Alien conflicts

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: JackHill

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: JackHill

So you gave it a pretty bad look. Please try again.

I'm sure most people didn't even look so whatever. Nothing really jumped out at me. Lots of "claims" as you point out.

Sigh... why I do even bother with people that just choose to deny the evidence.

Still waiting your explanation on how the pilots arrived hours before the expected time. Oh wait, there's none.

The evidence being a 37 year old tale [in Spanish] from South America.

I'm thinking the explanation, or thorough investigation thereof, would require more time than it took you to accept it as undeniable evidence... certainly more time than you've given Zeta who, contrary to your assertion, did not "deny" anything.

You conveniently ignore the corroborating witnesses. Nice try. Actually, not.

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: JadeStar

The first question: is there anything left which can be tested?

For instance, in the Hill case the University of New Hampshire has the physical evidence associated with the case open for examination as part of the Hill collection.

Is there a similar repository in this case?

What sort of evidence do they have? Betty's dress?

Yes.

www.library.unh.edu...

That was just a guess. Not bad, huh?

Not bad at all. Good guess. I was hoping they had Barney's shoes or a piece of metal from the car as well but unfortunately Barney was so mad his nice new shoes were ruined he just wore them for mowing the lawn and stuff so they'd have been useless at this point.

My main area of interest was getting copies of the correspondence between Betty and Ms. Fish which I did.

They have the sculpt of the Grey too.

Indeed they do, but I wouldn't call it a Grey. I've noted before that the beings the Hill's reported looked a lot more human than the "Grey" alien archetype.

This detail of course has lead to some interesting alternative theories of just what they actually experienced.

originally posted by: JackHill

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: JackHill

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: JackHill

So you gave it a pretty bad look. Please try again.

I'm sure most people didn't even look so whatever. Nothing really jumped out at me. Lots of "claims" as you point out.

Sigh... why I do even bother with people that just choose to deny the evidence.

Still waiting your explanation on how the pilots arrived hours before the expected time. Oh wait, there's none.

The evidence being a 37 year old tale [in Spanish] from South America.

I'm thinking the explanation, or thorough investigation thereof, would require more time than it took you to accept it as undeniable evidence... certainly more time than you've given Zeta who, contrary to your assertion, did not "deny" anything.

You conveniently ignore the corroborating witnesses. Nice try. Actually, not.

I've ignored nothing. Haven't even stated an opinion about the veracity of the claims, in fact. You seem to have a weighty chip on your shoulder.

originally posted by: JackHill

originally posted by: JadeStar


Looks again like there is no evidence, at least if that is to be believed, nothing left to investigate really. There perhaps was evidence but it was again mishandled by witnesses or spirited off conveniently.

So we're back to a story which ends in supposed "NASA bogey men" and that's where they lose me, and just about any one else who needs something they can dig into to investigate.

Too damn convenient. So, no, I nothing further to offer on this case.

When you have physical evidence then that physical evidence can be repeatedly examined (ie the Hill collection at U. New Hampshire).

When all you have is a story the only thing which can be repeatedly examined is the veracity of the story/witness and that's not a job for astrobiologists. It's a job for psychologists or criminologists or other people who are well versed in why people say and do the things they do.

At least with something like Hessdalen there is a phenomenon which has been recorded, logged, measured, examined etc for well over 20 years.

There's nothing here which science can dig into so asking a scientist for their opinion is basically asking them to speculate about what happened while also lacking data. Two things most scientists hate.

Sorry, but there's plenty of evidence, witnesses are still alive. You just choose to dismiss their recollections. That's pretty irresponsible, period.

I am not a psychologist nor someone who would know best how to evaluate a witnesses anecdotal evidence. You do understand specialization right? And again, eyewitness testimony is the lowest standard of evidence in science so it is of very little value unless it is corroborated by evidence of a higher standard. Circumstantial evidence as presented in this case is about the same.

I'm sorry if you see this as dismissive, it is not. It's simply stating that I am not the right person to ask about why someone said what they said. What's the phrase they use on home improvement shows? "The right tool for the right job" ?

