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.

 

Can you explain why we see UFO's but very seldom hear them?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 03:59 AM
link   
Seriously, I don't understand how come people have such a hard time admitting to the possibility of inteligent/advanced life forms out there in the Universe, to the point that they have to consider "paranormal manifestations", "interdimensional beings" as more plausible explanations.

Earth isn't BY FAR the oldest (and only) planet in the Universe. The Milky Way isn't BY FAR the oldest (and only) galaxy in the Universe.
Science has no idea how big the Universe is, how many galaxies and planets there are for certain.

Honestly, taking all this into consideration and still believing that it's impossible for other inteligent life forms to exist in the Universe somewhere, is egocentric to say the least.




posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by danx
Seriously, I don't understand how come people have such a hard time admitting to the possibility of inteligent/advanced life forms out there in the Universe,


I don't have a hard time admitting the possiblilty; I've studied it to my own satisfaction. I've decided, based on my own readings, that the chance is remote. Not impossible; just very remote.





to the point that they have to consider "paranormal manifestations", "interdimensional beings" as more plausible explanations.


I am willing to entertain any hypothesis that explains the phenomena. Based on what I've learnt, that explanation fits the best. Are there some theories that shouldn't be considered? Is it ironic for a believer in UFO's to tell another poster that they are being rediculous?




Honestly, taking all this into consideration and still believing that it's impossible for other inteligent life forms to exist in the Universe somewhere, is egocentric to say the least.


I didn't say it was [bimpossible. I said it was unlikely. Here's my exact phrasing:


newer research points in the direction that statistically, we are in all probability alone among intelligent life in the Universe.





You are assuming every living organism has the same tolerance to the environment and the Universe and all its 'hazards'.


No, actually I'm assuming that if a living organism is going to be more "like us," the more it will have the same requirements for life that we do. The more exotic a life form is, the less these arguments apply. But the less they are like us, then the less they are biological entities . . . which leads me back to the argument in my first post.

Here's an intro to the drake equation:
Drake

Here's the Wikipedia article on Drake and Sagan

Note this comment:


Confidence in ne was once higher, but the discovery of numerous gas giants in close orbit with their stars has introduced doubt that life-supporting planets commonly survive the creation of their stellar systems. In addition, most stars in our galaxy are red dwarfs, which have little of the ultraviolet radiation that has contributed to the evolution of life on Earth. Instead they flare violently, mostly in X-rays—a property not conducive to life as we know it (simulations also suggest that these bursts erode planetary atmospheres). The possibility of life on moons of gas giants (e.g. Jupiter's satellite Europa) adds further uncertainty to this figure.


But moving on:



Again, more assumptions.
You have no idea what information they can extract from our blood (or whatever its in our blood).


Actually I do have an idea. Blood cells don't have a full complement of our DNA that is copied for reproduction. Blood doesn't have mitochondria DNA. So whatever they want with our blood, they aren't doing mitochondrial research. And if they have such amazing god-like powers that they can get impossible information from our blood, then why can't they get the same information from a hair or a fingernail clipping? why do they have to have blood? I am suggesting, as a hypothesis, that they want blood for some other purpose. . . .



Like I said before, the 'laws' of physics don't represent UNIVERSAL TRUTHS, since they are continuosly being worked on, some prove to be incorrect or incomplete, as time and science moves on.


Have Newton's laws of motion been disproven? No. Einstein posited certain alterations under extreme situations near stars or black holes etc.; but It hasn't turned out that Newton was "incorrect." So until then, we can continue to apply Newtons's "laws" near the earth's surface until we actually do find a problem with them. Which leads me right back to the things I posted, based on the science we have to work with.



Assumption..
And you believe that anti-gravity would be the only means of transportation/propulsion in an alien craft because..?
And even if it's the only method of propulsion how can you say for sure that anti-gravity is useless in space?


I never said it was a possible means of propulsion. Other posters suggested it. I'm discussing why it doesn't explain UFO's very well.

And I can say it's useless because Newton's work (until disproven) says that gravity is an inverse-square law. It diminishes exponentially the further you get from another body (like a planet). If anti-gravity "pushes" against a gravitational field, then it's useless in space, where there is no gravity. I posted this already.

A lot of you're responses, in my opinion, boil down to the idea that "maybe science is totally wrong." While it may be true, it doesn't tell us anything useful about the UFO phenomenon. If I ask you why UFO's behave the way they do, and you respond with "humans are idiots," there's nothing for us to learn or test about our knowledge of them.

On the other hand, the idea that they are not creatures from another planet at all, but are something else entirely, is a hypothesis that has predictive values.

If UFO's are connected with paranormal phenomena, then we might begin by checking to see whether UFO's are more common near graveyards or other 'haunted' places, whether UFO occupants behave like other paranormal entities, and whether their motivations might be more understandable in those terms, than in terms of aliens who are studying us.


.



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
i do not mean to put words into " SHOTS " mouth , but i believe he is specifically refering to UFO sigtings where it is claimed that the UFO was moving @ supersonic speeds

the big clue in his OP was the google KWs he said he was using UFO and " sonic boom "



Yes you where right on and in this case the history channel alleged that in the early to mid 50's many people claimed they saw at least one over the white-house and a radar operator alledgedly stated he tracked it or them at speeds up to 7,000 mph at around 30,000 ft.


According to NSAS and Air force websites a sonic boom at 30000 feet will create a lateral boom spread of about 30 mile, yet not one person reported hearing one that day according to History Channel.

Now I find that very odd and that is the reason I brought the question up



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 12:03 PM
link   
You know I experienced the exact opposite as a child. I woke up hearing what I thought was a UFO. I never saw anything. (I was too scared to look outside). It was a low humming sound that had a whirring sound to it is as best as I can describe it. The hum was so intense though you could almost feel it. It created a vibration in the air.

My husband who actually saw something when he was a child, experienced the same sounds from what he saw. There was not a sonic boom as it took off. The vibration just stopped.



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Greetings, dr_strangecraft et al…

Fascinating discussion – thank you for adding your insights and giving me and others different perspectives to ponder.

Like you, I’ve done extensive research on this topic of extraterrestrial life, and while I personally believe in it, I admit we have no (public) empirical evidence of their existence. Nevertheless, I believe some of the logic our good dr_s has expressed may be flawed.

I agree that some of Drake/Sagan assumptions for variables in their equation are perhaps a bit optimistic, superfluous even. In circumspect, there are alternative ways to think and logically, mathematically reach a similar conclusion.

I implore everyone here (esp. the doc) to pick up a copy of the following book and read it. You’ll find yourself amazed and quoting from it often. This is a great addition to any library for those interested in this subject. The author does not rely on Drake’s equation, yet clearly lays out in lay terms an unambiguous, irrefutable case for it to be impossible that our planet alone harbors life in the universe.

Almost no math and no equations will distract you from the treatise and it is an enjoyable, captivating quick reading. You’ll have no trouble finishing the paperback in a few sessions. The basis for the author’s study is heavily grounded in mathematics, however, particularly the probability laws, such as the:
*Union of collection of independent events
*Sequential probability paradigm
*Information inspection paradox
*Panspermia hypothesis
*Increasing entropy in thermodynamics
*Chaotic probability distributions in deterministic and random systems

For those unfamiliar with these terms, don’t let it intimidate you – the book is very easy to grasp…

Probability 1, by Amir D. Aczel, Harcourt, Inc., ISBN: 0-15-601080-1 (pbk.)

This is a fun, entertaining read and may even alter your thinking a bit. There’s tons of used copies available at Amazon from only one cent ($0.01).

You can get it here, right now: Probab ility 1


In fact, my good dr, if you u2u me an address, I’ll even order it for you…

Enjoy… (and apologies to the op for getting a bit off ‘sonic booms’ for a moment)

edit-fix link



[edit on 1/13/2007 by Outrageo]



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
A lot of you're responses, in my opinion, boil down to the idea that "maybe science is totally wrong." While it may be true, it doesn't tell us anything useful about the UFO phenomenon. If I ask you why UFO's behave the way they do, and you respond with "humans are idiots," there's nothing for us to learn or test about our knowledge of them.


