It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why do you think that the origin of UFOs is Extra-terrestrial?

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 07:55 PM

Originally posted by trysts
reply to post by The Shrike

I have read of encounters where the eyewitness describes a craft carrying passengers, or pilots. If the encounters did occur, then you could conclude that the eyewitness observed the "fact" that it was a craft. After reading through your thread, The Shrike, I understand that you've had a few sightings throughout your life, but of something which you don't believe was a craft carrying a crew of sorts. But there is no doubt that the phenomenon has an abundant diversity of experiences associated with it, so other eyewitnesses may know that they've encountered a craft not of this earth, where your encounters have been different.

" of encounters.." That says it all, someone made a claim. Even my description of my sightings can be doubted as having happened. It's up to individuals to give credence to what they read or hear. I didn't discount outright that UFOs are craft. We can certainly compare them to ours because we recognize similar aerial characteristics. But we know which are human 'cause they mostly need wings and motors and these are clearly visible. And we certainly have seen people enter and emerge into and out of airplanes, etc. And, so far, they need pilots and a crew. Similarity breeds contempt!

I also never said that my sightings of unusual aerial objects/behavior were not craft and that they did not carry a "crew of sorts". I always will repeat with 100% certainty unless I learn something new. IOW, I don't know what I saw, but they weren't human constructs. Mine and others sightings share the same mystery.

posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 08:05 PM

Originally posted by VoidHawk
reply to post by The Shrike

Hi Shrike.
In a reply you posted above you said

The only link of UFOs to ETs is that they have been seen and filmed flitting over the surface of the moon and on some Martian videos. But no evidence of real deep space origins.

That might be because there's not many of us out their to view them. In all the places where humans do go we have reports of them. Maybe when we're able to travel deep space the reports will continue.

Interesting thread

edit on 1-11-2012 by VoidHawk because: (no reason given)

Hi VoidHawk.
I would just love to see any sign of a UFO photographed by the Hubble telescope, or any of the imaging satellites we've loosened on the cosmos. We have trillions of images of almost every corner of the visible universe and in none of them can we see a foreign (to humans) craft caught by accident. Some strange things have been imaged but not with enough detail to make a definite call.

I wonder what we might see if a satellite was put in orbit over the moon. You'd think that the UFOs seen traveling over the moon's surface and filmed by astronauts/Lunar Orbiters would trigger NASA to be more curious.
But perhaps it's true that we have been warned to stay away!

posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 08:10 PM

Originally posted by ladyteeny
reply to post by The Shrike

to be honest it would take a good while to type up... and to a logical mind pretty unbelievable. maybe when i've got the time and i'm in the mood to have people tell me what a nutjob i am

Don't try to do it all at once. Treat it like a book and write a line or two and put it aside until you "feel the spirit" but you should chronicle it while your memories are fresh and store it in your pc until needed. I don't always write my reply here cold. I put my thoughts in a "Notepad" and save it constantly adding to it or editing it. When I'm satisfied, I copy it and paste it here.

Actually, if you started it as a thread you'll find out how others think and you'll appreciate some views while hating others.

posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 08:18 PM

Originally posted by ufohunter16
Yes I believe that UFOs exist and that they are indeed craft.I also believe they are aliem.Why?Because mlst reports are of movements so far ahead of our time,also many reports were before there were even cars let alone planes.Although our governments are involved in some way because of things like area51 and Dulce. As to proof, ive seen at least two UFOs infact one was right over my friends house.

You know, as satisfying as believing that UFOs exist may be (I don't know), it's having the experience of actually witnessing one preferably in daylight and being able to recognize it as something more than a human aerial craft that really counts. You have to constantly look up when you are outside. I've been looking up since 1958 and it wasn't until around 1981 that I had my first sighting which made my binocular-holding-hands shake uncontrollably. I remained calm during my other sightings but that first one of an actual "craft" clearly seen with my binocs just hoveing at a low height and "riding" invisible waves, it sent shivers through me.

But, please, do not be fooled by questionable reports such as those linked with Area 51, Dulce, etc. They are just stories that have no substance.

posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 08:38 PM

Originally posted by The Shrike

Hi VoidHawk.
I would just love to see any sign of a UFO photographed by the Hubble telescope, or any of the imaging satellites we've loosened on the cosmos. We have trillions of images of almost every corner of the visible universe and in none of them can we see a foreign (to humans) craft caught by accident. Some strange things have been imaged but not with enough detail to make a definite call.

Because of the scale involved with hubble etc telescopes any craft would be totaly invisible, they would be millions of times smaller that a single camera pixel.

My personal view regarding craft that are seen near earth is that most of them (at least 99%) are military/black projects. However I realy dont see why craft from far away places should not be visiting us, the distances may seem immense to us, but who are we to say THEY cant travel those distances.
I find the extra dimensional idea's a little hard to swallow personaly, but thats just my own view.

posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 08:42 PM

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by The Shrike

Dear The Shrike,

Science cannot prove many things. One problem it has is that while the theory of how gravity works is based on mass, there is insufficient mass for it to work. That doesn't mean that gravity does not work, merely that science does not have all the answers. The universe worked the way it did long before science had an explanation that is the reality.

I would not claim that there are no aliens or flying saucers, I merely for an explanation as to what we are seeing or observing. You asked a series of questions, I gave my answers, that is what you asked for. I tend to agree with Jacques Vallée and Dr. Josef Allen Hynek on these matters; though, I used to believe in the extraterrestrial answer. I find it interesting that you do not believe people have interacted with them inside the ships. What do you think of the Travis Walton story?

UPDATE - I see you have already commented to another on Travis Martin.
edit on 1-11-2012 by AQuestion because: Clarity

We all have to rely on science to progress, not as fast as we would like but I'm grateful for the dedicated scientists. However, they are like a slow production line and it's a shame that even in science there are a lot of outlaws that misuse the funds that could be beneficial to those who are truly dedicated.

I claim that there are "flying saucers" 'cause the cat's out of the bag. But it's a different story for aliens. So far, all we have are questionable accounts. There are the popular authors such as Friedman, Schmidt, Randle, Knapp, Dolan and a host of others. But these people are just information gatherers, they really don't get into the subjects 'cause if they did they would write less and less is not going to keep you going to the bank regularly.

OTH, Vallee is different. He writes from a more educated mind-setting. He just doesn't report. His writings make you think, make you consider other realities for he is along for the ride and not just as a reporter. As for Hynek, he was a nice guy but he didn't bring anything special to the table. His name alone guaranteed something that others couldn't but we never got anything from him worth taking to the bank.

Unless I see a closeup of a UFO in the air or a landed craft with people in or around it, reports of such will just be reports just as UFO reports were for me before my first sighting.

posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 10:53 PM
reply to post by The Shrike

Thing is, in those times, it wasn't even a fantasy to think of flying crafts with humanoids emerging from them, of course, some figured there was a religious meaning to it, others i'm not even sure what they could have though, the proof is the depiction itself, because by themselves, it is highly unlikely ancient civilizations could imagine such a thing, and draw it just to make future civilizations curious and wonder what it is, when in reality, there's nothing special to it, the only thing about it, is that it was drawn and that, again, was impossible for such a thing to come to ANY ancient tribes' mind.

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 12:43 AM

Originally posted by The Shrike

Originally posted by liejunkie01
Until I have absolute proof,

I believe that they are some black project aircraft.

Countries of the world spend a lot of money on r and d. I think that they have a little bit more than radio controlled drones in the hanger.

It sounds more logical than a being from another planet visiting us. I think that the governments want us to believe it is alien.

Just my opinion.

How can you believe that we are so advanced technologically that we are responsible for even one of the aerial wonders that are called UFOs? How can you believe that there are such real black projects. On what do you opinion? It isn't just simple r and d, there has to be a source. All human aerial craft are limited by the laws of aerodynamics and I've never seen nor heard of the laws being overcome. I do not share your opinion that governments wants us to think anything other than that they care for their citizens which is as big a myth as you can imagine.

How can you believe that out of the trillions of dollars spent by the us alone that after 60 plus years we are still not advanced past the turbine engine? Seriously

Wright brothers fly in the teens, turbine engines in the 40's and 50's. Rockets in the 50's and 60's.

What we just hit a sixty year stalemate in aviation propulsion?

Something is amiss here friend and I see it. To believe we have not done better than a turbine jet is to be blind.

When you have basically an unlimited budget and the smartest minds that universities has to offer, one can achieve much more than jet power.

For some reason we are stuck here in the past. I believe it is the military industrial complex and her mighty money hungry hogs thar want to milk the oil for all she is worth.

Oh and by the way, I am unable to link or quote any material from sources. I am on a phone.

Please do not be so naive and believe that a turbine engine us the best we can do. After all we spend half of the federal budget on defense.

We invented the plane, made rockets, turbines all within 50 years. It has been sixty since then?

I find that baffling.

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 01:41 AM
reply to post by liejunkie01

What are you basing that opinion on? Is it just speculation? I think it is. You forgot the space shuttle and Concorde. Neither of which fly anymore. We've also been to the moon with space craft.

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 01:45 AM

Originally posted by The Shrike
I don't know what I saw, but they weren't human constructs. Mine and others sightings share the same mystery.

Perhaps you just answered your own question. If they're not human what are they then?

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 01:51 AM
reply to post by JimTSpock

Was that technology not. More than 50 years old?

My opinion yes it is Logical to assert that I dobelieve that we can and do have anything better after 50 plus years. I believe we can and do. That is what moving forward is about. That is basing the shuttle as a rocket. Nothing really ground breaking about the propulsion methods. Solid rocket and liquid rocket engines have been around along timeo

Why do you feel that after the such rapid evolution of flight we are stagnant with our propulsion designs.

The two examples you listed are ancient when compared to a short time frame that flight has been available.

I think it is a logical assumption.

Why else are we stuck on turbine engines?

Do you honestly believe that there has not been anything else designed and tested.

If so what is the point if research and development. The latest craze is drones. We ha e hadradio controlled "things" for decades. They are still powered by ancient internal combustion engines or turbine engines.
edit on 2-11-2012 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-11-2012 by liejunkie01 because: sentence structuring on thid phobe, sorry

edit on 2-11-2012 by liejunkie01 because: friggin fat fingers on a lityle pjone sorry for the typos. ia am leaving the rest

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 02:01 AM
reply to post by liejunkie01

If you're talking about anti-gravity engines which is what is required to explain some of the UFO incidents I don't think we have that technology. I know a little bit about aviation and physics and I've never seen anything to suggest we have this technology. It is way too far advanced for our current knowledge of physics. Unless there is a whole field of secret physics and aircraft which I think is absurd. That's what I think about that.

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 02:07 AM
reply to post by JimTSpock

I am not necessarily thinking antigravity. I think this is a Hollywood term.

I personally do not have a clue. But frequency, and charged particle methods come to mind.

Just my two cents worth.(I hope it is worth that anyways).

Antigravity is severely overhyped in my opinion.

There has to be more energy methods for propulsion.

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 02:21 AM
reply to post by liejunkie01

Yes we still use the internal combustion engines for our cars and we still use turbofan engines for our aircraft. We still use fossil fuel powered vehicles, that's the way it is until we can come up with something else.
I agree some aspects of our technology has stagnated. A fossil fuel burning internal combustion engine car does seem a bit primitive. I want a nuclear fusion powered anti-gravity flying car but they don't make them yet!

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 03:11 AM
Very interesting thread, with very interesting answers.

I'll have my go

Originally posted by The Shrike
1. Do you think UFOs are crafts?^

I've always tried to remain relatively unbiased, in particular with the many cases where no conclusion can be reached. So this question, although it seems pretty much a yes/no case will require much more than that.

The terminology used, UFO, designates an unidentified flying object, so the name UFO is already flawed as it assumes from the start that it must be some sort of craft. I had once suggested to use instead UAP for Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon, but I have had to think about it and it is not correct either, as some "UFOs" are actually ground happening phenomenon.

Anyways, the discussion is not there, but since a UFO can just be some lights in the sky, it is very possible that some UFOs are not crafts, that they're not even solid material but just lights, energy, holograms, lasers, name it. However, some of the UFOs observed around and on earth were solid material objects, that certainly looked like they could be a craft.

2. If you do, why are there such a variety of shapes?

Speaking of those that we will consider to be "crafts", there may be many different purposed crafts. Reconnaissance crafts, that will carry just one pilot or even no pilot at all, photography/scanning crafts, transport crafts, crafts designed to run scientific experiments, crafts that are themselves craft carriers, who knows for sure? On earth, depending on what our vehicules are supposed to be doing, and where they would travel, we have very different sizes and shapes of vehicles. Assuming the UFOs are crafts, they originate from a species that has built them in order to do something with them (it could be humans, us!), and the shape and size of those craft is adjusted to its purpose. As simple as that.

3. Do you think that if UFOs are craft, do they contain beings which would pilot the alleged craft?

Again, possibly, but possibly not. We have crafts here on earth, known crafts that do carry people and some that do not carry people. We have, in particular, unmanned vehicles in space and on mars. Depending on the same discussion as in 2., I'd say that it is possible that some carry a crew and some don't.

4. Would you consider UFOs as remotely operated vehicles and if you do, where would their controlers be located?

Same as 2. and 3., some may be. I will not elaborate again the same arguments, you get it without a doubt. As to say where their controllers are, how would we know? In space around the planet, on the moon, on earth, on mars, farther that this? Everything is possible, since we don't know if even they are remote controlled.

5. Why do you think UFOs are extra-terrestrial and what do you base it on?

This could start a potentially 20 pages discussion just by itself, but to make it as short as possible, because there are too many instances in which all earthly explanations are ruled out beyond reasonable doubt, because there are too many cases where a possible extraterrestrial origin (CE3K, abductions, observations of non earthly beings, etc.) cannot be ruled out. It is not based on belief or customs or fairy tales. It is based on good logic and on common sense.

Since man is man, we have always looked to the stars. And now, we are just starting to discover that earth may be far from unique. In a very tiny place of space around our own world, we have discovered several hundreds of planets already, many of them could possible harbour life. There are trillions upon trillions of other neighbourhoods like ours everywhere in space. We cannot be alone. And all the good arguments in the world to pretend that star travel is not possible and blah blah blah, I can certainly answer that travelling to the moon was impossible 100 years ago. Therefore logic dictates that there could just be life everywhere, with who knows how many hundred of thousands, millions or even billions of years of further advancement compared to us, who have evolved a mere few thousand now.

So maybe some UFOs are really terrestrial, but too much points towards a bunch of them (20%? 50%? 80%?) are probably not earth technology.

6. Can you provide any evidence for your opinions?

Sh.tloads (sorry to cheat censors this way, but no polite word describes it better).

Not [proof]. No, not that. But libraries worth of evidence. Of good evidence.

7. If you do not have any evidence, then you must be employing a belief system so what led you to
your beliefs?

Not a belief system in my case.

In fact, as many things are based on evidence and not proof indeed, it is discutable. But in order to make one refuse to give credit in the evidence he has in front of himself, it takes better evidence of another explanation. I have not found better evidence of another explanation so far. Not for many cases.

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 09:42 AM
Any "craft" capable of travelling inter-stellar would have to have "time-travel" functions, the only way to leap across such large distances is to distort time and space. For this reason, they occupy "inter-dimensional" space, and as such they would not manifest physically unless they had experienced some sort of malfunction.

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 11:37 AM
I'll be repeating what others have said, but here goes, shooting from the hip

1. Do you think UFOs are crafts?
Craft or self-contained AI bots. (Not counting all the many instances of natural/human activity misidentified or not identified).

2. If you do, why are there such a variety of shapes?
Look at aircraft and how they've developed over the years. Also, there are different aircraft with different airframes and prpulsions systems for different tasks. A Piper Cub and an A380 seemingly have little in common except they fly and have cambered wings and aerodynamic control surfaces.

3. Do you think that if UFOs are craft, do they contain beings which would pilot the alleged craft?
Yes, why not, though I consider bots more likely candidates to arrive on Earth from somewhere else. At least at first. Depends how curious the species is about Earth and its evolving lifeforms.

4. Would you consider UFOs as remotely operated vehicles and if you do, where would their controllers be located?
If RV's, I suspect their controllers are close by, as in within the distance of the moon or such. But that doesn't have to mean that their base is so near, it could be they picked a hiding place nearby where they won't be seen from passing satellites and spacecraft.

5. Why do you think UFOs are extra-terrestrial and what do you base it on?
I imagine they're ETs because other possibilities are even more far fetched. Some are of course military in origin, perhaps they all are? I doubt it.
Building craft takes ressources, I don't see any evidence that non-human entities are exploiting Earthly ressources. Where are their pits and their factories?

6. Can you provide any evidence for your opinions?
Yes, but no proof.

7. If you do not have any evidence, then you must be employing a belief system so what led you to your beliefs?
If you mean proof: Belief is not necessary. The evidence for strange craft is overwhelming. Ad. 5), I see no non-human entities exploiting Earthly ressources.

"And I'm aware that images resembling UFOs have been recorded over Mars but they're rare and not as numerous as over earth."
I consider that irrelevant. Earth is much more interesting than Mars. Also, I have no idea what the intentions, missions or methods of possible E.T.s might be.

PS: I have no idea what's going on

Perhaps the military doesn't either, perhaps that's why it's impossible to have a common discussion on a societal level, at least in the U.S.. Other nations perhaps feel less of a psychological need to maintain an image of being completely dominant and 'in control', they confess that they don't know what's going on. Did society go crazy, has government been destabilized? No. Though, admittedly, I imagine that the violent Brazilian encounters (Colares and more) on a larger scale would create a moderate panic situation. Until it had been talked through, in the public.
Possibly, if 'disclosure' ever happens in the U.S., it will simply be an admission that the world contains phenomena that even the finest of instruments can't get to grasps with. So be it, that would be sufficient to me, because it would allow a common discussion and possible advance human enlightenment. It would be fitting if the government's (mil's) tools were also at the disposal of serious researchers and scientists.
I agree with Leslie Keane and others: The recent 'Disclosure' demands put forward to Obama by the Exo-politics movement were shrill and immature (my words).

Shrike, two questions for you in return:

Originally posted by The Shrike
Let me qualify myself first: I do not believe UFOs are real, I know UFOs are real from first-hand experience after having 5 or 6 solid sightings and I do not think that they are extra-terrestrial..

I'm intrigued. Was there a pattern to your sightings? Could you briefly give us an example or two? Did you conclude anything for yourself, e.g. that they were military?

edit on 2-11-2012 by ScientificUAPer because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 12:04 PM
I don't believe in anything, but I can make an educated guess about UFOs. I have also seen them up close in such a way that it is difficult to disown them, but my guess is they are not extraterrestrials. My best guess is they are projections from our own future. Them is us, and probably not as far forward as we may think now, since time travel has already been accomplished on a quantum level, and government-funded research that leads to the capability to send information to the future is already underway.

From this perspective, some of your questions have reasonable answers. The "craft" vary in the same way that they do now: it depends on who made them. Humans are creative and Marshall McLuhan was right: we see our bodies as extensions of our machines, especially when it comes to transportation. Does your car have a gender? Many do apply a gender to their cars, because they feel about them the same way as they do with humans. The crafts appear to have a great deal of interest in what we do, eat, and think, and that again points Occam's razor at who would be most interested in those activities: other humans.

Many UFO reports describe an effect like "blinking in and out" and "fuzzy around the edges" and "suddenly disappearing." Reports worldwide are 99% in agreement that the "crafts" are silent. How can that be without breaking laws of physics that would, in reality, implode the universe? If they are projections, that explains all of those conditions. The "crafts" aren't "here" so to speak, they are projected data collectors looking for the same things as our Hewey (Voyager I) and Dewey (Voyager II) at the edge of our tiny speck of space in the universe.

If they are time travel data collectors, that explains why TPTB in the entire world brush off UFO reports and steer people away from investigation. TPTB know what and who they are, and have been told that the butterfly effect is very real and has already f*ed things up and they're trying to fix it, so just butt out or it'll get more f*ed up. I agree it is best to keep the amount of awareness of temporal displacement to a bare minimum, and there is no better cover story than "aliens from outer space" which TPTB will continue to propagate. It is better we go on "believing" they are "not us" so that we consistently mistake who they really are.

This hypothesis accounts for "ancient alien" theories, because if they can project into our time, they most likely can do it into any time. 50,000+ years from now we will have conquered the "time barrier" to the point that organic matter can also be transmitted to any time. By then, the chimeric arts will be taught in grade school.

When I read of animal-headed "gods" ordering humans around, it sounds to me more like what humans would do to other humans, because no matter how brilliant we think we are, we will always be many layers of animal inside, and we are increasingly better at sociopathy as we get smarter. Ordering superstitious ancient humans to take all the life-threatening survival risks is too tempting for sociopathic humans to pass up. If you could go back in time and be considered a "god" with your customized chimeric appearance and order people to do whatever you wanted them to do, wouldn't you be tempted?

I've had two sightings of UFOs and one was very up close and absolutely the scariest 10 minutes of my life. I do not wish to see another. As far as the "other dimension" hypotheses, they are valid too, and the proof is what is happening right this very moment on this forum on ATS: are you real to me? Am I real to you? How do we know we're really real? What is our "evidence"? There are other guesses equally fun to think about, including mass insanity caused by an overwhelming sense of guilt that we've pretty much f*ed everything up and want something or someone to come save us from ourselves.

I worked on the Voyager II Encounter with Jupiter project at JPL in 1978-9. In-between transmissions every 4 hours from VG32, we worked on another project, SEASAT, a satellite which took pictures of the ocean floor. It's safe to say that the reason the SEASAT project was suddenly shut down was not that SEASAT fell into the sea. One day we came to work and went for the SEASAT door and there were ominous guards there that told us the project was over and we should go back to the Voyager II room and just play checkers or something between transmissions, and not ask why.

The best locations to project to without risk of discovery or of landing inside a rock, is the sky and the ocean.

We didn't play checkers. Instead, we helped NASA with another project they had going: turning ARPANET into INTERNET. Now, if there's anything that proves we are creative thinkers soon capable of time travel, as well as dangerous beasts killing ourselves one belief at a time, it's the Internet.

edit on 2-11-2012 by alumnathe because: better science through grammar

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 01:34 PM
1. Do you think UFOs are crafts?

I do believe aprox. 45% (of what is being called U.F.O'S),are indeed actual craft. By craft I mean earth originating aircraft,satellites,balloons,rockets,drones,U.A.V'S,and perhaps even probes.

2. If you do, why are there such a variety of shapes?

Three possible reasons:

1. The design may vary according to the type of travel in which they were designed.

2.The age and level of development of the creating species.

3.Just as earthlings have different creative tendencies, what to say outside visitors would not have the same...

3. Do you think that if UFOs are craft, do they contain beings which would pilot the alleged craft?

Due to the extreme flight characteristics of some the 15%, I tend to think some are piloted by a kind genetically altered super being. Others may well be remotely controlled

will cont. later

edit on 2-11-2012 by wutz4tom because: typo

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 02:19 PM
1. Do you think UFOs are crafts?
Personally speaking, I tend to measure EVERY single UFO incident of which I am made aware, on its own merits. There is absolutely no reason to assume that all, or even a majority of UFO can be down to one single causative factor. Theres lots up there, man made and otherwise, so why assume? I think SOME UFO might be craft, but as there is not enough evidence to say what any of them really are, there can be no certainty in this matter.

2. If you do, why are there such a variety of shapes?
I do believe that some UFO are possibly alien in origin, but I cannot prove it, and furthermore, if I could prove ONE incident, that would only give me the capacity to recognise another like vehicle, rather than recognise all possibly alien craft. One who knows the appearance of a hot air balloon, need not know what a jet plane looks like.

3. Do you think that if UFOs are craft, do they contain beings which would pilot the alleged craft?
Who knows? Some incidents would suggest that there is witness testimony that would validate that veiw. However, its also true that such testimony is as questionable as can be, if only because there is never any physical evidence of such creatures, like blood analogues or skincells, or spit or anything else left at the scene. I tend to rely on scientific proof for such specifics, and that is always hard to come by. However, because of the National Security element of UFO, its not the case that one could reliably be expected to find something like that after the services have been all over it.

4. Would you consider UFOs as remotely operated vehicles and if you do, where would their
controlers be located?
When talking about a hypothetical UAV, are you talking about a terran born object, or something inserted into our atmosphere from outside as a probe? If you are talking about something made by man, then potentially, military UAV can be controlled from a hell of a long way off, probably further than we are told explicitly by the media, so pretty much anywhere in quite a large radius from the UAV itself. If you mean an alien object, well the options could be huge! How are we to know the distance limitations which dictate the number of miles between a remote probe and its mothercraft? The only way to know that is to understand the communications methods that might be employed by an advanced species, and we really cannot comment on that without going off into la la land, something I am unwilling to do.

5. Why do you think UFOs are extra-terrestrial and what do you base it on?
I think that there have been UFO which have shown themselves, through sheer straight line speed, manoeuvering speed and the number of gees they appear to pull without breaking up, to be beyond the capacity of the most intellectual engineers on earth to build. In the fifties there were reports of military pilots in the latest aircraft, being buzzed by objects moving at tens of thousands of miles an hour, and pulling ninety degree turns without slowing down. There are radar returns on record that totaly bare that out. And, please, dont ask me for them, look for them here on ATS. They are all here someplace.

6. Can you provide any evidence for your opinions?
For my OPINIONS? No. What I can do is point at evidence that individual cases have merit, as I have above. What I cannot do is devote hundreds of man hours to the task of codifying and publishing those cases over and again. I see no reason why I ought to either, because they are all in the ATS archive somewhere! Go ahead and have a gander for yourself!

7. If you do not have any evidence, then you must be employing a belief system so what led you to
your beliefs?
No. There is circumstantial evidence, so although I have nothing that could give one an iron clad proof, the weight of circumstantial evidence is such, in my opinion, that to completely rule out the possibility of the involvement of an alien intelligence, is precisely as mad as ruling out the possibility of these things being advanced human built craft, that have somehow appeared to be four hundred years ahead of our current technological capability to build.

There is an "escape clause" and that is that UFOs have been filmed and videotaped hauling over the moon so that you can say "See, I told you UFOs are extra-terrestrial". But that doesn't satisfy me because the term E-t is used to denote other planets, other galaxies, i.o.w., vast distances, not the nearness of the moon. And I'm aware that images resembling UFOs have been recorded over Mars but they're rare and not as numerous as over earth.

So for this discussion, E-t is not near but far (think Zeta Reticuli and beyond).

Sorry, cant buy that at all. Extra-terrestrial is a very specific bit of terminology, which can fairly be applied to any object, vehicle, or life form which originates outside the atmosphere of Earth. Figure out a new term if you wish, but thats taken already.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in