Would you please tell me if UFO is for real?

  • Thread starter Sadmemo
  • Start date
454
7
Pengwuino said:
Well again, like i siad... why are they hypothetically "abducting" people who dont know their ass from a hole in the ground lol.
Hypothetical question.

If you were abducted by aliens, who would believe your story?
 
5
0
Ivan Seeking said:
Finally, we can't assume that ET would act and think as we do. So extrapolating what makes sense to us as something logical for an ET has no basis.
ET would be very smart, have powerful brains, like super-computer, to make the technology to travel in space. So ETs would be rational, scientific thinking. So, what would be the motivation for these superior species to fly around in the sky, blinking on and off, mutilating cows, and abducting hillbilly-types to examine their genitals? And why would they care for our welfare any more than we care for the welfare of cockroaches? We would be cockroaches to these super-evolved aliens.
 

DaveC426913

Gold Member
18,314
1,910
Pengwuino said:
What i dont get is how one can think that we somehow pose a threat to them. If we are basing our argument off of these videos nad pictures we see... they obviously have technology we cant even dream of right now so what threat can we really pose?
I read a great sci-fi story many, many years ago. Can't remember the author, might have been Clarke or Bradbury.

The Intergalactic Consortium of the Zillion Races was debating about whether to contact Earth and let them in. Many cited the Earthling's tenacity, spirit and drive, and worried what they might do if allowed in, but all the rest just laughed and said "They have barely achieved spaceflight. What possible threat can they be? After all, they're just one tiny little planet!"

Fifty years later, no one was laughing...
 
36
0
It would depend on the motivations of the 'visitors'.

For example, Darwin crossing the vast seas to explore new lands and to try and catalogue new species of flora and fauna...I would bet that he, and the rest of the crew, didn't know how to build the ship, or why the currents worked etc etc.

Also, there has been written incidences in the past of Alien visitors. The Religous text from India writes about visitors from the skies and flying vehicles and so forth. Quetzacoatl, an Aztec deity, is said to have from the skies and taught them Mathmatics and astronomy.

This is just the stuff at the top of my head. A freind of mine has done a lot more serious study than I and it makes interesting reading.

Personally, I've witnessed an Unexplained Arial Phenomena when I was on guard duty with two others whilst I was in the Army (rays of light coming from behind a cloud which dispersed after a few minutes. The moon was out but was about 60 degrees away)
 
856
2
James R said:
Ivan:

There have been many cases exposed as hoaxes. Which is more likely, do you think: that all cases are hoaxes (or mistakes), or that ET really is visiting Earth?
There are many more cases that have not been exposed as hoaxes.
The idea that they are all hoaxes, is very unlikely. In fact, i dare to state that it is impossible.

I have trouble buying that one. I can't see why an interstellar travelling ET would have motivations fundamentally different to ours.
Its not that hard to imagine some fundamentally different motivations.
But we just cant tell.


Why come here at all, if not to make their presence known to us? There are plenty of other planets, most probably uninhabited. Why pick Earth, if not to communicate with Earth people?
Well, i know plenty of tales people who claim to have indeed had contact with aliens. But i guess u mean, why wouldnt they land in front of the white house. I can think of a dozen reasons.

Would you really panic if a flying saucer landed on the White House lawn? I don't think I would.
It depends on what they have to tell. They may have some things to tell which would be quite shocking to us.

For instance, would u sleep well if u knew there were exorcist-type entities floating above ur bed at night? Just watch the exorcist at night and now imagine its all real :smile:

Again, if encounter tales are any indication what we can expect, then many of us may even end up with post traumatic stress syndrome (since this is what happens to some of the people whove encountered aliens.)
 
Last edited:
5
0
Daminc said:
For example, Darwin crossing the vast seas to explore new lands and to try and catalogue new species of flora and fauna...I would bet that he, and the rest of the crew, didn't know how to build the ship, or why the currents worked etc etc.
Darwin didn't make an effort to hide his existance from the species he was studying. What would be the motivation for ETs to secretly study humans without letting the humans know? Would they want to study us in our natural state, like human scientists often do to animals?
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,979
5,140
PIT2 said:
Perhaps aliens think the same about us?

I disagree.
I think the fact that we are able to learn anything about science - much less that we are fairly close to figuring out just about everything - shows that there simply can't be as much difference between us and an alien race as there is between us an gorillas. You could almost write an equation:

Gorilla knowledge of science (g): 0
Human knowledge of science (h): .9 (fraction of all there is to know)
Alien knowledge of science (a): .999

g/h [is infinite] > a/h
If evolution can make such a difference between species on the same planet, just imagine what difference it can make between species on different planets (with perhaps a billion years more of evolution).
We aren't talking about evolution, we are talking about the ability to gain knowledge. Knowledge of science, technology, etc. Knowledge progresses without evolution once a species becomes capable of it. We are capable of it: gorillas are not.

One way or another, every advanced civilization has to go through the process whereby they start from scratch and over time learn how the universe works. How far we are in that process isn't the point: the point is that we are in that process and gorillas are not.

If an alien civilization spends a billion years in that process while we have only spent 20,000, we still have a basis for comparison and something to discuss - their first 20,000 years compared to ours. Gorillas don't have that.
Heres the paper on the gorilla theory:
The paper (I didn't get all the way through it) pursues two separate lines of reasoning:

1. Advanced species may not wish to be detected, so we won't ever detect them.
2. Advanced species could be among us and we wouldn't understand them.

Point 1 is perfectly reasonable and is not what I object to.

Point 2 is logically flawed in several ways. Some are decribed above, but several more:

-First is that gorillas are, most certainly, aware of our existence. The problem is that they are incapable of communication. They see but do not understand. We don't even have clear proof (enough that a majority of scientists would vote for an affirmative conclusion) that other beings exist, so the question of being able to understand isn't relevant until an alien actually shakes hands with us.

-Scond, we have made serious attempts to communicate with gorillas (by the way, that fact itself also sets us apart from them). Aliens have not made similar attempts to communicate with us. So just walking around clueless is not a valid explanation.

There is speculation about other dimensions - even other universes. Such speculation is useless/irrelevant because even if such things exist, we could not, by definition, ever come into contact with them.

Maybe my point can be put simply as: the fact that we are making the attempt to communicate with other species sets us apart from gorillas and shows that should they exist and desire it, other species could successfully communicate with us.

Consider two scenarios:

Man holds out his hand and says: "Hi, I'm human"
Alien (with his advanced knowledge, he can speak English): "Hi, I'm a Klingon"
 
Last edited:

russ_watters

Mentor
18,979
5,140
PIT2 said:
There are many more cases that have not been exposed as hoaxes.
The idea that they are all hoaxes, is very unlikely. In fact, i dare to state that it is impossible.
He said hoaxes or mistakes, so you didn't answer the question. Quite obviously it would be impossible for all to be hoaxes since some have been proven to be mistakes - so the question is: do you believe it is more likely that some of those still unexplained are really aliens or that all are either hoaxes or mistakes?
Its not that hard to imagine some fundamentally different motivations.
But we just cant tell.
The problem with imagining different motives or even different types of species is the same as the questions we see in the Relativity forum about imagining what Relativity has to say if you are travleing faster than light. Science, logic, reality, put real constraints on that speculation. Consider these:

*I can imagine a stone-age species of beings travling to earth to visit us*
*I can imagine a species with no interest in conquest, exploration, etc. traveling to earth to visit us*

See anything wrong with that speculation? Both types of beings would be preculded from visiting us by their (first one) development and (second one) their motivation. So it is not only reasonable, but necessary to constrain our speculation with logic.
 
856
2
russ_watters said:
I think the fact that we are able to learn anything about science - much less that we are fairly close to figuring out just about everything - shows that there simply can't be as much difference between us and an alien race as there is between us an gorillas. You could almost write an equation:

Gorilla knowledge of science (g): 0
Human knowledge of science (h): .9 (fraction of all there is to know)
Alien knowledge of science (a): .999

g/h [is infinite] > a/h
I think our knowledge of science i more like: 0.000001
But who knows.

2. Advanced species could be among us and we wouldn't understand them.

Point 2 is logically flawed in several ways. Some are decribed above, but several more:

-First is that gorillas are, most certainly, aware of our existence. The problem is that they are incapable of communication. They see but do not understand. We don't even have clear proof (enough that a majority of scientists would vote for an affirmative conclusion) that other beings exist, so the question of being able to understand isn't relevant until an alien actually shakes hands with us.
I dont think all gorillas are aware of our existence, some perhaps yes. Just like some humans are aware of aliens (or so they believe).

They are not incapable of communication. They are incapable of understanding us. Perhaps similar to that we are incapable of understanding aliens.

-Scond, we have made serious attempts to communicate with gorillas (by the way, that fact itself also sets us apart from them). Aliens have not made similar attempts to communicate with us. So just walking around clueless is not a valid explanation.
According to alien encounter tales, they make contact with people on a daily basis all over the world, even more frequently than we make contact with gorilla's. U may think that since it hasnt been proven, that this line of thought is irrelevant, but i dont see the point in ignoring all signs.

There is speculation about other dimensions - even other universes. Such speculation is useless/irrelevant because even if such things exist, we could not, by definition, ever come into contact with them.
I dont see how u can make such a statement.
The paper explains atleast 1 way this may be possible, through gravitational waves.(which according to M-theory leak into our dimension from another one) There could be dozens of other ways we dont know yet.

I can see ur logic if u start with the idea that any speculation beyond our scientific knowledge is irrelevant because we cant discuss it properly. However, while u may be thinking about our scientific knowledge, im thinking more about our experiental knowledge (from the people who truly believe they have had contact).

Anyway if im not mistaken, u seem to be saying that the difference (in intelligence?)between humans and aliens visiting us, could not be as large as between humans and gorilla's, because "we are fairly close to figuring out just about everything".
 
Last edited:
26
0
Somebody mentioned 'compelling evidence'. What might that be, and who is judging? For instance, a laboratory in which I was working produced one of the very first macroscopic pieces of metallic glass. As a joke, we gave a sample to an expert electron microscopist who was working just next door to us. He was completely baffled as to what it might be. Now, just suppose that we had told him that it had fallen off a flying saucer, and he (an expert) had told the newspapers. At that time, there were only a handful of people in the world who could have detected the hoax. The same principle (that the true explanation may be known to very few people) also applies to the paranormal. Thus, a British parapsychologist once declared that he would consider 2 interlocked jointless wooden rings, where the woods were from different species of tree, to be irrefutable proof of paranormal activity. Sounds pretty convincing doesn't it? However, I found out only recently that there is a non-paranormal way of achieving this. Of course, botanists were always aware of it. So it always comes down to who is judging the evidence: the less you know, the more likely UFOs seem to be.
 
856
2
skeptic said:
Somebody mentioned 'compelling evidence'. What might that be, and who is judging? For instance, a laboratory in which I was working produced one of the very first macroscopic pieces of metallic glass. As a joke, we gave a sample to an expert electron microscopist who was working just next door to us. He was completely baffled as to what it might be. Now, just suppose that we had told him that it had fallen off a flying saucer, and he (an expert) had told the newspapers.
I once read an analysis of a sample recovered from an apparent UFO crash site, in 1957. The sample was shown to be 100% pure magnesium.

It also stated that no lab could ever produce 100% pure magnesium, because at the very best it would always be 99.9 or 99.9999%. I wonder if it is possible now or whether it was in 1957.
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
I think what everyone here misses is the following: First, scientists who see a UFO often believe in UFOs. The same is true for many people. And there are many scientists who find the anecdotal evidence interesting, at least. But do we have proof of an ET presence? Not that I know of. But when someone demands proof in order to even seriously consider the question, I recognize that is just a means to escape the difficult task of making sense of the seemingly inexplicable - what seems to be impossible. In short, the burden of proof lies with science and not casual observers who simply report what they see. So when anyone ask for proof, my response is that if we had proof we would be done and we wouldn't even be having this conversation. If that's all that you will accept before giving the subject some respect and due consideration, then go away. You are wasting my time.

Next, cow mutilations and abductions and whatever are not the basis for an ET presence. These are secondary claims and speak to issues of motive, which may or may not have anything to do with the question of presence. So cow mutilations and alien abductions are not the measure of credibility for the subject. But, as do demands for proof, these things do help the skeptic to avoid the more basic problem of making sense of the many apparently credible events, some which come with good evidence [such as multiple witness combined with photographic and or RADAR data], which are not easily explained.

Next, we can speculate all day long about how an ET might be, but the fact is that we don't know, so human logic may or may not apply. Our logic cannot be used as a basis for interpreting the credibility of UFO reports. To say that witness X didn't see what he claims because at ET wouldn't do that, is wild guessing at best. For example, for all we know, ET doesn't land and announce himself because we just aren't that important. After all, do we ask cows or pigs to take us to their leader?
 
856
2
russ_watters said:
He said hoaxes or mistakes, so you didn't answer the question. Quite obviously it would be impossible for all to be hoaxes since some have been proven to be mistakes - so the question is: do you believe it is more likely that some of those still unexplained are really aliens or that all are either hoaxes or mistakes?
I didnt see the mistakes part sorry.
I cant comment on which is more likely.
But i dont really know what kind of 'mistake' can account for some cases. Perhaps the mistake is even more bizarre than the phenomenom that the evidence seems to suggest?

I think its pretty useless to shove everything under a label called 'hoaxes and mistakes' and then ignore it as if nothing is going on.


The problem with imagining different motives or even different types of species is the same as the questions we see in the Relativity forum about imagining what Relativity has to say if you are travleing faster than light. Science, logic, reality, put real constraints on that speculation. Consider these:

*I can imagine a stone-age species of beings travling to earth to visit us*
*I can imagine a species with no interest in conquest, exploration, etc. traveling to earth to visit us*

See anything wrong with that speculation? Both types of beings would be preculded from visiting us by their (first one) development and (second one) their motivation. So it is not only reasonable, but necessary to constrain our speculation with logic.
How is this for logic:
Aliens can have any motive that we humans also have (unlimited?).
 
Last edited:
454
7
Dennis4 said:
ET would be very smart, have powerful brains, like super-computer, to make the technology to travel in space. So ETs would be rational, scientific thinking. So, what would be the motivation for these superior species to fly around in the sky, blinking on and off, mutilating cows, and abducting hillbilly-types to examine their genitals? And why would they care for our welfare any more than we care for the welfare of cockroaches? We would be cockroaches to these super-evolved aliens.
Assuming an alien race had a greater capacity to reason would they not also have a greater capacity for empathy? With the energies that these aliens would wield if they did not value life they would destroy themselves long before they ever reached us.
 
matthyaouw said:
You can't comment on their ability to defend themselves or the threat that they pose, as no ship has ever been proven to exist, never mind recovered (to our knowledge). They could be hard as nails, or a single bullet could do sufficient damage to make a ship un-space-worthy. We simply have no way of knowing.

Who is to say it is us? It may be any aspect of our planet that they are interested in studying.
Totally True, dude...

I don't think we can ASSUME that just because they discovered space travel, that they could kick our A55ES.. They may have developed in peaceful civilizations. Perhaps the reason they discovered interstellar travel is because they weren't wasting all of their time and recources on weapons and conquest.

I don't like the idea of the assumption that just because we made contact with ET's means that they must be light years ahead in all forms of technology.

What are the odds of an alien artifact landing on Earth? Maybe ET's version of Pioneer? Maybe a map of where they are and precise details regarding their vulnerabilities. Maybe an alien space shuttle could crash here, filled with alien corpes who weren't thinking about how long this journey was really going to take and so they starved to death in their inter-galactic coffin.

Besides assuming their tech., why presume on their intentions? ANY homo-sapien has ONLY a HUMAN perspective as a reference point. Do you truly understand what it is like to be the cockroach you squish into goo beneath your shoe? Can you imagine your THOUGHTS while you are a snail, or a gorilla, instinctually tricking the humans into thinking you know sign language just to get that banana? How can you imagine the agenda for a deep-space race you have never even met by ONLY a human outlook. Our obsession for truth, knowledge or God may be just like the alien's obsession for researching redneck's rectal regions.

I also like the idea that ET may be more interested in our PLANET than our PEOPLE. Based on the planets we have observed so far, especially in our own solar system, astronomers will admit that Earth is a unique planet (besides humanity).
 
454
7
I don't find it hard to believe that some animals have the capacity to understand basic language. http://www.pigeon.psy.tufts.edu/psych26/language.htm from Tufts university shows that some primates can teach each other sign language. They also spontaneously use sign language. One chimpanzee mother named Washoe uses the language to discipline and express concern for her children. At least this is how it has been interpreted by the researchers. Parrots have vocal ability and can answer questions and have a grasp of basic mathematics. I don't believe this is just a mimicry of language.

There is a tendency to believe that we possess some quality that makes us superior to and seperate from animals. I don't see it. What I see is a a greater capacity for intelligence. A chimpanzee will stop learning at the level of a young human child.

As humans there may be limits to what information our minds can comprehend. Aliens may have evolved beyond this point, although that may not be necessary for interstellar travel. Aliens may have an awareness compared to a human as a human does to a chimpanzee. As humans we could communicate with an alien race, but perhaps not on the same level of understanding.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
36
0
What would be the motivation for ETs to secretly study humans without letting the humans know? Would they want to study us in our natural state, like human scientists often do to animals?
If they have watched us for even the short period of time they would realise there would be a very good chance that we would try and kill them before even the first attempt at communications.

As a human race we have this tendancy to kill anything, including ourselves, for either resources, sport, fear, beliefs, prejudices etc etc without any fear of consequence.

Would you want to reveal yourself to an alien race that had those tendancies?
 
36
0
As humans we could communicate with an alien race, but perhaps not on the same level of understanding.
Possibly, but consider the varying means of communication we have on Earth.

Via sonar
Via Colour changes
Via Scent
Via dancing
Via speech
Via radio waves
+++

Without actually meeting them it would be impossible to know if communication would ever be possible us irrespective of intelligence.
 
26
0
"I once read an analysis of a sample recovered from an apparent UFO crash site, in 1957. The sample was shown to be 100% pure magnesium.

It also stated that no lab could ever produce 100% pure magnesium, because at the very best it would always be 99.9 or 99.9999%. I wonder if it is possible now or whether it was in 1957."

It is unlikely that one would ever be able to produce an entirely pure metal in macroscopic quantities. When one got down to the last few foreign atoms, there would be a huge entropic component to the thermodynamics favouring their retention. And even if it were pure 'when it fell off the UFO', it would soon become contaminated in our atmosphere. But I can imagine, in 1957, that one laboratory might have been able to produce a sample whose impurity content was below the detection limit of another laboratory's equipment. That comes straight back to my original point.
 
436
1
skeptic said:
"I once read an analysis of a sample recovered from an apparent UFO crash site, in 1957. The sample was shown to be 100% pure magnesium.

It also stated that no lab could ever produce 100% pure magnesium, because at the very best it would always be 99.9 or 99.9999%. I wonder if it is possible now or whether it was in 1957."

It is unlikely that one would ever be able to produce an entirely pure metal in macroscopic quantities. When one got down to the last few foreign atoms, there would be a huge entropic component to the thermodynamics favouring their retention. And even if it were pure 'when it fell off the UFO', it would soon become contaminated in our atmosphere. But I can imagine, in 1957, that one laboratory might have been able to produce a sample whose impurity content was below the detection limit of another laboratory's equipment. That comes straight back to my original point.
Does that sample still exist for contemporary analysis?
 
26
0
I don't believe that it ever really existed. I have spent years on trying to track down the facts behind newspaper reports, or items in 'specialist' magazines. Nobody ever seems to know what happened to the evidence. Alternatively, they claim that 'the military took it'. One would expect that, if it were so important, they would take better care of it. And if they expected it to be confiscated, they could always saw a piece off and hide it. BTW, I have just remembered another example of this sort of thing. In one UFO book, there is a photograph of someone holding up a piece of metal. The caption explains that it is anomalous because 'it is stainless steel and yet it is non-magnetic'. Any hardware store owner, let alone an expert metallurgist, knows that not all stainless steels are magnetic.
 
856
2
Heres a link to the report on the 100% pure magnesium:
http://www.temporaldoorway.com/ufo/physicalevidence/ubtatubamagnesium/index.htm [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

James R

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
600
15
PIT2:

I once read an analysis of a sample recovered from an apparent UFO crash site, in 1957. The sample was shown to be 100% pure magnesium.

It also stated that no lab could ever produce 100% pure magnesium, because at the very best it would always be 99.9 or 99.9999%. I wonder if it is possible now or whether it was in 1957.
I wonder how it can be that a lab can measure 100% purity in a sample, yet be unable to produce such a sample.

I think its pretty useless to shove everything under a label called 'hoaxes and mistakes' and then ignore it as if nothing is going on.
UFO cases are investigated. They aren't ignored. Nobody is assuming that aliens don't exist. What we need is some good, reliable evidence that they DO exist, and there just doesn't seem to be any.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,979
5,140
PIT2 said:
I didnt see the mistakes part sorry.
I cant comment on which is more likely.
But i dont really know what kind of 'mistake' can account for some cases.
The most common objects mistaken for alien spacecraft in UFO reports are airplanes and Venus (stand by for UFO reports this summer as Venus rises in the evening sky).
How is this for logic:
Aliens can have any motive that we humans also have (unlimited?).
Certainly. That doesn't affect what I said at all.
 
Last edited:
184
0
James R said:
PIT2:



I wonder how it can be that a lab can measure 100% purity in a sample, yet be unable to produce such a sample.



UFO cases are investigated. They aren't ignored. Nobody is assuming that aliens don't exist. What we need is some good, reliable evidence that they DO exist, and there just doesn't seem to be any.
If aliens existed hey wouldn't wait an hide sinc ethey have much more advanced tehcnology,they would destroy us.Aliens are just replacement for those who need to fantasize.
 

Related Threads for: Would you please tell me if UFO is for real?

  • Poll
  • Last Post
2
Replies
25
Views
4K
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
Replies
20
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
27
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Top