Are UFO sightings just a product of ignorance or advanced alien technology?

[Adrian Baker]

How come Astronomers spend large parts of their lives looking at the skies and never see a UFO? It only seems to be those who never study the skies and know nothing about what is up there, who occasionally look up and then miraculously see a UFO.

Two explanations come to mind:

1)People claiming to see UFOs are unscientific fools who know nothing of the wonders of the Cosmos..

2)Aliens are extemely clever and special shielding on their crafts makes them invisible to Astronomers eyes...


Tricky one this!

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Uhmm, that's not really true, as while I as writing to a media outlet, (TV) here in Canada, I mentioned the idea of a gravitationally powered flying craft and the fact that such a craft would be able to execute 90° turns, at speed, without any inertial effects upon the occupants.

Shortly thereafter, while watching the news (broadcast by that particular media oulet) they showed a video, from a weather satellite, that showed exactly that, a "small object" crossing the field of view of the satellite's camera, and in the crossing, it executes a 90° turn.

There is probably lots more of that kind of stuff, just that, we disbelieving humans tend to want to 'write it off' as 'inconclusive' because we have no tangible evidence.

and a P.S. all any "self respecting alien" needs to do, is approach from the Sunlit side, no astronomers looking there (precious few, only recently, and WOW hard to see clearly from that side -> out!)

 

[HallsofIvy]

1) How in the world would you (or anyone) know WHAT a "gravitationally powered" craft could do? (I certainly don't how being "gravitationally powered" would mean it didn't have inertia- which is what makes right angles turns impossible.)

2) Are you saying that you don't see anything suspicious in the particular media outlet to which you mentioned such a thing coming up with exactly that situation?

Or am I missing sarcasm?

 

[Jonathan]

The idea is that the alien ships are supposed to travel while dragging around a chunck of spacetime with then, which explains how they get here without dying and why they can manuver like that: from the perspective of their spacetime chuck, they aren't moving. This is just what I've heard. Another thing I have to say is that they very well may be invisible, we are talking about aliens here.
Also, I have a vague memory of a video made by astronauts of a broken tether in outer space, and somehow it was giving off or reflecting light, and it lit up a huge amount of 'things' just floating around out there. No, not space junk, though IIRC, it did look like extremely out of focus space junk. I've never been sure what to make of it, I've only seen it once, but I suspect that it was just an optical illusion in the camera or something.
Then again, why would the astronauts just be video taping a loose tether, unless they saw something too? Why would they not speak up and corroborate the video or not?
Also, astronomers are generally focuing their telescops on objects that are pretty far away, and the chance of a spaceship getting in veiw in that case (since the arc of the veiw would be small) is not only small, but if it did happen it would block the whole veiw, it wouldn't be recognizable as a spaceship from that type of magnification.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Adrian Baker
How come Astronomers spend large parts of their lives looking at the skies and never see a UFO? It only seems to be those who never study the skies and know nothing about what is up there, who occasionally look up and then miraculously see a UFO.

Two explanations come to mind:

1)People claiming to see UFOs are unscientific fools who know nothing of the wonders of the Cosmos..

2)Aliens are extemely clever and special shielding on their crafts makes them invisible to Astronomers eyes...


Tricky one this!

Hi Adrian,
First, UFOs definitely exist. Any unidentified balloon that causes confusion is a UFO. Obviously you mean alien spacecraft when you say UFO, but I prefer not to confuse the two ideas. There could well be an [officially] unknown aerial phenomenon, one that evades explanation by any standard physical/meteorological model, that does occasionally appear in front of witnesses, and that is very earthly in its origins. There is reason to think that there could even be several such phenomena. So to avoid confusion, I will use ET when I mean him [it] or his alleged space vehicles.

Next, how would ET get here. Well, if he is in the neighborhood, then he might engage in long voyages at slightly sub-light speeds. The problem with this is, the chance that we have neighbors close enough are very small. Of course, one could imagine a race sending beings off for a centuries long voyage, given long enough lifespans I guess. Who knows what might motivate an ET? Next, by all accounts, ET allegedly does things that we can't explain; the right angle turns and dramatic acceleration that are reported and even characteristic, and referred to by Jonathan and Mr. Robin Parsons. So if he really is here, we must assume that ET has some technology completely foreign to us. This means that we can hardly even guess at what to look for; ET might avoid detection implicitly or with relative ease.

Case in point: In about 1980 Arthur C Clark made the comment that ET can't be flying around since he would be detected by the extensive RADAR networks in place. Even then we were flying around secret stealth planes that evade RADAR; Clark just didn't know it yet. This shows how short sighted we, and even a visionary like Clark can be. Also, some of the best evidence is RADAR evidence; esp when combined with multiple eyewitness reports.

Here is another comment on this from a very unusual paper:

If these creatures are coming and going hither and yon all the time, why haven't our space probes detected them?
As I write this document, a vigourous and contentious debate is underway among astronomers and atmospheric scientists as to whether multitudes of house-sized snowball comets impact the Earth every day, depositing water vapour in the upper atmosphere. Satellite evidence and recent measurements of water in the upper atmosphere suggest they do, yet the absence of impacts recorded by seismometers placed on the Moon by Apollo astronauts argue otherwise. No matter how you look at it, something the size of a house slamming into the upper atmosphere at dozens of kilometres a second is a far less subtle event than the occasional mating set of space animals gently descending into the atmosphere to conceive and bear their progeny. We design our sensors to detect phenomena we expect to observe: nobody imagined there were such things as gamma ray bursts before they were discovered by Vela satellites built to detect nuclear explosions. Perhaps theoretical investigation of the electromagnetic consequences of backactivity might suggest a detectable signature which sensors could be designed to detect.

http://www.fourmilab.to/goldberg/saucers.html

Is ET here? I think something strange and interesting happens that makes people genuinely believe he is here. I think this is worthy of ongoing investigation until the most credible evidence and reports can be explained. Please see the UFO Napster as well as the Debunking Napster for many links that address these issues. There are some very compelling and well documented events that can hardly be dismissed as nonsense, but these clearly do not constitute proof of ET.

One final note: In addition to Astronomers, another group that one should look to for claims of genuine aerial phenomenon are pilots. In fact, the history of UFOs is chocked full of reports from pilots: private, commercial, and military. In fact, a pilot's UFO report - Kenneth Arnold, Mt Rainier, Wa. June, 1947 - was slightly twisted to create the term "flying saucer".

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by HallsofIvy
1) How in the world would you (or anyone) know WHAT a "gravitationally powered" craft could do? (I certainly don't how being "gravitationally powered" would mean it didn't have inertia- which is what makes right angles turns impossible.)

2) Are you saying that you don't see anything suspicious in the particular media outlet to which you mentioned such a thing coming up with exactly that situation?

Or am I missing sarcasm? No, no sarcasm.[/color]

If you could manipulate the Earth's gravitational field, then you could use other bodies to change the orbital direction of the planet.

If you could adjust the distortion properly you could ensure that the gravitational rate would remain consistent at some inner level hence you resting at that "center" would not be subject to inertial effects.

Try thinking about that manner, but with a much smaller "body" (craft) and the ability to generate a gravitational field about that 'body/craft' that you can manipulate as to propel yourself.

(actually the manner of propulsion is somewhat different then most would think, so...whatever...)

You can also realize that we (presently) feel no effects from the Earths travel through space (Yes I know no inertial effects happening) but as you could 'imagine' if the planet, and it's gravitational field, were "moved as one" we, on it's face, would still NOT feel any inertial effects.

How come I know this?? Waaaaaay more then this, God's Grace!

 

[Adrian Baker]

I did mean Alien craft when using the term UFO yes (I'll be more precise in future) but basicaly, as I said, Astronomers have spent thousands of hours scanning the skies with sophisticated equipment and cameras and yet how much evidence have they come up with? - NOTHING!

Alien UFOs are a figment of the imagination of the gullible. For any so called UFO sighting (meaning this time any unidentified FO)there are many possible explanations. An Alien craft is not one of them!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Adrian Baker
I did mean Alien craft when using the term UFO yes (I'll be more precise in future) but basicaly, as I said, Astronomers have spent thousands of hours scanning the skies with sophisticated equipment and cameras and yet how much evidence have they come up with? - NOTHING!

