UAPs (unidentified aerial phenomenon) and the ET hypothesis


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : UAPs (unidentified aerial phenomenon) and the ET hypothesis

Author Message
Timothy G. Dowd
Send message
Joined: 28 Jan 10
Posts: 2
Credit: 373,782
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1026245 - Posted: 18 Aug 2010, 22:52:39 UTC

Hi,

I tend to oscillate between believing a small percentage of UFOs or UAPs are of extraterrestrial origin and not believing any are at all.

I've frequented BAUT forum and these people are die-hard skeptics - after lurking and participating in their forum for a while I felt like there has been no ET visitation to Earth.

Then, I began reading UFOs and the National Security State by Richard Dolan and I also read the newly released book UFOs:Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials go on the Record. Both of these books are incredibly well-researched providing plenty of cases where there were expert eye-witnesses from the military and intelligence communities, documented radar returns, landing traces where there had been some sort of electromagnetic interference, and assorted other physical "evidence." These books are not at all contaminated by pseudoscience or baloney, they appear to utilize the scientific method through and through. The stance taken by both books is agnostic but with the ET hypothesis being the most credible choice.

One fact mentioned in both these books is that under the Freedom of Information Act, it has been essentially proven and concluded that the US government's Project Blue Book was a sham meant to explain away all UFO/UAP cases no matter what. Dr. J. Allen Hynek, the head of Blue Book, even admitted so, and became disgusted over how the US air force handled those cases. And while the US government acted as if there was nothing to those strange cases in front of the public, past government documents reveal the US government was deeply concerned and highly interested in UFO cases throughout much of the 20th century.

I've reached the conclusion that is illustrated in both books and that is the following:

1) There exists in our skies, worldwide, a solid, physical phenomenon that appears to be under intelligent control and is capable of speeds, maneuverability, and luminosity beyond current known technology.

2) UFO incursions, often in restricted airspace, can cause aviation safety hazards and raise national security concerns, even though the objects have not demonstrated overtly hostile acts.

3) The U.S. government routinely ignores UFOs and, when pressed, issues false explanations. Its indifference and/or dismissals are irresponsible, disrespectful to credible, often expert witnesses, and potentially dangerous.

4) The hypothesis that UFOs are of extraterrestrial or interdimensional origin is a rational one and must be taken into account, given the data we have. However, the actual origin and nature of UFOs have not yet been determined by scientists, and remain unknown.

5) Given its potential implications, the evidence calls for systematic scientific investigation involving U.S. government support and international cooperation.

Other governments, like France, for instance have left the ET hypothesis on the books. In the Cometa report, which was performed by some of France's physicists, aerospace engineers, and other scientists; they concluded that the ET hypothesis to be the most rational choice since some of the cases could not be explained as man made craft or natural occurring phenomena. And that conclusion is also what reached in the two books I have just mentioned.

The United States government still pretends to ignore the subject and the American scientific community is now so bigoted and prejudiced toward the study of unidentified objects and aerial phenomena that they won't even attempt to look into it which has led to America being far behind Europe and countries like Chile and Brazil who have spent much more time seriously looking into these incidents and leaving the possibility of ET visitation as one hypothesis to explain a few of the strangest aerial incidents.

I just wish the mainstream scientific community would stop automatically labeling it all as science fiction when there is so much compelling stuff out there. Why isn't there a coordinated organization in Washington D.C. that studies unidentified aerial phenomenon? How come the American scientific community is highly interested and studies seemingly everything while largely ignoring unidentified aerial phenomenon?

Anyway, your input would be greatly appreciated no matter what your view on the subject matter is.


Thanks,
Timothy

Michael Watson
Send message
Joined: 7 Feb 08
Posts: 564
Credit: 220,298
RAC: 108
Message 1027732 - Posted: 23 Aug 2010, 15:18:47 UTC

Timothy; Yes, the BAUT forum has a distinct culture of skepticism. The attitude can be summed up in the phrase: 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. The problem seems to be that there is no objective definition of what 'extraordinary' means or should mean. It is possible to set the bar so high the nothing can qualify, in certain scientifically disfavored subjects. As you have seen, a perfectly reasonable, rational case can be made for idea that some UAP/UFOs are very likely examples of extraterrestrial technology. This was the conclusion of a report that was released this Spring by the Aeronautical and Astronomical Association in France. I am not persuaded that the attitude of the United States government should be characterized as one of neglecting the subject. It seems very likely that their interest in the subject is intense, but covert. Michael

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8572
Credit: 4,233,683
RAC: 851
United Kingdom
Message 1027782 - Posted: 23 Aug 2010, 17:15:21 UTC - in response to Message 1027732.

