Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
The fastest scientifically plausible speed would take you from this solar system to the nearest star in a few decades. That's a lot of wasted time to not even interact with your target destination.
The fastest possible speed would still be over 4 years, and there's nothing plausible to us about near-light speed travel.
Wait, no, now I'm underestimating space. The fastest craft we've ever made would take 72,000 years to get to that nearest star.
We have just been again pointing out the problems with the highlighted line of thinking, haven't we.
One thing going about your profile on the website is a certain degree of honesty. There is still a lot of the boy and his UFO investigation club, isn't there.
A big problem I see with those stories is that you don't make any attempt at all to critically examine them. For example, do you think they could be dreams, misrememberings of childhood fantasy? Could the levitation be hypnagogic hallucinations?
You are right, there is "still a lot of the boy and his UFO investigation club" in what I do. I find the study of ufology just as interesting now as I did then, even moreso because I believe that UFOs can be explained scientifically ... and that we just haven't figured them out yet. This keeps me interested in our own cutting edge scientific efforts to explore and explain the universe ... very fascinating stuff.
Regarding the explanations for my childhood experiences, all I know is that they were unusual compared to any other life experiences I've had. Could they have been nothing more than random manifestations of an active childhood imagination ... sure ... but I don't intuitively feel that the answer is that simple. I realize that isn't scientific and I certainly don't expect anyone to take them at literal face value either.
The only thing I am really sure about are certain kinds of UFOs like the one I saw in my teens. I am personally sure about that ... but yet again, I realize that I can't expect other people to simple believe it either. Consequently there is a divide in our world views that cannot be completely bridged.
However against the background of countless other sightings by other people more credible than I, and backed by some measure of objective information like radar and film, there is in my view enough information to reasonably support the view that UFOs are real and are of alien origin ... note here that I say "support the view" as in the opinion or likeihood ... not that it represents empirical scientific proof.
In ufology the ETH is based on the scientific plausibility of interstellar travel ... travel that is plausible given known physics ... even known and partially proven technology. For example one of our own space probes is already in ( or about to enter, depending on your point of reference ) interstellar space.
1) The space probe in question is Voyager. It is now past the furthes planet in our solar system, but is not yet in intersteller space. Assuming it makes it past the debris belt, it is almost dead. Over the coming years systems will be shut down, due to the powerpack running out. Bare in mind it was launched BEFORE I was born, and even if ufology is correct thirty something years later the unmanned craft is only just on the outer reaches of the solar system.
2) This leads us to the next problem. It took 30+ years to reach "almost" interstellar space. With out having to carry people, or all the things that people need to live. Or a robot that can make contact and report back.
3) Assuming we could build something big enough to carry a being of some kind, we then have to consider the slightly annoying fact that the distances between stars are measured in how many years it takes a photon of light to traverse them. Even if we built a machine that could travel that fast, we would be travelling for hundreds of years to find other planets where there may be life.
4) All of this is irrelevant. The assumption has been made based on technology that only exists in wishful thinking, having been created by beings for whom we have no evidence, to support claims for which we have no evidence, to validate a belief for which we have no evidence.
It is an assumption, and a pretty big one to make, and expect to be accepted. It is wrong here, and is wrong when a creationist assumes there must be a god, or when time travel is assumed to exist, or magic, or anthing else. What ever we think may be possible one day is not enough for us to assume it has been happening, until evidence is supplied.
You are right, there is "still a lot of the boy and his UFO investigation club" in what I do. I find the study of ufology just as interesting now as I did then, even moreso because I believe that UFOs can be explained scientifically ... and that we just haven't figured them out yet. This keeps me interested in our own cutting edge scientific efforts to explore and explain the universe ... very fascinating stuff.
Sorry, but if you think Ufos can be explained scientifically then you would consider a scientific way of explaining them and NOT insist that ufo means "alien vessel" or be looking at the cutting edge efforts to explain or explore the universe.
You would not have spent many pages claiming a light you saw was a vessel of any kind.
You would state there was an object you had not been able to explain and would have set about gathering evidence that there are objects to be seen, and trying to establish a way of defining their characteristics so that a hypothosis can be made.
The explanation you are looking for is in no way scientific.
First of all, so what if my memory is "potentially flawed" ... everyone's is. That doesn't mean what I do recall isn't accurate enough to form a reasonable opinion.
The extent to which all human memory is flawed is significant enough that, when dealing with the possibility of aliens, memory is insufficient to reach such a conclusion. Physical evidence is required.
However against the background of countless other sightings by other people more credible than I, and backed by some measure of objective information like radar and film, there is in my view enough information to reasonably support the view that UFOs are real and are of alien origin ... note here that I say "support the view" as in the opinion or likeihood ... not that it represents empirical scientific proof.
In ufology the ETH is based on the scientific plausibility of interstellar travel ... travel that is plausible given known physics ... even known and partially proven technology. For example one of our own space probes is already in ( or about to enter, depending on your point of reference ) interstellar space. That was accomplished with science. If we can do it so could someone else on another planet, and if they are centuries ahead of us it is reasonable to suggest they could do it even better than us and have probably already have done it. No superstition or leap of faith is required and it is easy to see the obvious difference between this line of thinking and a belief in witchcraft. Trying to claim they are the same is faulty logic.
You're the one with the faulty logic. How can witches not be "centuries ahead of us" too? This is yet another argument from ignorance on your part. Because we don't have a known means of interstellar travel, you credit your fantasy aliens with technology that we don't have because "well, they're aliens, dude, we have no idea what incredible feats they can pull off". You are ignorant of alien technology so you ascribe them with whatever they need in order to fit your preconceived beliefs about them.
This is superstitious nonsense. No different from believing the witches have special Witchery PowerzTM
In ufology the ETH is based on the scientific plausibility of interstellar travel ... travel that is plausible given known physics ... even known and partially proven technology. For example one of our own space probes is already in ( or about to enter, depending on your point of reference ) interstellar space. That was accomplished with science.
The Voyager probes are drifting into interstellar space, that they are still in communication is because of the longevity of theur power source, they are no more intersellar space craft than a comet or asteroid is.
If we can do it so could someone else on another planet, and if they are centuries ahead of us it is reasonable to suggest they could do it even better than us and have probably already have done it. No superstition or leap of faith is required and it is easy to see the obvious difference between this line of thinking and a belief in witchcraft. Trying to claim they are the same is faulty logic.
Except that once again you are being disingenuous. Ufologists are not claiming that there is a theoretical possibility of interstellar craft visiting from another star. They are claiming that they have in fact done so, frequently, and in vehicles that often demonstrate capabilities that appear to defy the laws of physics. Ufologists, including yourself, make such claims while offering no better evidence than those who do believe in magic, or psychic abilities, or ghosts. That is what makes them the same; extraordinary claims without a shred of real proof.
1) The space probe in question is Voyager. It is now past the furthes planet in our solar system, but is not yet in intersteller space. Assuming it makes it past the debris belt, it is almost dead. Over the coming years systems will be shut down, due to the powerpack running out. Bare in mind it was launched BEFORE I was born, and even if ufology is correct thirty something years later the unmanned craft is only just on the outer reaches of the solar system.
2) This leads us to the next problem. It took 30+ years to reach "almost" interstellar space. With out having to carry people, or all the things that people need to live. Or a robot that can make contact and report back.
3) Assuming we could build something big enough to carry a being of some kind, we then have to consider the slightly annoying fact that the distances between stars are measured in how many years it takes a photon of light to traverse them. Even if we built a machine that could travel that fast, we would be travelling for hundreds of years to find other planets where there may be life.
4) All of this is irrelevant. The assumption has been made based on technology that only exists in wishful thinking, having been created by beings for whom we have no evidence, to support claims for which we have no evidence, to validate a belief for which we have no evidence.
