 23 April 14:35

At a guess, the fact an MD claims these are not victorian style Jenny Hanivers and appear real animals.

Certainly not proof of Aliens mind.

[tuscaneer]

TGCOTF-dewey said:

tuscaneer said:

100% agree ... I watched, got nothing, skipped an odd minute, got nothing of note.... Just loads of "according to one of those reports" or "I know him personally and can vouch for his integrity".... Etc etc etc....what an absolute load of bks yet again...

Serious question to the chap who posted this guff.... "Zek"... Surely you can see this is all just guesswork and presumptions? There's no substance to any of it... What am I missing here that you think is some sort of proof?

Edited by tuscaneer on Tuesday 23 April 14:35

At a guess, the fact an MD claims these are not victorian style Jenny Hanivers and appear real animals.

Certainly not proof of Aliens mind.

Surely someone involved in this can get DNA testing done on them to some conclusion (all I've heard in these videos so far is that the DNA results are "weird"... Nothing more concrete than that vague description) ..

[zek]

tuscaneer said:

What am I missing here that you think is some sort of proof?

Edited by tuscaneer on Tuesday 23 April 14:35

I fail to see how anyone can look at this in depth and come to the conclusion that it could be artificially constructed.

Once this fact is established, (which we should be doing, wihout bias) it can only leave a few possibilities as there is no evidence of a natural evolution path on earth.

[Bill]

tuscaneer said:

Surely someone involved in this can get DNA testing done on them to some conclusion (all I've heard in these videos so far is that the DNA results are "weird"... Nothing more concrete than that vague description) ..

Why would anything alien have DNA or similar bone structure to us. Or bones for that matter.

And why does the 3D CT image have the other foot in it? The whole point is to get to see the joint/bone from all angles. Plus why are there some joint capsules visualised but not all? Or other soft tissue... It's x-rays.

[skwdenyer]

Bill said:

And why does the 3D CT image have the other foot in it? The whole point is to get to see the joint/bone from all angles.

The mummies are tiny and immobile. The 3D CT cannot get between the legs?

[tuscaneer]

zek said:

tuscaneer said:

What am I missing here that you think is some sort of proof?

Edited by tuscaneer on Tuesday 23 April 14:35

I fail to see how anyone can look at this in depth and come to the conclusion that it could be artificially constructed.

Once this fact is established, (which we should be doing, wihout bias) it can only leave a few possibilities as there is no evidence of a natural evolution path on earth.

So.... what's the results of the DNA tests taken then ? "Weird" isn't really cutting it for me.....I think you might be getting carried away with all the excitement ... We can "re write history" when we have something a bit more tangible

Edited by tuscaneer on Tuesday 23 April 17:12

[Bill]

skwdenyer said:

The mummies are tiny and immobile. The 3D CT cannot get between the legs?

The CT fires x-rays from every direction and you end up with a view of slices through someone/thing. That's then reconstituted into a 3D image. So, for instance, you can get a rotatable 3D image of someone's shoulder blade despite it being very close to the ribs and completely covered in soft tissue.

[Guvernator]

zek said:

I fail to see how anyone can look at this in depth and come to the conclusion that it could be artificially constructed.

Once this fact is established, (which we should be doing, wihout bias) it can only leave a few possibilities as there is no evidence of a natural evolution path on earth.

It's not a fact though is it. Nothing I've seen, read or heard has convinced me these are real so how do two people who look at the same "evidence" come to two very different conclusions?

What I mean by real evidence is not articles written by unconfirmed sources or some random bloke on the internet making a 2 hour video, 99% of which is conjecture and opinion being sold as fact. The last video you put up as evidence is exactly this.

Evidence should constitute at least the following

A proper DNA test, what even does "the results are weird" mean. That's not a scientific explanation, that's bunkum.

A properly qualified team of impartial experts to examine the body for an extended period of time.

Their findings to be peer reviewed by another independent expert panel.

I'm not even asking for extraordinary evidence, I'm asking for straightforward scientific, verifiable evidence.

Surely if this is the real deal, for something of this magnitude, that should be very easy to attain. That fact that it's been a over a year since these things were discovered and there still isn't any concrete proof speaks volumes in itself.

