ETs Are As Close As The Moon! But No Evidence Of Farther Away.

Reality 101: UFOs are real.

No one in their right mind would deny their reality. Still, there are those who deny the reality of UFOs. Are they in their right mind? Some bill themselves as skeptics. It is natural to be a skeptic since skeptic only means that evidence is required before something is accepted as real. I'm a natural skeptic. I'm in my right mind because I do not deny the reality of UFOs. Not only have I had my own unquestionable sightings including videotaping one but after my first sighting my doubts disappeared. So then it must mean that there are levels of skepticism. Perhaps, like me, the die-hard skeptics need only to witness one unquestionable sighting to continue being skeptics in general but accepting the reality of UFOs. IOW, experience speaks louder than words.

Let's move on to what we call aliens or non-humans, with ET being the catchphrase. The romantic version of ET is a being that comes from far away, another galaxy if you must. There is a problem with that description. There is no evidence whatsoever that if aliens exist that they are from far away. No one can say that with certainty for no one knows if UFOs carry beings. Yes, I know, there are reports of beings (humanoids) seen near landed UFOs. But, I don't accept those reports as being veracious. And the tales from the '50s with the tall, blonde Venusians are just that, tales.

Is there any evidence for ETs? Well, in a way, yes. In a way meaning that we have evidence of UFOs connected with the moon in the form of photos/films/videos. You could say that the moon ETs could be from far away if they arrived at the moon from the dark side, sort of like a hidden highway.

So what I'm trying to say with this thread is that there is certain evidence for the reality of ETs but not from the romantic far away galaxies. And, please, do not include in your replies the beings that abducted the Hills because I don't accept that they were abducted. So their "star map" is meaningless as Carl Sagan stated (maybe not in those exact words).

What has to be kept in mind also is that UFOs could be UAV (unmanned aerial vehicles) or ROV (remotely operated vehicles). Which means that the controllers must be somewhere. But where? Here on earth, on the moon, in another dimension? There are too many mysteries for anyone to think they have the ultimate answer or that governments know. IMO, no one knows.

Just wanted to say that it is possible and even probable that the UAVs/ROVs/UFOs are owned and operated by the military of certain countries. Or maybe by what is generally known as TPTB.

If we assume the ET explanation for UFOs, then the evidence that the ETs come from far away is the observation that they don't come from nearby. By process of elimination, the ETs come from far away.

reply to post by The Shrike


As our own civilisation speeds towards a technological singularity and the advent of super/ultra artificial intelligence, we must consider how far removed extraterrestrials are from the monkey suits containing barely conscious consciousnesses which we call Homo sapiens. I believe this is one of the major reasons for the outright obscurity of the extraterrestrial phenomenon - like lab rats pondering the true nature of the human scientists experimenting on them ... with motive, intelligence and awareness immeasurably deep, inconcievable and alien to them. In my assessment, contact will not occur until after the technological singularity - when our technology gives birth to minds capable of communicating with extraterrestrials at their level of awareness.

Originally posted by OnceReturned
If we assume the ET explanation for UFOs, then the evidence that the ETs come from far away is the observation that they don't come from nearby. By process of elimination, the ETs come from far away.

But ET means only Extra-Terrestrial, not of earth. Because they've been seen as far away as the moon the ET term applies. But when they are over earth, they're NOT ETs! And we really don't know where they're from and if they are all from the same place. There is no evidence that ETs come from far away, past the moon.

I'll admit, though, that some Martian photos show anomalous aerial objects but not with enough detail to call them UFOs.

IOW, UFOs are "localized".

reply to post by The Shrike
On first appearances and with the amount/quality of data available, it does appear to be a localised phenomenon. Nevertheless the data is skewed and the sample biased. Earth-bound sightings are in an open-market and those potentially from outside our atmosphere are in a closed system. If there were sightings between here and the Moon, would we have access to the information?

Another consideration goes hand in glove with the old argument against the ETH...space is too big. In this sense, in and around Earth are cameras, satellites, and some 14 billion eye-balls. In outer space we have very little oversight. If indeed there are 'visitors,' it's conceivable that they remain largely unseen by our technology until they are already here.

All that said, it's interesting to think about what 'localised' means. Is it interdimensional? We just don't know. I've enjoyed reading analyses of metal samples allegedly from UFO encounters. Although the incidents sound staged, if true, the lab analyses always describe a metal that could have a terrestrial origin. If their craft are constructed using terrestrial metals...it leads to questions of exactly how local can they be? In that scenario...they might not be 'visitors' in any conventional sense. Alien yes, ET...no?

