Human alien interactions

[ReformedCharacter]

Exactly!

So it makes one wonder why these people with their phones permanently in their sweaty hands, can't take photos.

Steve

There have been plenty of photos of UAPs and probably quite a few taken on phones. Here's a few, but I don't know whether they were taken on phones:

http://www.multivu.com/players/English/8757531-genesis-2-project-unidentified-aerial-phenomenon-uap/

RC

[AleisterCrowley]

I've always had a interest in 'UFOs' , which do exist of course, as there are plenty of as yet unidentified flying objects
I've got books on Roswell, and the Rendlesham Incident (UK) and I think both almost certainly have an explanation that doesn't involve 'aliens' (Project MOGUL and a lighthouse respectively, with a lot of added misinformation, folklore etc)

[odysseus2000]

UAP certainly exist in that there are Phenomena that are Aerial that are Unidentified.

If they are doing things that we haven't yet explain that's exciting because new explanations from physics.

If they need new physics to explain them that's EXCITING because new physics.

If they are aliens that's EXCITING!!!!!! because aliens.

But the jump from "unidentified" to "new physics" to "alien". I think you need to be more explicit at step two and three. UAP != LGM (little green men, even if they are not little or green or men).

300 years ago they would have been miracles. There are far more things that are unexplained than explained, but many people can't accept that "unknown" is a category.

I agree. I am trying to understand what uap are. As of now they do not fit with my knowledge of physics.

So either some new physics, some undisclosed new human technology or non human life/technology.

As of now I have no evidence for any of these, although the reports of uap and how they react to aircraft does not fit with a purely physics phenomenon. Clearly if this is new physics then it may behave entirely differently, but I am slightly drawn towards the other options.

Regards,

[odysseus2000]

I've always had a interest in 'UFOs' , which do exist of course, as there are plenty of as yet unidentified flying objects
I've got books on Roswell, and the Rendlesham Incident (UK) and I think both almost certainly have an explanation that doesn't involve 'aliens' (Project MOGUL and a lighthouse respectively, with a lot of added misinformation, folklore etc)

Yes, but can you explain the recent observations of uap around naval ships, such as those reported by commander Fravor?

It is also interesting, but I have not mentioned before in this thread, that there seem to be no reports from the US airforce, the Fravor video are US navy ones, nor any reports from the US army or US Space Command.

Perhaps these omissions suggest advanced human technology developed by some of these military branches.

Regards,

[Itsallaguess]

I am trying to understand what uap are.

As of now they do not fit with my knowledge of physics.

So either some new physics, some undisclosed new human technology or non human life/technology.

Or simply a better explanation that involves none of those things...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMiKyfd6hA0

We might not have that better explanation at the moment, but that doesn't mean the absence of one necessarily means some new physics, undisclosed human technology, or non-human life/technology are the only other possibilities...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[XFool]

UAP certainly exist in that there are Phenomena that are Aerial that are Unidentified.

If they are doing things that we haven't yet explain that's exciting because new explanations from physics.

If they need new physics to explain them that's EXCITING because new physics.

If they are aliens that's EXCITING!!!!!! because aliens.

But the jump from "unidentified" to "new physics" to "alien". I think you need to be more explicit at step two and three. UAP != LGM (little green men, even if they are not little or green or men).

Yes indeed. That's what I meant when I said "I don't believe in 'UFOs' ". Of course I 'believe' in UAP, a much better description IMO because it drops all the UFO baggage - such as them being "Flying" and "Objects". Which taken together more or less requires that they be seen as some kind of flying craft, which then implies aliens.

300 years ago they would have been miracles.

Or witches, or fairies or angels. Today they are "UFOs" or "Aliens", whatever they actually are.

There are far more things that are unexplained than explained, but many people can't accept that "unknown" is a category.

Absolutely! However frustrating that may be.

I think the whole field is a psychological minefield. Like 'Paranormal' phenomenon.

