• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
23_Tauri said:
Errrr....... no. edge, I think the above indicates that you completely missed the whole point of my post. I wasn't implying this at all, but quite the opposite: that we don't jump to far-out conclusions. Science is conservative. It's don't make dumb claims. It's wants verification, repeatability, that kind of thing.
Click to expand...
Did I really write that? "It's don't...." Oh dear... :boggled:
 
So what does the neutrino experiment tel us about aliens?

Not at a lot. It tells us neutrinos appear to travel faster than light in a particle accellerator. You may notice that our planet is not inside a particle accellerator. You may also notice the scientists talk about the behaviour of a neutrino, not the behaviour of a spaceship.

But even if this did have a usefull application does it prove aliens have visited? No. Evidence that there is a mechanism through which particles can do something is not the same as proving spaceships already have. If we had evidence that an alien vessel HAD landed somewhere, it might give us a better understanding of how. But it does not magically summon evidence that alien, celestial or time travellers have ever been here.
 
So now we have established what evidence means... Does anybody have any for UFOs being in any way alien in nature?
 
edge said:
... My only concern is who’s piloting these conveyances?
Click to expand...


edge:

I think your question is one we'd all like an answer for. The object I saw was fairly small and although it may have had a pilot, I really doubt it. To me it seemed more like some kind of A.I. recon probe. If it was piloted, then it couldn't have accommodated many crew ( at least humanoid crew ). I estimate it was about the size of a VW Beetle, and it seemed spherical, but the thing was self-luminous ( the whole thing seemed to emit light rather than having light fixtures ), and its glow made the boundary between the object itself and its surroundings hard to discern. Other than being a UFO, I don't know what it was, or if it even had pilots. Maybe the thing was some kind of Kurzweilian life form ... an evolved A.I. ... or maybe as the skeptics here have suggested it was just a firefly ... the size of car that could fly thousands of miles per hour ;-)
 
ufology said:
edge:

I think your question is one we'd all like an answer for. The object I saw was fairly small and although it may have had a pilot, I really doubt it. To me it seemed more like some kind of A.I. recon probe. If it was piloted, then it couldn't have accommodated many crew ( at least humanoid crew ). I estimate it was about the size of a VW Beetle, and it seemed spherical, but the thing was self-luminous ( the whole thing seemed to emit light rather than having light fixtures ), and its glow made the boundary between the object itself and its surroundings hard to discern. Other than being a UFO, I don't know what it was, or if it even had pilots. Maybe the thing was some kind of Kurzweilian life form ... an evolved A.I. ... or maybe as the skeptics here have suggested it was just a firefly ... the size of car that could fly thousands of miles per hour ;-)
Click to expand...

1) How do you know its size when you keep changing how far away it was, and describe it only as a point of light? Even here, you describe how it was difficult to seperate object from surroundings.
2) You are jumping the gun wanting an answer to "who pilots it", when you haven't got any evidence that there are vessels to be piloted.
3) The sceptics suggested it was a small object close to you, not a big object far away. Because you described it only as point of light. This has now been revised once more by your ever changing description. But, as you have trouble with the concept...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vbd3E6tK2U

A small firefly would be much closer and only need to travel at thousands of milimeters an hour...
 
ufology said:
edge:

I think your question is one we'd all like an answer for.
Click to expand...
No, you are incorrect. People with critical thinking skills would first establish that they are before asking what they are. Only the open mouthed credulous ask the second question alone.

The object I saw was fairly small
Click to expand...
Probably about the size of a firefly.

and although it may have had a pilot, I really doubt it.
Click to expand...
Ah good, you admit that fireflies don't have pilots.

To me it seemed more like some kind of A.I. recon probe.
Click to expand...
Sounds like it came from Uranus.

If it was piloted, then it couldn't have accommodated many crew ( at least humanoid crew ).
Click to expand...
If it was a firefly it didn't have any crew.

I estimate it was about the size of a VW Beetle,
Click to expand...
Or the size of an actual beetle.

and it seemed spherical, but the thing was self-luminous ( the whole thing seemed to emit light rather than having light fixtures ),
Click to expand...
Like a firefly.

and its glow made the boundary between the object itself and its surroundings hard to discern.
Click to expand...
Like a firefly.

Other than being a UFO, I don't know what it was,
Click to expand...
Well, that is what UFO means, Unidentified Flying Object, so of course you don't know what it is.

or if it even had pilots.
Click to expand...
Or a thorax.

Maybe the thing was some kind of Kurzweilian life form ... an evolved A.I. ... or maybe as the skeptics here have suggested it was just a firefly ... the size of car that could fly thousands of miles per hour ;-)
Click to expand...
Unless the car is the size of a firefly and flew several inches per second. ;-)
 
carlitos said:
I don't consent to having anything I have written appear on the ufology website.
Click to expand...


