Technologically/Intellectually Superior Aliens: "Unpleasant Visits"?

[Mr Skeptic]

Yes and photos that are obviously some sort of strange craft are assumed to be fake no matter how good they are. As a matter of fact the better the photos are the more they are assumed to be fake.

 

Which you essentially do in post 95. Yes, given the assumption that alien craft are very unlikely, photos of such are likely to be fake. Much like I usually dismiss photos of presidents in bikinis as fake without so much as examining them.

 

One of them has been shown many times, sightings by large groups of people have occurred and there are films of these sightings, always assumed to be faked or hoaxes.

 

Just to clarify: sightings by a UFO convention don't count. It would be extremely unlikely for an alien to show up just exactly in front of a large group of people who were looking for them.

 

You expect a piece to fall off an alien space craft?

 

It would convince me. And yes, technology does occasionally break, and flying things occasionally get shot down.

 

You expect an alien to shed an arm or leg and leave it behind ?

 

Or a whole specimen. Again, it would convince me. The thing about hard proof is that it is hard...

 

That has already been produced several times, it's always debunked by skeptics as too good to be true or a mass hallucination caused by some sort of hoax. Such mass sightings are dismissed out of hand as quickly as individual sightings.

 

Any examples? Remember that clear photographic evidence is also a component (ie, the craft has visible technological features).

 

This is not impossible but so far no such thing has been found. I have some high hopes for the infrared telescopes but I'm not sure the places in the solar system they might be are being looked at seriously.

 

And if the aliens are based in our solar system they must have a base here. Otherwise, I can't really see aliens coming all this way just to fly around a bit.

[Moontanman]

Which you essentially do in post 95. Yes, given the assumption that alien craft are very unlikely, photos of such are likely to be fake. Much like I usually dismiss photos of presidents in bikinis as fake without so much as examining them.

 

That's not a fair comparison and you know it. The director of the CIA in a lingerie is unlikely but at one time unknown to the world it was very true occurrence.

 

Just to clarify: sightings by a UFO convention don't count. It would be extremely unlikely for an alien to show up just exactly in front of a large group of people who were looking for them.

 

I think I've shown that I am not talking about stuff like that. I take this seriously enough to comb through stuff that is likely to be tarnished.

 

 

It would convince me. And yes, technology does occasionally break, and flying things occasionally get shot down.

 

yes that is possible but not likely, as I've said I live under the flight path of an airport, so far no pieces of airplanes have fallen off. Even though dozens of planes land every day, I'd like to think an advanced alien space craft would be even more reliable.

 

Or a whole specimen. Again, it would convince me. The thing about hard proof is that it is hard...

 

 

Yeah it's hard not to mention unreasonable.

 

Any examples? Remember that clear photographic evidence is also a component (ie, the craft has visible technological features).

 

I'll give it my best google shot

 

And if the aliens are based in our solar system they must have a base here. Otherwise, I can't really see aliens coming all this way just to fly around a bit.

 

Now on that we are in total agreement.

[King, North TX]

If we allow that there is enough evidence to show they are here then there is enough evidence to at least speculate where they do not come from. to say they could come from Titan is very hard to allow for, we know the conditions on titan do not allow to creatures even close to the creatures we see in historical documents or in UFO mythology.

 

"They" almost certainly have to come from

 

#1 Another star system, at least originally

 

#2 A past civilization that colonized the solar system but died out completely on the earth, Intelligent dinosaurs anyone?

 

#3 time travelers.

 

#4 alternate worlds or dimensions.

 

Any other suggestions?

 

Alright, if we HAVE to play this game...

 

'They' are escaped Atlanteans...

[Moontanman]

Mr. Skeptic, so far no films that would pass the test for me or you but these sightings are very troubling if for no other reason for the way they were seen on radar and by people whose testimony could easily put either one of use in jail or maybe even on death row with less evidence than this.

 

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread546470/pg1

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westall_UFO

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash-Landrum_incident

Edited May 6, 2010 by Moontanman

[King, North TX]

...

 

#2 A past civilization that colonized the solar system but died out completely on the earth, Intelligent dinosaurs anyone?

 

...

 

 

...that worshipped the Sun, and believed in absolute cremation upon death, and that's why we don't have and bones or bodies...

 

Make believe can be fun.

 

Who knows what exists beyond our knowledge. I'm sure I read somewhere that we know more about the Moon's surface, than we do our ocean floors.

 

Almost no 'serious' investigation has been done with this notion in mind. Instead, we've started from the perception that ALL of these ancient tales are pure fiction or myth, with no real basis in reality. After all, there's no evidence of the super-natural. But isn't it entirely more likely that we simple mis-interpreted these tales and or they were embellished over the years...from an actual truth?

 

---

 

*Did you know Babe Ruth once hit a ball so high, that he was able to round the bases and score before the ball hit the ground? This brings up an image of a very high hit ball and a very speedy potato of a man legging it out. The TRUTH to the tale is that it was a very sunny day, before sunglasses, and the fielders simply lost the ball in the bright sun. It landed in the slightly tall infield grass, and went unseen, as everyone watched Babe circle the bases.

 

*My great uncle claims to have heard a story from his father who worked with a lumberjack who worked alone with a black ox, who could do the work of 2 men and a 2-horse team. The man was over 7 feet tall, hefted a handmade elongated axe, and with it and his 'sun-blued' black ox, with its much lower center of gravity- could clear an acre of land in a day. He was often seen easily lopping off 2-3 inch saplings with one whack. The story I heard in grade school was quite different.

Edited May 6, 2010 by King, North TX

[Moontanman]

Alright, if we HAVE to play this game...

 

'They' are escaped Atlanteans...

 

Yup make believe is lots of fun....

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Believe it or not i have heard the "they" come from under the ocean theories too.

 

Honestly if they live under the ocean it's highly unlikely they evolved there so we are still left with the original questions.

 

"They" almost certainly have to come from

 

#1 Another star system, at least originally

 

#2 A past civilization that colonized the solar system but died out completely on the earth, Intelligent dinosaurs anyone?

 

#3 time travelers.

 

#4 alternate worlds or dimensions

[King, North TX]

Yup make believe is lots of fun....

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Believe it or not i have heard the "they" come from under the ocean theories too.

 

Honestly if they live under the ocean it's highly unlikely they evolved there so we are still left with the original questions.

 

"They" almost certainly have to come from

 

#1 Another star system, at least originally

 

#2 A past civilization that colonized the solar system but died out completely on the earth, Intelligent dinosaurs anyone?

 

#3 time travelers.

 

#4 alternate worlds or dimensions

 

Of the choices you offered, I think the most likely is a 'past civilization', that may have even evolved here or on Mars perhaps, but that it escaped to "the heavens"...ascended if you will, to a higher plain of existence. I think it's likely "We" could too...in another 100 years or so. Maybe sooner...

[Moontanman]

Mr. Skeptic, I am havign problems with the videos, I can't run thm so I don't know if any of what is offered is worth watching.

 

This one might be interesting...

 

http://www.searchforvideo.com/watchclip/?id=3847531

[Sayonara]

This thread is so far off topic we will need an advanced alien civilisation to tow us back.

[Moontanman]

I know I'm right, just wait till they come , then you'll be sorry!I know I'm right, just wait till they come , then you'll be sorry!I know I'm right, just wait till they come , then you'll be sorry!I know I'm right, just wait till they come , then you'll be sorry!

 

The ambulance slowly pulls away....

[Sayonara]

/wave

[Moontanman]

Ok, good point, I'll start a new thread, I love speculations, they are so .... speculative

[King, North TX]

Professor Hawking made several mistakes in his arrival at the 'incorrect conclusion' that contact would be like Humans were the Natives and the Visitors, Columbus.

 

I hope he can be convinced to reconsider...

[insane_alien]

why? it's just his opinion.

 

seriously, just because hawking says 'this is what i think' doesn't mean that this is the way it must be.

 

forcing people to change their opinions because you don't like them isn't very fair.

[King, North TX]

why? it's just his opinion.

 

seriously, just because hawking says 'this is what i think' doesn't mean that this is the way it must be.

 

forcing people to change their opinions because you don't like them isn't very fair.

 

Renowned astrophysicists shouldn't be in the habit of making baseless speculative statements of opinion...on subjects they haven't researched.

 

Now, if he had evidence from which he based this conclusion, I'd love to see it, or hear how he arrived at his conclusion.

 

When his methodology has been found to be flawed, as a scientist, he should have no problem admitting he was in error...

[ydoaPs]

Renowned astrophysicists shouldn't be in the habit of making baseless speculative statements of opinion...on subjects they haven't researched.

 

What isn't a baseless opinion on the subject? There's nothing to research, ffs.

[Mr Skeptic]

Now, if he had evidence from which he based this conclusion, I'd love to see it, or hear how he arrived at his conclusion.

 

Most likely do to biological facts known to be generally true due to the mechanisms of evolution:

1) Predators tend to be smarter than non-predators.

2) Greed is usually evolutionarily favored (exception: the social insects, due to a genetic trick -- however, social insects are all the more nasty to outsiders).

 

From these one can conclude that, more likely than not, we wouldn't want to meet a more technologically advanced civilization. There's no guarantee that they'd be nasty, of course, but it seems probable.

[insane_alien]

Renowned astrophysicists shouldn't be in the habit of making baseless speculative statements of opinion...on subjects they haven't researched.

 

why? if scientists never made nearly baseless(he has given some reasons for his thoughts) then progress would be a lot slower. speculation is the first step on the road to a new theory or discovery. science is full of wild speculations. 99.99% of them will turn out to be completely wrong but we still need them.

 

When his methodology has been found to be flawed, as a scientist, he should have no problem admitting he was in error...

 

only if he was submitting a research paper. his personal opinions are not subject to the rules of science.

[King, North TX]

What isn't a baseless opinion on the subject? There's nothing to research, ffs.

 

We have a 'history' with these "heavenly beings"...

 

This has been the argument I've been making for 6 pages.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Most likely do to biological facts known to be generally true due to the mechanisms of evolution:

1) Predators tend to be smarter than non-predators.

2) Greed is usually evolutionarily favored (exception: the social insects, due to a genetic trick -- however, social insects are all the more nasty to outsiders).

 

From these one can conclude that, more likely than not, we wouldn't want to meet a more technologically advanced civilization. There's no guarantee that they'd be nasty, of course, but it seems probable.

 

I think that natural selection and modern civility with social norms are at odds with one another.

 

An even more 'evolved' species may well have seen the benefits of operating in an even more 'less destructive' manner of co-existence.

 

Ideally, scientists wouldn't disturb AT ALL the subjects of their studies. Wouldn't we all agree that we learn the most, when something 'does NOT' know we are looking at it?

 

Ascension into space/the heavens takes a whole lot of cooperation among a lot of individuals, even among nations...

 

Natural selection is too local to rule solar activities.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

...

 

only if he was submitting a research paper. his personal opinions are not subject to the rules of science.

 

Public statements are a lot like research papers. You are putting something out there to be judged.

 

'I' judge this public statement/opinion, to be without scientific merit.

[insane_alien]

if you believe that a statement of opinion is the same as a published paper then you have things very very wrong indeed.

 

he does make it very clear that it is SPECULATION. it really shouldn't be held up to the same standards as a hypothesis or theory especially as it contains opinion.

 

it doesn't matter whether it has scientific merit or not because its not meant to be judged scientifically.

[King, North TX]

if you believe that a statement of opinion is the same as a published paper then you have things very very wrong indeed.

 

he does make it very clear that it is SPECULATION. it really shouldn't be held up to the same standards as a hypothesis or theory especially as it contains opinion.

 

it doesn't matter whether it has scientific merit or not because its not meant to be judged scientifically.

 

When you are Professor Hawking EVERYTHING you say is going to be judged by scientists.

 

It isn't like he was engaged in a private discussion bantering about various speculative ideas. He went on TV, and provided a public statement.

 

How should the statement be judged?

[insane_alien]

its a popsci documentary. i can debunk EVERY SINGLE ONE of those. There is NO documentary shown on tv that can be described as an accurate reflection of the scientific principles they are attempting to describe. TV IS NOT A JOURNAL.

 

why are you taking this like he came out and said 'ZOMG ELECTRICITY IS ACTUALLY MINIUNICORNS!'

 

he isn't going against some well established scientific principle. he's saying 'i think aliens would be like this, here are my reasons'

 

what about this do you find so outrageous?

[Moontanman]

First of all i would like to point out his contention is not new, many people have conjectured any meeting between humans and aliens would result in us getting the shitty end of the stick.

 

i think to the everyday person Hawking is an authority much like Einstein is. In many ways a cult of personality describes both of them quite well. I know it was just speculation, i disagree with his premise but no one would care about my ideas but his are taken almost as some absolute truth, if not by science then almost certainly by average people.

[King, North TX]

...

 

what about this do you find so outrageous?

 

I said I found his conclusion without scientific merit, and in ignorance of our history with heavenly beings.

 

I never actually used the term outrageous. I so seldom do...

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

...

 

i think to the everyday person Hawking is an authority much like Einstein is. In many ways a cult of personality describes both of them quite well. I know it was just speculation, i disagree with his premise but no one would care about my ideas but his are taken almost as some absolute truth, if not by science then almost certainly by average people.

 

Agreed, which is why he probably shouldn't be running his mouth in front of a camera and microphone, without some evidence.

 

It wasn't that he speculated without any evidence, but that he ignored the evidence at hand THEN speculated.

 

We have more to fear in each other than we do from any "heavenly agent".

[mooeypoo]

It wasn't that he speculated without any evidence, but that he ignored the evidence at hand THEN speculated.

What evidence did he ignore, and where is the peer review article that reviews said evidence?