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.

 

Are ETs that stupid?

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 06:18 AM
link   
reply to post by andre18
 


Isn't this the point? Could we really detect an ET spacecraft many thousands of years ahead of us? Just look at our own history. WOuld people of the 17th century know what to do with an Ipod or a mobile phone? Even if they dismantled it, they would still be none the wise as solid state physics and qunatum mechanics are centuries in the distance...




posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by timelike
Actually Tayga, I think you've made a staggeringly great point that I had never considered before. Nearly all UFOs which are reported as craft are exactly that, recognisable as nut's and bolts spaceships. You would imagine that any ET craft would be as alien as their biology and philosophy. Interesting. I guess it's equivalent to growing up on a desert island alone. One day a message in a bottle arrives on the beach. Would you recognise it as a message?


But....

History is full of "flying wheels", dragons, "flying shields", "fallen angels", faeries, goblins, trolls, airships, beings of light and flaming apparitions.

What I'm saying is that people apply the best decriptions of objects that they can to them, without necessarily knowing what they are.

So while you say "nearly all UFO's are reported as craft which are exactly that, recognisable as nuts and bolts spaceships" I would challenge that and say that such things have only been reported after WW2, when the world lost a whole lot of innocence and realised that technology could explain things.

Up until that point, the goblin that stole the children, the dragon that spat fire as it approached the earth, the huge flying shield and the mystery cylindrical airship that sped off at speed could well have been something a whole lot more interesting to us these days, as we have recognised that one day we too might actually travel to the stars.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

What I'm saying is that people apply the best decriptions of objects that they can to them, without necessarily knowing what they are.

So while you say "nearly all UFO's are reported as craft which are exactly that, recognisable as nuts and bolts spaceships" I would challenge that and say that such things have only been reported after WW2, when the world lost a whole lot of innocence and realised that technology could explain things.


Thanks for bringing up a really good point. I've heard it before and had forgotten it. Did UFOs start with the Foo Fighters or was that just a new rationalisation of the same age-old phenomena? Known optical illusions tell us that the brain tries to fit what we see into patterns that make sense, that we are prepared to believe. The current rock on Mars picture shows it too.

I've always attributed the disappearance of dragons and wheels of fire, in the West at least, with the decline in the authority of religion. If ETs do visit us, it would be surprising if they'd only started since WWII and that is why I support the black ops theory of UFOs. However this rationalisation thing is an equally valid interpretation.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 08:14 AM
link   
Maybe their standard science/civilian craft are not fitted with stealth technology/equipment unlike their military ones.

Maybe they are confident that mankind does not have the technology to shoot them down. They got this one wrong, although it would still be difficult for us to shoot one down with certain conventional weapons, excluding the high end ones.

Maybe they made a pact with our governments to allow them free access to our air space without our military interference, illegal aliens will be shoot at though.....


Maybe they are trying to get us used to seeing their craft so that there will be less panic/stress, when they come to abduct, the same tactics our scientist use to do reseach on some animals in the wild.

Very few scientist and tour guides bother to camouflage their vehicles on Safari trips. Our scientists would sure love a stealth vehicle on any of such trips, but I doubt their can convice and borrow one from military. Actually I don't think they need a stealth vehicle for such a purpose, except for a militray black ops on wild animals.

(joke, non-serious post, don't get mad) (may still be the case, but I don't really know)

[edit on 23-1-2008 by ixiy]



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 08:46 AM
link   


The US military openly admitted to using Stealth technology some years ago. Stealth is, as far as I understand it, simply a way of altering the way an object interacts with RADAR wavelength electromagnetic radiation (EM) so that the object is actually or nearly invisible to instruments which detect RADAR wavelength reflections.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that Stealth is not really that new. In other words, the public announcement of Stealth Technology almost certainly came a number of years after it was implemented by the US military.


The Lockheed and CIA U-2 program started back in the early 50's, and the program is basically what necessitated the need for establishing the Groom Lake facility (or Area 51). So stealth has been around for a while.



As I understand it, RADAR relies totally on reflection of the particular wavelengths of EM that are emitted by the detection equipment. Similarly, the visibility of objects to our eyes relies mostly on reflection of visible wavelengths of EM. A small part relies on shadowing, i.e. where an object is backlit and in this sense visible detection differs from RADAR.

However, given that RADAR and visible light reflection/detection are based on the same physical principles, is it very far-fetched to think that military science is not already close to visible Stealth? If we concede that, then how likely is it that an advanced alien civilisation does not have the technology to render its spacecraft invisible?


Sure, but such advances do not make the crafts immune to Murphy's Law. Things go wrong. It is illogical to ascribe some kind of omniscience to alien beings or infallability. If we are to assume that these crafts can bend space/time as some insiders have come out and suggested, then this could easily account for the ability to bend light around the crafts. However, again as we've often learned with our tech, the more advanced something is, the more prone it is to a malfunction also.



