We are not alone.... Maybe.

[Gizmo]

5 hours ago, Smithee said:

 

That isn't even slightly controversial.

It isn't, but I suspect it plays into the poster's bias towards "open minds" as an convenient excuse to down that pesky scientific method of peer review and skepticism. It's why any citation of outlier scientists or fringe beliefs is correlated with an "and that's why mainstream scientists shun them". 

Doesn't take a renegade scientist or crackpot to figure out why.

As Feynman said, “The first principle” of being a good researcher is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool”. 

I want to believe comes under such a principle, imo, and is a dangerous starting point. The more you want something to be true, the more skeptical you need to be of it.

Science is not about what we wish to be true. An "open mind" is absolutely not the essence of science, whatsoever. Curiosity, skepticism and experimentation are. 

Edited July 11, 2022 by Gizmo

[SuperstarSteve]

On 10/07/2022 at 20:53, WorldChampions1902 said:

The difference of course is that as Travis Taylor, the NASA scientist in Vid1 above explains, ALL scientists need to have an open mind -it is the ESSENCE of science. Science is about asking questions.
 

Unfortunately, far too many scientists in the recent past had/have closed minds because they deem the subject matter “fringe”. Those people do a great disservice to science and arguably contribute to delays in getting answers.

 

There are plenty examples of scientists fantastic in their specialism with an incredible track record who, once they start diversifying into UFOs/Aliens/Abductions etc, suddenly become shunned by their peers. It is shameful.

 

Hopefully times are a changing.

I totally agree with all scientists should have an open mind. One thing that seems common these days is the science is settled and it absolutely isn’t. For me science it’s settled when data v data is compared and one argument falls short. It seems certain “peered reviewed” science isn’t allowed to be debated. 

[Greedy Jambo]

There has been plenty of scientists with open minds, they've been ridiculed and pushed to one side, a bit like anyone on here that dares to suggest that there might be more to it than what we already know. 

[spud]

11 hours ago, SuperstarSteve said:

I totally agree with all scientists should have an open mind. One thing that seems common these days is the science is settled and it absolutely isn’t. For me science it’s settled when data v data is compared and one argument falls short. It seems certain “peered reviewed” science isn’t allowed to be debated. 

With due respect, could you please explain your comments. For instance, what does "settled" mean, can you cite an instance when it is "common these days that the science is settled", can you say more about when "certain peer reviewed science isn't allowed to be debated"? Maybe cite a few instances?

I thought that the way that science progressed is debating, in its widest sense, "peer reviewed" science. Maybe I'm wrong though.

[spud]

3 hours ago, Greedy Jambo said:

There has been plenty of scientists with open minds, they've been ridiculed and pushed to one side, a bit like anyone on here that dares to suggest that there might be more to it than what we already know. 

If you do not have an open mind then you cannot be a scientist. The vast majority of scientists will drop any theory in the face of viable, statistically significant data, contrary evidence. However, if someone, as you put it, is "ridiculed and pushed to one side", albeit a scientist or someone on here, it is because they hold on to, or support a hypothesis for which they have no significant data. Eye witness accounts have been shown to be extremely unreliable through a multitude of controlled experiments, to the extent that courts will not accept eye-witness accounts as evidence; photographs and videos are always blurred, with very little or no context, or shown to be fake.

Today there are millions upon millions of mobiles, which used to be called phones, around the Earth. Now the selling point of these mobiles is the clarity of the photographs they can take, yet considering the millions upon millions of photographs with millions upon millions of devices taken every day in a approximately 10 year period, not a single, clear, focussed photograph of an alien or their vehicle. Thousands of abductions yet not a single, quick snap of the ship's interior. Thousands of sightings yet no one thought to pull out their mobiles to make limitless cash.

 

[Greedy Jambo]

Hands up if you believe Robert Lazar's story?

[Morgan]

4 minutes ago, Greedy Jambo said:

Hands up if you believe Robert Lazar's story?

🤚

[Unknown user]

15 minutes ago, Greedy Jambo said:

Hands up if you believe Robert Lazar's story?

 

Who doesn't? Everyone knows convicted pimps don't lie.

[Greedy Jambo]

Hands up if you beleive there's more than 2000 habitable planets in our milky-way alone. 

[Greedy Jambo]

Is it so unbelievable that there could be 1 planet that has intelligence life on it? 

What if that planet is a million years older than ours? 

 

 

[ShakenNotStirred]

Outer space is so vast, their has to be something out there, just has to be.

[J.T.F.Robertson]

 

It surely has to be a combination of arrogance/ignorance to harbour the belief we are the only "intelligent" life in our galaxy, never mind the universe.

My god, it goes on forever. Just because we haven’t encountered them, and I'm not referring to the most basic of life here, that would take it to an nth degree.

Why am I the only one who sees the certainty of it? (mibbie not the only one)

[spud]

1 hour ago, J.T.F.Robertson said:

 

It surely has to be a combination of arrogance/ignorance to harbour the belief we are the only "intelligent" life in our galaxy, never mind the universe.

My god, it goes on forever. Just because we haven’t encountered them, and I'm not referring to the most basic of life here, that would take it to an nth degree.

Why am I the only one who sees the certainty of it? (mibbie not the only one)

What the hell are you on?? "Why am I the only one who sees the ceratinty of it" What utterly arrogant rubbish. You seem to be unable to distinguish between two quite separate discussions. Firstly, nearly all scientists and millions of laymen believe that given the size of the galaxy/universe there must be intelligent life and certainly many many forms of that life at various stages of evolution, from the very beginning of life to stages that we can only guess at. So you are certainly not the only one that sees the certainty. However, the second question, and the one under discussion here is whether alien forms have visited the Earth.

[Unknown user]

20 minutes ago, spud said:

What the hell are you on?? "Why am I the only one who sees the ceratinty of it" What utterly arrogant rubbish. You seem to be unable to distinguish between two quite separate discussions. Firstly, nearly all scientists and millions of laymen believe that given the size of the galaxy/universe there must be intelligent life and certainly many many forms of that life at various stages of evolution, from the very beginning of life to stages that we can only guess at. So you are certainly not the only one that sees the certainty. However, the second question, and the one under discussion here is whether alien forms have visited the Earth.

 

Bit harsh 😂

 

But I get your point, and it's not just distance, it's time too. There could be gadgies exactly where we're looking, JWT sitting in their car park, but not for 3 billion years after we're gone.

[spud]

5 hours ago, Greedy Jambo said:

Is it so unbelievable that there could be 1 planet that has intelligence life on it? 

What if that planet is a million years older than ours? 

 

 

You seem driven to continue an argument that does not exist, There are very few people that dispute the certainly of discovery of planets that could support intelligent life, so it is not in the least unbelievable. Why do you continually dispute this? And so what if some planet is a million years older than ours? That does not in any way support the view that life exists on it. There are hundreds of reasons why such a planet does not and never has supported life. But let's say that it did. The inhabitants could had blown each other apart, as we are close to accomplishing after only 100,000 years or so, disease could have eradicated intelligent life as the the Black Death nearly did in the mid 14C, or influenza virus nearly did in 1919 or Covid nearly did recently, there are millons of possibilities of life not surviving. And don't start arguing that apes or some other taxon would evolve to replace man because replacements would still argue about territory or be subject to similar species extinction disease.