[AleisterCrowley]

...
It is also interesting, but I have not mentioned before in this thread, that there seem to be no reports from the US airforce, the Fravor video are US navy ones, nor any reports from the US army or US Space Command.

Perhaps these omissions suggest advanced human technology developed by some of these military branches.

Regards,

Yes, could be a 'black project' - nobody know what they get up to in Area 51 !


Regards
Alien Crowley
Guardian of The Black Mailbox

[odysseus2000]

Or simply a better explanation that involves none of those things...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMiKyfd6hA0

We might not have that better explanation at the moment, but that doesn't mean the absence of one necessarily means some new physics, undisclosed human technology, or non-human life/technology are the only other possibilities...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

To explain the rate of acceleration of the uap one has to assume that the various observation wavelengths, optical & radar..,, are all simultaneously giving erroneous readings. As is the measured rates of acceleration are beyond known phenomena & do not seem to be the result of a reaction drive and also, despite supersonic velocities are not associated with sonic booms. It is impossible for me to explain these & other observed behaviour using Newtonian or Relativistic mechanics.

Regards,

[XFool]

To explain the rate of acceleration of the uap one has to assume that the various observation wavelengths, optical & radar..,, are all simultaneously giving erroneous readings. As is the measured rates of acceleration are beyond known phenomena & do not seem to be the result of a reaction drive and also, despite supersonic velocities are not associated with sonic booms. It is impossible for me to explain these & other observed behaviour using Newtonian or Relativistic mechanics.

Then maybe they are massless? i.e. A purely optical type phenomenon.

[odysseus2000]

To explain the rate of acceleration of the uap one has to assume that the various observation wavelengths, optical & radar..,, are all simultaneously giving erroneous readings. As is the measured rates of acceleration are beyond known phenomena & do not seem to be the result of a reaction drive and also, despite supersonic velocities are not associated with sonic booms. It is impossible for me to explain these & other observed behaviour using Newtonian or Relativistic mechanics.

Then maybe they are massless? i.e. A purely optical type phenomenon.

But how then do you see then with radar?

Regards,

[XFool]

To explain the rate of acceleration of the uap one has to assume that the various observation wavelengths, optical & radar..,, are all simultaneously giving erroneous readings. As is the measured rates of acceleration are beyond known phenomena & do not seem to be the result of a reaction drive and also, despite supersonic velocities are not associated with sonic booms. It is impossible for me to explain these & other observed behaviour using Newtonian or Relativistic mechanics.

Then maybe they are massless? i.e. A purely optical type phenomenon.

But how then do you see then with radar?

I don't know! But...

1. Why should we not see them with radar?

2. How do we know that the radar signal is from the same thing as the visual signal?

Maybe they corresponded, maybe they didn't. This is an example of a very simple assumption that, IMO, would need to be verified. The simple fact there were unidentified radar contacts and unidentified visual contacts does not, all by itself, justify the assumption that they were the same thing - particularly so in the case of something that is unidentified.

For instance, what could arise from making a mistake like this is if a visual contact was made at point A at time T and then a radar contact at point B - 10 miles away - at time T + 2 secs, it would be an error to believe an 'object' had travelled 10 miles in 2 seconds.

Once again, when you are dealing with something unknown and unidentified there are necessarily, IMO, a great many perceptual and psychological factors that potentially come into play.

[odysseus2000]

To explain the rate of acceleration of the uap one has to assume that the various observation wavelengths, optical & radar..,, are all simultaneously giving erroneous readings. As is the measured rates of acceleration are beyond known phenomena & do not seem to be the result of a reaction drive and also, despite supersonic velocities are not associated with sonic booms. It is impossible for me to explain these & other observed behaviour using Newtonian or Relativistic mechanics.

Then maybe they are massless? i.e. A purely optical type phenomenon.

But how then do you see then with radar?

I don't know! But...

1. Why should we not see them with radar?

2. How do we know that the radar signal is from the same thing as the visual signal?

Maybe they corresponded, maybe they didn't. This is an example of a very simple assumption that, IMO, would need to be verified. The simple fact there were unidentified radar contacts and unidentified visual contacts does not, all by itself, justify the assumption that they were the same thing - particularly so in the case of something that is unidentified.

For instance, what could arise from making a mistake like this is if a visual contact was made at point A at time T and then a radar contact at point B - 10 miles away - at time T + 2 secs, it would be an error to believe an 'object' had travelled 10 miles in 2 seconds.

Once again, when you are dealing with something unknown and unidentified there are necessarily, IMO, a great many perceptual and psychological factors that potentially come into play.

We are discussing observations from tactical combat systems where the radar is used to guide and bring the attack jets in to intercept the target. The idea that somehow the systems which guided the jets into the points where they eyeballed the uap were somehow locked onto different things is difficult to reconcile with the reported observations from very experienced pilots who were at the time training juniors in the tactical art of air war fare.

Regards,

[stevensfo]

UAP certainly exist in that there are Phenomena that are Aerial that are Unidentified.

If they are doing things that we haven't yet explain that's exciting because new explanations from physics.

If they need new physics to explain them that's EXCITING because new physics.

If they are aliens that's EXCITING!!!!!! because aliens.

But the jump from "unidentified" to "new physics" to "alien". I think you need to be more explicit at step two and three. UAP != LGM (little green men, even if they are not little or green or men).

300 years ago they would have been miracles. There are far more things that are unexplained than explained, but many people can't accept that "unknown" is a category.

I wonder for just how long it would be 'exciting'? As a kid in the 70s, I read every collection of SciFi short stories I could find in our village library, so I was thinking about this from a very young age . (The fact that the kids' books are now sterile, tepid works of vomit-inducing nothingness is a discussion for a later date). In fact, I used to collect cards from PG Tips (memory may be playing tricks) that set the NASA mission to Mars at 1980!

So NASA's new James Webb telescope provides proof of life, maybe 10 light years away. Primitive life is found on Europa or under the surface of Mars. Or archaeologists find controversial evidence of past visits, or radio signals show that intelligent life is definitely out there.

Then what? Really, what? It just confirms what statistics has proven. We are not alone. Which I think we have all known for a long time.

Sorry to be a bit cynical, but it would be news for a while, then life would go on, mortgages paid, corrupt politicians re-elected etc.

I honestly don't think that it would make a huge amount of difference.

..... apart from the usual books written to cash in on the discovery.

Steve

[XFool]

UAP certainly exist in that there are Phenomena that are Aerial that are Unidentified.

If they are doing things that we haven't yet explain that's exciting because new explanations from physics.

If they need new physics to explain them that's EXCITING because new physics.

If they are aliens that's EXCITING!!!!!! because aliens.

I wonder for just how long it would be 'exciting'? As a kid in the 70s, I read every collection of SciFi short stories I could find in our village library, so I was thinking about this from a very young age . (The fact that the kids' books are now sterile, tepid works of vomit-inducing nothingness is a discussion for a later date). In fact, I used to collect cards from PG Tips (memory may be playing tricks) that set the NASA mission to Mars at 1980!

Quite possible. After Sputnik 1 was launched I seem to recall newspaper headlines: "Manned mission to the Moon by 1970. Mars by 1980."
The former proved accurate enough.

So NASA's new James Webb telescope provides proof of life, maybe 10 light years away. Primitive life is found on Europa or under the surface of Mars. Or archaeologists find controversial evidence of past visits, or radio signals show that intelligent life is definitely out there.

Then what? Really, what? It just confirms what statistics has proven. We are not alone. Which I think we have all known for a long time.

News to me... In any material sense.

[odysseus2000]

It depends on what is discovered.

If we find primitive life on Mars & Europa, no large impact.

If we find intelligent life with advanced technology & we acquire the knowledge by some means (theft, gift…) then an impact beyond anything in the human story.

I have no idea what is going to happen, but I am intrigued by how information is slowly coming out. It begins to feel like some know something & that all the seemingly crazy stories about aliens may have some basis in reality, perhaps even like the Star Trek first contact idea, aliens waiting till we advance enough before their existence becoming generally known. I used to think these ideas were wacko, but learning about all these government study programs after relentless denials has left me suspicious. The disclosure that humans who claimed they were abducted had medical indications that something happened to them has also set alarm bells ringing in my mind as did my discovery of world wide cattle mutilations.

While there was no data, just reports that everyone put down to deranged folk I was happy to accept that we were alone, but the release of data tells me that either this is a world wide wild hoax perpetrated for what ever reason or something indicative of advanced intelligence contact.

I don’t know, but I struggle with the idea of a world wide hoax as I can’t see how this could be done across all the major world powers and if so why.

I set off on this investigation to prove to myself that all this alien stuff was nonsense, but the more I study the more it seems to have some basis in truth. There is now enough public interest to fund searches using suitable technology such as the Harvard project by Loeb and so I expect either confirmation or more definitive negative answers. As of now I suspect confirmation is likely.

Regards,

[mc2fool]

So NASA's new James Webb telescope provides proof of life, maybe 10 light years away. Primitive life is found on Europa or under the surface of Mars. Or archaeologists find controversial evidence of past visits, or radio signals show that intelligent life is definitely out there.

Then what? Really, what? It just confirms what statistics has proven. We are not alone. Which I think we have all known for a long time.

Don't be so sure about the "statistics". I've been to a couple of public lectures on the matter in recent years, one at UCL by a Prof. there, an exo-planetologist (?) I believe, and he spent an hour going through a much-more-in-depth version of the Drake equation, working from the only known sample-size-of-one case we have, our own.

He started at big bang and star formation and tried to assign probabilities to each event on the path to us here and now, including factors like the effect of a large moon on evolution (and, of course, what led to it: collision of two similar sized planets that happened to result in creating such a moon), not to mention that little event that happened 65million years ago that resulted in giving mammals a chance, and a whole myriad of others that I can't begin to remember; as I say, an hour's worth.

His bottom line on cumulating all the odds was not only that we are "alone" but that we shouldn't be here! Indeed, that statistically, technologically intelligent life shouldn't have appeared in the universe yet. A similar lecture by an evolutionary zoologist at Imperial focusing from his expertise came to the same conclusion.

Now, of course, statistics aren't temporal predictions, as we can get three once-on-a-century storms in a decade, and the problem with the Drake equation and similar efforts are that they are highly dependent on the assumptions made and the probabilities plugged into them. And, just in case anyone thinks I'm proposing an argument, I'm not taking a stand myself, my only point being that it's not as "all known" as you imply: heck, even Prof. Brian Cox has said he thinks we may well be alone!

[odysseus2000]

So NASA's new James Webb telescope provides proof of life, maybe 10 light years away. Primitive life is found on Europa or under the surface of Mars. Or archaeologists find controversial evidence of past visits, or radio signals show that intelligent life is definitely out there.

Then what? Really, what? It just confirms what statistics has proven. We are not alone. Which I think we have all known for a long time.

Don't be so sure about the "statistics". I've been to a couple of public lectures on the matter in recent years, one at UCL by a Prof. there, an exo-planetologist (?) I believe, and he spent an hour going through a much-more-in-depth version of the Drake equation, working from the only known sample-size-of-one case we have, our own.

He started at big bang and star formation and tried to assign probabilities to each event on the path to us here and now, including factors like the effect of a large moon on evolution (and, of course, what led to it: collision of two similar sized planets that happened to result in creating such a moon), not to mention that little event that happened 65million years ago that resulted in giving mammals a chance, and a whole myriad of others that I can't begin to remember; as I say, an hour's worth.

His bottom line on cumulating all the odds was not only that we are "alone" but that we shouldn't be here! Indeed, that statistically, technologically intelligent life shouldn't have appeared in the universe yet. A similar lecture by an evolutionary zoologist at Imperial focusing from his expertise came to the same conclusion.

Now, of course, statistics aren't temporal predictions, as we can get three once-on-a-century storms in a decade, and the problem with the Drake equation and similar efforts are that they are highly dependent on the assumptions made and the probabilities plugged into them. And, just in case anyone thinks I'm proposing an argument, I'm not taking a stand myself, my only point being that it's not as "all known" as you imply: heck, even Prof. Brian Cox has said he thinks we may well be alone!

This sort of stuff is all "pot boiler." Stuff to bring in money for the presenter and possible encourage young people to study science but most of the folk who do this come over as insincere, trying to interest people who are not interested and making it so that any one who is interested is bored and turns off.

The Sky at Night with Patrick Moore was presented for enthusiasts, the current versions are trying to get more viewers and turn off the folk who are interested and don't want a dumbed down presentation.

Any statements made by the "pot boiler" folk are there to entertain the audience and any kind of statistical analysis without statistics is not science.

Science advances not on this kind of stuff but on measurements or predictions that can be checked by measurement. E.g. Einstein's theory was an interest until experiments confirmed his predictions and then it became the model of gravity even though it does not include quantum mechanics.

Regards,

[Itsallaguess]

Don't be so sure about the "statistics". I've been to a couple of public lectures on the matter in recent years, one at UCL by a Prof. there, an exo-planetologist (?) I believe, and he spent an hour going through a much-more-in-depth version of the Drake equation, working from the only known sample-size-of-one case we have, our own.

He started at big bang and star formation and tried to assign probabilities to each event on the path to us here and now, including factors like the effect of a large moon on evolution (and, of course, what led to it: collision of two similar sized planets that happened to result in creating such a moon), not to mention that little event that happened 65million years ago that resulted in giving mammals a chance, and a whole myriad of others that I can't begin to remember; as I say, an hour's worth.

His bottom line on cumulating all the odds was not only that we are "alone" but that we shouldn't be here! Indeed, that statistically, technologically intelligent life shouldn't have appeared in the universe yet. A similar lecture by an evolutionary zoologist at Imperial focusing from his expertise came to the same conclusion.

Now, of course, statistics aren't temporal predictions, as we can get three once-on-a-century storms in a decade, and the problem with the Drake equation and similar efforts are that they are highly dependent on the assumptions made and the probabilities plugged into them. And, just in case anyone thinks I'm proposing an argument, I'm not taking a stand myself, my only point being that it's not as "all known" as you imply: heck, even Prof. Brian Cox has said he thinks we may well be alone!

This sort of stuff is all "pot boiler." Stuff to bring in money for the presenter and possible encourage young people to study science but most of the folk who do this come over as insincere, trying to interest people who are not interested and making it so that any one who is interested is bored and turns off.

The Sky at Night with Patrick Moore was presented for enthusiasts, the current versions are trying to get more viewers and turn off the folk who are interested and don't want a dumbed down presentation.

Any statements made by the "pot boiler" folk are there to entertain the audience and any kind of statistical analysis without statistics is not science.

Science advances not on this kind of stuff but on measurements or predictions that can be checked by measurement. E.g. Einstein's theory was an interest until experiments confirmed his predictions and then it became the model of gravity even though it does not include quantum mechanics.

Ody - can I gently remind you that your opening post on this subject is based on a linked article from 'the-sun.com'...

The bombshell Freedom of Information haul includes reports on the DIA's research into the biological effects of UFO sightings on humans.

And this includes burns, heart problems, sleep disturbances - and even bizarre occurrences such as "apparent abduction" and "unaccounted for pregnancy".

One fascinating document included in an Acquisition Threat Support report, sets out how to categorise "anomalous behaviour" - with encounters with "ghosts, yetis, spirits, elves and other mythical/ legendary entities" classed as "AN3".

