It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Xtraeme
Anyone that's researched UFOs has confronted someone, somewhere who asks, "If there are UFOs why don't they just land on the White House lawn and announce themselves?"
Originally posted by Xtraeme
Interesting thought randomviolins, but the Colares incident is a clear example of active involvement by some external actor that clearly affected lives and would have changed the future. Furthermore, if you subscribe to chaos theory, the flapping of a single butterfly's wing today produces a tiny change in the state of the atmosphere. Over a period of time, what the atmosphere actually does diverges from what it would have done. So, in a month's time, a tornado that would have devastated the Indonesian coast doesn't happen. Or maybe one that wasn't going to happen does....
Then again what if our future selves had a history where these events transpired and therefore to maintain continuity they violated their non-interventionist dictum?
But what if alterations happen all the time, but we continue to believe these events are the "originals"?
Originally posted by randomviolins
reply to post by Gun Totin Gerbil
How do you know they haven't intervened? Isn't it possible that our present is a product of intervention?
Originally posted by ...
Originally posted by Xtraeme
Or maybe, we're seeing something that's a combination of future time-travel and ET intervention.
So, what's ATS's explanation for the seemingly minimal-interventionist policy of UFOs?
such advanced civilisations may value the search for knowledge from uncontaminated species more than direct, interspecies communication, thereby accounting for apparent covertness regarding their presence.
...
The ET motivation for space travel could be to increase their knowledge through exploration of space rather than to colonise and seek domination [39]. Thus hypotheses have been set forth regarding why such ETs would be aware of our presence but not yet have contacted us overtly. Among these are the zoo, nursery and quarantine or embargo hypotheses [1,38,40-42]. Most of these posit that the ETs involved have frequently scouted us out semi-covertly and have concluded that we are either not yet mature enough for open contact, or not prepared for it, since any abrupt, overt contact could cause societal chaos and governmental downfalls. Also postulated is that ET interference with our society would prematurely bring an end to our civilisation’s continued development if it occurred before our knowledge has progressed to the point that we could understand where the aliens could have originated and how great their head start over us could be [39]. A serious inconsistency in this reasoning, however, is that maintenance of total ET covertness towards Earth and the solar system would still lead to societal chaos whenever the covertness or embargo was eventually lifted, unless the ETs carried out a programme of gradual disclosure—a ‘leaky’ embargo [1,43]. Although the zoo or embargo hypothesis may be unverifiable, the leaky-embargo hypothesis may be verifiable if the UFO evidence is taken into account. Much of this evidence appears to constitute just such a leak in the embargo: a grass-roots educational programme in the form of the phenomenon, which has been in operation since 1947, if not before. Many sightings have been of a nature to attract attention to their craft and let isolated groups of witnesses know that its occupants are aware of us [24,44]. A key category of such cases involves reports wherein persons within a traveling vehicle frantically witness an object pacing them even though their automobile or aircraft makes turns that rule out the sighting of an astronomical or other ordinary object as any explanation. Similarly, in a number of the aircraft cases the unknown object, which was either pacing the aircraft or presenting itself to it, was detected on radar as well as visually [23-25,27].