Fret Runner
Member
Telling the people the truth?!

Here is an interesting thought. What is the one thing that could get all humans to come together?
An external threat.
Or, you could be looking at a new world order type situation using the fear of aliens to take away rights.
Ehh, I'm not completely sure of that. There really is no empirical evidence of extraterrestrials beyond the hypothetical what ifs and situations like this where flying objects are difficult to determine (though that doesn't neccessarily mean aliens, there are many possibilities on why the military saw a strange flying object). The onus largely hinges on the believers, as skeptics like me can't disprove a negative.
Yes, there are some very talented and intelligent people that believe in the paranormal, but that does not mean that it is true, that is arguably an appeal to authority. And if we are going with authority, many people involved in studying space don't believe that we are being visited by aliens.
Also, most people aren't jacks of all trades, some geniuses are only confined to their respective fields. Ex. My sibling is studying to be an obgyn and some of the most well respected doctors they are learning from believe the earth is 6,000 years old.
It's certainly possible that extraterristrials exist, but I really have no reason to believe so other than the fact the universe is a big place. I can't say it definitively, but I personally think extraterrestrials don't exist simply because we have no evidence.
I put aliens in the same realm as ghosts because both are paranormal creatures with really no proof of being. Heck, some people in this very thread are arguing that aliens are really interdimensional beings and I personally see no reason to believe that, where that statement even comes from, or even what's really the difference between the two.
Most spacing faring objects aren't human in origin, but rather natural phenomenon such as extraterrestrial debris such as comets and meteors.
I suppose we don't have to explain what something is when we see it in space, but it is good to build an understanding of what an object is and what it is doing. Knowledge is power as they say.
Perhaps they did see something, perhaps it was aliens, perhaps not. I'm not a fan of jumping to paranormal explanations for the unknown though. Human error actually happens a lot, and mass hysteria is possible. Though it is possible you are right and it is certainly unusual, I don't see substantial proof personally.
I don't have any solid explanations, I just don't trust aliens as an answer. I need something physical and verifiably from an intelligent extraterristrial source before I believe that to be a possible solution. It is more likely that ufo sightings were the result of hysteria, or natural phenomenon, or experimental aircraft. Perhaps there is a type of human made craft that acts like a flying saucer.
Not trying to be offensive or anything, I just don't believe in this sort of thing
What?
I think the former is both simpler -- it requires belief in fewer things, namely races/civilizations -- and more probable, given the still-limited evidence of extraterrestrial life.
Because you would have to argue that everything was done for humans in while observable universe.
I've know for at least 15 years, i didn't need to be told.
You don't have a clue about the science.
But read these US Navy patents.
https://patents.justia.com/patent/10322827
U.S. Patent for Craft using an inertial mass reduction device Patent (Patent # 10,144,532 issued December 4, 2018) - Justia Patents Search
A craft using an inertial mass reduction device comprises of an inner resonant cavity wall, an outer resonant cavity, and microwave emitters. The electrically charged outer resonant cavity wall and the electrically insulated inner resonant cavity wall form a resonant cavity. The microwave...patents.justia.com
Things are way beyond your understanding. People like you are the reason disclosure has never happened.
They Live is a documentary
I always assumed that stuff was down to the military testing out whatever advanced medical equipment they got. Although my neighbor had an interesting take on it, insurance fraud. Some rancher falls on hard times. He's seen the stuff in the papers about these mutilations and bing, easy money
I would! But under the evolutionary model I’d just argue that the humans are a fluke rather than some inevitable outcome; evolution isn’t directed toward particular ends like intelligence.
It doesn't matter what the retarded text says and I already explained my self! You only had to read a little more into this thread.Hahahah what the hell is that video. "The sun was defending himself?"
What?! We are assigning a gender to an inanimate ball of gas and plasma now? Not only that, the sun is apparently capable of launching a "counterattack" against an alien spacecraft refueling there?
It doesn't matter what the retarded text says and I already explained my self! You only had to read a little more into this thread.
Funny how all these big UFO sightings are always shit looking photos or recordings done in some hick area with ONE person seeing it.
You're telling me no UFOs or weird shit in the sky ever hits a small town or huge metro area where 1,000 people might get that on camera?
Don't know if I could live with myself after knowing I fucked a space zombie.
Why would an alien race travel so far to just zip around in our skies, and why are they so camera shy? Either they have some sort of prime directive which, for an advanced civilization, they absolutely suck at abiding to, or they HAVE made contact and it just conveniently happens to be with our nefarious government or a trailer park.
ugh. "only one sentient race". tbh this kind of shit gives me cringes. if scientists think humans really are just animals, then how come animals are not counted as sentient?
Because there's never any footage of them doing anything else. Just endless speculation.How do you know they're just zipping around in our skies? Research teams travel by plane to remote areas dozens of hours, it's not about the trip.
The OP and posts above show nothing about them making contact.And the trailer park thing is a myth, see the OP and posts above.
Aliens with sexy tentacles and shit tho.At the end of the day I am all alone though.
The most honest reaction in the whole threadI love the idea of UFOs.
Why not?Wait holy shit a neogaf thread about ufos and aliens and well it’s still open ? Times change for the better , yes. Meus I hope you watching man
Yawn. At this point, I think the gov't keeps the UFO stuff going because it provides a convenient cover for their own black site technologies. Who would protest a nuclear-capable stealth fighter when they think it's the little greys paying our planet a visit?
Using air-powered vehicles for wars has only been a thing for about 100 years, and in that time we've made astounding leaps forward in mobility and speed. A VTOL from the 80s would seem like a UFO to a Spitfire pilot from the 40s. We also know that modern governments obscure their military technological developments and try to spread disinformation.
Drones can easily replicate a UFO appearance above a given city.
Can you prove the witness had no way of knowing this information beforehand?
I watched Rogans talk with Brian Cox. Which is an amazing physicist.
And he said, in his opinion there might be other life, but he had a lot of good arguments why there might be only one sentient race per galaxy.
And that this is actually a very humbling thought.
Can you prove the witness had no way of knowing this information beforehand?
The "but there are a lot of stars" argument only works if you take the assumption that the universe is generally an orderly, peaceful location for life to patiently spring up over billions of years.The Milkyway has 400 billion stars, so I'd go so far as to say he's talking shit.
Two things:Just this
"
Under hypnosis Betty was able to redraw the map the alien leader had shown her. Betty was vague about what the map actually showed; sometimes she referred to as showing stars and planets. Her sketch was reproduced in books and magazines. In the late 1960s, a teacher called Marjorie Fish (1932-2013) tried to compare the map with real nearby stars and see if any matched. This would not be an easy task as there were about a thousand stars within 50 light years of the Sun. To make things easier, Fish made a series of sensible assumptions based on how similar to us the aliens seemed, suggesting their home planet was very similar to Earth. Based on data that was accurate at that time, she eliminated
After this sifting process (which would have eliminated about 90% of the stars in the 50 light year radius), Fish was left with 46 stars. Using data from the 1969 edition of the Gliese Catalog of Nearby Stars, for nearly five years Fish painstakingly constructed several three-dimensional models of the Sun’s stellar neighbourhood from wire and beads. She viewed these from every possible angle, hoping to find a pattern matching the Hill map, a long and very difficult process. It is impossible to criticise the effort Fish made. Eventually she found almost a perfect match! It seemed that the map drawn by Betty Hill accurately depicted the stars near our own. All the stars lay roughly on the same plane and the aliens apparently came from the Zeta Reticulum system. The view point was from slightly above the star Zeta 2 Reticuli."
- All non-main sequence stars (habitable planets are unlikely to survive their star’s transition to red giant)
- All variable stars (it is difficult to see how life could arise on their planets because the huge temperature variations)
- Stars of class F4 or higher (these would have much shorter lifetimes than our Sun, so less time for life to arise)
- Multiple star systems where the stars were too close together (stable planetary orbits seem impossible)
- M class red dwarfs (potential planets would be tidally locked, Fish and others assume this would prevent complex life arising, but this is not universally agreed)
The "but there are a lot of stars" argument only works if you take the assumption that the universe is generally an orderly, peaceful location for life to patiently spring up over billions of years.
But all of our empirical evidence points to the opposite. We know that earth's position in the galaxy (on the outer fringes) has likely played a role in our planet's survival. The habitable planet's location in the solar system, the specific composition of the home star and surrounding planets, the presence of a magnetosphere, the presence of plate tectonics, the presence of stable, liquid water over a sufficient period of time, etc etc are all factors contributing directly to our existence, and we can see whether those factors are common throughout the galaxy.
Even our galaxy's position in the universe (standing nearly-alone in a large void) is a factor in earth's long-term survival.
Two things:
One, this still doesn't prove whether Betty had access to that information before hand.
Two, the drawing is crude enough that -- given the vast number of stars in our local area, as you yourself have pointed out -- there's a not-zero chance that Mrs. Fish simply got a lucky match based on the painstaking research (read: constantly pouring over every conceivable permutation).
We have megaliths that line up with stellar phenomenon. Looking up at the stars and drawing pictures is clearly not a new phenomenon.
Yes, that's my point. Humans clearly have the ability to observe the stars and recognize patterns since we've been doing it for millennia.Chances are those megaliths are purposefully lined up.
So the numbers are worse than 400 billion. It's probably more like 11 billion. And of those, how many have water? Let's say 1 billion, which is generous. Of those, how many have a sufficient atmosphere to support the growth of life? Let's say 1 million. Out of those million, how many have enough local elemental raw materials to support complex life? We can keep chipping away at your large numbers in this way, with scientific evidence backup up each caveat. I'm only parroting an idea that has been around since at least the book Rare Earth, and probably before that too."in November 2013, astronomers reported, based on Kepler space mission data, that there could be as many as 40 billion Earth-sized planets orbiting in the habitable zones of Sun-like stars and red dwarfs in the Milky Way, 11 billion of which may be orbiting Sun-like stars."
