UFO's - Why do we assume Aliens when Human Origin is more plausible?

a reply to: In4ormant

Thanks.

But there simply isn't evidence to support that point of view, whereas there is a plethora that supports and essentially demands UFO's are not from here...or at least not from now.

There's a mind boggling number of reasons for this...apart from the ancient records i spoke of earlier, there are thousands of pilots, commercial, military and civilian who all report seeing machines / objects while in flight performing not only radically different maneuvers to what they are accustomed to seeing in the skies, but comparatively (with known technology and science) impossible flight characteristics.

In short, we have no aircraft, even today, that can perform the feats and witnessed flight modes of reported UFO's from hundreds of years ago, which obviously let's 'black budget' craft out of the 'possible list', since they weren't around hundreds of years ago.

Yes, some reports are due to natural phenomena, misidentification, delusions, flights of fancy (or out and out lies) and so on..it's a certainty this is so...but the sheer numbers of unknown aerial craft performing impossible (to our knowledge) feats of flight and speeds, witnessed by sane, responsible and rational people, many of them professional aviators themselves cannot be attributed to conventional phenomena.

We can debate what exactly they are, where or when they are from, and who if anyone (or anything) is flying them and why would they be doing so, until the cows come home...there are almost as many theories and points of view on these pertinent questions as there are sightings (well...not quite, but you see what i mean).

Unless the governments of the world tell the truth about these things, or the ET's themselves decide the time is right to tell the people what is what, we probably will be debating these questions for generations to come.

a reply to: MysterX

Since we are using "if" without reservations I would be interested in your response to this.

If the government had technology that allowed flight characteristics that explained the sightings, would they not keep it secret? As too odd flight patterns in the past I don't think you can really give much credence as there wasn't nearly the exposure to such things and people really had no reference points.

If you had to choose the most probable explanation, aliens from wherever, or just the continuation of our technology and our need to be secretive, why would you leap over the obvious to indulge in the fanciful?

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: In4ormant

Thanks.

But there simply isn't evidence to support that point of view, whereas there is a plethora that supports and essentially demands UFO's are not from here...or at least not from now.

There's a mind boggling number of reasons for this...apart from the ancient records i spoke of earlier, there are thousands of pilots, commercial, military and civilian who all report seeing machines / objects while in flight performing not only radically different maneuvers to what they are accustomed to seeing in the skies, but comparatively (with known technology and science) impossible flight characteristics.

In short, we have no aircraft, even today, that can perform the feats and witnessed flight modes of reported UFO's from hundreds of years ago, which obviously let's 'black budget' craft out of the 'possible list', since they weren't around hundreds of years ago.

Yes, some reports are due to natural phenomena, misidentification, delusions, flights of fancy (or out and out lies) and so on..it's a certainty this is so...but the sheer numbers of unknown aerial craft performing impossible (to our knowledge) feats of flight and speeds, witnessed by sane, responsible and rational people, many of them professional aviators themselves cannot be attributed to conventional phenomena.

We can debate what exactly they are, where or when they are from, and who if anyone (or anything) is flying them and why would they be doing so, until the cows come home...there are almost as many theories and points of view on these pertinent questions as there are sightings (well...not quite, but you see what i mean).

Unless the governments of the world tell the truth about these things, or the ET's themselves decide the time is right to tell the people what is what, we probably will be debating these questions for generations to come.

Since it's SOP within the UFO community to reject official disclosures by the government, NASA, military, and mainstream science in favor of just about anything anyone [with the exception of the aforementioned examples] posts on the internet or says on TV which supports their beliefs, I'd say you will be debating it for generations to come.

originally posted by: In4ormant
a reply to: wmd_2008

Nice pic, but not the same thing. Jades pic has no source beam as your does. I get your point none the less.

Crop the pic



Now mine doesn't show the source.

The original pic was a crop as well.

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: In4ormant
a reply to: wmd_2008

Nice pic, but not the same thing. Jades pic has no source beam as your does. I get your point none the less.

Crop the pic

Now mine doesn't show the source.

The original pic was a crop as well.

It's a fleet of "Lightships"!

originally posted by: In4ormant
a reply to: wmd_2008

Nice pic, but not the same thing. Jades pic has no source beam as your does. I get your point none the less.

Those aren't source beams... they are lines added to show how the reflections correspond to ground lights and cross through optical center.

a reply to: draknoir2

Gotcha. Thanks for explaining

a reply to: Rocker2013

Second response to your original post. I'd tend to disagree with you on the exclusivity of it for a couple of reasons.

The first would be that we likely had our own lines of research into unconventional methods of flight independent of the Nazi research. Craft have likely been developed from that research as well, or instead of.

The second is the stories...Eyewitness testimony...do we accept this testimony as fact or dismiss it altogether? I think the best answer to this question lies somewhere in between. Keeping in mind that eyewitness tesimony is sometimes falsified, can be prone to exageration, and may at times be improperly reported due to the skewed perspective of the experiencer or witness, if we approach these tales with an open and enlightened mind we can learn much from them.

I can't dismiss the large number of reports from people claiming to have encountered some alien beings. So the greys are all little guys in suits, or big guys in suits, if we're talking about the tall ones? Okay, maybe...What about those eight foot long praying mantis looking guys? Suits? Maybe...Michelin man guy? Suit? Lizard men? Suits? Maybe...Nordics? Just some wierd looking europeans with an agenda? Maybe...What about that freakin' stick lookin' thing?!? That's an awfully small suit. A robot, perhaps? What about all of the other encounter reports that don't fit the anthropomorphic paradigm? Induced hallucinations?

I know some might dismiss all of this as the experiencer's fancy or would say that he was fooled. I tend toward the opposing view that we are the fools if we dismiss all of this as the experiencer's fancy or some elaborate shenanigan.
Add to that that the encounter phenomeonon predates the twentieth century and I have a hard time accepting the purely man-made tech explanation for UFO's.

I do subscribe to the man-made theory, however, and I would guess that most of what we are seeing in the skies these days are man-made. Also, some of the reported encounters may be elaborate shenanigans. As much as I cannot discount the man made explanation, however, I cannot discount the extraterrestrial explanation, either.

originally posted by: engineercutout
a reply to: Rocker2013

I do subscribe to the man-made theory, however, and I would guess that most of what we are seeing in the skies these days are man-made. Also, some of the reported encounters may be elaborate shenanigans. As much as I cannot discount the man made explanation, however, I cannot discount the extraterrestrial explanation, either.

You cannot discount what is not known to exist. It's logically impossible.

Elaborate shenanigans are known to exist.

Misidentified man made craft are known to exist.

"Experiencers" fanciful claims are known to exist.

Misidentified natural phenomena are known to exist.

They cannot be discounted because they are all verifiable.

Neither Aliens nor their "crafts" are known to exist.

They cannot be discounted because it is impossible to know for sure until they become verifiable.

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: engineercutout
a reply to: Rocker2013

I don't know how close of a look you've given the "ancient aliens" theory, but I've done a good bit of reading on it and I think there is something to the notion that there is this enigma in our ancient history. The world historical record practically screams it, when viewed in its totality.

If so, then the world's most prominent and respected historians are deaf and blind.

I am talking about the commonly accepted historical record here, and the enigmas that are within it. If you take another look at my posts, you'll see that the only thing I have asserted about history is that it contains enigmas...mysteries. What the explanations are for those mysteries, I don't know, but I think they raise some very interesting questions. You may choose to ignore these mysterious aspects of our history if you wish, I will not. I prefer to evaluate all of the information. Throwing it out because it seems strange to me doesn't make much sense, in my opinion.

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: engineercutout
a reply to: Rocker2013

I do subscribe to the man-made theory, however, and I would guess that most of what we are seeing in the skies these days are man-made. Also, some of the reported encounters may be elaborate shenanigans. As much as I cannot discount the man made explanation, however, I cannot discount the extraterrestrial explanation, either.

