Flying Saucers do not exist.

[Ezechiel]

Jeff... You're describing craft that manipulate space and the perception of that craft in action from a remote location. Once we break the code all that perceived magic will eventually be boring to us. Switching off the Higgs boson is still magic lol

 

[mike]

The problem with the nuts n bolts is the material nature of nuts n bolts. Stanton, or no one else it seems, can explain why "technological hardware", a concept relevant only to humanity at this quickly passing point in time, does in no way obey characteristic behaviors of any hardware that we can imagine. Do we not see the concept of hardware, via the progressive nature of our own developments, diminishing everywhere all around us? Is not the ultimate goal of technological advancement, ultimately, self reliance wherein there is an overt ever integrating infinitesimal disappearance of as much hardware? To me, a living technology dependent on a yet known or understood medium, apart from distance traversing star ships seems far more likely. Far and away removed from the ignorant notions of nuts n bolts machinery destined for some crash landing in a local desert, whose fallible nature could never be kept a secret were it half as present as the UFO phenomenon presents itself as being. No way. Nuts n bolts equals the cavemen mindedness of UFO considerations and integrating as much relevant to ourselves is laughable, and most, including Vallee, have "seen" this. A place minus space wherein all points exist simultaneously in a grid like coexistence is just our own mathematically derived translation via the native interfacial relationship that our own cognition renders via the universal constant of consciousness. If we can see and understand this, even providing support for as much via strenuous mathematical gymnastics, what about beings millions of years our advance? Nuts and bolts indeed. You're talking material and energetic conversions for which there is no support whatsoever. Then there is the fact that many of these things fade in and out of perceptive existence, or hop from one small distance to another minus any notion of speed whatsoever. Theoretical relativity predictions made to describe possible wormholes do not match any available observational evidence. The problem is, accredited observations don't match anything apart from our vain imaginations of what "hardware" we may be witnessing. Nuts and bolts just don't match up, and I fail to see why beings obviously privy to domains far and away beyond our constraints should be bound to what are mere temporally relevant imaginings. Flying Saucers do not have to fit inside the comfort zone of one's pants pockets to be real. The question, the FAR and away more so important question, WTF is real?

Why shouldnt it be nuts and bolts ?

It works for us and many other species here on earth.
Thats the current model, it doesnt need any outré explantation.

Birds build nests, spiders build webs, humans build vehicles. We dont need exotic explanations

The Gosford case is a good example, we dont need to invoke collective conciousness, or glitch in the holographic matrix explanations

The simple explanation is, a craft that was seen by many people. Other than its possible origin ,no more unusual than a 747 jet seen by many witnesses.

Like the sound of one hand clapping it is what it is, nothing more, nothing less.

While i do think there are aspects to this enigma outside current biological (human) expectations, i doubt there is nothing in it outside reality itself

My usual caveat, im posting ideas, not facts. i recognise There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy

But the existing model can be seen here on earth, its not limited to just humans..................................terrestrial or otherwise

Given other species use hardware, nests ,webs etc, why should technological hardware be the province of just humanity ?. Its more likely, (given the current model) not less that a non terrestrial species would use it too, than not

 

[boomerang]

I think what we are seeking when discussing various general categories of explanation for the UFO is not an immediate explanation of the UFO itself. We rather seek a methodology available to "us" by which to study it. Exopolitics notwithstanding, we seem currently to have no such methodology. Our toolbox is mostly empty, regardless of whether we are in the nuts an' bolts camp, the woo woo angels and demons camp, or whatever. And still, the phenomenon persists.

As much as I would love to see an above board and well funded effort to unravel this enigma, I reluctantly doubt it would make a great difference. Our skies are monitored more closely than at any time in history and video recording devices are in every other pocket. We have just enough radar evidence to tantalize us. And still, we lack the proverbial hard evidence that would silence the scoffers and also lead to more meaningful questions.

One thing the UFO does seem to clearly tell us is that we do not understand the nature of time and space. Perhaps once we do, it will reveal a bit more of its true nature to us.

 

[SRL+]

This is the kind of credible research in which one day may produce results.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Why shouldnt it be nuts and bolts ?

Mike,
It's not a matter of the UFO phenomenon "shouldn't" like it deserves to be a nuts and bolts explanation more so than a different explanation. My point is that assuming it is akin to machinery that we ourselves would technologically manufacture is a weak speculation at best as the phenomena obeys no characteristic laws that we associate with material hardware that we are familiar with. However, with respect for anthropocentric projections and speculations, this is a very commonly held ideal, that somehow this is "logical". "If we humans do it that way, well dammit, we are the center of the universe you know, and frankly, I would *have* to imagine that they do it the same way too" Really? Seems a bit like the tail wagging the dog to me.

If this same UFO phenomenon that has been witnessed and interpreted throughout all of recorded time as being a progressively identified, according to an obvious contextually bound relevance that is thereby integrated into society's mythological acceptability context, the nuts and bolts beliefs are no less of a self deluding aberration than interpreting them to being histories rendition of angels and demons.

It works for us and many other species here on earth.

Thats the current model, it doesnt need any outré explantation.

Birds build nests, spiders build webs, humans build vehicles. We dont need exotic explanations

Mike,
Some of the best minds on the planet have struggled with this phenomenon's definition and context, certainly attempting to reduce it to common paralleled observations of the birds and bees is a bit shy of adequate. We witness NOTHING common in routine observable nature, or human behaviorism, that parallel the UFO phenomenon. We do however witness it interacting with cognitive sentient awareness, and we also witness it interrupt sentient process as interpreted via witness cognition, my question to you is why does this occur undeniably, and yet why don't we witness undeniable parallels with respect to our own understandings of physical laws governing nuts and bolts material that we cognitively measure up to the same way as we would these other undeniable cognitively deduced traits. Is it REALLY logical to postulate some fantastic aspect of plausible deniability for this material conundrum in one aspect concerning the phenomena, while brushing aside so many of the other undeniable associative aspects of the phenomenon's human cognition/consciousness relevant interactions?

The Gosford case is a good example, we dont need to invoke collective conciousness, or glitch in the holographic matrix explanations

The simple explanation is, a craft that was seen by many people. Other than its possible origin ,no more unusual than a 747 jet seen by many witnesses.

IMO, with respect to that which is strictly identified as a phenomenon, the simplest explanations are too often like East is from West with respect to an actual understanding of the mechanisms involved. My question to you is: How in the name of Jehoshaphat do you equate what these people saw with a 747 like craft?

Like the sound of one hand clapping it is what it is, nothing more, nothing less.

So what you are stating here is that it's impossible to know the truth of the matter apart from the separatism of enlightenment? I thought you didn't support these notions of consciousness.

While i do think there are aspects to this enigma outside current biological (human) expectations, i doubt there is nothing in it outside reality itself

Our reality is a construct of relevant information and sensory spectral relevant uptake, anything beyond that realm is indeed outside the grasp of our reality. Reality is experience. Without experience reality does not exist for us.

My usual caveat, im posting ideas, not facts. i recognise There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy

But the existing model can be seen here on earth, its not limited to just humans..................................terrestrial or otherwise

Given other species use hardware, nests ,webs etc, why should technological hardware be the province of just humanity ?. Its more likely, (given the current model) not less that a non terrestrial species would use it too, than not

With respect to the emboldened above: Incorrect. Webs, Nests, etc. are not hardware and have absolutely nothing to do with technology. Hardware denotes the willful forging, construction, or manufacturing of an artificial accommodation not naturally integral to the survival of the designer but rather the accomplishment of an abstract reasoned task possibly aiding in the aspect of survival, but in no way bound to it. Tools are an example of hardware however, and it is believed that some animals (crows, for one) do in fact fashion tools, however it is not clear whether they are actually reasoning or merely adapting to an expanded aspect of their environment via cues.

 

[Erno86]

I follow along the lines of the "nuts an bolts" saucer crowd. Take a case in fact...the one UFO landing site, that was witnessed, investigated by MUFON and myself as well. It happened in the spring of 1978, on the outskirts of Fawn Grove, Pennsylvania, USA.

At least one person witnessed the fireball landing in a grassy field. After the UFO took-off, it left an approx. 30 foot diameter burnt patch of burnt-out grass and left three triangular shaped --- spaced evenly apart --- landing pod imprints, with a 3/4" diameter x 3/4" inch deep hole in the center of each landing pod mark. I'm not sure how far the three landing pod imprints were spaced apart ---but I think they were about 10 or 12 feet apart.

I'll have to research MUFON's case number on the incident, but the report does signify that these otherworlder starships are of the nuts an bolts variety with a significant total weight.

 

[mike]

Jeff,
Webs nest etc are hardware

tools, machinery, and other durable equipment, tools, implements, and other items used in home life and activities such as gardening.

They are constructed for a purpose, a birds nest is not a natural phenomena in this context its an artificial structure created for a purpose

There is little difference other than degree of sophistication between a hand woven net for fishing and a spiders web. Likewise between a birds nest constructed to protect and rear the young, and a house used for the same purpose. In all cases biological creatures created these items for a purpose

Animals also use tools

Tools are used by some animals to perform behaviours including the acquisition of food and water, grooming, defence, recreation or construction.[1] Originally thought to be a skill only possessed by humans, some tool use requires a sophisticated level of cognition. There is considerable discussion about the definition of what constitutes a tool and therefore which behaviours can be considered as true examples of tool use. A wide range of animals is considered to use tools including mammals, birds, fish, cephalopods and insects.
Rarely, animals have been observed making their own tools, e.g. primates sharpening a stick to use as a weapon,[2] or removing leaves and twigs from a branch and fishing for termites with a stem frayed by chewing.[3]

You say

the phenomena obeys no characteristic laws that we associate with material hardware that we are familiar with

But the same can be said of the cargo culters. The planes they saw were not material hardware they were familiar with either, they had nothing that could fly. Thus they eroneously concluded they must be "magic/gods/paranormal" in nature.

As the Erno86's trace evidence post suggests, these are physical objects leaving physical traces, just as you would expect such an object to do.

We dont need to invoke an exotic explanation when a logical extension of the existing model of reality and technology will do.

I find people look towards these explanations to reconcile the whole why are they elusive question.

But i think that can be answered within the nuts and bolts model too, indeed to sidestep that may be to miss the correct answer imo.

The existing model is we have a sun, our planet orbits that sun. various species on that planet have evolved various levels of smarts and technological ability with humans being the stand out example. but others construct and make and use tools, granted not to the degree of sophistication we do.

Some even create primitive vehicles

A spider (usually limited to individuals of a small species), or spiderling after hatching,[3] will climb as high as it can, stand on raised legs with its abdomen pointed upwards ("tiptoeing"),[4] and then release several silk threads from its spinnerets into the air. These automatically form a triangular shaped parachute[5] which carries the spider away on updrafts of winds where even the slightest of breezes will disperse the arachnid.[4][5] The Earth's static electric field may also provide lift in windless conditions.[6]

Given all this happens on a single planet orbiting a single star, and the galaxy has billions of stars. the logical answer is an extension of what we already know happens here

 

[mike]

Reality is experience. Without experience reality does not exist for us.

This is another concept weve long disagreed on. Reality does not need human experience to exist. The human species has been around only a mere 200,000 years , the universe aka reality has been around a lot longer.

Reality is filtered by our sensory inputs, but it is not reliant on an observer.

Our sun could go nova today and wipe us from the universe forever. reality would still tick away without us

 

[mike]

With respect to the emboldened above: Incorrect. Webs, Nests, etc. are not hardware and have absolutely nothing to do with technology. Hardware denotes the willful forging, construction, or manufacturing of an artificial accommodation not naturally integral to the survival of the designer but rather the accomplishment of an abstract reasoned task possibly aiding in the aspect of survival, but in no way bound to it. Tools are an example of hardware however, and it is believed that some animals (crows, for one) do in fact fashion tools, however it is not clear whether they are actually reasoning or merely adapting to an expanded aspect of their environment via cues.

Sorry but you are wrong

Technology (from Greek τέχνη, techne, "art, skill, cunning of hand"; and -λογία, -logia[1]) is the collection of tools, including machinery, modifications, arrangements and procedures used by humans. Engineering is the discipline that seeks to study and design new technologies. Technologies significantly affect human as well as other animal species' ability to control and adapt to their natural environments

Indeed, until recently, it was believed that the development of technology was restricted only to human beings, but recent scientific studies indicate that other primates and certain dolphin communities have developed simple tools and learned to pass their knowledge to other generations.

