Ancient Aliens debunked..

[Jimi H.]

My ruminations posit a civilization that would have looked very different from our 'advanced technological' one. Projecting an advanced civilization would look like ours is a kind of ethno-centricity.

Alright, I guess I started rambling, thinking of the various more or less fanciful ideas that pop up.

The way I fancy the scenario, it was a pretty far long time ago, and 'evidence' was destroyed over millennia, if not mostly in the ka-boom that wiped it out to begin with.

I think that an event which buried all remains and artifacts would also have taken out the last humans. I think it's hard to imagine that the crust of the Earth was basically 'done over' and expect more advanced lifeforms to have survived. We are here now, so it seems that no truly cataclysmic event has taken place since the dawn of the human.

I mean, it would have to be that only an isolated area in Africa was not affected by the cataclysm, or rather, it was only affected to a degree where it took out everything of size but the human. I don't know how likely that is.

.. In what I am saying .. is that a world civilization could have existed in the sense that there was travel on a world-wide basis - but that does not mean that it had to look like our 'technologically advanced' civilization. It could have looked very different.

Ok, gotcha, yea, I can go with that, in principle. E.g. the Kon-Tiki expedition (I went to the museum as kid, it was fascinating) tried to show that pre-columbian global travel was a possibility. It didn't show that it was a reality, of course, but that it's a possibility.

If one can imagine one from outside the earth, it would seem a baby step to imagine one on the earth.

There has been life for millions of years on Earth, but I'm thinking specifically of Homo Sapiens.

Besides which, I don't find the 'evidence' for an advanced civilization visiting us from elsewhere credible for the very randomness of their actions. Like it is said from one quarter - if there is a God, why does s/he/it allow suffering? If there are advanced aliens - what level in hell do they come from to allow the insanity on earth to continue without doing something a bit more 'advanced' than just flying around like teenagers on a weekend using the family saucer?

I think this argumentation is very speculative and anthropocentric

But to play ball: I have no problem with some strange beings behaving exactly as coyly and incomprehensibly as UFO evidence seems to suggest, especially since it's become more and more evident that mil pilots have been shooting at them.

Why should they help us when we can't even take care of ourselves? If you go into the forest, do you save the animals from each other, or simply observe? If 'they' don't see us as intellectual equals in any way, they may have no desire whatsoever to communicate and learn anything from us directly.

The only definite reason I can see for any 'outsider' to interject is to save unique and wonderful planet Earth from the absolute abject and senseless folly of humans. Mind you, I think that's a valid reason, though I do fear the consequences, should that ever happen. Isn't there indeed evidence that these beings are occupied with potentially devastating nuclear arms facilities?

 

[Jimi H.]

..
Frankly, this about sums it up for me and the ETH. I think to myself, "You can't have it both ways. The Aliens from outer space cannot be just like us on one hand, and yet NOTHING like us at the same time."

Who said any aliens were just like us? I sure didn't, hence this thread, where I suggest that race is not likely the most fitting term when discussing possible ET beings: 'Race' versus 'species' | The Paracast Community Forums

Everything in terms of evidence suggests that they are not like us.

 

[Randall]

Who said any aliens were just like us? I sure didn't, hence this thread, where I suggest that race is not likely the most fitting term when discussing possible ET beings: 'Race' versus 'species' | The Paracast Community Forums

Everything in terms of evidence suggests that they are not like us.

There you go again using absolutist terms like "everything". Let's examine that. First of all there are reports of beings that are indistinguishable from humans, and simply writing them off as sci-fi isn't a valid reason to exclude them from the evidence. There are also reports of several humanoid types ranging from the grays to the MIB, some of them biologically compatible as mating material. In fact the reports where the aliens are something other than humanoid biological entities are in the minority. So the evidence from the alien encounters on record actually suggests that most aliens are like us in many ways. Can we extrapolate that out to the rest of the universe? There are some rather safe assumptions based on what we know so far that suggest that evolution on similar worlds will yield similar results.

