Question/observation

Zeta Rediculian; As I tried to explain before, there are no real 'proofs' in science, outside of pure mathematics. A scientific hypothesis is, in effect, an opinion, albeit one informed by a body of evidence, and the use of the scientific method. The best we can do is to make statements that approximate reality, to the best of our current ability.
Quite a number of scientifically trained persons find that the extraterrestrial hypothesis is not only scientifically reasonable, but the best available explanation for some UFOs. That should be sufficient for this idea to receive the same standing, and respect as any other scientific hypothesis.

reply to post by Ross 54
So, to break it down in layman's terms for some people here: Is the scientific hypothesis for UFOs enough to be used as "evidence"?

reply to post by Ross 54


Ok. Provide your list of scientists.

I think the main reason for skepticism and a general ridiculing of the ideas presented surrounding UFOs is that the subject matter goes from fairly "reasonable" when you talk about the possibility of life on other planets, to off-the-charts woo-woo crazy as soon as you introduce the related subjects, such as alien abductions, cattle mutilations, government cover-ups, and so forth. Many people feel they have to swallow that whole ball of wax in order to take the subject seriously, and that is one big pill to swallow.

I DO see and increasing acceptance, especially in the New Age community for channeled works coming from so-called spiritual entities. There are LARGE groups of people following The Urantia Book, A Course in Miracles, and certain 'consciousness' writers such as John Mack and Dolores Cannon.

Originally posted by Jaellma
reply to post by Ross 54

 

So, to break it down in layman's terms for some people here: Is the scientific hypothesis for UFOs enough to be used as "evidence"?

It is evidence that some scientists have considered the idea that some UFOs may be manifestations of extraterrestrial intelligence, having found evidence that this is a reasonable possibility.

Originally posted by Jaellma
reply to post by Druscilla

 

First of all, let me give you some words of advice: go pick up a book or two on UFOs. I would strongly recommend anything from Leslie Kean or even Richard Dolan.

Secondly, I do know a thing or two on UFOs. I have witnessed them on several occasions. I don't care to get into where and when it happened. I have talked about this on many occasions. In any case, what I witnessed was most likely not made by humans.

Unlike you, I don't get into the "terrestrial vs non-terrestrial" entities or craft argument. It doesn't matter to me. There are possibly craft that are terrestrial that are not man made. So, that is a whole 'nother topic for another day.

I have not witnessed nor have anything ET in my possession BUT I personally know some people who have more information about non-human entities and I can vouch for their honesty.

So, while I can understand your ignorance on this subject please try to understand and respect opinions and evidence that are totally opposite from what you are used to.

edit on 30-6-2013 by Jaellma because: (no reason given)

So, what you are saying is, you have more stories, and you are recommending that I read more about people that have stories, and you know other people that have stories, and you can vouch for them because absolutely no one on this planet has mistaken something for something it wasn't, and the human machine is the most capable recording device bar none incapable of making any sort of error.

Stories are less than useless. If I want stories, I'll watch Star Wars. Thank you for your faith in other people and in books that tell you what and how to think on a topic where I've already significant experience in observational objectivity, as well as considerable logical stamina for the application of critical thinking in arriving at independent conclusions.
I don't need or require someone to tell me stories, or for anyone to tell me something I might arrive at as a conclusion independently or find cause for disagreement.

If all someone has is a story and they "know what they saw", well, good for them. That's cute. I'll pat them on the head and they can go on their way in believing they "know what they saw".
On the other hand, they may have been witness to any number of known phenomenon, which, most usually is the case, but, it's a little conspicuous that the only time we ever really seem to have video or data worth scrutiny it always seems to turn out to be some already known phenomenon.

The really fantastic cases never ever seem to have video, or any real data at all other than witness testimony; stories. hmmm.

reply to post by UncleVinnys

I DO see and increasing acceptance, especially in the New Age community for channeled works coming from so-called spiritual entities.

That for me is where the subject goes "off-the-charts woo-woo crazy" , the New Age movement has more to do with Star Trek than Ufology .

If a case is too good to be true, it may well be just that...too good to be true.

Kevin Randle from his book REFLECTIONS OF A UFO INVESTIGATOR

So many cases and UFO books out there. I've read a few and they can be entertaining. But, the truth is always just out of reach.

Kevin Randle's blog is pretty good to check on for some good cases he's looking into (currently on UFO reports and info on pre-Arnold sightings) I myself just don't know, just like ghost and bigfoot and all the other weird stuff.

I've seen strange things I can't explain, and so have billions of people through the ages. Its strange isn't it?

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by Ross 54

 

Ok. Provide your list of scientists.

