Jump to content

Aliens from space (split from Time to talk about UFO's or now as the military calls them UAP's?)


Moontanman
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 4/12/2021 at 9:12 PM, Alex_Krycek said:

 

Quite a fascinating documentary was released back in 2020 called "The Phenomenon", directed by James Fox.  Makes a very compelling case that Earth has and is being visited by some unknown intelligence.  

Personally I think it's extremely naive to conclude that in our universe another intelligent species would not develop the means of interstellar travel before us.  An anthropocentric bias, so to speak.  Modern day geo-centrism.  

I watched "The Phenomenon" last night, I have to say it was the best UFO documentary I've seen. It blowed my former fav out of the water and then some. It had lots of footage of people who ere involved back in the day and other footage I had never seen. I thought I'd pretty much seen them all but this one resets the bar. 

It really too bad it's not on youtube so we could go through it by timestamp, lots of interesting things to discuss! 

I would ask anything here who wants to discuss the UFO subject to watch this video, really great stuff and relatively unbiased, "just the Facts ma'am" (vague TV reference, Dragnet" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

I would ask anything here who wants to discuss the UFO subject to watch this video, really great stuff and relatively unbiased, "just the Facts ma'am" (vague TV reference, Dragnet" 

Mostly I bypass documentaries on UFO's or UAP's as sensationalistic junk...mostly, not all. I will certainly try and watch this particular doco, as I have just watched a preview. As I have said previously, and as the question was answered in that preview, yes, some of the more notable  unexplained sightings should be thoroughly investigated, by all means at our disposal. I see it is on "Prime Video" if not I will certainly get my Son, who is educated and learned in IT, to get it for me. 

In saying that, my built in cynicism and sceptism, keeps telling me and asking me the many questions I have mentioned in this thread, as to why they, visiting Aliens [if they exist] do not make their visitation official.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I watched "The Phenomenon" last night, I have to say it was the best UFO documentary I've seen. It blowed my former fav out of the water and then some. It had lots of footage of people who ere involved back in the day and other footage I had never seen. I thought I'd pretty much seen them all but this one resets the bar. 

It really too bad it's not on youtube so we could go through it by timestamp, lots of interesting things to discuss! 

I would ask anything here who wants to discuss the UFO subject to watch this video, really great stuff and relatively unbiased, "just the Facts ma'am" (vague TV reference, Dragnet" 

What did you think about the purported physical evidence that they discussed?  This section is at timestamp: 1:18:00.  Dr. Jacques Valleé (PhD) and Dr. Garry Nolan (PhD) analyze the results of a multibeam ion imaging scan of several purported metallic fragments from a UFO.   This device can analyze substances down to their atomic structure.  

Nolan stated that the results of the scan showed the isotopic composition of the elements in the metallic fragments did not match anything that exists on Earth.  To paraphrase Dr. Nolan:  "Whoever made this material created it at the atomic level, working with individual isotopes, and not just elements."

My question:  Is there any technology that anyone is aware of that can construct a synthetic material by manipulating individual isotopes? 

Dr. Nolan's credentials here:   https://profiles.stanford.edu/garry-nolan

Here is an article explaining the technology they were using:  https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-20753-5

(Images below)

 

Screen Shot 2021-04-16 at 09.19.33.png

931669060_ScreenShot2021-04-16at07_27_30.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

What did you think about the purported physical evidence that they discussed?  This section is at timestamp: 1:18:00.  Dr. Jacques Valleé (PhD) and Dr. Garry Nolan (PhD) analyze the results of a multibeam ion imaging scan of several purported metallic fragments from a UFO.   This device can analyze substances down to their atomic structure.  

Nolan stated that the results of the scan showed the isotopic composition of the elements in the metallic fragments did not match anything that exists on Earth.  To paraphrase Dr. Nolan:  "Whoever made this material created it at the atomic level, working with individual isotopes, and not just elements."

My question:  Is there any technology that anyone is aware of that can construct a synthetic material by manipulating individual isotopes? 

Dr. Nolan's credentials here:   https://profiles.stanford.edu/garry-nolan

Here is an article explaining the technology they were using:  https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-20753-5

(Images below)

 

Screen Shot 2021-04-16 at 09.19.33.png

931669060_ScreenShot2021-04-16at07_27_30.png

If the results Dr. Nolan got can be replicated it will be difficult to dismiss this out of hand. 

16 hours ago, beecee said:

Mostly I bypass documentaries on UFO's or UAP's as sensationalistic junk...mostly, not all. I will certainly try and watch this particular doco, as I have just watched a preview. As I have said previously, and as the question was answered in that preview, yes, some of the more notable  unexplained sightings should be thoroughly investigated, by all means at our disposal. I see it is on "Prime Video" if not I will certainly get my Son, who is educated and learned in IT, to get it for me. 

In saying that, my built in cynicism and sceptism, keeps telling me and asking me the many questions I have mentioned in this thread, as to why they, visiting Aliens [if they exist] do not make their visitation official.

It is puzzling that they don't just warp into orbit and simply say "we're here" but alien motivations may not be similar to ours. On the other hand we do communicate with ants and they don't seem to recognize it. 

Edited by Moontanman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I would ask anything here who wants to discuss the UFO subject to watch this video

!

Moderator Note

We established that UFO ≠ aliens in the other thread, and so to backslide into equating them is problem. I'e split this off so folks can discuss actual evidence for aliens visiting earth ,and not cross-contaminate the other discussion.

So feel free to list some of the evidence from that video, because "ooh, go watch this video" won't suffice, per rule 2.7

 
9 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Nolan stated that the results of the scan showed the isotopic composition of the elements in the metallic fragments did not match anything that exists on Earth

That's an incredibly vague description, so as to be basically useless. What is the actual isotopic breakdown? (some science to discuss, rather than a soundbite)

"Whoever made this material created it at the atomic level, working with individual isotopes, and not just elements." doesn't really get much leverage from someone with a background in biology and medicine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

It is puzzling that they don't just warp into orbit and simply say "we're here" but alien motivations may not be similar to ours. On the other hand we do communicate with ants and they don't seem to recognize it. 

Very true.  In order to communicate there must be some baseline interface for communication.  We can teach lower primates how to use sign language, for example, primarily because they share a genetic structure similar to our own and have a cognitive capacity that enables them to understand the meaning of the language.  We can't do much with a fish or an insect, however (except perhaps frighten them off).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Yep.   The fallacy of binary thinking. 

Ockham's razor is your friend when assessing any theories that involve advanced technology and centuries or millennia-long voyages culminating in weird planetary voyeurism (we're not going to contact,  we'll just watch for decades as we confound the locals with bizarre aerial stunts because, really,  we have nothing better to do!).   

Hitchen's razor is also a friend,  when over 70 years of combing over reports yields not one shred of solid evidence for the ET origin hypothesis.   

 I find it telling that,  a few months after a movie was released in which an alien craft descends on Washington DC (The Day the Earth Stood Still), the famous DC UFO sightings occurred. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, TheVat said:

 

Hitchen's razor is also a friend,  when over 70 years of combing over reports yields not one shred of solid evidence for the ET origin hypothesis.   

 

I think radar returns connected with glowing objects flying over restricted areas reported by both civilian and military personnel in Washington DC, interacting with both civilian and military aircraft constitute solid evidence.

Turning off ten ICBMs at Malmstrom Air Force Base and at other bases as well is suspicious at the very least.

I think the government admitting to these radar returns and radar jamming not to mention admitting these objects could constitute a flight hazard to our aircraft and a danger to our nation constitutes a few threads of evidence. 

None of this makes them aliens but it should peak the interest of any normal people. 

Hitchens razor can be quite dangerous if not used properly.  

Edited by Moontanman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Swanson,  though my comment was that the ET conjecture is dismissable, from any "either/or,"  if you feel it belongs in the other thread,  you may move it there if you wish.  Though it would somewhat strip out the context of the post.   The software of this website seems to not permit much window for editing or self-deletion,  so I am unable to do this myself.   

To Moontan,  I can only point out I was not saying there is no evidence of something, only that it is not evidence of ETs.  I have little cause to doubt there are radar anomalies,  and that they are quite fascinating.  And the word for eliciting interest is "pique" and not "peak. "  (yes,  I've got a bit of a pedant in my otherwise spotless character...I can usually squelch the little bugger, but he just runs amuck over spelling... ) 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/17/2021 at 7:50 PM, swansont said:

I don’t find false dichotomies to be all that interesting. 