 

[Jimi H.]

You're right of course, but I still don't count isolated eyewitness accounts as evidence for the ETH. All reports I've heard about 'Nordics' and such is of the same quality as a typical Scientology-influenced abduction-story.

What I call evidence comes in the form of radar-images, ATC-recordings etc. Or serious mass-sightings.

I frankly don't care about individual persons' mystical experiences. We all have them (or some/most people do, I know I have), but I can't use them for anything within a scientific frame of mind.

 

[Jimi H.]

..There are some rather safe assumptions based on what we know so far that suggest that evolution on similar worlds will yield similar results.

Indeed, e.g. the Drake equation. But I thought that would support my case: Even if 'they' actually look somewhat similar to us (two arms / two legs), that doesn't make them human.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Who said any aliens were just like us? I sure didn't, hence this thread, where I suggest that race is not likely the most fitting term when discussing possible ET beings: 'Race' versus 'species' | The Paracast Community Forums

Everything in terms of evidence suggests that they are not like us.

Anyone that implies that the ETH is responsible for UFOs makes the distinct assumption that the intelligence behind UFOs is responsible for what would be simply a more advanced version of our own technology. A total and complete assumption. This is called a personification and is ultimately the enemy of anyone attempting real phenomenology with respect to UFOs.

1) Not one single UFO observed has behaved via observation like an IT craft should. Not once. Vague photos from space that show colliding meteors do not count.

2) Not one single observed encounter case is representative of the type of technology that would be employed by those traveling through space. We've never even seen a Grey with helmet on, let alone the full garb of an astronaut.

3) Via observation, which is the only evidence of what is a phenomenon that counts, there is more evidence to suggest that it is our own environment that these beings possess mastery over. Not space.

 

[Jeff Davis]

BTW, studies that directly involve intelligence assessments amid living organisms on this planet do not seem to support that notion of the Drake Equation. Lots of intelligence, no technology. In this sense we learn that the notion of "alien technology" itself is akin to a personified projection. What about intelligence that has zero need to harvest energy?

Take a look at Mike's post here: Non Human People | The Paracast Community Forums

 

[Jimi H.]

Anyone that implies that the ETH is responsible for UFOs makes the distinct assumption that the intelligence behind UFOs is responsible from what would be simply a more advanced version of our own technology. A total and complete assumption. This is called a personification and is ultimately the enemy of anyone attempting real phenomenology with respect to UFOs.

Let me get this straight, a 'grey' (or a 'devil' or whatever) is not a personification? What is not a personification, if you want to go out the UFO-puritan limb?

In fact, things that fly at super-fast speeds and which escape into space in a matter of 5 seconds after being chased by a jet, is not like human technology. I can't compare it to anything we know. And those cases are numerous, e.g. they are all over Major Keyhoe's book, which I'm reading now.

1) Not one single UFO observed has behaved via observation like an IT craft should. Not once. Vague photos from space that show colliding meteors do not count.

What's an IT craft? Colliding meteors? What..?
EDIT: I imagine you mean ET craft? I don't know man, what does an ET craft look like? Maybe like the one over Alaska, experienced by the JAL crew? Maybe like the one David Biedny witnessed? I don't know, maybe there are many types. But those sure appeared to be technological, and they are both documented (to a degree).

2) Not one single observed encounter case is representative of the type of technology that would be employed by those traveling through space. We've never even seen a Grey with helmet on, let alone the full garb of an astronaut.

I don't 'believe' in 'greys', because I don't know of one single documented 'grey', but I know lots of fairly well-documented cases of things that seem to want to escape upwards, up, up, up, just like a craft exiting the atmosphere. EDIT: Ohh, it's because I was using 'greys' to exemplify species/race. I only did this because everyone would know what I meant.

3) Via observation, which is the only evidence of what is a phenomenon that counts, there is more evidence to suggest that it is our own environment that these beings possess mastery over. Not space.

Would that be the fabric of space-time, or what do you mean? If so, they could move fast distances in short time, they wouldn't be limited to Earth, would they?

But you know what, why don't you explain to me where you think these things come from? Where are their factories, bases, etc etc on Earth? Or are you of the more occult bent, thinking that these things are immaterial, sorta like .. devils or spirits? Or little people from underground, or..? In that case, please don't teach me anything about personifications and lack of evidence! Or do you think it's all just fantasy?

Or are there simply no clues in your opinion? That's a humble opinion, but still I don't think the ETH is the worst 'offender'.

Take Vallee, who wants to look beyond the ETH, the guy is awesome, sure, a great communicator, and there's something persuasively serious about his demeanor. But when you listen closely, he has no evidence except eye-witness testimony. Ok, he claims that there's evidence of weird shit from Skinwalker Ranch, but I'll believe it when I see it. He argues as if he's dealing with concrete stuff, but it's eyewitness statements. And while he keeps saying that we should be open to anything (and we should, in principle), he usually ends up saying 'they' might well be ET. Just listen to a few interviews and you will notice the pattern, including the eventual leaning towards the ETH. Because where else should they come from, these flying, apparently technological craft?

The ETH is imo the least bad theory because it doesn't need to explain where all this stuff originates on Earth itself. What documented cases do you think suggest that UFO are from Earth? I can think of one in particular, namely Collares in Brazil, where the UFOs seemed to come out of the jungle. But on the other hand, those craft could well originate elsewhere. We certainly don't know where on Earth they'd originate from, do we?

 

[Jeff Davis]

Let me get this straight, a 'grey' (or a 'devil' or whatever) is not a personification? What is not a personification, if you want to go out the UFO-puritan limb?

A personification is when we project human qualities or ideas into a thing or hypothetical idea that is not of human origin. There is absolutely nothing puratanicle about the process. It's simple.

In fact, things that fly at super-fast speeds and which escape into space in a matter of 5 seconds after being chased by a jet, is not like human technology. I can't compare it to anything we know. And those cases are numerous, e.g. they are all over Major Keyhoe's book, which I'm reading now.

Things that we "PERCEIVE" flying at super fast speeds and escaping into space, blah, blah, blah. 100% assumption. Keyhoe was a fantasist that went looking for data to fit his theories. With phenomenology we are to study observations and wait for science to reveal the facts, not imagine the facts as we imagine them to be.

What's an IT craft? Colliding meteors? What..?

Interstellar Travel. UFO fans that adopt the ETH have pointed to photos of meteor collisions sometimes referring to them as evidence of faster than the speed of light ET craft.

I don't 'believe' in 'greys', because I don't know of one single documented 'grey', but I know lots of fairly well-documented cases of things that seem to want to escape upwards, up, up, up, just like a craft exiting the
atmosphere.

Birds and Airplanes fly up, up, and away...yet they do not enter space. BTW, you believe Keyhoe and not the Greys, shame on you!

Would that be the fabric of space-time, or what do you mean? If so, they could move fast distances in short time, they wouldn't be limited to Earth, would they?

But you know what, why don't you explain to me where you think these things come from? Where are their factories, bases, etc etc on Earth? Or are you of the more occult bent, thinking that these things are immaterial, sorta like .. devils or spirits? Or little people from underground, or..? In that case, please don't teach me anything about personifications and lack of evidence, fair enough? Or do you think it's all just fantasy?

I don't mean anything with respect to space-time. I mean that the observations of UFOs in no way align themselves with technology that we are familiar with. Not even in a fantastical sense apart from generalities of a descriptive nature. I do not believe that intelligence is limited to physicality. In fact, Quantum Mechanics states clearly that consciousness proceeds matter.

Or are there simply no clues in your opinion? That's a humble opinion, but still I don't think the ETH is the worst 'offender'.

