UFOs: Shoot them down or Don't shoot

[Randall]

I know that you understand that is a complete fantasy. What relevance do science fiction and fantasy entertainment have to do with anything? Is there any other subject other than Ufology where fictional stories are attempted to be used in some evidentiary fashion? It makes no sense whatsoever.

Are UFOs real world problems or not? If so then using real world logic, not Hollywood logic, is what is called for.

If the commonly promoted UFO mythos is true, then what is actually described is not the activity of benevolent altruistic beings. You have to really wonder why that meme is so powerful and so pervasive when nature, human history, and the reported activity signal anything but.

I seriously doubt we can shoot them down or face off against them technologically in any significant way. The only alternative is to discover their purpose and point of origin through Intelligence. This gets back to the argument that somewhere within the United States military there must be a group devoted to the problem. If so, perhaps they have concluded the only answer is in detection and tracking instead of direct confrontation. Of course, if these others have infiltrated society and the institutions within in then any real efforts to address the problem is probably neutralized before it can get underway. It always gets back to a big unknown.

Stepping back from this you have to realize that 99.9% of the world population's activity seems pretty unaffected by the UFO mystery. Does that tell us that our speculations about them are all based on fiction?

Hey Train,

So what if Kirk fighting the Gorn is pure fantasy? So far as I'm concerned, so are Reptilians in the White House. The big difference is that the video I posted is way more entertaining. It also speaks to the conceptual and moral issue of "eradicating" the aliens. Certainly, while we should have every right to defend ourselves against alien invasion, advocating the eradication of any intelligent race simply because their biology is different is savage. In my view we must strive to be better than that.

 

[mike]

Hey Train,

advocating the eradication of any intelligent race simply because their biology is different is savage. In my view we must strive to be better than that.

Wise Words.....

There is hope for us yet

 

[trainedobserver]

Hey Train,

So what if Kirk fighting the Gorn is pure fantasy? So far as I'm concerned, so are Reptilians in the White House. The big difference is that the video I posted is way more entertaining. It also speaks to the conceptual and moral issue of "eradicating" the aliens. Certainly, while we should have every right to defend ourselves against alien invasion, advocating the eradication of any intelligent race simply because their biology is different is savage. In my view we must strive to be better than that.

If you look at the context of my "eradication" statement you'll see it was made about other species that prey upon ours. Are you going to argue against the eradication or at least the ​subjugation of a predatory species targeting human beings? Threats or pests should never be allowed to use us. If there is any truth to the Grey/Reptilian business (which I personally do not buy into) then these things are our enemies and need to be put on the short list for extermination. I don't see how you can arrive at any other realistic conclusion if you suspend disbelief long enough to entertain the idea of Greys.

My statements about human receptivity to another mammalian species vs. that of an insect, reptile, mollusk or what have you is not a personal philosophical choice mind you, just an observation. Intelligent roaches, telepathic snakes, technology wielding slugs, none of those things would be well received in a real world situation. If UFOs are actually the products of a space-faring non-human truly alien species they have probably figured that out long ago and would be reluctant to show their true selves to other beings they encounter along the way.

Perhaps they have actually figured out it is completely counterproductive to try to mix with the locals. I think that is the case. It is much simpler to study them, take whatever you want, use them for whatever purpose you need to, and leave them completely out of the loop. Kind of like the humans controlled by various brands of politics or ideology.

In all of this speculation in this thread I am not talking about good and evil but biological reality. We cannot allow other species to use us like property if we have any power to resist. That goes for parasites of any kind.

If we are being visited by some other technologically advanced civilization it does not then naturally follow that they are morally or philosophically advanced as well. That is just wishful thinking. In all reality if they are truly alien in the point of origin and nature then they will also be as non-human and alien in their ideology. Oh, and believe me they will have one. You do not make it into space without one.

That ideology could be and most likely will be, completely irrational to us. It could be religious in nature. Can you imagine the incredibly bizarre form that an alien religion could adopt? Now that is scary and I don't mean maybe. Whatever their motivational force, you can bet your bottom dollar the well-being of their species is central to it. We should probably bear that in mind.

