• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Curious questions

Free episodes:

uscoins

Paranormal Novice
I wouldn't really call me a sceptic or a nonbeliever. I do believe in races living on other worlds. I just do not believe they can get here. I hear guests talking about civilizations farther along than us. My issue with that is that leading the same timeline, stone age, bronze age, etc.. look at the problems we're having now. Our resources don't replenish and eventually we'll run out. Maybe mining other planets or asteroids would be possible but not without great loss of life. It's unfathomable to think how hard it would be to become an actual space bearing race. I have a few comments and questions. (1) You talk about roswell and the cover up. If they have came here and there was crashes. How come we've never found or heard of any in the jungles or deserts? I'm sure their interest would be in civilization but they have to fly over these other places. (2) The talked about nuclear sites that have went down during a strange flyover. People says alien craft but why would it be so hard to believe that all nuclear devices have similar ways to split the atom and also the triggers I would guess would be close to or exactly the same. So why would it be impossible to believe that we had a super secret craft fly over to see if we could shut them down? That would be a countermeasure and we use plenty of those. (3) The Rendlesham event. Many times I've heard guest talk about the fighter wing that had nukes and that the people there were the best of the best. But, in reality nukes were brand new. No one could of really been a stand out know it all. I can imagine the worry when the first test ever took place. The missiles, bombs, whatever they would of been called. I'm sure probably had leaks. So troops getting contaminated was probably a very regular event. Some people that 1st believed Rendlesham now think was possibly a Russian commando event instead. The other problem I had was the Egyptian hieroglyphics on the ships. That would mean like a 5,000 year old language of sorts still in use? We don't even use them and languages have changed a lot in the last 5,000 years. Hope you get a chance to read some of these and reply. I'll post more later.

Thanks,
Robert
 
I wouldn't really call me a sceptic or a nonbeliever. I do believe in races living on other worlds. I just do not believe they can get here. I hear guests talking about civilizations farther along than us. My issue with that is that leading the same timeline, stone age, bronze age, etc.. look at the problems we're having now. Our resources don't replenish and eventually we'll run out. Maybe mining other planets or asteroids would be possible but not without great loss of life. It's unfathomable to think how hard it would be to become an actual space bearing race. I have a few comments and questions:
  1. You talk about roswell and the cover up. If they have came here and there was crashes. How come we've never found or heard of any in the jungles or deserts? I'm sure their interest would be in civilization but they have to fly over these other places.
  2. The talked about nuclear sites that have went down during a strange flyover. People says alien craft but why would it be so hard to believe that all nuclear devices have similar ways to split the atom and also the triggers I would guess would be close to or exactly the same. So why would it be impossible to believe that we had a super secret craft fly over to see if we could shut them down? That would be a countermeasure and we use plenty of those.
  3. The Rendlesham event. Many times I've heard guest talk about the fighter wing that had nukes and that the people there were the best of the best. But, in reality nukes were brand new. No one could of really been a stand out know it all. I can imagine the worry when the first test ever took place. The missiles, bombs, whatever they would of been called. I'm sure probably had leaks. So troops getting contaminated was probably a very regular event. Some people that 1st believed Rendlesham now think was possibly a Russian commando event instead. The other problem I had was the Egyptian hieroglyphics on the ships. That would mean like a 5,000 year old language of sorts still in use? We don't even use them and languages have changed a lot in the last 5,000 years.
Hope you get a chance to read some of these and reply. I'll post more later.

Thanks,
Robert
Welcome to the forum Robert :) . Don't worry about being skeptical here. We like constructive skeptics ( or at least I do ). On that note, a quick getting started tip: It is easier to peruse posts when they're formatted into shorter paragraphs and bullet points are used for numbered issues. I reformatted your post in my reply to illustrate. I try not to create paragraphs longer than three lines on my HD monitor, and I still get accused of being verbose.

The short answer to all your questions and concerns is that regardless of all your reservations and doubts, after you review enough cases and talk to enough witnesses it becomes reasonable to believe that alien visitation is a reality. That doesn't mean there is verifiable scientifically valid material evidence. If there is, the general public hasn't got access to it. In the case of UFOs, requiring that level of evidence also goes beyond reasonable and into the sphere where science is used to promote denial and entrench bias rather than foster open minded investigation.

To be more specific:

  1. Crashes: There have been other alleged crashes around the world, but none as well documented as Roswell. Still, we don't know for certain that the materials picked up at the Roswell crash were the remains of an alien craft. The stories certainly point in that direction, but that's not the same as knowing for sure.
  2. Sightings at Nuclear Installations: Not everyone believes that all the stories about UFOs sighted at nuclear installations are true. I do think that some cases are true, but will leave that for another discussion. Mainly, your skepticism there is IMO well founded.
  3. Rendlesham Forest Incident: There's probably some truth to this story accompanied by a lot of hype, and possibly some deception or fabrication, but I'm not the one to say for sure where to draw the lines. Separating the signal from the noise is time consuming. I tend to look at more than the Halt story. There is other UFO activity associated with Woodbridge Base as well, and when it's all taken together, is hard to think that nothing unusual was going on sometimes.
Lastly, with respect to interstellar travel. There's nothing unscientific about the possibility of interstellar travel. We already have a space probe that is, depending on how you look at the definition of ( interstellar ), on it's way into interstellar space. It's a historical pattern that if something is scientifically feasible and interesting, then it's just a matter of time before someone does it. Given our current rate of technological advancement, assuming that humanity doesn't screw-up really bad or get wiped out by a large natural disaster, it's hard to imagine what level of technology we'll have in a thousand years. Interstellar craft don't seem that far-out to me, and why should we be the first to have it figured out?

I should also add that there are advocates of other hypotheses besides the I-ETH ( Interstellar ETH ), including some who think that UFOs come from much "closer to home". So you're also not entirely alone in thinking that the I-ETH has problems too big to resolve, or at least not likely to have been resolved by a spacefaring race close enough to make the trip here.

But if you believe UFOs come from Earth, the question then is: Where are their production facilities? I have a hard time believing that after more than half a century, nobody on Earth has figured that out yet. The Russians knew all about Area 51, and the black projects going on there. When they shot down Gary Powers, they put Powers on display in the media, and the whole world knew. If UFOs are from Earth, why not the same thing? IMO it doesn't make sense and I've seen no adequate evidence to convince me otherwise. But you're certainly invited to try ;).
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't really call me a sceptic or a nonbeliever. I do believe in races living on other worlds. I just do not believe they can get here. . . . Hope you get a chance to read some of these and reply. I'll post more later.
Thanks,
Robert
Hi Robert - I share the same skepticism, but for different reasons. I would be curious to know what evidence supports your view in races living on other worlds? Also, you didn't mention anything about the possibility of inter-dimensional explanations - which is where I tend to go, given the lack of physical evidence - what are your thoughts on this?. I agree with ufology that there is nothing unscientific about interstellar travel - the physics tells us that it is very unlikely to traverse interstellar distances!
Thanks for the post!
 
Hi Robert - I share the same skepticism, but for different reasons. I would be curious to know what evidence supports your view in races living on other worlds? Also, you didn't mention anything about the possibility of inter-dimensional explanations - which is where I tend to go, given the lack of physical evidence - what are your thoughts on this?. I agree with ufology that there is nothing unscientific about interstellar travel - the physics tells us that it is very unlikely to traverse interstellar distances!
Thanks for the post!
I just thought I would throw my 2¢ worth in on the IDH ( Interdimensional Hypothesis ). I don't believe that spatial dimensions beyond 3 are possible in any given universe, and that the mathematical models used to describe them are strictly abstract. I do however believe that other universes are possible, and therefore in that sense, if transport between universes is possible, then that sort of qualifies as transport from another 3D spatial construct and therefore technically speaking, from "other dimensions", but that is quite different than supposing that there are some other "higher dimensions" in our own universe that beings could sort of descend down out of. That isn't logically possible.
 
Hello and welcome to the forum.

Regarding:
(3) The Rendlesham event.

My understanding is that a high number of military personnel were both accidentally and deliberately irradiated in the early days 1940s-50 but I think by the time of Rendalsham they were better at containing the radiation, at least I hope so.

About the hieroglyphs: A lot of Oriental languages use Chinese characters that are a sort of hieroglyph (technically called logograms) to this day. In the west (or languages that use the Latin alphabet) we also use them, especially on signs or "electronics" (smart phones and TV remote controls for example)
playbutton-20120921T021242-ymh3lub.png


I don't know very much about Rendalsham, but it sounds like a Psyop to me.
 
I just thought I would throw my 2¢ worth in on the IDH ( Interdimensional Hypothesis ). I don't believe that spatial dimensions beyond 3 are possible in any given universe, and that the mathematical models used to describe them are strictly abstract. I do however believe that other universes are possible...

Interesting, that is exactly the opposite view of the majority of main-stream physics research opinion. I understand what you mean about more dimensions being purely abstract, but there are a lot of very good reasons and support for more spatial dimensions. For instance, both general relativity and the standard model of physics are two of the most widely known and accepted models that accurately describe our world in a predictable way. These models aren't complete, but it is well known that some of the problems are solved by having extra space dimensions. Also, there is just about a unanimous consensus on the current big bang cosmological model in which the theory predicts that the extra space dimensions curled up around the 3 spatial dimensions we have. There are serious experiments underway to try and detect these dimensions. For multiple universes, there isn't a single credible theory that is accepted by main-stream science and to make matters worse, no way to test it. I am not 100% an IDH proponent, but was curious to what others might think. Given the lack of physical evidence, IDH is increasingly looking like a credible explanation for some of the phenomena.
 
Conscious awareness by review gives itself its condition when it evaluates information.

Information has a status on Earth....a planet, an atmosphere, a Nature and then a human life.

The human life supported by all bodies that precede it, by reference of the information that precedes it. So the human mind as personal review gave its valued review of information that preceded it as being an actual support system.

So a human would then ask, why change the support system?

The support system when changed demonstrates that it attacks the living conditions.....a review studied as an attack on the animal nature as an UFO condition, the human life as an experience. The mind and the physical and then the observations in the atmosphere demonstrate the attack and the loss of the condition of stone's natural fusion or sink holes.

When a human who purposely builds machines and buildings to cause changes to the natural states by forced applications then considers the phenomena that is then caused, what is to consider?

The reasoning would imply that consideration of the information has no value (not applied as an actual considerate human being) by the reasoning imposed upon us in the public condition by those who cause the conditions.

The reasoning of the occultist scientist regards gaining new powers by identification of the powers, for their personal motivation by choice of the mind consideration and it is about their own reason....want. Personal want as a review does not imply that it is a want by a considerate human being.

These conditions as a human review, a natural owner in life and also an observer of phenomena have always occurred as a real consideration due to the information by the information reviewed. The information currently being reviewed belongs to the human male's own choice to pretend that he is a Creator.

Whereas when the information is reviewed as a real consideration, by human beings who are actually considerate, love life, their family, the nature and the spiritual conditions on Planet Earth as a state of mutual support and equal ownership the advice stated differently.............that occult practices, the changes caused to the astronomy and the Earth were done so by occult practices. Occultism the old name for sciences that use nuclear conversion methods.

When you study the cause and effects of the human mind ownership, the mind demonstrates that irradiation changes the mind and also the status of evolution, natural health, chemical balances and the mind relationship of a natural spiritual support living condition then alters.

The mind changed by occult irradiation, an unnatural condition in review of a natural life causes the opinions of feed back and data review to be considered incorrectly as a result of being changed.

This is why a human male suddenly believed in altered dimensions, when the ancient advice of SION stated that if you altered the atmospheric body, then the spirit interaction of SION also changes.

The reasoning to this ancient review belonged to personal male advice of being irradiated, called wearing the crown of thorns (for irradiation as a human affect causes painful prickling), and stigmata, as a changed chemical brain affect along with unnatural cellular changes and bleeding.

The stigmata itself also belonged to prophetic reasoning by implication that the feed back advice related to PHI prophecy or calculations as a human mind advice.

Human kind in modern life demonstrate by the conditions of a altered atmosphere to now own all conditions previously considered as cause and effects of ancient occult practices as an attack.

Having had the condition of irradiation caused to my person, I experienced a brain state where imagery and information was communicating to my mind in lines, fragmenting my imagery in my mind state. This is why I came to understand that the human male who has since gained a new mind chemical interaction from past atmospheric irradiation was receiving incorrect feedback when he considered scientific data.

The ancient occult information regarded conditions of mind consideration that called the feed back a state of awareness called Satan.

When you review occult data, Satan by review is a condition from out of space as a line 2012 End of time as an irradiation stream affect that once attacked Planet Earth. This occult consideration belonged to calculations by TAN, SIN etc. The ancient application of nuclear conversion in the natural atmosphere belonged to the conditions for levitation of stone as a building practice.

If we all ask ourselves an honest question, why was invention invented as a consideration beyond natural living conditions....... and why did a human male consider what he proposed as his own review....creation and Creator? The only Creator we review as an occult practice is his own presence changing natural fusion on Earth into a condition which he personally imposes is a creation of energy.

Whereas if you actually review what a male considers, he actually considers information that already exists, and then he decides to alter the information by a fake and falsely applied application so that he can access a form of the energy in a state lower than it once was.

As the modern day occult review states, our scientific possessed brother's mind wants. He wants new invention, he wants new resources and he wants this consideration only due to the fact of his own choice, his creation.

His creation when reviewed states, that he overtook natural life on Earth and enforced his own evaluation of all natural states to impose personal ownership, and a claim to personal power status and gave all natural conditions a value so that he could use value for all of his own purposes.

Yet if he never applied this choice, our modern life would not be facing what it now faces. His choice to attack and change our natural life, which the Nature demonstrates it is suffering, only due to his own consideration of his lifestyle, his inventions and his gain of money, a value that itself is false, for he created the conditions to use money.

So when we all review what he is causing, his new consideration is about his want to own the UFO condition as a newly informed mind status, as if this status actually exists in reality....when it does not. For all information that is given to a conscious aware state, is only fed back information from atmospheric recordings.

Recording is not a physical state, and all energy evolution belongs to a physical owned state. It is either a Sun, a planet, or a stone/gas evolution.

As we live in a condition of atmospheric feed back...we live naturally our bodies as mind choices, feelings, reactions, presence, voice gets recorded by the photon interaction, as does all of Nature, the information is then fed back to our minds. This is how information was first resourced by the human male in an unnatural mind state...the taking of somatic or plant chemical drugs.

When you change the atmosphere, then the feed back to the human mind begins to give false information, for information itself belongs to the condition of recordings.

The atmosphere already held a recording of the natural atmospheric interaction with the nuclear of stone. The human male built power plants, changed the nuclear fusion and new recordings were then placed in the atmosphere. The mind then gained new fake fed back information, and in the cause and effect of the information changing the amount of atmospheric radiation also attacked the natural cellular life.

This is why the ancient occult attack consideration already advised the ancient occult practices that it had caused the physical changes to the natural cellular life and that it also had attacked the natural fusion of stone and its evolution into a fused state. The teachings stated that the human mind becomes possessed by feed back when it continues to consider fake information, which leads the human male into considering information as if it is real, when in fact it does not exist.

When we consider how fall out of a metallic object is caused, it is simply a cause of changing the natural cold mass of Earth's atmosphere and has nothing to do with new science....it is in fact by identification an attack to Earth's natural metallic fusion. The attack is the reason why sink holes appeared as a world wide condition. Nuclear particles in out of space are much larger than the dust on Planet Earth, and our atmosphere considered by ancient occultists to be the protection of Planet Earth, once kept life safe from this particle fall out. The creation of nuclear fuel using the atmospheric cooling condition allowed these particles to begin to manifest above us, so below us the metal disappeared as holes.

If we consider what would actually occur if huge masses of the manifested metallic UFO occurred in our atmosphere by loss of its natural mass, more than likely it would blow Earth apart. The ancient occult wisdom and visions relating to SION explained how the Universe had previously been attacked and changed, and why Planets previously blew apart due to this condition....the forming of the UFO invaSION.

As the ancient information was secreted in a format of fed back realization of the ancient human male's mind, the information of SION via invasion relates to conditions.

SION INVA
VAIN, the condition stating empty, worthless, hollow, having no genuine substance, value or importance.

As a state of deceit, or being deceitful it is why religious science taught a spiritual condition relating to the condition of being "vain", as a conceited, proud and false condition of the human male's self considerations.


When we consider the occult theory, it tries to impose that this metal formation as a manifested state is a replacement of Earth's natural metal, as if it moved through dimensions....only due to the fact that want imposes false data as a consideration, for want supersedes rational explanation. If you query what the modern occult theory imposes, it states that it can create energy in a beginning status inside of a machine. Yet when energy first existed, no metal and no stone existed, therefore how can this form of theory actually exist in reality?

Therefore the only reason we continue to be attacked is due to the modern occult experiments imposing an unnatural condition upon the evolution of matter, as if it happened in an instantaneous reaction, when it did not......stone cooled through evolution.
 
Last edited:
Interesting, that is exactly the opposite view of the majority of main-stream physics research opinion. I understand what you mean about more dimensions being purely abstract, but there are a lot of very good reasons and support for more spatial dimensions. For instance, both general relativity and the standard model of physics are two of the most widely known and accepted models that accurately describe our world in a predictable way. These models aren't complete, but it is well known that some of the problems are solved by having extra space dimensions. Also, there is just about a unanimous consensus on the current big bang cosmological model in which the theory predicts that the extra space dimensions curled up around the 3 spatial dimensions we have. There are serious experiments underway to try and detect these dimensions. For multiple universes, there isn't a single credible theory that is accepted by main-stream science and to make matters worse, no way to test it. I am not 100% an IDH proponent, but was curious to what others might think. Given the lack of physical evidence, IDH is increasingly looking like a credible explanation for some of the phenomena.

Actually, multiple universes in the context of universes as computational constructs are seriously considered these days, as are bubble universes and other universes that exist within our current spacetime construct:

Article: 5 Reasons We May Live in a Multiverse


On the other hand, spatial dimensions used in mathematical models are purely abstract and there are serious problems in logical coherency when trying to apply any more than 3 to physical reality in ways that imply that some being can exist "up there" in a higher dimension, and move back and forth between "our dimension" and "theirs". This is the context we're talking about, not theories that require that we add undetected universes to equations in order to make the math balance out. Take some time to reflect on the following and I think you'll get what I'm saying. If you find some way around it, please let me know.

The way to visualize why what I'm saying must be true is to first recognize that spatial geometry has sequential dependence. Lines cannot exist without points. Areas cannot exist without points and lines. Volume cannot exist without points and lines and areas. This principle is inescapable, and logically because each successive dimension has to be built on the ones preceding, it must apply as far "up" as any additional dimensions go. As a consequence, any "Fifth or Sixth or Seventh Dimensional" being must also have it's feet firmly planted in Flatland first and then extend itself upward into our 3D universe where we would immediately be able to detect it. So the Flatlander analogy is flawed.


To further illustrate: The Flatlander analogy usually portrays us 3D beings as being "up here" looking down on Flatland, as though we're detached. However because of sequential dependence, that cannot be the case. Our skyscrapers must without exception, still have their 1D boundaries and 2D floors firmly planted in Flatland where all Flatlanders have no choice but to work their way around them. The only way to be detached from this situation is to exist independently in our own 3D space, which boils down to being inside our own alternate universe, not another "dimension".

BTW, this also results in the inescapable logic that in any given spatial construct, all spatial dimensions must exist concurrently in any given object. For example we cannot simply cut off dimensions 1 or 2 without destroying 3. So there's no way for some creature to be composed only of dimensions 5, 6, and 7 because in the context we're talking about here, it's impossible. Reflect on this for a while and you will inevitably reach the same conclusion, and you'll see how people confuse dimensions with universes, how not all mathematical constructs can be true, and what I mean when I say: "An Escher staircase looks good on paper. Just don't try to build one."

Simulated Universes
( One of the best documentaries on this subject I've seen )

 
Last edited:
Actually, multiple universes in the context of universes as computational constructs are seriously considered these days...On the other hand, spatial dimensions used in mathematical models are purely abstract and there are serious problems in logical consistency when trying to apply any more than 3 to physical reality ....So the Flatlander analogy is flawed.

Great post! Since we are throwing out 2cents around...here is my attempt of an answer.

I am not saying that multiple universes are not being considered, but saying there are working theories for them and they are 100% speculative (i.e. no working physics theoretical model), as you have pointed out in the article. Whether they (multiple universes) exist or not is independent of the number of spatial dimensions our universe has.

The standard model of physics is one of the most proven models out there, but it is not 100% complete. Models such as string theory have been around since the 1970's and many people think that they offer the most promise of explaining our universe. Either way, there is a working model here that does describe reality quite nicely and is defendable. There must be logical consistency for people to spend careers working on this for ~40 years and that is funding in place for serious scientific investigation.

Physicists don't just willy-nilly stick them (extra-dimensions) in a mathematical model as you suggest, but they have been working the solutions to this model in conjunction with experimental evidence for decades and the model has grown to be one of the most active researched models in physics. These models do say that reality is 3 plus at least 7-8+ dimensions (mostly space plus time). Although we recognize (and can currently detect) 3 dimensions the best that science has to offer (based on living validated models to date) says that our reality may actually be 9 or 10 spatial dimensions, but this is under investigation.

I think your flatlander reasoning isn't right. In general, I think the sequential dependence makes sense, but that applies to building surfaces of shapes and boundaries but it only constrains the upper limit in shapes of objects living in those spaces (i.e. a plane can exist in a 3D world but a ball can't exist in a 2D world). This translates to the shape of a 3D universe (using cartesian coordinates) of a certain size has boundaries made up of planes (area) of certain sizes, and so on..., but says nothing about a 3D object, say a basketball floating around or a 2D object such as a sheet of paper floating around. For flatlander, based on your sequential dependency, a 2D universe can exist inside a larger 3D universe. If there was a being that had a 2D shape and confined on a sheet of paper sitting on my desk in my 3D world, that being could only see in 2 directions in his world. In my 3D world, I can walk up to my desk and see everything this flat person is doing but it has no knowledge of me observing and moving around him until I touch the paper (or his world). When the 3D person touches the 2D universe (piece of paper), then the 2D being will suddenly see a 'line' appear. I don't see a problem with flatlander.

Getting back to my original point/question - there is no physical evidence to date, but there is a lot of evidence such as remnants of interaction (radar images, weird things showing up on cameras but not seen (or vice-versa), electromagnetic signatures, burnt marks on the ground, etc.). I personally have a satisfactory answer for me (if interested contact me privately), but can it be possible for these 'signatures' to be evidence of some other phenomena or beings (from other spatial dimension or realm) interacting in our world just as above with a 3D person touching a 2D world? To me this seems more likely than the overcoming the physics of interstellar travel, assuming life even exists or had time to 'evolve'. Like everyone here, this is a personal opinion based on interpretations of the best humanity has to offer, with the understanding that better answers are being sought after.

Thanks!
 
Actually, multiple universes in the context of universes as computational constructs are seriously considered these days, as are bubble universes and other universes that exist within our current spacetime construct:

Article: 5 Reasons We May Live in a Multiverse

Getting back to my original point/question - there is no physical evidence to date, but there is a lot of evidence such as remnants of interaction (radar images, weird things showing up on cameras but not seen (or vice-versa), electromagnetic signatures, burnt marks on the ground, etc.). I personally have a satisfactory answer for me (if interested contact me privately), but can it be possible for these 'signatures' to be evidence of some other phenomena or beings (from other spatial dimension or realm) interacting in our world just as above with a 3D person touching a 2D world? To me this seems more likely than the overcoming the physics of interstellar travel, assuming life even exists or had time to 'evolve'. Like everyone here, this is a personal opinion based on interpretations of the best humanity has to offer, with the understanding that better answers are being sought after.

Very interesting discussion.

Breddell, I was wondering if you could expand on some of the interesting things you said.

-You said there is a strong foundation for the idea of extra spatial dimensions, but not for a multiverse (something that personally I don’t see). I assume you are referring to the micro curled up spatial dimensions of String Theory. You say you lean towards the idea of an interdimensional explanation for UFOs. If you don’t like the idea of other universes, where do you think they are coming from? I assume you are not saying they are coming from the micro curled up spatial dimensions.

-There are theories that support extra spatial dimensions and multiple universes. But it is fundamental to these theories that only gravity can pass between universes. Can you point to a theory accepted by mainstream science that supports interdimensional travel by particles other than gravitons? If I have missed that, I would love to read about it. (Or if you are not referring to other universes, a theory describing interdimensional travel from the source you are referring to.)

FYI, in another thread Chris O’Brien posted an article discussing a variation of the Many Worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics called Many Interacting Worlds. This theory presents the potential for being testable.
Parallel worlds exist and interact with our world, say physicists

Nobel Prize winning astrophysicist George Smoot talking about the strong mathematical foundation for the idea that we are living in a simulation:

 
I assume you are not saying they are coming from the micro curled up spatial dimensions.

Although i don't think i would have ever called myself an advocate of this idea, to this very day i am intrigued by the mention in a couple of accounts i've read over the years.. i think John Keel was the source of one ...that a UAP (don't recall if it was a solid or a ball of light type but i believe if was a solid metallic looking craft) where it was mentioned that said craft sort of "blinked out" or just got smaller and smaller instead of taking off rapidly in a certain direction.

I'm also reminded of a certain folk saying that went something along the lines of heaven is only *20* feet off the ground ( or something like that) i think to myself "How on earth did that come to be" the point being that some folklore can be built upon observed phenomena.

Obviously none of that means diddly from a scientific point of view but it does make me wonder about what if anything could be within these curved micro dimensions.

Also i wonder if maybe some of these "shrinking craft" accounts couldn't still be happening but maybe because we are so oriented/programmed into describing things as moving in a three dimensional cardinal direction we would naturally describe something as moving rapidly to the north east when in reality it's shrinking back upon itself mere feet above our heads.
 
Last edited:
Very interesting discussion.

Breddell, I was wondering if you could expand on some of the interesting things you said.

-You said there is a strong foundation for the idea of extra spatial dimensions, but not for a multiverse (something that personally I don’t see). I assume you are referring to the micro curled up spatial dimensions of String Theory. You say you lean towards the idea of an interdimensional explanation for UFOs. If you don’t like the idea of other universes, where do you think they are coming from? I assume you are not saying they are coming from the micro curled up spatial dimensions.

-There are theories that support extra spatial dimensions and multiple universes. But it is fundamental to these theories that only gravity can pass between universes. Can you point to a theory accepted by mainstream science that supports interdimensional travel by particles other than gravitons? If I have missed that, I would love to read about it. (Or if you are not referring to other universes, a theory describing interdimensional travel from the source you are referring to.)[/MEDIA]

Hello,
I would like to start out that the disclaimer that we are discussing current research and the many interpretations of possible outcomes and any of these ideas remain to be validated. At this point I (or anyone else) don't know if any of them are correct. Yes, I am referring to string theory(s), which are still not complete. I mention them because they are linked to predicting all of the particles (and forces) and also explain a quantum theory of gravity. It is testable and there are efforts underway to veryify various features of it. I never said I didn't like the idea of other universes, I just think they are too hard to develop models for and test for them.

I don't know of any theory that supports interdimensional travel, but that doesn't mean one could exist. The article you mention is very good and the imbedded video gives a good overview of the various multiverses and their non-testability. The video also goes into a short description of why multiverse theory was developed to explain the fine tuning observed in this universe. As far as the MIW hypothesis, that sounds interesting, but again it also sounds very speculative. Part of the problem with a lot of these theories is the interpretations - I think there are over 20 different QM interpretations now. It may show promise, but I think it is best summed up in the following quote from the article:

"Whether or not the math holds true will be the ultimate test for this theory. Does it or does it not properly predict quantum effects mathematically? But the theory is certain to provide plenty of fodder for the imagination. "
 
Great post! Since we are throwing out 2cents around...here is my attempt of an answer.

I am not saying that multiple universes are not being considered, but saying there are working theories for them and they are 100% speculative (i.e. no working physics theoretical model), as you have pointed out in the article. Whether they (multiple universes) exist or not is independent of the number of spatial dimensions our universe has.
We must be mincing words to some extent because I don't see any difference between being "100% speculative" in a way that allows the same physics used in our universe to be used in another one, and what you're calling a "physics theoretical model". Perhaps you could outline the difference between "theory" and "speculation" when both use the same principles? Right now I don't see it.
The standard model of physics is one of the most proven models out there, but it is not 100% complete. Models such as string theory have been around since the 1970's and many people think that they offer the most promise of explaining our universe. Either way, there is a working model here that does describe reality quite nicely and is defendable. There must be logical consistency for people to spend careers working on this for ~40 years and that is funding in place for serious scientific investigation.

Physicists don't just willy-nilly stick them (extra-dimensions) in a mathematical model as you suggest, but they have been working the solutions to this model in conjunction with experimental evidence for decades and the model has grown to be one of the most active researched models in physics. These models do say that reality is 3 plus at least 7-8+ dimensions (mostly space plus time). Although we recognize (and can currently detect) 3 dimensions the best that science has to offer (based on living validated models to date) says that our reality may actually be 9 or 10 spatial dimensions, but this is under investigation.

Sure that's reasonable. The advancement of science relevant to this topic is covered in the video I included in my last post, and if you know the history, then you also know that it's the inconsistencies in logical coherency that have resulted in the addition of things like extra dimensions or universes in order to compensate for them. That is in no way suggesting that these additions have been made "willy-nilly". There's serious reasoning behind them, but we've also seen this pattern of problem solving in science before. When scientists still believed the geocentric model of the solar system, but ran into incoherencies, they built increasingly complex models to explain them.

p107a.GIF


Eventually however, scientists were forced to abandon the geocentric model rather than continue bolting on more compensators. In both situations, the science has a lot of things right, but perhaps these bolt on dimensions are no more than compensators in the mathematical bookkeeping. Maybe a new model is needed. As the video I posted points out, a number of problems in the current model can be readily explained by a computational model, which is why a number of serious thinkers ( including myself ) have been leaning that direction. BTW, don't get me wrong there, I'm not saying that I ( as a person ) am in the same company as the academic elite. I'm just saying that my independent thinking on the problem happens to have been very similar to others who are more well known ( e.g. Nick Bostrom ).

Relevant link:
Are You Living in a Simulation?
I think your flatlander reasoning isn't right.
OK let's have a look at that.
In general, I think the sequential dependence makes sense, but that applies to building surfaces of shapes and boundaries but it only constrains the upper limit in shapes of objects living in those spaces (i.e. a plane can exist in a 3D world but a ball can't exist in a 2D world).
OK
This translates to the shape of a 3D universe (using cartesian coordinates) of a certain size has boundaries made up of planes (area) of certain sizes, and so on..., but says nothing about a 3D object, say a basketball floating around or a 2D object such as a sheet of paper floating around.
Actually, I pointed out that the logic of sequential dependence makes it impossible for "higher" dimensional objects to float "down" into lower dimensional space, and this would apply specifically to your mention of a sphere "like a basketball" floating down into 2D space as if independent from it. It's not possible because all 3D objects in any given 3D universe are inseparably chained to the 2D space of that universe, and any hypothetical 5 or 6 or 7 dimensional objects in our universe would be inseparably linked down through our 3D space too. So aliens couldn't simply just chop off our 3 dimensions and disappear back into their 5, 6 & 7D realm without it collapsing.

