Why do you believe in UFOs?

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
You could be correct. Those "aliens" could very well be "mankind" in the distant future, or the distant past.

Or they could be hallucinations or LSD flashbacks or hoaxes. These three topics are exceedingly well documented. Time travel and aliens are not.

Possible? Yes. But possibility alone does not make for an explanation. I can say I've never seen a UFO (as in everything I've ever seen flying, I knew whether it was an airplane, a helicopter, a bird, a balloon, and so forth). All I've ever seen with respect to the topic is anecdotal evidence. How do I know that millions of people around the world aren't conspiring to pull a giant joke on me, and me alone? Every report before my birth and shown on these alien shows are clever forgeries just to fool me into thinking these things actually happen and have historical precedent. There was no Roswell incident of any sort. It's all faked footage and baloney stories made up for my benefit. They have the guy with the Tolstoy hair giving the UFO hoax the kooky face, while they have police officers and pilots reporting things to give it something more reputable. Very clever guys, a giant joke, all on me.

That explains the facts, but it's pretty preposterous, isn't it? But, at least what I say could be called a hypothesis, because I can name ways in which it can be disproved, and if it can be disproved, it must be put in the dustbin. If a photograph (even a hoax photograph) or a newspaper article could be conclusively and scientifically shown to pre-date my birth (i.e. film chemistry that hasn't been used for decades, paper and ink composition similarly dated), then obviously, the world is not trying to pull a giant practical joke on me.

Or, I could be a conspiracy theorist and cling to absurdities. Maybe someone foresaw my birth in the stars generations ago and decided to initiate the joke. Maybe time travellers from the future seeded evidence in the past to make the prank more believable.

There's your difference between a hypothesis and a non-scientific conjecture. In one case, the evidence is more important than the hypothesis. In the other case, the belief is always more important than evidence to the contrary.

 

[Trajan]

"We are all travelling forward in time anyway. We can fast forward by going off in a rocket at high speed and return to find everyone on Earth much older or dead. Einstein's general theory of relativity seems to offer the possibility that we could warp space-time so much that we could travel back in time. However, it is likely that warping would trigger a bolt of radiation that would destroy the spaceship and maybe the space-time itself. I have experimental evidence that time travel is not possible. I gave a party for time-travelers, but I didn't send out the invitations until after the party. I sat there a long time, but no one came."

Stephen Hawking

 

[GenSan]

Food for thought:

1.) Nearly 90% of currently existing species have yet to be discovered/identified here on Earth and in the ocean. LINK

2.) We scientists know life exists in the most inhospitable environments. LINK

Combined, 1 & 2, make the Panspermia Theory & the origins of life more plausible. LINK

 

[d00df00d]

I'm pretty sure "the origin of life" is absolutely certain given that... there is life.

 

[refaller]

Tremendous leap from the thought that other planets have life to other worlds can visit us in awesome spaceships.

ref

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: GenSan
1.) Nearly 90% of currently existing species have yet to be discovered/identified here on Earth and in the ocean.

Yet, only one of earth's species has engaged in space flight and has yet to actually visit beyond its own natural satellite, let alone visit other systems.
Originally Posted By: GenSan
2.) We scientists know life exists in the most inhospitable environments.

This isn't terribly relevant, except to say that very primitive life could exist on a place like Mars, which has nothing to do with UFOs, nor does panspermia.

 

[GenSan]

Garak: We Homo sapiens are SO intelligent and supreme yet all life, intelligent or non-intelligent, evolved from simple organic compounds billions of years ago.

Panspermia might not be so far-fetched as you might believe. LINK

 

[dwcopple]

If you are so close minded to believe that we are the only intelligent life forms in the universe despite all the ancient artifacts that depict visits from extra terrestrials, then you truly do believe everything you are told...keep on being herded sheeple.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: GenSan
Panspermia might not be so far-fetched as you might believe.

I wasn't dismissing panspermia. I'm just stating that panspermia has nothing to do with the possibility that potential extraterrestrial life developed interstellar travel.

Originally Posted By: dwcopple
If you are so close minded to believe that we are the only intelligent life forms in the universe despite all the ancient artifacts that depict visits from extra terrestrials, then you truly do believe everything you are told...keep on being herded sheeple.

As I mentioned here before, if future archaeologists 1000 years into the future find my Star Trek DVD collection, is some crank in the future society going to think I was visited by Klingons and Romulans?

Somehow, hundreds to thousands of years ago, humanity got enough "visits from aliens" to produce art about it worldwide (along with all the other ludicrous claims that are lumped in with that). Yet, today, with all our technology, surveillance cameras everywhere, everyone carrying a cell phone with a good camera, and we cannot get one good picture. Okay.

There is nothing in human history from what we've built to what we've written that needs alien visits to explain. This is the same thinking that was out of place hundreds of years ago. At one time, everything unexplained was attributed to gods or demons. Now, that's replaced with aliens.

