More Best Evidence for aliens

[Captain Zim]

And that is why I posted those links... there could be a million and one different explanations for UFOs, before ET visitation.

Most UFOs can be explained.

Some UFOs are still a mystery.

None has ever been proven to be ET crafts.

Yet, all these just explain lights in the sky. If it were just a case of such, I might be inclined to agree with you.

However, it is not. People have seen solid, structured objects. Again, and again. Different places, different objects, different people. And so have I. As psyche101 has pointed out, there are planets out there billions of years older than ours. How, in our 93 billion-light years of causally connected universe, can there be things which can't be considered gods? Maybe a big black box DID make our monkey forebears pick up thigh bones and get them to start hammering each other?

[behaviour???]

Yet, all these just explain lights in the sky. If it were just a case of such, I might be inclined to agree with you.

However, it is not. People have seen solid, structured objects. Again, and again. Different places, different objects, different people. And so have I. As psyche101 has pointed out, there are planets out there billions of years older than ours. How, in our 93 billion-light years of causally connected universe, can there be things which can't be considered gods? Maybe a big black box DID make our monkey forebears pick up thigh bones and get them to start hammering each other?

But none have been proved with support of solid evidence that it is ET crafts right?

Thanks

B???

[Captain Zim]

But none have been proved with support of solid evidence that it is ET crafts right?

Thanks

B???

Well, if a silvery metallic craft with clearly advanced design and propulsion lands in front of you and a clearly alien creature gets out and chats to you, then what will you say? Your mind is clear and you are not hallucinating. Heck, maybe the ET even gives you a memento of some sort (say lunar basalt). Maybe you even get a detailed explanation of why the ETs are playing coy.

So, to you this is solid evidence that you are looking at an ET craft. Oh yes, maybe it's govt. psyops, but out in the middle of, say, Kenya, is that really the case? So, to you, it did happen. But you have no means of convincing the rest of the world, even if you had a digital camera handy. Oh, some will believe you, but not Joe Average. Certainly not Joe Hazzard or Joe psyche101.

[behaviour???]

Well, if a silvery metallic craft with clearly advanced design and propulsion lands in front of you and a clearly alien creature gets out and chats to you, then what will you say? Your mind is clear and you are not hallucinating. Heck, maybe the ET even gives you a memento of some sort (say lunar basalt). Maybe you even get a detailed explanation of why the ETs are playing coy.

So, to you this is solid evidence that you are looking at an ET craft. Oh yes, maybe it's govt. psyops, but out in the middle of, say, Kenya, is that really the case? So, to you, it did happen. But you have no means of convincing the rest of the world, even if you had a digital camera handy. Oh, some will believe you, but not Joe Average. Certainly not Joe Hazzard or Joe psyche101.

If the world is not convinced then thats brings our discussion to the same point...Lack of evidence

When a theory is put forward we question them in many ways in order to prove that the theory is credible but in case of ET there is no use putting questions because non prove to be solid evidence for thier existence.....

Many thoeires put forward by the people are verified on scientific logic and is answered with science but here too we cannot prove the ETs existence

Untill we are having solid evidences we and the hole thread is reasoning with beliefs

Thanks

B???

Edited July 12, 2009 by behaviour???

[Hazzard]

Well, if a silvery metallic craft with clearly advanced design and propulsion lands in front of you and a clearly alien creature gets out and chats to you, then what will you say? Your mind is clear and you are not hallucinating. Heck, maybe the ET even gives you a memento of some sort (say lunar basalt). Maybe you even get a detailed explanation of why the ETs are playing coy.

So, to you this is solid evidence that you are looking at an ET craft. Oh yes, maybe it's govt. psyops, but out in the middle of, say, Kenya, is that really the case? So, to you, it did happen. But you have no means of convincing the rest of the world, even if you had a digital camera handy. Oh, some will believe you, but not Joe Average. Certainly not Joe Hazzard or Joe psyche101.

Lots of IFs and MAYBEs there, Zim.

But yes, I hear what you are saying. All the evidence they/I need. In some cases and for some people seeing IS believing. Im not sure what I would think though, given your senario.

At the time of "contact" I would probably think I lost my mind/was the object of a hoax/elaborate prank... and after, lets say a day or two, I would still have serious doubts about the whole thing.

Edited July 12, 2009 by Hazzard

[skyeagle409]

Yet, all these just explain lights in the sky. If it were just a case of such, I might be inclined to agree with you.

However, it is not. People have seen solid, structured objects. Again, and again. Different places, different objects, different people. And so have I. As psyche101 has pointed out, there are planets out there billions of years older than ours. How, in our 93 billion-light years of causally connected universe, can there be things which can't be considered gods? Maybe a big black box DID make our monkey forebears pick up thigh bones and get them to start hammering each other?

Thank you!

There are those who seem to think that all UFOs were nothing more than just lights in the sky when in fact, that is not true, and many of the objects were described as structured objects that clearly were not aircraft.

[skyeagle409]

Comooon!!... We have been over this a million times. Whatever the radar locked on to... Radar alone cannot determine Intelligence!!

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...howtopic=139516

Of course it can! As I noted in that debate, radar can differentiate between bird and bat species and track specific maneuvers of a particular object. To further add, the Belgian object reacted intelligently to each of the aircraft's lock-ons and broke the contacts. You can't get ball lightning to react in such a manner for over an hour, and that is a major clue right there!

With such technology, a UAV can be designed to attack only Pelicans and leave the Sparrows alone. When someone tells me that data from radar cannot determine intelligence, all they are telling me is that they are not aware of the way things are in the real world of technology.

Edited July 12, 2009 by skyeagle409

[Evangium]

Well, if a silvery metallic craft with clearly advanced design and propulsion lands in front of you and a clearly alien creature gets out and chats to you, then what will you say? Your mind is clear and you are not hallucinating. Heck, maybe the ET even gives you a memento of some sort (say lunar basalt). Maybe you even get a detailed explanation of why the ETs are playing coy.

So, to you this is solid evidence that you are looking at an ET craft. Oh yes, maybe it's govt. psyops, but out in the middle of, say, Kenya, is that really the case? So, to you, it did happen. But you have no means of convincing the rest of the world, even if you had a digital camera handy. Oh, some will believe you, but not Joe Average. Certainly not Joe Hazzard or Joe psyche101.

But is that actually proof that they are ET and not EDI? The main problem with this line of argument is that it can only sustain itself if those are arguing against the ETH (as the only valid conclusion) are cast as arguing against the reality of UFO/UAP and associated events. Why should we assume that, based on our concept of structured craft and machinery, that ET thinks, builds and explores along the the same lines as we do?

I can't help but think that had the interest in UFOs come much later on in the space race (say after Viking and Voyager), that we would be arguing many of the 'great cases' from a totally different angle to what we have in the past.

[Evangium]

Of course it can! As I noted in that debate, radar can differentiate between bird and bat species and track specific maneuvers of a particular object. To further add, the Belgian object reacted intelligently to each of the aircraft's lock-ons and broke the contacts. You can't get ball lightning to react in such a manner for over an hour, and that is a major clue right there!

With such technology, a UAV can be designed to attack only Pelicans and leave the Sparrows alone. When someone tells me that data from radar cannot determine intelligence, all they are telling me is that they are not aware of the way things are in the real world of technology.

Oh please do try and redeem yourself with the 'correct' answer on how exactly radar not only accomplishes this, but how it also obviously redundent humans aware of the 'fact' that it has isolated 'intelligence' in it's returns (since there is obviously none monitoring it's screens)... Perhaps one of retired radar technician friends could help you out on this one. Or are you going to try and make out that your stance all along was that humans interpretting the data determine if the object is under intelligent control based on that data correalated with other sources of information?

And, as per Saru's post, please provide sources for this.

Edited July 12, 2009 by Evangium

[Evangium]

But, where does that all fit in in regards to this aerial encounter?

_________________________________________________________________

He's definitely not describing anything to do with plasma nor any atmopheric phenomena.

Go and watch the youtube video, paying careful attention to the statements used to support 'the facts' that mainstream science has it wrong and is misleading us, the sheeple, with their dogmatic thinking/campaign to maintain our ignorance of their ignorance, then go watch a few 'saucers have landed' reality videos and note the similarity of their supporting statements... Or, to ease your confusion, since I can see you sitting there wondering what the simlarity between a huge electrical discharge and an alien spacecraft is, not the descriptions of the phenomena, but rather the background 'noise' they use to make their cases more persuasive. Things like- 'witnessed by pilots' 'scientists admit in a report..' and that kind of stuff.

[morrison1976]

Its all good saying radar proves nothing, as it could be some unknown phenomona, or dodgy radar, but what about the cases where pilots have seen ufos and saying they were clearly solid object, while at the same time being tracked by radar. Now, in my opinion that has to be taken more seriously.

[morrison1976]

Go and watch the youtube video, paying careful attention to the statements used to support 'the facts' that mainstream science has it wrong and is misleading us, the sheeple, with their dogmatic thinking/campaign to maintain our ignorance of their ignorance, then go watch a few 'saucers have landed' reality videos and note the similarity of their supporting statements... Or, to ease your confusion, since I can see you sitting there wondering what the simlarity between a huge electrical discharge and an alien spacecraft is, not the descriptions of the phenomena, but rather the background 'noise' they use to make their cases more persuasive. Things like- 'witnessed by pilots' 'scientists admit in a report..' and that kind of stuff.

People can be to skeptical, and that will cloud their judgment a great deal, same as believers. I mean, just look at some of the stupid explanations that have come out for some cases. Then you get the tether ufos. Some believers refuse to admit that what they are seeing is natuarl, and not ET craft. At the moment, the only way to get to the bottom of the ufo phenomona is to study it, and that means we need people to look at cases with an open mind, and not going into it looking for a stupid explanation, just so they dont have to say its unknown. And we need believers to amit that they could be wrong about certain cases after listening to a skeptics explanation. There is too much ignorance and arragonce in this field, which is a shame because something is going on here, something we dont understand.

[behaviour???]

People can be to skeptical, and that will cloud their judgment a great deal, same as believers. I mean, just look at some of the stupid explanations that have come out for some cases. Then you get the tether ufos. Some believers refuse to admit that what they are seeing is natuarl, and not ET craft. At the moment, the only way to get to the bottom of the ufo phenomona is to study it, and that means we need people to look at cases with an open mind, and not going into it looking for a stupid explanation, just so they dont have to say its unknown. And we need believers to amit that they could be wrong about certain cases after listening to a skeptics explanation. There is too much ignorance and arragonce in this field, which is a shame because something is going on here, something we dont understand.

When ideas of both the section are presented only we can dwelve into the details of a complex and mysterious phenomena like the UFO phenomenon...So some people try to get explainations about the incident and other argue agianst it and thats how we get a clear theory about thing but here we reason with belief...there is no other alternative as long as we are able to prove with solid evidence that RET exists and that we are not alone in this world

Thanks

B???

[morrison1976]

When ideas of both the section are presented only we can dwelve into the details of a complex and mysterious phenomena like the UFO phenomenon...So some people try to get explainations about the incident and other argue agianst it and thats how we get a clear theory about thing but here we reason with belief...there is no other alternative as long as we are able to prove with solid evidence that RET exists and that we are not alone in this world

Thanks

B???

Belief plays a major part on both sides.

[Hazzard]

People can be to skeptical, and that will cloud their judgment a great deal, same as believers. I mean, just look at some of the stupid explanations that have come out for some cases. Then you get the tether ufos. Some believers refuse to admit that what they are seeing is natuarl, and not ET craft. At the moment, the only way to get to the bottom of the ufo phenomona is to study it, and that means we need people to look at cases with an open mind, and not going into it looking for a stupid explanation, just so they dont have to say its unknown. And we need believers to amit that they could be wrong about certain cases after listening to a skeptics explanation. There is too much ignorance and arragonce in this field, which is a shame because something is going on here, something we dont understand.

I agree.

Do I think that the UFO phenomenon is worth serious study, by serious scientists, absolutely. After all, the explanation to some of the UFOs could be ET visitation...?

Edited July 12, 2009 by Hazzard

[behaviour???]

Belief plays a major part on both sides.

:tu:

Thanks

B???

[lost_shaman]

Intelligently controlled maneuvers in regards to UFO encounters, can be tagged to such incidents as to what happened over Belgium and in regards to the 1976 Iranian and the JAL aerial encounters, amongst thousands of similar incidents. In some cases, the encounters lasted well over an hour.

As I said the Condign reports explains that buoyant plasmas can maneuver in the same ways so the maneuvers themselves do not point to intelligent control.

[psyche101]

Of course it can! As I noted in that debate, radar can differentiate between bird and bat species and track specific maneuvers of a particular object. To further add, the Belgian object reacted intelligently to each of the aircraft's lock-ons and broke the contacts. You can't get ball lightning to react in such a manner for over an hour, and that is a major clue right there!

With such technology, a UAV can be designed to attack only Pelicans and leave the Sparrows alone. When someone tells me that data from radar cannot determine intelligence, all they are telling me is that they are not aware of the way things are in the real world of technology.

We know nothing definitive of Ball lightning.

[skyeagle409]

We know nothing definitive of Ball lightning.

What is the typical duration of ball lightning? Do they come in saucer shapes the size of ships?

[psyche101]

What is the typical duration of ball lightning? Do they come in saucer shapes the size of ships?

There is no known specific duration, it would be dependent on atmospheric conditions.

Why yes indeedy, 2 park rangers in Australia reported a ball lightning occurrence sporting an estimated 100 meter diameter in 1987.

[skyeagle409]

Go and watch the youtube video, paying careful attention to the statements used to support 'the facts' that mainstream science has it wrong and is misleading us, the sheeple, with their dogmatic thinking/campaign to maintain our ignorance of their ignorance, then go watch a few 'saucers have landed' reality videos and note the similarity of their supporting statements... Or, to ease your confusion, since I can see you sitting there wondering what the simlarity between a huge electrical discharge and an alien spacecraft is, not the descriptions of the phenomena, but rather the background 'noise' they use to make their cases more persuasive. Things like- 'witnessed by pilots' 'scientists admit in a report..' and that kind of stuff.

When those high altitude lights were report by pilots, why was it that mainstream science was so slow to catch on? I see the same involving mainstream science in regards to UFOs as well.

[Sweetpumper]

Check these out. Obviously, these aren't any sort of 'evidence' but I actually bothered to whip out the camera this time and I don't wanna start a new thread. The camera was on 10x zoom and this thing was way up there. It moved slowly east to west and there was no wind today (at our level anyway). First shot , it's in an oval shape, the second, it looks cigar shaped, all taken in succession. Third shot shows full pic (not cropped) at 10x zoom viewed right over our roof (not in pic) from loungers in the backyard, so you can get an idea of how far this is. No clue as to what it could be. Sky color changes because of me playing with the contrast from pic to pic. It was so far and small, my wife could never find it in the sky.

[Captain Zim]

Good photographic drills, that man. Make a mention him in the dispatch, Lieutenant.

It looks exactly what I tried (and failed) to get a picture of in the air over the harbour sometime last year.

[Captain Zim]

There is no known specific duration, it would be dependent on atmospheric conditions.

Why yes indeedy, 2 park rangers in Australia reported a ball lightning occurrence sporting an estimated 100 meter diameter in 1987.

What exactly did they report? Ball lightning seems to be mainly football or beachball-sized. Ball lightning 100 metres in diameter would require 1 million times the energy of a 1 metre diameter ball lightning, assuming the same energy density which makes it sulf-sustaining, although it could be a couple of orders of magnitude less or even more. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if they got superficial burns if they were close enough to it.

Actually, I think I can go one up on that one; the entire city where I lived was witness to a massive bolide / ball lightning phenomenon several years ago. If it had contacted the ground, with that amount of energy it would vapurised several neighbourhoods... I didn't see it myself but what people described indicates something 100-500 metres in diameter.

Edited July 13, 2009 by Captain Zim

[Captain Zim]

But we still have proof that planets were forming as long ago as 12.7 billion years, up to a mere 10,000,000 years ago. Does that not prove the formation has been staggered? Regardless of the theory being scrutinized, it seems very likely that planets did not all come into existence, or become capable of supporting life at a singular point?

Well, we don't have enough data points to say yea or nay. We have one instance of a really old planet, but what's it made from? Hydrogen and helium? 12.7 billion years ago, the universe was really short on anything other than hydrogen and helium. Most Pop II stars are metal-poor (actually metal-poor IS the definition of Pop II stars), so the likelihood of iron, silicon and all those nice things that help make a planet are pretty low. But - this is according to the Big Bang theory.

The author I read said that life developing so quickly was highly unlikely, an interesting proposition to explain Fermi's Paradox - not we are alone, we are just the first. Most other planets would have some cellular sludge and so on.