After all the assumptions concerning ET behavior, motivations, and technology, I fail to understand why there's a singular focus on metallic remnants. Perhaps the craft is made of some out-of-this-world composite.
The military feeding the UFO story aids in maintaining secrecy for current and future top secret R&D.
I can't say what "required proof" would be, but I'm pretty sure I'll know it when I see it.
The military feeding the UFO story aids in maintaining secrecy for current and future top secret R&D.
I can't say what "required proof" would be, but I'm pretty sure I'll know it when I see it.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
apparently people know it when they see it is a very low threshold for some, they seem to become believers after seeing not very much
One or more alien civilizations have formed a benevolent federation that all adhere religiously to a prime directive. That sounds rational? After all it seems obvious that there are many alien civilizations but no Klingons or Cardassians.
So as for Roswell, the pictures in the report from 1947 were all staged as a cover up or what? The rancher's story is public record he brought in two boxes of debris described as pretty ordinary stuff, what else was was there that fit the description of flying disk? Any reference please.
Last edited:
It sounds like you enjoy the idea of there being civilizations out there that are as bad or worse than us. It's like the old bane of existence. "Look at what that other guy's doing" while perpetrating a crime yourself. Deflection and then trickery. Where have I seen that before. Whatever you do is OK as long as you can point to someone worse than you.
Well of course, they may as well be emanating out of black holes with physical properties not from this universe at all, right?
UFO sightings occur frequently, but not on demand. If the phenomenon is not repeatable for scientific demonstration purposes, we have to gather the purported evidence on a case-by-case basis and look for patterns and distinguishing characteristics. It is how one builds a case for “physical proof.”
See also SkyHub.
I don't find anything that piques my interest at the SkyHub website. I don't oppose their mission, and if anything substantial is discovered, I'm sure I'll hear about it.
I wouldn't say your statement is wrong, though I'd condense it to just "gather evidence and analyze it." Things like "look for patterns" trouble me because that can be helpful or a hindrance.
I wouldn't say your statement is wrong, though I'd condense it to just "gather evidence and analyze it." Things like "look for patterns" trouble me because that can be helpful or a hindrance.
Sure. The point is, scientists are in the field, gathering evidence and analyzing it. It’s tons more interesting than a government report reiterating the low-hanging fruit for a disinterested public.
I guess I better specify something. I vehemently disagree with the idea that you can do anything as long as you can point to someone worse than you. It probably seems ridiculous that I'm stating the obvious but I think it's required. Things that are obvious to most people are not obvious to some. I'll never forget that line by Gordon Gecko in "Wall Street" where he said, "Greed is Good". The director, Oliver Stone, thought it was obvious that the line indicated the depravity of Gecko. But he found out later that many people agreed with the line and that it became an excuse for reprobate behavior.
So yes, it's ridiculous that I feel I have to spell it out, but I think it's necessary for a few individuals to understand. Just because some people do horrible things doesn't make it OK for other people to do the same thing to a lesser degree.
Last edited:
Have they been hired to do this work or is it a hobby for them? Are there scientists in this field who's vocation is UFO evidence gathering/analyzing?
You are beginning to sound like a zealot, the above is just raving and insulting with no reason i.e. irrational.
Well, it might seem insulting but only because it may be true. You were one of those that tried to label what I said earlier as religion. It wasn't. I think you may think that labeling a person or argument eliminates having to take it seriously. It's one of your main mental shortcuts I see you taking. You often try to label something and make it stick so people don't have to take the ideas or the person seriously.
The Sigma 2 report is a little better. A couple of things bother me still. First, skepticism should be practiced by every decent scientist - you don't just "pick something up and run with it." See Mary Jo Nye, 'N-rays: An episode in the history and psychology of science.'
Secondly, among the military men, astrophysicists, etc, there's nothing there about photography and video experts. The closest I found was the mention of "optical signatures" on page 14.
Secondly, among the military men, astrophysicists, etc, there's nothing there about photography and video experts. The closest I found was the mention of "optical signatures" on page 14.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
there are plenty of people calling themselves ufo experts, scientists or whatever. Some of them write reports etc. designed to look as professional and serious as possible, desperate for credibility. Can you point to more than one real, skilled scientist who will risk their reputation on being an exclusive ufo’ologist, with peer reviewed publications in mainstream scientific journals and who would be acknowledged as such by their peers?
It’s all hobbyists.
Mind you, there are many famous gentlemen scientists as they were called but essentially hobbyists, who pioneered science in the early days.
Last edited:
I wanted to address the "disinterested public" comment. I would vehemently disagree with that. This thread (and the other) is but one proof. UFO/alien books get the mass-market paperback treatment. A person has to seek out Klass, et al.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
there’s no such thing as a disinterested public, it’s an oxymoron as any tabloid editor will tell you
You continue with personal insults, several people here who have even the slightest disagreement with certain views are immediately labeled as irrational and in two cases not worth listening to at all.
What did I actually say? You are the one stating an obvious abundance (maybe 100's of thousands) of other civilizations, I simply pointed out that it would be a statistical stretch for everyone of them to be a benevolent egalitarian utopia in its entirety. Saying I somehow enjoy this comes 100% from you for whatever reason I don't know.
Let's get back to some real questions, what good is anti-gravity in intergalactic space?
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Discopete, wasn’t Benjamin Franklin a hobbyist scientist? afterall, he had a few other things on the go as part of his day job !