NASA Astrobiologists Debunk Aliens and UFOs In One Paragraph = Unscientific

reply to post by zorgon


I also find interesting NASA replying to something that should NOT to:
Is area 51 hiding u.f.o ?

No. Area 51 is an obsolete designation for a U.S. Air Force airfield near Las Vegas, Nevada. It is located adjacent to the Nevada Test Range, which was once used for nuclear weapon tests. This area has been used for testing experimental aircraft, which may have been interpreted as UFOs, but it has nothing to do with alien life forms. David Morrison
NAI Senior Scientist
June 25, 2007

Why didn't simply NASA ignore the question? Since when a space agency answers to questions about some Air Force stuff?
Just a quick conspiracy ....

Originally posted by Solomons
I can agree with him on the alien side of things,there is NO evidence of alien life,not a single shred.

I'm pretty on the fence with regards to the ET hypothesis, but to say there's no evidence of alien life is to ignore videos like the one taken by Stan Romanek:



Is it 3D? Maybe. Is it a hoax / animatronics? Perhaps. However since there's no official say on the video it now exists in the nebulous category of "unknown."

This is why an official organization is needed. To sift through the garbage and provide clarity on what's potentially useful intelligence.

[edit on 22-7-2009 by Xtraeme]

Originally posted by internos
Why didn't simply NASA ignore the question? Since when a space agency answers to questions about some Air Force stuff?
Just a quick conspiracy ....

Oh wow lemme at him Thanks for that one I will add that to the "Ufo's are not necessarily alien spacecraft" comment

And people wonder why NASA has such a bad rap

reply to post by Xtraeme


Well we all have our own views and interpretations on what qualifies as evidence,i have seen plenty of evidence for Ufo's and they no doubt exist,not a shred when it comes to alien life visiting our planet.I definetly do believe alien life exists just from the sheer size of the universe( that also plays a part in why i don't think aliens are visiting).But i am of the personal belief that they are black projects and not aliens for the simple reason that there is mountains of evidence for ufo's and none for extra terrestrials,so the logical conclusion(to me) is that they are terrestrial in origin until evidence shows they are not.

Originally posted by Solomons
reply to post by Xtraeme

 

Well we all have our own views and interpretations on what qualifies as evidence,i have seen plenty of evidence for Ufo's and they no doubt exist,not a shred when it comes to alien life visiting our planet.I definetly do believe alien life exists just from the sheer size of the universe( that also plays a part in why i don't think aliens are visiting).But i am of the personal belief that they are black projects and not aliens for the simple reason that there is mountains of evidence for ufo's and none for extra terrestrials,so the logical conclusion(to me) is that they are terrestrial in origin until evidence shows they are not.

I think the only point where we differ is what we consider bad evidence versus good evidence. My point is the Romanek video is potential evidence in favor of the ET hypothesis. Whether we put it in the category of bad, neutral, or good evidence all depends on our qualifications to evaluate the validity of the evidence, our time invested in actually assaying the evidence, and our own personal biases.

I haven't bothered to analyze / deconstruct Stan's video, but I'm leery due to a number of accounts I've read (www.ufodigest.com...) and due to his association with Jeff Peckman. This isn't to say the evidence was faked, just rather that based on my current time invested I lean more in favor of it being bad evidence.

So to say there's "no evidence" is incorrect. To say there's "bad evidence" is more correct.

reply to post by CidCaldensfey


Yes, I do. The programs that can be/ probably ARE used are commercial and/ or open source. How do I know? I happen to have a few. The programs run on off the shelf components (my computer, your computer, anyone's computer)- Blender, I know has tutorials and books EVERYWHERE. I can cover 2 pages of just posting tutorial links, I think. I have been using Blender on and off for a couple months- very casual user. (I need to use it a lot more. There's profit to be had in making 3d objects.) Basically, it's a low cost way to run a disinfo operation- AND- this stuff can be done at the operative's home AND work! Picking up the proper .blend files and dumping them off at work, and vice versa is a snap. I have managed a very VERY realistic starship using Blender's most basic tools. I haven't even discovered but a fraction of what this program can do. I own Gimp (free and open source), Inkscape (ditto)- which are used to create textures for models, And on and on and on and ON.

Like I said- I know a fraction of Blender's abilities. It's free. It's open source (which BTW means you can modify it how you want). It runs on a decent computer. It has impressive results:

I know. I just posted more of my work. I am shameless, but I think the only way people get what I babble on about is to SEE what I am going on about. This whole thing was done for FREE. Ok. I own Photoshop Elements 2 for some of the textures I did on it- but that's it. I'm just more used to it than Gimp for now.

Now, this is basically a 50/ 50 theory. There's a 50% chance I am right, and there's a 50% chance that just because I know about the software, and know how the military and govts work (ROSWELL anyone?)- and I have a really interesting way of looking at how things can be used (I watched WAY too much MacGyver)... So, even if they really haven't done this, doesn't mean they *couldn't*. It's perfectly viable.

reply to post by internos

but NEVER forget that NASA is not the only one space agency in the world

What?! You mean that there are other "civilian" space agencies OUTSIDE of the US?

