Really? I was quite stunned at the impressive work from LS and Perc. That the calcs matched up close enough to match is a significant push forward with the Phoenix lights, they have now determined the speed, which was an ETH argument against the flare theory. Just awesome work from these fellows, I would like to see such from the likes of Friedman, who makes a living from peddling crap not half as impressive. Not even all his work tied together and folded over is as impressive or insightful as a simple discussing any UFO subject with any one of these fellows.
What I have witnessed here is indeed, best evidence. The Phoenix lights I feel now exclude ET as a possibility. And that be the aim of this thread - to determine best evidence. Best evidence is right under our noses on that one.
It's like saying, 'well lizardmen could live under the Earth' though...
Evolved down there? That I couldn't say, maybe a biologist could better speculate....
It's nice and fun to think about.
I'm running the whole USO thing through my list of filters at the moment.
I've been steered in this direction by UM because of the arguments against ETH (from some far off planet).
Perhaps try talking with members Mattshark and Cetacea. Marine Biologists who will tell you pretty much what I told Quillus, as they taught me a great deal about Ocean depths in past conversations about cryptids and the Sea Shepard.
Regardless of what either of us believe, strange machines are said to be seen all over the world by thousands of witnesses of all walks of life. A large portion of them involve water. Unless they are lying or delluded this leaves us with few possibilities (Man made secret, alien, dimensional or time travelor).
I don't believe that all of the people are lying or delluded or mistaken so I have to try to decide which of the other theories fit best.
Interplanetery sounded good but had it's problems like size of space, FLT problem, hardly ever seen coming into our atmosphere from space or vice versa etc etc....
So it should hardly be surprising that one would start considering the USO theory which doesn't suffer from those arguments..
How does the USO argument not suffer from the same constraints? One still has to get here to hide in the Oceans? It would simply offer a hiding place once here. Unless of course you are going with the "evolved here" ideal that 747400 touched on. I got the impression that was not your argument.
I do not think the large majority enter water bodies, I have heard reports of UFO's "sucking up" water, that is a markedly different description. I do think many are lying or deluded, one of the first argument you hear, and one we will hear about here no doubt is the Christopher Columbus tale, which is plainly not ET. Also, by deluded, I am not thinking like the cat lady on the Simpson's, but forced into an alternate mindset by way of personal preference and pop culture. Many are simply drawn to the ideal of ET, and that is good enough for them, and we have seen such here *cough viper2 cough* There may be one or two intriguing tales, but I do think the majority can be explained here on earth, and the strong minority where total sightings are tallied. As such, I can put those fewer instances down to embellishment. I do feel that you have a tendency to believe people's personal interpretations quite readily as opposed to looking at the many possibilities? Who are "all these people" that you believe saw something that cannot be readily explained? Personal interpretation skews investigation, as an example, I woud cite that some still claim the failed rocket launches, like the more recent example from Norway, are alien dimensional vortexes. How are you determining the zealots from the genuine articles here. Should they not all be regarded as simply a UFO, and then we take the step to ET, Natural Phenomena or other? Albeit that step might be our discussion, but I get the impression that you are pushing that some are likely Alien, which is an assumption and at this point no more than a preference. I do not think you can move forward with investigation based on such a loose assumption, as I do not see what else has been seriously considered. Peoples first impressions might be good enough for you (I mean that in a respectful way), but personally I need more meat in that sandwich.
I do not think that this only leaves us with the above, in addition to Man made secret, alien, dimensional or time traveller, I would like to add natural phenomena. Twisters and the like funnel water up into the sky, and for an abstract tie in, what about all the fish, frogs, and other water creatures that "rain down" from time to time, or red rain - where does this come from? Could this strange phenomena be explained by a natural process very much like this?
Hey, both theories come from the same crowd! They are nominating ET to begin with. You may pick and choose what seems more plausible to you, but is that being objective? One must consider the common denominator here. I do feel I offered much more than that, which I am sorry to say you seem to have missed. As in the very next paragraph - shallow waters, and where these things actually are sighted mostly.
What I am not seeing is why ET always the first instance, let alone at all? Where is the tie in past "we cannot do that". How do these people reporting things like this know the forefront of technology, and what is being experimented on at the moment? How do they rule out all other processes? ET is but one possibility, and to me way down the list when saddled on it's own supporting evidence
This doesn't mean they couldn't have bases in the deepest parts of our oceans.
I will also state, as I do so often, that we couldn't possibly know why they do what they do and it's a serious investigative mistake to make assumptions about their motives.
It is not logical though is it? Why would a craft that went to all the trouble to hide from us by building som e incredible undetectable base at the bottom of the Ocean, and then scoot along under the surface to breach close to shore in full view of those you just put all this effort into hiding from?
Do you not think ET itself is a very major assumption?
Come on dude... If an ADVANCED race wanted to hide in our ocean, they would.
(maybe even under the ground under the ocean... not that it matters because they have high tech)
I'm not going to keep goin back and forth about this, sorry dude
Well I do not think you have any arguent at all there. You are imagining that something might be able to hide an imaginary being! The "tech we do not understand"argument is less sensible than Greek Gods man! I know you do not like the analogy, but we were very wrong on that one, and I ask that you point out to me the major difference? All I can see is this explanation bruises egos?
How are you proposing they do hide? If using this as a solution, surely it is not out of line to ask you to justify the/a solution? You do not want me to just say "well, something we have not thought of yet!" Surely! How is that any better than Greek Gods?
The sightings seem a bit too physical, in my personal opinion, to be those....
Some do sound intruiging, but seem to have a better and quite earthly explanation. One of the best cases I can tink of is Shag Harbour, and that object was tracked from Siberia.
Mate, that is not what I said. I said that the UFO/America conspiracy BS is ridiculous, and far from and advanced race, and would violate GR's prime directive.
You are personally, on a ship in the middle of the ocean when you see lights zipping around underwater, then suddenly something YOU deem to be a metallic craft breaks through the surface hovers briefly and then flies off at a great rate of knots...
What do you think it is? What is your best guess or explination?
(This is what we are trying to answer - I simply don't buy, that everyone who has seen things like this is lying, mistaken or delluded! - And I don't want to hear anything about plasma or greek gods! )
My first thought? This
I feel such would be an amazing sight, and probably not what one would expect to see. Firing from beneath the waves could have many advantages in war. I have little doubt much research is placed in this arena.
See your PM.