[spud]

6 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Bit harsh 😂

 

But I get your point, and it's not just distance, it's time too. There could be gadgies exactly where we're looking, JWT sitting in their car park, but not for 3 billion years after we're gone.

Maybe it is, but it really angers me that some guy/girl on a football forum imagines that he/she is the only person on Earth that believes that there is life "out there". However, your point is very well made. NASA has even informed the "people of Earth" that the light the James Webb telescope is capturing is up to 3 Billion years old, plenty of time for millions of civilizations to go to the wall and evolve. But a very long time to circumvent unless science fiction solutions are discovered.

[JFK-1]

1 hour ago, spud said:

Maybe it is, but it really angers me that some guy/girl on a football forum imagines that he/she is the only person on Earth that believes that there is life "out there". However, your point is very well made. NASA has even informed the "people of Earth" that the light the James Webb telescope is capturing is up to 3 Billion years old, plenty of time for millions of civilizations to go to the wall and evolve. But a very long time to circumvent unless science fiction solutions are discovered.

 

Well said, the vast majority of scientists in this field would agree that life could potentially be relatively common, in given circumstances. And I would bet most interested laymen would agree too, I certainly do. But we're talking single celled life.

 

The scientists would agree that single celled life may be very common, but multi cellular life much rarer. Though given the numbers on a universal scale I wouldn't expect it to be unique, but I would expect even a switch to more complex multicellular is potentially rare in itself, and even if it happens isn't anything remotely approaching any likelihood of any high high intelligence anytime soon. Or ever.

 

That progress from single celled to multi cellular took all of 3 billion years. And no one knows what caused it after all that time. And whatever it was is likely very rare, since it only happened once in 3 billion years

 

Could have been another billion years before that happened, 2 billion, 10 billion, maybe never. We don't know.

 

Then following the advent of multi cellular life another 500 million to 600 million years to produce us, at this moment. The fact we're here at all at this moment is a massive fluke, minimum billions to one minimum.

 

One of the earliest human ancestors I know of, and this isn't a human. But it is thought to be a direct ancestor, was a vole like creature living before the extinction of the dinosaurs.

 

Presumed to live underground and come out at night to feed. This was a direct ancestor of ours, if it hadn't come through we wouldn't be here. A lot more than the dinosaurs disappeared during the dinosaur mass extinction.

 

Nit picking would be to say they're still around, they're the birds. And that's true. But we all know what's inferred when dinosaurs are mentioned. And they are gone. The crocodilians maybe.

 

Everything above something like 30 pounds or so was gone. A chance for something the size of a vole to get out of a hole in the ground and further evolve into a tree resident rather than a hole in the ground life. I would speculate that maybe in the aftermath of an event like that at least most or even all predators except maybe of insects may be gone.

 

And obviously that impact was in of itself a type of massive fluke at that time, if it hadn't happened, the dinosaurs would very likely still be here. Still as dominant. And we might never have made it all. 

 

The dinosaurs dominated the planet for around 160 million years. They have only been gone around 65 million. It's not a stretch to imagine them still around right now if this impact hadn't happened.

 

And an argument may be presented that dinosaurs may have developed high intelligence but I have doubts about that. They had the run of the planet for 160 million years and didn't build as much as a shack.

 

This vole like creature did it in 65 million years from living in a hole in the ground. Our vole ancestor and it's descendants through the eras to us managed to avoid extinction for the 65 million years to this moment, while over 99% of species that have ever existed are extinct. 

 

That 65 million years alone is a gigantic fluke far less the 3.5 billion years that preceded it. There's a theory that just 75,000 years or so ago there was a super volcano event that reduced the human population to as little as 3,000 no more than up to 10,000.

 

Most guesstimates trying to draw some sort of average from it settle around 5,000. That's brink of extinction stuff. The super volcano event isn't theoretical, that's fact. The effect on the human population is theoretical.

 

For anyone interested in researching that further search toga catastrophe theory. The super volcano caldera if I remember correctly was over 80 miles long and over 20 miles wide.

 

Like a gigantic valley violently spewing out unimaginable amounts of material and gases across a very large area. It's theorised to have at a bare minimum caused some years of volcanic winter, and ice cores suggest there was a very large overall cooling of the Earth for a thousand years afterwards.

 

And again, that's just one of countless natural events that can wipe out any species in a relatively short amount of time. What happened to the dino's will happen again, and what happened 75,000 years ago at Toga will happen again.

 

Yellowstone say as an example. Yellowstone will sometime blow, it always has and the Earth takes no heed that we're here now. There will, without a shadow of a doubt, along our journey be some catastrophic extinction level event,

 

It could be anytime, and even if say some significant number initially survived. Say even 3 billion or almost half the population of the planet. How long would they last after their society has collapsed following a gigantic Yellowstone eruption lasting weeks or months or even longer. The entire biosphere would be interrupted to a disastrous extent.

 

It would be difficult for anything to survive, even something very smart. Even if some of us survived countless other species would become extinct, completely and permanently, many of which we depend on, animals and plants.

 

Organised mass production agriculture would collapse globally, the entire planet and surviving humans would be reduced to trying to either farm something themselves om a volcanic winter period, or hunter gatherer. Think you could survive either of those scenarios?

 

Sotaking into consideration the Earth would likely massively cool for a thousand years afterwards, and be like nuclear winter for some years afterwards. It would be hard for even knowledgeable people like farmers to grow crops in this post eruption world.

 

What chance would the average Joe like us have? And to top it all off we're actually already experiencing climate change which is going to continue changing and we don't know the full implications. But even the best case scenarios aren't good.

 

 It wouldn't surprise me if again the human population fell to post Toga like levels of just a few thousand. And something like that will happen a surely and inevitably as night has always followed day. And this time we may not come out he other side.

 

All of these gigantic flukes to bring us here right now would have to be duplicated by some other species on an alien world in the same way. And given the numbers involved when speaking of the entire universe I would have to opine it would be unusual if such high intelligence were unique.

 

But I would argue against it being anything like common on a galactic level. Consider it might be so rare it happened only once in just one in a billion galaxies

 

But in the universe that could still be a significant total. But every one of them, just like us, would have had to negotiate that billions to one chance that got us humans where we are at this point.

 

Say for example even 10 other technological species evolved  in the milky way alone and at the same time as us. They're all sending out space probes and building space telescopes. At the same time.

 

But the chances are given the size of a galaxy alone far less the universe that even if 10 co-existed, and I have serious doubts about that. They would likely be extremely distant from each other. Tens of thousands of light years.

 

For a detection at least one of the original 10, would have to continue existing at a high tech level for tens of thousands of years before they could ever detect another existed, or had existed.. I have doubts we can make the next 100 far less tens of thousands.

 

As for our ability to wipe ourselves out, regarding which for a while Putin has been enjoying dangling that possibility before our noses. Like some mad James Bond villain come to life. 