It's certainly interesting how the Overton Window is shifting, such that renowned scientists such as Dr. Kaku feel comfortable stating on record that this phenomena should be taken seriously.   This is something being called for across the board: serious investigation from scientists, not mere dismissal.  Thus far, there are only a few scientists taking this matter seriously (on record, that is), Dr. Travis Taylor, an astrophysicist from Alabama, being one of them.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/16/2021 at 2:30 PM, Moontanman said:

 

It is puzzling that they don't just warp into orbit and simply say "we're here" but alien motivations may not be similar to ours.   

There are plenty of speculative reasons why an alien may not wish to be seen by or communicate with us, your comment  (my bold) is as good as any.

If aliens are advanced enough to easily travel interstellar distances, it's a safe bet that they are so much more advanced that communication with us might be as futile as us with insects.

For me, the reason we have not been visited maybe not just one but a number of things. 

1. Space is vast and there are countless galaxies and star systems, why would we be noticed (yet)? 

2. Space is vast and the distances between star systems is so great it presents massive obstacles for biological life (as we know it) to travel even a fraction of these distances.

3. Space is vast so the time it would take to travel between star systems, at sub light speeds, goes beyond any practical sensibility for biological life forms (as we know it). 

4. Space is vast so the energy requirements to travel between star systems maybe total inefficient and costly.

5. Spacetime is vast so the odds of any advanced life forms co existing within a relative close proximity at similar times is going to be extremely low.

6. Advanced life (based on Earth) could be very rare. Humans have only been around for a tiny fraction of the time life has been around on planet Earth, and there were a number of random events that were crucial for humans to evolve in the first place. Life existing may not naturally evolve technological capabilities.

7. Though almost 14 billion years old, relative to the estimated life span that the universe should achieve, it's very much in it's early infancy. Humans may well be the one of, if indeed not the first, technological life form to exist in the Milky way galaxy or the universe.

8. Biological life is fragile and susceptible to extreme environmental changes and conditions. There may be a filter that is difficult to go beyond. 

9. The universe maybe swarming with advanced alien technology, they just either have not detected us or have no interest to engage (not my favourite reason to be honest)

10. We are alone.  

Edited by Intoscience
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/18/2021 at 6:52 PM, TheVat said:

To Moontan,  I can only point out I was not saying there is no evidence of something, only that it is not evidence of ETs.  I have little cause to doubt there are radar anomalies,  and that they are quite fascinating.  And the word for eliciting interest is "pique" and not "peak. "  (yes,  I've got a bit of a pedant in my otherwise spotless character...I can usually squelch the little bugger, but he just runs amuck over spelling... ) 

Since you were kind enough to point out my grammar I will again point out shreds of real evidence which I also pointed out were not necessarily aliens. How ever it becomes ever more difficult to handwave away the reports that cannot be explained even though prodiditious amounts of evidence exist. 

Quote

I think radar returns connected with glowing objects flying over restricted areas reported by both civilian and military personnel in Washington DC, interacting with both civilian and military aircraft constitute solid evidence.

Turning off ten ICBMs at Malmstrom Air Force Base and at other bases as well is suspicious at the very least.

I think the government admitting to these radar returns and radar jamming not to mention admitting these objects could constitute a flight hazard to our aircraft and a danger to our nation constitutes a few threads of evidence. 

None of this makes them aliens but it should peak the interest of any normal people. 

Hitchens razor can be quite dangerous if not used properly.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

How ever it becomes ever more difficult to handwave away the reports that cannot be explained even though prodiditious amounts of evidence exist. 

The reports aren't being "handwaved away" - it's just being pointed out that a phenomenon without explanation does not count as evidence.

And this "prodiditious" (prodigious?) amount of evidence is basically nil, if one uses the same standard as in science. Which is what we want here, being a science discussion site.

IOW, "we can't explain this" or "something triggered the radar" ≠ "it's aliens"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I am okay with investigation of anomalies,  and sometimes spotty data can at least suggest a new hypothesis and path for research, but it's good to keep in mind that a sound hypothesis must be capable of disproof.  This is Karl Popper's principle of falsification.  

But what set of observations can,  in reality,  falsify the ET hypothesis?   It seems to me that,  no matter how many negative results we have (the radar bogey was frozen pee,  the silent light was Las Vegas reflected off the belly of an overweight goose), we can't really rule out that some stealthy ET has visited Earth.   Watching the airspace and environs of Earth is not like watching a sealed room on CCTV.  Things can be missed,  others can be seen and remain unexplained because a sufficient amount of data will never be obtained.    So I think a case can be made that ETs can only be a conjecture (which may at some point be proved to be right -- an alien lands and says howdy,  a crashed spaceship is found not to be of this world,  etc.) and not a scientific hypothesis.   

And inductive reasoning doesn't help much.   If we look at thousands of observations and find that they have been,  in the past, observations of new experimental aircraft or of optical effects of atmosphere or other terrestrial phenomena, and none of them has ever proved to be an ET, then we are left with nothing to do but apply Ockham's razor.   We have no real empirical foundation of having encountered ETs to build from,  when an anomaly zips by.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, TheVat said:

 

I am okay with investigation of anomalies,  and sometimes spotty data can at least suggest a new hypothesis and path for research, but it's good to keep in mind that a sound hypothesis must be capable of disproof.  This is Karl Popper's principle of falsification.  

But what set of observations can,  in reality,  falsify the ET hypothesis?   It seems to me that,  no matter how many negative results we have (the radar bogey was frozen pee,  the silent light was Las Vegas reflected off the belly of an overweight goose), we can't really rule out that some stealthy ET has visited Earth.   Watching the airspace and environs of Earth is not like watching a sealed room on CCTV.  Things can be missed,  others can be seen and remain unexplained because a sufficient amount of data will never be obtained.    So I think a case can be made that ETs can only be a conjecture (which may at some point be proved to be right -- an alien lands and says howdy,  a crashed spaceship is found not to be of this world,  etc.) and not a scientific hypothesis.   

And inductive reasoning doesn't help much.   If we look at thousands of observations and find that they have been,  in the past, observations of new experimental aircraft or of optical effects of atmosphere or other terrestrial phenomena, and none of them has ever proved to be an ET, then we are left with nothing to do but apply Ockham's razor.   We have no real empirical foundation of having encountered ETs to build from,  when an anomaly zips by.  

There’s the negative proposition - eliminating the possibility, which you can’t do. But there’s the positive proposition - establish that it’s aliens, which AFAICT nobody has come close to doing. The former does not own the burden of proof. The latter does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, TheVat said:

 

I am okay with investigation of anomalies,  and sometimes spotty data can at least suggest a new hypothesis and path for research, but it's good to keep in mind that a sound hypothesis must be capable of disproof.  This is Karl Popper's principle of falsification.  

But what set of observations can,  in reality,  falsify the ET hypothesis?   It seems to me that,  no matter how many negative results we have (the radar bogey was frozen pee,  the silent light was Las Vegas reflected off the belly of an overweight goose), we can't really rule out that some stealthy ET has visited Earth.   Watching the airspace and environs of Earth is not like watching a sealed room on CCTV.  Things can be missed,  others can be seen and remain unexplained because a sufficient amount of data will never be obtained.    So I think a case can be made that ETs can only be a conjecture (which may at some point be proved to be right -- an alien lands and says howdy,  a crashed spaceship is found not to be of this world,  etc.) and not a scientific hypothesis.   

And inductive reasoning doesn't help much.   If we look at thousands of observations and find that they have been,  in the past, observations of new experimental aircraft or of optical effects of atmosphere or other terrestrial phenomena, and none of them has ever proved to be an ET, then we are left with nothing to do but apply Ockham's razor.   We have no real empirical foundation of having encountered ETs to build from,  when an anomaly zips by.  

 

17 hours ago, swansont said:

There’s the negative proposition - eliminating the possibility, which you can’t do. But there’s the positive proposition - establish that it’s aliens, which AFAICT nobody has come close to doing. The former does not own the burden of proof. The latter does.

Dou you not think the lack of explanation become important at some point? Show what can cause two weekends of insanity in Washington, DC glowing orbs seen in the sky, integration with both civivilain aircraft, the orbs were see from the ground by hundreds, picked up by two separate ground radars, see by the men who manned those radars even to the point of being able to tell on radar two they are in your area of radar one and the checked and they were there. While none of these things prove anything they certainly do suggest something. 

What do they suggest to you? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Moontanman said:

 

Dou you not think the lack of explanation become important at some point?

A lack of explanation is simply that. It’s not evidence.