You cannot discount what is not known to exist. It's logically impossible.

Elaborate shenanigans are known to exist.

Misidentified man made craft are known to exist.

"Experiencers" fanciful claims are known to exist.

Misidentified natural phenomena are known to exist.

They cannot be discounted because they are all verifiable.

Neither Aliens nor their "crafts" are known to exist.

They cannot be discounted because it is impossible to know for sure until they become verifiable.

I do subscribe to the man-made theory, however, and I would guess that most of what we are seeing in the skies these days are man-made. Also, some of the reported encounters may be elaborate shenanigans. As much as I cannot discount the man made explanation, however, I cannot discount the large volume of eyewitness reports and historical accounts supporting the extraterrestrial explanation, either.

Perhaps that is phrased more to your satisfaction then, thanks for the criticism.

a reply to: engineercutout

Wasn't really criticism since it was in general agreement with your statement.

Criticism will come if you hang around here long enough. You don't need to search for it.

Guess I've gotta pick this one apart(grumbles)

originally posted by: In4ormant

Just st because you can't explain it we automatically jump to the answer being something unfounded.

The answer? Something unfounded? I'm talking about the historical record, and the mysteries it contains. I don't know the answers to those mysteries, but they still exist and they do raise some interesting questions.

Damn bro, why are you willing to dive head first into such a shallow pool?

Shallow pool? On the contrary, bro, I think it is you who should study the topic of history in a little more depth. You know, that subject that is devoted to recounting the events of the past? It is littered with mysterious events. I didn't make it, I didn't live it, I've just bothered to learn a little about it. Don't damn me just because I told you about it.

Why is your burden of proof so low, nay I say NO burden.

What proof? Prove what? We're talking about history here, take it for what it is. I have made no claims as to what history proves or does not prove, or even that it proves anything.

Why would you set such a low bar for yourself and allow these morons to influence any part of your life?? You only get one walk down the road, don't let the piper be your guide.

Morons? Do you mean some bestselling author whose work you disagree with, or was there some other specific moron whose views you think that I subscribe to? If so on the first option, why would you think that I would believe or not believe anything that that author wrote instead of objectively evaluating the information based on its own merits? Do you think, then, that I am some sort of devout adherent of some specific new age philosophy or something, eagerly absorbing every spoonful of crap that I am fed by whoever?

Sorry, bub. There are still some enigmas in our ancient history. That's all that I'm really trying to say about that. You can take it and run with it if you want, but I'd rather do it in another thread. I think we're kind of going off topic with this whole argument, I just felt that the demeaning nature of your reply deserved a proper response.

originally posted by: draknoir2
a reply to: engineercutout

Wasn't really criticism since it was in general agreement with your statement.

Criticism will come if you hang around here long enough. You don't need to search for it.

Criticism, yes, I had noticed that.

I think our slight disagreement and, in a way, my little row with in4ormant here sort of strike to the heart of the nature of many of these types of arguments, in that people tend to hold different views on how eyewitness information should be evaluated.

I think we can use it to try and paint a picture, but at the end of the day it is mostly just conjecture and hearsay. The experiencer may think they have a clearer picture but even if their experience really physically happened it doesn't mean that it happened the way they think it did, or that the contacting entities were truthful with them if there was communication.

Even if some of these alien experiences are bonafide, they are also still just a small part of the big picture, and until there's been a live extraterrestrial on staff at the Smithsonian for at least ten years giving lectures, the topic will always be suspect. Unless you are an experiencer. Then the topic would not seem quite so far removed from reality, I'd imagine.

originally posted by: engineercutout

originally posted by: draknoir2
a reply to: engineercutout

Wasn't really criticism since it was in general agreement with your statement.

Criticism will come if you hang around here long enough. You don't need to search for it.

Criticism, yes, I had noticed that.

I think our slight disagreement and, in a way, my little row with in4ormant here sort of strike to the heart of the nature of many of these types of arguments, in that people tend to hold different views on how eyewitness information should be evaluated.

