# White House Denies Alien Contact



## Rob Sanders

It's official! 

From BBC News

' The US government has formally denied that it has any knowledge of contact with extraterrestrial life.

The announcement came as a response to submissions to the We The People website, which promises to address any petition that gains 5,000 signatories.

Two petitions called for disclosure of government information on ETs and an acknowledgement of any contact.The White House responded that there was "no evidence that any life exists outside our planet".

More than 17,000 citizens joined the two petitions, and the White House has since amended the requirements for response to a minimum of 25,000 signatories.

"The US government has no evidence that any life exists outside our planet, or that an extraterrestrial presence has contacted or engaged any member of the human race," wrote space policy expert Phil Larson of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. 

"In addition, there is no credible information to suggest that any evidence is being hidden from the public's eye."

The post went on to outline the efforts that are underway that may add evidence to the debate, namely the space missions Kepler and the Mars Science Laboratory.

Kepler is searching for Earth-like planets around far-flung stars, and the Mars Science Laboratory will sample the Red Planet's geology looking for the building blocks of life - though it will not explicitly look for life itself.
Perhaps the most famous effort in the hunt for alien life is the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (Seti), once funded in part by US space agency Nasa, which continues to listen to and look around the cosmos for signs of intelligent civilisations elsewhere.

Mr Larson summarised the numbers game that a hunt for ETs necessarily entails.

"Many scientists and mathematicians have looked... at the question of whether life likely exists beyond Earth, and have come to the conclusion that the odds are pretty high that somewhere among the trillions and trillions of stars in the Universe there is a planet other than ours that is home to life," he wrote.

"Many have also noted, however, that the odds of us making contact with any of them - especially any intelligent ones - are extremely small, given the distances involved." '


----------



## Peter Graham

Next week:  "Homeopathy is a crock of sh**e" says Palace official


----------



## Snowdog

Those who believe in UFOs will just think they're lying anyway - which they would, if UFOs really did exist.


----------



## Rob Sanders

Good point - people would neither believe the UFO witness nor the Government denying their existence. Excellent cover for alien activities! ; )



________________________________________________________________ 
Rob Sanders Speculative Fiction


----------



## PTeppic

Wow - USA really is the land of the free - in the UK it takes 100,000 names on an "official" petition to get something considered by the government (and even then they can ignore it, it turns out)


----------



## Boneman

To prove something exists, you have to do everything possible to prove it doesn't exist - I think we can take the word of an extremely august body, such as the US Government, that they don't exist. Therefore they do...


----------



## Metryq

Rob Sanders said:


> Excellent cover for alien activities! ; )



_The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai: Across the Eighth Dimension_

"Planet Ten, real soon!"


----------



## PTeppic

Boneman said:


> To prove something exists, you have to do everything possible to prove it doesn't exist - I think we can take the word of an extremely august body, such as the US Government, that they don't exist. Therefore they do...



So saying "polar bears exist" and producing a mid-sized white bear just isn't enough?


----------



## mosaix

*I Doubt That This Will Make The Slightest Difference To the Conspiracy Theorists...*

The White House denies any alien contact or knowledge.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15635612


----------



## mosaix

*Re: I Doubt That This Will Make The Slightest Difference To the Conspiracy Theorists.*

Just noticed another thread on this topic - apologies. If a kind mod would care to delete this thread or do some kind of merging I'd be grateful.


----------



## Culhwch

So merged. (We tend not to delete things...)


----------



## Metryq

Culhwch said:


> So merged. (We tend not to delete things...)



Fusion power. The admins aren't up to antimatter power yet.


----------



## Rob Sanders

We can assume the governments do cover some things up (governments are proven to lie to the people on nearly a daily basis), so making such a statement about alien life is probably just a way of securing the trust of the public on issues they are misleading the public about. The most convincing lies are hidden between truths.


----------



## Boneman

PTeppic said:


> So saying "polar bears exist" and producing a mid-sized white bear just isn't enough?


 
Exactly...


----------



## soulsinging

PTeppic said:


> Wow - USA really is the land of the free - in the UK it takes 100,000 names on an "official" petition to get something considered by the government (and even then they can ignore it, it turns out)



Don't read too much into it. That 25,000 signatures will only get you a form answer from the WH on your question. That link you posted makes it sound like 100,000 signatures will get Parliament to consider initiatives, which would be like Congress introducing legislation here. Far as I know, there's no way for US citizens to do such a thing no matter how many signatures you have. Now if you have money...


----------



## Scifi fan

I'm not convinced the White House is right. It may think it's telling the truth, but it may also be lied to by those in the know. 

I say this because, a few years ago, the UFO buffs brought a lawsuit to compel the government to disclose the documents regarding unidentified flying objects, and the government had to provide an affidavit explaining why it cannot do that. That affidavit was blacked out in many places, and the hearing was done WITHOUT the UFO buffs' side present. The judge read the affidavit and said the government should not disclose the information, due to national security reasons. 

That decision was appealed, and the court of appeal, after reading the same material, agreed. The standard explanation is that the government is trying to hide its methods of gathering intelligence, and, after reading some of the open portions of the affidavit, I can accept that. Still, since so much is blacked out, that is is very suspicious to me. 

There is another incident that is very well known and which has convinced me there is something, and that is the Irania UFO incident of 1976. The pilots of the Iranian Air Force encountered something that they saw visually and on three different radar sets, which was not natural. One jet locked its missiles on the target, and the jet's electronic systems jammed. At the same time, a nearby passenger airliner's electronic systems also jammed. 

I understand the pilots and commanders have since held a press conference in Washington, DC, and they have stated that this must be a vehicle from an advanced, non-Earthling species.

So I'm not convinced the White House is correct.


----------



## hopewrites

well they very carefully couched it in terms of opinion. so that when aliens do decide to make official overtures to the world government (i think they are waiting for us to have one so they only have to deal with one set of bureaucrats) it was only in opinion that they were wrong.
they very carefully didnt say that aliens dont exist, only that "we have no contact with them"


----------



## Starbeast

Scifi fan said:


> There is another incident that is very well known and which has convinced me there is something, and that is the Irania UFO incident of 1976.  I understand the pilots and commanders have since held a press conference in Washington, DC, and they have stated that this must be a vehicle from an advanced, non-Earthling species.
> 
> So I'm not convinced the White House is correct.


 
They won't say anything. Because if they did they'd have a lot of explaining to do. But don't worry, within the last three years there have been an increasing number of new sightings worldwide by multiple witnesses, chances are, if you keep watching the sky you may see something extraordinary (if you haven't already).


----------



## Peter Graham

> They won't say anything. Because if they did they'd have a lot of explaining to do


Which once again begs the question which is never satisfactorily answered - why, if they know about alien civilizations, would they have any reason not to tell us?  What have they got to lose?

It has always amused me that lots of UFO sightings tend to happen close to "secret" government/military bases - Area 51 and even our own Spadeadam Forest. Now, which of the following statements is most likely to be  true:-

1.  Secret government/military bases are up to all sorts of exciting technological stuff and hav very good reason not to want to let that get out.

2.  Aliens know about the bases and hover around them so that they can gather intelligence on our offensive, defensive and technological capabilities by using widdly extraterrestrial monitoring and sensing equipment, because, of course, even though they are from different planets, they can be safely assumed to act precisely like we would in the same circumstances.

Regards,

Peter


----------



## Vertigo

Good old Occam's razor; I'm with you on this one Peter.


