Ivan Tuzikov Posted August 8, 2015 Posted August 8, 2015 Why look for ET? May be they has already found us? And study us? For example: we started to at least partly control near space in 1970-es in the US (https://en.wikipedia...illance_Network) and the USSR (https://en.wikipedia...lligence_Centre) but before that era of control (for example, say, in the 19th century ET’s may have landed undetected and built an underground / underwater or ground camouflaged bases. In these bases they may have stored mini-robots imitating small animals or birds to use them for monitoring human activity. Recent developments in recon UAV’s (http://www.avinc.com/nano ) and battery technologies (http://techon.nikkei...0140224/335902/) show that this is quite possible. Besides, they may have scattered small transceivers (satellite dishes) throughout the Earth which they use to transmit collected data to camouflaged space ship or satellite dish on some asteroid or satellite in our Solar System. Additionally, all aforementioned ET’s objects (bases, mini-robots, satellite dishes on Earth, space ship, space transceivers on some asteroid or natural satellite in Solar System can be cloaked! See (https://en.wikipedia...terial_cloaking), (http://theconversati...materials-31562). Also, they may have stationed signal receiver on some natural satellite in our Solar System to collect radio and TV radiation which humanity emits in Space. Any constructive remarks, comments or suggestions will be heartily welcomed. P.S. they could have hacked our radiotelescopes or other transceivers to send the required data to their receivers. Any constructive remarks, comments or suggestions will be heartily welcomed. Thank you for your time for reading my stream of consciousness!
Strange Posted August 8, 2015 Posted August 8, 2015 for example, say, in the 19th century ET’s may have landed undetected and built an underground / underwater or ground camouflaged bases Well, they might have done. But as there is no evidence for it, why would anyone even consider it? There might be invisible pink unicorns flying around in the sky. But no one would take that idea seriously, either. 1
Ivan Tuzikov Posted August 8, 2015 Author Posted August 8, 2015 Well, they might have done. But as there is no evidence for it, why would anyone even consider it? There might be invisible pink unicorns flying around in the sky. But no one would take that idea seriously, either. such unicorns would have been detected by ground and airborne radars.
Strange Posted August 8, 2015 Posted August 8, 2015 such unicorns would have been detected by ground and airborne radars. No, they are invisible to all electromagnetic frequencies. 1
Mordred Posted August 8, 2015 Posted August 8, 2015 No, they are invisible to all electromagnetic frequencies. Or any other physical interactions lol
Robittybob1 Posted August 8, 2015 Posted August 8, 2015 No, they are invisible to all electromagnetic frequencies. How do you know that?
Strange Posted August 8, 2015 Posted August 8, 2015 How do you know that? Because they haven't been detected by radar.
Robittybob1 Posted August 8, 2015 Posted August 8, 2015 (edited) Because they haven't been detected by radar. In the Kaikoura Incident the entity was detected by radar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaikoura_lights I remember these events well. Edited August 8, 2015 by Robittybob1
Strange Posted August 8, 2015 Posted August 8, 2015 In the Kaikoura Incident the entity was detected by radar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaikoura_lights No, they weren't the invisible pink unicorns. They were the deaf centaurs.
Strange Posted August 9, 2015 Posted August 9, 2015 UFOs have been detected by radar... In the sense of unidentified objects, maybe. It is a large and unsupported leap from there to unicorns (or aliens).
Robittybob1 Posted August 9, 2015 Posted August 9, 2015 In the sense of unidentified objects, maybe. It is a large and unsupported leap from there to unicorns (or aliens). When they fly along with a plane (as in the Kaikoura Incident) it is tempting to think of intelligence (remote controlled) at least if not aliens.
Strange Posted August 9, 2015 Posted August 9, 2015 When they fly along with a plane (as in the Kaikoura Incident) it is tempting to think of intelligence (remote controlled) at least if not aliens. It may be tempting, but with no evidence it is also a little silly.
Robittybob1 Posted August 9, 2015 Posted August 9, 2015 (edited) It may be tempting, but with no evidence it is also a little silly. The picture of dolphins travelling alongside a boat is a well known event. They are able to do this irrespective of the speed of the various boats. How can they do this? They have intellect. So I use the same observation to suggest these lights have intelligence (or controlled by intelligence) of some sort since it matched the speed of the plane for a considerable period of time, wasn't it "20 -30 miles"? Edited August 9, 2015 by Robittybob1
Strange Posted August 9, 2015 Posted August 9, 2015 The picture of dolphins travelling alongside a boat is a well known event. They are able to do this irrespective of the speed of the various boats. How can they do this? They have intellect. So I use the same observation to suggest these lights have intelligence (or controlled by intelligence) of some sort since it matched the speed of the plane for a considerable period of time, wasn't it "20 -30 miles"? We know dolphins exist. Do you see the difference and the reason your conclusion is irrational?
Moontanman Posted August 9, 2015 Posted August 9, 2015 (edited) In the sense of unidentified objects, maybe. It is a large and unsupported leap from there to unicorns (or aliens). Actually there have been multiple independent eye witnesses (both civilian and military), multiple independent radars, Interaction with airplanes both military and civilian, and photos, all in the same sighting... Still doesn't mean aliens but it is a mystery... Edited August 9, 2015 by Moontanman
Robittybob1 Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 (edited) We know dolphins exist. Do you see the difference and the reason your conclusion is irrational? Well how do you explain the light staying at the same speed as the plane for 20-30 miles? Edited August 10, 2015 by Robittybob1
Strange Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 Well how do you explain the light staying at the same speed as the plane for 20-30 miles? I can't. But how is that relevant. I could come up with several mundane explanations based on things that we know exist which therefore must be more plausible than imaginary entities. The only possible conclusion appears to be: "unknown". Using that to assume it must therefore be unicorns, Martians, pan-dimensional mice, angels or any other sort of intelligence is completely irrational.
