I found this post by pladuim on the History Channel web site. It reports a list of UFO testimony. The names given are really quite interesting. I don't know what these folk's agendas are but its hard to dismiss some of them as crackpots. What do you think?
http://boards.history.com/topic/Ufo-Hun ... /520071476
Of course it could all be fiction constructed by the author except for the several reports that I have heard about from other sources.
If UFO's really are extra terrestrial, then a study of their flight characteristics should give us a clue about what kind of space drive they employ and help us to direct our research. After all, once a technology is known to exist, historically it doesn't take long for other groups to duplicate it.
Speaking of fantastic space ship drives, UFOs and other ...
I think that as so often, many people have been missquoted, or their words missinterpreted.
It is just like with the Bermuda Triangle. If you look closely (and dismiss the untruths written by a single author in a single book), then you will realize that many of the incidents attributed to the bermuda triangle did not even happen in the triangle. Some of the incidents did not even happen at all.
Same goes with UFO sightings.
I mean I have the feeling that if someone can fly through space at speeds faster than light and find out planet, they would have devised ways to stay undiscovered if they want to. They would definitely not need to abduct people for experiments. If they did not mind being discovered, then why have so few people seen them?
It just all does not quite add up for me.
It is just like with the Bermuda Triangle. If you look closely (and dismiss the untruths written by a single author in a single book), then you will realize that many of the incidents attributed to the bermuda triangle did not even happen in the triangle. Some of the incidents did not even happen at all.
Same goes with UFO sightings.
I mean I have the feeling that if someone can fly through space at speeds faster than light and find out planet, they would have devised ways to stay undiscovered if they want to. They would definitely not need to abduct people for experiments. If they did not mind being discovered, then why have so few people seen them?
It just all does not quite add up for me.
I started this thread so I guess I have to defend it to some extent.
"They would devise ways to stay undiscovered if they wanted to." Agreed, so the 10,000 are those who don't care if they're seen or not.
"... if someone can fly through space at speeds faster that light ..." big assumption there. Your assumption is that UFO's and their ET pilots come from a planet far, far away. Others make other assumptions. Time travel, the Multi-verse, my preferred assumption is they come from parallel universes. Note the plural. I use it because there have been several different visual shapes of UFO's reported, and even a hand full of different physical characteristics of the ETs reported. And for me, an important clue is the observed "Blinking out" of a UFO. It was there, then it was not there, both visually and on radar. The parallel universe as a "place" of origin gives the UFO some place to go when it "Blinks out."
"Why have so few people seen them?" There are about 10,000 unresolved UFO sightings each year. Not 10,000 people but 10,000 different instances of UFO sighting. That seems like quite a lot to me.I mean I have the feeling that if someone can fly through space at speeds faster than light and find out planet, they would have devised ways to stay undiscovered if they want to. They would definitely not need to abduct people for experiments. If they did not mind being discovered, then why have so few people seen them?
It just all does not quite add up for me.
"They would devise ways to stay undiscovered if they wanted to." Agreed, so the 10,000 are those who don't care if they're seen or not.
"... if someone can fly through space at speeds faster that light ..." big assumption there. Your assumption is that UFO's and their ET pilots come from a planet far, far away. Others make other assumptions. Time travel, the Multi-verse, my preferred assumption is they come from parallel universes. Note the plural. I use it because there have been several different visual shapes of UFO's reported, and even a hand full of different physical characteristics of the ETs reported. And for me, an important clue is the observed "Blinking out" of a UFO. It was there, then it was not there, both visually and on radar. The parallel universe as a "place" of origin gives the UFO some place to go when it "Blinks out."
Aero
Well and the word UFO kinda includes the Flying and the Object.If they're unidentified, how can you even begin to make assumptions about them? UFOs have only one property: They're unidentified. You can't even say that they're flying, or that they're objects, those are only assumptions.
As in Unidentified Flying Object. No?
Now, I do agree that people are seeing unknown flying objects.
I would say in 40% of cases it is simply Venus. In the rest it is a weatherballon, some fireworks, a jet, a helicopter, some reflections on windows, the ISS, a shooting star, pranksters (check youtube for a series of UFO pranks done by a couple of guys with weatherballoons and torches), crackheads, drunks and schizophrenics with exaggeration by the media and 3rd class book authors. In a very few cases it might be a secret military plane, a testflight of a UAV, e.g.. But I think that these are very few and far inbetween, if any at all.
In any case there are 100 explanations for every UFO sighting that are much more believable, than: extraterrestrials, visitors from the future (I dont think that it is logically possible to physically travel into the past, it would emmediately cause a paradox ), or visitors from another universe (conservation of energy violated).
To me, sorry to be a partypooper, to me all the rational explanations that I listed earlier, seem a lot more plausible.
Edit: forgot to mention funny shaped clouds as an explanation... and model airplanes.
Re: Speaking of fantastic space ship drives, UFOs and other
Guys, I'm not here to convince you that UFOs are ETs or that UFOs are not ETs. Notice the leading "If" in the above quote. I am simply asking the question, "What seriously hypothesized space drives do we know of that might result in similar performance as has been reported in the main, for UFOs?" The point of my question is this. If their exists a drive that matches reported UFO performance, then that drive type deserves a serious look. I think we can rule out rocket engines, they make noise and UFO's are universally reported as being silent or emitting a low humming noise. Wormholes? Operating within the atmosphere, somehow, I doubt it.Aero wrote: If UFO's really are extra terrestrial, then a study of their flight characteristics should give us a clue about what kind of space drive they employ and help us to direct our research. After all, once a technology is known to exist, historically it doesn't take long for other groups to duplicate it.
Aero
Alcubierre's does. Heim's doesn't.Aero wrote:If so, I haven't heard of it. What Heim drive mechanism would cause it?Doesn't Heim drive have inherent light-bending visual cues?
Red or blue shift. The light coming from the object travelling at (apparent) FTL will change in wavelength as the light transitions from bent space to 'normal' space.Nor have I heard of light bending objects (UFOs) being observed. How would an observer in the field detect light bending using eyeballs, cameras and/or radar?
Because we can.
Invisibility
Considering everything we're learning about modifying light, surely if ETIs have mastered interstellar travel, then they'd be able to go to-anf-fro unobserved - unless they want to be seen.
But ETIs don't have to come from other star systems - they might have lived here for billennia already out in the Kuiper Belt, quietly existing until we came along and piqued their interest. Now they watch us like David Attenborough and his crew watch wild animals...
PS Thought experiment, not personal conviction. Re-examine your assumptions. Why should aliens do what we expect them to do?
But ETIs don't have to come from other star systems - they might have lived here for billennia already out in the Kuiper Belt, quietly existing until we came along and piqued their interest. Now they watch us like David Attenborough and his crew watch wild animals...
PS Thought experiment, not personal conviction. Re-examine your assumptions. Why should aliens do what we expect them to do?
The Universe is weirder than we can imagine
It is not quite so easy. Growing humans is dependent on the interaction between the cell and the incubator. So first get a human female....Skipjack wrote:Well, if I was an alien with superior technology, I would get one human cell and then grow humans in my lab, or any other earthly creature.
If we are ever going to clone a mastodon it will probably be done with elephant incubators.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
I have heard otherwise. In fact growing animals in vitro is something that is currently being worked on. From there it is only a small step to growing humans. It might not happen within the next 10 years, but it will happen before we have FTL travel.Growing humans is dependent on the interaction between the cell and the incubator.