The Linda Case

So there was an "enormous" UFO flying around Manhattan and only 3 people saw it? I assume it was a silent UFO otherwise it would have woken lots of people up.

Sorry to sound sceptical, I'd love it to be true but I can't really see it in this case.

Do you mind sharing the other times you said you have sighted UFO's, I am was fascinated with your story. I'm not trying to be nosy, I'm just very interested in aliens and all that sort of stuff.

By the way, I don't think your balmy for believing in aliens, but for the christian part, well....  

Just a sideline.........one of the few things with which I am in complete agreement with Ghandi 2 is the issue of reasonably competent grammar & spelling........thus I rather liked his signature comment.....until now........when (maybe he's recently changed it ?) an error jumps out from the screen:

"The possessive of it is ITS.
Apostrophes are NOT used for plural nouns. (Unless it is absolutely necessary for it to not be confusing, such as A's. Musical terms are not confusing.) " says G2

I did change it to remove the exclamation points, which I decided were perhaps a bit excessive; however, as far as I remember I always had it there. And I looked it up; simple split infinitives "To boldly go" is ok, because "To go boldly" carries a much different meaning; but complex split infinitives "To gradually, systematically, and economically remove the burden" are not. Anyway, "to not be confusing" sounds much, much better and makes much more sense than "to be not confusing," which sounds like a poor Russian to English translation.

I would have thought the obvious avoidance of the "split infinitive" in this case would be "....not to be confusing...." (and in the other example, "...boldly to go.."). I recognise there are some differences in cadence between English & Yankish (); but I still reckon "..not to be confusing..." would be by far the best option........BTW, surprised you didn't comment on the title of the thread........

*headsmack*

And God didn't reveal microbiology either, did He? But I still believe in microscopes. Listen guys, if super-intelligent aliens landed on the White House lawn it would not change anything about Christianity. There would be three possibilities: a) They are an unfallen race b) They have fallen and their Christ has come c) They have fallen but Christ has not yet come for them.

Ghandi:

You said: “If they really wanted to keep us from blowing ourselves up and/or blowing up everyone else, why wouldn't they simply land on the White House lawn at noon?  Flying around silently at 3 am with the lights on and occasionally abducting people to perform strange, unnecessary tests/experiments seems like an awfully poor way to achieve world peace and warn man of his impending doom.”

First, I did not suggest that aliens want to keep us from killing ourselves, or to help us “achieve world peace” or even “warn man of his impending doom.”  I merely quoted Klaatu as stating that our ability to bring our aggression into the “peaceful corridors of space” was the issue.  And even if that were the case, it would not absolutely presuppose that aliens would simply come down and kill us all, or land (as Klaatu did) to warn us; they may have morals as enlightened (or moreso) than we do, and may have no interest in “interfering” with us.

You also ask: “Do you believe that we landed on the moon?  Did Lee Harvey Oswald shoot JFK?  Do the Masons/Illuminati control the world (or at least are trying to)? And, most importantly of all, is Elvis still alive!?”

Yes, I believe that astronauts landed on the moon.  No, I don’t believe that LHO shot JFK (though he may have been a shooter).  No, I do not believe that the masons/Illuminati control the world.  Yes, Elvis is still alive, and living on an island with Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison, John Lennon and others, having the greatest jam session in history.

Tony:

You said: “I am perturbed that you do not [offer] any more rational explanations for what you and others saw.  Weather balloons, science projects, meteors, regular airline flights (the problem of perspective discussed in the 9/11 thread!!).  On issues of size it is very difficult to give accurate measurements without proper instrumentation.  It is a delusion that many people have that they can tell the size/distance without proper instruments, this simply is not true.”

First, I should mention that I was a “UFO buff” long before I saw my first one, and read almost every book on the subject (I read Project Blue Book within months of its de-classification).  Thus, I fully understand angles of declination and other phenomena associated with determining whether an object is moving, at what presumed rate, etc.  [N.B.  I was the first person on line for the very first screening of Close Encounters in 1978, and had followed its creation from day one.]  However, none of these came into play during this encounter.  The object flew directly above us at perhaps 1,000 feet, and was as big as a commercial airliner.  It moved far slower than it had any right to, given its size (an airplane traveling that speed would certainly have stalled).  And, as noted, it made not one hum or buzz, much less the roar one would expect from an object that size traveling at that low height.

I’m not sure what one has to do with the other, but no, I do not believe in past lives.  As an aside, nor do I believe in alien abductions.  (One can believe in UFOs and aliens without necessarily believing in abductions, etc.)

Ghandi:

You said: “Listen guys, if super-intelligent aliens landed on the White House lawn it would not change anything about Christianity.  There would be three possibilities: (i) they are an unfallen race, (ii) they have fallen and their Christ has come, (iii) they have fallen but Christ has not yet come for them.”

An interesting way of putting it.  Bravo.

Rust:

You asked: “Do you mind sharing the other times you said you have sighted UFO's?  I am fascinated with your story.”

I will share at least one more.  It occurred while a friend and I were sitting in his kitchen on Co-op City, a large housing development in the Bronx.  He lived on the 10^th floor, and had a sweeping view of LaGuardia Airport, which was about four miles away.  We used to watch the planes landing and taking off all the time, so we were pretty familiar with the “normal” routines, and how various planes looked and “acted” from that distance.  He was also a “UFO person,” and had told me one of his own stories at one point.

We were sitting in his kitchen one afternoon (totally straight, I might add…), watching the airport.  It was a clear day, and visibility was unobstructed.  At one point, he pointed to an object heading toward the airport from our left and asked, “What is that?”  It was clearly not a commercial airliner, nor did it look like a military plane.  It looked like a shiny silver fuselage without windows, wings or tail.  It did not even seem to have a cockpit, or a window in the front.  (Again, we had seen hundreds, perhaps thousands of planes go in and out of the airport over a period of more than two years, so we were pretty darned familiar with what things looked like.)  The object (like the one I saw years later) was moving at a rate of speed that both of us recognized as far slower than it should have been able to for its size.  It was still a couple of miles from the airport, and did not seem to be lining up for an approach.  As it came closer to the airport at its unexplainably slow rate of speed, one plane landed and another took off.  Exactly at the moment that the airport was “between” take-offs and landings, the object shot past the airport at a tremendous rate of speed, and then, about two miles past the airport, went back to its leisurely speed.  It had covered a distance of about 5-6 miles in 2-3 seconds.

We both noted no sonic boom, which we would have expected, although we could not be certain the plane had reached mach speed; it may have been just under.  But there was no mistaking what we saw.

As an aside, I saw my first UFO in Pennsylvania around 1968 or 1969.  (That one was not only witnessed by at least a handful of other people, but actually crashed, and the site roped off by the local sheriff.  Within an hour, the FBI was there.)  I can’t remember whether the above was my second or third sighting (those two came fast on each other’s heels).  My fourth sighting was the first episode I described.

Peace.

Hierophant:

I agree that at least some, if not much, of "UFO" stuff is, indeed, government tests of new technology.  As I noted in the invisibility thread: if the government says something “may be possible,” that means they are already working on it; if they say they are working on it, it means they have a fully-tested prototype; if they say they have a prototype, it means the technology is fully operational, and probably in use.  However, this does not mean that all "UFO" stuff is government-related.

As an aside, another aspect of the dramatic increase in sightings after our first use of atomic power is the timing of new technology after the infamous Roswell incident, which occurred in July 1947.  Consider.  Within months of the Roswell incident – i.e., between July 1947 and February 1948, all of the following were “invented”: microwave technology, holography, the mobile phone, the transistor, and Velcro, among others.  And in the decade between 1947 and 1957, all the following were “invented”: the “black box” recorder, the solar cell, optic fiber, the laser, and the first computer hard drive.  Coincidence?  Consider that “reverse engineering” took years at that time, so it would make sense that while some of the “alien technology” found in or on the Roswell craft could have been gleaned quickly, much of it would have taken years – especially high-tech things like lasers and solar cells.  And this list does not include technology used for strictly military purposes.  For example, it is also strangely coincidental that “stealth” technology was first tested in 1949, less than two years after Roswell.

I’m not saying that I am necessarily a believer in the Roswell crash theory.  But if you look at the history of advanced technology, especially in the U.S. (where most of it was being done at that time), there is no question that there was a dramatic “explosion” of new technology just after the alleged Roswell crash, and the decade immediately following.

Rust:

No problem.  I do not care what others think of me.  Never have.  I have always been honest about who I am, and what my beliefs and experiences are.  I have nothing to hide, and am happy to share my life experiences with anyone who asks.

Peace.

Tony:

Re why it is that aliens seem to “accidentally” be seen “only when there are very few witnesses,” this is simply not true.  There have been many, many sightings witnessed by hundreds of people at a time, all over the world.  And not all of them have been explained by natural phenomena.  True, the government and/or scientific community always “pooh-pooh” those sightings, claiming some natural phenomena.  And sometimes they are right. But sometimes they are not, and no one who “was there” is convinced of the government/scientific explanation.

Second, your belief that “it takes a certain type of individual” to believe in UFOs is specious.  You made a similar claim re believers in God, and you hold a similar belief about anyone who believes in anything that is not empirically “provable.”  But like those who believe in God – a group which includes men and women of every race, nationality, creed, economic level, educational level, psycho-emotional background, etc. – those who believe in UFOs run the gamut from A to Z, and do not fall into a “certain type of individual” category.  Indeed, unlike believers in God, in the case of UFOs there is the additional support of true professionals in relevant fields – commercial and military pilots, air traffic controllers, etc. – who know far more than any of us about angles of declination, air speeds, maneuverability, etc., and maintain a belief in UFOs based on their knowledge and experiences.  And although commercial airline pilots and air traffic controllers will sometimes make their views public, they know they risk ridicule (and possibly career) if they do.  And, of course, military pilots, radar and sonar specialists, etc. are sworn to secrecy, so they rarely if ever speak up.  Yet once these professionals leave their careers, either commercial or military, many of them do speak up, and their expertise adds enormous clout to the debate.

Finally, re your tete-a-tete with BaldFriede, I have said it once, and I will say it again: the narrow, closed-minded view of rational scientific empiricists prima facie precludes the ability to accept the existence of anything outside of their limited belief system – despite the fact that humankind still has things to learn, and that, as BaldFriede so perfectly put it, there may well be ways in which to do controlled experiments on “paranormal” and other non-scientific phenomena, but we simply do not know what parameters to use because our own knowledge has not gotten that far.  In that regard, you are essentially claiming that humankind has reached the highest possible level of  its knowledge, understanding and discernment.  That is not really hubris, it is simply an insupportable position.  Certainly humankind has made great strides in knowledge and technology, both scientific and otherwise, especially over the past century.  But do you really think we are at the “pinnacle” of all that we can know – or can learn?  You may want to rethink your position here.  And no “scientific body” has to “declare” this: it is a logical extrapolation from the position taken by the rational-empirical scientific community and those who agree with it.  And I agree with BaldFriede: though you like to fashion yourself a “skeptic,” you actually fall closer to “cynic” vis-à-vis truly “hot-button” issues such as God, UFOs, etc.

As Hamlet says: “There is more in heaven and earth, Horatio, than is dreamt of in your philosophy.”

Peace.

BaldFriede said :

"An elementary particle changes one of its properties, and accordingly another elementary particle that once was connected with it changes it at the same time, without any time passing, although it is far away? This is what quantum theory is about. How does the other particle "know" about the change of status, when nothing can move faster than light? Magic?"

No, that's not the essence of quantum theory, although it is one of many hypothetical consequences thereto. The kind of loose speculaton which the New Agers can fasten on to & run with......one has to distinguish between the mathematics which describe a model and the (very many) different interpretations, or physical translations, which can be placed upon that particular set of equations........

Maani wrote:

Re why it is that aliens seem to “accidentally” be seen “only when there are very few witnesses,” this is simply not true.  There have been many, many sightings witnessed by hundreds of people at a time, all over the world.  (How do you know that to be a fact, Maani? Ah -- you weren't there, but read it somewhere, right? Taking things on "faith" again? Tsk Tsk!)

Second, your belief that “it takes a certain type of individual” to believe in UFOs is specious.  You made a similar claim re believers in God, and you hold a similar belief about anyone who believes in anything that is not empirically “provable.”  But like those who believe in God – a group which includes men and women of every race, nationality, creed, economic level, educational level, psycho-emotional background, etc. – those who believe in UFOs run the gamut from A to Z, and do not fall into a “certain type of individual” category.  Indeed, unlike believers in God, in the case of UFOs there is the additional support of true professionals in relevant fields – commercial and military pilots, air traffic controllers, etc. – who know far more than any of us about angles of declination, air speeds, maneuverability, etc., and maintain a belief in UFOs based on their knowledge and experiences.  And although commercial airline pilots and air traffic controllers will sometimes make their views public, they know they risk ridicule (and possibly career) if they do.  And, of course, military pilots, radar and sonar specialists, etc. are sworn to secrecy, so they rarely if ever speak up.  Yet once these professionals leave their careers, either commercial or military, many of them do speak up, and their expertise adds enormous clout to the debate.