LOL..........


I have to agree, when a professional makes an 'official' statement like that is to be frowned upon. What he should have said is "simply put, WE DON'T KNOW". But like many egotistical scientists the "we don't know" statement is nearly impossible to say,lol it is like a forbidden and hurtful curse to some professionals. He went out of line there by boldly saying "no, they do not exist", LOL, don't even get me started on the Area 51 remark...

[edit on 7/22/2009 by jkrog08]

There is no evidence that aliens are visiting earth. Granted.

However, this does not mean they havent, dont, nor will...it simply means there is no smoking gun evidence made public.

As he stated, if a amature astronomer seen something, they would jump for joy and report it....Well, plenty have and do (his flaw in logic)...and as he is well aware of, a report is not evidence, a photo is not evidence cause it *could* be faked...another flaw in his wording where he states they are faked. Since he made the claim, he must prove they are all fakes, or reword what he said to be *probably* or some word like that..or simply state that photos, videos, and other such items will never be considered evidence because of possible contamination. (which is what he is really saying).

One thing is for certain though..If aliens are visiting earth, they are not trying to be overly noticed about it. Else, they would simply fly their ships quickly down main streets of large citys now and again. Since they choose not to do this, it must be assumed they want their existance questioned, which also means they are not coming here to help out mankind (unless making credible people sound nutty somehow helps out earth). I think this alone should make the average UFO believer question the intentions of said aliens. That question deserves its own thread...reasoning why UFOs would for the most part hide their existance from the masses

reply to post by SaturnFX

reasoning why UFOs would for the most part hide their existance from the masses

That's easy. Ever see how people react to something unknown and scary? You have mass panic, people being hurt/ killed, and the greedier desperately trying to profit from the whole mess- either 'legitimately' or by scamming the socks off people. It'd be just like kicking up an anthill, except the ants have guns, and some will shoot anything and everything. And other ants going thru the pockets of the dead/ dying/ injured.

[edit on 22-7-2009 by wylekat]

Originally posted by wylekat
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

reasoning why UFOs would for the most part hide their existance from the masses

That's easy. Ever see how people react to something unknown and scary? You have mass panic, people being hurt/ killed, and the greedier desperately trying to profit from the whole mess- either 'legitimately' or by scamming the socks off people. It'd be just like kicking up an anthill, except the ants have guns, and some will shoot anything and everything.

Tired argument.

Made illogical on 9/11/01 when people witnessed something incredibly scary..
What happened in the immediate aftermath? community support, fear of course, but in a rational and focused outcome. A moving away from the danger zone, filming from a distance, and a month after of pondering before acting in brute force.

Now, that was a attack...what if a mothership popped over lets say NYC for 10 minutes? few fender benders from people watching the sky verses the road, about a million cell phone videos, and really thats about it. jets would be scrambled of course to moniter, but if it was close to the ground, they wouldnt have clearance to shoot because of the disaster it would cause to the city below should they become successful...so, a moment of tension for sure as all waited to see what happens...and if they then decided to simply zip off back into space...then it would be one of the most positive happenings in our lifetime.

So, the mass panic, people shooting one another, etc argument holds no weight anymore..thats just unoffical government propaganda as to why they feel justified in keeping secrets, and the more the average person buys into that, irreguardless of the evidence pointing opposite, the more they will keep self justification of national security issues in regards to disclosure.

reply to post by Xtraeme


Dude, I don't mean to be offensive but that movie you posted is incredibly fake. I can't believe you really consider that to be evidence. Just look how it moves, it's way too unnatural and looks more like poor animation rather than real life.

You're not being serious, right?..

Also, after looking at the actual youtube page for that video, the actual video was never released because Stan Romanek wants to do 'more research' before releasing the actual tape...

So please, I ask again, are you being serious :\?

As for the other folks, this is exactly what I bitch about a lot. You ask a question, you get an answer, and you totally take it out of context. The guy was asked a question and he answered it, NO. He didn't say aliens didn't exist, he simply said there is no proof of alien activity on Earth.

You know, this is why a lot of scientists ignore you people. Because you take things and turn them around on the scientists no matter what they are. The only time you will not do it is if someone comes out and tells you something ridiculous, like aliens are living in your cereal box or the moon is really a death star.

Yeah, that is way more logical and believable as opposed to a simple 'No, current evidence suggests there isn't alien activity on Earth.'

Geez, if I was a scientist and was harassed by you people for simply answering a question, I would never do it again because it would be a waste of time.

[edit on 22-7-2009 by CidCaldensfey]

Originally posted by CidCaldensfey
reply to post by Xtraeme

 

Dude, I don't mean to be offensive but that movie you posted is incredibly fake. I can't believe you really consider that to be evidence. Just look how it moves, it's way too unnatural and looks more like poor animation rather than real life.

You're not being serious, right?..

A skeptical mind is a good thing. That's a very rational and common reaction, "It doesn't look real." Ergo it's fake.