Yes, that's my point. Humans clearly have the ability to observe the stars and recognize patterns since we've been doing it for millennia.
There's no extraterrestrial force needed to produce her pictures
and
So the numbers are worse than 400 billion. It's probably more like 11 billion. And of those, how many have water? Let's say 1 billion, which is generous. Of those, how many have a sufficient atmosphere to support the growth of life? Let's say 1 million. Out of those million, how many have enough local elemental raw materials to support complex life? We can keep chipping away at your large numbers in this way, with scientific evidence backup up each caveat. I'm only parroting an idea that has been around since at least the book Rare Earth, and probably before that too.
Have you read the book? It focuses very little on statistics and focused more on the specific factors that likely contribute to the long-term habitability of a given planet. Some of these factors I listed.But a bloody big telescope, a great memory, and the ability to fabricate under hypnosis would help.
These are measurable facts from 10+ years after Rare Earth was published "earth sized planets" "in the Goldilocks zone" "an earth-like Sun" you can't dismiss up to date science based on assumptions in a book from the past, science and understanding are not static.
You are actually choosing to ignore facts that contradict your assumptions, then. There's a difference between ice on mars and liquid oceans. There's a difference between ice on Mars for the last million years or the last 500 million years.If Mars has plate tectonics, it's pretty certain that that is a common characteristic of rocky planets of a certain size, for obvious reasons. Water is on mars and several moons throughout our solar system, it's a pretty basic molecule. Comets are made of ice and dust.. Mass spectrometry tells us the chemical composition of a planet's atmosphere. Water is likely to be everywhere in the universe. I'll take probability and recent discovery side on this one.
Have you read the book? It focuses very little on statistics and focused more on the specific factors that likely contribute to the long-term habitability of a given planet. Some of these factors I listed.
You are actually choosing to ignore facts that contradict your assumptions, then. There's a difference between ice on mars and liquid oceans. There's a difference between ice on Mars for the last million years or the last 500 million years.
If we are talking about abiogenesis, the only location in the universe with a set of stable conditions over several billions of years is earth, as far as we know. It's not merely about the presence of water, it's about the presence of water over hundreds of millions of years. It's not merely about plate tectonics, it's about plate tectonics that are neither too slow nor too violent. It's about having enough surface impacts to distribute sufficient water (according to some theories) while not having so many surface impacts that it wipes out all the progress of life up to that point. It's about having a thick enough atmosphere to contain respirable gasses, but not so thick that the planet overheats, like Venus. All of these factors add up.
So if you want to play the game of "there are so many planets" as evidence for life, it is fair for me to play the game of "there are so many variables", especially since we have far more concrete data on that topic.
This simplified view doesn't address what I specifically brought up. Mars had a body of water for how long, and how large? What else was in the water? These questions are just a few out of numerous factors (that we know of, of course) for the long-term sustainability of life.I'm going to lunch now, so I'll briefly say that liquid water was abundant on Mars in it's past, and is today below the surface of Europa, that makes 3 bodies in our solar system. I'm going with probability again.
This simplified view doesn't address what I specifically brought up. Mars had a body of water for how long, and how large? What else was in the water? These questions are just a few out of numerous factors (that we know of, of course) for the long-term sustainability of life.
Might as well say "this planet has a lot of carbon, and life forms are carbon-based, so checkmate unbelievers". Science doesn't work that way.
What I wanted to write..The "but there are a lot of stars" argument only works if you take the assumption that the universe is generally an orderly, peaceful location for life to patiently spring up over billions of years.
But all of our empirical evidence points to the opposite. We know that earth's position in the galaxy (on the outer fringes) has likely played a role in our planet's survival. The habitable planet's location in the solar system, the specific composition of the home star and surrounding planets, the presence of a magnetosphere, the presence of plate tectonics, the presence of stable, liquid water over a sufficient period of time, etc etc are all factors contributing directly to our existence, and we can see whether those factors are common throughout the galaxy.
Even our galaxy's position in the universe (standing nearly-alone in a large void) is a factor in earth's long-term survival.
What I wanted to write..
If you go by all of these factors, there isn't really much left.
Half of the star systems are binary, which prohibits life.
It's very probable that the life friendly conditions we have on earth are extremely rare.
Extremely rare doesn't mean 1 in 400 billion
Extremely rare doesn't mean 1 in 400 billion
I think the main point should be what technology are these craft using! It is not conventional jet powered tech.I have never once in my life seen or heard anything that indicated that there are aliens, or something paranormal..
(well, except on DMT, but that is another story)