c59c5d2555b025cc4185a91bd2c6a213.jpg


For flatlander, based on your sequential dependency, a 2D universe can exist inside a larger 3D universe.
Not exactly. I'm using the Flatlander analogy for illustrative purposes to show how it has misled people into looking at dimensions & universes synonymously ( when they're not the same ). BTW I first saw the analogy used by Carl Sagan on his Cosmos series back in the 80s. That led me to think about it and discover the problem with it. So I'm not saying that 2D universes can exist inside 3D universes at all. I'm saying that 3D space is dependent on the pre-existence of 2D coordinates, and that in any given universe all dimensions exist concurrently in any given object.
If there was a being that had a 2D shape and confined on a sheet of paper sitting on my desk in my 3D world, that being could only see in 2 directions in his world. In my 3D world, I can walk up to my desk and see everything this flat person is doing but it has no knowledge of me observing and moving around him until I touch the paper (or his world). When the 3D person touches the 2D universe (piece of paper), then the 2D being will suddenly see a 'line' appear. I don't see a problem with flatlander.
The above point still doesn't take into account that 2D cannot be detached from 3D without 3D collapsing, and therefore the Flatlander analogy is flawed. Consequently, interposition of one universe through the other would have to be in the context of a 2D universe intersecting a separate 3D universe. But even then there is no reason to think we could actually "see" into flatland or that any "line" would appear to the Flatlanders during such interposition. Each universe is it's own separate construct. Those in 3D Land already have their own set of 2D coordinates, as do those in Flatland, and there's no way to merge them into a single universe without destroying one or the other.

However what could conceivably happen is that because each universe is ultimately made of points ( quanta ), it is possible that in the context of an even larger universe that acts as a container for multiple universes, the coordinates of each unit of quanta could be positioned so that during interposition, none of them intersect. Like two flocks of birds or schools of fish or galaxies of stars moving through each others paths. In such situations it is rare for collisions to happen, yet there are changes in each set, and those changes might be detectable.

Getting back to my original point/question - there is no physical evidence to date, but there is a lot of evidence such as remnants of interaction (radar images, weird things showing up on cameras but not seen (or vice-versa), electromagnetic signatures, burnt marks on the ground, etc.). I personally have a satisfactory answer for me (if interested contact me privately), but can it be possible for these 'signatures' to be evidence of some other phenomena or beings (from other spatial dimension or realm) interacting in our world just as above with a 3D person touching a 2D world?
Can it be, "... possible for these 'signatures' to be evidence of beings from some other spatial dimension ..."? No. That's the whole point. But don't think of that as a negative. Separating what is possible from what isn't allows us to eliminate impossibilities from the list of theories, which is progress. It also allows us to shift our attention to the other things that are possible, like beings from another "realm", provided that such a "realm" is synonymous with either the word "universe" or some other location within our own universe, like another planet.
To me this seems more likely than the overcoming the physics of interstellar travel, assuming life even exists or had time to 'evolve'. Like everyone here, this is a personal opinion based on interpretations of the best humanity has to offer, with the understanding that better answers are being sought after.
Thanks!
True. Interstellar travel is a huge problem given our current knowledge of distance and time. However at least we know for certain our universe exists. The rest are purely theoretical. Also, if other universes exist, and it is possible to cut and paste objects between them, then logically, it's also possible to cut and paste objects between coordinates in our own universe as well, which would do away with the need to travel what we perceive as linear distance. So we still don't have to invoke other universes ( apart from that in which the operating system resides ). This is the premise for the FTL drive in a sci-fi novel I've been working on titled Equinox.
 
Last edited:
Although i don't think i would have ever called myself an advocate of this idea, to this very day i am intrigued by the mention in a couple of accounts i've read over the years.. i think John Keel was the source of one ...that a uap (don't recall if it was a solid or a ball of light type but i believe if was a solid metallic looking craft) where it was mentioned that said craft sort of "blinked out" or just got smaller and smaller instead of taking off rapidly in a certain direction.

I'm also reminded of a certain folk saying that went something along the lines of heaven is only *20* feet of the ground ( or something like that) i think to myself "How on earth did that come to be" the point being that some folklore can be built upon observed phenomena.

Obviously none of that means diddly from a scientific point of view but it does make me wonder about what if anything could be within these curved micro dimensions.

Also i wonder if maybe some of these "shrinking craft" accounts couldn't still be happening but maybe because we are so oriented/programmed into describing things as moving in a three dimensional cardinal direction we would naturally describe something as moving rapidly to the north east when in reality it's shrinking back upon itself mere feet above our heads.
Regarding shrinking craft. If the effect is not an illusion caused by the sudden acceleration away from a witness, it might be the activation of some sort of active camouflage, like a video transitioning from one scene to the other in a circular pattern that decreases in size, camouflaging the craft with imagery that matches its surroundings. This is IMO still far more reasonable than invoking interdimensional transport ( which as I've explained above is impossible ) or other universes, which although not impossible, are more of a stretch than considering what is possible in this universe, which is known. That being said, the Multiverse Hypothesis is still my personal favorite after the Interstellar Hypothesis.
 
Last edited:
We must be mincing words... geocentric model of the solar system, but ran into incoherencies.... all 3D objects in any given 3D universe are inseparably chained to the 2D space of that universe....True. Interstellar travel is a huge problem given our current knowledge of distance and time.....However at least we know for certain our universe exists...... This is the premise for the FTL drive in a sci-fi novel I've been working on titled Equinox.

Wow.. lots of topics in this thread and it will be hard not to write a book. I will try to answer a few of your points quickly.

1. I agree we have some mincing of words. In other posts in this thread I tried to separate out stronger support for extra dimensions than for multiverse. This evidence is tied to models that accurately describe energy, space, and time in terms of our universe beginning and evolution. On the otherhand, multiverse theory is a possiblity, but is not tied to any theory that makes the same level of predictions - perhaps that can change in the future. ALso, I acknowledge that the multiverse may be real, but is completely untestable.

2. The advances in science that you mention (geocentric universe) are just advances in science and were models that served purposes in their time. They were useful for some things, but not for all things, and as science knowledge and technical capability got better, better models resulted. Logical inconsistency is probably not the best explanation here. Now, it is different. We are practically at the limits testability. For instance, if we wanted to probe down to a Planck time after the Big Bang, we woud need a particle accelerator the length of the solar system (or some crazy size like that). In the not so distant future, because of cosmic expansion we will not be able to see back to the beginning, and for the multiverse, we are talking about makeing measurements outside of our universe.

3. For the space dimensions discussion, you said "all 3D objects in any given 3D universe are inseparably chained to the 2D space of that universe". Not sure this makes any sense as there are an infinite number of slices (or 2D universes) in a 3D universe. In the attached picture (hopefully it shows up) I have drawn a ball being and a plane (2D universe) inside a 3D universe. To make your point clear to me, can you please illustrate your theory here? It seems pretty clear that the ball being can see all of the flatland and the 2D being confined to the flatland cannot even be aware of the ball being?

upload_2016-9-20_21-5-35.png
True. Interstellar travel is a huge problem given our current knowledge of distance and time.....However at least we know for certain our universe exists...... This is the premise for the FTL drive in a sci-fi novel I've been working on titled Equinox.

Yes! I agree 100% - The novel you are working on sounds like a good read!
 
Wow.. lots of topics in this thread and it will be hard not to write a book. I will try to answer a few of your points quickly.

1. I agree we have some mincing of words. In other posts in this thread I tried to separate out stronger support for extra dimensions than for multiverse. This evidence is tied to models that accurately describe energy, space, and time in terms of our universe beginning and evolution. On the otherhand, multiverse theory is a possiblity, but is not tied to any theory that makes the same level of predictions - perhaps that can change in the future. ALso, I acknowledge that the multiverse may be real, but is completely untestable.
It might not be the case that a multiverse is untestable. It depends on the version. From the computational perspective it certainly could be testable. For example if we were to gain access to the "Grand OS" in a way that would allow us to give it instructions that would facilitate detection and transport between universes. Or in the case of universes composed of quanta, we might be able to detect them by how they affect our universe as they pass by. There is some speculation that dark matter might be something like that.
2. The advances in science that you mention (geocentric universe) are just advances in science and were models that served purposes in their time. They were useful for some things, but not for all things, and as science knowledge and technical capability got better, better models resulted. Logical inconsistency is probably not the best explanation here. Now, it is different. We are practically at the limits testability. For instance, if we wanted to probe down to a Planck time after the Big Bang, we woud need a particle accelerator the length of the solar system (or some crazy size like that). In the not so distant future, because of cosmic expansion we will not be able to see back to the beginning, and for the multiverse, we are talking about makeing measurements outside of our universe.
As usual, you make very good points, but the principle we're both talking about remains intact. Perhaps, like other models in the past, the model we are using now has served it's purpose in our time, but the incoherencies like the acceleration of the distant universe, dark matter and energy, and those others mentioned in the video, that are based on empirical science ( not hypothetical theories ) might require us to adjust it, and the computational model does a pretty good job of addressing those issues. Have you watched it? I know it's a bit long, but there's only a couple of weak spots in it. Much better than most.
3. For the space dimensions discussion, you said "all 3D objects in any given 3D universe are inseparably chained to the 2D space of that universe". Not sure this makes any sense as there are an infinite number of slices (or 2D universes) in a 3D universe. In the attached picture (hopefully it shows up) I have drawn a ball being and a plane (2D universe) inside a 3D universe. To make your point clear to me, can you please illustrate your theory here? It seems pretty clear that the ball being can see all of the flatland and the 2D being confined to the flatland cannot even be aware of the ball being?
Again, above, what's happening is a conflation of the word "universe" and "dimension" into something synonymous that sort of morphs back and forth depending on what seems convenient. Avoiding this is something that takes a little getting used to. I'll try a different approach:

As you say, there are a great deal ( perhaps not infinite however ) slices of 2D coordinates in a 3D universe, but there aren't 2D universes inside of 3D universes. Universes are unified into a cohesive whole where the whole ( The 3D part ) cannot be separated from it's constituent parts ( 1D and 2D ) without it ( the 3D part ) collapsing. This should be readily apparent to everyone, but it's not, and once you see it you'll go, "OMG that's so obvious!" To prove it to yourself, try to take either length or width or both away from the calculation for volume. See what happens. I'm sure you don't have to try it for the light bulb to go on, but in case you're not sure, by all means do the math. You'll find right away that all axes are necessary.

Yes! I agree 100% - The novel you are working on sounds like a good read!
Thanks. I'm finding however that novels need more than great ideas to keep readers interested, and as I read mostly non-fiction, this project has turned out to be an even bigger challenge for my story telling skills ...lol.
 
Last edited:
As you say, there are a great deal ( perhaps not infinite however ) slices of 2D coordinates in a 3D universe, but there aren't 2D universes inside of 3D universes. Universes are unified into a cohesive whole where the whole ( The 3D part ) cannot be separated from it's constituent parts ( 1D and 2D ) without it ( the 3D part ) collapsing. This should be readily apparent to everyone, but it's not, and once you see it you'll go, "OMG that's so obvious!" To prove it to yourself, try to take either length or width or both away from the calculation for volume. See what happens. I'm sure you don't have to try it for the light bulb to go on, but in case you're not sure, by all means do the math. You'll find right away that all axes are necessary.

Ok, so I watched the video. Were you referring to the "simulated universe" video? If so, it is definitely interesting, but I didn't see a single segment that talked about this problem - so maybe I missed it. This video presupposes the 'simulation hypothesis' which may or may not be true, but is pure speculation at this point. The facts are that in our universe, we have 2D objects all around us so they exist. Yes, if you subtract width or length of a 3D object you get a 2D object but this has nothing to do with that fact that 2D objects exist. Unless you can illustrate your idea on the above picture, there is no way I can understand your claim. The best models in physics that describe most of reality quite accurately, require up to 10-11 dimensions. There are at least 4 areas researchers are looking into to find the real answer: Kaluza Klein excitations, microscopic black holes, deviations from the inverse square law of gravity, proving string theory. If you do a simple search on the internet you will find a plethora of resources of explanation and work in these areas and efforts to detect the other dimensions. Here is one, from one of the worlds leading laboratories.

Search for Extra Dimensions

So, I think given the majority of world opinion and effort in this area and my knowledge and training in math that this makes the most sense to me. I haven't found any academic papers discussing this or even considering this as an issue.
 
Light and sound. Energy = light and sound as a value.

Value = mass of the body of energy.

Mass = different light sound as a value.

Value exists at the same time due to the condition of mass as ownership.

Review of consciousness, light and sound as energy has different values, all existing at the same moment.

Consciousness considers the different light sounds as dimensions, due to irradiation as a past Earth attack.

Irradiation causes the different masses to be heard as an equal body, whereas in fact the mass is not equal, which is why out of space mass previously released a UFO attack that followed the pathways to Earth (from origin UFO attack).

No 1 exists at the same time as No 2 and so forth.

As our minds think via the circumstance of gathering information, the information exists, but our minds cannot exist as 1 whole or total idea of all information.

Information exists naturally as a total support of equal difference. The only reason why a male wanted to know information was to take from the information as a subtraction.

When the human male subtracted, he then took from the Numbers, a system review of "totality"....which is why Planet Earth was attacked from the UFO condition in out of space.

The idea that Numbers then came from out of space was introduced after the Number existence review was destroyed.......

Hebrews 3:17
And with whom was God angry for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness?
The fourth book of the Bible is known in English as the Book of Numbers – because it begins with a command to count the Israelites, to take a census, to establish their numbers. However in Hebrew it is known by the key word of its first sentence, Bemidbar, “In the wilderness.”


Chol is a desert metaphor, one of many in the Bible. G-d is a rock (immovable, the opposite of sand); His word is like water; those who heed it are like a tree or a growing plant. In Moses’ great song at the end of his life all these images come together in a single poetic sweep: Let my teaching fall like rain and my words descend like dew, like showers on new grass, like abundant rain on tender plants. I will proclaim the name of the LORD . Oh, praise the greatness of our G-d! He is the Rock, his works are perfect .Bemidbar (5768) - The Wilderness and the Word - Rabbi Sacks

Obviously the reason for modern day occultists studying the concepts of God and The Christ Consciousness caused sink holes in Planet Earth....the stone.
 
Ok, so I watched the video. Were you referring to the "simulated universe" video? If so, it is definitely interesting, but I didn't see a single segment that talked about this problem - so maybe I missed it. This video presupposes the 'simulation hypothesis' which may or may not be true, but is pure speculation at this point.

We're digressing in that the context of the discussion has been switched, but I'll try to address the points in a way that brings us back into the context that we started off in. BTW: The Bostrom paper is worth reading too if you haven't done that yet.

Multiverses and extra dimensions are both speculative, so saying either is speculative neither validates nor invalidates them. What can invalidate a speculative theory is if it's logically incoherent within the context it is being considered. In the case of the extra dimensions mentioned in the article you linked to, they aren't what we're talking about. We're talking about the possibility of aliens coming "down" from a "higher" dimension into our "lower" dimension, as if they can exist "up there" independently of what's going on "down here", and the dimensions talked about in the QM article are completely different, and have their own different incoherencies to deal with. Consider this statement:


"... but there are additional dimensions which are curled-up very tightly so that they have an extremely small radius: less that one 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 th ( nonillionth ) of a centimeter"
First of all, anything that has a radius is either a 2D circle or a 3D sphere, and therefore what is being described isn't an "extra dimension", but a tiny area or volume of space within a larger 3D construct. So again, it seems there is some conflating of concepts going on there between "higher dimensions" and really small areas or volumes. But aside from that, even if we decide that there is some as of yet unexplained rationale for why we should consider these areas or spaces to be dimensions in their own right, they are so tiny that in the context of what we're talking about ( as places where aliens who come here in UFOs might originate from ), they are completely inapplicable.
The facts are that in our universe, we have 2D objects all around us so they exist.
That depends on how you define "existence", objects", and "2D". This can get rather philosophical, but basically A set of 2D coordinates is an area, which is a purely abstract concept that describes the size of an object's surface, not any object in and of itself. So we don't generally think of areas as objects, other than perhaps as designators for certain kinds of places e.g. "The living room is our entertainment area."
Yes, if you subtract width or length of a 3D object you get a 2D object but this has nothing to do with that fact that 2D objects exist. Unless you can illustrate your idea on the above picture, there is no way I can understand your claim. The best models in physics that describe most of reality quite accurately, require up to 10-11 dimensions. There are at least 4 areas researchers are looking into to find the real answer: Kaluza Klein excitations, microscopic black holes, deviations from the inverse square law of gravity, proving string theory. If you do a simple search on the internet you will find a plethora of resources of explanation and work in these areas and efforts to detect the other dimensions. Here is one, from one of the worlds leading laboratories.
That takes us back out of context again and into abstract mathematical models that bolt on more abstract mathematical components that have been labeled "dimensions" but do not fit the interpretation of "dimensions" that we are discussing, which is the possibility of "higher" spatial dimensions within our observable universe that aliens can move in and out of as if they exist independent from our "lower" dimensions. So although interesting, and FWIW I like to follow the latest developments in the accelerator labs too, none of that is applicable to this particular discussion.

The only thing you need to understand, to understand my claim, is the principle of sequential dependence in spatial geometry where dimensions are clearly differentiated from universes, and how that might apply to transporting physical objects between them. This can be done without reference to any other papers. Consider the question: How is it possible for something in a hypothetical universe with 6 spatial dimensions to exist in dimensions 4-6 without also being composed of dimensions 1-3? Once you have the answer to that firmly in place, then you can easier see how the rest of what I was saying falls into place.
 
Last edited:
Hi Robert - I share the same skepticism, but for different reasons. I would be curious to know what evidence supports your view in races living on other worlds? Also, you didn't mention anything about the possibility of inter-dimensional explanations - which is where I tend to go, given the lack of physical evidence - what are your thoughts on this?. I agree with ufology that there is nothing unscientific about interstellar travel - the physics tells us that it is very unlikely to traverse interstellar distances!
Thanks for the post!


First of all. Ufology thanks for making my post look prettier. You guys are way above my IQ. Journalist, authors, and so much more I'm sure. I will work on improving as I read posts. My first forum ever.


Second Breddell, No evidence that I know of other than shows and reading peoples thoughts. I just think it would be small and narrow minded to think we're it. Some believe in the great primordial soup. Which I don't.
Some say the earth was seeded from the likes of a comet crashing after earth cooled down. That's possible I would say. But, if that was the case then the seeds came from some other distant world.

I guess my best answer would be faith. Too many galaxies, too many stars, and in a short distance from us already several planets found.

You all totally lost me with the multiverses and dimensional talk. But all the same good reading.


Thirdly Han. Loved your answer as well. The only thing I know of Chinese writing is that it is old. So I can see where your coming from. Good correction to me.
I do think we have gotten better at containing radiation but having an incident happen is very possible and I could see coverups as well. We have had plenty of coverups thrown right in our face.
What I intended in my post is looking for an earthly explanation to explain things. I'll have more.

Here's one more.
Cattle mutilations. From what I've read and heard. Laser like cuts, organs removed, almost all or all the animals on big ranches and insured, and black helicopters.
Would it be safe to say the CDC conducting tests for mad cow and other diseases. They work as privately as possible, the rancher gets reimbursed, and everyone left scratching their heads as to what happened.
The reason I say that is that I used to deer hunt and sometimes the game department would remove the tongues and udders to look for certain things.

Your thoughts,
Robert
 
Back
Top