Carlitos:

Don't worry. So far you've offered very little constructive to add anyway, and I can link directly to your comments without wasting my drive space.
 
RoboTimbo said:
No, you are incorrect. People with critical thinking skills would first establish that they are before asking what they are. Only the open mouthed credulous ask the second question alone.


Probably about the size of a firefly.


Ah good, you admit that fireflies don't have pilots.


Sounds like it came from Uranus.


If it was a firefly it didn't have any crew.


Or the size of an actual beetle.


Like a firefly.


Like a firefly.


Well, that is what UFO means, Unidentified Flying Object, so of course you don't know what it is.


Or a thorax.


Unless the car is the size of a firefly and flew several inches per second. ;-)
Click to expand...

The changing nature of the "memory" does seem to show why annectdotal evidence is only used when properly documented at the time, if at all. Historians would by now be very frustrated that a statement had been changed so many times as to make it worthless even in an oral history.

Ufology, if you insist your story is persuasive of anything give us one last version, start to finish, and accept the critique upon it with out any more "self correcting".

Or better yet discount it and supply actual evidence.
 
ufology said:
Carlitos:

Don't worry. So far you've offered very little constructive to add anyway, and I can link directly to your comments without wasting my drive space.
Click to expand...

Dont worry, when you think about it later you will have had a lot more space.
 
ufology said:
edge:

I think your question is one we'd all like an answer for. The object I saw was fairly small and although it may have had a pilot, I really doubt it. To me it seemed more like some kind of A.I. recon probe. If it was piloted, then it couldn't have accommodated many crew ( at least humanoid crew ). I estimate it was about the size of a VW Beetle, and it seemed spherical, but the thing was self-luminous ( the whole thing seemed to emit light rather than having light fixtures ), and its glow made the boundary between the object itself and its surroundings hard to discern. Other than being a UFO, I don't know what it was, or if it even had pilots. Maybe the thing was some kind of Kurzweilian life form ... an evolved A.I. ... or maybe as the skeptics here have suggested it was just a firefly ... the size of car that could fly thousands of miles per hour ;-)
Click to expand...

We jump the shark here, don't we. (At least for as far as I have been following your comments.) The charade of critical thinking is cast aside.
 
RoboTimbo said:
Why healthy skepticism only towards those claims particularly?
Click to expand...


Robo:

Healthy skepticism in general, and more particular with respect to the abduction and contactee claims because they often contain information not acquired from concious recollection, but hypnosis therapy, or they are cult or religious oriented. The cults and religions are also more prone to extracting membership dues in order to be considered part of their group. I really don't like that idea at all. The UFO phenomena doesn't belong to any group. It's something that exists for anyone with a genuine interest to study, and people need to be completely free to question it without fear of being excommunicated.
 
ufology said:
Check out the USI Confidence Rating, a system that demands some objective verification of claims made by channelers and abductees before they can be taken seriously.
Click to expand...

But not UFO sightings, for some strange reason.
 
ufology said:
Robo:

Healthy skepticism in general, and more particular with respect to the abduction and contactee claims because they often contain information not acquired from concious recollection, but hypnosis therapy, or they are cult or religious oriented.
Click to expand...
No, you have misrepresented the majority of abductee and contactee events by taking them out of context. They have exactly the same amount and quality of evidence that people who believe some UFOs are alien space ships have. The UFOs as aliens belief can easily achieve cult-like status and a religious-like belief. Those are the people who can't be objectively skeptical of their own beliefs. Look at you, for example.

The cults and religions are also more prone to extracting membership dues in order to be considered part of their group. I really don't like that idea at all. The UFO phenomena doesn't belong to any group. It's something that exists for anyone with a genuine interest to study, and people need to be completely free to question it without fear of being excommunicated.
Click to expand...
Oh good, you do see the parallels between the religious cult-like beliefs of abductees/contactees and UFOs as alien believers. You simply have had your UFOs as aliens filtered goggles on for your own pet relion-like cultish beliefs.

Can you genuinely not see any parallels?
 
ufology said:
Robo:

Healthy skepticism in general, and more particular with respect to the abduction and contactee claims because they often contain information not acquired from concious recollection, but hypnosis therapy, or they are cult or religious oriented. The cults and religions are also more prone to extracting membership dues in order to be considered part of their group. I really don't like that idea at all. The UFO phenomena doesn't belong to any group. It's something that exists for anyone with a genuine interest to study, and people need to be completely free to question it without fear of being excommunicated.
Click to expand...

And yet you show no scepticism over the very existence of alien spaceships, and insist UFO=Alien with out evidence?
And yet you show no scepticism about your own tale, where "a point of light" has become "the size of a VW".
And yet you show scepticism about unfounded claims of those who have seen UFOs, and accept their word with out question?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom