Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
The whole thing is based on a claim that these materials are from UFO's - in the general sense maybe they are, failed test rockets and other crazy experiments conducted by the military and others that have littered space, the upper atmosphere, the ground and the sea with their debris. I can predict they'll be telling us how they have found strange things that nobody on earth can produce, can not explain what manufacturing technology could have produced it etc. and hence, whoa, must be some advanced alien technology... complete BS. During the Cold War scientists created strange decoys of materials and technologies that would be dropped behind enemy lines designed to tie-up the time of enemy scientists trying to figure out what it was and therefore waste their time. Failure to understand how a piece of bent metal might have been created doesn't constitute proof it was from 'the green little men'.
If you really think the recovered material is being analyzed as possible evidence of the existence of “little green men” you will unsurprisingly be disappointed. Because if you had read more closely, you would understand that this material is being analyzed to see if it is possible evidence of the nature of what was witnessed and nothing more.
When I was 11 years old (that was 43 years ago), I encountered a UFO while sitting in the back of a car. I could clearly see a spinning flying saucer, with lights around its rim. I pointed it to my mom, who was sitting in the front passenger side of the car. She immediately dismissed it as an airplane. I did not argue with her but instead I just kept looking at the saucer until it disappeared. Since that time I became fascinated with UFOs and I truly believed that aliens exist. Then a few years later I saw it again, but this time it was much closer. I could clearly see the landing gears and the flying saucer was actually no more than a small airplane with lights attached to the underside of the wings. So my mom was correct!
What does this tell us? We tend to believe in things that we do not understand or know much about. I'm sure my mom had seen more airplanes than I did when I was 11 years old, so she was able to immediately dismiss what she saw as an airplane, but for me it was a new experience to see an airplane with moving lights underneath. Our perspectives, beliefs, and even experience change over time as we gain more understanding of the environment around us.
Today I do not believe in aliens (at least not that they had ever visited us), for the same reasons that many have already mentioned - speed of light, short human history relative to the size and age of the universe, probability that an intelligent civilization living so close to us that time of travel and distance are not concerns...etc.
What does this tell us? We tend to believe in things that we do not understand or know much about. I'm sure my mom had seen more airplanes than I did when I was 11 years old, so she was able to immediately dismiss what she saw as an airplane, but for me it was a new experience to see an airplane with moving lights underneath. Our perspectives, beliefs, and even experience change over time as we gain more understanding of the environment around us.
Today I do not believe in aliens (at least not that they had ever visited us), for the same reasons that many have already mentioned - speed of light, short human history relative to the size and age of the universe, probability that an intelligent civilization living so close to us that time of travel and distance are not concerns...etc.
Ultimate goal? Listen, I am not a spokesperson for Vallee nor am I privy to the paper being submitted for peer review.
It strikes me as obvious that the first line of critique when someone claims to have witnessed a UAP is to ask for evidence. Without evidence, it is trivial to dismiss the claim. However, if we have cases with multiple witnesses, radar telemetry and debris, the claims begin to have merit.
If debris from multiple such cases from around the globe are analyzed and the debris consistently has unique properties, a pattern emerges that allows further study to proceed.
Btw, Now’s the time for everyone to start disparaging the peer review process in the event the paper stands up to such scrutiny.
"However, if we have cases with multiple witnesses, radar telemetry and debris, the claims begin to have merit."
This is true, if the claims are directly related to the evidence and the evidence is verified. I have little doubt that people have seen, or truly believe they have seen, unidentified aerial phenomena. Speculation on its origin is just speculation. And that's something I can't get worked up about.
This is true, if the claims are directly related to the evidence and the evidence is verified. I have little doubt that people have seen, or truly believe they have seen, unidentified aerial phenomena. Speculation on its origin is just speculation. And that's something I can't get worked up about.
One other thing... It's not the peer review that should be at issue. It's the repeatability of the material analysis that adheres to scientific method.
I agree 100%. To Entertain or not entertain such speculation is a matter of personal taste and is not an inherent part of the first step, which is verifying that a phenomenon is actually taking place.
To quote Greg Bishop regarding the phenomenon, “it’s repeatable, but not on demand”
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
I'm not familiar with either.
But the repeatability I mentioned plainly referred to the material analysis, so the quote is wholly irrelevant to that.
But the repeatability I mentioned plainly referred to the material analysis, so the quote is wholly irrelevant to that.
That is the real crux of the debate, isn't it? Not whether alien life exists, or even whether advanced intelligent alien life exists elsewhere in the universe, but, rather, is it possible that they are visiting us here and now? It seems most of that question turns on what technologies may be possessed by others, which are not presently possessed by us.
I don't see how anyone can rationally argue that intelligent life elsewhere could not have discovered more science, and developed more technology than we yet have. Simply ask yourself, will we discover more science, and develop new technologies over the next 100 years, which we do not have today? Yes, of course we will, and we currently are. Therefore, why couldn't someone else already be ahead of us in such discovery and development, possibly vastly far ahead? Does that prove alien visitation, no, it doesn't. However, it should open one's mind a to the possibility that the technical capability exists, therefore, visitations may also exist. Which is all that we really can rationally debate the possibility of at this point.