Your discussion is pointless since you will only accept certain cases. If you study the Hill case, the only logical explanation for the star map is the Betty did indeed see it. Never mind Sagan, study the case for yourself, read everything about it and sort through all the evidence.

Sagan was a dishonest pseudo-skeptic (one who denies evidence because it will lead to conclusion he doesn't want to accept, while passing it off as skepticism). In every case, Sagan refused to even acknowledge evidence that didn't go his way. He claimed that Roswell was a balloon because the Air Force said so. No need to study the case, the Air Force has to be right.

As for his famous saying that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", that's the biggest crock in science. Science just doesn't work that way. Generally, there is little to no evidence for accepted theories. There is absolutely no evidence the big bang ever happened. Observations tend to indicate that maybe that's what happened. Yet scientists base their careers on the idea that it did happen. Almost all of astronomy and physics is based on interpretation of, very often, little observation without a single shred of evidence.

The whole UFO/ET phenomenon has much more observations and more evidence than most accepted theories in physics and astronomy (and many other sciences).

In a scenario à la "Fountains of Paradise"/"V"/"Independence Day", Sagan would have claimed that since the only evidence of these flying saucers was the eyes of everyone on the planet, it was not extraordinary, therefore the saucers are just an optical illusion or a result of ongoing mass hysteria. If you quote Sagan and use him as your guide, you will not get very far in your research. Look up Phil Plaitt, you'll probably like him too....

Originally posted by ajmusicmedia
Your discussion is pointless since you will only accept certain cases. If you study the Hill case, the only logical explanation for the star map is the Betty did indeed see it. Never mind Sagan, study the case for yourself, read everything about it and sort through all the evidence.

I don't accept "certain cases". You don't know what cases I "accept". I don't accept any abduction cases. And since you don't seem to know, Betty was not a UFO novice, she was very experienced with the subject. And Barney's comments under hypnosis repeat what was heard in the "BELLERO SHIELD".

Sagan was a dishonest pseudo-skeptic (one who denies evidence because it will lead to conclusion he doesn't want to accept, while passing it off as skepticism). In every case, Sagan refused to even acknowledge evidence that didn't go his way. He claimed that Roswell was a balloon because the Air Force said so. No need to study the case, the Air Force has to be right.

I don't know you or your qualifications but I do not think that you are in a position to criticize Sagan as he is no longer able to reply to your accusations. And it seems that you don't know the truth about Roswell also and must accept the silly crashed UFO/bodies b.s.

As for his famous saying that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", that's the biggest crock in science. Science just doesn't work that way. Generally, there is little to no evidence for accepted theories. There is absolutely no evidence the big bang ever happened. Observations tend to indicate that maybe that's what happened. Yet scientists base their careers on the idea that it did happen. Almost all of astronomy and physics is based on interpretation of, very often, little observation without a single shred of evidence.

Sagan popularized "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" but he did not originate it. Marcello Truzzi, one of the founders of Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal said
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." This idea originated with Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749–1827), a French mathematician and astronomer who said, "The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness."

The whole UFO/ET phenomenon has much more observations and more evidence than most accepted theories in physics and astronomy (and many other sciences).

UFOs have much more observations/evidence. ET has none unless you have some.

In a scenario à la "Fountains of Paradise"/"V"/"Independence Day", Sagan would have claimed that since the only evidence of these flying saucers was the eyes of everyone on the planet, it was not extraordinary, therefore the saucers are just an optical illusion or a result of ongoing mass hysteria. If you quote Sagan and use him as your guide, you will not get very far in your research. Look up Phil Plaitt, you'll probably like him too....

Again you are placing yourself in a dead man's mind and know what he would have said about something you don't seem to understand. I can't stand Phil Plaitt, but I'd rather listen to him any day than read your ramblings.

I was going to make a thread on theories of ET's, and one type would be this one. An ET race who inhabits the dark side of the moon. It's logical. There are many logical places and times throughout history that an ET race could visit too.

One could be putting life on this planet, one could be creating human beings, one could bring technology, religion, sightings, and random visitors not as prominent as the previous ET's, and maybe some just passing through, and maybe some inhabiting our Moons and whatnot. All could be here simultaneously. WHO KNOWS.

