NationStates Jolt Archive

I heard about this on monday, and I searched for a thread on it, but didn't find any. (yeah, I know it's a wee bit old)

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/04/20/ufo.conference/index.html?iref=newssearch

(CNN) -- Earth Day may fall later this week, but as far as former NASA astronaut Edgar Mitchell and other UFO enthusiasts are concerned, the real story is happening elsewhere.
Astronaut Edgar Mitchell, shown after his Apollo mission in 1971, claims there "is no doubt we are being visited."

Astronaut Edgar Mitchell, shown after his Apollo mission in 1971, claims there "is no doubt we are being visited."

Mitchell, who was part of the 1971 Apollo 14 moon mission, asserted Monday that extraterrestrial life exists, and that the truth is being concealed by the U.S. and other governments.

He delivered his remarks during an appearance at the National Press Club following the conclusion of the fifth annual X-Conference, a meeting of UFO activists and researchers studying the possibility of alien life forms.

Mankind has long wondered if we're "alone in the universe. [But] only in our period do we really have evidence. No, we're not alone," Mitchell said.

"Our destiny, in my opinion, and we might as well get started with it, is [to] become a part of the planetary community. ... We should be ready to reach out beyond our planet and beyond our solar system to find out what is really going on out there."

Mitchell grew up in Roswell, New Mexico, which some UFO believers maintain was the site of a UFO crash in 1947. He said residents of his hometown "had been hushed and told not to talk about their experience by military authorities." They had been warned of "dire consequences" if they did so.

But, he claimed, they "didn't want to go to the grave with their story. They wanted to tell somebody reliable. And being a local boy and having been to the moon, they considered me reliable enough to whisper in my ear their particular story."

Roughly 10 years ago, Mitchell claimed, he was finally given an appointment at Pentagon to discuss what he had been told.

An unnamed admiral working for the Joint Chiefs of Staff promised to uncover the truth behind the Roswell story, Mitchell said. The stories of a UFO crash "were confirmed," but the admiral was then denied access when he "tried to get into the inner workings of that process."

The same admiral, Mitchell claimed, now denies the story.

"I urge those who are doubtful: Read the books, read the lore, start to understand what has really been going on. Because there really is no doubt we are being visited," he said.

"The universe that we live in is much more wondrous, exciting, complex and far-reaching than we were ever able to know up to this point in time."

A NASA spokesman denied any cover-up.

"NASA does not track UFOs. NASA is not involved in any sort of cover-up about alien life on this planet or anywhere else -- period," Michael Cabbage said Monday.

Debates have continued about what happened at Roswell. The U.S. Air Force said in 1994 that wreckage recovered there in 1947 was most likely from a balloon-launched classified government project.

Stephen Bassett, head of the Paradigm Research Group (PRG), which hosted the X-Conference, said that the truth about extraterrestrial life is being suppressed because it is politically explosive.

"There is a third rail [in American politics], and that is the UFO question. It is many magnitudes more radioactive than Social Security ever dreamed to be," Bassett said.

I, for one, seriously believe him.

I, for one, seriously believe him.

I, for one, seriously believe he might have fallen on his head

I, for one, seriously believe him.

I don't. I take his claims as seriously as I would of those regarding people levitating, ghosts and similar fantastical things that somehow lack evidence. At best, I'd put their sightings at the same level of say, illusionists.

The brain wants to see something even if it's not really there, or skip a few steps.

Without the protective cocoon of gases that make up Earth's atmosphere, space rays and other heavy shit have fried his brain.

A NASA spokesman denied any cover-up.


Oh I'm just sure NASA would keep information like that lying around!

As far as Roswell goes, I respect the CIA and the Air Force's right to withold information from time to time but........ a weather balloon?

As far as Roswell goes, I respect the CIA and the Air Force's right to withold information from time to time but........ a weather balloon?

Sounding instruments for high altitude atmospheric disturbances caused by Soviet nuclear tests.

The UFO hysteria was probably a plant or a convenient happening to disguise the actual intent with mass gullibility.

I tend to keep an open mind about these things.

An open mind is one thing. But requiring some sort of evidence that isn't poorly doctored material is a necessary step I think.

I'm not advocating for UFOs, but you have to admit an ex-apollo guy saying it is pretty weird. I gather they screened these guys pretty extensively for mental problems when they were trained (obviously). Further, it's not like he has to lie about this to get attention. I'd guess just having been on the moon makes him the center of attention.

I don't discount he's gone whackadoo in the intervening years, but it's a little different from the normal crank.

I'm not advocating for UFOs, but you have to admit an ex-apollo guy saying it is pretty weird. I gather they screened these guys pretty extensively for mental problems when they were trained (obviously). Further, it's not like he has to lie about this to get attention. I'd guess just having been on the moon makes him the center of attention.

I don't discount he's gone whackadoo in the intervening years, but it's a little different from the normal crank.

He'll be 79 this year. I call the onset of dementia.

He'll be 79 this year. I call the onset of dementia.

In which case I'd like to see some evidence. And no, the fact that he believes in UFOs does not count.

Let me put it this way: he could have dementia, or he could be right about alien visitors (and any number of other possibilities could be correct). But these two possibilities have a lot in common.

1. They are both theoretically possible within our understanding of science.

2. They are both unproven.

What's the difference? Well to start, one is a claim being put forward by someone who you would expect to be something of an expert, while the other is speculation from a faceless guy on a forum.

An open mind is one thing. But requiring some sort of evidence that isn't poorly doctored material is a necessary step I think.
There is an awful lot of universe out there......who are we to say that no intelligent life exists beyond our solar system?

There is an awful lot of universe out there......who are we to say that no intelligent life exists beyond our solar system?

I have no problem with the idea of the possibility of intelligent life beyond the solar system. I have issues with the people who insist that not only do they exist, but that they also make interstellar journeys to this dirtball for shits and giggles, that the governments know it, and there's a global conspiracy to hide it, all the while relying on blurry images as proof.

There is an awful lot of universe out there......who are we to say that no intelligent life exists beyond our solar system?

I don't think the argument is whether there is intelligent life out there; rather if there is, why the fuck wouldn't it stick around to trade insurance information after broad siding one of our windmills? :p

What I want to know is how can alien visitors be politically explosive?

What I want to know is how can alien visitors be politically explosive?

1. The knowledge of life beyond this planet could create a greater sense of a unified humanity, which might be undesirable to those whose power is built on racism/nationalism/etc.

2. Such a discovery might blatantly contradict numerous teachings of various religious faiths.

3. The influx of new technology, new values, new alliances from an open first contact would almost certainly upend the global balance of power.

In fact, I think the only concern that is routinely exaggerated is the public panic/hysteria angle (though it might apply to certain cults, somewhat). Jesus, its like asking how Columbus landing in America could be politically explosive.

In which case I'd like to see some evidence. And no, the fact that he believes in UFOs does not count.

Let me put it this way: he could have dementia, or he could be right about alien visitors (and any number of other possibilities could be correct). But these two possibilities have a lot in common.

1. They are both theoretically possible within our understanding of science.

2. They are both unproven.

What's the difference? Well to start, one is a claim being put forward by someone who you would expect to be something of an expert, while the other is speculation from a faceless guy on a forum.

Wait, what? You're asking for evidence that he's not crazy? Seriously? Shouldn't you be asking for evidence proving his laughably crazy claims?

Of course he's not the first astronaut to claim there are aliens visiting earth. Though I think the last guy did it because he was pissed off about his pension or someshit.

I have no problem with the idea of the possibility of intelligent life beyond the solar system. I have issues with the people who insist that not only do they exist, but that they also make interstellar journeys to this dirtball for shits and giggles,

You are apparently ignoring, ignorant of, or in denial of the many possible motives for such a journey. Here are some examples:

1. Scientific Exploration.

2. Political grandstanding (like our own space race was heavily motivated by).

3. Observation of/interference in the development of a new potential ally/threat (possibly following some sort of Star Trek-style "Prime Directive to explain the lack of more direct interference).

that the governments know it, and there's a global conspiracy to hide it, all the while relying on blurry images as proof.

Their's more than that as evidence and you know it (unless you are posting about something of which you are truly ignorant). Let's see:

Photos.

Videos.

Physical marks on supposed abductees and landing sites.

Shear volume of still unexplained reports, many from experts and professionals such as pilots, astronaughts, and military personel (never mind the numbers that doubtless go unreported due to fear of ridicule and persecution).

Radar contacts with unknown aircraft.

Military planes being scrambled after said unknown air craft.


In conclusion, please stop arguing against a pop-culture caricature of UFO believer's position, and start arguing the facts.

Wait, what? You're asking for evidence that he's not crazy? Seriously? Shouldn't you be asking for evidence proving his laughably crazy claims?

Don't act so incredulous. A man who is a professional and an expert in a relevant field makes a claim, another poster suggests mental disability, and I'm to be ridiculed for pointing out that they have not a shred of proof?

Also, you are responding for my criticism of one unproven claim by asking why I don't demand evidence for a different unproven claim, as if I can only demand one or the other, or the presence of one baseless claim justifies another. Really, what's your point here?

My, my. I feel a great deal of disdain for people like you, Romulan Republic. If you've truly bothered to look into your purported evidence, you'd know that so little of it actually holds up to close scrutiny. You are a victim of wishful thinking and wilful ignorance. The human mind is so easily manipulated and vulnerable to suggestion, our brains are evolutionary programmed this way, and it's visible throughout recorded human history in the myths and legends we've created. Aliens are simply the modern reincarnation of angels and demons, and just as fictional (in the context of abductions or visitation to Earth - I don't doubt there's intelligent life out there; I do, however, strongly doubt they've visited us.) Until there is proof that is verifiable, recorded independantly by multiple reputable sources and truly indisputable (which, despite your claims of a "sheer volume" of reports, has not happened yet) - I will simply ridicule tin foil hat conspiricists and naive dreamers like you seem to be.

Don't act so incredulous. A man who is a professional and an expert in a relevant field makes a claim, another poster suggests mental disability, and I'm to be ridiculed for pointing out that they have not a shred of proof?

Also, you are responding for my criticism of one unproven claim by asking why I don't demand evidence for a different unproven claim, as if I can only demand one or the other, or the presence of one baseless claim justifies another. Really, what's your point here?

I am increasingly incredulous because you seem to have missed my point entirely. It doesn't matter that he's an ex-astronaut. His claims are incredible, and unless he has definitive proof, almost certainly the product of a deficient mind. It doesn't matter what caused the deficiency.

The explaination of dementia is much more credible than him actually being correct. Your demand of proof makes me incredulous because you should've, if you were logically-minded, demanded proof of his claims first.

You are apparently ignoring, ignorant of, or in denial of the many possible motives for such a journey. Here are some examples:

1. Scientific Exploration.

2. Political grandstanding (like our own space race was heavily motivated by).

3. Observation of/interference in the development of a new potential ally/threat (possibly following some sort of Star Trek-style "Prime Directive to explain the lack of more direct interference).

1. A perfectly reasonable explanation, except that it utterly fails to account for the supposed abductions. Yes, the aliens are disrespectful enough of humans to simply abduct them, experiment on them and implant devices in them - but oh once it comes to disposing of the humans, they get all nervous and sweaty and decide maybe they should just beam the poor thing back home.

2. Any species advanced enough to travel to another planet with intelligent life - a journey likely to be tens of thousands of light years long, at least - will have long since disposed of independent, conflicting governments.

3. If they came to deal with us as a threat, they could simply have sterilised the Earth with nuclear weapons. They did not come to deal with us as allies. It would be far, far, far easier to use themselves as their allies, rather than buoying a primitive race to the aliens' level, educating them, creating technology for their use, etc.

My, my. I feel a great deal of disdain for people like you, Romulan Republic. If you've truly bothered to look into your purported evidence, you'd know that so little of it actually holds up to close scrutiny.

And I have disdain for people who think they can replace reasoned argument and evidence to support their position with insults and stereotypes.

You know next to nothing about me or the extent to which I have researched this evidence. Yet you apparently feel confident of your characterization of me and the extent of my knowledge. I will hazard a guess that this is because you lump anyone who shows the slightest inclination to believe in alien visitors or even maintain an open mind on the subject into the same pop-culture caricature.

You are a victim of wishful thinking and wilful ignorance. The human mind is so easily manipulated and vulnerable to suggestion, our brains are evolutionary programmed this way, and it's visible throughout recorded human history in the myths and legends we've created. Aliens are simply the modern reincarnation of angels and demons, and just as fictional (in the context of abductions or visitation to Earth - I don't doubt there's intelligent life out there; I do, however, strongly doubt they've visited us.)

An interesting explanation, and one I've heard parroted many times. And it almost certainly does apply to some UFO reports. However, it does not follow that it applies to all of them.

And for that matter, I could turn around and say that lightning is today's equivalent of Zeus's thunderbolt. Which in no way means that lighting is a myth.

Until there is proof that is verifiable, recorded independantly by multiple reputable sources and truly indisputable (which, despite your claims of a "sheer volume" of reports, has not happened yet) - I will simply ridicule tin foil hat conspiricists and naive dreamers like you seem to be.

I did not say it that the evidence is indisputable, but being disputable would not mean that it should be immediately dismissed. Their are levels of credibility between 100% and 0. Also, I do not have to believe an individual's theory to condemn baseless attacks against them, or intellectual laziness or dishonesty. You make a grave mistake if you believe that your position is so self-evidently logical and right that you are entitled to lump all its opponents and critics into the same "tin foil hat" stereotype while providing precious little in the way of evidence or reasoned argument yourself.

Also, I would like to clarify my personal position on this issue, since I feel that you have made some unwarranted assumptions about me: I believe that their is considerable evidence pointing to the possibility of intelligent extraterrestrial visitors to this world. To my knowledge, no single piece of evidence is indisputable, though I feel that some added weight should be given due to the shear volume of evidence. However, I feel that the existing body of evidence is sufficient to warrant more serious investigation. And regardless of the merits of the case, even if every single believer is a proven psychopath, you do not have the right to a free pass for intellectual dishonesty or laziness.

Very well, I can see this thread is going to be a dog pile. In that case, I'll take the time to point out now that you should not expect me to reply to every single argument posted, certainly not instantly, since I am apparently arguing against the entire thread.

1. A perfectly reasonable explanation, except that it utterly fails to account for the supposed abductions. Yes, the aliens are disrespectful enough of humans to simply abduct them, experiment on them and implant devices in them - but oh once it comes to disposing of the humans, they get all nervous and sweaty and decide maybe they should just beam the poor thing back home.

I presume you've heard of "catch and release," "animal rights," and "tagging?"

2. Any species advanced enough to travel to another planet with intelligent life - a journey likely to be tens of thousands of light years long, at least - will have long since disposed of independent, conflicting governments.

A pure assumption, utterly baseless. It sounds to me like you are trying to force any definition of "advanced" to match your political ideals.

Besides, you are ignoring the possibility of internal political disputes within a state.

3. If they came to deal with us as a threat, they could simply have sterilised the Earth with nuclear weapons. They did not come to deal with us as allies. It would be far, far, far easier to use themselves as their allies, rather than buoying a primitive race to the aliens' level, educating them, creating technology for their use, etc.

Since you've indulged in baseless speculation about the politics of advanced civilizations, allow me to return the favor.

Has it occurred to you that a species that is willing to undertake voyages that according to our conventionally accepted knowledge of astronomy and physics must run into the decades in length minimum, might take a longer-term view of things than our current leaders? That they might be willing to undertake a multi-generational investment? Or that a civilization that has survived past the development of nuclear capabilities might possibly not have "nuke them" as the default response to a new and unknown threat?

Of course the UK and US governments stridently deny that any of this goes on. Which actually makes me suspicious that there might be something to it.

If they were agnostic about it, it would be a different matter. But I've noticed the default position is usually telling lies.

Of course the UK and US governments stridently deny that any of this goes on. Which actually makes me suspicious that there might be something to it.

If they were agnostic about it, it would be a different matter. But I've noticed the default position is usually telling lies.

Just to show I'm being fair, that's not a very good argument. What do you mean, "agnostic?" Are they going to say "well maybe we did it and maybe we didn't? Of course they'll deny it. That doesn't indicate that they did it.

Now, if they are going further and actually using threats, harassment, blackmail, etc to silence those who accuse them, that is much more suspicious. And their are plenty of reports of such actions. How substantiated or reliable they are, I'll admit I'm not sure.

Just to show I'm being fair, that's not a very good argument. What do you mean, "agnostic?" Are they going to say "well maybe we did it and maybe we didn't? Of course they'll deny it. That doesn't indicate that they did it.

Now, if they are going further and actually using threats, harassment, blackmail, etc to silence those who accuse them, that is much more suspicious. And their are plenty of reports of such actions. How substantiated or reliable they are, I'll admit I'm not sure.

No. I understand, it's a terrible argument. I admit that. All I'm saying is that if I don't have any material evidence one way or another I tend to believe the opposite of the governments official position. The government pretty much lies its ass off when it can on principle.

By agnostic, I mean the government takes no position of UFO's one way or another and pretty much says it just doesn't know.

You are apparently ignoring, ignorant of, or in denial of the many possible motives for such a journey.


You're using human motivations but putting them in a cheap alien suit. Your reasons are self defeating as well, since reasons one and two would involve greater degrees of involvement than none at all, and even if we subscribe to your unfounded hope, three is an obvious failure, implying hideously incompetent aliens.

Also, there is no such thing as stealth in spacefaring craft. Any form of fast interstellar travel in this solar system will emit enough radiation across a wide spectrum of frequencies to make you look like a second sun to anyone with an observatory. And even without, life support systems and powerplants would exhaust heat, making you again, easy to spot in the sky. Even if you were running on minimum output, you'd still block stars from earthly observers with good scopes.

Thereby, the only thing capable of avoiding all of that would be also capable of ignoring the universal constants in physics. That puts it strictly in the realm of imagination and drug induced hallucinations.


Their's more than that as evidence and you know it (unless you are posting about something of which you are truly ignorant).

All the "evidence" you have ever posted in your history here has been lousy fabrications I could whip up in photoshop and a camera as well claiming anomalies to be "aliens". Just like a Scientologist, except they go Xenu and thetans. Your thought process is exactly like that of a cultist.

Yeah, and I also saw Elvis in a kickboxing with Godzilla on the I-59 the other day.

Also, since I know I have an unfortunate habit of saying I'll back up my claims and then never getting around to it, I'll just put this up before I get sidetracked by anything. I know Wikipedia's not the most reliable source, but it at least has the virtue of being comparatively impartial.

Here's the link; some highlights are quoted (hopefully correctly though my note taking and copying was done rather quickly) for those who are short on time.

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


"Studies have established that only a small percentage of reported UFOs are actual hoaxes."

"A small percentage of reported sightings (usually 5%-20%) are classified as unidentified objects in the strictest sense."

"Historically, there was debate among certain prominent scientists, including members of the AAAS, regarding whether serious scientific investigation was warranted given available empirical data."

(Under "Physical evidence")

"A famous 1986 military case over Tehran, recorded in CIA and DIA classified documents, resulted in communication losses in multiple aircraft and weapons system failiure in an F-4 Phantom II jet interceptor as it was about to fire a missile on one of the UFOs. This was also a radar/visual case."

Their's more than that as evidence and you know it (unless you are posting about something of which you are truly ignorant). Let's see:

Photos.

So this (http://cache.io9.com/assets/images/io9/2008/08/romulan-789281.jpg) proves Romulans exist?

Videos.

So a video of an average Star Trek episode proves the same?

Physical marks on supposed abductees and landing sites.

So crop circles are made by aliens?

Shear volume of still unexplained reports, many from experts and professionals such as pilots, astronaughts, and military personel (never mind the numbers that doubtless go unreported due to fear of ridicule and persecution).

So anything unexplained is extraterrestrial in origin?

Radar contacts with unknown aircraft.

Military planes being scrambled after said unknown air craft.

So military paranoia proves alien visits?

In conclusion, please stop arguing against a pop-culture caricature of UFO believer's position, and start arguing the facts.

Okay, now come up with some.

Damn, beat me to it.

You're using human motivations but putting them in a cheap alien suit.

You are apparently assuming that an alien species would inherently have motives completely different from our own. If anything, I would suggest that the best course (albeit a rather inadequate one) is to extrapolate from the sole example of technological civilization that we have to readily study when trying to predict these things.

Your reasons are self defeating as well, since reasons one and two would involve greater degrees of involvement than none at all,

One and two require no contact with human beings whatsoever.

and even if we subscribe to your unfounded hope, three is an obvious failure, implying hideously incompetent aliens.

Maybe they're studying us but really don't view us as advanced enough to give a fuck if we see them or not. Once again I'll bring out the chimp analogy: we study them, both in the wild and in the labs to which we abduct them. We do experiments on them. We communicate with some of them, keep them as pets, and a few of us might even want to mate with them. Our scientists don't give a damn if the chimps know we exist. But it would never occur to President Obama to send an envoy to chimp tribe number ten in the Congo to make official contact.

Also, there is no such thing as stealth in spacefaring craft. Any form of fast interstellar travel in this solar system will emit enough radiation across a wide spectrum of frequencies to make you look like a second sun to anyone with an observatory. And even without, life support systems and powerplants would exhaust heat, making you again, easy to spot in the sky. Even if you were running on minimum output, you'd still block stars from earthly observers with good scopes.

Thereby, the only thing capable of avoiding all of that would be also capable of ignoring the universal constants in physics. That puts it strictly in the realm of imagination and drug induced hallucinations.

I'll admit, this is probably the best counter-argument I've seen in this thread. My only objections are these: first, that their have been UFOs spotted in space; second, that our knowledge of physics and engineering may be inaccurate on this point (but I realize that's a pretty weak argument); third, that space craft could disguise themselves in various ways (approach from behind the Moon, perhaps, or resemble an asteroid or comet; and fourth, that not every point in the sky is being watched all the time. (SETI for example does not have telescopes monitoring the entire sky, right?)

All the "evidence" you have ever posted in your history here has been lousy fabrications I could whip up in photoshop and a camera as well claiming anomalies to be "aliens".

And what posts would those be? Can you please provide some examples, since I'm most certainly not going through my entire posting history to disprove this unsupported allegation. In point of fact, I can't recall ever posting photos.:D

Just like a Scientologist, except they go Xenu and thetans. Your thought process is exactly like that of a cultist.

Ad hominem.

Yeah, and I also saw Elvis in a kickboxing with Godzilla on the I-59 the other day.

Oh my, what an astounding rebuttal. Whipping up another example of a tired stereotype which lumps all conspiracy theorists and believers in the paranormal together must have taken a lot of effort..:rolleyes:

What's the difference? Well to start, one is a claim being put forward by someone who you would expect to be something of an expert, while the other is speculation from a faceless guy on a forum.

Actually, a former astronaut isn't exactly an expert in intelligence affairs, cover-ups etc. He's expert in piloting a capsule.

Thinking that being a former astronaut makes you an expert in all matters about space, well, that would be like saying that being a former beach lifeguard makes you an expert in deep-ocean fluidodynamics.

So this (http://cache.io9.com/assets/images/io9/2008/08/romulan-789281.jpg) proves Romulans exist?

Of course not. Of course, their are ways to analyze videos to see if they have been altered. And most people don't have the resources of a major television franchise.

So a video of an average Star Trek episode proves the same?

As above.

So crop circles are made by aliens?

Where did I say I was talking about crop circles? Burns, electrical interference, etc.

Also, regarding crop circles, I vaguely recall hearing that their are a number of different types. Specifically, their are those where the flattening of the grass is caused by crushing (like humans with wood boards), and then their are those where the grass appears to be bent as a result of heating. Sadly, I don't have a source (I think I heard it on a TV program some years back). Which tells me that I really have been letting my knowledge of this subject slide rather severely.

In any case, please try to demonstrate some knowledge of the topic beyond the most obvious pop-culture examples.

So anything unexplained is extraterrestrial in origin?

Did I say that?

When you have a large number of reports, some from professionals in relevant fields of expertise, that have not been adequately explained by any known phenomena, that's a damn bit more compelling that "anything unexplained."

As for why I favor the extraterrestrial explanation in particular, I don't deny that the cause could be some other unknown phenomena. But if you find aliens hard to believe, you should hear some of the other theories out their.

So military paranoia proves alien visits?

The military scrambling jets and preparing to fire on an object goes a long way towards coroborrating that their actually was an unknown object their.

Okay, now come up with some.

You first.:D (Just joking).

Actually, a former astronaut isn't exactly an expert in intelligence affairs, cover-ups etc. He's expert in piloting a capsule.

Thinking that being a former astronaut makes you an expert in all matters about space, well, that would be like saying that being a former beach lifeguard makes you an expert in deep-ocean fluidodynamics.

Ok, fair enough. But he's also going to know a fair bit about how air craft and space craft operate, and if their was any coverup going on, he might have access to inside knowledge. Besides the fact that he probably underwent psychological evaluations.

Ok, fair enough. But he's also going to know a fair bit about how air craft and space craft operate, and if their was any coverup going on, he might have access to inside knowledge. Besides the fact that he probably underwent psychological evaluations.

Ehm, still pilot =/= intelligence specialist.
And who should have given him access to "inside" knowledge? The very same intelligence specialist whom you suspect of cover-ups.
Also, underwent psychological evaluations managed by the same agency whom you suspect of cover-ups.

Maybe feigning that there's has been a cover-up of contact with extra-terrestrial lifeforms is deemed useful by someone at NASA, USAF and CIA. Maybe just a bit of scaremongering; maybe just a way of raising some smoke to hide some failure or scandal; maybe it's just the former astronaut himself who wants a raise of his pension and uses media pressure as a tool when bargaining with NASA.

Ehm, still pilot =/= intelligence specialist.
And who should have given him access to "inside" knowledge? The very same intelligence specialist whom you suspect of cover-ups.
Also, underwent psychological evaluations managed by the same agency whom you suspect of cover-ups.

Maybe feigning that there's has been a cover-up of contact with extra-terrestrial lifeforms is deemed useful by someone at NASA, USAF and CIA. Maybe just a bit of scaremongering; maybe just a way of raising some smoke to hide some failure or scandal; maybe it's just the former astronaut himself who wants a raise of his pension and uses media pressure as a tool when bargaining with NASA.

All possibilities I'll gladly acknowledge.

I think there was definitely a cover-up at Roswell, but I don't think there's some massive conspiracy to hide aliens or whatever. Why would there be?

I have no problem with the idea of the possibility of intelligent life beyond the solar system. I have issues with the people who insist that not only do they exist, but that they also make interstellar journeys to this dirtball for shits and giggles.

How about for medicine? Still no rational explination for the cattle mutilations.

I think there was definitely a cover-up at Roswell, but I don't think there's some massive conspiracy to hide aliens or whatever. Why would there be?

Aside from the previously discussed political instability issue raised by the OP article, the desire to maintain control over any information gathered (or technology salvaged), and the desire to avoid embarassment for the previous coverups.

