UFO decent footage, IMO. You?

[Bigga]

Knowing that we would be the relatively 'new kids on the block', why wouldn't there be Life far in advanced of our own? What about "String Theory" or 'Worm Holes'? Would this not explain the ability to get here in less than the 'thousands of years', you allude to?

You're very dismissive of the fact that intellect cannot supersede what we have. That's laughable! In this whole vast universe, you seem to think we are the most advanced civilisation. Have you counted the stars/ suns? Calculated how many planets must be in existence? Multiplied that all together with how long the Universe has been around? We may be in the Amoeba stage of existence. Maybe mid level. But, certainly not advanced.

That would be preposterous!

we can hear the big bang but so far no radiation from our super advanced cousins? To get to their level of intellect they must have evolved through ours and we are screaming out across the galaxies.

Are you suggesting that radiation is the only unit to measure with? Maybe it's not enough? As for 'hearing the Big Bang', how come it's always being re-calculated? I doubt very much that radiation, along our state of advancement, will be deemed as an accurate tool, in the future.

That's like saying hours is enough to measure time, but then someone deems seconds as a more closer representation, until somebody adds nano seconds.

Sorry, GD, but that's just... no.

 

[Gelsons Dad]

we can hear the big bang but so far no radiation from our super advanced cousins? To get to their level of intellect they must have evolved through ours and we are screaming out across the galaxies.

Are you suggesting that radiation is the only unit to measure with? Maybe it's not enough? As for 'hearing the Big Bang', how come it's always being re-calculated? I doubt very much that radiation, along our state of advancement, will be deemed as an accurate tool, in the future.

That's like saying hours is enough to measure time, but then someone deems seconds as a more closer representation, until somebody adds nano seconds.

Sorry, GD, but that's just... no.

radiation |reɪdɪˈeɪʃ(ə)n|
noun
1 Physics the emission of energy as electromagnetic waves or as moving subatomic particles, esp. high-energy particles that cause ionization.
• the energy transmitted in this way, as heat, light, electricity, etc.

Sorry Bigga, the term radiation is not a unit. It's a noun mate and I used it on purpose as I'm in no position to guess what type of radiation it may. So not hours minutes or seconds but Time itself.

Yes we can hear the background radiation from the big bag. You know it as white noise and you can hear it by de-tuning your tv or radio and turning off any squelch function.

The point I make is absolutely valid as if they do not radiate in the known spectrum there could be no pictures of them which would negate all the nonsense posted earlier in this thread.

Yossarian - "That catch 22 is one hell of a catch"
Doc - "It's the best there is"

 

[ElanJo]

Since the question of when saucer shaped objects became popular is being ignored, I'll answer it.

In 1947, Kenneth Arnold saw 9 boomerang shaped objects and described their movement as being like a saucer skipping over water. Notice how he did not refer to their shape as being like a saucer.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.debunker.com/arnold.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.debunker.com/arnold.html</a>

Since then, most UFO sightings have been of saucer-shaped objects, which shows that the phenomena has more to do with cognitive processes than with anything that's actually happening in the sky. Most UFO sightings turn out to have pretty mundane explanations. They're usually planets, satellites, balloons or Chinese lanterns:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.shropshirestar.com/2008/07/30/lanterns-cast-light-on-ufo-claims/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.shropshirestar.com/2008/07/3 ... fo-claims/</a>

'Chinese lanterns' in the Christ depictions and in the early man drawings!

I've heard it all...

To think UFOs are depicted in Christian art is to misunderstand theology.

 

[Bigga]

'Chinese lanterns' in the Christ depictions and in the early man drawings!

I've heard it all...

To think UFOs are depicted in Christian art is to misunderstand theology.

Ooo! I'd love for you to find the quote where I said they were 'UFOs'!! I'm open minded and, indeed, they could have just been the influential fashion of sticking objects in the sky, but lanterns? No, mate.

I could take other explanations, but the 'cloud' thing just seems odd. It would be easier to depict clouds as white fluffy things, like kids do, surely?

 

[Gelsons Dad]

To think UFOs are depicted in Christian art is to misunderstand theology.

Ooo! I'd love for you to find the quote where I said they were 'UFOs'!! I'm open minded and, indeed, they could have just been the influential fashion of sticking objects in the sky, but lanterns? No, mate.

I could take other explanations, but the 'cloud' thing just seems odd. It would be easier to depict clouds as white fluffy things, like kids do, surely?

Much cooler to paint these babies than boring cumulus. We don't get many lenticular clouds in the UK due to the prevailing met conditions but they are common in many other places in the world.

 

[alabaster]

Ooo! I'd love for you to find the quote where I said they were 'UFOs'!! I'm open minded and, indeed, they could have just been the influential fashion of sticking objects in the sky, but lanterns? No, mate.

Neither I nor anybody else said that the objects were lanterns. I mentioned lanterns, but I was talking about UFO sightings, not bloody art.

This is so typical of true believers. You are arguing against a straw-man. Try to read things properly.

 

[Gelsons Dad]

Ooo! I'd love for you to find the quote where I said they were 'UFOs'!! I'm open minded and, indeed, they could have just been the influential fashion of sticking objects in the sky, but lanterns? No, mate.

I could take other explanations, but the 'cloud' thing just seems odd. It would be easier to depict clouds as white fluffy things, like kids do, surely?

Much cooler to paint these babies than boring cumulus. We don't get many lenticular clouds in the UK due to the prevailing met conditions but they are common in many other places in the world.

Flying pigs too!!

 

[ElanJo]

The universe is infinitely massive. It's more than likely that there is life out there somewhere - but for them to get here, they would probably have to have been travelling for thousands of years. Is it likely that they would travel such enormous distances and make no effort to contact us? Imagine if it was the other way around: we'd spent years developing space-travel technology and finally got to the point where we could travel to distant planets. Eventually, after a few thousand years of searching, we find intelligent life. Then we decide to just hover around in the skies of this distant planet, maybe abduct some of the creatures and begin some weird breeding programme with them, but don't really make any attempt to make ourselves known. It is actually laughable what some people are willing to believe.

The bottom line is, there is absolutely no evidence to support the claim that alien life has ever visited this planet. A few dodgy videos and some obvious fakes do not constitute evidence. Neither do ambiguous objects in cave paintings.

I agree with you that the evidence for other life having visited this planet is thin at best. However, I think that that (the bold part) is pretty much exactly what we would do, especially if the life in question was like ours ( a young, largely irrational, superstitious, war loving species with enough firepower to destroy the planet many times over )

As for taking thousands of years to get anywhere in space, well that presupposes that we are pretty much the most intelligent life in the universe. Slightly arrogant me thinks.

I think you should just stick to the lack of evidence argument.

 

[ElanJo]

To think UFOs are depicted in Christian art is to misunderstand theology.

Ooo! I'd love for you to find the quote where I said they were 'UFOs'!! I'm open minded and, indeed, they could have just been the influential fashion of sticking objects in the sky, but lanterns? No, mate.

I could take other explanations, but the 'cloud' thing just seems odd. It would be easier to depict clouds as white fluffy things, like kids do, surely?

There's no direct quote of you saying that but from the flow of the conversation that's what it looked like you were inferring. If that's not the case then I'm sorry, I misunderstood, but for anyone out there who thinks that they are UFOs you need to look at theology.

 

[Bigga]

The universe is infinitely massive. It's more than likely that there is life out there somewhere - but for them to get here, they would probably have to have been travelling for thousands of years. Is it likely that they would travel such enormous distances and make no effort to contact us? Imagine if it was the other way around: we'd spent years developing space-travel technology and finally got to the point where we could travel to distant planets. Eventually, after a few thousand years of searching, we find intelligent life. Then we decide to just hover around in the skies of this distant planet, maybe abduct some of the creatures and begin some weird breeding programme with them, but don't really make any attempt to make ourselves known. It is actually laughable what some people are willing to believe.

The bottom line is, there is absolutely no evidence to support the claim that alien life has ever visited this planet. A few dodgy videos and some obvious fakes do not constitute evidence. Neither do ambiguous objects in cave paintings.

I agree with you that the evidence for other life having visited this planet is thin at best. However, I think that that (the bold part) is pretty much exactly what we would do, especially if the life in question was like ours ( a young, largely irrational, superstitious, war loving species with enough firepower to destroy the planet many times over )

As for taking thousands of years to get anywhere in space, well that presupposes that we are pretty much the most intelligent life in the universe. Slightly arrogant me thinks.

I think you should just stick to the lack of evidence argument.

Surprisingly common ground, here!