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.

 

UFOs without Aliens

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Why does the study of or fascination with UFOs have to involve 'Aliens'?

I think there's plenty of interesting things to study just identifying UFOs and providing terrestrial explanations. I still think it's fun to hypothesize 'aliens' but why not put it further down the list of possibilities?

Some cases seem relatively easy to explain once you remove 'aliens' from the equation.


An Example:
Say we knew for a certainty, that what happened in Rendlesham Forest was not due to any 'aliens'.

Given that, what could have happened?

Could have been a 'mind control' experiment by the Army.

In fact, if you look over the case, you can immediately see elements of this. A base wants to test the troops to see how good security was. It's not unknown for the g-mint to use drugs or chemicals on the troops. (Who knows if, at times, it was without their knowledge?)


US Army '___' experiments on soldiers


Halt's taped comments give a slight hint that he could be having active hallucinations, repeating the same word over and over. ("weird"). The experience involved primarily visual elements, lights and beams.

Maybe they were dosed up on something without telltale 'I've been drugged' sensations, but still gave subtle visual hallucinations?

His memo and report just got 'lost' in the organization, as though something important was just being ignored.

Well, why not, they had completed the 'experiment'? Time to minimize the aftereffects; sweep it under the rug; nothing to see here, move along.

Embarrassed at the idea they used the troops for a medical experiment in such a blatant way, particularly since it was a high security base, it's better to say little and let people think it was paranormal to deflect potential blame.

It explains a few things that were mysterious about the case without invoking aliens.


Flying Objects
We have the capability to do almost anything in the skies.

We have remotely powered vehicles (RPVs), we have vectored thrust, we have optical effects and lasers.

The staff of Area 51 could hire Industrial Light and Magic and put on a Steven Spielburg-ian display that would knock our socks off and make believers of even the most ardent skeptic.

It might be that the best way to research UFO cases is to presume first a terrestrial explanation.

Taking this approach will also prevent us from being fooled by anyone hoaxing the presence of aliens for control purposes.




posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 11:30 AM
link   
good post, nice approach also.
its easy to assume that ufo's are real because of the volume of evidence makes it a reality. I think a lot of people however are too quick to instantly associate ufos with aliens when there could be so many other explainations.

I personally like the hypothesis that they are an example of modern folklore but taken a step further could all folklore throughout history, from fairies to dragons have been the result of a kind of mass-sub-consciouss projection resulting from the combined conscioussness/imagination of the entire human race?

To me this does not retract from the mystries appeal, in fact it adds to it. For in a time when quantum physics is telling us that reality, at least at the most fundamental level we know about, is intrinsicly linked with consciousness, is it not possible that we imprint the things upon our reality which we imagine/concieve as a species?



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 11:35 AM
link   
I think its also worth suggesting that our first steps off this planet were with crashing vehicles then satellites then robots.

Wouldnt it be a valid idea that any intelligence from other planets also used that similar idea?



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Badge01
Why does the study of or fascination with UFOs have to involve 'Aliens'?

Probably the most basic reason is that 'aliens' have been reported so often, whether by hoaxers or by those who may not be hoaxers. In some cases, the 'aliens' have told people they are from 'out there,' for example, Betty and Barney Hill. I have no idea whether any of these stories are true, but in terms of popular culture, UFOs involve aliens because they've been seen associated with them.


Some cases seem relatively easy to explain once you remove 'aliens' from the equation....(Rendlesham Forest) could have been a 'mind control' experiment by the Army.

The problem with this is that the speculation is more complex than the UFO explanation. After all, 'aliens' are not involved in this incident at all--it's just a UFO. the case for it being drugs is weak. Just because a guy says 'weird' a few times doesn't mean you can jump on the drug explanation. Without any 'alien' involvement, it's not a very good case to make your point anyway. Speculation without evdence may be easy, but it isn't any more likely to be true.



It might be that the best way to research UFO cases is to presume first a terrestrial explanation....Taking this approach will also prevent us from being fooled by anyone hoaxing the presence of aliens for control purposes.

I actually think this is not a bad idea at all. In fact, the vast majority UFOs are dealt with in precisely this fashion. They are, in fact, aircraft, balloons, car lights, etc. We've seen many balloons posted right here on ATS as purported UFOs. Of course, you have to deal with the anger shown by people pushing their favorite balloon as a UFO when you point this out. Francine (gottigo) is a good extreme example of this behavior, but there are many others. How people can claim "the craft is showing intelligent manuvering" when it is obviously drifting out of control in the wind is just one of those issues you have to deal with.

However, if 'aliens' are part of the equation, they need to be dealt with in any explanation. If you assume the presence of aliens means 'automatic hoax' you may be throwing the aliens out with the bath water.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Nice thread, I like your scientific open minded approach trying to account for all hypothesis.



Originally posted by Badge01
Given that, what could have happened?

Could have been a 'mind control' experiment by the Army.


Yeah, it could've been some sort of mind control experiment by the Army on some specific occasion, but I doubt it.

However, the mind control experiments don't explain all the accounts of people outside the military, outside the USA - most likely in places where those sort of experiments never took/take place.



US Army '___' experiments on soldiers


Again, this doesn't explain the accounts of people outside the military, from different countries, locations on earth, backgrounds, etc.



Flying Objects
We have the capability to do almost anything in the skies.

We have remotely powered vehicles (RPVs), we have vectored thrust, we have optical effects and lasers.


This one might very well account for some sightings. However, we have a problem with this: when you say 'we have the capability to do almost anything in the skies', we don't know exactly what 'our' capabilities are.

Although there's no official acknowledgment I'm pretty sure everyone here in ATS suspects that the US (and probably other countries') Military are most likely working on classified planes and propulsion technologies.

We either accept that the incredible displays of speed and maneuvering of these objects are result of those classified projects, or we have to consider that they belong to someone else with a more advanced technology: extraterrestrial beings.

Of course we could apply Occam's Razor here, but there are abduction accounts and people who say they seen these beings and are clearly not human.

I know that some time people's mind plays tricks on them especially in light of some strange event that they can't explain, but why don't these people see God or other mystical creatures? Why do they see aliens?

Either those people 1) made it up; 2) were confused and didn't understand what they saw or 3) they really saw aliens because aliens exist.

Taking all of those things in consideration, the alien hypothesis is the only one that accounts for all the details.

I don't reject that there are a lot of hoaxes, misidentified objects and events, but I doubt ALL the people involved are making it up or misidentified what they saw.



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join