----------



## Peter Graham

Thanks Vertigo!

Here's a philosophical conundrum:-

Do we suppose that Occam also had a cat?

Regards,

Peter


----------



## Metryq

Peter Graham said:


> Do we suppose that Occam also had a cat



Yes, it will be a zombie cat that is both alive and dead at the same time—until someone opens the cat's box. Then the universe will split. This will be part of a new educational series of slasher films that teach science and critical thinking, kicking off with _Occam's Razor_, scheduled for release 21 December 2012. The film will feature a new double-slit projection technique. Score by Roy G. Biv and the Brightline Spectrum Band.


----------



## Starbeast

Peter Graham said:


> Which once again begs the question which is never satisfactorily answered - why, if they know about alien civilizations, would they have any reason not to tell us? *What have they got to lose?*
> 
> Regards, Peter


 
If the U.S. admits to knowing about outworlders, then the truth would come out about recovered unearthly technology that could help our world to excell by using clean and inexpensive energy that they have kept secret for decades. Even the brilliant inventor Nikola Tesla was very close to perfecting his "free energy" generators, but he was halted in his work by the people who funded him, they didn't want the entire world to have access to "free energy", simply because there is no profit in it.

Now back to the outworlders.

If the U.S. admits they have been completely aware of beings coming from other worlds and dimensions for thousands of years, then they would also tell us that there is almost nothing we can do about it. A good number of people might feel very uneasy knowing that humans are constantly being observed by aliens from elsewhere.


----------



## Metryq

Starbeast said:


> Even the brilliant inventor Nikola Tesla was very close to perfecting his "free energy" generators



Here we go—invoking Nikola Tesla is a favorite among conspiracy theorists. One can now find plans and instructions for "Tesla free energy generators" all over the Web, yet the utilities are still in business. Why? Now tell us that it's because anyone who tries to go this route gets visited by black helicopters and disappears.



> A good number of people might feel very uneasy knowing that humans are constantly being observed by aliens from elsewhere.



In which case, The Gub'mint could easily turn over all this Atlantean technology that they've been sitting on and prep the Earth as quickly as possible to deal with this imaginary threat from space. Oh, I forgot, we already have a super-weapon called HAARP—if the power mad fools who run the world don't destroy us with earthquakes first.


----------



## Starbeast

Metryq said:


> The Gub'mint could easily turn over all this Atlantean technology that they've been sitting on and prep the Earth as quickly as possible to deal with this imaginary threat from space. Oh, I forgot, we already have a super-weapon called HAARP—if the power mad fools who run the world don't destroy us with earthquakes first.


 
LOL, that's funny. 

But seriously, I'm not here to convince anyone about beings from elsewhere. Besides, you already know they don't exsist.


----------



## Metryq

*"No human would stack books like this."*



Starbeast said:


> Besides, you already know they don't exsist.



No, I don't _know_, which is the difference. It is the third alternative many people overlook when discussing "fringe" science and fantastic phenomena. "Negative evidence" is a logical null. I readily admit that extraterrestrial beings/intelligences are a possibility. However, until someone produces compelling evidence, that is all it is—a possibility.

"UFOs" is a subject that, unfortunately, is a magnet for many people's hopes and fears. Thus it generates so much "noise" that any potential "signal" is lost. No researcher can separate the wheat from the chaff. And anecdotes from really, _really_ earnest people are no help.

"I heard a strange noise in the night! What was it?"

"I don't know, I was not there to witness it. Can you give me more detail?"

"Denier! It was a UFO, you just don't want to admit it! This is all part of a conspiracy to keep the unwashed masses in the dark!"


----------



## Starbeast

*Re: "No human would stack books like this."*



Metryq said:


> No, I don't _know_, I readily admit that extraterrestrial beings/intelligences are a possibility. However, until someone produces compelling evidence, that is all it is—a possibility.


 
I understand. But if you really want to know, you'll have to do your own research.


----------



## Metryq

*Re: "No human would stack books like this."*



Starbeast said:


> I understand. But if you *really* want to know...



Implying that you're certain—no doubt. Well, that may be. Unfortunately, without some compelling evidence, your close encounter is a cross you'll have to bear alone. A skeptical friend who knows you well might believe you, but anecdotes are not proof. At best, a "Charles Fort" might make a note of your story on the chance that it might become valuable data later.



> ...you'll have to do your own research.



This is what I meant by "negative evidence." _You_ are the one making an unsubstantiated claim, so the burden of proof is on _you_. It is not up to skeptics to provide "negative proof"—which, again, I am not denying the existence of ETs. I am taking the third stance in an argument you seem to believe is black-and-white.


----------



## Starbeast

*Re: "No human would stack books like this."*



Metryq said:


> Implying that you're certain—no doubt. Well, that may be. Unfortunately, without some compelling evidence, your close encounter is a cross you'll have to bear alone. A skeptical friend who knows you well might believe you, but anecdotes are not proof. At best, a "Charles Fort" might make a note of your story on the chance that it might become valuable data later.
> 
> This is "negative evidence." _You_ are the one making an unsubstantiated claim, so the burden of proof is on _you_. It is not up to skeptics to provide "negative proof"—which, again, I am not denying the existence of ETs. I am taking the third stance in an argument you seem to believe is black-and-white.


 
You assume too much. No worries, I'm cool about your "fence-sitting" position.


----------



## Vertigo

Please Starbeast, it is not fence sitting at all. It is literally impossible to "prove" that there are *no* other beings in the universe than ourselves or that they have *not* visited. So there are really only two sides to this fence. "I am *un*convinced we have been visited by aliens" and "I am convinced we have been visited by aliens". The first argument merely states that it has not been proven to my satisfaction that they have visited. Again it is impossible to prove they haven't visited, but if they have visited and there is evidence then that is provable. So the onus is very much on those who hold the second stance - that we have been visited - to so prove.

As with Metryq this has yet to be proven to my satisfaction. So I remain unconvinced. This is not sitting on the fence but rather waiting on the evidence. As is the case with any unproven scientific theory.


----------



## Snowdog

To return to a previous point, governments and industries have in the past suppressed better technologies that threaten profit streams, and it's quite certain that they would do so in the future. It seems unlikely to me though, that if they came into possession of alien technology, that they wouldn't be able to find a way of profiting from that technology in some way. If they still suppressed it, it would be for political rather than commercial considerations.

Personally, I count myself in the unconvinced camp. Some of the supposed alien activity seems rather bizarre and pointless, such as alien abduction and cattle mutilation. If they wanted to learn about earthly biology, I can think of better ways to do it. I would love it to be true, but as yet I've seen no real evidence.


----------



## Metryq

Snowdog said:


> governments and industries have in the past suppressed better technologies that threaten profit streams



I'm not debating this, but do you have a "for instance"? I'm not looking for examples of industrial sabotage, such as Edison having neighborhood pets electrocuted to "prove" how much more dangerous the competing AC electrical system was—but actual government suppression. (If you wish to spawn a new thread, just give us a link.)

I'm accustomed to misanthropes claiming that "UFOs" are the _only_ explanation for great achievements, such as the Egyptian pyramids, crop circles, or the sudden developments of wartime technologies during the 20th century. I mean, humans are so stupid and helpless, after all.


----------



## Interference

On the thread subject, I daresay all the contactees so far recorded are just going to have to shrug and accept that they haven't actually experienced the experiences they've experienced after all.