 

Self inflicted extinction might be extremely common among technological species. We're instinctively highly aggressive, we'res eeing waht we're capable of in Ukraine right now, probably always have been like that since we could first pick up a rock to bash in a skull.

 

Also look at our very close cousins the chimps for an insight into us.

 

Chimps are regarded by many as perhaps the most hostile and aggressive of all land animals. If two chimp groups encounter each other it's instant and total war. They wont share a resource even if it's plentiful.

 

Say they found a big circular water hole a couple of hundred yards across. Hundreds of feet deep and constantly topped up by a source coming up thorough the rocks. Plenty for everybody all year round.

 

Chimps wouldn't accept sharing this critical resource, even though it was plentiful, with another chimp group even across a couple of hundred yards of water neither of them can swim across to be a threat to the other.. Does that remind you of anything?

 

It may remind you of us, and anything else out there that managed this countless billions to one fluke all the way to hi tech traveled exactly the same path we did. Evolution is universal, this is how it works everywhere. 

 

I think intelligent alien life is likely to be vanishingly rare, and more likely than not to help extinguish itself, as we very likely are, and every bit as likely to be wiped out at any time by countless potential natural catastrophes.

 

I believe it as likely as not if say there had even been a million technological species in the universe to this point, and that would still be a drop in the ocean in an almost infinite expanse.

 

The chances of any of them ever co-existing inside both the same time span and a realistically acceptable distance are so vanishingly remote that they're not even worth considering. I believe it's more likely than not we may never have any contact with any technological alien civilisation.

[JFK-1]

On 10/07/2022 at 14:53, WorldChampions1902 said:

The difference of course is that as Travis Taylor, the NASA scientist in Vid1 above explains, ALL scientists need to have an open mind -it is the ESSENCE of science. Science is about asking questions.
 

Unfortunately, far too many scientists in the recent past had/have closed minds because they deem the subject matter “fringe”. Those people do a great disservice to science and arguably contribute to delays in getting answers.

 

There are plenty examples of scientists fantastic in their specialism with an incredible track record who, once they start diversifying into UFOs/Aliens/Abductions etc, suddenly become shunned by their peers. It is shameful.

 

Hopefully times are a changing.

 

Science is designed to weed out the fraudulent and the incorrect or unproven to a credible degree.

 

The Piltdown man fraud is a classic example of science weeding out a rraud taht too decades. the hoaxer had been dead for more than 30 years before it was exposed.

 

In 1912 an English paleontologist reported the discovery of the fossilised remains of a previously unknown human species in Sussex. Which came to be known as Piltdown man.

 

It wasn't until 1953 it was confirmed to be a hoax he had fashioned by altering the mandible and some teeth of an orangutan, and somehow crafting on the cranium of a small brained human. 

 

But that hoax was ultimately outed by science, because they don't want to believe something for the hell of it. Even if it's desirable. Exposing incorrect features is what science is all about. Working through all the imponderables while collating known factors.

 

Along the way adding to the known factors while trying to reduce the imponderables one by one. That's what science does and will always ultimately expose any fraud.

 

A more modern classic hoax was the case of Jan Hendrik Schön, a physicist who claimed he had conducted experiments which produced superconductivity in specific materials at room temperature. That would be a historic breakthrough.

 

Superconductors, and especially super conductors at room temperature are like a holy grail in physics. Some materials have demonstrated levels of superconductivity at extremely low temperatures. Like liquid hydrogen cold, that type of cold if you put your hand in it the hand would crumble soon after removal. Freeze dried right through.

 

And that's obviously of no use. So we know super conductivity at worst isn't impossible. We have seen it. But the method of producing it is impossible to be of any use to us.

 

A minimum 40% of all power generated at the power stations is lost in the form of heat on it's journey to consumers. Birds stand on pylon cables in Winter because it's comfortably warm. And the covered copper cables all through everything else radiate heat in the same way.

 

If you had a practical room temperature super conducting material at a stroke you have reduced the cost of power generation by 40%, and that's major.

 

And that's what this guy was claiming he had done in the late 1990's to early 2,000's. Science ultimately exposed him as a fraud, manipulating data. As science always will do.

 

It's not like a political party trying to cover up a scandal, they will deliberately lie and obfuscate about it. Science wont, they will actually glory in the exposure. And that's just one reason our Western scientific establishment can be explicitly trusted.

 

They might get something wrong, but if they discover it's wrong they will drop it like a stone and glory in their achievement of discovering a truth.

 

In addition to weeding out fraud or even just completely unbias mistaken science they will also greedily examine any new evidence on anything at all anyone else has to present. Once it's presented if it's ignored, or shunned as you call it, it's not shameful. That's just science. I'm not putting the two on the same level, but there's a reason they "shun" the flat earthers.

 

If a paper or presentation of some sort isn't compelling enough to bother wasting time on, they wont bother wasting time on it. Any fringe who do are welcome to carry on doing it, and if they ever produce anything compelling then things would most definitely change. But only then.

 

Now I know fans of this aliens all around stuff like to posit this and that as compelling evidence. It might be to you. But you're not a scientist and many of those who are being forwarded as scientists supporting it aren't even in any relevant field. Geologists and the like.

 

And that's common on many of these fringe things. It's to me a sign of their desperation to believe it, I mean the laymen, that they would accept something like that and still believe it credible.

 

A bit akin to saying the woman next door is a registered nurse, in the same wide field as a brain surgeon, so I will give her opinion as much credibility as his and the other brain surgeons. And if enough nurses say it I might believe it ahead of the brain surgeon community..

 

It's clearly not credible to the vast majority of these most eminent scientists in actual relevant fields. And I give infinitely more credibility to their opinions on it than to any layman or any fringe.

 

For anyone who is interested in this type of thing this is a video documentary of the physicist who faked superconductivity. BBC horizon and a really great insight into how science filters out such stuff to get to the truth.

 

BBC Documentary The Dark Secret of Hendrik Schoen 

 

 

 

[WorldChampions1902]

45 minutes ago, JFK-1 said:

 

Science is designed to weed out the fraudulent and the incorrect or unproven to a credible degree.

 

The Piltdown man fraud is a classic example of science weeding out a rraud taht too decades. the hoaxer had been dead for more than 30 years before it was exposed.

 

In 1912 an English paleontologist reported the discovery of the fossilised remains of a previously unknown human species in Sussex. Which came to be known as Piltdown man.

 

It wasn't until 1953 it was confirmed to be a hoax he had fashioned by altering the mandible and some teeth of an orangutan, and somehow crafting on the cranium of a small brained human. 

 

But that hoax was ultimately outed by science, because they don't want to believe something for the hell of it. Even if it's desirable. Exposing incorrect features is what science is all about. Working through all the imponderables while collating known factors.

 

Along the way adding to the known factors while trying to reduce the imponderables one by one. That's what science does and will always ultimately expose any fraud.

 

A more modern classic hoax was the case of Jan Hendrik Schön, a physicist who claimed he had conducted experiments which produced superconductivity in specific materials at room temperature. That would be a historic breakthrough.

