Are there any solid evidence for the existence of Aliens and their high-tech UFOs?some say crop circles are formed due to UFOs,is this true?if so to what extent?
ALIENS AND UFOs
Probably some originally, or maybe a few out of the millions of fakes I expect.
I personally think it's just govn't crafts that the govn't want's to keep secret. Even if there's actual evidence the govn't wouldn't show it to public because it would raise many other questions. 
| dj_don wrote: |
| Are there any solid evidence for the existence of Aliens and their high-tech UFOs?some say crop circles are formed due to UFOs,is this true?if so to what extent? |
OK - my first posting on this system so let's make it a good one.
I am a founder member of CAMRES - Campaign for Real Science and one of our objectives is to tackle pseudo-science just like this.
Firstly - no there is no solid evidence for the existence of Aliens/UFOs etc.
Secondly - crop circles are produced by humans - it started as a prank a couple of decades ago and even now that most of the pranksters have actually come clean and admitted it, there are still some who refuse to believe that it was a hoax. Take it from me, there are no supernatural or extra-terrestial influences at work with Crop circles - just some clever jokesters with string, boards and time.
One of the basic rules of science is to be sceptical until evidence is provided and although people sometimes mistake this for cynicism it is not the same thing. Science in the modern age works by 'refutation'. That means that a scientist never talks about 'truth' or 'fact' but, instead talks about 'theory' and 'hypothesis'. People frequently misunderstand this to mean that science is tentative or not much more than a guess - that is not the case.
The basic reason for the way science works (trying to prove things wrong instead of right) is based on an old problem called the problem of 'induction'. Simple stated this means that it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove anything correct EVER. Let me give a simple example.
The sun has risen in the morning billions of times. One could, therefore, reasonably construct a simple theory that said : 'The sun will rise in the morning'. The problem is, however, that one day that will not happen. No matter how many times you observe something to happen, it can never be stated with certainty that it will happen next time. This is the problem of induction. This caused a huge headache to scientists when it became clear that it was true and not just a logical game. The solution was proposed by a philosopher of science called Karl Popper (one of my heros). He made a simple suggestion. OK - you can never prove a theory correct, but, one single observation is enough to prove it incorrect. This is the principle of falsification and forms the basis of modern science.
Any good theory must be testable. If you can't test it, it isn't science.
More than that, a good theory will explicitly say what would prove it wrong - any scientist who devises a new theory will carefully set out what observations or experiments would show that the theory is wrong. This is a fundamental pillar of science, though not many people seem to know it.
A scientist, then, will never talk about certainty or fact or such things. Instead science tries as hard as it can to demolish any new theory. This is done in a process called 'peer review' which involves the theory being presented to several experts in the field who have the job of trying to destroy it. This can be a brutal, unpleasant process for the theoriser. The panel of experts leave no stone unturned in their attempts to show the theory to be wrong. Only if it survives this test can it be said to be a theory at all. Before peer review it is a hypothesis - better than a guess but not as solid as a theory. Once the hypothesis has survived peer review and been published in a professional journal so that other scientists can try to falsify it, it can then be called a 'Theory'.
You can see then, that a theory is not just a guess or a vague stab, it is a complete, logical and consistent explanation of the phenomenon in question and if one single observation or experiment does not fit the theory then it is immediately thrown away.
That is why science is so powerful. This process acts as a bulls**t detection kit - no silly or wrong theory can survive the process and that is why science is so massively successful (and it is - just think about how much science has achieved in the last century).
Some people say 'ahh, but the theory eventually is shown to be wrong and is replaced by another one'. Actually this very rarely happens. What normally happens is that the existing theory will be replaced by one which works in more situations or more accurately. The old theory will be fine, but then a new experiment will try to apply the theory at extreme speed, or extreme temperature or some other circumstance, and the theory will not be accurate. This is exactly what happened with Isaac Newton and Einstein. We still use Newtons's theories for everything we do on Earth - because they work and give us the answers we want. Only when objects are travelling at very high speed (above 0.1% of the speed of light) do the Newtonian equations begin to break down. Then we need a 'bigger' picture which is where Einsteins Special and General relativity takes over. For most people there is no need to ever use relativity - they can simple stick with Newtons simple laws of motion.
Now - why did I spend ages on this when the question was about aliens ?
Because the tests that science uses on itself, it uses on any other theory. Aliens, crop circles and Psi phenomena all fail the test. No repeatable and reliable examples of any of these phenomena exist. In such a case, science takes the attitude that there is nothing behind the hype.
The only exception I can think of is a recent study by a mathametician in the US which appears to show a statistical effect which she claims to be caused by Psi power. The effect, however, is statistically tiny and the method of analysis is, to my mind, dubious. That is it, the sum total of the evidence.
As for UFOs - a few minutes thought is useful here. Firstly, why would advanced aliens be bothering buzzing around up there ? They would not, surely, need to abduct anyone to conduct experiments. Surely they would simple collect a few cells, fly home and clone as many humans as they wanted...Also, consider the distances. The speed of light is currently the fastest that we can imagine ever travelling. At such speed even the nearest stars would take more than a lifetime to reach. In reality we have never managed to travel more than about 40 thousand mph which is laughably slow - it would take ages to reach even the nearest star (Alpha Centauri is about 4.5 light years away which would take (hang on while I do the sum 186000 mps gives a total distance of roughly 5865696000000 miles. At 40,000 mph that is 146642400 hours which is about 16,000 yrs or so). Rememer - that is our nearest star...most stars are massively further away than a puny 4 ly.
I cannot say that there are no aliens out there - without proof the point is moot. What I can say with some degree of certainty is that it is highly unlikely that they would have travelled galactic distances over generations just to kidnap a few Americans and make pretty circles in corn fields.
Regards
Chris
thnxs for the long koOl explaination
| dj_don wrote: |
| thnxs for the long koOl explaination |
Most welcome.
I can thoroughly recommend a book for you which covers all the nonsense and pseudo science we are surrounded with in great detail and in a very readable style.
The book is 'Demon Haunted World' by the late lamented Carl Sagan
It covers the role of science, the decline in science education, the increase in mysticism, pseudo-science and other non-rational belief systems. It is written for the layperson with no difficult sums or tricky concepts and is still one of my favourite books - even though I've probably read it a dozen times.
Cheers
Chris.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| I cannot say that there are no aliens out there - without proof the point is moot. What I can say with some degree of certainty is that it is highly unlikely that they would have travelled galactic distances over generations just to kidnap a few Americans and make pretty circles in corn fields. |
IMHO i think that if there were interstellar travellers, they are would probably be autonomous drones. If one of those would pass by our solar system it would not waste a HUGE amount on energy by pulling the "handbreak". It would simply fly by the outer perimeter of the solar system (avoiding the Suns gravity well), making some side notes:
* Some trivial lifeforms detected
* Some minable resourses found in the asteroid belt.
* Mostly harmless
I seriously think with all the billions of possible planets, at least some are likely to have life.
| Insanity wrote: |
| I seriously think with all the billions of possible planets, at least some are likely to have life. |
I don't dispute that. It is statistically possible, some would say probable, that life exists out there. What is not probable is that it is flying around earth and abducting Mid-West farmers to prod their genitals or whatever....then we get into the realms of stupidity and gullibility.
Chris
I just got through watching some explanation of how spacecraft landed in some forest and so many witnesses saw like..the whole military come and retrieve it, and then the government stated that only three people went there and nothing was found. I believe that these things happen all the time and are just covered up by the government. In a world as sickening as it is today, you can't doubt the higher-ups keeping information from us just for the hell of it. We can't be the only ones in this huge universe, anyway ;-;.
Aliens have never visited earth, aliens would not care about our pathetic little speck at the edge of the galaxy. And if they ever do come, it won't be for benevolent reasons, it won't be to experiment on us, it won;t be to molest us, it won't be in peace. It will be to colonise, and we will be in there way and we will be nothing more than animals to them.
All this crap about the government hiding aliens is nothing but a pathetic excuse for the lack of evidence for aliens. They need an excuse so they say the government is hiding them.
All this crap about the government hiding aliens is nothing but a pathetic excuse for the lack of evidence for aliens. They need an excuse so they say the government is hiding them.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| Aliens have never visited earth, aliens would not care about our pathetic little speck at the edge of the galaxy. And if they ever do come, it won't be for benevolent reasons, it won't be to experiment on us, it won;t be to molest us, it won't be in peace. It will be to colonise, and we will be in there way and we will be nothing more than animals to them.
All this crap about the government hiding aliens is nothing but a pathetic excuse for the lack of evidence for aliens. They need an excuse so they say the government is hiding them. |
So you're implying that if you were given the ability to visit another civilization in space, you'd go there and feel the need to completely destroy them while taking over their planet? If you had the ability to visit another group of life (you'd be the alien, then) you wouldn't come in peace? You seem to forget that we'd also be aliens.
| Etcetera wrote: |
| I just got through watching some explanation of how spacecraft landed in some forest and so many witnesses saw like..the whole military come and retrieve it, and then the government stated that only three people went there and nothing was found. I believe that these things happen all the time and are just covered up by the government. In a world as sickening as it is today, you can't doubt the higher-ups keeping information from us just for the hell of it. We can't be the only ones in this huge universe, anyway ;-;. |
This is a standard type story from a 'believer' in that:-
a) It contains no data to check
b) It contains no logical chain of reasoning
c) It is based on a gut feeling and a distrust of authority.