No.
My responses boil down to the idea that just because our current perceptions of physics and science in geral can't explain what we're observing, doesn't mean the explanation has to be something radically different.

Your logic (and hypothesis), to me, is similar to what people used to do throughout history, before science ruled people's lives: when they witnessed something they couldn't explain, it had to be the work of godly forces.

I know you're not saying UFOs are work of godly forces, but you're putting it 'out there', out of our reach, with your 'paranormal hypothesis'.



On the other hand, the idea that they are not creatures from another planet at all, but are something else entirely, is a hypothesis that has predictive values.


I'm sorry, the 'paranormal hypothesis' has more 'predictive values' than the extraterrestrial hypothesis?

Clearly, we have opposite opinions.



If UFO's are connected with paranormal phenomena, then we might begin by checking to see whether UFO's are more common near graveyards or other 'haunted' places, whether UFO occupants behave like other paranormal entities...


Sorry but I can't embrace this idea at all.

And let me ask you something.

Since you criticized my comments for saying that science and the laws of physics might be wrong/incomplete, how exactly do these laws of physics apply to your 'paranormal hypothesis'?



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 01:52 PM
link   
From what I understand, in additon to the other comments, with which I agree with most of, antigravity propulsion is really a for of repulsion. In other words the use of magnets to "push away" from another magnetic force, i.e the earth. And, as we all know when you take two magnets and try to push them together the wrong way they "push" away from one another this form of power is completely silent.
The only sound I have heard of is the sound of air displacing at a high rate of speed.
-hope I helped.



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by theutahbigfoothunter
From what I understand, in additon to the other comments, with which I agree with most of, antigravity propulsion is really a for of repulsion.
(...)
The only sound I have heard of is the sound of air displacing at a high rate of speed.
-hope I helped.


Although I tend to agree with your first statement, and believe that anti-gravity might work by repelling gravity waves, thus propelling the craft, not such much with that second one.

If you account for the sound of 'air displacing at a high rate of speed', if that rate of speed is higher than 761mph (mach 1), then you have in fact a sonic boom.



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by danx
If you account for the sound of 'air displacing at a high rate of speed', if that rate of speed is higher than 761mph (mach 1), then you have in fact a sonic boom.


Since sonic booms are not generally heard during a sighting then there must be something else involved, something that may not be "scientifically" catagorized. It may be possible that what the experiencer is perceiving to be happening, eg. something taking off at an extreme rate of speed, is actually something else taking place.

It could be a dimensional shift of sort or cloaking device. I am stepping out on a limb with those two. All it would take would be to alter the perception a little bit.



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Danx.

If the reports of UFO's are based on some actual phenomenon (other that the witnesses being mistaken), it's pretty obvious to me that SOME of our understandings will have to be revised. No argument there.

I use the term "paranormal" because I don't want to call the phenomenon supernatural. Supernatural means that something is "beyond the natural," in which case, deductive reasoning will be useless to understand it.

Paranormal, on the other hand, means that something is extremely odd and rare, but that it doesn't defy our understanding of the way the universe works. Back in the 1680's, there was another areal phenomenon, that was laughed at by most people: meteorites.

Scientists, following Newton, argued that hot stones simply could not fall out of the clear blue sky. Because if they could fall, they should have done so before now; perhaps when the universe was first formed.

It turns out, for those people, that meteorites were real, objective phenomena. They were not supernatural; they didn't magically teleport to an altitude of 10,000 feet above the earth, and then come crashing down. They turned out to obey Newton's laws of motion after all. It was just that meteors were so RARE that they were beyond the scope of science back then: they were para-normal.

Now, meteors have become normal for us, because we've developed tools for measuring them, and we can track them and even begin to predict when the larger ones might threaten earth. But this happened witout overturning Newton or saying that meteorites are caused by witches.

