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

[Minarvia]

'We' can go underwater, and even limitedly explore the ocean floors and the 'dark side' of the Moon.

'We' have NOT been able to travel to another solar system, or yet to another galaxy...

...so in MY reasoning, 'I' believe it is more likely that U.F.O.'s are 'locally' based.

---

We have TONS & TONS of 'non-conclusive' evidence that U.F.O.'s piloted by non-humans DO indeed exist, here, throughout our history. By 'non-conclusive', I mean of course 'untestible'.

I think it is the height of arrogance to suggest or hold that because there is not yet scientific proof, that they definately don't exist.

They DO exist, we just can't prove it right now...

I am not familiar with your other posts, so forgive me if I am misunderstanding you. It seems that what you are describing is the "crypto-terrestrial" theory that "aliens" are among us. They exist unseen among us and probably have for as long as life has been on this planet.
If you don't already, you may want to check out a good podcast called "The Paracast." The hosts speak of this often and have many great UFO guests on the show including Jaques Vallee, Stanton Friedman, and Mike Dolan, among many, many others.

I think this theory has merit. We cannot witness all of reality with our eyes as it is. At least 90% of the life on this planet hasn't been written in the fossil record and there are species even now that haven't been discovered. Why not oceanic beings, or interdimensional beings? I don't believe they are beyond possibility. Personally, I think they are quite likely, and yes, we cannot yet observe them. If other technologically advanced species share this planet with us they likely are deliberately keeping themselves hidden from us. At least for the time being. I do think this is all quite possible. I don't say so for certain but I am open to the possibility. Is this close to what you believe on the USO/UFO subject?

I do think I understand what you are saying and agree that you could very well be right. The only comment I take issue with is the often-stated "arrogance" comment. I really don't think that people who don't believe in the invisible pink unicorn, fairies, dragons, and gods are arrogant. They simply see no credible reason to. To me, that is not arrogance, it is simply critical thinking.

 

[technoextreme]

Actually, no. Sodium reacts more violently when exposed to water than it does when exposed to air.

He's right. Lest we not forget the British show who had to fake a sodium explosion because it wouldn't blow up in the bathtub.

Why not oceanic beings, or interdimensional beings?

Go read Flatland. The basic gist of the story is that we would be able to see the effects of inter dimensional beings depending on what happens.

No. In your perception, they appeared to do these things. With no frame of reference, your mind filled in the blanks with what you assumed you were seeing, from your reference point of knowing how human piloted craft, birds, etc. perform in the air.

Are you claiming you saw the actual "object"? Or just lights?

True. I've seen jumbo jets that have appeared to act like what most people claim is impossible. If you look at them just right they appear to be floating in air.

We have TONS & TONS of 'non-conclusive' evidence that U.F.O.'s piloted by non-humans DO indeed exist, here, throughout our history. By 'non-conclusive', I mean of course 'untestible'.

No. By non-conclusive you should mean witnessed by humans who have scientifically and pretty extensively to be extremely fallible and prone to making huge mistakes.

U.F.O's exist

Yeah but the odds are more likely that humans saw something entirely innocuous and mistook it for something really odd. Im a hundred percent positive that's what happened with Roswell. Even if the mysterious folding metal was real it's nothing that wasn't discovered 17 years before the incident. People still make that stupid claim without realizing that you could walk into your local Borders and pick up something that does the same exact thing. It's really cool watching something that you can tie into knots uncurl itself but it sure as hell isn't alien.

 

[Cuddles]

By 'non-conclusive', I mean of course

...non-existent.

 

[King of the Americas]

I am not familiar with your other posts, so forgive me if I am misunderstanding you. It seems that what you are describing is the "crypto-terrestrial" theory that "aliens" are among us. They exist unseen among us and probably have for as long as life has been on this planet.
If you don't already, you may want to check out a good podcast called "The Paracast." The hosts speak of this often and have many great UFO guests on the show including Jaques Vallee, Stanton Friedman, and Mike Dolan, among many, many others.

I think this theory has merit. We cannot witness all of reality with our eyes as it is. At least 90% of the life on this planet hasn't been written in the fossil record and there are species even now that haven't been discovered. Why not oceanic beings, or interdimensional beings? I don't believe they are beyond possibility. Personally, I think they are quite likely, and yes, we cannot yet observe them. If other technologically advanced species share this planet with us they likely are deliberately keeping themselves hidden from us. At least for the time being. I do think this is all quite possible. I don't say so for certain but I am open to the possibility. Is this close to what you believe on the USO/UFO subject?

I do think I understand what you are saying and agree that you could very well be right. The only comment I take issue with is the often-stated "arrogance" comment. I really don't think that people who don't believe in the invisible pink unicorn, fairies, dragons, and gods are arrogant. They simply see no credible reason to. To me, that is not arrogance, it is simply critical thinking.

*Well, I don't know about "inter-diminsionality"... I think that is as likely as them coming form another solar system or another galaxy. Why take that step, when there are plenty of places right around the corner, that don't require such huge feats of technology?

