UFO'S: A possible explanation

[Patricio Elicer]

Let me guess, you’re one of those CSIOPtics who thinks that every sighting from the dawn of man, up to and including the present, and by extension, any sightings in the future short of one landing on the White House lawn for tea and crumpets, has a plausible, mundane explanation, aren’t you?

I am one who believe, err, let's say, think, that every "sighting" up to this very moment has a potential mundane explanation. I'd love to be proven wrong, however.

If you think otherwise, just present your "best UFO case" for us to examine, that makes you think there's more than a mundane explanation on it.

 

[Marduk]

I haven't seen any army trucks running around with lightning guns attached though....

the truth is much better than the fiction in this case

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6917041.stm

The US Army is developing a truck-mounted laser weapon to destroy rockets, artillery shells and mortars.

I note it says nothing about "flying saucers", but the fact that it doesn't speaks volumes (if youre a nut )

 

[MikeSun5]

Let me guess, you’re one of those CSIOPtics who thinks that every sighting from the dawn of man, up to and including the present, and by extension, any sightings in the future short of one landing on the White House lawn for tea and crumpets, has a plausible, mundane explanation, aren’t you?

You really think every sighting is a martian? Dude seriously... you think that a being with the intelligence and technology to traverse the universe would come here to draw pictures in some corn, mutilate a few cows, and buzz a few pilots? You seriously belive the government is covering up alien visits from another planet? Even after France and the UK gave up all of their secret UFO info and there was still no proof of martians? You still seriously believe in alien visitation? Seriously?

If you think otherwise, just present your "best UFO case" for us to examine, that makes you think there's more than a mundane explanation on it.

Seconding this. What is the most convincing story you've got for an alien visit?
Oh, and Patricio, let's make sure to distinguish the two... jakesteele is most definitely referring to martians and not UFOs. UFOs are not aliens from another planet.

 

[makaya325]

I have one question here: Is it an extraordinary claim if one says that aliens are here? While i doubt they are, i do not think it is an extraordinary claim, since the universe is bound to contain other advanced civilizations, so why is the idea of alien visitation scoffed upon here? Im not trying to criticize anyone, i am just looking for an answer here.

 

[EHocking]

I have one question here: Is it an extraordinary claim if one says that aliens are here? While i doubt they are, i do not think it is an extraordinary claim, since the universe is bound to contain other advanced civilizations, so why is the idea of alien visitation scoffed upon here? Im not trying to criticize anyone, i am just looking for an answer here.

Probability equations leads us to accept that the universe is capable of sustaining more than one planet of intelligent life. (Drake's equation, for instance).

But it is not as simple as that.

You need to consider the probability that that intelligent life resides in a galaxy/solar system that is sufficiently "near" to our that they could actually make the trip.

You also have to consider the probability that this other intelligent life developed the ability for space travel at a time when they could visit earth during the very brief time that homo sapiens have existed on it.

You could also consider Carl Sagan's postulation that such a life form may be so advanced that they may consider our intelligence so beneath theirs as to not bother contacting us.

ETA: Here is an interesting article on the subject.

 

[Wauthan]

You follow a very peculiar line of reasoning Makaya325. Surely you would consider good solid evidence of aliens visit earth to be out of the ordinary. Extraordinary even. They wouldn't be thought to be fullfilling a supernatural claim though.

An extraordinary claim is still within the realm of the plausible, but remains highly improbable. A supernatural claim is in the realm of the impossible, given what we know of the world.

A lot of ideas concerning alien visits are practically impossible, or simple too strange to accept without further reason to do so.

 

[Checkmite]

ScienceDaily (Feb. 24, 2009) — In legend, sprites are trolls, elves and other spirits that dance high above our ozone layer.

No they aren't. When the notion of sprites developed in European folklore, they didn't even know there was an ozone layer. Sprites lived/played at ground level, like all the other mythological creatures.

Sorry, stuff like this irks me. I realize it's not the point of the article; but it's stated as fact nevertheless, and it's a "fact" people will read and repeat, thinking it's correct.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Do you know for a fact that Wiki picks and chooses writers to paint there version or is it because some of it conflicts with your reality map and you choose to paint them that way?

Sorry but I missed this one and felt a need to comment.

It is not a matter of what Wiki selects as their authors. Apparently, a great number of amateurs have their hands in on the entries. When it comes to articles about UFOs, there is a little group of UFO proponents that work together and wrote the many articles on that subject. Now, I am not going to be one to deny them that. Many have most of the information (as far as the UFO community has determined this information to be) correct but they also write with a bias that is not neutral. There is often a wave of the hand dismissal of any prosaic explanation.
I know that one of the biggest problems with the Roswell article had to do with it’s heavy ET bias. Wiki requested a rewrite a few years ago from a neutral point of view. I was contacted by the person interested in the rewrite (canada jack) who was interested on my input and assistance on doing the rewrite. I felt my opinion was too biased and that he should let the facts be their guide and not wild claims or opinions. It was the best way to allow the reader to decide for him/herself.
Shortly after the rewrite began, one of the original authors (Dr. Fil) attempted to rewrite it again with the heavy ET bias. A little war transpired between the various authors on the matter (See the lengthy discussion section). Some of it was focused on the entries around the Roswell “witnesses”, which got it’s own spinoff page, where more data entry wars transpired.
When a wiki article ventures a one-sided opinion (no matter what that opinion is) and does not list facts (i.e. something that can not be denied), I find that article suspect. You have to remember that Wiki is not written by professional authors and each article may be suspect. You have to read more to determine if what the author is saying is correct/accurate and not just their opinion.

 

[makaya325]

Probability equations leads us to accept that the universe is capable of sustaining more than one planet of intelligent life. (Drake's equation, for instance).

But it is not as simple as that.

You need to consider the probability that that intelligent life resides in a galaxy/solar system that is sufficiently "near" to our that they could actually make the trip.

Well, It may be possible if not likely for other civilizations to leave home and explore the galaxy

You also have to consider the probability that this other intelligent life developed the ability for space travel at a time when they could visit earth during the very brief time that homo sapiens have existed on it.

When you are dealing with the sheer number of stars in the Milky Way, the chances that a civilization exists/existed and could visit earth is rather high. Why would they want to? Perhaps they would observe and correct our impact on the enviornment. Just a thought.

You could also consider Carl Sagan's postulation that such a life form may be so advanced that they may consider our intelligence so beneath theirs as to not bother contacting us.

ETA: Here is an interesting article on the subject.

We can consider many factors that come into play regarding Alien life, However, i

 

[MikeSun5]

I have one question here: Is it an extraordinary claim if one says that aliens are here? While i doubt they are, i do not think it is an extraordinary claim, since the universe is bound to contain other advanced civilizations, so why is the idea of alien visitation scoffed upon here? Im not trying to criticize anyone, i am just looking for an answer here.

I'm not trying to come down on you, since you're playing devil's advocate, so any attitude you get from me is directed elsewhere.

Yes, it's an extraordinary claim. The technology it would take to traverse the universe (or just a galaxy) is mindboggling. A being that far technologically advanced has no need to come here. I mean, would Bill Gates land his helicopter at RadioShack? If these beings have mastered interstellar travel for crying out loud, they can easily observe earth without us knowing. Have a little camera that looks and acts like a bird or something, you know? Hell, have an invisible ship float directly over a city and look down with binoculars. If aliens able to fly here from millions of light years away didn't want to be seen, we wouldn't see them. If they wanted to be seen, we'd know already. With all of our satellites and radio signals and the massive amount of stuff being transmitted over the frequencies, aliens wouldn't even have to come NEAR us to learn everything about us.

When explorers left Europe and found America - and found people already living there - what did they do? They made contact. They didn't hide in their ships and sneak ashore to flatten circles in the natives' corn fields. They established contact, and then proceeded to kill them and take their stuff.
Granted, these are human motivations, and it is a small possibility that aliens would travel across vast expanses to simply scare some pilots and butt-rape a few rednecks. ...but I don't think so. If aliens were here, we'd know.

 

[makaya325]

I'm not trying to come down on you, since you're playing devil's advocate, so any attitude you get from me is directed elsewhere.

