Origin of the Phenomena

[trainedobserver]

I don't see the sense behind the "nuts and bolts" vs. "other dimensional" or "paranormal" arguments about the origin or nature of the UFO phenomena.

Are the "non-nuts and bolts" people thinking that the UFO phenomena is produced by something other than an application of technology? Are they thinking that some "being" from "somewhere else" has a "natural" ability to manifest these things? It only seems logical and reasonable to think that technology is being used unless you want to make the leap and say other living beings somewhere inherently have what amount to "super-powers" or true "magical" abilities.

I am reasonably certain that UFOs are not Demons, Evil Spirits, or other boogie-men from mankind's overactive and superstitious prone imagination. Should there be other dimensions filled with living beings they no doubt must use the application of technology to manipulate their environment as we do and not the magic and spiritual hookum of human fiction.

A sufficiently advanced technology does appear to be "magical" to the uninitiated. I think it is reasonable to assume that beings from another world (in this dimension or some other) would possess technology that would be sufficiently advanced and sufficiently alien to appear as "magic" or would otherwise fit humanities superstitious notions of the supernatural but this does not mean they are.

So it seems to me that if the UFO phenomena doesn't have a natural explanation then there must be intelligences utilizing technology to produce it. Their nuts and bolts might be made of some other dimensional substance but they qualify as nuts and bolts nonetheless.

 

[Bob Watson]

one thing i noted about UFO's is they change with the times...in the early 1900 they looked like airships. blimps ect things ppl in that times could relate to.in those days occupents were humans in outlandish garb . in the 1950's they were very nuts and bolts.flying suacer type with odd ocupents that we dont see any more.now a days UFO's tend to black triangles and occupents are mostly greys. the term is cultural tracking. I beleve if any thing this is a key in solving the mytery of what they are....

 

[Ron Collins]

I don't see the sense behind the "nuts and bolts" vs. "other dimensional" or "paranormal" arguments about the origin or nature of the UFO phenomena.

Are the "non-nuts and bolts" people thinking that the UFO phenomena is produced by something other than an application of technology? Are they thinking that some "being" from "somewhere else" has a "natural" ability to manifest these things? It only seems logical and reasonable to think that technology is being used unless you want to make the leap and say other living beings somewhere inherently have what amount to "super-powers" or true "magical" abilities.

I am reasonably certain that UFOs are not Demons, Evil Spirits, or other boogie-men from mankind's overactive and superstitious prone imagination. Should there be other dimensions filled with living beings they no doubt must use the application of technology to manipulate their environment as we do and not the magic and spiritual hookum of human fiction.

A sufficiently advanced technology does appear to be "magical" to the uninitiated. I think it is reasonable to assume that beings from another world (in this dimension or some other) would possess technology that would be sufficiently advanced and sufficiently alien to appear as "magic" or would otherwise fit humanities superstitious notions of the supernatural but this does not mean they are.

So it seems to me that if the UFO phenomena doesn't have a natural explanation then there must be intelligences utilizing technology to produce it. Their nuts and bolts might be made of some other dimensional substance but they qualify as nuts and bolts nonetheless.

Good question. For me personally the term "Nuts and Bolts" is synonymous with ETH. Meaning Aliens built nuts and bolts craft to travel quasi-conventionally from their planet to ours. Meaning non-temporally, or inter-dimensionally, but rather utilizing methods that exists in our current version of space time. Chemical, Gravitational, Zero Point Energy, or Anti-Matter propulsion systems being the norms discussed.

As opposed to inter-dimensional beings which are theorized to reside in an altogether different dimensional realm with possibly different physics but essentially occupying the same physical space we do. Some theorize that this type of encounter could be technologically driven or could be driven by some other process that we can only interpret at mystical.

It's kind of confusing because one only needs to conduct the thought experiment for about 10 minutes before realizing that not one single origin theory can truly account for all the anomalous things and there various and the sundry presentations as they are reported. Some debunkers have used the non-conformity argument to show that the ETH explanation is not correct. They postulate that a significantly advanced society capable of reaching Earth from another solar system would have to have production conformity on things like craft design and such. I have heard the argument, "All X wing fighters look like X-wing fighters regardless of color". It is a classic false logic statement. But, it does highlight a curiosity when one considers the multitude of physical craft descriptions reported.

Hope that helps.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

We can't just say that a UFO is technology from some advanced, non-human race. Neil DeGrasse Tyson explains it quite well.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zfAzaDyae-k&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zfAzaDyae-k&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

 

[Kieran]

We can't just say that a UFO is technology from some advanced, non-human race. Neil DeGrasse Tyson explains it quite well.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zfAzaDyae-k&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zfAzaDyae-k&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

He ask's a boy happens when a story goes down the line from one person to the other person. What happens next ? He ask's a Boy in the audience 'the story changes. Ya of course, the information comes from a original source first then that information will hen get filtered and distorted and if it not personal thing to the person telling the account or story. It will be a different story upon reaching a number of people. How you compare a person seeing A UFO with his own eyes and he reports accurately, but then other people are the ones changing the story? See behind this clever speeches there is a flawed logic there somewhere.