There is nothing I can say which will change your mind so all I can do is reiterate what I've already posted which would be a waste of both our time...
Cheers
Chris
Humans look out at the universe, humans inhabit almost all of the globe, humans notice change, humans are inquisitive, humans need explanations.
There are so many of us, and there are always billions of people awake, watching, listening, smelling, tasting, feeling. If people see something strange - and there's an almost certain chance that someone would notice if an alien arrived. As people are inquisitive, they will go and find out what it is, and soon either realise that it wasn't what they thought or that they have found aliens.
If an alien (or some aliens) visited this planet then we would know about it immediately. The media would go crazy world-wide and soon everyone would be talking about it. And when there are realistic hoaxes then they do. But it is rare that news of aliens gets into the national media. Because it's almost always a hoax.
I believe that there must be something else living out there, whether like us or not, but remember that to the aliens, we are aliens. If we humans discovered a planet with aliens living on, would we go over there and say "hi". No, I think not. We would be wary of them and scared, it would take a long time and a lot of debating before we sent anything, but nothing manned because we would be too worried about what would happen.
Aliens are likely to act in the same way. There is a large chance that they will thrive on a planet with no knowledge of other beings just like us, therefore they would rather try to communicate with us using signals; or they would arrive in a large group, able to protect themselves from us fearful and jumpy humans. They, I'm sure, would realise that we may fear a large group of them and attack, thus they may never come at all or communicate with us if they don't have the right equipment / technology / resources.
I think that if we can find and successfully communicate with intelligent aliens then the human race (as well as the alien race) could benefit hugely from sharing ideas, technologies and information.
There are so many of us, and there are always billions of people awake, watching, listening, smelling, tasting, feeling. If people see something strange - and there's an almost certain chance that someone would notice if an alien arrived. As people are inquisitive, they will go and find out what it is, and soon either realise that it wasn't what they thought or that they have found aliens.
If an alien (or some aliens) visited this planet then we would know about it immediately. The media would go crazy world-wide and soon everyone would be talking about it. And when there are realistic hoaxes then they do. But it is rare that news of aliens gets into the national media. Because it's almost always a hoax.
I believe that there must be something else living out there, whether like us or not, but remember that to the aliens, we are aliens. If we humans discovered a planet with aliens living on, would we go over there and say "hi". No, I think not. We would be wary of them and scared, it would take a long time and a lot of debating before we sent anything, but nothing manned because we would be too worried about what would happen.
Aliens are likely to act in the same way. There is a large chance that they will thrive on a planet with no knowledge of other beings just like us, therefore they would rather try to communicate with us using signals; or they would arrive in a large group, able to protect themselves from us fearful and jumpy humans. They, I'm sure, would realise that we may fear a large group of them and attack, thus they may never come at all or communicate with us if they don't have the right equipment / technology / resources.
I think that if we can find and successfully communicate with intelligent aliens then the human race (as well as the alien race) could benefit hugely from sharing ideas, technologies and information.
| Etcetera wrote: | ||
So you're implying that if you were given the ability to visit another civilization in space, you'd go there and feel the need to completely destroy them while taking over their planet? If you had the ability to visit another group of life (you'd be the alien, then) you wouldn't come in peace? You seem to forget that we'd also be aliens. |
No.
Think about it this way. say you travel to another planet to colonise it, the planet is dominated by a species that uses primitive stone tools, they are not as intelligent as us, there about at the same stage as Homo intercessor, they don't like you being there and they try to get rid of you and the colonists. How do you react to them? How would others react to them? Do you A: Say "theres already intelligent creators there, lest find another planet" B: Colonise the planet and use your far super technology against them?
Now, think about this, theres an alien species out there, they have been exploring that galaxy for 5 million years, there technology is far more advanced than anything we can comprehend. Would they think of us as equals? No. Would they think of us as animals? Yes. Would they think of us in the same way we think of Chimpanzees? Yes.
If aliens came to earth, it wouldn't be for benevolent purposes. If there are a few of them, it would probably be watch or hunt, if it was allot of them, it would be to colonise, if its during a war, it would be to build a base or they could be refuges.
If they would be colonists or refugees, as the dominant species with numbers in the billions, we would be in there way.
We should try to invest more money in space exploration and technological research... that's the only way we can assure human survival in case this aliens come here...
[quote="The Conspirator"]
I tend to agree (as does Steven Hawking).
Our own experiences indicate that whenever advanced cultures meet more primitive ones, the results are not normally very gratifying or pretty.
Chris.
| Etcetera wrote: |
|
If aliens came to earth, it wouldn't be for benevolent purposes. If there are a few of them, it would probably be watch or hunt, if it was allot of them, it would be to colonise, if its during a war, it would be to build a base or they could be refuges. If they would be colonists or refugees, as the dominant species with numbers in the billions, we would be in there way. |
I tend to agree (as does Steven Hawking).
Our own experiences indicate that whenever advanced cultures meet more primitive ones, the results are not normally very gratifying or pretty.
Chris.
| Bikerman wrote: |
|
I tend to agree (as does Steven Hawking). Our own experiences indicate that whenever advanced cultures meet more primitive ones, the results are not normally very gratifying or pretty. Chris. |
No argument on that. The past meetings with less technologically advanced cultures have often been disastrous. But don't you think we've improved how we make contact and deal with the cultures today? Not perfect, but there is definite improvement. Hopefully, the more advanced a culture becomes, the more care they would put into contact.
That said, I don't think there is any convincing evidence to believe that we are being visited. But if they do, I hope I'm right about them doing a better job than we have!
| HoboPelican wrote: | ||
No argument on that. The past meetings with less technologically advanced cultures have often been disastrous. But don't you think we've improved how we make contact and deal with the cultures today? Not perfect, but there is definite improvement. Hopefully, the more advanced a culture becomes, the more care they would put into contact. |
I tend to think the precautionary principle applies here unless and until we have more data....
| Quote: |
|
That said, I don't think there is any convincing evidence to believe that we are being visited. But if they do, I hope I'm right about them doing a better job than we have! |
I agree with this - there is absolutely no compelling evidence to support the 'visitation' hypothesis.
Chris
| Bikerman wrote: |
| I tend to think the precautionary principle applies here unless and until we have more data.......
Chris |
Do you mean more data from human cultural meetings or extraterrestrial meetings? No need to answer!I personally believe there is life on other galaxies, but I don't believe we could ever reach them, nor they could reach us. I don't know what to expect, or if it's ever going to be proved. I don't think it can ever be proved, but it would be the end of an era if we found out. These are just my views and opinions anyway.
Neal
Neal
| Vanquish wrote: |
| but I don't believe we could ever reach them, nor they could reach us |
Oh I think we could. Maybe not soon, but if we don't all die from global warming or anything else too soon then I'm sure we'll be able to really explore other galaxies. But I don't know how far into the future this will be, probably not in my lifetime.
| dj_don wrote: |
| Are there any solid evidence for the existence of Aliens and their high-tech UFOs?some say crop circles are formed due to UFOs,is this true?if so to what extent? |
i think there is existance of living things, it is said by me but not science has proved it yet,
in science there is possibliy that may be other solar systems like ours have life or
there may be existance of same envirement on other planets ,which are out of our reach at the movement , sienctists have already told about presence of
water , ice or evidence of presence of ice/water on moon and mars but but not yet proved .
Due to this i believe there is existance of other living creatures (life) on other
planets of this solar system or in our glaxy or in other galxies or in the universe at least.
Most propably organisms which are extremly amazing like bacteria and cockroach (because they can live in any envirement , some bacteria live at 400 centegrate near valcano in water , other live in acidic PH in the stomach and others live even in radiation, some bacteria live without oxygen in the caves ).
I dont believe that at the movement UFOs are present at all , these all are myths to get fame nothing else at all , may be american forces have hifi planes which they dont want to show other world , but there are no UFO because it's existance have not been proved other thing is that these are seen only in america , why not in other world?
It has been told that this thing is done by aliens , that is done by aliens
this is not true at all , when people see an out standing thing to which they canot believe that human can make it they put on aliens , prevously it was put on the gods or ghosts or things like that and now alliens .
People say pyramids are imposible to make in that time because there were no heavy machines to carry such heavy stones which are not present near by how they were carried out and how so, many pyramids were made ? in such less time
well thesewere amazing things done but they were done by humans
those grass circles are made by humans although these are of class
very good indead or lets say one of the best arts in the world , very beautiful things are made but these are made by humans , on several occasion they are cought doing so ,few commit other do not few vedeos were also released of such persons making circles i my self saw on National geographic , but some people still believe that they are made by alliens.
As science will advance may be we can see life on other planet or if
life on other planet is like us and are more advance than may be they can reach to us but still there is no evidence.
This have possibility to occur but at the movement it has not been seen.
Last edited by haak_heu on Thu Aug 10, 2006 1:20 pm; edited 1 time in total
(original post reformatted slightly so I could read it better. No offence intended as I’m sure either English is not your first language. I corrected it only so I could read it better, not to have a dig at your English).
It is certainly true that other planets have and are being detected. I don't think it is yet true to say that water-rich planets are amongst them since most of the 'earth-type' planets they have found to date are, in fact, very different to earth. This is not because we are special (or there is no reason to think so yet, anyway). It is a limit imposed by the method used. Up to now the only method of detecting planets at the distances concerned (many many light years) is to look for a 'peturbation' in the light output of a star which corresponds to the planet passing in front of it. Obviously this favours larger planets and, not suprisingly, that is mostly what has been detected.
Now, you get a bit carried away when you say life in this solar system. It is certainly possible. The best bets would be Europa and Titan. Europa could well be covered in a huge sea of liquid water, underneath a frozen crust. Estimates say it could be 70-100 miles deep. That opens the possibility of deep-sea marine life like we find on Earth near geo-thermal vents on the ocean floor. It is, however, extremely unlikely that this environment would produce anything 'intelligent' or even sentient in anything but a rudimentary sense - far more likely to find microbes or perhaps small multi-cell organisms.
Once you get past this solar system then the problems start. The distances are huge - well beyond our abilities and probably beyond them for hundreds of years at least. Some (myself included) think that we will probably never 'meet' aliens because of this.
I think I agree with what you are saying. There is no evidence of any satisfactory nature of any alien or extra-terrestrial presence or visit to the Earth. As each new story is demolished another one springs up to take it's place and most scientists are now quite sick of having to repeatedly explain the same tricks/deceptions/mistakes/misunderstandings. There is even a revival of spiritualism in the form of groups using Ouija boards. This was comprehensively refuted by Hari Houdini nearly a century ago. He speialised in spotting the tricks of the 'mediums' and showing them up. Still we have people thinking and claiming that there is something in it.
The same goes for all brands of delusion - from alien landings to crop circles to near-death experience and so on. Any time any of these 'phenomena' are subjected to proper study, they suddenly stop happening.
[/quote]
Yes - I know one of the original pranksters involved in this - a friend from college days. He alone has been responsible for over 100 circles.
Once again, though, we get the same self-delusion. Those who believe in the phenomena refuse to accept it is a hoax, even when the hoaxers come forward. 'They can't all be hoaxes' is the first line, followed by some pseudo-scientific 'proof' that the grass was bent in such a way or the stem was broke in just such a way...whatever.
When you encounter people like this, there is little point in debating with them since they are convinced of the truth of whatever pet-theory they have. They are self-deluded which is OK by me. I only get involved when they try to spread the delusion to the rest of us - then it is necessary to do a bit of reality checking to prevent the non-scientists from being conned by this guff.
Best wishes
Chris
| haak_heu wrote: |
|
i think there is existence of living things, and it is my saying not science but in science there is possibly that there are other solar systems like ours and also there is existence of same environment on other planets which are out of our reach at the movement, scientists have already told about presence of water, ice or previously present ice/water due to presence of past evidence on moon and mars but they have still not proved it. Due to this i believe there is existence of other living creatures (life) on other planets of this solar system or in our galaxy or in other galaxies or in the universe at least. I don’t believe that at the movement UFOs are present they all are myths to get fame nothing else at all, may be American forces have hi-fi planes which they don’t want to show other world, but there are no UFO because it's existence have no proves other is that it is only seen in America, why not in other world. |
It is certainly true that other planets have and are being detected. I don't think it is yet true to say that water-rich planets are amongst them since most of the 'earth-type' planets they have found to date are, in fact, very different to earth. This is not because we are special (or there is no reason to think so yet, anyway). It is a limit imposed by the method used. Up to now the only method of detecting planets at the distances concerned (many many light years) is to look for a 'peturbation' in the light output of a star which corresponds to the planet passing in front of it. Obviously this favours larger planets and, not suprisingly, that is mostly what has been detected.
Now, you get a bit carried away when you say life in this solar system. It is certainly possible. The best bets would be Europa and Titan. Europa could well be covered in a huge sea of liquid water, underneath a frozen crust. Estimates say it could be 70-100 miles deep. That opens the possibility of deep-sea marine life like we find on Earth near geo-thermal vents on the ocean floor. It is, however, extremely unlikely that this environment would produce anything 'intelligent' or even sentient in anything but a rudimentary sense - far more likely to find microbes or perhaps small multi-cell organisms.
Once you get past this solar system then the problems start. The distances are huge - well beyond our abilities and probably beyond them for hundreds of years at least. Some (myself included) think that we will probably never 'meet' aliens because of this.
| Quote: |
|
It has been told that this thing is done by aliens, that is done by aliens this is not true , when people say an out standing thing which they believe human can not make they put on aliens , previously it was put on the gods or ghosts or things like that and now aliens . |
The same goes for all brands of delusion - from alien landings to crop circles to near-death experience and so on. Any time any of these 'phenomena' are subjected to proper study, they suddenly stop happening.
| Quote: |
|
People say pyramids are impossible to make in that time because there were no machines to carry them and such heavy stones which are not present near by how they are carried out and how so, many pyramids are made? Well that was very amazing thing was done but by humans [/quote[ Only very stupid people (like Eric Von Daniken) say that. The actual point made was that Egypt has no Hemp and therefore no rope. Completely ignoring the fact that it was a major trading nation of course...typical of the later-day metaphysicist. Dishonest and sloppy all at once. These grass circles are made by humans although these are of class very good or say one of the best arts in the world, very beautiful things are made but these are made by humans, on several occasion they arte caught doing so, few commit other did not few videos were also released of such person making circles i my self saw of National geographic, but some people still believe that they are made by aliens |
[/quote]
Yes - I know one of the original pranksters involved in this - a friend from college days. He alone has been responsible for over 100 circles.
Once again, though, we get the same self-delusion. Those who believe in the phenomena refuse to accept it is a hoax, even when the hoaxers come forward. 'They can't all be hoaxes' is the first line, followed by some pseudo-scientific 'proof' that the grass was bent in such a way or the stem was broke in just such a way...whatever.
When you encounter people like this, there is little point in debating with them since they are convinced of the truth of whatever pet-theory they have. They are self-deluded which is OK by me. I only get involved when they try to spread the delusion to the rest of us - then it is necessary to do a bit of reality checking to prevent the non-scientists from being conned by this guff.
Best wishes
Chris
hi people!
just wanted to suggest a great book on the topic, that also gives detailed chapter about the crop circles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Demon-Haunted_World
and a great book in general. cheers
just wanted to suggest a great book on the topic, that also gives detailed chapter about the crop circles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Demon-Haunted_World
and a great book in general. cheers
At the moment, I cannot recall whether it was Isaac Asimov or Ben Bova, but I think whoever it was summed it up well: "Unidentified Fraudulent Object."
I think the circles are definitely done by us.
Also, i don't think universe is infinite becouse i cannot define "infinite" in the familiar sort of terms, but i believe in parallel universe.
Also i belive in Aliens but becouse of the great distance (very probalby) we cannot reach them soon, and they may visit us, but if they're smarter than us and technologically much more advanced they wouldn't make any contact - just observing. Why? Becouse if they advanced that far in technology they will understand they nature of someone that is much less advanced than they (otherwise technology will kill them long time ago).
Also, i don't think universe is infinite becouse i cannot define "infinite" in the familiar sort of terms, but i believe in parallel universe.
Also i belive in Aliens but becouse of the great distance (very probalby) we cannot reach them soon, and they may visit us, but if they're smarter than us and technologically much more advanced they wouldn't make any contact - just observing. Why? Becouse if they advanced that far in technology they will understand they nature of someone that is much less advanced than they (otherwise technology will kill them long time ago).
| Dr4g0n wrote: |
| Also, i don't think universe is infinite becouse i cannot define "infinite" in the familiar sort of terms |
Humans are very limited. They can only imagine things that they have experienced, or things that have something to do with their experience. When people talk about something infinite, some may be able to get their head around the concept of something that simply goes on forever. But no one can truly imagine what something like that would be like. But if you think about it, the universe has to be infinite; if it isn't, what comes after that, more space with nothing in it? Well, that's just space... basically.
Of course there is a possibility that it does just end, and that there is literally nothing after it, and no way of getting there. It's just that the human mind cannot properly comprehend this concept.
You say you believe in parallel universes, Dr4g0n. Even if there are, and I'm not saying there are not - I'm not sure, personally -, then that doesn't mean that a single universe cannot still be infinite, I know that this idea can hard to get your around, but it is true.
Also, if the universe is infinite, doesn't that mean that there is an infinite chance that aliens exist? If so, then it also follows that there is an infinite chance that there is an infinite number of aliens, furthermore there is an infinite chance that we will never find any of these aliens, as we cannot travel far enough to reach them.
| Bikerman wrote: | ||
I don't dispute that. It is statistically possible, some would say probable, that life exists out there. What is not probable is that it is flying around earth and abducting Mid-West farmers to prod their genitals or whatever....then we get into the realms of stupidity and gullibility. Chris |
Haha! You guys got to see this!
http://www.cowabduction.com/
I really like the interview with the eyewitnesses!
"cow-terrorism".... hehe
Bikerman, all I have to say is awwwww. I actualy believed in UFO's.. Now I have nothing mistical to believe in (exept god)..
CowAbduction ROX :DDDDD
I especially like the idea of a 'Cow Chip - Advanced cow recovery system, trackable through 7 light years!'
It's been proved that about 99% of alien reports are fake. The time of people being interested in aliens is gone, and aliens are gone as well - strange?
I especially like the idea of a 'Cow Chip - Advanced cow recovery system, trackable through 7 light years!'
It's been proved that about 99% of alien reports are fake. The time of people being interested in aliens is gone, and aliens are gone as well - strange?
First a few quotes of Bikerman:
I highly doubt that. Most of them were made by humans. but it is highly unprobable that they were all done that way. There are many people working in just identifying real-ones from the fakes and most of them are very well educated. Some of those crop circles are so detailed that it brings the question if a human could have done it at all. Plus some of thoese shapes are huge and done in relatively little time (in one night). What do you think how probable is it that some few thousand kids got around and made them in one night in the dark. Not to mention the details of them. It is highly unprobable that all of them were made by humans, I would say.
Yes but those are the rules of science used in research. Besides no evidence can ever be provided if no one bothers to do some research on subject. On a side note: most scientists were sceptical of Einstein's relativity, quantum theory, ..., in fact of most of scientific discovery. Almost it always took years for them to be accepted in academic circles. So much from the good of scepticism
If no one researches on the subject no one can present the evidence of any kind.
| Quote: |
| Secondly - crop circles are produced by humans - it started as a prank a couple of decades ago and even now that most of the pranksters have actually come clean and admitted it, there are still some who refuse to believe that it was a hoax. Take it from me, there are no supernatural or extra-terrestial influences at work with Crop circles - just some clever jokesters with string, boards and time.
|
I highly doubt that. Most of them were made by humans. but it is highly unprobable that they were all done that way. There are many people working in just identifying real-ones from the fakes and most of them are very well educated. Some of those crop circles are so detailed that it brings the question if a human could have done it at all. Plus some of thoese shapes are huge and done in relatively little time (in one night). What do you think how probable is it that some few thousand kids got around and made them in one night in the dark. Not to mention the details of them. It is highly unprobable that all of them were made by humans, I would say.
| Quote: |
| One of the basic rules of science is to be sceptical until evidence is provided |
Yes but those are the rules of science used in research. Besides no evidence can ever be provided if no one bothers to do some research on subject. On a side note: most scientists were sceptical of Einstein's relativity, quantum theory, ..., in fact of most of scientific discovery. Almost it always took years for them to be accepted in academic circles. So much from the good of scepticism
| Quote: |
| Now - why did I spend ages on this when the question was about aliens ?
Because the tests that science uses on itself, it uses on any other theory. Aliens, crop circles and Psi phenomena all fail the test. No repeatable and reliable examples of any of these phenomena exist. In such a case, science takes the attitude that there is nothing behind the hype. |
If no one researches on the subject no one can present the evidence of any kind.
| ne2 Luka wrote: | ||
First a few quotes of Bikerman:
I highly doubt that. Most of them were made by humans. but it is highly unprobable that they were all done that way. There are many people working in just identifying real-ones from the fakes and most of them are very well educated. Some of those crop circles are so detailed that it brings the question if a human could have done it at all. Plus some of thoese shapes are huge and done in relatively little time (in one night). What do you think how probable is it that some few thousand kids got around and made them in one night in the dark. Not to mention the details of them. It is highly unprobable that all of them were made by humans, I would say. |
Its very, very far more probable that people did it, even the big ones. If it were aliens, they would find a far better way than destroying some farmers field (they loose allot of money cause of crop circles) and if it was some natural force that there would have always been crop circle.
Humans do them all. Don't under estimate what a person with enough skill can do.
I don't think the 'evidence' there are out there in the public are real. They are made up by people that think they saw UFO. Maybe it is just some light shot up at the sky by a light projecter and some people think it is UFO.
However, I do believe there are other lives living on other planets and universe beside Earth.
However, I do believe there are other lives living on other planets and universe beside Earth.
| ne2 Luka wrote: | ||
First a few quotes of Bikerman:
I highly doubt that. Most of them were made by humans. but it is highly unprobable that they were all done that way. |
On what grounds do you make that statement ?
| Quote: |
| There are many people working in just identifying real-ones from the fakes and most of them are very well educated. |
No doubt, but how many of them are scientists ?
| Quote: |
| Some of those crop circles are so detailed that it brings the question if a human could have done it at all. Plus some of thoese shapes are huge and done in relatively little time (in one night). What do you think how probable is it that some few thousand kids got around and made them in one night in the dark. Not to mention the details of them. It is highly unprobable that all of them were made by humans, I would say.
|
Well, as it happens my friend is sat next to me and he is laughing hard right now. His best creation from 2002 was one which appeared on many 'believers' sites as an example of something too complex for hoaxers to have made.
Here is his finest work :
That was done by less than a dozen people in 1 night Steve tells me - and he should know.
| Quote: |
| Yes but those are the rules of science used in research. Besides no evidence can ever be provided if no one bothers to do some research on subject.
|
No - these are the rules of science, full stop. Whether research, technician, teacher or whatever, science is science.
There are an infinity of things to research so why pick things which are already likely to be the work of hoaxers, new-age spiritualists or other body ?
| Quote: |
|
On a side note: most scientists were sceptical of Einstein's relativity, quantum theory, ..., in fact of most of scientific discovery. Almost it always took years for them to be accepted in academic circles. So much from the good of scepticism |
Well, first let's clarify a little - quantum theory is nothing to do with relativity.
As far as Relativity - well you need to understand that the basis of relativity was understood long before Einstein. Galileo first speculated about time dilation and other relativistic effects in the 16th century - indeed the classic formulation of the time-dilation formula is the Gailiean one.
As far as Einsteins contributions - Special (1905) and General (1915) Relativity - since he got the Nobel prize in 1921 it is unlikely that what you say is correct (although I will say that the prize was not directly for relativity). Immediately after Einstein's 1915 paper, Schwarzschild found (1916) a mathematical solution to the field equations contained in the paper which correspond to the gravitational field of a massive compact object. At the time this was purely theoretical work but, of course, work on neutron stars, pulsars and black holes relied entirely on Schwarzschild's solutions and has made this part of the most important work going on in astronomy today. Other influential physicists of the time such as Lorentz were quick to congratulate Einstein on his achievements and after Einstein completed an article explaining general relativity in terms more easily understood (1916), he received widespread support and plaudits.The article itself was widely read and went through over 20 printings.
Some scientists, true, did not accept relativity. They were absolutely correct not to do so. What was missing was experimental or observational confirmation. This came in 1931 with an experiment in red-shift and has been repeated and enhanced many times since. Theoretical physicists, however, were able to understand the theory properly much earlier and they knew that it held up to scrutiny.
Perhaps you would like to tell us which scientists did not accept the theory?
As a general point on this issue.....theory becomes theory (from hypothesis) when peer reviewed in the journals of that particular discipline. From that point onwards it is accepted as theory by the scientists in the field. The best theory is accepted as 'current' theory normally fairly quickly. The fact that some scientists may disagree or dissent is a normal part of scientific method and should not be confused as meaning there was general doubt.
| Bikerman wrote: |
|
As for UFOs - a few minutes thought is useful here. Firstly, why would advanced aliens be bothering buzzing around up there ? They would not, surely, need to abduct anyone to conduct experiments. Surely they would simple collect a few cells, fly home and clone as many humans as they wanted...Also, consider the distances. The speed of light is currently the fastest that we can imagine ever travelling. At such speed even the nearest stars would take more than a lifetime to reach. In reality we have never managed to travel more than about 40 thousand mph which is laughably slow - it would take ages to reach even the nearest star (Alpha Centauri is about 4.5 light years away which would take (hang on while I do the sum 186000 mps gives a total distance of roughly 5865696000000 miles. At 40,000 mph that is 146642400 hours which is about 16,000 yrs or so). Rememer - that is our nearest star...most stars are massively further away than a puny 4 ly. |
Did you thought one moment that we could be an colonization experiment of those "aliens" that "abduct" humans. Thay want only to see how the experiment is working.
As for the crafts and space travel. Surely they didn't use light speed. There are a lot of other "quicker" posibilities: worm holes, space bending and so on. Think of the "Stargate" way of traveling ...
| legion wrote: |
|
Did you thought one moment that we could be an colonization experiment of those "aliens" that "abduct" humans. Thay want only to see how the experiment is working. |
AC Clarke wrote a nice story on that theme - as have several other authors including Asimov for instance. Do I think it is likely ? No. Can I prove it ? No.
There is a more extreme philosophy which says that we are all products of our own imagination - a bit like the Matrix -the world we percieve is in fact a figment. One version of this is that the whole thing is a computer program and we are only elements of that program. This, again, cannot be disproved and is a version of the age-old mantalist philosophy (see Dualism, Cartesian Dualism, Mind-body problem)....
| Quote: |
| As for the crafts and space travel. Surely they didn't use light speed. There are a lot of other "quicker" posibilities: worm holes, space bending and so on. Think of the "Stargate" way of traveling ... |
Non of these are known to be possibilities - all are only speculation. The stargate is not even speculation - more fantasy....
Chris
First a few quotes of Bikerman's:
I mean't generaly in academic circles. But you are probably right. It all comes down to the question what can be considered as "accepted fast enough". Generaly speaking, Academics were sceptical about his work, but then again not for a long time as relativity was (and is) such a strong and correct theory that proofs came from all over. Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned this case.
Yeah, and Einstein got the Nobel prize for photoelectric effect. <-- This my go against you as his work on relativity superseeds this one by far; and he didn't get it for it.
