Who here believes life exists on other worlds?

That is NOT a rational approach to look at things.

And the moral of the story? Science is worthless and therefore Martians built a face on their planet, and routinely visit us in UFOs. Good job.

 

Neither are "completely ridiculous" as far as I'm concerned. Unfortunately, a number of crackpots do voice their opinions on these issues, and that gives them a certain stigma that disuades more rational people from taking the issues seriously.

 

I'm not sure that UFOs are "crack-pot" inventions. Personally, I think that 99% of UFO sightings are either fabrications, misidentifications, or natural phenomena, but I think that in the end, there have been several legitimate UFO sightings/encounters. The one that stands out for me happened in 1991 over Belgium; the Belgian air force sent jets to intecept supposed UFOs that were being picked up on radar; these aircraft subsequently locked onto something that behaved unconventionally, and the Belgian Air Force subsequently held a press conference in which they admitted that something not of this earth had been encountered, and showed videos of the actual encounter. Short of seeing one up close for myself, I think that this is about the best proof out there.

I think the U.S. military has had similar experiences--such as at Nellis AFB--but they're too chicken to admit that there's something out there that they can't deal with.

 

Nellis has alot of creepy activity, considering Area 51 is in the middle of their range.

 

I've always thought it was interesting that UFOs conveniently seem to like to visit Air Force bases so much. One couldn't possibly believe that any of these UFOs are simply oridinary earthly devices that the bases are testing.

 

There was a cute documentary on one of the cable channels regarding how the area 51 rumor got started. It's hard to believe the stories that result from a simple explainable incident.

 

Well, no, not all sightings occur at military bases, but it only seems logical that some do; don't you think that they would be interested in assessing our technological capabilities? No doubt though that many UFOs are in fact experimental aircraft, but when air traffic controllers, etc. on an AFB witness some sort of craft behaving unconventionally, you have to wonder.

 

Mysterious signals from light years away...


http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996341

"In February 2003, astronomers involved in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) pointed the massive radio telescope in Arecibo, Puerto Rico, at around 200 sections of the sky.

The same telescope had previously detected unexplained radio signals at least twice from each of these regions, and the astronomers were trying to reconfirm the findings. The team has now finished analysing the data, and all the signals seem to have disappeared. Except one, which has got stronger..."


Study Doubles Number of Potential Earth-Like Planets
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/planet_formation_010810-1.html

"The standard model for the formation of rocky planets like Earth appears to be on solid ground even when applied to systems in which two stars orbit each other, according to a new study.

If true, the study also effectively increases the potential number of Earth-like planets in the Universe..."

Wether or not there is life like as we know it somewhere out there, there is a chance for it. And it is an interesting thought. Won't do us much good until we can figure out how to travel the universe in a way that wont take lifetimes though. Or to just communicate in a way that won't take lifetimes.

 

It's only natural that a location like Area 51 is going to fuel theories and rumours--I don't doubt that much that is written about it is bunk. But I think that there may be something legitimate behind them.

What's the name of the documentary?

 

That's old news. The New Scientist article overplayed the likelihood that the signals were possible signs of "intelligent" life.

 

I don't remember the documentary name. It was on discovery channel, I think, and described a test flight of someone being dropped from high altitude for a parachute test. He landed hard and injured his head. His head swelled up very large and his eyes blackened from the fluids. He was walked around the air force base slowly with a nurse at each side and looked like the classic alien you see today with the oversize noggin and big black eyes.

 

If you actually read the article it goes on to explain how it could be an error of the machine or somehting like that. It was being fair.

I wasn't trying to represent it as any type of proof, but more as a "you never know"

 

Ive seen that special too. Cant recall the name either.

 

Can't you people understand that most people who "see a UFO" are trying to get famous? Either they saw nothing at all and made the whole story up, or they saw something more "normal" and exaggerated their claim, perhaps not even intentionally.

I agree with whoever said that UFOs seem to love Air Force Bases. Why come up with a ridiculous explanation, like UFOs, when a NORMAL explanation, like new man-made aircraft, will suffice?

This is the science/technology thread. UFOs and other forms of pseudoscience belong on the "Mind Trip" forums, alongside religion, astrology, and psychics.

 

I think I may have seen this doc too, and I wasn't very convinced by its "explanations". Considering the amount of spin-doctoring that the government is involved in, this doc could easily be a cheap attempt to quell all of the speculation. I'm more skeptical about this doc than much of what has been said about Roswell, and I'm not so convinced about what has been said about Roswell.

My best guess is that Roswell was a crash of an experimental craft, possibly based on technology captured from the Germans (who aparently were experimenting with saucer shaped craft), and it just got blown out of proportion. But a balloon? I don't think so.

 

I think maybe you're the one who fails to understand here: I for one clearly stated that I think that 99% of UFO sightings are explainable or hoaxes. But there are a few that go beyond that, and are UFOs. But it will take my seeing something for myself--and I mean a solid object sitting in a field with funny looking beings walking around--before I will claim without a doubt that such things exist.

Faking an abduction or sighting is not the best way to get famous--no doubt people have perpetrated hoaxes with this intent, but what do they have to show for it? Some revenue from a book and copyrights, a whole heap of ridicule and ostricism. But many UFO sightings are reported by anonymous people who fear being ridiculed, fear for the safety and well being of their family, and fear losing their jobs (ie. airline pilots). So what do they stand to gain? Satisfaction that they're pulling a prank that they'll never get recognition for?

 

Hell Ive seen so many UFO's I cant count them all. Im not talking about alien spacecraft, im talking about "Unidentified flying objects." Some nights when im out on post in the middle of nowhere, its fun to pull the NVG's out and look into the sky. Theres alot of activity up there.

 

Show me the evidence.

As I said earlier, perhaps they didn't all deliberately create hoaxes, but they just mistook aircraft for UFOs.

There is not a single shred of evidence for the existence of UFOs. If you disagree, please provide some.

 

Reports of UFO sightings are the evidence for the existence of UFOs. UFO stands for UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT. Anything in the air that cannot be identified is a UFO.

Now, if you want hard evidence that some percentage of UFOs are spacecraft from outside our planet, then the evidence is indeed scarce....

 

Agreed. I meant UFO in the normal sense of the word - an extraterrestrial spacecraft - rather than the actual abbreviation.