The Science of UFOs: Fact vs. Skepticism

Well if I had this amazing technology I would have used it in wars, but then again I'm not in the military so maybe they have good reasons not to do so. It just doesn't seem logical to me that these technologies have been hidden for decades, as this is not normal practice if I understand correctly.
The thing is we don't have anything here on earth that can match that performance that I know of today, let alone 20 years ago..
So covering up alien visitation could seem logical, covering up advanced secret tech for more than a few years does not.

I understand completely, if I hadn’t stumbled onto these videos on youtube I would be wondering the same. Basically Stan Deyo makes his point that until a global united government system is established, the technologies won’t be let out of the box.

(Do I believe what he says? – well it’s a theory that makes more sense then aliens)





Here some of it is transcribed –

You put yourself in the scientists position in the mid 50’s, what you see is that you’ve got a technology that if announced to the public would cause mass reactions in the economy in cultural reactions that could probably bring about the demise of the whole civilisation. A simple example would be this – as a scientist you come out in the mid 50’s and say we have a process which will allow us to get rid of tyres, allow us to get rid of the petrel engine, hence all the petrel, hence all the dependant industries. It will be available for you in 24 months time and will only cost you 3-4 thousand dollars. Now, what kind of person in their right mind would buy a new petrel engine car if you could have one of these new ones in 2 years that don’t need roads and run on electricity and no petrel necessary.

They’d all stop their buying trends that would then collapse the economies that would be building them in 24 months. If you had a central world authority, then you announced when you controlled all the nations and you announced we’ve got a new car that does this, nobody would panic because they know that if their industry become redundant they would be retrained and payed while they were doing it in some other supported industry.

We don’t have that sort of facility at the moment because we’re greatly disordered and many of the cultures fight against each other. Scientists, industrialists, engineers I guess found this problem in the mid 50’s. Now we’re playing their parts – we sit here and we say ‘how do we get world unity?’ The united nations, the league of nations had failed, you couldn’t get any 2 or 3 of them to turn the sovereignty over to a third party, you couldn’t come out and build an army from the united nations or the league of nations or even a corporate army and tell the people of earth you’re taking over, as some people have suggested that’s what the multinationals might do.

You can’t do that because mass resistance would be worse then the French resistance to Hitler, it would destroy the unity they were trying to get. So by peaceful discussion over the conference table and by force it wasn’t possible, yet as the scientific community looked at this new technology it reached into all human endeavour and touched many points of life, they said look, if we develop this, completely develop it into a social technological integrated model, away from the rest of people in islands or in backrooms, however we do it keep it quite even from the politicians. At some point latter after 1956-57, some point later we’ll have it ready to announce to the world as a global system. Then all we’ve got to do is figure out how to convince them to give it a try, a unity.

Scientists aren’t going to come out, industrialists aren’t going to come out and say ‘ ok here it is children, here you go, the new model for planet earth using this technology. It must be independent of any established government or order – it can’t be communists or capitalists, it has to be independent and the only way you can do it is an external culture. Whether it be from the ocean bottom or the Bermuda triangle or outer space, the public have got to see it in this way so that for a short time the masses will overlook their culture differences to unite to form this one world order. Then after 7 or 8 years you explain to them this is how we brought peace.

If you are not familiar with it let me know and I will post the links.

If you could please, thx.

and officially concluded they were not a direct threat to national security.

I remember watching a documentary where this was being said, so a thought: Could it be that because the technology we had back in the 40’s and 50’s was so primitive to what we have now, that what the government thought what were U.F.O’s unidentified flying objects – were really identified flying objects that they couldn’t identify at that the time because of the limits in technology?

Also, when observing photos of ufo’s spotted in the 50’s, you can’t but despair at the generally tacky design of the ufo’s that where photographed. You must agree with me at least on the similarities of the ufo’s in 50’s photos to the design of the technology that was being developed at the time?

The testemonies of credible wistleblowers also point in this direction (not counting the numerous charlatans).

And how exactly do you discern any difference between the two????? David Icke compared to the interviewees of the Camelot Project. They appear at least to me to hold the same level of credibility. Who in your mind holds more then others?

Yes I can see the disconect but then who or what is piloting these craft?

I haven’t the faintest clue but aliens of all assumptions just don’t seem right.

UFO sightings have been around long before we had aircraft ourselves.

Can you give me any examples – links maybe?

Unfortunately these reports can not be verified conclusively.

Exactly, and that’s no way to form an opinion based on such evidence.

Also the difference between the UFO/ET phenomenon and your example of god is that nobody ever tracked god on radar that I know of.

And we don’t know what it is we are traking on radar – so it’s best not to jump the alien conclusion straight away.

[edit on 6-1-2009 by andre18]

reply to post by theresult


I'm a scientist and I can "debunk" evolutionary theory as it stands. In fact there is a long, long list of scientists who want to "reopen" the case and these are not scientists from Bob Jones University.

My problem is not knowing what "intelligence" designed it. Was it aliens? If so, who made them? Was it "God" and if so, for what purpose? Debunking evolution leads to more questions, the types of which no one can answer so people are not quick to take the debunking seriously and brush people off with statements meant to make people feel "stupid" so they won't ask any more questions. I think current evolutionary theory makes people feel safe because it allows for closure and we like closure.

Originally posted by Rintendo
reply to post by theresult

 

I'm a scientist and I can "debunk" evolutionary theory as it stands.

Why don't you dubunk these videos then............YOU MAKE ME SO ANGRY WITH YOUR IGNORANCE....you call yourself a scientist!!!!!!!!

Debunking evolution leads to more questions, the types of which no one can answer so people are not quick to take the debunking seriously

I’ll tell you what.............creationism gives no answers but leaves plenty of questions the type of which no creationist can answer. No one can debunk evolution......it’s not possible, did aliens create us? No, then who? No one....it is a process that occurred by natural means. No magic, No interference by aliens.

and brush people off with statements meant to make people feel "stupid" so they won't ask any more questions.

Statements that a spoken my logical minds that make creationists fell stupid because they are when they are ask stupid questions......ARRRRRR ANGRY!!!!





[edit on 6-1-2009 by andre18]

Originally posted by andre18

Originally posted by Rintendo
reply to post by theresult

 

I'm a scientist and I can "debunk" evolutionary theory as it stands.

Why don't you dubunk this video then............YOU MAKE ME SO ANGRY WITH YOUR IGNORANCE....you call yourself a scientist!!!!!!!!

I said as it stands. Implying that certain "theories" were allowed to stand that allow for "magic to happen" in such a way that it is no better than the leaps of faith that happen with the theory of "Creationism". I'm not saying that "evolution" did not occur. I'm saying that science has rules and some rules were allowed to lapse to make the current theory of evolution fit.

Debunking evolution leads to more questions, the types of which no one can answer so people are not quick to take the debunking seriously

I’ll tell you what.............creationism gives no answers but leaves plenty of questions the type of which no creationist can answer. No one can debunk evolution......it’s not possible, did aliens create us? No, then who? No one....it is a process that occurred by natural means. No magic, No interference by aliens.

Exactly. I agree. No answers whatsoever. Humans are unhappy without "answers" and "closure"; something we will not get on this subject for a very, very long time at the current pace.

and brush people off with statements meant to make people feel "stupid" so they won't ask any more questions.

Statements that a spoken my logical minds that make creationists fell stupid because they are when they are ask stupid questions......ARRRRRR ANGRY!!!!



[edit on 6-1-2009 by andre18]

No questions are stupid, my friend. Why are you so angry? I am saying that there are gaps in evolutionary theory. I'm not saying anything else. I think until those gaps are filled in and filled in with all of the proven principles of sciences not in suspense for it to happen that the jury should remain "out" so that other hypothesis should be explored.

What is the problem with that?

My problem is with absolutes. Creationists are absolute. Evolutionists (Darwinists) are absolute. The fact is no one knows for certain. It is still all theory that can be "debunked".

That said, I am not arguing for the health of "debunking" anything. Picking apart arguments does not answer questions and is quite annoying to the people that have done the research. It is, however, quite easy to do.

Saying that the current theory violates the Law of Biogenesis (life comes from life) and the law of increasing entropy is true. Scientists can counter that the law of entropy applies to closed systems and yet the "debunker" can counter with the Law of Biogenesis does not and ask for the "extreme proof" that is required (thank you, Randi) for an extreme supposition. When have scientists been able to recreate this in a laboratory with consistent results?

This is my point, and you seem to have missed it in your anger. Debunking is easy to do but it doesn't answer questions.

People want answers. They get angry if people try to take their answers away. However, I see nothing wrong with unanswered questions. I kind of like it. It leaves the playing field of science wide open.

So, stay angry if you like. But I hope you get what I am trying to say and take it for what its worth.