Lights, people see more than just lights here and coloured lights flying separately by themselves, There is no ratiional explanation that can explain the UFO phenomenon.. Mr Tyson. See the problem, unless you know the facts, you can't criticise a subject, you have not studied one bit. Angel you admire him, well good for you, but try respecting a skeptic who knows something more about the UFO subject then he does obviously.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

He ask's a boy happens when a story goes down the line from one person to the other person. What happens next , he ask's a Boy in the audience 'the story changes. Ya of course, the information comes from a original source, firstly that information will get filtered, and distorted, if it not personal thing to the person telling the account or story. How you compare a person seeing A UFO with his own eyes and he reports accurately, but other people, are the ones changing the story? See behind this clever speeches there is a flawed logic there somewhere.

Lights, people see more than just lights and coloured lights flying separately by themselves, makes lot of rational sense. Ya Mr Tyson. See the problem, unless you know the facts, you can't criticise a subject, you have not studied. Angel you admire him, well good for you, but try respecting a skeptic who knows something more about the UFO subject then he does.

I like him; he's a great spokesperson for science and thanks for watching the video. Also, he's not denying the existence of UFOs - I'm of the opinion that there are plenty of things that people see that they can't explain. My argument is that we can't just say that it's aliens.
Why do you believe that an astrophysicist is missing the facts about outer space? He can't say that aliens aren't visiting earth, but he also can't say that they are without proof that will satisfy a scientist. That's the important part. You an rest assured that if undeniable proof is presented to him, he will believe it.

 

[trainedobserver]

This fellows contempt for the subject is pretty obvious and well known.

Yes Virgina, the U in UFO means Unidentified.

Arguing that UFOs are the product of a "technology" vs. some naturally occurring phenomena is not done from a standpoint of total ignorance. There is a great deal of data that describes the behavior of these objects and their interest in nuclear weapons, military installations, and so forth. Furthermore, the testimony of people like Gordon Cooper is pretty reliable. His crew filmed a saucer shaped craft land in the desert and take off again and he saw the print of the film.

Who creates and maintains the technology that is responsible for the UFO phenomena is indeed UNKNOWN and UNIDENTIFIED. The point of my post is either a person accepts UFOs as unexplained natural phenomena, the product of an unknown technology, or the manifestation of supernatural forces or you simply turn your brain off and not think about it at all and say "I don't know, and I won't think about what it might be".

I think there is plenty of evidence as to the "reality" of Unidentified Flying Objects under intelligent control operating in our atmosphere. I think the evidence suggests they are manufactured objects utilizing technology as opposed to natural weather phenomena or "spiritual" or "mystical" manifestations of some kind. Whether they are from Earth, Outer Space, or Dimension X seems as unknowable as their waste management protocols.

 

[Kieran]

I like him; he's a great spokesperson for science and thanks for watching the video. Also, he's not denying the existence of UFOs - I'm of the opinion that there are plenty of things that people see that they can't explain. My argument is that we can't just say that it's aliens.
Why do you believe that an astrophysicist is missing the facts about outer space? He can't say that aliens aren't visiting earth, but he also can't say that they are without proof that will satisfy a scientist. That's the important part. You an rest assured that if undeniable proof is presented to him, he will believe it.

He is mocking a subject he clearly does not know. I have problem with people like that, no matter how talented they are in their chosen profession. What does Alien means something different (UFO'S) are Alien. He has not studied this phenomenon, i guarantee you that, so his arguments are ignorant.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

This fellows contempt for the subject is pretty obvious and well known.

Yes Virgina, the U in UFO means Unidentified.

Arguing that UFOs are the product of a "technology" vs. some naturally occurring phenomena is not done from a standpoint of total ignorance. There is a great deal of data that describes the behavior of these objects and their interest in nuclear weapons, military installations, and so forth. Furthermore, the testimony of people like Gordon Cooper is pretty reliable. His crew filmed a saucer shaped craft land in the desert and take off again and he saw the print of the film.

Who creates and maintains the technology that is responsible for the UFO phenomena is indeed UNKNOWN and UNIDENTIFIED. The point of my post is either a person accepts UFOs as unexplained natural phenomena, the product of an unknown technology, or the manifestation of supernatural forces or you simply turn your brain off and not think about it at all and say "I don't know, and I won't think about what it might be".

I think there is plenty of evidence as to the "reality" of Unidentified Flying Objects under intelligent control operating in our atmosphere. I think the evidence suggests they are manufactured objects utilizing technology as opposed to natural weather phenomena or "spiritual" or "mystical" manifestations of some kind. Whether they are from Earth, Outer Space, or Dimension X seems as unknowable as their waste management protocols.

That's one of the issue's I have and what Tyson is referring to. That Cooper saw a print of a film that shows a UFO doesn't mean it's proof of an alien aircraft. He told the story years later and it's possible that his memory of the incident was less than perfect.
Perhaps the evidence suggests that it's alien technology to you and many others, that's fine, but it doesn't mean that it's true and undeniable. Until it's fully proven, there will always be people like me that will refuse to say with any degree of certainty that it's aliens. There's something, yes (it could be anything really), but we can't be sure what it is. So let's not say it something just for the sake of it.

 

[trainedobserver]

That Cooper saw a print of a film that shows a UFO doesn't mean it's proof of an alien aircraft.

Oh G-Bus! I've said "alien technology" where exactly? Am I talking "aliens" ... no I am not.

I'm saying "technology" period with no descriptor and no assumption about its creator's origin point.

UFOs ... given the evidence are they:
A) Natural ?
B) The product of a technology?
C) Supernatural or Mystical?

I say the evidence overwhelming screams "technology" and not natural or "supernatural" phenomena. The origin of this technology whether it is humans or not, earth based or not, is immaterial in making this distinction.

 

[Kieran]

Everyday and Every week since 1947 there has been some report of UFO in the sky, that's 63 years of data collection and for a subject that doesn't exist, well there sure is a hell lot of evidence that proves otherwise.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Oh G-Bus! I've said "alien technology" where exactly? Am I talking "aliens" ... no I am not.

I'm saying "technology" period with no descriptor and no assumption about its creator's origin point.

UFOs ... given the evidence are they:
A) Natural ?
B) The product of a technology?
C) Supernatural or Mystical?

Okay, sometimes I'm a moron and I really don't make myself clear at all. You did not say Aliens, I'm sorry that I implied that. From my understanding, people use what Gordan Cooper experienced as proof of alien visitation. That's why i said what I did.

Anyway, back to your question:

Definitely not C.
A and B make the most sense. I think that the technology is ours but not identified properly by the witness. And natural phenomena - our planet does some weird shit sometimes.

---------- Post added at 02:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:06 PM ----------

Everyday and Every week since 1947 there has been some report of UFO in the sky, that's 63 years of data collection and for a subject that doesn't exist, well there sure is a hell lot of evidence that proves otherwise.

I know. No one is denying that.

 

[trainedobserver]

A and B make the most sense. I think that the technology is ours but not identified properly by the witness. And natural phenomena - our planet does some weird shit sometimes.

"A" in no way provides an explanation for the "best cases" backed up by multiple witnesses, radar information, and so forth. Sure, there are UFO reports that are natural phenomena, that undoubtedly happens, but it does not explain them all nor can it.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

"A" in no way provides an explanation for the "best cases" backed up by multiple witnesses, radar information, and so forth. Sure, there are UFO reports that are natural phenomena, that undoubtedly happens, but it does not explain them all nor can it.

I agree with you 100% which is why I said A and B. We can't lump them all in one category. Of your options, those are the only two that are possible with the way we understand the world right now. If the supernatural or mystical is ever proven to be true, well that would blow the whole thing wide open.

 

[trainedobserver]

I would say that anything that is considered mystical or supernatural that is real outside of the human imagination is a actually a misunderstood or unknown natural phenomena that will eventually be understood by the application of the correct scientific approach.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I would say that anything that is considered mystical or supernatural that is real outside of the human imagination is a actually a misunderstood or unknown natural phenomena that will eventually be understood by the application of the correct scientific approach.

We're on the same page.

 

[Ron Collins]

To my mind, and I have researched this topic for years, this phenomenon is clearly technological. I am absolutely certain that some of the technology is human in origin and developed through years of groundbreaking advances. Yet, I am equally certain that we do not possess the technological ability to do some of the things that some UFO's are reported doing. I feel very comfortable in saying that this is technology we are witnessing but I do not feel that a discussion on origin of the phenomenon is useful. This is where we always get bogged down.

Scientists use the origin argument to completely devalue the existence of the phenomenon. They immediately attack origin theory and skip over the pertinent details. We must first, as a society, admit that there really is something to the phenomenon. Then we can move into the dispassionate study of it. Only then can we start to get a clearer picture of its origin.

 

[Frank Stalter]

We can't just say that a UFO is technology from some advanced, non-human race. Neil DeGrasse Tyson explains it quite well.

<object height="385" width="480">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zfAzaDyae-k&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="385" width="480"></object>

He explained nothing. He didn't answer the question. He's an entertainer. He's a full of shit blowhard.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

He explained nothing. He didn't answer the question. He's an entertainer. He's a full of shit blowhard.

He's actually one of the most respected people in his field - don't resort to ad hominem attacks just because you don't agree with someone's point of view. You can disagree, that's fine, but he's far from being a blowhard.

 

[Frank Stalter]

He's actually one of the most respected people in his field - don't resort to ad hominem attacks just because you don't agree with someone's point of view. You can disagree, that's fine, but he's far from being a blowhard.

His big scientific accomplishment is helping get Pluto declassified as a planet. Hardly impressive considering his high profile ally in the effort is notorious fraud Bill Nye and the fact that the entire argument is a distinction without a difference.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...d-get-back-planet-status-say-astronomers.html