10
   

The A2K U.F.O. discussion thread

 
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jun, 2010 12:23 pm
@CarbonSystem,

Cool music. Unfortunately, microscopic specs on grainy videos are useless as evidence, especially with something as extraordinary as "UFO's".

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Anything less is just noise in the data.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jun, 2010 12:25 pm
@CarbonSystem,
CarbonSystem wrote:
The more you look, the more you see. Seek and ye shall find, as they say.

I have sharp eyes and a sharp mind and I've been looking all my life. But I also have my imagination under control, so I am not easily fooled (unlike far too many other people).
CarbonSystem
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jun, 2010 02:53 pm
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:

CarbonSystem wrote:
The more you look, the more you see. Seek and ye shall find, as they say.

I have sharp eyes and a sharp mind and I've been looking all my life. But I also have my imagination under control, so I am not easily fooled (unlike far too many other people).


Altough you are implying that my imagination runs wild (sometimes, not in this case though) and that I don't have a sharp mind, or eyes, and that I am easily fooled.

I will say that your eyes and mind obviously aren't fine tuned enough to detect another life form. Before you're willing to accept the possibility, the obvious truth won't make itself clear to you.

My eyes do not decieve me. As someone who is very critical of eyewitness accounts, due to all of the air traffic and all of the bogus reasons people substitue, I like to make sure any evidence I submit is 100% legitimized by people who don't believe in ufo's. Or aliens.
Perhaps, when it comes to ufo's, your attitude and arrogance is making it very difficult for evidence to reach you.

And fuzzy photographs?
I challenge you to go today and snap a crisp clear picture of a plane.
Now imagine doing that with an object moving much faster, more erratically, one that could very easily contain stealth and camouflage technology (hell humans do, and alleged ufo's are supposed to have anti-gravity technology.)

If I take my Canon dslr camera out on a tripod on a clear day and can somehow snap a crisp picture of a moving object, it's still way up in the sky. To show that at a viewable size, one must zoom, and the limitations of our images and their pixels make these objects more and more 'fuzzy'.

Now take into account that the average person can pretty much power on the camera, turn the flash on, snap and zoom, they probably won't capture a good exposure.
This is because most cameras now are digital point and shoots. They capture automatic exposure mode, simply put, they're not capable of a crisp image.

Now also realize how short of a time-span ufo's seem to be visible. If they're moving as fast as people say they can, indeed, they don't stick around long.
In which case someone who is witnessing a once in a lifetime event will choose to see for themselves first. A telescope camera would be super convenient though.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jun, 2010 04:41 pm
@CarbonSystem,
CarbonSystem wrote:
I will say that your eyes and mind obviously aren't fine tuned enough to detect another life form.

And you base that on what? Because I don't accept any of the "evidence" you've chosen to present? I think you are overreaching your assumptions.

CarbonSystem wrote:
Before you're willing to accept the possibility, the obvious truth won't make itself clear to you.

I'm willing to accept the possibility, but I'm not easily convinced. And that's a healthy thing.

CarbonSystem wrote:
My eyes do not decieve me. As someone who is very critical of eyewitness accounts, due to all of the air traffic and all of the bogus reasons people substitue, I like to make sure any evidence I submit is 100% legitimized by people who don't believe in ufo's. Or aliens.

Real evidence doesn't need to be legitimized by anyone. Real evidence stands on its own. And so far, nobody in the world has presented even a shred of real empirical evidence. Millions of anecdotal accounts are equally useless. All they prove is that humans are notoriously bad witnesses and observers.

CarbonSystem wrote:
Perhaps, when it comes to ufo's, your attitude and arrogance is making it very difficult for evidence to reach you.

Or perhaps not.

CarbonSystem wrote:
And fuzzy photographs?
I challenge you to go today and snap a crisp clear picture of a plane.
Now imagine doing that with an object moving much faster, more erratically, one that could very easily contain stealth and camouflage technology (hell humans do, and alleged ufo's are supposed to have anti-gravity technology.)

Saying that it's hard to take a clear photo is not an answer to the fact that the photo's presented as evidence contain insufficient detail to be acceptable as "evidence". You (or whoever wishes to present "evidence") needs to do MUCH better than that.
0 Replies
 
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jun, 2010 06:49 am
Unknown phenomena is a better word for these reports. Those who have alien experiences are extremely interesting , they appear to be experiencing another reality . Most are totally convinced and can not be persuaded otherwise, no matter how much logic is used to explain their abduction. Its less than physical and more like a conscious dream. A lucid type dream , that has conviction.