It is an assumption, and a pretty big one to make, and expect to be accepted. It is wrong here, and is wrong when a creationist assumes there must be a god, or when time travel is assumed to exist, or magic, or anthing else. What ever we think may be possible one day is not enough for us to assume it has been happening, until evidence is supplied.
What I find to be really, really irrational about ufology's belief is that despite the problems you mention speaking very loudly against a single alien visitation, he would have it that scores, or possibly hundreds of them have occurred.
The extent to which all human memory is flawed is significant enough that, when dealing with the possibility of aliens, memory is insufficient to reach such a conclusion. Physical evidence is required.
Physical evidence may be required for one person to prove their case to some other people, but it is not required for the person who had the firsthand experience ... for the person who observed the "physical evidence" in action. But even if you insist that it does, then one's own memory still doesn't have to be perfect to know that what was observed was not a natural or manmade object or phenomenon. Sheer accelleration, distance covered and repeated precise maneuvers are more than sufficient. Exact dates, times, positions of the moon, what music was playing, or precise measurements are not relevant. For example whether an object has accellerated from zero to 10,000 or 20,000, or 25,000 Kmh in in about 1 second makes no difference to the basic question ... how is such a thing possible ... for anything, let alone anything manmade? And if it is possible, do those circumstances fit the circumstances observed? Those who want to simply reject accounts that don't have explanations that fit what we know are certainly entitled to do that, but I'm more interested in hearing from people who have seen similar things and can offer explanations that fit the situation ... not explanations that require changing several aspects of the story ( e.g. fireflies ).
Physical evidence may be required for one person to prove their case to some other people, but it is not required for the person who had the firsthand experience ... for the person who observed the "physical evidence" in action. But even if you insist that it does, then one's own memory still doesn't have to be perfect to know that what was observed was not a natural or manmade object or phenomenon.
Or simply that their perception or memory was sufficiently flawed to make it appear so; that is the point Ufology with no objective yardstick to measure it against your memory is worthless as evidence, and all the semantic arguments you can invent won't change that.
Sheer accelleration, distance covered and repeated precise maneuvers are more than sufficient.
Except that these are precisely the sort of things that memory and perception are likely to fail at, as has been explained repeatedly to you.
Exact dates, times, positions of the moon, what music was playing, or precise measurements are not relevant. For example whether an object has accellerated from zero to 10,000 or 20,000, or 25,000 Kmh in in about 1 second makes no difference to the basic question ... how is such a thing possible ... for anything, let alone anything manmade?
Again the actual circumstances may vary quite widely from the recalled circumstances. When you claim the 'object' did impossible things the most likely explanation, in the absence of supporting evidence, is that you misperceived or misremember the event. You may not like but that's the rational conclusion, and I didn't even mention the less innocent explanations.
Those who want to simply reject accounts that don't have explanations that fit what we know are certainly entitled to do that, but I'm more interested in hearing from people who have seen similar things and can offer explanations that fit the situation
Physical evidence may be required for one person to prove their case to some other people, but it is not required for the person who had the firsthand experience ... for the person who observed the "physical evidence" in action. But even if you insist that it does, then one's own memory still doesn't have to be perfect to know that what was observed was not a natural or manmade object or phenomenon. Sheer accelleration, distance covered and repeated precise maneuvers are more than sufficient. Exact dates, times, positions of the moon, what music was playing, or precise measurements are not relevant. For example whether an object has accellerated from zero to 10,000 or 20,000, or 25,000 Kmh in in about 1 second makes no difference to the basic question ... how is such a thing possible ... for anything, let alone anything manmade? And if it is possible, do those circumstances fit the circumstances observed?
That's a sort of hybrid combination of arguments from incredulity and arguments from ignorance. And of course it isn't honest or objective, nor does it make any progress toward falsifying your very own null hypothesis which is:
"All UFOs are of mundane origin."
Those who want to simply reject accounts that don't have explanations that fit what we know are certainly entitled to do that, but I'm more interested in hearing from people who have seen similar things and can offer explanations that fit the situation ... not explanations that require changing several aspects of the story ( e.g. fireflies ).
The skeptics aren't rejecting the accounts, in general, except possibly yours because you've proved yourself to be, shall we say, less than credible. The skeptics are being rational in not jumping to the extreme and wholly unevidenced conclusion that UFOs are aliens. That would be irrational.
And if you want to hang around and chatter with people who believe in aliens, there are probably several forums where people do exactly that. There are many, many forums where skeptics are not only few in number, but in some cases, not welcome at all. All the "ufologists" can mix and mingle and lie to each other and indulge each others' fantasies without any rational input whatsoever. It'd be like a dream come true for the alien believing faithful and the kids who belong to "UFOs = aliens" clubs.
In ufology the ETH is based on the scientific plausibility of interstellar travel ... travel that is plausible given known physics ... even known and partially proven technology. For example one of our own space probes is already in ( or about to enter, depending on your point of reference ) interstellar space. That was accomplished with science. If we can do it so could someone else on another planet, and if they are centuries ahead of us it is reasonable to suggest they could do it even better than us and have probably already have done it. No superstition or leap of faith is required and it is easy to see the obvious difference between this line of thinking and a belief in witchcraft. Trying to claim they are the same is faulty logic.
Nope. That probe wouldn't get tagged as a UFO. It does absolutely nothing unexplainable by known technologies. It might get identified as an alien (to an extraterrestrial race) probe, should they notice it and investigate, because it wouldn't do any of the things your Alien Space Ships do.
It wouldn't unexpectedly change direction.
It wouldn't suddenly disappear.
It wouldn't be visible in light, but invisible to radar, or vice versa.
It couldn't travel at supersonic speeds without creating a shock wave.
It drifts along like a rock.
And because it only does normal things, it could be found. It's location is predictable from its past behavior. It might be anomalously reflective, but that reflective index would change a predictable way depending on it's orientation to the observer, just as any real object does. And so someone might see it, and become interested, and track it down, and pick it up, and identify it as an actual alien-to-them probe.
Remember, your UFOs do things that are unexplainable in any other way than as Alien Space Ships. That's how you know they're Alien Space Ships. If they're not doing things that can't be explained by existing terrestrial technology, how do you know they're not existing terrestrial technology?
"Ooh! I've got a UFO that accelerates at incredible rates!"
"Ah! I've got a UFO that glows an eerie green and does figure eights!"
"I got a rock."
So it doesn't make much sense to claim that your Alien Space Ships both are and are not explainable in terms of known technologies.
What you're doing is retrofitting. Your conclusion comes first: "There are Alien Space Ships here." And you make up your supporting evidence to suit the conclusion: "Therefore, they must have a technology unknown to modern science." If it could be shown that the first part was true, the second part might be reasonable. But it hasn't been shown that there are Alien Space Ships here. And you can't use "technologies unknown to modern science" as an argument until it is. Now, if you had a Space Ship of some description, and it could be taken apart and shown that it used technologies unknown to modern science, that would be a good argument that it was, in fact, Alien.
I can do that too: "Witches exist." "Therefore, witches must have eldritch powers unknown to modern science." I mean, if they didn't, they'd hardly be witches, would they?
Physical evidence may be required for one person to prove their case to some other people, but it is not required for the person who had the firsthand experience ...
But it is required for rigorous pursuit of scientific knowledge. It's almost impossible for me to believe that you don't perceive the difference between your brand of fantastical phony science and the real item, especially since so many here have been so patient in their instruction.
The fastest scientifically plausible speed would take you from this solar system to the nearest star in a few decades. That's a lot of wasted time to not even interact with your target destination.
The fastest possible speed would still be over 4 years, and there's nothing plausible to us about near-light speed travel.
Wait, no, now I'm underestimating space. The fastest craft we've ever made would take 72,000 years to get to that nearest star.
The physics indicates it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate even a single massive particle to the speed of light, and that's why only massless particles can travel at that speed. So lightspeed travel is out of the question, according to the science.
Acceleration is the rate of increase in an object's velocity. That depends on its linear momentum (its mass multiplied by its velocity), the amount of force applied to increase that momentum, and the amount of time that the given amount of force would require to increase that momentum by a given amount.
Without getting into the specific math, Newtonian physics also proves that the faster an object is already traveling, the more force and/or time it requires to accelerate it even faster; as it accelerates, a constant amount of force will have diminishing returns toward accelerating it faster over time, and constant acceleration requires an increase in force over time. Then you've got to factor in relativistic physics, which indicates that the object's mass actually increases as it approaches c (at which point it would theoretically have infinite mass). I haven't actually crunched the numbers, but suffice to say that accelerating a macro-scale object like a spacecraft up to near the speed of light ends up being a balance somewhere in the middle between astronomical energy levels and cosmic time frames.
Then you've got to factor in the g forces of acceleration and those effects on the structure of the craft and its passengers.
And don't forget, once you've accelerated to that near-light speed, then you've got to be able to decelerate as you approach your destination, which in a vacuum would require just as much energy as it did to accelerate in the first place.
I think that my point was obvious to most of the other posters on this thread, I was hoping that you might learn a thing or two from that video, but you seem to be a bit close-minded WRT the point of the video. I'll explain in my answers to your points below.
ufology said:
I've no made any claim that scientists or skeptics are closed minded.
I'll agree with that. You have stated several times that you don't expect us to take your story as proof TO US. BUT you are using your story as proof to yourself. As was pointed out in the video around the 2 minute mark: You are saying: "I can't explain how my experience could have a mundane explanation." = Therefore my experience of a UFO = Alien craft.
That's flawed thinking, especially when there is no valid evidence to back it up.
In other words (per the video) "I can't explain it" >> therefore "I can explain it."
ufology said:
I've made no claim that a lack of proof negative equals proof positive.
I don't get angry if people don't agree with me or challenge my position. I'm not "fiercly skeptical" of science. I've made no suggestion that anyone should suspend critical thinking ... in fact you will notice that if you review the "Critical Thinking in Ufology" thread that it is the so-called skeptics here who derailed it with their constant mockery, and that I was quite good natured about it.
I think you have come across as annoyed at some points which is some what understandable, but for the most part you have been civil.
I have not seen the "Critical Thinking in Ufology" thread, and I'm not going to bring other threads into this discussion.
ufology said:
Another issue is that the video focuses on supernatural phenomena.
But the points of the video do relate to what is being discussed here, thus my comment to substitute certain words. The concepts are the same. But then again, you don't see how the null hypothesis applies to this discussion. I fear the same thing is going to happen here with this video.
ufology said:
UFOs aren't a supernatural phenomenon in and of themselves, although they may be related to such incidents by way of an associated science that we have yet to understand. Ultimately, there are no scientific reasons why UFOs ( alien craft ) cannot exist and/or cannot have visited the Earth.
There is no scientific reason to believe that alien crafts have visited earth, until such time as there is valid evidence of alien craft having done so.
ufology said:
The closest the video came to including UFOs in its illustration was a mention of "alien crop circles" ... which is a topic called cereology and only connected peripherally to ufology studies.
I'm sure there are others who would disagree with you there. Those people use crop circles as proof of aliens visiting us and trying to communicate with us.
ufology said:
One interesting contradiction in the video is that it starts out claiming that "science thrives on new ideas" and ends saying we should reject anything without "valid evidence". What suddenly happened to "considering new ideas" and remaining open to further study?
There is no such contradiction in the video. Where in the video does it say that further study of ideas should be suppressed? (Hint: It's not there in the video.) You are reading things into the video that are not there. Use a little logic here.
You: "Some UFOs are alien in nature." > ME: "All UFOs are of mundane origin." > You: "I shall prove it to you." > Research into the matter and the discovery of valid evidence. > You: "Here is the evidence of one UFO that is not of mundane origin." (Presents actual research and valid evidence) > Me: "That's compelling stuff you got there." (Spurs myself and or other researchers to look into the new evidence) > New evidence leads to proof of a UFO that is not of mundane origin. > Science accepts the new paradigm (god I hate that word).
That's how it works. Science does not advance without new ideas and research. Sometimes that research brings the results wanted, sometimes it falls flat on its face and sometimes it results in something unexpected that leads down new paths that may or may not bring positive results. We learn from the successes and from the failures.
With that said, if the results of the research don't back up the premise we reject the premise until such time as there is valid evidence that does back up the premise.
ufology said:
Sure it goes on to say that if new information should present itself, then we can reconsider the question, as if that makes rejecting it OK. But how does that new evidence come into being if we become prone to rejecting new ideas in the first place? Clearly there is a flaw in the process. I would propose that there is a third option that the video missed ... to neither accept nor reject the idea, and keep it on the table for further study.
Lastly, if you feel that I in any way match the kind of people the video portrays as being unreasonable, I invite you to engage me in discussion on specific facets of ufology. I'm confident that you would come away with a much different view than that which is portrayed in your video link.
I'm saying that you are being close-minded in regards to your own story from the lake. You have jumped to the conclusion that UFO = alien craft because you can't explain it being something mundane in nature. You are saying that you can not be mistaken because you remember the incident so clearly. We have shown you studies that show how bad the human memory is, yet you reject that.
That close-mindedness continues to influence your "search for the truth" about UFOs.
Most importantly, USI stands with all the eye-witnesses who know from the evidence of their own conscious and unimpaired senses and logical reasoning, that Earth is being visited by objects of alien origin.
You got proof that the eye-witnesses you speak of here have "conscious and unimpaired senses" and that they are using logical reasoning? They certainly don't have evidence. But you believe them because you believe you have those attributes.
I believe that this is you projecting your image of yourself onto others. That closes your mind to other possibilities. It leads to wrong or inaccurate conclusions.
Example:
"Earth is being visited by objects of alien origin"
That is a belief, it is not backed up by anything. It is a conclusion that has been jumped to by the Ufologists. Jumping to that belief does not help, it actually could hinder real research. I would love it if any UFO was actually alien in nature and not of mundane origin, but I reject that conclusion until such time as the evidence backs up that conclusion, at least one time.
The only way that the statement in the example is factual is if you consider "objects of alien origin" to be something like a meteor. If that's what you mean, then I'd agree with you.
Physical evidence may be required for one person to prove their case to some other people, but it is not required for the person who had the firsthand experience ... for the person who observed the "physical evidence" in action.
But even if you insist that it does, then one's own memory still doesn't have to be perfect to know that what was observed was not a natural or manmade object or phenomenon.
For example whether an object has accellerated from zero to 10,000 or 20,000, or 25,000 Kmh in in about 1 second makes no difference to the basic question ... how is such a thing possible ... for anything, let alone anything manmade?
And if it is possible, do those circumstances fit the circumstances observed? Those who want to simply reject accounts that don't have explanations that fit what we know are certainly entitled to do that.
For example whether an object has accellerated from zero to 10,000 or 20,000, or 25,000 Kmh in in about 1 second makes no difference to the basic question ... how is such a thing possible ... for anything, let alone anything manmade? And if it is possible, do those circumstances fit the circumstances observed? .
Thinking you've seen something means absolutely nothing; the ability to test what you imagine you've observed is everything. You can't do that. You can't do that because you can't repeat it, and you have no physical, objective or empirical evidence.
You again are holding an empty sack, claiming there is something in there.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
