More Best Evidence for aliens

[Hazzard]

Gorgons, Tornadoes, and Plasmoid Phenomena.

They leave radioactive residues and new heavy elements like Matsumoto's plasmoids, and weird substances called "Angel's hair" and strange composites, and hollow crystalline spheres, and poisonous fumes that have killed hundreds of people; and they emit intense beams and jets from their axis of rotation like tiny plasmoids.

http://www.padrak.com/ine/ELEWIS4.html

Could that explain this... from the other thread?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8bptMpkkjc

[lost_shaman]

UFOs are observed unidentified flying objects. There is nothing else attached to them. Evidence is not something you can observe. That is called an observation.

I'm sorry if this has already been brought up in this thread, but Hazzard you are so wrong in your statement above. From a human perspective and certainly in Science in general ALL EVIDENCE is one form of observation or another.

Now that being said I think what you were meaning to say is that observing something that defies explanation in-and-of itself is not direct evidence that Aliens are visiting the Earth.

[Captain Zim]

I dont think it is... ET should be at the bottom of a VERY long list when trying to explain a UFO. We dont know all there is to know about our world, far from it. Some unknown atmospheric phenomena could very well be the answer. Like Badeskov posted on the other BE thread, some of these plasmas sure move and look like what people reported as "metallic looking craft/high speed/sharp turns".

What Im saying is, before we can say that some of these UFOs are out of this world, we have to make sure that they are not in it.

I would like to see a journal article on a metallic-looking plasma. The closest naturally occuring parallel is in fact Rhydberg matter, which can be made from common atmospheric atoms but is very unstable and certainly doesn't fit the bill of a "metallic looking craft/high speed/sharp turns".

As I've said before, metallic-like plasmas would be of EXTREME interest to both NASA and the DoD.

Unless and until I see proof of it, it just goes in the loose bag of explanations, no more or less favoured than anything else.

Edited July 11, 2009 by Captain Zim

[skyeagle409]

We are all very interested in the UFO enigma, thats why we are here talking about it.

Most believers have seen something weird themselves... But, even if I saw something "out of this world" I dont think Id scream Aliens! Personaly, for me, when it comes to UFOs/aliens, seeing is not believing. Watching some weird light doing "impossible" turns at greate speed isnt enough.

Me, I need to be sure... I physical evidence examined by the world wide scientific comunity...(yes, like the moon rocks) I want them to tell me that this is real.

Anyone could have at one tiime, seen an actual ET craft, but thought that it was just another aircraft. In other words, these things could have been mistaken many times around the world as typical aircraft.

Given the numbers of the many aerial encounters around the globe involving military and commerical aircraf over the years,--many of them withheld from the eyes of the public--that is not a far-fetched assessment.

[skyeagle409]

I dont think it is... ET should be at the bottom of a VERY long list when trying to explain a UFO. We dont know all there is to know about our world, far from it. Some unknown atmospheric phenomena could very well be the answer. Like Badeskov posted on the other BE thread, some of these plasmas sure move and look like what people reported as "metallic looking craft/high speed/sharp turns".

What Im saying is, before we can say that some of these UFOs are out of this world, we have to make sure that they are not in it.

One of the reasons why natural phenomena was dismissed, was because the objects were determined to be under intelligent control as they interacted between commercial and military aircraft.

And besides, the description of the objects in many cases were not indicative of plasma nor any other atmospheric phenomena since they were described in such cases as structured flying machines.

[skyeagle409]

Actually, if there were scientific proof of ET there would be no need to believe, because then you would know.

We have scientific proof the Earth is round and not flat, but that doesn't bother those who still believe that it is flat.

[lost_shaman]

I would like to see a journal article on a metallic-looking plasma. The closest naturally occuring parallel is in fact Rhydberg matter, which can be made from common atmospheric atoms but is very unstable and certainly doesn't fit the bill of a "metallic looking craft/high speed/sharp turns".

As I've said before, metallic-like plasmas would be of EXTREME interest to both NASA and the DoD.

Unless and until I see proof of it, it just goes in the loose bag of explanations, no more or less favoured than anything else.

Cpt. Zim,

One of the common characteristics of plasma is the ability to present a somewhat metallic apearance under certain circumstances.

[Evangium]

We have scientific proof the Earth is round and not flat, but that doesn't bother those who still believe that it is flat.

The peer reviwed articles for the scientific proof of verified ET visitation/contact, please...

[behaviour???]

The peer reviwed articles for the scientific proof of verified ET visitation/contact, please...

I will second the request

Thanks

B???

[Evangium]

To back track the discussion a little bit, it was mention that anthropocentric viewpoint tends to play a part in shaping our thinking regarding et's somewhat random (to us) behaviour regarding contact or lack there of.

Not to paraphrase Capt. Zim, since I think he was interpretting Donteatus, of course.

But I would like to try and expand on this, as it was brought up in the previous thread, that there does seem to be an element of 'us' or a certain human familiarity attached to many of the descriptions of aliens and their technology.

[Hazzard]

.......Now that being said I think what you were meaning to say is that observing something that defies explanation in-and-of itself is not direct evidence that Aliens are visiting the Earth.

Thats the topic of this debate.

Edited July 11, 2009 by Hazzard

[lost_shaman]

One of the reasons why natural phenomena was dismissed, was because the objects were determined to be under intelligent control as they interacted between commercial and military aircraft.

And besides, the description of the objects in many cases were not indicative of plasma nor any other atmospheric phenomena since they were described in such cases as structured flying machines.

According to the Condign report the "intelligent control" people described was due to the Fields interacting with the buoyant plasmas. And anyone that would describe something as seeming to be under "intelligent control" would tend to assume they were seeing a "machine". Those two assumptions are purely subjective to the observer and not necessarily true as explained in the Condign report.

