So then how do you propose we solve your “problem”? Specifically, what should be done that hasn’t been already? For example, the US Air Force investigated UFOs for over 20 years and found what you believe to be “aliens” were not a threat… so did the UK MoD. What makes you think they were wrong? Isn’t that their job and would there not be serious consequences (“heads would roll”) if they were?
Simple, we need a properly constituted and funded research program. The US “Air Force” did NOT “investigate” UFOs for 20 years. The following lists the major UFO Studies conducted:
Table 1.2 Major UFO Studies
Project Sign: January 22, 1948–December 30, 1948
Project Grudge: February 11, 1949–March 1952
Project Twinkle: February 1950–December 11, 1951
Project Blue Book Initiated: March 1952
Robertson Panel: January 14, 1953
O’Brien Committee: February 6, 1966
Congressional Hearing: April 5, 1966
Condon Study Contract signed: October 6, 1966
Congressional Hearing (Roush): July 29, 1968
Condon Report Completed: December 1968
National Academy Review: January 6, 1969
Condon Report Released: January 8, 1969
Project Blue Book Terminated: December 17, 1969
AAAS Symposium on UFOs: December 26–27, 1969
(
http://www.narcap.org/commentary/ufocritique.pdf - p.10)
The US Army Air Force (and then the Air Force) was involved in four of them (Sign, Grudge, Twinkle and Blue Book). From the very beginning the attitude was to
publically debunk UFOs, but to
privately investigate. Soon however it became clear that even serious “private” investigation was not to be conducted and the whole mess devolved rapidly into one with two primary objectives – to “explain” every UFO report and then to announce how the Air Force had “solved” all the UFO sightings.
Now if you contend that there was actually a
secret effort to study UFOs
behind the scenes then you are in good company – but I am afraid you would be howled down by your fellow debunkers as a conspiracy theorist. Funny thing is that these same debunkers acknowledge “secret” (black) military projects – indeed they may from time to time appeal to them to “explain” UFOs - but still they cannot countenance the prospect that such projects might involve the study of UFOs…
So bringing things back to the
actual historical record, when you state that the US and UK defence organisations have publically determined UFOs NOT to be a “threat”, then this is
precisely what their aim has been all along – that is, to publically debunk UFOs. Moreover, the assessment is clearly at odds with earlier statements to the effect that UFOs could cause mass hysteria and that their reporting, etc, could tie up and confuse communication channels needed for defence purposes. In other words, UFOs
were a threat to national security – but given the type of threat publically acknowledged, then what better way to ameliorate THIS type of threat than to reassure the public that UFOs were NOT a security threat…? So no matter WHAT type of threat UFOs posed (direct or via public reaction) the BEST course for the military (no matter what) IS to
claim they are not a threat!
However, it does NOT follow that UFOs DO represent a threat (or that the military has discovered one way or other that there are or are not). We just don’t know – and until the military actually “comes clean” – perhaps we might never know.
Why not? “Contactees” claim they do…
The trouble with “Contactees” (and abductees for that matter) is that whatever the “aliens” tell them, usually turns out to be false – or some guff about “saving the planet” etc. So we simply cannot believe what the “aliens” have to say on the matter at all.
Nobody I’m aware of “seriously” considers time travel a physical possibility… at least not in the way you learned about it from science fiction. It’s purely a mathematical concept… do you seriously think the dinosaurs are still alive and well on Earth somewhere?
Well, that is not true at all. Einstein’s theory does make it physically possible – the energy requirements are enormous - but physically possible nevertheless… As I stated, some argue against it – but they are all philosophical arguments – the Hawking CPA, the Grandfather paradox, even Reinganum’s economic argument – and none account for quantum mechanics. We are uncomfortable with time travel because of the paradoxes (like getting something for nothing) and “dangers for historians” it throws up, but we have yet to come up with any firm principles that prohibit it.
Anyway, how do you justify your belief in “aliens” when you clearly know so little about them? Shouldn’t you be mad at the “aliens” for ignoring you instead of all the skeptics, debunkers, scientists, and government officials who clearly haven’t?