[shakotan]

zek said:

I fail to see how anyone can look at this in depth and come to the conclusion that it could be artificially constructed.

Once this fact is established, (which we should be doing, wihout bias) it can only leave a few possibilities as there is no evidence of a natural evolution path on earth.

The second slide on that video, points 2 and 3.

"It is PROBABLE that these species are tied to modern-day UFO and Abduction phenomena"

Bolllocks. Its not been proved they are a species, its not been proved there are (alien) UFO and its not been proved anyone has been abducted, so POSSIBLE at best could be claimed at a stretch, but certainly not PROBABLE.

"It is also PROBABLE that these species are tied to the modern day Crop Circle (and Cattle Mutilation?) phenomina"

More bks. Again, not been proved a species (let alone real), and no proof that Crop Circles are attributed to alien visitation (we even had admissions and demonstrations that many modern day crop circles are man-made. So POSSIBLE again could be claim, but certainly not PROBABLE.

Maybe he means probe-able? Is he hoping to get abducted?

[skwdenyer]

Bill said:

skwdenyer said:

The mummies are tiny and immobile. The 3D CT cannot get between the legs?

The CT fires x-rays from every direction and you end up with a view of slices through someone/thing. That's then reconstituted into a 3D image. So, for instance, you can get a rotatable 3D image of someone's shoulder blade despite it being very close to the ribs and completely covered in soft tissue.

I know The presentation of the data is then at the discretion of the operator.

[WelshChris]

So much stuff to discuss with this subject, but my overriding impression is.... IF they exist, the evidence exists, and it's simply being kept top secret.

It's all very well people sitting in front of senate committees making incredible claims, but show us the evidence.

For example...

https://www.independent.com/2023/08/01/big-red-ufo...

A facinating tale, but where's the photographic evidence of this? - If it exists, which it surely must, it's being withheld. On the face of it it's quite reasonable to dismiss it as fantasy despite the alleged 'credibility' of the witnesses.

[Bill]

WelshChris said:

So much stuff to discuss with this subject, but my overriding impression is.... IF they exist, the evidence exists, and it's simply being kept top secret.

It's all very well people sitting in front of senate committees making incredible claims, but show us the evidence.

For example...

https://www.independent.com/2023/08/01/big-red-ufo...

A facinating tale, but where's the photographic evidence of this? - If it exists, which it surely must, it's being withheld. On the face of it it's quite reasonable to dismiss it as fantasy despite the alleged 'credibility' of the witnesses.

Must it??

[WelshChris]

Bill said:

WelshChris said:

So much stuff to discuss with this subject, but my overriding impression is.... IF they exist, the evidence exists, and it's simply being kept top secret.

It's all very well people sitting in front of senate committees making incredible claims, but show us the evidence.

For example...

https://www.independent.com/2023/08/01/big-red-ufo...

A facinating tale, but where's the photographic evidence of this? - If it exists, which it surely must, it's being withheld. On the face of it it's quite reasonable to dismiss it as fantasy despite the alleged 'credibility' of the witnesses.

Must it??

One would have thought so, but maybe I'm wrong. Same applies to a lot of other "sightings" though - not one single believable photo.

[dukeboy749r]

Bill said:

WelshChris said:

So much stuff to discuss with this subject, but my overriding impression is.... IF they exist, the evidence exists, and it's simply being kept top secret.

It's all very well people sitting in front of senate committees making incredible claims, but show us the evidence.

For example...

https://www.independent.com/2023/08/01/big-red-ufo...

A facinating tale, but where's the photographic evidence of this? - If it exists, which it surely must, it's being withheld. On the face of it it's quite reasonable to dismiss it as fantasy despite the alleged 'credibility' of the witnesses.

Must it??

I suggest something might have been hovering over Vandenburg Air Force base but in 2003 and not one photo.

It just stretches credibility that this wasn't (and still isn't) major news - if it were more than is being suggested.

I'd welcome evidence that we can all see/touch and verify that the assertion that we have been visited by extraterrestrial life in spacecraft. I'd be first back onto this thread to admit I was wrong.

I may be waiting some time, however.