UFOs are too numerous, to be rejected with such ease. They to are a phenomena that refuses to be ignored. What we must not do is make assumptions of their alien origin.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jun, 2010 07:29 am
As a kid who grew up reading science fiction, I wanted very much to believe aliens were visiting us. But, none of the evidence has ever been shown, in my view, to substantiate even one occurrence. And, the vast distances and resources involved in such travel make it seem more than just extremely remote - nearly impossible is more like it.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jun, 2010 07:50 am
@edgarblythe,
You are making assumptions. Why should they be travelling great distances? Australia was great distance for the British, but how much further would it have been for the aboriginals.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jun, 2010 08:13 am
Can you get to other solar systems by swimming?
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jun, 2010 08:19 am
@edgarblythe,
inkin', Blinkin', and Nod

Winkin', Blinkin', and Nod, one night sailed off in a wooden shoe;
Sailed off on a river of crystal light into a sea of dew.
"Where are you going and what do you wish?" the old moon asked the three.
"We've come to fish for the herring fish that live in this beautiful sea.
Nets of silver and gold have we," said Winkin', Blinkin', and Nod.

The old moon laughed and sang a song as they rocked in the wooden shoe.
And the wind that sped them all night long ruffled the waves of dew.
Now the little stars are the herring fish that live in that beautiful sea;
"Cast your nets wherever you wish never afraid are we!"
So cried the stars to the fishermen three - Winkin', and Blinkin', and Nod.

So all night long their nets they threw to the stars in the twinkling foam.
'Til down from the skies came the wooden shoe bringing the fisherman home.
'Twas all so pretty a sail it seemed as if it could not be.
Some folks say 'twas a dream they dreamed of sailing that misty sea.
But I shall name you the fisherman three - Winkin', Blinkin', and Nod.

Now Winkin' and Blinkin' are two little eyes and Nod is a little head.
And the wooden shoe that sailed the skies is a wee one's trundle bed.
So close your eyes while mother sings of the wonderful sights that be.
And you shall see those beautiful things as you sail on the misty sea,
Where the old shoe rocked the fishermen three - Winkin', Blinkin', and Nod.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jun, 2010 08:24 am
@djjd62,
Everybody knows the cow jumped over the moon. But it never entered the deep reaches beyond our solar system.
0 Replies
 
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jun, 2010 08:27 am
@edgarblythe,
swimming in time and the oceans of possibility , maybe...
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jun, 2010 08:40 am
Other intelligences have the same obstacles as we. No magic exists.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 07:34 am
@edgarblythe,
So your saying that we wont advance beyond our earthly capability? That we have reached the pinnacle of our ability?
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 07:52 am
@xris,
So long as there are intelligent persons alive, we will not reach the very pinnacle, but will strive ever nearer. Going to other solar systems can be likened to a snail sliming its way, from Texas to Hong Kong. Not utterly impossible, granting the slug an extended life period (suspended animation for humans?) but many generations in the future, if at all.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 08:10 am
@edgarblythe,
You have avoided the question. I know the obvious reasoning behind your objections but you ignore the possible. When science is seriously considering parallel universes, that may exist along side this one, why limit your reasoning to travelling in this dimension. Distances are not necessarily the problem, Its the idea that we need to travel in time and space, thats why we object to visitors alien to our civilisation. Science is not laughed at when it speculates about such weird unproven theories , why not extend that thinking and assume these other universes may have inhabitants with the ability to drift into and out of ours?
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 08:15 am
@xris,
At this point, that is mere speculation. Might as well postulate angels and fairies drifting in and out of our world.
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 08:30 am
@xris,
Quote:
When science is seriously considering parallel universes, that may exist along side this one,
horse hocky
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 08:34 am
I have not the least doubt that many, many people see--or think they see--objects--or what they think are objects--which are flying--or which they think are flying--and which they are then and subsequently unable to identify.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 10:13 am
@edgarblythe,
So what are you saying that science is speculating on the possibilities of fairies?
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 10:15 am
@Setanta,
when I sit in the dark and stick my fingers in the corners of my eyes, I can see cartoons as well as interesting lights. LSD on the other hand----
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Should I put a stop and end to this? - Question by Lizeth19
pls help me - Question by strawberiix
Who killed Meredith Kercher? - Discussion by DylanB
I have been accused of Being Racist? - Question by nattertoad
Topics - Question by BillFritz
Is There a Hope For The Dead? - Question by anthony1312002
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.49 seconds on 09/25/2022 at 11:42:01