 

Finally, re your tete-a-tete with BaldFriede, I have said it once, and I will say it again: the narrow, closed-minded view of rational scientific empiricists prima facie precludes the ability to accept the existence of anything outside of their limited belief system (No -- just as I am an agnostic [don't think there is a God, but can't be 100% certain] I accept the possibility -- however remote -- of these things. It is, I suppose, possible for Elvis to be alive, well, and happily flipping burgers somewhere, but I think it is highly unlikely!) – despite the fact that humankind still has things to learn, and that, as BaldFriede so perfectly put it, there may well be ways in which to do controlled experiments on “paranormal” and other non-scientific phenomena, but we simply do not know what parameters to use because our own knowledge has not gotten that far.  In that regard, you are essentially claiming that humankind has reached the highest possible level of  its knowledge, understanding and discernment.  That is not really hubris, it is simply an insupportable position.  Certainly humankind has made great strides in knowledge and technology, both scientific and otherwise, especially over the past century.  But do you really think we are at the “pinnacle” of all that we can know – or can learn?  You may want to rethink your position here.  And no “scientific body” has to “declare” this: it is a logical extrapolation from the position taken by the rational-empirical scientific community and those who agree with it.  And I agree with BaldFriede: though you like to fashion yourself a “skeptic,” you actually fall closer to “cynic” vis-à-vis truly “hot-button” issues such as God, UFOs, etc.

 

As Hamlet says: “There is more in heaven and earth, Horatio, than is dreamt of in your philosophy.”

 

A nice quote, but rather arrogant in its implication that Hamlet (you) fully knows what Horatio (Tony, myself, other "rationalists" who want more in the way of "proof" than "I read somewhere" or "someone -- who had to remain anonymous --said...") is thinking, or will accept as proof. Essentially, this argument comes down to "I know I am right." But you do NOT "know." You are operating in the realm of faith, and seeing/believing in what you wish to see or believe in. (as, arguably, am I -- but we have differing criteria for establishing "proof" or "truth.") There is no point in the rational (science) arguing with the inherently irrational (faith).

 

(Or insanity, or those who have mistaken a dream [ie, the sleep paralysis phenomenon -- I too have experienced it] for reality.)

It is so very convenient to always be able to fall back on the old "well, we don't know everything, do we? Look how much we have learned in the last 100 years, etc." argument, thus effectively dispensing with science altogether. Can I 100% prove to you that singing purple polka-dotted elephants do not exist somewhere in the depths of the African jungle, especially if you do not want to be convinced? No -- but I (or a biologist) could "prove" it to the satisfation of many/most.

 

In the end, I guess there is no overall "truth" -- just personal versions of it. Do we "know" anything? (That is why I am an agnostic, as opposed to an atheist -- as I said above, I don't believe in God, but do not KNOW that such a being does not exist. I conduct my life as if that supposed supreme being is a myth, but who knows -- I just might find meself cringing before some heavenly "seat of judgement" after my death. Even then, though, I know this God will understand my lack of belief in a being who had never manifested itself to me....    I hope! )

 

Maybe this is all a dream -- maybe the universe will die with me. Maybe I am God incarnate. Maybe God is insane. Maybe he/she/it lives in a black hole, and looks like a dog.

 

Maybe.

 

Can you prove me wrong?  

 

This much we know: you believe this, I believe that, and neither of us will ever accept the other's form of "proof" as absolute proof.

 

These arguments between faith/doubt of science and science/doubt of faith go nowhere, in the end. The choir don't need converting -- those who do aren't even in the church, and have no plans to come in.

Peace.

"Peace" too.

'Tis an interesting "debate," but fruitless, I believe -- the respective positions are firmly entrenched, and speak different "languages."

Peter:

To my comment that “There have been many, many sightings witnessed by hundreds of people at a time, all over the world,” you replied “How do you know that to be a fact, Maani? Ah -- you weren't there, but read it somewhere, right?”

Actually, there are dozens of photos – published in mainstream publications in several countries throughout the world, including Russia, Greece, Italy, Turkey and elsewhere – of enormous crowds of people (sometimes in the many hundreds) pointing to something(s) in the sky, with articles accompanying the photos stating that the object(s) being looked at were “UFOs.”  As noted, the government and/or scientific communities may have offered rational explanations for the phenomena being observed, but in at least some cases, no such explanation was offered, or the one that was offered was roundly rejected by the overwhelming majority of those who were there.