Here's the problem with that mindset though. How do we know what an alien would look like and do we really know how it would move? I have no way of answering that. I work in the game industry, I've helped program rendering engines, and I work with artists that could very easily doctor this sort of video.

So I'm not saying this is conclusive evidence, but if I were to take Stan at his word and I more fully investigated his claim I might accept this as legitimate or "good" evidence. Armchair research only takes us so far.

Real analysis, real leg-work, real investigation are what's needed to get honest facts and truthful answers.

[edit on 22-7-2009 by Xtraeme]

You can say its not true just as easily as you can say they are true unless you have seen one for your self. You cant completely rule out the idea of aliens just as much as you can say they are definitely real. I for one think that they are true because i dont think the government would act so harshly and quickly on these situations if they simply thought they were man made if you like.

I think that as far as alien video evidence goes, the Alien Interview from Area 51 is the best one to date. The other Stan Romanek footage is fake IMHO, but I could be wrong--although I doubt it in that case.

reply to post by Xtraeme


The original video was NEVER released. You can even go to Stan Romanek's website www.stanromanek.com... and see for yourself. While you are there, you buy his book too.

What you linked is something someone made based off of the idea of the original copy. AKA someone made a hoax tape.

In this case, armchair forensics only took ten minutes for me to figure out something was a hoax, all by using the power of google. Really not that hard.


If someone really cared about sharing the world his experiences with aliens, they would do it for free. Not charge $17 for it.

Actually the video which was done by Stan is here:

www.youtube.com...

Funny how he kept the tape until he could show on Letterman And it says it was Jeff something but seriously...Two separate people catching an alien looking in through a window? Honestly now?

[edit on 22-7-2009 by CidCaldensfey]

Originally posted by CidCaldensfey
reply to post by Xtraeme

 

As for the other folks, this is exactly what I bitch about a lot. You ask a question, you get an answer, and you totally take it out of context. The guy was asked a question and he answered it, NO. He didn't say aliens didn't exist, he simply said there is no proof of alien activity on Earth.

To be utterly precise the FAQ said, "The are many claims concerning UFOs and aliens, but no evidence to support these claims."

That's incorrect. There is evidence, bad evidence perhaps, but evidence. A more correct statement would have been there's no "proof to support these claims." Though whoever wrote that is actually incorrect about UFOs. There actually is scientific proof of a UFO (not to be confused with alien spacecraft)

You know, this is why a lot of scientists ignore you people. Because you take things and turn them around on the scientists no matter what they are. The only time you will not do it is if someone comes out and tells you something ridiculous, like aliens are living in your cereal box or the moon is really a death star.

The difference here is there is a video. And I ask again. Does anyone here know what an alien would look like or how it would move? The fact that there's some sort of evidence to go along with Stan's assertion should be enough to warrant a basic investigation.

I agree Stan and Jeff Peckman both smell pretty suspicious, but I prefer scientific analysis over specious speculation.

[edit on 22-7-2009 by Xtraeme]

You don't have to be an expert in xenobiology to see really bad tweening being used in an animation.

[edit on 22-7-2009 by CidCaldensfey]

I guess in an effort to stay on topic and squash this debate b/w the Stan Romanek video.....


I will say that as far as evidence goes, which that NASA "guy" said didn't exist I could quickly point out just a few major UFO events...

The DC Flap

The Lakenheath-Bentwaters UFO Incident

The JAL 1628 Incident

The RB-47 Incident

The Tehran F-4/UFO Incident

The Belgium Wave

The Gulf Breeze Wave

The Coyne Incident

The Chiles-Whitted Incident

For about 90 more top cases....


But there is no evidence.....

These only prove UFOs are real. None of it proves aliens are actually visiting Earth or any sort of ET involvement. There is a pretty big difference between the two :\

Also, you keep provided links to instances where armed forces are baffled. But aren't you one of those people who doesn't trust the military or government? I mean..How can you use their word to your advantage yet disregard everything else they say?

[edit on 22-7-2009 by CidCaldensfey]

Originally posted by CidCaldensfey
What he says makes absolute sense :\ It really is unscientific to spend time researching something which, for the most part, doesn't exist. At least other subjects such as 'dark matter' and other scientific pursuits have some basis to being a possible theory, as I said based on already existing scientist facts, as opposed to alien visitation.

And sadly, video, pictures, and testimonies do not count as actual proof. Anyone can do the three above, both either truthfully or for deceptive purposes. If there were some actual proof of aliens, such as a body or piece of a UFO to study, it would once and for all be considered something worth pursuing scientifically.

He doesn't say aliens do not exist. He simply says there isn't any intelligent life visiting earth.

There is actual proof. There are cave paintings of men with space helmets on. Cave paintings of craft with beings in them. All of these paintings have been carbon dated to prove their age. How can people from that long ago draw something that they have never seen or had suggested to them via movies and books? If you open your eyes, and your mind, there is plenty of proof available that supports the fact that intelligent life far beyond our own has visited us in the past and continues to do so to this day. It's just putting two and two together, using some common sense, keeping an open mind, and you don't even have to be a "rocket scientist" to see this.