The fact that it still actually explains nothing seems to go unnoticed. It's actually academically lazy, since it seeks to explain nothing, and makes an untestable assertion. "Aliens did it" tells us nothing about how something was done. One might as well say that elves or leprechauns did it, because that's just as helpful, and just as likely. It doesn't tell us how elves or leprechauns did it, much less why or even demonstrate their existence to have done it in the first place. The assertion is just as rational and just as testable though.

Here's what you must answer if you want to make your assertion remotely testable, with reference to: "If you are so close minded to believe that we are the only intelligent life forms in the universe despite all the ancient artifacts that depict visits from extra terrestrials, then you truly do believe everything you are told."

No one is saying there isn't intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. The existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe is a necessary condition for extraterrestrial life to visit earth, but it is not a sufficient condition. Earth undoubtedly has penguins, but they don't have the capability to travel to Regina. That doesn't mean they don't exist.

As for the second part, what piece of evidence do you suppose would disprove to you that an artifact wasn't depicting a visit from extraterrestrials? What would make you say that your conjecture is wrong? If you can't conceive of such a thing, then you can't make your conjecture falsifiable, and it's not scientific, then. It is merely a belief.

On the other hand, I would accept real evidence that demonstrated that aliens have visited earth, and I can envision what that might be. Ancient art isn't it, though. Ancient art is evidence that our ancestors had imagination and artistic skill.

 

[refaller]

So you are believing somebody, does that make you a sheeple?

ref

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
...We Homo sapiens are SO intelligent and supreme yet all life, intelligent or non-intelligent, evolved from simple organic compounds billions of years ago.


I see this statement pop up occasionally on various sites.

I would encourage you or anyone else to show an unequivocal, logical, chemically scientific pathway to prove this statement.

Maybe start a new thread?

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
I see this statement pop up occasionally on various sites.

You're right, Mola. Aliens did it, so that ends the discussion.

 

[dwcopple]

Originally Posted By: refaller
So you are believing somebody, does that make you a sheeple?

ref
nope, it makes me enlightened.

 

[jrustles]

I consider "UFOs" to be any craft propelled by electrogravitics; alien or domestic does not matter.

I know that we as humans have reasonably well-advanced electrogravitic propulsion vehicles also called "space vehicles", and have had such since around WW2- beginning with the German, then the US. Of course this is not in the public domain, as most of our 50+years-advanced technologies are. They still humour us with rocket launches and new jet engines and portray that technology as the most advanced around.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: jrustles
I consider "UFOs" to be any craft propelled by electrogravitics; alien or domestic does not matter.

Isn't there a better term than "unidentified flying object" for that kind of thing?

 

[Virtuoso]

Whatever it was, it wasn't normal. By any means.

 

[jrustles]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: jrustles
I consider "UFOs" to be any craft propelled by electrogravitics; alien or domestic does not matter.

Isn't there a better term than "unidentified flying object" for that kind of thing?


To us regular folk, that's what we normally associate with UFOs- flying objects that seem to not follow the laws of physics ie. they don't appear to exhibit inertia. (They do follow the rules of physics, just a much higher level than conventional physics) I don't understand the technical details regarding their operation, just a very basic idea of how they work- essentially they have their own field of gravity (or anti-gravity) and move within the earth's field, with the craft or nothing in it experiencing inertia relative to the earth. Many modern (terrestrial) units also have 'invisibility' in which light is bent around the craft.

"We" use them in an array of different scales, from small unmanned orbs to absolutely massive 'tankers' that are used to disperse aerosols in the atmosphere (chemtrails). This is on top of conventional aircraft that do this at ~ stratospheric level, just below where the ozone layer is.

here is a picture of an aerosol dump from one of these 'space vehicles'

This is NOT some "mysterious" rocket launch. The trail you're looking at is actually at an EXTREMELY HIGH ALTITUDE, and the trail is MASSIVE (many miles across!!). It glows bright for two reasons 1)it's so high up, that the sun is still shining on it, despite darkness on land 2) it's AEROSOL. Solid particulates and oxides (and other chemicals) that reflect light very effectively.

In WW2, the Nazis wanted to use these craft to launch conventional projectile weapons, but they were unable to solve the problem of getting them out of the gravity field of the craft itself! They seem to have solved that since then, and you can see how the field of the craft is repelling the aerosol outward (augmented by a lack of atmosphere to slow it down from dispersing outward).

The Norway spiral and others like it, no question in my mind, are other examples of these dumps, where the aerosol is entrained in the crafts own field of gravity as it moves, spirally.

SO to recap this post, I've got two counts of conspiracy nuttery against me;
-we have ufos/they even exist
and
-weather control/geoengineering

I'll briefly get into the interest in weather:
Since before many of us were born, we've been controlling weather- and learning more about how to do it effectively with each passing day, to the point where today, we can create storms like Haiyan, Sandy, Katrina and virtually every modern hurricane and weather systems.
It takes knowledge on how the atmosphere reacts to certain stimuli.

Aerosols are used for many purposes:
>they provide the condensation nuclei to precipitate water vapour out of the atmosphere. Water vapour is an invisible gas and needs a nucleus (hydrophilic) to build up around on as a tiny water droplet. Therefore the most efficient way to precipitate water from the atmo are nano-particles. The smaller the particle, the less aerosol needed for a greater effect.
Our tax dollars fund this behavior. Our governments can also custom order weather.

