Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Obama on UFOs: 'we don't know what they are'


Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

IMO you didn't make that clear.. ok fair enough, so where can science be a little more open minded regarding SETI? What avenues of investigation do you feel have been closed off to this search? just out of interest

It’s clearly been treated as a poor relation to other branches of science in terms of funding and the level of respect it receives from its peers. Now I used seti and Oumuamua example to challenge a point you made in your response to ExoPaul in which you said: 

'the reason there is no serious scientific study of this enigma is because science can not/ will not work with data that could be made up/ false= In My Opinion;) '

I didn’t dismiss your opinion but used these examples to illustrate my point that I think that there has been a prejudice towards the wider field of investigation not just ufology. However I do also disagree with your opinion that 'science can not/ will not work with data that could be made up/ false'. I mean if that was really the case then how do you explain the field of theoretical physics?

 

Edited by M 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, M 7 said:

However I do also disagree with your opinion that 'science can not/ will not work with data that could be made up/ false'. I mean if that was really the case then how do you explain the field of theoretical physics?

the field of theoretical physics is nothing like someone telling a story about an experience

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dejarma said:

the field of theoretical physics is nothing like someone telling a story about an experience

No it’s not but IMO you didn’t make that clear… you just said that 'science can not/will not work with data that could be made up/false' and it’s that statement that I've challenged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, the13bats said:

Anything of topic to add?

I cant help but think of an old proverb: " Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding." I was only giving praise where praise was due. I leave the "topic" to the experts.
 

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, M 7 said:

No it’s not but IMO you didn’t make that clear… you just said that 'science can not/will not work with data that could be made up/false' and it’s that statement that I've challenged.

what is the subject matter of this thread? the above statement was aimed at this thread subject. not at SETI or theoretical physics = you changed it

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dejarma said:

what is the subject matter of this thread? the above statement was aimed at this thread subject. not at SETI or theoretical physics = you changed it.

 

I didn’t change the subject I used examples to qualify an opinion. You made a point that serious scientists wouldn’t get involved in the study of UFO's because there’s a chance that the data is made up/false. I’ve said I think it's more than that as the wider field of study has always been looked upon unfavourably hence me using SETI as an example  and I highlighted theoretical physics because it’s a very serious branch of science that’s actually exposed to the risk that the data is actually false/made up.

Now for the record I don’t consider ufology to be science, my take on it is that at best it’s investigative journalism. I just don’t think the reason you cited is the main cause of the subject not being taken seriously.

Edited by M 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, M 7 said:

I just don’t think the reason you cited is the main cause of the subject not being taken seriously.

many people take this subject seriously... But science doesn't.

If science did then how do you feel they should go about it? What data should they look at & how?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dejarma said:

many people take this subject seriously... But science doesn't.

If science did then how do you feel they should go about it? What data should they look at & how?

I’m not a scientist, I’ve also said that at best ufology is investigative journalism. You're apparently the scientist here Dejarma so you tell me.  I know you don’t believe but hypothetically speaking if you was a scientist that did want to take it seriously what data would you look at and how?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, M 7 said:

You're apparently the scientist here Dejarma so you tell me.

Oh right

 

12 minutes ago, M 7 said:

 I know you don’t believe but hypothetically speaking if you was a scientist that did want to take it seriously what data would you look at and how?

You've answered a question with a question.. But no worries:

there is no data!! That's the whole point of what I've been bloody saying!

So can you now do me the honour of answering the question for the sake of discussion..Here it is again:

Quote

If science did then how do you feel they should go about it? What data should they look at & how?

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

Oh right

 

You've answered a question with a question.. But no worries:

there is no data!! That's the whole point of what I've been bloody saying!

So can you now do me the honour of answering the question for the sake of discussion..Here it is again:

 

Can you make up your mind Dejarma is there 'no data' or ‘made up/false data'? I’ve already said that I’m not a scientist nor do I currently consider ufology to be a branch of science so I think it’s a little but unreasonable of you to ask me to defend it as such hence me answering a question with a question. If you think it's reasonable to ask somebody who by their own admission is not a scientist  to give a detailed scientific answer on something they’re not actually advocating then you should be able to do the same yourself. So in the interest of showing that you’re capable of understanding the detailed scientific responses that you persistently demand of others it shouldn’t be too difficult for you to describe in detail the scientific processes and steps that you would follow to either prove or disprove the phenomenon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, M 7 said:

Can you make up your mind Dejarma is there 'no data' or ‘made up/false data'?

Make my mind up you say=there is no data apart from a story that could be made up for all we know.. Sorry I thought it was bleeding obvious what I meant

22 minutes ago, M 7 said:

I’ve already said that I’m not a scientist nor do I currently consider ufology to be a branch of science so I think it’s a little but unreasonable of you to ask me to defend it as such hence me answering a question with a question. If you think it's reasonable to ask somebody who by their own admission is not a scientist  to give a detailed scientific answer on something they’re not actually advocating then you should be able to do the same yourself. So in the interest of showing that you’re capable of understanding the detailed scientific responses that you persistently demand of others it shouldn’t be too difficult for you to describe in detail the scientific processes and steps that you would follow to either prove or disprove the phenomenon.

you don't have to be a scientist to answer the question, M7... You're no scientist yet you said this:

Quote

Nevertheless I do believe that we'd make far more progress in all aspects of discovery if science was a little more open-minded and didn't do it's utmost to close off certain avenues of investigation.

What certain avenues of investigation have been closed off with regards to this thread subject? You should be able to answer this seeing it's your statement.

 if you feel there is other forms of data that science could look into then please give an example... You don't have to be a scientist to put forward an example either

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dejarma said:

Make my mind up you say=there is no data apart from a story that could be made up for all we know.. Sorry I thought it was bleeding obvious what I meant

Not really no. You demand such precision from others in how they respond that it’s reasonable to expect that you'd compose your own posts to those same standards

1 hour ago, Dejarma said:

you don't have to be a scientist to answer the question, M7... You're no scientist yet you said this:

  Quote

Nevertheless I do believe that we'd make far more progress in all aspects of discovery if science was a little more open-minded and didn't do it's utmost to close off certain avenues of investigation.

 

You don’t have to be a chef to have an opinion on cuisine.

1 hour ago, Dejarma said:

What certain avenues of investigation have been closed off with regards to this thread subject? You should be able to answer this seeing it's your statement.

 

 It’s extremely limited thinking to assume that that there are no synergistic links between the thread subject and other fields of study and it’s unreasonable of you to expect other posters to adhere to your binary thought processes. When I spoke of science I’ve made it clear that I was speaking about it broadly and to clarify further I’m talking about how science has responded historically to major paradigm shifts, Copernicus would be a good example. It’s my impression today that mainstream science frowns upon studies into the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligence. I’m talking the serious science here like SETI not the tabloid news paper fare before you go on another bigfoot rant.

I feel cruel say this DeJarma as there’s almost certainly underlying reasons for this but you are an extremely difficult person to converse with. I’ve made a simple comment suggesting that you'd made an oversimplification when you suggested that serious scientists give short shrift to the subject of UFO's because the data might be made up and like 15 posts later you’re still dragging this out asking ridiculous pedantic questions about how I would investigate UFO’s and insisting that my responses not go outside of your specified parameters. Like I say I feel bad saying it because the binary thinking, the obsessive compulsion to spend so much time posting on a subject you’ve previously told me you'd come not to believe in many years ago and the narcissistic manner in which you just have to keep going at anybody that says something that even slightly deviates from your opinion all suggest issues. So that's me out. I've no further interest in continuing this conversation - you were right and I was wrong, have a good night :)

Edited by M 7
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The deep state was not going t tell Obama anything.  He was as untrustworthy then as he is now.

  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, M 7 said:

Like I say I feel bad saying it because the binary thinking, the obsessive compulsion to spend so much time posting on a subject you’ve previously told me you'd come not to believe in many years ago and the narcissistic manner in which you just have to keep going at anybody that says something that even slightly deviates from your opinion all suggest issues.


where have I ever claimed I'm right in this place!?!? So it's narcissistic of me to put forward a personal opinion on the subject at hand & ask questions? I put forward a question- a very simple question imo that you can't answer, can ya!? 


I'll ask it again & it's open to anyone, not just you.. I'll rephrase it:

the only data we have regarding ufos & aliens on this planet is nothing more than stories= disagree?

If you or anyone disagrees then please give me an example & we can discuss it in an adult logical fashion

you, M7 haven't even attempted to answer it=why? I'll give you my opinion on why=== because there isn't any, is there!?!?

This is why you cannot/ will not attempt an answer- I'm on the verge of resting my case here, but I'll see what happens..

Edited by Dejarma
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because Obama said ''we dont know what they are'' does not mean they are made by extra-terrestrials/alien. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/19/2021 at 5:54 PM, Dejarma said:

that fantastic word 'Experts' hoves into view yet again when talking about ufos & aliens on this planet

Experts giving their analysis on a story told- because that's the only data we have!

the reason there is no serious scientific study of this enigma is because science can not/ will not work with data that could be made up/ false= In My Opinion;) 

Isn’t the pentagon ufo video data enough... 

I don’t understand how a guy like .... Dr J Allen Hynek can collect more data than mainstream scientists on ufos.
 

I believe mainstream scientist are studying ufos but in secret because they don’t want to be a laughing stock among their pairs.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/20/2021 at 11:11 PM, Nobu said:

I’m not an Obama fan (not a hater) but he has always struck me as a more than average honest politician. Maybe I’ve been tricked .... I dunno. That’s why I thought his remarks are pretty interesting. 
 

this tells me (in my mind) that the commander in chief no longer “needs to know” about American technology.... or something strange is happening.

 

The commander in chief (on this planet) doesn't know the truth about a lot of issues - he/she is often just a "kransekagefigur" that's a Danish word, and it's used to describe a person who, without any real influence, formally heads something and must represent it externally.

When we have a commander in chief who represents the best in our nature, then things might change for the better.

Working together is the only chance we have for survival - otherwise, we will just fight each other and kill each other.

In order to become a spacefaring civilization, then we need to work together for the common good.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, ufoguy said:

Isn’t the pentagon ufo video data enough... 

No. That's silly.

17 hours ago, ufoguy said:

I don’t understand how a guy like .... Dr J Allen Hynek can collect more data than mainstream scientists on ufos.
 

He was a mainstream scientist. That's how he got the job with blue book. He concluded that UFOs are unlikely to be alien.

17 hours ago, ufoguy said:

I believe mainstream scientist are studying ufos but in secret because they don’t want to be a laughing stock among their pairs.  

That's an incredibly inaccurate and stupid statement. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

No. That's silly.

He was a mainstream scientist. That's how he got the job with blue book. He concluded that UFOs are unlikely to be alien.

That's an incredibly inaccurate and stupid statement. 

I must say that lately I have been paying more attention the Government released videos and information than I ever have in the past. Now, that the Government is releasing these videos for the first time Air Force and Navy pilots are coming forward and telling their stories since they are no longer afraid of losing their jobs or being viewed as nut cases. I personally take the testimony's of these Military and Civilian personnel far more seriously than I have ever taken mainstream reports of UFOs. The people that once were basically silent, are now saying the phenomenon in those videos has been going for 20 or 30 years on regular basis and they occur so often that it doesn't even bother them any longer. The thing that bothers me about all of this is what is the US Government trying to present by no longer condemning and purposely releasing videos and other information including Pilot interviews. 

Like you psyche101, I actually dont believe that these craft are piloted by Aliens from across the Galaxy or Universe. But, what if they were not from across the Universe what if they were actually from our Solar system or possible even originally from Earth. Science has pretty much excepted a theory that life on Earth was destroyed a number of times before it took hold and formed the world we have today. So, please bear with me in theory only, what if not all life was destroyed, and lets say that possibly another Species similar to us started evolution a few Hundred Thousand Years before we did, and survived the mass extinctions. How much would that extra time effect their level of knowledge and Technology compared to our current levels. The question is could they stay hidden on Earth or a near by planet or moon and not allow us to see of fine them.

If their Technology, Physics, and Science, were a Thousand Years more advanced than ours could they have been watching our evolution and our Scientific and Technological advances from our very beginning and never interfered in our progression. Could what has been occurring be do to our technologies reaching a point where they can no longer always stay hidden or maybe they chose to no longer remain hidden. A great place to stay hidden would be the Asteroid Belt, there are so many debris in there that an entire city or cities could be hidden there, and that's only one location which is very very vast. Now, again this is only a theory I have been following for a number of years that I rarely ever speak about. If this theory were possible it could certainly explain a great deal, if it never pans out it was still interesting to think about. But one thing is for certain very little research has ever been done concerning these theories within our Solar System.

Psyche101, here is an interesting paper that doesnt have too many pages that discusses how a search like this would take place and were we should focus our attention on. If you get bored please look through it and tell me what you think my friend. Also if you think I am completely Bat Crap nuts, please also tell me that, I value your opinion either way and I would take no offense to your comments, my friend!!  Check this Link 1985IAUS..112..505P (harvard.edu)

 

Strange bedfellows: UFOs are uniting Trump's fiercest critics, loyalists (msn.com)

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/05/10/how-the-pentagon-started-taking-ufos-seriously

https://thehill.com/changing-america/resilience/smart-cities/554148-leaked-us-navy-video-shows-ufo-flying-in-california

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is not a president in US history that has ever been briefed or aware of technologies under development. Only once the projects have been completed will items of military application be briefed to the National Security Council and the president directly.

 

Edited by Trelane
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, psyche101 said:

He was a mainstream scientist. That's how he got the job with blue book. He concluded that UFOs are unlikely to be alien.

He thought that some UFOs are likely interdimensional. In any case, he accepted that these are physical craft.

 

Quote

That's an incredibly inaccurate and stupid statement. 

It should go without saying that UFOs were ridiculed for decades and that any scientists who went public with a serious interest in the topic were subject to mockery. Luckily, that is finally changing.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SeekTruth said:

It should go without saying that UFOs were ridiculed for decades and that any scientists who went public with a serious interest in the topic were subject to mockery. Luckily, that is finally changing.

yeah finally :clap:= like the disclosure project:blush:

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SeekTruth said:

He thought that some UFOs are likely interdimensional. In any case, he accepted that these are physical craft.

No he didn't. He discussed that as one possibility with the person who offered that idea, Jaques Vallee. 13 years before he passed, Hynek stated the following at a lecture.

 "A few good sightings a year, over the world, would bolster the extraterrestrial hypothesis—but many thousands every year? From remote regions of space? And to what purpose? To scare us by stopping cars, and disturbing animals, and puzzling us with their seemingly pointless antics?"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Allen_Hynek

1 hour ago, SeekTruth said:

It should go without saying that UFOs were ridiculed for decades and that any scientists who went public with a serious interest in the topic were subject to mockery. Luckily, that is finally changing.

Spaceship ideas were ridiculed. Largely, they still are for good reason. UFOs and space are two different things, not connected. RADAR tracks of UFOs exist, but not one ever has been shown as coming from, or heading out into space. 

The most ridiculous mockery came from public UFO nuts, and that's actually what disillusioned Hynek a great deal. In 1966 Michigan residents were reporting UFOs and Hynek was asked to investigate. He came up with the scientific that some, not all but some UFO reports could be attributed to swamp gas.

The UFO nuts turned on him. To this day swamp gas is a statement used by UFO nuts to mock any attempt to rationally address a sighting. Ufology turned their best hope against them. 

Real UFO investigators do exist. They always have. They just don't adopt the childish monikers that the professional con men like Friedman take on. They are the atmospheric scientists, the meteorologists, astrophysicists etc etc.

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/21/2021 at 3:59 AM, AlphaGeek said:

I cant help but think of an old proverb: " Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding." I was only giving praise where praise was due. I leave the "topic" to the experts.
 

So what you are saying is since you didnt remain silent & all you have to add is pointless tripe you proved just how ironically your proverb fits you :tu:

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/22/2021 at 11:21 PM, psyche101 said:

No. That's silly.

No it’s not

 

On 5/22/2021 at 11:21 PM, psyche101 said:

He was a mainstream scientist. That's how he got the job with blue book. He concluded that UFOs are unlikely to be alien.

Hynek believe the eye witnesses that were seeing flying saucers and it’s occupants.... this is why he created the center for ufo studies.... something other mainstream scientists are scared to do. After project bluebook got shut down he continued his investigation in ufo reports and even categorized them.. as “ Close encounters of the 1st , 2nd and the 3rd kind in his book “ he was the first person to created that term. 
 

Hynek even inspired Steven Spielberg to create that movie Close Encounters of the 3rd kind

On 5/22/2021 at 11:21 PM, psyche101 said:

That's an incredibly inaccurate and stupid statement. 

It’s very accurate and very likely 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.