271 replies to this topic

[bison]

Besides the other well-taken objections that have been raised to time travel, and so, time travelers from the future being mistaken for extraterrestrial visitors, there is the following to consider: Time travel to Earth's past is also space travel. The Earth moves about the galaxy at a speed calculated to be ~ 550,000 miles per hour. If one wanted to visit Earth 100 years ago, they would have to travel about 480 billion miles in space. Since one would exit the time stream in the present, and reenter it 100 years ago, they would have traveled 480 billion miles in essentially zero time, far exceeding the speed of light. Those who object to the presence of extraterrestrials at Earth, because the light speed limit presents an insurmountable barrier to stellar travel should be consistent. It should, to this way of thinking, also prevent time travel to the past.

[Simbi Laveau]

I love reading these threads . It never ceases to amaze me how much you guys can back and forth and post Intel and opinions.
Seriously .Just had to say .

Carry on

[SwampgasBalloonBoy]

Chrlzs, on 25 January 2013 - 09:35 AM, said:

Whilst browsing idly over all this - I was stopped in my tracks by:
[/size]
????  So let me get this straight - nowadays, with:
- ever increasing numbers (and quality) of systems observing the skies
- high quality affordable video and still photography equipment (not to mention telescopes (oops I just did) all at prices undreamt of 50 years ago
- an uncensored communications network (Internet) to link everything up and provide easy access to every previous 'case' and allow intense scrutiny from experts and amateurs alike
- the thriving amateur astronomy enthusiasts across the globe giving unprecedented monitoring...

Yet you think that the 'golden age' is over?  What an extraordinary thing to say..

And yet... I sense this same air of resignation in others here too - without naming names, it seems a few of the 'old school' of ET=Alienz believers have pretty much lost interest in any new sightings, while poring endlessly over & repeating old cases that have long failed to provide the proverbial smoking gun...  So, has closer & better scrutiny driven the ET's away or into hiding...?

There is another possible explanation for this, and I think it's pretty dang obvious what it might be..



PS - psyche, you didn't read your pm's again..!  I called by the Tavern tonight, but couldn't find you..  However, it most certainly wasn't a wasted visit - now I understand what you mean by it being the place to be.. Niiiice...!!      

I was referring to this case specifically. glad you are able to see the whole picture in the later post.

If you sensed an air of resignation, you are not wrong, mate. What are the motivation to carry on for some believers? No matter what information they think they can get here, it's sure as heck won't be as mind blowing as their own personal experience. That in of itself can lead to disinterest very quickly. What other motivation is there? try and convince a skeptic? We all know how futile it is.

What are the motivation for the skeptics? I am sure they would say to find the truth, to advance the subject, to understand our world better. For some skeptics this is the case. They are fair, they keep an open mind. They entertain the possibility that there could be something out there beyond human. These are the competent skeptics. Unfortunately, there aren't many of them.

For a lot of skeptics, it's all about "winning" the argument. Their mind are already made up. They do not entertain the possibility at all. They completely shut the door on it. No matter how many non-stick bs alternative explanations they throw out there. At the end of the day, they still hold the ultimate trump card. All they have to do is pull out the "scientific evidence" card and they would "win" the debate. Their ego would receive a boost. They would congratulate each others on a job well done, having vanquished yet another feeble minded believer. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. No matter how many fishes they fry, more will come. If their main motivation is to "win" the debate, then stick around. At the end of the day, the ego is guaranteed to get stroke. Anyway, that's just my two cents.

[zoser]

SwampgasBalloonBoy, on 25 January 2013 - 08:30 PM, said:

I was referring to this case specifically. glad you are able to see the whole picture in the later post.

If you sensed an air of resignation, you are not wrong, mate. What are the motivation to carry on for some believers? No matter what information they think they can get here, it's sure as heck won't be as mind blowing as their own personal experience. That in of itself can lead to disinterest very quickly. What other motivation is there? try and convince a skeptic? We all know how futile it is.

What are the motivation for the skeptics? I am sure they would say to find the truth, to advance the subject, to understand our world better. For some skeptics this is the case. They are fair, they keep an open mind. They entertain the possibility that there could be something out there beyond human. These are the competent skeptics. Unfortunately, there aren't many of them.

For a lot of skeptics, it's all about "winning" the argument. Their mind are already made up. They do not entertain the possibility at all. They completely shut the door on it. No matter how many non-stick bs alternative explanations they throw out there. At the end of the day, they still hold the ultimate trump card. All they have to do is pull out the "scientific evidence" card and they would "win" the debate. Their ego would receive a boost. They would congratulate each others on a job well done, having vanquished yet another feeble minded believer. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. No matter how many fishes they fry, more will come. If their main motivation is to "win" the debate, then stick around. At the end of the day, the ego is guaranteed to get stroke. Anyway, that's just my two cents.

No amount of clever debunking attempts can disprove that this planet is being engaged by ET's

Far too many corroborating testimonies.  The problem is that the skeptics are all waiting for evidence that they can hold in their hand.  A piece of a space ship maybe.  Trouble is that some wag will then come along and try and argue that it's nothing but a chunk broken off a plane.

That's the flaw in the so called scientific method.  Anything in the end can be denied.  It's to easy to do.

[bison]

It's possible that the scientific method itself has not prevented the broad and open acceptance of evidence for an extraterrestrial presence at Earth. Political and emotional considerations enter into this, too. Science, being a work in progress, and far from perfect, is subject to preconceptions, inertia, and (sometimes unconscious) biases.
It's also possible that there is another problem. What if *we* are the observed, trying to observe the observers? This would probably introduce complications. Suppose extraterrestrials observing us had a protocol that said that we were not be be allowed, as a species, to unambiguously know that we were being observed. They might feel that such knowledge would interfere with the sorts of human behavior they wish to study. Trying to observe such observers using the scientific method could be fruitless, or at least produce ambiguous results.

[Paxus]

Hi zoser

No offense but I think what you wrote is flawed. Read that sentence again:

zoser, on 26 January 2013 - 05:46 PM, said:

That's the flaw in the so called scientific method.  Anything in the end can be denied.  It's to easy to do.

1st of all, there is nothing fundamentally flawed about the scientific method FOR WHAT IT IS. It is for doing science.
Perhaps you're comparing apples and oranges.
Discussing UFO vs ET craft and HOW you're discussing them, whether you're talking about belief, or proof, evidence vs proof, etc etc
It seems to me you are suffering from a simple misunderstanding with skeptics.
The second part of your sentence is also flawed because if said 'scientific method' proves something, then, no, it can't simply be denied....

Try to remember if skeptics do not agree with you, it's not because they don't believe in ET, it's because, after MUCH research, they believe that there hasn't been sufficient 'PROOF' to accept the ETH as an explination for UFO. (TO BE ABSOLUTELY SURE - remember MANY MANY MANY have been proven to be MISTAKEN!)
Also, Please note the difference between 'proof' and 'evidence'. Most skeptics agree there is PLENTY of evidence of the ETH but believe this evidence is mostly anecdotal or circumstantial. However, skeptics believe there is no proof. This is why they are skeptical of the ETH.
And, before making grand sweeping statements about skeptics ignorance, please remember most skeptics want to believe. This is why they are members here. The reason they are skeptics is that there is no proof. < A lot of skeptics find this, in itself disturbing... (with THOUSANDS or hundreds of thousands of sightings etc etc etc - You would expect there to be SOME proof if the ETH was true!!!)

Edited by Paxus, 26 January 2013 - 06:55 PM.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

bison, on 26 January 2013 - 06:47 PM, said:

It's possible that the scientific method itself has not prevented the broad and open acceptance of evidence for an extraterrestrial presence at Earth. Political and emotional considerations enter into this, too. Science, being a work in progress, and far from perfect, is subject to preconceptions, inertia, and (sometimes unconscious) biases.
It's also possible that there is another problem. What if *we* are the observed, trying to observe the observers? This would probably introduce complications. Suppose extraterrestrials observing us had a protocol that said that we were not be be allowed, as a species, to unambiguously know that we were being observed. They might feel that such knowledge would interfere with the sorts of human behavior they wish to study. Trying to observe such observers using the scientific method could be fruitless, or at least produce ambiguous results.

This is what i've often said. That is a basic principle of science, after all; don't interfere with what you're studying, whether it's chemical reactions or studying animal behaviour. Any kind of intrerference, like letting them know you're there, can affect their behaviour, after all.
(So maybe the ETs haven't been all that good at hiding themselves from us? Or, since people always insist that there's never been any hard evidence that they have been, maybe they are. Who knows.)

[bison]

Lord Vetinari, on 26 January 2013 - 06:54 PM, said:

This is what i've often said. That is a basic principle of science, after all; don't interfere with what you're studying, whether it's chemical reactions or studying animal behaviour. Any kind of intrerference, like letting them know you're there, can affect their behaviour, after all.
(So maybe the ETs haven't been all that good at hiding themselves from us? Or, since people always insist that there's never been any hard evidence that they have been, maybe they are. Who knows.)

And maybe they've done as much observing of basic human behavior as they feel they need to, and have now begun to observe how isolated individuals and small groups react to their presence. There are parallels to this in our own primate research, of course. Were everyone to finally agree that extraterrestrials are present at Earth, it would probably mean that we had  been 'graduated' from biological specimens to anthropological subjects.

Edited by bison, 26 January 2013 - 07:11 PM.

[zoser]

duplicate

Edited by zoser, 26 January 2013 - 08:39 PM.

[1963]

Paxus, on 26 January 2013 - 06:54 PM, said:

Hi zoser

No offense but I think what you wrote is flawed. Read that sentence again:


1st of all, there is nothing fundamentally flawed about the scientific method FOR WHAT IT IS. It is for doing science.
Perhaps you're comparing apples and oranges.
Discussing UFO vs ET craft and HOW you're discussing them, whether you're talking about belief, or proof, evidence vs proof, etc etc
It seems to me you are suffering from a simple misunderstanding with skeptics.
The second part of your sentence is also flawed because if said 'scientific method' proves something, then, no, it can't simply be denied....

Try to remember if skeptics do not agree with you, it's not because they don't believe in ET, it's because, after MUCH research, they believe that there hasn't been sufficient 'PROOF' to accept the ETH as an explination for UFO. (TO BE ABSOLUTELY SURE - remember MANY MANY MANY have been proven to be MISTAKEN!)
Also, Please note the difference between 'proof' and 'evidence'. Most skeptics agree there is PLENTY of evidence of the ETH but believe this evidence is mostly anecdotal or circumstantial. However, skeptics believe there is no proof. This is why they are skeptical of the ETH.
And, before making grand sweeping statements about skeptics ignorance, please remember most skeptics want to believe. This is why they are members here. The reason they are skeptics is that there is no proof. < A lot of skeptics find this, in itself disturbing... (with THOUSANDS or hundreds of thousands of sightings etc etc etc - You would expect there to be SOME proof if the ETH was true!!!)

Hi paxus, thanks for the valiant defence of sceptisism my friend, but I think that it was not necessary because I believe that Zoser was really referring to the 'debunkers' and in  no way was he trying to admonish the true sceptical faction, which I may add is an essential trait that we must all have in our quest to try and get to the bottom of  any case,[ and please bear in mind that there are many degrees of scepticism,!]....For instance,I myself am very sceptical of the vast majority of cases! ...but the 'Father Gill case' is a rare example of an encounter in which I personally can see no alternative to the ETH explanation. I've thought long and hard about the possibilities for years, [ and yes...got a headache for my troubles. lol]..but could not see any reasonable prosaic explanation!..eg, the source is of impeccable quality with the utmost rectitude available!....Too many other decent witnesses for this to be something as simple as 'mirages' etc, and also independent witness statements from unrelated parties from different locations to corroborate the story! ....It is the proposers of 'authoritative explanations' of 'Mistaken Planets', 'Myopic Witnesses', 'Cargo Cult Effect' etc given by the kind of debunker that nonchalantly continue to insult our intelligence..that somewhat irks people like me and Zoser, and prompts posts with an air of indignation aimed squarely toward them ...and not the genuine sceptic!  
Military Black ops is another supported proposal to explain this phenomenal occurrence. ...Again, with the aid of my internet explorer I have considered this ...but have to say that in my opinion..the advanced secret technology required for the viability of this option in 1959?, it is a none-starter!
I'll even go so far as to say that I severely doubt that it would be possible today!

I'll freely admit that [as with all cases],I have considered all of the prosaic possibilities that I can think of for  what might have been witnessed in Boianai and other parts of the region , but  I am stumped for an Earthly explanation?....And so I am left with the old Conan Doyle maxim of... "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth!"
And though when I first heard about this fascinating 'possible extraterrestrial encounter' , I thought it 'improbable'...now , some years later...I believe that it 'must be the truth'!


And so Paxus...what are your thoughts on the validity of this ETH offering...?


Cheers buddy.

[psyche101]

Lord Vetinari, on 25 January 2013 - 09:09 AM, said:

Good point. Pilot (twisting throttle) what does this do - waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy.............
*beats Yuri Gagarin into orbit by two years, but sadly, as he was a member of the Secret Special Forces, he was never given the credit
* or ever seen again

Well there we go, Vladimir Ilyushin! The real story!

Like I say, it depends how far one wants to go, but if calling this an ET craft, as many are prone to do as a knee jerk reaction to anything new that we might encounter, is rather premature as what we are looking at is not something that is engineered for space travel.

[psyche101]

Chrlzs, on 25 January 2013 - 09:35 AM, said:

Whilst browsing idly over all this - I was stopped in my tracks by:
[/size]
????  So let me get this straight - nowadays, with:
- ever increasing numbers (and quality) of systems observing the skies
- high quality affordable video and still photography equipment (not to mention telescopes (oops I just did) all at prices undreamt of 50 years ago
- an uncensored communications network (Internet) to link everything up and provide easy access to every previous 'case' and allow intense scrutiny from experts and amateurs alike
- the thriving amateur astronomy enthusiasts across the globe giving unprecedented monitoring...

Yet you think that the 'golden age' is over?  What an extraordinary thing to say..

And yet... I sense this same air of resignation in others here too - without naming names, it seems a few of the 'old school' of ET=Alienz believers have pretty much lost interest in any new sightings, while poring endlessly over & repeating old cases that have long failed to provide the proverbial smoking gun...  So, has closer & better scrutiny driven the ET's away or into hiding...?

There is another possible explanation for this, and I think it's pretty dang obvious what it might be..



PS - psyche, you didn't read your pm's again..!  I called by the Tavern tonight, but couldn't find you..  However, it most certainly wasn't a wasted visit - now I understand what you mean by it being the place to be.. Niiiice...!!      

Oops, sorry mate, I will have to take a rain check, forgive the pun considering the cyclone raging outside on this marvellous public holiday, I worked all night on Thursday, and was not very coherent by knock off on Friday.

But you can see why I can be found there My apologies once again.

[SwampgasBalloonBoy]

I know what I said on post #65. I would like to go back in time and rejoin the discussion if possible.

I know some skeptics of ET will completely shut out the possibility of it. I, being a skeptic of time travel, Know that I don't know everything to be able to shut it out completely. I did go back and read on the near speed of light travel. From my limited understanding, here's what I got. Please correct me if I am wrong.

