Here comes the Ufo item. Everyone knows about UFOs, Hollywood love 'em and now
 all the big tv networks are doing little X-files spinoffs, but what is the t  
  
truth about UFOs. Are they real? What do you think?

129 responses total.

I am sure that there are other life forms out there.  I am equally sure that,
if we saw them, we wouldn't recognize them as life.

I really belive there is life out there somewhere...Wether they have visited
Earth or not..I'm not sure.  Here is a news item i found in the paper
yesterday, from my hometown (Monroe, MI):
SOFIA, Bulgaria(AP)-
Talk about foreign aid!

Lured by three self-styled mediums, about 1,500 people gathered at an airfield
in northern Bulgaria on Monday, awaiting the arrival of eight space ships
piloted by extraterrestrials, police Maj. Stoyan Marinov said.

Among other things, state TV reported, the mediums promised that the aliens
would help this poor Balkan country pay its $12.9 billion foreign debt.

The crowd gathered in Shtraklevo, 200 miles northeast of the capital, Sofia,
after three local woman - Radka Trifonova, Zdravka Krumova and Ekaterina
Nikiforova - declared that space ships from distant galaxies would land at
11 a.m.

The mediums, wearing identical dresses they had sewn for the occasion, waited
along with the crowd.

Nothing came.

<he he he>

Welcome Bubu! They always give the articles to the stuff where nothing happens.
tippical!

thanks Bob, yeah and they always put them in the smallest papers...<heh>

I believe in ufos and other life forms to think that we're the only inteligent
life is simply stupid. there must be cultures out there a thousand times more
advanced than ours.

good call.

how do you measure "advanced"?

which is more advanced, a rock or the air?

Well, there's lots of ways you could be advanced, technologicly, metaly, physic
ly and other ways that we can't begin to comprehend. I think that other must be
more attuned to nature than us. Maybe ufos aren't    the big chunks of intricut
circitry that we invision them as, personaly I think they may very well be
intirely organic in nature. Why not an animal? Think  about it.

you're just begging the question bob...how would you determine whether one
civilization is more advanced than another?  

        At least we should be able to agree on one thing :

If we believe that we're the most technologically advanced
civilization in the entire universe (and on and on and on....),
we're deluding ourselves.  

If we believe we are the only civilization, we're egoists.


To challenge the notion that we're it, the only sentient life
forms in the universe, is the dagger of death.  It offends someone's
sensibilities when you offer them a scenario they can't accept
as valid.  It's like telling a christian "Hey, did you ever
wonder about all the other religions?  Did you know that you're
pretty much wrong in your beliefs, and you don't have a soul?"
(This is just an example - no flames, please)
You will offend that christian.  They will sputter and fume.
They will not be happy that you have presented something which
is nigh impossible ( to them )

you'd be amazed how much we take for granted, though.  It *is* incredibly
unlikely for even ONE sentient civilization to come into being.  But, 
given that it is possible for one, the lack of more would be even less likely

        Incredibly unlikely?  How?  According to what standards?
we've very little to go on, and if we use just us as the
example of what other life forms whould be like, and where, well, then
a whole new can of worms has opened!

We're not advanced. It's just our inflated egos.
Anyway, occasionaly I watch the Star Trek shows and there are too things I find
horribly wrong with them. everyone speaks english (yes, I know they must have  
translating do-dads on their ships but everone can't have one) and all the
alien are humaniod! Starwars did a half decent job with there guys but I find
these just discusting.

        We might not be 'advances', but two things come to mind :
(a) I don't see any other species walking around or swimming on earth which 
    is productive as defined by our standards.  Civilized, perhaps.
(b) From 1800-1930, the total knowledge on earth doubled.  From 1930 to 1970,
    it doubled again.  From 1970 to 1985, it doubled again.  It's about
    to double once more.

For some species which isn't 'advanced', we have a pretty good track
record of getting our brains working.  Sure, we can toss around "We're
destroying the planet!" theories, but the simple fact is, we're the
most advanced species on the planet.  Others in the universe either
more advanced than us or the same must exist.

Sure, the chances are that other civilizations have to exist... nothing in
the rules say that more advanced civilizations have to exist at the same time
as ours.

re #15:

What did I tell you! EGO!E-G-O! Why does everyone say we're the most advanced  
species on the planet? I can't say who is the most advanced on the planet and  
if I could I wouldn't because I really don't care) but I do know that we are
not it. <Eldrich wonders how advanced you have to be to word wrap> <Eldrich
gives up and eats a peach>

but again the question comes up what doe sit mean to be advanced
we've got ourselves a little paradox!

For the purposes of a discusion <disgush> about UFO's, let's consider "more
advanced *IN TERMS OF SPACE FLIGHT*.  In other words, since we are concerned
only with the flying objects of an alien race, we should want to know
if they can reach our planet or not

well if they actually have been sighted I would imagine if they can get here
across a few galaxies that they probably can

re #19
Hmm, hadn't thought of that.

The next question is, "how much more is there to spaceflight that we
haven't discovered".  If there is a lot more that we have to learn, we can
expect most alien civilizations to be furhter ahead than us.  On the other
hand, if rocket technology is as far as you can get in terms of
spaceflight, then most alien races will probably be less advanced, flight-wise
.
 

Trust me, rockets aren't going to get us anywhere. What we need is anti-grav   
tech. 

Impossible.  Or at least highly improbable.  You need something to push
*against* the force of gravity--you can't just have gravity stop working.

re #24 : This is where most of our failures as a soceity come in.
Someone says "We need to turn off gravity."  someone says
"You can't do that.  It's impossible."  That first someone
either (a) finds a way to turn off, or counteract the force
of gravity or (b) goes away thinking that it's impossible to
do (a), so we never progress.

Our technology keeps on expanding.  We are not limited.  I do believe
within one thousand years our civilization will be so radically
different than what we know it to be that as people, now,
we would die there.  Evolution?  Perhaps.  Ozone?  Maybe.
We keep on progressing so much that we leave the shadows of our
past in the dust, and they no longer are given status.  Instead,
the advancements we have made as of today in the world will be
paled in comparison by what we discover in 10 years.

Remember computers - look at what you can buy now in a store for
$2000.  ($1600 at Best Buy).  What we can get on a home PC or Mac
is a miracle according to 1970 standards - Even 1980 or 1990!
We won't stop advancing because of false barriers.  We'll
find a way to defy gravity or make artificial gravity.  

We'll find a way to propel ourselves into the outter regions
of space and survive for years.  We're not at the end of our
collective creation of ideas - we're just starting.

Well, I am taking a trip in November and my route takes me through Roswell,
NM.  Anyone ever seen the "Museum in a drugstore" there?  Is it worth the
stop?

Computers are different.  In the 1970's, it may have been considered
"impossible" to create a computer that will fit in a suitcase, but it
certainly wasn't against any of the laws of physics.  There is a difference
between saying "that's impossible.  we'll never develop the technology to
do that" and saying "that's impossible.  It's against the laws of physics."
We may be able to harness some force to push against gravity, but you can't
just turn off the laws of physics when you want to.

of course you assume that we even *know* the laws of physics..

I agree wholeheartedly.  We assume that we know the laws
of physics.  And yes, we can prove them without much
problem.  It was believed at one time that the human body would
never be able to withstand the pressure of speeds in excess
of 20 m.p.h.  It was also a fact (back then, of course) that
no one would be able to withstand the speed of sound.
It was also assumed that we just could not break free of
earth's gravity and thus spaceflight was impossible.

They were all wrong.

