PDA

View Full Version : Nick's laws of Extra Terrestrial life...

Nicholas Hill
2004-Jun-17, 03:11 PM
Nicholas' first law of extra terrestrial life:

"Either the Universe contains no life at all, or it contains much life. Considering probability, the sheer size of the Universe dictates that the chance of life existing only on a single planet be very small".

Nicholas' second law of extra terrestrial life:

"Therefore, if it can be proven that life exists only on a single planet, then this is most probably the result of (a or the) God"

Would you guys like to critique? I've worded them clearly as to (hopefully) avoid flame wars - I don't specify the god of a specific religion, and I do say "probably" or "most probably".

Musashi
2004-Jun-17, 03:20 PM
How about this?

Given the sheer size of the universe, it could be possible for it to be teeming with life but for us to never discover any of it. Therefore making predictions based on our findings would be futile.

In other words, if that is your stance, it is much harder to proove that we are the only life than to disprove it. No matter what our current findings are, your argument supports no god more strongly than it ever will support a god.

Welcome to the board.

Ut
2004-Jun-17, 03:38 PM
If life formed by chance, then there's no reason to think it didn't form by chance elsewhere. If life formed only here, and by the will of the gods, then what in the world is all that other stuff floating around out there for?

R.A.F.
2004-Jun-17, 03:51 PM
First off, welcome to the board!!

Considering probability, the sheer size of the Universe dictates that the chance of life existing only on a single planet be very small".

No disagreement there...

"Therefore, if it can be proven that life exists only on a single planet, then this is most probably the result of (a or the) God"

I don't see how one necessarily implies the other, but the big problem I see is that if at the beginning of the sentence...

That if is as big as the entire universe. I just don't see how it would ever be possible to prove that life exists on only one planet.

Tim_t7
2004-Jun-17, 04:09 PM
As we have ventured into the realms of theology could I point out that it was us humans that wrote the Bible. And us humans who declared that we were formed in the image of our God, thus putting ourselves at the top of the tree. This is probably ego...

But if there was other intelligent life in the universe then we can assume that they have followed their own path to finding a reason for their existence which will quite possibly have included religion.
So is their only one God? If everybody was made in his likeness it would certainly explain why Aliens all look similar to us!
But why assume that there is only one God? This seems like a big assumption.
So if we find other life in the universe then we have raised a few more questions and can no longer prove the existence of a God.
On theology if belief is an act of faith then proof would destroy the notion of God and religion would be redundant.

The other way of looking at this is that Life is the only possible outcome on our planet, and given the nature of the universe if other planets are capable of supporting life then life will exist in some form. Proof of life in this universe has already been confirmed by our existance. Disproving life in all other areas of the universe is pointless.

TriangleMan
2004-Jun-17, 04:13 PM
The second statement does not logically infer from the first.

Considering probability, the sheer size of the Universe dictates that the chance of life existing only on a single planet be very small
Therefore if it was proven that life only existed on one world (others have pointed out how difficult this would be) then it just shows that the probability of life existing on a planet is really small, since it only occured once. One cannot infer a divine being from it.

By the way, I don't think your two statements are 'laws' but that's a minor nitpick.

Swift
2004-Jun-17, 05:05 PM
All I can think of is the entry from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Population - none.
It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.
:D

Brady Yoon
2004-Jun-17, 07:01 PM
If it can be proven. There are probably more planets than stars in the universe. I don't think the absence of life can be proven. Right now, we're not even sure if life ever existed in our solar system (not counting the Earth.)

01101001
2004-Jun-17, 07:05 PM
"Therefore, if it can be proven that life exists only on a single planet, then this is most probably the result of (a or the) God"

Are you saying that any extremely-low-probability event that only happened once, so far, must probably be due to supernatural forces?

LawBeefaroni
2004-Jun-17, 07:48 PM
The second statement does not logically infer from the first.

Considering probability, the sheer size of the Universe dictates that the chance of life existing only on a single planet be very small
Therefore if it was proven that life only existed on one world (others have pointed out how difficult this would be) then it just shows that the probability of life existing on a planet is really small, since it only occured once. One cannot infer a divine being from it.

By the way, I don't think your two statements are 'laws' but that's a minor nitpick.

Yes, the inferance is a huge jump, almost a non sequitur. I expected the second law to read:

Therefore, "Therefore, if it can be proven that life exists only on a single planet, then our idea of the "sheer size of the universe" is probably wrong."

Jpax2003
2004-Jun-18, 02:06 AM
So out of the hundreds of billions stars comprising a hundred billions galaxies, one almighty made one planet with life in 15 billion years. Does anyone that believes in an almighty really believe that the almighty would be that lazy? The almighty is having the devil's time of it trying to explain to us what we are, much less what some other creation on another planet is...

On theology if belief is an act of faith then proof would destroy the notion of God and religion would be redundant.I think that is a complete mischaracterization of the idea of faith. Faith comes from fidelity, meaning discipline. Faith is not blind hope, it is performance of duty. A leap of faith doesn't mean that you hope and expect to be rescued at the last minute, it means that you know full well that you may not and accept it. Faith is facing your fears, not ignoring them. Who is more faithful, the one who resists temptation, or the one who avoids it?

I think God would say "belief is not necessary, only compliance."

Archer17
2004-Jun-18, 02:46 AM
To cut thru the philosophical stuff .. "faith" is believing in something without proof. I have faith that my wife doesn't cheat on me for instance. Anyway, deities aside, to steer this back on a proper BABB course ..

I don't believe we are alone in the universe myself .. the hardiness of life in hostile environments here on Earth (whether volcanic vents or the upper atmosphere) show that life as we know it is hardy. Since I believe there is such a thing as life as we don't know it, coupled with the fact that the universe is a vast place, I think it's highly likely that intelligent life exists somewhere else. I use the Fermi Paradox to debunk UFO woowoos (it makes sense in that context), but allow the possibility of exotic life (non carbon-based would be exotic to me) to exist and such life-forms very well could be uninterested or incapable of colonization. Aquatic/crystal-based entities that are confined to their world are two examples that would not be interested in colonization I suppose but .. I digress. As has been said, this universe could be teeming with intelligent life and, due to the vast distances involved, the Joneses' might never meet the Smiths' .. ever.

Lm Wong
2004-Jun-18, 03:02 AM
As has been said, this universe could be teeming with intelligent life and, due to the vast distances involved, the Joneses' might never meet the Smiths' .. ever.

But if they are not so far away from us let say 10 or 20 light years.This open some possibilities.

Archer17
2004-Jun-18, 03:29 AM
As has been said, this universe could be teeming with intelligent life and, due to the vast distances involved, the Joneses' might never meet the Smiths' .. ever.

But if they are not so far away from us let say 10 or 20 light years.This open some possibilities.There's always possibilities .. "they" could be like us and lag behind on technology (or maybe be way ahead). This is why I think things like SETI shouldn't be canned. I would also like SETI-type initiatives to be forward-thinking and not rely on just EM as a "signal." "They" might be out there .. but I doubt they're within double-digit LYs.

freddo
2004-Jun-18, 03:41 AM
Simply put, the chance of anything happening - if the probability is not zero - there is no inductive logic that suggest that any eventuation of that chance (however miniscule) is due to divine influence.

If the universe plays by the rules, how can you invoke godly intervention?

I would think physical evidence for God would be more in the form of an event where the rules are broken.

Lm Wong
2004-Jun-18, 03:55 AM
As has been said, this universe could be teeming with intelligent life and, due to the vast distances involved, the Joneses' might never meet the Smiths' .. ever.

But if they are not so far away from us let say 10 or 20 light years.This open some possibilities.There's always possibilities .. "they" could be like us and lag behind on technology (or maybe be way ahead). This is why I think things like SETI shouldn't be canned. I would also like SETI-type initiatives to be forward-thinking and not rely on just EM as a "signal." "They" might be out there ..
They might actually visiting us and don`t make contact for whatever reasons.
Think about this what can be the advantage for a contact?

...but I doubt they're within double-digit LYs.

Why do you doubt of that possibility? Any scientific reasons?

freddo
2004-Jun-18, 04:04 AM
Think about this what can be the advantage for a contact?
Conversely, what's the advantage of observing us?

I imagine if we were in the ET's shoes, we might be lonely enough to want to try and talk?

Lm Wong
2004-Jun-18, 04:12 AM
Think about this what can be the advantage for a contact?
Conversely, what's the advantage of observing us?

Maybe they are here for other reasons than observing us.Maybe they are here for some resources they need.

I imagine if we were in the ET's shoes, we might be lonely enough to want to try and talk?
Maybe they just don`t want to talk and are more interested in resources they need.

Musashi
2004-Jun-18, 04:19 AM
Maybe we are the resources they need? Maybe the aliens that are here are a recon unit sent to figure out when and how to best swoop down and scoop us up. Just imagine, we are one short transmission away from galactic slavery! :o

Archer17
2004-Jun-18, 04:26 AM
Lm Wong: Why make excuses for 'em? No advanced race would come this far and dicker like the fables of flying saucers and little green (or gray men) propose. Supposedly "'they" have been doing the SOS for centuries. I think the concept that we have some kind of unique "resource" is unrealistic. The scientific reasons I have doubts about ET gracing our skies I addressed here (http://badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=202793&amp;highlight=ufo+spacetime&amp;sid =b524bdde691b27353334ae2f28187d41#202793) in a previous thread.

Lm Wong
2004-Jun-18, 04:56 AM
Lm Wong: Why make excuses for 'em?
No advanced race would come this far and dicker like the fables of flying saucers and little green (or gray men) propose.

I don`t get your meaning about fables? Is it the report of observations made by eyewitness you are talking about?

Supposedly "'they" have been doing the SOS for centuries. I think the concept that we have some kind of unique "resource" is unrealistic.

Not a "unique" resource but something probably biological.After all maybe unique because biological is rare in the Galaxy so it worth the trip if it is vital for your species.

The scientific reasons I have doubts about ET gracing our skies I addressed here (http://badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=202793&amp;highlight=ufo+spacetime&amp;sid =b524bdde691b27353334ae2f28187d41#202793) in a previous thread.
I see. I propose a distance more realistic.

freddo
2004-Jun-18, 04:56 AM
Maybe they just don`t want to talk and are more interested in resources they need.
Unless those resources are us (as Musashi suggested :wink: ) - or any other life on the planet, I think it's pretty silly to consider us a good source of resources. If you want anything else, there's plenty of planets &amp; moons here in the Solar system that you can get it from without any fuss from ourselves at all.
If we're the resources, then Musashi's scenario could be what we're looking at - only I doubt a race powerfull enough to get here would have any reason to be scared enough to pish about with meaningless reconnoissance activities.

Lm Wong
2004-Jun-18, 05:13 AM
If we're the resources, then Musashi's scenario could be what we're looking at

The human contibution to the resources seem to be at the genetical level.Based upon researchers in that field.

- only I doubt a race powerfull enough to get here would have any reason to be scared enough to pish about with meaningless reconnoissance activities.
They have effectively made important reconnoissances activities after the explosion of the first atomic bombs test.
They obviously don`t care about our defence system.

Archer17
2004-Jun-18, 05:18 AM
Lm Wong: Why make excuses for 'em?
No advanced race would come this far and dicker like the fables of flying saucers and little green (or gray men) propose.
I don`t get your meaning about fables? Is it the report of observations made by eyewitness you are talking about?Not the "observations by eyewitness" per se .. UFOs are just that, things some people see they can't identify. The fable aspect comes in when something as simple as Joe Smoe seeing something he doesn't understand becomes aliens. Did it ever bother you that before the disc-shaped alien craft was vogue, things resembling "blimps" were reported? I would be .. if I truely wanted to believe.

Supposedly "'they" have been doing the SOS for centuries. I think the concept that we have some kind of unique "resource" is unrealistic.Not a "unique" resource but something probably biological.After all maybe unique because biological is rare in the Galaxy so it worth the trip if it is vital for your species. Let's look at your premise for a second. We are on the verge of cloning people so, why with their advanced technology, do they have to keep coming back and .. do it again, and again, and again..

The scientific reasons I have doubts about ET gracing our skies I addressed here (http://badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=202793&amp;highlight=ufo+spacetime&amp;sid =b524bdde691b27353334ae2f28187d41#202793) in a previous thread.I see. I propose a distance more realistic.You're making excuses again. There's no evidence of an ET civilization close to us but, let's assume they are beyond our detection capabilities ..The illogic of UFO behavior (as proposed by ET adherents) doesn't require distance anyway. ET comes here and hides, yet adorn their craft with more lights than a Christmas tree. #-o They seem to lack even contemporary stealth technology (see Mexican UFO thread) but are advanced enough to come here from there. Doesn't add up.

freddo
2004-Jun-18, 05:19 AM
The human contibution to the resources seem to be at the genetical level.Based upon researchers in that field.
Sorry who? Which researchers would those be?

They have effectively made important reconnoissances activities after the explosion of the first atomic bombs test. They obviously don`t care about our defence system.
Did they just? And where's the evidence for this?

Archer17
2004-Jun-18, 05:31 AM
They have effectively made important reconnoissances activities after the explosion of the first atomic bombs test..This isn't the first time I've heard this but it continues to crack me up. It presupposes ET, wherever they are, thinks our fusion bombs are sooooooooo dangerous .. yet they seem to overlook the biggest fusion reaction in the solar system .. good old Sol. The sun is allowed it seems, it's our itsy-bitsy explosions in comparison that tick 'em off! :roll:

Lm Wong
2004-Jun-18, 05:41 AM
Lm Wong: Why make excuses for 'em?
No advanced race would come this far and dicker like the fables of flying saucers and little green (or gray men) propose.
I don`t get your meaning about fables? Is it the report of observations made by eyewitness you are talking about?Not the "observations by eyewitness" per se .. UFOs are just that, things some people see they can't identify. The fable aspect comes in when something as simple as Joe Smoe seeing something he doesn't understand becomes aliens. Did it ever bother you that before the disc-shaped alien craft was vogue, things resembling "blimps" were reported? I would be .. if I truely wanted to believe.

When eyewitness said they have seen little Grey Aliens aside of a landing craft that became more interestiing.

Supposedly "'they" have been doing the SOS for centuries. I think the concept that we have some kind of unique "resource" is unrealistic.Not a "unique" resource but something probably biological.After all maybe unique because biological is rare in the Galaxy so it worth the trip if it is vital for your species.

Let's look at your premise for a second. We are on the verge of cloning people so, why with their advanced technology, do they have to keep coming back and .. do it again, and again, and again..

Are you suggesting than they are returning home at each time?
About cloning:cloning or create hybrid from two different species not from the same planets is surely more difficult.

The scientific reasons I have doubts about ET gracing our skies I addressed here (http://badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=202793&amp;highlight=ufo+spacetime&amp;sid =b524bdde691b27353334ae2f28187d41#202793) in a previous thread.I see. I propose a distance more realistic.

You're making excuses again. There's no evidence of an ET civilization close to us but, let's assume they are beyond our detection capabilities ..The illogic of UFO behavior (as proposed by ET adherents) doesn't require distance anyway. ET comes here and hides, yet adorn their craft with more lights than a Christmas tree.

If they done this all the time there must have been more observations reported than actually.That seem a deliberately manouver for whatever reason "illogical" for us.For the same reason than some time they appear on radar screen.The Mexican case is a good example of their capacity.

edited to fix quote

Musashi
2004-Jun-18, 06:09 AM
I am having a hard time typing right now. Are you serious Lm? You are weaving a tale of pure fiction. "I will make up speculations about other races and occasionally pull in some story from the news as 'proof' of my rambling." That is effectively what you are saying and doing. The Mexico case is not evidence of anything yet. It may never be. Unless you think that the aliens are a new form of life known as burning oil.

Archer17
2004-Jun-18, 06:18 AM
..When eyewitness said they have seen little Grey Aliens aside of a landing craft that became more interestiing.Eyewitnesses? Ever notice how when someone gets abducted, no one notices and it takes dubious regression therapy to bring this to light? :-k
...Are you suggesting than they are returning home at each time?
About cloning:cloning or create hybrid from two different species not from the same planets is surely more difficult.heh .. I'm suggesting they don't exist. This cloning business is really lame. I've pointed out the fallacy of aliens needing to replicate their DNA extractions ad nauseum and the same logic applies to the myth of "hybrids." Why hybrids? Why can't the first hundred (being very generous here) "abductions" give them what they need to continue the process on their own? They're advanced, right? Might as well ask why they supposedly carve up cows all the time too. Even most UFO (as ET) believers are backing away from this nonsense.
If they done this all the time there must have been more observations reported than actually.That seem a deliberately manouver for whatever reason "illogical" for us.For the same reason than some time they appear on radar screen.The Mexican case is a good example of their capacity.Ah, the old "we don't understand their logic" excuse." Won't wash .. all life-forms do something for a reason. It seems you give them credit for logical reasoning to leave their world and head this way, traverse the gulf of space and then when they get here .. act illogical. The Mexican UFOs are a lousy example of an ET component in my book. Seriously, why even bother to be invisible in the first place? 3 out of 11 can't even cloak themselves from radar detection like contemporary US Stealth aircraft can?!? .. pretty sad if you ask me. They also got to work on their IR signatures, dont'cha think? :wink:

Lm Wong
2004-Jun-18, 06:19 AM
They have effectively made important reconnoissances activities after the explosion of the first atomic bombs test..This isn't the first time I've heard this but it continues to crack me up. It presupposes ET, wherever they are, thinks our fusion bombs are sooooooooo dangerous ..

Potential irradiation of the biological material must be a source of concern.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima for example.

Archer17
2004-Jun-18, 06:26 AM
They have effectively made important reconnoissances activities after the explosion of the first atomic bombs test..This isn't the first time I've heard this but it continues to crack me up. It presupposes ET, wherever they are, thinks our fusion bombs are sooooooooo dangerous ..

Potential irradiation of the biological material must be a source of concern.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima for example.Why must something that is insignificant in the cosmic context be significant to "them?" If they were so concerned, where were they before 1945?

Edited to add: Oh, don't tell me .. they were hovering around like they are now #-o

Musashi
2004-Jun-18, 06:27 AM
Comeone Arch, you know how traffic is in the outer solar system at the time of the century! They were stuck at te Neptune Turnpike. I am just glad they are here now watching over us. Until they need my genes that is...

Lm Wong
2004-Jun-18, 06:32 AM
They have effectively made important reconnoissances activities after the explosion of the first atomic bombs test..This isn't the first time I've heard this but it continues to crack me up. It presupposes ET, wherever they are, thinks our fusion bombs are sooooooooo dangerous ..

Potential irradiation of the biological material must be a source of concern.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima for example.Why must something that is insignificant in the cosmic context be significant to "them?" If they were so concerned, where were they before 1945?

Remember the hypothesis advanced by researchers is they need biological material here on EARTH so they are concerned about an eventual use of our nuclear bombs here on EARTH.

Musashi
2004-Jun-18, 06:35 AM
Which researchers? They don't happen to have a sandwich named after them do they?

Lm Wong
2004-Jun-18, 06:40 AM
Which researchers? They don't happen to have a sandwich named after them do they?

Two or three specialist using hypnose on people claming being abducted hve formulated that hypothesis..I don`t remember their names. J. Mack for one the others ?

John Lear have a hypothesis like that also.

Archer17
2004-Jun-18, 06:43 AM
..Remember the hypothesis advanced by researchers is they need biological material here on EARTH so they are concerned about an eventual use of our nuclear bombs here on EARTH.uh, missed that one Mr Wong. You pre-suppose that we are the intergalactic Mecca I see.. ET comes light years to save us from ourselves just to get into our .. genes (yes, I was tempted!) :wink:

Musashi
2004-Jun-18, 06:45 AM
So, the entire basis for your claim is some research you can barely remember and to cap it off, it involves people being hypnotised? That's it? That is really all you have? Darn, I thought this was going somewhere. I guess I can stop hoarding my tinfoil and start covering my leftovers again...

Archer17
2004-Jun-18, 06:45 AM
hypnotic regression isn't viable. My theory is (excluding the nuts) most "abductees" have a sleep disorder .. it's along the line of sleep paralysis Mr Wong.

Archer17
2004-Jun-18, 06:47 AM
Which researchers? They don't happen to have a sandwich named after them do they?Flash-backs! Getting hungry too :D

freddo
2004-Jun-18, 06:50 AM
Speaking of sleep disorders... What the heck are you two boys doing up anyway?

Lm Wong
2004-Jun-18, 06:51 AM
So, the entire basis for your claim is some research you can barely remember and to cap it off, it involves people being hypnotised? That's it? That is really all you have? Darn, I thought this was going somewhere. I guess I can stop hoarding my tinfoil and start covering my leftovers again...

Ho! I have more than this.That is only the top of the Iceberg.But i must restrain myself.

Archer17
2004-Jun-18, 06:52 AM
I'm an "owl" .. it's 0251 here. Musashi is in Calif .. not that late there

Archer17
2004-Jun-18, 06:53 AM
...But i must restrain myself.I know the feeling.. :wink:

freddo
2004-Jun-18, 06:53 AM
So, the entire basis for your claim is some research you can barely remember and to cap it off, it involves people being hypnotised? That's it? That is really all you have? Darn, I thought this was going somewhere. I guess I can stop hoarding my tinfoil and start covering my leftovers again...

Ho! I have more than this.That is only the top of the Iceberg.But i must restrain myself.

You must not! You want to converse intelligently with people here, then the idea is that you should share.

I doubt I'd ever win an argument by saying "I have plenty of evidence that I'm right, but I must withhold it in case I convince you..."

Lm Wong
2004-Jun-18, 06:59 AM
So, the entire basis for your claim is some research you can barely remember and to cap it off, it involves people being hypnotised? That's it? That is really all you have? Darn, I thought this was going somewhere. I guess I can stop hoarding my tinfoil and start covering my leftovers again...

Ho! I have more than this.That is only the top of the Iceberg.But i must restrain myself.

You must not! You want to converse intelligently with people here, then the idea is that you should share.

I doubt I'd ever win an argument by saying "I have plenty of evidence that I'm right, but I must withhold it in case I convince you..."

Wait, I never said I have evidences... for now.Think about it.

Archer17
2004-Jun-18, 07:10 AM
I don't want to be too hard on Mr. Wong, he's personable enough .. heck, I used to believe in 'em too. You know what did them in for me? The lack of consistency of the craft at first. Blimps, hubcaps, pie-plates, cigars, hats, jelly-fish, balls, transparent thingies, "foo-fighters" the size of German shepards .. then, Mothman, the Kelly shootout with glowing aliens, the Flatwoods "monster, Vallee's inter-dimensional "tricksters," Streiber's "implants," the "Men in Black," cows :o .. it just got to be too much. Before I knew what was happening .. a skeptic was born 8)

I got a kick how this went from a philosophical/ideological SETI thing to a UFO thing. Look me up when you have some "evidence" Lm Wong.

Tim_t7
2004-Jun-18, 11:59 AM
I saw an interesting program the other night.

The USAF do in fact have a crashed Flying Saucer!

They know all about it!!

They should do as they were the ones who crashed it. People have been experimenting with aircraft design for quite a while, there are top secret trials for 'flying saucers' and have been for decades. It is inevitable that some of these may have been noticed.
Excuse the goverment from standing up and telling everybody that there were no flying saucers, honestly it was just a top secret trial, oops gave the game away.

Intersting point was that people began seeing triangular shaped UFOs for a while while the Stealth bomber was still unknown, (look at one from the front, when flying it will look like a hovering triangle). Also the USAF had a very high altitude (higher than thought possible at the time) spy plane that was top secret until one crashed in Russia and had to be admitted. There were quite a few smiling faces at the Pentagon who knew many of the UFO claims were of this aircraft.
It's all a government conspiracy...

russ_watters
2004-Jun-18, 03:56 PM
They have effectively made important reconnoissances activities after the explosion of the first atomic bombs test..This isn't the first time I've heard this but it continues to crack me up. It presupposes ET, wherever they are, thinks our fusion bombs are sooooooooo dangerous ..

Potential irradiation of the biological material must be a source of concern.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima for example. The radiation from those atomic bombs isn't even a big source of concern to today's Japanese - why would someone who can travel dozens of light years care at all?
When eyewitness said they have seen little Grey Aliens aside of a landing craft that became more interestiing. I'll try to contain my laughter long enough for you to prove that.

Demigrog
2004-Jun-18, 05:14 PM
So, the entire basis for your claim is some research you can barely remember and to cap it off, it involves people being hypnotised? That's it? That is really all you have? Darn, I thought this was going somewhere. I guess I can stop hoarding my tinfoil and start covering my leftovers again...

Why would you think an argument about alien abductions would go anywhere? :)

R.A.F.
2004-Jun-18, 07:09 PM
One of the main reasons why the "idea" of visiting ET's is so much WooWoo is...

If these "aliens" are so advanced that they can avoid "detection", they WHY do "people" keep "seeing" them.

Oh, I know...it's that alien logic that us poor stupid "Earthers" couldn't ever possibibly understand!!

Yeah, right. :roll:

Lm Wong
2004-Jun-18, 09:06 PM
One of the main reasons why the "idea" of visiting ET's is so much WooWoo is...

If these "aliens" are so advanced that they can avoid "detection", they WHY do "people" keep "seeing" them.

This remember the opposite view.If the flying saucers are solid objects why they are not detectable on radar screen.Wait, but they are detectable on radar screen.See the disclosure project.

Lm Wong
2004-Jun-18, 09:12 PM
Lm Wong: Why make excuses for 'em?
No advanced race would come this far and dicker like the fables of flying saucers and little green (or gray men) propose.
I don`t get your meaning about fables? Is it the report of observations made by eyewitness you are talking about?Not the "observations by eyewitness" per se .. UFOs are just that, things some people see they can't identify. The fable aspect comes in when something as simple as Joe Smoe seeing something he doesn't understand becomes aliens. Did it ever bother you that before the disc-shaped alien craft was vogue, things resembling "blimps" were reported?

The point is than the flying saucers were a totally new kind of objects observed in the sky.Also with some cigar shaped objects (blimp shape).

Archer17
2004-Jun-18, 10:45 PM
One of the main reasons why the "idea" of visiting ET's is so much WooWoo is...

If these "aliens" are so advanced that they can avoid "detection", they WHY do "people" keep "seeing" them.

This remember the opposite view.If the flying saucers are solid objects why they are not detectable on radar screen.Wait, but they are detectable on radar screen.See the disclosure project.Popular UFO lore has them both visible and invisible to radar so your point falls short of the mark here Mr Wong. Take these Mexican UFOs, they were optically invisible but 3 showed up on radar, 8 didn't, and they forgot about their IR signatures. Oops! :wink: IMO the Disclosure Project is nothing but a woowoo convocation. It was recently discussed in the Mexican UFO thread and Wolverine made some good points about the DP here. (http://badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=263017&amp;highlight=&amp;sid=1bcd44d9dccb 97e74434f5afa461a7b2#263017)
The point is than the flying saucers were a totally new kind of objects observed in the sky.Also with some cigar shaped objects (blimp shape).No, actually the point is these supposed extraterrestrial craft resembled dirigibles (not cigars) in the late 1800s, and generally have been described in more shapes and sizes than Bayer has aspirin. I'm not talking subtle differences either. Do you think we are being visited by hundreds of different alien races? Or does each ET crew have their own model? Lack of consistency in the appearance of UFOs makes them less credible as spaceships in my book.

Lm Wong
2004-Jun-19, 01:03 AM
The point is than the flying saucers were a totally new kind of objects observed in the sky.Also with some cigar shaped objects (blimp shape).No, actually the point is these supposed extraterrestrial craft resembled dirigibles (not cigars) in the late 1800s,

I understand your point but why long after the airplanes were invented people reported seen flying saucer shaped crafts with no sound eared even at close range.Or car loosing power when a discoidal shaped craft have flying over them at close range?

....and generally have been described in more shapes and sizes than Bayer has aspirin. I'm not talking subtle differences either.
Well if you look at the reports in the mid 40 ies that is the discoidal shape and cigar shape (supposed mother ships) mostly reported.

craterchains
2004-Jun-19, 02:36 AM
It is true that we have one intelligent life form in our galaxy. Ok, and there are hundreds of billions of galaxies out there. As has been said, it would sure be a waste of space if we are alone.

To attempt to explain away all the accumulated information on off world visitors that has been collected down through the centuries ain’t gonna happen. It is there in way too much depth and correlates with so much other evidence of alien interaction with the human race over our known cognitive existence.

With the given understanding of craft sightings, the given contact with aliens by some, and given also that there seems to be a cover up of this activity and exceptional information about the topic.

Given that, there still remains the real questions of WHY, and WHEN disclosure will be made? The questions of why we have so many crash landed UFO’s reported over the last couple hundred years? Many of these craft appear to be smaller types like escape craft of some kind.

Just questions I bring to the table. :D

Archer17
2004-Jun-19, 02:59 AM
.. why long after the airplanes were invented people reported seen flying saucer shaped crafts with no sound eared even at close range.Or car loosing power when a discoidal shaped craft have flying over them at close range?They are stories. There's no proof these things really happened. I'm not saying people don't see "UFOs" .. I just don't believe people are seeing aliens violating our airspace. I need more than anecdotal "evidence" .. who's to say every "witness" is even being honest for one thing? The sad fact for UFO as ET promoters is there is never any irrefutable proof for their existence despite all these so-called sightings year after year. In this video/cam age not one single abduction has been caught on film. Not one! Most abductees claim they are snatched multiple times .. why not try to prove it? :-k You choose to believe the stories UFO books/sites spew .. I don't. You mentioned cars being buzzed and put yourself in the shoes of the story-teller .. I on the other hand wonder why would ET play around like this. They come all this way and, while apparently choosing to avoid official contact, buzz cars with EMP effects. I ain't buying it.
..Well if you look at the reports in the mid 40 ies that is the discoidal shape and cigar shape (supposed mother ships) mostly reported.While a number of UFOs are reported to be disk or cigar-shaped, they are never the same . Go to one of those UFO-report databases and tell me that UFOs don't have more makes &amp; models than an auto show.

Archer17
2004-Jun-19, 03:11 AM
It is true that we have one intelligent life form in our galaxy. Ok, and there are hundreds of billions of galaxies out there. As has been said, it would sure be a waste of space if we are alone.

To attempt to explain away all the accumulated information on off world visitors that has been collected down through the centuries ain’t gonna happen. It is there in way too much depth and correlates with so much other evidence of alien interaction with the human race over our known cognitive existence.

With the given understanding of craft sightings, the given contact with aliens by some, and given also that there seems to be a cover up of this activity and exceptional information about the topic.

Given that, there still remains the real questions of WHY, and WHEN disclosure will be made? The questions of why we have so many crash landed UFO’s reported over the last couple hundred years? Many of these craft appear to be smaller types like escape craft of some kind.

Just questions I bring to the table. :DYou make a lot of assumptions without providing a speck of proof. A sampling:
..the accumulated information on off world visitors that has been collected down through the centuries..
..Evidence of alien interaction..
..Given understanding of craft sightings..
..why we have so many crash landed UFO’s reported over the last couple hundred years? Many of these craft appear to be smaller types like escape craft of some kind..Before you ask WHY and WHEN, let me ask you something .. WHAT you are talking about?

PhantomWolf
2004-Jun-19, 03:14 AM
I think the problems with the "laws" have alredy been pointed out however...

Lots of different forms of life is certainly a boost for random chance, but doesn't negate a God theory either, after all, look at the varitey on Earth. It would be easy to take that arguement and extend it. So it wouldn't really solve anything.

Lots of life, but all identical to Earth would certainly put a spoke in random chance's wheel, but would allow a new direction of Evolution based on chemical directedness (ie, chemicals are prone to react in certain ways and so will) as it would be a huge boost to God's existance as well.

No life but us would pose another problem for random chance, but would reduce it to having to have a certain set of factors. (ie need a moon like ours, plate tectonics like ours etc.) Again it'd be a shot in the arm for God but no where near a victory.

As you can see, regardless of what is discovered the only way the arguement can ever be solved is for God to appear, and even then I bet that some would still argue His validity with Him.

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2004-Jun-19, 04:57 AM
I think the problems with the "laws" have alredy been pointed out however...

Lots of different forms of life is certainly a boost for random chance, but doesn't negate a God theory either, after all, look at the varitey on Earth. It would be easy to take that arguement and extend it. So it wouldn't really solve anything.

Lots of life, but all identical to Earth would certainly put a spoke in random chance's wheel, but would allow a new direction of Evolution based on chemical directedness (ie, chemicals are prone to react in certain ways and so will) as it would be a huge boost to God's existance as well.

No life but us would pose another problem for random chance, but would reduce it to having to have a certain set of factors. (ie need a moon like ours, plate tectonics like ours etc.) Again it'd be a shot in the arm for God but no where near a victory.

As you can see, regardless of what is discovered the only way the arguement can ever be solved is for God to appear, and even then I bet that some would still argue His validity with Him.

Well, as Galileo said:

I can not believe that the same Creator who gave me the abillity to reason, would have me forgo its use.

craterchains
2004-Jun-19, 05:15 PM
From the one, Archer17, that seems to be such an expert on all these UFO / ETI topics I am asked “What I am talking about?” Thanks, that was priceless in the category of absurdity for responses. Still chuckling over that. =D> Since your first post in this thread and your comment about faith in your wife not getting into any others “genes”, :roll: (I just couldn't help myself) I would have thought you knew what trust was? It’s a learned concept like faith, based on experiences with those you learn to trust or not. Faith is not blind, except to some. Care to argue and debate your validity with the sovereign of the universe? You may indeed get your chance.

Lm Wong
Nice to meet you, hope you are enjoying this debate with all these folks? As you are finding out there is a high degree of resistance to common reasoning and common sense by some posters. That some posters seem to be trying to reason on these things happens at times too. Then there are some that have the job of Information Control and are posting along those lines of reasoning. Then again to, and this is by far my favorite bit of logic about ETI, we could very well be posting with aliens, #-o and what would be some of their reasoning to be posting? 8-[ FieryIce and I have been reading several threads along those lines of reasoning. It’s fun to try and figure out who may be who.
:o

Musashi
2004-Jun-19, 06:09 PM
As you are finding out there is a high degree of resistance to common reasoning and common sense by some posters.

Well, we already know you are one of those people. I am unsure about Lm, he may just be pulling our legs.

R.A.F.
2004-Jun-19, 07:19 PM
...we could very well be posting with aliens...

Am I reading this correctly?? Are you claiming that you think that there "might" be aliens posting to this board??

Too, Too, funny. :lol:

Staiduk
2004-Jun-19, 07:24 PM
The thing that gets me about all these UFO-ites ideas is that beyond the basic silliness of so many of their comments; there's simply no logic in such visitations - as has been stated so well by others here.

Let's look at it from my AE - tactics.

Assume for a moment aliens are visiting us. Play devil's advocate if you must. ;) Question: Why are they here?

Keep in mind that if they are; it took a lot of time and trouble for them to get here. Even assuming they have no concept of cost, politics, etc. and positing the possibility they could be immortal; meaning time is not important; they'd still need to spend a lot of effort to get here. If getting to this planet from another is easy for them; they'd be so darned powerful it defies belief; especially in the light of their actions.
So - given the trouble; why are they here?
Possibilities:
1)Exploration/discovery
2)Invasion/resource collection
3)Altruistic purposes.

Possibility 1): Exploration/discovery. The aliens are explorers; looking to learn about us and our planet.
If this is true; they're not doing a very good job of it, are they? If you want to observe someone and learn about them; you can do it in 2 ways: You can run a duck-blind and observe unseen or you can make contact, land, step out and ask someone. Well; they're certainly not doing the second; and they're failing miserably at the first. I refuse to accept the aliens would come half a bajillion kilometers to look us over without developing...oh...a plan? Get real - judging by reports; those spacecraft are less likely conned by aliens than the Three Stooges. (It is, of course; entirely possible that the spacecraft we see are run by alien anthropological undergrads using us as a practice subject to make all their goofs on; but I wouldn't use that in a thesis, myself.)

Possibility 2): Invasion/resource collection. They want our world or its resources. Seems reasonable; look at all the water and green stuff!
BUT - water is the most abundant compound available in the Universe; all they'd need is one half-decent comet if they were really strapped.
What possible use could an alien race have for human genetics; given the unlikelihood of them even having DNA? Or if they did; having a sequence so wildly unlike our own it'd be useful for nothing more than an oddity?
Invasion is the least likely possibility. If they have the power to traverse the gulf of space; there's nothing we have and nothing we can do to stop them - so why skulk around? Even the most ameteur tactician will recognize the prime candidate for either a blitzkrieg attack or show of might to force surrender.

Possibility 3): Altruistic purposes. So they come from there to save us and make us better. Wow; do I feel good - we're so special that they'd come all this way just to help out.
Well; they've got a weird way of being nice to us - secret abductions; horrific tests, giving Rednecks anal probes...
(notice it's always the rednecks that get the real embarrassing treatments? ;) ) Don't sound too much like the Intergalactic Red Cross to me.

Basically; assuming for a moment that all the woo-woos are right and the aliens are here; the only logical conclusion I can come up with to justify their actions is that they're all alien toddlers in a vast intergalactic daycare - and Earth is the sandbox.

Archer17
2004-Jun-19, 08:04 PM
From the one, Archer17, that seems to be such an expert on all these UFO / ETI topics I am asked “What I am talking about?” Thanks, that was priceless in the category of absurdity for responses. Still chuckling over that. =D> Since your first post in this thread and your comment about faith in your wife not getting into any others “genes”, :roll: (I just couldn't help myself) I would have thought you knew what trust was? It’s a learned concept like faith, based on experiences with those you learn to trust or not. Faith is not blind, except to some. Care to argue and debate your validity with the sovereign of the universe? You may indeed get your chance..If you're going to reply to me spare the two-step and answer my question about the assumptions you made in your prior post (I even quoted them for easy reference).

craterchains
2004-Jun-22, 02:21 PM
It is true that we have one intelligent life form in our galaxy. Ok, and there are hundreds of billions of galaxies out there. As has been said, it would sure be a waste of space if we are alone.

To attempt to explain away all the accumulated information on off world visitors that has been collected down through the centuries ain’t gonna happen. It is there in way too much depth and correlates with so much other evidence of alien interaction with the human race over our known cognitive existence.

With the given understanding of craft sightings, the given contact with aliens by some, and given also that there seems to be a cover up of this activity and exceptional information about the topic.

Given that, there still remains the real questions of WHY, and WHEN disclosure will be made? The questions of why we have so many crash landed UFO’s reported over the last couple hundred years? Many of these craft appear to be smaller types like escape craft of some kind.

Just questions I bring to the table. :DYou make a lot of assumptions without providing a speck of proof. A sampling:
..the accumulated information on off world visitors that has been collected down through the centuries..
..Evidence of alien interaction..
..Given understanding of craft sightings..
..why we have so many crash landed UFO’s reported over the last couple hundred years? Many of these craft appear to be smaller types like escape craft of some kind..Before you ask WHY and WHEN, let me ask you something .. WHAT you are talking about?

All of the “proof” you request me to provide I have read from the same sources as you and all the rest that is interested in these things. Why go over "all" of it again? The "evidence" is all there in what we all can read for ourselves with out your deceptive twisted versions of what we all have read. There are thousands of years of "anomalous” mentions of UFO’s and ETI visitations in all kinds of literature and old drawings and paintings.

Enjoy your rants, I prefer to look at all the evidence as a “whole” and not as a picked apart jumble of pseudo skeptic rehashed opinions like yours.

R.A.F.
2004-Jun-22, 02:52 PM
Archer17...you pseudo-skeptic you! :lol:

Sorry, craterchains, but what you call evidence is not convincing.

And that's really the point. You have to be able to show us, using testable evidence, that these
"aliens" are real.

I would be the first to stand up and say "hey...there is something to this whole ET "thing"...but that is not going to happen without convincing evidence...as of yet, I've seen none.

Lm Wong
2004-Jun-22, 03:04 PM
Archer17...you pseudo-skeptic you! :lol:

Sorry, craterchains, but what you call evidence is not convincing.

And that's really the point. You have to be able to show us, using testable evidence, that these
"aliens" are real.

I would be the first to stand up and say "hey...there is something to this whole ET "thing"...but that is not going to happen without convincing evidence...as of yet, I've seen none.
Define what you mean by convincing evidence.
Here some option.
A living Alien
A flying saucer recovery from a crash or shut down by the army.

If thousands of pictures taken from the mid 40 to this day showing flying saucers shaped craft is not convincing than there is something more in the sky than airplanes what do you need.Be precise.

mid
2004-Jun-22, 03:44 PM
Yep, there are things in the sky other than airplanes.

Birds. Paper bags. Meterological balloons. All sorts of things.

No evidence of aliens, though.

I admit that conclusive evidence is going to be a bit of a challenge for the ET-believers, but drawings and paintings? You're just not even trying there.

Lm Wong
2004-Jun-22, 07:10 PM
Yep, there are things in the sky other than airplanes.

Birds. Paper bags. Meterological balloons. All sorts of things.

No evidence of aliens, though.

I admit that conclusive evidence is going to be a bit of a challenge for the ET-believers, but drawings and paintings? You're just not even trying there.
I was talking about thousands photographic evidence of Flying Saucers taken since the mid 40`s to this day.Also hundred of videos.

Not a proof of Aliens but evidence than the objects on photos are not airplanes,"Birds. Paper bags. Meterological balloons. All sorts of things."

The question remains who have built these Flying Saucer shaped crafts?Who pilot them?

Edited to add last part of the text.

R.A.F.
2004-Jun-22, 10:03 PM
Birds. Paper bags. Meterological balloons. All sorts of things.

Don't forget about the Frisbies. :lol:
I say that because "some" of the photographic evidence looks (to me) to be someone throwing a frisbie into the air and then taking an "out of focus" picture of it. :)

No evidence of aliens, though.

Right you are, Ken...uh...I mean, mid. :)

...but drawings and paintings? You're just not even trying there.

It's always amazed me how some folks can offer "ancient drawings" as if it were "somehow" conclusive evidence...it really "boggles" the mind!

R.A.F.
2004-Jun-22, 10:11 PM
Define what you mean by convincing evidence.

Don't worry...I'll know "it" when I see "it"...I haven't "seen" it.

Actually, I'd just like to know...If these "aliens" can evade detection, then why don't they do so. There're everywhere yet "we" can't get any evidence that they are "there"...it doesn't make a "lick" of sense.

Lm Wong
2004-Jun-22, 10:27 PM
Define what you mean by convincing evidence.

Don't worry...I'll know "it" when I see "it"...I haven't "seen" it.

Hmm!That is convincing.

Actually, I'd just like to know...If these "aliens" can evade detection, then why don't they do so. There're everywhere yet "we" can't get any evidence that they are "there"...it doesn't make a "lick" of sense.

And you think than they are so affraid of our defence system than they need avoiding detection?

OK let see the opposite view proposed.If the Flying Saucers are real why we cannot detect them on radar....Wait but they are detectable on radar making acceleration impossible by any aircrafts.

R.A.F.
2004-Jun-22, 10:37 PM
If the Flying Saucers are real why we cannot detect them on radar....Wait but they are detectable on radar...

Thanks for "making my point" for me. We cannot detect them yet "sometimes" we can.

Does that really make "sense" to you?? It doesn't to me.

Lm Wong
2004-Jun-22, 10:47 PM
If the Flying Saucers are real why we cannot detect them on radar....Wait but they are detectable on radar...

Thanks for "making my point" for me. We cannot detect them yet "sometimes" we can.

Does that really make "sense" to you?? It doesn't to me.

The case of Flying Saucers detected on Radar concern mostly military installations equiped with radars or radar close to the aera of the visual observation..Read the disclosure project about that.

That is not all radar reports who were disclosed.So that explain why sometime they were -reported- seen on radar and sometime not.

edited to add the word reported

R.A.F.
2004-Jun-22, 10:52 PM
Lm Wong...so are you saying that these "aliens", who can travel across interstellar space are "too primitive" (in their technology) to avoid radar detection?

Hardly likely.

Lm Wong
2004-Jun-22, 10:57 PM
Lm Wong...so are you saying that these "aliens", who can travel across interstellar space are "too primitive" (in their technology) to avoid radar detection?

Hardly likely.

Ubviously they don`t care about being detected.

Do you think they are scared about our defence system?

wedgebert
2004-Jun-22, 11:01 PM
If they don't care about being detected, why do they go though such great lengths to avoid it?

When was the last time a UFO buzzed a major city? Hovered in broad daylight in front of hundreds of people with video cameras? Or even appeared on RADAR as more than some anomalous reading?

R.A.F.
2004-Jun-22, 11:08 PM
If they don't care about being detected, why do they go though such great lengths to avoid it?

This is the big problem that I'm sure the "believers" wish would just go away. I've NEVER seen a logical explanation for this "strangeness".

Lm Wong
2004-Jun-23, 12:25 AM
If they don't care about being detected, why do they go though such great lengths to avoid it?

They don`t want confrontation.

When was the last time a UFO buzzed a major city?

1955 over the Capitol.

Hovered in broad daylight in front of hundreds of people with video cameras?

There is videos in broad day light.

Or even appeared on RADAR as more than some anomalous reading?
Read reports of some retired military reporting these cases on the Disclosure Project.

Archer17
2004-Jun-23, 12:32 PM
..All of the “proof” you request me to provide I have read from the same sources as you and all the rest that is interested in these things. Why go over "all" of it again? The "evidence" is all there in what we all can read for ourselves with out your deceptive twisted versions of what we all have read. There are thousands of years of "anomalous” mentions of UFO’s and ETI visitations in all kinds of literature and old drawings and paintings.

Enjoy your rants, I prefer to look at all the evidence as a “whole” and not as a picked apart jumble of pseudo skeptic rehashed opinions like yours.Why the attitude? When you make a bunch of baseless assumptions like you did leading up to your when and why regarding "disclosure," expect to be called on it. Lame responses both times BTW with no evidence to back up your claims, just long-winded hostile rhetoric and the admission you believe in anecdotal UFO yarns.

Aside to Wm Wong: Your replies continue to be contradictory and you confuse the meaning of irrefutable proof with anecdote. You have ET not "wanting confrontation" to explain why they avoid official contact, not caring when they do show up on radar, ignored prior posts discrediting the Disclosure Project, rely on antiquated lore like the D.C. "flap" (it was '52 BTW, not '55) which was addressed on a few other threads (do a search, it'll save the rehashing of the same stuff) and forget there is no "smoking gun" type evidence for ET-piloted "aliens" despite you embracing dubious videos and pics.

genebujold
2004-Jun-23, 01:23 PM
Nicholas' first law of extra terrestrial life:

"Either the Universe contains no life at all, or it contains much life. Considering probability, the sheer size of the Universe dictates that the chance of life existing only on a single planet be very small".

Nicholas' second law of extra terrestrial life:

"Therefore, if it can be proven that life exists only on a single planet, then this is most probably the result of (a or the) God"

Would you guys like to critique? I've worded them clearly as to (hopefully) avoid flame wars - I don't specify the god of a specific religion, and I do say "probably" or "most probably".

How's this?

Although we stand against infinitesimally-decreasing odds that we are the only life out here, until proven otherwise, the only objective evidence we may have invalidates other concepts - but not the funding for those other concepts, as the hypothesis may very well be true, and if so, fully explored. On the other hand, if it involves an ill-behaved blubber merchant, then it's time to ease the sail, lads, and drift away...

genebujold
2004-Jun-23, 01:28 PM
If they don't care about being detected, why do they go though such great lengths to avoid it?

When was the last time a UFO buzzed a major city? Hovered in broad daylight in front of hundreds of people with video cameras? Or even appeared on RADAR as more than some anomalous reading?

Oh, come on!

You KNOW they fully coordinate those affairs with both the base's public affairs office as well as the P&amp;D squadron (plausibiity and deniability) before rocketiting the evidence at NTC's Goldstone range to be incinerated in the rigor's of spaceflight.

craterchains
2004-Jun-23, 01:37 PM
What is this talk of “mystery” around UFO’s and that some can be seen and then not? That some don’t mind being seen and that some seem to mind?

The answer is simple. Obviously there are two factions of ETI’s. Just like us! Good :D and bad :evil: ones. Some (the Good ETI’s) are just doing their jobs, but the bad ones are running scared and getting very desperate. They do NOT want disclosure. Disclosure is inevitable.

Cloaking devices are able to selectively “cloak” against certain and specific spectrums at will. This was demonstrated by the UFO’s over Mexico I think.

Them good ET’s are just messin wit yah all. #-o

Lm Wong
2004-Jun-23, 10:11 PM
Aside to Wm Wong: Your replies continue to be contradictory and you confuse the meaning of irrefutable proof with anecdote. You have ET not "wanting confrontation" to explain why they avoid official contact, not caring when they do show up on radar, ignored prior posts discrediting the Disclosure Project, rely on antiquated lore like the D.C. "flap" (it was '52 BTW, not '55) which was addressed on a few other threads (do a search, it'll save the rehashing of the same stuff) and forget there is no "smoking gun" type evidence for ET-piloted "aliens" despite you embracing dubious videos and pics.

Talking about photographic evidences than Flying Saucers observations are more than just account of drunks people seen Planet Venus or mudane objects.
http://www.ufocasebook.com/pictures.html

So, I suppose you will say these photograph are all hoaxs.

About the D.C. flap here some photos
http://www.ufocasebook.com/pix194.jpg
http://www.ufocasebook.com/pix195.jpg

I suppose the explanation was something like meteo inversion?
If I remember Combats Jets were called and the objects have dissappeared (go away) at the approch of the Aviation and returning hovering over the Capitol 15 minutes later when the Aviation was going away.

Archer17
2004-Jun-24, 12:06 AM
..Talking about photographic evidences than Flying Saucers observations are more than just account of drunks people seen Planet Venus or mudane objects.I didn't say anyone was drunk or saw Venus. Mundane, probably. ET, not likely.
So, I suppose you will say these photograph are all hoaxs.yep
I suppose the explanation was something like meteo inversion?yep
If I remember Combats Jets were called and the objects have dissappeared (go away) at the approch of the Aviation and returning hovering over the Capitol 15 minutes later when the Aviation was going away.I don't know about you but I'd like to see the USAF shoot down a temperature inversion, wouldn't you? :wink:

R.A.F.
2004-Jun-24, 12:41 AM
So, I suppose you will say these photograph are all hoaxs.

Well, I get the "feeling" that in the area where these photos were taken, there are a LOT of missing car hubcaps. :lol:

Lm Wong
2004-Jun-24, 12:44 AM
..Talking about photographic evidences than Flying Saucers observations are more than just account of drunks people seen Planet Venus or mudane objects.I didn't say anyone was drunk or saw Venus. Mundane, probably. ET, not likely.

I prefer Aliens to ET. So I rarely use it.

So, I suppose you will say these photograph are all hoaxs.yep
I suppose the explanation was something like meteo inversion?yep

No surprise here.

[quote=you]
If I remember Combats Jets were called and the objects have dissappeared (go away) at the approch of the Aviation and returning hovering over the Capitol 15 minutes later when the Aviation was going away.I don't know about you but I'd like to see the USAF shoot down a temperature inversion, wouldn't you? :wink:
Well I suppose they have good reason to send USAF and that was not to see temperature inversion effect more closely.

Archer17
2004-Jun-24, 05:00 AM
.. Well I suppose they have good reason to send USAF and that was not to see temperature inversion effect more closely.They did that a lot in the early days of radar .. I don't blame them. BTW, when you "suppose" the next time, try do better than old newspaper clippings from UFO sites. This 50+ yr. "flap" ain't helping your argument for little green men.

BTW, do you often respond to blank 'quotes?' :wink:

Lm Wong
2004-Jun-24, 05:22 AM
.. Well I suppose they have good reason to send USAF and that was not to see temperature inversion effect more closely.
They did that a lot in the early days of radar .. I don't blame them.

Dare to cite reports?

BTW, when you "suppose" the next time,...

I was about to edit my post and replace I "suppose"(guess) by "They must have a good reason to send the US airforce"
The reason is that the space over the Capitol is a restricted aera.
But that give you a reason for arguing each and every words I wrote.

... try do better than old newspaper clippings from UFO sites. This 50+ yr. "flap" ain't helping your argument...

My argument is the photographic evidence than something (strange) is really happening....whathever it is... and that evenement was suspicious enough to send USAF more than one time that night.

... for little green men.
Aliens are not necessary extra-terrestrials or little or green.
Aliens means not from the human race.

Archer17
2004-Jun-24, 05:40 AM
Let's cut to the chase Mr Wong .. I think you are one of the incarnations of Mr Arriba. Am I wrong? I find your case of ET (or intelligent dinosaurs for that matter) flying spaceships here severely lacking in credibility. There is no irrefutable proof for their violation of our airspace, nor their existence.

Lm Wong
2004-Jun-24, 05:54 AM
.. Well I suppose they have good reason to send USAF and that was not to see temperature inversion effect more closely.
They did that a lot in the early days of radar .. I don't blame them.

I am still waiting for a proof about that.Dare to cite some reports.

Archer17
2004-Jun-24, 06:11 AM
.. Well I suppose they have good reason to send USAF and that was not to see temperature inversion effect more closely.
They did that a lot in the early days of radar .. I don't blame them.

I am still waiting for a proof about that.Dare to cite some reports.You think radar, especially in that era, didn't have kinks in it? Asking, let alone daring for reports on radar deficiencies during the "Cold War?".. with a "hot conflict" going on in Korea on top of it? You got to be joking! You know that any radar deficiencies wouldn't be cited by the military .. and for good reason. Believers like yourself have no problem with "coverups" so why the hypocrisy suddenly? Now answer MY question.