There are no offenders apart from charlatans with respect to any certain hypothesis serving to explain UFOs. The ETH has simply become, IMO, a fictional overlay atop a phenomenon that ultimately remains non definitive at this time. There are MANY clues based solely on observation. More of these clues point away from the ETH IMO, than they do support the notion.

Take Vallee, who wants to look beyond the ETH, the guy is awesome, sure, a great communicator, and there's something persuasively serious about his demeanor. But when you listen closely, he has no evidence except eye-witness testimony. Ok, he claims that there's evidence of weird shit from Skinwalker Ranch, but I'll believe it when I see it. He argues as if he's dealing with concrete stuff, but it's eyewitness statements. And while he keeps saying that we should be open to anything (and we should, in principle), he usually ends up saying 'they' might well be ET. Just listen to a few interviews and you will notice the pattern, including the eventual leaning towards the ETH. Because where else should they come from, these flying, apparently technological craft?

The ETH is imo the least bad theory because it doesn't need to explain where all this stuff originates on Earth itself. What documented cases do you think suggest that UFO are from Earth? I can think of one in particular, namely Collares in Brazil, where the UFOs seemed to come out of the jungle. But on the other hand, those craft could well originate elsewhere. We certainly don't know where on Earth they'd originate from, do we?

Vallee is a scientist. In phenomenology, that's all there is, is witness reporting. Observation. He's not going to feign evidence in an attempt to explain anything, he is doing precisely what a scientist should. He is simply using observation based evidence to impart his personal conclusions based on scientific analysis.

The rest of what you are stating in the last paragraph assumes that the non human intelligence responsible for UFOs is biological or physical. It does not take into account that the Earth itself may be a small portion of a much larger multidimensional environment in which the physical aspects of the Earth are no different to the UFO occupants than human beings technologically enabling themselves to travel underwater. Facing facts, more often than not, UFOs simply appear and disappear and this is not because of how fast they arrive or leave. There are assuredly observations of UFOs hovering and then moving away from a stand still by accelerating to a very high rate of speed. That hardly makes for technology capable of faster than the speed of light travel.

 

[Jimi H.]

A personification is when we project human qualities or ideas into a thing or hypothetical idea that is not of human origin. .. It's simple.

Examples of personifications: Examples of Personification

Interstellar Travel. UFO fans that adopt the ETH have pointed to photos of meteor collisions sometimes referring to them as evidence of faster than the speed of light ET craft...

Are you trolling me?

There are MANY clues based solely on observation. More of these clues point away from the ETH IMO, than they do support the notion.

Documented examples please.

..Facing facts, more often than not, UFOs simply appear and disappear and this is not because of how fast they arrive or leave. There are assuredly observations of UFOs hovering and then moving away from a stand still by accelerating to a very high rate of speed. That hardly makes for technology capable of faster than the speed of light travel.

So you think it's more reasonable to see them as flying self-contained intelligences that need no energy to exist?

You know, in my experience, people who think the ETH/Drake is an enemy (Non Human People | The Paracast Community Forums) and who champion what we might call 'revelation' (personal experience) are typically dogmatic Christian believers from somewhere south of science.

Here's my problem: My problem isn't that you question the ETH, I do too, but the fact that you seem to have an absolute belief which you don't verbalize.

PS: Eyewitness accounts are not the new rage in science, even if they are reported to Vallée. Fwiw., I personally studied Husserl (phenomenology) in philosophy, not in science.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

The whole subject is speculation and unless some chap has time travel machine to ask those folks back in time or can read ancient texts no one in our world today has the asnwers just snippets of the past which everyone interprets with there own biast theories.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Here's my problem: My problem isn't that you question the ETH, I do too, but the fact that you seem to have an absolute belief which you don't verbalize.

Jimi,
Frankly, other than this sentence, I can find little if any relevance within your response. Trolling? Huh? If you think I have an absolute belief concerning UFOs that I don't verbalize, we are obviously on a different wave length altogether. I have declared right here MANY times, over and over, there is NO truth with respect for that which is presently defined as phenomena. Only theoretical suspicions solely based on observation. UFOs are a phenomenon.

Anyhow, from my lay perspective, I find the behavior of observed UFOs far more aligned with observed odd particle behavior, as well as recent scientific lawful discoveries via theoretical quantum physics, than I find any form a similarity to our own means of space travel. Therefore I find less favor with the ETH than alternatives more so possibly aligned with the EDH.

 

[Tyger]

The whole subject is speculation and unless some chap has time travel machine to ask those folks back in time or can read ancient texts no one in our world today has the asnwers just snippets of the past which everyone interprets with there own biased theories.

Good point imo.

In regards the time travel, I recall a few years ago a sighting by an airline crew and passengers of a very large 'cigar-shaped' craft. (Lawsy, where did those great 'cigar-shaped' craft disappear to - they were so popular back in the day when men actually were smoking cigars, too, hmmm...) Anyway, it was described as having a row of windows behind which figures could be seem moving around. Got me thinking about time travel - if these were time travel cruises - how cool! I'd want to go on one of those cruises.

 

[Jimi H.]

Jimi,
Frankly, other than this sentence, I can find little if any relevance within your response. Trolling? Huh?

You ignore the reasons I have for saying the ETH is at least one of the least bad explanations, and instead put up a strawman:
".. UFO fans that adopt the ETH have pointed to photos of meteor collisions sometimes referring to them as evidence of faster than the speed of light ET craft.."

If you think I have an absolute belief concerning UFOs that I don't verbalize, we are obviously on a different wave length altogether. I have declared right here MANY times, over and over, there is NO truth with respect for that which is presently defined as phenomena. Only theoretical suspicions solely based on observation. UFOs are a phenomenon.

So you discount the radar images etc. as all phony/hoaxy/faulty? Or, do you think that radar picks up flying spirits?

Anyhow, from my lay perspective, I find the behavior of observed UFOs far more aligned with observed odd particle behavior, as well as recent scientific lawful discoveries via theoretical quantum physics, than I find any form a similarity to our own means of space travel. ..

What does this mean? Can you name a concrete example and explain how it aligns itself with 'odd particle behavior' or 'recent discoveries via theoretical quantum physics'? It's not quite clear to me.

This is pretty clear though: "I do not believe that intelligence is limited to physicality." That is a belief isn't it? T me it appears that you believe that UFOs are independent intelligent entities, and believe it to a degree where ETH/Drake is the enemy.
Yet a dolphin that pops up to explain dolphin revelation is awesome. It is a fun dolphin-meme, but do you see what I'm getting at?

There is a belief that goes by the name of Spiritualism, and at this point in my Paracast forum career, I'm certain that spiritualism and various other forms of similar ideas ruminate just below the surface of many discussions, and are present among many posters.

The fact that you champion personal experience/revelation, and believe in immaterial beings (spirits) is very much in accordance with Spiritualist thinking.

From Spiritualism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

• A belief in spirit communication.
• A belief that the soul continues to exist after the death of the physical body.
• A belief in a God, often referred to as "Infinite Intelligence".

PS:
I agree that if UFOs are technological phenomena, they are certainly not using 'our' kind of technology. I don't see that as a problem.
I see 'personifications' of UFOs as a problem not for the ETH'ers, but rather for people like you who literally (not just symbolically, as the expression 'personification' refers to) endow flying phenomena with intelligence akin to human intelligence. I understand what you're getting at though, namely you feel one is thinking in too limited a way if the imagination doesn't go beyond human concepts like flying. But the concept of flying spirits is certainly not without similar flaws, that concept is old as hell, and very human.

 

[Jeff Davis]

You ignore the reasons I have for saying the ETH is at least one of the least bad explanations, and instead put up a strawman:
".. UFO fans that adopt the ETH have pointed to photos of meteor collisions sometimes referring to them as evidence of faster than the speed of light ET craft.."

Jimi, I am going to respond here because I have the time. I can tell you are attempting to fiegn sincerity and are also doing your best to provoke me into an emotional response. Nice try.

Your "strawman" is nothing more than your lack of familiarity. Hence Untitled Document

This has been going on for years with respect to the ETH. Sorry, I just figured you knew as much.

So you discount the radar images etc. as all phony/hoaxy/faulty? Or, do you think that radar picks up flying spirits?

Funny, I don't remember referring to UFO radar imaging as being phoney or faulty. Could you remind me where I stated that please? I am also having a tough time remembering referring to UFOs as spirits. Maybe I'm just getting old. I always figured it was because SOMETHING was actually there that it picked up on. Hmm.

What does this mean? Can you name a concrete example and explain how it aligns itself with 'odd particle behavior' or 'recent discoveries via theoretical quantum physics'? It's not quite clear to me.

Google is your friend.

This is pretty clear though: "I do not believe that intelligence is limited to physicality." That is a belief isn't it? T me it appears that you believe that UFOs are independent intelligent entities, and believe it to a degree where ETH/Drake is the enemy.
Yet a dolphin that pops up to explain dolphin revelation is awesome. It is a fun dolphin-meme, but do you see what I'm getting at?

I have many beliefs and suspicions. I make no secret about the fact.

There is a belief that goes by the name of Spiritualism, and at this point in my Paracast forum career, I'm certain that spiritualism and various other forms of similar ideas ruminate just below the surface of many discussions, and are present among many posters.

This is an assumption. Not wise.

The fact that you champion personal experience/revelation, and believe in immaterial beings (spirits) is very much in accordance with Spiritualist thinking.

From Spiritualism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

• A belief in spirit communication.
• A belief that the soul continues to exist after the death of the physical body.
• A belief in a God, often referred to as "Infinite Intelligence".

Please quote me where I have "championed" anything with respect to my own experiences.

PS:
I agree that if UFOs are technological phenomena, they are certainly not using 'our' kind of technology. I don't see that as a problem.
I see 'personifications' of UFOs as a problem not for the ETH'ers, but rather for people like you who literally (not just symbolically, as the expression 'personification' refers to) endow flying phenomena with intelligence akin to human intelligence. I understand what you're getting at though, namely you feel one is thinking in too limited a way if the imagination doesn't go beyond human concepts like flying. But the concept of flying spirits is certainly not without similar flaws, that concept is old as hell, and very human.

Please quote me where I have stated that UFOs are not solid. Please quote me where I have referred to them as "flying spirits". Please quote anything where you are not attempting (in vain I might add) to READ MY MIND.

 

[Jimi H.]

..
I have many beliefs...

Ok.

It's easiest to debate someone if they say what those beliefs are, so one doesn't have to pry it out, after being mystified by certain statements. I'm afraid I haven't studied your personal belief system by going through your old posts.

Suffice to say, I've had enough frustrating arguments with believers who didn't reveal their beliefs, or with people who seem innocently unaware of how much their beliefs color their perception, and thus their argumentation.

I acknowledge that my human experience makes flying technological craft an obvious thought. But I truly have no meta-physical beliefs tied in with my interest in the UFO phenomenon.

Do you?

..
This is an assumption. Not wise...

Just like when you assumed, with an air of ridicule, that I had certain reasons to speak for the ETH.
Curiously, in another post shortly thereafter, you said that the Drake equation (innocent but well-argued speculation imo) was the enemy, while you seemed very smitten with the notion of revelations from other intelligences, or something like that. I don't think you can blame me for trying to figure out where you're coming from, because, for instance, I sincerely don't understand your reaction to eg. Drake. But I've met many who believe that life is a particular miracle on Earth and therefore they think that the ETH itself is an enemy.

- When you have the time, I'd love to hear how the UFO phenomenon aligns itself with 'odd particle behavior' or 'recent discoveries via theoretical quantum physics'.