They are not looking in such a way that local, high speed objects would be seen. We have missed quite a number of near Earth crossing meteors lately as well; until they had long passed.

Alien UFOs are a figment of the imagination of the gullible. For any so called UFO sighting (meaning this time any unidentified FO)there are many possible explanations. An Alien craft is not one of them!

You are almost certainly correct. How do you defend this statement?

 

[Adrian Baker]

Good question! I would hate to say 'because I believe it to be so' as that would put me up there alongside all the conspiracy theorists and UFO nuts...

OK The simple answer is distance and lack of evidence.

Distance - the distances in Space are HUGE. Too big for us to comprehend. There is no evidence of intelligent Aliens in our Solar system, so they must be traveling a distance of at least 4.25 lt yr. Is this feasible? Well yes, but it is not just a problem with technology, but also with Physics. Calculate the energy needed to move a Space shuttle size object up to say 50% of light speed.. And then, how much energy to slow it back down again...? Would this be feasible for a being that then flies around for a bit before going home? (They never seem to drop in and say Hi!) What would happen to a craft at this speed hitting some interstellar dust?

Lack of evidence - There is NONE. No radio signals, no pictures, no landings, no crashed craft... NOTHING.


Will this do?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Adrian Baker
Good question! I would hate to say 'because I believe it to be so' as that would put me up there alongside all the conspiracy theorists and UFO nuts...

OK The simple answer is distance and lack of evidence.

Distance - the distances in Space are HUGE. Too big for us to comprehend. There is no evidence of intelligent Aliens in our Solar system, so they must be traveling a distance of at least 4.25 lt yr. Is this feasible? Well yes, but it is not just a problem with technology, but also with Physics. Calculate the energy needed to move a Space shuttle size object up to say 50% of light speed.. And then, how much energy to slow it back down again...? Would this be feasible for a being that then flies around for a bit before going home? (They never seem to drop in and say Hi!) What would happen to a craft at this speed hitting some interstellar dust?

Lack of evidence - There is NONE. No radio signals, no pictures, no landings, no crashed craft... NOTHING.


Will this do?

Obviously you stand on very solid ground. Here is the problem that I have with drawing conclusions based solely on this argument. Some credible evidence does exist that supports eyewitness reports of something interpreted to be ET. Now, if ET did come from some distant star, we likely can't explain how this might be possible. But until we have a complete understanding of physics - until we have a unified theory of everything that allows for relative certainty as to the absolute limits of physical law - in order to rule out the ETH [the ET hypothesis], we must assume that we have knowledge that we may in fact not possess. All that we can really say is that based on an incomplete description of the laws that govern the universe [multiverse?] - modern physics - we don't see any way that ET could be here. Can you claim any more certainty than this?

Next, a somewhat cheap dodge but a favorite from the SETI people:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In the SETI project, we make reasonable assumptions that someone or something out there is transmitting in the RF part of the EM spectrum. This is based mostly on the implicit logic of Drake's equation. Of course, with a little more consideration we can rightfully imagine a being 1,000,000 years more advanced than us. In this event, we surely can't be sure of what is and is not possible...unless you can describe what our technology would be like in another million years...were we to survive somehow.

Unless ET makes an official debut, we can have no logical certainty in the ET / no-ET argument; only near certainty based on what we know right now. To make the leap of faith otherwise is just that - a leap faith.

At the same time, I sure wouldn't bet the farm against your position.

Edit: a final note:

Lack of evidence - There is NONE. No radio signals, no pictures, no landings, no crashed craft... NOTHING.

There is evidence to support some multiple eyewitness reports that evade prosaic explanations; at least without making our own assumptions. This being the case, when the witnesses claim that what was observed was not from this world, we at least owe it to them to recognize that something very unusual probably did happen. Calling them nuts and gullible and the like only discredits the scientific position and shows a lack of objectivity [easy to do]. We might miss something interesting by allowing the observer's bias to influence our interpretation of the alleged events.