I have a list of scientifically trained professionals; scientists in fields germane to the subject of UFOs, and aeronautical and astronautical engineers. I supply the following names in no particular order, omitting those already widely known for their support of the ETH. This is not the complete list, merely a conveniently sized extract from it.
Dr. Jack Sathco, Astronomer
Louis Breguet, Aeronatical Engineer
Dr. Walter Riedel, specialist in Rocketry
Dr. Robert Wood, Physicist
Dr. Richard Haines, Specialist in Aeronautics, and Astronautics
Dr. Maurice Biot, Physicist
Dr. Claude Poher, Astronomer, and Astrophysicist
Dr. Jack Kasher, Physicist
James Mc Campbell, Physicist
Dr. Clyde Tombaugh, Astronomer
Dr. Harley Rutledge, Physicist
Dr. Herman Oberth, Specialist in Rocketry
Dr. Peter Sturrock, Physicist

Originally posted by Druscilla

So, what you are saying is, you have more stories, and you are recommending that I read more about people that have stories, and you know other people that have stories

If you think it is a waste of time to do a bit of research on this, why do you waste your time arguing with people on a subject that you think is a waste of time?

Do you suffer from a mental illness?
Do you not have hobbies/interests that you feel are of value?
Do you not have friends?
Do you not have a family?

Originally posted by Ross 54

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by Ross 54

 

Ok. Provide your list of scientists.

I have a list of scientifically trained professionals; scientists in fields germane to the subject of UFOs, and aeronautical and astronautical engineers. I supply the following names in no particular order, omitting those already widely known for their support of the ETH. This is not the complete list, merely a conveniently sized extract from it.
Dr. Jack Sathco, Astronomer
Louis Breguet, Aeronatical Engineer
Dr. Walter Riedel, specialist in Rocketry
Dr. Robert Wood, Physicist
Dr. Richard Haines, Specialist in Aeronautics, and Astronautics
Dr. Maurice Biot, Physicist
Dr. Claude Poher, Astronomer, and Astrophysicist
Dr. Jack Kasher, Physicist
James Mc Campbell, Physicist
Dr. Clyde Tombaugh, Astronomer
Dr. Harley Rutledge, Physicist
Dr. Herman Oberth, Specialist in Rocketry
Dr. Peter Sturrock, Physicist

edit on 30-6-2013 by Ross 54 because: added information

You left out Dr Allen Hynek
I'll add to that list when I have time

reply to post by Chamberf=6


As for evidence and validity I don't think you need look any further than thousands of credible people with stories of encounters and sightings out of this world. Such As the Fayetteville case where the poor guy has lost his credibility, friends, career because of his account and yet he still will not waiver from his story.

Or maybe somebody can tell me what closed down O Hare airport was just a weather balloon.

And of course there is flight JAL 1628 that encountered the massive UFO near Alaska, another example of a credible person (pilot) that lost his entire career because he went public and refused to go back on his story.

And who can forget the Travis Walton case where 5 people all passed polygraph tests and have not changed their stories one bit in 30 years.

Last but not least the rendlesham forest case where an army officer was telepathically given an english message in binary code. Now what makes this so significant is that binary code wasn't a commonly known thing at the time,and the kicker is the he didn't even know what binary code was! I can go on for days but ill stop now.

Originally posted by BullwinkleKicksButt

If you think it is a waste of time to do a bit of research on this, why do you waste your time arguing with people on a subject that you think is a waste of time?

Do you suffer from a mental illness?
Do you not have hobbies/interests that you feel are of value?
Do you not have friends?
Do you not have a family?

Tell me, WHAT exactly there IS to research?
Over 70 years of modern interest in the phenomenon have given us WHAT?
So far the answer is akin to "Um, we don't know?"

If you're suggesting better brains than mine have written books on the subject and they've arrived at "We don't know", or, even worse, speculation presented as authoritative dispensary on the "might, maybe, possibly, could be, we believe" spectrum of analysis entirely out of alignment with objective and critical interrogative, then, what exactly is there in any of this volume of material of any real worth that I don't personally already possess as either inherent facility as tool for interrogation or as a product of experience and knowledge also already in my possession if not freely available as a research based resource already that will be of such grand and momentous benefit that will better frame my examination of the subject more so than these I already possess?

Tell me; how many of these extraordinarily remarkable people that wrote any of these books on the subject went to University to study UFOlogy where they themselves read through entire libraries of stories and "we don't know"? If these people required to read books on a subject that still has no answer just so they could examine the subject and still give no relevant answer beyond speculation, then, frankly, how could reading anything from them not be a waste of time?

If I want to read about speculation regarding ETH, Interdimensional angels and demons, and other new aged or "high strangeness" factors, I'll just go to a conspiracy theory website and read the STORIES there ...
Oh. Wait.
Yes, it would seem I'm doing exactly that.

If you've absolute proof, or want to throw an evening cocktail party where Greys, Reptilians, Nords, MIBS and others in the menagerie of mythology that've cropped up around this phenomenon are in attendance for open introduction, association, meet and greet, polite conversation, and even inquiry and debate with photo opportunities and gift bags out the door, by all means, PM and invite with the date and time and unambiguous proof that such an occasion will be as advertised, and I'll be on a flight out in no time.

I suspect, however, since no unambiguous confirmation is yet known, that unambiguous confirmation is yet to be had. In other words, regardless of what you think you think you think you know, you know nothing Jon Snow.



Edit: For the record "I don't know" is a fine conclusion I'm quite comfortable with. When people start telling you something IS without anything to back that up with conclusive unambiguous confirmation, then, that source should be considered questionable.

reply to post by angrymartian


I used "we" as a reference to humans In general. Certain individuals may be smarter than others but human intellect still has limits. If we are dealing with beings that are millions of years more advanced than us than we haven't a hope of comprehending their sciences. It would be like trying to teach a dog calculus..

There is a difference between proof and evidence. Proof is just that and, strictly speaking, it is reserved for mathematics. Evidence is a body of facts that are interpreted and some say the most coherent interpretation is alien life. 20 years ago Jenny Randles said that the argument about the existence of UFOs is over. They exist because the evidence is overwhelming. What we need to know now is Who is piloting these things?

reply to post by makaveli3601

Well (me thinks) the problem is aliens got into interacting too much with our media, prior to visiting us. They got stuck on the words "take us to your leader" so they naturally thought that this was the proper way to do a meet and greet on this planet.

Therefore, the whole darn bunch of these aliens got taken to our leaders, who were this money hungry bunch of morons that saw dollar signs in their eyes. But they were probably bedazzled with all the knowledge they could gleam from these extra terrestrials.

So when the space craft was spotted in Roswell, the reports went out (in the news) that they were spotted in Roswell. The aliens asked to get taken to our leaders. then the reports swiftly got taken back, and anyone that even breathed a word of it got labeled as a lunatic. No one wanted the lunatic label, so they just let the leaders do what they do.

Now those that know, aren't talking (well most of them) the others have the lunatic label, and the rest of them trust the government. Why you ask? Hmmm....because... well, because they are just so darn trustworthy.

Originally posted by makaveli3601


And of course there is flight JAL 1628 that encountered the massive UFO near Alaska, another example of a credible person (pilot) that lost his entire career because he went public and refused to go back on his story.

That pilot had two other incidents where he misidentifed lights as motherships or UFOs. Neither his navigator nor copilot saw the enormous mothership. In this 50+ minute sighting, radar data was intermittant and only a couple of minutes long. When the aircraft was directly in Fairbanks airspace, this gigantic "ship" was not picked up in their close-range radar.

I get tired of people claiming this was a great case. It wasn't. If you want to believe it was a UFO, that's what you'll make it out to be.

reply to post by ObservingYou

We have evidence in abundance - and to be asked to present it is an insult to common sense. Where should we start? FOIA Files from each and every government? Radar and radiation readings from all military investigations? Video evidence of UFO's in the sky - acting intelligently? First hand witness accounts?

Can the skeptics settle this once and for all and enlighten us as to what constitutes as 'proof'.

I'll try to enlighten you....to the best of my abilities.

You mention FOIA, radar, video, witness accounts etc.

Out of all your examples, could you show me just one case that proves unequivocally that what was witnessed or recorded on video or radar.....is without a shadow of a doubt intelligent extra-terrestrial beings visiting Earth from another planet?

I don't think you can.....but if you could....I would accept that as "proof"

Originally posted by Ross 54

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by Ross 54

 

Ok. Provide your list of scientists.

I have a list of scientifically trained professionals; scientists in fields germane to the subject of UFOs, and aeronautical and astronautical engineers. I supply the following names in no particular order, omitting those already widely known for their support of the ETH. This is not the complete list, merely a conveniently sized extract from it.
Dr. Jack Sathco, Astronomer
Louis Breguet, Aeronatical Engineer
Dr. Walter Riedel, specialist in Rocketry
Dr. Robert Wood, Physicist
Dr. Richard Haines, Specialist in Aeronautics, and Astronautics
Dr. Maurice Biot, Physicist
Dr. Claude Poher, Astronomer, and Astrophysicist
Dr. Jack Kasher, Physicist
James Mc Campbell, Physicist
Dr. Clyde Tombaugh, Astronomer
Dr. Harley Rutledge, Physicist
Dr. Herman Oberth, Specialist in Rocketry
Dr. Peter Sturrock, Physicist

edit on 30-6-2013 by Ross 54 because: added information

That is quite an impressive list except we are talking about a phenomenon that has as its primary evidence accounts based on perception and memory. Where are the neurologists and psychologists? Sorry, I consider these people speaking about something out of their field of expertise.

I certainly don't know if UFO are nuts and bolts, inter dimensional, paranormal, earthly high tech, mystical, biological or thoughts made real, MK Ultra, but something is going on and I prefer to take the word of people with experience and credentials like astronauts and military personnel over web debunkers with no credibility.



www.opednews.com...

militaryufo.blogspot.com...

www.hyper.net...

I actually understand the skeptical mindset of fear of the unknown and the rational behind it.