Why do UFOs need/use lights?

Originally posted by cdesignmaster

Originally posted by mbkennel
If ETs are flying here they have to be pretty advanced because our science as we know it presents NO known mechanism by which they can travel here, and in fact has some pretty strong prohibitions against doing exactly what they appear to do (assuming hypothetical ETs are real).

Me thinks that you are reading to much into the details. I was trying to make a point and didn't see the need to go into great research and great details.

Night vision may have began in the 50's, but here it is 2010 and our commercial airliners still use lights, we don't fly by night vision only.

Since you believe ETs are hypothetical, I'd get further talking to my dog, because there is at least a slim possibility that my dog would understand. Closed minded skeptics add nothing to the UFO forum.

Lol!

You got pwned, take it like a man & move on.

Close encounters of the Third Kind is a good example of why they need lights on a ufo/space ship. Communication between species.

Originally posted by Heisenberg
Read this thread for the proof you seek. www.abovetopsecret.com...
reply to post by Marsel

 

can you pls copy- paste the sentence ? Cause i am reading the thread right now , and it is really irellevant to my question ....

in other words if you have a point to make , elaborate on this at this thread ...

so if this reply of yours was a constuctive healthy reply to a really complex question like that , my advice would be to elaborate on this question in here , and not giving me links in which the subject discussed is completely irrelevant to my question

thank you

[edit on 5-4-2010 by Marsel]

[edit on 5-4-2010 by Marsel]

Originally posted by Marsel
the last years more photos , and more witnesses have made their appearances , and based on them we have shappen our perception about these crafts ...

Xtrozero apparently promotes the psychosocial hypothesis, which is really just inane babble and does not address the evidence in any substantial way.

Originally posted by jclmavg

Originally posted by mbkennel
If ETs are flying here they have to be pretty advanced because our science as we know it presents NO known mechanism by which they can travel here, and in fact has some pretty strong prohibitions against doing exactly what they appear to do (assuming hypothetical ETs are real).

Space travel is not impossible, which is what you are arguing here. This can be achieved with propulsion methods known to man right now. The only real "objection" here would be the time it takes to get from one star to another. Entities traveling this way may expand their empire by setting up colonies. Or they may send out lots of automated probes.

In any case, I've argued before that if exotic propulsion methods can be realized which allow for faster ways to travel, then they have already been found if advanced civilisations are/were around in the past (we humans turned up pretty late compared to the age of the universe). And if they have been found, we should not be surprised to see visitors around.

I would object to the approach that UFOs are doing something they should not be doing. You're letting presuppositions dictate what is real and what is not. I do not find that approach compelling at all.

[edit on 5-4-2010 by jclmavg]

I think you took mbkennel's post the wrong way!

Not that space travel is impossible for anybody. Simply that from what we know, given our limited understanding of physics, that it's impossible for them to be able to travel the huge interstellar distances in a decent timeframe (of this, I think he/she is referring to FTL travel). That if said aliens can do this, then they must be pretty advanced in a technological sense!

Originally posted by big_BHOY

Originally posted by jclmavg

Originally posted by mbkennel
If ETs are flying here they have to be pretty advanced because our science as we know it presents NO known mechanism by which they can travel here, and in fact has some pretty strong prohibitions against doing exactly what they appear to do (assuming hypothetical ETs are real).

Space travel is not impossible, which is what you are arguing here. This can be achieved with propulsion methods known to man right now. The only real "objection" here would be the time it takes to get from one star to another. Entities traveling this way may expand their empire by setting up colonies. Or they may send out lots of automated probes.

In any case, I've argued before that if exotic propulsion methods can be realized which allow for faster ways to travel, then they have already been found if advanced civilisations are/were around in the past (we humans turned up pretty late compared to the age of the universe). And if they have been found, we should not be surprised to see visitors around.

I would object to the approach that UFOs are doing something they should not be doing. You're letting presuppositions dictate what is real and what is not. I do not find that approach compelling at all.

[edit on 5-4-2010 by jclmavg]

I think you took mbkennel's post the wrong way!

Not that space travel is impossible for anybody. Simply that from what we know, given our limited understanding of physics, that it's impossible for them to be able to travel the huge interstellar distances in a decent timeframe (of this, I think he/she is referring to FTL travel). That if said aliens can do this, then they must be pretty advanced in a technological sense!

my dear friend , based on the physics we are aware at this time , intersellar distances can be travelled if you could bend the space matter around you , Albert einsteins theory of relativity prooves that this can be done ...

it is extremely difficult but chracterizing it as impossible is a wrong statement ...


[edit on 5-4-2010 by Marsel]

Originally posted by big_BHOY
I think you took mbkennel's post the wrong way!

I understood him quite well. He's making a (false) theoretical argument. And he does argue it is impossible, for he literally wrote: "because our science as we know it presents NO known mechanism by which they can travel here".

That is just plain false and a mere display of inane ignorance.

Not that space travel is impossible for anybody. Simply that from what we know, given our limited understanding of physics, that it's impossible for them to be able to travel the huge interstellar distances in a decent timeframe

Which is also hardly true. And the timeframe would be relative (pun intended).

(of this, I think he/she is referring to FTL travel). That if said aliens can do this, then they must be pretty advanced in a technological sense!

Right now in the physics literature there are speculations about exotic propulsion methods. While these might not turn out to be possible, I would caution against making the suggestion that no FTL or loophole is possible. Indeed, for if it is, I think you would agree that an advanced civilisation would have found out by now and would be using it. Therefore, it seems to me that if we are being visited by perhaps multiple civilisations, interstellar travel might not be as hard as suggested.

If they actuallly did show themselves and land on the proverbial White House lawn, one would be quite the fool to cry fake because it could not happen due to flawed presuppositions.

[edit on 5-4-2010 by jclmavg]

Originally posted by jclmavg
Then you would be presuming that the sightings of apparently manufactured craft and occupants are, at their core, incorrect, not?

I'm not sure of what you are asking. How do we explain the coolness of how spaceships have evolved? If you look at them from the 1800s they looked balloon like...then they became smooth saucers as per popular belief and so on becoming more complicated as popular beliefs changed. Ok what of the occupants? Can we even say that there are occupants, or are we once again speculating?

Ok so we have pictures/video/radar and we have witnesses with personal memories after that we have assumptions. It would be nice that after all this time we might just have something more than a continual repeat of the same pattern.

Can you tell me why they are not magical fairies instead, or any other idea?

Originally posted by Marsel

my dear friend , based on the physics we are aware at this time , intersellar distances can be travelled if you could bend the space matter around you , Albert einsteins theory of relativity prooves that this can be done ...

it is extremely difficult but chracterizing it as impossible is a wrong statement ...
[edit on 5-4-2010 by Marsel]

I don't think it is proven that physical matter can achieve this; much less life forms, and only light and some other subatomic particles would be capable. Even the speed of light is extremely slow by what we would need to work with, and as we approach light speed matter expanse, so even at 1/10th the speed of light might not be life form capable. Using singularities to bend space/time is even more deadly environment.

Though bending the universe to our commands might be almost impossible, I would think creating a bubble within that bend for us to survive would be exponentially more difficult if not impossible.

Originally posted by Xtrozero
I'm not sure of what you are asking. How do we explain the coolness of how spaceships have evolved? If you look at them from the 1800s they looked balloon like...then they became smooth saucers as per popular belief and so on becoming more complicated as popular beliefs changed. Ok what of the occupants? Can we even say that there are occupants, or are we once again speculating?

You do not even know if the phenomena observed are all one and the same. You would have to argue that such narratives all reflect literal experience. I do not think this can be done convincingly. Furthermore, I think the airship phenomenon is generally regarded to consist of mainly hoaxes and misidentifications (see Jerome Clark, Bullard, etc.).

I would question your statement that UFOs "became smooth saucers per popular belief".

Can you tell me why they are not magical fairies instead, or any other idea?

If you think fairies are it, great. Go on and build a case for it. I think you'll have trouble getting the hypothesis past the plausibility stage though!

Originally posted by Xtrozero
so even at 1/10th the speed of light might not be life form capable.

Please cite from a scientific paper that this is not possible. Secondly, I would urge you to pick up a book on space propulsion physics.

Originally posted by Marsel
Or my dear friend , our perception has evolved as our knowledge about them ... so i am claiming the exact opposite of what you claim ...

the last years more photos , and more witnesses have made their appearances , and based on them we have shappen our perception about these crafts ...

Could be, but it sure looks like the tail is waging the dog here.

and not what you claim , that this 'ufo' are a product of our imagination ...

What I am suggesting is we have no clue/proof what these pictures are, and the assumption they are aliens is a manifestation of our society’s popular beliefs.