[Hazzard]

Your thoughts on this, please.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007/05/plasma_laser_uf/

And...

http://www.caelestia.be/article02.html

[Hazzard]

........But I would like to try and expand on this, as it was brought up in the previous thread, that there does seem to be an element of 'us' or a certain human familiarity attached to many of the descriptions of aliens and their technology.

This is interesting. In the movies they often look a lot like us, two arms, two legs, a head, two eyes, etc... I think that we are just subjecting ourselves to wishful thinking when we imagine that the aliens will be the way we are. Aftrer all, have a look at some of the other imaginary beings we have created "in our image"...Angels, Vampires, Trolls, Satan, etc.

So why would intelligent extraterrestrial life look anything like us? It probably wouldnt.

But then again... theres always that mechanism known to biologists as convergent evolution that argues for at least a bit of a resemblance.

Edited July 11, 2009 by Hazzard

[.i.]

Your thoughts on this, please.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007/05/plasma_laser_uf/

That's interesting, I once spoke of an idea that I had about crisscrossing laserbeams up in the sky, that there might be a technique like that to create a UFO from the ground and thought about this technique as a possibility of some UFO sightnings but me and my idea was ridiculed. Maybe I was right after all

[Ra_Sun-God]

Oh no not again.

Unfortunately you better believe it

[lost_shaman]

Your thoughts on this, please.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007/05/plasma_laser_uf/

And...

http://www.caelestia.be/article02.html

(I assume you are talking to me?)

The first link, interesting but has no real bearing on the UAP/UFO phenomena as observations were reported well before the first LASER was invented.

The second link, Klass IMO was on the right track but science at the time didn't support his hypothesis. It's really a shame that he decided that he was wrong considering it appears he was more correct than he ever could have possibly known at that time.

[.i.]

The first link, interesting but has no real bearing on the UAP/UFO phenomena as observations were reported well before the first LASER was invented.

But the number of UFO's have increased over time right?

[Evangium]

This is interesting. In the movies they often look a lot like us, two arms, two legs, a head, two eyes, etc... I think that we are just subjecting ourselves to wishful thinking when we imagine that the aliens will be the way we are. Aftrer all, have a look at some of the other imaginary beings we have created "in our image"...Angels, Vampires, Trolls, Satan, etc.

So why would intelligent extraterrestrial life look anything like us? It probably wouldnt.

But then again... theres always that mechanism known to biologists as convergent evolution that argues for at least a bit of a resemblance.

I'm not so sure that convergent evolution could account for the accounts where the 'technology' described isn't that far ahead of our own.

Unless it's as Lost Shaman mentioned (regarding plasmas), it's a case of subjective assumptions. In which case, are these things really nuts'n'bolts spaceships or more a metaphysical 'trick of the light'?

[Ra_Sun-God]

Your thoughts on this, please.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007/05/plasma_laser_uf/

And...

http://www.caelestia.be/article02.html

Very interesting, that could explain some of the UFO sightings, but not all of them. For example this UFO that look like a light ball takes a Cow up

and this "Mothership" that spread out lots of UFO's http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8bptMpkkjc

These is not of light but more of metal cunstruction:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yL8mdQFb6dA&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fbn2ALh-2VA...feature=related

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/yt-IhbuFlpaI..._space_secrets/

Edited July 11, 2009 by Ra_Sun-God

[Evangium]

These is not of light but more of metal cunstruction:

How do we know that these are metallic if we are to go with ET (suspending all rational thought for a few of them, too) over the more prosiac explanations?

[lost_shaman]

So why would intelligent extraterrestrial life look anything like us? It probably wouldnt.

But then again... theres always that mechanism known to biologists as convergent evolution that argues for at least a bit of a resemblance.

In 'our' case, humans that is, many evolutionary traits congealed together to make it possible for us to become the intelligent species capable of civilization that we are today. By and large the vast majority of these evolutionary traits can be attributed to natural selection of multi-cellular organisms over the last half billion years or so. Without this natural process of Natural selection Humans and 'our' civilization that we are able to sustain could not exist. The same processes should also be true for any hypothetical 'Alien' civilizations/species that might also exist.

As Humans we seem perfectly adapted to have created a technological civilization on this planet, but had any number of the Traits we posses been frond upon by natural selection as apposed to being naturally selected then 'our' species probably would have died off or never arisen in the first place rather than becoming what we are today.

[lost_shaman]

But the number of UFO's have increased over time right?

That depends on what you are talking about.

Human population increases. Population density increases. Area of the Earth that is populated increases. The ability to report increases. The ability to develop databases and find reports increases.

All of those things tell us something about ourselves not really anything about an observable phenomena per se.

[.i.]

That depends on what you are talking about.

Human population increases. Population density increases. Area of the Earth that is populated increases. The ability to report increases. The ability to develop databases and find reports increases.

All of those things tell us something about ourselves not really anything about an observable phenomena per se.

But it doesn't mean that lasers can't be the case of some UFO reports TODAY if there were reports of UFO's well before the laser was invented. Not every case is because of lasers. And even when there's nothing in the sky, some people will see things and always have but there are certainly more stuff today in the sky to be confused about. So UFO's have increased by time.

Edited July 11, 2009 by brawl

[Evangium]

Slightly heading away from the topic, but related to recent discussion -

Plasma Cosmology aka Electric Universe Model

and an all too familiar style of video -

Belief and hypothesis no longer distinguishable from each other perhaps?

Not to say that the guys in this thread who are discussing plasma phenomena are guilty of that. It was just interesting to note the similarity 'tropes' used in that video to establish the hypothesis as reality to ones we've seen presented elsewhere.

Personally, I think they all see plasma as being a viable hypothesis in the same way the ETH or ETI or any other hypothesis can't be held as correct to the exclusion of all others.