The Case Against ETs visiting Earth

I agree the mind is like a machine and sometimes behaves like one. But I consider the mind to be a bunch nerves in a gooey walnut shaped electrochemical blamange. Which controls the body and keeps it going. I definitely do not consider this to be what would be termed conciousness we have. I believe conciousness to be a more etheric nature and too profound to even explain in mere words.

Come to think of it 99% of humans are not what I would call fully concious and are in a dream/sleep state. I would consider a buddha state to be fully concious not ours.

So creating a machine that is conciouss is not an AI design its millions of years in the future...not here the land that time forgot.
 
This might explain a few people on here -

DOCUMENTARY: My Strange Brain
On: five (105)
Date: Thursday 14th August 2008 (starting in 2 hours and 5 minutes)
Time: 23:05 to 00:05 (1 hour long)

Documentary series exploring unusual neurological conditions. This instalment focuses on four people who suffer from brain disorders that have weakened their grip on reality, blurring the boundaries between fact and fiction and leaving them with a distorted sense of the world.
 
This might explain a few people on here -

DOCUMENTARY: My Strange Brain
On: five (105)
Date: Thursday 14th August 2008 (starting in 2 hours and 5 minutes)
Time: 23:05 to 00:05 (1 hour long)

Documentary series exploring unusual neurological conditions. This instalment focuses on four people who suffer from brain disorders that have weakened their grip on reality, blurring the boundaries between fact and fiction and leaving them with a distorted sense of the world.

:D
 
I don't think it is strange brains we have to worry about as it really is a strange and fascinating world. :p:D
 
This might explain a few people on here -

DOCUMENTARY: My Strange Brain
On: five (105)
Date: Thursday 14th August 2008 (starting in 2 hours and 5 minutes)
Time: 23:05 to 00:05 (1 hour long)

Documentary series exploring unusual neurological conditions. This instalment focuses on four people who suffer from brain disorders that have weakened their grip on reality, blurring the boundaries between fact and fiction and leaving them with a distorted sense of the world.


I presume you recorded that and made a DVD copy stored in a Firesafe under your house for future reference.

In all seriousness, Im amazed at how people can be so dismissive and unwilling to accept that their might be intelligence a MILLION years ahead of us quite easily.

Whats so far fetched and impossible about that?

Look at all the things we CAN do now... Cloaking (microwave not visible light YET), teleportation, quantum tunnelling, quantum entanglement, exploring other worlds, reproducing the sun's fusion reaction on Earth, genetic engineering.....

Jees, the list goes on! Its difficult to speculate just what we will be able to do in say 200 years.. Cant wait to get frozen! better than being buried or cremated.

I would much rather be an optimist than a wally that thinks we are the best thing in the Universe since the big bang.
 
Last edited:
I don't believe anyone here has dismissed the possibility of intelligence elsewhere in the universe that's much further along then we are, just questioning the belief that they're coming to Earth and flying around in our skies every now and again.
 
Pretty sure the tin foil hats are for stopping aliens stealing your thoughts, not Jesus from entering your brain.

Would be an entirely inapropriate image in a religon thread.

No they're really more for conspiracies, though can be used for aliens, i think in standard ufo threads its not appropriate.

As for the ufo debate, well the phenomena exists no doubt about it, the decent stuff suggests its advanced technology, whether its alien or human is unknown, the best videos are the ones from nasa and the ones which show good flying capabilities.
 
I've seen that nasa video, it was certainly odd. Interestingly though the mission that the video is taken from is the same mission that deployed satellites that followed the shuttle. Something al of the ufo websites fail to point out when showing the video.


NASA said:
Orbiting and Retrievable Far and Extreme Ultraviolet Spectrometer-Shuttle Pallet Satellite II (ORFEUS-SPAS II) deployed on flight day one to begin approximately two weeks of data- gathering. Making its second flight aboard the shuttle, ORFEUS-SPAS II featured three primary scientific instruments: the ORFEUS-Telescope with the Far Ultraviolet (FUV) Spectrograph and Extreme Ultraviolet (EUV) Spectrograph. A secondary but highly complementary payload was the Interstellar Medium Absorption Profile Spectrograph (IMAPS). Non-astronomy payloads on ORFEUS-SPAS included the Surface Effects Sample Monitor (SESAM), the ATV Rendezvous Pre-Development Project (ARP) and the Student Experiment on ASTRO-SPAS (SEAS).

Wake Shield Facility-3 (WSF-3) deployed on flight day 4. WSF is a 12-foot diameter, free-flying stainless steel disk designed to generate ultravacuum environment in which to grow semiconductor thin films for use in advanced electronics. Third flight was highly successful, with maximum seven thin film growths of semiconductor materials achieved and satellite hardware performing near-flawlessly. WSF-3 retrieved after three days of free-flight.
 
Despite pushing for greater acceptance and recognition I am always personally unimpressed with the NASA videos. Along these lines I would like to see a public funded team of researchers investigate the more unconventional and unexplainable events: or at the very least, the "evidence". Maybe attitudes are changing with Ufo Enigma: A New Review of the Physical Evidence by Peter Sturrock as well as an earlier report /survey from the American Astronomical Society; of which I will provide a synopsis. Quite possibly attitudes will continue to change for the better now that recent discoverys have shown there to be water on Mars and that extra solar bodies are quite prevalent:

Synopsis

One of the major mysteries of our time, it continues to evoke intense public interest but has received scant scientific scrutiny-until now... The UFO Enigma. For over fifty years, the modern UFO controversy has raged between believers and debunkers, with very little input from the scientific community. The only unclassified, government-sponsored scientific study in the United States was the Colorado Project, which led to the 1967 Condon Report advising the Air Force that further examination of UFOs was useless. Official U.S. investigation came to a grinding halt-while other countries, most notably France, continued with research programs that found dramatic new evidence. Now, in a major report commissioned by Laurance S. Rockefeller, world-renowned scientists debate the physical evidence in puzzling cases presented by UFO investigators. The UFO Enigma overrides the Condon Report and concludes that there is much we could learn from further study of the phenomenon—if the evidence is carefully collected and scientifically analyzed. An international panel of scientists grilled UFO researchers and examined dozens of cases including: Paris, 1984: Military radar confirms a commercial airline pilot's report of a gigantic disk, more than a half mile in diameter. Mansfield, Ohio, 1978: Four crew members of an Army Reserve helicopter give vivid accounts of an encounter with an unknown cylindrical object, during which their flight control system malfunctioned. Southern France, 1981: Police and scientific investigators find physical traces in the soil and biochemical changes in vegetation at the location of a reported landing of an ovoid object. Dayton, Texas, 1980: Three witnesses who observe a large, flaming object subsequently suffer debilitating radiation-type injuries. A report on the conference findings along with supporting case material, The UFO Enigma is not about alleged abductions or government cover-ups, nor about purported hoaxes or "shared illusions." With its focused scope and sober assessment by a distinguished scientific panel, its findings may be even more challenging-and more disturbing-than any of us dared to imagine.


Accreditation

Peter A. Sturrock is emeritus professor of applied physics and emeritus director of the Center for Space Science and Astrophysics at Stanford University. He has received numerous awards including prizes from the American Astronomical Society; The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; Cambridge University; The mavity Foundation; and the National Academy of Sciences. His other publications include five edited volumes, two monographs, and over two hundred scientific articles.


Report on a Survey of the Membership of the American Astronomical Society Concerning the UFO Phenomenon - Summary
Peter Sturrock, Stanford University

original source | fair use notice

Summary: Refereed journals, to which scientists turn for their reliable information, carry virtually no information on the UFO problem. Does this imply that scientists have no views and no thoughts on the subject, or that all scientists consider it insignificant? Does it imply that scientists have no reports to submit comparable with UFO reports published in newspapers and popular books? The purpose of this survey is to answer these questions.


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

Peter A. Sturrock , Ph.D.
author's bio



Refereed journals, to which scientists turn for their reliable information, carry virtually no information on the UFO problem. Does this imply that scientists have no views and no thoughts on the subject, or that all scientists consider it insignificant? Does it imply that scientists have no reports to submit comparable with UFO reports published in newspapers and popular books? The purpose of this survey is to answer these questions.

Of 2,611 questionnaires mailed to members of the American Astronomical Society, 1,356 were returned, 34 anonymously. Only two members offered to waive anonymity. These facts and many comments confirm that the UFO problem is a sensitive issue for most scientists. Nevertheless, only a few (13) respondents made critical remarks about the subject or the survey; 50 made encouraging statements, 34 offered to help, and 7 indicated that they are actively studying the problem.

Each respondent was asked to state his opinion on whether the UFO problem deserves scientific study: 23% replied "certainly", 30% "probably", 27% "possibly", 17% "probably not", and 3% "certainly not", which represents a positive attitude among 53% of the respondents, as against a negative attitude among 20%. Analysis of the returns shows that older scientists are markedly more negative to the problem than are younger scientists. One also finds that opinions correlate strongly with time spent reading about the subject. The fraction of respondents who think that the subject certainly or probably deserves scientific study rises from 29%, among those who have spent less than one hour, to 68% among those who have spent more than 365 hours in such reading. It appears that popular books and publications by established scientists exert a positive influence on scientists' opinions, whereas newspaper and magazine articles exert negligible influence.

Respondents were asked to express their views on possible causes of UFO reports by assigning "prior probabilities" to four "conventional" causes [(a) a hoax, (b) a familiar phenomenon or device, (c) an unfamiliar natural phenomenon, and (d) an unfamiliar terrestrial device] and four "unconventional" causes [(e) an unknown natural phenomenon, (f) an alien device, (g) some specifiable other cause, and (h) some unspecifiable other cause]. There was a very wide spread of opinions on this issue. Averaging all returns gives the values: (a) .12, (b) .22, (c) .23, (d) .21, (e) .09, (f) .03, (g) .07. This average response is therefore quite open-minded, although many individual responses are not. Older people tend to give more credence to the possibility of a hoax and less to unconventional possibilities. By contrast, those who have studied the subject extensively attach less weight to the possibility of a hoax and greater weight to the unconventional possibilities.

Over 80% of respondents expressed a willingness to contribute to the resolution of the UFO problem if they could see a way to do so but, of those expressing this interest, only 13% could see a way. This is a notable consensus which may encapsulate the dilemma which this problem presents to scientists. Those who have studied the subject are more willing to help and more likely to see a way to help.

Most respondents consider that meteorology, psychology, astronomy/astrophysics and physics have relevance to the UFO problem and some consider that aeronautical engineering and sociology may also be relevant. Most respondents (75%) would like to obtain more information on the subject, but they express a strong preference for getting it from scientific journals rather than from books or lectures.

The returns identified 62 respondents who had witnessed or obtained an instrumental record of an event which they could not identify and which they thought might be related to the UFO phenomenon. The total number of events reported was larger (65) since some respondents reported more than one event. In addition, ten _identified_ strange observations were mentioned, four investigations were described (including one detailed study of ground traces), and attention was drawn to a few strange events described in the scientific literature. It was found that these 62 respondents have spent longer than average studying the UFO problem, that they are more positive in their assessment of the scientific importance of the problem, and that they tend to be more open-minded about unconventional explanations. Only 18 (about 30%) of these respondents indicated that they had previously reported their observations; seven to the Air Force, Navy or NORAD, one to the police, two to airport authorities, seven to other scientists, and one to a newspaper.

Sixty-three percent (63%) of those reporting events were night-sky observers, as against 50% of respondents who did not report events. Thirty-six (36) of the events comprised lights seen in the sky at night. Twelve (12) were of point lights which were more or less puzzling; four (4) were of formations of lights; and four (4) were of diffuse lights. Three respondents independently described what appeared to be a searchlight playing on a cloud when there were no clouds in the sky. Four described disk-like objects, and five described objects with different shapes. Three cases concerned objects which appeared to emit smaller objects or "sparks." One case described apparent interference with an automobile electrical system (as did also a daylight case).

There were sixteen accounts of strange objects seen by day. Five were of small objects, seven were of disk-shaped objects, and four described other miscellaneous observations.

Seven respondents described photographic records of strange phenomena, and three were kind enough to provide me with copies of the photographs or film. (With help, I was able to make plausible interpretations of two of these.) One respondent recalled a radar observation he had made, another described two strange radio records, and a third described puzzling records obtained by a satellite tracking station.

This study leads to the following answers to the questions initially posed. To judge from this survey of the membership of the American Astronomical Society, it appears that:

(a) scientists have thoughts and views but no answers concerning the UFO problem;

(b) Although there is no consensus, more scientists are of the opinion that the problem certainly or probably deserves scientific study than are of the opinion that it certainly or probably does not;

and (c) a small fraction (of order 5%) are likely to report varied and puzzling observations, not unlike so-called "UFO reports" made by the general public. As is the case with reports from the public, many may be unusual observations of familiar objects, but some seem to be definitely strange.

These results are consistent with the findings of an earlier but more limited survey of members of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (Sturrock, 1974b), except that the opinions of astronomers (expressed in 1975) concerning the significance of the UFO problem were more positive than were the views of aeronautical engineers (expressed in 1973).
 
Last edited:
I've seen that nasa video, it was certainly odd. Interestingly though the mission that the video is taken from is the same mission that deployed satellites that followed the shuttle. Something al of the ufo websites fail to point out when showing the video.

Theres many nasa videos, lots of ufos move quickly, some change directions, some move into formations as if to signal the shuttle...
 
Moving quickly in formation with the shuttle was what the satellites were doing!

I've only seen the one video but I wouldn't be surprised if they were more of the same, the shuttles do tend to be used to launch satellites.
 
[FnG]magnolia;12289255 said:
I want to see Ethan meld with majick in an unholy symphony of crazy.

Who would I speak to to make this happen?

Spock

No, no, speak to T'Pol that would do nicely.
 
Last edited:
:rolleyes: at people laughing about Teleportation on the first page.

Teleportation has happened, it's well known and has been featured in respectable publications, its just not what most people think of as "Teleportation".

http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation/

No one has said it didn't. If you read the posts on the first page properly you'd see they were laughing at Failz since he was calling someone uneducated when his own posts made him sound quite silly and not exactly clever himself. Hence the sarcasm!
 
The best UFO cases I've looked into are the Rendlesham Forest USAF base incident in the UK in 1980 and the Travis Walton "Fire In The Sky" incident of 1975.
http://www.rendlesham-incident.co.uk/
This link also has links to several parts of a great documentary thats now on youtube

Rendlesham is probably the best documented UFO incident on record, and also probably one of the the biggest breaches of national security ever in the UK

Events witnessed over 2-3 nights by upto 80 airforce personnel including the deputy base commander, recorded on casette tape, dangerously high geiger counter readings, sworn testimonies, indentations on ground, radar supportive evidence from local airport, police and locals, radiobreakup, electrical charge in the air, Holt the base commander effectively ruined his career by maintaining his story

Travis Walton, we've got 4 guys who have now passed several lie detector tests including Walton himself following his claimed abduction and missing for 5 days, the film adaption Fire In The Sky is awesome

Then theres various reported sightings by airforce pilots and commercial pilots supported by radar tracking of objects doing speeds and manouvres that are just mental

Theres a lot of crap too, hoaxes and easily explained events but Rendlesham and Walton make intriguing reads
 
Last edited:
The one im thinking of wasn't satellites.

Which one was that then? It's not going to be the one that was obviously just lens flare? Or the one that catches a meteor entering the Earth's atmosphere and breaking up? The UFO people don't do themselves any favours with those claims, there are so many videos posted of objects that are very easy to explain, even videos of satellites that were just launched from the shuttle all accompanied by claims that it's proof of aliens.

They've made it so if a video of real aliens was ever made no one will believe it because they're so used to the usual false claims.
 
Back
Top Bottom