Timothy; Yes, the BAUT forum has a distinct culture of skepticism. The attitude can be summed up in the phrase: 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. The problem seems to be that there is no objective definition of what 'extraordinary' means or should mean. It is possible to set the bar so high the nothing can qualify...

Similarly, you can set the standards so low that almost anything slightly out of the ordinary, or even the very ordinary that just happens to be not an every-day event, can then waste everyone's time with wild flights of supernatural fancy.


As for ET 'spooking' a very few people, a very good question is "Why?".

I cannot imagine that ET would be so irresponsible or Earth so 'special' to be worth bothering with!


Keep searchin',
Martin

____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Michael Watson
Send message
Joined: 7 Feb 08
Posts: 564
Credit: 220,298
RAC: 108
Message 1027799 - Posted: 23 Aug 2010, 18:10:50 UTC
Last modified: 23 Aug 2010, 18:17:27 UTC

Martin; The conclusion of the report I cited, and others like it, is that some UAP/UFOs can not reasonably be explained in ordinary, or slightly out-of-the-ordinary terms. Any speculation about why alien beings would or would not act in some particular way, or show an interest, or lack of interest in our planet, is just that, speculation. It seems a not unreasonable speculation that, if they are present at Earth, they might be here to observe our perilous transition from an agricultural to a stable technological civilization. This moment in time might be unusual enough in the galaxy to justify their interest. Further, if human field study of primates may serve as a guide, their approach to us, as a people, might be on a very gradual basis. Dian Fosey, studying gorillas in the wild, positioned herself far from the band she was studying, waited there until she was noticed and well tolerated. Only then did she make herself more conspicuous by moving a bit closer. This process was repeated numerous times, until she was in their midst. I believe the psychologists call this 'desensitization'. The usual ways of applying the scientific method may not be altogether satisfactory when they are used to study beings who may, in turn, be studying us, and who may differ from us psychologically, at least in some respects. Michael

Profile LynnProject donor
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 20 Nov 00
Posts: 5211
Credit: 888,657
RAC: 2,355
United States
Message 1029345 - Posted: 29 Aug 2010, 0:02:26 UTC - in response to Message 1027799.

Author Leslie Kean, investigates unexplained high-profile sightings.


http://video.foxnews.com/v/4322799/unsolved-ufo-mysteries-revisited/
Video


August 27, 2010
Unsolved UFO Mysteries Revisited

Profile William Rothamel
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 2621
Credit: 1,180,227
RAC: 12
United States
Message 1029369 - Posted: 29 Aug 2010, 3:23:53 UTC - in response to Message 1029345.

More fuzzy pictures and not one shred of physical evidence.

Michael Watson
Send message
Joined: 7 Feb 08
Posts: 564
Credit: 220,298
RAC: 108
Message 1029426 - Posted: 29 Aug 2010, 13:39:01 UTC

The Fox News interview of Leslie Kean, the best and most serious-minded of any I've seen so far. Several of the photographs shown did not appear particularly 'fuzzy' to me; seemed to depict structured objects of substantial size. Not the sort of things that can written off as the planet Venus, weather balloons, or the like. I understand that Ms. Kean discusses in her book physical traces left on the ground by unidentified objects which have been seen to land. These can be said to constitute an important sort of evidence for the reality of such objects. Michael

Profile Synyster
Send message
Joined: 20 Nov 10
Posts: 16
Credit: 107
RAC: 0
Puerto Rico
Message 1050929 - Posted: 25 Nov 2010, 0:53:34 UTC - in response to Message 1029426.