Technology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Stagger Lee]

I follow along the lines of the "nuts an bolts" saucer crowd. Take a case in fact...the one UFO landing site, that was witnessed, investigated by MUFON and myself as well. It happened in the spring of 1978, on the outskirts of Fawn Grove, Pennsylvania, USA.

At least one person witnessed the fireball landing in a grassy field. After the UFO took-off, it left an approx. 30 foot diameter burnt patch of burnt-out grass and left three triangular shaped --- spaced evenly apart --- landing pod imprints, with a 3/4" diameter x 3/4" inch deep hole in the center of each landing pod mark. I'm not sure how far the three landing pod imprints were spaced apart ---but I think they were about 10 or 12 feet apart.

I'll have to research MUFON's case number on the incident, but the report does signify that these otherworlder starships are of the nuts an bolts variety with a significant total weight.

Could you recall the details of this object landing and taking off as described by witness(s)?

 

[Ezechiel]

I think what we are seeking when discussing various general categories of explanation for the UFO is not an immediate explanation of the UFO itself. We rather seek a methodology available to "us" by which to study it. Exopolitics notwithstanding, we seem currently to have no such methodology. Our toolbox is mostly empty, regardless of whether we are in the nuts an' bolts camp, the woo woo angels and demons camp, or whatever. And still, the phenomenon persists.

As much as I would love to see an above board and well funded effort to unravel this enigma, I reluctantly doubt it would make a great difference. Our skies are monitored more closely than at any time in history and video recording devices are in every other pocket. We have just enough radar evidence to tantalize us. And still, we lack the proverbial hard evidence that would silence the scoffers and also lead to more meaningful questions.

One thing the UFO does seem to clearly tell us is that we do not understand the nature of time and space. Perhaps once we do, it will reveal a bit more of its true nature to us.

Once again, having all the facets of 'the phenomena' in the same basket produces a cacophony of discordant noise

And studying it requires some kind of classification. I'd make it simple ....

• Type 1: UFO's with observed external texture and apparent exhaust from propulsion mechanics
• Type 2:UFO's with observed external texture and no exhaust from propulsion
• Type 2: Shape shifting objects
• Type 3: Lights
• etc...

Here are some type 1/2 examples that are fun to probe

 

[Jeff Davis]

Sorry but you are wrong



Technology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

hard·ware
ˈhärdˌwer/
noun
noun: hardware

1. tools, machinery, and other durable equipment.
   "tanks and other military hardware"
   synonyms: equipment, apparatus, gear, paraphernalia, tackle, kit, machinery;More
   tools, articles, implements, instruments, appliances
   "our garage became the receptacle for all his father's hardware"
   • the machines, wiring, and other physical components of a computer or other electronic system.
   • tools, implements, and other items used in home life and activities such as gardening.

tech·nol·o·gy
tekˈnäləjē/
noun
noun: technology; plural noun: technologies

1. the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, especially in industry.
   "advances in computer technology"
   • machinery and equipment developed from the application of scientific knowledge.
   • the branch of knowledge dealing with engineering or applied sciences.

That's funny, I didn't even have to resort to semantics games, or stretching matters into the realms of fringe anthropocentric philosophies as you have done in an effort to show that I am indeed, quit simply , CORRECT. Saved by the straight facts again.

 

[Jeff Davis]

This is another concept weve long disagreed on. Reality does not need human experience to exist. The human species has been around only a mere 200,000 years , the universe aka reality has been around a lot longer.

Reality is filtered by our sensory inputs, but it is not reliant on an observer.

Our sun could go nova today and wipe us from the universe forever. reality would still tick away without us

How can we know if something is real or not minus human awareness? It's absolutely impossible to know what exists at all minus cognition. I never stated that there was no reality beyond when we experience, what I stated was that reality is natively inherent to the cognitive/consciousness interface we use.

Reality is NOT the same as space/time Mike. Nor is it the same as what is atomic mass. Reality is a determination based entirely on subjective sensory experience and does not exist apart from that subjective experience. That's why when a tree falls in the woods and someone is there to witness the crashing sound that it makes when it does, the reality is that it does make noise, if no one is there, the reality is that it does not make noise. We are the determining factor that reality is most assuredly dependent on. Pretending that reality is some universal existent "all energy, all matter", field of containment and that indeed everything apart from human existence only helps to insure the fact that multiple realities have to exist.

 

[Erno86]

/,

Could you recall the details of this object landing and taking off as described by witness(s)?

My current avatar...is my picture {that's the only way I know how to post it on this forum} of the Fawn Grove, Pa. UFO landing site, that I took in April, 1978. Someone hired a land surveyor to locate the three landing pod marks, located near the center of the burnt out landing zone, yet it has fresh green grass growing in the landing zone.

I tried to find the report in MUFON's files, but was unable to search the year of 1978. I've just sent a private message to Karl 12, who I consider to be one of the greatest Ufologist's --- over at Above Top Secret Forum --- since he was the one who sent me a link of the MUFON report; about the investigation of the 1978, Fawn Grove, Pa. UFO landing site.

The actual witness/witnesses? of the landing ---- I believe --- refused too report to MUFON about the details of the landing/takeoff of the fiery-balled UFO; yet MUFON sent investigators to take samples and measurements of the landing area.

I've tried searching my previous posts about the UFO incident...that Karl 12 posted to me, along with the MUFON link, yet I'm still at a loss to find the link.

Sorry for the delay.

Sincerely,

Erno

 

[mike]

hard·ware
ˈhärdˌwer/
noun
noun: hardware

1. tools, machinery, and other durable equipment.
   "tanks and other military hardware"
   synonyms: equipment, apparatus, gear, paraphernalia, tackle, kit, machinery;More
   tools, articles, implements, instruments, appliances
   "our garage became the receptacle for all his father's hardware"
   • the machines, wiring, and other physical components of a computer or other electronic system.
   • tools, implements, and other items used in home life and activities such as gardening.

tech·nol·o·gy
tekˈnäləjē/
noun
noun: technology; plural noun: technologies

1. the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, especially in industry.
   "advances in computer technology"
   • machinery and equipment developed from the application of scientific knowledge.
   • the branch of knowledge dealing with engineering or applied sciences.

That's funny, I didn't even have to resort to semantics games, or stretching matters into the realms of fringe anthropocentric philosophies as you have done in an effort to show that I am indeed, quit simply , CORRECT. Saved by the straight facts again.

Here we go again cherry picking the stuff that fits your pet theory and ignoring the bits that disprove it

Once again

Technologies significantly affect human as well as other animal species' ability to control and adapt to their natural environments

Indeed, until recently, it was believed that the development of technology was restricted only to human beings, but recent scientific studies indicate that other primates and certain dolphin communities have developed simple tools and learned to pass their knowledge to other generations.

From the wiki article on technology

Whats the difference between a dam built by man and a dam built by beavers ?

They are both artificial constructs built for a purpose.

No one is arguing man doesnt have significantly more sophisticated tool and technology use, but its not the sole province of our species

Whats the difference between a man using a rock to open clams and other shell fish and an otter doing the same ? none both species are using the same tool the same technology to acheive the same task

Technology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Technology can be most broadly defined as the entities, both material and immaterial, created by the application of mental and physical effort in order to achieve some value. In this usage, technology refers to tools and machines that may be used to solve real-world problems. It is a far-reaching term that may include simple tools, such as a crowbar or wooden spoon, or more complex machines, such as a space station or particle accelerator

In 1937, the American sociologist Read Bain wrote that "technology includes all tools, machines, utensils, weapons, instruments, housing, clothing, communicating and transporting devices and the skills by which we produce and use them."[5] Bain's definition remains common among scholars today

Note he includes weapons as technology...............

a chimp group living in Senegal, sharpen spears with their teeth, and skewer sleeping bush babies, eating them corn-dog style. When they're done, they clean the spear and move on, saving it for later. This group also lives, part of the time, in caves. As an added bonus, another chimp at a zoo in Sweden is throwing rocks at visitors. That's nothing new, but what's disturbing is the chimp is saving the rocks, piling them up so he has a weapons cache when people who displease him come around. This means that stronger, more agile apes are not only making weapons but hoarding them to build arsenals.

10 Weapons That Animals Use

 

[mike]

How can we know if something is real or not minus human awareness? It's absolutely impossible to know what exists at all minus cognition. I never stated that there was no reality beyond when we experience, what I stated was that reality is natively inherent to the cognitive/consciousness interface we use.

Reality is NOT the same as space/time Mike. Nor is it the same as what is atomic mass. Reality is a determination based entirely on subjective sensory experience and does not exist apart from that subjective experience. That's why when a tree falls in the woods and someone is there to witness the crashing sound that it makes when it does, the reality is that it does make noise, if no one is there, the reality is that it does not make noise. We are the determining factor that reality is most assuredly dependent on. Pretending that reality is some universal existent "all energy, all matter", field of containment and that indeed everything apart from human existence only helps to insure the fact that multiple realities have to exist.

No you have it backwards, awareness/experience relies on reality, reality does not require cognition to exist.

reality

1. the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them:

1. 
   Reality is the conjectured state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined.[1] In a wider definition, reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. A still more broad definition includes everything that has existed, exists, or will exist

let me point out the relevant part again

1. 
   whether or not it is observable or comprehensible

The exact opposite of your claim

Reality is experience. Without experience reality does not exist for us.

Your premise seems to be if we have a snap shot of the eifell tower then we cant know the rest of paris and indeed france can exist.

Our experience is a snapshot of reality, its filtered by our sensory limitations.

Right now its raining on you where you sit reading this, look around you can you see it ? ,feel it , hear it, smell it , touch taste or experience it ?

No you cant. You are not equiped to do so, yet the reality is its "raining" on you.

Let me show you what it looks like

This cosmic particle rain is falling on you as you read, but you do not experience it, its beyond your ability to do so without extra equipment.

Its reality independant of your cognition and experience.

Experience is a snapshot of and thus dependant on reality, reality is what it is .It doesnt require an observer, never has never will

reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. A still more broad definition includes everything that has existed, exists, or will exist

Thus the reality is if a tree falls in the forest it will make noise regardless of observation, just as the reality is cosmic rain falls on you even though you cant, see, hear, smell, feel ,it happening.

Reality is not dependant on observation cognition or comprehension

 

[mike]

Technology (from Greek τέχνη, techne, "art, skill, cunning of hand"; and -λογία, -logia[1]) is the collection of tools, including machinery, modifications, arrangements and procedures

Ergo Tools are Technology.

The human species' use of technology began with the conversion of natural resources into simple tools.

Technology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scientists report on a tool-using fish | Earth | EarthSky


Dolphins Use Sponges As Tools To Snag Snacks, Scientists Say

Scientists unlock animal intelligence

The trend in research is to identify some new thinking skill that chimps can do, revealing that certain abilities are "not uniquely human," said Emory University primatologist Frans de Waal.

Tools are used by some animals to perform behaviours including the acquisition of food and water, grooming, defence, recreation or construction.[1] Originally thought to be a skill only possessed by humans, some tool use requires a sophisticated level of cognition. There is considerable discussion about the definition of what constitutes a tool and therefore which behaviours can be considered as true examples of tool use. A wide range of animals is considered to use tools including mammals, birds, fish, cephalopods and insects.
Rarely, animals have been observed making their own tools, e.g. primates sharpening a stick to use as a weapon,[2] or removing leaves and twigs from a branch and fishing for termites with a stem frayed by chewing.[3]

Tool use by animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Fairly simple logic

Tools are considered technology
Animals use tools
Animals use technology

indeed our own first foray into technology use

The human species' use of technology began with the conversion of natural resources into simple tools

Is indistinguishable from the technology used by many other species today

Rocks sticks etc etc

The history of technology is the history of the invention of tools and techniques

History of technology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Starting with stone age technology

Olduvai stone technology (Olduwan) 2.5 million years ago

Tools are Technology, animals make and use tools

Animals use technology

 

[Jeff Davis]

Mike,
I would suggest a refresher course in reality. Reality starts, and extends from absolutely nowhere except between your ears, or anyone's ears for that matter. People have been arguing this issue since the beginning of time and sage wisdom has LONG since won out on the side of a dream within a dream The pious pretend they can isolate reality apart from their awareness while never admitting that it is their awareness that allows the consideration of as much to begin with. Consciousness begets material, not the other way around. Best get with the guy that wrote the book on Quantum Mechanics most taught in University right now this very day for a clearer understanding. Reality does not exist apart from the relationship between cognition and consciousness. That's because it's entirely a result of as much.



I would advise some alternate research into perspective. Especially at a quantum level where you have almost become dogmatically skeptical due to what you are unable to grasp at this time. Start here for insight, rather than fandom, concerning what are, and where from UFOs actually originate, and return to.

It is time that we all move past the ridiculous science fiction entrenchments of the past century's literary folly. Finally we are beginning to see just how we are connected to these beings, and what their technology actually relates to, and it does not appear to be spacetime according to minds far and away greater than ours.

I learned a long time ago that when we attempt to paint others around us, that we feel somehow threatened by, into a corner, we look back towards the entrance to the room in which we're doing the painting only to realize that it us that is surrounded by wet paint and the only thing staring back at us from the corner is our vain imaginings.

Please stop pretending that you know what UFOs are. You don't. None of us do, and no, Flying Saucers do not have to conform to a passe nuts and bolts anthropocentric entrapment to be real and ACTUALLY independent of the reality that we ourselves are responsibly bound within.

It's all about the questions Mike, not the answers.

 

[mosherj]

Think about this.

The conceptual evolution of visitors from space has centred on the notion of vehicle of travel. Early uptake saw some utterly simplistic notions and designs that came to form the bedrock of ufology. These concepts were, during their time, deemed advanced, novel, otherworldly. But viewed from our standpoint two or three generations later, thy appear positively childlike and contrived. Look back at the pictures of these flying saucers. It's almost embarrassing.

To match the delusion, our concepts have been subordinated to the plethora of creative science fiction out there today. New and fantastic concepts have given birth to a whole new range of designs which have attempted to transcend our notions of "today's technology".

Lights in the sky.
Why on earth would intergalactic visitors have lights on their craft. It's such an obvious question but never dealt with. The most economical answer is that they are simply powered vehicles that we have launched. Drones. Jets. Whatever.

Drifting around.
For 70 years or so flying saucers have demed it necessary to hover around several hundred meters off the ground. Always at night. And always with lights on.
Why do they never show themselves unequivocally. Why in all cases does the concept of parsimony and Occam's razor easily offer more economical explanations. What possible value can be argued for inter galactic visitors just coasting around in such a fashion. It's nonsense. Utter pure idiotic nonsense.

The historical evolution of images attributed to flying saucers has evolved both in terms of their outward design and their capability. They proceed in a linear fashion with how we ourselves develop new science fiction based narratives.

To ignore this is self seduction of the worst kind.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Some excellent points, here's my two penneth worth of opinion.

Lights in the sky.

As you say, most likely from experimental craft launched from a terrestrial source. I for one believe that those huge flying triangles everyone gets so excited about are likely based on an advanced form of Townsend-Browns lifter technology developed in the 1930s. However, these could be a propulsion source of some kind rather than having any intended visual purpose. It is also worth considering that the occupants (presuming an extra-terrestrial origin) may not share the same visual adaptations as we do. They may see very much higher into the U.V spectrum or lower into the I.R. or may even have evolved a sense of physical perception that we have no parallel for. On first arrival, they may not even consider that they are visible to us as the lights we see may not be visible to them.

Drifting Around.

Any civilisation advanced enough to construct a vehicle that can travel vast inter-stellar distances will probably hold onto some kind of 'Contact Directive' concerning less technologically advanced races. If they don't know our physiology, ergo - that our eyes can see them, they may on first arrival, believe they are completely invisible to us and so drift around with a self-perceived impunity, at least until such time as they realise they are being observed.

The Saucer Shape.

Even our limited grasp of gravitational physics has taught us that gravity behaves in a cyclic manner due to the bending of space via a deformation of spacetime. Hence a planets propensity to orbit its star etc. If a vehicle has the ability to counter gravity there is probably a chance that it will use a cyclic mechanism to achieve this so a circular or spherical housing would present as the most efficient structure to house such a mechanism.


I know it's a somewhat simplistic rationale but the existence of E.T's, in my opinion, is a given. To assume that we are the only biological, intelligent life in the universe is a gross conceit. Even if only one galaxy in every hundred has spawned biological intelligence, (the Drake equation predicts as many as 3000 for our galaxy alone) there are still millions of races to consider, many of them far older and far more advanced than we can even comprehend despite Hollywoods best efforts.
If we are alone in the universe, humankind has very lonely future ahead of it.

 

[manxman]

I like that.