UFOs or Unidentified Submerged Objects: WHATAYATHINK?

@CarbonSystem,

CarbonSystem wrote:

Stephen Hawking
http://newsblaze.com/story/20100425135601ianb.nb/topstory.html

You're listing Stephen Hawking's article on possible alien behavior as evidence for UFO's... come on. You just wrecked your credibility completely.

0 Replies

@CarbonSystem,

Anecdotal evidence is not evidence at all.

0 Replies

@CarbonSystem,

CarbonSystem wrote:

Or perhaps you've matched the ignorance I've seen you crudely accuse gunga of

Gunga's not ignorant, he's crazy. There's a difference. Wink

0 Replies

oh yeah, in case you wanted a nuclear physicists word...
http://www.aolnews.com/weird-news/article/stanton-friedman-a-scientist-searches-for-the-truth-of-ufos/19503350?sms_ss=digg'

and hawking isn't evidence of ufo's, he's evidence of an ever-growing trend of scientists who are acknowledging the plain truth.

1 Reply

@CarbonSystem,

CarbonSystem wrote:

oh yeah, in case you wanted a nuclear physicists word...
http://www.aolnews.com/weird-news/article/stanton-friedman-a-scientist-searches-for-the-truth-of-ufos/19503350?sms_ss=digg'

Nuclear Physicists have no special education in UFO's. Their opinion is no better than mine.

CarbonSystem wrote:

and hawking isn't evidence of ufo's, he's evidence of an ever-growing trend of scientists who are acknowledging the plain truth.

The plain truth of what? What do you think Hawking's point was with that article?

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

CarbonSystem wrote:
oh yeah, in case you wanted a nuclear physicists word...
http://www.aolnews.com/weird-news/article/stanton-friedman-a-scientist-searches-for-the-truth-of-ufos/19503350?sms_ss=digg'

Nuclear Physicists have no special education in UFO's. Their opinion is no better than mine.

CarbonSystem wrote:
and hawking isn't evidence of ufo's, he's evidence of an ever-growing trend of scientists who are acknowledging the plain truth.

The plain truth of what? What do you think Hawking's point was with that article?

First, nuclear physicists do have a better opinion of ufo's because their expertise lies in the subject which can be the basic power source for ufo's and their moving capabilities. Supposedly the ufo's would contain an anti-gravity device which could be nuclear powered. And so, studying reports of ufo's and who the machines are obvserved to operated, one nuclear physicist has noted plausible explanations for the technology of it.

Hawkings point in the article:
It's foolish to disbelieve the existence of intelligent life elsewhere in our universe
and'
we should avoid contact with et's because we have no way of being certain what the communications could trigger, his opinion being a most likely negative effect for the human race.

1 Reply

here's a link to a related thread here on a2k for those interested in my first hand account, happened last night between 10:30 and 10:45 http://able2know.org/topic/145705-5

I and 4 others witnessed a ufo, or apparently multiple ufo's together.

0 Replies

I'll just post it here instead.
Pardon this post for being long..but this is the second ufo I've seen in a couple months.:
I have friend, Nick whose feelings on ufo's had always been counter to mine, he held a strict scientific approach to ufo's and et's, being of a similar opinion of many of the great minds here on a2k, edgar, setanta, ros to name a few. We've had many great discussions, but to him the proof must be in the pudding.
He has a great understanding of airplanes, how they operate, what they look like and who operates them.

Last night I got a call from him around 10:30 p.m., he told me that him and his girlfriend had seen the craziest thing in the sky, and that he believed it to be a ufo, one whose technology exceeded anything that humans are supposed to have.
He was outside when his girlfriend (also one who is a skeptic for ufo's) saw some bright large red lights. 4 of them, ascending from below the tree line up into the night sky, southerly, in southest detroit area. They slowly rose and eventually formed a triangle in which they shined, rotated, and eventually dimmed one by one until they had disappeared.
Duration: approx. 5 minutes.

Fifteen minutes later he called me: "they're back!" I was on the phone with him, climbed out on the roof and to my astonishment at least six bright red lights were ascending, formed in a line, in the south part of the sky, and eventually formed a triangle before slowly disappearing. It was the most spectacular thing I have ever seen. My girlfriend and sister were also witnesses.

So we have 2 parties, 5 people total, 2 locations about 4 miles apart who saw the same thing.

I grabbed a camera to capture the image of them if they returned, but no luck on the evidence. Maybe next time.
I can only guess what their purpose was, but to the south end of the state are two points of interest, the metro detroit airport, and the monroe nuclear facility.

I can say with certainty that these lights absolutely were not commercial planes who use metro airport. I can say with certainty that they do not exhibit any of the characteristics of any human aircraft I've seen or heard of.

It is very compelling for me, because the original person to spot it has an extensive knowledge of aircraft, military and commercial, and has always been very skeptical of ufo claims with no evidence.

So I submit this account to you all for discussion and I'm guessing it will be including some kind of cross-examination.

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d164/CarbonSystem/ufoline.jpg

0 Replies

@CarbonSystem,

CarbonSystem wrote:

First, nuclear physicists do have a better opinion of ufo's because their expertise lies in the subject which can be the basic power source for ufo's and their moving capabilities. Supposedly the ufo's would contain an anti-gravity device which could be nuclear powered.

Nuclear power has nothing to do with anti-gravity devices.

CarbonSystem wrote:

And so, studying reports of ufo's and who the machines are obvserved to operated, one nuclear physicist has noted plausible explanations for the technology of it.

Nobody on earth knows how to manipulate gravitational fields. If we did we probably wouldn't be stuck here.

CarbonSystem wrote:

Hawkings point in the article:
It's foolish to disbelieve the existence of intelligent life elsewhere in our universe

I do believe there's probably other life in the Universe, I just don't believe it's visiting us here on Earth.

CarbonSystem wrote:

we should avoid contact with et's because we have no way of being certain what the communications could trigger, his opinion being a most likely negative effect for the human race.

Probably good advice.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

CarbonSystem wrote:
First, nuclear physicists do have a better opinion of ufo's because their expertise lies in the subject which can be the basic power source for ufo's and their moving capabilities. Supposedly the ufo's would contain an anti-gravity device which could be nuclear powered.

Nuclear power has nothing to do with anti-gravity devices.

How would you know, since none of us here know anything about anti-gravity. Your disbelief is as foolish as my belief.

1 Reply

@CarbonSystem,

CarbonSystem wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

CarbonSystem wrote:
First, nuclear physicists do have a better opinion of ufo's because their expertise lies in the subject which can be the basic power source for ufo's and their moving capabilities. Supposedly the ufo's would contain an anti-gravity device which could be nuclear powered.

Nuclear power has nothing to do with anti-gravity devices.

How would you know, since none of us here know anything about anti-gravity. Your disbelief is as foolish as my belief.

Is that your defense for your previous assertion? That's not a very strong defense.

We know something about Nuclear power. We know nothing about Anti-Gravity. It seems reasonable to assume that's because they are unrelated areas of physics. So at least my assumption makes some sense.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

or they could be concepts beyond our grasp. in which case, we can't assert what they are or aren't related to.

1 Reply

@CarbonSystem,

Nuclear power isn't beyond our grasp. We understand it pretty well, at least functionally so.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

OK, well just for fun then;
Would you agree to hypothesize on a possible explanation for the recent ufo sighting I had, based on the account I have given? Feel free to ask me other question to further inform you. I will answer them whole-heartedly and truthfully.
If it wasn't an alien driving a spaceship,
and it wasn't a nuclear powered human flying machine,
and it was not an airplane (or group of them).

I will note that the airplane mechanic who saw them noted that they did look very similar to that of military flares dropped from planes in baghdad and afghanistan to direct planes for bombings etc.
The difference was their movement. But the color and luminosity of the lights from sunday night did look similar to those. Perhpas a military thing going on is to blame?

Anyways, if you would, in good fun try and offer any possible explanation. Not requiring any emperical evidence of your reasoning, just curious. Since according to you et's or nuclear powered flying craft are out of the picture.

1 Reply

@CarbonSystem,

Ok, I'll play...

1. Three airplanes taking off from a great distance and heading directly toward you while ascending. Turning off their landing lights once they reach cruising altitude.
2. Three weather balloons being launched with beacons on them.
3. A hot air balloon trailing streamers for a show.
4. Three rockets being tested from a base in the distance
5. Three helicopters testing a vertical maneuver...
6. etc.

Ionus has pointed out that you could not determine a direction of flight without having another observer at another angle to the objects. And that doesn't mean someone a few feet away or even a mile away. Depending on how far away these objects were it might mean someone being 30 or 40 miles away at an angle.

Of all the "possibilities" which we can list, the least likely will always be the extraordinary one: Alien technology on display.

In order to prove the extraordinary one, you need extraordinary evidence.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

and the likewise, you don't seem to be having any luck disproving.
looks like were all where we started. it's okay, it was fun reading your explanations/possibilities.
what fun

1 Reply

@CarbonSystem,

CarbonSystem wrote:

and the likewise, you don't seem to be having any luck disproving.

That's correct. But I would point that it's not up to people to disprove claims (whether it be UFO's or Bigfoot), it's up the person making the claim to come up with reasonable evidence. Otherwise it's all just spinning wheels.

There are billions of people in the world with completely whacko ideas. If we had to disprove everything anyone came up with we wouldn't have time to work on the valid stuff.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

If you insist ros. It's clear we disagree.
Those countless number of whacko ideas who we'd be wasting all of our time on is very different than a phenomenon whose existence cannot be denied, and one whose thousands upon thousands of eyewitnesses worldwide take it to a tier at least one step above whacko.

You don't have to disprove everything, but for a subject so hotly debated for so long, you should have been able to disprove it by now. I mean, our science is top-notch isn't it? Aren't we the most intelligent beings on our earth, and indeed, in our entire middle-of-nowhere section of this galaxy?

1 Reply

@CarbonSystem,

CarbonSystem wrote:

If you insist ros. It's clear we disagree.
Those countless number of whacko ideas who we'd be wasting all of our time on is very different than a phenomenon whose existence cannot be denied, and one whose thousands upon thousands of eyewitnesses worldwide take it to a tier at least one step above whacko.

But the only example you've given us of a "phenomena whose existence cannot be denied" is red lights in the sky. And nobody is denying that. We're sure you saw red lights. That's not an extraordinary claim. The extraordinary claim is to imply that those lights are of extraterrestrial origin. And the same goes for all the other thousands (or millions) of similar claims.

I don't mind speculating on possibilities. That's fun. But there's a difference between academic speculation for entertainment, and an attempt to claim some basis in logic or reality.

Part of my frustration with this type of speculation comes from the simple fact that there AREN'T any viable facts or evidence or knowledge to work with. Think about it... why do we want there to be extraterrestrial entities and technologies around? It's because we want to KNOW something about it. We want to understand it, to meet it. But no amount of deduction from visual oddities gets us any of that. It's entirely unsatisfying, and more than a little frustrating because if you believe that UFO's are extraterrestrial things, then it's like a horror film in which you never see the monster, are never sure it was even really there, and where the story never ends...

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

I guess, if you want to ignore the evidence that the gov't has tucked away at area 51 and the like.
Our points of view are not adding anything to this discussion at this point.
It seems to be 'hard evidence' vs. 'anecdotal and circumstancial evidence'.
In the end, when were talking of an unexplainable phenomenon, science doesn't have the golden stamp of approval. It's simply not in the language of the big thing called science which weve been developing and perfecting over these centuries past.
Although, it seems that science and supernatural were not always seen as on different sides of the line.

The fact is, these things flying exist, and some of their origins and purposes cannot be explained by us. And so, being a reasonable man, I can't rule it out. It would be foolish to write something off if it hadn't yet been proved that it doesn't exist.

Isn't this what drove scienctific research in the first place?

1 Reply

UFOs or Unidentified Submerged Objects: WHATAYATHINK?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know