Technologically/Intellectually Superior Aliens: "Unpleasant Visits"?

[King, North TX]

What evidence did he ignore, and where is the peer review article that reviews said evidence?

 

The evidence is our ancient history...

 

Sorry, no peer reviewed article.

[Mr Skeptic]

Because climate scientists totally ignore our ancient history. He who doesn't learn from multiple proxies for historical temperature and CO2 levels, is doomed to repeat it. Oh wait...

[mooeypoo]

The evidence is our ancient history...

 

Sorry, no peer reviewed article.

That's not evidence, though, that's anecdotal situation that can be interpreted in various ways. Those aren't evidence for alien visitations, King.

 

~moo

[King, North TX]

That's not evidence, though, that's anecdotal situation that can be interpreted in various ways. Those aren't evidence for alien visitations, King.

 

~moo

 

So, 'history' doesn't count, even when there are consistencies throughout the ages... That's brilliant. No wait, I meant "that's ignorant".

[mooeypoo]

So, 'history' doesn't count, even when there are consistencies throughout the ages... That's brilliant. No wait, I meant "that's ignorant".

I didn't say it doesn't count, I said it's unreliabe as proof. Historical accounts need to be accompanied by proof to be reliable. Just having a story, a painting, or a myth is not enough. You need context and external support.

 

Otherwise, it's not proof.

 

 

Really, we will all do better if we try to avoid strawmanning each other's claims, eh?

 

~moo

[King, North TX]

I didn't say it doesn't count, I said it's unreliabe as proof. Historical accounts need to be accompanied by proof to be reliable. Just having a story, a painting, or a myth is not enough. You need context and external support.

 

Otherwise, it's not proof.

 

 

Really, we will all do better if we try to avoid strawmanning each other's claims, eh?

 

~moo

 

I would agree that 'one' story, painting, picture, or eve modern day video featuring heavenly agents would indeed not be proof of anything.

 

Then again, this is the exact opposite of what we actually have to examine.

 

What we have are the same tales and images that continue to reveal themselves from historical chroniclers throughout time and the world.

 

To dismiss these accounts and the consistency of the images, as pure fiction....is folly.

[ydoaPs]

I would agree that 'one' story, painting, picture, or eve modern day video featuring heavenly agents would indeed not be proof of anything.

 

Then again, this is the exact opposite of what we actually have to examine.

 

What we have are the same tales and images that continue to reveal themselves from historical chroniclers throughout time and the world.

 

To dismiss these accounts and the consistency of the images, as pure fiction....is folly.

 

Try showing some that are beyond the imagination of the men of the period the images were made. The basic 'men of the sky' religion is a product of a known function of our neocortex.

 

Nothing impressive has been shown in this thread.

[ponderer]

In his famous Life in the Universe lecture, Stephen Hawking postulated that earth has not been visited by aliens, and that "any visits by aliens, would be much more obvious, and probably also, much more unpleasant."

 

Why?

 

I wonder, that if an alien species had evolved to the point of expanding interstellarly, would they not presumably be intelligent enough to realize the sort of chaos that an "obvious" appearance would cause? Even if the ET's were looking to wipe out our species and colonize our planet, humans faced with an "unpleasant" alien encounter would most likely react nuclearly, and destroy themselves and possibly earth. Its in the best interest for an extrastellar race to make contact in the least conspicuous way, or to at least wait until humans have evolved to a less barbaric point themselves.

 

What do you think?

 

I think spiritually advanced aliens would be peaceful and view mankind as violent primatives. Indeed, I imagine that they would view us getting interstellar travel, like we view North Korea or Iran getting the A-bomb.

[King, North TX]

Try showing some that are beyond the imagination of the men of the period the images were made. The basic 'men of the sky' religion is a product of a known function of our neocortex.

 

Nothing impressive has been shown in this thread.

 

I think that: "shiny metallic oval/saucer(s)- with the value or symbol of God" is much less vague and far more common than you realize, or thus admit.

[mooeypoo]

I think that: "shiny metallic oval/saucer(s)- with the value or symbol of God" is much less vague and far more common than you realize, or thus admit.

Where does that appear in which historical document?

 

I am having a bit of difficulty with ancient-anything human even *using* the word "metallic" in describing something they aren't sure what it is, even if it was metallic.

 

But yeah, where is this from? I'd love to read the original context.

 

~moo

[Moontanman]

Where does that appear in which historical document?

 

I am having a bit of difficulty with ancient-anything human even *using* the word "metallic" in describing something they aren't sure what it is, even if it was metallic.

 

But yeah, where is this from? I'd love to read the original context.

 

~moo

 

Here is one account, not sure if it's what King is talking about.

 

http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case491.htm

[mooeypoo]

Again, your definition of proof seems to be very fluid. You're presenting a painting that (a) can be interpreted in various ways (I don't see it, for instance) and (b) even if it *does* display somerthing unique, you have no way of knowing if it's not a reinterpretation of an event the painter didn't understand (not necessarily alien).

 

I find it interesting that the picture is classified as "Special Features/Characteristics: Famous Person, Witness Photo" -- neither of which have any reliability in *ANY* scientific discussion (not even in court, honestly), and the photo isn't a photo. It's a painting, so it's not even *pretending* to be unbiased; a painting is done by a person, it's always an interpretation of an event.

 

This isn't proof, guys. It's a story that someone interpreted to say what they want it to say. How can you classify this as any sort of real evidence for alien visitation?? There's no substantiation.

 

On top of that, the "original" link is no longer working.

 

BTW, just so I won't be accused of not reading the page -- please go over the entire text, and notice, that the entire thing has "No reference". Every bit, and the only references that do exist, reference to *biased* sites ('ufovisitations' / ufofiles/ etc) That's not science, guys.

 

And whenever the stories doesn't *quite* add up, the author of the article claims that the different interpreters didn't understand one another. Nitpicking what to excuse and what not to excuse doesn't give too much legitimacy to any of it, honestly.

 

~moo

[JohnB]

Just as a point of interest, the records contend that while in India Alexander was shown a Dragon in a cave.

 

Nitpicking what to excuse and what not to excuse doesn't give too much legitimacy to any of it, honestly.

Shhhh. Don't tell the Egyptologists that, they'll have fits.

[mooeypoo]

Just as a point of interest, the records contend that while in India Alexander was shown a Dragon in a cave.

Yes, some records contend that Alexander ascended to the sky instead of dying, and some records contend that Eliyahu (bible) went to heaven with a glowing fiery chariot. As did Ra. And metuselah was contended to live 1000 years.

 

There's a difference between "some records contend" and "there is evidence that..". And--

 

Shhhh. Don't tell the Egyptologists that, they'll have fits.

 

-- even the egyptologists know that difference. Mostly

 

~moo

[Moontanman]

Again, your definition of proof seems to be very fluid. You're presenting a painting that (a) can be interpreted in various ways (I don't see it, for instance) and (b) even if it *does* display somerthing unique, you have no way of knowing if it's not a reinterpretation of an event the painter didn't understand (not necessarily alien).

 

Were you talking to me with this one mooey? I gave no painting as an example of anything.

 

I find it interesting that the picture is classified as "Special Features/Characteristics: Famous Person, Witness Photo" -- neither of which have any reliability in *ANY* scientific discussion (not even in court, honestly), and the photo isn't a photo. It's a painting, so it's not even *pretending* to be unbiased; a painting is done by a person, it's always an interpretation of an event.

 

Again, no picture or painting was given by me as evidence of anything. I was referring to the back story.

 

This isn't proof, guys. It's a story that someone interpreted to say what they want it to say. How can you classify this as any sort of real evidence for alien visitation?? There's no substantiation.

 

 

I was just showing what I thought King might be referring to as evidence of metallic disks in antiquity, not proof of anything.

 

 

 

On top of that, the "original" link is no longer working.

 

Not what i was trying to show to begin with.

 

BTW, just so I won't be accused of not reading the page -- please go over the entire text, and notice, that the entire thing has "No reference". Every bit, and the only references that do exist, reference to *biased* sites ('ufovisitations' / ufofiles/ etc) That's not science, guys.

 

My contention is that science has never investigated UFOs or alien visitation on any wide spread or official scale ever.

 

But this was not offered by me as proof of anything, i was just trying to show some of what King is referring to. Lots of those metallic disk sightings have been "reported" as occurring in antiquity but none have any thing to back them up but paintings and semi official records.

 

Since no eye witness, official account, painting or photo can ever be evidence I see no reason to use them as such. Again i was just providing a reference to metallic disks in antiquity, nothing more.

 

And whenever the stories doesn't *quite* add up, the author of the article claims that the different interpreters didn't understand one another. Nitpicking what to excuse and what not to excuse doesn't give too much legitimacy to any of it, honestly.

 

~moo

 

I'm not sure why "different interpreters" making mistakes in their interpretations is a problem. In lots of cases not involving UFOs differing opinions between interpreters compounding mistakes has been accepted as why differing accounts vary, sometimes wildly.

 

Truly i was just giving an example of where the idea of metallic disks King was referring to came from in ancient writings, i wasn't trying to assert they were proof of anything but that metallic disks had been reported.

[King, North TX]

Where does that appear in which historical document?

 

I am having a bit of difficulty with ancient-anything human even *using* the word "metallic" in describing something they aren't sure what it is, even if it was metallic.

 

But yeah, where is this from? I'd love to read the original context.

 

~moo

 

The photographs, paintings, and even cave paintings contain these same sort of images, located or afixed "in the heavens".

 

You want historical text...?

 

Start with EVERY religious text you can find, and read 'the beginning(s)'.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Again, your definition of proof seems to be very fluid. You're presenting a painting that (a) can be interpreted in various ways (I don't see it, for instance) and (b) even if it *does* display somerthing unique, you have no way of knowing if it's not a reinterpretation of an event the painter didn't understand (not necessarily alien).

 

I find it interesting that the picture is classified as "Special Features/Characteristics: Famous Person, Witness Photo" -- neither of which have any reliability in *ANY* scientific discussion (not even in court, honestly), and the photo isn't a photo. It's a painting, so it's not even *pretending* to be unbiased; a painting is done by a person, it's always an interpretation of an event.

 

This isn't proof, guys. It's a story that someone interpreted to say what they want it to say. How can you classify this as any sort of real evidence for alien visitation?? There's no substantiation.

 

On top of that, the "original" link is no longer working.

 

BTW, just so I won't be accused of not reading the page -- please go over the entire text, and notice, that the entire thing has "No reference". Every bit, and the only references that do exist, reference to *biased* sites ('ufovisitations' / ufofiles/ etc) That's not science, guys.

 

And whenever the stories doesn't *quite* add up, the author of the article claims that the different interpreters didn't understand one another. Nitpicking what to excuse and what not to excuse doesn't give too much legitimacy to any of it, honestly.

 

~moo

 

Where do science and history 'meet'...?

 

Because it seems to me that one dismisses the other, if there's no 'evidence'.

 

But then, I would ask what of your reports, once your lab is destroyed? If the 'evidence' from which you derived your results, is no longer in existence and or can't be immediately replicated...then why SHOULDN'T we rely on your notes, or a copy of them...?

 

Why or rather how is it so easy for scientists to thumb their nose as historical chroniclers?

 

And over the most well written about subject the world has ever known...whether or not there is a god/U.F.O. in heaven...

 

Science says, "It's ALL pure fiction."

 

These ancient reports have been borne out in 'other' accounts from 'unconnected' peoples, and now in present day sightings.

 

Why does Science choose to ignore History, and especially when there is so much of it.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Just as a point of interest, the records contend that while in India Alexander was shown a Dragon in a cave.

 

 

Shhhh. Don't tell the Egyptologists that, they'll have fits.

 

Was he near Komodo?

[Sayonara]

Because it seems to me that one dismisses the other, if there's no 'evidence'.

 

But then, I would ask what of your reports, once your lab is destroyed? If the 'evidence' from which you derived your results, is no longer in existence and or can't be immediately replicated...then why SHOULDN'T we rely on your notes, or a copy of them...?

You seem to be implying that if anyone says "we should", then you can make the same argument for cave drawings etc.

 

Unfortunately the two scenarios are not the same. In the case of the lab, we have a set of evidence from which results are empirically derived before the evidence is destroyed. In the case of cave drawings, paintings, carvings, etc, we have... cave drawings, paintings and drawings of something which we can't confidently identify.

 

I understand what you're asking - how can we have confidence in the lab scenario and not the others? It's because of the way the results were collected. In the lab the evidence would have been studied critically, and the results collected by testing a falsifiable hypothesis. But nobody can have any idea what was going through the mind of the person who daubed, painted, or carved a particular design, much less whether it was based on an actual object or what such an object might actually have been.

Are you seriously going to take the honesty, accuracy, and perceptual reliability of a long-dead artist on faith while you're mixing in a big bag of wishful thinking?

 

Many cultures have stories of gods or other beings who rode "chariots" through the sky, so it's not surprising that these would be depicted in various artistic ways. But this doesn't mean that those cultures were inspired by actual beings flying about in their moon cars - it is much more likely to indicate that some of those cultures had storytellers with fairly romantic notions of how deities might manifest their powers, and some of the others had storytellers who were happy to shamelessly copy their fables.

 

Science says, "It's ALL pure fiction."

No it doesn't. Science is by necessity agnostic towards any given indemonstrable entity. You never try to justify a foregone conclusion in science, because that's not scientific.

 

These ancient reports have been borne out in 'other' accounts from 'unconnected' peoples, and now in present day sightings.

Yes, that would be the anecdotal stuff that mooeypoo mentioned.

 

The plural of anecdote is not 'evidence'.

 

Why does Science choose to ignore History, and especially when there is so much of it.

Science doesn't ignore history. It addresses historical records (whether these be human-generated, archaeological, geological, astronomical, etc) with the appropriate level of scepticism, and scepticism does not mean "randomly dismissive".

 

Was he near Komodo?

I doubt it, since Komodo is about 4000km from India. However the Bengal monitor grows to nearly two metres. It's entirely possible that this is what Alexander was shown (and you would show the local brute to the outlander, wouldn't you?) and of course he would have no suitable frame of reference in which to describe it to others back home other than as a "dragon". And boom! - just like that, unreliability enters the records of that encounter.

Edited May 17, 2010 by Sayonara³

[Moontanman]

King, North TX, I am very sympathetic to your assertion that historical references should carry more weight than they do. But if modern eye witness testimony and actual photos that have been investigated and shown not to be fake do not hold any weight i have to admit that historical accounts would seem to have to hold even less value.

 

The real problem here is that UFOs/alien visitation has never really be investigated with real science. The real hoax is the assertion that these sightings have been scientifically investigated when in fact the government hired scientists to try and make their own cover up seem scientific.

 

What appeared to the general public as scientists investigating the cause of UFOs wasn't. What was really happening was the government insisting on hired scientists to prove their assertion that UFOs are never anything more than silliness. The government approved studies always came back with what the government wanted to hear or they were fired and new people were hired to say what the government wanted said.

 

This mentality of finding something conventional to blame UFO sightings on no matter how silly the finding was upset many of the scientists hired to debunk UFOs as well as some scientists not connected to the investigations in any way other than recognizing that Science did not work that way.

 

The ridicule and derision piled on the idea of UFOs and alien visitation by the government studies influenced all other studies and made the idea of "it's already been done" widely held in the science community even though it is blatantly untrue.

 

The very few independent studies done of a few of the serious sightings left the researchers "deeply puzzled" and wondering why the sightings had been dismissed so easily.

[Mr Skeptic]

The real hoax is the assertion that these sightings have been scientifically investigated when in fact the government hired scientists to try and make their own cover up seem scientific.

 

In other news, no one dies of old age in the US anymore. It is no longer considered a valid cause of death. Why? Its a lazy answer.

[Moontanman]

In other news, no one dies of old age in the US anymore. It is no longer considered a valid cause of death. Why? Its a lazy answer.

 

There is always something to blame death on other than old age?

 

ok ok I'll give it a rest!

[King, North TX]

The plural of anecdote is not evidence...

 

I am not sure I agree with that statement, especially when the 'plural' is as diverse and widespread as it is. People have been 'consistently' seeing "flying saucers in the heavens", and associating them with "god" for as long as we could write, all around the world.

 

That we don't have proof, or the object to compare these images is not the failure or fault of historians. We are fools to render their work fiction ESPECIALLY when the same accounts are coming from different times & places.

 

These tales may not be proof of anything, but they be cause for 'serious' scientific investigation.

[JohnB]

If I might butt in wrt the scientific studies. I have long thought that a large element of psychology has been ignored by the UFO community.

 

The various studies undertaken by the USAF and others were, as is now apparent, whitewashes. The question has to be asked "Why?" Why go to the effort?

 

Now consider the historical context. The Cold War was in full swing and Communism was gaining in many nations. The peoples of the West were reliant on their militaries, and specifically the US Military to defend their airspace.

 

Neither militarily nor politically would it have been acceptable for a study into the phenomenonto come to a conclusion that in effect said "They are here. We don't know who they are, we don't know what they want. We have no idea if they are hostile or not. And if they are hostile, we can't catch them or do anything about them anyway. But everything is fine."

 

Such conclusions would not have gone down well with anybody. Given the historical context, are the results of the studies any real surprise? A study of incursions into Western airspace by supposedly unknown and possibly hostile vehicles could not come to any other conclusion.

 

I would add that after 50 odd years of continuous denial and debunking it is now psychologically impossible for any Western military to change their tune.

 

Likewise, whether or not the USAF was in possession of a "crashed" object, after 1949 it had to be vigorously denied. If the Soviet Union had for one minute thought that the US indeed had such a craft, WW 3 would have followed instantly. Immediate Soviet attack would be required simply because if the US had such an object and had time to study it, they would gain such a technological advantage as to remove the Soviets as a military force.

 

Instant attack would be imperative to avoid giving the US the time to study the craft. UFO or not, truth or not, denying the existence prevented nuclear holocaust.

 

Yes, governments lie, but don't assume that this is done out of malice or stupidity. There can be very good reasons if a bit of thought is given to the topic.

[Sayonara]

The plural of anecdote is not evidence...

 

I am not sure I agree with that statement, especially when the 'plural' is as diverse and widespread as it is. People have been 'consistently' seeing "flying saucers in the heavens", and associating them with "god" for as long as we could write, all around the world.

Multiple anecdotes constitute hearsay. It might be enough in civil proceedings where a judgement is determined on the balance of probabilities (and in that kind of environment it might well be referred to as 'evidence'), but for the purposes of scientific enquiry it is simply not reliable.

 

These tales may not be proof of anything, but they be cause for 'serious' scientific investigation.

That seems entirely reasonable.

[King, North TX]

Scientific Truth vs. Consequences

 

*Would it have been beneficial for General Custer to have believed his scouts who returned with warnings about greater numbers than previously expected, when they came back 'without evidence', other than their anecdotal tales...?

[Sayonara]

Beneficial, yes. Scientific? No.

Good job he wasn't trying to publish a paper in Nature.