----------



## Metryq

Interference said:


> On the thread subject, I daresay all the contactees so far recorded are just going to have to shrug and accept that they *haven't actually experienced the experiences they've experienced after all*.



Wait a moment—the statement was that the _government_ doesn't have any evidence. Nothing was said about documentation of _alleged_ aliens, such as Project Blue Book and the like. That's not evidence, it's just "police reports." People who claim to have been probed and mellon-balled haven't sold their case. Someone can claim to have witnessed a murder, but I believe a body is needed. No body, no case. (I may be wrong; I'm not a lawyer.) But that doesn't mean a murder _didn't_ happen. We need more than stories, burned grass, and impressions in the ground from something heavy. 

Personally, I think beings who could manage a starflight would have ways of observing us without having to personally enter the atmosphere. They might have nano-scale probes that could tell them all they needed about ground conditions. Granted, ETs _might_ make a survey using the incredibly crude and old fashioned techniques alleged in all the reports ("the dog ate my homework" is a more creative story), but claiming to have been scanned from orbit doesn't have the same dramatic impact as saying "they probed my orifices in person!"

People can claim revelations from god, but without compelling _evidence_, a properly skeptical researcher can only acknowledge the story, but not the claim. Perhaps that is a weakness in science, but it is the method we have.


----------



## mosaix

hopewrites said:


> they very carefully didnt say that aliens dont exist, only that "we have no contact with them"



Aliens may very well exist, I think it's odds on that they do. So they would probably be incorrect if they said they didn't - either way no one knows anyway.



> Starbeast: They won't say anything. Because if they did they'd have a lot of explaining to do.


They have said something, it's just that you don't believe it what they said.


----------



## Interference

mosaix said:


> ....either way no one knows anyway....



And this opens another can of worms 

Is conviction that something exists the same as knowing it?  If someone believes, either through subjective experience or intense belief, amounting to faith, that something or someone exists, then in what way is that not knowledge, albeit unprovable and personal knowledge?  If two people have this conviction and argue it sufficiently to convert a third and so on, does it not now become a shared knowledge?  And isn't that the thing about shared knowledge?  It takes far more effort to disprove it than to prove it so most people just accept that there's a clique going about with beliefs other than their own.

And in the end, isn't it the faith that we have in something that informs our daily lives more than, in some cases, the realities we can observe and measure?

I know you all (and I have faith that more than one person will read this, assuming any other persons actually exist in the first place ) know what I'm alluding to, so I won't draw the lines any broader than that for now


----------



## Peter Graham

Metryq said:


> Yes, it will be a zombie cat that is both alive and dead at the same time—until someone opens the cat's box. Then the universe will split. This will be part of a new educational series of slasher films that teach science and critical thinking, kicking off with _Occam's Razor_, scheduled for release 21 December 2012. The film will feature a new double-slit projection technique. Score by Roy G. Biv and the Brightline Spectrum Band.



Thanks, Metryq - that's a confirmed date for the Graham diary.

I shall also look forwards to the follow up, _Schroedinger's Razor_, in which the great man makes as few assumptions as possible about how best to effect his morning shaving routine without actually looking at his razor and accidentally cuts a major artery in the process.

Regards,

Peter


----------



## Interference

Can't wait for the Heisenberg episode ... or maybe I can.  I'm in two minds about it....


----------



## Metryq

Interference said:


> know what I'm alluding to



The mass hallucination trope? It's just an allusion!


----------



## Interference

That's something I could have lived happily believing was just an illusion


----------



## Metryq

Interference said:


> Can't wait for the Heisenberg episode ... or maybe I can.  I'm in two minds about it....



I knew you'd say something like that. It's a typical Interference pattern.


----------



## Interference

I can go through both slits at the same time, too


----------



## Peter Graham

> If the U.S. admits to knowing about outworlders, then the truth would come out about recovered unearthly technology that could help our world to excell by using clean and inexpensive energy that they have kept secret for decades.


That doesn't follow.  You are making no fewer than four completely unsubstantiated claims here.  To whit:-

1.  Outworlders have visited us.

2.  The US government knows about these visits.

3.  Outworlders have left us with groovy energy tech.

4.  The US have found and stashed the tech.

Seems to me that if we did have alien tech, the US government would have patented it and made a killing on it. So, to apply your reasoning tecniques, it is therefore equally valid for me to argue:-

The fact that the US government has not patented alien energy technologies proves they don't have any such technologies.

In fact, given that I am making only two assumptions for which there is no substantive evidence, my argument is *twice* as likely to be true!




> If the U.S. admits they have been completely aware of beings coming from other worlds and dimensions for thousands of years, then they would also tell us that there is almost nothing we can do about it. A good number of people might feel very uneasy knowing that humans are constantly being observed by aliens from elsewhere.


OK, only three baseless assumptions here.  They are aware of it, there is nothing we can do about it and it upsets us.  Don't we need to provide a bit of evidence for assumption A before we crack on with assumption B?  And by evidence, I mean more than hearsay ramblings and grainy clips of film on YouTube.

Why is is that, despite visits for thousands of years, no alien has revealed themself in a way which would simply destroy scepticism - perhaps by appearing on the centre spot at Wembley on Cup Final day or in the food court at the Trafford Centre on the day of the sales?  Why do they instead always choose to appear to men in tinfoil hats living in the Ozarks?

Regards,

Peter


----------



## Peter Graham

Hi, Inter!



> Is conviction that something exists the same as knowing it?



It's the same as _thinking_ you know it, but that is not quite the same thing as _actually_ knowing it.




> If someone believes, either through subjective experience or intense belief, amounting to faith, that something or someone exists, then in what way is that not knowledge, albeit unprovable and personal knowledge?



Because it isn't demonstrably true.  To use Starbeast's outworlders, I have little doubt that he genuinely believes they exist in a very specific form (as "witnessed" by "abductees" etc).  But given that it is far more likely than not that he is wrong in his belief and that people who claimed to have been abducted by aliens probably haven't been abducted by aliens, he can't say that he knows alien abduction to be true.  He can only say he believes it to be true.  Until we can prove it to be true to a sufficiently robust standard (and I'd accept "more likely than not"), it remains a hypothesis.  Knowledge may come from the testing of hypotheses, but a hypothesis is not in and of itself knowledge. 




> I know you all know what I'm alluding to, so I won't draw the lines any broader than that for now



I believe I do.  You are a splendid chap (as is Parson) and I'd love to debate the issue with you.  However, I fear we might not get the necessary dispensation from the mods.

Regards,

Peter


----------



## Interference

Good evening, Mr Graham 

(I feel like I'm starting an episode of Mission Impossible, so thought I'd go with the flow )



Peter Graham said:


> Seems to me that if we did have alien tech, the US government would have patented it and made a killing on it....



I love this cos it opens up all sorts of possible stories.  My current favourite is that the government (pick a country, any country) aren't, and never were, in control of this information.  The tale continues....

Because alien-tech is just that -- in a recent Misfits, Hitler got hold of a mobile phone and won the war, but I couldn't help wondering if the inner workings would have been so easy to extrapolate from the near-invisible scratchings on a circuit-board or a chip -- and as such only the most rudimentary reverse-engineering could be effected.  We know it's stealth, but how do we, with our own knowledge, mimic it?  Are there yet-to-be-discovered elements or combinations of elements with which the aliens are more conversant because of their history and evolution?

