Well that was an interesting article, and no I neither have any evidence for or against the likely hood of ET visit now or in the past or the future just opinion. The article mention that we could be immerse within an alien civilzation, but of course were are they? With in another thread titled How are humans Atypical I mentioned that humans seemed to have reached this period in time where our brains are developed to questions these things yet with the many things our minds are capable what seems lacking is the necessity to even have such capabilities, in other words how exactly did we get to this point. I guess what I am trying to say is we like to "think" we are some what advance with all our "Theories", and very little actually established knowledge about the universe, we could be so far below them in terms of natural development, it isn't so much a matter of "why would they visit us" but a case of "could they even communicate with us on a level that we could understand" and if so for what purpose would that serve for either one of us? In my opinion we are admist an ET civlization and we are being studied, not intensely but casually as this ET civilization goes on about it "every day" life.

"What we know about the universe and its underlying physics makes it very unlikely that E.T. is here and attempting to phone home."

What exactly is it that we know for sure? We don't even know what gravity is but act as if it is virtually impossible to get rid of or utilized gravity in order to over come great distances.

Eyajwhynsos

__________________
The limits limitless...."prove it?" is what is said

well take a half of a step of each step taken in life, and be living to you say when....

Anyone that says there is no evidence that some UFO maybe more than misidentifications of common objects has not done their homework. I use to say that but then I actually read up on some cases. Starting from way back. Sure there are many nutballs (noise) but when you look at all the cases over the (too many for me) years and the quality of the people. They all are not nuts. You simply can't say there is no evidence, there is plenty certainly more than SETI has in its quest for a signal from space. Not saying Seti is bad just saying that they should not be the only game in town getting funds.

I'm not doing your homework for you, go out and read some then come back and chat.

Cases were someone saw a light in the sky don't count to me as much of anything. I would agree that those can be thrown in the trash.


Here is a semi recent case that I found interesting. Police from different cities got some up close views of this thing. They even did a fairly involved 3D recreation of what they saw. They all pretty much described that same object.

http://dbarkertv.com/UPDATE.htm

The video TV interview did a better job than the above site but it gives the gist of it.

I was thinking it's probably military but why would they fly it out in the open over cities? Showing off the new gadgets for the public? I really do not buy that it was the planet Venus as some experts has suggested. That explanation made no sense to me.

I worked with a woman that claimed to have seen one of these triangle ships back in 1980. I thought maybe she and her friends may have misidentified something but she was pretty adamant on what it looked like since it was fairly low. Was she nuts? Yea that crossed my mind but I had known her for 5 years and if anything was the painfully honest type. She said it hovered in the sky and when it took off it was super fast and made no sound. She was not some UFO nut just something that came up in conversation one day. I don't think I ever talked about anything like that with her before or since. Back then I did not think too much about it. When I started reading the other people had seen these around the nation like the Illinois case I'm thinking that maybe people are seeing craft like this. It very well could be our own stuff. What ever it is its pretty intense technology.

What do you think those cops saw? Was it misidentification? Military?

Not saying Seti and UFOs are the same. As you know Seti is assumming there are ETs out there and they are using radio waves. If they never look for the signal they have zero chance of finding one. So if they look they have some chance even if its 100000000000000000000 to 1. Keep in mind they have ZERO evidense of any kind that there is a FM/AM ET signal comming from anywhere.

UFO rearch is pretty much saying that Fermi was correct and answer the "where are they" by saying that they are already here.

I'm saying that if you read all the information available (Which I know you have not) you will find there is more than evidense for UFOs being here than SETI has for a distant signal being transmitted from a distant ET civ.
Its more expensive research too, those giant radio telescopes are not at Wallmart prices yet.


Why not fund it? Don't quote the Condon report unless you've looked at all the Blue Book unknown cases.

Oh, there's evidence alright. Problem is that the available evidence is not convincing. To accept "alien spaceships" as the explanation, then the evidence must be conclusive.

It simply is not.

You make the assumption that those here have not "done their homework"...a bad assumption to make.

Yes, I saw this show...

Not presisely correct. What they said they saw was recreated by the "3D artist". In the interview he even stated that he was only recreating what was described to him. If they were mistaken in what they saw, then that would carry over to the recreations.

Pretty much as in not?? One of the descriptions looked nothing like the others.

That show didn't really impress my. The website you've linked to impresses me even less. Most telling is the statement that "the Air force has the burden of proof..." which is a load of hogwash. Those making the extraordinary claim have the burden of proof and when I see anyone trying to "shift" that burden, I get very suspicious.

Perhaps it wasn't a military craft or Venus, but eliminating those 2 doesn't make it automatically an "alien spaceship".

Re. "triangle ships".And that's another assumption. The "Phoenix Lights" were also described as a "triangle shaped craft" when in reality they were flares dropped from planes. Observers "colored in-between" the flares to make a craft that was simply not there.

Maybe...maybe not. The problem I have is the almost automatic assumption that if it can't be identified, then it must be an alien spacecraft. That is simply not the way science works when investigating something like this.

Once again, you are making assumptions...bad idea...

Right now, there is no evidence for either.

Unless/until there is some form of compelling evidence that it wouldn't be a waste of money, there is no reason to "fund it".

I find reading these debates on proof of ufo and such rather intriguing but I gotta ask, with the many fields in science namely astronomy can we say with certainty that the evidence for the model set up is conclusive?

R.A.F. says: "Oh, there's evidence alright. Problem is that the available evidence is not CONVINCING. To accept "alien spaceships" as the explanation, then the evidence must be CONCLUSIVE." emphasis added


Convince: vb to bring to (as by argument) belief and or action. In other words its an opinion, and it is the opinion of some that say there is no such thing as dark energy. But ones opinion should not stand in the way of actively striving to understand the unknown in this case the UFO phenomenon.

conclusion: n the logical consequence of a reasoning process.

R.A.F. says: The problem I have is the almost automatic assumption that if it can't be identified, THEN IT MUST BE an alien spacecraft.

But this is done all the time, example we conclude that there most be something known as dark energy how else could the universe be expanding and at the same time accelerating? It seems convincing and there is a logical reason to support it, but there is no evidence, in fact it is the other way around. We look at the effects and find something to fit it (a logical step) excuse me some Presume that based on all that they are CAPABLE of studying by looking at the universe that the only logical conclusion is ONE thing: dark energy (not such a logical step). How can we even possibly begin to conclude only one possible cause? Wait...wait...I remember distinctively reading some where that...oh yeah "Then it must be an alien space craft" I mean what else could it be, you ufologist are so narrow minded gesh...

This in itself is an automatic assumption because we can't identifiy what is causing it only guess(because we don't have all the data on the entire universe nor can we ever or are even close to) so it must be dark energy.

R.A.F. says: Unless/until there is some form of compelling evidence that it wouldn't be a waste of money, there is no reason to "fund it". Yet they fund the field of astronomy quite handsomely.

As I said before intriguing but I had to ask, it seems that this field of ufology isn't being vigorously study not because of lack of evidence but because of lack want...that is wanting to admit such a field even exist!



Eyajwhynsos

__________________
The limits limitless...."prove it?" is what is said

well take a half of a step of each step taken in life, and be living to you say when....

I "somewhat" agree. I do think that we could learn a lot by investigating the "phenomena" from the observers viewpoint. In other words, just why do people "need" to believe that we are being visited by aliens from other worlds, when the evidence is so obviously lacking?

...I personally am not a ufologist so I am not here to debate the evidence or lack of as you put it. But perhaps some one can explain as best they can why some feel the need to say: "there is a need to believe aliens are visiting us humans from other worlds." Why does main stream science feel the need to present their theories as facts? To say this is to say that some or perhaps in your view all ufologist have some alternate idea of why aliens would be visiting us (some envitably do and some don't)? There are many who simple study and review and like most scientist in acknowledged fields come to conclusions about unidentified flying objects that best fits what they are studying. They are no different then any other scientist with the exception that main stream scientist an insignificantly small minority of the human race seems to think or appears to think that only their fields of study have any merit! Again we are moving from the area of scientific review and or study Or I should say revealing that main stream science is not within but is an area of opinionated theocracy with the notion of bringing the "right" scientific study,inquiry, answers, and fields to us mortal laymen (any one who isn't the "en" crowd).

Eyajwhynsos

__________________
The limits limitless...."prove it?" is what is said

well take a half of a step of each step taken in life, and be living to you say when....

emphasis mine...

I'm not quite sure what you are saying here (so correct me if I'm wrong), but you seem to be saying that mainstream science is not able to objectively evaluated the evidence concerning "alien visitors".

Which is silly...

...this is what I am saying.

They (scientist who study ufology) are no different then any other scientist with the exception that main stream scientist an insignificantly small minority of the human race seems to think or appears to think that only THEIR FIELD of study have any MERIT!

Simply put with out the philosopical backdrop, it is not that they are not able, it is that main stream science does not take it seriously.

note: R.A.F. would say there isn't enough evidence.

Ufologist would demonstrate a rather large amount spanning over a rather large time scale.

R.A.F. has said that this is not convincing.

I have stated previous that convincing is nothing more then opinion, evidence is abound, example project blue book alone, a government issued study of the ufology phenomenon, did showed that there was a small minority of unaccounted sightings that could not be explain in ANY conventional terms.

If personal views of laymen are un reliable then their are still vast majority of train professional that can account for sightings that can thus be used for study which have been documented.

Conclusion: Interesting enough it isn't that main stream is uncapable they are more then capable more so then many ufologist, but to all prominent mainstream scientist the subject of possible aliens visiting earth remains for them a taboo subject. This is what I have said...


Again we are moving from the area of scientific review and or study Or I should say revealing that main stream science is not within but is an area of opinionated theocracy with the notion of bringing the "right" scientific study,inquiry, answers, and fields to us mortal laymen.

When their is reliable evidence for any unknown it should not rest on opinion of its "worthiness" but should be sought after to establish if possible just what is taking place if anything. In other words it should be studied vigorously simply because it is an area that we as a race do not comprehend and when after the scientific method has been aplied with as much vigor as that which has been applied to dark energy and been proven by such method as to be nothing more then a figment of the human race over the millenium, then one can say that indeed such endeavor has been applied to the field of ufology and it has been found wanting.



Eyajwhynsos

__________________
The limits limitless...."prove it?" is what is said

well take a half of a step of each step taken in life, and be living to you say when....

Thanks for the clarification...

Mainstream science/scientists don't find the "visiting aliens" question taboo. It's simply that evidence for such an extraordinary idea MUST CONSIST OF MORE than just "I saw something in the sky, and I believe that it was an alien spaceship".

What would you have "mainstream science" do? Should scientific standards be lowered to "accomodate" the kind of evidence typical of UFO sightings? If that were done, then we wouldn't be "doing" science at all.

As I said before I am not a ufologist and can't defend what they believe to be intelligently controlled crafts. But usually when say a "trained man" such as an air force pilot is reporting that they saw something that could pass as unidentified flying object, if this isn't credible eye witness then what is?



and Interview with Gordon Cooper (excerpt)
OMNI Magazine, March 1980

original source | fair use notice

Summary: An excerpt of an interview given by former astronaut Gordon Cooper - Mercury 9, Gemini 5 - to OMNI Magazine in 1980, where he is asked about astronaut sightings of UFOs and about his own UFO sighting when he was an Air Force pilot in Germany in the 1950s.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following is an excerpt of an interview given by former astronaut Gordon Cooper - Mercury 9, Gemini 5 - to OMNI Magazine in 1980. While it shows that Cooper does have a belief in 'UFO's, it should - one hopes - resolve the issue of whether he did or didn't encounter any "Unidentified Flying Objects" during his space missions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excerpt of interview with Gordon Cooper: OMNI, March 1980, p. 106


OMNI: What about the repeated allegations that the astronauts saw many UFOs?

COOPER: It got so bad that there were deliberately falsified tapes of communications with the astronauts, where UFO material was simply edited in. To my knowledge, the only astronaut on any of the Mercury, Gemini, or Apollo missions who ever saw anything that might have been a UFO was Jim McDivitt, but he didn't get enough pictures to prove anything substantial. That's the only case, in spite of all the stories you hear.

OMNI: Didn't you go after some UFOs as an air force pilot in Germany in the 1950s?