Look pal,i'm sorry to dissapoint you,but i research antigravity,and the kind of liquid used in those engines,can't be produced here at earth,unless of course, you'd be talking about the LHC.But that is a relatively recent project, compared from which the sightings have started. What makes Earth so special is us. We are dual beings. We operate on body and soul. See we feel, more things than you think. And everything we feel affects our own bodies.Now for that to take place there would need to be different quimical reactions in our body Ex. (brain-glands-body) BUT sadly, i am sorry to tell you that humans all have a series of "feelings" or "emotions" that are present in EVERY one of them. We are extremely complex NOT advanced,just that there is an aspect in which we fail to understand(it's not visible) but,try weighting a guy before he dies and after he dies.Weight changes,cause a soul does exist.Now i'm just saying SOUL cause it's the common name for it.I'm not really reffering to RELIGION,cause there are million ways to interpret that.Now,this "SOUL" is just part of a universal consiousness in which we all,ALL, form part of.We are beings that have this dual gift.It is what keeps us down.(Greed,hatred,etc they form part of it too) I'm sure that something beyond a dual being would find no point in wars,discussions,weapons of mass destruction...etc.And thus evolving and advancing beyond our point.Our dual complexivity gives us more than the average choices.The fact you and I posted in here is just because we wanted to.Not because we fallowed some kind of instinct or logical-racional thought.

Profile William Rothamel
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 2621
Credit: 1,180,227
RAC: 12
United States
Message 1051056 - Posted: 25 Nov 2010, 9:16:02 UTC - in response to Message 1029426.
Last modified: 25 Nov 2010, 9:17:55 UTC

Where can I go to see the evidence ?? Of course not all photos are fuzzy; but no photos are of alien space craft.

Profile Synyster
Send message
Joined: 20 Nov 10
Posts: 16
Credit: 107
RAC: 0
Puerto Rico
Message 1051080 - Posted: 25 Nov 2010, 13:38:41 UTC - in response to Message 1051056.

Pictures? Are you out of your mind? Why would you want something so debatable?:) Of course there is strong evidence,and even more kept from us.I'd be glad to post some reference to what I'm talking about, but sadly i don't have the time.Pictures are as debatable as politics.We all have our own opinions, does it matter that some pictures seem "fuzzy" or not?
-Synyster

Profile William Rothamel
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 2621
Credit: 1,180,227
RAC: 12
United States
Message 1051400 - Posted: 26 Nov 2010, 22:19:00 UTC - in response to Message 1051080.
Last modified: 26 Nov 2010, 22:25:36 UTC

No, I would be happy with sharp false photos-then I wouldn't think quite so badly about those who believe in this nonsense.

Here you go enjoy :

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8572
Credit: 4,233,683
RAC: 851
United Kingdom
Message 1051702 - Posted: 28 Nov 2010, 21:07:10 UTC - in response to Message 1051400.

Good giggle!...

:-)

Cheers,
Martin

____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile Fred J. Verster
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 Apr 04
Posts: 3252
Credit: 31,902,797
RAC: 257
Netherlands
Message 1051707 - Posted: 28 Nov 2010, 21:26:40 UTC - in response to Message 1051702.
Last modified: 28 Nov 2010, 21:40:29 UTC

---[snip]---



1) There exists in our skies, worldwide, a solid, physical phenomenon that appears to be under intelligent control and is capable of speeds, maneuverability, and luminosity beyond current known technology.

2) UFO incursions, often in restricted airspace, can cause aviation safety hazards and raise national security concerns, even though the objects have not demonstrated overtly hostile acts.

3) The U.S. government routinely ignores UFOs and, when pressed, issues false explanations. Its indifference and/or dismissals are irresponsible, disrespectful to credible, often expert witnesses, and potentially dangerous.

4) The hypothesis that UFOs are of extraterrestrial or interdimensional origin is a rational one and must be taken into account, given the data we have. However, the actual origin and nature of UFOs have not yet been determined by scientists, and remain unknown.


5) Given its potential implications, the evidence calls for systematic scientific investigation involving U.S. government support and international cooperation.


---[snip]---


If a goverment would admit nr 3 and 4 are true, then they admit they fail in protecting their civillians!
Only if someone can provide hard evidence, which is hard to deny, then
they will declare you insane, drunk, intoxicated, a terrorist, or will they believe you?
I wish I could see an alien spacecraft............
Maybe life started after a comet or spacecraft crashed to earth..........?
____________

John McCallum
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 5 Dec 04
Posts: 809
Credit: 299,953
RAC: 32
United Kingdom
Message 1051717 - Posted: 28 Nov 2010, 21:59:12 UTC - in response to Message 1051080.

