10 observations

[bluecat]

Absolutely no idea.

 

[conor]

REK2008,

I think, there is only one explanation and I've never heard anyone mention it. (Maybe they have and I've missed it.) As odd as this idea is, I think it has to be true: The phenomenon is self correcting. Undesired events are erased.

Bluecat

Time travellers?

 

[bluecat]

Conor,
Time travel is the only thing that makes sense to me. I have no idea about how or who.

For this to have gone on as long as it has without creating leaving convincing evidence either means there's never was any evidence to find or it's been erased.

I see no way to avoid this conclusion.

I suppose you can say the government has snatched up all the evidence, but that seems unlikely to me.

Bluecat

 

[Rek2008]

It's an interesting theory, Bluecat, and one I haven't heard before but don't you think it would just create a timecircle ? I mean, they come, leave evidence, go back to their time, then come back again to remove the evidence of the first visit and possibly leave even more evidence while they're at it.

 

[0uterj0in]

I agree it is self-correcting. Which I take to mean: the phenomenon hovers in a sweet spot between detectability and non-detectability. The cultural epi-phenomenon surrounding it acts like a protective coating that simultaneously invites inquiry and destroys credibility.

 

[Kieran]

It's an interesting theory, Bluecat, and one I haven't heard before but don't you think it would just create a timecircle ? I mean, they come, leave evidence, go back to their time, then come back again to remove the evidence of the first visit and possibly leave even more evidence while they're at it.

Time travel is a popular theory doing the rounds. I have no problems with it as a theory. But your right, take a major UFO event, and the UFO is spotted and leave's behind evidence, how can you remove the evidence, when the evidence has already been recorded by people and logged as evidence.

They might be able to remove evidence , if nobody has evidence they were there in the first place. Just take the Rendlesham UFO case, as an example, how could you remove the evidence, when the case is well documented and their is physical traces of evidence left behind by the encounter.

If evidence is left behind, it is left behind only as long as it is nothing serious and gave away their identity.We have," Roswell" , so that theory is not valid if true. I don't think, the visitors are from our future. They might have time travel technology the visitors, but they don't have to be us.

 

[bluecat]

You can get hung up with the nuts and bolts and "how would it work," but that doesn't change the fact that there is no (or very little) evidence of UFOs.

I guess you would have to say that altering history may work in such a fashion that permits the observed results.

Even the idea of altering history is incidental. Maybe there are other ways to erase undesired events.

I only know the effect I see. I don't know how it was achieved.

Bluecat

 

[conor]

You can get hung up with the nuts and bolts and "how would it work," but that doesn't change the fact that there is no (or very little) evidence of UFOs.

Just enough for those who believe, but not enough for a conclusive answer, and most definately falls into the hands of the blind debunkers just as much as for the true believers.

 

[bluecat]

Of course, the next step is to ask if that's by accident or design.

 

[bluecat]

They might be able to remove evidence , if nobody has evidence they were there in the first place. Just take the Rendlesham UFO case, as an example, how could you remove the evidence, when the case is well documented and their is physical traces of evidence left behind by the encounter.

And what do you walk away from Roswell or Rendlesham with? What do you know for sure? What claim is not disputed by someone?

Enough key information is missing -- in the minds of many -- to justify dismissing both events.

Everything that needs to be erased has.

Bluecat

 

[DisownedSky]

10. Fundamental questions like who, why and how are never answered.
Bluecat

I'm OK with that. Fundamental questions go unanswered all the time, even in mainstream science. They go unanswered not because no one cares, and not just because the questions are very hard to answer, but also because we may not even know how to ask the question properly. Douglas Adams addressed this in his Hitchhiker's Guide series.

We have to answer the tough questions right in front of us before we can even properly ask the fundamental questions. There is cause for optimism though. We have made progress on some fronts, and the fundamental questions have changed quite a bit. I'm not ready to accept that answers are impossible.

 

[Ezechiel]

5. Religion begins with faith. If data conflicts with faith, the data is rejected. Science begins with a hypothesis. If data conflicts with it, the hypothesis is rejected.


There are so many examples where scientists stick rigidly to a hypothesis and even alter the experiments to make it fit and disregard data. Who was it who said....." A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest".

I think the Paracast is fairly unique in that it tries to keep it real and I think succeeds. It's not just there for entertainment value.

Science and religion are on different progression timelines:

Religion begins with faith. If data conflicts with faith, the data is rejected.

It took 400 for the vatican to recognize Galileo's work... and move on...
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2009/sep/10/cleaveland/?entertainmentlifeentertainment

Science begins with a hypothesis. If data conflicts with it, the hypothesis is rejected.

A hypothesis supported by corrupted scientists can fight data for so long until the pressure from competing scientific peer experimentation forces a different conclusion.

But nothing on the scale of religious stubbornness ... religion is static in nature (or supposed to be

 

[bluecat]

Submitted for your approval . . . from the New York Times. (Is that Rod Serling I hear?)

See paragraph two for what may be an example of a self correcting system that involves time travel.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/science/space/13lhc.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

 

[PamiP]

Conor,
Time travel is the only thing that makes sense to me. I have no idea about how or who.

For this to have gone on as long as it has without creating leaving convincing evidence either means there's never was any evidence to find or it's been erased.

I see no way to avoid this conclusion.

I suppose you can say the government has snatched up all the evidence, but that seems unlikely to me.

Bluecat

I'm afraid it will be impossible to put the name of a group to who or what has been erasing information or creating disinformation for many years. Something or someone has been doing this for a long, long time and I feel that they will continue to do so. Until when? I don't know. I'd like to say until we are ready for the truth. But will we ever be ready for the truth if the truth is hard to bear or comprehend? Hey, I think a lot of us are ready to hear it (MHO). Haven't we been long ready for the truth, then?. It seems we would be, but evidently we're not. That is why I have enjoyed The Paracast and the forum for the past few years. There are a lot of us who have questions that cannot be answered and are seeking some sort of rational explanation of things. Here we can come together as a collective discuss aliens and other phenomena rationally (most of the time!). Long live the podcast and the forum!