It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Taking on UFOs, out-of-the-box

page: 3
24
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2016 @ 07:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: ch1n1t0



The "other" are a local but very different species that resides underwater and have been there for a long time

Very interesting point there....Now , ask yourself a "what if" . What if WE truly are the aliens.



It is very interesting indeed, and it seems it's one that hasn't been considered that much by the mainstream. An indication that is good enough to take this possibility seriously. And it does fit many questions about UFOs.

I've asked this what IF question many times in the past and I have three problems with it. 1 - It's been put forward a lot and it started being considered just when we started speculating about time-travel, so I'd say this possibility being taken into account is more likely a cultural artifact of our own development and understanding. 2 - The only evidence put forward in regards to being alien to Earth's environment is based upon bad understanding of evolution and the ways it has taken with humans (lack of hair on the body, getting sunburns, back ache and other bad examples). 3 - I don't think travelling backwards in time is conceivable, physically, although I might be wrong.

I remain open to this possibility however, but I wouldn't exactly use the word alien. I'd prefer the word experiment. A huge "What IF" that the UFO inhabitants might have asked themselves, and decided to do some mangling with monkey DNA afterwards.

If it's something that traverses time, I don't think logic points to us - it's far more likely it's our "digital" children/AI that we might be seeing from after the Singularity point.

Only other way of going about this question is if we were space faring at some point in the past, and we came on Earth (lets say from Mars or another star, which I suppose is possible but quite a stretch) and we encountered some weird hosts here flying discs and triangles.
edit on 25-5-2016 by ch1n1t0 because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 25 2016 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: ch1n1t0



Only other way of going about this question is if we were space faring at some point in the past, and we came on Earth (lets say from Mars or another star, which I suppose is possible but quite a stretch) and we encountered some weird hosts here flying discs and triangles.

Read Clark's "Rendezvous with Rama" series. Thats what helped to get me started.
And why is it always an alien culture wants to explore ? What if it had been a have to thing .
In relation to evolution . Suppose this planet got hit with a emp from the sun. Shut down all technology. What would our civilization look like 50 years from that point ? 100 ? 1000 ?. Think there might be sort of a de-evolution ? Sure , there would be remnants , skyscraper husks . Would mankind look on the few that was left as the way we look at pyramids today ? And wonder why they were scattered all over world ? Their purpose ? Would they be considered just a cultural "meeting place" for rituals?

Just some thoughts



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

You're wrong! I did research on UFO's for over 20 years and the UFO's are real.
They are not extraterrestrial,they are inter-dimensional and evil beyond
human imagination and understanding.
All of this stuff that I have been hearing about opening portals to other
dimensions,could be a pandora's box scenario.You open that door to their
dimension and you can kiss this planet good-by.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: mamabeth
a reply to: Gothmog

You're wrong! I did research on UFO's for over 20 years and the UFO's are real.
They are not extraterrestrial,they are inter-dimensional and evil beyond
human imagination and understanding. inter-dimensiona
All of this stuff that I have been hearing about opening portals to other
dimensions,could be a pandora's box scenario.You open that door to their
dimension and you can kiss this planet good-by.

Everything is interdimensional . You , me , everything you see. Everything exists in all 11 dimensions simultaneously.
Here is a nice starting video. Outdated because it only explains 10

Ten Dimensions Explained



All of this stuff that I have been hearing about opening portals to other dimensions,could be a pandora's box scenario.

Open what portal ? To where ? There are no "doors" to the other dimensions . The only thing I can think of (off the top of my head) would be to loop yourself back through one of the dimensions dealing with time , and stage yourself into another universe in the multiverse. Not sure how that would even work though. Would probably violate a lot of the time/space fabric laws.
Start with some basic Quantum Physics on the space/time relationship instead of listening to "others" . Build a working knowledge from the ground up. It just takes a little time and some reading.
Peace. And never be concerned of "interdimensional beings" coming through portals into this world.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: ch1n1t0
a reply to: Kandinsky

Kandinsky, it's great having you around the thread, I have a bit of an off-topic question for you which I can't imagine why I haven't asked before. Seems I'm not that bright of a bulb as I seem to think of myself haha. Darn ego. Anyhow.