In my story, the Americans may have trucked the Roswell ship across the desert, they may have stripped it for spares and they may have discovered tons of valuable stuff, but it was the corporations who knew how best to make a profit out of it.  So they chose their defeated enemies in Japan, dribbled out some blueprints and sketches and said, "Here you go, guys.  No hard feelings."

Net result: Japanese industry flourishes (lining American pockets, of course -- this is where we have to accept some kind of Illuminati cadre) gaining a reputation for miniturisation and electrical goods, and no one even thinks to wonder where they get their ideas from.  After all, no space ship ever crashed in Japan, did it?  Clearly, for those of you sleeping at the back, had the yanks done this themselves, then everyone would be screaming, "You found this in the crash, didn't you??  Tell us!!  Tell us _now_!!!"

And in the years since, layer after layer of technological mystery has been laid bare before the probing investigations of a handful of scientific geniuses, some of whom have brought their wares to public notice and made their own private fortunes on the way.

I like it.  It fits the facts - or perhaps, more accurately, the facts can be made to fit it.  I may write it some day if someone else hasn't already.



Peter Graham said:


> ....Why is is that, despite visits for thousands of years, no alien has revealed themself in a way which would simply destroy scepticism - perhaps by appearing on the centre spot at Wembley on Cup Final day or in the food court at the Trafford Centre on the day of the sales?  Why do they instead always choose to appear to men in tinfoil hats living in the Ozarks?



Simple: Same reason Jesus didn't wait two thousand years when there would be satellite comms to prove His claims.  _They don't think like we do_!

Incidentally, I have what some people call an open mind, though often when people say that they mean that the door is facing one way only.  In my case, I like exploring possibilities, plausibilities and improbabilities with equal fervour and excitement.

To hop off the fence for a moment, I believe in the existence of extra terrestrial entities.  I don't always agree with people who limit that term to a reference to life forms on other planets, largely because I have constructed a Universe-Awareness, in which I have absolute faith and which answers almost all my questions, that isn't quite so limited to - perhaps I should say "bound by" - Space and Time as many other views appear, to me, to be.

Does this mean that I believe a space ship crashed in Roswell?

Not entirely, but it allows me to include it as a possibility and to extrapolate from that possibility a sequence of events not entirely dissimilar to the events that have, or have seemed to, unfold since then.

Which really only makes me believe, even more strongly, that we create the reality we live with to suit events and not the other way around.



Th-th-that's all, folks.



Except for this:  If I think I know something, and I know I think I know it, do I now know it or merely think so?  Or to put it another way, "Cogito sum, ergo sum.  Cogito."

My old Latin teacher would be spinning in his grave if he hadn't elected to stay alive - just to foil me in a simple metaphor.  How blurry selfish is _that_?

OR

My Latin teacher is spinning in his grave - well, it's his own fault, he wanted a burial at sea and got caught in the ship's propeller.


(Stick around for the edits, I never know when to finish.  Or, at least.....)


----------



## Metryq

Interference said:


> I believe in the existence of *extra terrestrial* entities. I don't always agree with people who limit that term to a reference to life forms *on other planets*



Let's not compound the difficulty of the discussion with semantic distortions. "Extra-terrestrial" means "not of this Earth." 

If the "others" from James Cameron's _The Abyss_ actually evolved here, for example, then they're not ETs. But there's been no sign of them, either.


----------



## Interference

It's a statement, I think, of not-being and not a statement of alternative-being.

In my view, and I think with some semantic support, "not of this Earth" needn't always mean "of other _planets_".  The key word might, in some circumstances, be "this".  In other cases, the word to dally with might be "Earth".

And don't get me started on "not" and "of"


----------



## Dave

Great thread this one guys. 


Interference said:


> ...in a recent Misfits, Hitler got hold of a mobile phone and won the war, but I couldn't help wondering if the inner workings would have been so easy to extrapolate from the near-invisible scratchings on a circuit-board or a chip -- and as such only the most rudimentary reverse-engineering could be effected.  We know it's stealth, but how do we, with our own knowledge, mimic it?  Are there yet-to-be-discovered elements or combinations of elements with which the aliens are more conversant because of their history and evolution?


That is the counter-side of Arthur C Clarke's third Law that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. We would know that it wasn't magic; that it was merely very advanced technology, but that wouldn't help us to understand how it worked. To us, it might just as well be magic.

Playing Devil's Advocate (because I am personally unconvinced in Alien Astronauts visiting Earth in the past) there could be any number very good reasons why we have never seen aliens (except the men in tin hats) even though they have been here among us:

The move much faster than us (Star Trek: Wink of an Eye)
They are very, very small.
We can only see them in UV or IR light.
They look just like us (haven't you always thought your neighbour was strange.)
They are domestic cats (now cats are strange!)


----------



## Interference

The "small" notion works for me - and for X-Files writers - as most extra-planetary exploration is almost certainly going to be conducted by machines.  Are all flies domestically evolved?  Are any of them drones?

I'm going to add a couple of possibilities:

6. They don't care enough about us - they don't have any investment in making us aware of them as we can be of no possible assistance to them.
7. Many different races are involved, but the Prime Directive precludes us from interacting.  Of course, there's a wise-guy in every group who thinks it's funny to tease the natives.
8. They're just passing through on their way to a dance.


----------



## Metryq

Dave said:


> • We can only see them in UV or IR light.



The Vitons from _Sinister Barrier_!



> • They are domestic cats (now cats are strange!)



Okay, on that I have *proof*.


----------



## Snowdog

Metryq said:


> I'm not debating this, but do you have a "for instance"? I'm not looking for examples of industrial sabotage, such as Edison having neighborhood pets electrocuted to "prove" how much more dangerous the competing AC electrical system was—but actual government suppression. (If you wish to spawn a new thread, just give us a link.)



I should probably qualify my statement. I'm not talking about Tesla-esque technologies, I'm really talking about helping the big companies they're in bed with kill off small companies with innovative technologies from harming their market share. The big example in the last 10 years has been the swathe of legislation concerning the internet on behalf of the media giants to protect their income streams.

I remember the light bulb that was supposed to last forever being killed off but I don't remember if there was government involvement (though presumably thay could have saved it had they wanted to).

There's even an example of governments forcing a poorer technology on us than we already had for political reasons ("energy-saving" (sic) lightbulbs, in order to meet the Kyoto targets).


----------



## Starbeast

> "The Airforce interest in this problem, has been due to our feeling of an obligation to identify and analyze to the best of our ability any thing in the air that may have the possiblity of threat or menace to the United States. In pursuit of this obligation since 1947, we have recieved and analyzed two thousand reports that have come to us from all kinds of sources. Of this great mass of reports we have been able to adequatly explain the great bulk of them to our own satifaction. We have been able to explain them as hoaxes, erroneously indentified friendly aircraft, meteorlogical, electronic phenomenon or as light aberrations."
> 
> "However, there has been a certain percentage of this volume of reports that have been made by credible observers of relatively incredible things. It is this group of observations that we are now attempting to resovle, we have as of date come to one firm conclusion, with respect to this remaining percentage, and that is that it does not contain any pattern, purpose or of consistency that can relate to any conceivable threat to the United States. We can say that the recent sightings are no way connected with any secret development by any agency of the United States." - *Major General John Samford's UFO press conference from the Pentagon - July 9th, 1952*


 
This conference was put together after flying saucers were seen in Washington D.C. hovering near the White House and the Capital Building by thousands of people. These incidents panicked the public, the military and government officials. Two airforce bases launched fighter jets, but the brightly lit UFO's were able to elude them easily. Radar recorded these strange craft moving at speeds of 7200 mphs, also these UFO's had the capability of disappearing then reappearing when the fighers would try to engage them, like it was a game.

There's a summer people living in Washington D.C. won't forget.

Well, I've said enough, not many are going to believe this anyway.


----------



## Interference

There have long been broad hints that plans for alternatives to the internal combustion engine have been stifled because so much wealth is tied up in oil.

Of course, how anyone can get oil to knot is anyone's guess.....


----------



## Dave

I've searched for a link but can't find one, but you must remember the recently reported, quite reputable survey that found that as many as 3% of Americans think they have been abducted by aliens at sometime in the past. Is anyone seriously telling me that all of those people were really abducted; could feasibly have all been abducted, by aliens? Those people certainly believe that they were abducted, but that is not the same thing as actually being abducted. The same applies equally to seeing alien spacecraft - our skies cannot possibly be so busy. 

And if they were abducted by aliens why did they bother coming back? Shouldn't returning abducted Americans to Earth count as gross negligence on the part of the aliens?

Of course such high numbers always leave room for someone to say, well, at least a few of the reports 'must' be true.


----------



## Snowdog

Dave said:


> I've searched for a link but can't find one, but you must remember the recently reported, quite reputable survey that found that as many as 3% of Americans think they have been abducted by aliens at sometime in the past. Is anyone seriously telling me that all of those people were really abducted; could feasibly have all been abducted, by aliens? Those people certainly believe that they were abducted, but that is not the same thing as actually being abducted. The same applies equally to seeing alien spacecraft - our skies cannot possibly be so busy.
> 
> And if they were abducted by aliens why did they bother coming back? Shouldn't returning abducted Americans to Earth count as gross negligence on the part of the aliens?
> 
> Of course such high numbers always leave room for someone to say, well, at least a few of the reports 'must' be true.



The delusions of any number of Americans would be immaterial if just one account was true...


----------



## Metryq

Snowdog said:


> The delusions of any number of Americans would be immaterial if just one account was true...



That's what I meant by "signal-to-noise" ratio. As for the idea that "all those people can't be wrong," there was a time when everyone believed the world was flat... some still do.


----------



## Interference

Sorry, but I'm afraid this fallacy that "everyone believed the world was flat" needs a little attention.  At best, it's a red-herring in this context.  The number of believers is rarely a satisfactory measure of how true something is.

Often, a truth has to wait until there's someone with sufficient skill and credibility to uncover and then share it.  Too many once-incredible things come to light only when our technology rises sufficiently high to reach the light switch.


----------



## Peter Graham

Starbeast said:


> This conference was put together after flying saucers were seen in Washington D.C. hovering near the White House and the Capital Building by thousands of people..



OK - I accept that this is big.  Can you direct me to the evidence of these thousands of people?

Regards,

Peter


----------



## Interference

http://ufos.about.com/od/visualproofphotosvideo/p/washingtondc.htm

http://www.ufoencounters.co.uk/1952theufobuzzwashington.html

Hope this helps.


----------



## Peter Graham

Hi Inter



> My current favourite is that the government (pick a country, any country) aren't, and never were, in control of this information.


Mine too- Occam's razor again!




> Same reason Jesus didn't wait two thousand years when there would be satellite comms to prove His claims.  _They don't think like we do_!


Possibly an off the topic doctrinal point, but surely if we are made in the image of the Almighty (and perhaps also assuming that the Trinitarian position holds water theologically), he thinks precisely like we do.



> To hop off the fence for a moment, I believe in the existence of extra terrestrial entities.


Me too.  But what I don't believe is this notion that little green men are buzzing our cities and abducting mentally fragile rednecks and burned-out acid casualties.




> largely because I have constructed a Universe-Awareness, in which I have absolute faith and which answers almost all my questions,


Given that you created it, it would be a pretty bad show if it _didn't _answer all of your questions!




> Not entirely, but it allows me to include it as a possibility and to extrapolate from that possibility a sequence of events


Fair enough, but unless the original hypothesis can be proven, the rest is just waiting to fall like a pack of cards.



> Which really only makes me believe, even more strongly, that we create the reality we live with to suit events and not the other way around.


I think you're right.

Regards,

Peter


----------



## Peter Graham

Interference said:


> http://ufos.about.com/od/visualproofphotosvideo/p/washingtondc.htm
> 
> http://www.ufoencounters.co.uk/1952theufobuzzwashington.html
> 
> Hope this helps.



I'll check it out - thanks.

Regards,

Peter


----------



## Interference

Hi, Peter.



Peter Graham said:


> Given that you created it, it would be a pretty bad show if it _didn't _answer all of your questions!



Ahhhh, chickens, eggs, the whole omelet 

Like a good fiction-writer, I started with the questions.  Like a bad fiction-writer, I let myself take as many detours as it took to get me to the answers I liked 

Like _every_ fiction writer, there are still gaping loop-holes in the overall plot.


----------



## Starbeast

Peter Graham said:


> OK - I accept that this is big. Can you direct me to the evidence of these thousands of people?
> 
> Regards, Peter


 
Dear Mr Graham, you'll have to do your own research, I've studied Ufology for over thirty years and found most of my answers. I can't do everybodies homework for them, as I've stated before.

Searching for the truth about intellegent beings from elsewhere (another world or a different dimension) is as difficult as trying to convince someone that God exists. I could tell you tons of stuff, but you could just say, "That's not true" or "Prove it", like most people.

You have to go your own personal quest for answers. I did that for God (twenty five year study), and he exists for me. But try to convince someone with a different belief or an atheist about God and you'd get no where.

There are people in this world that have had encounters with something fantastic that they couldn't explain and they choose not to speak about it, or even at times have a trusted friend swear to secrecy when they explain what happened to them because they're freaked out by what occurred.

Have a good day - Starbeast


----------



## hopewrites

> Which really only makes me believe, even more strongly, that we create  the reality we live with to suit events and not the other way around.


 Re-quoted from Peter who I believe was quoting Inter


This actually has been proven and can be proved to any individual willing to do the work to do Lucid Dreaming. I did it unknowingly out of a desire to entertain my friends in middle school with recounts of my fascinating dream life. After a while my dreams would accurately "predict" what they would wear to school that day and at lest two random instances. they were always out of context in my dreams and it was more like giving my self de ja vu then telling the future. but the fact remains that I could fall asleep on the buss and be "aware" of what was going on around me in my dream and thus wake up in time to get off and never miss my stop.

this is just one example of how this philosophy has been proved in my life to me.


----------



## Peter Graham

> Starbeast said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Mr Graham, you'll have to do your own research,I can't do everybodies homework for them, as I've stated before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where we get down to it.  One of my great interests is mythology - the stories that humans create to explain the bits of the world which they can't otherwise explain or the stories we create about ourselves.  Mythology nearly always has elements of the supernatural about it.
> 
> I would never expect you to do my homework.  I've done it for myself and, the more I see of it, the more it seems to me that UFO's and alien abductions are simply the 21st century manifestation of fairies, wisht hounds, doppelgangers and all the rest of it - the unknown, powerful outsiders who can spirit us away and return us changed.
> 
> The evidence for UFO sightings is very much like the evidence for ghosts, the Loch Ness Monster or the Sasquatch - uncorroborated (and usually uncorroboratable) verbal testimony, grainy pictures that could be anything and lots of hoaxing.  There was a TV programme some years back in which something was deliberately floated over Avebury.  I can't remember if it was a hoax per se but, sure enough, the witnesses reported seeing the usual stuff (flashing lights, strange objects and odd movement patterns) and - what is more important - twisted what they actually saw to fit what they thought they should have seen.
> 
> It seems to me that the human love of mythology is where we might find many - if not all -  of our answers about so called extraterrestrial visitors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . I could tell you tons of stuff, but you could just say, "That's not true" or "Prove it", like most people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is hardly unreasonable, is it?  If you can't prove it, why should I believe it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are people in this world that have had encounters with something fantastic that they couldn't explain and they choose not to speak about it,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a good example of the sort of thing  which fuels my scepticism.  How do you know that people haven't spoken about their experiences if they haven't spoken about their experiences?  Unless you are that person - in which case, if you are minded to share your experience, we could perhaps discuss further.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Peter
Click to expand...


----------



## Metryq

Interference said:


> Sorry, but I'm afraid this fallacy that "everyone believed the world was flat" needs a little attention.  At best, it's a red-herring in this context.



Fallacy? Some of the great thinkers and map-makers of ancient Greece believed the world was a disc supported on a tall column—and their maps reflected this belief. As for this _analogy_ being a red herring, I didn't make a completely non sequitur statement, like "Spacely Space Sprockets is a lousy stock to bet on." 



> The number of believers is rarely a satisfactory measure of how true something is.



And this was my point when I referred to "signal-to-noise" ratio. Uncritical believers and wishful thinkers are not helping the research.

I, too, have read a fair number of "UFO" reports, and the 1952 DC case is often mentioned. The two links offered above are very anemic compared to, for example, the one article on Wikipedia. To play devil's advocate, the one photo at one of the links above is a handful of lights at night, "squiggled" by the long exposure of the hand-held camera. Is this the absolute best shot available out of several sightings? You see why this is hardly compelling evidence. Anyone who is even slightly skeptical will note that these "sightings" occurred at night on two consecutive weekends near an airport. Perhaps the aliens have jobs during the daylight, weekday hours? One should be at least suspicious.

I know, I know, lots of "highly qualified, trained observers" were involved, and radar data is always a trump card—unless someone knows something about radar. It was also 1952. Since the conspiracy theorists here believe "The Government" is hiding something, would you entertain the idea that this whole scenario was _intended_ for public consumption?

Let's try something else UFO-like: the alleged "Aurora" hypersonic spy plane. A black project named Aurora slipped out in a budget document in the mid-'80s, and some have connected it with several sightings reportedly from "highly qualified, trained observers," including visual, radar and USGS seismic events from sonic booms. There are even photographs of the unusual "doughnuts on a rope" contrail. This alleged spy plane is believable because of the previous history of hypersonic research, as well as many very compelling reasons why such a plane might be developed. 

_However_, none of these reports is in the least bit conclusive. My opinion is that some or all of the alleged Aurora sightings were of experimental aircraft (either one, or many different designs). But I do not believe an operational plane ever came of it.


----------



## Starbeast

Peter Graham said:


> The evidence for UFO sightings is very much like the evidence for ghosts, the Loch Ness Monster or the Sasquatch - uncorroborated (and usually uncorroboratable) verbal testimony, grainy pictures that could be anything and lots of hoaxing. There was a TV programme some years back in which something was deliberately floated over Avebury. I can't remember if it was a hoax per se but, sure enough, the witnesses reported seeing the usual stuff (flashing lights, strange objects and odd movement patterns) and - what is more important - twisted what they actually saw to fit what they thought they should have seen.
> 
> It seems to me that the human love of mythology is where we might find many - if not all - of our answers about so called extraterrestrial visitors.
> 
> We could perhaps discuss further.
> 
> Regards, Peter


 
Hello again Mr Graham, your skepticism is not unreasonable, I am a skeptic too, sometimes it takes time to figure out what is real from what is mistakenly identified, to even what has been fabricated.

I admire your honest approach as well, and we can discuss further. I will
contact you about this UFO topic which always fires up great debate among people.

Nice to chat with you - Starbeast


----------



## J Riff

It's all real, all true, and the Whitehouse gang didn't make the need to know list.
The disclosure people I believe. My own experience I believe. Anyone yakkin' bout stuff they know nothing about is working for the wrong side by default.
 Mind, there are major-league serious reasons for the coverup, which started back in the fifties when we found that room full of stuff, and yea I was there. So wattaya gonna do abaht it?


----------



## Dave

J Riff said:


> ...which started back in the fifties when we found that room full of stuff, and yea I was there...


Time Traveller?


----------



## J Riff

Nope, just a kid. The only comment I remember verbatim was: 'We can't show them that, it's too good.' They dint know what was coming but they sure got busy making secret little rockets n' stuff.
 But no point in opening the wormcan, it's full of snakes anyway.


----------



## Metryq

Dave said:


> Time Traveller?



No, the lights in the sky. They weren't extra-terrestrials, they were time travelers. In fact, that handful of ships was the same ship. It's like this:

Two "history doctors" (a pair 'o docs) were sent back to fix a problem, only they messed it up several times in a row. So the appearance of each "new" ship was really the same one. It was our first experience with recursion. (I wasn't there in 1952. I was one of the quantum mechanics "up the line" who maintained the time ships. I could show you my top secret pass into the temporal lab, but then I'd have to kill you.) Anyway, those guys finally straightened out the problem they were sent to fix, but that whole period was a mess. 

Later missions are much more discreet, even though the jumps are still made in the air. (Doc Brown was definitely nuts using a ground car. You never know what might be in your way on the other side.) Those fighter planes that reported UFOs "zipping away" at high speed got it all wrong. A time machine jumping away appears to recede even when viewed from multiple angles. That is, it might be more accurate to say that it "shrinks," but that's only because it's moving "away" from all three spatial dimensions along a fourth-dimensional line. 

The only real damage from that gig was the same time machine bumping into itself. Those fighters never got in a shot.


----------



## Interference

Metryq said:


> ....As for this _analogy_ being a red herring, I didn't make a completely non sequitur statement, like "Spacely Space Sprockets is a lousy stock to bet on."


And on this, you are only to be admired 



Metryq said:


> I, too, have read a fair number of "UFO" reports, and the 1952 DC case is often mentioned. The two links offered above are very anemic compared to, for example, the one article on Wikipedia.


Good tip.  Thank you.


Metryq said:


> To play devil's advocate, the one photo at one of the links above is a handful of lights at night, "squiggled" by the long exposure of the hand-held camera. Is this the absolute best shot available out of several sightings? You see why this is hardly compelling evidence. Anyone who is even slightly skeptical will note that these "sightings" occurred at night on two consecutive weekends near an airport. Perhaps the aliens have jobs during the daylight, weekday hours? One should be at least suspicious.


This is you being the Devil's advocate?


Metryq said:


> I know, I know, lots of "highly qualified, trained observers" were involved, and radar data is always a trump card—unless someone knows something about radar. It was also 1952. Since the conspiracy theorists here believe "The Government" is hiding something, would you entertain the idea that this whole scenario was _intended_ for public consumption?


Yes.  Broadminded fella, me.