But that is just the point. I DON’T justify a belief in “aliens”. I don’t know what “alien” means in this context. All I DO know is that there is an ostensible intelligence at work – that is, UFOs display what we would call “intelligent” behaviour. Also there are sightings that involve “beings”. But specifically
what “they” are and how “they” “physically” manifests I do NOT have any evidence on which to base a conclusion.
I am not sure what or who you suppose I should be “mad” at – your meaning in that sentence is unclear.
Because there’s absolutely zero objective evidence available to support that interpretation. SETI is literally a search for ETI… why do we need another SUFO? We already have plenty of evidence for UFOs…
…we obviously DO have evidence… you simply dismiss it out of hand. And what do you
mean by “UFO”? I suspect you
actually mean UFMO (Unidentified Flying Mundane Object). And that is precisely the point where we part company. YOU mean “mundane” where I contend that “mundane” and “alien” are mere speculative hypotheses – and when “mundane” is ruled out, we are left with “alien” as the remaining contender (remembering that “alien” is a definition that could encompass things we have not even thought of yet and does NOT necessarily mean ETI – just “not mundane”).
What trap? We now have aircraft… and should a way to make interstellar travel practical be discovered we’d have that too. Now, if the “aliens” want to help us out with that I’m all for it… however, apparently they’re not interested. No offense but they seem perfectly content with probing people’s rectums and snacking on cow balls…
My point was that before aircraft, many eminent people (who should have known better) considered the prospect impossible – just as the UFO debunkers now consider the prospect of realistic interstellar travel impossible. You are simply arguing in hindsight here.
No offense? But how am I to take falsehoods as not being offensive. I take offense at any assault on the “truth”. You statement IS offensive to anyone who has seriously studied UFOs.
No thanks, I already knew Maccabee is an “experiencer” (abductee)… was just wondering if you did. Apparently not.
Where is your evidence? You are just making things up… but I can expect no less from UFO debunkers by now. How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you indulge in this type of behaviour? And as an aside – so what if he was? His research is to be assessed on its value. But again this is typical UFO debunker behaviour. Don’t explore the argument…
attack the messenger!
All of the sightings you’ve presented are clearly not related… the only thing they have in common is sometimes people see things in the sky they can’t identify. If you can’t see that you’re simply cherry picking certain aspects of each sighting and ignoring all the discussions that have taken place here to draw your conclusions then I’m afraid nobody can help you…
Now you indulge yourself in misinformation (again). The cases I present are MUCH more than people seeing things in the sky that they cannot identify. This type of misdirection/misinformation is typical of UFO debunkers. The intention is to obscure rather than illuminate, to forestall investigation rather than encourage it, to promulgate rumour rather knowledge. It represents anti-rationalism and anti-science. It is the behaviour of cult members who must at all costs protect their belief systems.
…and “cherry-picking? So if I present a “best case”, YOU would then call it cherry picking! I present a range of cases and you STILL call it “cherry picking”! The only way I could avoid this charge from you is present every case known to mankind – and that is plainly not possible.
I have not “ignored” all the discussion here… I have (so far) been able to refute every single point raised in objection to UFOs … This is another UFO debunker “trick”…accuse your opponent of the very thing that you do. It is devious and underhanded. Again it is subversive of rational thought and the scientific process.
I ask help form no-one – all I expect is that people explore the evidence I present. Plainly you are not one who is willing to do so.
Humanoid beings, basically circular craft, silent, incredible speed, antigravity – these are generalities that might or might not be displayed in individual cases. Just as your car might be able to travel at speeds well above the law, does not mean that every time you drive it you must travel at such speeds. You are not restricted to cars either, it is possible to travel by bus, train or airplane (or bobcat, or bulldozer, or scooter, etc) … and you need not get out of your car at every stoplight to reveal who the driver is… so my question to YOU was how do you KNOW what IS “commonality” for “aliens”?