Well, I guess you are right on that.
Agreed, again.
Agreed on that, again. But there is one more possibility: Traveling trough dimensions with assumption that there are more than 3 spacial dimensions and that such dimension-crossing is possible.
| Quote: |
| As far as Relativity - well you need to understand that the basis of relativity was understood long before Einstein. Galileo first speculated about time dilation and other relativistic effects in the 16th century - indeed the classic formulation of the time-dilation formula is the Gailiean one.
As far as Einsteins contributions - Special (1905) and General (1915) Relativity - since he got the Nobel prize in 1921 it is unlikely that what you say is correct (although I will say that the prize was not directly for relativity). Immediately after Einstein's 1915 paper, Schwarzschild found (1916) a mathematical solution to the field equations contained in the paper which correspond to the gravitational field of a massive compact object. |
I mean't generaly in academic circles. But you are probably right. It all comes down to the question what can be considered as "accepted fast enough". Generaly speaking, Academics were sceptical about his work, but then again not for a long time as relativity was (and is) such a strong and correct theory that proofs came from all over. Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned this case.
Yeah, and Einstein got the Nobel prize for photoelectric effect. <-- This my go against you as his work on relativity superseeds this one by far; and he didn't get it for it.
| Quote: |
| Well, as it happens my friend is sat next to me and he is laughing hard right now. His best creation from 2002 was one which appeared on many 'believers' sites as an example of something too complex for hoaxers to have made. |
Well, I guess you are right on that.
| Quote: |
| No - these are the rules of science, full stop. Whether research, technician, teacher or whatever, science is science.
There are an infinity of things to research so why pick things which are already likely to be the work of hoaxers, new-age spiritualists or other body ? |
Agreed, again.
| Quote: |
| Non of these are known to be possibilities - all are only speculation. The stargate is not even speculation - more fantasy.... |
Agreed on that, again. But there is one more possibility: Traveling trough dimensions with assumption that there are more than 3 spacial dimensions and that such dimension-crossing is possible.
| ne2 Luka wrote: |
|
Yeah, and Einstein got the Nobel prize for photoelectric effect. <-- This my go against you as his work on relativity superseeds this one by far; and he didn't get it for it. |
Quite correct, I agree.
| Quote: |
|
Agreed on that, again. But there is one more possibility: Traveling trough dimensions with assumption that there are more than 3 spacial dimensions and that such dimension-crossing is possible. |
Theoretically, I suppose. The problem is that most theories involving multiple dimensions model them as very tiny and screwed up on themselves - a bit like a rolled up piece of paper but very very small (atomic size or even planck sized).
The wormhole hypotheses posit opening up a hole in spacetime and jumping across a shortcut, oir bending spacetime around to form a shortcut. There are two types - Lorentzian and Schwarzschild wormholes. Lorentzian wormholes rely on solutions to General relativity, but, from memory, I think all such solutions required the use of 'exotic' matter - a theoretical form of matter with negative energy density.
Schwarzschild wormholes use a vacuum solution to the Einstein field equations. Essentially it links a black hole and a white hole. You could not travel through such a thing because both ends have an event horizon and, by definition, you can only pass through one event horizon. You would, therefore, get stuck in the middle.
The solution in relativity which allows it is :
(source - wikki).
There are lots of imaginative and interesting proposals and I browse when I can but the fact is that all are extremely speculative, all are currently completely impractical and most are theoretically questionable....
Regards
Chris
i made a site that shows alot of alien shit theres may videos so see for yourself and see if its real www.freewebs.com/aliensnod
| lunatic07 wrote: |
| i made a site that shows alot of alien **** theres may videos so see for yourself and see if its real www.freewebs.com/aliensnod |
LOL....watched the first 2 vids.....quite funny...I must put a link to this on my site
Cheers
Chris
| Bikerman wrote: | ||
AC Clarke wrote a nice story on that theme - as have several other authors including Asimov for instance. Do I think it is likely ? No. Can I prove it ? No. |
Actually you can, the same way you can prove that humans didn't come from the garden of eden.
| The Conspirator wrote: | ||||
Actually you can, the same way you can prove that humans didn't come from the garden of eden. |
Can't see how you could prove either, to be honest...
Chris
| dj_don wrote: |
| Are there any solid evidence for the existence of Aliens and their high-tech UFOs?some say crop circles are formed due to UFOs,is this true?if so to what extent? |
Hi with reference to the Alien/Ufo subject..
A good book to start on this subject is:
UFO's and the National Security State
Author: Richard Dolan
This book describes the cover-up of the subject and the means of which they used.
There is more evidence to suggest the reality of ET's than there is of any god.
So how could we prove that we are being visited by an Otherworldly entity?
SIMPLE: Launch a live TV camera into space and have a constant LIVE cable channel broadcasting.
This would prove the amount of visits we actually get from space.
Would the government of the US allow this? I doubt it....
So if anybody knows how much it would cost to do such a thing and what equipment would be needed then let me know. I would like to see the UFO community get behind such a scheme and make it happen.
This would prove once and for all the reality of the ET puzzle.
I'll say it again.
The idea that the government is covering up aliens coming to earth is only an excuse for the lack of evidence.
Aliens have never visited earth.
I think the government likes people believing the government is hiding aliens. That way if some one sees a top secret experimental aircraft, they won't than "top secret experimental air craft.
The idea that the government is covering up aliens coming to earth is only an excuse for the lack of evidence.
Aliens have never visited earth.
I think the government likes people believing the government is hiding aliens. That way if some one sees a top secret experimental aircraft, they won't than "top secret experimental air craft.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| I'll say it again.
The idea that the government is covering up aliens coming to earth is only an excuse for the lack of evidence. Aliens have never visited earth. I think the government likes people believing the government is hiding aliens. That way if some one sees a top secret experimental aircraft, they won't than "top secret experimental air craft. |
I have the privilege of having friends in military organisations US Navy and UK Army photographic branches. They have said that most of the sightings recorded are secret projects, although a small percentage are not. I have seen photographic evidence that is amazing in it's content e.g craft of an amazing size that could not be of human origin as we would not be able to get it off the ground nevermind hide it from public view.
Also if we do have the ability of Anti-Gravity propulsion. Why do the US still persist with the 70's technology of the Space shuttle?
For the truth go to : http://www.disclosureproject.org/
ALSO some good clips:
http://teezgaff.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/images/bulgaria.mpeg
http://teezgaff.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/images/ufo.mpg
Turn up your sound and listen for any edits.......
| Rymdpingvin wrote: |
| Haha! You guys got to see this!
http://www.cowabduction.com/ I really like the interview with the eyewitnesses! "cow-terrorism".... hehe |
That's really funny!
Obviously it's not true, but it is very good. I like it a lot, thanks for the link
LOL... Love the camo jackets...
Too be serious though I do think the abductions are carried out by the military to track the effects of radiation from the Nevada nuclear tests.
Too be serious though I do think the abductions are carried out by the military to track the effects of radiation from the Nevada nuclear tests.
Teezgaff: If you search the internet you can find "proof" for anything you won't. Aliens, ghosts, possession. You will fins images videos and testimonies, 90% of which is fake, made by ass holes who laugh at all the people who think they are real.
There is no evidence that alien have ever visited earth and if they ever do, it won;t be to watch us, abduct and experiment on us or for any benevolent reason.
There is no evidence that alien have ever visited earth and if they ever do, it won;t be to watch us, abduct and experiment on us or for any benevolent reason.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| Teezgaff: If you search the internet you can find "proof" for anything you won't. Aliens, ghosts, possession. You will fins images videos and testimonies, 90% of which is fake, made by *** holes who laugh at all the people who think they are real.
There is no evidence that alien have ever visited earth and if they ever do, it won;t be to watch us, abduct and experiment on us or for any benevolent reason. |
Do you believe the loch ness monster exists?
NO ?
Neither did I.
I took this last July
Right.
Teezgaff, why is your picture in black and white? 99.99999% of all pictures taken these days are in colour. Only very old cameras (I'm talking about seriously old - and you wouldn't have used one for this) take black and white pictures. So why is your picture of what ever it is in black and white? Perhaps because you edited it? That looks like you drew it on? Or maybe to make it look more like traditional lock ness monster?
And if you did actually take that picture and not edit it (and of course you didn't): do you seriously believe that you really saw a lock ness monster? Even if there was, it's almost certainly not going to look like that.
Perhaps this is something more like the original photo:
It's easy to edit images like that, especialy when they're in black and white. I did this on paint.
And if you did actually take that picture and not edit it (and of course you didn't): do you seriously believe that you really saw a lock ness monster? Even if there was, it's almost certainly not going to look like that.
Perhaps this is something more like the original photo:
It's easy to edit images like that, especialy when they're in black and white. I did this on paint.
To answer your questions.....
1. The picture is not FAKE...
2. The reason it's B/W is because it was taken with a crappy disposable confetti wedding camera.
3. If I thought the animal was gonna hang around I would have got my digital SLR out of my camera bag.
4. With most things unexpected I wasn't looking for the MONSTER I was taking a leisure cruise on the loch.
5. Fortunately I didn't use a digi camera because I now have negatives to prove the authenticity of the image, although contrasty because of low grade chinese film.
6. The animal was atleast 20-25ft long. The cruiser I was on was also around 25ft long. Use a litle triangulation and the size of the animal can be calculated.
7. The animal was a greeny/brown colour and was in view for around 10-15 seconds from initial sighting.
1. The picture is not FAKE...
2. The reason it's B/W is because it was taken with a crappy disposable confetti wedding camera.
3. If I thought the animal was gonna hang around I would have got my digital SLR out of my camera bag.
4. With most things unexpected I wasn't looking for the MONSTER I was taking a leisure cruise on the loch.
5. Fortunately I didn't use a digi camera because I now have negatives to prove the authenticity of the image, although contrasty because of low grade chinese film.
6. The animal was atleast 20-25ft long. The cruiser I was on was also around 25ft long. Use a litle triangulation and the size of the animal can be calculated.
7. The animal was a greeny/brown colour and was in view for around 10-15 seconds from initial sighting.
No offense, but I think it's a fake too. If nessy does exist, then I'm sure that there would have been hard evidence by now. With today's technology, I don't see how they couldn't find something that resembles an enourmous dinosaur in a lake. If they ever did, it would be on the news for weeks.
Back with the aliens and whatnot, I wouldn't believe that stuff unless I witnessed it personally or it's broadcasted live on the news or something. From the images and videos I have seen, it looks easily faked...
If nessy does exist, then I'm sure that there would have been hard evidence by now. With today's technology, I don't see how they couldn't find something that resembles an enourmous dinosaur in a lake. If they ever did, it would be on the news for weeks.
Back with the aliens and whatnot, I wouldn't believe that stuff unless I witnessed it personally or it's broadcasted live on the news or something. From the images and videos I have seen, it looks easily faked...
| Rad Ultima 2 wrote: |
| No offense, but I think it's a fake too. If nessy does exist, then I'm sure that there would have been hard evidence by now. With today's technology, I don't see how they couldn't find something that resembles an enourmous dinosaur in a lake. If they ever did, it would be on the news for weeks.
Back with the aliens and whatnot, I wouldn't believe that stuff unless I witnessed it personally or it's broadcasted live on the news or something. From the images and videos I have seen, it looks easily faked... |
A couple of facts about the loch:-
Loch Ness is the largest body of fresh water in Britain.
(1) There is more water in Loch Ness than all the other lakes in England, Scotland and Wales put together.
(2) It is around twenty two and a half miles long and between one and one and a half miles wide, a depth of 754 feet with the bottom of the loch being as flat as a bowling green.
(3) It holds 263 thousand million cubic feet of water which is around 16 million 430 thousand million gallons of water with a surface area of 14000 acres and could hold the population of the world 10 times over.
A 25ft animal could easily roam around in there.
If you did see something amazing land in you backyard. How could you prove it? And do you believe everything in the news?
A 25 foot animal but for one to have existed as long as the legend there would have to be more than one, there would have to be enough to have a big enough gene pool to sustain a population and if they existed, we would know it, it wouldn't be legend, it would be fact. And, you fooling no one with that picture. ether you faked it of you found it, ether way, its fake.
I've got to say that when I was removing 'nessie' from that picture it did look quite like it had been drawn on with the paint brush tool.
I understand what you're saying about the lake; yes I know it's huge. BUT there would have to be a small population of them living there, so that they could reproduce - as one creature would have died by now (unless it's seriously different to everything we've ever come across before and can survive for centuries). Now, you give that fact about the depth of the lake, and the floor being flat. How do we know that? Because people have been down there and pretty much searched the whole of the bottom of the lake, but they didn't see anything.
I have to add something to your side of the argument, just to expose all the facts. The water of lock ness is not very clear. In fact it's pretty murky. There's enough light and visibility down there to go diving and be able to see things around you, but it's not like being in a swimming pool: you can't see from one end to the other. But 99% of the known to be true facts point against it, just as they do with the visiting of aliens. Yes, I believe that there is a small chance that there really is a lock ness monster, and that there is a small chance that aliens have come to earth. But how small do you think that chance is? Minusculey tiny, almost impossible.
If there was a lock ness monster it would have to be able to become invisible, it's skin would have to be of such a texture that when it was hit with sonar/radar waves the beams were scattered and not returned to the transmitter. It would need to come up for something, maybe vitamin D from the sun, and when doing this it would have to have the need to be visible. It would also have to be very conserving and only catch and eat fish (if that's what it eats) when it's hungry, and eat the whole thing. If it's a herbivore then it would have to leave no trace on any of the plants that it's eaten that it ever took a bite there. And it would have to be able to move through the water creating almost no ripples. It would also have to be able to take several forms, if some of the stories about it that account conflicting descriptions are true.
Also consider this: what you saw may not have been the 'lock ness monster', you might have seen some other object or objects floating in the water before sinking again. Furthermore, many hundreds of people have spent time making fake lock ness monsters and putting them in the lake, are you sure this wasn't just someone joking around? And what was the response of everyone else on the boat?
Please would you describe how it acted for the 10-15 seconds that it was visible? Was it bobbing about on the spot or moving along? How did it appear and re-submerge? And anything else that it did... Thanks.
I understand what you're saying about the lake; yes I know it's huge. BUT there would have to be a small population of them living there, so that they could reproduce - as one creature would have died by now (unless it's seriously different to everything we've ever come across before and can survive for centuries). Now, you give that fact about the depth of the lake, and the floor being flat. How do we know that? Because people have been down there and pretty much searched the whole of the bottom of the lake, but they didn't see anything.
I have to add something to your side of the argument, just to expose all the facts. The water of lock ness is not very clear. In fact it's pretty murky. There's enough light and visibility down there to go diving and be able to see things around you, but it's not like being in a swimming pool: you can't see from one end to the other. But 99% of the known to be true facts point against it, just as they do with the visiting of aliens. Yes, I believe that there is a small chance that there really is a lock ness monster, and that there is a small chance that aliens have come to earth. But how small do you think that chance is? Minusculey tiny, almost impossible.
If there was a lock ness monster it would have to be able to become invisible, it's skin would have to be of such a texture that when it was hit with sonar/radar waves the beams were scattered and not returned to the transmitter. It would need to come up for something, maybe vitamin D from the sun, and when doing this it would have to have the need to be visible. It would also have to be very conserving and only catch and eat fish (if that's what it eats) when it's hungry, and eat the whole thing. If it's a herbivore then it would have to leave no trace on any of the plants that it's eaten that it ever took a bite there. And it would have to be able to move through the water creating almost no ripples. It would also have to be able to take several forms, if some of the stories about it that account conflicting descriptions are true.
Also consider this: what you saw may not have been the 'lock ness monster', you might have seen some other object or objects floating in the water before sinking again. Furthermore, many hundreds of people have spent time making fake lock ness monsters and putting them in the lake, are you sure this wasn't just someone joking around? And what was the response of everyone else on the boat?
Please would you describe how it acted for the 10-15 seconds that it was visible? Was it bobbing about on the spot or moving along? How did it appear and re-submerge? And anything else that it did... Thanks.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| A 25 foot animal but for one to have existed as long as the legend there would have to be more than one, there would have to be enough to have a big enough gene pool to sustain a population and if they existed, we would know it, it wouldn't be legend, it would be fact. And, you fooling no one with that picture. ether you faked it of you found it, ether way, its fake. |
Err....wot he said.
Chris
Hi Ninjakanon, glad to see some constructive criticism....
Animal caught in corner of eye, looked like a floating log to start with. As I watched (thinking it was debris) the right hand side lifted. I initially thought "oh a log rolling around in the current". Looking awaya at this point talking to a friend. He turned and said "look at that!". Looking again the head was crooked as the classic nessie pictures portray. At that point I realised it was something unusual and proceeded to get the camera from my pocket and take the picture. Within, say 10 seconds of this the animal just totally submerged.
All I can say is, I don't think it was a dinosaur as such. To me it looked like a large eel like a conger. Although from that distance I couldn't make out the usual fronds they have around their lips like a cat fish or other bottom feeders. I can't imagine it eats fish as there aren't that many in the loch to fish for, also it's a fresh water lake.
I just wish now I had grabbed my SLR and got a closer view of it (300MM lens). In the same vein though I'm glad as I have negatives to confirm the event. I have no reason to decieve as I'm a photographer with military experience and am making no money from the image (and don't need it).
I'm just happy sharing it with people who are interested.
Animal caught in corner of eye, looked like a floating log to start with. As I watched (thinking it was debris) the right hand side lifted. I initially thought "oh a log rolling around in the current". Looking awaya at this point talking to a friend. He turned and said "look at that!". Looking again the head was crooked as the classic nessie pictures portray. At that point I realised it was something unusual and proceeded to get the camera from my pocket and take the picture. Within, say 10 seconds of this the animal just totally submerged.
All I can say is, I don't think it was a dinosaur as such. To me it looked like a large eel like a conger. Although from that distance I couldn't make out the usual fronds they have around their lips like a cat fish or other bottom feeders. I can't imagine it eats fish as there aren't that many in the loch to fish for, also it's a fresh water lake.
I just wish now I had grabbed my SLR and got a closer view of it (300MM lens). In the same vein though I'm glad as I have negatives to confirm the event. I have no reason to decieve as I'm a photographer with military experience and am making no money from the image (and don't need it).
I'm just happy sharing it with people who are interested.