Question - can you point me in the direction of sightings that last more than 4-5 hours in one area with multiple witnesses? Are there any? I'm not referring to repeated sightings as I'm well aware of many such. Or in other words, what's the longest lasting sighting you have heard of?


Sorry for replying since it is not a question for me.

Edwards AFB UFO incident lasted for 5 hours and had multiple witnesses and multiple radar returns. There is an excellent thread by karl 12 here

Portage County UFO incident is also very interesting. Not sure about how many hours it lasted but there were multiple witnesses, including police officers, some of whom chased a UFO for 86 miles.

Check also Colares 1977 UFO wave, which is one of the best documented, solid and shocking UFO cases I am aware of. The wole wave lasted for several weeks and there were literally hundreds of witnesses, including a physician and military personnel, tens of wounded villagers, 2 of them dead.

I know it is more a series of incidents than a long exclusive incident, but it's always worthy to revise Colares. There is a big declassified report made by the Brazilian military personnel who investigated the incidents, a report full of drawings and photographs taken over the weeks in the very same place, the small area of Colares in Northeastern Brazil.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Op3nM1nd3d
a reply to: valleean

How about not using them because it would prove we can travel faster and further than what they have been telling us? Or the questions that would follow such as where did you get this technology and why has been kept secret for so long? Where have you traveled already and/or have you encountered any E.T. intelligent life? What else did you find there, are there any precious minerals...etc?

It would be the end of the world we know of, public would demand answers and technology, perhaps even stop fighting eachother and focus entirely on space exploration. Just consider the opportunity factor. No more use of oil and guns? Something the elite cannot agree with...


Thanks for your thoughts.

So you are basically adscribing to a not-man-made explanation. But the proponents of the man-made hypothesis do not accept an extra-terrestrial origin for this supposedly secret technology since it will undermine their very own hypothesis.

As for the disclosure implying the end of the world as we know it, I used to think like you. I thought of social earthquakes, cataclysmic changes in our social, religious, political fabric.

But I have changed my mind over the years. I think disclosure would not change anything. We would continue with our lives as usual. The whole UFO issue is far beyond our understanding, perhaps far beyond our capabilities for understanding. That's why I think an official disclosure wouldn't affect us so much. Mainly because the very dimension of the phenomenum exceeds our minds in a way that we would remain untouched. And also because many, many people would not believe the disclosed information. Many would think it is the continuation of the governmental conspiracy, or the continuation of the continuation of the conspiracy until the creation of the next continuation.

But I feel really comfortable with a non-disclosure scenario. I simply do not need. I feel good knowing that UFOs is a real mystery, something that maybe we will never fully understand. I do not need answers. I do not need proselytes nor a UFO church nor a UFO science. We need a scientific approach and reasonability to approach the phenomenum and confirm its reality, but I really do not care about having an official UFO academy of sciences.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

Thanks for this post, mate. Exactly.

I think when people are saying inter-dimensional, they're rather referring to some invisible place elsewhere, that we don't know exists, can't visit and haven't seen yet. Which is close to saying nothing at all and we could all say we take that explanation and leave the subject at rest. Don't be offended of course, guys and gals, it's a matter of the right words when it comes to UFOs. And inter-dimensional in terms of wording doesn't work.

I really REALLY liked the lion-safari comparison brought up earlier in regards to the reasoning why UFOs are interested in us and the way we'll perceive them. Of course, it was in regards to aliens, as in ET. I'd say "Aliens, yes", not necessarily ET though.
edit on 25-5-2016 by ch1n1t0 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: ch1n1t0
a reply to: Gothmog

Thanks for this post, mate. Exactly.

