Wade
FeralNormal master
Thanks for the link.
-
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!
Flying Saucers do not exist.
- Thread starter Derek Wood
- Start date
Free episodes:
Thanks for the link.
Jeff Davis
Paranormal Adept
Manxman,
First off, I do not know that it's our destiny to go to the stars. The distances are at this time absolutely beyond achievement. One has to consider that several ages of mankind has come and gone, having been wiped off the face of the earth without us achieving as much. If we are fortunate enough to be around long enough to see such a development, I would imagine speed and distance would themselves be past remnants of a physics model having long since collapsed. We ourselves, in and of ourselves, may in fact be the sole journeyers independent of time and space.
Wade
FeralNormal master
If you're speaking literally manxman and speaking about other star systems I don't think it there would ever be any star trek "boots on the ground" expeditionary force involved from planet earth involving humans. Long before that ever happens it would likely be done by proxy and by that I just don't mean drones.
In my opinion the only thing that would drive man out of this solar system would be the Sun's eventual demise. It could very well be that before that ever happens earth could be uninhabitable, but the most obvious answer to that would be to terra-form the moon and use the earth to scavange for supplies.
The next step probably would be an earth like Goldilocks planet but by then we may have a choice and not just go for the closest one so there would be probably quite a few probes first. By that time i would hope our sensabilities are such that we would consider these planets may be inhabited by sentient beings such as ourselves..not just slime molds..and our probes would double as ambassadors.
...And Man made E.T. in his own image... (Paracastus 12:09)
As others here have mentioned we have to consider that at least some visitors (the greys) may not be biological but perhaps a A.I. worker drone of sorts. Similar To what @mosherj posted earlier about a saucer shape mimicking gravity if one was going to create an autonomous being to perform human-like acts including alien contact it would probably take the form of the creator being but you could probably give a pass to such things as hair, boobs and willies. Some speculate that greys could be evolved beings..even us in the future...and while that could be true because some people have reported contact with nordic like beings in the same encounter assuming these contacts were real i would wonder if the greys were just drones and may be as dispensible to them as a paper cup is to us.
The only thing that troubles me about this is that if you flip flop this thinking and give mind to the possibility that we are currently being scouted by some far away star system then some of these contact cases are not always pleasant. They used to be more civilized it would seem but apparently there was a sea change, and it seemes to have started with the Greys. Before then contact was almost intellecually stimulating and involved different beings.
I was thinking that being that Mr. Musk is currently making a lot of noise about the dangers of A.I. as far as being detrimental to our well being, what if these Greys are somebody else's A.I. based drones that went rogue, they may have evolved and developed their own consciousness.
Hell, let's throw time travel into the mix and suggets that they will be OUR drones that we will send out a 1,000 years hence and they came back and we are now experiencing blowback. These Greys could be interested in us from an evolutionary sense..where we are now versus where we will be.. as they may consider us in the same terms that we consider the apes in regards to evolution
Also getting back to your main point i forsee somewhat akin to remote viewing maybe some kind of consciousness travel before what would have to be a complete ongoing civilization to the stars scenario, which i think would have to be in place, not just a vessel of our studliest men and most alluring women. As far as wormwhole travel and such i would go with an Avatar type contact before humans are traversing blackholes wormholes and Einstein-Rosen bridges.
Last edited:
It's a mistake to assume even space travel. As for lights, I believe they are intentional. I think whatever UFOs are, for the time being at least we are supposed to see them but maybe not much more than that.
NO Truth ?
Can this discussion get any more silly ? this level of blind denial is pointless to engage with i may as well be debating santa claus with a 4 year old.
In order for your statement to be correct ,that there is NO truth in the argument you quoted
Then
NObody has ever seen a UFO
NO radar has ever tracked one
NO UFO has ever left physical traces
NObody has ever heard one make a noise
UFO Cases Directory: Cases with Humming Sounds - UFO Evidence
You are doing it again Jeff, in order to make the square peg of the evidence, fit the round hole of your theory, you must shave off and discard the evidence that doesnt fit your theory.
In the Gosford case, not only did they hear sound "The sound was like a million humming bees"
They also heard the sound of the water being churned up, they not only heard the craft they heard it interact with the environment.
Dogs and other animals heard it and went troppo.
Im not claiming this is what it must be, i dont know
What i am saying is that a logical extension of an existing material model cannot be dismissed, which is what you are doing
Its the simplest, logical explanation. an extension of an existing trend with our own technology. There is no evidence to allow us to dismiss it outright as you are doing
Indeed to make your case that its not simply vehicles using advanced technology, you must discard much of the evidence contrary to your pet theory
On November 17th in 1986, a Japanese airliner was headed to Alaska. It was half past six in the evening when Captain Kenju Terauchi called the control tower. He reported yellow lights up ahead. The lights disappeared and Terauchi noticed a walnut shaped UFO behind the plane.
The UFO was at least 300 feet long.
If an independant observer were to have seen this from the ground or another plane, what evidence is there that one aircraft was a real physical object, and the other aircraft was not ?
Both pilots saw the UFO, it showed up on both the planes and air traffic controls radar, it changed its course suggestive of some sort of directed control.
The UFO was at least 300 feet long.
If an independant observer were to have seen this from the ground or another plane, what evidence is there that one aircraft was a real physical object, and the other aircraft was not ?
Both pilots saw the UFO, it showed up on both the planes and air traffic controls radar, it changed its course suggestive of some sort of directed control.
Silly Humor -- Internet Flame Wars
And why not, you've already used a few other tricks from the list
Erno86
Paranormal Maven
If a foofighter flies in our skies, does anybody hear?
Well...I'll guess if you get close enough to one, you'd might hear something, but based on scientific analysis of plasma surrounded objects in experiments in labs, shows that the plasma simply absorbs any hypersonic {sonic boom} sound waves.
Based on my own eyewitness foofighter sighting in 1976, {and a certain percentage of other UFO sightings as well}, show that they {ET entities} --- be they biological sentient beings or robots --- occasionally visit our planet in interstellar capable starships; and I'll go so far as to say...that they've broken the speed of light barrier as well.
Cheers,
Erno
Last edited:
I wasnt taking the P mike, youve read to much into that post, i thought i had made that clear, you seem to think we were in some kind of debate to be won or lost.
I kept using '' imo '' to be clear it was just my opinion.
You need to chill alittle, were on the same side here..
I kept using '' imo '' to be clear it was just my opinion.
You need to chill alittle, were on the same side here..
I have read many books on, for, and against UFOs. Without question, this book brings the possibility of UFOs as close to reality as anyone could. Paul Hill not only has the credentials, but also the scientific ingenuity to give us in plain language, what always seemed unexplainable. The "magical" UFO is suddenly reverse engineered from the ground up. Though we may lack the scientific knowledge in designing and constructing the drive to make it work, the first blueprint has been set forth by Paul Hill."
To the degree that the engineering characteristics of UFOs can be estimated by empirical observation, in my opinion the above-referenced, recently-published book by Paul Hill provides the most reliable, concise summary of engineering-type data available. [1] The data were compiled over decades of research by a Chief Scientist-Manager at NASA's Langley Research Center [2] who acted as an informal clearinghouse for UFO-related data. The strength of the compilation lies in its thoughtful separation of wheat from chaff, and the analysis of the former into coherent patterns, including detailed calculations. Perhaps surprising to the casually interested, under careful examination the observations, rather than defying the laws of physics as naive interpretation might suggest, instead appear to be solidly commensurate with them, as the following discussion shows.
Paul Hill
Additional calculations concerning the parameters of interstellar travel (including relativistic effects), and the energetics of such travel, have been performed and are included in tabular and graphical form. The wealth of material in these sections, along with discussion of the broad implications of this material, reveal the dedication and thoroughness of Hill's approach to his self-assigned task.
In the final analysis, one must conclude that Hill has assembled as good a case as can be made on the basis of presently available data that the observation of some "unconventional flying objects" is compatible with the presence of engineered platforms weighing in at something around 30 tons, which are capable of 100-g accelerations and 9000-mph speeds in the atmosphere. Perhaps more important for the technical reader, however, is Hill's supporting argumentation, based on solid analysis, that these platforms, although exhibiting the application of physics and engineering principles clearly beyond our present-day capabilities, do not appear to defy these principles in any fundamental way.
Paul Hill was a well-respected NASA scientist when, in the early 1950s, he had a UFO sighting. Soon after, he built the first flying platform and was able to duplicate the UFO's tilt-to-control maneuvers. Official policy, however, prevented him from proclaiming his findings. "I was destined," says Hill, "to remain as unidentified as the flying objects."
For the next twenty-five years, Hill acted as an unofficial clearing house at NASA, collecting and analyzing sightings' reports for physical properties, propulsion possibilities, dynamics, etc. To refute claims that UFOs defy the laws of physics, he had to make "technological sense ... of the unconventional object."
After his retirement from NASA, Hill finally completed his remarkable analysis. In Unconventional Flying Objects, published posthumously, he presents his findings that UFOs "obey, not defy, the laws of physics." Vindicating his own sighting and thousands of others, he proves that UFO technology is not only explainable, but attainable.
To the degree that the engineering characteristics of UFOs can be estimated by empirical observation, in my opinion the above-referenced, recently-published book by Paul Hill provides the most reliable, concise summary of engineering-type data available. [1] The data were compiled over decades of research by a Chief Scientist-Manager at NASA's Langley Research Center [2] who acted as an informal clearinghouse for UFO-related data. The strength of the compilation lies in its thoughtful separation of wheat from chaff, and the analysis of the former into coherent patterns, including detailed calculations. Perhaps surprising to the casually interested, under careful examination the observations, rather than defying the laws of physics as naive interpretation might suggest, instead appear to be solidly commensurate with them, as the following discussion shows.
Paul Hill
Additional calculations concerning the parameters of interstellar travel (including relativistic effects), and the energetics of such travel, have been performed and are included in tabular and graphical form. The wealth of material in these sections, along with discussion of the broad implications of this material, reveal the dedication and thoroughness of Hill's approach to his self-assigned task.
In the final analysis, one must conclude that Hill has assembled as good a case as can be made on the basis of presently available data that the observation of some "unconventional flying objects" is compatible with the presence of engineered platforms weighing in at something around 30 tons, which are capable of 100-g accelerations and 9000-mph speeds in the atmosphere. Perhaps more important for the technical reader, however, is Hill's supporting argumentation, based on solid analysis, that these platforms, although exhibiting the application of physics and engineering principles clearly beyond our present-day capabilities, do not appear to defy these principles in any fundamental way.
Paul Hill was a well-respected NASA scientist when, in the early 1950s, he had a UFO sighting. Soon after, he built the first flying platform and was able to duplicate the UFO's tilt-to-control maneuvers. Official policy, however, prevented him from proclaiming his findings. "I was destined," says Hill, "to remain as unidentified as the flying objects."
For the next twenty-five years, Hill acted as an unofficial clearing house at NASA, collecting and analyzing sightings' reports for physical properties, propulsion possibilities, dynamics, etc. To refute claims that UFOs defy the laws of physics, he had to make "technological sense ... of the unconventional object."
After his retirement from NASA, Hill finally completed his remarkable analysis. In Unconventional Flying Objects, published posthumously, he presents his findings that UFOs "obey, not defy, the laws of physics." Vindicating his own sighting and thousands of others, he proves that UFO technology is not only explainable, but attainable.
Im not accusing you of any malice, im not bouncing up and down in my chair doing the angry german kid
But i would ask two questions
Did you or did you not Change the subject by pointing out all of your opponent's grammar and spelling mistakes. ?
And how does throwing such Chaff into the discussion help us find the wheat. ?
separate the wheat from the chaff - Idioms by The Free Dictionary
Burnt State
Paranormal Adept
It's entirely refreshing to see such strong divergent opinions unfolding in response to the thread question's broader implications. Ufo's breed such interesting positions regarding what they are most likely to be, what they are theoretically and then what this all translates into for us humans. I imagine many thousands of years ago, a group of humans huddled around the fire after a good day of pummeling other humans, stealing the women, chewing on grass, seeds and whatever else we scavenged, and that at the end of the long day's labours, the philosophical voice of curiosity would rear its head, and then we would talk about journeying between the stars, the way those strange lights in the sky appear to do every now and then. Ufo's really are just here to make us think, perhaps, and nothing more.
While I believe in a reality independent of our consciousness I also feel that the UFO craft is not that knowable at all, and appears sometimes as metallic craft that radar pings off of, then at other times they are also morphing, illusory images that defy all we know about flight and material reality.
Did I spell all that right?
Edit: also feeling guilty about not yet having picked up Hill's book off the bookshelf to read it.
While I believe in a reality independent of our consciousness I also feel that the UFO craft is not that knowable at all, and appears sometimes as metallic craft that radar pings off of, then at other times they are also morphing, illusory images that defy all we know about flight and material reality.
Did I spell all that right?
Edit: also feeling guilty about not yet having picked up Hill's book off the bookshelf to read it.
Last edited:
A warp drive to achieve faster-than-light travel — a concept popularized in television's Star Trek — may not be as unrealistic as once thought, scientists say.
A warp drive would manipulate space-time itself to move a starship, taking advantage of a loophole in the laws of physics that prevent anything from moving faster than light. A concept for a real-life warp drive was suggested in 1994 by Mexican physicist Miguel Alcubierre; however, subsequent calculations found that such a device would require prohibitive amounts of energy.
Now physicists say that adjustments can be made to the proposed warp drive that would enable it to run on significantly less energy, potentially bringing the idea back from the realm of science fiction into science.
"Everything within space is restricted by the speed of light," explained Richard Obousy, president of Icarus Interstellar, a non-profit group of scientists and engineers devoted to pursuing interstellar spaceflight. "But the really cool thing is space-time, the fabric of space, is not limited by the speed of light."
With this concept, the spacecraft would be able to achieve an effective speed of about 10 times the speed of light, all without breaking the cosmic speed limit.
The only problem is, previous studies estimated the warp drive would require a minimum amount of energy about equal to the mass-energy of the planet Jupiter.
But recently White calculated what would happen if the shape of the ring encircling the spacecraft was adjusted into more of a rounded donut, as opposed to a flat ring. He found in that case, the warp drive could be powered by a mass about the size of a spacecraft like the Voyager 1 probe NASA launched in 1977.
Furthermore, if the intensity of the space warps can be oscillated over time, the energy required is reduced even more, White found.
"The findings I presented today change it from impractical to plausible and worth further investigation," White told SPACE.com. "The additional energy reduction realized by oscillating the bubble intensity is an interesting conjecture that we will enjoy looking at in the lab."
Warp Drive More Possible Than Thought, Scientists Say
There would be no limit to the velocity that a starship could attain. It could travel faster than the speed of light because the starship would, strictly speaking, be stationary in the space of its warp bubble.
Also, the starship and its crew would be weightless and would therefore not be crushed by the enormous G-forces of acceleration and deceleration.
What's more, the passage of time inside the warp bubble would be the same as that outside it. The crew would not suffer from Einstein's "time dilation" effect where time passes at different rates for people travelling at different speeds.
BBC News | Sci/Tech | Warp drive possible
A warp drive would manipulate space-time itself to move a starship, taking advantage of a loophole in the laws of physics that prevent anything from moving faster than light. A concept for a real-life warp drive was suggested in 1994 by Mexican physicist Miguel Alcubierre; however, subsequent calculations found that such a device would require prohibitive amounts of energy.
Now physicists say that adjustments can be made to the proposed warp drive that would enable it to run on significantly less energy, potentially bringing the idea back from the realm of science fiction into science.
"Everything within space is restricted by the speed of light," explained Richard Obousy, president of Icarus Interstellar, a non-profit group of scientists and engineers devoted to pursuing interstellar spaceflight. "But the really cool thing is space-time, the fabric of space, is not limited by the speed of light."
With this concept, the spacecraft would be able to achieve an effective speed of about 10 times the speed of light, all without breaking the cosmic speed limit.
The only problem is, previous studies estimated the warp drive would require a minimum amount of energy about equal to the mass-energy of the planet Jupiter.
But recently White calculated what would happen if the shape of the ring encircling the spacecraft was adjusted into more of a rounded donut, as opposed to a flat ring. He found in that case, the warp drive could be powered by a mass about the size of a spacecraft like the Voyager 1 probe NASA launched in 1977.
Furthermore, if the intensity of the space warps can be oscillated over time, the energy required is reduced even more, White found.
"The findings I presented today change it from impractical to plausible and worth further investigation," White told SPACE.com. "The additional energy reduction realized by oscillating the bubble intensity is an interesting conjecture that we will enjoy looking at in the lab."
Warp Drive More Possible Than Thought, Scientists Say
There would be no limit to the velocity that a starship could attain. It could travel faster than the speed of light because the starship would, strictly speaking, be stationary in the space of its warp bubble.
Also, the starship and its crew would be weightless and would therefore not be crushed by the enormous G-forces of acceleration and deceleration.
What's more, the passage of time inside the warp bubble would be the same as that outside it. The crew would not suffer from Einstein's "time dilation" effect where time passes at different rates for people travelling at different speeds.
BBC News | Sci/Tech | Warp drive possible
Last edited by a moderator:
Burnt State
Paranormal Adept
Erno, here's as good a place as any to talk about this. Do you care to share some details of your sighting and any impressions you may have gleaned from the experience, perhaps some indicators of biological sentience vs. robotic drone?
I think thats a valid hypothesis.
As ive long stated here at the Paracast, they only way to understand advanced technology (propulsion and otherwise) is to have parity with it.
As our own science advances we gain the technical lexicon to describe such technologys and thus fully understand how they work.
Clarkes quote plays into this as well, it only looks like magic if you dont understand the mechanism. to understand the mechanism our own science needs to be at parity with it.
From my perspective the non invasive tease us to parity scenario answers the why are they elusive question, History shows that when an advanced culture crash lands on a less advanced culture, the less advanced culture goes into shock. Its often destroyed in the process.
Clarke's 2001 ASO makes the same suggestion, gently coax the less advanced culture to come to you, then when they meet its as equals.
Star Trek does the same, pre warp cultures are to be left alone, they must come to you.
Now the following example im about to post isnt meant to suggest this is what actually happened, but its food for thought
In the Gosford case which ive posted in this thread the craft is alleged to have used beams of light to pull water up from the lake, later dropping all or part of it back.
This event happened in Australia......
Jump forward
(Australian) Laser physicists have built a tractor beam that can repel and attract objects, using a hollow laser beam that is bright around the edges and dark in its centre.
Physicists build reversible tractor beam - Newsroom - ANU
No where near the same practical application, but proof of concept.
Now im not saying there is a causal link between these two events, but if the subtle tease to technological advancement is whats happening we should expect to see this sort of thing happening.
Monkey see..... Monkey do
Another aspect that i think is always worth adding to the discussion is we need not limit ourselves to rumination on advanced propulsion technology.
The sky truly is no longer the limit
We may be dealing with a mix of non terrestrial societys
Some purely biological like ourselves
Some a mix of biological and synthetic intellect
Some purely Trans biological
Trying to make sense of that situation from within a biological reality tunnel wont be easy
The way in which these multiple societies manifest and interact with us will be different, trying to find a one size fits all answer will be bad methodology
Likely to yeild more confusion than clarity
The sky truly is no longer the limit
We may be dealing with a mix of non terrestrial societys
Some purely biological like ourselves
Some a mix of biological and synthetic intellect
Some purely Trans biological
Trying to make sense of that situation from within a biological reality tunnel wont be easy
The way in which these multiple societies manifest and interact with us will be different, trying to find a one size fits all answer will be bad methodology
Likely to yeild more confusion than clarity
Skymon876
Paranormal Adept
If flying saucers don't exist than what in the hell is this????
Turkey UFO Case & Videos- New Information - The Debate Continues | The Paracast Community Forums
Turkey UFO Case & Videos- New Information - The Debate Continues | The Paracast Community Forums
Of course they exist, without definative proof we must rely on the balance of probability.
The Multitude of (often multiple) witness sightings, radar tracks, physical trace evidence.
I always have a laugh when people invoke the phrase science fiction to debunk the possibilitys
Given the historical records its a poor choice of words
Jules Verne wrote science fiction, and today rockets, submarines and heavier than air vehicles are common place
Science fiction, far from being synonymous with fantasy and impossible is more correctly defined ,given the history, as "soon to be possible and in common use"
The Multitude of (often multiple) witness sightings, radar tracks, physical trace evidence.
I always have a laugh when people invoke the phrase science fiction to debunk the possibilitys
Given the historical records its a poor choice of words
Jules Verne wrote science fiction, and today rockets, submarines and heavier than air vehicles are common place
Science fiction, far from being synonymous with fantasy and impossible is more correctly defined ,given the history, as "soon to be possible and in common use"
quote
Of course they exist, without definative proof we must rely on the balance of probability.
No mike, the balance of probability in this case is because of the size of the infinite universe, and the fact that we exist in it, nothing to with lights in the sky.
And it is 'definitive' .. just saying.
Of course they exist, without definative proof we must rely on the balance of probability.
No mike, the balance of probability in this case is because of the size of the infinite universe, and the fact that we exist in it, nothing to with lights in the sky.
And it is 'definitive' .. just saying.
Jeff Davis
Paranormal Adept
Mike knows all. Including the fact that it's just me that feels this way about pigeonholing UFOs to be spacecraft or ETmobiles. I would state that easily 50% of all of the MANY intelligent minds that consider the UFO phenomenon as seriously as both of us do, take exception to the type of projection based reasoning that you are applying here. Very much so.
We simply do not understand reality and it's VAST and undeniably mysterious nature Mike, and yet you are clearly bent on pretending that we do. So frankly, I am not sure that I can take that line of reasoning further for your benefit in a comprehensible manner.
Tell you what, and I'll happily leave it at this between you and I concerning the speculative nature of what are UFOs if you'll take me up on this one challenge. Pick ANY five top shelf theoretical quantum physics researchers, or any one authoritative consciousness studies researcher, and ask those individuals point blank if we understand the nature of reality. Get back to me with the results of this inquisitive exercise should you care to take me up on this challenge, and let us all know what these minds that are far and away tremendously more learned and qualified than yours or mine are, and what they have to say on the "objective" nature of reality.
Mike, I can honestly state that at this time, I can find nothing apart from the science fiction centrifugal influence that Donald Keyhoe brought to the speculative UFO foray as a plausible reality via "official" channels, that presents itself to me as evidential support, that UFOs are spacecraft or ET technology. Or even that this is the "most likely, or logical" explanation for what are UFOs. This being apart from individuals like yourself who enthusiastically reason in claim that they are.
I have seen UFOs twice in my own lifetime. I take them very seriously and I do believe that they represent a key facet of observable reality that we do not yet understand. I believe in precognitive sentient phenomena. Fully. I am certainly not convinced that what I witnessed directly however was from another planet. If I step back and remove all influence, there is simply not a darn thing that would clearly indicate as much. Stating that they are, without really knowing or possessing a full understanding, is nothing short of utter fantasy IMO. <----thanks @manxman as this is so important to include always as it's all any of us REALLY has.