Flying Saucers do not exist.

[mike]

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.

That doesnt even make sense to me

balance of probabilities (uncountable)

1. (law) A legal standard, applied in many jurisdictions for deciding the outcome of civil disputes, which requires that a dispute be decided in favor of the party whose claims are more likely to be true.

AKA

preponderance of the evidence (uncountable)

1. (law) A legal standard, applied in many jurisdictions for deciding the outcome of civil disputes, which requires that evidence be sufficient to determine that a claim is more likely to be true than not.

As for the universe being infinite we dont know that it is

Is the Universe finite or infinite? An interview with Joseph Silk / Space Science / Our Activities / ESA

What we do know to be true..........
Technology using life exists here on earth, a planet orbiting a star. the galaxy has billions of stars, and the observable universe has billions of galaxys.

Given

Ours is not the only star

Ours is not the only planet

On the balance of probability its more likely than not, ours is not the only technology using species, that premise is an extension of the model we see here.


You go to an airshow, you see technology that allows us to fly. ballons, blimps, helicopters gliders and jet planes

You dont need to invoke metaphysical explanations, they are just technology. they are not manifestations of conciousness or any other woo woo hippy dippy phenomena.

Why then should technology built by another species, on another planet orbiting another star, just like we do be anything other than the same. ?

(As for spelling we spell it colour the yanks spell it color, as long as the word isnt mangled beyond recognition what does it matter ?. Making a big deal out of it is just a version of if you cant attack the data attack the person (s spelling). as a device in a debate its a poor one. It doesnt make your case any stronger and if anything illustrates you dont have a real datapoint to pose in contrast. Its the last resort of someone who cant argue the facts in question. )

 

[mike]

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.

LOL science fiction, ive already made the point labeling things science fiction is a akin to saying " soon to be in common use" if you look at the history of science fiction its anything but the same as impossible

Im not the one making the blanket absolute claims here thats you.
Insisting UFOs cannot be ET vehicles and therefore MUST in every case be manifestations of conciousness .

My stance has always been we dont know, and thus cant rule out technological explanations (which work just fine for our own spacecraft).

You are the one stating as absolute fact they cant simply be spacecraft and thus must be paranormal in nature.

Had your claim been "some" of them might be manifestations of conciousness or projections onto our conciousness we would not be in dispute.
Given our own technological advances in projecting information directly to the brain its very plausible some might be just that.

What i object to is your blanket claim they must all be that.

Its you thats using projection based reasoning here, projecting your "manifestation of conciousness" theory as a one answer fits all fix, despite the fact you have zero evidence to support that claim, no comparable models to support the claim and must discard much of the actual evidence we have to make your one size fits all answer fit its square peg into the round hole reality.

Your theory cannot be reconciled with the existing evidence, it must therefore fail the test

 

[Jeff Davis]

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.

IMO, BINGO! This *is* what most of my thinking ends up pointing to. I am thinking that they are a precognitively interactive aspect of the human consciousness program, or, a SEA if you will. SEA stands for Sentient Evolutionary Accelerant.

It does seem as though if there were a single aspect to the UFO phenomenon that never goes away, that never expresses anything less than a consistent greater depth with every survey, that one thing is the observer, or the human factor. The UFO riddle is the ultimate introspective motive IMO. A tireless task master showing our own inner workings as sentient beings to be no less depth relevant and fascinating than what the most driven of our imaginings invested into it's understanding, reflect. I have wondered many times if UFOs, and indeed the many puzzling fringe aspects of the paranormal plethora as a whole, might represent an environmentally relevant interactive dna based consciousness program utilized to feed, push, and encourage human cognitive awareness and sentient growth in our species.

 

[mike]

I and others have already thorougly discredited the preposterous claim reality doesnt exist without conciousness.

Demonstrating you are confusing the definitions of reality with perception.

Reality is commonly accepted as defined thusly

Reality is the conjectured state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined.[1] In a wider definition, reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. A still more broad definition includes everything that has existed, exists, or will exist.

Reality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Given that the universe "existed" before conciousness, "reality" is proven to be independant of conciousness

Your premise then that they must be conciousness based and that its impossible for them to be anything but, hinges on a premise already proven wrong.

Of course you can just discard the commonly held definition of reality, but really ? once we start doing that one can make any absurd claim and insist its true

Horses eat coal, drink gasoline and breath fire......

NOOOOOO thats not true

The horse (Equus ferus caballus)[2][3] is one of two extant subspecies of Equus ferus. It is an odd-toed ungulate mammal belonging to the taxonomic family Equidae. The horse has evolved over the past 45 to 55 million years from a small multi-toed creature into the large, single-toed animal of today. Humans began to domesticate horses around 4000 BC, and their domestication is believed to have been widespread by 3000 BC. Horses in the subspecies caballus are domesticated, although some domesticated populations live in the wild as feral horses. These feral populations are not true wild horses, as this term is used to describe horses that have never been domesticated, such as the endangered Przewalski's horse, a separate subspecies, and the only remaining true wild horse. There is an extensive, specialized vocabulary used to describe equine-related concepts, covering everything from anatomy to life stages, size, colors, markings, breeds, locomotion, and behavior.

No where in the commonly accepted definition of horse is that actually true.

Not a problem i'll just discard that definition and insert my own. Voila im right about the fire breathing after all

Which is preciesly what you and Manx did during the debate on "Reality"

Given your understanding about the very nature of reality has been shown to be completely wrong, how then does it continue to be the foundation of your conciousness based premise ?

Youve built your premise/castle on the sand and the truth/tide has washed it away

 

[manxman]

balance of probabilities



Exactly Micheal.

The existence of ET is much more likely because of the size of the universe, the trillions of habital environs, and the fact blue-prints of life already exist in the universe here on earth, and not because of lights in the sky.

But just cannot ever accept being wrong can you mike.

I await your next 300 word rebuttal.

 

[mike]

balance of probabilities


Exactly Micheal.

The existence of ET is much more likely because of the size of the universe, the trillions of habital environs, and the fact blue-prints of life already exist in the universe here on earth, and not because of lights in the sky.

But just cannot ever accept being wrong can you mike.

I await your next 300 word rebuttal.

Well duh

Preachin to the choir there

The question then is why cant some of the lights in the sky and craft witnessed by us be ET ?

Ive never used lights in the sky as proof ET exists, quite the reverse.

Ive used the likelyhood of ET existing, as explanations for the craft that have been seen.

That if ET were real, and used technology, like we do. that if it were sufficiently advanced to do warp 10 as our own scientists are saying is possible. That on the balance of probability that some of the craft seen here are theirs is more likely to be true than not

And i do accept when i'm wrong, have done it here in the forums before thats an historical fact.
Its just that its so rare an event, you can be forgiven for being wrong about that too

I dont mind being wrong, its a positive not negative sum total for me.
If someone can show me i'm wrong then its because they have provided me with the right answer. Thats always to my advantage. I like right answers even if they cancel out my wrong ones. The end result is all that counts. Thats the basis of the scientific method if new data is better than old data i accept it.
But its rare for me to go in for bat for a datapoint i am not 100 percent sure is correct.
It sometimes happens that its not. But its a rare event.
I'm not by nature a risk taker, i only bet on sure things, thus its not often i lose

And when i am proven wrong, i do my opponent the courtesy of acknowledging it, as i have done here in the past. I dont just slink away and not mention it again like some do

 

[manxman]

quote

Well duh

Preachin to the choir there

The question then is why cant some of the lights in the sky and craft witnessed by us be ET ?

Ive never used lights in the sky as proof ET exists, quite the reverse.

................

Not so mike.

......................

Quote

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.


.................



The balance of probability that ET exists is not because of .......................... The Multitude of (often multiple) witness sightings, radar tracks, physical trace evidence


It is because..
The existence of ET is much more likely because of the size of the universe, the trillions of habital environs, and the fact blue-prints of life already exist in the universe here on earth

 

[mike]

"They" was in reference to the post above

If flying saucers don't exist than what in the hell is this????

Flying saucers not ET.


"They" was a direct reference to the post above that "flying saucers exist on the balance of probability The Multitude of (often multiple) witness sightings, radar tracks, physical trace evidence

I dont know how you messed that up given the reference to radar tracks etc

 

[manxman]

Doesnt matter how you keep jigging and twisting in the wind mike.

Simple fact is this.


On the balance of probabilities.
The existence of ET is much more likely because of the size of the universe, the trillions of habital environs, and the fact blue-prints of life already exist in the universe here on earth.

 

[mike]

Doesnt matter how you keep jigging and twisting in the wind mike.

Simple fact is this.


On the balance of probabilities.
The existence of ET is much more likely because of the size of the universe, the trillions of habital environs, and the fact blue-prints of life already exist in the universe here on earth.

Now who refuses to admit when they are wrong. its all there on the previous page, i was refering to flying saucers not ET.

The confusion that followed was down to your failure to comprehend what was written. Your bad not mine

And the person twisting in the wind is you, in your reply you dodge your own error and make a different point ive never disagreed with.

I did not say "they" (ET ) exist because of lights in the sky, radar tracks etc
I said "they" (flying saucers) exist because of lights in the sky etc

That should have been obvious to anyone with basic reading and comprehension skills

Instead you inserted "ET" where i did not and as a result created your own null argument

And true to form youve just gone offline, just slink away rather than take responsibility for your mistake.

And you have the chutzpah to accuse me of not being able to admit when im wrong.

Im gonna have to block you manx, One can only watch so much Frank Spencer before it stops being entertaining and is just plain frustrating

 

[SRL+]

Interesting it is that Paul Hill having been dead now for almost a quarter century apparently had some unusual views and experiences allegedly occurring outside of scientific understanding. Ironically enough, Paul Hill was in possession of metaphysical views and experiences starkly contrasting the opinions of those peers of scientific methodology. How could these alleged experiences possibly occur? Was Paul Hill in possession of some special power?

Via Wikipedia: Paul R. Hill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interest in psi phenomenon

In an interview in 2000 Hill's daughter, Julie, described her father's interest in psi research:

"He spoke about a friend who was a psychic and experiments they did. He said he set up a pinwheel experiment – I don't know how, but he knew how to set up an experiment that would be valid – and he told me that for about a week he could turn it with his mind, with his thoughts, but after about a week he couldn't do it anymore. He also told me a story about being in a car parked on the street, he was into thought experiments, and he said he projected a thought into her mind to get into my car, and as the woman was walking by the car she stopped, opened the door and sat down and looked at him, and I don't know if she shrieked or what but she was absolutely stunned at what she was doing. He said, I willed her to get into the car, and she did. I think he was as shocked as she was. They were both shocked. He told me when I was in my late teens, and this was before Shirley Maclaine and astral projection, that when he slept, he could float out of his body at night and float on the ceiling and look down and watch himself sleep. He never said he went anywhere or saw fantastic things, just that he left his body and watched himself sleep".[22]

None of these experiments were subject to peer review or published in any other way, however.

 

[Stagger Lee]

I find those cases interesting, where a disk is seen taking in water. I think it was Rutkowski, or an Australian investigator (whose name escapes me) presented several cases in a program with an episode dedicated to the subject. One of the cases had a farm hand setting out to investigate a vehicle near a watershed. Apparently it wasn't uncommon for thieves to drain these sheds at night. To his surprise, the farm hand came upon a disk hovering above the shed. The next day the tank was found empty. Another case had multiple witnesses including police (I think that might have been in France) where multiple objects were seen taking in water. Such cases, in my opinion, show that some sightings are indeed some kind of vehicle technology.

 

[Jeff Davis]

I and others have already thorougly discredited the preposterous claim reality doesnt exist without conciousness.

Demonstrating you are confusing the definitions of reality with perception.

Reality is commonly accepted as defined thusly

Why is it when I look at this animation I think of Mike with Steve Winwood in the background doing his song "I'm Winning"?

 

[manxman]

Mike's a winner.

He will out deluge you everytime, and knows any sane person will stop knocking their internet head against their internet wall..

 

[Erno86]

Mike --- Warp drive aside...I'm speculating that faster than light travel results in time travel {time dialation} is a fallacy --- though it might make one's clock go slower --- it does not make one younger or older in my book; in relation to interstellar space travel.

I also speculate, that one part of Einsteins Special Theory of Relativity can be circumvented for a starship that has an infinite energy source { medium-energy light wave photons}, while it's surrounded by a magnetic/gravitational field that has no rest mass; so it can break the speed of light barrier and travel in the superluminal realm.

If photons can be warped by space-time...a starship with a sufficient gravitational field, should be able to warp the photons around the magnetic/gravitational field, while also channeling some photons in a magnetic funnel; in order to feed the photon propulsion unit on the starship itself.

 

[mike]

I find those cases interesting, where a disk is seen taking in water. I think it was Rutkowski, or an Australian investigator (whose name escapes me) presented several cases in a program with an episode dedicated to the subject. One of the cases had a farm hand setting out to investigate a vehicle near a watershed. Apparently it wasn't uncommon for thieves to drain these sheds at night. To his surprise, the farm hand came upon a disk hovering above the shed. The next day the tank was found empty. Another case had multiple witnesses including police (I think that might have been in France) where multiple objects were seen taking in water. Such cases, in my opinion, show that some sightings are indeed some kind of vehicle technology.

The "Gosford files" case has this aspect.
My first though is the element hydrogen and oxygen are useful.

 

[Burnt State]

The "Gosford files" case has this aspect.
My first though is the element hydrogen and oxygen are useful.

And not that water is an essential component for carbon based lifeforms like us as that's the immediate piece that pops into my brain?

There are a number of very interesting cases that feature hoses and pipes being lowered into the water to suck it up into the ship. There of course are other cases where the aliens are carrying jugs and asking for small amounts of water. The spectrum of such cases is quite confusing given the wide range of technologies used to get at the H2O. These seem to echo different eras of technology and one wonders for whose benefit is all this. The Gosford case suggests a type of tech that I would expect to see from an advanced civilization, not tubes or handheld jugs.

 

[Stagger Lee]

The cases of water intake, I mentioned above, speaks of a rod being lowered from the craft to siphon the water below. Can't imagine "hoses" dropping from the bottom of a disk- have people reported being witness to such?

 

[Jeff Davis]

The cases of water intake, I mentioned above, speaks of a rod being lowered from the craft to siphon the water below. Can't imagine "hoses" dropping from the bottom of a disk- have people reported being witness to such?

I think that dropping things out of the bottom of "craft" for whatever reason is a common thread in airborne mysteries. In days of old airborne water sailing type Ships were seen dropping roped anchors, of which many an "alien", ofter appearing typically as just men & women dressed in one uniform type or another, would scamper down and back up after waving or communicating salutations or whatever, then came the great airships doing similar things. Sometimes landing and returning to their vessels with pales of water. In "watcher" fashion, Betty Andreasson reports that her little magic gardeners were often performing such esoteric environmental small miracles behind the scenes. Here is one report mentioning a hose, while not actually being merely lowered from the craft, it still none the less mentions the observation of a possible UFOnaut using one. UFOs & Water Case, Palmas, Tocantis, Brazil, 03-22-2001-UFO Casebook Files

UFOs activities with respect to sucking up water, while not ultra common, are certainly not rare. USO reports are also an extremely real part of the equation.

sucking up water - Google Search

 

[Stagger Lee]

Thanks for the link to that particular case, Jeff. Strange and interesting.
I recall in one of Fowlers books, an incident involving Andreasson's aliens performing some type of procedure on or around their saucers using water from a lake. Fowler went into some archives and found a couple who reported witnessing a very similar procedure involving a disk, water and humanoids, some years before Andreasson's "water" incident. I am of the belief that Betty and her family did witness a very strange event(s) initially- but prob felt the need to be creative for the sake of filling pages in books.
I do wonder though, these early reports of ladders, ropes and buckets- if they were just the result of witnesses unable to visually process exactly what they were seeing? For example, a beam of light being interpreted as a rope or ladder.