I think when people are saying inter-dimensional, they're rather referring to some invisible place elsewhere, that we don't know exists, can't visit and haven't seen yet. Which is close to saying nothing at all and we could all say we take that explanation and leave the subject at rest.

Inter-dimensional doesn't sound a logically solid expression/wording. Cause I mean, yeah, obviously they can take material form and then disappear.

I really REALLY liked the lion-safari comparison brought up earlier in regards to the reasoning why UFOs are interested in us and the way we'll perceive them. Of course, it was in regards to aliens, as in ET. I'd say "Aliens, yes", not necessarily ET though.


You are right. There are absolutely no dark , hidden , evil pockets in the dimensions for anything to live in.
All that is necessary is substitute the word "interuniverse" for the word "interdimesional" . The latter was good for 50 years ago and Twilight Zone and Outer Limits episodes. Also , you could count games and movies like "Doom". Not for modern day physics , though. Doesnt work.
edit on 5/25/16 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: valleean

Greets Valleean. Best username ever btw.

Thank you for providing these accounts, the thread could do with a few links. I'm familiar with them, especially Colares - it is probably the most curious case in UFOlogy, from my perspective.

However, length of sightings is something that I haven't used for cross-checks and pattern seeking so far, I just don't know why. It just occurred to me yesterday that I've not noticed a sighting as lengthy as ours so far. So I wasn't aware of the fact that the Edwards AFB account was so long. I was guessing it was something that took place for not more than couple of hours. Among these three, Ravenna is the one I'm least familiar with, I'll do some reading now.

Thanks again.

P.s. Our sighting began somewhere around 11 PM and finished when a fog came down just before sunset. Disregarding the length, it is something that has been seen a number of times as well, for about couple of years at least. Recently I haven't found or heard of any sightings from the area. And I'm a bit angry at the fact that they might have left the area already, for whatever purpose they were around. As I've been there about 8-9 times after that and never saw a thing. I was thinking about spending months even. Just to be able to get another glimpse, and try something that drives me crazy that we didn't think of trying during our sighting.
edit on 25-5-2016 by ch1n1t0 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Interesting thread.

I think we need to be careful not to fall into a few traps when discussing, or otherwise engaging with, this whole subject matter.

The first trap to be avoided is to be imprecise with regards to the terminology we use. UFO simply means Unidentified Flying Object. Nothing
more. Thus, denying the existence of unidentified flying objects is silly, because everyone sees them every day. I, to pick a person at random, saw one object flying by today which I could not indentify. I think it was some sort of bug, but there simply was no time to make a proper identification. It could have been anything.

So when someone sees an object which defies identification, for example a giant flying triangle that makes no sound, it will be an UFO to most of us until someone steps forward and states (with incontrovertible evidence of course) that "we made it, and here it is" or "it was me, just watch me go" or similar. Claiming that one has seen an UFO is not in any way "fringe" but it has been made to appear that way by careless use or deliberate misuse of the term. The trick that is used is that the statement "I saw an UFO" is given meaning beyond that which the observer has perhaps claimed. For example it is assumed that the witness is claiming that he saw an extraterrestrial craft. Which, of course, the witness will be hard pressed to prove since the craft is -well unidentified - by his own admission.

The second trap I believe is to treat the whole mass of unidentified flying objects as a single phenomenon, which causes some very wide and unwieldy theories to be crafted to explain all these various observations. To me it seems very unlikely that all the various encounters with unidentified flying objects are expressions of the same phenomenon. It would be a little like trying to lump all "flying" objects on earth into one big family based on this criterion alone, and claiming it is the same creature/machine in all instances, which would result in a pretty novel piece of biology./engineering So unidentified flying objects could very well be both terrestrial, extraterrestrial, extradimensional, extratemporal as well as both technical and biological at the same time. It really is a bit pointless to try to kill my theory on the flying fish of the pacific ocean because you have some pictures of a Boeing 767 which you think show that it is clearly mechanical.

Hope this is not off topic. Just my two (insert currency here) ...


