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.

 

A Physicist Explains Why Scientists Won't Discuss UFOs

page: 2
57
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by 1questioner
 


And people argue with me that I am criticizing science when I say it is too narrow-minded, see, hear it from some scientist if you won't listen to me. That\s pretty much what I mean, then somebody comes and tells me how open-minded scientist community is...




posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
And that STILL don't make you know everything, no offence


Point taken however a little knowledge helps in sorting the wheat from the chaff.

Thus far there is not a single UFO case I know of that when researched implies extraterrestrial involvement.

If you know of a case based on authentic, empirical evidence of extraterrestrial visitation please let me know



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
reply to post by peashooter
 


Sorry to pop your bubble but science, not blind belief, has built the modern world and all the little conveniences that we all enjoy ( such as living past the age of 35 ).



Which is why they need them onboard before disclosure.....or the next great hype.


+3 more 
posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 


oh, you should have said earlier you went to college. now im completely convinced all ufo sightings are hallucinations or balloons.


get real. science is controlled and funded by those interests who would be happiest if we all just totally ignored the ufo phenomenon. scientists don't study it because if they do, their research is summarily defunded and their careers are ruined, not because ufos aren't real.

no offence



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
And that STILL don't make you know everything, no offence


Point taken however a little knowledge helps in sorting the wheat from the chaff.

Thus far there is not a single UFO case I know of that when researched implies extraterrestrial involvement.

If you know of a case based on authentic, empirical evidence of extraterrestrial visitation please let me know


How about all these folks that say they were taken aboard and had things shoved up their outboard? Surly no one would take that sort of very privet disclosure lightly.



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
And that STILL don't make you know everything, no offence


Point taken however a little knowledge helps in sorting the wheat from the chaff.

Thus far there is not a single UFO case I know of that when researched implies extraterrestrial involvement.

If you know of a case based on authentic, empirical evidence of extraterrestrial visitation please let me know


I couldn't commit to an ET hypothesis just yet, although there are some cases which imply to it being a possibility:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1questioner
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 




Well, considering I have a degree in aerospace engineering and have been interested in this topic for the majority of my nearly 50 years on this earth, I think its safe to say I have forgotten more about this subject than most people commenting on this board and am more uniquely suited than most to discern what is "twaddle" than most when discussing the subject.

If you want to believe in unicorns and santa its your business but please don't forgot that some of us actually know the players involved and understand enough physical science to call B.S. on pseudoscience and fairy tales.


Just curious... If you believe that the UFO phenomenon is nothing more than unicorns and santa, why have you been interested in this subject for "nearly fifty years."?


edit on 21-7-2013 by 1questioner because: (no reason given)


I love all things that fly.

Just because I stopped believing the E.T. hypothesis was possibly a valid explanation for the UFO enigma doesn't make it any less interesting.

On the contrary, UFO sightings can be great clues for anybody interested in military/aerospace history.

Do you think it is coincidence that the rise of the UFO zeitgeist in popular culture directly parallels the advent of some of the 20th centuries greatest technological achievements in aviation?



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Urantia1111
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 


oh, you should have said earlier you went to college. now im completely convinced all ufo sightings are hallucinations or balloons.


get real. science is controlled and funded by those interests who would be happiest if we all just totally ignored the ufo phenomenon. scientists don't study it because if they do, their research is summarily defunded and their careers are ruined, not because ufos aren't real.

no offence


Nobody I know disputes the existence of UFO's, making the leap from observing something an individual cannot explain to extraterrestrial technology is where I disagree.

Aside from that, the nonsensical insinuation that science is somehow gagged or constrained from studying anything is silly.

We are freely discussing the topic here, if it was such a big secret the powers that be are doing a lousy job containing it.



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 




I love all things that fly.


I'm confused. Are you saying UFOs are flying? And if you are saying that, who or what is flying them?



Just because I stopped believing the E.T. hypothesis was possibly a valid explanation for the UFO enigma doesn't make it any less interesting.


Are you saying UFOs exist as an enigma, but they couldn't possibly be of E.T. origin? Please explain.



Do you think it is coincidence that the rise of the UFO zeitgeist in popular culture directly parallels the advent of some of the 20th centuries greatest technological achievements in aviation?


I really don't understand what you're saying here. Are you saying that the UFO phenomenon is nothing more than mass hallucinations projected into the sky? Or are you saying everything we see is manmade. And if that is the case, how can you call it an enigma?



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1questioner
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 




I love all things that fly.


I'm confused. Are you saying UFOs are flying? And if you are saying that, who or what is flying them?



