Anyone believe in UFO's?

I’ll jump in without having read the full thread.

I have seen UFOs and am inclined to believe they may be some sort of secret weapons system as opposed to anything from distant planets. I have a great video called “The Secret Nasa Transmissions” which show a lot of these from the actual shuttles.

In terms of do alien life forms exist in other worlds, yes I do believe that is the case, but then from a shamanic perspective you can go into this in terms of other dimensions of reality which is a little off topic.

One thing I am looking out for is a faked alien attack, possibly during the Olympics so that the powers that be can really lock us down. But hey, who knows what is going to happen during these Olympics ay?

GrahamS – Member
I could well be getting trolled here, but sharing knowledge is always good so:

You’re not getting trolled, but you are missing the point, your number sequencing is off as well, they (3+3) fingered aliens would ‘teen’ their units at 6 if they have two arms, or 9 if they had three, but it’s all hypothetical, I’m simply trying to point out the arrogance of a ten fingered society in assuming their ‘science’ is correct over all others.

I’ve had time to look at that light explanation but it still doesn’t explain how light cannot be viewed ‘side on’ to the stream of light ‘particles’, nor how electrons can generate ‘particles’ when they have no mass.

We don’t really know that much about the dinosaurs though do we, for all we know what we’ve found are the remains of safari parks and that era was populated by a reptilian species.

The bottom line is that evolution is a natural process and sooner or later beings like us will evolve, some of which will have cilisations millions if not billions of years old.

How many stars are there again is forget

Time/gravity is only a factor in terms of travel if you do not know the correct electro magnetic frequency to displace it

nor how electrons can generate ‘particles’ when they have no mass.

electrons have mass.

your number sequencing is off as well

It is correct for 3 fingers in total, as I stated, which is also what you originally said: what would have happened to science had we evolved with three digits instead of ten

Yes if they had six fingers then the sequence would look like … 4, 5, 10, 11..

I’m simply trying to point out the arrogance of a ten fingered society in assuming their ‘science’ is correct over all others.

But what you are actually ably demonstrating is that maths is a universal regardless of how many fingers you have.
No arrogance required. That ‘science’ remains correct if you call your number “five” or “Geoff”

still doesn’t explain how light cannot be viewed ‘side on’ to the stream of light ‘particles’

I have no idea why you think photons mean it should be. Explain??

Perhaps this may help? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

Or try this explanation:

Thanks for the info/link kaesae.
I’m not convinced that the strength of it qualifies as “substantial evidence that proves those theories”, but it certainly adds to the picture and makes interesting reading.

Wow. I missed happy hour.

Best if you research it for yourself

No, sorry, it doesn’t work like that. You don’t get to make controversial statements and then when reasonably asked to elaborate go “oh, look it up.” You need to either substantiate your claims or have them dismissed.

for all we know what we’ve found are the remains of safari parks and that era was populated by a reptilian species who left no evidence of their existence except for their safari parks

Its not likely is it lets be honest.

I’m simply trying to point out the arrogance of a ten fingered society in assuming their ‘science’ is correct over all others.

what others? there is only one science that is the point and why the “discoveries” are universal. Another hypothetical race may know more than us or less than us. however we will find the same things re maths , elements etc because they are what are observed “found” by studying the actual universe.
It is not arrogance to say this I would say it is common sense tbh. We may have local biology *but we dont have local elements or laws of physics or astro physics. these are universal.

The speed of light in a vacuum is the speed of light, absolute zero is absolute zero. having nothing is zero, Some things are absolutes and we have found a few of them. It is not arrogant to know this. It would be arrogance to think we knew them all

As a pointless aside there are some things we know that we cannot prove such as every even number greater than 2 can be expressed as the sum of two primes. I am not sur ethis is arrogance either but it is interesting*.
* life may be non carbon base for example.
** ok it probably is not interesting

apologies in advance (haven’t read the rest of this thread 😳

i saw something pretty strange back in the mid/late 90’s (along with a friend who was a passenger in my car).
it was night time (cloudy as no stars in the sky).
we were coming back from bath (to drop my friend off in trowbridge).
anyhoo i was driving up a road called sally in the woods (you can see the whole of bath on your right as you are driving back to bradford on avon).
anyways my friend suddenly said to me “what is that!?”
i looked to my right and up in the sky was a white light.
“it’s a helicopter flood light” i thought to myself
but it was spherical/white and perfectly motionless in the sky.
well it was for around 10 seconds when without warning,no sound it just shot off at high speed.
not gradually build up to a high speed, just instantaneously shot off 😯 😮
i obviously cannot say that it was an alien craft,but it certainly wasn’t anything ordinary

Could it have been ball lightning raceface?

Say hello to ALH84001, a 4.5 billion year-old lump of rock from Mars that fell to Earth.

It contains embedded magnetite crystals in formations of carbonates that are characteristic of aquatic magnetotactic bacteria that existed on Earth 3.5 billion years ago. Since the rock fell to Earth “recently”, it follows that the bacteria lived and died on Mars.

This is not 100% conclusive without going to Mars and observing the formations in-situ. But it is 99% conclusive that this bacteria was living on Mars about the same time as similar bacteria was living on Earth.

There was life on Mars.

How did it fall ?

i looked to my right and up in the sky was a white light.
“it’s a helicopter flood light” i thought to myself
but it was spherical/white and perfectly motionless in the sky.
well it was for around 10 seconds when without warning,no sound it just shot off at high speed.
not gradually build up to a high speed, just instantaneously shot off

almost exactly the same as something i observed (along with my sister) around 80-81 in the south east, there was a story in the local paper that week about somebody who said they were visited by a UFO at a golf course which was roughly where we thought the ‘thing’ was (it looked as if it was about 1 mile away). not saying i believe in ufo’s but i definitely witnessed something out of the ordinary.

Sorry Buzz but referencing that New Scientist article linked to earlier, it does not appear to be quite that clear cut:

Careful analysis revealed that the rock contained organic molecules and tiny specs of the mineral magnetite, sometimes found in Earth bacteria. Under the electron microscope, NASA researchers also claimed to have spotted signs of “nanobacteria”.

But since then much of the evidence has been challenged. Other experts have suggested that the particles of magnetite were not so similar to those found in bacteria after all, and that contaminants from Earth are the source of the organic molecules. A 2003 study also showed how crystals that resemble nanobacteria could be grown in the laboratory by chemical processes.

— http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9943-top-10-controversial-pieces-of-evidence-for-extraterrestrial-life.html?full=true

But it is still quite compelling:

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/marslife.html
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/403099main_GCA_2009_final_corrected.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Hills_84001

Sorry there cougar, but you’re wrong.
Kaesae has made some forthright statements, and I did ask for elaboration.
But , fair enough, that was forthcoming;
As well as the advice that its “best if you research it yourself”.
I’m happy to accept that he’s right there. That’s part of scientific enquiry. Do you own research, think for yourself, don’t expect everything handed to you on a plate.
Whilst the links and information are interesting and deserve further thought and enquiry, as I said above, I don’t yet believe that the statements were proved conclusively.
However, that does not mean you or I get to dismiss them outright.
This isn’t an inquisition, its a chat forum. 😉

How did it fall ?

Downwards.

This isn’t an inquisition, its a chat forum

Who’s side are you on? (-:

I wholeheartedly approve of ‘do your own research’, you’re quite right. However, if you’re going to state something as fact, you have to cite your sources. All credible texts have a bibliography for this reason. Hell, even Wikipedia mandates it. You don’t see “[1] – look it up.”

Do you own research, think for yourself, don’t expect everything handed to you on a plate.

yes googling is indeed proper science and no mistake.

Downwards.

It fell off Mars “downwards” ?

I had assumed that it needed to go upwards. Do lots of rocks fall off Mars then ?

It may have left Mars going up, but it was definitely going down by the time it got here 😉

There is no up, nor down in space, just outwards and inwards – I think.

Sorry. My wording was too harsh. It (the inquisition comment) was meant tongue in cheek, but tone can be hard to convey in text,even with smileys. no offence intended.
My point was I am happy to listen to ideas. And don’t need to dismiss them just because they haven’t been proved conclusively.
I wasn’t expecting 100% proof when I questioned this above. Its a chat forum about belief in UFOs, there will be theories that differ from the mainstream. Just by the nature of the subject I believe you have to be ready to accept partial evidence, probabillities and possibilities. Or at least be open to the possibillity that we can’t all share the same body of knowlege and understanding. Even more so when the talk is of the history of 3000 years. For me, there’s a massive grey area in this subject, and very little black and white. Even common theories like Drake give vastly different results depending on open assuptions.
For me, a thread subject like this is more about sharing ideas than coming to a conclusion.

It may have left Mars going up

Someone threw it ?

From the proposed timeline in the NASA article ernie:

16 million years ago, a large meteorite struck Mars, dislodging a large chunk of this rock and ejecting it into space. (Based on the cosmic ray exposure age of the meteorite)

Well I’ll be. They can’t tell what the weather will be this time next week but they know what happened on planet Mars 16 million years ago – what hit what and where it ended up. That’s amazing.

You’re a teacher right? I bet you are, only the sort of low grade teachers there are around these days can be so arrogant and closed minded to think that.. What’s your subject? tell me it’s not physics purrlease.

tell me you have something to say factual rather than ad hominem 🙄

Then read the entire thread before coming in and spouting meaningless googled drivel

I have been in the thread for pages ….mainly the ones you missed before jumping [back] in. Have you something beyond an insult or the edinburgh defence?
are you claiming the speed of light in a vacuum is not universal?
Are you claiming absolute zero is not absolute?
having nothing is zero?
Why not trying and debunk the message rather than just insult the messenger with say a reasoned argument?
Googled LOL those who dont understand science always say that on threads like this – see my point above your post.

FWIW I have no idea why you got banned or why you think it was me what done it. I bear no grudge even if you do and you choose to vent it at any given opportunity.

“nanobacteria”.

Yeah it’s not clear cut for sure. The magnetite itself is not that strong evidence for organic origin but it’s collocation with carbonates that is difficult to explain away apparently.

Then there is the methane abundance problem

And the re evaluation of the Viking experiment

And certainty that mars was wet planet in its geological history which means it had a substantial temperate atmosphere.

And the abundance of water ice under the dust

My wording was too harsh.

No, it wasn’t.

You’re right that it’s hard to put tongues in cheeks when keyboards have neither of these things. I try to assume that people are being light-hearted and friendly when they type, and tend to assume that people think the same of me. Sadly, the latter assumption has bitten me in the arse a lot more than the former.

What I’m saying is, no offence taken. I appreciate the apology but you’ve nothing to apologise for.

They can’t tell what the weather will be this time next week but they know what happened on planet Mars 16 million years ago

I expect it’s a lot easier to reliably extrapolate backwards than forwards.

I expect it’s a lot easier to reliably extrapolate backwards than forwards.

Obviously ! 🙂

derekrides – it is a sign that you are beaten if you jsut insult JY, he has been patiently batting off your objections and gently trying to lead you to the light. Perhps the reason why you are not a scientisit or seem to want to learn anythign about science is that you just don’t like it.

Awards in this thread so far:

GrahamS, junky and cougar for admirably battling away whilst maintaining their tempers, some erudite and smart posts.

MrSalmon for being the threads version of John Steinbeck.

kayak23 for being the king of irony and sarcasm (the book joke at the beginning)

Bwaarp for using science like a club and beating the crap out of anyone who disagrees, he never had a temper to lose. A man after my own heart. When the patient teachers above die of boredom from bangign their heads against a brick wall science will wheel out their champion..

yunki and derekrides for getting all po-mo on our asses.

All get tea and medals on the lawn and a spitfire flypast.

mrsmith and raceface do you guys know about Iridium flares? I was very nearly convinced that UFO’s exist when I saw one of these a few years ago.
Now I can predict them and make my ignorant friends think I am some kind of god.. linky

JY has his own deep seated psychological problems

Well in that case you better let him deal with them, whilst you concentrate on dealing with yours.

off the wall thinking, you’ll note nothing espoused by me is anything other than left field speculation as to an alternative view

It’s such a shame for the rest of us that you have failed to link the above with the below.

As for po-mo, no idea what that means

Also read this transgressing the boundaries

From my link, written by someone who really knows how to question science.

There are many natural scientists, and especially physicists, who continue to reject the notion that the disciplines concerned with social and cultural criticism can have anything to contribute, except perhaps peripherally, to their research. Still less are they receptive to the idea that the very foundations of their worldview must be revised or rebuilt in the light of such criticism. Rather, they cling to the dogma imposed by the long post-Enlightenment hegemony over the Western intellectual outlook, which can be summarized briefly as follows: that there exists an external world, whose properties are independent of any individual human being and indeed of humanity as a whole; that these properties are encoded in eternal” physical laws; and that human beings can obtain reliable, albeit imperfect and tentative, knowledge of these laws by hewing to the objective” procedures and epistemological strictures prescribed by the (so-called) scientific method.

But deep conceptual shifts within twentieth-century science have undermined this Cartesian-Newtonian metaphysics; revisionist studies in the history and philosophy of science have cast further doubt on its credibility; and, most recently, feminist and poststructuralist critiques have demystified the substantive content of mainstream Western scientific practice, revealing the ideology of domination concealed behind the façade of objectivity”. It has thus become increasingly apparent that physical reality”, no less than social reality”, is at bottom a social and linguistic construct; that scientific knowledge”, far from being objective, reflects and encodes the dominant ideologies and power relations of the culture that produced it; that the truth claims of science are inherently theory-laden and self-referential; and consequently, that the discourse of the scientific community, for all its undeniable value, cannot assert a privileged epistemological status with respect to counter-hegemonic narratives emanating from dissident or marginalized communities. These themes can be traced, despite some differences of emphasis, in Aronowitz’s analysis of the cultural fabric that produced quantum mechanics; in Ross’ discussion of oppositional discourses in post-quantum science; in Irigaray’s and Hayles’ exegeses of gender encoding in fluid mechanics; and in Harding’s comprehensive critique of the gender ideology underlying the natural sciences in general and physics in particular.

Wow that’s a lot of words.

yup worth reading though

Isn’t that known as “the flight from reason”?

gender encoding in fluid mechanics

Heh.

yup worth reading though

Meh just seems like exactly the kind of mystic hand-wavey new age stoner nonsense that derek and yunki were spouting.

well at least you bothered to read it, doesn’t look like Derek has.

I struggle with long sentences, have you got the Cliff Notes?

We covered postmodernism and post strucuralism in a module at Uni dealing with “systems theory”

I honestly couldn’t get my head round the whole physical laws are just part of our social contruct thing. It just seemed so pointlessly stultifying, being awkward for the sake of it.

I Invited my lecturer to test if gravity was a social construct by opening the window and carrying out the lecture from the other side. She politely declined – we were on the fourth floor!