Some Assumptions have been bothering me

[Ron Collins]

I know I have brought it up before but since it keeps coming up I wanted to address it yet again. On the Aztec show it was brought up that if UFO's are supposed alien craft and that such craft are highly advanced somehow that translates into nothing we low tech humans have could be capable of causing it serious problems.

I just can't subscribe to this and I am sort of shocked that anyone that has worked with any level of high technology would either. So in the off chance that anyone cares I have compiled a list of reasons that run counter to that premiss.

1 - Pilot Error, I am a pilot and I get many pilot oriented publications. Including a very bland looking one called Aviation Safety. Here and at the AOPA's version you can get some insight to the incidents and accidents and their causation. Very eye opening. Not just private pilots but professional and military pilots screw up. I think it is safe to assume "alien" ones could as well.

(Here are a few sites if you are interested. Aviation Safety Network > and Aviation Safety Magazine)

2 - Craft Malfunction or Failure. Again, read the above stuff and you can see that this, while more rare, is also a valid causation of an accident or incident.

3 - Unforeseen complications due to unfamiliar technology. For instance, microwaves affect pace makers, cell phones cause monitors to warble and speakers to buzz, the list can go on and on. the point is these technologies were all independently developed, tested, and deployed without that slightest consideration for the other. Yet they can affect the proper performance of the other device. Now, they all use the same basic principles of technology developed by humans. There technological pedigree is mutually descendant. I think it is safe to assume that if we introduce a technology that may make use of a significantly divergent base technological pedigree that we can not possibly be certain of its affects on one another. I think it is not at all counterintuitive to assume that such divergent technologies could adversely affecting one another.

4 - Vulnerability to Weapons. I come from simple train of thought here, if it can be made it can be broken. Why should we assume that because it is higher technology that it is impervious to our weaponry. We have Fighter jets that are about 100 million orders of magnitude more advanced that a sword carrying knight of France or England. But if the F22 Raptor was struck by the projectile of a trebuchet of that era I am sorry to say that 50 million dollar technological marvel and most likely its pilot are screwed.

I will add more to this later. If anyone has more to offer or would like to talk about one or more of these I would love to hear it.

Thanks,
Ron

 

[Trajanus]

On the Aztec show it was brought up that if UFO's are supposed alien craft and that such craft are highly advanced somehow that translates into nothing we low tech humans have could be capable of causing it serious problems.

I just can't subscribe to this and I am sort of shocked that anyone that has worked with any level of high technology would either.

I don't.

Not just private pilots but professional and military pilots screw up. I think it is safe to assume "alien" ones could as well.

I agree absolutely. At least one contactee was in fact told that a UFO crash resulted from pilot error.

2 - Craft Malfunction or Failure. Again, read the above stuff and you can see that this, while more rare, is also a valid causation of an accident or incident.

Right. Note that in some instances, humanoids have been seen apparently fixing landed saucers. Since this is evidence that UFOs can become defective it's reassonable to think they can conk out at a pretty bad time.

For instance, microwaves affect pace makers, cell phones cause monitors to warble and speakers to buzz, the list can go on and on. the point is these technologies were all independently developed, tested, and deployed without that slightest consideration for the other. Yet they can affect the proper performance of the other device....I think it is not at all counterintuitive to assume that such divergent technologies could adversely affecting one another.

In fact there have been stories of microwave radars specifically employed to knock'em down.

4 - Vulnerability to Weapons. I come from simple train of thought here, if it can be made it can be broken. Why should we assume that because it is higher technology that it is impervious to our weaponry. We have Fighter jets that are about 100 million orders of magnitude more advanced that a sword carrying knight of France or England. But if the F22 Raptor was struck by the projectile of a trebuchet of that era I am sorry to say that 50 million dollar technological marvel and most likely its pilot are screwed.

Right again. There have been reports of jets and SAMs killing saucers.

 

[Xylo]

I agree with the premise of this thread completely.

I just wanted to add some food for thought...

There's such a thing in orbit called "space junk." Be it frozen urine, water vapor, bolts, pieces of old satellites, or a 13 mile long tether...it's out there in orbit and there's more being created every day. It cannot be possible for a non-terrestrial race to account for all of this "junk" in real time. So when I hear of these things crashing I think of collisions with this stuff as well.

 

[Frank Stalter]

I have an additional possible explanation . . . . a deliberate crash to prove their existence and seed some technology.

 

[Kandinsky]

If there have been UFO crashes and retrievals, it leads to a few questions...

Why USA?

Are they deliberate like Trojan horses?

Why the cover-up?

All nations on Earth make attempts to recover their downed crews...have they?

We'd consider it an act of aggression if our personnel weren't returned...have they?

If we've 'shot them down,' what was their response?

 

[bobheck]

4 - Vulnerability to Weapons. I come from simple train of thought here, if it can be made it can be broken. Why should we assume that because it is higher technology that it is impervious to our weaponry. We have Fighter jets that are about 100 million orders of magnitude more advanced that a sword carrying knight of France or England. But if the F22 Raptor was struck by the projectile of a trebuchet of that era I am sorry to say that 50 million dollar technological marvel and most likely its pilot are screwed.

A very good point, RonCollins.

Take a laser rifle into the Amazon and have all the latest GPS equipment, radar, tracking. You are walking one day and are hit by a poisonous blow dart in the neck. You still die.

 

[Hoffmeister]

I have mixed feelings on this subject really and was thinking about it a lot during the last podcast. Firstly, us saying that because they are more highly advanced they are invulnerable to malfunctions is like someone back in 1945 saying that in 60 years time, because we will have advanced so much.... planes will never crash. Well thats balderdash as we all know, and only yesterday I saw a program on tv where a stealth fighter at an air show fell out of the sky and crashed into someones house (because it had loose boolts on the wing and the wing literally fell off). The more we advance in technology, the more technology there is to go wrong.

However, i personally am very skeptical about the fact that Kenneth Arnold see's the first flying saucer of the modern era, and a matter of weeks later we happen to have two crashes rather conveniantly in the U.S

 

[Frank Stalter]

However, i personally am very skeptical about the fact that Kenneth Arnold see's the first flying saucer of the modern era, and a matter of weeks later we happen to have two crashes rather conveniantly in the U.S

Media attention galvanized around Arnold, in large part because of his efforts, but there were sightings before, which he generally discussed in interviews, and he became something of a UFO journalist.

It's an iconic sighting because of Arnold's credibility and the details he was able to provide. He had significant reference points like Mt Rainier and Mt Hood and as a result was able to come up with a fair approximation of the UFOs' speeds, up to 1400 MPH. I've done the math myself and it checks out. His fame lived on, I think, because of his willingness to go very public but I would call his sighting the first iconic sighting of the modern era, not the first.

 

[Flatwoods]

I've often had problems believing the extra-terrestrial hypothesis, and have often wondered if the truth might be something far stranger. Years ago, I wrote a short story along these lines. Here's a link: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread200176/pg1

 

[Kieran]

I think if you are going to given a suggestion to what you think happened to the UFO before it crashed at Roswell. You firstly have to review the evidence that is out there. Roswell in 1947 was a small town in a remote area of the United states and it had an army base. Without the army base been there, i would remove the possibility it was shoot down, A citizen using a shotgun is hardly going to bring down a UFO thousands of feet up. The most likely theory would be anti aircraft weapon's/gun's or RPG similar to what was used in World War 2. If it was detected on radar they could have even used aircraft even, but if you sent up aircraft the element of surprise is taken way if your spotted. I Think all of Ron's suggests are logical in my opinion without me discussing what i think of all of them. The interesting think about Roswell is the official statement that was put out by the Roswell ARMY base, It claimed it had retrieved this flying disc two weeks prior to this official statement. I Found this in old newspapers of the day. That is odd. So for two weeks nothing no claims, but the second week the Roswell story emerges. You have to seriously consider was this disinformation/ or was this used to test the reaction of the American populace to such a possibility. I love to hear researchers opinions to this, why was this information released two weeks after the crash happened. Surely this statement would have never have been released if they knew this was only a weather balloon.

 

[Kieran]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/file:SacramentoBeeArticleJuly8,1947.jpg

This is a newspaper clipping from the day. I Found a few newspapers that printed on that day. July 8 the craft was recovered last week sometime according to the official statement. I just looking to find out what day, July 8 was. Those anyway know?

It was a Tuesday, so on the 8 this official statement was released to the public. Some articles suggest the 4 or the 6 of july was the date Brazel informed the authorities, so we have two to four days of the authorities knowing about the disk before actually releasing this statement. Still a long time to get confused about what they had. Brazel said in one interview, he found this wreckage in late June. Roswell is such a mess. The timeline of this event having occured is not even certain, so if the timeline could be wrong, what is the point of even looking at this case.