For example, consider an alternative explanation to the ETH. By many accounts in which observers assume an alien presense, it would seem that there is some kind of fantastically energetic [meteorological] phenomenon, one that coincides with bright orbs, some of which have the appearance of a metallic structure, that creates high levels of EM in the RF and microwave range at least, and that somehow track or follow aircraft that are in flight. If this is true, I find this quite amazing; surely worthy of scientific investigation. This does appear to be consistent with hundreds of official military reports going back to WWII. It is not hard to understand why a pilot might view this tracking as intelligent behavior. On the other hand, I can at least imagine mundane explanations for many of these observations. If we were to find that this or some similar kind of explanation is true, this doesn't make the pilot a UFO nut. He or she may have just been fooled by something very unusual.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

very late edits made to the post above.

 

[Adrian Baker]

You make some excellent points there Ivan Seeking...

I can't fault your argument at all.

However, what I do find frustrating is the willingness of many people to jump to the 'conspiracy' or 'ET' theory at the remotest of evidence. There are indeed some strange goings on in the world, but it is a shame that too many people resist the challenge of trying to explain them in terms of what is (or isn't!) known, and jump straight for the 'I saw an Alien' approach.

In past centuries unexplainable events where seen as 'the wonder of god', now it seems everything is due to Aliens or US Govt cover-ups!

We'll soon be burning witches again at this rate!

 

[Jonathan]

We do, we just don't literally use fire and are far more subtle. BTW, the aliens could be communicating with spin polarization modulated light or scalar electromagnetic waves. In case you don't know, the first is well established in theory, it just isn't done, the second isn't but it's my bet.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Humm if I were an alien looking at the TV broadcasts of this planet I would do everything in my power to ensure that none of you got your hands on any advanced technology without having to go through the growing pains of the knowledge.

Never mind the wars, the deciept, the inequities why would they want to help us when we could help ourselves, just that we don't because of some really petty and stupid reasons, like consistent bickering as to who is right, we cannot even get good consensus for what to do or how to do it, and the leaders have other agendas, in their paths, re-elections stuff like that, soooooo...

 

[THE[>U<]DUDE]

Just a few thoughts on earlier subject matter:

This theory about gravitational manipulation for spacecraft ...

To be able to be at a 'relative' standstill whilst shifting the rest of the universe around you - isn't that a little like taking the mountain to Mohammed?

To recall a quaint analogy (no racial prejudice intended!):

Q: How many Irishmen does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: One to hold the lightbulb still, and several to spin the room around!

Of course, to be fair to all the good Irish folk in the world, the above only works with screw-threaded fixtures, naturally. But you can see where I'm heading. It's a nice idea, shunting the rest of the cosmos around your unstitched piece of space-time fabric, but wouldn't the amount of energies needed for such a manipulation on this monumental scale be beyond harness, let alone control?

And, indeed, if such a grand-scale manipulation is possible, wouldn't the travel be virtually instantaneous for those onboard?

On this line - ET utilizing such travel means could literally flicker willy-nilly around the cosmos at will - instantaneously able to materialize at any point simultaneously. Or am I just spousing bunkam?

Confused ... still

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by THE[>U<]DUDE
(SNIP) Or am I just spousing bunkam? (SNoP)

You are misunderstanding several things, I suspect.

 

[THE[>U<]DUDE]

A little elucidation or education may be in order, yes?

Will somebody please clarify this theory for me?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Adrian Baker
You make some excellent points there Ivan Seeking...

I can't fault your argument at all.

However, what I do find frustrating is the willingness of many people to jump to the 'conspiracy' or 'ET' theory at the remotest of evidence. There are indeed some strange goings on in the world, but it is a shame that too many people resist the challenge of trying to explain them in terms of what is (or isn't!) known, and jump straight for the 'I saw an Alien' approach.

In past centuries unexplainable events where seen as 'the wonder of god', now it seems everything is due to Aliens or US Govt cover-ups!

We'll soon be burning witches again at this rate!

Yes this makes investigation of this stuff difficult and downright embarrasing at times. The phenomenon lends itself to the most radical interpretation by any true believer. Personally, I am not convinced that ET is here, but I am highly compelled by statements such as that by Gordon Cooper [one of the original 7 astronauts and then in charge of test flights at Edwards AFB]. Cooper states bluntly that at close range he saw a disk fly over his head and land at Edwards on the dry lake bed. He further claims that unearthly beings got out, walked around the ship, and then hurriedly left when jeeps approached with cameras rolling.

See the 12th video from the top in the left hand column.
http://www.ufocasebook.com/videos.html

No wonder we have so many true believer eh? Some of the most enduring and credible claims are those from retired military pilots and other officers. It would seem that either ET is here, or there is at least a major conspriracy by the military to perpetuate the ET myth. The problem here is that such a conspiracy would be so broad and involve so many people that this does not seem possible.

For the sake of objectivity, I refuse to make a choice in this matter. Dunno. I guess ET will have to land in my pasture before I'm a true believer. Until then, I look to science for explanations.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

A note in defense of the true believers:

At another website dedicated to the serious investigation of UFOs, I saw a post about a major convention that was held recently. Of the 500 or so people present, one nutcase shows up with antennas on his head. The media immediately focused on this guy.

 

[Jonathan]

The idea is that the aliens don't move their spacecraft relavtive to the space around them, they move the bubble of space containing them through the rest of space. So, as I see it, they only move their little bubble around, not the whole universe. The thing with this theory is that you are not limited by how fast or slow you can go. So you can hover or go billions of lightyears in split seconds.
I know this sounds crazy, but even our scientists are working on better propulsion in this area, but of course it is completely theoretical at this point.
Also, this spacetime bubble would essentially be the force field of yester-year, I doubt an object would go through it if space won't, which means you don't have any problems with space debris breaking the craft.

 

[THE[>U<]DUDE]

Thanks, Jonathan, for your explanaition.

As for the whole thing about ETs ...

When I was a child in the 70s I was fixated with the idea of UFOs and little green men - so much so that I bought over 30 books on the subject and pored through them like an addict. No one could convince me that they didn't exist; I had the proof in my hands! Hundreds of photographs and eyewitness accounts. We were being 'buzzed' and anyone who thought otherwise was crazy!

However, as I grew older and started re-examining the so-called 'evidence' more objectively, I came to the conclusion that there aren't any little green men (or bug-eyed monsters) visiting us at all. Most of the claims are very clever military propoganda designed to mislead a curious public away from secret aircraft testing. Let's face it, the US were testing Stealth technology quite extensively throughout the 80s in the busy skies of Europe! Also, it's a strange and curious fact that the concept of aliens visiting us only came popular in society with the advent of pulp Science-Fiction stories, and Hollywood's exploits upon the genre. It's like mass hysteria in a way. Society has its own psyche which is affected en masse by popular awareness. Once one fan at a pop concert starts screaming, everyone starts screaming.

Get my drift?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by THE[>U<]DUDE
Thanks, Jonathan, for your explanaition.
As for the whole thing about ETs ...
When I was a child in the 70s I was fixated with the idea of UFOs and little green men - so much so that I bought over 30 books on the subject and pored through them like an addict. No one could convince me that they didn't exist; I had the proof in my hands! Hundreds of photographs and eyewitness accounts. We were being 'buzzed' and anyone who thought otherwise was crazy!
However, as I grew older and started re-examining the so-called 'evidence' more objectively, I came to the conclusion that there aren't any little green men (or bug-eyed monsters) visiting us at all. Most of the claims are very clever military propoganda designed to mislead a curious public away from secret aircraft testing. Let's face it, the US were testing Stealth technology quite extensively throughout the 80s in the busy skies of Europe! Also, it's a strange and curious fact that the concept of aliens visiting us only came popular in society with the advent of pulp Science-Fiction stories, and Hollywood's exploits upon the genre. It's like mass hysteria in a way. Society has its own psyche which is affected en masse by popular awareness. Once one fan at a pop concert starts screaming, everyone starts screaming. Get my drift?

So you take a sort of common social affectation and think that that proves that there are no aliens and no visitations, HUH??

 

[THE[>U<]DUDE]

erm ... yeh.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by THE[>U<]DUDE
erm ... yeh.