Or, if the aliens with the centuries more advanced technology wanted to remain hidden, the government would probably keep their mouths shut as requested.

How about for medicine? Still no rational explination for the cattle mutilations.

This one's kind of weak. You'd think they'd have pretty good medical technology. And even if they don't, why come here just for that? They wouldn't know their was anything here they could use as medicine until after they'd already come, would they?

I suppose its possible they'd harvest some resources while they visit, but I doubt its the primary motivation an extraterrestrial civilization would have to come here.

This one's kind of weak. You'd think they'd have pretty good medical technology. And even if they don't, why come here just for that? They wouldn't know their was anything here they could use as medicine until after they'd already come, would they?

I suppose its possible they'd harvest some resources while they visit, but I doubt its the primary motivation an extraterrestrial civilization would have to come here.

Put yourself in an alien's shoes for a minute. We get milk, leather and beef from cows. Some people use them in their religion. Some use the mushrooms from cow manure in their religion. Some think they are reincarnated into cows. There were lots of bloody range wars because of cows. Spain has the running of the bulls. Rodeo riders see how long they can ride a bull. Mexico has bull fights......Wouldnt you have to ask yourself, "What the hell is that?"

And why would someone use a multi-million dollar chopper to do laser surgery on a $300 cow? (the official explination is just that)

I'll admit, this is probably the best counter-argument I've seen in this thread. My only objections are these: first, that their have been UFOs spotted in space; second, that our knowledge of physics and engineering may be inaccurate on this point (but I realize that's a pretty weak argument); third, that space craft could disguise themselves in various ways (approach from behind the Moon, perhaps, or resemble an asteroid or comet; and fourth, that not every point in the sky is being watched all the time. (SETI for example does not have telescopes monitoring the entire sky, right?)

<snip>

First, sources that give a good example of an unknown object in space fitting the thermal profile of a spacecraft. Not just "Oooh, look, a few pixels of a different colour and we don't know what they were."

Second, discarded - if you have to postulate that all of our current physical knowledge is inaccurate, that's equivalent to waving your hands and saying "aliens are magic". It has no place in rational discourse.

Third, can't be done. For any reasonable interstellar drive system, we could pick it up from a star system or two away. Even if for some reason we didn't, the thermal profiles of spacecraft capable of supporting life are completely different from those of comets and asteroids.

Fourth, no, we aren't. But again, we don't need to be - there is literally light-years of detection range for something using (for example) an antimatter drive. And if anything happens to point at it in that whole time, it will instantly stand out like a sore thumb as being completely artificial.

There is an awful lot of universe out there......who are we to say that no intelligent life exists beyond our solar system?

False dichotomy, I suppose. The two options are not: "Aliens visit Earth" and "Humans are alone in the universe". It is completely possible (and, in my opinion, very likely), that extraterrestrials do exist, and they will never make contact with humanity. Even if they do, the chances of physical contact are even smaller.

We can't be alone, the universe is far to massive for us to be the only ones. Think about it, Earth is a less than microscopic dot on the map of space to think that we are the only life is ignorant and narrow minded.

If we are even worth a visit from others is a whole other question but if you really think about it then it makes sense that we could be.

You are apparently assuming that an alien species would inherently have motives completely different from our own. If anything, I would suggest that the best course (albeit a rather inadequate one) is to extrapolate from the sole example of technological civilization that we have to readily study when trying to predict these things.

In other words, you're conceding exactly to my assertion.


One and two require no contact with human beings whatsoever.


One and two would generate more concrete evidence than something pranksters or wide eyed imagination could cook up.

Remote observation would not require the in atmosphere contact claimed by your average UFO believer, much less low flying craft. Intelligence satellites are invisible to the earthbound naked eye, and they can certainly pick up a great deal more information than buzzing people's houses at close range. What kind of advanced alien species with interstellar travel would do something as wasteful as that? The only answer to that is hideously stupid aliens.

And political grandstanding makes no sense at all, since any sort of grandstanding usually involves showing up and setting up shop. This isn't it. Try again.


Maybe they're studying us but really don't view us as advanced enough to give a fuck if we see them or not.

See intelligence satellite rebuttal above.


Once again I'll bring out the chimp analogy:

Which fails on the account that the chimp analogy involves zero attempt at hiding after the subject is subdued. And yet only the fringe element ever spots them. No air force alerts. No confirmed radar contacts. Nothing. Just a some blurry images that could be a Frisbee for all you know and some anomalous contacts on radar occasionally that might as well be a bunch of ducks as they could be spyplanes.


I'll admit, this is probably the best counter-argument I've seen in this thread. My only objections are these: first, that their have been UFOs spotted in space;

So where's the observatory evidence? The radar contacts? The thermal readouts from orbital and ground based observatories? There's none of that. Just the same blurry photographs UFO fanatics like to flog.


second, that our knowledge of physics and engineering may be inaccurate on this point (but I realize that's a pretty weak argument);


It's so weak, it doesn't need rebutting. You might as well argue the existence of the spaghetti god who changes universal constants on the fly to prevent being observed.


third, that space craft could disguise themselves in various ways (approach from behind the Moon, perhaps, or resemble an asteroid or comet;


The asteroid and comet idea are bollocks. Asteroids and comets are unpowered, inert hunks of rock. Any space craft that isn't as dead as the rocks will have a power source and propulsion systems. The use of either, including life support, will show up as a hot object well before any asteroid catches enough solar energy to start heating up. You can make your ship look like a rock, but you'll still be a rock with such a damned suspicious thermal signature and reaction mass plumes where an engine would be, and if you're big enough, you stop looking like a suspicious rock and start looking like a weapon.


and fourth, that not every point in the sky is being watched all the time. (SETI for example does not have telescopes monitoring the entire sky, right?)


SETI isn't in the business of observing possible close contacts from artificial craft. You want NASA, ESA and any other agency responsible for NEO asteroids.


And what posts would those be?

My mistake. Archives show that it's Dragontide who made the posts, not you. Your similarity of argument with his is what made the connection.


Oh my, what an astounding rebuttal. Whipping up another example of a tired stereotype which lumps all conspiracy theorists and believers in the paranormal together must have taken a lot of effort..:rolleyes:

Why not? They all have about the same level of evidence. One thing I've noted about UFO fanatics is that they're quick to claim any unexplained anomaly as evidence of UFO activity even after the culprits have turned out to be kids with too much time on their hands. Crop circles are a good example.

How about for medicine? Still no rational explination for the cattle mutilations.

You want a rational explanation? Sadistic kids getting off on killing and bloodshed or some weird ass blood cult. You might as well ask for rational explanations for the Columbine shootings.

You want a rational explanation? Sadistic kids getting off on killing and bloodshed or some weird ass blood cult. You might as well ask for rational explanations for the Columbine shootings.

Maniacs capable of laser surgery in the 80s 90s? When was the birth of google and Wiki again?

I'm inclined to treat this with the heavy scepticism with which I'd approach any other conspiracy theory; in this case, given the scrutiny putative extra-terrestrial life, and any rumoured sightings, are subjected to, I doubt such "visits" would remain secret.

You want a rational explanation? Sadistic kids getting off on killing and bloodshed or some weird ass blood cult. You might as well ask for rational explanations for the Columbine shootings.

Blood cults? Yeah that sounds rational. How would kids drain every last drop of blood from a animal the size of a cow?

I'm inclined to treat this with the heavy scepticism with which I'd approach any other conspiracy theory; in this case, given the scrutiny putative extra-terrestrial life, and any rumoured sightings, are subjected to, I doubt such "visits" would remain secret.

I think it makes perfect sense that they would remain secret. If other life was proved it would destroy global religion causing worldwide chaos among the religious community. Can you imagine the scenes in the east if NASA or the US confirmed extraterrestrial life?

In other words, you're conceding exactly to my assertion.

Perhaps, from one point of view. I simply don't see anything illogical about looking at it that way.

One and two would generate more concrete evidence than something pranksters or wide eyed imagination could cook up.

An assertion that proves nothing.

Remote observation would not require the in atmosphere contact claimed by your average UFO believer, much less low flying craft. Intelligence satellites are invisible to the earthbound naked eye, and they can certainly pick up a great deal more information than buzzing people's houses at close range. What kind of advanced alien species with interstellar travel would do something as wasteful as that? The only answer to that is hideously stupid aliens.

Well, let's say you want to go in and pick up a biological or geological sample or piece of technology.

And political grandstanding makes no sense at all, since any sort of grandstanding usually involves showing up and setting up shop. This isn't it. Try again.

Not if the political grandstanding takes the form of "look, we actually made it to another system. Isn't your government wonderful?" Granted, this isn't a good explanation for the shear volume of reported sightings, but fortunately, its only one possible motivation.

See intelligence satellite rebuttal above.

My reply is the same as before.

Which fails on the account that the chimp analogy involves zero attempt at hiding after the subject is subdued. And yet only the fringe element ever spots them. No air force alerts. No confirmed radar contacts. Nothing. Just a some blurry images that could be a Frisbee for all you know and some anomalous contacts on radar occasionally that might as well be a bunch of ducks as they could be spyplanes.

I guess you didn't read all my posts. No confirmed radar contacts? No air force alerts? You could hardly reveal your ignorance more severely and obviously short of trying to throw the debate for me.

So where's the observatory evidence? The radar contacts? The thermal readouts from orbital and ground based observatories? There's none of that. Just the same blurry photographs UFO fanatics like to flog.

Undeserving of any further response.

It's so weak, it doesn't need rebutting. You might as well argue the existence of the spaghetti god who changes universal constants on the fly to prevent being observed.

Fortunately I'm not relying on that particular point.;)

The asteroid and comet idea are bollocks. Asteroids and comets are unpowered, inert hunks of rock. Any space craft that isn't as dead as the rocks will have a power source and propulsion systems. The use of either, including life support, will show up as a hot object well before any asteroid catches enough solar energy to start heating up. You can make your ship look like a rock, but you'll still be a rock with such a damned suspicious thermal signature and reaction mass plumes where an engine would be, and if you're big enough, you stop looking like a suspicious rock and start looking like a weapon.

Why not turn the engines off and coast in the last few light years? Its not like there's a lot of drag in space to slow you down.

As for whether life support systems would show up as brightly as you claim, I honestly don't know.

SETI isn't in the business of observing possible close contacts from artificial craft. You want NASA, ESA and any other agency responsible for NEO asteroids.

You do know that there are a large number of untracked NEO asteroids, right?

My mistake. Archives show that it's Dragontide who made the posts, not you. Your similarity of argument with his is what made the connection.

I see.

Why not? They all have about the same level of evidence.

Utterly baseless.

One thing I've noted about UFO fanatics is that they're quick to claim any unexplained anomaly as evidence of UFO activity even after the culprits have turned out to be kids with too much time on their hands. Crop circles are a good example.

While some "UFO fanatics" may be too uncritical of their theories and the evidence that seems to support them, I hasten to point out that just because some cases turn out to be hoaxes, it does not follow that all of them are. You have to take it on a case by case basis.

Why not turn the engines off and coast in the last few light years? Its not like there's a lot of drag in space to slow you down.

Sure. Just spend several thousand years in transit, and hope that nothing at all moves just a little too much so you need a course correction, because the instant you fire up an engine again you can be picked up.

Hard SF authors have already gone through this debate thousands of times. The rough conclusion is that stealth in space is completely impossible.


As for whether life support systems would show up as brightly as you claim, I honestly don't know.

It's space. Background temperature 3K. Any ship running any sort of life support system will be at several hundred K, and radiating appropriately for a black body of that temperature.


You do know that there are a large number of untracked NEO asteroids, right?

NEO asteroids don't radiate like a spaceship that is anything more than an inert hulk.

Blood cults? Yeah that sounds rational. How would kids drain every last drop of blood from a animal the size of a cow?

Yea, how long could the list of people from the 20th century be that can fly a multi-million dollar chopper (an uber looking one that could be mistaken for a UFO) actually own one, a laser surgery expert and just happen to be a member of a satanic, homicidal cult ? If it spits a long list out, then stop the world, I wanna get off!
:tongue:

Yea, how long could the list of people from the 20th century be that can fly a multi-million dollar chopper (an uber looking one that could be mistaken for a UFO) actually own one, a laser surgery expert and just happen to be a member of a satanic, homicidal cult ? If it spits a long list out, then stop the world, I wanna get off!
:tongue:

Exactly. :hail:

I'll believe that extra terrestrial beings have visited Earth recently when they introduce themselves and invite me to a barbecue.

An assertion that proves nothing.


It's an assertion that's panned out for the anomalies that were seriously investigated so far. Seriously, the people who blather about abductions haven't demonstrated anything that couldn't be self inflicted as their proof.

The UFO conspiracists who end up on news invariably make the argument of "I can't prove what it is, so it must be UFOs!"

It's as bad as creationist TV.


Well, let's say you want to go in and pick up a biological or geological sample or piece of technology.

All of which can be done the same way mere Earthlings get Martian ground samples. One way scout probes. If you're paranoid about being traced back, add in a self destruct mechanism. The whole alien visitation thing still has no logical basis.


Not if the political grandstanding takes the form of "look, we actually made it to another system. Isn't your government wonderful?" Granted, this isn't a good explanation for the shear volume of reported sightings, but fortunately, its only one possible motivation.

Oh come on.

"Hooray, we arrived! Let's go somewhere else quick!"

It's pathetic. Anyone grandstanding would at least stake some kind of claim, and don't try to pass off crop circles as that since it's a lot shorter lived than any flag.


I guess you didn't read all my posts. No confirmed radar contacts? No air force alerts? You could hardly reveal your ignorance more severely and obviously short of trying to throw the debate for me.