BT

edit on 25-5-2016 by beetee because: For clarity



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: valleean

I feel good knowing that UFOs is a real mystery, something that maybe we will never fully understand. I do not need answers.


I envy you. I hate it that I need answers. Even more, I hate the idea I might never get them. And maybe just slightly less, I hate the fact that the need for answers may cloud my judgement now, or at some point in the future. But I do everything I can to keep a clean head.
edit on 25-5-2016 by ch1n1t0 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: beetee

Thanks for dropping by, BT, and thanks for the kind words and much needed reminders. When I type, I always type with these in mind. I use UFO, pretty much knowingly that the term is wrong for what I'm referring to. As KPB has said, along with others - better use UAP. But I still do use UFO.

Also, I totally agree with you that the whole phenom can't be explained away with one explanation only, and that would be a very wrong approach. My opinion is that we have 1 - rare (and not so) natural phenom (EQ lights, ball lightning, sprites, etc.) (Hessdalen) 2 - misidentifications 3 - hoaxes, 4 - Advanced military/private sector tech, 5 - The others.

When I say UFO, although the term doesn't mean this, it means I'm talking about 4 and 5.

P.s. About these "others". I don't think it's a combination of explanations, I think there is one source behind it all. Of course, experiences with UFOs (*cough* UAPs) may vary from person to person and UAP to UAP. But this, and some of the irregularities/differences from one case to another, do not require multiple sources to account for these differences, rather than personality/character/individualism of the phenom. A good question that Vallee asks is, whether their behavior might depend on the observer. Are we really that close in relations to UFOs, though?
edit on 25-5-2016 by ch1n1t0 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: ch1n1t0

I am a bit curious as to why you think that the "others" are expressions of the same phenomenon? Is it not possible that some might be one thing and others something else? Why do you think it is one phenomenon? Why is that more likely than say a mix of extraterrestrial visitation and various terrestrial and psychological phenomenon?

I, personally, find it quite likely that the extraterrestrial hypothesis might plausibly account for some sightings. Then again, it might not fit so well in other cases. The difficulty is of course, knowing what might be one or the other.

I always come back to that Arthur C. Clarke quote when thinking about a possible extraterrestrial hypothesis for at least some ufo sightings:

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".

Cheers!

BT

edit on 25-5-2016 by beetee because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-5-2016 by beetee because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: beetee

My main problem with ET visitation is distance and size of the cosmos. Many people say "OK, we know this much now, maybe in 100 years we will be able to travel with the speed of light and rewrite the laws of physics, so that we wouldn't be breaking them." And it sounds nice and mysterious provocation for the imagination of what's to happen then. But that's about as far as it goes with the relation to UFOs. I think going this way is lazily ignoring the enormous issues of distance, resource and time by downplaying what science already knows, just because they can't wrap their head around it. Or when a person thinks high of himself because he's seen a theoretic documentary on wormholes and comes on ATS and says "Well, math points to wormholes being possible, so that's how ETs traverse the distances without even needing time or resources or light speed travel.", this doesn't really mean it is the best way, or even a way, to travel to the stars. I don't mean to sound harsh and I'm not in any way being definitive that the just-mentioned theories are wrong. But I dislike when people jump the gun and embrace a theory because it fits their world view and they are 100% sure they know everything and state that Reptilians are among us and the Queen is one.

You read me wrong. I don't disagree with ET hypothesis or dismiss it one bit, I just think it's highly unlikely that this would account for UFOs in particular. And please - forget about semantics for a bit.. I know it is possible that it is really a combination of extra-something, extra-otherthing. But take this a bit further and you will realize something crucial - there is the possibility that lets say once during the last 40 years Earth was visited by an ET civ/probe. And it's not a necessity that it has been detected. Also, it is just as possible for Earth to be visited by one or many ET civ on a daily basis. And we wouldn't know about it because we wouldn't be able to even understand it as it REALLY would seem like magic, or even would be non-detectable. It's exactly like Sagan's popular explanation on higher dimensions and their relation/shadows on lower dimensions.




And with the quote from your post in mind (one that I fully agree with) - although UFOs are really advanced to what we have, as a retired NAVY colonel once said "UFOs don't actually show us magic as one would expect it from a light-speed travelling species." If there is one, at all, I might add. And there might be one of course, this doesn't necessarily negate what we're looking at - not the exceptions, which could be once in 100 years, or once in 30, but the ones of repeated nature. The local "others".

Lets take a hypothetical stance for a moment - lets imagine there is a group of UAPs which are all coming from the same source and not a mixture of sources. It's quite obvious and logical that these will show some strong similarities, as well as some differences every time they are sighted (shape, size, sound, colors of light, flight behavior) and these differences would generally vary depending on many factors. Of course, we have all other explanations that I've listed and numbered in a previous post. Now, I'll have to add an additional entry to these, for the sake of clarity - rare (think 1 in 100 years, or 1 in 50 years) single-time visitations by ET which might be accounting for 1-10 UFO cases of all. In other words, there's this 0,01% of lets say all UAP sightings that EVER happened that can very well be ANYTHING. And I mean anything, including extra-terrestrial, dimensional (wrong term) or whatever.

But it's not these we're after, as we'd be easily lost if we were after the goal of making sense of them. I'm after the local phenomenon that is occurring with a pattern to it and not the exceptions.

Of course, the Universe is based on vibrations and size. I will kindly ask the reader to leave the cancerous New Agey-ness at the door right here and now. I'm saying this from an engineer's standpoint. Example - sound travels with a particular speed. Humans have broken this barrier not that long ago. Light also travels with a set speed as well. It's common knowledge. Understanding isn't that hard, but practically applying these sometimes may be a burden. We know there are invisible to our senses things out there and it's science that's actually dealing with understanding them. But what I want to say is that I know it should be possible to break light speed at some point of our ever growing understanding. Well, not necessarily human, as I'm pretty certain we're close to the point of merging with machine (I know, right? And they said that's sci-fi... Well, who would've thought...) As reality (or the rules of the emulation, doesn't really matter in the current narrative) seems to suggest, that AI and/or biomechanics and nanomechanics are the logical extension for the path we have passed to reach our current standing. Anyhow, a totally different topic. Point is, when we are able to break this barrier, we'd be close to breaking some other barriers and who knows what that would reveal. I think this is what people refer to inter-dimensional when it comes to their UFO/UAP hypothesis.


I'd also like to point out what Plato once said, "I know that I don't know anything, but other people don't even know that." I dislike that just as much as I realize it and know it to be true. But I can't help to ask questions and seek answers.

Thank you for a very provocative post.
edit on 25-5-2016 by ch1n1t0 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Adding to my previous wall-of-text post - as I feel I haven't stressed on it enough - another issue that I have with ET being here in the right time as us is the combination between distance and time/age. Quick trivia - what happens to life on Earth regularly in the cosmic timeline? It dies out and comes back in new forms. But look at this even from a bit further away - forget about life and make a comparison of the time Earth has been a planet sustaining life and the time it couldn't carry any lifeforms. Also, so far, we haven't been able to trace a previous intelligent species living throughout the millions and millions of years of life on planet Earth (which is not to say, there hasn't been a really elusive one.) Which tells us that it seems what we call intelligence is not an often found trait to life. When we look at our Solar surroundings, they show that no life whatsoever (not in a bacterial sense) is present on the surface of the planets around us. So life, in the first place, we'd have to admit is not that often. When people say the Universe is huge, therefore it contains life on other planets, these same people have to be reminded to then take the first part - "huge" and place it next to the likeliness of constant or often contact between said species, with the "rarity" factor in mind, both in regards to life, and to "intelligent" life. Let alone some imaginary federation or whatever.

So, it might be happening - ETs visiting Earth. But it'd be such a rare occurrence that we wouldn't be discussing it on a forum. See, it's those darn military who mixed these two into one bowl... And what a smart deceptive move.
edit on 25-5-2016 by ch1n1t0 because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-5-2016 by ch1n1t0 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 03:28 AM
link   
a reply to: ch1n1t0

Ok, so if I understood your position correctly, you feel that the main problems with the extraterrestrial hypothesis is that the distances effectively prohibits space travel in any practical way and that anybody able to overcome such distances would be so advanced that the UFO that might conceivably be extraterrestrial in origin simply seems too primitive.

These are, of course, very valid points. Let me first concede that.

In relation to the distances involved, there is no practical way that we know about to overcome this, but as you would probably agree, its quite possible we might not know as much about the nature of the universe as we like to think. I admit it is perhaps lazy to say "we don't know how they do it, but since we don't know everything and they clearly do it (just look at this here UFO), it must be aliens". But don't you think it is perhaps also a bit lazy to say "we don't know that it might be done, therefore it cannot be done" - QED now move along.

The problem with the universe is, of course, that it is quite a big place. The last count I remember from the top of my head was an estimated 100 billion galaxies. That's galaxies, not stars. Now, while this immediately raise the problem with distance of course, it also represent quite the potential for almost anything to exist. And while science has come quite a long way the last 300 years, to think we know anything much about how the universe operates on a more fundamental level, is quite a big leap of faith. So there is this big place that we drift around in, and from time to time something very inexplicable makes an appearance in our tiny puddle of space which we can't understand or recognize. Would you not agree that the odds are pretty good that this might come in from somewhere out there rather than from this tiny pebble? I find that space is really too big, and unexplored, to ignore as a source for at least some of these phenomena. It's a bit like having a comfortable garden in the middle of a big wilderness, and all of a sudden a big hulking wossname is standing in the middle of the garden eating the apples and fertilizing the lawn. Which is more likely: That it has been hiding in the garden all these years, and now for reasons best known to itself, has come forth to eat the apples, or that it for reasons equally inexplicable has wandered in from the outside?

Now as to the lack in advanced properties of these extraterrestrial visitors (if they exist), the problem is of course that we know little or nothing about how advanced they might be. You really cannot tell from a visible observation how advanced any technology might be. The airforce colonel you referenced surely would be stumped to replicate the performance of some of these things with our present (at leat publicly aknowledged) technology, not to mention the mere fact that they are here at all (which as you point out involved quite a long trip if they come from say another star system in this galaxy).

I know I must come across as a somewhat staunch supporter of that old bag the so called "extraterrestrial hypothesis", but I'm not all that married to her really (although she still looks attractive in a certain light). I just think she cannot be quite laid to rest just yet because - well there is all this wilderness out there that we know so little about. Maybe not very cool and post-modern, but certainly quite possible to my ageing brain. Space, after all, we know is there. And we know it's big. And we know it is all around us. At least we think we know.

But my original point (although I have been carried away, alas) was simply that the existence of UFOs should not even be debated. UFOs clearly exist, and they might be a great number of things including hoaxes, military projects, natural phenomena and possibly a variety of "others" - which may not even all be the same thing. It is counterproductive to kill the debate by telling someone who sees a great big hovering disc in their backyard that they didn't, because aliens cannot get here so clearly you didn't see the disc. The fact that aliens might not have visited our world at all in any detectable way does in no way negate the presence of the disc. Which was there, because the witness saw it.

Ach, I have made yet another long post, and I promised myself that I wouldn't....


BT



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 06:40 AM
link   
a reply to: beetee

Morning, BT


Nothing wrong in keeping the ET hypothesis on the table, especially if you use logic like you did there. There's a whole lot wrong if you, however, don't use your grey matter and just shout it out loud.

You missed something in what I assume is problematic with ET being behind UFOs (not about visiting us, tho) - TIME. As I mentioned, it's not only distance but the fact that first - traversing such distances involves time (probably). But it's not the main issue about time - it's the fact that when you take distances size and count of galaxies, AND you put TIME/ERA, plus the likeliness of an intelligent species to live in the same time as us into the equation - ET being here on a regular basis sounds even less plausible with this in mind.

The colonel I quotes also says "We don't have this kind of technology right now to its full extent, but we will most likely have it in about 50-100 years" so it really isn't exactly magic. Of course, we can also assume that UAPs are not the top of what these "guys" have as advancement in tech, it's just what they show to us. A good question would be - why being worried about showing magic to these hairless apes called humans when we're pretty much a century away of even grasping the tech that we currently observe. He also noted, that they seem to evolve and advance with us, that's if you take a closer look at the physical appearance of many sighted UAPS and the way they seem to have evolved through time.

To outline my stance clearly - I believe UFOs are accounted for by 1 - nartual phenomenon, 2 - misidentification, 3 - hoaxes, 4 - human adv tech. Then you have the ultra rare cases with extreme strangeness that really show no relation to other UFO reports - these could be anything, including ET. But these are rare and I would say anywhere between 1 to 10 sightings all in all in modern history. This is number 5. Number 6 is what I'm curious about - the reoccurring sightings of discs, triangles, chevrons. These have a lot in common and present a followable pattern...

Again, it's stupid to say ET doesn't exist and has never been here. I'd say it has happened at some point on Earth, but once again - we might not have even noticed or even if we did see something, that really seemed like magic to us. And I think these should be put aside when dealing with UFOs, in order not to get the stories mixed up.

All in all, I think it's useless to say "we can't know, because it's by nature unknown" and say that everything is possible. I'm still more inclined that we could use the method of sifting through the chaff, to make some sense of it all. And is what I'm doing with this thread.
edit on 26-5-2016 by ch1n1t0 because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-5-2016 by ch1n1t0 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 08:00 AM
link   
a reply to: valleean

I was replying to this..



2. A secret human technology can be categorically discarded. A lot of sound and fury all over the internet on this issue, but totally baseless, imho, if we keep thinking on a rational basis. David Marler makes very good points about it in his excellent book Triangular UFOs.

There are three main arguments against the secret man-made tech hypothesis: First, all these objects making impossible maneuvers at impossible speeds are being reported since many decades ago, at least from the very beginning of the nuclear era. So why was this technology, if human, not openly used in wars, in humanitarian missions, etc.? Why all this technology, if human, was confined to the rear of our social fabric and not openly used despite its clear technological success and its not-difficult-to-imagine costly development? Why are we still producing crafts which, technologically speaking, are infinitely far behind these allegedly secret man-made supercrafts?

Is it all a conspiracy? A conspiracy for what? Is it reasonable even to consider for a second the chance of a big conspiracy on this issue? Is it reasonable to assume that we humans have this amazing technology since many decades ago and the governments just use it for…? For what exactly?


But why would a man made hypothesis not include ETs? Reverse engineering combined with out of the box ideas is what we do best.

As for disclosure, I can see changes, not exactly cataclysmic but people would become aware, to many this would be a wake up call to their belief system regarding everything they have been told in the past to some even in what they believed in. That is if it the craft was man made and used in wars and the public would see one of the nations initials or flag on it.



The whole UFO issue is far beyond our understanding, perhaps far beyond our capabilities for understanding.


Perhaps, perhaps not. To most of the public definitely, some genius on the other hand can put things together for testing from just seeing or reading about it. It might never work but someone somewhere can get pretty close to mimicking and actual breakthrough, at least in some area.

Now imagine if the top scientists of the world, hired by government or rich private companies, actually got their hands on one of the crashed or, even better, preserved UFOs. Only thing that could limit us is the minerals not found on Earth, but then again there is always more than one way to achieve something.

A man saw a bird and wanted to fly and made an airplane. Studied a bird, saw that it`s different than a man so he made compromises but still mimicked the bird and voila. The age of aircrafts was born

edit on 26-5-2016 by Op3nM1nd3d because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 08:00 AM
link   
a reply to: ch1n1t0
Good morning to you too :-)

I'm going to have to think about the time bit a little before I come back to you, but I think that we are pretty much in agreement on the need for some kind of typological approach to ufo's.

But just a little point about the discs, chevrons and triangles, what would you say is the defining characteristics of this category of ufos?

If already answered and I missed it, my apologies :-)

Great thread anyhow and interesting discussion.

BT



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: beetee

First, to make a division about sizes - we have sightings of huge "craft" and in some cases, they seem to be related with the smaller "craft" although that's not necessarily something that I stick to, but the larger and smaller ones I think show different capabilities, apart from silence and invisibility, when needed. I'm saying this, mainly because the chevron seem to be more recently showing up, and they might be a part of explanation 4 - human tech. This, or the octopuses are finally fed up with us, pesky humans eating up their cousins and decided to show up in all their glory in their massive triangular warships (tongue-in-cheek).

1 - Slight wobbliness when hovering or going extremely slow.
2 - Capability to hover, accelerate rapidly. They produce either very low noise, or are totally silent, again due to various factors ("UAP" type variations, though, still from one and the same source)
3 - Don't mind us seeing them or even interacting with us, they do mind us seeing where they land or what/who they are really, though (basing this on the alleged contradictory stories that seem to come from these so-called aliens/humans from the future/AI/gods). Also, since it's a phenom that obviously doesn't act the same every time due to a vast number of common sense reasons, and depending on a number of factors, possibly even atmospheric. (I'm referring to differences such as sound production in some cases, against total silence)
4 - Appear to leave physical traces after close proximity to ground, or even after landing.
5 - In many cases, the witnesses are seen to bear psychological, sense distortion during the sighting period and physiological effects after close proximity or alleged abduction. Also, and this is strictly my opinion, but it seems that the way this affects some of the witnesses and even, if you will, brain chemistry, in a very long term way. In other words, it's a good question why so many researchers or UFO witnesses, even from the higher rankings, seem to go nuts and start throwing in chaff. (Rendlesham? Greer? Not one or two ex-military? Or level-headed researchers suddenly losing grip with reality?)
6 - They are of high interest to the military, especially if it's not one of their newer flight tech (and so many cases have contradictions to all of these being military).

By the way, I think that when I mentioned frequencies in a post earlier, that's partly suggestive on how these might be achieving such speeds and be able to stop in one place or invisibility for that matter. Have you also heard of noise cancellation, it's a real thing, sound engineers use it all the time. With a few hundred tablets rigged together, and ducktaped to an aircraft and with enough money/time/programmers, I would be able to render the craft partly invisible. And that's all in theory and yes, surely there are much better ways about doing that AND addressing other goals as well - like radar silence at a turn of a swtich. It's nothing that inconceivable by the mind, with our current understanding, at least. Is someone investing money in it and keeping it under wraps? Obviously. Is there something else, however, behind this all?

Many people will say at this point - well, isn't there a chance these are all human tech then? And yes, there is a chance. But I don't subscribe to it, because I believe, first we would have to make up our minds when the UFO phenom started, and also, try to put aside the possibility of really unique and rare cases throughout the thousands of years of human history when dealing with this. And I'm still not sure about it, myself. But I have a few good reasons on leaning towards this being in action before the nuclear age. Mainly, the way that the phenom plays out points in that way, as well as some particular cases from the last few thousand years.

A side note, if I may - the triangle that we saw during our 6 or more hour long sighting had three red lights close to the three edges. It rotated around it's center rapidly for an eyeblink, while flying slowly and silently at our altitude (we were at a mount top) about 150 meters away, then this was repeated few seconds apart. For about 20-25 seconds to finally get out of our sight by silently gliding away to the distance. Such rotation has been also attributed to some wobbly, hovering slow discs. Gyroscopes come to mind. Electrical magnetism, too.
edit on 26-5-2016 by ch1n1t0 because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-5-2016 by ch1n1t0 because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-5-2016 by ch1n1t0 because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-5-2016 by ch1n1t0 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
24
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join