So I take it then that the word "Proof" means little (if anything) to you, right??

 

[THE[>U<]DUDE]

An observer seeing, what appears to them, unexplainable things in the sky does not prove the existence of visiting alien craft.

Testimony from 'alleged' abductees does not prove the existence of alien abductors. It's all a matter of belief, interpretation and trust.

Courts require evidence to decide a case. Scientists require evidence via observable facts to draw conclusions. Where lies the hard evidence to 'prove' the existence of ET?

Let's face it - any race intelligent enough to conquer interstellar flight would be smart enough to mask their visits, thoroughly wipe the minds and memories of their abductees, and leave absolutely no clue as to their little jaunt.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by THE[>U<]DUDE
An observer seeing, what appears to them, unexplainable things in the sky does not prove the existence of visiting alien craft. Nor does it disprove it![/color]

Testimony from 'alleged' abductees does not prove the existence of alien abductors. (Nor does it disprove it[/color]) It's all a matter of belief, interpretation and trust. Sorta, your oversimplifieing here perhaps??[/color]

Courts require evidence to decide a case. Scientists require evidence via observable facts to draw conclusions. Where lies the hard evidence to 'prove' the existence of ET? In this case, the lack of evidence is NOT a conclusive proof.[/color]

Let's face it - any race intelligent enough to conquer interstellar flight would be smart enough to mask their visits, thoroughly wipe the minds and memories of their abductees, and leave absolutely no clue as to their little jaunt. Perhaps, but that only suggests that they have been here, do exist, and are real![/color]

So wheres the proof?? (or "disproof" for that matter)

 

[THE[>U<]DUDE]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
So wheres the proof?? (or "disproof" for that matter)

It's not up to a disbeliever to prove the non-existance of aliens.
The weight of proof lies with the believer - it is down to the believer to prove their beliefs.

I really don't mean to be arguementative, but absolutely NONE of your add-on points solidify the actuality of 'proof' as you call it.

I'm not for one moment saying that the general lack of proof disclaims the existence of ET (I'm open-minded and can be persuaded either way depending upon the believability of evidence). All I'm saying is that considering the apparent 'bulk' of 'evidence' for ET a very small fraction of it actually points towards something inexplicable. And just because something is inexplicable by we mere mortals does not mean there are alien intelligencies behind it!

Your point saying 'but that only suggests that they have been here, do exist, and are real!' is poppycock! Just because we might never detect any ET visits DOES NOT automatically prove that they have happened!

A survey a few years ago showed that over 2% of Americans believed they had been abducted by aliens over the last ten years (and many more than once) - which means over 5 MILLION Americans have been abducted (let alone all the other claimants around the world)! This would involve a whole armada of alien craft (perhaps hundreds) with thousands of ETs busy processing human freight. The US skies would literally be swarming with alien craft!

The real question is: What 'superior' alien race would bother wasting all that 'man'power on we humans?

I remain presently unconvinced ...

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by THE[>U<]DUDE
I really don't mean to be arguementative, but absolutely NONE of your add-on points solidify the actuality of 'proof' as you call it. Where do I call anything the "Solidity of actual proof" ?[/color]

I'm not for one moment saying that the general lack of proof disclaims the existence of ET (I'm open-minded and can be persuaded either way depending upon the believability of evidence). All I'm saying is that considering the apparent 'bulk' of 'evidence' for ET a very small fraction of it actually points towards something inexplicable. And just because something is inexplicable by we mere mortals does not mean there are alien intelligencies behind it!
O.K.![/color]

Your point saying 'but that only suggests[/color] that they have been here, do exist, and are real!' is poppycock! Just because we might never detect any ET visits DOES NOT automatically prove[/color] that they have happened! And just where, and HOW please do you derive from my saying "Suggest" to your conlcusion of "Automatically Prove"[/color]

A survey a few years ago showed that over 2% of Americans believed they had been abducted by aliens over the last ten years (and many more than once) - which means over 5 MILLION Americans have been abducted (let alone all the other claimants around the world)! This would involve a whole armada of alien craft (perhaps hundreds) with thousands of ETs busy processing human freight. The US skies would literally be swarming with alien craft!
Ya mean some of those people lied? shame on them![/color]

The real question is: What 'superior' alien race would bother wasting all that 'man'power on we humans? Any one that was interested, you know curiosity, like we (humans) exhibit[/color]
I remain presently unconvinced ...

O.K. but you should know, I was not trying to convince you of anything, just to be open minded...

 

[Jonathan]

I don't know if they exist, but I do know that the classic saucer shaped UFO has been around for centuries, and I can prove it. There are manny cave painting showing these unusual craft, there are tapestries and paintings from the middle ages showing saucer shaped objects moving around with somesort of glow or fire about them. My favorite is 'The Madonna and St. Giovanni". There is a link to it in one of the Napsters here, little help Ivan? This prove that it is not just gov't misinfo and not just post-1950's scifi movie caused mass hallucinations.

EDIT: Never mind Ivan, I found it:
http://www.michaelsheiser.com/mshv1n1briefingnanotech.htm#UFOart

 

[selfAdjoint]

The Madonna painting I can't explain. The earlier ones could all be comets; they look like the picture of Halley's comet in the Bayeux tapestry. Yes even the one with a "pilot"; common theory was that comets were propelled by angels. The one of the Baptism could just be the painter's way of portraying a divine glory uupon the participants.

 

[Jonathan]

Yes, I agree, esp. the one with the baptism because that could just be a temporary hole between heaven and Earth that let's heavens light shine down to that spot. It is only the Madonna one on that site that impresses me. I don't know of a website that has the cave paintings, I saw that on TV. I don't know the experts opinion of the cave paintings, so so far it is really only the Madonna one that interests me.

 

[THE[>U<]DUDE]

What an interesting painting!

My first impression is of Luke Skywalker's sandspeeder coming right towards us, but then ...

We have to remember the world these painters lived in. It was tightly governed by religious fervour. Every painting is the artist's personal take on the message trying to be conveyed. Our interpretations as onlookers can be multi-faceted.

Take Dali for example. When people a thousand years hence look at some of his work, will they think that some elephants had long stilted legs, and clocks seemed to melt all the time?

Perhaps this particular artist had had a vision which encouraged him to paint this picture (or a vivid dream). He might very well have seen something his brain attributed to 'supernatural' (as in God-like) and this is just how it came out - a little unusual and strange, glowing with holy spirit. Remember, throughout the ages, the works of Heaven have been seen as beyond human comprehension. Perhaps this enigmatic incarnation of something godly was the artist's way of confirming this.

Will people a thousand years hence listen to Orson Wells narrating his radio version of War Of The Worlds and believe we were once invaded by tripedal Martians?

 

[Jonathan]

You have a good point, and yet there is a UFO in the painting (also, I think it was around 500y ago, not 1000). On a completely unrelated note, I disagree with your signature, reality is not subjective.

 

[THE[>U<]DUDE]

Our perception (often frail) of our reality is different than everyone else's. Our reality is the sum of everything we are, interacting with a physical universe.

I suppose it really depends on your definition take on reality.

Reality has to be subjective - because everything in our lives is!

It's all personal to us, and uniquely viewed through our life-tainted eyes.

As for the painting only being around 500yrs old - I knew that, but gave the 1000yr example because I prefer 'rounder' numbers! And I agree, there is a UFO in the painting - an unidentified flying object - that might have started out life as a spilled blob of paint on the artist's canvas, cleverly reworked into the painting. It's something I did myself at school on one of my own lesser-impressive creations!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

However, history is like a dream: Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Maybe people painted and described exactly what they saw. Of course there are hundreds of other examples of drawings, descriptions, and other lore [even interactive stories] that sounds very similar to modern UFO reports. Still, no matter how interesting or striking a story may be, these accounts are clearly not proof of anything.

I can say this: The more one looks into this stuff, in order to ignore these anectdotal historical artifacts and myths [stories] as trivial, the more one is required to make assumptions.

 

[Jonathan]

Yes, the accounts are proof of something, but since we don't know what it's proof of, it's kinda trivial to point that out, not to mention that it is only proof to those who experienced it, and not the rest of us who could just as easily assume they are nuts.