UFO Disclosure
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-09-2015, 01:03 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(09-09-2015 12:47 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(09-09-2015 12:45 PM)Free Wrote:  Problem is when you have a group of these experts all together and all claim to have seen the exact same thing at the same time, how then does these numerous eyewitness accounts not have credibility?

No matter how many times you multiply zero, it is still zero.

Oh, I'd certainly believe that they saw something. It is not, however, rational to make the leap from "they saw something they couldn't explain" to "they actually saw an alien spacecraft".

No, but the reasonable approach to take is that they possibly seen an alien aircraft, considering their expertise in the field.

If they all have determined the following:

1. It was definitely an aircraft that they could not identify as being man-made.
2. The aircraft's design, performance, and manoeuvrability greatly exceeds anything known to all of these experts, and is deemed not currently possible by human beings to create.

Should we then still dismiss the claims of these experts?

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2015, 01:10 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(09-09-2015 05:22 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(09-09-2015 04:45 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Remember what the U in UFO stands for. Sure, there are plenty of unidentified phenomena out there, but that doesn't mean you can logically make the leap from 'unidentified' to 'that's totally a fucking alien spaceship' without losing all credibility; Apollo 14 astronaut or not. Drinking Beverage

He's been... astronaughty Tongue

You could almost say he's gone over the moon with it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2015, 01:11 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(09-09-2015 01:03 PM)Free Wrote:  No, but the reasonable approach to take is that they possibly seen an alien aircraft, considering their expertise in the field.

It's technically possible that the zoologist visiting Loch Ness really did see a plesiosaur hiding in the depths.

It is not rational to conclude that they actually did unless they can produce actual evidence supporting their claims.

(09-09-2015 01:03 PM)Free Wrote:  If they all have determined the following...

What they determined means nothing unless they can actually produce evidence to support their assertions, starting with the claim that they actually saw a craft.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2015, 01:15 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
So, they're smart enough to build an interstellar spacecraft, but dumb enough to visit New Mexico? Pardon another pun, but that just doesn't fly.

In seriousness, I saw a UFO once -- just after noon one day, barbecuing, my son pointed out to me a tiny bright light at an extremely high altitude traveling in a straight line at what was apparently an extremely high speed. We observed it for a few minutes until some clouds obscured it.

Scratched my head over it for about ten minutes, until I realized that it was probably a satellite reflecting the sun's light.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2015, 01:18 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(09-09-2015 01:11 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(09-09-2015 01:03 PM)Free Wrote:  No, but the reasonable approach to take is that they possibly seen an alien aircraft, considering their expertise in the field.

It's technically possible that the zoologist visiting Loch Ness really did see a plesiosaur hiding in the depths.

It is not rational to conclude that they actually did unless they can produce actual evidence supporting their claims.

1 zoologist compared to say a dozen aeronautical experts is not a fair comparison.

I am not saying with 100% certainty that they did witness an alien craft, but only acknowledging the possibility as being very real. It's all about the credibility of these witnesses, and the fact that they all witnessed the same thing at the same time.

Quote:
(09-09-2015 01:03 PM)Free Wrote:  If they all have determined the following...

What they determined means nothing unless they can actually produce evidence to support their assertions, starting with the claim that they actually saw a craft.

In a court of law, when one witness only is testifying against a defendant, a judge can take the position of "It's only his word against the defendants."

However, when you ad two or more eyewitness to the scenario, why is their combined identical testimony now far more credible?

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2015, 01:23 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(09-09-2015 01:15 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  So, they're smart enough to build an interstellar spacecraft, but dumb enough to visit New Mexico? Pardon another pun, but that just doesn't fly.

In seriousness, I saw a UFO once -- just after noon one day, barbecuing, my son pointed out to me a tiny bright light at an extremely high altitude traveling in a straight line at what was apparently an extremely high speed. We observed it for a few minutes until some clouds obscured it.

Scratched my head over it for about ten minutes, until I realized that it was probably a satellite reflecting the sun's light.

That could also be a military jet --- or possibly the "Aurora" --- a conspiracy theorists wet dream.... It's purported to be a craft that can go from runway - to orbit - back down to lower altitude -- back up to orbit -- and land on a runway.... Supposedly it's a hybrid jet/scramjet/rocket.

I believe it's entirely possible it's been in use for a number of years. It's not unprecedented -- as the SR71 flew in it's first version in 1958 and wasn't unclassified until the 1980's. When they retired the SR-71 -- they claimed they could do everything with satellites -------- the more likely scenario (in my opinion) is they have something better that's still classified.......

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

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like onlinebiker's post
09-09-2015, 01:25 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(09-09-2015 01:03 PM)Free Wrote:  1. It was definitely an aircraft that they could not identify as being man-made.
2. The aircraft's design, performance, and manoeuvrability greatly exceeds anything known to all of these experts, and is deemed not currently possible by human beings to create.

Should we then still dismiss the claims of these experts?

As to alien provenance? Sure, considering that the major premises -- that aliens exist and are traveling here -- is entirely unevidenced.

Militaries around the world are excoriated for their secrecy. My dad worked on the F-117 program for years, never even telling his own family. Black budgets are a fact of life. And even aviation experts are kept in the dark as long as possible about such projects.

Also, identifying something as "man-made" when it is traveling at extremely high rates of speed would seem to present its own difficulties.

Yes, it's possible that there is intelligent alien life in the Universe. It's remotely possible that they are visiting here. But the idea that because an expert cannot identify something he has seen means that it must be non-human is begging the question, for one must believe these two unproven premises in order to accept the third.

That is why it is not reasonable.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2015, 01:31 PM (This post was last modified: 09-09-2015 01:45 PM by Free.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(09-09-2015 01:25 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(09-09-2015 01:03 PM)Free Wrote:  1. It was definitely an aircraft that they could not identify as being man-made.
2. The aircraft's design, performance, and manoeuvrability greatly exceeds anything known to all of these experts, and is deemed not currently possible by human beings to create.

Should we then still dismiss the claims of these experts?

As to alien provenance? Sure, considering that the major premises -- that aliens exist and are traveling here -- is entirely unevidenced.

But is it possible that they are travelling here? We can qualify it as being possible since we, as humans, have sent people and vehicles to the moon and other planets ourselves.

So the answer to the question of it being possible is certainly yes.

Quote:Militaries around the world are excoriated for their secrecy. My dad worked on the F-117 program for years, never even telling his own family. Black budgets are a fact of life. And even aviation experts are kept in the dark as long as possible about such projects.

Yes, but eventually information about these aircraft leaks out, and none of them can even remotely be compared to the objects being described by these witnesses.

Quote:Also, identifying something as "man-made" when it is traveling at extremely high rates of speed would seem to present its own difficulties.

Sure would, especially when a craft has been seen motionlessness for a period of time, and then goes from approximately 1000 feet above ground to orbit in 1 second flat.

That is what was witnessed by the eyewitnesses.

Quote:Yes, it's possible that there is intelligent alien life in the Universe. It's remotely possible that they are visiting here. But the idea that because an expert cannot identify something he has seen means that it must be non-human is begging the question, for one must believe these two unproven premises in order to accept the third.

That is why it is not reasonable.

But we are not speaking of only one expert, but a team of 12.

And that is why it is reasonable to accept it as a very real possibility.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2015, 01:37 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(09-09-2015 01:23 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  That could also be a military jet --- or possibly the "Aurora" --- a conspiracy theorists wet dream.... It's purported to be a craft that can go from runway - to orbit - back down to lower altitude -- back up to orbit -- and land on a runway.... Supposedly it's a hybrid jet/scramjet/rocket.

I believe it's entirely possible it's been in use for a number of years. It's not unprecedented -- as the SR71 flew in it's first version in 1958 and wasn't unclassified until the 1980's. When they retired the SR-71 -- they claimed they could do everything with satellites -------- the more likely scenario (in my opinion) is they have something better that's still classified.......

Possible, but I don't think it was likely Aurora, given that it was in SoCal TRACON airspace. Too many eyes!

As a side note, my mom, who worked for Raytheon, told me about Aurora around 1988 or 89, as the program was starting up. She used that program designation a good four or so years before it went public, iirc. It was, she said, designed to be air-launched and -recovered by C-5Bs, for maximal security, though I don't think that might have been the final iteration of it. Allegedly it was based on Lockheed's D-21 drone, but all of this is hearsay from early in the program and probably wrong.



So it's possible that Aurora exists, to my mind, and still very unknown
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2015, 01:45 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(09-09-2015 01:37 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Possible, but I don't think it was likely Aurora, given that it was in SoCal TRACON airspace. Too many eyes!

As a side note, my mom, who worked for Raytheon, told me about Aurora around 1988 or 89, as the program was starting up. She used that program designation a good four or so years before it went public, iirc. It was, she said, designed to be air-launched and -recovered by C-5Bs, for maximal security, though I don't think that might have been the final iteration of it. Allegedly it was based on Lockheed's D-21 drone, but all of this is hearsay from early in the program and probably wrong.



So it's possible that Aurora exists, to my mind, and still very unknown

Funny thing about military security -- sometimes it's completely fucked.....

I first saw a SR71 in Anchorage -- when they were still classified --- and only supposed to fly "nighttime hours".....

Given that during summer solstice it never gets dark - they flew only from 11 pm til 4 a.m. --- and you could see it plainly. I lived just outside Elmendorf and heard the thunder as a SR71 was taking off -- and watched it (with jaw dropped) as it climbed out on afterburners --- and headed westward to the horizon -- where it was gone in a minute or two.... I'd never seen something so big, move like that.

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

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like onlinebiker's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: