SamBridge

The chances of them being aliens are one in an unimaginably large number, that's it. Any other terrestrial explanation is possible, even meteors or natural astronomical phenomena. A meteor hitting Earth has a greater chance that life forming in the first place. I have no problem with aliens existing as the universe may be infinitely large anyway, however there is not enough evidence to say they have visited Earth. I like the video, it's put together and narrated well and a long time ago before I ran across many possible explanations I might have believed it, but some mystery objects in the sky that we over time one by one reveal to in no way be alien-made objects isn't going to cut it. Except they do make sense, you just don't want to accept that. You think that just because it's possible for aliens to exist means we must rule out all other possible explanations. I watched that video, the first point, the first video clip with the pilot seeing metallic disks looks like it could have been birds, but considering the speeds you would be surprised what type of experimental aerial technology was being worked on all over the world. As it turns out. In the time of world wars, experimental technology got a large boost, and even now it's more open to ideas than ever if you just look at all the new patented designs for tools they have. There are possible tricks of the lens, http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/09/ufo-or-lens-flare-in-google-street-view-you-decide/ It's also possible for shapes to reflect their relatively exact shape onto a surface and in different warped views. If you just play around with your ipod or iphone in sunlight, there's certain angles where you can make a nearly perfect rectangle, and other angles it can be warped. "How could a wingless object fly?" Thrusters. Technology that is still being experimented with today, especially if you look at rockets. It would be much more efficient to not have wings because then you can just have a smooth object that flows through the air at high speeds, where-as normally wings would increase the surface area and may cause problems, and now they are even doing it with plasma, http://gizmodo.com/346937/plasma-thruster-powered-cigarette-sized-unmanned-aerial-vehicles-to-take-to-the-skies You should also consider that even if a military base isn't carrying out some sinister experiment, it legally has to do it's best to keep a lot of it's secrets or people in it could face charges of treason, unless of course they are told to address it and provide information such as with drones, treason can get you executed, or at least it could in the 20th century. So they didn't care that their technology like this http://articles.latimes.com/1990-02-27/business/fi-1420_1_stealth-blimp is mistaken for UFOs. http://www.thestealthblimp.com/ Flying disks could have at last at some point have been experimental military technology, the military and air force of multiple countries would have obviously been looking for stealthy or fast ways to deliver bombs, possible without personnel. I will admit that though clouds and pelicans could not have traveled at such high speeds.

Your problem seems to be confusing an answer with a possibility. We don't know what it was, but that doesn't mean we don't have possibilities. If I lock in man in a room with a bag with 99 green marbles and 1 red marble, if all I know is that he picked some kind of marble from the bag, I can say with certainty he had a 99% chance of picking a green one, which is pretty likely.

That depends on who's defining them.

Are you kidding me? You think a bird or a weather balloon or an experiment is impossible but you think aliens are more probable? You're too deep into this, you need to take a step back and realize what you're saying. That's almost trolling, I obviously did not state they could do math, it is unlikely observers would spontaneously at a random moment of a random day be able to get equipment out to measure it's exact speed.

I think the problem with a lingual theory of everything is even if it's purely logical and flawless, without scientific testing it could be 100% wrong. If you just look at string theory there's all sorts of maths for it, logical maths that seem to make sense, yet we cannot find any direct evidence.

My education in graphic design does not cause me to become a graphic designer. People can ignore ethics or follow it as they choose, this is not typical of the existence of something real, you cannot choose to make a real object exist or not exist at will, but at any moment you can decide what your ethics are and decide they are right or wrong or ignore them. Education is merely the summation of observed patterns put into terms of oral human language, the patterns themselves exist even if language is something we made up.

