DamnDirtyApe
Skilled Investigator
Here are a few major aspects to the ET phenomena that I have trouble accepting. A lot of things just don’t “sit right” with me at gut level.
1) No two sightings/photographs are alike.
With possible exception of the black triangles (which I believe are from our own military) why is it that pretty much every major ufo photo/video/sighting is different? It's almost impossible to count the variety of crafts supposedly out there - orbs, glowing discs, saucers, boomerangs, cigars etc. And within each major shape category you have endless differences. Windows, protrusions, lights, etc all deviate from one another. Even the sizes vary from gigantic all the way down to tiny drones.
The fact that even the core “best” cases are very different makes it hard to accept that these are actual physical crafts unless you entertain the idea that the ufos literally have an unlimited number of vehicles at their disposal. If everyone around the world saw and photographed and videotaped the same thing, or even a small variety of the same things, I would find it incredibly compelling. Sadly, it seems ufos are like snow-flakes. No two are alike.
I find it very telling that when you look at the stuff that came out of the former Soviet Union after the government collapsed, the nature and descriptions of their sightings varied widely from the West. Since they were so isoloated during the cold war they didn’t have access to the latest fads and trends in the media and ufology. Thus we get sightings of tall robots and an assortment of other odd things that the West left behind in the 50’s.
2) Their "technology" is anachronistic, and their messages trite.
Explain how beings that can travel the unimaginable distances of space, or master traversing other “dimensions” (whatever THAT means) can't seem to avoid crashing all the time, or need running lights? Our own planes can fly in complete darkness if need be, yet UFO’s need running lights? Ridiculous.
Perhaps ufos glow as a byproduct of their propulsion systems? Fine. Then why isn’t that a universal trait? Many of the sightings report ships traveling at great speed with no glow at all. Again you run into the issue of there being no consistent details from sighting to sighting.
On a more abstract level, if aliens are here to study/monitor us, why would they need to directly interact with us in any way whatsoever? We primitive humans are already working on micro-sized robots that can fly around and record data or deliver weapons. Surely an advanced intelligence can do better than buzzing over farms in huge ships or grabbing thousands of people in their beds. When modern anthropologists want to study primates in the wild, even with our limited technologies we can do it more surreptitiously than the ET’s seem to be able to manage with us.
Beings that have mastered technology to the point of traveling the stars would assuredly possess tools and techniques that are unpredictable, unexpected, or downright baffling to us. They should be able to whip up some sort of nano-sized "exploration" dust bots, or invisible robots etc. Hell I don’t know, but whatever it might be, I’ve never heard of any evidence of it beyond projected near-term advancements of our own current technologies.
Likewise, just as their tools are simply an extrapolation of our own current systems, the messages they supposedly give to abductees are equally mired in contemporary issues. Back in the 50’s the reason for the alien’s contacting us was to warn us about the threat of nuclear annihilation. Then in the 80’s it was for genetic experimentation. In the new millennia, with all the hoopla and media hype of global warming, suddenly the aliens are here to warn us about how we are destroying the environment. In 20 years, whatever the latest social obsession happens to be, I’m sure the ET’s will be warnings us about that as well.
And why is it that besides the pre-requisite stereotypical gloom and doom warnings, nothing else truly useful is ever conveyed to contactees? How come no one is ever given any information that is not already currently available on Wikipedia, or that is testable or predictive in some way.
For example, if a contactee were to come out and say “The Greys told me that they traverse our space-time by manipulating closed cosmic strings employed as the struts of a cube thus causing negative tension to cancels tidal forces blah blah blah, and here is the cornerstone equation which describes the process…” Then you could actually have experts evaluate the information in a meaningful way. Hoaxer Bob Lazar tried that rout once, but his lies were quickly exposed as scientific mumbo-jumbo once experts examined it. His crap about gravity waves and element 115 sounded great to the uneducated willing believers, but was instantly seen for what it is by real physicists. So instead of truly unexpected or verifiable info, we endless get nonsense about how the ET’s want us to meditate and get in harmonic frequency with mother earth, or why we should be vegans if we want to enter into the greater cosmic community. Ugh. I don't expect them to reveal the secerets of the universe, but come on, you'd think that guys like Whitley Striber would come away with even a tiny iota of useful information after supposedly having years and years of alien visits.
3) They look even remotely like us. This one has been around for a while, and it still holds as far a I'm concerned. Even if the Greys are synthetic or automatons, why would they look similar, yet not TOO similar, from us? Why is it that people in the 50 and 60s' were not describing the modern Greys. It's not until stuff like the movie "Close Encounters" and Strieber's book came out that everyone started describing the modern prototypical alien form. It's all too convenient for me.
At the end of the day, part of me still feels there is a valid unexplained phenomenon out there, so I’m not 100 percent opposed to the possibility of the ETH. But issues like I raised above really make it hard for me to take it too seriously.
Please chime in with your own observations or rebuttals. I’d love to debate information that refutes or explains the issues I raised.
1) No two sightings/photographs are alike.
With possible exception of the black triangles (which I believe are from our own military) why is it that pretty much every major ufo photo/video/sighting is different? It's almost impossible to count the variety of crafts supposedly out there - orbs, glowing discs, saucers, boomerangs, cigars etc. And within each major shape category you have endless differences. Windows, protrusions, lights, etc all deviate from one another. Even the sizes vary from gigantic all the way down to tiny drones.
The fact that even the core “best” cases are very different makes it hard to accept that these are actual physical crafts unless you entertain the idea that the ufos literally have an unlimited number of vehicles at their disposal. If everyone around the world saw and photographed and videotaped the same thing, or even a small variety of the same things, I would find it incredibly compelling. Sadly, it seems ufos are like snow-flakes. No two are alike.
I find it very telling that when you look at the stuff that came out of the former Soviet Union after the government collapsed, the nature and descriptions of their sightings varied widely from the West. Since they were so isoloated during the cold war they didn’t have access to the latest fads and trends in the media and ufology. Thus we get sightings of tall robots and an assortment of other odd things that the West left behind in the 50’s.
2) Their "technology" is anachronistic, and their messages trite.
Explain how beings that can travel the unimaginable distances of space, or master traversing other “dimensions” (whatever THAT means) can't seem to avoid crashing all the time, or need running lights? Our own planes can fly in complete darkness if need be, yet UFO’s need running lights? Ridiculous.
Perhaps ufos glow as a byproduct of their propulsion systems? Fine. Then why isn’t that a universal trait? Many of the sightings report ships traveling at great speed with no glow at all. Again you run into the issue of there being no consistent details from sighting to sighting.
On a more abstract level, if aliens are here to study/monitor us, why would they need to directly interact with us in any way whatsoever? We primitive humans are already working on micro-sized robots that can fly around and record data or deliver weapons. Surely an advanced intelligence can do better than buzzing over farms in huge ships or grabbing thousands of people in their beds. When modern anthropologists want to study primates in the wild, even with our limited technologies we can do it more surreptitiously than the ET’s seem to be able to manage with us.
Beings that have mastered technology to the point of traveling the stars would assuredly possess tools and techniques that are unpredictable, unexpected, or downright baffling to us. They should be able to whip up some sort of nano-sized "exploration" dust bots, or invisible robots etc. Hell I don’t know, but whatever it might be, I’ve never heard of any evidence of it beyond projected near-term advancements of our own current technologies.
Likewise, just as their tools are simply an extrapolation of our own current systems, the messages they supposedly give to abductees are equally mired in contemporary issues. Back in the 50’s the reason for the alien’s contacting us was to warn us about the threat of nuclear annihilation. Then in the 80’s it was for genetic experimentation. In the new millennia, with all the hoopla and media hype of global warming, suddenly the aliens are here to warn us about how we are destroying the environment. In 20 years, whatever the latest social obsession happens to be, I’m sure the ET’s will be warnings us about that as well.
And why is it that besides the pre-requisite stereotypical gloom and doom warnings, nothing else truly useful is ever conveyed to contactees? How come no one is ever given any information that is not already currently available on Wikipedia, or that is testable or predictive in some way.
For example, if a contactee were to come out and say “The Greys told me that they traverse our space-time by manipulating closed cosmic strings employed as the struts of a cube thus causing negative tension to cancels tidal forces blah blah blah, and here is the cornerstone equation which describes the process…” Then you could actually have experts evaluate the information in a meaningful way. Hoaxer Bob Lazar tried that rout once, but his lies were quickly exposed as scientific mumbo-jumbo once experts examined it. His crap about gravity waves and element 115 sounded great to the uneducated willing believers, but was instantly seen for what it is by real physicists. So instead of truly unexpected or verifiable info, we endless get nonsense about how the ET’s want us to meditate and get in harmonic frequency with mother earth, or why we should be vegans if we want to enter into the greater cosmic community. Ugh. I don't expect them to reveal the secerets of the universe, but come on, you'd think that guys like Whitley Striber would come away with even a tiny iota of useful information after supposedly having years and years of alien visits.
3) They look even remotely like us. This one has been around for a while, and it still holds as far a I'm concerned. Even if the Greys are synthetic or automatons, why would they look similar, yet not TOO similar, from us? Why is it that people in the 50 and 60s' were not describing the modern Greys. It's not until stuff like the movie "Close Encounters" and Strieber's book came out that everyone started describing the modern prototypical alien form. It's all too convenient for me.
At the end of the day, part of me still feels there is a valid unexplained phenomenon out there, so I’m not 100 percent opposed to the possibility of the ETH. But issues like I raised above really make it hard for me to take it too seriously.
Please chime in with your own observations or rebuttals. I’d love to debate information that refutes or explains the issues I raised.
Again, the lights issue goes back to lack of consistency.