Just because I stopped believing the E.T. hypothesis was possibly a valid explanation for the UFO enigma doesn't make it any less interesting.


Are you saying UFOs exist as an enigma, but they couldn't possibly be of E.T. origin? Please explain.



Do you think it is coincidence that the rise of the UFO zeitgeist in popular culture directly parallels the advent of some of the 20th centuries greatest technological achievements in aviation?


I really don't understand what you're saying here. Are you saying that the UFO phenomenon is nothing more than mass hallucinations projected into the sky? Or are you saying everything we see is manmade. And if that is the case, how can you call it an enigma?



Your post is a good example as to why serious academia shy's away from publicly commenting on the phenomena.

If you want to have a serious discussion then I am all for it, if you want to play word games with semantics then save your efforts for somebody else please..



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot

Originally posted by 1questioner
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 




I love all things that fly.


I'm confused. Are you saying UFOs are flying? And if you are saying that, who or what is flying them?



Just because I stopped believing the E.T. hypothesis was possibly a valid explanation for the UFO enigma doesn't make it any less interesting.


Are you saying UFOs exist as an enigma, but they couldn't possibly be of E.T. origin? Please explain.



Do you think it is coincidence that the rise of the UFO zeitgeist in popular culture directly parallels the advent of some of the 20th centuries greatest technological achievements in aviation?


I really don't understand what you're saying here. Are you saying that the UFO phenomenon is nothing more than mass hallucinations projected into the sky? Or are you saying everything we see is manmade. And if that is the case, how can you call it an enigma?



Your post is a good example as to why serious academia shy's away from publicly commenting on the phenomena.

If you want to have a serious discussion then I am all for it, if you want to play word games with semantics then save your efforts for somebody else please..


I don't understand... You made your statements and I quoted you. No semantics are involved. You say you want to have a serious discussion. I asked serious questions. Please answer my attempt to understand your position or leave this thread. Thank you.



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1questioner
Please answer my attempt to understand your position or leave this thread. Thank you.


Please apply for a moderators position with the Above Top Secret staff before issuing ultimatums on posting privileges.

I stand by my previous post.

Thank you in advance.



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 08:13 PM
link   
It's not even just ridicule from the outside...I feel that the scientific community has a tendency to shun anything we really don't yet understand. For example, I can't even talk to my colleagues about something proven by science (ie lucid dreaming) without getting funny looks or laughs. I would never mention anything about UFOs or aliens with them or I'd never be taken seriously again.



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Having been in academia most of my adult life, allow me to offer two points:

1. Scientists are rarely independently wealthy. Thus, they must seek meaningful employment to sustain themselves. There are NO (extant) jobs for scientists to study this phenomena. No funding. No support. Besides the "stigma" attached to admitting interest in the field, other than a few astrobiologists (who would never admit to be looking for UFOs), and a couple of underfunded, frequently ridiculed SETI-types - there is no professional opportunity to make a living in the field.

2. There is nothing tangible to study. No board of administrators or regents will approve a proposal to examine UFOs or Aliens when there are no UFOs or Aliens to examine.

We can debate their existence, we can speculate on origins, we can probe the minds of claimed abductees to some extent, we can look at regional or even global "interpretations" of the enigma, we can even formulate post-contact scenarios, etc., but you won't get a dime in funding to do so.

Thus, we are left with several dozen very dedicated, very inquisitive independent thinkers that churn out books, or appear in television documentaries, or give lectures at conferences in order to eke out a living (e.g., Friedman, Knapp, Good, Kean, et al).

What we need is not just open-minded scientists -I think there are plenty of those to go around. We need a few wealthy individuals or institutions (a la Bezos, Gates, Branson, etc...) to step up and say:

"Here's a few million dollars. Let's gather some good minds and launch a scientific study/program into this phenomenon."

It's amazing to me, actually, that no such deep-pocket has done so. Guys like Bill Gates STILL are pulling in 50 BILLION annually. You mean there isn't enough curiosity and wherewithal among all the world's wealthy to cough up a tiny fraction of that to DISCOVER THE TRUTH??



Sad indeed...

Hey, you there! Get back to work!



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 08:33 PM
link   
I guess they make UFOs worth their time like they speculate and debate the proof of what's in women's purses. First, who is the leader of science to finalize the way things are? They make models that are supported by their surroundings under experiment, put it on paper, go through peer reviews, it's very strong belief.

Then understand there is in today's society a local (US) government that has a classified wall. Maybe it does exist but to describe the beliefs would be to offend the government. Remember Einstein? I don't like using his name as an example, but I just read a book about relativity and there was a photo of him with 2 men from the military; he couldn't get his science on without being monitored. It's been that way through centuries, the model makers of a way of thinking are peer-pressured not to bring up everything they think about by a previously-established community of force.

