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.

 

Why do UFOs need/use lights?

page: 7
23
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Luxus, I thought alien craft had an extractor feild inside the sigularity that pulls methane based particle waves from Uranus, and converts them to naturual gas. Methane flouresces under certain conditions, hence the lights.

Thats my theory.




posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by wayaboveitall
Luxus, I thought alien craft had an extractor feild inside the sigularity that pulls methane based particle waves from Uranus, and converts them to naturual gas. Methane flouresces under certain conditions, hence the lights.

Thats my theory.


Its a good theory dude ;-)



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ponyboyats
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


Submarines, boats & planes don't need outside lights to navigate!



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Yes I agree that there is inconclusive proof for these objects being alien in origin but you seemed to be arguing that UFO sightings are illusionary in nature (subjective not objective).

Did I misunderstand your comments?

Cheers.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by karl 12
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Yes I agree that there is inconclusive proof for these objects being alien in origin but you seemed to be arguing that UFO sightings are illusionary in nature (subjective not objective).

Did I misunderstand your comments?

Cheers.


The subjective part is to be totally convinced they are aliens to begin with, without any proof that aliens even exist in the first place. It is like saying, aliens exist because I can see their ships, and I find that it take a lot of assumptions to bridge that gap.

I have no problem with people having a hunch of what they are and then advancing their hunch into a hypothesis, but in this case the hypothesis stalls out as evidence stalls in progression other than the same repeating patterns, but so many still speak as a matter of fact about the subject.

I’m not suggesting though that everything is fake or illusionary for there is obviously something physical in nature around a lot of this, but the extremely high assurance by many that they are aliens is what I suggest is mostly a manifestation of our society, and this fuels the process to lable everything pretty much aliens. We would see the same thing 400 years ago but then they would be demons and angels for the exact same phenomena.

They might be spot on that they are aliens, but even if they are at this point in time it is more based on faith than empirical evidence. I do have a big problem with the theory that aliens are common and capable enough to find our tiny little planet without over coming tremendous odds in their evolutionary location compared to ours within the vastness of even our galaxy.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
I’m not suggesting though that everything is fake or illusionary for there is obviously something physical in nature around a lot of this..



Thanks for the reply and I agree with your above comment - when it comes to UFOs (not aliens) I think it's been made abundantly clear that the phenomenon is a physical one.

Like with the 1968 Minot AFB incident I posted in the reply - there's quite a number of truly puzzling UFO incidents out there which appear to defy conventional explanation so its probably best to take each case on its own merits.

Incidents which involve strangely lit objects like the Portage County case, the Coyne incident, the Tehran case, the Colares incident, the Bariloche incident etc.. certainly need to be looked at and the question of 'origin' is probably the most important one of the lot.

Cheers.

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
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.

I never said you were closed minded, I’ll reserve dat description for others. Why do you favor the “they made us” hypothesis?

I wrote:


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.

In response you said:

Now how easy or hard it is...

You skipped things a bit too fast here. If you’re going to argue that UFOs and occupants are a manifestation of some very old physical phenomenon that is earthbound and its projections are subject to the beliefs of the observer (demons before, aliens now), then I would expect a serious falsifiable hypothesis based on sound science. Alas, I see none.


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.

If the argument is that the odds of an advanced extraterrestrial civilisation existing compare to the odds of a purple flying elephant to life existing in general then the analogy is severaly flawed. A purple flying elephant does not derive from known biology and physics, so the odds of it existing are quite slim indeed. Extraterrestrial life, or more specifically intelligent extraterrestrial life can be argued to exist based on common scientific knowledge. And in fact we also have an example of life on a planet in this galaxy which lends credence to the hypothesis: Us. No such knowledge exists that would argue in favor of “a 5000 pound purple flying elephants with high IQs and pink toe nails”. In fact, if you ask a biologist he would be quite capable to list you a mountain of reasons arguing against such a creature.

In short, I think the example is fallacious and does – at least in this case - not show that an advanced ET civilisation would be quite a remote option. The purple elephant just ain’t cutting it.


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.

Alas, this is not “proof”, it is a presumption on your part. You do not know “we are a rather rare occurrence”. The requirements for the habitable zone as well as an asteroid catcher are well known. Until there exists a good understanding of planetary formation we only dare guess how many earth-like planets are out there and how many of those can support higher lifeforms. I would rather take the optimistic view (well, optimistic not so, I think ET life can be potentially dangerous so I’d rather not have UFOs be ET craft!) here, though pessimists might be inclined to disagree. Neither side can claim they are right.


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.

And yet all of these explanations can be quantified and probabilities assigned. I think the ET hypothesis still wins out as least extraordinary and thus favored by parsimony.


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.

I did not ask you to prove a negative. I noted that in the absence of data you nonetheless favored to assign probabilities where none can be really known. In short, an absence of evidence (at least from your point of view) was turned into evidence of absence.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Humans have had advanced flying platforms since the 1930s Including craft that could manipulate gravity. We did not produce these technology from reveres Engineering at that time. Humans are capable and have done wonderful things off their own back.

I get irritated when people assume everything we ever achieved significant in a technical way was reverse engineered from crashed ET technology. It robs credit to the Engineers who have worked hard on such things. Having said that the government by keeping such things secret have already robed them of all due credit. Bottom line is its not worth working in black projects. In the final analysis it is futile as mankind does not benefit.

UFOs (the smaller ones anyway) could be either man made military craft or ET craft. But fore sure the huge rectangular craft which are the size of several football fields are ET craft for sure!

[edit on 7-4-2010 by LUXUS]



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
The subjective part is to be totally convinced they are aliens to begin with, without any proof that aliens even exist in the first place. It is like saying, aliens exist because I can see their ships, and I find that it take a lot of assumptions to bridge that gap.

Now apply that same objection to SETI when they receive a supposed signal and see if your criticism is reasonable. I do not think it is for you have excluded a set of evidence on a priori grounds. And again, science does not deal in proofs.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by LUXUS
Humans have had advanced flying platforms since the 1930s Including craft that could manipulate gravity. We did not produce these technology from reveres Engineering at that time. Humans are capable and have done wonderful things off their own back.

Last time I checked such developments are not taught at the most prestigious universities. If you know of this technology and its existence since the 1930s, how come generations of engineers and scientists do not? Are you saying it is kept out of the textbooks? That seems hardly credible.
Same with the Tesla stuff, pure bunk.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   
I truly believe all the funky lights and stuff are because of the very super psychological effect it has on people, keep's people placated and docile. People are seeing all the freaky lights and in their mind they are thinking how insane and impossible it all is that it is even happening and they are seeing this stuff. So far, I have never heard of any cases where people grabbed sidearms or guns and started shooting at discs, they were too busy being mentally freaked out by the wierd flight and crazy lights.
the only type of craft that I would definitely shoot at would be those probes that hover for an hour over some residential area, that thing is going down.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   
By the way, I can recommend Paul Hill's "Unconventional Objects" for some possible insights into UFO propulsion and UFO lights or James McCampbell's "UFOlogy" which can be read for free here.

Anyone serious about the subject should have read these two classic works.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by jclmavg

Originally posted by LUXUS
Humans have had advanced flying platforms since the 1930s Including craft that could manipulate gravity. We did not produce these technology from reveres Engineering at that time. Humans are capable and have done wonderful things off their own back.

Last time I checked such developments are not taught at the most prestigious universities. If you know of this technology and its existence since the 1930s, how come generations of engineers and scientists do not? Are you saying it is kept out of the textbooks? That seems hardly credible.
Same with the Tesla stuff, pure bunk.


Yes that is exactly what I am saying it is kept out of textbooks. There is one unfortunate side effect to this technology, unlimited FREE energy for all and the end to the need of oil. Its also makes an excellent weapon!



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by jclmavg
I never said you were closed minded, I’ll reserve dat description for others. Why do you favor the “they made us” hypothesis?


If they are actually among us then I see them as being around us and most likely involved with us throughout the history of mankind than a happen chance of an alien race finding earth within the vastness of space, which I find as a very unlikely scenario. One thing that bothers me though is the idea of aliens in general seems to go back to even prehistoric times and they would have plenty of time to integrate with us to the point they would be common knowledge with no phobias that people feel is the reason they stay hidden, or kept hidden by the government today.


If they are not here then I don't see us meeting them anytime soon, as in easily millions (billions) of years even though I do agree that within our galaxy there must be other intelligent life forms, just not very assasable and not nearly as plentaful as many want to think, though life in general is most likely not uncommon.



If the argument is that the odds of an advanced extraterrestrial civilisation existing compare to the odds of a purple flying elephant to life existing in general then the analogy is severaly flawed. A purple flying elephant does not derive from known biology and physics, so the odds of it existing are quite slim indeed. Extraterrestrial life, or more specifically intelligent extraterrestrial life can be argued to exist based on common scientific knowledge.


Well let’s just look at earth then. My purple elephant was an example of the more factors you stipulate about life the less likelihood it will exist within our galaxy. So If I say life in general I have a good chance of finding it throughout earth’s history. If I say flying life then we will still find it but in smaller numbers, if I say flying life over 500 pounds we might now be talking about an unique species on earth in its entire history or none at all in the last 5 billion years.

So now if we say intelligent life that can understand the abstract and can build while not being physically challenged in many environments we have one life form on earth in the last 5 billion years, us. Also something as simple of a happen chance asteroid not hitting the earth and we might still not be here now or ever.

This doesn't give me a warm fuzzy that the galaxy as like life all over the place, only that it is possable.



And in fact we also have an example of life on a planet in this galaxy which lends credence to the hypothesis: Us.


And just what example are we? We might end up an example of a species that reaches the capability to destroy itself globally.

One thing we are not is an example of the ability to travel interstellar, or even to survive 25,000 years as modern humans.



Alas, this is not “proof”, it is a presumption on your part. You do not know “we are a rather rare occurrence”.


Well we are unique on a planet that has produced billions and billions of life forms over billions of years… I think that says something, don’t you?



The requirements for the habitable zone as well as an asteroid catcher are well known. Until there exists a good understanding of planetary formation we only dare guess how many earth-like planets are out there and how many of those can support higher lifeforms.


Well within our galaxy we do know it is not unlimited since we have 9 billion or so years and 200 billion or so stars. Big number I agree, but when you factor in that you need the right sun, right planet, right orbit just for life (advance life) we start to dwindle the number of stars down just for life in general. Then when you factor in life with let’s say our capabilities and if earth did it once in 4.5 billion years then I would say there is further dwindling going on here, don’t you? Now how many actually get into space no one knows, BUT of course it is another factor, AND so the numbers will be smaller still.

We do not know what that number is but it sure looks like it is getting closer and closer to my purple elephant chances….hehe



I would rather take the optimistic view (well, optimistic not so, I think ET life can be potentially dangerous so I’d rather not have UFOs be ET craft!) here, though pessimists might be inclined to disagree. Neither side can claim they are right.


Who is to say mine is not the optimistic view. I do suggest intelligent life is within out galaxy.



And yet all of these explanations can be quantified and probabilities assigned. I think the ET hypothesis still wins out as least extraordinary and thus favored by parsimony.


How do you quantify ET? By the number of crappy books written on it? I would say advance human technology wins over all and would be the best quantifiable.

You see that is part of the social manifestation of ET problem. ET has become so comfortable that we give it high credibility, where in reality it has the same credibility as reverse engineered technology from an ancient earth race scenario. Both have zero physical evidence, but ET is so popular…



[edit on 7-4-2010 by Xtrozero]



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by jclmavg

Now apply that same objection to SETI when they receive a supposed signal and see if your criticism is reasonable. I do not think it is for you have excluded a set of evidence on a priori grounds. And again, science does not deal in proofs.


"If” and not "When", right? The day that happens I can then say the hypothesis has further advanced to the point I can give it validity, and if one day you throw a dead alien up on my kitchen table I will be even quicker in coming to that conclusion.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 03:27 AM
link   
could it be for the same reason your car has .lights?

lol



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 04:24 AM
link   
I use to think that the reason some UFO's had lights and others did not was because some UFO's were made in the USA and others were not. I mention this because as an ex-pilot I know that anything that flies in American airspace must have running lights to discern which side of aircraft you are looking at because if you see some blinking lights in the distance night sky while flying you would want to know if it was a danger to you from a distant glance. The blinking lights will allow a pilot or observer to know the direction and the side that the plane would pass on and whether you are above or below the other plane. This is important when flying and observing other aircraft.

While landing lights and running lights are different, they still have the typical FAA redundant setup while most real authentic UFO's do not exhibit such lights. At least not like those that fly under permission in the skies of American air space.

While some UFO's with the luminous affects, and beams are totally different from the type of lights we see on aircraft. The lights that mostly indicate USA are the typical blinking lights usually seen on three sides and in three colors.

Lastly to answer your question of why do UFO's need or use lights? Well, if you have a Jeep truck, or a pickup truck or a RV, there are times such as when you want to change a tire or spot a deer in the woods when you break out the light source that will help you see or signal with the light. As such, I think even Aliens would need a light source to help them change a flat tire or to spot a human in the wood-line when they're in season.

Anyway, I have provided a link that explains the FAA light rules for aircraft. It discusses strobes and other lights as well.

en.wikipedia.org...

Thanks for the posting.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   
How would you really know if what you perceive to be ordinary earthly aircraft such as jumbo jets in our night skies, or even daylight sky come to that, are not a form of tecknologically advanced, or even biological alien mimicry?

What better cover? How many commercial flights cross our skies around the globe every hour? Why should alien craft be visible to radar? or visible at all.

When I see a light in the night sky, and see a blinking light either side, my mind instantly says 'plane' and changes focus. Im not interested in watching a jet cross the sky.

Just a thought for the 'I want to beleive' side!



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by wayaboveitall


When I see a light in the night sky, and see a blinking light either side, my mind instantly says 'plane' and changes focus. Im not interested in watching a jet cross the sky.

Just a thought for the 'I want to beleive' side!


But then when it does that instant 180 turn it just gave itself away as something not normal, but if it was totally blacked out it can do what it wants too.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by hisshadow
could it be for the same reason your car has .lights?

lol



Maybe...hehe But do you think the crafts we fly in a million years are going to still have . lights?



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join