 

Quote

Show what can cause two weekends of insanity in Washington, DC glowing orbs seen in the sky, integration with both civivilain aircraft, the orbs were see from the ground by hundreds, picked up by two separate ground radars, see by the men who manned those radars even to the point of being able to tell on radar two they are in your area of radar one and the checked and they were there. While none of these things prove anything they certainly do suggest something. 

What do they suggest to you? 

I don’t have to show what can cause such sightings. I’m simply pointing out that it’s not evidence. Not being able to draw a conclusion means aliens is one of the things that you can’t conclude. 

 

edit: I invited people to post supporting evidence earlier. No takers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/18/2021 at 1:08 PM, Moontanman said:

I think radar returns connected with glowing objects flying over restricted areas reported by both civilian and military personnel in Washington DC, interacting with both civilian and military aircraft constitute solid evidence.
Turning off ten ICBMs at Malmstrom Air Force Base and at other bases as well is suspicious at the very least.
I think the government admitting to these radar returns and radar jamming not to mention admitting these objects could constitute a flight hazard to our aircraft and a danger to our nation constitutes a few threads of evidence. 


These anmalies are no doubt, being investigated by the military/government, as they represent possible threats/problems with our military hardware.
Can you understand why the government wouldn't want to publicize the fact that our ICBMs can go ( or be taken ) offline, removing the element of 'deterrence', and possibly exposing us to adversary nuclear first strike ?
Can you understand why new technologies, like plasma stealth and others, might be undergoing testing currently, by us or adversaries, and the military has no desire to let the 'cat out of the bag' ( similar to the original stealth demonstrators which were flying in the early 70s, but were unknown to the public till 1990 ) ?

Ths thread reminds me of the 'Schroedinger's cat' thread ...
The fact that we don't know, is not evidence of the supernatural ... nor of 'aliens'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, MigL said:


These anmalies are no doubt, being investigated by the military/government, as they represent possible threats/problems with our military hardware.
Can you understand why the government wouldn't want to publicize the fact that our ICBMs can go ( or be taken ) offline, removing the element of 'deterrence', and possibly exposing us to adversary nuclear first strike ?
Can you understand why new technologies, like plasma stealth and others, might be undergoing testing currently, by us or adversaries, and the military has no desire to let the 'cat out of the bag' ( similar to the original stealth demonstrators which were flying in the early 70s, but were unknown to the public till 1990 ) ?

Ths thread reminds me of the 'Schroedinger's cat' thread ...
The fact that we don't know, is not evidence of the supernatural ... nor of 'aliens'.

Another problem is assuming ET's are cleverer than we are. The biggest obstacle for me is transiting light-year distances in reasonable time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Another problem is assuming ET's are cleverer than we are. The biggest obstacle for me is transiting light-year distances in reasonable time.

 

An obstacle for me as well.   I've never been able to achieve any significant fraction of c.   😀

It does seem any ET that does arrive is part of a self-selecting group:  the mere fact of their being here means they are cleverer than we are.   Though I suppose,  if one speculates wildly,  it's possible to conceive of ETs who are actually technologically less clever but happen to have normal lifespans of a thousand years or the ability to hibernate for very long stretches.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TheVat said:

 

An obstacle for me as well.   I've never been able to achieve any significant fraction of c.   😀

It does seem any ET that does arrive is part of a self-selecting group:  the mere fact of their being here means they are cleverer than we are.   Though I suppose,  if one speculates wildly,  it's possible to conceive of ETs who are actually technologically less clever but happen to have normal lifespans of a thousand years or the ability to hibernate for very long stretches.   

The main point being that they require extra-ordinary skills that lie outside known physics. :) I think until physics can derive a feasible possible path to speculating about it, it's just empty wondering...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

The main point being that they require extra-ordinary skills that lie outside known physics. :) I think until physics can derive a feasible possible path to speculating about it, it's just empty wondering...

Which part exactly is outside known physics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bipedal two-eyed little people with two hands and a metabolism that's compatible with an atmosphere rich in oxygen? The most natural hypothesis is that they're human descendants, millions of years from now, travelling back in time. ;) 

I see big problems in trying to build an explanation from what's essentially witness accounts. Human memory is very faulty. Especially when one tries to reconstruct events one didn't quite expect or understand. When we get startled, our cultural background plays a very active part in building up a 'consistent' picture of what we saw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.