If you will not accept photographic evidence(including motion picture/video)probibly because it can be faked? What evidence will you accept?
____________
Old enough to know better(but)still young enough not to care

Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,433,321
RAC: 0
Korea, North
Message 1051875 - Posted: 29 Nov 2010, 17:18:15 UTC - in response to Message 1051717.

I've stated this before. It's called hard evidence. Produce a material object that is physically not of this planet. Be it a compound we can make or a metallic object that defied identification. Pictures and video are hardly proof. as stated they are easily faked and are scarcely reliable
____________
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school

Profile PT
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 May 99
Posts: 171
Credit: 7,065,555
RAC: 2,059
Canada
Message 1052170 - Posted: 1 Dec 2010, 7:35:09 UTC - in response to Message 1026245.

Hi,
I tend to oscillate between believing a small percentage of UFOs or UAPs are of extraterrestrial origin and not believing any are at all.


Well Tim, this should clear things up.
BBC News today reports that Australian astrophysicist Stephen Hughes has published a paper in the Proceedings of the Royal Society - Mathematical and Physical Sciences.

The headline of the BBC piece is: "Ball Lightning May Explain UFO's".
The link to the BBC piece is here:
BBC News UFO's

Or perhaps not clear things up entirely. Fortunately, at the end of the BBC article, they quote Dr. Hughes as saying:
"It's not a vigorous theory; it's more a suggestion that may be worth exploring".

Clear as mud. Cheers!

Profile William Rothamel
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 2621
Credit: 1,180,227
RAC: 12
United States
Message 1052445 - Posted: 2 Dec 2010, 10:41:37 UTC
Last modified: 2 Dec 2010, 10:43:10 UTC

Most of us will admit that there are unexplained sightings. I am not sure that I can buy "objects" however.

Light from any source (search lights, lightning, sun reflections) bouncing off of airplanes, clouds, airplane canopies, etc. These can give the illusion of very high speed objects.

I have seen meteorites that are large and scary. These and lightning would show up on radar.

Though I have read many seemingly sincere stories I still am awaiting physical evidence. Where would they come from and how would they get here ?

Cheers,

Daddio

Troy R. Stull
Send message
Joined: 22 Dec 06
Posts: 4
Credit: 159,630
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1060901 - Posted: 29 Dec 2010, 17:13:29 UTC

I tend to have a hard time believing that we're being visited on the regular basis many people would have you believe. There are just a few questions that I can not resolve.
First, why no evidence? Of the millions of civil, military, and personal telescopes pointed into the sky each evening why are all images blurry and out of focus? I know a lot of people say the Gov't has kept it hidden but the Wikileaks mess kind of proves that the Gov't can't even keep its own secrets much less hideig proof of alien contact.
Second: If we are being visited why the half heated attempts? We're going to hot rod around abducting life stock and chasing down rednecks but not make actual contact?
Third: The sheer engineering and scientific requirements to move from solar system to solar system especial in light of the fact we know there are no earth like worlds in the immediate vicinity of our solar system.

I tend to think that Carl Sagan laid out the most likely scenario for first contact in his book 'Contact'. Well, excluding the whole fax of a machine.

But thats me and I could be wrong.

Michael Watson
Send message
Joined: 7 Feb 08
Posts: 564
Credit: 220,298
RAC: 108
Message 1061775 - Posted: 31 Dec 2010, 3:33:31 UTC

There is evidence that could be reasonably interpreted as suggesting the possibility of extraterrestrial visitation. That is not to say that everyone agree with this interpretation, of course. Telescopes wouldn't really be a very good way of spotting ET spacecraft, as they are intended to cover a very small part of the sky at any one time, and to examine stationary objects in known sky positions. Not all photographs of supposed ET spacecraft are blurry or readily explainable. The Trent photos from McMinnville OR come to mind. The fact that minimally classified documents were obtained by WikiLeaks doesn't really deny the possibility that much more highly classified ones couldn't be kept secret for long periods of time. A program of gradually familiarizing us with their existence might well explain what you call apparently 'half hearted' efforts at contact. This might be deemed a sounder, safer practice than swooping down on us all at once, which could easily cause panic and major social disruption. It isn't really clear that our current technological limits can be applied to a civilization that has probably had a very much longer time to improve its science and technology. Recall that little more than a single century ago, heavier than air flying machines were considered out of the question. Michael

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : UAPs (unidentified aerial phenomenon) and the ET hypothesis

Copyright © 2014 University of California