I also specified CONFIRMED radar contacts. None. Not one. I'll give that I worded it poorly but air force alerts have been ordered out before on bogus information, so I don't give any credence to alien craft being the reason.

The Cold War is littered with plenty of "almost WWIII"s that were triggered by false alarms either from faulty sensors or failures elsewhere that told missile silo operators the war had started. Why do you ignore that when flogging the "alien craft" angle?


Undeserving of any further response.


Interesting that you say that when presented for a demand of evidence. So far, you've not really put any up in your posts as far as I can see. You've asserted evidence, yes, but not actually showed it.


Why not turn the engines off and coast in the last few light years? Its not like there's a lot of drag in space to slow you down.

And what, smash into your target planet at significant fractions of c? Nice going. You've killed yourself and blown up your destination.

Even if you could plot an unpowered course several light years long without being sucked into a gravity well or smacking into an obstruction (like Jupiter), you still need to stop. That means firing up your engine and pumping reaction mass in the opposite direction of your heading. That'll make you a brilliant spot in anyone's scope.


As for whether life support systems would show up as brightly as you claim, I honestly don't know.

Space is cold. Space also lacks an atmosphere to pull away heat. Heat build up is a huge issue. That means heat will continue to build up and can only be eliminated in two ways without an ass-pull "It's magic" answer. You either douse the ship in a shower of supercooled gas from stores, a limited option for obvious reasons and stupidly impractical for any interstellar travel, or you radiate it away from your ship with radiative strips/fins.

That will still mark you as a hot object to observatories.


You do know that there are a large number of untracked NEO asteroids, right?


And you know the problem with detecting NEOs is that they are inert objects that don't radiate any energy right? That limits them to chance observations.

Starships aren't inert objects. They're powered. That means a bright and hot signature in the cold darkness of space.


While some "UFO fanatics" may be too uncritical of their theories and the evidence that seems to support them, I hasten to point out that just because some cases turn out to be hoaxes, it does not follow that all of them are. You have to take it on a case by case basis.

Care to point out any such cases which have been confirmed to be actual instances of extra-terrestrial craft and not atmospheric anomalies or just plain human built aircraft?

And please don't give ones that involve bright lights in the sky. I've seen too many people claim condensation caused light refractions on camera lenses to be evidence of ghosts/spirits/gods and any other number of supernatural entities you'd care to name.

Maniacs capable of laser surgery in the 80s 90s? When was the birth of google and Wiki again?

I once got stabbed with a live solder. Very clean cut, cauterized the wound even as it melted through flesh. The average yokel wouldn't be able to tell the difference between that and a laser cut. And if you want to claim things like multi-billion dollar helicopters to go with it, then you spend too much time listening to drunks and taking their word as gospel.

Take your load of rubbish elsewhere.

Blood cults? Yeah that sounds rational. How would kids drain every last drop of blood from a animal the size of a cow?

I don't put anything above cults. You've got the likes of CoS and more openly violent ones like the Aum Shinrikyo. They sound like a load of crap, but they exist and do nutty things. And it's a lot more realistic than inventing aliens to take the fall for that weirdness.

Very well, I can see this thread is going to be a dog pile. In that case, I'll take the time to point out now that you should not expect me to reply to every single argument posted, certainly not instantly, since I am apparently arguing against the entire thread.

Honestly, I wasn't expecting you to reply to me at all. I certainly won't blame you for absconding at some point.

I presume you've heard of "catch and release," "animal rights," and "tagging?"

What would be the point of such activities? Even if they did want to tag certain humans (and ignoring the fact that such an act would basically be a note to our species informing us of their presence), surely their technology would be more advanced and subtle than invasive bulky-metal-triangle implants.

A pure assumption, utterly baseless. It sounds to me like you are trying to force any definition of "advanced" to match your political ideals.

Besides, you are ignoring the possibility of internal political disputes within a state.

Fair enough. My reasoning was that a species who were capable of space travel on such a scale would have modified themselves to allow more efficient use of time and resources. Not such a huge assumption, given that even we attempt it today (rehabilitation and so forth). It is still an assumption, of course.

Has it occurred to you that a species that is willing to undertake voyages that according to our conventionally accepted knowledge of astronomy and physics must run into the decades in length minimum, might take a longer-term view of things than our current leaders? That they might be willing to undertake a multi-generational investment? Or that a civilization that has survived past the development of nuclear capabilities might possibly not have "nuke them" as the default response to a new and unknown threat?

I addressed the options given in your post, that is, to deal with a potential threat or ally. I'm not sure if this was meant to rebut my points, but if it was, I can't see how it does. I do agree that there are plenty of perfectly valid reasons a species would not instantly jump to a kill/befriend response, such as simply being interested in foreign life. However, I don't see why they would come to the surface to study us - and if they did, I don't see why they wouldn't simply announce their presence. There would be plenty of people perfectly willing to tell aliens all about human life, if they showed themselves properly.

I once got stabbed with a live solder. Very clean cut, cauterized the wound even as it melted through flesh. The average yokel wouldn't be able to tell the difference between that and a laser cut.
Yea the hospital operating rooms have to have a soldering iron, dont they? :rolleyes:

And if you want to claim things like multi-billion dollar helicopters to go with it, then you spend too much time listening to drunks and taking their word as gospel.


Im with you there. A multi-million dollar helicopter sounds real stupid. Dont it? Yet that was the "weather balloon" excuse from authorities when all those cows had expert laser surgery preformed on them.

Im with you there. A multi-million dollar helicopter sounds real stupid. Dont it? Yet that was the "weather balloon" excuse from authorities when all those cows had expert laser surgery preformed on them.

Well, you know, feel free to suggest a reason that the aliens would want to take a cow's blood, mutilate and disembowel it, then leave its rotting corpse in the fields for the farmer to run into.

Maybe they like the taste of it, hey?

Well, you know, feel free to suggest a reason that the aliens would want to take a cow's blood, mutilate and disembowel it, then leave its rotting corpse in the fields for the farmer to run into.

Maybe they like the taste of it, hey?

I explained that earlier. I think it's for medicine.

Well, you know, feel free to suggest a reason that the aliens would want to take a cow's blood, mutilate and disembowel it, then leave its rotting corpse in the fields for the farmer to run into.

Maybe they like the taste of it, hey?

TEENAGERS.

They do it because they can!

TEENAGERS.

They do it because they can!

Without ever once so much as spilling one single drop of blood? With all the cattle mutilations, that would be an awful lot of teenagers (and/or adults) In one MASSIVE conspiricy that could easily avoid a lot a bad press by simply buying a cow and taking it to a lab.

For those that might have missed this:
UFO footage over Iraq (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9JkFsTPEPE&feature=related)

Filmed by our own soldiers with an infared, high speed camera.

Without ever once so much as spilling one single drop of blood? With all the cattle mutilations, that would be an awful lot of teenagers (and/or adults) In one MASSIVE conspiricy that could easily avoid a lot a bad press by simply buying a cow and taking it to a lab.

I was talking about Extra terrestrial teenagers...

Who else would fly 1 billion light years to make crop circles and butcher cattle? There are drunk college aliens too I guess...

he seems to be smoking too much of that space ganja he brought back.

For those that might have missed this:
UFO footage over Iraq (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9JkFsTPEPE&feature=related)

Filmed by our own soldiers with an infared, high speed camera.

Birds?

Birds?

Birds that glow and move across the sky at those breakneck speeds with never the slighest hint of a wing flapping?

Birds that glow and move across the sky at those breakneck speeds with never the slighest hint of a wing flapping?

Must be really cool birds. Perhaps they're swifts.

However, to be serious:

We can't tell what we're looking at. It's an infrared picture, and therefore all we see are the heat signatures. In addition, we can't even be certain as to speed without having a known size/speed/distance object to compare it to. For all we know, the camera could be moving.

Secondly, even if that's not the case, this is the easiest type of photoshop to do - a point of light on a video.

In short, there's no reason for me to give that video any credibility without it being tested by an expert in videography and video modifications.

Yea the hospital operating rooms have to have a soldering iron, dont they? :rolleyes:

So you are talking about cows mutilated in operating rooms? And tying in ridiculously priced helicopters to it? Clearly your ability to form coherent, much less logical, argument stops working when it concerns UFOs.

I was talking about Extra terrestrial teenagers...

Who else would fly 1 billion light years to make crop circles and butcher cattle? There are drunk college aliens too I guess...

Ahhhh. Very interesting theory. They stole their daddy's station wagon! :D

He was an astronaut. That doesn't make him right.

Also, this is totally why they should just send scientists into space, not navy guys.

So you are talking about cows mutilated in operating rooms? And tying in ridiculously priced helicopters to it? Clearly your ability to form coherent, much less logical, argument stops working when it concerns UFOs.

I was referring to your observation that laser and a soldering iron could do the same job. If I was wrong then what was your point?

I didnt tie the helicopters into to it. The authorities did.

Must be really cool birds. Perhaps they're swifts.

However, to be serious:

We can't tell what we're looking at. It's an infrared picture, and therefore all we see are the heat signatures. In addition, we can't even be certain as to speed without having a known size/speed/distance object to compare it to. For all we know, the camera could be moving.

Secondly, even if that's not the case, this is the easiest type of photoshop to do - a point of light on a video.

In short, there's no reason for me to give that video any credibility without it being tested by an expert in videography and video modifications.

Did you watch the whole thing? There were several smaller ships that launched from a mother ship. Not just one blip of light.

I don't put anything above cults. You've got the likes of CoS and more openly violent ones like the Aum Shinrikyo. They sound like a load of crap, but they exist and do nutty things. And it's a lot more realistic than inventing aliens to take the fall for that weirdness.

Ok so lets say for arguments sake these cults exist and do carry out random and may i say very impressive and near impossible cattle mutilation that does not answer my other point. The entirety of space cannot be processed by the human mind its just too big, unless your religious you must buy into some sort of scientific theory of how life began. Is it really that hard to think that if it happened here then it could happen else where millions and millions of miles away from us?

Even if we discover just cells or plants it's still life and it's still Alien. If there is life here then there just has to be life elsewhere. We cannot be the only source of life in all of space.

Did you watch the whole thing? There were several smaller ships that launched from a mother ship. Not just one blip of light.

Haha, mothership.

Many points of light is just as easy as one, just takes a little more time.

Did you watch the whole thing? There were several smaller ships that launched from a mother ship. Not just one blip of light.Hmm, using terms like 'mother ship' and 'ship' shows your bias.

Haha, mothership.

Many points of light is just as easy as one, just takes a little more time.

For a light show, originating on the ground to do that would be a pretty impressive and large scale trick of the lights. Seems like something like that would have been part of the Chinese Olympics opening ceremony and not a youtoob video.

For a light show, originating on the ground to do that would be a pretty impressive and large scale trick of the lights. Seems like something like that would have been part of the Chinese Olympics opening ceremony and not a youtoob video.

Let me introduce you to something I said just a few minutes ago:

Secondly, even if that's not the case, this is the easiest type of photoshop to do - a point of light on a video.

In short, there's no reason for me to give that video any credibility without it being tested by an expert in videography and video modifications.

Secondly, even if that's not the case, this is the easiest type of photoshop to do - a point of light on a video.

In short, there's no reason for me to give that video any credibility without it being tested by an expert in videography and video modifications.

Do you know of any examples that look as real as this one?

I tend to keep an open mind about these things.
"Keeping an open mind is a virtue, but not so open that your brains fall out." I'm not sure who originally said this. Sagan quotes James Oberg, but lots of people have been tagged to that line apparently.

There is an awful lot of universe out there......who are we to say that no intelligent life exists beyond our solar system?And here is the crux of the problem. It isn't an either or situation. It isn't aliens are abducting and sexually abusing humans or there are no aliens anywhere. Just because someone wants more proof than an eyewitness doesn't mean they don't believe there could be extraterrestrial life.

What's the difference? Well to start, one is a claim being put forward by someone who you would expect to be something of an expert, while the other is speculation from a faceless guy on a forum.An expert on what? Aliens? No. Fact of the matter is, astronaut or country farmer, each of them need to provide evidence. There are no authorities in the scientific process. I don't care if Stephen Hawking himself tells me that he was abducted, my response will always be, where's the evidence?

Do you know of any examples that look as real as this one?

Yes, some more so actually. But, each time one has been tested (thus far) it has fallen flat as a phony in some way or another. In some cases, they were much closer to the screen and were performed via various pyrotechnics, or there were tears around the image indicative of after-shooting insertion of the images.

In short, thus far to this day, there is no credible evidence of any aliens.

Yes, some more so actually. But, each time one has been tested (thus far) it has fallen flat as a phony in some way or another. In some cases, they were much closer to the screen and were performed via various pyrotechnics, or there were tears around the image indicative of after-shooting insertion of the images.

In short, thus far to this day, there is no credible evidence of any aliens.

No I mean do you have any video links with examples of your "trick of the lights" theory? (dosnt have to be a fake alien video)

In which case I'd like to see some evidence. And no, the fact that he believes in UFOs does not count.

Let me put it this way: he could have dementia, or he could be right about alien visitors (and any number of other possibilities could be correct). But these two possibilities have a lot in common.

1. They are both theoretically possible within our understanding of science.

2. They are both unproven.

What's the difference? Well to start, one is a claim being put forward by someone who you would expect to be something of an expert, while the other is speculation from a faceless guy on a forum.

Exhibit A: A 78 year-old man at a UFO convention, who hasn't actually worked for NASA since 1972.

Exhibit B: A rambling, paranoid story about Roswell and the Pentagon with no verifiable details.

Exhibit C: Another bizarre story about being "remote cured" of a cancer he can't even prove he had. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Mitchell#Remote_healing)

Exhibit D: Occam's Razor.

The prosecution rests, your honour.

No I mean do you have any video links with examples of your "trick of the lights" theory? (dosnt have to be a fake alien video)

You mean using a depth perception failure or inserting lights into the video after it's been shot? They are two different techniques.

I was referring to your observation that laser and a soldering iron could do the same job. If I was wrong then what was your point?

You're talking about cattle mutilations and insisting that they're done with lasers which is somehow impossible for mere earthlings. And I'm telling you that these mutilations you talk about can be done just as easily with hot running soldering irons or similar by idiot kids out for kicks.

*snip*

Your grammatically horrible assertion aside, I've no argument for or against the idea of life beyond this planet. I am opposed to the people who tie that in with UFOs and other assorted crackpot ideas about them making crop circles, mutilating cattle and assorted rubbish that runs entirely on hope, faith and gullibility in the same vein that creationists argue that dinosaur bones are a test of faith by god.

You mean using a depth perception failure or inserting lights into the video after it's been shot? They are two different techniques.

Ive seen a lot of movies with a lot of special effects. But you can always tell when it's fake. This video was WAY too detailed.

Ive seen a lot of movies with a lot of special effects. But you can always tell when it's fake. This video was WAY too detailed.

No, it really isn't. It's the fact that it isn't so detailed that makes you think it's real. If it was really detailed, like a movie, you'd probably dismiss it.

You're talking about cattle mutilations and insisting that they're done with lasers which is somehow impossible for mere earthlings. And I'm telling you that these mutilations you talk about can be done just as easily with hot running soldering irons or similar by idiot kids out for kicks.


Yea! NOW! Not from the 60s thru the 90s and God know how much earlier than that.

And never with a soldering iron. Organs removed. All the blood gone. Not one drop spilled. No foot prints. Just dead cows and crop circles.

No, it really isn't. It's the fact that it isn't so detailed that makes you think it's real. If it was really detailed, like a movie, you'd probably dismiss it.

Can you give an example of a movie then? This vid looked more real than Star Trek and Independence Day.

Can you give an example of a movie then? This vid looked more real than Star Trek and Independence Day.

Because you have a preconceived bias. You want it to be real. A point of light in the sky, even many points of light in the sky moving at great speed is not a feat to accomplish via photoshop.

http://coh.tritonius.com/RPD04-StarDestroyer.jpg

This you know is fake, despite the fact that it's incredibly more detailed. It has lights, weapons fire, organized into decks, with visible propulsion surfaces, visible weapons and tractor surfaces, a cargo bay, specially designed as a craft of interstellar propulsion. Yet, you find it less convincing than a few lights in the sky. Why?

Can you give an example of a movie then? This vid looked more real than Star Trek and Independence Day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWX3Xl_cXkQ

Seriously dude, you're clutching at incredibly small straws.

Crop circles are made with planks of wood, some rope, and a tape-measure by rural artists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWX3Xl_cXkQ

Seriously dude, you're clutching at incredibly small straws.

Also,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9gzQDY8sgM&feature=related

He'll be 79 this year. I call the onset of dementia.
That's unfair. Mitchell has always been a bit of a wildcard, always had 'out there' ideas. He's been expounding this sort of stuff for years now.

To those who're interested, there's a very interesting extended interview with Mitchell in Andrew Smith's Moondust: In Search of the Men Who Fell to Earth. Smith also interviews all the other surviving moonwalkers, and each of them have had a rather strange life since touching down on Earth.

you find it less convincing than a few lights in the sky. Why?

By watching it in motion.

Computer imagery. Models. Green & blue screens. All just too easy to recognize.

Crop circles are made with planks of wood, some rope, and a tape-measure by rural artists.

So let's recap. A bunch of satanic doctors that leave no footprints or scents for a dog to track that fly high tech choppers (that some farmers shot at BTW) That either make a crop circle then wait for some cows to come along for them to kill or make the crop circles after their bloodless deathfest.

Or It's just an alien doing research.

That's unfair. Mitchell has always been a bit of a wildcard, always had 'out there' ideas. He's been expounding this sort of stuff for years now.


I know he has long-held beliefs about the "paranormal", but his conspiratorial turn is relatively recent, isn't it?

By watching it in motion.

Computer imagery. Models. Green & blue screens. All just too easy to recognize.

By what quantitative analysis do you decide the real versus the fake? Surely, since they have professions that specifically create false pictures/videos, and then professions where they test videos/pictures to see if they're real or fake, you must have adopted some method for determining reality from fantasy.

So let's recap. A bunch of satanic doctors that leave no footprints or scents for a dog to track that fly high tech choppers (that some farmers shot at BTW) That either make a crop circle then wait for some cows to come along for them to kill or make the crop circles after their bloodless deathfest.

Or It's just an alien doing research.

The former is a strawman, but nonetheless, is still statistically more realistic than the latter.

Also,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9gzQDY8sgM&feature=related

You must be joking!

you must have adopted some method for determining reality from fantasy.

Paying attention, just for the fun of it.

You must be joking!

Not really. That video is in three parts, and there's a bit about the greatest UFO hoax of all time. The second section is fascinating.

Paying attention, just for the fun of it.

If you think "paying attention" is sufficient to determine the real footage, then you clearly don't know anything about videography. I worked with a guy that could put you in bed with a supermodel and it would look completely real.

there's a bit about the greatest UFO hoax of all time.

You wont see the Iraq footage on one of those hoax shows.

You wont see the Iraq footage on one of those hoax shows.

Nope, it's not elaborate enough to even address. It is just summarily dismissed by most rational people.

In which case I'd like to see some evidence. And no, the fact that he believes in UFOs does not count.

Let me put it this way: he could have dementia, or he could be right about alien visitors (and any number of other possibilities could be correct). But these two possibilities have a lot in common.

1. They are both theoretically possible within our understanding of science.

2. They are both unproven.

What's the difference? Well to start, one is a claim being put forward by someone who you would expect to be something of an expert, while the other is speculation from a faceless guy on a forum.

In what way does being part of the space program make you an expert on alien visitation?

Many of us have been to the beach... does that make us experts on mermaids?

I know he has long-held beliefs about the "paranormal", but his conspiratorial turn is relatively recent, isn't it?
In the book I mentioned above, Moondust, written in 2003, Mitchell talks about conspiracies, Roswell and the like. The author makes no mention of dementia, and shows Mitchell as fully cogent and aware of what he is saying.

On a lighter note, the book also mentions that if you go to the NASA gift shop at the Kennedy Space Centre, you can by the autobiography of every single published moonwalker... apart from Mitchell.


Many of us have been to the beach... does that make us experts on mermaids?
Awesome.

Nope, it's not elaborate enough to even address. It is just summarily dismissed by most rational people.

That backyard sideshow on your videos was not elaborate enough to address. I say again. You must be joking. Where is a trick of the lights with no blue screens. The alien autopsy was designed to be a fake to be exposed later since the Air Force had to go and make up that stupid weather balloon story in 1947.

That backyard sideshow on your videos was not elaborate enough to address. I say again. You must be joking. Where is a trick of the lights with no blue screens. The alien autopsy was designed to be a fake to be exposed later since the Air Force had to go and make up that stupid weather balloon story in 1947.

:rolleyes:

Ok, I have to go pick up someone from the airport. This conversation is now too stupid to even address.

That backyard sideshow on your videos was not elaborate enough to address. I say again. You must be joking. Where is a trick of the lights with no blue screens. The alien autopsy was designed to be a fake to be exposed later since the Air Force had to go and make up that stupid weather balloon story in 1947.

Where do you get this ludicrous idea that you need blue screens or CGI to create convincing effects?

Another pollless thread :( And this one just screams for the "Option 9 From Outer Space" option :eek:

:rolleyes:

Ok, I have to go pick up someone from the airport. This conversation is now too stupid to even address.

Oh you win then. Grats! Drive careful. Watch out for the satanic hooligans that can't be caught.

Where do you get this ludicrous idea that you need blue screens or CGI to create convincing effects?

From shitty movies. And blue screens are not that convincing.

From shitty movies.

And yet 'special effects' in entertainment is an art that has been thriving for, at the very least, hundreds of years.

From shitty movies. And blue screens are not that convincing.

I take it you have no idea what "in-camera effects" means, then?

And blue screens are not that convincing.

That's because of keying issues. You pretty much don't get that with green screen.

Regardless - there are far older, yet equally convincing - methods of superimposition.

And yet 'special effects' in entertainment is an art that has been thriving for, at the very least, hundreds of years.

Yes because part of the fun (sometime the only fun) if figuring out how they did it. That Iraq footage has none of the fake qualities I have seen a jillion times.

That's because of keying issues. You pretty much don't get that with green screen.

Regardless - there are far older, yet equally convincing - methods of superimposition.

Green or blue you have to factor in how the object(s) your looking at moves.

Green or blue you have to factor in how the object(s) your looking at moves.

Which is an entirely different issue to the bluescreen problem you were talking about.

Which is an entirely different issue to the bluescreen problem you were talking about.

When you use a blue/green screen, you have something in front of it.

That Iraq footage has none of the fake qualities I have seen a jillion times.

That's because the Iraq footage (if you are talking about the green image of a v-shaped pattern) is totally real.

It is also totally migratory birds, showing up as heat signatures (hence bright) against a cooler (and thus, darker) sky.

When you use a blue/green screen, you have something in front of it.

Actually, no - you don't. You can use a blue (or green) screen effect to replace a backdrop, even if there's nothing superimposed. Indeed, bluescreen is excellent for that, since it doesn't have the keying issues under those circumstances.

In the book I mentioned above, Moondust, written in 2003, Mitchell talks about conspiracies, Roswell and the like. The author makes no mention of dementia, and shows Mitchell as fully cogent and aware of what he is saying.



Okay, I can admit when I'm wrong. I still don't believe a word he says, though.

That's because the Iraq footage (if you are talking about the green image of a v-shaped pattern) is totally real.

It is also totally migratory birds, showing up as heat signatures (hence bright) against a cooler (and thus, darker) sky.

Bird formations slightly fluxuate. These did not.

From shitty movies.
Nonsense.

Check out the effects, for example, in Vampyr - Der Traum des Allan Grey, made in 1932. Excellent stuff, that still stand up pretty well today.

You can check it out here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88I_OE-AWGo), with a modern soundtrack.


I still don't believe a word he says, though.
Och, neither do I.

Bird formations slightly fluxuate. These did not.

What do you mean by fluctuate? Change shape (i.e. don't stay in a V the whole time, form, reform et c)? If so... the video showed this happening...

Actually, no - you don't. You can use a blue (or green) screen effect to replace a backdrop, even if there's nothing superimposed. Indeed, bluescreen is excellent for that, since it doesn't have the keying issues under those circumstances.

Then any special effect would be simple animation. That Iraq footage is not an animation.

What do you mean by fluctuate? Change shape (i.e. don't stay in a V the whole time, form, reform et c)? If so... the video showed this happening...

One bird will speed up or slow down a little. And no there was not the slightest hint of that. Nor the slightest hint of a wing flapping when it zoomed in and out.

One bird will speed up or slow down a little. And no there was not the slightest hint of that. Nor the slightest hint of a wing flapping when it zoomed in and out.
Where's this video?

I can't spot a link to it in this thread.

EDIT: Strike that, found it.

EDIT2: Oooh, they used Brian Eno...

Then any special effect would be simple animation. That Iraq footage is not an animation.

No. You're so wrong, it's painful to point it out. Special effects do not need to be created externally then superimposed, you can get perfectly valid lighting effects entirely in-camera. It looks real because it is real - in the sense that there's a physical process being used to create the effect.

What makes you so sure it's not an animation? What makes you so sure it's not birds? Are you an expert in animation? Are you an expert in migratory patterns of Iraqi birds?

If you want to present video evidence of UFOs, at least choose footage that's not so obviously NOT aliens.

One bird will speed up or slow down a little. And no there was not the slightest hint of that. Nor the slightest hint of a wing flapping when it zoomed in and out.

When the camera zoomed in, it was still looking at dots. Also, the dots weren't all moving at the same speeds and they did vary. The only effect required is to speed up the footage at the end.

When the camera zoomed in, it was still looking at dots. Also, the dots weren't all moving at the same speeds and they did vary. The only effect required is to speed up the footage at the end.

It also helps that there's no external reference point for speed or distance. It's also worth pointing out that this is in fucking IRAQ. You know, a place where there's GOING TO BE THINGS FLYING AROUND.

Where's this video?

I can't spot a link to it in this thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9JkFsTPEPE&feature=related

It also helps that there's no external reference point for speed or distance. It's also worth pointing out that this is in fucking IRAQ. You know, a place where there's GOING TO BE THINGS FLYING AROUND.

But our aircraft dont turn sidways in midflight. The horizon is a reference point

Bird formations slightly fluxuate. These did not.

Bird formations fluctuate after they first take to the air, and when they are preparing to land. They may also fluctuate when they change direction, or are disturbed. Apart from that, they remain very consistent on long journeys, except for the alternation into pole position, occassionally.

Also - if you are looking at birds that are, say, the size of geese, small fluctuations wouldn't even be noticable at that distance.

Bird formations fluctuate after they first take to the air, and when they are preparing to land. They may also fluctuate when they change direction, or are disturbed. Apart from that, they remain very consistent on long journeys, except for the alternation into pole position, occassionally.

Also - if you are looking at birds that are, say, the size of geese, small fluctuations wouldn't even be noticable at that distance.

But they could never be mistaken for an aircraft for more than a second. Especially when flying overhead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9JkFsTPEPE&feature=related
Thanks.

All we can definitively say (unless anyone of us is a aeronautic or video expert, preferable with up-to-date information of all aircraft extant in the world; classified or not) is that there are unidentified flying objects in the video.

We have little frame of reference and, moreover, the video you link to is an amalgam of multiple videos. There's no information of timescale, framerate, original aspect ratio, camera details, original resolution, etc.

Then any special effect would be simple animation. That Iraq footage is not an animation.

I think you're conflicted... the Iraq footage doesn't have to be animation... because it doesn't have to be bluescreen, because nothing has to be superimposed to make that image.

You seem to be constructing some kind of labyrinthine strawman artifact.

But they could never be mistaken for an aircraft for more than a second. Especially when flying overhead.

Yeah, that's why we aren't mistaking them for aircraft. They're birds. The only people mistaking them for aircraft are people who want to see aircraft.

But they could never be mistaken for an aircraft for more than a second. Especially when flying overhead.

I didn't mistake it for an aircraft.

The fact that you did is a matter of supreme indifference to me.

Yeah, that's why we aren't mistaking them for aircraft. They're birds. The only people mistaking them for aircraft are people who want to see aircraft.

This, and seriously.

I don't know if anyone is still talking about Ed Mitchell, but he's always been somewhat of an odd character, even before walking on the moon. For example, on the way there on Apollo 14, he did experiments with ESP, and attempted to telepathically communicate with people on earth. This isn't too surprising coming from him

I, for one, seriously believe him.

I, for one, hope this doesn't become what the poor bastard is remembered for when he goes.

But they could never be mistaken for an aircraft for more than a second. Especially when flying overhead.What causes you to write off all the plausible, prosaic possibilities in favor of alien visitors? Where is you hard evidence?

I think you're conflicted... the Iraq footage doesn't have to be animation... because it doesn't have to be bluescreen, because nothing has to be superimposed to make that image.

You seem to be constructing some kind of labyrinthine strawman artifact.

Yet no one can produce a vid that's a fake with whatever special effect your talking about for comparison.

Yet no one can produce a vid that's a fake with whatever special effect your talking about for comparison.Show me corresponding radar images, and possibly satellite images of these said UFOs. If they are truly otherworldly crafts they should show up on radar correct?

Yet no one can produce a vid that's a fake with whatever special effect your talking about for comparison.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJvquhoCieo

All hoaxes, all admitted, all created using in-camera special effects, all comparable to the video you are defending so vigorously. By an amateur filmmaker.

Seriously dude, you have no case. None.

http://www.christopherkenworthy.com/ufo.html

I don't believe that that video was produced with anything more than a poorly-tuned night vision device and light pollution. It's the city lights reflecting off the birds that are producing that glare. It would be much more compelling if it was a regular video, or looked like it wasn't made by someone not trained in it (like, say, a soldier would).

What causes you to write off all the plausible, prosaic possibilities in favor of alien visitors? Where is you hard evidence?

Pure logic.
Birds cant fly that fast.
Special effects cant produce what's on that video.
No one would use a multi-million dollar helicopter to sneek up on a $ 300 cow for laser surgery.
No one would carve up a cow and then spend more time at the crime scene to make perfect crop circles.
The Air Force would not have asked the citizens of Roswell NM to be quiet about what they saw if it was only a weather balloon.
Our galaxy is too big for there not to be millions upon millions of planets with life.

Special effects cant produce what's on that video.


Yes they fucking can! Your level of wilful ignorance in face of the facts is astounding.

Pure logic.
Birds cant fly that fast.
Special effects cant produce what's on that video.
No one would use a multi-million dollar helicopter to sneek up on a $ 300 cow for laser surgery.
No one would carve up a cow and then spend more time at the crime scene to make perfect crop circles.
The Air Force would not have asked the citizens of Roswell NM to be quiet about what they saw if it was only a weather balloon.
Our galaxy is too big for there not to be millions upon millions of planets with life.
We have no idea of the speed of the 'objects' in the video.
Yes, special effects can. It has been shown. Even amateurs can do that.

Yes, the Air Force would have asked people to be quiet, if that 'weather balloon' was a prototype for espionage over the USSR. Wouldn't want to announce to the enemy how we planned on spying on them.This brings me back to the question why do you jump to the alien conclusion, before reasoning through the other options?


I can't believe you are mentioning crop circles. The guys who made them confessed, and showed how they made even the most complex crop circles in a matter of hours. They did it for a lark.
I'm not arguing that life can't or doesn't exist somewhere else. I'm arguing that this video doesn't show proof of said life, and alien life has not visited us. Show me empirical evidence and then we'll talk. Hearsay and shaky video don't prove much.

We have no idea of the speed of the 'objects' in the video.
Yes, special effects can. It has been shown. Even amateurs can do that.
Not to that extreme.

Yes, the Air Force would have asked people to be quiet, if that 'weather balloon' was a prototype for espionage over the USSR. Wouldn't want to announce to the enemy how we planned on spying on them.This brings me back to the question why do you jump to the alien conclusion, before reasoning through the other options?

Now why on earth would our military fly something super secret over a populated town?

I can't believe you are mentioning crop circles. The guys who made them confessed, and showed how they made even the most complex crop circles in a matter of hours. They did it for a lark.

Wha??!! Now you are making the claim that the same people made all the crop circles there have ever been? Sure some were faked. But crop circles and mutilated cows at the same place at the same time? And no one gets caught? Now that's what you call far fetched.

Not to that extreme.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJvquhoCieo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJvquhoCieo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJvquhoCieo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJvquhoCieo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJvquhoCieo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJvquhoCieo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJvquhoCieo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJvquhoCieo

Stop ignoring me because I've proven how ridiculously wrong you are with one link.

The group of lights at the end is a jet flight; all others are birds. Shots were taken by somebody who didn't know how to/didn't want to operate the equipment properly, therefore creating these glows.

Birds cant fly that fast.
We have no indication of the speed of the ufos in the video.

Special effects cant produce what's on that video.
Modern special effects can't produce white lights to appear on a green sky, in a grainy, often out-of-focus video?

No one would use a multi-million dollar helicopter to sneek up on a $ 300 cow for laser surgery.

No one would carve up a cow and then spend more time at the crime scene to make perfect crop circles.

The Air Force would not have asked the citizens of Roswell NM to be quiet about what they saw if it was only a weather balloon.
We are not discussing mutilated cows, crop circles, nor the citizens of Roswell.

Our galaxy is too big for there not to be millions upon millions of planets with life.
Nor are we discussing the possibilities of intelligent life. However, the galaxy is very possibly far too big (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/jan/18/spaceexploration.weekendmagazinespacesection) for any intelligent life to have visited Terra.

Pure logic.
I suggest you take a crash course in elementary logic.

Not to that extreme.


Now why on earth would our military fly something super secret over a populated town?


Wha??!! Now you are making the claim that the same people made all the crop circles there have ever been? Sure some were faked. But crop circles and mutilated cows at the same place at the same time? And no one gets caught? Now that's what you call far fetched.Extreme as in 'points of light moving in patterns'? Because that isn't all that extreme.

Yes, why would our military test aircraft and balloons where they have consistently tested them? We need to test new things, the desert in New Mexico seems like as good a place as any.

And the first examples of crop circles were done by these blokes in England. Then there were copycats that confessed to it in multiple countries around the world. Are you suggesting that the aliens are taking cues from two Englishmen? And are there more prosaic explanations for mutilated cows? If there are, have you ruled them out? If you haven't then you are simply jumping to conclusions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJvquhoCieo

All hoaxes, all admitted, all created using in-camera special effects, all comparable to the video you are defending so vigorously. By an amateur filmmaker.

Seriously dude, you have no case. None.

http://www.christopherkenworthy.com/ufo.html

His claim is 2 of them are real. But none of them with the detail of the Iraq film.

The Iraq film's not in detail. Not at all.

Yes, why would our military test aircraft and balloons where they have consistently tested them? We need to test new things, the desert in New Mexico seems like as good a place as any.

With LOTS of open space where no one lives.

And the first examples of crop circles were done by these blokes in England. Then there were copycats that confessed to it in multiple countries around the world. Are you suggesting that the aliens are taking cues from two Englishmen? And are there more prosaic explanations for mutilated cows? If there are, have you ruled them out? If you haven't then you are simply jumping to conclusions.
Are you talking about the incident in the late 90s? That was not the first crop circles. Not even close.

His claim is 2 of them are real. But none of them with the detail of the Iraq film.

I'm going to leave this thread now, because the stupidity you are displaying is damaging my brain.

We have no indication of the speed of the ufos in the video.
Sure you do. The time it takes to go from one horizon the the other.

Modern special effects can't produce white lights to appear on a green sky, in a grainy, often out-of-focus video?
Not to that degree


We are not discussing mutilated cows, crop circles, nor the citizens of Roswell.

We were before I posted the vid. It's a UFO thread you know.

[/QUOTE]

I'm going to leave this thread now, because the stupidity you are displaying is damaging my brain.

Get a clue or at least a vowel on your way out!

we have all seen Monsters VS Aliens... and we now know both are real :P

Arrrgggghhhh it susan :D

we have all seen Monsters VS Aliens... and we now know both are real :P

Arrrgggghhhh it susan :D

Excuse me? Please do not post mindless spam.

Are you talking about the incident in the late 90s? That was not the first crop circles. Not even close.I'm talking about Doug Bower and Dave Chorley who in 1991 admitted that they had been making crop circles for around 15 years.

Sure you do. The time it takes to go from one horizon the the other.
What do you mean by this?

Also, we don't know the framerate of the video, whether it's running at actual speed, whether it's in its original aspect ratio, etc.

If it's possible, do the maths. What speed are the object travelling at?

Not to that degree
So far, the only evidence you have given in support for this assertion is your own say-so.

Are you a film expert, or perhaps a video techie?

We were before I posted the vid. It's a UFO thread you know.
So your evidence for why the objects in the video are alien spacecraft amount to 'they're going very fast', and 'no-one could fake this cos I said so'?

I'm talking about Doug Bower and Dave Chorley who in 1991 admitted that they had been making crop circles for around 15 years.

http://www.modrs2.info/en/fringe/crop_circles_and_cattle_mutilations/cropcirc.html
At first, David Delgado, the author and expert, confessed that he and a lot of others had obviously been duped by a hoax that had gone on for several years. But later he changed his tune, arguing that the men's claims appear suspect and fall well short of a complete explanation of the phenomena, including the appearance of similar circles in other countries, including the United States.

"Yesterday there were circles discovered on a prairie in Canada," Delgado said. "Have these guys been out there with their board?"

At first, David Delgado, the author and expert, confessed that he and a lot of others had obviously been duped by a hoax that had gone on for several years. But later he changed his tune, arguing that the men's claims appear suspect and fall well short of a complete explanation of the phenomena, including the appearance of similar circles in other countries, including the United States.

"Yesterday there were circles discovered on a prairie in Canada," Delgado said. "Have these guys been out there with their board?"

Or there could be more than one plank of wood in the world.

What do you mean by this?

A tree or power line or whatever. Then the camera follows the object in the sky until you see a landmark on the opposite horizon.

several times I have seen the international space station fly overhead. And we have all watched a plane/jet fly across the sky. You get a sense of how long you can look at the plane before it's to far away to see.

Or there could be more than one plank of wood in the world.

But did these witty Brits open a crop circle school? How to not leave footprints and such?

A tree or power line or whatever. Then the camera follows the object in the sky until you see a landmark on the opposite horizon.
This would only be helpful if we knew the height of the objects, and their distance from the person with the camera, etc.

Unfortunately, we don't.

(Also, we don't know if the person holding the camera is moving or not, in what direction and in what speed.)

This would only be helpful if we knew the height of the objects, and their distance from the person with the camera, etc.
Your talking about exact numbers. If the trees, phone polls, or whatever are a little taller or shorter, it's only going to change the outcome by a second or two. You still get an idea of whether it is faster than something normal or not.

Your talking about exact numbers. If the trees, phone polls, or whatever are a little taller or shorter, it's only going to change the outcome by a second or two. You still get an idea of whether it is faster than something normal or not.
I'm not "talking about exact numbers". I'm talking about being able to make any sort of meaningful calculation of speed whatsoever.

Once more, if you think it's possible, do it yourself.

What's the speed of the objects in the video? (Show your workings.)

A tree or power line or whatever. Then the camera follows the object in the sky until you see a landmark on the opposite horizon.

several times I have seen the international space station fly overhead. And we have all watched a plane/jet fly across the sky. You get a sense of how long you can look at the plane before it's to far away to see.
How do you know it's not a really high altitude jet?

I'm not "talking about exact numbers". I'm talking about being able to make any sort of meaningful calculation of speed whatsoever.

Once more, if you think it's possible, do it yourself.

What's the speed of the objects in the video? (Show your workings.)

I dont know the speeds of all the planes I have seen in my life. The space station is the fastest thing I have seen. It went from one end of the sky to the other in about 30 seconds. (astonishing) Some in the vids were moving faster than that. (some were moving pretty slow though)

I dont know the speeds of all the planes I have seen in my life. The space station is the fastest thing I have seen. It went from one end of the sky to the other in about 30 seconds. (astonishing)
Astonishing though it may be, the conditions in which you saw it (assuming it was the ISS) dramatically affect the speed by which it was travelling at.

Similarly with the video.

Some in the vids were moving faster than that. (some were moving pretty slow though)
There is simply no way you can judge this from the video.

You are saying that, from a memory of an object travelling at a then unknown speed, you can judge the speed of an object portrayed in a video without any reference points, and without any detailed knowledge of the video's technical details.

That's naive, at best.

Moreover, ignoring that what you suggest is impossible given the evidence, the video in question doesn't even track the objects from one horizon to another, so even your hypothesis is faulty.

Astonishing though it may be, the conditions in which you saw it (assuming it was the ISS) dramatically affect the speed by which it was travelling at.

Similarly with the video.


There is simply no way you can judge this from the video.

You are saying that, from a memory of an object travelling at a then unknown speed, you can judge the speed of an object portrayed in a video without any reference points, and without any detailed knowledge of the video's technical details.

That's naive, at best.

Moreover, ignoring that what you suggest is impossible given the evidence, the video in question doesn't even track the objects from one horizon to another, so even your hypothesis is faulty.

Well there's not much difference in horizons unless mountians become a factor. The movements of each object are quite fluid and convincing.If this is a hoax then I will be looking forward to special effects that are not a yawnfest at the movies.

Well there's not much difference in horizons unless mountians become a factor.
I fear you haven't quite understood what I'm saying.

The movements of each object are quite fluid and convincing.If this is a hoax then I will be looking forward to special effects that are not a yawnfest at the movies.
I'd direct you towards this (http://www.christopherkenworthy.com/ufo.html) page, as Getbrett has been trying to do for some time now, discussing how Chris Kenworthy created a number of convincing UFO hoaxes, many very similar to the video (supposedly) shot in Iraq.

I fear you haven't quite understood what I'm saying.


I'd direct you towards this (http://www.christopherkenworthy.com/ufo.html) page, as Getbrett has been trying to do for some time now, discussing how Chris Kenworthy created a number of convincing UFO hoaxes, many very similar to the video (supposedly) shot in Iraq.

I saw some similarities here and there. And you also have to believe that the Australian government would fund such a program. I don't. I do believe Chris's claim that 2 of those in his vid were real.

I saw some similarities here and there. And you also have to believe that the Australian government would fund such a program. I don't. I do believe Chris's claim that 2 of those in his vid were real.

I suspect that by "real" he means that they are submitted by people who claim that they aren't hoaxes.

http://www.modrs2.info/en/fringe/crop_circles_and_cattle_mutilations/cropcirc.htmlCopycat crop circle artists confessed in dozens of countries. And since these two guys from Britain mark the beginning of the whole craze, are you suggesting that aliens decided to mimic these two?

The two started simple and gradually got more complex. Crop circles have been debunked thoroughly. Using them only weakens your argument.

Hell there is even a website on how to make crop circles: http://circlemakers.org/

Copycat crop circle artists confessed in dozens of countries. And since these two guys from Britain mark the beginning of the whole craze, are you suggesting that aliens decided to mimic these two?

The two started simple and gradually got more complex. Crop circles have been debunked thoroughly. Using them only weakens your argument.

Hell there is even a website on how to make crop circles: http://circlemakers.org/

Now! How many of them that confessed were also charged with cattle mutilation? It's zero, isnt it? Still no tangable explination for that other than aliens.

I suspect that by "real" he means that they are submitted by people who claim that they aren't hoaxes.

He wasnt very clear about that was he? Nothing is very clear about the whole thing.

Maybe I'm some kind of failure at logic, but I'm still waiting for evidence that this video was taken within 1000 miles of Iraq. Just because the title of a youtube video says it is so does not mean it is, no matter how much one might want to believe it.

Now! How many of them that confessed were also charged with cattle mutilation? It's zero, isnt it? Still no tangable explination for that other than aliens.There are tons of explanations. You can't really believe that.

There could be terrestrial predators doing that.
There could be psychos doing that
It could be misidentified as mutilation.
There could be a rare type of bovine disease that is affecting these cows.


Those four are infinitely more plausible than 'aliens came down and fucked with cows.' So I ask you again, why jump to the alien conclusion before going through the list of more reasonable prosaic answers? You are assuming the fantastical without one shred of convincing evidence. To quote Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Show me this evidence.

It's probably best to leave him alone. He's living in a fucked up fantasy land where aliens roam the streets, birds are flying saucers, special effects haven't advanced far enough to produce single dots of light on grainy film stock and logic, reason and evidence mean nothing. He's a lost cause.

Now! How many of them that confessed were also charged with cattle mutilation? It's zero, isnt it? Still no tangable explination for that other than aliens.

No, it was God. My claim has as much validity as yours. There's no reason it couldn't be God. There's no less fantastical explanation. Therefore, God.

No, it was God. My claim has as much validity as yours. There's no reason it couldn't be God. There's no less fantastical explanation. Therefore, God.

Exactly.

Exactly.

I think the common God of the Gaps fallacy needs an Aliens of the Gaps corollary.

There are tons of explanations. You can't really believe that.

There could be terrestrial predators doing that.
There could be psychos doing that
It could be misidentified as mutilation.
There could be a rare type of bovine disease that is affecting these cows.


Those four are infinitely more plausible than 'aliens came down and fucked with cows.' So I ask you again, why jump to the alien conclusion before going through the list of more reasonable prosaic answers? You are assuming the fantastical without one shred of convincing evidence. To quote Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Show me this evidence.

Again: The dipshit explination from the government is that blachhawk type helicopters are what the farmers were seeing when they discovered their cattle had had laser surgery preformed on them.
http://www.modrs2.info/en/fringe/crop_circles_and_cattle_mutilations/mysheli.html

(that was in the 90s) Other reports of the exact same happened to cows in the 60s (long before man knew anything about laser surgery)
http://www.modrs2.info/en/fringe/crop_circles_and_cattle_mutilations/ammutl.html
Maybe I'm some kind of failure at logic, but I'm still waiting for evidence that this video was taken within 1000 miles of Iraq.
What difference does that make?

And you also have to believe that the Australian government would fund such a program. I don't.
Wait... you don't believe that the Australian Film Council would fund an art project looking at the faking of UFO footage, but you do believe that a blurry, night vision video of indiscernible lights in the sky is footage of alien spacecraft?

How odd.

Anyhoo, here (http://www.afc.gov.au/downloads/pubs/listjan_jun06.pdf page) (.pdf) is a listing of projects funded by the Australian Film Council betwwen January and June 2006. Kenworthy's project, titled Watch the Skies, which included a documentary he made about the hoax and subsequent events, is listed on page five as 'P.09054 WATCH THE SKIES'.

Wait... you don't believe that the Australian Film Council would fund an art project looking at the faking of UFO footage, but you do believe that a blurry, night vision video of indiscernible lights in the sky is footage of alien spacecraft?

How odd.

Anyhoo, here (http://www.afc.gov.au/downloads/pubs/listjan_jun06.pdf page) (.pdf) is a listing of projects funded by the Australian Film Council betwwen January and June 2006. Kenworthy's project, titled Watch the Skies, which included a documentary he made about the hoax and subsequent events, is listed on page five as 'P.09054 WATCH THE SKIES'.

And the purpose of that could not be to fuel the "aliens are a hoax" fire to hide an untold truth? It's been done before. The Alien autopsy for one.

Again: The dipshit explination from the government is that blachhawk type helicopters are what the farmers were seeing when they discovered their cattle had had laser surgery preformed on them.
http://www.modrs2.info/en/fringe/crop_circles_and_cattle_mutilations/mysheli.html

(that was in the 90s) Other reports of the exact same happened to cows in the 60s (long before man knew anything about laser surgery)
http://www.modrs2.info/en/fringe/crop_circles_and_cattle_mutilations/ammutl.html

What difference does that make?Do you have any other sources to those claims?

And you still haven't addressed my question, why is the alien answer the most plausible? Show me the evidence. Any evidence.

NASA are prone to covering up truth, such as the Biblical truth.

And the purpose of that could not be to fuel the "aliens are a hoax" fire to hide an untold truth?
It could be, but for there to be an 'untold truth', successive administrations of multiple governments spanning the globe, involving thousands if not millions of people, would have to have successfully kept a secret of this massive a scale from the general population of the world for 50+ years.

And I simply don't think any human organisation is that competent or that foolproof.

What difference does that make?

A simple matter of credibility. All I have to go on is the title of the video. If you can provide supplementary proof that the video was taken in Iraq then that'd be a start.

It could be, but for there to be an 'untold truth', successive administrations of multiple governments spanning the globe, involving thousands if not millions of people, would have to have successfully kept a secret of this massive a scale from the general population of the world for 50+ years.

And I simply don't think any human organisation is that competent or that foolproof.

Then obviously it was aliens!

NASA are prone to covering up truth, such as the Biblical truth.Why are you trying to mix threads?

Ok, I'll bite. What biblical truths has NASA covered up?

Do you have any other sources to those claims?

And you still haven't addressed my question, why is the alien answer the most plausible? Show me the evidence. Any evidence.

Not many blogs and posts from the 90s on back. Albertville Alabama is not far from here and the stories were all over the news each time it happened.

And again the evidence is in the logic.

And again the evidence is in the logic.
As a philosophy student, I can confidently state that the logic clearly isn't on your side.

You seem to have made up your mind already.

I mean, any evidence that's presented that contradicts the theory that aliens visit the earth can be countered with, 'but it's all part of a government cover-up'. Once you get to that level of scepticism, you're marching on into solipsistic hell.

If any and all evidence, including evidence to the contrary, is evidence of alien visitation, then we might as well abandon argumentation.

EDIT: And believe me, this comes from a person who loves UFO lore; the X-Files is possibly my favourite TV show, Fortean Times is one of my RSS feeds, Close Encounters of the Third Kind is fucking awesome, I pronounce 'UFO' as 'oo-foh', and, most pointedly, I'd be really happy if aliens were buzzing earth.

But, and this is a point Kenworthy (also a UFO buff, and an observer) makes, if UFO research is to be taken seriously, then those who watch the skies should make an effort not to be taken in by hoaxes, or even accept dodgy videos as sacrosanct.

It could be, but for there to be an 'untold truth', successive administrations of multiple governments spanning the globe, involving thousands if not millions of people, would have to have successfully kept a secret of this massive a scale from the general population of the world for 50+ years.

Not so. Even a US president can have a tough time getting certain information:
http://www.hillaryclintonufo.net/disclosureefforts.html
I wouldn't be the first American president that underlings have lied to, or that career bureaucrats have waited out..." Bill Clinton talking in a 2005 Hong Kong speech about his White House UFO inquiries.

And again the evidence is in the logic.

Your logic is flawed. I direct your attention to my "Aliens of the Gaps" post earlier.

Why are you trying to mix threads?


I am sorry, I should stay on topic.

People who believe in Aliens are delusional. Their beliefs go against all evidence and reasoning.

A simple matter of credibility. All I have to go on is the title of the video. If you can provide supplementary proof that the video was taken in Iraq then that'd be a start.

Because you have run out of logic to debate?

Because you have run out of logic to debate?

Logic left this thread long ago.

Not so. Even a US president can have a tough time getting certain information...
But we're not talking about a single POTUS, we're talking about hundreds of administrations from all over the earth, over a fifty year period or more, incorporating thousands of people (not to mention the vast amount of armed forces personnel, intelligence operatives, employees of space agencies, communications experts, techies, etc., that would have to be in on the secret) all in a vast conspiracy, without a single leak, misplaced document, overheard conversation or investigative journalist uncovering anything credible.

That's a conspiracy on the level of the Illuminati, or of the NWO.

That puts you up there with David Icke (http://www.davidicke.com/index.php/).


Because you have run out of logic to debate?
Lay out your argument, logically, and let's take a look at the thinking behind it.

Because you have run out of logic to debate?

If you were employing more logic I might be able to debate it. As it is your attempt can handily be dismissed by the common God of the Gaps fallacy. You have no evidence of alien life, only unexplained phenomena that you attribute to spacemen.

No, it was God. My claim has as much validity as yours. There's no reason it couldn't be God. There's no less fantastical explanation. Therefore, God.

Motive?

Motive?

You first. What's the motive of aliens to go out and dance their starships in front of peoples' cameras?

As an aside, one must first ask God's motive for creating a universe that is a size beyond human comprehension.

Motive?

God works in mysterious ways.

God works in mysterious ways.

Quite right. This phenomena is most likely explained by God, 'reason' cannot explain away such an unusual happening.

But we're not talking about a single POTUS, He DID say he was not the first POTUS to be lied to by an underling. And the farther back in time you go, the less number of cameras there waere.

we're talking about hundreds of administrations from all over the earth, over a fifty year period or more, incorporating thousands of people (not to mention the vast amount of armed forces personnel, intelligence operatives, employees of space agencies, communications experts, techies, etc., that would have to be in on the secret) all in a vast conspiracy, without a single leak, misplaced document, overheard conversation or investigative journalist uncovering anything credible.
If your trying to keep a secret, why would you tell all of those people? Most likely, each government would like to unlock technical secrets w/o other nations knowing about it.

God works in mysterious ways.

UFOs seem to work wherever and whenever they want to.

You first. What's the motive of aliens to go out and dance their starships in front of peoples' cameras?

As an aside, one must first ask God's motive for creating a universe that is a size beyond human comprehension.

To obtain unique materials. Most likely, medicine.

UFOs seem to work wherever and whenever they want to.
Therefore, they are the work of God, not aliens.
To obtain unique materials. Most likely, medicine.

Assumption.

If your trying to keep a secret, why would you tell all of those people?
How else would you recover, examine, experiment with and appropriate alien technology on the scale you're suggesting, over the time-frame you're suggesting, and in such an international manner?

The X-Files had shape-changing aliens controlling the UN... what's your explanation?