And not at all case closed , but as time passes more and more photos , more and more witnesses , more and more knowledge will be let from our goverments for us to know , untill we will be in that point where we will be able to hear the truth ,

I like you would love for the "truth" to come out, but 10 photos or 1 million are still photos....

we are unique in our own way , but not the only ones that are unique ... on the contrary , we are one of the many unique intellectual biological beings of our galaxy

I agree that the odds say that others are out there just by the sheer size of our galaxy, much less the universe that we are dealing with, but that same size that grantees that others are out there also makes the likelihood that they ever meet extremely remote if not on the edge of impossible.

You cannot say on one hand the universe is endless so life is endless, but on the other hand in that endless space all that life will be able to interact.

To make it even more interesting : In Mars which is the closest planet to earth , the atmosphere of Mars has a 0,3 % of oxygen , so we checked the atmosphere of Mars , and we have found smthng that some decades ago would seem as a fantasy product of our imagination ...

I would not be surprised that Mars was a lot like early earth (but much colder) before its core solidified, which means it had water, a heavier atmosphere and simple life.

but just think for a second , there are 100 billion galaxys, in each galaxy there are 200 billions stars , most of the stars have more than one planet orbiting , if you do the maths you ll find that there are many planets , so many that you and i cannot percieve ...

Well lets just take our own galaxy ok? Well unless you want to talk billions (100s/1000s of billions) of light years of travel and not just 100,000 max that of our galixy.

so i am asking you , if we have found oxygen on the closest to earth planet , how many more planets of the literally billions of billions of planets that are around our galaxy , have oxygen ( which is a strong indicator of life once it is found in large amounts ) ?

Can you please give me an answer based on Mathematics propability , and not on what you and i believe ?

And not only you , but to the other debunkers of this forum and not only ...

i would like to see how will you debunk this ....

We have roughly 175 billion stars and a good number of these would not be very likely to allow life to form on planets around them since they may be too large and the larger a star is the faster it goes nova or supernova, so most giants and above would not be stable for billions of years as our sun has been and will continue to be, but more importantly a star would need to be much like our very own for life to have a chance. The reason is that different star sizes burn at many different temperatures, and different temperatures mean totally different wavelengths of energy. Stars a little larger than our sun would produce much more destructive UV rays/X rays, smaller and we would have a giant microwave affect. This means a star needs to be around 6000 degrees to have that just right mix of light waves in a very narrow band of the spectrum. So there is some number most likely well under 175 billion for suns to have solar systems and can live long enough to produce advance life and with around 6000 temp for the right energy.

Next we need a planet that is not only the proper mass to maintain a liquid core for billions of years to protect its atmosphere/water etc, but not too big it inhibit higher life forms. The planet will need to have its orbit within an extremely narrow band about where earth is now, with Venus and Mars as great examples of too hot or too cold, and not enough mass to produce anything but limited simple lifeforms.

(Remember, we are not just talking life in general here but rather advance life)

So right star, right planet, right orbit is needed for advance life….can you see that number of chances drastically dropping? Let’s say we have all this on another plant and life starts to form, but now we need to stipulate what that life will be able to do. Evolution is extremely slow and simple life advances to complex life to very advance life takes a long time, and on earth it has been about 4 billion years to create one unique species (us) that so far has had the ability to enter space, but can we survive one good size asteroid or other major event? It seems the more advance life becomes the more fragile it also becomes, and intelligence at our level is not really a need evolutionary trait for survival, and could be a negative trait that causes our very own extinction.

Anyway you look at it, it doesn’t paint a picture of many space fairing life forms traveling around our galaxy.

Now if we say there are some they must still overcome the massive distances even within our little galaxy, so unless we hit pay dirt we are talking 10,000 of years (100,000s?) of travel time if even if they know where to go, but hey they can hear our radio signals, not so fast…

We have found that our radio signals have only about 100 years at best availability, since not too long ago we didn’t have them and now we don’t need them, we have come to the conclusion that radio signals are a very limited time event and to read one at some distance many light years away would be like winning the big lottery 10 times in a row.

But hey let’s say a race did hit the lottery ten times in a row, but now they have easily 10,000 to million years to travel to reach us. As matter approaches the speed of light nasty things happen to it so they would need to overcome this tremendous force of physic, and also matter changes as we know it in a singularity that bends space and time, so once again they would need to not only control but survive one of the greatest forces in the universe.