 

[mike]

I could also make a case in the positive though.
For example IF some crop circles and cattle mutilations are made by the same beings, the simple message may be, eating the flesh of other animals is nasty.

Cereal crops get decorated , meat crops mutilated, one a gestalt of beauty the other ugly.
In the first example increased yeilds are allegedly reported, in the other not even scavengers will touch the mutilated carcass.
Given that NASA started the research into invitro meat as a food source for long term space travel, its not beyond the realms of potential any long term space faring race will have left the consumption of flesh behind for the same reasons.
I really dont think its viable to assign anthromorphic assumptions to an alien species.
Nor do i think those conclusions are grounds to attack a technologically superior species.
We are not even asking the right questions (let alone have any answers) and you want to shoot first, ask later ?
If they wanted to wipe us out, they could have done so before we even learned to fly, that they havent should count for something

Yes there are aspects to the ET scenario that are scary, look at what happened when orson wells did his broadcast, and that was just fiction.
Aliens are scary, they dont even have to be real to scare us.

But imo actions speak louder than words, we are still here.

 

[Ezechiel]

Its all relative though,
One fundamental aspect of the abductee scenario is they are returned.
Why bother ? why not just take what you want and dump it in the ocean or out the airlock on your way back home.
The current scenario doesnt appear on the surface of it, to be any different to how we treat the lessor lifeforms here.
Whether its the painful experience of a trip to the vet, or the capture and tagging for study of wild animals, it doesnt imply (though im sure the subjects might feel otherwise) that we are evil for doing so.

That obviously implies that the human race (and probably other life forms on this planet) is a long term experiment and that we will be allowed to exist as long as the experimentation project is useful to them.
It also implies that they have total control of our environment and could wipe the slate clean in a fraction of a second.

Our only choice as humans becomes nuking ourselve to smittereens and destroying that corrupted exercise ... if we were to become aware of alien intent of such nature.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Well maybe they or it (UFOs) can take all the worlds debts with them and take all the austerity measures .ankers with them

 

[trainedobserver]

If UFOs are evidence of alien visitation then I don't think we can shoot them down. I think they have the technological trump card. I just find the notion of passive acceptance to point of ignoring it an amazing and repulsive notion. It seems counter to our best interests. I think it speaks to an apparent manipulation of societies parsing of the evidence.I think if you accept the reality of UFOs and related phenomena you have to seriously consider to what extent the intelligences behind them manipulate our ideas about them.

This is the thrust of what I've been saying here. These large high performance vehicles that are outside the scope of the known technologies available to us indicate a serious organized endeavor by someone other than contemporary terrestrial civilization. Whatever the purpose, it seems pretty significant to them. Whatever the end goal may be, our consent and knowledge seem unnecessary for them to accomplish it. I think we have to reject the entire UFO occupant mythos about Greys, Reptilians, Insect-things, Nordics, and what have you. Everything that is thought to be known about such things is completely unreliable and should not color our real thinking about the subject in the slightest.

Whatever the reality of the situation now or in the future, we have to face other species we find with the attitude of not becoming someone else resource that can exploited without knowledge or consent, whether that is a microorganism, an intelligent technology using species, or something claiming to be a supernatural god. That's all I'm really saying.

 

[Ezechiel]

If UFOs are evidence of alien visitation then I don't think we can shoot them down. I think they have the technological trump card.

Its crazy how we seem to want to put 'them' all in the same basket... would they all have the technological trump card ?

It would be more reasonable to think that some of them might be more vulnerable to our technologies than others. We might not be able to shoot all of them down, but we may be able to shoot at least one of them providing there are multiple races out there using different travel technologies. A bit like Miyagi catching a fly with chopsticks lol


However, there may be a scenario where one race may be dominating/exploiting an entire galaxy... or a section of it with technologies invulnerable to ours. Then your become absolutely correct.

 

[trainedobserver]

Its crazy how we seem to want to put 'them' all in the same basket... would they all have the technological trump card?

I agree with that. There is most likely a wide variety of things that constitute UFOs in general. However, it looks like the majority of reports are all indicative of things unconcerned or unchallenged by our ability to harm or otherwise interact with them. My general feeling is that there is some over-arching plan or at least mode of operation that is being followed even if there may be different operators afoot. I think if we really understood what was happening it would be something no one has been able to imagine beforehand.

I am reminded of a quote George Leonard cited in Somebody Else is On the Moon.

AniI Loren Eiseley, the anthropologist whose makes your nervous system vibrate, touched a spider's web with a pencil and concluded that in the world of the spider he did not exist. Then he asked (The Unexpected Universe, Harcourt, Brace and World, 1969): "Is Man at heart any different from the spider? . . , man thoughts, as limited as spider thoughts . . . What is it we are a part of that we do not see as the spider was not gifted to discern my face, or my little probe into her world?"

 

[Hotkafka]

I really hate chiming in after that powerfully haunting outro. Apparently I will have to read that book at some point, as well as defy my own resistance, cause I'm going to chime in anyway.

First, I love these kind of threads. It seems to me that's where the creativity comes in. We get to relax a bit and channel all of the hours we've put into the dubious obsession and stretch, if not significantly in mind perhaps in spirit.

Consider this. That's actually the point.

And by the point I mean that it's really all about process. It's a supposition that's been put forth before, but I'm going to keep tossing it out there because in terms of the convoluted nature of this topic, this appears to be an actual aspect that one can keep track of regarding this phenomenon. For example, we can look at the evolution of the narrative. Having said that, I won't for the sake of time. But what if the phenomenon is simply the process of inspiring an impulse behind a new version of the same old exercise, a process meant to evoke a certain chord, rythm or tone from the human psyche? The further we explore and move in this regard, the closer we come to creating a window for a new experience or expression of ourselves in our relation to our personhood, culture, world and universe.

By now, I think that many of us on this forum can accept that over a 60 year period of somewhat determined investigation and research, UFOlogy has managed an unabashed triumph in proving absolutely nothing, not one single aspect of this phenemenon that's not rooted in interpretation or story (and I know some would argue otherwise). The argument for a nuts and bolts affair has proven as equally ellusive and unimpressive as the evidence for a non-material affair, and the rest of theories revolving around the fringes seem to do nothing but destabilize the potentially 'promising' areas and up the weirdness factors to even profounder heights. It's true, most of the public will not even touch a moderate exploration of the subject, the government balks, perhaps hides, scientists scorn, however if you pull back and look at the meta-effect of this quirky theme, you get an entirely different perspective of its scope. The concepts, fears, insecurites, grandiosities, lore, images and aguing points have been assimilated, interjected into the mainstream and beyond into global culture. Apparently, the rare encounters and purported experiences of a relative few are influencing the inner creative narratives of peoples and cultures across the globe. Why?

Technology seems to have always played a role in transmitting the stories behind these episodic encouters, the early experiencers having initiated them through psychotropics or ritualistic practice, the occasional run in and spontaneous mystical episode, but now a technology with a powerful scope is broadcasting new versions of these experiences and subtle states through increasingly realistic audio/visual presentations. Perhaps when we begin to address the emergence and evolution of the UFO and alien theme in terms of our collective experience and development, maybe then we'll begin to see a pattern.

So in posing the question of shooting a down a "craft" which may hold a being of which we are increasingly more uncomfortable calling alien, just exactly what are we doing here? What is the benefit of such a process? What are we projecting? I am reminded of Hillman when he spoke of how Christianity attempts to deal with shadow as a moral problem in the concept of sin.

 

[Trajanus]

And like I've said before, if these things aren't human, if they are insects, reptiles, or some other thing than mammals, right or wrong we'll go at them tooth and nail. If these stories about Greys, Reptilians, and Manta aliens are true, then those things are our natural enemies at a very basic level. We would and probably should kill them on principle alone. Other species that prey upon ours need to be eradicated.