[edit on 6-1-2009 by Rintendo]

[edit on 6-1-2009 by Rintendo]

reply to post by andre18


Andre good post,the 1977 UFO documentary that interview was taken from is an interesting one and has some very intruiging accounts and information:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Also this other 1970s UFO documentary presented by Rod Serling makes some mighty fine points about the Washington Merry go round case of 1952-a case debunkers are usualy averse to discussing:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
The above film was funded by the Pentagon and is said to be an initial
forerunner for government disclosure to the public (which was then recinded).

reply to post by Rintendo


What the Dickens has a 6000 year old Earth theory got to do with credible military reports of unknown flying objects displaying unprecedented aerial manouverability and flight characteristics?

Get thee to the creationist museum
uk.youtube.com...

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

reply to post by karl 12


It was actually in reply to someone discussing how something is easily debunked. My point was that anything can be debunked using Scientific theory--even other scientific theories.

A lot what we consider "fact" is still just a theory. Evolution, for example is considered "fact" by a vast majority of people claiming to be skeptics or debunkers and yet there are over 500 scientists from universities such as Harvard and JHU who have gone on record as "sketical" of Darwin's theory of random mutation. Does it make it wrong? No, but it proves that the jury is still out.

Sooooooo...in spite of what we "know" about UFO's or think we know, debunkers are not always as in accord with scientific principles and theories as they believe, nor are "scientists" always innocent when it comes to playing with principles of science and never fudging to fill in the gaps.

Perhaps, my use of "evolution" was too hot an example for ATS to make the point that ANYTHING can be debunked. Debunking is just asking questions with enough snark to shut people down or make them look foolish. Debunking in and of itself is not "science".

How do you know I am "creationist" anyway? Because I said that the current theories of evolution can be debunked? They can. Most everything can be debunked. It is quite easy to do. You ask questions that expose the gaps of a theory and then demand "extraordinary proof".

I am a "jury is out" ist. I love unanswered questions. It allows people the fun of discovery. If I say "You can't prove that its a UFO" that shuts down the possibility of it being a UFO and, I'm sorry, that is bad science.

Originally posted by Rintendo
It was actually in reply to someone discussing how something is easily debunked. My point was that anything can be debunked using Scientific theory--even other scientific theories.

Sorry I didn't read the post in context and just thought you were off on a tangent.
Heres a handy list of quotes on debunkery which you could equate with other subjects:
www.bibleufo.com...

reply to post by karl 12


It's okay. I just hate to see ideas die and theories become discarded by ridicule and snark. In his time Galileo was asked for "extraordinary proof" and didn't have it.

That didn't make him wrong.

Originally posted by andre18
I understand completely, if I hadn’t stumbled onto these videos on youtube I would be wondering the same. Basically Stan Deyo makes his point that until a global united government system is established, the technologies won’t be let out of the box.

Many thanks for the vids. I must be honest and admit I haven't watched them yet but I read your transcript (big thanks) and will base my initial comments on that, until I have a chance to watch the vids in the coming days (damn job).

The theory Mr. Deyo puts forward sounds plausible. If for example we were to have tech that makes oil absolete then indeed it cannot be let out just like that, as it would destroy the economy.

But if I understand correctly from your transcript the vids are about free energy technologies (correct me if I'm wrong) and it is uncertain that these technologies are related to advanced propulsion technologies attributed to UFOs. Furthermore it would seem the US back in the 40's had no clue what these UFOs were and what they wanted, judging by the projects they initiated to gain more knowledge about them. The US army even seem to have engaged UFOs with flak anti aircraft batteries in the battle of Los Angeles in 1942.

If you could please, thx.

Sure here they are:

The Belgium UFO Wave

The Belgium UFO Wave (2)

Picture of the UFO (recent scientific analysis claims this as authentic)

Image of Radar Lock

Official Royal Belgium Airforce Report

The best thing about this case is the Royal Belgium Airforce fully cooperated with the media and investigators to get to the truth. This is unheard of in most countries as you probably know.

I remember watching a documentary where this was being said, so a thought: Could it be that because the technology we had back in the 40’s and 50’s was so primitive to what we have now, that what the government thought what were U.F.O’s unidentified flying objects – were really identified flying objects that they couldn’t identify at that the time because of the limits in technology?

If I remember correctly at the time they concluded that 90% of the reports could be explained but about 10% remained unexplained by the scientists working on these projects. There are infact interesting theories that UFOs are actually "critters" as in a form of life not yet discovered in our upper atmosphere.

Also, when observing photos of ufo’s spotted in the 50’s, you can’t but despair at the generally tacky design of the ufo’s that where photographed. You must agree with me at least on the similarities of the ufo’s in 50’s photos to the design of the technology that was being developed at the time?