 

[fysisist]

Yes I think your arguments make some sense. But re your point 3, I would respond that I think it is highly unlikely that the alleged craft are so adversely effected by radar or other EM radiation in the Earth's atmosphere that they are disabled in some way. My logic is as follows: the energy of EM radiation emanating from a point source drops off rather quickly with distance. As a matter of fact, it follows the 1/R^2 rule. Even in the examples you pointed out, the effected device has to be fairly close to the source to be influenced in any way. There just isn't much energy density from even a powerful radar when the object is several miles away (or several tens of miles away, obviously) from the source. Even if we assume that some specific frequency of EM radiation could adversely effect the craft in question, it seems a fairly safe bet that the creators of the technology would be aware of it, simply because nature is full of EM radiation and it would seem very likely that an intelligent technological being would have understanding of this phenomenon. However, if the discussion turns to directed energy devices, such as lasers, etc, then the 1/R^2 rule no longer applies and the argument changes. But were such devices available back in 1947? Doubtful, unless you believe in vast government / military conspiracy theories. It has been just these past several years that a laser weapon that can track and illuminate a boosting ballistic missile long enough to cause it to fail has been demonstrated (e.g. HEL, ABL).

 

[Trajanus]

I have an additional possible explanation . . . . a deliberate crash to prove their existence and seed some technology.

But crashes have involved fatalities. Surely there was no need to kill several crew members to accomplish the above. They could've either crashed an unpiloted vehicle or had the crew bail out and be rescued. Or, better yet, just LAND to prove their existence and give us (or the government) technology.

 

[Trajanus]

It was a Tuesday, so on the 8 this official statement was released to the public. Some articles suggest the 4 or the 6 of july was the date Brazel informed the authorities, so we have two to four days of the authorities knowing about the disk before actually releasing this statement.

Haut's affidavit suggests it was found on the 7th.

The timeline of this event having occured is not even certain, so if the timeline could be wrong, what is the point of even looking at this case.

Something definitely happened, and efforts to cover up/obfuscate attest to its importance.

 

[Trajanus]

However, i personally am very skeptical about the fact that Kenneth Arnold see's the first flying saucer of the modern era, and a matter of weeks later we happen to have two crashes rather conveniantly in the U.S

If you're referring to the two Roswell sites, the one nearer town may have been an escape pod or part of the craft which blew up, not a second craft.

 

[trainedobserver]

Excellent post! I, like fysissit, agree with everything expect point 3 for pretty much the same reasons. I'd also add that the fact that crashes would occur without some sort of rescue/retrieval effort being made by those responsible for sending the craft here, makes me wonder about the true nature of such an event.

 

[Trajanus]

I'd also add that the fact that crashes would occur without some sort of rescue/retrieval effort being made by those responsible for sending the craft here, makes me wonder about the true nature of such an event.

It could mean their means of projecting force here are limited, or were in the crash heyday of the late '40s, '50s etc. At present there's nothing we can do to get Spirit unstuck from that Martian sand trap.

 

[Frank Stalter]

But crashes have involved fatalities. Surely there was no need to kill several crew members to accomplish the above. They could've either crashed an unpiloted vehicle or had the crew bail out and be rescued. Or, better yet, just LAND to prove their existence and give us (or the government) technology.

I know, I'm suggesting that fatalities were deliberate too.

 

[Trajanus]

I know, I'm suggesting that fatalities were deliberate too.

They were hardly necessary to prove their existence and give us technology. I wonder what the morale of the ET rank and file must be if they're deemed so unworthy of consideration. We'd best assume they were just prone to mishaps, especially when they were just staring out here.

 

[Paul Kimball]

They were hardly necessary to prove their existence and give us technology. I wonder what the morale of the ET rank and file must be if they're deemed so unworthy of consideration. We'd best assume they were just prone to mishaps, especially when they were just staring out here.

I think that the entire UFO crash mythos is ridiculous, for many reasons. However, as a thought experiment, let me say this about seeding the technology by way of a crash with dead bodies...

Why assume that the "bodies" recovered were biological? It is just as likely (indeed, I would argue far more likely) that if we are dealing with extraterrestrials, they are not biological entities at all, but rather some for of robotic / cybernetic / AI "beings" - in which case, any "bodies" discovered would have been disposable (what if they were like Cylons in the BSG universe, and could upload their consciousness afterwards)?

The inclusion of bodies would have removed any doubt that we might have had as to the nature of the craft recovered.

As I said, just a thought experiement...