Paxus, on 28 April 2011 - 10:40 AM, said:
No, and you should know better, I can do the same thing with Earthly explinations and often do (right here in UM) - besides my first part of the bit you're refering to was simply, 'I don't know and have never claimed to know all the answers'. Of course, when asked for possible ET explinations, I will rattle some off. This doesn't mean I'm single minded, in fact it seems to be me trying to remind others here to stop making an assumption first and building an explination around the assumption...
I was not pointing specifically at you mate, hence the "we".
But no, I do not think you can do the same to validate possible explanations. The earthly processes are documented to exist, ET is not and relies on imagination completely.
Paxus, on 28 April 2011 - 10:40 AM, said:
This is just an absolutely ineffective explination for the close-up, metallic (with features) objects which good(credible) witnesses are seeing! Read every case in the waterufo site and you'll see what I mean - your explinations don't fit.
With so many clear sightings which would fit my (and quillious') critereon (see my signature) the question shouldn't even be, 'was there something unusual there or not' but 'what IS that unusual thing?'.
Are we at the same site?
he saw a saucer-shaped silver disk fly by him under water with lights on it,
sighted a huge disc beneath the surface of the water. The object, glowing with a soft, greenish light, paced the ship
Ira Pete, the owner of the Ruby E, said "I hooked into something and pulled the stern off." He said he had no idea what the "something" was.
The crew said the object was either a submarine or a huge whale.
The helmsman of the trawler Silverö told the press that a light appeared just before the collision and then disappeared. It was visible for about ten minutes.
Then he looked ahead and saw a greenish light inside the water. However, this mysterious object disappeared so soon.
he told me that he and his fellow crewmen saw strange shapes of lights from under the sea.
one can see a dark object moving under the water. The object moves at a high speed to the left. But it is impossible to claim that this was a submarine and the matter remains unclear.
Paxus, on 28 April 2011 - 10:40 AM, said:
I'm not sure exactly what your point here is but I think we're pretty much in agreement here.
As long as you don't discount X because you don't believe in Y and some people say X always happens with Y
Paxus, on 28 April 2011 - 10:40 AM, said:
That's true but ultimately irrelevant. If you're going to investigate something, if you want to do it properly, you shouldn't rule out possibilities that haven't been disproven.
I still do not fathom how ET is a possibility.
Paxus, on 28 April 2011 - 10:40 AM, said:
I wouldn't be surprised if there were some funky military USOs.
As to the other stuff (above), I won't go there, other than just for fun, because we simply don't know and I think it's a mistake to make assumptions...
Or private Enterprise, when one looks at Branson's accomplishments, who knows what private companies are testing.
Paxus, on 28 April 2011 - 10:40 AM, said:
Doesn't matter what you call it - UFO associated with water... Sucking it up (which has been seen many times) is clearly a function ascribed to a machine, not plasma or weather or algae...
You talk about pop-culture as a reason for the ETH but seem to discount all those witnesses who's FIRST assumptions are always Earthly until several things happen that don't fit the bill! Haven't you read all the accounts where a witness says something like, "I thought it was a helicopter untill....", or "I thought I was looking at a reflection of the moon on the water until....." or a combination, as a normal intelligent person is trying to work out what they are seeing.
You make it sound like everyone who's speculated ET is some silly impressionable twit, when clearly hundreds of them aren't!
You also keep mentioning things like weather, algae, plasma etc but I'm not talking about those kind of sightings! I'm talking about the ones that fit my criterion and they couldn't possibly be those things. They are craft and then the question clearly isn't about perseption or pop culture or meteorlogical phenomenon but 'WHAT ARE THESE WEIRD MACHINES'?
I think it does matter, how is a UFO that flies over a river, or lands on a River Bank a USO? Does USO not stand for Unidentified SUBMERGED Object? I find muddling the distinction very confusing to be honest. Environment will also have a huge impact on the possibility of type of phenomena, duration, and appearance.
Yes, I do think that most people that look at a thing and say ET are indeed ready to jump at a conclusion without bothering themselves with any level of investigation. I honestly feel that 99% of ET sightings are knee jerk reactions.
Ones I have seen where a person describes a water hose going into a machine I might point at Hydrogen prototypes. We have been messing with Hydrogen batteries since the '30's. Probably longer.
Paxus, on 28 April 2011 - 10:40 AM, said:
Don't feel underestimated, it's not our lack, but their technological advancements that I would blame for our not being able to detect them. I really don't see why it's so hard for you to accept that any being that can get around the FTL problem would have technology that would far surpass ours and hence wouldn't have ANY trouble hiding from us....
Again, I say, I don't know why they are sighted to burst out at beaches, and close to shorelines. I just don't think 'odd behaviour' is a good reason to discount the ET possibility....
As to billions of possibilities - I disagree - to consider ET amongst military secrets, meteorlogical, interdimensional, time travelors etc isn't such a long shot because of the vast amount of sightings etc... Not to forget people like Gilfaer who claim actual contact. It's because of these stories that (until proven false) I have to keep an open mind.
Yes, you have me called there, I do not see how any being can get around FTL, I think that is a pipe dream. Matter remains at a constant in the Universe. E=MC2 gains support as time rolls on. I do not think imagining the impossible is fruitful. To me, one might as well look forward to basking on the surface of the sun naked. Not to be rude but do you have a good understanding of Einsteins theories?
I do not call the breaching at beaches "odd behaviour" I would label it as illogical, which I also feel defies the ideal of an intelligent species.
Inter-dimensional as described by Jacques Vallee is an ideal I do not know enough about to comment on but I do find his theories encouraging and beyond the square. Be he right or wrong, I think this is the sort of thinking that will move an understanding closer.
I know little of Gilafer, in fact had I not visited the Abductee thread out of boredom yesterday I would not know who you are talking about. Again I do not know enough about the character to comment but I am extremely dubious on abduction tales.
Peopl who do give me hope that we may have contact one day are the likes of Stephen Hawking, and their (what I find) More rational approach to a logical sequence of events that one might expect from an intelligent species, and non intelligent species. I bought his latest series
Into The Universe last night. Looking forward to viewing that.
Paxus, on 28 April 2011 - 10:40 AM, said:
No need to apologise!!!
I was probably responding to cases where what is being reported is so obviously a machine, that I didn't want to hear the perception argument again... I'd much rather hear explinations that actually fit, like your rocket (from sub) example, or s secret military project...
Some can, and as you know have been proven to be mistaken identity, but as I've said before, I'm only really interested in cases that fit my criterion.
I think then it would be best to single them out, like I said, I find the ideal of any UFO in the vicinity of water being called a USO rather confusing. I get the impression that the site makes a distinction where there is none.
Paxus, on 28 April 2011 - 10:40 AM, said:
Agreed but please remember it cuts both ways - the crackpots seem to have made you less open-minded than you could be, which is a shame and why I hate crackpots and hoaxers. Look at the amazing amount of energy some of the guys here have put into showing an earthly explination for certain incidents (example the flares arguement going on atm in the 'Best Evidence' thread).... Now imagine that ammount of energy and attention to detail etc going into objective investigation. (I'm not saying it doesn't, just saying, we should never allow crackpottery to influence HOW we investigate)
I think that the papers by the many aspects of science (physics, meteorology, astronomy etc.) that do broach the subject, and many do, do indeed offer far better attention to the phenomena than the crackpots that label themselves UFOlogists.
Actually, Sky is the one that made me less open to the ideal of ET. From years of debate, I find best evidence to be very much wanting. The classic cases are not at all what they are cracked up to be, and they fall apart under scrutiny. If this is the best we have, then I conclude we do not have anything.
Paxus, on 28 April 2011 - 10:40 AM, said:
Well, just go to
waterufo.net and pick the ones that fit my criterion - you will see they cannot be Plasma or Bioluminescence...
I don't know why you keep bringing these up because it's the ones we can't explain that interest us - not the ones we can.
Dude, hundreds of them enter the water (not just extract)! I'm pretty sure now that you haven't read as many as I have.
Do
check it out, there are some
incredible incidents!
I guess we can put that down to USO/UFO confusion. That site calls any UFO that flies over a glass of water a USO.
Are we talking of the same site? I found many at the waterufo site to be called submarines, some were even explained, not sure why there were listed, some underwater, as per above examples, and some just go near water.
Some that I did find an unusual instance I have to say were mirrored at the Hessdalen project.
Could you please point at the section where you see these more intriguing instances, and perhaps post one or two samples?
Paxus, on 28 April 2011 - 10:40 AM, said:
Thanks for taking the time to reply mate
The pleasure is shared.
Cheers.