IN all four classes I've taken in a college-level, each teacher
has stresed that the laws of physics are absolute - until someone
can disprove them.  Then, they will no longer be fact.  The
new 'fact' will be fact, and the old will go out.
The word "law" is relative to the moment until the "law" 
fails to hold up any longer.  Then, it is incorrect.
What is incorrect is no longer law.
Doesn't sound too hard, does it?  

The theory of relativity is also just that, yet you hae
people who swear the because of it, the speed of light
is the fastest speed possible, and that's that.  Well, yeah,
so's your mom!  It is a theory, and it can be disproven.

I should also mention that flight was impossible, underwater
travel, electricity would be fatal to human tissue within 100 miles,
atomic energy was a myth, and so on.  All of these
were "fact" based on nothing but assumptions that we could
not go past our own self-constructed barriers of impossibility.

Personaly I've never been to Roswell but I think it would diffinatly worth the 
trip (if just to be able to say "Oh yeah, I've been there. No big deal")

This is what really pisses me off about science: it's all based on assumpions! 
In 50 years from now people are going to be laughing at us for thinking that
the sky was blue or something like that. Nothing is impossible, we just don't
know how to do it yet. We act like little kids when it comes to science and
technology, we think if someone says it's so or we read it in a book it must be
so.

True, true. Science is too much theory. But, as was poven earlier, all science
is theory. Along with all the other "Facts" is the assumption that, if we were
to go to mars, that it would take 9 months. It wouldn't. that theory is based
 on getting escape speed and then coasting. If you use them thar fancy smancy
rocket engines you could cut the time dramatically. (Ben gives another
pointless peice of information) AND Now....... Back to the UFO discussion.

UFo discussion? nah this is more fun

I see your point, hoagy, but those things that you say were all "impossible"
until recently were considered impossible as an indirect result of the laws
of physics.  None of them actually disproved a so-called "law" of physics.
I would be extremely surprised if the "law" of gravity were completely
disproven.  A small loophole or counter-force is all you anti-grav junkies
can hope for

        Of course.  Everything is conjecture.  Nothing,
according to science, is fact.  With one tiny grain of truth,
an entire planet full of darkness can be illuminated, to show
a  point.
        The modern world is going on the assumptions of our
current state.  We can't go light speed, so why
bother trying?  Science says it's impossible, so why bother?
        Science also said it was a law of inertia which made
travel for humans over 10 mph fatal.  And that the law of inertia
also prevented space flight.  In all cases where something which
is now possible was once impossible, "laws of physics" were
the only barriers.  The laws per se weren't responsbile - it was the
people who failed to understand the 'laws'.  
        So, yeah, space flight by alien craft zipping around at
2 or 3c isn't impossible.  Nor are the 90 degree turns, etcetera.
Why?  'cause someone out there found a way to overcome a
previously regarded 'law' and make it follow their new 
technology.

Now since this is so obvious why do they bother teaching these thing in schools
? Why bother teach information that only holds us back? If I see it I can
belive it, otherwise there's no way to be sure.

because even if it isn't true, it works most of the time and what else are you
going to say? Why is the sky blue?  Magic.  Why does the sun rise?  Magic.  Why
does stuff fall?  Go ask your father...no, please....

        Teaching information is not the same as accepting
it to be absolute.  No one has ever said "We absolute cannot
cure cancer!  It just cannot be done!  You just can't do it!"
Instead, they've said "Right now, we have no known cure.  It might
be possible to cure cancer, but we don't have anything as of this
moment."  

        Would you wish to be taught information if it were presented
to you as an absolute, instead of "but it may be possible . . ."?
Of course not.  You'd either refute the 'information' or you'd
find a way, if you're not some conformist non-anarchal person,
to exceed the false limitations.  

But by that logic we can't accept anything as true, we'd have to consider
everything just a theory.

"mommy, what's two plus two?"   "Well, *most* people think it's four,
but they're probably wrong, so don't listen to them."
<several days later>
"mommy, why am I failing math?....."

yup, back to UFOs

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss