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 -

such nonsense


makaya325

Recommended Posts

It is not surprising that you are a minority.

Actually I have had the privilege to hear the thoughts of many of my colleagues on the matter. While no scientists doubt there are UFOs, meaning objects that are unidentified, The majority of them do not think they are of extraterrestrial origins.

Sorry if that bursts your bubble. If you cannot accept this I am not sure what else to say. The simple truth of it is, the minority of scientist say UFOs are of extraterrestrial origin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 192
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • skyeagle409

    63

  • camlax

    35

  • eqgumby

    12

  • lost_shaman

    11

;-) Just checking.

And I agree with you completely. To assume that we are alone in the universe is to be inexcusably close minded. There are countless, countless numbers of stars in the universe and well over 200 extra solar planets already discovered. As our technology improves and the number of surveyed stars increases, it is very probable that we'll not only find Earth like planets, but extraterrestrial life as well. Life thrives in the most inhospitable places on our planet. Scientists are also convinced that there is a good chance life exists on the moons of Jupiter. Probability suggests that we are certainly not alone.

Not to mention the authentic NASA videos from shuttle missions, or other sightings caught on tape, or the fact that more and more governments are devoting time and resources to what they deem a very real occurrence.

No one is arguing that we are alone in the universe. The majority of scientists doubt we are alone. What the majority does not agree with is that UFOs are extraterrestrial. Again unexplained does not give precedence for the assumption that anything on earth is from an extraterrestrial origin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And these scientists have done extensive reseach on the phenomenon, correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I have had the privilege to hear the thoughts of many of my colleagues on the matter. While no scientists doubt there are UFOs, meaning objects that are unidentified, The majority of them do not think they are of extraterrestrial origins.

Sorry if that bursts your bubble. If you cannot accept this I am not sure what else to say. The simple truth of it is, the minority of scientist say UFOs are of extraterrestrial origin.

I highly doubt that any of your "colleagues" have studied the Phenomena. That makes their opinions basically worthless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And these scientists have done extensive reseach on the phenomenon, correct?

There is no evidence to do extensive research upon. Give me an alien body or spacecraft and we would do extensive research. Baring that there is only this; "I saw something that cannot be explained, therefore it is of extraterrestrial origin." This is a seriously flawed logic. It is ok in everyday life, but in science and in proving something you can not make this kind of assumption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I have had the privilege to hear the thoughts of many of my colleagues on the matter.

Please ask them what they think was responsible for the Roswell incident. If they say anything about a balloon being responsible, then I rest my case that your colleagues didn't do their homework. I have had the privilege of being in the company of other military members who have confided to me their UFO accounts at RAF Bentwaters,and that, in addition to my own UFO sighting in 1968 in Vietnam.

While no scientists doubt there are UFOs, meaning objects that are unidentified, The majority of them do not think they are of extraterrestrial origins.

They can believe that, but unless they can explain the "UFOs in question" as those of mankind, then they must take a look at the ETH.

Sorry if that bursts your bubble.

Apparently, no bubble burst here! I can still remember when scientist with the same mentality as those who now claim that is nothing to the UFO reality, once claimed just two-hundred years ago, that "the best scientific minds of the era thought the idea of rocks falling from the sky was a bunch of hokum." The rocks the scientist denied existed, are known to us today as meteors. What about that "swamp gas" claim? Now, we know that UFOs have nothing to do with swamp gas.

If you cannot accept this I am not sure what else to say. The simple truth of it is, the minority of scientist say UFOs are of extraterrestrial origin.

And, it were those scientist and engineers who were the folks that were observing and tracking--in their own words--flying saucers with their tracking instruments, and claimed that the flying saucers they were tracking were extraterrestrial. J. Allen Hynek was once a hardened UFO skeptic until He opened the "door of reality" to where He was no longer the skeptic He once was. So what it all means is this, those scientist who have experienced UFO reality firsthand, are those who are no longer skeptical. Calling upon your colleagues isn't going to help you if they haven't experienced UFOs in the manner that many of us have.