My own opinion is that any advanced civilisation would be able to do this and I’m inclined to wonder why such a culture would allow its craft to be seen by us. Furthermore, if the intent were for us to see them, why are their appearances so vague and poorly-recorded?


Who says they are allowing it? Could be malfunction, pilot error, or pilot intentions...there are a host of possibilities here. The fact that (assuming they exist) they have not yet made themselves publicly known to Earth's inhabitants shows that their intent is secrecy in addition to any other agenda. Craft speed, maneuverability, and our own tech limits have all contributed to poor images, but there are also a host of many good images as well. Problem is, in our present time, it is way too easy to forge a photo or video, so this is no longer good evidence (unless proven to be of earlier origin).



My own opinion is that extraterrestrial civilisation is probable rather than merely possible but I’ve never been convinced that any UFO sightings are due to alien spacecraft. Does anyone have a line of evidence or reasoning that can confidently rule out Chinese lanterns, lenticular clouds, Venus and secret military aircraft or is there merely a supposition based on unsubstantiated witness reports and a prevailing theory?


Statistics would agree with you, ET civilization is a high probability given the number of stars and planets in the Universe. The biggest problem is distance. Even going at the speed of light, it would take eons to reach even the closest stars. Therefore, in order to accept ET visitation, one has to then make another leap of faith, into accepting FTL travel, or that such beings are inhabitants of "local" planets. Why rule out Chinese lanterns, etc.? Indeed, the vast majority of UFO sightings are misidentified normal phenomenon. However, if just ONE case is an extraterrestrial vehicle, then there you go. It only takes ONE genuine case to make the phenomenon of ET visitation a reality. There are several such examples....the 100 best cases is a good place to start, right here on ATS. While some are to be avoided as all but proven hoaxing (Adamski, Meier), there are plenty of others that offer compelling evidence that rules out other explanations (Roswell, Rendlesham, and the Hill Case, for example).



So while you say "nearly all UFO's are reported as craft which are exactly that, recognisable as nuts and bolts spaceships" I would challenge that and say that such things have only been reported after WW2, when the world lost a whole lot of innocence and realised that technology could explain things.


Actually, there are plenty of cases prior to WW2, and even some photos from the 1920's and 30's (I remember one in particular (either '29 or '39), where a farmer is on the roadside posing with his new pickup, and there's a rather remarkable disc UFO in the top right corner of the photo).

In addition, there has to be some kind of context. Prior to man's own experience with flying craft, how do you think we would have described such objects in the sky? As a flying, flaming wheel perhaps? Think about it, and you'll find plenty of pre-WW2 example possibilities.

[edit on 23-1-2008 by Gazrok]



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
History is full of "flying wheels", dragons, "flying shields", "fallen angels", faeries, goblins, trolls, airships, beings of light and flaming apparitions.


I agree, and back in the times they were seen in they had their own interpretations of them. There is an inherent danger in looking back at them with our belief structure (i.e. they must be alien craft) and saying ah look they were drawing aliens/ and spaceships but they didn't realise it and represented them by faeries and and flying shields...


Originally posted by neformore
What I'm saying is that people apply the best decriptions of objects that they can to them, without necessarily knowing what they are.

This is the crux of the argument for me. It's not about people giving their best descriptions of something unusual, it's the fact that there was something unusual there to begin with! This is what bothers me, a very advanced ET spieces which is detectable to us. As I said before, I would imagine any alien to have a similarly alien philosophy of movement and travel.


Originally posted by neformore
Up until that point, the goblin that stole the children, the dragon that spat fire as it approached the earth, the huge flying shield and the mystery cylindrical airship that sped off at speed could well have been something a whole lot more interesting to us these days, as we have recognised that one day we too might actually travel to the stars.


Quite, we are looking at historical documents and carvings with the mindset of seeing alien visitors in the past. Suprisingly, we find them. I'm not at all convinced I'm afraid.

[edit on 23-1-2008 by timelike]



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok

... as we've often learned with our tech, the more advanced something is, the more prone it is to a malfunction also.

... Who says they are allowing it? Could be malfunction, pilot error, or pilot intentions...there are a host of possibilities here.

... in order to accept ET visitation, one has to then make another leap of faith, into accepting FTL travel, or that such beings are inhabitants of "local" planets.


Well this in itself suggests that a vast majority of UFO sightings are nothing to do with ETs. If we factored together the probability of cultures with FTL travel (or being from a local planet), the number even interested in us and the number of them also undergoing glitches or pilot error that would surely be a small number

But there would have to be THOUSANDS of them if we only saw the ones where errors had occurred.

I guess the attitude here is to be vigilant but circumspect. Surely there's not likely to be much genuine evidence around?

By the way, Gazrok, many thanks for your work in compiling the UFO cases. It takes some reading. God alone knows what you had to go through to write it!



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by timelike

...we are looking at historical documents and carvings with the mindset of seeing alien visitors in the past. Suprisingly, we find them. I'm not at all convinced I'm afraid.


I suppose that without knowing what was going with the people who made the carvings, it would be nothing but the wildest of speculation to try to explain them. Were these people lucid or on drugs, epileptic or simply the Sci-Fi writers of their day?



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   
I don't think anybody here knows the whys and hows of ET visitation. Why would they want to be seen sometimes and not others? Probably for the same reasons humans don't want to be seen and not seen at certain times.

The subject of UFOs/ETs has never been consistent and requiring consistency for belief in the subject will get you nowhere.

[edit on 23-1-2008 by Frith]



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Im i not correct in remembering these WWII foo-fighters, spotted by bombers and the such, to be glowing orbs, more than nutsy-boltsy? Was it not because of the situation, with fear of unknown nazi technology - and later Russian dito -that made witnesses and authorities prone to identifying such craft as "machines"?



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 12:21 PM
link   
"They" let us see them because it wakes people up!

Its as simple as that.

Think about it this way.....

If ET's are our creator, or at least manipulated our DNA, they would have to show themselves from time to time. If their goal was to ultimately have us join the intergalactic neighborhood, they would need to slowly acclimate us for that transition.

If they never showed themselves, then what would people wonder about?

If you were an advanced species monitoring earth and its inhabitants, would you not try to inspire people by letting them glimpse your craft?

People need to slowly become aware.

Most "Sheeple" would not be able to cope with Aliens from other worlds.

So, "they" choose to let us wonder........for now.

But at least we are aware!





[edit on 23-1-2008 by IMAdamnALIEN]



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by IMAdamnALIEN
 


Yeah, well im a little more "proud" than that my alien-hugging friend =)
My momma told me not to trust strangers, so that's what i'll not! Hmm, but my dear mother would probably take YOUR stance, were the mothership to come... Damnit! I'm still including NWO psy-ops to the whole mess of soon-to-come contact scenarios. Someone may "hi-jack" the whole thing, just as true contact is on the brink, in order to consolidate power and force some view upon us about what the aliens part in humanity truly is. But i guess the Sitchinites will conquer...



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by timelike
Quite, we are looking at historical documents and carvings with the mindset of seeing alien visitors in the past. Suprisingly, we find them. I'm not at all convinced I'm afraid.


But I'm not doing that


I'm asking how you explain a historical account of a "shield flying over a town" at great speed.

So how do you do that?



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 



I'm asking how you explain a historical account of a "shield flying over a town" at great speed.

So how do you do that?


where is this specific account from, if i may ask? And you know there are many PC ways to explain such an event. such as "Mass psykosis" (whatever those are...) narcotic intoxication or religious expectations. Depending on what period of time we're dealing with. but i'll admit; when people of olden times go nutters and see things, they usully see something that fits into mythology or religion more than crazy stuff like that.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by IMAdamnALIEN
 


There are sooo many if's in that argument...



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
I'm asking how you explain a historical account of a "shield flying over a town" at great speed.

So how do you do that?


Without knowing the full story and the circumstances I'm not going to try. It is pointless to second guess the carvings of a person who has been dead for many many centuries. Would you like to provide the full reference and account? I'm sure I could come up with an equally valid interpretation!

All I'm saying is that it is not a valid argument to say"right, I'm going to look for alien visitiation in human past, oh this guy writes about flying shields that must be one!" As Tayga points out, what if he was writing some form of creative writing or high on drugs? As an example of misinterpretation, suppose some alien beings recieved our TV broadcasts and saw Star Trek, they may think of us as a real space nation (though God only knows what they'd make of Enterprise...)



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frith

The subject of UFOs/ETs has never been consistent and requiring consistency for belief in the subject will get you nowhere.


This goes back to my starting position. I believe ETs are highly probable based on Drake's Equation and current data we use with it. It's also my 'gut feeling' which is a perfectly valid justification for my personal belief.

But UFO sightings are data, good or bad, and if they're to support a factual claim, at least one of them needs to be valid. Beyond that, it doesn't really matter whether the other data are consistent.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Even trying to think about UFO's, paranormal, etc with mankinds primitive logic and physics; shows who the stupid one's really are. Talking monkeys!



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by tayga
 


Oh no, not the Drake!


I think the drake equation is intrisically incompetent, even though reality MAY correlate with its approximations. Mind you all, that the Drake equation is a product of purely aetheistic, material extrapolations. extrapolations from ONE point of referance(life on earth), It makes its assumptions from a standpoint of Dawinian, RANDOM processes. Of course, this may fit perfectly into your paradigm, but i just had to speak my mind about that.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by timelike
 


I wasn't arguing!

I was thinking out loud.

Ill shut up now.




top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join