Metryq said:


> Let's try something else UFO-like: the alleged "Aurora" hypersonic spy plane. A black project named Aurora slipped out in a budget document in the mid-'80s, and some have connected it with several sightings reportedly from "highly qualified, trained observers," including visual, radar and USGS seismic events from sonic booms. There are even photographs of the unusual "doughnuts on a rope" contrail. This alleged spy plane is believable because of the previous history of hypersonic research, as well as many very compelling reasons why such a plane might be developed.
> 
> _However_, none of these reports is in the least bit conclusive. My opinion is that some or all of the alleged Aurora sightings were of experimental aircraft (either one, or many different designs). But I do not believe an operational plane ever came of it.


Yep.  We all have our pet theories, don't we?  Well, it's a comfort, isn't it, as Peter's reference (fakes and people's reactions) suggests, to me anyway?

We all have our paradigms and anything we can do to shrink-fit the Unusual to them reinforces our beliefs.  It's a far more interesting phenomenon, to me, that once we form our beliefs, we immediately find evidence to support them.  This is as true of religions as it is of New Agey Wierdiness as of mythology as of science.

To coin a cliche, there's nowt so alien as folk.

Now, do you truly believe that there was ever a time when _everyone_ believed the world was flat?  I suspect that anyone who had an opinion on the matter would have noticed a curvature had they but gone to the seaside for an hour or two and watched the boats come home.


----------



## Starbeast

Metryq said:


> Two "history doctors" (a pair 'o docs) were sent back to fix a problem, only they messed it up several times in a row. So the appearance of each "new" ship was really the same one. It was our first experience with recursion. (I wasn't there in 1952. I was one of the quantum mechanics "up the line" who maintained the time ships. I could show you my top secret pass into the temporal lab, but then I'd have to kill you.) Anyway, those guys finally straightened out the problem they were sent to fix, but that whole period was a mess.
> 
> Later missions are much more discreet, even though the jumps are still made in the air. (Doc Brown was definitely nuts using a ground car. You never know what might be in your way on the other side.) Those fighter planes that reported UFOs "zipping away" at high speed got it all wrong. A time machine jumping away appears to recede even when viewed from multiple angles. That is, it might be more accurate to say that it "shrinks," but that's only because it's moving "away" from all three spatial dimensions along a fourth-dimensional line.
> 
> The only real damage from that gig was the same time machine bumping into itself. Those fighters never got in a shot.


 
Funny stuff, you should post in the "Playrooms" section under "Film Title Synopsis Game", you've got a great imagination.

Anyway, even though the White House denies that aliens exist (I guess it's the building that talks, which is creepy), it didn't stop a few presidents who've reported UFO sightings.


----------



## Dave

Starbeast said:
			
		

> Funny stuff, you should post in the "Playrooms"



That is where most of this ought to be. Sorry, but I've lost my sense of humour regarding threads on this subject. Up until now this one was a well argued and well thought out discussion. If this thread descends again (like those earlier in the year on 'Do Aliens exist' and 'Crop Circles') into wild theories backed by unsubstantiated claims presented as _"facts"_ I will close down the thread. 



Starbeast said:


> I admire your honest approach


I think honesty should and must be a minimum starting point here. Especially when asking people to believe the unbelievable.

JRiff asks us to believe: 





			
				JRiff said:
			
		

> It's all real, all true ...My own experience I believe.



I got very tired of reading things presented as absolute facts in threads earlier in the year without any shred of evidence presented.

Nor do I wish to be someone accused of: 





			
				Starbeast said:
			
		

> not doing your homework.



Here you give your age as 47 in 2007.
Here from this year, you say you are in your 50's. 
Your Blog has changed since six months ago when it said amongst many other things:





> My pal flew the first rocket to Mars in 62





			
				JRiff said:
			
		

> ...just a kid.


 So, inside your room full of stuff you were either a wink in your father's eye, drinking from a cup with a lid on it, or still in short trousers (take your pick). And how much older than you is your "Pal"? Or was it a student exchange visit?

If you can be economical with the truth about your age, I find it impossible to believe any of the other claims. I've warned you about this before,  consider this a second and final warning. You are already suspended indefinitely from Aliens-UFO.com and banned from The Bad Astronomy and Universe Today forum at bautforum.com. The next post about insect men from Mars and you will also be banned from here.



			
				Starbeast said:
			
		

> I could tell you tons of stuff, but you could just say, "That's not true" or "Prove it", like most people.


 That is only reasonable considering that some of this is not true.


----------



## Dave

Interference said:


> Now, do you truly believe that there was ever a time when _everyone_ believed the world was flat?  I suspect that anyone who had an opinion on the matter would have noticed a curvature had they but gone to the seaside for an hour or two and watched the boats come home.



Now this is an interesting observation. Yes, I thought so. At least, it is what I was always told at Primary School History lessons, but your point is very valid. Many people had no contact with the sea, but a good many were sailors, and some ancient societies were composed completely of mariners. It does seem odd that they did not question why things appeared and disappeared over the horizon. The Catholic Church would have scorched that idea. Religion needs conservative attitudes to continue. I don't know enough about the religious views of pre-Islamic Arab astronomers or ancient Chinese Astronomers to say whether they held the Earth-centric notion so dearly. I do know that they were both excellent observers of the heavens and this question must have come up.


----------



## Peter Graham

In all fairness, the keenest believers are an integral part of myth-making and therefore arguably are the key to unlocking the myth.  It was ever thus.  To plagiarise the great JRRT, tales grow in the telling and analysing how people first convince themselves and then try to convince others is, I feel, an important part of the discussion. 

The difficulty that the believers have is that deep down they know that the evidence is pretty flimsy.  As a result, when asked to provide evidence that is not circumstantial, hearsay, unqualified opinion, self-serving or uncorroborated, they are usually obliged to retreat underneath the banner marked "_if you had seen what I had seen....._".  

We all take great pains to define ourselves a certain way.  I suspect it is no coincidence that belief in UFO's and alien visitors is more pronounced in people who have a deep distrust or fear of the government. The fact that folk may be perfectly happy to lie - or at least twist things - to strengthen the "_if you had seen what I had seen....." _defence tells us rathe rmore about the self-image of some of our believersthan it does about the existence of alien visitors_. _Folk want to be the wise ones - the holders of truths that are too mind bending or too massive for the rest of us to deal with.

In many  - or even most - ways, it isn't even about UFO's.

Regards,

Peter


----------



## Metryq

Dave said:


> I don't know enough about the religious views of pre-Islamic Arab astronomers or ancient Chinese Astronomers to say whether they held the Earth-centric notion so dearly.



Let's not confuse things: geocentrism and flat Earth are two different concepts, although it is easy to understand how primitive peoples might develop both ideas. 

Wikipedia *Flat Earth* article. (I know some people contest the accuracy of Wikipedia, but I often use it as _at least_ a starting point for links to other references.)

My apologies for saying "everyone" once believed in a flat Earth, which is an imprecise statement without a complete poll to back it up. However, of those people who left records, flat Earth appears to have been a very widespread belief. 



> I do know that they were both excellent observers of the heavens and this question must have come up.



*No doubt about that*. Although a conceptual model does not have to be correct to provide accurate answers. Crystal spheres and epicycles worked reasonably well until more accurate observations and extended record keeping revealed its faults. One will note at the link above that one Chinese astronomer developed a model of spherical celestial bodies in 1088. Obviously this idea did not catch on in China as the previous article notes:



> In ancient China, the prevailing belief was that the Earth was flat and square, while the heavens were round, an assumption _virtually_ unquestioned until the introduction of European astronomy in the 17th century.



We now return to our program of White House denial.


----------



## Interference

I just wanted to say that if I ever commit a murder, I don't want Dave on my trail! 

I guess if JR's drugs and booze are free he'll have no difficulty finding a place, though, so that's something


----------



## Starbeast

Dave said:


> That is where most of this ought to be. Sorry, but I've lost my sense of humour regarding threads on this subject. Up until now this one was a well argued and well thought out discussion. If this thread descends again (like those earlier in the year on 'Do Aliens exist' and 'Crop Circles') into wild theories backed by unsubstantiated claims presented as _"facts"_ I will close down the thread.


 
At the beginning of UFO discussions I lost my sense of humor too, but I lightened up because I understand that there are people who find it to incredible to believe, it can also be frightening to know there is something unseen going on that humans are only beginning to understand. 

Then there are those who "throw a wrench into the works" by intentionally (if not accidently) reporting UFOs (lights in the sky), crop circles, photographing aliens etc.. It does make it difficult to see the authentic reports from the hoaxes or misidentified sightings.

That's why most of the time I don't like to get into these conversations, it's like trying to convice God exists to a nonbeliever. But I don't push my belief onto anyone.

I think honesty should and must be a minimum starting point here. Especially when asking people to believe the unbelievable.

That's for sure, when I first began studing this subject, I thought UFOs were reported only by people with overactive imaginations.

I remembering chatting recently with a friend of mine who never believed aliens exist. That was until she came to me one day and told me a friend and her saw a hovering disk-shaped light that was big as a house just above the trees. It slowly circled them and then flew away fast without making a sound. It terrified her, she's afraid to go walking in her quiet neighborhood alone.

I got very tired of reading things presented as absolute facts in threads earlier in the year without any shred of evidence presented.

True, how could prove I saw a landed craft with alien grays walking around in a field, then after they noticed me watching them, they ran to their ship and fly off. Not that this happened to me, but a policeman reported this in the 1960's. We only have his word about it.

Nice chatting with you Dave - Starbeast



> "There has got to be some kind of explanation for all this, why on Earth would people from elsewhere come here? Can all these people who report UFOs be wrong or crazy? It's got to be military secret projects, there can be no other answer." -  Starbeast 1980's


 
Sometimes, even today, I'm not even sure myself what to make out of all of it.


----------



## Interference

What if everything were true?  What if aliens were visiting us, having already built the pyramids and Atlantis?  What _if_?

What are our governments doing about it (recently released Russian documents are much more forgiving than many of the American and European ones we're most often presented with) to ensure our protection?  And if governments aren't in control of the secret, who is?  And what are _they_ likely to be doing with the information?

These are questions that excite a lot of fiction writers and disturb a lot of ordinary people.  The suspicion that secrets are kept somewhere has some credibility, given the nature of other previously jealously-guarded secrets that come to light from time to time.  It isn't hard to hoodwink the public when you have access to how news is reported.

But just because it can happen, does that mean it must be happening?  Just because we are only privy to the blurriest of photos, does that mean that the sharp ones have to exist somewhere?  And just because the evidence has multiple interpretations, does that mean it's impossible to draw the simplest conclusion?

The Whitehouse has "no evidence" of alien contact.  Why does that sound a little like plausible deniability in the face of anecdote and You Tube evidence?


----------



## J Riff

The whole story is available, it's just a little too dreadful for 'their children'.... which opens the door for repression of anyone with the truth, like never before, and that's what's happening.
 The bl**dy aliens were here all along, of course. Centuries ago they started covering all evidence of their world, instigating things like the court system and other stuff that worked to their advantage.
 They were expelled, not so long ago, and the resultant mess is absolute torture, living hell for various people, to, like I said, protect the children from reality.
 I was 100% in favor of this, till I saw what they(don't ask me who, I don't know anymore) are doing with it.
 I was 'compromised' at a certain point, a decade or two ago and no fun ever since.
 Im 'dangerous' y'see...so can't be allowed any success or weight or influence or anything, in case blahblahblahhhh.
 Really boring, like most evil stuff is.
Whatsisname went out a window while I watched, over this issue. You really don't want to talk about it, it's too nasty, so it's self-protecting and will go on and on and on. Wisht I'd never heard of any of it.
 Makes a good story though.


----------



## Interference

As long as you keep not talking about it like this, it'll be not interesting enough to not read


----------



## J Riff

What it truly isn't- is funny. The guy went out the window- dead, splat. Later we had to testify. All kept closed because children involved, a favorite trick.
 The secret of keeping things secret is to simply make it so bad, so evil, that nobody can even talk about it. Aliens are kinda like that too.
 If they were good, nice aliens, we would be in open contact. We aren't in open contact.
Complex? Very, extremely. That helps, everyone wants a nice simple answer that matches up with their expectations of extraterrestrials.
 Well the conditioning goes on. Note the number of flix featuring giant nasty insects (alien, predator, trooper, men in black etcetc.) and the increasing horrific graphic violence of video games, music etc. The reality is even starker and would make most people faint to even look at. That's why most of the work has to be done by people in unusual mind-states, sleep states.
 It's torture, and certain people really enjoy watching that. I would suggest that people are as bad as the bugs, real or imagined, but then, if the alien buggers have been here all along then we are pretty much going to be their design, aren't we? Yep.
You can see why it isn't talked about. The stuff on Mars..... nevermind.
 But - if it's all faked up somehow... then it's even worse, and people are genuinely insane. I wish that was the answer.
 Im the last person in the world who would be interested in this rubbish - probably why Im a perfect victim. So far I've been assaulted 5-6 times over this stuff, and I mean for real, and Im not even sure why or by who, or what it is I should do about it.
Apparently one does not own one's own life, can't even talk about it, it seems.
 See, there's this stuff called money, that- (discontinued)


----------



## J-WO

'What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.'

(That one's for you, Hitchens!)


----------



## j d worthington

J-WO said:


> 'What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.'
> 
> (That one's for you, Hitchens!)


 
Abrasive as he could be at times, he was a breath of fresh air in an atmosphere of befogged mentality. He will be missed....


----------



## soulsinging

Metryq said:


> I'm not debating this, but do you have a "for instance"? I'm not looking for examples of industrial sabotage, such as Edison having neighborhood pets electrocuted to "prove" how much more dangerous the competing AC electrical system was—but actual government suppression. (If you wish to spawn a new thread, just give us a link.)



Not government per se (unless you believe, like I do, that government is largely a pawn of profitable industry), but there's a great documentary called "Who Killed the Electric Car" that covers how Ford had working electric cars decades ago and buried the projects to protect their interests in fossil fuels.


----------



## soulsinging

J Riff said:


> Nope, just a kid. The only comment I remember verbatim was: 'We can't show them that, it's too good.' They dint know what was coming but they sure got busy making secret little rockets n' stuff.
> But no point in opening the wormcan, it's full of snakes anyway.



So the US government, which has for decades been suppressing all knowledge of alien activity in a giant coverup conspiracy, decided it was ok to bring a little kid into the alien treasure trove room to overhear classified conversations that nobody else in the world is privvy to?


----------



## Interference

soulsinging said:


> So the US government, which has for decades been suppressing all knowledge of alien activity in a giant coverup conspiracy, decided it was ok to bring a little kid into the alien treasure trove room to overhear classified conversations that nobody else in the world is privvy to?



Aw, c'mon, he was in the ventilation shaft looking for his dog that had chased a stange looking rabbit through a hole in the fence that just happened to be under a camera that was being repaired.  Don't you know nuffink?


----------