Robittybob1 Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 I can't. But how is that relevant. I could come up with several mundane explanations based on things that we know exist which therefore must be more plausible than imaginary entities. The only possible conclusion appears to be: "unknown". Using that to assume it must therefore be unicorns, Martians, pan-dimensional mice, angels or any other sort of intelligence is completely irrational. You "could come up with several mundane explanations ..." that is what I'd like to see. See what you could come up with to explain how the radar showed the UFO matched the plane's speed for 20-30 miles. What could do that? Another plane? I'll leave it up you since you say you could.
Strange Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 Off the top of my head: Reflections Ball lightning Distant lights (stars, planets, the moon) Secret military craft Mass delusions All these are (a) know to exist and (b) can appear to behave as claimed and © have been definitely shown to be causes in other cases. Before you can pretend it is evidence for something imaginary, you have to show very strong evidence why it is is impossible for it to be one of these (or the many other things that people with more imagination and/or expertise could come up with). Because if there is the slightest chance that it could be something mundane, then there is zero reason to invent space-aliens.
Robittybob1 Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 Off the top of my head: Reflections Ball lightning Distant lights (stars, planets, the moon) Secret military craft Mass delusions All these are (a) know to exist and (b) can appear to behave as claimed and © have been definitely shown to be causes in other cases. Before you can pretend it is evidence for something imaginary, you have to show very strong evidence why it is is impossible for it to be one of these (or the many other things that people with more imagination and/or expertise could come up with). Because if there is the slightest chance that it could be something mundane, then there is zero reason to invent space-aliens. How many of these are picked up by radar? Reflections NO Ball lightning NO Distant lights (stars, planets, the moon) NO Mass delusions NO Secret military craft - this is in NZ. There are no secret military craft in this neck of the woods.
Strange Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 (edited) Mass delusions NO Why not? Other possibilities: Operator error Technical faults Apophenia Secret military craft - this is in NZ. There are no secret military craft in this neck of the woods. You wouldn't know that if they were secret, would you? Also, ball lightning and similar phenomena can be generated by radar systems and it is possible that the electric fields could interfere with the radar system. I don't know if any of these ideas are correct or not, but they all rely on things that exist, rather than invoking magic. Edited August 10, 2015 by Strange
Moontanman Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 Off the top of my head: Reflections Ball lightning Distant lights (stars, planets, the moon) Secret military craft Mass delusions All these are (a) know to exist and (b) can appear to behave as claimed and © have been definitely shown to be causes in other cases. Before you can pretend it is evidence for something imaginary, you have to show very strong evidence why it is is impossible for it to be one of these (or the many other things that people with more imagination and/or expertise could come up with). Because if there is the slightest chance that it could be something mundane, then there is zero reason to invent space-aliens. I like to look at it from the point of view of a mystery, without specific evidence it is somewhat less than accurate to say space aliens, but some sightings are genuinely mysterious to a very high level.
Robittybob1 Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 (edited) Why not? Other possibilities: Operator error Technical faults Apophenia You wouldn't know that if they were secret, would you? Also, ball lightning and similar phenomena can be generated by radar systems and it is possible that the electric fields could interfere with the radar system. I don't know if any of these ideas are correct or not, but they all rely on things that exist, rather than invoking magic. Operator error? Military base North of Wellington went on UFO alert for they too picked it up on radar. This is not generally reported but a person working there subsequently told us this years ago. Experienced pilot and TV journalist and camera crew plus civilian all affected by the same operator error, seems unlikely. Only "chink in the evidence" that I need to work on is that someone (I think it was Fogarty) uses UFOs in the plural yet on film there is only ever one light. Apophenia - the camera footage is there for everyone to see. It is not some sort of image based on a pattern, and hence it is not Apophenia. Your idea that ball lighting could be caused by radar is new to me. The position that the plane was seen is actually a long way from any ground based radar stations. So are you asserting plane based radar can cause ball lightning. Can you find some reference to that or just tell me please how do you know this? I like to look at it from the point of view of a mystery, without specific evidence it is somewhat less than accurate to say space aliens, but some sightings are genuinely mysterious to a very high level. I think I have kept my posts to the level to say that the UFO in the Kaikoura incident seemed to display intelligence but I have not said that there were any space aliens involved. Edited August 10, 2015 by Robittybob1
Strange Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 Apophenia - the camera footage is there for everyone to see. It is not some sort of image based on a pattern, and hence it is not Apophenia. This was in reference to radar. It is quite plausible that the radar operators would interpret random noise on the radar screen as "objects" following the craft - influenced by the reports of what others had seen. These sort of sightings are "contagious". This is not generally reported but a person working there subsequently told us this years ago. Given the fact that memory is even less reliable than eye witness accounts, I wouldn't put too much faith in that. So are you asserting plane based radar can cause ball lightning. Can you find some reference to that or just tell me please how do you know this? http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/geophysics/article00651.html 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now