Seeing a UFO with aliens on board would be "CE3".

https://www.the-sun.com/news/5053632/us-government-releases-1500-pages-secret-documents-ufo-programme/

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[mc2fool]

And, just in case anyone thinks I'm proposing an argument, I'm not taking a stand myself, my only point being that it's not as "all known" as you imply: heck, even Prof. Brian Cox has said he thinks we may well be alone!

This sort of stuff is all "pot boiler." Stuff to bring in money for the presenter and possible encourage young people to study science but most of the folk who do this come over as insincere, trying to interest people who are not interested and making it so that any one who is interested is bored and turns off.

Ah, an ad hominem attack on experts in their fields that disagree with your ideas, eh. Classy. Of course, you weren't there to hear the discussion and equivocation in their presentations.

The Sky at Night with Patrick Moore was presented for enthusiasts, the current versions are trying to get more viewers and turn off the folk who are interested and don't want a dumbed down presentation.

What has the Sky at Night got to do with the point I'm making that not everyone is agreed on the "alone" vs "not alone" question?

Any statements made by the "pot boiler" folk are there to entertain the audience and any kind of statistical analysis without statistics is not science.

Science advances not on this kind of stuff but on measurements or predictions that can be checked by measurement.

A large amount of the Drake equation factors are based on science, statistics, and measurement. E.g. rates of star formation, proportions of sun like stars, binaries, etc, and, increasingly, observed information about exo-planets. (There was an interesting talk two days ago at the Royal Astronomical Society covering what we know and don't know about what would make exo-planets habitable. Shame it wasn't recorded. Sorry, I didn't take notes. *)

Of course, there are some things that we don't, and can't for now (or maybe ever) have statistics and measurements on, because all we know about technologically intelligent life is from a sample size of one, and that potentially gives an error rate of 100% -- both for and against us being "alone". So please allow experts to have differing view on the matter without slagging them off, eh?

* for anyone interested, here's a build-your-own-earthlike-planet model that demonstrates the wide range in possible habitability from twiddling just three factors: http://earthlike.world/ (Rendering takes a minute or two).

More "pot boiler" stuff for anyone interested in reading other views:

"Despite knowing when life first appeared on Earth, scientists still do not understand how life occurred, which has important implications for the likelihood of finding life elsewhere in the universe. A new paper shows how an analysis using a statistical technique called Bayesian inference could shed light on how complex extraterrestrial life might evolve in alien worlds. "
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/05/200518162639.htm

https://astronomy.com/news/2020/11/the-lonely-universe-is-life-on-earth-just-a-lucky-fluke

[odysseus2000]

Ody - can I gently remind you that your opening post on this subject is based on a linked article from 'the-sun.com'...

The bombshell Freedom of Information haul includes reports on the DIA's research into the biological effects of UFO sightings on humans.

And this includes burns, heart problems, sleep disturbances - and even bizarre occurrences such as "apparent abduction" and "unaccounted for pregnancy".

One fascinating document included in an Acquisition Threat Support report, sets out how to categorise "anomalous behaviour" - with encounters with "ghosts, yetis, spirits, elves and other mythical/ legendary entities" classed as "AN3".

Seeing a UFO with aliens on board would be "CE3".

https://www.the-sun.com/news/5053632/us ... programme/

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

Ha Ha, Yes, but until this freedom of information report all kinds of alien contacts were dismissed as fantasy, but this report showed that US had taken an interest and that US medics had document measurable health effects in individuals. Sure you can argue that the US medics are not reliable, or that they made up the freedom of information request data as a prank, but one has similar observations from medics in other nations including the UK.

Direct measurement of health effects in individuals who reported contact with aliens is not proof, that would require alien implants or other tech found in or on them, but it is circumstantial support for the persons story and is very different to guessing some statistics for plugging into equations when the only true statistics are of 1 species.

Regards,