>they are mostly metal nanoparticles like barium, aluminum, copper, strontium etc this increases the electrical conductivity of the atmosphere, in which they use their energy weapons to liberate heat remotely and steer and direct the atmosphere. (and also military communications and the ability to use geostationary directed energy weapon satellites as well to induce motion/tension in the earth so as to induce seismic activity. The 'earthquake lights' so many see now before catastrophic earthquakes is simply an artifact of the use of these weapons.

>drugs and viruses - for a few years dessicated human blood cells and weird fibers were falling from the sky. this is all recorded. many people have gotten sick in various locations where this has been observed, including a town here in Ontario. They've either slowed down on the viruses or more likely got more discreet with it. Much like for the past few years, the chemjets have been coming more and more at night (observed here).

Back to the aerosol condensation effect- when one condenses anything, it shrinks and heats up- to be very general. Low pressure systems are usually muggy, hot, humid, pale washed out silver sky (the aerosol after) and bring rain, whereas high pressure systems are cold, dry and the sky is usually very clear. This is simple physics occuring. By constantly 'shrinking and heating' areas to end in precipitation has massive effects ont he atmo- all effect we're seeing; ridiculous winds, unstable extreme weather not being the least. Then you add in the ability to pump huge amounts of energies (both conventional EM and 'exotic' scalar) right into an area of your choice has pretty much rendered the atmosphere virtually entirely controlled. The jetstream is an artificial force; it's one of the longest controlled aspect of the atmosphere and it's extremely useful for them.

Global warming/climate change/melting artctic
It's been my observation, that for the past 4ish years, they have been driving arctic air directly down the centre of the North American continent. They set up counter clockwise rotations on the eastern side, and clockwise rotations on the western side and like a MIG welder wire-feed, the cold air is funneled straight down.

Why? I can only speculate.
Extremes of hot and cold are needed for extreme weather. By running a "colorado low" or something from the gulf right into a finger of cold dry air from the arctic, they can create HUGE LINES of extreme weather, no doubt augmented and fed by energy weapons and aerosol dumps. Further, displacing cold air causes air to replace it from another direction. Usually warmer air. If you google recent pictures of th arctic, you'll notice that more than likely the sky is that sickly silver-grey overcast. (AEROSOL).

Why melt the arctic?!
Why not! New cheaper shipping channels, yo

Why punish innocent people with the weather as a weapon?
Destruction = rebuilding = transfer of funds
Blaming humans themselves for it makes people believe that it really is them causing it. They will especially believe that in the absence of any knowledge of what is being done to them. They will accept being taxed for it (as though the earth accepts bribes), they will accept being stripped of their quality of life (From the USA way of life to an EU way of life). Test your methods and refine your techniques, learn more about controlling weather.

I should probably stop here. I'm sorry for getting into *this* but I just wanted to let some people know how I come to my conclusions, and hopefully this will trigger an "ah ha" moment in someone's life at some point, should they happen to witness it for themselves. This world- we'll all die never having known even a fraction of what we've lived through.

 

[jrustles]

PS - all these forest fires, they have the effect of loading the atmo with condensation nuclei. They also STINK TO HIGH HEAVEN of strategy. It's not some guy in California or Seattle leaving a campfire going, unless he's traveling the world from Europe to Australia all of a sudden lighting these campfires and building them into ungodly blazes

 

[MolaKule]

This maybe off the subject a bit (I doubt it considering the stuff I have seen so far

), but I am surprised that no one has brought matter/antimatter (MAM) into the discussion.

IF (hypothetically here of course) these Unidentified Observed Objects (UOOs) perform as described, I think they would have to be made of anti-matter somehow modulated and contained within a special capsule or sheath.

Consider that matter's mass is affected by gravity or "gravitons," or gravity waves, which by the way, Gravitons have not been proven as yet, but this is hypothetical anyway.

However, it is hypothesized that anti-matter would not necessarily be affected by gravity. IF small amounts of anti-matter were somehow modulated or released to interact with matter, this would cause MAM annihilations which could release energy, therefore resulting in propulsive forces. Research at CERN and other labs is currently being done to produce enough anti-matter to exploit this concept for space engines

.

Of course, the major problems here are: 1) creating enough anti-matter, 2) isolating matter and anti-matter until the propulsive forces are needed.

The Tungusta Event in Russia in 1908:

What does this have to do with the above discussion?

There are three schools of thought on this event;

1) An asteroid exploded in this area. However, no traces of asteroid material have been found.

2) a lump of anti-matter that came into the atmosphere releasing huge amounts of energy. However, no elevated Carbon 14 levels have been detected in any remnants of once living matter in this area.

3) a comet came in and completely released all of its energy, due to the kinetic energy of its core and the energy released from all of its chemical elements. However, a comets head is a large asteroid.

I favor number 2, the anti-matter scenario, because I don't think living matter would have had enough time to absorb radioactive carbon 14.

 

[expat]