Most likely...
...no alien spacecraft have visited earth.

Disappointing, I know, but true.

To obtain unique materials. Most likely, medicine.

Evidence?

Evidence?

When is the last time you saw a sick alien?

Assumption.
Evidence?
More importantly, are there any substances, any elements, unique to this planet?

I find that hard to believe.

I find it even harder to believe that if human scientists have created such a unique substance, aliens with technology capable of interplanetary (intergalactic?) travel need to be in cahoots with the governments of the world to procure it.

How else would you recover, examine, experiment with and appropriate alien technology on the scale you're suggesting, over the time-frame you're suggesting, and in such an international manner?

In most cases, with just a camera. (Disappointing, I know, but true) A government might or might not learn something from watching real UFOs on film. But if you were the president, would you show it to Russia, during a cold war, to get their opinion?

More importantly, are there any substances, any elements, unique to this planet?

Im sure that most of what is on Earth is available on any given alien planet. But not when your talking about species and organizms.

Not many blogs and posts from the 90s on back. Albertville Alabama is not far from here and the stories were all over the news each time it happened.

And again the evidence is in the logic.You have no other source and you have no evidence. Saying, 'evidence is logic' is not evidence, because logic can take you to multiple solutions. Solutions that you dismiss without any reason. Present actual evidence.

Im sure that most of what is on Earth is available on any given alien planet. But not when your talking about species and organizms.

Assumption.

More importantly, are there any substances, any elements, unique to this planet?

As per Robotech, we know that the human concept of love is something completely foreign and....alien to aliens.

As per Captain Planet, we know that heart is one of the five basic elements used to summon our beloved captain. The role of heart is to produce love, thus love is the radiation given off by the element heart.

Therefore it follows, aliens are harvesting human hearts.


You, sir, just got served. *nod*

Im sure that most of what is on Earth is available on any given alien planet. But not when your talking about species and organizms.

Evidence?

In most cases, with just a camera. (Disappointing, I know, but true) A government might or might not learn something from watching real UFOs on film. But if you were the president, would you show it to Russia, during a cold war, to get their opinion?
My point still stands, however.

You would need an army of people, a massive infrastructure with vast amounts of investment, to be capable of experimenting and incorporating alien technology; even assuming you could do all this from watching some footage of a saucer buzzing a farmhouse.

And none of this is ever leaked to the public? From multiple governments?

That's some serious conspiracy you've got there. As I said, Illuminati-type shit.

You have no other source and you have no evidence. Saying, 'evidence is logic' is not evidence, because logic can take you to multiple solutions. Solutions that you dismiss without any reason. Present actual evidence.

http://jameswsparker.dyndns.tv/Public/Society/Fringe/Crop%20Circles%20and%20Cattle%20Mutilations/Report%20on%20Cattle%20Mutilations%20Sand%20Mountain,%20Alabama.html

http://www.ufomystic.com/wake-up-down-there/cattle-mutilations-theories/

http://paul.rutgers.edu/~mcgrew/ufo/to-be-merged/cattle-mutes-alabama

http://www.geocities.com/area51/Shadowlands/6583/cattle010.html

http://jameswsparker.dyndns.tv/Public/Society/Fringe/Crop%20Circles%20and%20Cattle%20Mutilations/Report%20on%20Cattle%20Mutilations%20Sand%20Mountain,%20Alabama.html

http://www.ufomystic.com/wake-up-down-there/cattle-mutilations-theories/

http://paul.rutgers.edu/~mcgrew/ufo/to-be-merged/cattle-mutes-alabama

http://www.geocities.com/area51/Shadowlands/6583/cattle010.htmlNow the second part of my post, the part about evidence that connects it to aliens. What about cattle mutations is wholly extra-terrestrial? Could another animal do it, could a disease do it, could the farmers do it for attention? Once you eliminate every other possibility then you can start going into the ET one, unless some completely unique piece of data makes the ET theory the most plausible. Because until either of those things happens, you are just spinning you wheels.

This is the bridge you need to make to back your claim.

My point still stands, however.

You would need an army of people, a massive infrastructure with vast amounts of investment, to be capable of experimenting and incorporating alien technology; even assuming you could do all this from watching some footage of a saucer buzzing a farmhouse.

Since we are not zipping from star to star then it's painfully obvious that no tangable information was obtained so no need for your army of scientists. What they have learned would be tossed back and forth in think tanks. (a large crowd would not be not needed) And again, even if you watched a film everyday for a year and could not make heads or tails out of it, would you still show it to other governments?

Now the second part of my post, the part about evidence that connects it to aliens. What about cattle mutations is wholly extra-terrestrial? Could another animal do it, could a disease do it, could the farmers do it for attention? Once you eliminate every other possibility then you can start going into the ET one, unless some completely unique piece of data makes the ET theory the most plausible. Because until either of those things happens, you are just spinning you wheels.

This is the bridge you need to make to back your claim.

I have eliminated them several times on this thread. Can you find one single human being that can do laser surgery, fly a blackhawk, own a blackhawk, leave no footprints, leave no tire tracks and have a tangable reason for not buying a cow and taking it to a lab? (besides LG) :D

I have eliminated them several times on this thread. Can you find one single human being that can do laser surgery, fly a blackhawk, own a blackhawk, leave no footprints, leave no tire prints and have a tangable reason for not buying a cow and taking it to a lab?No you clearly haven't. You're begging the question as is. It isn't laser surgery, the witnesses said it looked 'like surgically precise cuts.' Every other part of the stories exists only in the witness testimony. People are fallible. You have no hard evidence except mutilated cows.

http://jameswsparker.dyndns.tv/Public/Society/Fringe/Crop%20Circles%20and%20Cattle%20Mutilations/Report%20on%20Cattle%20Mutilations%20Sand%20Mountain,%20Alabama.html
To date no police agency has established a suspect or motive for these incidents of phantom surgery perpetrated on area livestock. Neither has an eyewitness or informant come forward to offer any credible insight or testimony.

http://www.ufomystic.com/wake-up-down-there/cattle-mutilations-theories/
Hyper-intelligent aliens should not require hundreds of tries to get information on bovine physiology. Humans would need this database, and the pubic outcry if the study were made public before a cure was found would be disastrous.
http://paul.rutgers.edu/~mcgrew/ufo/to-be-merged/cattle-mutes-alabama
Really, learn to read your source before you post it. This doesn't even mention aliens.

http://www.geocities.com/area51/Shadowlands/6583/cattle010.html

The fact is that nearly 30 years after these mysterious mutilations started occurring, we are no nearer to discovering and proving the truth behind them.

Since we are not zipping from star to star then it's painfully obvious that no tangable information was obtained so no need for your army of scientists.
So, there's a worldwide conspiracy, including the dissemination of disinformation on an impressive scale, to cover up a few bits of technology that were spotted on a UFO tape? Conducted by a couple of dudes in black helicopters?

Can you find one single human being that can do laser surgery, fly a blackhawk, own a blackhawk, leave no footprints, leave no tire tracks and have a tangable reason for not buying a cow and taking it to a lab?
Can you find one single case where the above is evident?

Can you not see how you're jumping to conclusions?

No you clearly haven't. You're begging the question as is. It isn't laser surgery, the witnesses said it looked 'like surgically precise cuts.' Every other part of the stories exists only in the witness testimony. People are fallible. You have no hard evidence except mutilated cows.

For fuck's sake!

Ok Can you find one single human being that can preform surgically precise cuts, (without spilling one single drop of blood) fly a blackhawk, own a blackhawk, leave no footprints, leave no tire tracks and have a tangable reason for not buying a cow and taking it to a lab?

I have eliminated them several times on this thread. Can you find one single human being that can do laser surgery, fly a blackhawk, own a blackhawk, leave no footprints, leave no tire tracks and have a tangable reason for not buying a cow and taking it to a lab? (besides LG) :D

Can you find one single alien that can do laser surgery, fly a blackhawk, own a blackhawk, leave no footprints, leave no tire tracks and have a tangable reason for not abducting a cow and taking it to a lab?

...fly a blackhawk, own a blackhawk, leave no footprints, leave no tire tracks and have a tangable reason for not buying a cow and taking it to a lab?

None of these have anything to do with what you are attempting to argue.

So, there's a worldwide conspiracy, including the dissemination of disinformation on an impressive scale, to cover up a few bits of technology that were spotted on a UFO tape? Conducted by a couple of dudes in black helicopters?


Can you find one single case where the above is evident?

Can you not see how you're jumping to conclusions?

Since the reports and sightings are in the thousands, Id say its more than one tape.

There never were black helicopters. They were UFOs

In most cases, with just a camera. (Disappointing, I know, but true) A government might or might not learn something from watching real UFOs on film. But if you were the president, would you show it to Russia, during a cold war, to get their opinion?

Yes. If there is anything that could heal a divide like a Cold War, it's a threat bigger than either of the players.

Im sure that most of what is on Earth is available on any given alien planet. But not when your talking about species and organizms.

Faulty assumption. If you're assuming that other life comes here, clearly we can't logically be assumed to be unique.

None of these have anything to do with what you are attempting to argue.

I am comparing government statements to opposing data. (try to keep up)

There never were black helicopters. They were UFOs

So all the witnesses who said they were black helicopters are wrong(prove this), but the ones who saw alien craft were right(prove this)? Convenient.

Now the second part of my post, the part about evidence that connects it to aliens. What about cattle mutations is wholly extra-terrestrial?

There was a program about this on the history channel just a week or so ago. In all but one case, every case of cattle mutilation they studied, was easily explained by correlation to predatory damage that they'd observed elsewhere.

People make a lot of fuss about bloodless clean-cut wounds that must have been carried out with lasers or superheated tools, etc... and the experts on the program simply presented pictures of KNOWN predator bites that left equally cleancut bloodless wounds. They also showed how the areas usually claimed as evidence of 'harvesting' are the softest tissues, that either emulsify or are otherwise broken down or eaten first.

Since the reports and sightings are in the thousands, Id say its more than one tape.
You're saying that governments around the world, independently, have developed technology based upon publicly-available UFO videos of blurry saucers?

There never were black helicopters. They were UFOs
Ahh yes, so this same small group of conspirators is putting out disinformation about black helicopters, and no-one in the US government -- unaware of the activities of the conspirators -- is thinking to themselves, 'who put out that press release'?

The sources you've posted have stated that several farmhands, and at least one sheriff, have said they have seen black helicopters. So... the conspiracy is a small band of scientists, some military personnel, a couple of good ol' boys and a county sheriff.

Right...

I have eliminated them several times on this thread. Can you find one single human being that can do laser surgery, fly a blackhawk, own a blackhawk, leave no footprints, leave no tire tracks and have a tangable reason for not buying a cow and taking it to a lab? (besides LG) :D

None of which is required.

I am comparing government statements to opposing data. (try to keep up)

The government statements are that they don't know who or what did this. The opposing data is that UFOlogists don't either.

Faulty assumption. If you're assuming that other life comes here, clearly we can't logically be assumed to be unique.

Maybe you should look into just how many possibilities there are when it comes to things like evolution and mutation. Why would other planets have cows (just like ours) or newts or oysters or poodles or rice or.....

Maybe you should look into just how many possibilities there are when it comes to things like evolution and mutation. Why would other planets have cows (just like ours) or newts or oysters or poodles or rice or.....

Evidence?

The government statements are that they don't know who or what did this. The opposing data is that UFOlogists don't either.

Yet they chose to make up stories about satanic cults with blackhawks and told people to be quiet about weather balloons. Their mistake.

For fuck's sake!

Ok Can you find one single human being that can preform surgically precise cuts, (without spilling one single drop of blood) fly a blackhawk, own a blackhawk, leave no footprints, leave no tire tracks and have a tangable reason for not buying a cow and taking it to a lab?Repeating that doesn't change the fact that the only thing you have is mutilated cows. That's it. Evidence. Where is the evidence connecting cut up cows to aliens.

There was a program about this on the history channel just a week or so ago. In all but one case, every case of cattle mutilation they studied, was easily explained by correlation to predatory damage that they'd observed elsewhere.

People make a lot of fuss about bloodless clean-cut wounds that must have been carried out with lasers or superheated tools, etc... and the experts on the program simply presented pictures of KNOWN predator bites that left equally cleancut bloodless wounds. They also showed how the areas usually claimed as evidence of 'harvesting' are the softest tissues, that either emulsify or are otherwise broken down or eaten first.I'm quoting this because I think it needs to be repeated.

Yet they chose to make up stories about satanic cults with blackhawks and told people to be quiet about weather balloons.
Once again, are you positing that the conspiracy to cover-up aliens on earth is led by a tiny cabal, or by a large swathe of the government?

You seem to be talking as if 'they' can do whatever 'they' want; that 'they' are capable of pulling the wool over not only the public's eyes, but the eyes of the rest of the US government, not to mention the intelligence services of any number of nations.

It doesn't add up.

Evidence?

That 100s of species, just on this planet are new formed and go extinct every day. So you think there is even the slightest chance of creatures on earth to have the same genetic makeup (actually be the same species) anscreatures on other planets?

Do you have the slightest bit of evidence that it's even possible?

Are these aliens christians?

That 100s of species, just on this planet are new formed and go extinct every day. So you think there is even the slightest chance of creatures on earth to have the same genetic makeup (actually be the same species) anscreatures on other planets?

Do you have the slightest bit of evidence that it's even possible?

This from the man who is arguing that the mathematical possibility in an infinite universe of alien races evolving is 100%. Given your own argument, how can you argue that it's not a statistical certainty? Without compromising your already laughably obliterated position?