UFOs

[[XAP]Bob]

OK I'll play.

I don't agree with "can't currently be explained by science". I prefer "we don't know what they are".

If it can't be explained,it can't be explained which = we don't know what they are, which = can't be explained by humanity,which = can't currently be explained by science.

I don't agree with "apparently intelligent". I prefer "seem to react to the observer's actions".

Jonathan

Are you saying that because they react to the observer's actions they are the observer's intentions or something else?
If so or not could you explain?

They can currently be explained by science, we just don't know how yet

[reohn2]

They can currently be explained by science, we just don't know how yet

I don't understand what you mean,science either can or can't explain some UFOs.

[reohn2]

It occured to me, after I read some of the posts to this topic, and just after I dipped into Treasure Islands: Tax Havens and the Men Who Stole the World a short while ago, that the success or failure of the human animal depends to a large degree, on their ability to distinguish fact from fable. Add to that simple idea, the complexities that group membership brings to our decision making, and it's no wonder we're in such deep deep trouble...

There's much crap talked which is dressed up as fact,some people are all to willing to believe what they're told or read without question.

[Jdsk]

OK I'll play.

I don't agree with "can't currently be explained by science". I prefer "we don't know what they are".

If it can't be explained,it can't be explained which = we don't know what they are, which = can't be explained by humanity,which = can't currently be explained by science.

They can currently be explained by science, we just don't know how yet

I don't understand what you mean,science either can or can't explain some UFOs.

They haven't been explained by science. We don't know if they can be or they can't be.

But it's probably not constructive to group all of the observations together as if there's one thing yet to be explained.

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

... but there are seems to be apparently intelligent vehicles flying about in the sky that can't currently be explained by science.

OK I'll play.

I don't agree with "apparently intelligent". I prefer "seem to react to the observer's actions".

Are you saying that because they react to the observer's actions they are the observer's intentions or something else?
If so or not could you explain?

I'll try: what did you mean by "apparently intelligent"?

Thanks

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

Fausto
The thing is,many people won't discuss the subject for fear of ridicule or even ridicule it themselves,personally whilst there are many shysters,crackpots and profiteers writing on the subject,I have an open mind on the subject which,IMHO,needs serious consideration so a definite desicion can be made one way or the other on the subject.

Back in the 1970's and early 80's, a neighbour of mine, a very well educated man, Dr. Randall Pugh was convinced of extra-terrestrial life and wrote several books and articles on visiting UFO's. Because they either didn't or wouldn't understand, certain people thought him a crackpot, though I know for a fact he wasn't.

"Perhaps the most bizarre story of all concerns the BUFORA investigator for South Wales, Randall Jones Pugh who died in 2003. Pugh – a retired veterinary surgeon – was a God-fearing man who investigated the West Wales UFO flap of 1977 that became known as the “Welsh Triangle.” Initially he was another believer in ET visitors but gradually his views changed. During his investigations Pugh looked into a range of weird happenings centred upon a remote part of the Pembrokeshire coast: lights and objects hovering in the sky, mysterious silver-suited figures peering into farmhouse windows, cowering animals, a herd of cattle teleported from one part of a farm to another, and poltergeists plaguing a family of UFO witnesses [7]. By 1980 he had concluded that the UFO occupants were evil supernatural entities and came to believe UFOlogists were placing themselves in both physical and spiritual danger. Soon afterwards, like Roger Stanway before him, Pugh left UFOlogy and burned his collection of books and slides. These actions followed a series of personal experiences that he claimed “were too frightening to talk about.”"
https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/secret-files/demonic-ufos/

Jonathan

[Oldjohnw]

I don’t really have a view on this (I am instinctively a sceptic) but what did get my interest was an early comment which referred to a source as being “US intelligence “.

It reminds me of the old definition of an oxymoron: military intelligence.

Having said this, I know for a fact that someone I used to work with was an alien. I never knew what planet they were from

[francovendee]

I would like to think we aren't the only intelligent life form. After hearing Brian Cox talking about this I think there is a chance but extremely unlikely. The list of conditions that have to be in alignment seem very long.
When asked what did he think? He said he believed life would be found but didn't think it would be intelligent life.
I still read Sci Fi though

[Oldjohnw]

When asked what did he think? He said he believed life would be found but didn't think it would be intelligent life.
I still read Sci Fi though

Funny, ‘cos that’s exactly what the aliens said.

[francovendee]

When asked what did he think? He said he believed life would be found but didn't think it would be intelligent life.
I still read Sci Fi though

Funny, ‘cos that’s exactly what the aliens said.

[reohn2]

... but there are seems to be apparently intelligent vehicles flying about in the sky that can't currently be explained by science.

OK I'll play.

I don't agree with "apparently intelligent". I prefer "seem to react to the observer's actions".

Are you saying that because they react to the observer's actions they are the observer's intentions or something else?
If so or not could you explain?

I'll try: what did you mean by "apparently intelligent"?

Thanks

Jonathan

Documented cases state that some these UFOs can stop mid air,accelerate to great speed and or change direction almost instantly yet have no apparent means of propulsion or appendages such as wings that our understanding of flight suggests are needed.
There's been some pretty close encounters with UFOs in more than a few countries that strongly suggests they're intelligently flown and not any kind of natural phenomena,people who've had such encounters sometimes are respected members of their community,being ridiculed by their peers as well as questioned and told by official bodies to keep quiet about it.
eg;Have you heard of the 'tictac' case and associated cases surrounding it?
The Todmorden(Lancs) UFO case?

[Jdsk]

We shouldn't forget that Einstein's theory of relativity was considered to be a crackpot idea by a lot of the cscientific community of his day,only later was it proven.

Which one... the special theory or the general theory, please?

General I think.
I would need to do some research to find a link it as it's some years since I read about it.

EDIT:- according to the link though not where I read it(I forget where)but it was his special theory:- https://daily.jstor.org/why-no-one-believed-einstein/
But the point is that even scientists can be biased toward the status quo if it goes against the popluar belief of the time.

Thanks. I think that is a misleading article, and the title is simply wrong.

Einstein's key publication was in 1905 (along with some other stuff!). Planck was promoting this approach by 1906. Einstein was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1912.

But Einstein wasn't the only person working on a solution. There was an enormous overlap with Poincaré's approach (he was French and working in France). And the results of the single most important experiment had been published in 1887, and taken further between then and 1905. Several different groups were trying to find the best explanation.

But there was a difference in acceptance between countries. AFAIK Poincaré never commented on Einstein's solution. And the history of science certainly shows that social and psychological factors contribute to the rate of acceptance. Scientists are human. And Eddington was deliberately trying to create a non-nationalistic approach in the way he designed the observations of the eclipse.

But in the context of UFOs the biasses of scientists are trivial compared to the cognitive biasses of witnesses, who are also human.

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

... but there are seems to be apparently intelligent vehicles flying about in the sky that can't currently be explained by science.

OK I'll play.
Are you saying that because they react to the observer's actions they are the observer's intentions or something else?
If so or not could you explain?

I'll try: what did you mean by "apparently intelligent"?

Documented cases state that some these UFOs can stop mid air,accelerate to great speed and or change direction almost instantly...

No, they don't. You need a model of what they are in order to convert eg visual or radar observations into acceleration. That would include properties such as how big they are and how *far away they are. And for the vast majority of observations those data are not available.

Jonathan

* As with sheep.

[Jdsk]

It reminds me of the old definition of an oxymoron: military intelligence.

Do you know the wonderful "On the Psychology of Military Incompetence"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Ps ... competence

Highly Recommended.

Jonathan

[[XAP]Bob]

They can currently be explained by science, we just don't know how yet

I don't understand what you mean,science either can or can't explain some UFOs.

Science isn't a static "complete understanding", it's constantly developing understanding of the world.
Pre 1900 no-one could have explained the atomic bomb because we hadn't developed the scientific language to describe it, the science didn't change at all.