Tall order; for the foreseable future, the best we're likely to achieve is to repel them.

I am telling you. There is nothing about the implications of UFOs that is "cool and groovy" except in some cartoon version of reality. This business should have the entire planet united and militarized. It doesn't. That in itself may signal the fight was over before it started or that it isn't a reality in any real sense of the word at all.

There's another possibility: the government is building reverse engineered craft, as quickly but quietly as possible, before really going after our visitors. In the meantime, it does little, in part to avoid alerting the enemy, and panicking the populace by highlighting the existence of a threat it can't yet properly deal with. A possible analogy: German sub construction late in WWII. After the allies trounced the old U-boat types, the Germans built large numbers of Type XXIs, but they didn't send the first which were ready into combat right away. The idea was the keep the allies as uninformed and unprepared as possible until enough XXIs were ready to really nail them.

 

[Ezechiel]

So in posing the question of shooting a down a "craft" which may hold a being of which we are increasingly more uncomfortable calling alien, just exactly what are we doing here? What is the benefit of such a process? What are we projecting? I am reminded of Hillman when he spoke of how Christianity attempts to deal with shadow as a moral problem in the concept of sin.

A few reasons come to mind...

Poking the phenomena to determine whether it can acknowledge our presence and finally break the wall of silence would be my best reason.
If we are able to knock down an object that operates beyond our current technological limitations, we may gain useful insights on how to defend ourselves and may inherit useful alien trinkets along the way. (I suspect electromagnetic pulse might disrupt them). I'd call it SDI (strategic defense initiative) but I think the name was already used by Ronald Reagan in his star wars scheme lol. In essence we become the bottom feeders in a larger scheme where the only way to go is up

Given that the general population is 'out of the loop'. If someone or some organization is in the loop, has established contact and is cooperating with beings not from this earth, shooting these intruders might force the covert organization to reveal itself. Steven Bassett is more or less accusing the U.S. of being that covert organization and the lack of response during the Phoenix lights kind of points to something like that.

Remember that when iron pots became available to American aboriginals it dramatically altered their mobility and hunting efficiency.

 

[trainedobserver]

The only practical reason to shoot down a UFO is to identify it. Secondarily, it sends a message that the incursions are unwelcome and will not be tolerated. Tactically speaking it prevents an unknown and possibly hostile enemy from operating within your boarders. It only makes sense to attempt to shoot them down.

 

[Trajanus]

Given that the general population is 'out of the loop'. If someone or some organization is in the loop, has established contact and is cooperating with beings not from this earth, shooting these intruders might force the covert organization to reveal itself. Steven Bassett is more or less accusing the U.S. of being that covert organization

But who else but the government i.e. military has the capability to shoot them down? Other governments, perhaps, but ours casts a long shadow internationally.

and the lack of response during the Phoenix lights kind of points to something like that.

I don't think so. (You'd think that, had there been covert contact, abductions, or other kinds of unpleasant incidents would've ceased long ago.) As I suggested above, the government may have concluded--possibly on the basis of an earlier, failed shoot down policy--that they're just not ready to provoke a confrontation.

---------- Post added at 10:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:48 AM ----------

The only practical reason to shoot down a UFO is to identify it. Secondarily, it sends a message that the incursions are unwelcome and will not be tolerated. Tactically speaking it prevents an unknown and possibly hostile enemy from operating within your boarders. It only makes sense to attempt to shoot them down.

Of course. But "identification" is basically achievable without a shoot down and was probably done at the start; any craft which appears on radar and exceeds earthly flight performance can reasonably be attributed to ET. Shoot downs serve the vital purpose of obtaining new technology for study and possible duplication, so we won't languish as the guniea pigs of the galaxy much longer.

 

[Ezechiel]

But who else but the government i.e. military has the capability to shoot them down? Other governments, perhaps, but ours casts a long shadow internationally.

Ever since WWII in the western hemisphere. Perhaps Russia may be interested.

I don't think so. (You'd think that, had there been covert contact, abductions, or other kinds of unpleasant incidents would've ceased long ago.) As I suggested above, the government may have concluded--possibly on the basis of an earlier, failed shoot down policy--that they're just not ready to provoke a confrontation.

A failed shoot down policy may have found its resolution in many ways:

1. No action, they totally ignore the phenomena
2. They ignore these intrusions all together and recalibrate their instruments (radars) so that weird aeronautical events are filtered out.
3. Covert negociation with these beings enables peaceful co-habitation. ie... Holoman AFB landing/ Eisenhower. The price to humans undisclosed.

The only way for the general population to get any kind of insight is to take the issue into its own hands and get its own evidence. When someone can build a remote station equipped with proper radars and maybe a projected EMP gun to destabilize and force a crash landing, we might be in business.

 

[Trajanus]

Ever since WWII in the western hemisphere. Perhaps Russia may be interested.

Even if they are, they may maintain secrecy for the same reasons. They could have had some good evidence since the height of the cold war but never revealed much.

A failed shoot down policy may have found its resolution in many ways:
1. No action, they totally ignore the phenomena
2. They ignore these intrusions all together and recalibrate their instruments (radars) so that weird aeronautical events are filtered out.

Basically ignoring it may be the policy but harrassment of bases and jets etc doesn't make it easy.

3. Covert negociation with these beings enables peaceful co-habitation. ie... Holoman AFB landing/ Eisenhower.

I have doubts--could be just a scam to allay fears a bit.

The only way for the general population to get any kind of insight is to take the issue into its own hands and get its own evidence. When someone can build a remote station equipped with proper radars and maybe a projected EMP gun to destabilize and force a crash landing, we might be in business.

Don't bet on it. Even if something was brought down, you can bet the government would confiscate it, destroy the site and silence witnesses.

 

[Ezechiel]

Even if they are, they may maintain secrecy for the same reasons. They could have had some good evidence since the height of the cold war but never revealed much.
Basically ignoring it may be the policy but harrassment of bases and jets etc doesn't make it easy.
I have doubts--could be just a scam to allay fears a bit.
Don't bet on it. Even if something was brought down, you can bet the government would confiscate it, destroy the site and silence witnesses.

Let me break this down... I'll assume the following 2 possibilities:

1) Either the US government knows something and cannot do anything about it:
The policy would be:

• to turn a blind eye
• turn events into ridicule
• to not respond to 'phoenix lights' type events
• control the media

2) Either the US government knows something and has already negociated a settlement:
The policy would be:
same as no 1

In essence, this planet has no current valid defenses against the phenomena. Either it has bowed down to higher authority or ignores operations it could never have control over.

This problably sums up all the disclosure issues There are no advantages to panicking human populations.

 

[Snidely Whiplash]

Why would we act with aggression with an unkown intellegence without knowing its motive or reason for being here. This is true whether they are non human or human.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

How many humans would stamp on a ant or spider ? Human's would reacted in many different way flee or fight. Mind you what ever the thing/it is it might eat you first ask questions later?

 

[Trajanus]

Let me break this down... I'll assume the following 2 possibilities:

1) Either the US government knows something and cannot do anything about it:
The policy would be:

• to turn a blind eye
• turn events into ridicule
• to not respond to 'phoenix lights' type events
• control the media

Another possibility is that the government can do something but not much, yet.
Except try to narrow the gap as fast as possible.

In essence, this planet has no current valid defenses against the phenomena.

Could be an exaggeration. Some shoot down claims may be valid.

Either it has bowed down to higher authority or ignores operations it could never have control over.

I have doubts about both. Had we "bowed down" already, why the reports of harrassment of bases and personnel? And notwithstanding the apparent, general supremacy of the phenomenon, "never" may be too strong a term. Consider reverse engineering stories--you never know.