But maybe what the OP is implying the ET's occupying the UFO's that we see, I know, I know, but the UFO's that we see are simply traveling from the Moon, Mars, Moons of Mars, Moons of Jupiter and Saturn, etc. AND NOT from another Star. Logical.

But I honestly think with all the life in our Oceans, fish swimming around, I don't see why life in Space would not be the same. If you really think about it, Space and the Ocean, have a lot of similarities as a whole, and some detailed similarities that we use to better our understanding of Space.

Therefore, I don't see why we wouldn't have UFO's coming and going all the time. A few species remaining here, like one in particular he was mentioning on the moon, while others pass through our Solar System. Exactly like some marine Ecosystem in the Ocean, but of course on a Universal scale.

I know everyone says, YOU'RE CRAZY, THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF THAT, but how would we see it? A plane flys over the horizon, I believe we can't see the UFO's. There is no evidence, because we have never obtained any evidence, they are just that advanced.

But people equate Gods with Aliens, like the ET's who have visited Earth or who do visit Earth, are special to the Universe. That's almost the same as not believing in ET's to begin with.

Oh we are the only life in the Universe. Oh there's Aliens, they must be Gods. ???Really? Isn't that kind of egocentric?

Our Universe has massive stars! Why can't one massive star have some massive planet with unknown life that are just UFO's to begin with? And if you multiple that by how many massive stars there are in the Universe, then we would have a whole bunch of UFO's flying around space!

We have already cataloged many things that "fly" through space, comets, asteroids, meteors...I don't see why that list would be considered complete....

But maybe not, maybe it's just completely quiet up there and no activity....

reply to post by ajmusicmedia


Didn't Carl Sagan write Contact?

You know the novel that was adapted to a film starring Jodie Foster and focussed on intelligent and communicative ET.

Pretty sure he said the universe was packed full of life too.

Here's something to ponder ajmusicmedia:



-m0r

reply to post by The Shrike


Even the 'Venusians' of the fifties you mention could in fact have been real, they just lied about where they were from and so told people something that met their expectations. If there is some other culture, either on the moon or beneath the ocean they would probably want that fact kept secret so would (mis)direct our attention to the stars and planets and hence keep our attention from looking closer to home.

Jacques Vallee's work would seem to tie in with your idea. If you consider folklore through the ages as reports of actual non-human beings and these are the same entities that now fly around in UFOs (I'm simplifying here) then the idea that UFOs are recent arrivals from another solar system seems less likely.

They could be ET that arrived here a very long time ago of course and are overseeing some vast enduring experiment from their hidden bases. Or they could be creatures from parallel universes, other dimensions, inter-imaginal or daimonic realities. Or perhaps we really are in a giant hologram and someone on the outside is having a bit of fun with us

reply to post by The Shrike


I was going to post a reply but then see you do not want posts that do not agree with you so I can't be bothered getting a negative response.
If you'd like to ask for ALL replies then I may post.

reply to post by The Shrike


I don't think there's any solid evidence of alien visitation to Earth. UFOs are unidentified, we don't know what they are. Most are probably natural phenomenon and misidentifications of known objects. The size of the Universe means there's probably life out there somewhere but it also means that life is gonna have a heck of a time finding us (and vice versa). As for aliens I've never seen any compelling evidence suggesting their presence anywhere in our Solar System, let alone the moon.

So yes, UFOs are real, obviously, but I don't think its safe to call them alien spacecraft just yet or make any claims as to where these craft are coming from.

Originally posted by ajmusicmedia
Your discussion is pointless since you will only accept certain cases. If you study the Hill case, the only logical explanation for the star map is the Betty did indeed see it. Never mind Sagan, study the case for yourself, read everything about it and sort through all the evidence.

I don't accept "certain cases". You don't know what cases I "accept". I don't accept any abduction cases. And since you don't seem to know, Betty was not a UFO novice, she was very experienced with the subject. And Barney's comments under hypnosis repeat what was heard in the "BELLERO SHIELD".

You have not done your research on the Hills; what you are saying is utterly ridiculous and has been debunked a long time ago. These were attacks by pseudo-skeptics like Glass. All invention without bothering to learn the facts.

As for the fact that I don't know which cases you accept or not, it's still not possible to have a discussion as you will dismiss any opinion contrary to yours by saying you do not accept the original case.

Sagan was a dishonest pseudo-skeptic (one who denies evidence because it will lead to conclusion he doesn't want to accept, while passing it off as skepticism). In every case, Sagan refused to even acknowledge evidence that didn't go his way. He claimed that Roswell was a balloon because the Air Force said so. No need to study the case, the Air Force has to be right.

I don't know you or your qualifications but I do not think that you are in a position to criticize Sagan as he is no longer able to reply to your accusations. And it seems that you don't know the truth about Roswell also and must accept the silly crashed UFO/bodies b.s.

The crashed UFO theory is much more plausible than anything else. Again, do your research. Do you really believe that all those people there could not identify a balloon? ????

As for his famous saying that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", that's the biggest crock in science. Science just doesn't work that way. Generally, there is little to no evidence for accepted theories. There is absolutely no evidence the big bang ever happened. Observations tend to indicate that maybe that's what happened. Yet scientists base their careers on the idea that it did happen. Almost all of astronomy and physics is based on interpretation of, very often, little observation without a single shred of evidence.

Sagan popularized "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" but he did not originate it. Marcello Truzzi, one of the founders of Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal said
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." This idea originated with Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749–1827), a French mathematician and astronomer who said, "The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness."

Regardless of who came up with the original quote, Sagan repeated it ad nauseam; he made it his own. And it does not change the rest of my statement.

The whole UFO/ET phenomenon has much more observations and more evidence than most accepted theories in physics and astronomy (and many other sciences).

UFOs have much more observations/evidence. ET has none unless you have some.

There is plenty; you simply refuse to accept it. As I said before, your whole attempt at a discussion is pointless.

In a scenario à la "Fountains of Paradise"/"V"/"Independence Day", Sagan would have claimed that since the only evidence of these flying saucers was the eyes of everyone on the planet, it was not extraordinary, therefore the saucers are just an optical illusion or a result of ongoing mass hysteria. If you quote Sagan and use him as your guide, you will not get very far in your research. Look up Phil Plaitt, you'll probably like him too....

Again you are placing yourself in a dead man's mind and know what he would have said about something you don't seem to understand. I can't stand Phil Plaitt, but I'd rather listen to him any day than read your ramblings.

I've seen Sagan throughout his life. I've read his books and heard his dissertations. It's easy for anyone to place himself in his shoes. You see, the thing is that the person who doesn't understand is you. You have a biased opinion based on BS with total disregard for facts. You have a closed mind. As Sagan, you are pseudo-skeptic. Like him, you will not accept any evidence contrary to your opinion.

As for me, it is pointless spending anymore time on this. Respond all you will, call me whatever you will, I don't care, I will not respond to you again.

Originally posted by m0r1arty
reply to post by ajmusicmedia

 

Didn't Carl Sagan write Contact?

You know the novel that was adapted to a film starring Jodie Foster and focussed on intelligent and communicative ET.

Pretty sure he said the universe was packed full of life too.

Here's something to ponder ajmusicmedia:

-m0r

The novel was much better than the film. Sagan could only accept alien contact if it was made through radio telescopes. In his view (like in many other people's views) it was impossible to make any other kind of contact because of distance.

In Sagan's opinion, although he claimed the opposite, we have discovered all there is to be discovered. Faster than light travel is impossible because all we know about physics says so.

If Sagan had been born earlier and had been an engineer, he would not have invented the airplane. He would have claimed, like most scientists of his time that science showed that it was impossible to fly anything heavier than air. By the way; to this day, nobody knows why a plane flies...

Actually, it's funny, because a few days ago the Russians admitted through their mainstream news channel Vesti (News 24) at night that the Moon is full of extraterrestrial intelligent life and that it was too risky for the Moon missions to continue. I'm not kidding, my own father told me this and he is usually a skeptic. If anyone can find the report online, that would be cool.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by The Shrike

 

I was going to post a reply but then see you do not want posts that do not agree with you so I can't be bothered getting a negative response.
If you'd like to ask for ALL replies then I may post.

In this thread please find where I said I do not want posts that do agree with my POV. Just copy and paste. If you've read any of the replies you'll see that a few do not agree with me. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, stated intelligently of course. Let's see what you want to add to the discussion.

Originally posted by ajmusicmedia
(snip)
As for me, it is pointless spending anymore time on this. Respond all you will, call me whatever you will, I don't care, I will not respond to you again.

Since your arguments are not well thought out I will not respond to you beyond this reply. When you do some real research and develop some common sense, logic, and reason, then we can exchange opinions. Ciao, baby!