Well now "science" is the established community of force, and it's a comfy job to be a leader in that discipline. Is it ever possible for science to become obsolete to another method of thinking and proving things? Maybe find a method that doesn't name every phenomenon after a person's name?

Maybe sometimes scientists don't mention it for fear of meeting these UFO pilots one day and being belittled for their lack of intelligence on how to make the machines or the principles behind the way the machines operate. Some scientists likely have plans one day to make friends with the UFO pilots should they manage to meet them, leaving the "non scientist people" in a state of unknowing what is going on. So maybe they do know, in secret, but aren't about to demonstrate their intelligence for fear of reprisals from political types. Scientists are still puny mortals. They have a methodology to demonstrating whatever they feel keeps their career running, their university membership paid, their secret government clearances clear, and their grants and book deals aloft, and away from political persecution from whatever power might disagree with them.



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1questioner
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 




I love all things that fly.


I'm confused. Are you saying UFOs are flying? And if you are saying that, who or what is flying them?



Just because I stopped believing the E.T. hypothesis was possibly a valid explanation for the UFO enigma doesn't make it any less interesting.


Are you saying UFOs exist as an enigma, but they couldn't possibly be of E.T. origin? Please explain.



Do you think it is coincidence that the rise of the UFO zeitgeist in popular culture directly parallels the advent of some of the 20th centuries greatest technological achievements in aviation?





I really don't understand what you're saying here. Are you saying that the UFO phenomenon is nothing more than mass hallucinations projected into the sky? Or are you saying everything we see is manmade. And if that is the case, how can you call it an enigma?






Are you seriously asking if UFO's are flying? The name Unidentified Flying Object gives you your first clue about that one. There's also plenty of things that fly without people flying them.



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
That guy seems like a real scientist to me. That is what I like to see in a scientist, an open mind. I see too many "set in their way" or "Mule headed" individuals in science today. Real science is not glamorous, real scientists work to test things to gain knowledge, not money or prestige. Real scientists should not be laughed at for investigating things that seem paranormal or fantasy. All fantasy has some reality in it. All old wives tales have some basis, all folklore is open to testing, but you have to understand that what is sometimes seems most evident is not the reality of the situation. There is often a second, hidden from us, reason for this stuff. Scientists are often blind, testing for what they think is there with tests that cannot find the truth. Otherwise the reasons for these things would be already discovered.


Spot on. A quick look at the Ig Nobels shows that subjects much more 'far out' than UFO's do get studied. Ig Nobels are intended to "spur people's interest in science".



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
Well, considering I have a degree in aerospace engineering and have been interested in this topic for the majority of my nearly 50 years on this earth, I think its safe to say I have forgotten more about this subject than most people commenting on this board and am more uniquely suited than most to discern what is "twaddle" than most when discussing the subject.


Maybe that is why so little study of the phenomena occurs - with your aerospace engineering degree
, the scientific community already knows that you can explain just about everything.



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 




Please apply for a moderators position with the Above Top Secret staff before issuing ultimatums on posting privileges.


That's a great idea! Thank you for the suggestion! Now, can we please have that serious discussion you proposed? I'm confused by your posts and I would really like to understand your position. Thank you.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 12:44 AM
link   
Basing your beliefs on not everything unexplained we see is piloted by aliens suggests that there are other more serious conspiracies afoot. Such as if the military have these craft, then they can also fly to the moon and possibly further in a short timespan. Personally, I believe they have this technology.

I also do not think that the science could have been developed without some kind of outside help - whether is be direct hands-on help or whether it was a crashed craft which they back-engineered. It also means they have unlimited power which would end 3rd world poverty just about overnight as well as allowing mankind a huge leap forward in technology if it was released into the public domain.

Imagine you had endless free energy. Imagine a world with all the startrek gismos and travel from one side of the earth to the other in minutes rather than hours. That in itself would save millions and save a lot of jet fuel CO2 pollution. Water is only scarce because it costs too much to drill for it and purify it

Maybe this is why they cannot start to open Pandoras Box or even acknowledge it in any way.

The other thing we need to consider is that maybe every year or two TPTB release a statement from a scientists like this. A few years ago it was the director of the Belgian Space institute who said he believed in aliens and he was in communication with them...

Then all the other scientists who agree will pop their heads above the parapet and show themselves as dodgy flakey scientists who have just been waiting for someone else to make the first move. These are the ones who need watching by the government as people who do not want to tow the official line. They just get added to the list of people not to be trusted.

More examples of a very sick bunch of people in government across the world.



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join