But I guess after all this we can assume they are all around us in some Star Trek utopia universe. I hope it is, I truly do, but then I can see the hurdles to overcome and my faith is not as strong as yours.


[edit on 5-4-2010 by Xtrozero]

Its to hypnotise the cows you fools!

www.progressiveadvertiser.com...

Originally posted by jclmavg
Please cite from a scientific paper that this is not possible. Secondly, I would urge you to pick up a book on space propulsion physics.

You limiting factor will be the energy needed to travel at speeds closing on the speed of light. But even at .9 speed of light which would also need acceleration and deceleration time between two points is still very limiting even within our own galaxy.

why do cars need lights? why do boats need lights? why do planes need lights? why do submarines need lights? do they? i duno? navigation? that would be the most simple answer, i assume, but thats just my opinion

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by jclmavg
Please cite from a scientific paper that this is not possible. Secondly, I would urge you to pick up a book on space propulsion physics.

You limiting factor will be the energy needed to travel at speeds closing on the speed of light. But even at .9 speed of light which would also need acceleration and deceleration time between two points is still very limiting even within our own galaxy.

It would be quite an effort yes, but the aerospace engineers and physicists all agree on one thing. It can be done with conventional methods. But sure, FTL would be way more practical. And contrary to your view, there is no evidence that high velocity speeds are lethal to life. Since you did not respond to that I presume you agree with me now?

Originally posted by Xtrozero
What I am suggesting is we have no clue/proof what these pictures are, and the assumption they are aliens is a manifestation of our society’s popular beliefs.

This is the reason why Jerome Clark comes down hard on psychosocial explanations. The promotors babble a lot, but there's no underlying falsifiable hypothesis.

All in all the ETH is a reasonable hypothesis because it fits the reported pattern of apparently manufactured craft which dart around in the sky, land, occupants are seen, etc. You do not explain how or why and which social factors are involved and which mechanisms are capable of creating such imagery, much less when seen in photographs or reported on radar by multiple witnesses.

I also find it interesting that you are making an effort to show how unlikely it is that intelligent extraterrestrial civilisations are around and interstellar travel is so tough to do as to be near impossible. Truth is of course, no one really knows how "easy" or "difficult" it is for civilisations hundreds or thousands of years ahead in technology. So golly, I would almost conclude you have a worldview to promote here. Plenty of "faith" on your side.

Note the flawed logic. An extraterrestrial origin is ruled out on (false) a priori grounds. Xtrozero has no information on the number of ET civilisations, where they are located, or the technology such civilisations possess. Yet he throws around judgements of unlikelihood as if he were the sole keeper of such information.

[edit on 5-4-2010 by jclmavg]

reply to post by Xtrozero

But hey let’s say a race did hit the lottery ten times in a row, but now they have easily 10,000 to million years to travel to reach us. As matter approaches the speed of light nasty things happen to it so they would need to overcome this tremendous force of physic, and also matter changes as we know it in a singularity that bends space and time, so once again they would need to not only control but survive one of the greatest forces in the universe. But I guess after all this we can assume they are all around us in some Star Trek utopia universe. I hope it is, I truly do, but then I can see the hurdles to overcome and my faith is not as strong as yours.

my point is that we not only have hit the lottery ten times in a row but many more times ...

why ? well let me just put it this way , an oxygen percentage some years ago was characterisized as highly impossbile in any percentage -let aside water- ... in any planet around our galaxy let aside solar system ...

but guess what , , not only we have found a planet that is simillar in a lot of ways to earth ( 1st jackpot) ,not only has a 0,2 percentage of oxygen ( 2nd jackpot ) , not only has large amounts of water in a solid state ( another jackpot? ), but is the closest planet to earth ( well well , lucky us then )

i had the same beliefs as you but as time passes i get more positive to the idea , that something in the whole picture , is just not right ( we can agree on this part , i think )


videos released like these ( in my opinion purposely ) , just dont fit , they just make you wonder ...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...


and this my friend are not videos from some kidos , nor from some wanna be investigators , but from nasa itself , and i d deffinetely would want a serious and logical explanation for this

i dont know if they are man made , but they are deffinetely not random object especially the one shown in the second video .. because they change directions

maybe star trec utopia is not that impossible after all , man made ? extatrerrestial ? I dont know ... what i know though is that this is a very wierd video , which really makes you think ...

Originally posted by jclmavg
This is the reason why Jerome Clark comes down hard on psychosocial explanations. The promotors babble a lot, but there's no underlying falsifiable hypothesis.

For me, as factors are added so can my opinion on aliens be changed. I have other posts that explain I am more willing to believe that we were created by them and they have always been here, than randomly evolution and being found by them, so I’m not as closed minded as you might think, but so far there is not enough empirical evidence pushing me in that direction.

All in all the ETH is a reasonable hypothesis because it fits the reported pattern of apparently manufactured craft which dart around in the sky, land, occupants are seen, etc. You do not explain how or why and which social factors are involved and which mechanisms are capable of creating such imagery, much less when seen in photographs or reported on radar by multiple witnesses.

Now how easy or hard it is... I do know that the more you stipulate what it is you want the higher the odds are that it is out there. I can say there is life in our galaxy, or I can define it as a 5000 pound purple flying elephants with high IQs and pink toe nails….as you can see my chance for life in general with no requirements is very good but my chance for my purple flying elephant is rather remote in comparison. This is what we are doing when we say high intelligent, building capable and physically capable race of interstellar travelers.

I also find it interesting that you are making an effort to show how unlikely it is that intelligent extraterrestrial civilisations are around and interstellar travel is so tough to do as to be near impossible. Truth is of course, no one really knows how "easy" or "difficult" it is for civilisations hundreds or thousands of years ahead in technology. So golly, I would almost conclude you have a worldview to promote here.

Plenty of "faith" on your side.

What I wanted to show was that even using just our galaxy you really start to dwindle down available stars planets and life as we add requirements as to what we are looking for. I would say so far using ourselves as proof we are a rather rare occurrence. I can sit down with you over some good scotch and a great cigar and talk all day about what can be, but my beliefs are grounded in what solid proof is available.

Note the flawed logic. An extraterrestrial origin is ruled out on (false) a priori grounds. Xtrozero has no information on the number of ET civilisations, where they are located, or the technology such civilisations possess. Yet he throws around judgements of unlikelihood as if he were the sole keeper of such information.

Ok...time travelers from our future, government cover-up of human created high-tech, reverse engineered of an earth bound ancient civilization from billions of years ago, private party manipulation tests of the human mind…I’m sure we could go on and on as other ideas as to what all this is.

As to flawed logic...

Description of Burden of Proof

Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:


Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.

I can't show an extraterrestrial origin, information on the number of ET civilizations, where they are located, or the technology such civilizations possess because there is no evidence that any of it even exists.

Bridge that big gap my friend with other evidence to further your beliefs and I’ll come to your side in a heart beat.

Originally posted by Marsel


my point is that we not only have hit the lottery ten times in a row but many more times ...

why ? well let me just put it this way , an oxygen percentage some years ago was characterisized as highly impossbile in any percentage -let aside water- ... in any planet around our galaxy let aside solar system ...

but guess what , , not only we have found a planet that is simillar in a lot of ways to earth ( 1st jackpot) ,not only has a 0,2 percentage of oxygen ( 2nd jackpot ) , not only has large amounts of water in a solid state ( another jackpot? ), but is the closest planet to earth ( well well , lucky us then

)

So BAM! Intelligent space faring life forms....

i had the same beliefs as you but as time passes i get more positive to the idea , that something in the whole picture , is just not right ( we can agree on this part , i think )

videos released like these ( in my opinion purposely ) , just dont fit , they just make you wonder ...

I do wonder and I do hope all of it is real, I do read and follow it all, its just I'm waiting on evidence that will truly convinced me.

and this my friend are not videos from some kidos , nor from some wanna be investigators , but from nasa itself , and i d deffinetely would want a serious and logical explanation for this

i dont know if they are man made , but they are deffinetely not random object especially the one shown in the second video .. because they change directions

maybe star trec utopia is not that impossible after all , man made ? extatrerrestial ? I dont know ... what i know though is that this is a very wierd video , which really makes you think ...

It is all possible to a point and hopefully in our lifetimes we find out. I do see photos and videos becoming unusable evidence as fakes look better than real, so this type of evidence along with witnesses become more of a personal event than something usable. I’m sure if I personally witness an event it could change my mind even if my pictures are debunk like crazy…kind of like seeing a ghost. What I am truly waiting for is that missing piece that puts it all together…