Have a listen to this and you'll understand my position better.

a reply to: JadeStar

BTW: It is not the job then of the scientists OUTSIDE of UFOLOGY to gather data on something outside their field of research. It is the job of the scientists (too bad so few exist) WITHIN UFOLOGY TO GATHER SUCH DATA.

This is the thing I dont understand. Who are these scientists? I have this vision of a bunch of guys in lab coats that have nothing better to do than reject ufo data all day.

Most scientists I know do their science as part of their job. They work for corporations and do research and try to figure out how to make food taste better and stuff like that. Usually there is some benefit or there is money to be made. Apparently in UFOlogy, there is no need to be scientific to make money.

a reply to: JadeStar

Yeah, the 'alien' became homogeneous from the 70s and really defined in the 80s. Prior to that, they were nearly always described as having humanoid features with differences of proportions rather than anything else.

Eyes were typically like ours although often almond-shaped and bigger. Skin was usually pale and they frequently were described as having small mouths and noses.

The shift in descriptions seems to have coincided with the thematic chord change that rendered our previously neutral visitors as malevolent. Other factors no doubt played a part too. Whatever the case, by mid nineties, we had a majority of diverse greys and a few reptilian types.

A note on the Hills that has always struck me: one of the abductors was described as having a membrane behind the mouth. It immediately left me with image of a mask and how we can see lips move behind the mask's mouth opening.

I'm on my fone or would add more. My point here is people have used the Hills case like a palimsest and carved greys in over what were fairly human-looking beings.

a reply to: Puppylove

This is the crap that gives you skeptics a bad name

I sympathize with your feelings at this point, but you might try using a narrower brush. I'm a sceptic — actually, make that a frank disbeliever — concerning the proposition that aliens are visiting Earth, but I'm very happy to play the 'what if' game and here's a star and flag to the OP for giving us a chance to do so.

O so boring that people have turned this into a yes-they-are-no-they-aren't thread. 100% off topic.

I'm turning it back. Anyone's welcome to join me.

For my contribution, see my next post.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: JadeStar

Yeah, the 'alien' became homogeneous from the 70s and really defined in the 80s. Prior to that, they were nearly always described as having humanoid features with differences of proportions rather than anything else.

Eyes were typically like ours although often almond-shaped and bigger. Skin was usually pale and they frequently were described as having small mouths and noses.

The shift in descriptions seems to have coincided with the thematic chord change that rendered our previously neutral visitors as malevolent. Other factors no doubt played a part too. Whatever the case, by mid nineties, we had a majority of diverse greys and a few reptilian types.

A note on the Hills that has always struck me: one of the abductors was described as having a membrane behind the mouth. It immediately left me with image of a mask and how we can see lips move behind the mask's mouth opening.

I'm on my fone or would add more. My point here is people have used the Hills case like a palimsest and carved greys in over what were fairly human-looking beings.

Close Encounters of the Third Kind was 1977, and showcased two or perhaps three distinct types of greys, very accurately. The template hasn't changed since.

You raise an interesting point with your comments about their faces being a mask.

Whitley Strieber's Communion has a scene where the face of a grey cracks like a mask, pieces falling off and revealing a far different face underneath, a far more insect-like creature.

I know of another abductee, who, during an abduction, noticed a seam running down the back of the head of a grey. It immediately reminded him of a mask.as soon as he thought this, the gray, having read his mind, instantly whirled around angrily and told him, telepathically, "Stop looking at me!"

I've encountered several different types of greys, and i must admit, once, one of them came into my house, and its face was frozen, its features unmoving, as if in a rictus grin. It's face never moved as it explained to telepathically me how it was important that I had to go with them. It was of a higher rank than the others, it wore shiny metallic garments, it wore a cloak, and it floated into my room, only its long cloak touching the floor.