Apparently, there are those scientist who are afraid to open that "door of reality" because they just can't fathomed the thought that they are not the brightest beings in the universe. Perhaps, they remember from past history.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<^>

Those Who Have Said, "It Will Never Work."

* Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.

- Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), ca. 1895, British mathematician and physicist

* That is the biggest fool thing we have ever done. The bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives.

- Admiral William Leahy. [Advice to President Truman, when asked his opinion of the atomic bomb project.]

* That the automobile has practically reached the limit of its development is suggested by the fact that during the past year no improvements of a radical nature have been introduced.

- Scientific American, Jan. 2, 1909.

* This foolish idea of shooting at the moon is an example of the absurd length to which vicious specialization will carry scientists working in thought-tight compartments. Let us critically examine the proposal. For a projectile entirely to escape the gravitation of earth, it needs a velocity of 7 miles a second. The thermal energy of a gramme at this speed is 15,180 calories... The energy of our most violent explosive--nitroglycerine--is less than 1,500 calories per gramme. Consequently, even had the explosive nothing to carry, it has only one-tenth of the energy necessary to escape the earth... Hence the proposition appears to be basically impossible.

- W. A. Bickerton, Professor of Physics and Chemistry at Canterbury College (Christchurch, New Zealand), 1926.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I highly doubt that any of your "colleagues" have studied the Phenomena. That makes their opinions basically worthless.

Again, see my sig below.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I highly doubt that any of your "colleagues" have studied the Phenomena. That makes their opinions basically worthless.

There is nothing to study, Saying there exists radar data that shows something unexplained is just that. You look at the radar data and say, "We can not conclude what this radar was tracking." Because you do not have proof of what it actually was tracking, you can only conclude that what you saw or what you tracked is an unidentified object. That in itself does not allow you to make the statement "because we cannot conclude what it is, it must be of extraterrestrial origin."

This is terrible science.

For example, Y2K.

The majority of scientist that checked it out said "At this time we cannot conclude what the effects will be, it simply is not understood."

The bad scientist said things like this "We dont understand how exactly it will effect the world, but we conclude it will be disastrous, more dangerous than any event in history."

We know how the outcome of that went. Because you dont understand something does not give leeway to make assumptions or draw conclusions. Since being on these boards I have been called closed minded, Saying there is no conclusive evidence is not closed minded.

Closed minded is saying "We dont understand therefore it must be extraterrestrial" or it is saying "We dont understand therefore it cannot be extraterrestrial". In both of those remarks you profess ignorance as to the workings of something then presume to draw a conclusion from this ignorance. Seriously flawed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, see my sig below.

The definition of science in your sig is incomplete.

"At it's most basic level, science is supposed to represent the investigation of the unexplained, not the explanation of the uninvestigated."

Science is the systematic study of something, unexplained or otherwise. In this systematic study, observable testable results are used to support or deny a hypothesis. Due to lack of results you cannot confirm your hypothesis because you hope its true or you believe its true. If you think that is the case you dont understand science and my advice would be go back to school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no evidence to do extensive research upon. Give me an alien body or spacecraft and we would do extensive research. Baring that there is only this; "I saw something that cannot be explained, therefore it is of extraterrestrial origin." This is a seriously flawed logic. It is ok in everyday life, but in science and in proving something you can not make this kind of assumption.

There are thousands of UFO case files to examine, along with tons of data. President Kubichek of Brazil went public after analysis confirmed this UFO as authentic. The Brazilian Navy vouched for the UFO as well.

linked-image

linked-image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The definition of science in your sig is incomplete.

"At it's most basic level, science is supposed to represent the investigation of the unexplained, not the explanation of the uninvestigated."

Science is the systematic study of something, unexplained or otherwise. In this systematic study, observable testable results are used to support or deny a hypothesis. Due to lack of results you cannot confirm your hypothesis because you hope its true or you believe its true. If you think that is the case you dont understand science and my advice would be go back to school.

Maybe you should take a look at the book it came from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing to study, Saying there exists radar data that shows something unexplained is just that. You look at the radar data and say, "We can not conclude what this radar was tracking." Because you do not have proof of what it actually was tracking, you can only conclude that what you saw or what you tracked is an unidentified object. That in itself does not allow you to make the statement "because we cannot conclude what it is, it must be of extraterrestrial origin."

Yes there is something to study. The Phenomena is being studied as we speak. The fact that you're not aware of that just tells me you haven't done your basic homework.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one is arguing that we are alone in the universe. The majority of scientists doubt we are alone. What the majority does not agree with is that UFOs are extraterrestrial. Again unexplained does not give precedence for the assumption that anything on earth is from an extraterrestrial origin.

That is where data from radar/visual UFO case files comes on the scene.

The data can differentiate between natural phenomena and conventional aircraft and the data can differentiate between conventional aircraft and real UFOs of the extraterrestial kind as well. That is why the military currently take UFOs seriously even though it has painted a different picture for the public. After all, UFOs have been known to dismantle our nuclear missile assets in the past, and that fact is no longer a military secret!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is where data from radar/visual UFO case files comes on the scene.

The data can differentiate between natural phenomena and conventional aircraft and the data can differentiate between conventional aircraft and real UFOs of the extraterrestial kind as well. That is why the military currently take UFOs seriously even though it has painted a different picture for the public. After all, UFOs have been known to dismantle our nuclear missile assets in the past, and that fact is no longer a military secret!

Wow thats scary, where did you hear this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please ask them what they think was responsible for the Roswell incident. If they say anything about a balloon being responsible, then I rest my case that your colleagues didn't do their homework. I have had the privilege of being in the company of other military members who have confided to me their UFO accounts at RAF Bentwaters,and that, in addition to my own UFO sighting in 1968 in Vietnam.

What they think is irrelevent, just as is the testimony of you and other military officials. What matters is the proof, without it you can not say one way or the other.

They can believe that, but unless they can explain the "UFOs in question" as those of mankind, then they must take a look at the ETH.

Apparently, no bubble burst here! I can still remember when scientist with the same mentality as those who now claim that is nothing to the UFO reality, once claimed just two-hundred years ago, that "the best scientific minds of the era thought the idea of rocks falling from the sky was a bunch of hokum." The rocks the scientist denied existed, are known to us today as meteors. What about that "swamp gas" claim? Now, we know that UFOs have nothing to do with swamp gas.

The burden of explanation is done through proof. You can not simply say "we dont understand so we must assume it to be extraterrestrial." If you think that is what science go back to school. I am tired of attempting to explain that most basic concept to you. Saying we dont understand what's falling from the sky therefore it cannot be rocks is as bad as science as saying we dont understand what we saw on the radar therefore it is extraterrestrial. If you cannot grasp this I am not sure what else to tell you, subjective hope is not science.

And, it were those scientist and engineers who were the folks that were observing and tracking--in their own words--flying saucers with their tracking instruments, and claimed that the flying saucers they were tracking were extraterrestrial. J. Allen Hynek was once a hardened UFO skeptic until He opened the "door of reality" to where He was no longer the skeptic He once was. So what it all means is this, those scientist who have experienced UFO reality firsthand, are those who are no longer skeptical. Calling upon your colleagues isn't going to help you if they haven't experienced UFOs in the manner that many of us have.

Apparently, there are those scientist who are afraid to open that "door of reality" because they just can't fathomed the thought that they are not the brightest beings in the universe. Perhaps, they remember from past history.

Again it has nothing to do with fear or belief, its a matter of proof. I am happy they tracked objects they dont understand and believe them to be extraterrestrial. That is still a belief not proof. Actually I was waiting for a good time pull this out. I have seen a UFO, 2 to be exact. Because I can not explain what it was does mean I will say it was of extraterrestrial origin, only that I observed something that at the time I could not explain, lack of explanation does not mean you can state conclusions.

Opening the "door of reality", what the hell are you talking about? You are ranting sky. All those examples you have provided only support what I have been saying over and over. Lack of understanding does not mean you can draw a conclusion. There logic was as flawed as yours is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is where data from radar/visual UFO case files comes on the scene.

The data can differentiate between natural phenomena and conventional aircraft and the data can differentiate between conventional aircraft and real UFOs of the extraterrestial kind as well. That is why the military currently take UFOs seriously even though it has painted a different picture for the public. After all, UFOs have been known to dismantle our nuclear missile assets in the past, and that fact is no longer a military secret!

Radar data, witness speculation etc is not proof and hardly evidence.

By that reasoning I can argue that the earth is flat. Radar shows a flat earth, with topographical variations. People see a flat earth not a curved sphere, therefore the earth must be flat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes there is something to study. The Phenomena is being studied as we speak. The fact that you're not aware of that just tells me you haven't done your basic homework.

DITTO!!

You have made that fact very clear! Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes there is something to study. The Phenomena is being studied as we speak. The fact that you're not aware of that just tells me you haven't done your basic homework.

Darn it, I missed out on another homework assignment!

Well since there is something to study, please provide to me the following.

1. Where are the unidentified flying objects, now identified as extraterrestrial craft being studied, precise location?

2. Where are the living or dead extraterrestrials being studied?

3. Where is the precise geographical location of skinwalker ranch?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Radar data, witness speculation etc is not proof and hardly evidence.

By that reasoning I can argue that the earth is flat. Radar shows a flat earth, with topographical variations. People see a flat earth not a curved sphere, therefore the earth must be flat.

Radar tracks aircraft or ships that have a code on that vechile. But if someone reports a ufo to a radar station and if the radar cant find it, then its either a stealth aircraft like the spirt Bomber or a alien ufo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darn it, I missed out on another homework assignment!

Well since there is something to study, please provide to me the following.

1. Where are the unidentified flying objects, now identified as extraterrestrial craft being studied, precise location?

2. Where are the living or dead extraterrestrials being studied?

3. Where is the precise geographical location of skinwalker ranch?

No one has determined that the Phenomena is Extraterestrial, that is a hypothesis. If you were aware of the current Scientific effort you'd know that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Radar data, witness speculation etc is not proof and hardly evidence.

By that reasoning I can argue that the earth is flat. Radar shows a flat earth, with topographical variations. People see a flat earth not a curved sphere, therefore the earth must be flat.

Radar tracks aircraft or ships that have a code on that vechile. But if someone reports a ufo to a radar station and if the radar cant find it, then its either a stealth aircraft like the spirt Bomber or a alien ufo.

Transponders are not locked on. Not everything has a transponder, not just secret military aircraft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Radar data, witness speculation etc is not proof and hardly evidence.

Actually, it is, and I am surprised that as a scientist, you failed to know that! Ask any NTSB or FAA investigator. Radar data is considered viable evidence and if you had done your homework, you would known that radar data is used in conjunction with 'black box' data to verfy chain-of-events as they happened.

Physical Evidence Related to UFO Reports: Radar Evidence

Sturrock Panel Report / Physical Evidence Related to UFO Reports

Summary: "Velasco presented information on radar cases drawn in part from the files of GEPAN/SEPRA (see Appendix 1). He pointed out that one catalog (the "Weinstein catalog" now under development at GEPAN/SEPRA), with 489 cases in all, contains 101 (21%) radar/visual cases (cases that involve both radar detection and visual observation), and the files of the US Air Force Blue Book project contain 363 cases of which 76 (21%) are radar/visual cases."

"In the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) radar routinely records on tape all targets, not just aircraft with transponders. Of course, radar systems record only objects that are sufficiently close and have high enough altitude. Although it is unlikely that private investigators will be able to obtain regular access to these records, such access has been granted on occasion. Such data can be very helpful in providing physical evidence for cases that have reliable witness testimony, in which case the records can be compared to witness testimony to determine whether an object seen visually was also recorded on radar, and — if so — to obtain accurate velocity estimates."

Peter A. Sturrock , PhD

About The Author

Peter A. Sturrock studied mathematics at Cambridge University (with an interruption for radar research from 1944 until 1947) and was awarded the University Rayleigh Prize in 1949, a Ph.D. in 1951, and a Prize Fellowship at St John's College in 1952. After research at the National Bureau of Standards, the University of Paris, the Cavendish Laboratory, and the Atomic Energy Research Establishment, Sturrock went to Stanford University in 1955. After research at CERN, the European Center for Nuclear Research (1957-58), he returned to Stanford and was appointed professor in 1961. He was Professor of Applied Physics from 1961 until 1998, and is now Emeritus Professor of Applied Physics and of Physics. He served as Director of the Center for Space Science and Astrophysics from 1992 until 1998, and as President of the Society for Scientific Exploration from 1981 until 2001. He has also served as Chairman of the Plasma Physics Division of the American Astronomical Society, as Chairman of the Solar Physics Division of the American Astronomical Society

His research interests have included electron physics, particle accelerators, plasma physics, solar physics, astrophysics, and scientific inference. He has received the annual prize of the Gravity Foundation (1967), the Hale Prize of the American Astronomical Society (1986), the Arctowski Medal of the National Academy of Sciences (1990), and the Space Science Award of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (1992)

Radar Data Evidence In An Actual Report

"A performance study of the radar data revealed that the target began a descent from 5,500 feet about 34 miles west of MVY. The speed during the descent was calculated to be about 160 knots indicated airspeed (KIAS), and the rate of descent was calculated to have varied between 400 and 800 feet per minute (fpm). About 2138, the target began a right turn in a southerly direction. About 30 seconds later, the target stopped its descent at 2,200 feet and began a climb that lasted another 30 seconds. During this period of time, the target stopped the turn, and the airspeed decreased to about 153 KIAS."

"About 2139, the target leveled off at 2,500 feet and flew in a southeasterly direction. About 50 seconds later, the target entered a left turn and climbed to 2,600 feet. As the target continued in the left turn, it began a descent that reached a rate of about 900 fpm. When the target reached an easterly direction, it stopped turning; its rate of descent remained about 900 fpm. At 2140:15, while still in the descent, the target entered a right turn. As the target's turn rate increased, its descent rate and airspeed also increased. The target's descent rate eventually exceeded 4,700 fpm. The target's last radar position was recorded at 2140:34 at an altitude of 1,100 feet."[/b]

By that reasoning I can argue that the earth is flat. Radar shows a flat earth, with topographical variations. People see a flat earth not a curved sphere, therefore the earth must be flat.

Try driving in the Rocky Mountains, you will find that the landscape is not so flat in that part of the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one has determined that the Phenomena is Extraterestrial, that is a hypothesis. If you were aware of the current Scientific effort you'd know that.

I am aware of that, As I have said because you believe they are extraterrestrial does not make it so. You can not accept your hypothesis without proof and currently there is no proof, why you didn't answer my 3 points.

What I have been saying this whole time, is it is wrong to assume UFOs are extraterrestrial, there is no proof for that. Its just as valid as a hypothesis to say that they are United states spacemen from the future. Either way, when you start saying things like Sky does, you simply aren't aware of what scientific proof is or your hope and belief has blinded you to the fact, that you are making a huge assumption.

By the way, your statement is beautiful, finally someone can admit its a hypothesis, a hypothesis is not fact nor proof.

Edited by camlax
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, it is, and I am surprised that as a scientist, you failed to know that! Ask any NTSB or FAA investigator. Radar data is considered viable evidence and if you had done your homework, you would known that radar data is used in conjunction with 'black box' data to verfy chain-of-events as they happened.

And do you have a black box from a space craft?

Try driving in the Rocky Mountains, you will find that the landscape is not so flat in that part of the country.

Ok, your an idiot, I have meet very few people in my life with such a limited understanding. If you do not see what the point of my original post was its not worth explaining it too you, I suppose "ignorance is bliss" is a wonder quote to end on.

Edited by camlax
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe you should take a look at the book it came from.

Maybe you should get a book and learn the real definition of science?

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.