Well yes I agree with the tacky design but I'm unfamiliar with any saucer shaped designs that were being worked on in that time period. The reason is that saucer/triangular/cigar shapes are not stable enough to support conventional flight as we know it. It obviously requires some sort of wings for lift and engines at the back for forward thrust. Could the apparent tacky design from that time period have anything to do with the photo quality of the time? When watching WWII footage for example it seems that it happened 200 years ago instead of 60.

And how exactly do you discern any difference between the two????? David Icke compared to the interviewees of the Camelot Project. They appear at least to me to hold the same level of credibility. Who in your mind holds more then others?

Good point.

This is indeed hard to discern but in my mind high ranking military personel and astronauts hold the most credibility. These people are trusted with nuclear weapons and the security of a nation and are highly trained. Astronauts have been up there and are also highly skilled. These people know of the ridicule when speaking about this subject and still come foreward. Some even agreed to testify under oath (disclosure project) which could lead to severe punishment when caught lying. Also violating ones security oath can result in harsh punishment.

Examples that come to mind are Philip Corso, Edgar Mitchell, Gordon Cooper and Buzz Aldrin.

Can you give me any examples – links maybe?

Sure, this sighting is interesting and dates from 1561.

UFO 'battle' over Nuremberg, Germany in 1561

Here are some more (not all genuine UFO sightings in my opinion):

www.ufoevidence.org...

Exactly, and that’s no way to form an opinion based on such evidence.

Yes I agree with this statement.

When I was younger (No I'm not that old as you can judge by my nickname :lol I always thought that aliens/UFOs were fantasy created by tinfoil hat fanatics. But after reading and watching more and more material I became of the opinion that there is something to this phenomenon that was not easily explained away.

I have never seen a UFO or encountered an alien but I do have personal experience with the paranormal phenomenon that has been associated with the alien/UFO phenomenon on some occasions (telepathy for example). Maybe these experiences made me more open to the possibility of alien visitation which most "normal" people would place in the realm of science fiction.

I do hope that one day we can get a conclusive answer to the question we are all persueing on these boards.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
I have a very simple question. What is the point of this thread?

I think the point is to highlight common misconceptions that plague most UFO related discussions in such way that they become derailed into personal attacks, more often than not towards the "believer" which is the person who is pursuing an active form of UFO research. And this personal attacks often successfully preempt any further study of any available evidence, good or bad, concrete or circumstantial, because people get their egos involved.

I don't think it is an overstatement that in most discussion forums, out in the general public, a person who contemplates the possibility of extraterrestrial visitation is up for ridicule and quickly labeled as a UFO nut, a star trek fan and somebody who wears tin foil hats.

That is a misconception, and it is worthwhile bringing up counterexamples to that.

I personally think the biggest distinction that actually matters is not whether one believes or does not believe in the UFO hypothesis (extraterrestrial visitation). The issue of belief is merely a matter of ego definition by asserting one side's superiority to the other side.

The issue that really matters is whether people contemplate investigating the most interesting UFO cases, or whether they dismiss further investigation. A skeptic who asks for evidence and seeks further explanation is a good skeptic. A person who calls himself a skeptic by asserting their belief in a prosaic alternate explanation does not help anybody.


-rrr

Originally posted by Rintendo
A lot what we consider "fact" is still just a theory. Evolution, for example is considered "fact" by a vast majority of people claiming to be skeptics or debunkers and yet there are over 500 scientists from universities such as Harvard and JHU who have gone on record as "sketical" of Darwin's theory of random mutation. Does it make it wrong? No, but it proves that the jury is still out.

I know this is somewhat off topic but this is a gross misunderstanding of Evolution.

Evolution and Darwin's theory are not the same thing. Evolution is a fact, it has occurred, it has been observed. Theories on how exactly Evolution works and why are just that, theories, and one of them (the most notorious) happens to be Darwin's.

There is plenty of evidence that humans exist, but Ants do not have the intelligence and contextual understanding to prove it.

This is not proof Humans do not exist, you understand.

There are mostly opinions about reality. Only a few actually even can fathom the real questions and find the reality... of reality.

Many of us know UFO, Aliens and extra-dimensional realities and beings are real. Some of us have experienced, others have done the due diligence and read, discussed, studied and parced the actual sciences and preponderance of evidence to see this. And, there is more than enough evidence. It is managed.

It is easy to ask for proof, but those tasking experiencers and intelligent believers for that proof can only find it themselves. Otherwise we can prove that all can be faked too. Even your identity and opinions that UFOs don't exist.

I don't see any proof you do not really believe UFO's and Aliens are real. Can anyone prove they are not lying about their opinion? Good luck.

It's all a massive joke for proof of anything. Learn what science found out in the twenties. We cannot measure, repeat, say anything about reality that is accurate or truly repeatable for a scientific model and proof. The exceptions are merely intellectual games only.

I am frankly so weary of the "proof" mythology. It does not matter on iota what anyone believes or not. It is a non-issue. The only reality is your experience and your connection to everyone and everything else's happening experience.

To argue is to not understand. To experience is to understand.

Wait for it. The reality will catch up with everyone eventually.


ZG

reply to post by merka


yeah like black holes and how your pc works??

lol please...

Let me just add to this again..


it is in the face of us all that aliens are real..

As soon as we leave the earth we become aliens...

even if there are NONE here and we are all alone THE NAME TERM AND CONSEPT of alien is REAL..

Are there other beings? yes!

you dont need proof.. you just need to understand life

If we as humans are alone in this total vastness.. then why do we have other forms of life on the planet? god made them??

Why? why bother making ants why bother making anything? even us?

We are the missing link in life.. evolution is correct "we are not" we Jumped that bit.. well untill we can link us to monkeys.. "our so called brother in gene terms"

We are very much missing a very very big part of life.. God and aliens are one of the same thing "a question"

reply to post by theresult


What you find out eventually with sufficient understanding, knowledge and experience is that life is everywhere.

EVERYWHERE

Inanimate objects, water, rock, mineral, super-heated plasma, planets, stars, galaxies....

When you know what life is, aliens and UFOs are the very least of it.

It is only knowledge and intelligence that is at least currently rare in our local domain.

ZG

reply to post by ZeroGhost


totaly agree tbh.. life is everywere for a reason.. and so are we..

I try to say this using maths and i get called nutts lol but i dont mind..

the universe HAS to be alive for life to be here.. what is alive? its a creation of the universe.. i dont pretend to know it all becouse i dont.. i was even called a hoaxer lol but hey thats not my problem...

Its hard to give one person a new idea let alone ATS.. and yes its my idea my theory.. i dont force it on anyone i just ask people to look at the evidence..

what more can i do?

We do what is in our hearts, and gather knowledge to keep that on course. All else is just part of the wondrous living world we journey in this short life.

We haven't seen a molecule of the real world yet, until we find our our highest imaginations are merely the impetus for exploration and we finally go beyond our fears and prejudices and go to meet it.

Babes in the woods we are, fancying we know something. The more you know however, the more you know you know nothing.

When you see and experience those events and beings from outside our little illusion, you then fathom of how deep our ignorance really is.

I guess this response is better served in another area of ATS, but all knowledge while taking a different paths up the mountain end up at the same top. Then you just have to jump.

Thanks for the comment TheResult.

Thanks for the thread Karl.

ZG

I'm not saying that "evolution" did not occur. I'm saying that science has rules and some rules were allowed to lapse to make the current theory of evolution fit.

In which way – did you even watch the 2 videos at all?????? I think you know as well as I do you’re just talking bs because no one who’s actually studied evolution in all it’s sciences would say what you are.

Humans are unhappy without "answers" and "closure"; something we will not get on this subject for a very, very long time at the current pace.

We already have ‘closure’ on evolution. If there’s something about evolution that you don’t know just because you haven’t learnt enough about it, doesn’t me its wrong just because you don’t understand it.

No questions are stupid, my friend. Why are you so angry? I am saying that there are gaps in evolutionary theory. I'm not saying anything else. I think until those gaps are filled in and filled in with all of the proven principles of sciences not in suspense for it to happen that the jury should remain "out" so that other hypothesis should be explored.

There are many many many many...gaps – correct. (in the transitional fossils records) But, that still doesn’t mean it’s even slightlywrong because of these gaps. Do you actually think because we can’t find every single fossil that because of this evolution must be wrong???? – watch the damn videos

You can’t fill in what’s not there. Do even realize how rare it is for fossils to come about, it’s an extremely rare event. We will probably never find every single transitional fossil because not every single transitional stage has been fossilized. But just because we can’t find every single transition doesn’t mean and should not mean the ‘jury should remain out’ that’s just stupid.

So, stay angry if you like. But I hope you get what I am trying to say and take it for what its worth.

Look, all you’ve done is illustrate your ignorance on evolution. I’m sorry but as soon as someone says evolution is wrong or there’s something they don’t trust about it etc – they are ignorant.





[edit on 7-1-2009 by andre18]

reply to post by Fastwalker81

But if I understand correctly from your transcript the vids are about free energy technologies (correct me if I'm wrong) and it is uncertain that these technologies are related to advanced propulsion technologies attributed to UFOs.

My point with the vids is that he’s talking about free energy and antigravity technology, both of which if developed only by us (humans) then that technology is what we see in ufos and such.