UFOs: Lets cut the crap already

page: 7
111
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by helen670
 


Dear helen670

Did you actually read my post???

I only pointed out that the Old Testament was the Jewish bible and left it at that, are you saying this is not true???

I didn’t say anything about what Joshua was or was not get you are saying that I said he is just another man???

What part of my post are you saying is untrue???????




posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by MAC269
reply to post by helen670
 


Dear helen670

Too me the bible is a good example of how a life should be lead.


Well, I would say the TEN Commandments...as this IS where all the given LAW of God rests!
The question was answered by Jesus Christ!



However it is not an historical document and most defiantly it was not written by GOD.

Yes, it is!
This is exactly what THOSE liars did to CONFUSE Christians that Jesus is NOT the Son of God!
As I said previously, God spoke through His Prophets...and as it was WRITTEN, it also was FULLFILLED By Christ the Lord!



The Old Testament is effectively the Jewish Bible.

And so why did not the Priests, or should I be more ACCURATE in my words and say...they sought to kill Him?
Could it be that THEY were FALSE in their teachings?


The New Testament is a very small collection of writings about a historical figure called Joshua son of Mary. There where many other writings at this time period about the same man that where destroyed nearly completely by the Roman Church under the orders of Constantine a pagan Roman Emperor some 300 AD or so. His motives where control of the Roman Empire and nothing more. The RC Church and all other Christian churches where about control of the population in the beginning and have not changed.

Why are people always refering to SAINT Constantine when they do not know what annointing of a KING actually means?
God chooses who HE WANTS as to His liking!



So a life that tries to emulate the life of Joshua son of Mary is a life that is worth while. One can not take what is written about him in the few examples in the New Testament that seriously.

Of-course there are many other books that the Apostles and their Apostles wrote, but who takes the time to read them?
They are there!



When we examine a subject today we do not just read one book by one author we read many and try and find the truth of what actually happened. The same with News papers they each have there slant.

Not quite sure what you mean here, but many books have been done in a way to confuse and steer those that dont have ears to listen and eyes to see what is actually been said in Scripture!



So why rust a pagan roman emperor who only wanted to retain control over his empire.

What?
If this again is about the Emperor Constantine....read some TRUE History beginning from the Old Tetsamnet about annointing KINGS!



We have the same going on today there are sightings of UFO’s and the media is controlled by the emperors of today and so are the boffins. Worse still the boffins in the USA at least are still controlled by the RC Church.

Well, YES, who controlls and OWNS the MEDIA is MOSTLY behind CORRUPTION and the like!



That is why there is room for ATS a place that as far as I know they don’t have control of. YET.

And you know this because?




People have need for the Christian Church I know that and I don’t want to tare them away from that belief but I do thing they need to know where it comes from.


Christianity comes from the WORD Christ...




John 3:1-15
1 There was a man of the Pharisees,
named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him,
Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest,
except God be with him.
3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee,
Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old?
can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee,
Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh;
and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8 The wind bloweth where it listeth,
and thou hearest the sound thereof,
but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him,
How can these things be?
10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee,
We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not,
how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven,
but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness,
even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish,
but have eternal life.

Unless those that say who they are and are NOT,come to know CHRIST,then as it is written in Scripture will come to be...

ICXC NIKA
helen



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 03:09 AM
link   
reply to post by helen670
 


Dear helen670

I am sorry that you don’t seam to understand this.

en.wikipedia.org...

First Council of Nicaea

The First Council of Nicaea was a council of Christian bishops convened in Nicaea in Bithynia (present-day İznik in Turkey) by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in AD 325. The Council was historically significant as the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom. [1]

The purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements arising from within the Church of Alexandria over the nature of Jesus in relationship to the Father; in particular, whether Jesus was the literal son of God or was he a figurative son, like the other "sons of God" in the Bible.”

Above is all from Wikipedia.

Not from me.

I am sorry but to believe in faith as portrayed by the Roman Catholic Church who to say the very least have totally manipulated the contents of the Bible is not what we do here.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 03:28 AM
link   
reply to post by MAC269
 


Hi MAC/

I know what the Roman Catholic church are about!
Constantinople SUFFERED because of them!\
Unless the POPE of Rome renounces all his man made LAWS under the VATICAN...and speaks to his people of what was the Early Church, there will never be an agreement.
God knows what is to come!

Anyways, thanks for the reply!

ICXC NIKA
NIKA



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 03:38 AM
link   
reply to post by helen670
 


Dear helen670

All other Christian Churches come from the Roman Catholic Church.

If it where not for the Roman Catholic Church there would be no other Christian Church.

I work closely with three Roman Catholic Priests and they do good work for the sick and terminally ill. They live the life as much as can be expected in these times.

This is rare very rare.

Oh yes and guess what they don’t believe a great deal of what is in the bible. But they do have there faith and follow a lot of the RC agenda. They have to or they would be thrown out.

It is because of this work they do that I support them. But I don’t support the church.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 04:02 AM
link   
reply to post by MAC269
 


Hi MAC/

It was not the Roman Catholic church that followed in the Footsteps of the Apostles...
The First among EQUALS was in Rome,but they fell in hearsay.
Rome thought that THEY were FIRST AMONGST all the other established churches by the APOSTLES...whereas ALL were EQUAL and in communioin with one another till ROME began to change LAWS within themselves.

As far as doing good and bad...many are guilty of that crime!
I can go on...but not the post for this...


ICXC NIKA
helen



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:08 AM
link   
reply to post by helen670
 


so what came frist then the bible or the ten commandments?

seems odd to me that god would give commandemtns then tell them about his son ?

or did mose get the commandments then the story of his son get wrote after the account?

confusing to say the least heh, glad i do not put my faith in any bible


And if god is real hes in my heart on in some book



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by symmetricAvenger
 


Hi symmetricAvenger/

The Prophecy of a SAVIOUR begins in Genesis...which means BIRTH.
As soon as God created man, they disobeyed Him.
The message fulfills God's promise to send a Redeemer (Genesis 3:15)
"I will put enmity be-tween you and the woman,
between your seedand her seed; he shall crush your head,
and you shall lie in wait for his heel."

ICXC NIKA
helen



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by helen670
 


and that means what?

Please understand i do not talk in riddles...

so enlighten me please seen as you are the son / woman of god.. correct?

how much if this do you know from this book?

Do you think my life is a Mistake?

or do you question you very being ? and mine ? by trying to lecture me on the yes and no / pros and cons of being a bastard son of the person you worship

and lets face it You are a bastard correct?

did the farther or mother of the son of god ever get married?

no they did not.. techincaly humans are a bastard race and god son was the only true son of god

how does it feel being the black sheep of the family? well now you know




posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by symmetricAvenger
reply to post by helen670
 


and that means what?

Please understand i do not talk in riddles...

so enlighten me please seen as you are the son / woman of god.. correct?

how much if this do you know from this book?

Do you think my life is a Mistake?

or do you question you very being ? and mine ? by trying to lecture me on the yes and no / pros and cons of being a bastard son of the person you worship

and lets face it You are a bastard correct?

did the farther or mother of the son of god ever get married?

no they did not.. techincaly humans are a bastard race and god son was the only true son of god

how does it feel being the black sheep of the family? well now you know



you seem very angry with the concepts in this thread. if your this unhappy with your spirituality then do something about it. however, its up to no one else (not including a minister) but you to increase your understanding of anything regarding personal truth.

helen quotes scripture not riddles. although most scripture can be read from many viewpoints with many layers hidden, to blame helen is absurd.

if your understanding of scripture is lacking, buy a bible


cheers,
AA

[edit on 3-8-2009 by anonamousantichrist]



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by anonamousantichrist
 


no my friend you miss understand anger with hypocrisy.

If you do not like the manner in a way a convey my message then that is your own business..

I can not change how you feel or think and nor shall i try to.. not my job

I am just point out some facts.. i mean after all you are on ATS..


so feel free to label me in any context that you wish my friend, ill be happy to sit in it and smile knowing i do not know the wish of god or pretend to like half the people on this website..

I really could not care for god aliens or any other "end of all questions" answer in that regard

but i am happy to debate it as im as cluess as the other 7.5 billion people on this plantet and to pretend you know more is

1) arrogant

2) stupid


would you not agree?



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 06:28 PM
link   
A long while back, after further thought, I refined the chart showing what I see as the process of turning a UFO into an IFO. I figure certain people here might find it interesting,



NM-UFO is by far the most questionable state in the graph. In many instances it would be more correct to label a case as an NM-UFOP to identify that it's a disposition not an objective fact.

The only time something should be defined as an NM-UFO is when an investigator attempted to exhaustively locate more information, but failed to find additional data. If there's literally nothing beyond a single persons testimony. Then sadly it's not measurable. This would be objectively true because there's nothing to contrast against.

However if in another case an examiner doesn't do the leg-work expected of him, perhaps out of sheer laziness, he might claim, "NM-UFO." Whereas another more thorough investigator might come along and notice, "Hey why didn't you interview XYZ or take samples from ABC?" In this case it's an NM-UFOP because it's the examiners position that it's "not measurable" not due to any actual effort on his part to provide a factual categorization.

It's a subtle point, but a necessary one.


[edit on 26-3-2010 by Xtraeme]



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 06:50 PM
link   
I think that at this point in time, most people, including a vast majority of scientists, agree that there are "UFOs" flying around. That's about as far as the field has progressed in the last 50 years or so.

And we're talking about real UFOs here, where we're giving people the benefit of the doubt that their reports are accurate, and that they are not a result of misidentifications, hoaxes, or mental problems. Weird stuff, in other words.

But the problem still remains. How can they be effectively, scientifically studied when a huge chunk of the information needed to help identify these weird things is classified as a national security concern? Of course, the U.S. government has said that these things don't appear to be a "threat" to national security, but that doesn't mean the information about them isn't tightly controlled by those interested in national security. So looking for answers about UFOs is immediately and fatally hampered from the get-go.

I say that research in the UFO field is almost equally hampered by people who have personal agendas that aren't backed up by any of the evidence. I'm talking about the people who are convinced UFOs are alien spaceships. I don't know of a single UFO sighting or account that points in any realistic direction to aliens and spaceships, but it remains a popular and singular "answer" to the UFO question.

Science is all about coming up with hypotheses, then testing them using available data. With UFOs, it's nearly impossible to come up with good hypotheses, and equally difficult to find the data necessary for a test.

It's too bad, really. Weirdness is interesting.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtraeme

I was shocked reading through the CIA's FOIA archive to find that there were a number of incidents, that are on the record, supporting the notion that the concept of remote viewing is actually a very real thing.



Imagine how shocked you would be if it happened to you. It happened to me once, and the experience contributed to my realization that there are things that exist that are not supposed to exist according to the established view of reality. Reading up on the UFO subject nudged me further in that direction.

Back around 2000 or 2001 I had a dream one morning just before I woke up, very simple and very vivid. I was looking at a golden American quarter in the palm of my hand. That's was it, just that one image, but it remained very prominent in my mind after I woke up. I mentioned it to my girlfriend when we both got up and around, just because it was one of those striking dreams that you mention to your significant other.

So I forget about it after a while and went about my life. It was either that day or the following day that I was on the campus of Florida State University standing in line to buy a hotdog at one of the little hotdog stands they have here and there. When the girl in front of me was receiving her change, the vendor said, "Hey, look at that, a gold quarter."

I stepped up and asked if I could see it. Two seconds later, there it was in my hand. It was an astonishing moment. I don't know if it was tarnished somehow or what, but it was a bright, shiny gold American quarter. I had never seen one like it before, and I've never seen one since.

Not sure how that happened of course. I've told a lot of people about that experience, all my close friends, everyone in my family. I'm sure none of them suspect me of making it up, but what are they to think? Just a coincidence? Maybe. I saw something very specific and out of the ordinary, and I saw it shortly before it happened. The fact that stuff like this can happen seems significant to me.

Sorry to digress from the topic at hand, but I never tire of telling that story. Still blows my mind.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Orkojoker
 


I appreciate you taking the time to share your story.

Recently I've had some fairly bizarre experiences myself. Large components of this concept, for instance, just keep "popping" in to my head in ways that are frankly odd. It's strange because I'd like to say the idea is mine, but it seems to come at me wholly formed.

What's it mean? Not sure.

I'd just like to have a more methodical way to grasp it.


[edit on 26-3-2010 by Xtraeme]



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtraeme
A long while back, after further thought, I refined the chart showing what I see as the process of turning a UFO into an IFO. I figure certain people here might find it interesting


Your revised chart is a big improvement over the original!

I like the clarification of the role of the investigator with technical expertise, and the addition of a classification for cases where there is too little information to make a determination.

By the way, since my signature contains Sagan's razor you object to in the OP I feel a need to explain that further since you don't seem to understand it fully:


Originally posted by Xtraeme
There's a phrase that has gained some currency that I find deeply unscientific. It is Sagan's razor, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". The fact is that what is extraordinary is a value judgment and has nothing to do with science. A hypothesis is testable. It works as long as it handles data – as soon as it ceases to do so, it requires modification. That's all.


Actually I will say this which you will probably agree with:

-All claims require the same amount of evidence. That seems to contradict Sagan's razor, right? No, it's just that Sagan's razor is misunderstood:

Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence


Strictly speaking, all claims require exactly the same amount of evidence, it’s just that most "ordinary" claims are already backed by extraordinary evidence that you don’t think about. When we say “extraordinary claims”, what we actually mean are claims that do not already have evidence supporting them

Strictly speaking, alien visitation does not contradict other claims that are known to be true. It is theoretically possible that aliens exist and may hold advanced technology that enables them to travel across the galaxy. But the claim is extraordinary in that there is zero evidence alien visitation has actually occurred, despite at least sixty years of looking. In addition, there are rational explanations for many claims of alien visitation. There is no hard evidence of alien visitation, such as a crashed spacecraft with technology far advanced of our own.


So yes, all claims require the same amount of evidence. But we already have extraordinary evidence of certain things, like, evidence that humans exist: 7 billion give or take. Evidence that aliens exist? Nothing that can be verified as ET that I know of, though possibly some traces of life in the martian meteor ALH84001.

Evidence of manmade craft: I don't know the number but there are a lot of them, and some are even top secret. Evidence of alien craft? There are some interesting photos but we've never really confirmed any of them are of alien origin.

I and many others would like it if we could do so however.



[edit on 26-3-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Your revised chart is a big improvement over the original!

I like the clarification of the role of the investigator with technical expertise, and the addition of a classification for cases where there is too little information to make a determination.


I always felt the debate between Ruppelt, Drs. Hynek, and Hartmann could be more easily solved using each of their definitions as various steps in an overarching process (hence the above graph
). It frustrates me to no end when people try to separate the subject into respectable and "laughable" by using different language and terminology (i.e. UAP).

Because, really, ... when people become aware UAP is just a synonym for UFO in almost all cases they have the same reaction towards the acronym.

The reason the problem exists in the first place is due to the number of silly cases that made main stream news. Since the work involved investigating a UFO represents a process (or a UAP, terminology doesn't matter when you have to explain yourself) it's necessarily going to be condensed to mean many different things. No different than how police officers might discuss a case,

"Remember that perp we thought murdered John Doe?"

The "perp" may not have murdered anyone, but the fact the person was apprehended in relation to John Doe helps with recall. Thus the "suspect" really wasn't a "perp" but he's stuck with the negative connotation.

The same is true with UFOs. Lets say a friend thought he saw something unidentified in the sky and we both tried to figure it out what it might be. After a minute say I see the FAA lights and then say, "Oh it's a helicopter." Yet my friend keeps insisting it's an "alien craft" till it's directly over our heads and can no longer deny it.

In the future if I wanted to antagonize my buddy I'd say, "Hey remember that UFO? :p" In this case I'm referring to the initial "sighting" / "detection," in particular my friends "position," and the "identification" that ran contrary to my buddy's belief. I'm effectively using the word to represent three things.

So it seems much more accurate that the definition of UFO accommodate the fact that the word has many overloaded usages that apply to the different states of a UFO before it reaches its eventual conclusion: an IFO.

For example, if a coworker comes up to me and says, "Man I heard you believe in UFOs, are you nuts?" I'd say, "Are you talking about my UFO position or are you asking me if I believe there are confirmed UFOs in the sense that they can't be explained even by experts?"

This would instantly reduce stereotyping because it reduces confusion.


By the way, since my signature contains Sagan's razor you object to in the OP I feel a need to explain that further since you don't seem to understand it fully:


Originally posted by Xtraeme
There's a phrase that has gained some currency that I find deeply unscientific. It is Sagan's razor, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". The fact is that what is extraordinary is a value judgment and has nothing to do with science. A hypothesis is testable. It works as long as it handles data – as soon as it ceases to do so, it requires modification. That's all.


Actually I will say this which you will probably agree with:

-All claims require the same amount of evidence. That seems to contradict Sagan's razor, right? No, it's just that Sagan's razor is misunderstood:

Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence


Strictly speaking, all claims require exactly the same amount of evidence, it’s just that most "ordinary" claims are already backed by extraordinary evidence that you don’t think about. When we say “extraordinary claims”, what we actually mean are claims that do not already have evidence supporting them

Strictly speaking, alien visitation does not contradict other claims that are known to be true. It is theoretically possible that aliens exist and may hold advanced technology that enables them to travel across the galaxy. But the claim is extraordinary in that there is zero evidence alien visitation has actually occurred, despite at least sixty years of looking. In addition, there are rational explanations for many claims of alien visitation. There is no hard evidence of alien visitation, such as a crashed spacecraft with technology far advanced of our own.


I've read skeptico in the past and I think Rich nicely sums up my feelings on the blog's analysis.


So yes, all claims require the same amount of evidence. But we already have extraordinary evidence of certain things, like, evidence that humans exist: 7 billion give or take. Evidence that aliens exist? Nothing that can be verified as ET that I know of, though possibly some traces of life in the martian meteor ALH84001.

Evidence of manmade craft: I don't know the number but there are a lot of them, and some are even top secret. Evidence of alien craft? There are some interesting photos but we've never really confirmed any of them are of alien origin.

I and many others would like it if we could do so however.


Actually photographic proof is probably the least interesting criteria. At this point it's objectively true that "TRUFOs" do exist.

There are several cases that really do imply sentient-control and where the observed properties of the object are so far outside the envelope of what modern technology even comes close to approaching that one has to suspend disbelief to find a reasonable explanation.

If you have any doubt of this, please, read Brad Sparks' 30+ page dissertation on the '57 RB-47 (available in Clark's UFO Encyclopedia). It's an extremely technical analysis, well sourced, and it's withstood debunking for some 12 years now.

The case was analyzed by the AIAA, the Condon Committee, Blue Book, Klass, Dr. James E. McDonald, it's basically received a full analysis by everyone in an authoritative position to comment.

The most anomalous aspect of the observation is that the object paced and overtook the RB-47. It also strangely enough blinked-in & out which was corroborated by numerous independent channels monitoring the object. This demonstrates it was faster than the RB-47, extremely maneuverable, and whatever it was it followed the RB-47 in trail over several states as the RB-47 made course corrections.

I wouldn't claim ET intelligence, but I think it's highly indicative of some form of intelligence. I've discussed this with several people who vehemently oppose this statement.


in·tel·li·gence
–noun
1. capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.

7. interchange of information: They have been maintaining intelligence with foreign agents for years.


I find it hard not applying the most basic definition "capacity for learning, ... facts."

To completely mimic the RB-47's movements, in trail, epitomizes "interchange of information." There is no known natural phenomenon capable of these types of maneuvers.

I'll be the first to admit this doesn't stipulate biological understanding or consciousness, but at a minimum it does exhibit intelligence on the order of what's possible with robotics and computer learning techniques.

[edit on 26-3-2010 by Xtraeme]



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 02:19 AM
link   
I was taken to the moon and remember the time anomoly that happened ,it seemed like it took no time at all to get there but we werent seemingly going fast at all.Small craft ,flimsy type.

The other large craft I was on was manned by humans ,exactly like us.

Any story that contains technology that is beyond ours but similar will most likely be real,because the craft and the people I met were not ALIEN,they werent from here but they sure werent ALIEN.

And I met several races,but for some reason it was our type of human race that was operating the craft and was in control of the military.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtraeme
Because, really, ... when people become aware UAP is just a synonym for UFO in almost all cases they have the same reaction towards the acronym.
Here's a picture of a UAP that's not a UFO, as the picture clearly shows (to me, anyway) there's no solid object there:


That's a screenshot from the history channel clip about the Salida CO UFO, which isn't a UFO but which is a UAP. The UAP definition is intended to include lights or similar sightings where there may not be any visible object, as the "O" in UFO would imply, that there's some type of "object" involved.

Regarding the RB-47 case, there are a lot of other explanations we'd have to rule out to conclude it's alien, and I won't go through them all, but just to give one example, how do we know it's not time traveling humans from a future Earth say a few hundred years from now?

We simply can't list all the possible things it could be, much less rule them out, to conclude it must be alien.

I'm not saying it's NOT alien, I'm just saying we don't know.



[edit on 26-3-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 04:02 AM
link   
First I want to say I like you Arbitrageur. I think you're one of the good guys here.

So if my tone came across as negative that wasn't my intent.


Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Xtraeme
Because, really, ... when people become aware UAP is just a synonym for UFO in almost all cases they have the same reaction towards the acronym.
Here's a picture of a UAP that's not a UFO, as the picture clearly shows (to me, anyway) there's no solid object there:

...

That's a screenshot from the history channel clip about the Salida CO UFO, which isn't a UFO but which is a UAP. The UAP definition is intended to include lights or similar sightings where there may not be any visible object, as the "O" in UFO would imply, that there's some type of "object" involved.


I've mentioned in a number of places that I'm a software developer. In object oriented programming languages we define anything that's a self-contained functional / data-unit (virtual or physical) as an object. Psychologists have similar terminology. POA, for instance, stands for Psychological Object Analysis indicating a non-corporeal construct.

Now I'm not saying you're wrong. Clearly the picture you reference looks more atmospheric / ephemeral than solid!

I'm trying to instead show, using the definition above, that we use UFO to basically mean anything unidentified that's weird. This is why I added the "synonym: UO" to the image because really when people talk about UFOs they're usually discussing something that hasn't been explained to their satisfaction which also happens to be inexplicable. This is why we see cryptozoology bleeding in to UFO studies and every other bizarre paranormal thing that people don't understand.

Bottom-line people are simply discussing "the unknown."

The "flying" component gets warped in to meaning creatures, aircrafts, clouds interpreted as non-terrestrial crafts phasing into ships, plasmas (see Klass' for more on this), macroscopic quantum events, and every other thing you can imagine. I'm simply trying to impart the notion that any properties we ascribe:

Flying, atmospheric, et cetera is an attempt to delineate properties of what the object is because we have little else to better categorize the object. Meaning if that's how we're going to approach this literally every form of proximity / correlation then requires it's own acronym and sub-field:

Unidentified Swimming Objects.
Unidentified Submerged Objects.
Unidentified Aerial/Floating Objects.
Unidentified Astronomic Objects.
Unidentified Non-local Objects.

We could literally go on forever, and any properties we ascribe to an unknown object is likely to be refuted.

Meaning we can call the object in the video frame above "atmospheric," but what if we're simply looking at something moving at any extremely high-rate which is producing tearing on a low-speed camera?

It's really better to do away with any preconceived notions and simply say we're dealing with a UO until a formal investigation has commenced.

Literally the only reason I use the term UFO is due to its popularity and because it seems to be applied to everything including USOs, UAP, TLEs, and more.


Regarding the RB-47 case, there are a lot of other explanations we'd have to rule out to conclude it's alien, and I won't go through them all, but just to give one example, how do we know it's not time traveling humans from a future Earth say a few hundred years from now?

We simply can't list all the possible things it could be, much less rule them out, to conclude it must be alien.

I'm not saying it's NOT alien, I'm just saying we don't know.


This nicely illustrates why I'm making such a strong point about definition here.

I don't think the RB-47 case IS alien.

All I think it represents is a 100% truly new, scientifically-unknown object (TRUFO) that possesses the capability to emit EM pulses, that operates with intelligence, and has flight characteristics far in excess of present-day humanity.

That's the extent of what I can say definitively about that particular UFO incident.

My position is almost always related to how I would attempt to induce the phenomenon. Meaning with this particular case, I'd likely use radiological material to attempt to get further samples. This causes me to lean in favor of an argument for either time-travel or partial- or wholly- transcendent intervention.

The reason I bring up the case though is it does show something so outside the box that the odds of it being mundane are next to 0. Meaning basically "we have an extraordinary object" that has far in excess of Sagan's razor demonstrated "extraordinary proof."

[edit on 26-3-2010 by Xtraeme]





top topics
 
111
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join