Well, I'm not quite sure what to make of it. There is a chance that it is simply a large eel - maybe it looked bigger than it was. Or perhaps you were [subconsciously] anticipating a sighting of the monster, and when you saw this 'large eel' in the water, your mind made it look bigger, as you expected it to be bigger. I'm just making up a story here, but if it was some animal that people expected to see in the lake, then when divers and other people went down there, they would just ignore a rather large eel. Perhaps it's a different species of eel but no one's ever bothered to have a closer look at one 
Whatever it is that so many people claim to have seen, it certainly makes some people a bit of cash, and keeps everyone talking.
Whatever it is that so many people claim to have seen, it certainly makes some people a bit of cash, and keeps everyone talking.
| Teezgaff wrote: |
|
I just wish now I had grabbed my SLR and got a closer view of it (300MM lens). In the same vein though I'm glad as I have negatives to confirm the event. I have no reason to decieve as I'm a photographer with military experience and am making no money from the image (and don't need it). I'm just happy sharing it with people who are interested. |
I have just run it through photoshop with a few enhancement filters and I have to say that it looks dodgy to me. The original is too low res for any really fancy analysis so I'll reserve comment...if you have a high res image (png or high quality jpg) then I'll stick it through some filters I have installed and attempt to enhance it.
Chris
Yeah, I thought the same, Bikerman. It really looks like it's been drawn on with the paint brush tool to me. I hope Teezgaff has a higher res copy of the image, but I bet you anything (this is just an expression and I'm not gonna give anything away if I'm wront) he hasn't got another copy of the pic in a higher res. 
| ninjakannon wrote: |
| Yeah, I thought the same, Bikerman. It really looks like it's been drawn on with the paint brush tool to me. I hope Teezgaff has a higher res copy of the image, but I bet you anything (this is just an expression and I'm not gonna give anything away if I'm wront) he hasn't got another copy of the pic in a higher res. |
I have.... PM ur email addy and I'll send it 2 u..
OK...I've applied what I can to the image and the conclusion is :
a) I suspect that some after-shot touching up has been done and that the image has been added. The granularity of the photo in general is wrong - it is pixellated in a manner produced by editing software. This could, of course, be a result of the method you used to transfer the photo to net, but is normally indicative of after-shot editing.
b) The image is certainly not consistent with a live animal of any sort. The image boundary with the background and the lack of any wake/wave trail would suggest it is stationary with regard to the scene. The outline of the image is not consistent with an animal (even a proposed animal from the cryptozoology fraternity).
c) I can't be definitive since even the better image is too low-res/grainy to enhance much beyond about 10x and even at that magnification it requires a lot of tweeking which itself introduces possible error...
I'm perfectly willing to believe you if you say you took it and have not tampered with it - I have no reason to doubt your word. I would point out that the last 'definitive' Nessie photo was the famous 'Surgeon's Photo' which has only recently been admitted to have been a hoax by the son of the hoaxer...
Regards
Chris
a) I suspect that some after-shot touching up has been done and that the image has been added. The granularity of the photo in general is wrong - it is pixellated in a manner produced by editing software. This could, of course, be a result of the method you used to transfer the photo to net, but is normally indicative of after-shot editing.
b) The image is certainly not consistent with a live animal of any sort. The image boundary with the background and the lack of any wake/wave trail would suggest it is stationary with regard to the scene. The outline of the image is not consistent with an animal (even a proposed animal from the cryptozoology fraternity).
c) I can't be definitive since even the better image is too low-res/grainy to enhance much beyond about 10x and even at that magnification it requires a lot of tweeking which itself introduces possible error...
I'm perfectly willing to believe you if you say you took it and have not tampered with it - I have no reason to doubt your word. I would point out that the last 'definitive' Nessie photo was the famous 'Surgeon's Photo' which has only recently been admitted to have been a hoax by the son of the hoaxer...
Regards
Chris
| Bikerman wrote: |
| OK...I've applied what I can to the image and the conclusion is :
a) I suspect that some after-shot touching up has been done and that the image has been added. The granularity of the photo in general is wrong - it is pixellated in a manner produced by editing software. This could, of course, be a result of the method you used to transfer the photo to net, but is normally indicative of after-shot editing. b) The image is certainly not consistent with a live animal of any sort. The image boundary with the background and the lack of any wake/wave trail would suggest it is stationary with regard to the scene. The outline of the image is not consistent with an animal (even a proposed animal from the cryptozoology fraternity). c) I can't be definitive since even the better image is too low-res/grainy to enhance much beyond about 10x and even at that magnification it requires a lot of tweeking which itself introduces possible error... I'm perfectly willing to believe you if you say you took it and have not tampered with it - I have no reason to doubt your word. I would point out that the last 'definitive' Nessie photo was the famous 'Surgeon's Photo' which has only recently been admitted to have been a hoax by the son of the hoaxer... Regards Chris |
Thanks for the analysis of the photo...
I'm trying to get a better scan for you, although the negs have been badly processed and crappy chinese film stock..
Even on the light table the animal looks solid compared to the rest of the image.. Really bad contrast effects..
| Teezgaff wrote: |
|
Thanks for the analysis of the photo... I'm trying to get a better scan for you, although the negs have been badly processed and crappy chinese film stock.. Even on the light table the animal looks solid compared to the rest of the image.. Really bad contrast effects.. |
No problem - nobody would be more delighted than me if it WAS a monster. I just remain very sceptical (as always) since that's a prerequisite for anyone professing support for science :-)
Good luck
Chris
| Bikerman wrote: |
| No problem - nobody would be more delighted than me if it WAS a monster. I just remain very sceptical (as always) since that's a prerequisite for anyone professing support for science
Good luck Chris |
Hey, I've found your monster. I took a trip up to loch ness today and guess what I saw. I just uploaded the low res copy to imageshack.us, if you want to see the high res one, just ask me and I'll send it to you in a PM, I wouldn't want to lag up this thread any more with high res pics.
Here's the low res pic:
So what do you think, it's totally got to prove the existance of (yes, I was just about to write "God"...) THE LOCH NESS MONSTER!!! Try anything you like to prove that this isn't authentic and you'll fail, Bikerman. Yes, I have finally caught the loch ness monster on camera.
I'm convinced.
I've obviously wasted my life ignoring the obvious. Tragic...
I'm off down to the local canal to see if I can video a monster before they head off on their Autumn migration to Neptune.
Regards
Chris
I've obviously wasted my life ignoring the obvious. Tragic...
I'm off down to the local canal to see if I can video a monster before they head off on their Autumn migration to Neptune.
Regards
Chris
| Bikerman wrote: |
| I'm convinced.
I've obviously wasted my life ignoring the obvious. Tragic... I'm off down to the local canal to see if I can video a monster before they head off on their Autumn migration to Neptune. |
Yeah, you'd better be quick.
Hey, when you're famous mention my name will you.
A note to everyone. If Bikerman believes it's real, IT IS REAL. And you knew us before we were famous.
Even if any aliens are present in some corner of the universe, I don’t think anyone came in our earth, and I don’t think even there is a remote chance of their trip to earth in near future. All the UFO like objects are created by different countries secret research team for different purpose. Otherwise why most of the UFOs were seen only in some specific countries?
| mdhruba wrote: |
| Otherwise why most of the UFOs were seen only in some specific countries? |
Culture. If there is a large belief in UFOs than allot of people will see UFOs, if there is a small or no belief in UFOs than few will see (very few, like 1% in caparison to a culture that has a large belief in UFOs.)
Its like the alien abduction crap, here in the Us there are a bunch of people who claimed to have been abducted by aliens but thats cause its in our culture, its in our movies, on TV and even has shows that ask if its real but in country's were there are fewer or no cultural references to alien abduction, few of non claim to have been abducted. Just as in places and times when there was a wide belief in succubus's and incubuses, there were people who claimed to have been attacked by a succubus or an incubus, no one believes in them any more so no one claims to have been attacked by one.
Hey I think that the circles that we can see on the fields cannot be taken like an evidence of UFO, because there are so many others and much probable possibilities. But nobody can say where is the true. These circles are really amazingly accurate and I don´t think that some people has so many time to do a perfect circle on the field. But on the other side, why is the evidence of UFO existing so small? I think this question will be open for a long time, because the extraterrestrial intelligence doesn´t want to show us their beaty:)
| redace wrote: |
| Hey I think that the circles that we can see on the fields cannot be taken like an evidence of UFO, because there are so many others and much probable possibilities. But nobody can say where is the true. These circles are really amazingly accurate and I don´t think that some people has so many time to do a perfect circle on the field. But on the other side, why is the evidence of UFO existing so small? I think this question will be open for a long time, because the extraterrestrial intelligence doesn´t want to show us their beaty:) |
Well. as I have previously said, I know one of the guys who can do such circles and has done repeatedly. The question is not really open - only those who want to believe are still claiming that there is something paranormal about the circles - the scientific community has no problem believing the hoaxers are the cause - they repeatedly tell us so, so it why would you want to disbelieve them ?
Wikki has the following :
| Quote: |
| Circlemakers.org, perhaps the best-known group of contemporary crop circle makers, was founded by John Lundberg. Circlemakers have demonstrated that making what self-appointed cerealogist experts state are "unfakeable" crop circles is possible. One such cerealogist, G. Terence Meaden, was filmed claiming that a crop circle was genuine when the night before the making of that crop circle by humans was filmed. On the night of July 11-12, 1992, a crop-circle making competition, for a prize of several thousand pounds (partly funded by the Arthur Koestler Foundation), was held in Berkshire. The winning entry was produced by three helicopter engineers, using rope, PVC pipe, a trestle and a ladder. Another competitor used a small garden roller, a plank and some rope. Minimal equipment and preparation sufficed to produce even the most complex crop circle designs. |
Regards
Chris
I don't think that UFOs or aliens have visited Earth without any solid proof. But I do believe that they do exist, though. I just don't think that aliens, abductiing human beings is anything true. I also don't believe in crop circles - People seem to underestimate what humans can do.
Who knows man. this topic is so controversial. Some say that there is evidence, and others claim that it's false. Who's right and who's wrong? could they both be either at the same time? If you are not a strong believer like some, you will always hear things from one side and the other. What they have in common is that they'll both try to convince you, through either psychological or physical evidence, that they are right, and this applies with pretty much any controversial topic (religion, etc...). In this case evidence of alien life. yeah man, good luck finding the answer to your question.
| carlospro7 wrote: |
| luck finding the answer to your question |
carlospro7, I don't think the object of this thread is to find the answer to the question by which it is entitled. Rather, to discuss the ideas and proofs behind the matter.
Also, I don't think it's really that controversial, just very interesting, though provoking and perhaps complicated. There's nothing controversial about it.
Personally I don't even find it particularly thought provoking either.
The controversy is largely an illusion produced by equating numbers with quality. A quick Google will throw up thousands of metaphysical and quasi-scientific sites, theories, statements and experiences. To the untutored this may appear as evidence in itself since surely if so many people believe in the phenomena then there must be something in it.
This is a classical fallacy - known as the 'Argumentum ad Populum' (Appeal to Numbers).
A few hundred years ago the vast majority of people 'knew' that the world was around 6000 thousand years old, was either flat or shaped like a tabernacle and was the centre of the universe.
As Galileo is supposed to have said at the time (he didn't - but I like the quote) - 'My lord Bishop instructs me that the world is still, yet even should he call as witness every saint there has been and every man on the earth I should still reply the same and I tell you: it moves'.
(In fact he was not nearly brave enough to say such a thing and recanted his opinion when the Pope started to get a bit impatient with him in around 1630. The stories of Galileo standing up to the Church and refusing to back down, even after being threatened with torture or even death, are myths and for once I tend to sympathise with the church a little because Galileo did everything he could to stir it up before matters came to a head. It is true that he was questioned under 'threat of torture' but that was standard operating procedure in all cases of suspected heresy and consisted of showing the accused the instruments of torture before questioning. He was never actually tortured). In fact Galileo was always on dodgy ground because he was arguing in favour of the Coppernican model of the universe which was pretty useless. The Jesuits pointed out several valid problems with his model and Galileo was quite dishonest in his reply and tried to confuse the issue rather than accept that his model was fundamentally flawed. Quite ironic given the fact that we now regard him as the great defender of truth against the repressive and dogmatic church. The truth is a little less black and white and in some senses the Church was actually correct in both the evaluation of Galileo's treatise on the matter and their assertion that it contained major errors. The church was, of course, completely out of order in then burying the whole issue for as long as it did by introducing the 'prescribed list', but it was certainly not as simple as it is often portrayed, even by supposed historians.
Coppernicus was a weasly, timid little man and, despite the fact that everyone now thinks he sorted out the whole picutre of the universe, he actually did nothing of the sort. He was a third rate scholar, and made numerous mistakes in his model because he refused to actually check by looking in a telescope, preferring instead to rely on the ancient Greek texts from ancient history. In fact his much praised 'heliocentric' model was pretty much a copy of the Greek model from more than 1500 years previously - why he has been accorded the status he now enjoys is a mystery to me....
Anyway, I digress.
Regards
Chris.
The controversy is largely an illusion produced by equating numbers with quality. A quick Google will throw up thousands of metaphysical and quasi-scientific sites, theories, statements and experiences. To the untutored this may appear as evidence in itself since surely if so many people believe in the phenomena then there must be something in it.
This is a classical fallacy - known as the 'Argumentum ad Populum' (Appeal to Numbers).
A few hundred years ago the vast majority of people 'knew' that the world was around 6000 thousand years old, was either flat or shaped like a tabernacle and was the centre of the universe.
As Galileo is supposed to have said at the time (he didn't - but I like the quote) - 'My lord Bishop instructs me that the world is still, yet even should he call as witness every saint there has been and every man on the earth I should still reply the same and I tell you: it moves'.
(In fact he was not nearly brave enough to say such a thing and recanted his opinion when the Pope started to get a bit impatient with him in around 1630. The stories of Galileo standing up to the Church and refusing to back down, even after being threatened with torture or even death, are myths and for once I tend to sympathise with the church a little because Galileo did everything he could to stir it up before matters came to a head. It is true that he was questioned under 'threat of torture' but that was standard operating procedure in all cases of suspected heresy and consisted of showing the accused the instruments of torture before questioning. He was never actually tortured). In fact Galileo was always on dodgy ground because he was arguing in favour of the Coppernican model of the universe which was pretty useless. The Jesuits pointed out several valid problems with his model and Galileo was quite dishonest in his reply and tried to confuse the issue rather than accept that his model was fundamentally flawed. Quite ironic given the fact that we now regard him as the great defender of truth against the repressive and dogmatic church. The truth is a little less black and white and in some senses the Church was actually correct in both the evaluation of Galileo's treatise on the matter and their assertion that it contained major errors. The church was, of course, completely out of order in then burying the whole issue for as long as it did by introducing the 'prescribed list', but it was certainly not as simple as it is often portrayed, even by supposed historians.
Coppernicus was a weasly, timid little man and, despite the fact that everyone now thinks he sorted out the whole picutre of the universe, he actually did nothing of the sort. He was a third rate scholar, and made numerous mistakes in his model because he refused to actually check by looking in a telescope, preferring instead to rely on the ancient Greek texts from ancient history. In fact his much praised 'heliocentric' model was pretty much a copy of the Greek model from more than 1500 years previously - why he has been accorded the status he now enjoys is a mystery to me....
Anyway, I digress.
Regards
Chris.
It isn't totally impossible for aliens to exist. We need water to survive. But that's just on earth. Maybe other planets, these aliens don't need water but something else. And I have this theory that Aliens are actually on earth, they look human. But they were sent to observe us, destory us, etc. They've been on our planet for very long. They started a myth about aliens. That they are green, slimy, big head. So while we get paranoid with that, they could continue their work without disturbance or detection.
| chastise wrote: |
| It isn't totally impossible for aliens to exist. |
I don't think anyone is saying otherwise....
| Quote: |
| We need water to survive. But that's just on earth. Maybe other planets, these aliens don't need water but something else. |
Possible, true.
| Quote: |
| And I have this theory that Aliens are actually on earth, they look human. But they were sent to observe us, destory us, etc. They've been on our planet for very long. They started a myth about aliens. That they are green, slimy, big head. So while we get paranoid with that, they could continue their work without disturbance or detection. |
That would be a hypothesis rather than a theory since I know of no evidence (observation or experiment) which would support it.
Regards
Chris
Once, I saw an alien, but it was a just mirror. Hmm...
I believe in UFO's because i do not think that god had been created the whole universe to serve only human beeings that exists on the earth ,this very small planet that like a tiny drop of water in a very large ocean .
I saw much greate videos and photos tring to evidence the existance of elians and their UFO's
I think most of these videos and photos are fake and their is no solid evidence for the existance of elians and UFO's
Once I saw a film titeled UFO's Above and Beyond and in the 45 minutes of the film there is much evidence to say that UFO's exist with no doubt. But I really know that they exist but we have no real solid evidence
I saw much greate videos and photos tring to evidence the existance of elians and their UFO's
I think most of these videos and photos are fake and their is no solid evidence for the existance of elians and UFO's
Once I saw a film titeled UFO's Above and Beyond and in the 45 minutes of the film there is much evidence to say that UFO's exist with no doubt. But I really know that they exist but we have no real solid evidence
| Quote: |
| their is no solid evidence for the existance of elians and UFO's |
You mean none what so ever.
I have no doubt that there is life and intelligent life out there, they have never visited earth. No UFO is an alien ship.
The show Is It Real coming on this Saturday at 9PM EST on the National Geographic Channel, the episode is about alien astronauts.
If you don't know what the show is, its a show that talks about UFOs ghosts, crop circles, psychic powers and so on, unlike other whose like it it gives equal time to those who believe in these things and those who do give very little time to the real exerts or those show who's sole purpose is to debunk these things with very little consideration of them.
Do if you believe this aliens visited earth in the past and influenced human culture, watch this show and see as real experts tear apart, destroy, shatter and crush into a point so small that become a black hole the pseudo archeology of alien astronauts.
If you don't know what the show is, its a show that talks about UFOs ghosts, crop circles, psychic powers and so on, unlike other whose like it it gives equal time to those who believe in these things and those who do give very little time to the real exerts or those show who's sole purpose is to debunk these things with very little consideration of them.
Do if you believe this aliens visited earth in the past and influenced human culture, watch this show and see as real experts tear apart, destroy, shatter and crush into a point so small that become a black hole the pseudo archeology of alien astronauts.
 |