It turns out that Newton was right---he just had no idea how truly vast and old our solar system is.

Now, as far as UFO's go, I'm not saying they CAN'T exist. I'm saying the investigations I've participated in have convinced me that UFO reports are as much a sociological phenomenon as they are a physical one. Further, I believe the reason that the "science" of UFO's hasn't made any progress is because some of our fundamental assumptions about them are flawed: namely, that they are physical spacecraft piloted by intelligent astronauts from other planets.

I could be wrong. I have steeled myself for that possibility. And when I think about what could cause UFO's, I'm always wondering in the back of my mind whether they really could be either military or extraterrestrial spacecraft.

All I'm saying is, I have satisfied myself that the popular explanation--that "greys" are visiting the earth, has as many holes in it as the idea that they are all swamp gas or meteors does.

My mind is open on the matter. The alien hypothesis has some serious problems with it, and so I'm open to coming up with other explanations. You are not willing to entertain one of those alternatives: you've made that crystal clear. Anything that could be labeled "paranormal" is nothing you are willing to consider or discuss.

For my part, I think the idea explains some key problems with UFOs-as-spacecraft.

For one, when a UFO disappears, where does it go? I have seen UFO's that dissappeared into the distance. I have also seen arieal objects that disappeared instantly, or else slowly faded away. To me, the easiest explanation is that the object has ceased to exist in our world. Now, what other things can blink in and out of existence? Can nasa spaceships? No. Can military aircraft? No. Can ghosts, if they exist? . . . Yes.

Do even our most advanced aircraft defy the laws of physics? can they roar past us at a thousand miles an hour without noticebly displacing air, without making a sound (the point of this thread)? No. Can ghosts, or elves, or visions of Samarai masters? Yes.

Can any material object transport itself from one location, to another, without passing through the intervening space? No. Can elves, or wizards, or indian spirit guides? Yes. In fact, thats what those supposed beings are famous for . . .

If alien spacefarers can beam themselves into an abductee's bedroom at night, why do they even need a spaceship? Maybe they don't. . . . maybe they use the spaceship as a "prop," so you will think they are something believeable, like men from another planet.

I'm not saying that UFO's don't exist. Nor am I saying that I believe in elves or fairies or ascended samurai masters or spirit guides as such. What I am saying is that maybe ALL these stories (UFO's included) have some deeper cause, some quality that makes us misinterpret them, just as our ancestors misinterpreting the things THEY saw.

I'm saying that UFO's and greys may have more in common with other paranormal phenomena than they do with how much water is on Mars, or how many planets are capable of supporting life in the universe. In this post, I think I've shown some remarkable similarities between UFO and various figures from folklore. I'm not saying "I know there's a connection," or "you must agree with me," or "if you don't you're wrong." I'm saying, this is what I see.

For my part, I could recommend an excellent book. It's a book no one reads now, because Hollywood took the title and made a really crappy movie with that name. The guy who wrote the book was the producer for the classic TV series "In search of . . ."

The guy did the show because he was a UFO researcher and he wanted to get people thinking about them in an open-minded way. (too bad they didn't have ATS back in 1968!)

He came to the conclusion that there WERE some intelligent forces behind UFO's, but that they were far different from the "little green (grey?) men" of popular imagination. He became convince that the forces responsible for UFO phenomena were "using" us in some way.

Now THERE'S a conspiracy theory for ya! But, thanks to hollywood, no one reads his books now. He's "just a nut."

Here's his biography on Wikipedia: John Keel

I read the book the other poster recommended, on the off chance some other poster may be moved to actually read his fine book, and ignore the idiot movie.

That book is The Mothman Prophecies.

[edit on 13-1-2007 by dr_strangecraft]



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Perhaps alien ships arn't displacing that much air. Perhaps they are mearly sliping through the air not actualy causing that much vibration in the air. How? Got me. Perhaps they are inside a small sphere of a vaccum that the air is surounding and therefore the air does not rip or tear when they fly at high speeds.

Got me. Perhaps they are just good at technology and can fly realy fast without creating a rukkus.



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
Perhaps alien ships arn't displacing that much air.


Well, they are if they are solid objects. That is the definition of a solid object. One that will displace air, or be stopped by another solid object. But I agree with you; they may not be as solid as they appear, because they are not continuously material objects.



Perhaps they are mearly sliping through the air not actualy causing that much vibration in the air. How? Got me. Perhaps they are inside a small sphere of a vaccum that the air is surounding and therefore the air does not rip or tear when they fly at high speeds.


Vibration is not the issue. The problem is, when a solid object moves, the air in front of it mus be forced aside, and then go back where it was before. All that moving of air creates a draft; and at high speeds, makes an audible "bang," as the air is thrust aside. It's why a jet is shaped the way it is, to minimize the drag of the air, which rubs against the jet as the plane slips through the air.

There is an airplane wing design that uses laminar flow to greatly reduce drag, by putting out a shield of air through holes in the wing; kind of like an air hockey table. This effect greatly reduces drag, up to the speed of sound. But it doesn't change the effect of fluid dynamics. There's still a BANG and a DRAFT with supersonic craft.

But I think you're closer with the idea that UFOs are not permanent material objects . . .



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
My mind is open on the matter. The alien hypothesis has some serious problems with it, and so I'm open to coming up with other explanations.

What problems? The fact that you don't have conclusive proof?

I don't have proof for your hypothesis as well.




You are not willing to entertain one of those alternatives: you've made that crystal clear. Anything that could be labeled "paranormal" is nothing you are willing to consider or discuss.

What I believe I made clear, at least, what I intended to express, is that we shouldn't jump to conclusions.

As I said before in my post, it looks to me that the logic you're applying to the UFO phenomenon is the same as people used to use for everything they couldn't explain, and would attribute it to religious phenomenon.

"If we can't explain, surely it has to be something completely different!"

This is with what I disagree.




For one, when a UFO disappears, where does it go?

I don't know.
And personally I have never seen any UFO disappear.
I've seen videos of it, yes, and that's not conclusive proof.

However I find it interesting that you state something like:



Scientists, following Newton, argued that hot stones simply could not fall out of the clear blue sky.
(...)
It turns out, for those people, that meteorites were real, objective phenomena. They were not supernatural; they didn't magically teleport to an altitude of 10,000 feet above the earth, and then come crashing down.

yet, it does not apply to 'disappearing' UFOs.




I have seen UFO's that dissappeared into the distance. I have also seen arieal objects that disappeared instantly, or else slowly faded away. To me, the easiest explanation is that the object has ceased to exist in our world.

This is where our opinions and beliefs diverge.
To me, the easiest explanation is that the object displays behaviours that we (mankind and present day science) haven't understood or conceive as possible, yet.




Now, what other things can blink in and out of existence? Can nasa spaceships? No. Can military aircraft? No.

How would a B2 look like to people 500 years ago? Could they explain it? No. Is it 'paranormal'? No.

Can military aircraft display the behaviour that UFOs do?
I don't know. I for one, have no idea what the military are testing/developing right now. But if you know for sure, good for you. Just dont hold it against me if I dont take your word for it





Can any material object transport itself from one location, to another, without passing through the intervening space? No. Can elves, or wizards, or indian spirit guides? Yes. In fact, thats what those supposed beings are famous for . . .

Mystical beings, yes, without any physical evidence of their presence, unlike UFOs.




If alien spacefarers can beam themselves into an abductee's bedroom at night, why do they even need a spaceship? Maybe they don't. . . . maybe they use the spaceship as a "prop," so you will think they are something believeable, like men from another planet.

Just because I believe that aliens are behind (some of the) UFO sightings, doesn't mean I believe in alien abductions stories.




In this post, I think I've shown some remarkable similarities between UFO and various figures from folklore. I'm not saying "I know there's a connection," or "you must agree with me," or "if you don't you're wrong." I'm saying, this is what I see.

I understand that is what you believe. It's not what I believe however.

Thank you for the suggestion. I will look into that book.




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join