- Also, you haven't revealed how certain radar images (take your pick, e.g. JAL over Alaska) affect your thinking, you've only ignored my requests for a comment or gotten angry about my asking. In other words, you have not commented on what is possibly one of the most important sources of documentation/evidence in UFO cases. Are these technological craft?

- Finally, I've asked for an example of a case which make you think like you do, and which isn't an individual's personal experience/revelation. A case that illustrates your view the best and why it shows that the ETH is false.

..
Please quote me where I have stated that UFOs are not solid. ...

..intelligence that has zero need to harvest energy..

Ehh? Sounds metaphysical to me. Otherwise, you'll have to explain it better, even if it was just a random thought.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Ok.

It's easiest to debate someone if they say what those beliefs are, so one doesn't have to pry it out, after being mystified by certain statements. I'm afraid I haven't studied your personal belief system by going through your old posts.

Suffice to say, I've had enough frustrating arguments with believers who didn't reveal their beliefs, or with people who seem innocently unaware of how much their beliefs color their perception, and thus their argumentation.

I acknowledge that my human experience makes flying technological craft an obvious thought. But I truly have no meta-physical beliefs tied in with my interest in the UFO phenomenon.

Do you?


Just like when you assumed, with an air of ridicule, that I had certain reasons to speak for the ETH.
Curiously, in another post shortly thereafter, you said that the Drake equation (innocent but well-argued speculation imo) was the enemy, while you seemed very smitten with the notion of revelations from other intelligences, or something like that. I don't think you can blame me for trying to figure out where you're coming from, because, for instance, I sincerely don't understand your reaction to eg. Drake. But I've met many who believe that life is a particular miracle on Earth and therefore they think that the ETH itself is an enemy.

- When you have the time, I'd love to hear how the UFO phenomenon aligns itself with 'odd particle behavior' or 'recent discoveries via theoretical quantum physics'.

- Also, you haven't revealed how certain radar images (take your pick, e.g. JAL over Alaska) affect your thinking, you've only ignored my requests for a comment or gotten angry about my asking. In other words, you have not commented on what is possibly one of the most important sources of documentation/evidence in UFO cases. Are these technological craft?

- Finally, I've asked for an example of a case which make you think like you do, and which isn't an individual's personal experience/revelation. A case that illustrates your view the best and why it shows that the ETH is false.





Ehh? Sounds metaphysical to me. Otherwise, you'll have to explain it better, even if it was just a random thought.

Jimi,
I am just not into arguing today. I did run across this which I think you would do very well to pay attention to. Note who we are dealing with here.

Lockheed Skunk Works director says ESP is the key to interstellar travel (Video) | Openminds.tv

 

[Jeff Davis]

Just like when you assumed, with an air of ridicule, that I had certain reasons to speak for the ETH.
Curiously, in another post shortly thereafter, you said that the Drake equation (innocent but well-argued speculation imo) was the enemy, while you seemed very smitten with the notion of revelations from other intelligences, or something like that. I don't think you can blame me for trying to figure out where you're coming from, because, for instance, I sincerely don't understand your reaction to eg. Drake. But I've met many who believe that life is a particular miracle on Earth and therefore they think that the ETH itself is an enemy.

- When you have the time, I'd love to hear how the UFO phenomenon aligns itself with 'odd particle behavior' or 'recent discoveries via theoretical quantum physics'.

- Also, you haven't revealed how certain radar images (take your pick, e.g. JAL over Alaska) affect your thinking, you've only ignored my requests for a comment or gotten angry about my asking. In other words, you have not commented on what is possibly one of the most important sources of documentation/evidence in UFO cases. Are these technological craft?

- Finally, I've asked for an example of a case which make you think like you do, and which isn't an individual's personal experience/revelation. A case that illustrates your view the best and why it shows that the ETH is false.





Ehh? Sounds metaphysical to me. Otherwise, you'll have to explain it better, even if it was just a random thought.

Jimi,
Listen my friend, and I do honestly mean "my friend". I have NEVER stated that the Drake Equation was the enemy of anything. What I stated, flippantly, is that this new scientific assessment via Indonesia or wherever, that states that Dolphin intelligence is on par with human intelligence, deals the Drake equation a serious blow to it credibility. What is the Drake Equation based on Jimi? Think. How did Drake divide up these "advanced intelligence civilizations? He did it based upon their harvest and consumption of energy.

You have got to be kidding me concerning the particle behavior. My good man, google theoretical quantum physics and see for yourself. In just the last 2 years via the colliders and a myriad of experiments we have seen the theoretical entry door to "time travel", "non locality", teleportation, where the heck have you been man? How could you even ask how these findings find similarity to the UFO phenomenon?????? It's all they do presently find scientific alignment with.

I have also made abundantly CLEAR that I think Radar Evidence to be REAL. It does in no way mean we are not dealing with multidimensional technology. Just because something phenomenological (that something being a UFO) is a form of technology, that does not mean we get to automatically dub it a mechanism that insures faster than light speed travel. Again, you are attempting to read my mind.

My view does not dictate or claim that the ETH is false. I have NEVER stated that. I just do not find it to be as likely a hypothesis as an alternate technology that basically accomplishes the same thing through a different means. I believe there is much we do not yet understand with respect to space/time/consciousness. That article I just sent you seems to agree.

 

[Jimi H.]

Alright, thanks for clearing up some things for me there, I'll get off your back then and be friends

Yea, I know the stories about Ben Rich. Since I'm of the sceptical bent, I personally ask myself: Why believe him, when he gave no evidence, and no explanation? Perhaps ESP was a personal interest of his, and he felt like talking about it? Perhaps he had an 'eccentric' side, and believed that ESP-stories could explain UFOs because some afficionado involved in ESP research told him it was 'all real'?
Perhaps he liked to create an aura of mystery, or to provoke/challenge his peers? Perhaps it was disinformation? Who knows? But a guy from Skunkworks telling wild stories, out of the blue? Hmm. Who knows, maybe it's all good, but he sure didn't give us anything in terms of evidence, so I'm sceptical!

Furthermore, if ESP works, I imagine you wouldn't need a vessel, you'd be 'travelling' in your mind, so I don't think that can account for UFO sightings, especially not those that show up on radar.

About the quantum stuff: Quantum entanglement takes place on the particle level. You can send information using entangled particles, because when one particle spins one way, the entangled particle will react accordingly. Thus you can transfer information by observing the entangled particle.
To the best of my knowledge, entanglement does not allow moving a technological craft or a body from one place to another. In theory, if all quantum particles in all the atoms in the body/craft had the exact same position relatively, at exactly the same time, you could actually observe something move. But the likelyhood of such an event happening is very close to nil, and I don't know how such an event could even theoretically be induced, much less controlled.

Naturally, I'm also super fascinated by modern particle physics, and it may indeed be on to something 'universe-changing', but cutting edge theories are not a carte blanche to explain everything and anything, you still need to explain how things would work, or you really haven't explained them. There is a lot of hyperbole surrounding many of these topics imo, also from science journalists. Yet, for instance Michio Kaku says that 'dimensional jumping' is not even theoretically possible.

Personally, I think the theories about 'bending space-time' in front of a vessel are very interesting, because I feel they can actually explain some of the more documented UFO events, imo. Some basic warp-theory, it has probably been posted before, but anyways..:
The warp drive: hyper-fast travel within general relativity - Abstract - Classical and Quantum Gravity - IOPscience

Can it be done in reality? Don't ask me!

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

The Ben Rich Story is constant metaphor and why would a top executive tell his own companies/government secrets?
One : Give the public a insight to high advance gear?
Two : Give the other nations BS?
Three: Turn peoples minds away from something else?
Fourth: Conspirators may suggests have lost control of the industry?

Why did Mr Nick Cook walk away from the story??