Survey: How Many Have Switched from Extraterrestrial Hypothesis to Interdimensional?

Originally posted by The GUT

Originally posted by DrSwampGas
Leonard Stringfield was one UFO researcher who had really excellent sources, and was able to get more of the real information than most people. Too bad so much of his work is forgotten today. He knew about Dr. Theodore von Karmen and other government scientists who did so much of the early work in crashed "saucers"....

Stringfield seemed like an okay fellow, but I, personally, don't find any of the crashed craft stories to hold any water or carry any weight at this point for myriad reasons.

The number one reason being the ol' "they flew across light years only to crash on our planet" business.

Why is that unexpected? Physical mortal beings are not omnipotent and neither is their technology.

We've lost quite a few expensive machines on Mars and Venus.

What if their craft are similarly expensive and at the limit of their technological capability?

Originally posted by mbkennel
Why is that unexpected? Physical mortal beings are not omnipotent and neither is their technology.

We've lost quite a few expensive machines on Mars and Venus.

What if their craft are similarly expensive and at the limit of their technological capability?

I guess because in all of their other reported/perceived aspects they don't come across as "physical mortal beings," but something more. The "evolved-beyond-us-by-light-years" being.

When added up they seem to have almost god-like abilities. Of course Arthur C. Clarke proffered the famous:

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." ~ Arthur C. Clarke

But then again he also said:

"One theory which can no longer be taken very seriously is that UFOs are interstellar spaceships." - Arthur C. Clarke

I don't think comparing our technology--technology basically limited to our solar system--is a very good comparison to a technology that somehow traverses light-years.

Your point is not without merit but, to me, seems to have internal inconsistencies.

If you have a look at the "Welsh Triangle thread and the documentary there's a lot of what we have been talking about on this thread/. The Coombs family, who were the centre of a vortex of weird stuff refuse to talk about it any more and you can't really blame them.

Their experiences included, being buzzed in their car by a brilliant orb like object, a sustained period of interference with electrical domestic equipment leading to have to buy 2 new TVs in quick succession and weirdest of all the claim that a herd of their cattle, they left in a pasture, somehow turned up back in the farm yard. The appearance of "huge figure" at their window one night was merely that which served to tip the family into total panic and call the police in.

As for the kids who saw the "craft" some insisted there were figures with tint pointed ears appeared from it others didn't see them. You can't help think it's almost it's almost like it is all like some huge wind up or tease, not by the humans involved rather, whoever was behind it. Now that's not to dismiss, out of hand, that this could have been some "black flag psy op", we simply don't know. If this was some non human intelligence just what the chuff were they attempting to do? Or, is that seeming complete randomness and slight touch of madness simply the easiest and best way of disguising your real intentions?

In the end, can anyone, hand on heart not say, "When we test whether crows can work out how to fashion a tool to receive a "treat", is that truly any difference to another species doing something similar to us humans and have we yet shown enough intelligence to be worthy, in their eyes/stalks/antennae to have been given our treat?"

That's not to belittle us as a species we are remarkable in so many ways, just a reminder that , in the context of this creation, we are, relative infants. You could, quite reasonably, ask "Would you give the keys and codes to the quantum arsenal to a bunch of school-kids?"

Originally posted by Imtor
reply to post by The GUT

 

No the only ones who talk about going through walls is crazy abductees, I think direct contact with aliens in facilities is more credible than abductee stories and aliens walking through walls. These are two different things and because a lot of such visions of aliens walking through walls which are nothing more than dreams or sleep paralysis and hallucination, or schizophrenia, mislead and make people think that the events happened and they are dimensional.

When it may be all imagination, while meeting militarly if real, is not hallucination, The stories of aliens coming to your bed while you're sleeping are too fictional to believe. How didn't I have any> Maybe it comes with sanity?

P.S Robert Collins says abductions are real and that aliens do not abduct people that are aware of them and what they can do, well I am aware, too bad. However here comes, thinking on my own, I do not think a lot of the cases of abductions are real, thus exclude walking through walls

this

reply to post by FireMoon


FireMoon refers to The Welsh Triangle Thread. Specifically, the fourth movie.

If any one is looking for some in-depth reading today, I also present an ATS classic:

They Come from Within by MikeBoydUS

He covers A Lot of ground that relates to this discussion/consideration.

reply to post by DrSwampGas


Your post... has sparked my interest in the UFO studies of Leonard Stringfield; since I've never heard of the man before. Thank-you, DrSwampGas

Gut --- As to the late Arthur C. Clark's assumption --- that interstellar spaceships should not be taken seriously. My reply: Horsefeathers!!!

My speculation: That interstellar starships use starlight photons for fuel, is the hypothesis that light photons are the only mass that can exceed the speed of light. But...I want to add to that hypothesis --- That a nuts and bolts interstellar starship --- uses a gravitic engine that has the gravitic pull of a mini-black hole --- since it uses remnants of an exploded black hole, that is infused into the bottom hull of a flying saucer... sucks in light photons, the same way that a stationary black hole sucks in starlight and plasma. But the starship is a freebird --- which can expell photons near the speed of light, like some original black holes spew jet like photons near the speed of light at there magnetic poles.

My post may sound redundant...but may I say again --- That the starship in the photon thrust ejection process, can easily achieve the speed of light barrier, and breaks into the superluminal realm buy increasingly sucking in photons faster than the speed of light; thus increasing speed, exponentially squared to many times the speed of light.

Originally posted by Erno86
reply to post by DrSwampGas

 

Gut --- As to the late Arthur C. Clark's assumption --- that interstellar spaceships should not be taken seriously. My reply: Horsefeathers!!!

My speculation: That interstellar starships use starlight photons for fuel, is the hypothesis that light photons are the only mass that can exceed the speed of light. But...I want to add to that hypothesis --- That a nuts and bolts interstellar starship --- uses a gravitic engine that has the gravitic pull of a mini-black hole --- since it uses remnants of an exploded black hole, that is infused into the bottom hull of a flying saucer... sucks in light

You know I read something like this, that Sir Arthur C. Clarke is full of "horsefeathers," and I think back to when I read "The Sentinel," by Clarke, as a kid, the story that turned into 2001, not to mention such works as Childhood's End and Rendezvous with Rama, or his many non-fiction works on scientific subjects. He came up with the idea of a geostationary satellite as a means of communications in 1945. He is the recipient of too many awards to list, was knighted for the body of his work, and is one of the 20th century's great visionary thinkers.

And what do we have as an alternative? That second paragraph up there that does not have a theoretical leg to stand on. What in Heaven's name is an "exploded black hole"? Do you really think you could catch one? It's totally abject speculation, not even good science fiction. It's more like fantasy where you needn't adhere to the Laws of Physics and can make up your own. When Clarke theorized a geostationary satellite, he had the theory to back it up. The math was already there. It was just a matter of getting the thing up there. Twelve years later he was proven right.

Warp Drive, on the other hand, is a plot device for Hollywood to get us around the inconvenience of Einstein's equations, which show that you can't go faster, that even if you could get your speed up, your mass would approach infinity and you'd never get there, plus the aging process would make for some very strange homecomings. The Speed of Light is not like the Speed of Sound. The Speed of Sound was a barrier certainly. It tended to shake your airplane into little tiny pieces, but there was no theoretical basis to prove you couldn't do it. The issue was a practical and technical one.

The Speed of Light is a built-in limit. I like the idea of Warp Drive. I really do. That would be, well, so cool! But I can't take it seriously until the theory is there, until you can show me the equations so all that is left is to build the thing, Gravitic Drive nothwithstanding. That theory, such that it is, is not accepted anywhere. Until and unless it catches hold, it is of no practical use.

I cannot dismiss the ideas of Arthur C. Clarke and replace them with, well, nothing more than unsubstantiated speculation. For myself, I need more than that.

Originally posted by schuyler

Originally posted by Erno86
reply to post by DrSwampGas

 

Gut --- As to the late Arthur C. Clark's assumption --- that interstellar spaceships should not be taken seriously. My reply: Horsefeathers!!!

My speculation: That interstellar starships use starlight photons for fuel, is the hypothesis that light photons are the only mass that can exceed the speed of light. But...I want to add to that hypothesis --- That a nuts and bolts interstellar starship --- uses a gravitic engine that has the gravitic pull of a mini-black hole --- since it uses remnants of an exploded black hole, that is infused into the bottom hull of a flying saucer... sucks in light

You know I read something like this, that Sir Arthur C. Clarke is full of "horsefeathers," and I think back to when I read "The Sentinel," by Clarke, as a kid, the story that turned into 2001, not to mention such works as Childhood's End and Rendezvous with Rama, or his many non-fiction works on scientific subjects. He came up with the idea of a geostationary satellite as a means of communications in 1945. He is the recipient of too many awards to list, was knighted for the body of his work, and is one of the 20th centry's great visionary thinkers.

And what do we have as an alternative? That second paragraph up there that does not have a theoretical leg to stand on. What in Heaven's name is an "exploded black hole"? Do you really think you could catch one? It's totally abject speculation, not even good science fiction. It's more like fantasy where you needn't adhere to the Laws of Physics and can make up your own. When Clarke theorized a geostationary satellite, he had the theory to back it up. The math was already there. It was just a matter of getting the thing up there. Twelve years later he was proven right.

Warp Drive, on the other hand, is a plot device for Hollywood to get us around the inconvenience of Einstein's equations, which show that you can't go faster, that even if you could get your speed up, your mass would approach infinity and you'd never get there, plus the aging process would make for some very strange homecomings. The Speed of Light is not like the Speed of Sound. The Speed of Sound was a barrier certainly. It tended to shake your airplane into little tiny pieces, but there was no theoretical basis to prove you couldn't do it. The issue was a practical and technical one.

The Speed of Light is a built-in limit. I like the idea of Warp Drive. I really do. That would be, well, so cool! But I can't take it seriously until the theory is there, until you can show me the equations so all that is left is to build the thing, Gravitic Drive nothwithstanding. That theory, such that it is, is not accepted anywhere. Until and unless it catches hold, it is of no practical use.

I cannot dismiss the ideas of Arthur C. Clarke and replace them with, well, nothing more than unsubstantiated speculation. For myself, I need more than that.

edit on 7/26/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)

I did not say that Authur C. Clark was "full" of horsefeathers, but my claim of horsefeathers, was based on his topic of interstellar starship vistation here on Earth.

My concept of interstellar starship engines, has been the result of my thinking about how a Foofighter propels itself thru our atmosphere and a space enviroment; based on my own eyewitness Foofighter sighting back in 1976.

My theory of the hows and whys of superluminal capable starship engines, is based on the same equations of how the universe exists in itself. For example: black holes --- If I knew where a mini-black hole could be lurking -- Yes...I think I could explode one to bits if I had a antimatter probe to explode it, grab a piece of it with a tractor beam and have it refined into the bottom hull of a flying saucer craft; on some far-off asteroid

I have to disagree that the "speed of light is a built in limit." So go ahead...keep thinking about the impossibilities of interstellar spacetravel --- while the Foofighter's cavort thru our atmosphere, and the human race withers on a vine.

Originally posted by Erno86
I did not say that Authur C. Clark was "full" of horsefeathers, but my claim of horsefeathers, was based on his topic of interstellar starship vistation here on Earth.

Oh, c'mon. That's nitpicking. You said "horsefeathers." I said you said "horsefeathers." End of story.

My issue is this: Arthur C Clarke has a well-deserved and long-lived reputation. He has a lot of credibility. Your idea here has no theoretical underpinings. There's nothing there to support it Some of your stuff is made up, like pieces of black holes. Your guessing. You have no references, and there's nothing much to go on. And you have not established any credibility in the field, least not that I am aware.

You are calling Clarke's credibility into question, when he is a giant in the field. I take issue with that. You are disagreeing with Albert Einstein that the speed of light is a built in limit. That would be like me telling James Madison he doesn't understand what the US Constitution means or telling Isaac Asimov he doesn't know how to write. If I need to choose whom to pay attention to and cite, I'll choose Clarke and Einstein, not you, because they have established track records, accomplishments, and theories proven true after the fact. You don't, and tge fact you disagree with Einstein is kind of immaterial unless you cann explain why coherently. I cannot derive value from your theory because it is based on conjecture. No offense.

reply to post by schuyler


The speed of light is a barrier to acceleration not to actual velocity? The again, the speed of light is not consistent, at its' slowest, through some sort of super cooled sodium gas I believe, it is no more than 30 mph. Which opens up the theoretical possibility that one might actually be able to manipulate light to a point where it travels so slowly the energy then required to to better it would be almost infinitely less than we perceive at this given time.?

reply to post by The GUT


Gut, thanks for posting that thread link "They come from within". I've never read it before since it was from a couple years before I joined and probably a year before I started reading stuff on here. Very interesting read and surprising to see that so many of the concepts I hear people discussing nowadays were so thoroughly thought through and discussed that far back.

Originally posted by schuyler
...The more exciting new issues that have just come up include quantum entanglement (Thanks!) The BBC documentary a few pages back is well worth watching and, to me, gives some enticing hints. There is more to explore. For a bonus, here's a thread that does just that: www.abovetopsecret.com... which may be relevant here.

It occurs to me that Vallee's et al hypothesis is not totally incompatible with the quantum entanglement observations.

He often speaks, in his books, about the "perception" of the witness being germane to the experience. I realize it's not exactly the same thing, but maybe there's a correlation therein?

I wish I could recall some of the specific examples he gave but I can't, maybe someone here can.

Which brings me to this thought: If a tree falls in the forest, I can't say for sure if it makes a sound or not, but I do know that they fall in the forest because I often sit on them when hiking. (Gut sits down a lot on hikes these days.)

So my question is this: Who was there to observe them fall? What?...you think this subject is over my head?

Okay how about something new then. Something that has the potential to make everyone happy? This just in. How about a synthesis of the ETH, IDH, and the Religio-Mystical all rolled into one intriguing package? A must read. Trust me.

The Synthetic Paradigm

The Synthetic Paradigm attempts to account for the limitations imposed by the Speed of Light, the possibility of an inter-dimensional nature to the universe, and the accounts of religions of an inter-dimensional nature to Reality. It suggests that science and religion are describing the same reality and that Reality as a whole can be explained scientifically. It does not deal with the notion of a Supreme Being as much as it does with the possibility of some beings’ capability of adapting to this level of Reality.

For lack of anything snazzy, it’s simply the “Synthetic Paradigm.” This is not meant in terms of artificiality such as ‘synthetic rubber,’ but more in terms of a “synthesis” of various views. In other words, there are aspects of reality usually consigned to the “religious” realm that can, in fact, be explained scientifically. If this is accepted, then so-called anomalies surrounding the UFO phenomenon can be adequately explained.

Note that this is a philosophical paradigm rather than a mathematical one. There are no accompanying equations and publishing in Nature is not scheduled any time soon. This sets the groundwork for what others may do in the future. The “Synthetic Paradigm” is a “theory,” not a fact. It is not yet proven

The Synthetic Paradigm is formed from a number of hypotheses that serve to explain the position. None of these hypotheses are proved. None of them have what we would admit as perfect evidence; in fact, evidence is largely anecdotal. They are not presented as facts, but as a way to look at things that might prove useful…
www.scribd.com...

Check it out, I'd love to hear thoughts on this one...

I see Arthur C. Clarke was mentioned.



Kubrick didn't trust him and neither does any sane person.

reply to post by schuyler


Black holes...are thought to be responsible for ejection of mass at high velocitys near the speed of light. What better way to power a starship than from remnants of a black hole? Since my Foofighter sighting back in 1976 --- barring any IDH, has made me assume that the speed of light barrier can be broken, Einstien's theory of realitivity is partially wrong, and Authur C. Clarke is wrong on his assumption that interstellar starships have never visited Earth.



Foofighter's

Erno86

Originally posted by Erno86
reply to post by schuyler

 

Black holes...are thought to be responsible for ejection of mass at high velocitys near the speed of light. What better way to power a starship than from remnants of a black hole? Since my Foofighter sighting back in 1976 --- barring any IDH, has made me assume that the speed of light barrier can be broken, Einstien's theory of realitivity is partially wrong, and Authur C. Clarke is wrong on his assumption that interstellar starships have never visited Earth.

How do you know?

Originally posted by schuyler

Originally posted by Erno86
reply to post by schuyler

 

Black holes...are thought to be responsible for ejection of mass at high velocitys near the speed of light. What better way to power a starship than from remnants of a black hole? Since my Foofighter sighting back in 1976 --- barring any IDH, has made me assume that the speed of light barrier can be broken, Einstien's theory of realitivity is partially wrong, and Authur C. Clarke is wrong on his assumption that interstellar starships have never visited Earth.

How do you know?

I think he might have quark strangeness and charm?

Originally posted by FireMoon
reply to post by Imtor

 

Hitler was already dying of Parkinson's disease, if you check the film ...

Dead link. Most shaking of extremities has nothing to do with Parkinsons'.

news.bbc.co.uk...

That clip was edited, the original shows his left arm uncontrollably shaking.


www.history.com...-hitlers-parkinsons

reply to post by The GUT


Gut, thankyou SO much for posting a link to this thread www.abovetopsecret.com... earlier on, what an amazing read! God there were some classy threads on ats back then! Ive only read to page 4 so far, but I was just wondering , did Mike ever turn it into a book??

:

the series of videos I am doing my best to find for people to peruse is the series by Ken Campbell where he, in effect, acts as the "everyman" just chatting and chewing the cud with number of scientists from the cutting edge of the quantum world and mathematics. The last one in the series, from memory, is Ken chatting to some absolute, looks wise and mannerisms wise, cliché of an Oxbridge mathematician. I remember watching it with a couple of friends and as the programme neared it's end we all said , almost as one.

"If what that guy is saying has any foundation in truth, he's just explained UFOs, Ghosts etc and why they occur, or we react to them and have given them those titles as we do"

Ken then said virtually the same to the guy and he was horrified and began to say "Oh no no not at all"

Problem is, to anyone with an open mind, that's exactly what he was saying and he perfectly explained the mathematical theory of why we have these so called "paranormal experiences" On the other hand, I can perfectly see why the guy was so quick to distance himself from the idea. Not because he quietly doesn't think that himself, as I suspect he well may do rather, to say it on camera was to, in effect, commit intellectual suicide on camera in the eyes of so many of his far far less talented colleagues.

That's where the problem truly lies. At this point in time to suggest what is being suggested by current physics and maths is to call into question our "reality" in a far far more deeply fundamental way than Galileo announcing we orbit the Sun not the other way round.

If these new theories pan out and believe they will, maybe in modified form however, keeping their essential precepts then, we are talking about the largest paradigm shift in human thought since the first human genuinely reflected, after the fact, on an event in a coherent manner.