 

Superconductors, and especially super conductors at room temperature are like a holy grail in physics. Some materials have demonstrated levels of superconductivity at extremely low temperatures. Like liquid hydrogen cold, that type of cold if you put your hand in it the hand would crumble soon after removal. Freeze dried right through.

 

And that's obviously of no use. So we know super conductivity at worst isn't impossible. We have seen it. But the method of producing it is impossible to be of any use to us.

 

A minimum 40% of all power generated at the power stations is lost in the form of heat on it's journey to consumers. Birds stand on pylon cables in Winter because it's comfortably warm. And the covered copper cables all through everything else radiate heat in the same way.

 

If you had a practical room temperature super conducting material at a stroke you have reduced the cost of power generation by 40%, and that's major.

 

And that's what this guy was claiming he had done in the late 1990's to early 2,000's. Science ultimately exposed him as a fraud, manipulating data. As science always will do.

 

It's not like a political party trying to cover up a scandal, they will deliberately lie and obfuscate about it. Science wont, they will actually glory in the exposure. And that's just one reason our Western scientific establishment can be explicitly trusted.

 

They might get something wrong, but if they discover it's wrong they will drop it like a stone and glory in their achievement of discovering a truth.

 

In addition to weeding out fraud or even just completely unbias mistaken science they will also greedily examine any new evidence on anything at all anyone else has to present. Once it's presented if it's ignored, or shunned as you call it, it's not shameful. That's just science. I'm not putting the two on the same level, but there's a reason they "shun" the flat earthers.

 

If a paper or presentation of some sort isn't compelling enough to bother wasting time on, they wont bother wasting time on it. Any fringe who do are welcome to carry on doing it, and if they ever produce anything compelling then things would most definitely change. But only then.

 

Now I know fans of this aliens all around stuff like to posit this and that as compelling evidence. It might be to you. But you're not a scientist and many of those who are being forwarded as scientists supporting it aren't even in any relevant field. Geologists and the like.

 

And that's common on many of these fringe things. It's to me a sign of their desperation to believe it, I mean the laymen, that they would accept something like that and still believe it credible.

 

A bit akin to saying the woman next door is a registered nurse, in the same wide field as a brain surgeon, so I will give her opinion as much credibility as his and the other brain surgeons. And if enough nurses say it I might believe it ahead of the brain surgeon community..

 

It's clearly not credible to the vast majority of these most eminent scientists in actual relevant fields. And I give infinitely more credibility to their opinions on it than to any layman or any fringe.

 

For anyone who is interested in this type of thing this is a video documentary of the physicist who faked superconductivity. BBC horizon and a really great insight into how science filters out such stuff to get to the truth.

 

BBC Documentary The Dark Secret of Hendrik Schoen 

 

 

 

Hoaxers and fraudsters infest the UFO/Alien topic. I don’t know how well read you are on this subject but suffice to say, governments, especially the US government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in disinformation over decades, debunking, and discrediting the credible. As regards scientists, if you are suggesting that those previously well-respected in their scientific field are hoaxers, please feel free to name and shame? And when you do, please provide balance by also naming government shills that are sponsored by the US government to debunk this topic.

 

Conversely, I will put the name of Stanton Friedman to you as a highly regarded nuclear physicist who worked for many years on classified nuclear projects for the US government and who became very much a credible scientific voice for the case of UFO’s/Aliens. He regularly spoke on that topic at the US Congress and was also consulted by the UN. He once famously said, “I am not interested in the 95% of UFO cases that can be explained, I am interested in the 5% that can’t”. As regards your hoaxers claim, we can modify that statement to, “I am not interested in listening to scientists who have no desire to seek truth. I am interested in scientists that do”.

[JFK-1]

2 hours ago, WorldChampions1902 said:

Hoaxers and fraudsters infest the UFO/Alien topic. I don’t know how well read you are on this subject but suffice to say, governments, especially the US government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in disinformation over decades, debunking, and discrediting the credible. As regards scientists, if you are suggesting that those previously well-respected in their scientific field are hoaxers, please feel free to name and shame? And when you do, please provide balance by also naming government shills that are sponsored by the US government to debunk this topic.

 

Conversely, I will put the name of Stanton Friedman to you as a highly regarded nuclear physicist who worked for many years on classified nuclear projects for the US government and who became very much a credible scientific voice for the case of UFO’s/Aliens. He regularly spoke on that topic at the US Congress and was also consulted by the UN. He once famously said, “I am not interested in the 95% of UFO cases that can be explained, I am interested in the 5% that can’t”. As regards your hoaxers claim, we can modify that statement to, “I am not interested in listening to scientists who have no desire to seek truth. I am interested in scientists that do”.

 

I'm not even focusing on fraudsters. I'm talking about the vast majority of scientists in a a field who some think "shun" the likes of a nuclear scientist apparently, again not even in the specific field, because they seriously think they're talking utter shite.

 

That's not shunning, it's saying get the feck out my face with that shite till you have something scientifically credible. Clearly they don't have anything, because if they did every last researcher in the world would be all over it.

 

They would become a historic figure, Like Newton, Darwin, Einstein. It bores the arse off me when alien believers say well there's this guy, I can give you his name, and he's a nuclear physicist.

 

Serriously? I'm supposed to give the proverbial flying about that? Remotely accept that as some credible evidence a Nobel prize should be dished out to some minute minority fringe guy because he has an avid audience on the internet?

 

You ever heard of project Steve? It reminds me of what you're doing with this alien thing.

 

Quote

Project Steve is a list of scientists with the given name Stephen or Steven or a variation thereof (e.g., Stephanie, Stefan, Esteban, etc.) who "support evolution".

 

It was originally created by the National Center for Science Education as a "tongue-in-cheek parody" of creationist attempts to collect a list of scientists who "doubt evolution", such as the Answers in Genesis's list of scientists who accept the biblical account of the Genesis creation narrative or the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.

 

The list pokes fun at such endeavors while making it clear that, "We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!"

 

However, at the same time the project is a genuine collection of scientists. Despite the list's restriction to only scientists with names like "Steve", which it turns out is roughly 1 percent of scientists, Project Steve is longer and contains many more eminent scientists than any creationist list.

 

In particular, Project Steve contains many more biologists than the creationist lists, with about 54% of the listed Steves being biologists.

 

The "List of Steves" webpage provides an updated total of scientist "Steves" who have signed the list. As of January 6, 2022, Project Steve has 1,474 signatories.

 

You remind me of those creationists in many ways. The creationists say exactly the same things, "shunned"

 

You think they should be described as shunned or simply rightly ignored? Not worth a moment of time on?

Edited July 17, 2022 by JFK-1

[ShakenNotStirred]

Just to go along with this thread.

 

'Mysterious Universe' is a fantastic podcast I have been listening to for years. Discusses aliens and plenty of other weird stuff, highly recommend it.

[Unknown user]

3 hours ago, WorldChampions1902 said:

Hoaxers and fraudsters infest the UFO/Alien topic. I don’t know how well read you are on this subject but suffice to say, governments, especially the US government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in disinformation over decades, debunking, and discrediting the credible. As regards scientists, if you are suggesting that those previously well-respected in their scientific field are hoaxers, please feel free to name and shame? And when you do, please provide balance by also naming government shills that are sponsored by the US government to debunk this topic.

 

Conversely, I will put the name of Stanton Friedman to you as a highly regarded nuclear physicist who worked for many years on classified nuclear projects for the US government and who became very much a credible scientific voice for the case of UFO’s/Aliens. He regularly spoke on that topic at the US Congress and was also consulted by the UN. He once famously said, “I am not interested in the 95% of UFO cases that can be explained, I am interested in the 5% that can’t”. As regards your hoaxers claim, we can modify that statement to, “I am not interested in listening to scientists who have no desire to seek truth. I am interested in scientists that do”.

 

Friedman sounds more like a voice for the possibility that aliens could exist.

Alien life could indeed exist, it could be buzzing about our atmosphere.

But it's so unlikely that until there's legitimate proof which says otherwise we can safely say they're not here.

 

 

"I am not interested in the 95% of UFO cases that can be explained, I am interested in the 5% that can’t"

 

As your own man himself acknowledges, he can't explain these things. It's as likely to be god as it is alien life.

Edited July 17, 2022 by Smithee

[WorldChampions1902]

58 minutes ago, Smithee said:

"I am not interested in the 95% of UFO cases that can be explained, I am interested in the 5% that can’t"

 

As your own man himself acknowledges, he can't explain these things. It's as likely to be god as it is alien life.

When Friedman made that statement, it was in response to the naysayers who present(ed) an incident that was subsequently explained/explainable, to reinforce their argument against UFO’s/aliens. In effect, he was responding to that ludicrous standpoint that “case A was explained/explainable, therefore the whole UFO topic is nonsense”, by saying such a statement is nonsense.

[Gizmo]

56 minutes ago, WorldChampions1902 said:

When Friedman made that statement, it was in response to the naysayers who present(ed) an incident that was subsequently explained/explainable, to reinforce their argument against UFO’s/aliens. In effect, he was responding to that ludicrous standpoint that “case A was explained/explainable, therefore the whole UFO topic is nonsense”, by saying such a statement is nonsense.

That’s really just a God of the gaps argument. We can’t yet explain these incidents therefor aliens.

[Pap]

11 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

 

Well said, the vast majority of scientists in this field would agree that life could potentially be relatively common, in given circumstances. And I would bet most interested laymen would agree too, I certainly do. But we're talking single celled life.

 

The scientists would agree that single celled life may be very common, but multi cellular life much rarer. Though given the numbers on a universal scale I wouldn't expect it to be unique, but I would expect even a switch to more complex multicellular is potentially rare in itself, and even if it happens isn't anything remotely approaching any likelihood of any high high intelligence anytime soon. Or ever.

 

That progress from single celled to multi cellular took all of 3 billion years. And no one knows what caused it after all that time. And whatever it was is likely very rare, since it only happened once in 3 billion years

 

Could have been another billion years before that happened, 2 billion, 10 billion, maybe never. We don't know.

 

Then following the advent of multi cellular life another 500 million to 600 million years to produce us, at this moment. The fact we're here at all at this moment is a massive fluke, minimum billions to one minimum.

 

One of the earliest human ancestors I know of, and this isn't a human. But it is thought to be a direct ancestor, was a vole like creature living before the extinction of the dinosaurs.

 

Presumed to live underground and come out at night to feed. This was a direct ancestor of ours, if it hadn't come through we wouldn't be here. A lot more than the dinosaurs disappeared during the dinosaur mass extinction.

 

Nit picking would be to say they're still around, they're the birds. And that's true. But we all know what's inferred when dinosaurs are mentioned. And they are gone. The crocodilians maybe.

 

Everything above something like 30 pounds or so was gone. A chance for something the size of a vole to get out of a hole in the ground and further evolve into a tree resident rather than a hole in the ground life. I would speculate that maybe in the aftermath of an event like that at least most or even all predators except maybe of insects may be gone.

 

And obviously that impact was in of itself a type of massive fluke at that time, if it hadn't happened, the dinosaurs would very likely still be here. Still as dominant. And we might never have made it all. 

 

The dinosaurs dominated the planet for around 160 million years. They have only been gone around 65 million. It's not a stretch to imagine them still around right now if this impact hadn't happened.

 

And an argument may be presented that dinosaurs may have developed high intelligence but I have doubts about that. They had the run of the planet for 160 million years and didn't build as much as a shack.

 

This vole like creature did it in 65 million years from living in a hole in the ground. Our vole ancestor and it's descendants through the eras to us managed to avoid extinction for the 65 million years to this moment, while over 99% of species that have ever existed are extinct. 

 

That 65 million years alone is a gigantic fluke far less the 3.5 billion years that preceded it. There's a theory that just 75,000 years or so ago there was a super volcano event that reduced the human population to as little as 3,000 no more than up to 10,000.

 

Most guesstimates trying to draw some sort of average from it settle around 5,000. That's brink of extinction stuff. The super volcano event isn't theoretical, that's fact. The effect on the human population is theoretical.

 

For anyone interested in researching that further search toga catastrophe theory. The super volcano caldera if I remember correctly was over 80 miles long and over 20 miles wide.

 

Like a gigantic valley violently spewing out unimaginable amounts of material and gases across a very large area. It's theorised to have at a bare minimum caused some years of volcanic winter, and ice cores suggest there was a very large overall cooling of the Earth for a thousand years afterwards.

 

And again, that's just one of countless natural events that can wipe out any species in a relatively short amount of time. What happened to the dino's will happen again, and what happened 75,000 years ago at Toga will happen again.

 

Yellowstone say as an example. Yellowstone will sometime blow, it always has and the Earth takes no heed that we're here now. There will, without a shadow of a doubt, along our journey be some catastrophic extinction level event,

 

It could be anytime, and even if say some significant number initially survived. Say even 3 billion or almost half the population of the planet. How long would they last after their society has collapsed following a gigantic Yellowstone eruption lasting weeks or months or even longer. The entire biosphere would be interrupted to a disastrous extent.

 

It would be difficult for anything to survive, even something very smart. Even if some of us survived countless other species would become extinct, completely and permanently, many of which we depend on, animals and plants.

 

Organised mass production agriculture would collapse globally, the entire planet and surviving humans would be reduced to trying to either farm something themselves om a volcanic winter period, or hunter gatherer. Think you could survive either of those scenarios?

 

Sotaking into consideration the Earth would likely massively cool for a thousand years afterwards, and be like nuclear winter for some years afterwards. It would be hard for even knowledgeable people like farmers to grow crops in this post eruption world.

 

What chance would the average Joe like us have? And to top it all off we're actually already experiencing climate change which is going to continue changing and we don't know the full implications. But even the best case scenarios aren't good.

 

 It wouldn't surprise me if again the human population fell to post Toga like levels of just a few thousand. And something like that will happen a surely and inevitably as night has always followed day. And this time we may not come out he other side.

 

All of these gigantic flukes to bring us here right now would have to be duplicated by some other species on an alien world in the same way. And given the numbers involved when speaking of the entire universe I would have to opine it would be unusual if such high intelligence were unique.

 

But I would argue against it being anything like common on a galactic level. Consider it might be so rare it happened only once in just one in a billion galaxies

 

But in the universe that could still be a significant total. But every one of them, just like us, would have had to negotiate that billions to one chance that got us humans where we are at this point.

 

Say for example even 10 other technological species evolved  in the milky way alone and at the same time as us. They're all sending out space probes and building space telescopes. At the same time.

 

But the chances are given the size of a galaxy alone far less the universe that even if 10 co-existed, and I have serious doubts about that. They would likely be extremely distant from each other. Tens of thousands of light years.

 

For a detection at least one of the original 10, would have to continue existing at a high tech level for tens of thousands of years before they could ever detect another existed, or had existed.. I have doubts we can make the next 100 far less tens of thousands.

 

As for our ability to wipe ourselves out, regarding which for a while Putin has been enjoying dangling that possibility before our noses. Like some mad James Bond villain come to life. 

 

Self inflicted extinction might be extremely common among technological species. We're instinctively highly aggressive, we'res eeing waht we're capable of in Ukraine right now, probably always have been like that since we could first pick up a rock to bash in a skull.

 

Also look at our very close cousins the chimps for an insight into us.

 

Chimps are regarded by many as perhaps the most hostile and aggressive of all land animals. If two chimp groups encounter each other it's instant and total war. They wont share a resource even if it's plentiful.

 

Say they found a big circular water hole a couple of hundred yards across. Hundreds of feet deep and constantly topped up by a source coming up thorough the rocks. Plenty for everybody all year round.

 

Chimps wouldn't accept sharing this critical resource, even though it was plentiful, with another chimp group even across a couple of hundred yards of water neither of them can swim across to be a threat to the other.. Does that remind you of anything?

 

It may remind you of us, and anything else out there that managed this countless billions to one fluke all the way to hi tech traveled exactly the same path we did. Evolution is universal, this is how it works everywhere. 

 

I think intelligent alien life is likely to be vanishingly rare, and more likely than not to help extinguish itself, as we very likely are, and every bit as likely to be wiped out at any time by countless potential natural catastrophes.

 

I believe it as likely as not if say there had even been a million technological species in the universe to this point, and that would still be a drop in the ocean in an almost infinite expanse.

 

The chances of any of them ever co-existing inside both the same time span and a realistically acceptable distance are so vanishingly remote that they're not even worth considering. I believe it's more likely than not we may never have any contact with any technological alien civilisation.

 

"That progress from single celled to multi cellular took all of 3 billion years. And no one knows what caused it after all that time. And whatever it was is likely very rare, since it only happened once in 3 billion years"

 

I'm sure it happened a few times but for whatever reason it failed.

[J.T.F.Robertson]

16 hours ago, spud said:

What the hell are you on?? "Why am I the only one who sees the ceratinty of it" What utterly arrogant rubbish. You seem to be unable to distinguish between two quite separate discussions. Firstly, nearly all scientists and millions of laymen believe that given the size of the galaxy/universe there must be intelligent life and certainly many many forms of that life at various stages of evolution, from the very beginning of life to stages that we can only guess at. So you are certainly not the only one that sees the certainty. However, the second question, and the one under discussion here is whether alien forms have visited the Earth.

 

OK, Spud, settle doon, it was a shoit choice of words. 

I just find it unbelievable that people who are way, way more knowledgeable on the subject (as much as they can be) use terms such as "if", "the possibility" or even "the probability", when, even to an ignoramus like myself and given the mind-boggling numbers we're dealing with, it's a racing certainty.

 

Don't get into the UFO thing, although as with the above mentioned "mind-boggling numbers", even moreso applies for distances.

Edited July 17, 2022 by J.T.F.Robertson

[Gizmo]

33 minutes ago, J.T.F.Robertson said:

 

OK, Spud, settle doon, it was a shoit choice of words. 

I just find it unbelievable that people who are way, way more knowledgeable on the subject (as much as they can be) use terms such as "if", "the possibility" or even "the probability", when, even to an ignoramus like myself and given the mind-boggling numbers we're dealing with, it's a racing certainty.

 

Don't get into the UFO thing, although as with the above mentioned "mind-boggling numbers", even moreso applies for distances.

There's an equation, the Drake equation, for calculating possible number of inhabited planets in our Galaxy with alien civilizations.

Plug some reasonable numbers in here and see what you get: https://www.spacecentre.nz/resources/tools/drake-equation-calculator.html

These don't take into account all the things that we know allows one form of sentient life to exist, but you can do some thought experiments to see how you could narrow down the potential number of inhabited planets ie number of planets in our solar system v number of civilizations. Even using that as an incredibly blunt metric would give us a factor reduction of 1 in 9 planets being capable of hosting life. 

Chuck in a lot more data and knowledge and you can start to really reduce the number of potential inhabited planets. But that doesn't stop us looking and the number is clearly greater than zero!   
 

 

[J.T.F.Robertson]

3 minutes ago, Gizmo said:

There's an equation, the Drake equation, for calculating possible number of inhabited planets in our Galaxy with alien civilizations.

Plug some reasonable numbers in here and see what you get: https://www.spacecentre.nz/resources/tools/drake-equation-calculator.html

These don't take into account all the things that we know allows one form of sentient life to exist, but you can do some thought experiments to see how you could narrow down the potential number of inhabited planets ie number of planets in our solar system v number of civilizations. Even using that as an incredibly blunt metric would give us a factor reduction of 1 in 9 planets being capable of hosting life. 

Chuck in a lot more data and knowledge and you can start to really reduce the number of potential inhabited planets. But that doesn't stop us looking and the number is clearly greater than zero!   
 

 

 

👍

 

I made an arse if it with my, "am I the only one" comment, must've come across as believing I was a Carl Sagan. 😂

[JFK-1]

10 hours ago, WorldChampions1902 said:

When Friedman made that statement, it was in response to the naysayers who present(ed) an incident that was subsequently explained/explainable, to reinforce their argument against UFO’s/aliens. In effect, he was responding to that ludicrous standpoint that “case A was explained/explainable, therefore the whole UFO topic is nonsense”, by saying such a statement is nonsense.

 

Well if it's a single name saying something that turns your head can it be any name? As long as it has some sort of scientific label after it's name? In any field?

I had never heard of this Friedman guy, and I bet you hadn't either until you went down this rabbit hole. That's his claim to scientific fame, he says he believes there are aliens all around.

 

What if it were a really well known name? A name with actual esteem in the actual field? I presume you have heard of Carl Sagan. This was his response to the i'm only interested in the 5% stuff.

 

"reliable cases are uninteresting and the interesting cases are unreliable".

 

But that wont move you, despite the qualification and esteem of the man who said it, because it's not what you want to hear. If God himself said it you would go with this unknown guy who isn't even in the relevant field.

Edited July 18, 2022 by JFK-1

[spud]

16 hours ago, J.T.F.Robertson said:

 

👍

 

I made an arse if it with my, "am I the only one" comment, must've come across as believing I was a Carl Sagan. 😂

No worries Carl 😀 everyone gets carried away.

[WorldChampions1902]

18 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

 

Well if it's a single name saying something that turns your head can it be any name? As long as it has some sort of scientific label after it's name? In any field?

I had never heard of this Friedman guy, and I bet you hadn't either until you went down this rabbit hole. That's his claim to scientific fame, he says he believes there are aliens all around.

 

What if it were a really well known name? A name with actual esteem in the actual field? I presume you have heard of Carl Sagan. This was his response to the i'm only interested in the 5% stuff.

 

"reliable cases are uninteresting and the interesting cases are unreliable".

 

But that wont move you, despite the qualification and esteem of the man who said it, because it's not what you want to hear. If God himself said it you would go with this unknown guy who isn't even in the relevant field.

I could have named any number of respected scientists. Sadly, not for the first time on this thread, we appear to have taken an unnecessary (but predictable) diversion. 
 

Let’s try again.

 

Science and scientists  have a responsibility to take this subject matter seriously. It is sad to see elements of the scientific community turn on their peers, purely because they choose to delve into researching this topic. When any number of esteemed scientists in their field take such a leap, why does that happen? Might it just be that the more that do, the greater the erosion to the ‘fringe’ sound bite? I suspect so. Which is a pity, because as I have said many times on here, we all want answers to so many unanswered and profound questions - at least, I think we do.

 

As for your question about Carl Sagan, yes indeed, I am aware of his work. Sagan is the perfect example of the point I am making, in many ways. Publicly he was sceptical about UFO’s but privately accepted their existence. The reason for that stance being he believed his research funding would evaporate were he to make that view widely known. Combined with his penchant for marijuana, I guess such a declaration would have seriously damaged his credibility in many quarters.

Edited July 18, 2022 by WorldChampions1902

[spud]

2 hours ago, WorldChampions1902 said:

It is sad to see elements of the scientific community turn on their peers, purely because they choose to delve into researching this topic. When any number of esteemed scientists in their field take such a leap, why does that happen? Might it just be that the more that do, the greater the erosion to the ‘fringe’ sound bite? I suspect so. Which is a pity, because as I have said many times on here, we all want answers to so many unanswered and profound questions - at least, I think we do.

 

What is sad to see is how little you know about science and scientific research. This is amply illustrated by your statement “It is sad to see elements of the scientific community turn on their peers, purely because they choose to delve into researching this topic.”

 

Please inform me which esteemed scientists are carrying out research? Where this “research” is or what form this “research” takes? Scientific research is a well defined discipline, which involves forming a falsifiable hypothesis followed by experimentation producing a set of quantified results leading to a conclusion that the hypothesis is accepted or rejected at a predetermined and precise probability. Can you produce a single data set from anywhere that can be tested by experimentation? No, you cannot. All that you or any one else can produce, including your "esteemed scientists" are opinions based on fuzzy, disputed B/W film. None of that is science or research, it is just opinion, just someone's opinion of what they think they can see looking at some film; no matter who they are or how "esteemed" you or they, think they are it remains their opinion.

Does it not strike you as rather peculiar that with millions and millions of mobile cameras being used millions and millions of times per day over a 10 year period in all corners of the Earth, there is not a single in-focus photo of an alien craft whizzing across the sky, that despite the thousands of abductions in that same period there is not a single snap of the inside of an alien craft or that despite thousands of reports of aliens prodding humans there is not a single photo of these alien medics?

 

I do not dispute that there may be aliens, for want of a better word, from incredibly advanced civilisations somewhere in the universe. What I do dispute is that there is any scientific evidence to suggest that they visit or inhabit the Earth.

[spud]

3 hours ago, WorldChampions1902 said:

As for your question about Carl Sagan, yes indeed, I am aware of his work. Sagan is the perfect example of the point I am making, in many ways. Publicly he was sceptical about UFO’s but privately accepted their existence. The reason for that stance being he believed his research funding would evaporate were he to make that view widely known. Combined with his penchant for marijuana, I guess such a declaration would have seriously damaged his credibility in many quarters.

 You seem to be a very mixed up person. Below is Carl Sagan's last interview; an epitaph some might say. During this very public interview he states that he has been told, wrongly as it turns out, that his disease is in full remission and that he can look forward to a long life and career, yet contrary to what you have told us in the quotation above, he also publicly accepts the existence of alien life forms around 10 minutes in. So what is true, your unsubtantiated statement or the admission from Sagan himself?

 

 

 

 

 

[JFK-1]

4 hours ago, WorldChampions1902 said:

Science and scientists  have a responsibility to take this subject matter seriously.

 

Because you say so? How many other fringe shows out there should they be taking seriously? All of them? Just yours?

 

Let's try this again. They're not ever going to take this shit seriously until in their view, not yours, not some vague guy only known for being a UFO nut and not even in the relevant field.

 

Not unless there's compelling evidence to give it any attention at all. Currently, in their overwhelming consensus view, the compelling evidence points in the opposite direction.

 

As for this stuff about Sagan you're becoming like a creationist now. They have a myth that on his deathbed Darwin recanted his theory. Said it was all wrong. And he was now religious again.

 

Which in my view is a pretty stupid myth to cling on to. What if he had? Everybody else who matters still believes it, to this day.

 

And this alien thing will continue on in the same way for probably at least another half century and there will still be nothing.

[Maple Leaf]

5 hours ago, WorldChampions1902 said:

 

As for your question about Carl Sagan, yes indeed, I am aware of his work. Sagan is the perfect example of the point I am making, in many ways. Publicly he was sceptical about UFO’s but privately accepted their existence. The reason for that stance being he believed his research funding would evaporate were he to make that view widely known. Combined with his penchant for marijuana, I guess such a declaration would have seriously damaged his credibility in many quarters.

 

I recommend that you read Sagan's last book, Billions and Billions.  He died before the end of the book, but his long-time partner and fellow scientist, Ann Druyan, wrote the epilogue.  UFOs are not mentioned anywhere in the book. If Sagan "privately accepted their existence", as you claim, one would think that this would be a perfect place, his death bed, for him to say so.  He didn't.  And Anne Druyan said nothing about them either.

 

He clearly supported SETI, but that's a different matter.

[JFK-1]

1 hour ago, Maple Leaf said:

He clearly supported SETI, but that's a different matter.

 

A different field even I would say, if you can call aliens on Earth hunting a field. SETI has no link whatsoever to any aliens all around us narrative. They're searching for artificial signals, not ET on Earth.

 

Sagan would likely accept the possibility of advanced civilisations in the universe. I think most of us here do too. But not dropping in like tourists he wouldn't.

[maroonlegions]

On 11/07/2022 at 17:33, Gizmo said:

It isn't, but I suspect it plays into the poster's bias towards "open minds" as an convenient excuse to down that pesky scientific method of peer review and skepticism. It's why any citation of outlier scientists or fringe beliefs is correlated with an "and that's why mainstream scientists shun them". 

Doesn't take a renegade scientist or crackpot to figure out why.

As Feynman said, “The first principle” of being a good researcher is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool”. 

I want to believe comes under such a principle, imo, and is a dangerous starting point. The more you want something to be true, the more skeptical you need to be of it.

Science is not about what we wish to be true. An "open mind" is absolutely not the essence of science, whatsoever. Curiosity, skepticism and experimentation are. 

Lets look at those that are actually experiencing and WITNESSING highly strange "flight Characteristics" unlike all of us on this thread.

 

Lets look at those who have the experienced and training and what they say.

 

After reading the below article, it's easier to understand why former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe said UFO's keep a lot of top brass in the military and intelligence agencies awake at night, due to apprehension and deep "concern". 

 

Now it may not keep us up at night but it does keep various top brass in the military and intelligences  awake at night. 

 

Saying that, when will it start worrying you ,and everyone else , that SOME  UAPs,  have been suggested if not confirmed as non terrestrial in origin.

 

When does the credibility and status of those in the top brass sink in and play a part in this debate.

 

Surely these individuals who are in the sky in top range fighter planes a lot know what they are  witnessing on their radar ,(and ground radar), and their gun cameras who have recorded such UAPs ..

 

You may continue to ignore such "high strange" military encounters with UAPs but those UAPs appear not to be ignoring us.

 

 

In April 2014, four naval aviators narrowly escaped disaster. Just as they entered highly controlled airspace for a training exercise, their two F/A-18F fighter jets nearly collided with an unidentified flying object (UFO).

Frustrated aviators and their commanders noted that the UFOs pose “a severe threat to Naval Aviation” and a “critical risk” to flight safety.

Just days before the April 2014 incident, the squadron’s exasperated commander wrote that “it is only a matter of time before this results in a midair [collision].”

A few weeks earlier, the skipper of another East Coast squadron warned, “I feel it may only be a matter of time before one of our F/A-18 aircraft has a mid-air collision.”

In one UFO incident, an aviator reported that he had “never seen anything like this before.” In another encounter, an aviator “noticed an object with flight characteristics unlike anything I had seen in my [redacted] years of [redacted]” — implying a particularly anomalous encounter.

Yet another pilot’s report states that “she had never seen [redacted] like it… [the UFO] did not change position like an aircraft would and was too high to be a ship.”

For fighter pilots armed with an array of advanced sensors, the confusion and bewilderment reflected in the reports is striking!

One aviator “had a difficult time explaining the [redacted].” In another incident, a pilot could only describe a UFO “in a puzzled voice” over the radio.

Yet another aviator described a UFO that “appeared, as odd as it sounds, to be [redacted].”

Much more at: thehill.com...
   

 

 

 

Here are some excerpts from a new article...
 

 

   

[maroonlegions]

8 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

 

A different field even I would say, if you can call aliens on Earth hunting a field. SETI has no link whatsoever to any aliens all around us narrative. They're searching for artificial signals, not ET on Earth.

 

Sagan would likely accept the possibility of advanced civilisations in the universe. I think most of us here do too. But not dropping in like tourists he wouldn't.

 

Then  by your usage of the term "tourists" you have missed the understanding and true meaning of the term "advanced civilisations".

 

What stage are they at, class 2, class 4 or so advanced that they can appear and reappear in not only our atmosphere but in our DIMENSION 

 

What if they had the teck to come and go like we do in  entering  and leaving  the oceans of this world. NO one can say right now with current understandings that highly advance intelligences have never appeared here in a sophisticated way, beyond our present understandings.

 

  Premature springs to mind here.

Edited July 19, 2022 by maroonlegions

[Jambo_jim2001]

Paul hellyer.. ex Canadian minister of defence,,deid now..he had some interesting stuff to say 🤔 also Israeli space/ aeronautical minister Haim Eshed.🤔🧐🧐

[Maple Leaf]

7 minutes ago, Jambo_jim2001 said:

Paul hellyer.. ex Canadian minister of defence,,deid now..he had some interesting stuff to say 🤔 also Israeli space/ aeronautical minister Haim Eshed.🤔🧐🧐

Paul Hellyer was discussed earlier in this thread.  "Interesting stuff" is certainly one way of describing his comments.  I don't remember his exact words, but he was of the opinion that aliens were living among us, in large numbers, and that there were many different species of them.

 

Needless to say, he had no evidence to support his claims.

[Greedy Jambo]

https://psychology.fandom.com/wiki/John_Edward_Mack

[Gizmo]

3 hours ago, maroonlegions said:

 

Then  by your usage of the term "tourists" you have missed the understanding and true meaning of the term "advanced civilisations".

 

What stage are they at, class 2, class 4 or so advanced that they can appear and reappear in not only our atmosphere but in our DIMENSION 

 

What if they had the teck to come and go like we do in  entering  and leaving  the oceans of this world. NO one can say right now with current understandings that highly advance intelligences have never appeared here in a sophisticated way, beyond our present understandings.

 

  Premature springs to mind here.

Citing more advanced ‘technology’ as a convenient ‘so you can’t rule it out’ is disingenuous.

 

Another poster likes to cite renegade or outlier scientists as a claim to authority.

 

If a type 4 civilisation does exist that has mastered multi-dimensional travel, what on earth would they routinely visit our planet for? 

[Greedy Jambo]

8 minutes ago, Gizmo said:

Citing more advanced ‘technology’ as a convenient ‘so you can’t rule it out’ is disingenuous.

 

Another poster likes to cite renegade or outlier scientists as a claim to authority.

 

If a type 4 civilisation does exist that has mastered multi-dimensional travel, what on earth would they routinely visit our planet for? 

 

Why do people feed the ducks? 

Why have we studied ants?

Why do we experiment on mice?

 

Not to mention Resources.

 

There's so many bloody reasons.

 

Edited July 19, 2022 by Greedy Jambo

[Dawnrazor]

20 minutes ago, Greedy Jambo said:

 

 

Not to mention Resources.

 

 

 

Square sausage and Irn Bru?

[Greedy Jambo]

3 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

Square sausage and Irn Bru?

 

Maybe they intercepted one of our radio signals and are quite partial to Gerry Cinnamon? 

[Dawnrazor]

Just now, Greedy Jambo said:

 

Maybe they intercepted one of our radio signals and are quite partial to Gerry Cinnamon? 

Thay can have him!!!

[Unknown user]

1 minute ago, Greedy Jambo said:

 

Maybe they intercepted one of our radio signals and are quite partial to Gerry Cinnamon? 

Type 4 my arse

Edited July 19, 2022 by Smithee

[Dawnrazor]

1 minute ago, Smithee said:

Type 4 my arse

Fair point Smithee, there's absolutely NO advanced civilisation in any galaxy would like shite like Gerry Cinnamon. 

[Greedy Jambo]

If you think about it, the more advanced we become, the shiter our music is,

I often stick absolute 80's on, maybe Gerry Cinnamon is a lot better than the shit they've got to listen to? 

[Bonnie Prince Charlie]

I agree with you but I recommend Planet Rock, music now is shiit