To my comment that “Finally, re your tete-a-tete with BaldFriede, I have said it once, and I will say it again: the narrow, closed-minded view of rational scientific empiricists prima facie precludes the ability to accept the existence of anything outside of their limited belief system,” you replied “No -- just as I am an agnostic (don't think there is a God, but can't be 100% certain) I accept the possibility -- however remote -- of these things.”

Sorry, that does not make you “open-minded” or even “agnostic.”  Since you put God and UFOs in the same category as “singing purple polka-dotted elephants” and “Elvis flipping burgers” somewhere, you are actually being cavalier, dismissive and insulting.  It is not enough to “not be 100% certain.”  Being open-minded means you do not look solely for proof against, but you also do not dismiss out-of-hand evidence or support for.  Indeed, a true open-minded skeptic might even actively seek proof for something s/he does not believe in (something I and others I know often do).

To my quotation from Hamlet that “There is more in heaven and earth, Horatio, than is dreamt of in your philosophy,” you replied “A nice quote, but rather arrogant in its implication that Hamlet (you) fully knows what Horatio (Tony, myself, other "rationalists" who want more in the way of "proof" than "I read somewhere" or "someone -- who had to remain anonymous --said...") is thinking, or will accept as proof.”

Horsehockey.  Hamlet is not saying that he “knows” anything specific; he is simply expressing his belief that Horatio is too locked into a rational, empiric view of the world, and that there are things that that rational, empiric view does not explain.  Besides, I do know what you, Tony and other “rationalists” are thinking or “will accept as proof” because I have been having these types of discussions with both of you for well over two years and you have made your positions quite well known.

You continue, “Essentially, this argument comes down to ‘I know I am right.’ But you do NOT ‘know.’  You are operating in the realm of faith, and seeing/believing in what you wish to see or believe in.  (as, arguably, am I -- but we have differing criteria for establishing "proof" or "truth.")"

You then say, “There is no point in the rational (science) arguing with the inherently irrational (faith).”

I find this attitude enormously sad, especially as it has always been my feeling (as well as that of such notable scientists as Einstein, Sagan, Gould and Hawking) that science and faith are not necessarily mutually exclusive.  As I have noted in other threads, what I find interesting is that my belief system leaves far more room for your belief system than yours does for mine.  That is, my faith does not discount, dismiss or otherwise question the vast majority of established science and the scientific method.  Yet your scientific empiricism completely and totally discounts, dismisses and questions my faith-based belief system  - despite your claims that you “keep an open mind.”  This is why I call your worldview “limited”: because you have only the rational, scientific, empirical method/belief system – which has no room for the faith-based belief system – while my faith-based belief system has plenty of room for your rational, scientific, empirical belief system.

You conclude that, “It is so very convenient to always be able to fall back on the old ‘well, we don't know everything, do we?  Look how much we have learned in the last 100 years, etc.’ argument, thus effectively dispensing with science altogether…In the end, I guess there is no overall ‘truth’ -- just personal versions of it. Do we ‘know’ anything?

Peter, you are smarter than this.  To claim that humankind has not learned everything it can possibly learn yet – and even to claim that there is a great deal that we still have to learn – is not the same as cavalierly and dismissively saying, “Well, we don’t know everything, do we?”  Nor do such statements “dispens[e] with science altogether.”  What it does is force the rational, scientific, empirical community to show a little humility, and admit that it does not know everything – and maybe even that there is a great, great deal that it still does not know.  Indeed, it is the scientific community that maintains a “we have explained everything in the known universe through the application of all of the natural laws of the universe (all of which we know already) and there is nothing more to learn” attitude much of the time.  And you think a faith-based belief system thinks it “knows everything?!”  We, at least, will often admit when we don’t know what we don’t know.  I have rarely ever heard that kind of humility from anyone in the rational, scientific, empiricist community.

Anyway, if you think these debates are pointless, why do you continue to engage in them?  You may do better enjoying other threads, where more mundane topics, and more “concrete” issues, are discussed.

Peace.

Re other life in the universe, Carl Sagan once postulated that, given billions of galaxies each containing billions of stars around billions of which orbited billions of planets, it was actually statistically unlikely that there isn't other life in the universe.  He further postulated that, based partly on the sheer numbers, and partly what we know of the "absolute laws" of matter and energy, it was also statistically likely that there was other intelligent life in the universe - though he would not go so far as to presume that it would necessarily either look or "think" like us.