COOPER: Yes, several days in a row we sighted groups of metallic, saucer-shaped vehicles at great altitudes over the base, and we tried to get close to them, but they were able to change direction faster than our fighters. I do believe UFOs exists and that the truly unexplained ones are from some other technologically advanced civilization. From my association with aircraft and spacecraft, I think I have a pretty good idea of what everyone on this planet has and their performance capabilities, and I'm sure some of the UFOs at least are not from anywhere on Earth.


This was found here at : http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/astronauts.htm

Any how this is becoming tedious to say observation is invalid especially coming from a trainned man is some how not credible is nothing more, in my opinion, then a contradiction. Science is based on observation it is one of the leading tenets in understanding that which you are attempting to understand. If all the evidence you have are sightings, then sort out those that are credible(ie trainned men) and go on from there. I am at a lost as to why comprehension of such a statement is lacking? But please feel free to rebuttal...

Eyajwhynsos

__________________
The limits limitless...."prove it?" is what is said

well take a half of a step of each step taken in life, and be living to you say when....

A credible witness can also be mistaken in their interpretation of what they saw.

Why a contradiction?? If a person views something and mis-identifies it, it doesn't make his testimony any less credible...It simply makes him (once again) mistaken. When dealing with such an important question as the "reality" of visitors from other star systems the most important thing is to make 100% sure that you haven't "fooled" yourself. IMO, that is what Gordo Cooper did. He let his belief "run away" with him.

Here are 2 articles by James Oberg covering Coopers UFO's and pilot mis-identification. They are a very interesting read...

So you have read all the info available for 50 years. Maybe your correct I was making an assumption. I don't think anyone has seen it all. But if you are the one I tip my hat to you.

The scientific method must be modified for UFO research. The things are not going to stand still long enough to do research on. Its more difficult but I would not turn a blind eye to the current evidence out there. You may be a modern version of the folks that said the Earth is flat.

Do you know any of the blue book reporters? Any of the researchers? I mean met them in person.

I think both should be funded. Not just Seti.
Whats your fear?

I’m not saying those triangle craft are alien. I’m saying that I do not think they are mis identifications or visionary. I think they are real objects. I don’t know who is maneuvering them. I would like to know that. Would you like to know too?

Nope...never said that. I am, however, very familiar with Flying Saucer Folklore.

Modified??? Scientific inquiry needs no "modification". That's just an excuse so as to "allow" bad evidence to be taken seriously. Sorry, ain't gonna fly.

This is certainly true...too bad that UFO's leave behind absolutely no physical evidence...

What current evidence??

I guess that's suppose to be an insult, but it's such a dopey idea that I don't really have an answer for it.

Why would you consider that relevant?

Do you "somewhere" in my posts detect fear??? Could you point it out to me??

If you see "something" in the air, and if it is "unidentified", then it is speculation to conclude that it is a solid object. The only way to be certain that what you see in the air is an actual "object" is to walk up to it and "knock" on it.

What I'd like to know is why is it after all these years of "Saucer sightings", the actual evidence is so crappy. With all the new model cam-corders with incredible zoom/stabilization capabilities, you'd think that we would have conclusive photographic proof by now...yet UFO images are as bad as they were 50 years ago.

Standards of evidence concerning the ETH / UFO phenomena aren't really well established, nor has there been effective scientific inquiry, but opinions on the subject are readily abundant and can be, unfortunately, rather divisive.

I think we can all learn a little something from this article:

There's a Hole in My Philosophy.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

I think these conclusions were made by the performance characteristics.

Right angle high G turns that would kill a human pilot. Some thought that they must be remotely operated because of this.

This is assuming the person was credible and had ground radar and visual confirmation. I have not seen these maneuvers but If I had seen a craft that went from zero to 5,000 in seconds then did a right angle turn. I would be scratching my head as to what could do that.

Its so unbelievable that one would think they it had to be some kind of mis identification as nothing we know of could do that.

R.A.F. What would you think if you observed a craft that did this? Would you think you were crazy? Would you tell anyone? I know it would not mean its alien since you could not see inside it.

I think people jump to the alien conclusions because of the performance characteristics are beyond any known technology. It does not mean they are correct but many will say "I know what I saw" and can't think of anything man made that could do it.