Merged U.S.O.'s...what if...

[arthwollipot]

Actually, I wasn't arguing that, as such; I was asking how it could exist. Surely the proponents of such a civilization could come up with an answer to my question?

No - why should they?

I write and run a science-fiction roleplaying game. In such a setting it isn't necessary to know how some piece of high technology works - in fact, it's often counterproductive. It is only necessary to know that a particular technology works.

So essentially I can conceive of such a civilisation without necessarily knowing the details of how that civilisation's technology works.

 

[Aitch]

No - why should they?

To give some indication that they have actually thought about things, rather than just accepted things as an item of faith.

I write and run a science-fiction roleplaying game. In such a setting it isn't necessary to know how some piece of high technology works - in fact, it's often counterproductive. It is only necessary to know that a particular technology works.

That's in a game, and as such, not really relevant - these people believe something exists in the real world.

So essentially I can conceive of such a civilisation without necessarily knowing the details of how that civilisation's technology works.

Well, see previous point. Also, mankind has been conceiving all sorts of things over the years - whole pantheons of gods, for example. Conceiving something doesn't make it so.

 

[King of the Americas]

Alright, you guys totally missed the question I was actually asking.

IF U.F.O.'s don't have to be "Extra-Terresterial", and are instead from some, possibly 'mobile' oceanic base of non-humans, does THAT make them more likely to be 'real', than requiring them to travel inter-steller distances?

I will grant you that we have NO 'concrete', or 'absolutely solid' PROOF of a verified "U.F.O."...but...we do have TONS and TONS of anecdotal, first hand accounts, video, photographs, from government and private sectors, from both the trained and untrained eyes...of an "inconclusive" nature... Meaning only that it could NOT be positively identified.

If memory serves me, U.F.O.'s were sighted over Washington D.C. shortly after our first nuclear tests. The President dispached a committee that found only that 'whatever' it/they were, they were NOT a danger to the public.

'They' have appeared LOTS of places and throughout time. The world's military seems to take a very defensive posture towards them, often chasing them. (*Ever wonder why they have jets flying over large open air gatherings?)

IF U.F.O.'s existed, and WERE piloted by a non-human race of people, wouldn't it stand to believe that IF we were to interact, that we should follow regular disease control protocol? I mean, the first thing you'll have is a bunch of humans coming down with "Green Fever".



MAYBE their base is in the Bermuda Triangle...and when you 'see' them, they take you out, so you can't report back, what you saw...

(Maybe I should stear clear of the sci-fi section, for a while.)

 

[Loss Leader]

IF U.F.O.'s don't have to be "Extra-Terresterial", and are instead from some, possibly 'mobile' oceanic base of non-humans, does THAT make them more likely to be 'real', than requiring them to travel inter-steller distances?

No. You have offered two possibilities (UFOs are from outer pace; UFOs are from the ocean). There is zero evidence of any sort that indicates one is more likely than another. Your theory that it's easier to build a spaceship underwater than it is to cross intersteller distances is supported by no evidence. There's no reason to think that it's true. There's no reason to think it's false. There's no reason to think about it whatsoever.

Two unknown things are both equally unknown. One is not more likely than another.

I will grant you that we have NO 'concrete', or 'absolutely solid' PROOF of a verified "U.F.O."...but...we do have TONS and TONS of anecdotal, first hand accounts, video, photographs, from government and private sectors, from both the trained and untrained eyes...of an "inconclusive" nature... Meaning only that it could NOT be positively identified.

So what? Even if we grant your premise that there are non-human UFOs, it gives us no information about whether they are aliens or fish. What is the difference between a fish ship and an alien ship? You can't answer; you don't know. So the fact that there are UFOs doesn't help us determine the origin of the UFOs.

(*Ever wonder why they have jets flying over large open air gatherings?)

I'm pretty sure I know why these jets are there.

IF U.F.O.'s existed, and WERE piloted by a non-human race of people, wouldn't it stand to believe that IF we were to interact, that we should follow regular disease control protocol?

Sure.

I mean, the first thing you'll have is a bunch of humans coming down with "Green Fever".

There is no evidence for this. Maybe the aliens will take precautions so that we don't have to.

MAYBE their base is in the Bermuda Triangle...and when you 'see' them, they take you out, so you can't report back, what you saw...

There is no evidence for this. Parsimony suggests that this is not true.

(Maybe I should stear clear of the sci-fi section, for a while.)

I think that would be for the best all around.

 

[King of the Americas]

See...when you say "There is no evidence for this."

That is a blatant falsehood/untruth.

Emperical evidence is "evidence"...it is not however 'proof'.

Pictures, video footage, and sworn statements are ALL "evidence" of 'something'...what or who that something is, is well,...beyond me.

I think I am basically answering which is more likely, super deep submarines, or inter-steller craft?

Given that 'we' have submarines...and NO 'inter-steller' space craft, 'I' see that there is evidence to believe one IS more likely than the other.

 

[Neutiquam Erro]

Given that 'we' have submarines...and NO 'inter-steller' space craft, 'I' see that there is evidence to believe one IS more likely than the other.

This is not, in any way, shape, or form, evidence that there exist submarines of non-human origin. What is more likely, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, or Invisible Pink Unicorns?

 

[King of the Americas]

Do you have pictures, video footage, or statements from sworn witnesses of these afore mentioned..."Flying Spaghetti Monsters, or Invisible Pink Unicorns"...?

Because those sound really made up.

 

[Neutiquam Erro]

Do you have pictures, video footage, or statements from sworn witnesses of these afore mentioned..."Flying Spaghetti Monsters, or Invisible Pink Unicorns"...?

Because those sound really made up.

Strangely, all my photos of invisible unicorns come out underexposed. So No, I don't have pictures or videos, and Yes, they are made up.

 

[Loss Leader]

See...when you say "There is no evidence for this."

That is a blatant falsehood/untruth.

Emperical evidence is "evidence"...it is not however 'proof'.

Pictures, video footage, and sworn statements are ALL "evidence" of 'something'...what or who that something is, is well,...beyond me.

For the third time:

I am not saying that there is no evidence of UFOs. I am not saying that witness statements are not evidence. I am not saying that UFOs don't exist.

I am saying that there is no evidence making aliens more or less likely than underwater creatures. There is no evidence from which to conclude that UFOs come from outerspace. There is no evidence from which to conclude that UFOs come from the ocean.

What does a UFO that definitely comes from another planet look like? How does it behave? What does a UFO from under the water look like? How can you tell it and an alien craft apart?

If you can't answer these questions, then you can't even begin to speculate on which one is more likely. They are both equally unknown.

I think I am basically answering which is more likely, super deep submarines, or inter-steller craft?

No, you're asking about super deep submanines piloted by non-human sentient ocean creatures.

Given that 'we' have submarines...and NO 'inter-steller' space craft, 'I' see that there is evidence to believe one IS more likely than the other.

We have submarines but not super deep submarines. We have spacesips but not interstellar spaceships.

What you see as "evidence" is really just supposition based on analogy. Maybe faster-than-light travel is easier than smelting ore underwater. We have no way of knowing. Our experiences with spaceships have nothing to do with interstellar travel; our experiences with submarines have nothing to do with underwater smelting. We have no evidence.

Please, just stop.

 

[Ladewig]

(*Ever wonder why they have jets flying over large open air gatherings?)

Actually, no, I have not. Do pray tell why these jets fly over large open air gatherings.

 

[Neutiquam Erro]

Actually, no, I have not. Do pray tell why these jets fly over large open air gatherings.

Isn't it obvious that they're releasing chem-trails so that the crowds won't notice the UFOs?

 

[arthwollipot]

That's in a game, and as such, not really relevant - these people believe something exists in the real world.
...
Well, see previous point. Also, mankind has been conceiving all sorts of things over the years - whole pantheons of gods, for example. Conceiving something doesn't make it so.

Very true. I'm not actually sure exactly what point I was trying to make there.

IF U.F.O.'s existed, and WERE piloted by a non-human race of people, wouldn't it stand to believe that IF we were to interact, that we should follow regular disease control protocol? I mean, the first thing you'll have is a bunch of humans coming down with "Green Fever".

Not likely. Earth-bound pathogens are an evolved part of earth's biosphere. They are as adapted to us as we are adapted to them. Our immune systems would likely identify and destroy any alien pathogens very quickly, because those pathogens would not have evolved defenses against us.

Of course, never having ever actually encountered any alien pathogens, this is just supposition.

 

[Cuddles]

MAYBE their base is in the Bermuda Triangle...and when you 'see' them, they take you out, so you can't report back, what you saw...

Maybe. But why bother speculating about things which have exactly zero evidence to support them? Since there is nothing vaguely unusual about the Bermuda Triangle, why would you feel the need to imagine alien bases in it?

 

[Locknar]

Since there is no claim being made, perhaps this thread should be moved to say Humor or some other forum?

 

[King of the Americas]

U.F.O's exist, this doesn't mean they are E.T.'s...just that someone saw something they couldn't not identify.

'I' have seen such things, but I can not discount the possibility that they are from a yet unknown TERRESTERIAL/local source, perhaps deep oceanic or lunar based.

Intersteller travel takes time an energy...travel in and out of our oceans, or to the moon is 'possible' by human hands.

I don't know what they are, but having seen them with mine own eyes, you could call me a "knower", rather than a "believer".

 

[chillzero]

I agree that UFO has a specific definition.. this guy was talking about aliens though.

 

[King of the Americas]

I don't think they ARE "E.T.'s"...

I think they have always been here. They didn't 'come' from anywhere, but rather they are 'based' in our oceans or possibly the dark side of the moon.

As early as men could scrape on cave walls, he pictoralized 'agents in the Heavens', and we see them still today, maintaining similiar forms across time and the world itself.

I don't believe they are "extra-terresterial", no more than we are. Men fly in the Heavens now, and have put feet to the Moon. I just know that 'I' have seen, with mine own eyes, 'things' flying in the night's skies, that did feats & manuvers beyond that of 'humanly' piloted vehicle capability.

I saw 2 objects come together and make a 4X bigger object, than either of the single units, and then seperated again, to go opposite ways. To MY knowledge, 'we' don't have anything that does that...do we?

 

[Ashles]

I saw 2 objects come together and make a 4X bigger object, than either of the single units, and then seperated again, to go opposite ways. To MY knowledge, 'we' don't have anything that does that...do we?

Apart from illusions, hallucinations, misperceptions and poor memory.

And any military technology we don't know about.

 

[King of the Americas]

Neither me nor my cohort were under the influence of drugs or alcohol...and we both saw the afore mention feat, looked toward one another and asked, "Did you just see..." "...one combine with another one, and then split apart?" "Yeah, I saw that too..."

Could we have BOTH suffered the exact same misperception? Maybe.

Then again, maybe we saw something 'else', as of yet unexplained.

I only hold that they need NOT be "extra-terresterial", given their appearance throughout our known written & painted history.

 

[AgeGap]

Apart from illusions, hallucinations, misperceptions and poor memory.

And any military technology we don't know about.

Still can't beleive that the F-117 was conceived, designed and built using 1970's technology. What are they up to now?
This is the third recent report of UFOs over the West of England. How long before the probing begins?