It struck me as very possible that it was a mask.
The other greys, no, it definitely was their faces, wrinkles, worry lines, neck folds, bone and tendon and muscle under skin.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: JadeStar

BTW: It is not the job then of the scientists OUTSIDE of UFOLOGY to gather data on something outside their field of research. It is the job of the scientists (too bad so few exist) WITHIN UFOLOGY TO GATHER SUCH DATA.

This is the thing I dont understand. Who are these scientists? I have this vision of a bunch of guys in lab coats that have nothing better to do than reject ufo data all day.

Exactly.

I think the people who Jack is talking about are what are the more well known public outreach people: Seth Shostak, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Michio Kaku who often get asked their opinion of UFOs since for many UFO means "Extraterrestrial" rather than simply Unidentified Flying Object.

So usually, being that they are scientists they're skeptical of the plethora of dubious claims that are out there but would be open to better evidence. Michio Kaku is actually pretty non-committal in that he doesn't rule anything out but he does use such questions as a way of illustrating scientific speculation about what advanced extraterrestrial life could be like.

Most scientists I know do their science as part of their job. They work for corporations and do research and try to figure out how to make food taste better and stuff like that. Usually there is some benefit or there is money to be made.

Exactly. It's an open process as well. Data is open for examination by others as part of the scientific process. Contrast this with things like the Roswell Slides....:rolleyes:

Apparently in UFOlogy, there is no need to be scientific to make money.

No, there isn't, and it seems it is quite the opposite. There was an ATS member who tried to interest MUFON in his system to set up something similar to the meteor camera network the American Meteor Society has to capture, log and track meteor falls but in this case, specifically to UFOs and he was met with no interest from MUFON in such a system.

I was told this privately by U2U.

Before that however I knew of another person who tried to form a liaison between MUFON and the AMS, CAMS and other meteor tracking groups to basically do the same and help cross correlate meteor falls with UFO sighting reports to rule out false positives. They were not refuted by the AMS, CAMs or other scientific organizations who were willing to share data, they were refuted by MUFON.

And lastly there is the guy right here in Washington state who tried to interest MUFON and other UFO groups in his passive radar system which would potentially be able to detect unidentified or unacknowledged objects.

MUFON again rejected this idea.

So if MUFON, which bills itself as a scientific organization rejects science and instead spends the majority of its budget printing a "journal" of "amazing stories" and organizing UFO conventions they call a Symposium which are nothing like any actual scientific symposium but rather are story telling sessions, is rejecting actual hard scientific data gathering, it is because they have made a determination that such data could undermine their money making by keeping everyone in the dark and keeping UFOs as a mysterious subject.

The scientific community is often accused of being a part of or complicit in a coverup. But in reality it is MUFON which has fooled everyone.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: JadeStar

Yeah, the 'alien' became homogeneous from the 70s and really defined in the 80s. Prior to that, they were nearly always described as having humanoid features with differences of proportions rather than anything else.

Eyes were typically like ours although often almond-shaped and bigger. Skin was usually pale and they frequently were described as having small mouths and noses.

And that right there would tend to rule out an extraterrestrial explanation. If something looks that human then it seems highly unlikely to have evolved many light-years away but instead is indigenous to this planet.

There's this idea, mostly because of sci-fi and the limitations of special effects that aliens would be human like in appearance (because its kinda hard to get actors into arthropod suits).

But real aliens would have evolved on a different world with so many different factors that it is inconceivable to anyone familiar with evolution that something looking that human would evolve far from Earth.

Even if you went back in time and reset the development of life on Earth there is no guarantee that we'd be the eventual intelligent species dominating this planet. Had things played out slightly differently just in the case of one mass extinction then perhaps trilobites would have evolved into intelligent beings.

So the whole humanoid thing as described in the UFO literature puts off a lot of smart people who just chalk it up to too much sci-fi.

The shift in descriptions seems to have coincided with the thematic chord change that rendered our previously neutral visitors as malevolent. Other factors no doubt played a part too. Whatever the case, by mid nineties, we had a majority of diverse greys and a few reptilian types.