They could be based in any of the oceans, or on the Moon. Neither of these places have been fully explored...

 

[King of the Americas]

No. By non-conclusive you should mean witnessed by humans who have scientifically and pretty extensively to be extremely fallible and prone to making huge mistakes.

Yeah but the odds are more likely that humans saw something entirely innocuous and mistook it for something really odd. Im a hundred percent positive that's what happened with Roswell. Even if the mysterious folding metal was real it's nothing that wasn't discovered 17 years before the incident. People still make that stupid claim without realizing that you could walk into your local Borders and pick up something that does the same exact thing. It's really cool watching something that you can tie into knots uncurl itself but it sure as hell isn't alien.

Maybe...but what do you make of the 'thousands' of video images that we have to study? What of the radar images that 'match-up' with the time and location of the sitings, when the military claims to have had no planes in the area, nor civilian logged flights?

http://www.nbc5i.com/news/15049952/detail.html

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/viewnews.php?id=130604

Larry King did a special on this Saturday...

I am still looking for that link.

AND you missed my point... There is NO NEED to suggest or require that these 'things' are "alien". They are here, and they have ALWAYS been here.

---

ETA:

Here's a discussion where you can also find a link to the Larry King show:

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message491402/pg1

 

[Minarvia]

*Well, I don't know about "inter-diminsionality"... I think that is as likely as them coming form another solar system or another galaxy. Why take that step, when there are plenty of places right around the corner, that don't require such huge feats of technology?

They could be based in any of the oceans, or on the Moon. Neither of these places have been fully explored...

Quite true. I just stated that as another possibility. I really don't know how likely "interdimensional" beings are, but I do think it quite possible that highly advanced beings could very well be sharing this planet with us.
Or our moon. Yes, we do have many unexplored places. I hope some of them can be more fully explored in our lifetime.

 

[King of the Americas]

...non-existent.

Cuddles,

Are you suggesting that we DON'T have video footage and radar data that backs up people's personal accounts of "U.F.O.'s"...???

I must say that the amount of IGNORance it would take to make that statement is truly mind boggling.

By 'non-conclusive', I meant only that nothing can be 'concluded' about these objects, not 'what' they are, or where they came from.

That said, I invite you to review the evidence collected from the Stephenville sightings. To date, it is THE most compelling data I have seen or read.

They are preparing a public release of the radar date within a week or so, possibly sooner.

 

[Ladewig]

[Third time lucky?]

So, KotA, why do jets fly over large open air gatherings?

 

[Yeah_Right]

[Third time lucky?]

So, KotA, why do jets fly over large open air gatherings?

Maybe, just maybe this has to do with chemtrails?

 

[Cuddles]

Cuddles,

Are you suggesting that we DON'T have video footage and radar data that backs up people's personal accounts of "U.F.O.'s"...???

I must say that the amount of IGNORance it would take to make that statement is truly mind boggling.

No. Of course there are UFOs and we have evidence of them. However, you didn't just talk about evidence for UFOs, you talked about evidence for UFOs being piloted by non-humans. The evidence for that really is non-existent.

 

[King of the Americas]

[Third time lucky?]

So, KotA, why do jets fly over large open air gatherings?

So, that American onlookers can get that cozy nationalistic, 'our airforce is awesome', feeling.

...

...and 'possibly' to provide aircover, so that any U.F.O.'s would be discouraged from making a large public appearance...?

Why do YOU think air corp. jets matintain airspace over large open air gatherings?

 

[King of the Americas]

No. Of course there are UFOs and we have evidence of them. However, you didn't just talk about evidence for UFOs, you talked about evidence for UFOs being piloted by non-humans. The evidence for that really is non-existent.

No, I'd say that evidence for that is non-conclusive...

 

[Ladewig]

So, that American onlookers can get that cozy nationalistic, 'our airforce is awesome', feeling.

Are we talking about airshows or about citywide food or musuc festivals? If the former, then I probably agrree with the part about showing we are winning and disagree with the part about who we are fighting. If the latter, then they are probably trying protecting us against the type of suicide attack we saw on 9/11.

.and 'possibly' to provide aircover, so that any U.F.O.'s would be discouraged from making a large public appearance...?

I'm glad you put a question mark on that. Expecting air force jets to provide protection against craft piloted by being that have conquered the law of inertia (as you have implied) is as silly as believing gliders can provide protection against a modern jet powered air force.


I see no evidence that UFO's are alien ships.

 

[technoextreme]

Maybe...but what do you make of the 'thousands' of video images that we have to study? What of the radar images that 'match-up' with the time and location of the sitings, when the military claims to have had no planes in the area, nor civilian logged flights?

They are typically really crappy and utterly useless. I forgot what my professor used to call those images that the image is so blurry it's impossible to get any sort of useful information.

 

[King of the Americas]

So, that American onlookers can get that cozy nationalistic, 'our airforce is awesome', feeling.

I see no evidence that UFO's are alien ships.

Nor do I, but I HAVE seen evidence that they are non-human, in ability and flying practice...

---

Larry King has been hitting U.F.O.'s pretty hard recently.

Did anyone manage to catch last night's broadcast?

3 ex-airforce 'officers', one who claimed to see or watch a U.F.O. disable a missle during a test fire, back in '64. He claimed that the object flew up to the missle at over 8000 mph, shot a plasma 'beam' at the missle, and then flew away using the same path it did on the way in. This footage was rather impressive.

CNN actually had Bill "the Sceince Guy" on to refute or debunk the claims.

Sadly, no one with any gravitas takes the subject of U.F.O.'s seriously.

That said, I also found this VERY interesting:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/188750/french_government_release_ufo_files.html

It would seem that the French openly admit that U.F.O.'s are a REAL phenomonia, that they have been studying for decades.

I am still looking for the link to the actual French government site, for a direct look at the material released.

Here's the best I can do, for a direct link to the French site:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread273909/pg1

 

[arthwollipot]

No, I'd say that evidence for that is non-conclusive...

Care to present some of the evidence that you feel is "non-conclusive". I'm very curious.

 

[King of the Americas]

Care to present some of the evidence that you feel is "non-conclusive". I'm very curious.

Do you intend that I start from scratch?

I mean, I have began many threads upon the U.F.O. subject, and I have even included links in this thread.

The links just above are from France's recent U.F.O. File Release.

In the Larry King broadcast also linked above, you'll find footage of a missle test that was foiled by a U.F.O. that traveled at 8000 mph, shot out a plasma beam, and then retreated using the same path it did to arrive at the missle/target.

I have found that there are 2 kinds of people, within any U.F.O. debate. The 'believer'/witness and the skeptic. A skeptic will remain so, until he/she 'witnesses' such a sighting. No amount of photos, video footage, or age-ed artwork or cave wall rendering can or would change their mind upon the subject. A true skeptic demand 'scientific'/testible proof, in order to alter their stance.

To date, I know of no photos, videos, or eye witness testimony that can prove anything other than 'something' appears in the images or recollections. That this 'something' exists and has existed, is "non-conclusive" in nature. Given that no one can tell what or who may be behind these sightings, nor whether or not they are human activities...or something else entirely.

Are YOU a skeptic, and if so, what would it take for you to 'believe' U.F.O.'s were or are a non-human born phenomonia?

 

[arthwollipot]

Are YOU a skeptic, and if so, what would it take for you to 'believe' U.F.O.'s were or are a non-human born phenomonia?

Let me make this clear. One sighting will not be enough to convince me. There are always explanations for things that I cannot identify. Just because I can't identify it doesn't mean that it is extraterrestrial (or benthic, for that matter) in origin. That said, I haven't even ever seen something that I couldn't identify after a moment's thought.

And let me make one more thing clear. There are plenty of things out there that are non-human born phenomena. A flock of birds, for example, can cause a radar shadow. Lenticular clouds can look like designed objects. Mirages can appear to float in the air. Your claim is that there are sightings of things that are manufactured by a non-human intelligence that has gone undetected throughout human history. There is no evidence that this claim is true. No amount of blurry videos, photographs or anecdotal reports can demonstrate the truth of this claim.

 

[Minarvia]

There is no evidence that this claim is true. No amount of blurry videos, photographs or anecdotal reports can demonstrate the truth of this claim.

I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, but I think arthwollipot has a good point. Unusual claims require good and credible evidence. I remember reading a few lines from Stephen Hawking when he mentioned coming up with a solid theory. He said that what a good thinker has to do is have the theory before him and visualize it as a boat on the water. Then you have to do everything in your power to sink it. When it absolutely cannot be sunk then you really have something. He wasn't referring to paranormal claims but I think similar standards should apply. Blurry photos, anecdotes, and questionable artifacts are not proof. They are too easily "sunk."

After so many decades of "evidence" but nothing really substantial that can stand up to rigourous scrutiny makes me despair that the phenomena will ever be shown to be true. I'd love it to be, and the subject interests me deeply. But speaking for myself, I'd need more. I'm not sure just what, but not blurry, possibly doctored photos, and highly questionable videos, and anecdotes.

 

[King of the Americas]

...Your claim is that there are sightings of things that are manufactured by a non-human intelligence that has gone undetected throughout human history. There is no evidence that this claim is true. No amount of blurry videos, photographs or anecdotal reports can demonstrate the truth of this claim.

This is most certainly NOT my claim.

MY claim is that "U.F.O's manufactured by a non-human intelligence, HAVE been 'detected' throughout human history".

As evidence I have famous paintings, crude black and white photos from decades past, modern color photography images, modern digital videos, and even documented radar signatures that surpass every known ability of even 'our' military.

Did I misread your previous statement, or did you say, "If 'you' saw one, you wouldn't believe your own eyes?"

Isn't that called denial?