Aerial technology was being worked on in the 1950s. http://library.thinkquest.org/C002733/History/timeline.htm This is where you're wrong. Not only did I specifically not ​dismiss the possibility which you can see at the bottom of post 38, but just because we can't confirm what something is doesn't mean we can't have a plausible explanation and doesn't mean we should assume it's some outlandish supernatural/extraterrestrial phenomena. Regardless of the fact that we can't confirm what it is, there are at least 5 other more plausible explanations, you could argue that the picture is evidence that people experimented with weather balloons, you could use it as evidence that the military was experimenting with aerial technology, you could use it as evidence people liked playing with giant Frisbee in the 1950s, all more likely than aliens. This doesn't have to do with confirming what an object is, it has to do with the fact that there's a 1/10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 chance it was aliens and a much larger chance it was something from Earth. "Kenneth Arnold saw several Metallic discs traveling at 1800 mph go past Mt. Rainier in a line. Ornithologists say pelicans often fly in a line and the sun can reflect off them so the objects must have been pelicans... flying at 1800 mph..", not considering experimental military technology for a moment, how did he measure it was going that fast?

Very well. "I don't think I said anywhere that you can "override your physiology", but it is still true that you have a limited range..." post #23 "But according to what I measure, it seems you can in fact not only slow your heart rate down to a limited extent at will" post #15 " but so far I haven't been able to slow it to lower than 60 beats per minute so I shouldn't have to worry about that. 60 beats per minute by the way is y resting heart rate," post #15 "I still know that to some (not indefinite) extent I did control the heart rate. The limitation of this ability is unknown, I was not able to slow it down past the resting heart rate" post #30 I also did not state in the first post that I said or thought it was possible to have unlimited or indefinite control, I meant any amount of control at all, as I was not aware you had any measurable amount of "alteration" at will in any form before I conducted trials. Do you understand my context now?

I could very well say the same about you . Now your not even debating science, you're just trying to find any way you can to find something negative to say about me.

That easily looks like it could be a blimp or weather balloon, most likely a weather balloon or some kind of weather monitoring device, I would speculate at most it was an experimental design to see if weather balloons or flotation devices could be used to keep watch of things from the sky, a precursor to drones or stealth blimps, or just a home made experiment which I have seen done before, at first glance that's what I thought it was, not a UFO. I need something more than a random distant object, it's like those lochness monster photos, if there was a picture of one from less than 10 meters away with the object on the ground that was proven to not be fake I'd be less skeptical. I believe the object in the photo is real, but I think there are more plausible explanations than a UFO created by etxtra-terrestrial life that by a 1/100000^1000000000000000000000000000000000 chance were formed and then evolved and then created advanced space technology then out of another 1/1000000000000^100000000000000 chance found Earth.

Now you're just arguing semantics so you can avoid admitting you made a mistake. It is easily to translate alter at will for control. However, I continued and continued and continued and continued and continued and continued and continued to specify that there were limitations to the control, which you apparently ignored, thus your point is invalid anyway.

My original claim was that I can control my heart rate in such a way that I can lower it at will, I did not state that I could raise it or lower it indefinitely to 0, but merely that I can lower it by some clearly measurable amount. Do you disagree that this is physically possible?

if it was fragmented some of it's energy would be lost from pieces burning up in the atmosphere. It is completely natural for meteors to explode on their own from sudden heating due to atmospheric friction. Anyway, I like alternative news sources when it comes to politics, but when it comes to science, I'm not so sure about them.

This is where it doesn't make sense. I've seen you around the site and normally you make good logical points, I don't see why you are acting illogical all of a sudden. Those things can absolutely account for what has been claimed to have been seen, and they are far more plausible than aliens. I looked at those links, they could easily be a complex clouds and tricks of the lens and light, relative perspective of objects of how they are lined up, experimental military crafts which of course the military would want to hide knowledge about if it would advance their operations in any way. Just because it's unidentified doesn't mean there can't be a theory about it. We have never observed or identified a single object in space that is on it's own a black hole, all we can see is the gas swirling around what we think is one, yet we have all sorts of physics that can accurately model the behavior we suspect of it. The fact that it is unknown exactly what it is does not rule out plausible explanations. In fact, it encourages us to look through them. If your arguement is "it's possible", I can't really disagree with that, all I can do is tell you it's hghly unlikely given what we know. 1000 years ago you would have been taken seriously if you said you saw a spirit floating in the sky. Now we know it was likely ball lightning.

Except the problem with your point is in my trials I only need the knowledge of one significant digit to have accuracy to confirm if my heart rate is high or low. It is scientifically accurate because I use a consistent form of measurement that has results which approach the accuracy that more accurate machines can make, repeat the trial with consistency and I get consistent and repeated results. In every trial, I can measure that within 3 seconds after my will is concentrated on slowing my heart rate, that the time between heart beats decreases. What you're saying is like saying I need to prove a ball comes back towards the ground after I throw it. You don't need to test it, it can clearly be measured that it's actions clearly fit within our definition of the words "moving down". If you want specific such as position time equations at an instantaneous moment, that's where you need much scientific testing. I didn't report you for your last post or this post, by the looks of it you seem to act brash an condescending rather often.

Alright, you asked for it. http://www.squidoo.com/cloud-lenticular http://www.ufo-bbs.com/txt1/679.htm http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-common-explanations-for-ufos.php http://www.thestealthblimp.com/ http://web.archive.org/web/20090124173840/http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/black_triangle_020805.html http://www.livescience.com/9030-mystery-green-fireball-ufos-solved.html And that's AFTER you consider the high improbability of intelligent life evolving, then developing space technology, then finding earth and not interfering at all when it has so many resources. You have to accept that things could easily not be UFOs more easily than they could be, especially considering experimental military technology. If you don't, you are in denial about something. Once again, I will state we have proof that natural or man-made phenomena can be mistaken for extra terrestrial life, and no proof of the vice-versa, no proof that something could only be an alien space ship. Oxalic acid trails? I used oxalic acid myself when I was cleaning quartz crystals I had mined, and oxalic cases where reported in the south which is where quartz is mined in the US. Crop circles? Attach a manual lawnmower to a string attached to a stake around a central point, you will be able to move in a circle, I used a manual lawnmower myself that flattened grass more often than it cut it. Those are much more likely than life from another planet forming space technology then finding Earth out of millions of planets in a universe virtually infinitely large and then somehow not only remaining undetected when there are observatories all around the world and likely plenty of scientists who would want to share the existence of aliens with people.

All of them. I've seen quite a few pictures that looked similar to UFOs, but when I looked closer they were definitely mere lenticular clouds. You had your heart set on the existence of alien life it seems, but unless there is definite proof you will have to accept it is unlikely to one of the highest degrees.

Except it can't be physically proven first because it's not physically possible, and anything that could constitute proof would merely be a loophole in our mathematical definitions like with the article that said we had "negative kelvin".

I think there are many planets that could potentially support life, but I would have to disagree that the observable universe is teeming with complex life. There's no records of any other type of life forming in the history of the 4-5 billion years of this planet that we have access too, which means it is VERY very improbable for life to spontaneously form.

The argument is not how bad atheists or any group seems, the statement that is being argued against is that you cannot have morals without religion. Regions can justify killing innocent people, yet do not think of themselves as immoral, so the fact that non-religious or atheists also do those things should not be a problem in determining if they have any morals.

But the ethics still isn't what itself caused anything, it is the person that made the choice as well as complex neurological processes associated with the perception of emotions which on their own don't completely "cause" a person to do anything anyway. Well I'm not saying the ethics can't ultimately have some kind of almost "suggestion" or minor effect, but ethics themselves are not tangible objects, ethics themselves do not "cause" a person to do something.

Time reversal can't physically happen. Some processes may appear mathematically to go backwards in time, like the oscillation of anti-matter, bu obviously it follows a general forward direction like the rest of matter and energy. Besides, the technology itself still needs to be worked on, hence a lack of the words "outstanding breakthrough".

Clouds particularly lenticular ones, plums or outbreaks of dust or vapor such as sometimes localized condensed bursts of steam or ash from near a volcano ball lightning, tricks of light on a lens, photoshop, the relative perception of a meteor or plane, meteors planes. weather balloons birds, military air crafts (which actually can account for some, there was even an experiment called a "stealth blimp" which matched the shape of what was described in UFO sightings), maybe satellites as sometimes they come close to Earth, not necessarily all "natural" phenomena but they aren't supernatural or extra terrestrial phenomena.

Believe me I'm all for saving the future that's why I'm researching technology to that will stop meteors as well as help terrestrial species when our galaxy collides with Andromeda but I don't think Earth's destabilizing orbit is a large factor in global temperature increase.

Not for rich people, they of plenty of room.