From what I can tell whole popularization of the reptilian thing can be traced back to a speculative article which appeared in a popular science magazine in the 1980s which examined what the dinosaurs might have evolved into had they not had an unfortunate close encounter with a nice big chunk of rock 65 million years ago. Well that, and David Icke freaking out in South America.

A note on the Hills that has always struck me: one of the abductors was described as having a membrane behind the mouth. It immediately left me with image of a mask and how we can see lips move behind the mask's mouth opening.

Yes. That struck me too. There are a lot of reasons we wear masks. Doctors wear them to avoid contamination for example.

I'm on my fone or would add more. My point here is people have used the Hills case like a palimsest and carved greys in over what were fairly human-looking beings.

Yep! I really think it has been rather sloppy of UFOlogy to do that too.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Puppylove

This is the crap that gives you skeptics a bad name

I sympathize with your feelings at this point, but you might try using a narrower brush. I'm a sceptic — actually, make that a frank disbeliever — concerning the proposition that aliens are visiting Earth, but I'm very happy to play the 'what if' game and here's a star and flag to the OP for giving us a chance to do so.

O so boring that people have turned this into a yes-they-are-no-they-aren't thread. 100% off topic.

I'm turning it back. Anyone's welcome to join me.

For my contribution, see my next post.

I see the whole alien wars/alien conflict idea as so much sci fi and a projection of our little world, its provincialisms, phobias, dogmas and squabbles onto a universe which is incredibly vast and loaded with resources beyond what most people can even imagine.

With between 60-200 billion planets like Earth in our galaxy alone, most of which at any given time would be unoccupied based on even the most optimistic speculation regarding the prevalence of ET civilizations, it seems absurd that any one planet would be fought over by anyone since another one just like it is a short distance away.

One thing we've learned from exoplanet studies is that it appears small rocky, warm planets like Earth are common.

There is not one resource on Earth which could not be found else where in abundance, other than, well, us.

I think it's possible for alien conflict...There are so many planets out there that an intelligent civilization could accidentally intrude on another civilization who is monitoring us. For the purpose of this thread, if there is an actual ET presence with visitation, abduction, possible ancient intervention....that particular alien race could be sensitive to someone else coming in for a closer look.

Imagine if we discover an exoplanet with advanced life and we also discover the particular planet is already being monitored by another advanced alien race. Do you think the alien race would want to share the wealth with us? Do you think we might interrupt their research or mission? If we were so nosey that alien race might kick us out, aka start conflict.

I think it's possible for conflict. Animals on earth fight all the time for territory...this could be a universal concept.

So far we don't know if the Universe is abundant with life, but that is the assumption. We do know so far it is very difficult to find....with that in mind there may be issues with alien probe coming in from one direction of the galaxy to study a planet and another alien probe coming in from a different direction.

It could be a couple of things:

1. The chemistry of the planet the probes come from could not mix and interaction could be dangerous.

2. The alien race might not like another group of alien scientist barging in on their research.

3. It is possible to have a scenario like a surf contest on the North Shore of Oahu where you have 100's of photographers and filmers on the beach recording the surf and surfers. However try and take a cameraman's spot...or walk in front of the shot....there's going to be problems.

I think it is very possible....

a reply to: Scdfa

Close Encounters of the Third Kind was 1977, and showcased two or perhaps three distinct types of greys, very accurately. The template hasn't changed since.

Yes, you’re right to point this out and that’s why I mentioned the mid-70s as being the transition towards a more homogeneous depiction. Whether the descriptions are ‘accurate’ isn’t something I can assert as I haven’t had the experience. Close Encounters tapped into the sub-culture of abductees/experiencers who’d been reporting such physiologies in the 2-3 years before.

I’m always interested in accounts like yours. They represent something intriguing that can be interpreted several ways. For example, your reported experience could have been the physical, psychical encounter you believe it to have been. In that case, it’s worth looking at the descriptions for patterns and listening to the reports carefully for information that sheds more light on such incidents.

It can also be interpreted through a folkloric filter that invites comparisons with older cultural myths and charts the evolution of the ‘alien’ in this ufological, experiential context. If we follow that line of thinking, aliens have gradually lost their humanity from being child-like versions of us to being definitively alien in both appearance and ideology. Let’s say those 50s and 60s little fellows represented a friendlier face of modernity and culture? They evolved into the overbearing, detached ‘alien’ that represented the anxiety of Cold War paranoia. Is it then a coincidence that technology and nuclear weapons were equally becoming something that presented an existential risk to humanity?

We could go down the line of psychological explanations too, but I don’t want to bore people with a ridiculously long post. Ever since my attention was drawn to these subjects and reports, it’s been a goal to find an answer (or answers) and better, smarter people have failed in their thousands.

Have you heard of Dr. Pierre Guerin? He was an astronomer who was fascinated by this stuff. He said, 'In ufology, any law is immediately falsified just as soon as it has been formulated.' His country cousin might have rephrased it as 'ufology is like a dog chasing its own tail.'

a reply to: JadeStar

And that right there would tend to rule out an extraterrestrial explanation. If something looks that human then it seems highly unlikely to have evolved many light-years away but instead is indigenous to this planet.

But real aliens would have evolved on a different world with so many different factors that it is inconceivable to anyone familiar with evolution that something looking that human would evolve far from Earth.

I agree to a point and that 'point' is probably where you say 'inconceivable.' If we think of the myriad mutations life might take on some distant world with different environmental conditions, 'inconceivable' is a clear home run.

From a different perspective, let's say that some technological intelligence arrives at the good Harbour Earth? For sake of argument, let's imagine they are biological critters.

To arrive here (wormhole/exotic technology/generation ships etc), they'd be in some manufactured vessel. They'd have a hull made of some material or alloy that would fit in with the periodic table. Their vessel would be powered and navigated according to the same universal Laws of Physics.

From that simplistic scenario, we can backtrack their evolution and find that it could be convergent with ours.

The designers and builders of this craft would be engineers. They'd require a world with a breathable atmosphere where fire was possible. Without the right atmosphere, they wouldn't be able to evolve to the point of tool-use and from there to controlling fire to smelt metals.

Back in the 60s (iirc), a popular science guy called Dr Willy Ley discussed convergent evolution as a reasonable way to understand those humanoid encounter reports. In the 90s, Prof. Mike Swords revisited the ideas and wrote this paper: Could Extraterrestrials be Expected to Breathe Our Air?

I'm not (NOT) going all ETH here! What I'm suggesting is that a technological, biological species (in our neighbourhood) would have a similar cultural and genetic evolution to us. They'd have a competitive nature, be apex in their environment and have histories of cultural expressions like politics, art, religion and technology.

a reply to: Kandinsky

We could go down the line of psychological explanations too, but I don’t want to bore people with a ridiculously long post.

Personally I could discuss this all day every day. I would love to hear your views in as much detail as possible really but I agree that it will have to wait for another thread. Any links would be much appreciated.

originally posted by: Scdfa
Now to keep this thread on topic, I want to chime in on the question of alien conflicts.

I think if you take a good look at the Vedic texts it describes in great detail a conflict between warring factions of extraterrestrial beings with craft and weapons of very advanced technology.

Specifically, the Mahabharata, in which war between these advanced beings escalates to what sounds eerily similar to atomic war.

You bet.

You may be interested in the research of Wes Penre who dedicated extensive study into the Vedic Texts among other things. He has a series of papers, of which the 5th one, goes into detail about these wars, on planet AND interplanetary. One section is even titled The Cosmic Wars From A Vedic Perspective.

Regardless which ancient religion or mythology we discuss, the Great Cosmic Wars are mentioned therein. In most of them—if not all—Lucifer’s Rebellion is mentioned as well. In the Vedic literature, the Cosmic Wars are discussed in perhaps more detail than in any other scripture—alongside maybe the Norse Sagas, such as the Edda... there are many different star races involved in the Cosmic Wars, but they are all working together on one level or another. This is also noted in the Vedas, where it says that the Asuras, who went to war against the Devas, included various subgroups, such as the Daityas, the descendants of Diti, and the Dānavas, the descendants of Danu.[3] The reader doesn’t need to keep the names of these different subgroups in mind, necessarily—just know there were subgroups. Of course, these subgroups correspond with the different star races we have mentioned earlier in the papers.

The Mahābhārata says (Quote #8) that these two gods, Marduk and En.ki, started a lot of uproars in the world, and they started wars as well until chaos was all around.

I think it's quite compelling we have counterparts to Enki and Marduk (2 of the main players in the text) in virtually every other ancient culture on Earth. It just so happens that it's allegedly the Sumerian depiction of Enki in my avatar with Marduk in the background.

a reply to: moth115

I just hope their not disagreeing over who gets the leg and who gets the wing!

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Personally I could discuss this all day every day.

Same here and it's turtles all the way down.

a reply to: Astyanax

Of note, when I person says, this behavior is what gives (said group) a bad name, they are not referring to all people in that group, only the behavior itself, and how it causes that group to be perceived. Got a problem with the brush, fight the behavior, no more no less. Every person in a group that fights the bad behaviors of a group, take one step further to suppressing that behavior and giving their group a better name.

That being said, you're doing just that, so bravo.

Now on topic since never did contribute.

I think that it's completely plausible if one group made it to the stars so did another. I also think looking at species in our world, the less sentient an animal is, the less cruelty it is capable of, but on the same token, so to is it's ability for compassion reduced. The greater it's intelligence, it seems the more extreme a species can be in either direction. Also the more social a species becomes, the greater it's capacity for conflict seems. Therefore I find it likely that there's not only extraspecies conflict but intraspecies conflict as well.

I find it unlike any species has acquired a true utopia, and that conflict albeit in many different forms would remain a part of any society, alien or otherwise.

originally posted by: JadeStar


But real aliens would have evolved on a different world with so many different factors that it is inconceivable to anyone familiar with evolution that something looking that human would evolve far from Earth.

Well, there's where I find the problem precisely with you guys. You stand up as if you already knew HOW it's supposed to be another intelligent life. You're just THEORIZING, but you don't really know. In fact, the testimonial evidence you seem to hate so much, and irresponsibly ignoring, clearly shows otherwise! That at least SOME of these intelligencies aren't HUMAN, but are HUMANOID.

Big problem huh? You automatically asume they must be from some 'another world', because, sure, as we live in a planet, they should live in a planet too, correct? Again, theorizing, with the CURRENT knowledge, that, eventually, as the HISTORY proves, will grow, evolve, and show all us things that we didn't even think possible before.

Reality vs theorizing. Yeah, I know where I should be looking for real answers... despite the hoaxes, despite the frauds, if you pay CLOSE attention to every case, if you compare, if you really dig, you should know by now that there's something really OFF happening here, that cannot be dismissed as 'lies, frauds, hoaxes, fables and/or wrong identifications'. Many of these witnesses, victims, whatever you wanna call them, are regular people, respetable people, you check their lives prior to the events, you find REAL persons, with a family, with a job, with a complete life. It's just hard to me how can you still don't get it as I and others do.

I get your points about hard, physical evidence. I really do, believe me. But it's like you read a case, and say 'well, no parts of a ship, not traces of alien tissue, no case'. Well, maybe it's not a task for scientists after all, despite one should expect the complete opposite. You simply don't get that most of these folks are UNWILLING participants of these events, very often they're being almost directly controlled, and you still expect from them, to get a piece of alien skin? Did you even read on what circunstances these events take place? Would you ask to the Walton's partners to go outside and try to board the ship, for instance? Insanity!

This is something that you cannot put under a lab and test. This phenomena is unpredictable, intelligent, it develops in the outside, apparently randomly and interact with whoever it wants, controlling form the start to the end the whole experience, because it's SUPERIOR to us, it EXCEEDS us. THIS is how it works.