Yes, it's an extraordinary claim. The technology it would take to traverse the universe (or just a galaxy) is mindboggling. A being that far technologically advanced has no need to come here. I mean, would Bill Gates land his helicopter at RadioShack? If these beings have mastered interstellar travel for crying out loud, they can easily observe earth without us knowing. Have a little camera that looks and acts like a bird or something, you know? Hell, have an invisible ship float directly over a city and look down with binoculars. If aliens able to fly here from millions of light years away didn't want to be seen, we wouldn't see them. If they wanted to be seen, we'd know already. With all of our satellites and radio signals and the massive amount of stuff being transmitted over the frequencies, aliens wouldn't even have to come NEAR us to learn everything about us.

When explorers left Europe and found America - and found people already living there - what did they do? They made contact. They didn't hide in their ships and sneak ashore to flatten circles in the natives' corn fields. They established contact, and then proceeded to kill them and take their stuff.
Granted, these are human motivations, and it is a small possibility that aliens would travel across vast expanses to simply scare some pilots and butt-rape a few rednecks. ...but I don't think so. If aliens were here, we'd know.

Im not trying to be rude here, but doesnt the "They wouldnt want to come here" explanation to the Fermi's paradox kind of lame?

 

[King of the Americas]

OMG!!!

How many times must I say it. "THEY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN 'HERE', THERE IS NO NEED FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO TRAVEL INTERSTELLAR DISTANCES!!!"

UFO's 'fill' our historical texts, cave paintings, and other artwork. THE earliest of which contain these elements...

There is NO reason to believe these 'things' are from anywhere, other than a near by hiding spot.

 

[leafman91]

Let's think for a bit here. Say an actual alien were to come to Earth and publicly display his arrival. As in, he lands in Times Square, and starts the whole 'Greetings, Earthlings!' speech. What would be the public reaction to seeing this unknown, unheard of species, who was intelligent, if not more so for building a spaceship to get here? Would you really expect us to be all friendly about it?

I would have assumed that we would run and scream and panic, like pandas from a bulldozer. Not because we choose to, but because of the primal overwhelming instinct to be afraid of something we have yet to identify. It's the same as being afraid of the dark when you're little. What you can see and recognize is fine, it's what you don't know, or can't see, that scares the living daylights from you. Thus, any alien (as in extra terrestrial, in case you haven't picked this up already) would be very wise to keep themselves under the radar when visiting or monitoring Earth. Thus, any UFO evidence is likely to be fake or mistaken. Let's face it, from their point of view, Earth is a danger zone. They would most likely be on high alert, and trying to afford as few mistakes as possible. This would be fairly easier for them, as we can assume they have advanced technology relative to ours. They are, after all, the ones to come to us in this scenario

It isn't that they don't wish to come to the theatre, more so that they do not wish to take centre stage.

 

[Marduk]

I would have assumed that we would run and scream and panic,

if they've been watching how we deal with Aliens in our movies it wouldn't be us running and screaming would it

 

[Vortigern99]

OMG!!!

How many times must I say it. "THEY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN 'HERE', THERE IS NO NEED FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO TRAVEL INTERSTELLAR DISTANCES!!!"

UFO's 'fill' our historical texts, cave paintings, and other artwork. THE earliest of which contain these elements...

There is NO reason to believe these 'things' are from anywhere, other than a near by hiding spot.

Why so dogmatic about your unproven (and consistently refuted) assumptions? You sound insulted that the rest of the world doesn't want to accept your pet theory. To use your own phrasing, "there is NO reason to believe these 'things'" are undiscovered organisms living in the sea or sky. Any one of the dozens of other explanation we've offered in this thread for UFO sightings is a simpler and more evidential explanation than yours.

 

[Marduk]

OMG!!!

who ?

How many times must I say it. "THEY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN 'HERE', THERE IS NO NEED FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO TRAVEL INTERSTELLAR DISTANCES!!!"

you can say it as much as you like, but repeating a phrase which is meaningless does nothing for your credibility

UFO's 'fill' our historical texts, cave paintings, and other artwork. THE earliest of which contain these elements...

we went through this in some detail, you got pwned over and over, are you having memory issues ?

There is NO reason to believe these 'things' are from anywhere, other than a near by hiding spot.

these things which we are still waiting to see evidence of
any evidence ?
whenever youre ready, perhaps youd like to link to another image you don't understand from a ufo website like you did the last time and see what happens !!!

 

[King of the Americas]

Let's think for a bit here. Say an actual alien were to come to Earth and publicly display his arrival. As in, he lands in Times Square, and starts the whole 'Greetings, Earthlings!' speech. What would be the public reaction to seeing this unknown, unheard of species, who was intelligent, if not more so for building a spaceship to get here? Would you really expect us to be all friendly about it?

I would have assumed that we would run and scream and panic, like pandas from a bulldozer. Not because we choose to, but because of the primal overwhelming instinct to be afraid of something we have yet to identify. It's the same as being afraid of the dark when you're little. What you can see and recognize is fine, it's what you don't know, or can't see, that scares the living daylights from you. Thus, any alien (as in extra terrestrial, in case you haven't picked this up already) would be very wise to keep themselves under the radar when visiting or monitoring Earth. Thus, any UFO evidence is likely to be fake or mistaken. Let's face it, from their point of view, Earth is a danger zone. They would most likely be on high alert, and trying to afford as few mistakes as possible. This would be fairly easier for them, as we can assume they have advanced technology relative to ours. They are, after all, the ones to come to us in this scenario

It isn't that they don't wish to come to the theatre, more so that they do not wish to take centre stage.

I always liken the relationship to that of our scientists and the animals that study in the wild. It is 'best' for their natural development, if 'we' stay unseen, out of the way of their development. Imagine the tales an elephant would have to share upon his re-arrival back at the herd after a 'close encounter' with a pink skin. "Yeah man, they shot me, and I got really tired. Then I remember them all gathering around me, saying they weren't there to hurt me...and then they started jabbing me with needles and sticking crap in my bung hole."

I think the best 'arrival' they could make would be to drop in at the Olympics, with a set of athletes trained and ready to compete...

The 'worst' way, I think would be to reappear at a worship site, saying they were "our God, here to tell us what to do with ourselves."

As a human, I don't really like the idea of being told what to do. You can drop me some clues, or introduce me to a new technology, but don't tell me what I can or can't do with it. We'll take a vote as to whether or not to join your galactic counsel...

 

[King of the Americas]

Why so dogmatic about your unproven (and consistently refuted) assumptions? You sound insulted that the rest of the world doesn't want to accept your pet theory. To use your own phrasing, "there is NO reason to believe these 'things'" are undiscovered organisms living in the sea or sky. Any one of the dozens of other explanation we've offered in this thread for UFO sightings is a simpler and more evidential explanation than yours.

Look, we either believe our history or not. IF we are to believe it, then there is 'god(s) in the heavens there to protect us'.

My contention is that saying "FOR ufo's to exist, there would have to be a species that has mastered interstellar space travel, AND chose us to visit", is a false choice or standard to put upon 'them', given the evidence at hand.

You say that my pet theory is unproven. So be it. When it IS 'proven', then it would be a Universal LAW. LOTS of 'theories' remain unproven, but that doesn't make them useless, in explaining our world and how things work in it.

I ask AGAIN what is more 'simple', an explanation for ufo's-

That the 'things' in the heavens of today ARE the same gods of the heavens, pictured and written about in history and that we are just failing to put 2 and 2 together.

OR

That ALL of histories chroniclers suffered that same delusion/illusion, and that the same delusion affects today's witnesses.

Are 'we' mistaken about the history passed down to us, OR are we ALL suffering mass delusions?

Which is more simple?

 

[King of the Americas]

who ?

you can say it as much as you like, but repeating a phrase which is meaningless does nothing for your credibility

we went through this in some detail, you got pwned over and over, are you having memory issues ?

these things which we are still waiting to see evidence of
any evidence ?
whenever youre ready, perhaps youd like to link to another image you don't understand from a ufo website like you did the last time and see what happens !!!

And I told you that we'd get 'solid' evidence, when 'they' are ready to present it. Until then we are dealing with an unquantifiable entity.

Credibility? I think I pissed that away when I created my screen name.

I got "pwned" over and over...?

Well let's just say you failed to convince me.

 

[realpaladin]

And I told you that we'd get 'solid' evidence, when 'they' are ready to present it. Until then we are dealing with an unquantifiable entity.

Credibility? I think I pissed that away when I created my screen name.

I got "pwned" over and over...?

Well let's just say you failed to convince me.

Ok, now I understand the Google Earth tenacity...

Where is the evidence that there even is a 'they' that even can be 'ready to present it'.

Without that starting point there is nothing.