Bill Clinton, not surprised if aliens visit

[Space Commander Travis]

He's not saying there is some yet undiscovered sense, he is saying we lack the sensory equipment to percieve them under normal circumstances. This is also a thoery I like to entertain. There are species of shellfish that are capable of perceiving something like 5000 times the amount of color information than the human eye can perceive.

yes, exactly, just like sound or indeed smell. If there are smells that Dogs can detect but we can't, perhaps there are things that may be quite common but we can only see them, they only cross over into the spectrum that we can see, once in a while, perhaps inadvertently.

[scowl]

He's not saying there is some yet undiscovered sense, he is saying we lack the sensory equipment to percieve them under normal circumstances.

Now you have to define the extraordinary circumstances that allow us to perceive them and explain exactly how these circumstances cause things to be detectable by our senses. If you don't have these answers then this is just idle speculation.

This is also a thoery I like to entertain. There are species of shellfish that are capable of perceiving something like 5000 times the amount of color information than the human eye can perceive.

Which species? The shellfish I learned about can only detect light and dark. That's why they need so many eyes to detect motion.

[bendigger0]

yes, exactly, just like sound or indeed smell. If there are smells that Dogs can detect but we can't, perhaps there are things that may be quite common but we can only see them, they only cross over into the spectrum that we can see, once in a while, perhaps inadvertently.

Though mere speculation is STRONGLY discouraged here on the NO MYSTERIES forum... i would extend the phenomenon of spectrum to include Space/Time itself. Meaning that Space/Time (our local reality) is but one small portion of a larger spectrum. The full spectrum, which many forms of consciousness would recognize as their Reality, is inaccessible to us as physical creatures.

[Space Commander Travis]

Now you have to define the extraordinary circumstances that allow us to perceive them and explain exactly how these circumstances cause things to be detectable by our senses. If you don't have these answers then this is just idle speculation.

Which species? The shellfish I learned about can only detect light and dark. That's why they need so many eyes to detect motion.

Yes, of course it's idle speculation, no one's trying to present a scientific thesis. That's the trouble with people, in certain parts of this forum certainly, "idle speculation" is frowned upon, and anything that doesn't come with proper scientific peer review and a full set of footnotes and references is always Challenged. The whole point with the subject of UFOs and the question of extraterrestrial life (the two need not necessarily be the same thing) is that no one does know, no one can present proof that would suit the rigorous standards enforced here, it is all speculation, and what we "know" to be possible really is based on far too small a sample (one planet) to really stand up to that rigorous scientific scrutiny. So no one can say that something isn't possible, (apart from things like exceeding the speed of light, perhaps) or it isn't possible to life to develop in conditions that we don't think it can, or that technologies couldn't be developed to cross the unimaginable distances of Space, or quote Fermi's theorem or Fermat's Paradox or the Drake Equation as if that proves something, because they don't, they're just as much pure speculation as anything else.

[Sweetpumper]

Which species? The shellfish I learned about can only detect light and dark. That's why they need so many eyes to detect motion.

It doesn't matter. His dog example was enough to get his point across.

[scowl]

Yes, of course it's idle speculation, no one's trying to present a scientific thesis. That's the trouble with people, in certain parts of this forum certainly, "idle speculation" is frowned upon, and anything that doesn't come with proper scientific peer review and a full set of footnotes and references is always Challenged.

That's a total exaggeration. You proposed a theory that had absolutely no scientific foundation behind it. Your flawed shellfish and dog hearing explanation made no sense. Why would anyone want to discuss it other than it would be totally cool if it were true? The theories that promote discussion have at least some foundation in known science. Pulling random theories entirely out of your imagination only promotes fanciful thinking, i.e. "Wouldn't it be cool if...?". That can be entertaining but it never leads to solving unexplained mysteries.

The whole point with the subject of UFOs and the question of extraterrestrial life (the two need not necessarily be the same thing) is that no one does know, no one can present proof that would suit the rigorous standards enforced here, it is all speculation, and what we "know" to be possible really is based on far too small a sample (one planet) to really stand up to that rigorous scientific scrutiny.

It is not all speculation. If you've read any of the discussions on here you know that we regularly talk about UFOs and extraterrestrial life because there is evidence that they could exist in the real universe, not just in someone's imagination.

[+OverSword]

Which species? The shellfish I learned about can only detect light and dark. That's why they need so many eyes to detect motion.

There was an article about it here in the natural world section, they are very colorful and have a mechanism in thier claws which allows them to strike with the equivalent of a shotgun blast. Some type of lobster or something.

[S2F]

There was an article about it here in the natural world section, they are very colorful and have a mechanism in thier claws which allows them to strike with the equivalent of a shotgun blast. Some type of lobster or something.

Are you thinking of the pistol shrimp?

The snapping shrimp grows to only 1–2 inches (3–5 cm) long. It is distinctive for its remarkably disproportionate large claw, larger than half the shrimp's body. The claw can be on either arm of the body, and unlike most shrimp claws does not have typical pincers at the end. Rather, it has a pistol-like feature made of two parts. A joint allows the "hammer" part to move backward into a right-angled position. When released, it snaps into the other part of the claw, emitting an enormously powerful wave of bubbles capable of stunning larger fish and breaking small glass jars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpheidae

As far as it's eyesight I only saw one reference in the wikipedia article that seemed to indicate poor eyesight.

Some pistol shrimp species share burrows with goby fishes in a symbiotic relationship. The burrow is built and tended by the pistol shrimp, and the goby provides protection by watching out for danger. When both are out of the burrow, the shrimp maintains contact with the goby using its antennae. The goby, having the better vision, alerts the shrimp of danger using a characteristic tail movement, and then both retreat into the safety of the shared burrow.^[8] So far this association has been observed in species that inhabit coral reef habitats.

*bolding mine.

Although it does only say some species exhibit that behavior so there may be other varieties of that species that have better sight.

Also it could be an entirely different species that you were referring to, I'm not sure.

[+OverSword]

Or I could be mixing attributes of the pistol shrimp up with another type.

[Merc14]

Interesting conversation but aren't we all discounting the instruments we have developed to explore the frequencies and wavelengths beyond what nature gave us the ability to sense? Isn't that what intelligent species do?

Edited April 16, 2014 by Merc14

[Space Commander Travis]

That's a total exaggeration. You proposed a theory that had absolutely no scientific foundation behind it. Your flawed shellfish and dog hearing explanation made no sense. Why would anyone want to discuss it other than it would be totally cool if it were true? The theories that promote discussion have at least some foundation in known science. Pulling random theories entirely out of your imagination only promotes fanciful thinking, i.e. "Wouldn't it be cool if...?". That can be entertaining but it never leads to solving unexplained mysteries.

It is not all speculation. If you've read any of the discussions on here you know that we regularly talk about UFOs and extraterrestrial life because there is evidence that they could exist in the real universe, not just in someone's imagination.

I proposed a theory? What scientific journal did I present it to? Crikey, over-seriousness or what.

[quillius]

In some cases balloons.

In some cases Venus.

In some cases meteors.

In some cases nothing.

It's difficult to identify things inside a cockpit of a plane. There are many documented cases of misidentification. Generally the military doesn't like to publicize mistakes their pilots make.

what heading from above list would you say Minot event came under??

[quillius]

I don't buy that. I believe that in some few cases there actually is something unidentified and unkown (unknowable) flying around.

I dont buy it either. As Sweetpumper noted, I was being sarcastic, apologies for any confusion....its a habbit I picked up from Sweet himself....(sarcastic could well be his middle name)

[Frank Merton]

I dont buy it either. As Sweetpumper noted, I was being sarcastic, apologies for any confusion....its a habbit I picked up from Sweet himself....(sarcastic could well be his middle name)

Which implies what?

[quillius]

Which implies what?

apologies Frank, could you please elaborate on the question?, I dont follow.

[Babe Ruth]

Yes, of course it's idle speculation, no one's trying to present a scientific thesis. That's the trouble with people, in certain parts of this forum certainly, "idle speculation" is frowned upon, and anything that doesn't come with proper scientific peer review and a full set of footnotes and references is always Challenged. The whole point with the subject of UFOs and the question of extraterrestrial life (the two need not necessarily be the same thing) is that no one does know, no one can present proof that would suit the rigorous standards enforced here, it is all speculation, and what we "know" to be possible really is based on far too small a sample (one planet) to really stand up to that rigorous scientific scrutiny. So no one can say that something isn't possible, (apart from things like exceeding the speed of light, perhaps) or it isn't possible to life to develop in conditions that we don't think it can, or that technologies couldn't be developed to cross the unimaginable distances of Space, or quote Fermi's theorem or Fermat's Paradox or the Drake Equation as if that proves something, because they don't, they're just as much pure speculation as anything else.

As to the matter of the existence of aliens, certainly some people DO know, but they simply do not want the public to know.

[bendigger0]

It is not all speculation. If you've read any of the discussions on here you know that we regularly talk about UFOs and extraterrestrial life because there is evidence that they could exist in the real universe, not just in someone's imagination.

What evidence do you have that "UFOs and extraterrestrial life" could exist in the "real" universe?

[Sweetpumper]

Yes, please show us proof of aliens and alien craft in a thread on the interwebz, please.

[bendigger0]

Yes, please show us proof of aliens and alien craft in a thread on the interwebz, please.

Scowl is only claiming that there "is evidence that (UFOs and extraterrestrial life) could exist in the real universe". I would like to see his evidence... preferably in an accredited, peer-reviewed Scientific Journal.

[Frank Merton]

apologies Frank, could you please elaborate on the question?, I dont follow.

The implication I felt I got from the exchange was that military brass hide genuinely unexplained sightings to protect the reputation of their pilots, but the whole thing was so convoluted I wasn't sure.

[Frank Merton]

I remember when I was in Jr. High School (I'm now seventy) a teacher who spent all her time enthusing about flying saucers and the various sightings, at the time quite convincingly to a young innocent mind. Her belief was religious. Nothing seems to have changed in all that time.

[quillius]

The implication I felt I got from the exchange was that military brass hide genuinely unexplained sightings to protect the reputation of their pilots, but the whole thing was so convoluted I wasn't sure.

ok fair enough, I can see why you perceived the exchange to be as suggested above.

It was however , me initially responding to the claim that UFOs 'are all hoaxes or misidentifications', I dont buy it. I think there is indeed a phenomenon that falls outside of either of these two 'headings'. I would even go as far as saying there could be more than one 'unknown' phenomenon at play.

If Military brass did hide genuine unexplained sightings (which I believe they have historically) I dont think their reason is to protect the reputations of pilots.

[+OverSword]

ok fair enough, I can see why you perceived the exchange to be as suggested above.

It was however , me initially responding to the claim that UFOs 'are all hoaxes or misidentifications', I dont buy it. I think there is indeed a phenomenon that falls outside of either of these two 'headings'. I would even go as far as saying there could be more than one 'unknown' phenomenon at play.

If Military brass did hide genuine unexplained sightings (which I believe they have historically) I dont think their reason is to protect the reputations of pilots.

I agree with that last part. I believe it's because they don't want the public to think there is a potential threat that we are not up to dealing with.

[S2F]

What evidence do you have that "UFOs and extraterrestrial life" could exist in the "real" universe?

That UFO's and ET could exist isn't a statement of fact but a reasonable assumption based on what we have learned of life in general and the vastness of the universe. If the odds of advanced intelligent life are 1 in 100 billion then there could be several 'civilizations' spread out through the universe. That ET is visiting Earth is not a reasonable assumption however because we don't have solid evidence for that yet and what we know so far tells us that such journeys would be incredibly costly, dangerous and slow, even at the speed of light. Could aliens have figured out a way to travel cheaply and easily around the universe? Maybe, but we don't know yet if that's even possible.

[quillius]

I agree with that last part. I believe it's because they don't want the public to think there is a potential threat that we are not up to dealing with.

I would tend to agree, at least this was the case years ago.....what I have yet to find out is whether they just jumped to the wrong conclusion.