I think we can use it to try and paint a picture, but at the end of the day it is mostly just conjecture and hearsay. The experiencer may think they have a clearer picture but even if their experience really physically happened it doesn't mean that it happened the way they think it did, or that the contacting entities were truthful with them if there was communication.

Even if some of these alien experiences are bonafide, they are also still just a small part of the big picture, and until there's been a live extraterrestrial on staff at the Smithsonian for at least ten years giving lectures, the topic will always be suspect. Unless you are an experiencer. Then the topic would not seem quite so far removed from reality, I'd imagine.

I agree.

I've encountered those who evaluate eyewitness testimony based on their personal bias... on both sides of the argument, the value of a particular testimony being proportionate to how much it would seem to support ones personal convictions. The Phoenix lights thread being a good example. Eyewitness testimony which doesn't fit a particular theory is thrown out on the skeptical side, while all testimony is treated the same on the believer side.

Having long been interested in UFOs and the more recent disclosures regarding the Nazi antigravity research, I can see that it is very possible that the rash of sightings in the 1940s might have included some test flights of captured German discs, and certainly many of the crashes, Roswell included. Cook also makes a strong argument that the foo fighters seen during the war represented one element of the German secret weapons development. It also seems to me that a lot of disinformation has been put out by US sources promoting the ET theory (Majic 12, "The day after Roswell," etc) maybe to provide cover for further US experimentation. But in this context, the next UFO wave, centered on France, the first to feature many landing and occupant reports, makes no sense at all. Would the US (or the USSR) risk their new technology by trying it out in a foreign country? The same question applies to other non-US waves.
There are real alternatives to both the ET and the "human" origin of UFO phenomena -- e.g., Vallee's "Magonia", the idea of time travelling craft from the future, parallel universes, intelligent earthlghts, and so on.
At the moment we just aren't smart enough to grasp what is going on. If there is some basic "truth" about UFOs, I am not sure it will be something we will be able to understand.

a reply to: engineercutout

Actually wasn't meant to be demeaning, although I see how it reads that way. I actually had a sympathetic mindset while typing it. I agree not the place.

originally posted by: engineercutout
They are ufologists, however, so by your defenition, their work should be summarily thrown out as it has been tainted by the foulness of ufology.

That's not what I've said, but I can see how you would want to imagine that to be the case.
What I ask for is evidence.

It's great to read the opinions of UFOlogists, but they are biased unless they have a wealth of supporting evidence which can be verified, to support their beliefs.

I'm sorry to say that I'm not like you, I don't instantly believe the opinions of someone just because they assert it in a book. If one of your UFOlogists wants to make a claim in a book, that's fine, but I want to be able to see the evidence of that claim for myself, and there seems to be none.

All I see in these historical suggestions is roumor, hearsay, translation and suggestion. It's like watching a show on Destination America, they leave out all the credibility and manufacture their own narrative. When this is done, and there is no documented evidence to support a notion, a logical mind has to remain skeptical about it.

As I said, I need evidence to believe something, and none of these people can seem to offer that evidence. They show an image and DEMAND you accept that it's a UFO, REFUSING any reasonable alternative.

This is not science, it's not investigation, it's JUNK.

originally posted by: MysterX
So how does your 'man made' theory explain the wealth of evidence available to research (most of it available online) that shows UFO's have been around and seen by people throughout the historical record, obviously before Human flight had even been dreamt of?

I have yet to see any newspaper reports from before the 1940's of any UFO sighting.

If you can produce one I would appreciate it.

a reply to: Rocker2013

originally posted by: engineercutout
They are ufologists, however, so by your defenition, their work should be summarily thrown out as it has been tainted by the foulness of ufology.

Okay, okay, maybe I got a little carried away there. Seriously though, if you look at Marrs's "Alien Agenda" and probably Dolan's work as well, they should have their information well sourced.

No, no, I don't believe something just because someone wrote it down or showed me a photograph. To the point I think, however, the UFO sighting phenomenon does predate the mid twentieth century, if the journalistic record is to be believed.