Should the UFO objects be physically real, is it possible that they are the product of human intelligence? Yes, it is possible. It just seems unlikely, however, that they could have been the product of purely human intelligence fully the past 75 years of documented sightings. The admittedly fantastic nature of the subject should not, by itself, validly be the reason to simply close one's mind.
Last edited:
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
As pointed out there’s a difference between ‘science’ and ‘technology’. The technology is the tool set available for exploiting our knowledge of the science. I think we can readily forsee that there will be huge advances in technology, that our tools will enable us to exploit more and more of the science we know exists. But it’s a different matter when it cones to forseeing big shifts in science, especially when it comes to the basic limitations we observe. Our understanding of science seems to be a process of refinement, towards the ability to understand ever smaller deviations in observations from current science but rarely a big jump to a new science.
Science is as much about observations as the theory, perhaps moreso. When we fail to understand something we see, then we look for the science behind it.
Despite our ever improving technology there has been little to suggest that our fundamental understanding of science has big gaps in terms of potential inter stellar travel - we have yet to see evidence anywhere in the universe for faster than light travel. Could we find such evidence one day and then have to discover the science behind it?
Our observation abilities have vastly improved and will keep doing so. There was some interesting press yesterday about new data on dark matter distribution not matching current theory. But note, the discrepancy is a few % only.
Science is as much about observations as the theory, perhaps moreso. When we fail to understand something we see, then we look for the science behind it.
Despite our ever improving technology there has been little to suggest that our fundamental understanding of science has big gaps in terms of potential inter stellar travel - we have yet to see evidence anywhere in the universe for faster than light travel. Could we find such evidence one day and then have to discover the science behind it?
Our observation abilities have vastly improved and will keep doing so. There was some interesting press yesterday about new data on dark matter distribution not matching current theory. But note, the discrepancy is a few % only.
Last edited:
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Two things have happened over the past few decades
a) human imagination has been fuelled by our knowledge of space and the actuality of our travelling to the moon. Before this time UFO’s were relatively unknown. In the past human imagination was fuelled by other information and we had tales of sea monsters etc. This correlation between UFO sightings and public awareness of space travel / science fiction is well known.
b) our technology advanced to the point where nation states covertly developed a lot of Aerospace technology.
Last edited:
I actually share those views, at least, as far as human scientific knowledge and techical advancement are concerned.
We disagree here. Gaps, suggests an complete understanding of the boarders which bracket those gaps. Sometimes, however, there is not a 'complete' understanding. Sometimes, we don't see boarders which are there, and at other times, we assume boarders when there are not. At least, not the one which we might expect.
There have been several huge unforeseen leaps in our understanding of science just since 1900. For example:
1) Relativity, supplanting segments of the classical physics of Newton. Think of how radical was the concept of interchangeable/alterable space-time.
2) Quantum physics, was yet another radical departure. This time, from relativity.
3) The realization, but not until the 1990's, that Einstein's field equations actually permitted travel not only superluminal velocity, but arbitrarily high superluminal velocity. In theory. However, this was thought to be theoretically impossible until only 25 years ago. Of course, it's not practical, at least, for OUR present technology, or in the projection of our future technologies. Which are, necessarily, based totally on our present scientific understandings. Yet, as the past century has shown, our present understanding is subject to radical change.
4) Undoubtedly, more discoveries are to come. Perhaps, on how to coherently explain delayed-choice particle/wave experiment results. Pilot-wave theory? Perhaps, but I don't believe we yet know how to coherently explain it. How about Einstein's, "spooky action at a distance", instantaneous communication of entangled-pairs across any distance. Will a correct understanding of that radically change our present fundamental understanding of the universe?
It seems likely that there is much significant science yet for us to discover. Which doesn't constrain anyone else from having already discovered it. We almost never see new breakthrough understanding coming at us because that's the nature of fundamental breakthroughs. As history shows, major scientific discoveries are typically unexpectedly thrust upon us, and not the incremental, logical projection of current knowledge. Which, technical development is.
Agreed, but this argument is only valid within the window in which human intelligence and alien intelligence overlap.
For instance, a dog is considered relatively intelligent, and it can understand a part of the human world, such as basic interactions with humans and whether its human friend is happy or mad. But we cannot expect a dog to comprehend any science or technology.
Now, consider an ant. It can also comprehend a part of the human world, but only to the extent that whether or not it is going to get stepped on. Any other human interaction is totally irrelevant in the ant's world.
For the same reason, if an alien technology is so advanced that they can tunnel through the universe using their quantum entanglement time travel machines, then it'll be impossible for humans to interact with them, just like imagining an ant trying to comprehend human emotion and trying to make its human friend happy.
So, I don't disagree that alien life can exist, but I don't believe that we can ever interact with an intelligent alien life, especially one that is more intelligent and advanced than us.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.