If someone travel near the speed of light, they don't actually go back in time. Their time still move forward(aging) but at a slower rate than people who stayed on earth. If you travel away from earth near the speed of light and then return after many years, you don't actually end up in the past. You and the people on earth still move forward but at a different rate. This person can't go back and kill Hitler, see how the pyramid was build, or running from the dinosaurs. Is my assumptions correct?

[psyche101]

bison, on 25 January 2013 - 07:27 PM, said:

Besides the other well-taken objections that have been raised to time travel, and so, time travelers from the future being mistaken for extraterrestrial visitors, there is the following to consider: Time travel to Earth's past is also space travel. The Earth moves about the galaxy at a speed calculated to be ~ 550,000 miles per hour. If one wanted to visit Earth 100 years ago, they would have to travel about 480 billion miles in space. Since one would exit the time stream in the present, and reenter it 100 years ago, they would have traveled 480 billion miles in essentially zero time, far exceeding the speed of light. Those who object to the presence of extraterrestrials at Earth, because the light speed limit presents an insurmountable barrier to stellar travel should be consistent. It should, to this way of thinking, also prevent time travel to the past.

That is what I have been trying to get across all along. Now you are recognising the space and time are indeed interconnected, and no doubt this is why NASA insist a wormhole or the like is required for time travel.

This is what I have been saying from page one. We are talking space-time, not space and time. They are intimately connected, so if you propose folding space is more than plausible then according to NASA. Time travel should be in the same theory. If you wish to say that Aliens might be here because they managed to fold space, then you have to accept that time travel might also be a possibility. The incidents such as the 1896 airship and the propellor powered flying saucer investigated by Vallee show that such anomalies show up from time to time, and aliens simply do not explain those. Only the performance characteristics stand out here, and that is based on descriptions  by people who admittedly have no idea what they are looking at. As such, it is entirely conceivable that costing was lost in translation that coud be all important to solving this mystery.
I think the believers seem to think that because the performance characteristics as described cannot be resolved immediately with the provided description, that this is instantly ET and nobody can challenge that. That is quiet an assumption to hang one's hat on IMHO. Nobody can still say any aspect that is specifically ET, the closest people come, and seem to feel is some type of answer, is that "We cannot place it so it must be ET."
NASA Said that tome travel is not directional, so if you have som calculations that trump their, please feel free to present them. I do not believe this is an undebunkable case in regards to the ETH. That link has been assumed, not established. The craft is not engendered for space travel, for many reasons, and more so than those presented to reject time travel as an alternative possibility. A small craft with viewing decks is not an Interstellar spaceship.

[psyche101]

SwampgasBalloonBoy, on 28 January 2013 - 01:33 AM, said:

I know what I said on post #65. I would like to go back in time and rejoin the discussion if possible.

I know some skeptics of ET will completely shut out the possibility of it. I, being a skeptic of time travel, Know that I don't know everything to be able to shut it out completely. I did go back and read on the near speed of light travel. From my limited understanding, here's what I got. Please correct me if I am wrong.

If someone travel near the speed of light, they don't actually go back in time. Their time still move forward(aging) but at a slower rate than people who stayed on earth. If you travel away from earth near the speed of light and then return after many years, you don't actually end up in the past. You and the people on earth still move forward but at a different rate. This person can't go back and kill Hitler, see how the pyramid was build, or running from the dinosaurs. Is my assumptions correct?

Yes that is time dilation, nature spreading out time. NASA concludes with a wormholes that time is not directional, and theoretically can be traversed in any direction.

Length contraction also comes into the picture at those speeds. - LINK

And more than the people, that craft is not engineered for space. That shuts out ET. If a species is to have come from another planet, it needs to cross space  Nobody is crossing space in what was described by Father Gill, just as the farmers saucer that Valles wrote about was not going into space powered by propellors.