British MOD Says UFO's Aren't Real

[MadMike]

UFO study finds no sign of aliens (BBC News)

A confidential Ministry of Defence report on Unidentified Flying Objects has concluded that there is no proof of alien life forms.
In spite of the secrecy surrounding the UFO study, it seems citizens of planet Earth have little to worry about.

The report, which was completed in 2000 and stamped "Secret: UK Eyes Only", has been made public for the first time.

Only a small number of copies were produced and the identity of the man who wrote it has been protected.

His findings were only made public thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, after a request by Sheffield Hallam University academic Dr David Clarke.

The four-year study - entitled Unidentified Aerial Phenomena in the UK - tackles the long-running question by UFO-spotters: "Is anyone out there?"

The answer, it seems, is "no".

The 400-page report puts it like this: "No evidence exists to suggest that the phenomena seen are hostile or under any type of control, other than that of natural physical forces."

It adds: "There is no evidence that 'solid' objects exist which could cause a collision hazard."

So if there are no such things as little green men in spaceships or flying saucers, why have so many people reported seeing them?

Well, here is the science bit.

"Evidence suggests that meteors and their well-known effects and, possibly some other less-known effects are responsible for some unidentified aerial phenomena," concludes the report.


Meteors may have been responsible for some UFO sightings

"Considerable evidence exists to support the thesis that the events are almost certainly attributable to physical, electrical and magnetic phenomena in the atmosphere, mesosphere and ionosphere.

"They appear to originate due to more than one set of weather and electrically-charged conditions and are observed so infrequently as to make them unique to the majority of observers."

People who claim to have had a "close encounter" are often difficult to persuade that they did not really see what they thought they saw. The report offers a possible medical explanation.

"The close proximity of plasma related fields can adversely affect a vehicle or person," states the report.

"Local fields of this type have been medically proven to cause responses in the temporal lobes of the human brain. These result in the observer sustaining (and later describing and retaining) his or her own vivid, but mainly incorrect, description of what is experienced."

There are, of course, other causes of UFOs - aeroplanes with particularly bright lights, stray odd-shaped balloons and strange flocks of birds, to name but a few.


The report admits its findings will not persuade everyone

Yet, it will be difficult to convince everyone that there is a rational explanation for all mysterious movements in the sky.

Some UFO-spotters believe governments will always cover up the truth about UFOs, because they are afraid of admitting that there is something beyond their control.

It is not clear how much time and effort the MoD has spent looking at the skies in recent years, but it appears there are no plans for an in-depth UFO report like the one written in 2000.

A MoD spokesperson said: "Both this study and the original "Flying Saucer Working Party" [already in public domain in the national Archives] concluded that there is insufficient evidence to indicate the presence of any genuine unidentified aerial phenomena.

"It is unlikely that we would carry out any future studies unless such evidence were to emerge."

Riiiiiggghhhttt....

Can't say I ever witnessed one close up. However, I was once in the Black Hills of South Dakota about ten years ago camping. I just happened to look up and see a bright shining object (a little larger than the largest star) traverse the sky much much faster than any satellite (they're easily seen away from the city lights). There was no trail that would accompany a meteor, nor was there any jet noise. So...

I've met quite a few individuals in the military who have witnessed these craft, and to some extent their stories are quite harrowing (from a military technology standpoint).

Astronaut Gordon Cooper's story is quite interesting-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Cooper

A good book to read is "Above Top Secret" by Timothy Good. :o

Yours, Mike

[Oberon]

And yet in the same vein....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/4977134.stm

But there you have it, I doubt we'd get a straight answer out of anyone bar the ETs, though it's likely that a fair few UFOs are not ET in origin but military test vehicles...particularly the B-2 and F-117 when they were in testing, I should imagine they helped give rise to the flying triangles.
But there's gotta be something out there, there's just too much space for there not to be.

[Drebbel]

So if there are no such things as little green men in spaceships or flying saucers, why have so many people reported seeing them?

Same with angels, science says there can not be such a thing.

Yet many have seen them !

[Abraham]

Same with angels, science says there can not be such a thing.

Yet many have seen them !
I see one on a regular basis... :D

To be more serious: I don't believe in UFO's, Flying Saucers etc.
Some may have been test vehicles.

However, there could be something like supernatural life forms... :hmm:

[rogerbo]

Who are we that we should be the only ones in the Universe ??
It may bee that there are no UFO's realy seen on this Planet, but the whole Univers is soooooo Big and in many parts Older the the Earth itself and if the Theory that life came to earth by comets and meteors is right the to asume that Humans are the only inteligent Race in the Univers is just ignorant.

Let's asume that there are races who are older then the Humans and have a much higher technological level then we. If they could invent the long distance space travell, why should they come to us ?? If they come what would they think about us ? Why should they hide from us or oposite why should the show themself to us.

It's a theme with no ends as there is no prove for their exisence as well as there is no prove against their existance. (Jet ?? )

[Drebbel]

Same with angels, science says there can not be such a thing.

Yet many have seen them !
I see one on a regular basis... :D

Me not going to tell you my angle story, too afraid I will blush.

:oops:

[scandium]

"They" may very well be out there, but "there" is a very big place of which we occupy a mere pindrop in both space and time (the history of our species to present).

I have seen a meteor burn up (presumably, it was fairly far off) in the sky though and it was a very spectacular sight even though it probably lasted all of a second or two. :up:

[MadMike]

Check out number 35, "UFO Hypothesis and Survival Questions" at the following link-

http://www.nsa.gov/ufo/index.cfm

Yours, Mike

[Fish]

For a few years I was walking down the beach, it was a grey day, low clouds all over.
At one moment I see someone els staring at the horizon. When I look in the same direction I see a small light moving with a incredible speed.
Other people start staring too.
Then, after four or five seconds and in in a flash of light, the sun breaks through a hole in the clouds.
I then was aware I was holding my breath for seconds before we understand what happens, people start laughing, relieved. Phew! :(

[bradclark1]

A confidential Ministry of Defence report on Unidentified Flying Objects has concluded that there is no proof of alien life forms.
Tell that to the little green men I saw in my backyard after I drank a twelve pack.

Considering space goes on forever and ever I would think it's improbable we are the only lifeforms.

[Konovalov]

http://www.angelfire.com/pa/lkmarvin/Pictures/mymarvin.jpg

[TteFAboB]

Arrogance should be made optional in the British journalism curriculum.

[STEED]

Listen up people the threat of UFO'S is in hand we got S.H.A.D.O


Are first line of defence, Interceptors.

http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/1985/interceptorss7qg.jpg

Are second line in the atmosphere, Skyone

http://img390.imageshack.us/img390/9816/skydivers0hv.jpg

http://img390.imageshack.us/img390/3082/skyone1s0ns.jpg

And if they land.

http://img432.imageshack.us/img432/323/ufos5pu.jpg

We got the Mobiles.

http://img432.imageshack.us/img432/9049/mobile3vj.jpg


DON'T PANIC IT'S ALL UNDER CONTROL.

[Oberon]

http://www.ufoseries.com/guide/strakersCar.jpg
:D My Mums been in this car :up:


But don't worry, X-com has it under control too :up:

http://www.clive.nl/images/24784.jpg

[STEED]

http://www.ufoseries.com/guide/strakersCar.jpg
:D My Mums been in this car :up:

oberon's mum works for Ed Straker :up:

[rogerbo]

You eathlings don't know that with each War Game out there we just test how you would defense yourselfes against us :rotfl:
We have taken over all of the Computer industry and B.G. is our representative on your Planet.


Earth your Doomed :zzz:

[STEED]

You eathlings don't know that with each War Game out there we just test how you would defense yourselfes against us :rotfl:
We have taken over all of the Computer industry and B.G. is our representative on your Planet.
Earth your Doomed :zzz:

That's what you think.......

http://img463.imageshack.us/img463/6082/strakerriflet4wn.jpg

Ed Straker is on your case you alien.

[Skybird]

Science is not omnipotent. In it'S claim to be able to explain and to deal with all and everything, it tends to see earth as the centre of the universe, and all cosmos can only be constructed in a way so that human mind can master it. - We are still as egocentirc as we were during the medieval, we just hide it in a most subtle self-betraying.
But the opposite position to this critcism is attractive, but nevertheless a trap, too: while I dislike the self-understanding of science as to be fit with all tools to explain all and everything, which I severly doubt, some people now go and tell us that ignoring science and fall for the most phantastic follies is a virtue, and that it is true if only you would believe in it.

Skybird'S most-hated poster ever: Fox Mulder's office, a flying saucer and above that the headline: "I WANT TO BELIEVE" Aaaargh!

What I like in science - as i understand it - is set at it's base. In it's best understanding it is a very sceptical mindset. It is, in my understanding, so sceptiacl, that it even is sceptical about itself, it's means and tools and potentials. Science, as I understand it, rules nothing out from the beginning, it is open for all perspectives, whicht hen get examined in a systematical manner, by use of reason of logic (at least often).

but today science is a busi9ness, and an opportunity for careers. To be succesfuly, you need to adopt to the paradims of your time, you need to make compromises. creativity suffers from that, and honesty. With the ongoing selling of scientific institutes all over the world to the econom,ical big players, knowledge and insights is loosijng in value, the demand is shifting to science' responsebility of delivering the tools that the industry is in need for to be successful in it's fields of profits. Science is more and more suffering from opportunistic tunnelview.

On the other side of the masses of people being interested in UFOs and the like, are the bekievers. These people DO WANT to believe, soemtimes as a religion in itself, sometimes in service of their orthodox religion. The symptoms this audience is producing often are rediculous.

The way we talk aboutUFOS already may be hindering our understanding of it. Most people think they are classical, mechanical means of spoaceships, that fly from A to B and land on poor mother Earth to haunt the natives. then science comes and say that it cannot travel at such speeds from A to B, so it is impossible that someone else maybe can, and so UFOs cannot exist. Or other ways of argueing like this.

I personally believe that a phenomenon that a wide public names as "UFOs" or "Aliens" does exist, however, I do not think thewre is a flying saucer under every cup of coffee. I doubt most sigthings, and I do not follow most theories. I observe the talking, or btter: the babbling both camps are producing in their heated debate about pro and contra the existence of foreign intelligence. A foreign intelligence not beeing so kind to stay where it is until mankind reaches out and discovers it to man's conditions, no, we are talking about an intelligence that is able to shake our imagined feeling of being safe from being discovered on our little earth by being so rude to come to us and contact earth to it's own conditions, instead of ours. A scandal, isn't it! How could "they"?

Well, do they? I am not interested in those 98 % of sightings that are explained by weather and air traffic ophenomenons. I am talking about those less than 2% of sightings from professional personnel that was able to rule out disfunctioning technical equipment, that made precise descriptions of a flight behavior that impossibly can be done by man-made aircraft, and that also could not be explained by atmospherical phenomenons, or testflights of new, secret airplanes, wetaher ballons or such. Some of the attempts in the past decades to shake the UFO hypothesis had been so idiotic claims and stupid arguments, that one even could feel offended by how stupid they thought all people of the public audience must be.

Do I believe in UFOS, grey little men and adbuctions? Neither yes, nor no. I keep my mind open, but have stopped to actively being busy with this. I know that there are interesting links between abduction exprriences, and old mythology, and near death experiences (the latter has been a special interest of mine as a psychologist). I know that there is a small handful of books of scietifically skilled researchers that cannot be wiped off the table so easily. They came to some research results and conclusions that may not reach as far as the UFO believers would want them to go, but they are able to defend their conclusions by clear logical argument, and sometimes evidence. Nevertheless, the UFO-sceptics and governments are officially thinking they are already going to far. Usucally, neither believers nor sceptics like these persons, and they often are isolated by both.

I said I beloieve the pohenomenon exists, and there is a hard core in it, that has nothing to do with natural sciences, technics, and military stuff. I never believed in the thewory of aliens flying from Sirius to Earth to save us, to conquer us, or to study us (not to mention to eat our babies or rape our women). I think that the usualy clear separation between the field of the material world and the psychological world maybe needs to be perceived as being transcended here. I could imagine that what we recognize as being aliens and strange,m maybe is part of ourselve, our world, our life, our mind - who knows. I even think our own mind could be causing these vistiors from outer space, not as a hallucination, but a material reality that could transition between both level of existence as it like, for whatever the reason may be. I think that we need to re-discopver a btter knowledge and understanding of old mytholgies from various tribes and people here. What I believe very strongly is that if there are visitors, they must not necessarily come from very far away, nor from our level of existence, or dimension - understanding dimension as only one of a many different reflections of one and the same cósmos, that appears to be a very different thing with every reflection, nevertheless always is one and the same.

To end with Fox Mulder again: maybe it is not like that "the truth is out there", somewhere, but inside of us. Maybe the outer space and the inner space have more in common than our materialistic perception allows us to see. And maybe the humand person, it'S life and existence, it'S mind and the answer to the question why it is there, is so much more than both sceptical scientists and euphoric believers even could imagine.


It's not only that our vision is not deep enough. Maybe it also is not wide enough.

Visitors from far away worlds? Hardly. Manifestations of intelligence that our scientific or believing mind cannot perceive as such? Possibly. The need to better understand our own mind, and another level of existence concluded by that? Definetly.

"The truth, as always, will be far stranger". (Arthur C. Clarke ["2001"] )

[TLAM Strike]

Don't worry we have the Federation Starfleet to defend Earth. :up:
http://img358.imageshack.us/img358/5766/sfc26jy.gif
... yep were screwed...
Starfleet Command: Fighting incompetently against numerically inferior enemies in our own territory since 2161
http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/9287/sanfranciscoattacked24rv.jpg
:damn: :damn: :damn:
This is what happens when you take all the funding and put it in to Science and Exploration programs instead of funding the MACOs and Starfleet Marines for when you need to bust some (ridged) heads.
http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/1561/mrns019es.jpg
http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/5770/33cd016bs.jpg

[JJ]

Seen couple of UFO's (Unidentified Flying Objects that is, not flying saucers) myself but can't really tell if they were just earthlings with their machines or visitors from space.

Anyway.. when it comes to some advanced extra-terrestrial lifeform that might be checking us out, I believe we'd know about it as much as ants would know about the little microcamera David Attenborough inserts in to their nest.

[STEED]

Area 51 the UFO hub what rubbish I know what's going on their, Area 51 is the home of the secret recipe of Coca-Cola. :yep:

[Beery]

Who are we that we should be the only ones in the Universe ??
It may bee that there are no UFO's realy seen on this Planet, but the whole Univers is soooooo Big and in many parts Older the the Earth itself and if the Theory that life came to earth by comets and meteors is right the to asume that Humans are the only inteligent Race in the Univers is just ignorant.

I agree, but that in no way argues for the existence of aliens who have visited Earth.

The fact is, the distance between us and our nearest interstellar neighbour is HUGE. A spacecraft travelling at the highest speeds we've been able to achieve in space would take over 50,000 years to reach Alpha Centauri. While I'm pretty sure aliens exist, the big question is whether they can get off their planet before the civilization is destroyed by an asteroid impact or other natural catastrophe. If they can, the odds are that they won't be able to get settled on a planet outside their solar system because the chances of finding a suitable planet and being able to reach it are very small indeed. The other thing is that any civilizations in the universe will tend to inhabit areas far away from a galactic hub, because when you place stars closer together it becomes less and less likely for any civilization to last long before some catastrophe destroys it. So the civilizations that may exist probably exist quite far from their neighbouring stars.

[rogerbo]

Beery, sure sofar there is no hard evidence known to me that we got visited already, but IMHO our main problem is that we look at it from our view and knowledge. As we know as futher away we go from the center of the universe as older the Stars get. We do know also that alot of Staers we see on our sky don't exist anymore cause of the Gigantic Distance, and we know what Einstein sayd about the travel with light speed. BUT is that realy so ???
Is there realy no Inteligent Species out there which is 1) much older then we and 2) they may have found around Einsteins Theory which we just haven't discoverd jet ??

When Jules Vernes did write his novels all his inventions where Fantasies THEN and now ???

We realy don't know what will happen in the next 100 Years just look at the developement of the PC, Car and Plains how far have they come in just 100 Years, so this timespann is in the Galactical view nothing.

How far would be a Race who has maybee 100'000 or even 1M Years more time to research ???

I belive that I and probably the most here never will find out what realy is out there.

[TLAM Strike]

Who are we that we should be the only ones in the Universe ??
It may bee that there are no UFO's realy seen on this Planet, but the whole Univers is soooooo Big and in many parts Older the the Earth itself and if the Theory that life came to earth by comets and meteors is right the to asume that Humans are the only inteligent Race in the Univers is just ignorant.

I agree, but that in no way argues for the existence of aliens who have visited Earth.

The fact is, the distance between us and our nearest interstellar neighbour is HUGE. A spacecraft travelling at the highest speeds we've been able to achieve in space would take over 50,000 years to reach Alpha Centauri. While I'm pretty sure aliens exist, the big question is whether they can get off their planet before the civilization is destroyed by an asteroid impact or other natural catastrophe. If they can, the odds are that they won't be able to get settled on a planet outside their solar system because the chances of finding a suitable planet and being able to reach it are very small indeed. The other thing is that any civilizations in the universe will tend to inhabit areas far away from a galactic hub, because when you place stars closer together it becomes less and less likely for any civilization to last long before some catastrophe destroys it. So the civilizations that may exist probably exist quite far from their neighbouring stars.

IIRC the majority of star systems in this Galaxy are Binary system or bigger (Our good neighbors in the southern sky Alpha Centauri is a Triple Star System) so if advanced space faring life took root there its possible that even an extinction level event on their homeworld wouldn’t wipe them out since there is possibly a large number of planets and moons within their home system. Planets have been discovered within Trinary systems ('HD188753 Ab' the "Tatooine Planet" 149 light-years away in the constellation Cygnus for example). Even a “Distant” Star system out here in the Orion Arm is quite close Alpha Centauri is 4.25 ly, the closest planet yet discovered is 10.4 ly in Epsilon Eridani, HD 128311 54 ly away in the constellation Boötes has at least two planets b is about 1 AU from its star and c is 1.76 AU (sound familiar, Earth is 1 AU from Sol and Mars is 1.52 AU). If we could build a spacecraft that traveled at only 1/3rd of the Speed of Light it would take only 12 years to arrive at Alpha Centauri, there is a lot of systems in our reach. We went from LEO to the Moon in 20 years, "high" speeds like this aren't very far off if the world applied it's self.

[Beery]

...IMHO our main problem is that we look at it from our view and knowledge. As we know as futher away we go from the center of the universe as older the Stars get. We do know also that alot of Staers we see on our sky don't exist anymore cause of the Gigantic Distance, and we know what Einstein sayd about the travel with light speed. BUT is that realy so ???

Probably. The thing is, although we certainly don't know everything about physics, we do know a lot. We have already figured out loopholes whereby Einstein's theories can be bypassed or avoided, BUT they all require so much energy that they are for all intents and purposes impossible.

The fact that we don't know everything is not the same as saying that we know nothing. After all, we're a lot more advanced than we were 300 years ago, yet Newtonian physics are still fairly reliable. As scientific knowledge develops what we're doing is refining our physical understanding, so we're not really likely to find anything that radically changes our understanding of how the universe works. Our view is somewhat biased and our knowledge is finite, BUT that doesn't mean that our view is completely false or that our knowledge is zero. In 500 years we might have a unified theory of physics, but Einstein's theories will still be a good model, as will Newton's. Trust me, we're not going to suddenly find that we can make an engine that needs a few gallons of gasoline that can take us to Alpha Centauri and back within an hour or two. Such a journey is always going to take at least decades unless we can develop a warp drive that would require the energy of entire suns to power a single 4 light year warp.

Let me put it this way: we have more likelihood of getting people to Alpha Centauri by making them live long enough so that a 5000 year space journey is survivable, than we have by making a warp drive.

[Beery]

When Jules Vernes did write his novels all his inventions where Fantasies THEN and now ???

Jules Verne wrote his novels based on scientific knowledge that was current at the time. He knew that what he wrote about could be done. It was just a matter of time. When he wrote 20,000 Leagues the submarine was already a fact. He just wrote of a bigger one.

We realy don't know what will happen in the next 100 Years just look at the developement of the PC, Car and Plains how far have they come in just 100 Years, so this timespann is in the Galactical view nothing.

But these developments only came because of the serious application of the scientific method, which only really started in 1637 when Descartes wrote his Discourse on Method. The developments you cite came about because this gave scientists a base whereby they could weed out their own biases. This is why we know that our scientific knowledge is pretty good, and not open to vast flaws of the kind you suggest might exist. The advances in aircraft and the development of the PC all come from refinements in our knowledge and application of that knowledge. None of them came from sudden 'eureka' moments where whole new branches of physics were suddenly discovered that we didn't know about before.

How far would be a Race who has maybee 100'000 or even 1M Years more time to research ???

In terms of research, not very much further. In terms of applications, quite far, but I seriously doubt that it would get them to Alpha Centauri in an hour as Star Wars spacecraft could. Such things are just not on the cards.

[Skybird]

Problem with judging if we know a lot or only a little about physics is - we do not know the total, the complete, the ultimate, the final "physics" of the universe. We also cannot say if our knowledge, our mind interacts with the physics of the unioverse, and maybe changes them. We make assumptions on how it is there - but we do not kinow how it is there, as long as we haven'T been there. Knowing a lot, or a little: such a judgement depends on what we compare our knowledge level to. Maybe we already know a damn lot. Maybe we know close to nothing. We simply do not know that. Five hundred years ago, people thought they knew most of what is to be known. Five hundred years before, people thought they knew a lot as well. And before them, people did not thought different. If we tell someone from the medieval that we walk on the moon, we would be burned, maybe, for teaching black magic. Today, we say "quantum physics", or whatever, and again we think we know a lot. Do we? With every answer we found, more questions have appeared. It is an often used phrase, but what we have learned in the main is how - little we do know.

And why this obsession with linear space flight, flying at high speed from A to B? I'm sure that there are ways to get "there". I am also sure it will not be done by linear movement from "here" to "there".

And what use could it be if we recognize and understand that universe "out there" - without having a far more profound understanding of ourselves? Like it is today, spaceflight would only acchieve one thing: that we transport our mental deficits, psychological malfunctions, or short: all our troubles and earthly problems between the stars. And who ever may be there - maybe would not like to see an aggressive neurotic leaving his home and infesting his neighbourhood with his private issues.

If I were "them", I already would have set planet Earth under quarantine. Looking at tpday's world, we can hardly claim to have learned to use our biological assets to our and our planet'S best. Maybe some far away day in the future - if we avoid suicide that long.

Space travel. Nice and well. It is often said that we know more about the dark side of the moon, than about the deep sea below a level of let'S say 2000m. All we know that that place is far more alive and "hot" then was thought in previous decades. Maybe we start learning about our most existential living variables, before looking to join starship Enterprise. The technological challenge is as big. Some say it even is bigger.


While I am at it: german Top-bestseller "The swarm" by Frank Schätzing is about to be released in English language end of this month, says amazon.com. Currently reading it myself, and I am hooked. Concentrating on the navl environemnt, it is a mixture of mystery-thriller, scifi, suspense, adventure, ecology- and desaster-thriller. 1000 pages, mjam-mjam! Good fodder for holidays. It's the story of earth's seas turning against mankind, and nature taking revenge foruman ignoration towards his natural living sphere. Or is there something behind it all that alraedy starts to wage war against man...? Near the end, it really gets cataclysmic. That's why hollywood said it has started to turn it into a blockbuster-format movie. Oh, very living and precise characterizations opf protagonists. There are plenty of these, because once the dying begins, it does not stop for a long while :) There is also a lot of educational material on maritime life and naval geology.

Very good entertainment!

[joea]

Don't worry we have the Federation Starfleet to defend Earth.
This is what happens when you take all the funding and put it in to Science and Exploration programs instead of funding the MACOs and Starfleet Marines for when you need to bust some (ridged) heads.


STEED loved UFO. :up:

TLAM, what are those pics from? Since I moved out to Europe kinda been out of the Star Trek thing...I know all of the Original and Next Gen, started into DS9 never really got into Voyager. Is that from DS9 and what is it??

[Beery]

If we could build a spacecraft that traveled at only 1/3rd of the Speed of Light it would take only 12 years to arrive at Alpha Centauri, there is a lot of systems in our reach.

Sure, but that's a HUGE 'if'. Do you realise the amount of fuel it would require to reach those speeds?

We went from LEO to the Moon in 20 years, "high" speeds like this aren't very far off if the world applied it's self.

Yes they are. We went from the Earth to the moon using the exact same propulsion system that the earliest astronauts used, and the same speeds. We need an entirely different propulsion system to take us to the nearest stars - it's not just a matter of building a bigger or more powerful rocket. All the technologies that are envisaged today as actually possible only propel a spacecraft at very low sub-light speeds. That means it will take at least 40 years to get to Alpha Centauri. This is not just a matter of applying ourselves to the problem. The problem is one that, as far as we know, can't be solved. As far as we know (and as I said before, we know a lot) we can never go faster than light, and the only technologies that we know of can't realistically even approach light speed.

[TLAM Strike]

Don't worry we have the Federation Starfleet to defend Earth.
This is what happens when you take all the funding and put it in to Science and Exploration programs instead of funding the MACOs and Starfleet Marines for when you need to bust some (ridged) heads.


STEED loved UFO. :up:

TLAM, what are those pics from? Since I moved out to Europe kinda been out of the Star Trek thing...I know all of the Original and Next Gen, started into DS9 never really got into Voyager. Is that from DS9 and what is it??

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/9287/sanfranciscoattacked24rv.jpg
The Breen attack on Starfleet Command from Season 7 of DS9. (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Raid_on_San_Francisco)
http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/1561/mrns019es.jpg
http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/5770/33cd016bs.jpg
The MACOs (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/MACO) (Military Assault Command Operations) of the Earth Military from Star Trek: Enterprise Season 3-4.

[STEED]

STEED loved UFO. :up:

Yep grew up on UFO good show for it's time, or so met Ed Bishop back in the 1990's :up:

[Beery]

Problem with judging if we know a lot or only a little about physics is - we do not know the total, the complete, the ultimate, the final "physics" of the universe...!

No, but like I said, we already have a good working model. We know it's fairly good because it can be used to accurately predict things that happen in the universe. It's not like we're just at the beginning of our knowledge of how the universe works. The thing is, you're assuming that the path of knowledge is a linear path. It isn't. There's a law of diminishing returns. You learn a lot at first, and then less and less as you go on. It's not like there's that much stuff left to play with. It's not like some new fuel will suddenly emerge, because we've seen a lot of what's out there, and we've seen how physics works in the universe and things just aren't doing what we need them to do in order to find that elusive power source that's going to get us to other stars in a short time scale.

[TLAM Strike]

If we could build a spacecraft that traveled at only 1/3rd of the Speed of Light it would take only 12 years to arrive at Alpha Centauri, there is a lot of systems in our reach.

Sure, but that's a HUGE 'if'. Do you realise the amount of fuel it would require to reach those speeds?

We went from LEO to the Moon in 20 years, "high" speeds like this aren't very far off if the world applied it's self.

Yes they are. We went from the Earth to the moon using the exact same propulsion system that the earliest astronauts used, and the same speeds. We need an entirely different propulsion system to take us to the nearest stars - it's not just a matter of building a bigger or more powerful rocket. All the technologies that are envisaged today as actually possible only propel a spacecraft at very low sub-light speeds. That means it will take at least 40 years to get to Alpha Centauri. This is not just a matter of applying ourselves to the problem. The problem is one that, as far as we know, can't be solved. As far as we know (and as I said before, we know a lot) we can never go faster than light, and the only technologies that we know of can't realistically even approach light speed."Fuel" is't important the real need is power. NASA's VASIMER requires only 100 kg of fuel to send a 10,000 kg space probe to Mars via a HTO compaired to 190,000 kg for a rocket, an Ion Thruster (A mission proven techonlgly) requires only 620 kg of fuel. VASIMER and Nuclear Electric Rockets are what you are going to be seeing in the decades to come. :yep:

40 Years to get to Alpha Centuri isn't something to shake a stick at! If they found a planet there I'd go to give my kids a chance at a life there!

[Beery]

Fuel" is't important the real need is power. NASA's VASIMER requires only 100 kg of fuel to send a 10,000 kg space probe to Mars via a HTO compaired to 190,000 kg for a rocket, an Ion Thruster (A mission proven techonlgly) requires only 620 kg of fuel. VASIMER and Nuclear Electric Rockets are what you are going to be seeing in the decades to come. :yep:

That's fine, but speed is truly the real thing, and nothing can get us anywhere near the speed of light. 10% of lightspeed isn't even within our grasp yet, and may never be possible.

40 Years to get to Alpha Centuri isn't something to shake a stick at! If they found a planet there I'd go to give my kids a chance at a life there!

But 40 years definitely IS something to shake a stick at. If it was only the time spent in space it wouldn't be much of a problem. But you have problems of consumables storage and radiation to take into account. 40 years of solar radiation is not something to scoff at. The entire crew of an interstellar craft might be dead of radiation sickness within a decade.

[Skybird]

Problem with judging if we know a lot or only a little about physics is - we do not know the total, the complete, the ultimate, the final "physics" of the universe...!

No, but like I said, we already have a good working model. We know it's fairly good because it can be used to accurately predict things that happen in the universe. It's not like we're just at the beginning of our knowledge of how the universe works. The thing is, you're assuming that the path of knowledge is a linear path. It isn't. There's a law of diminishing returns. You learn a lot at first, and then less and less as you go on. It's not like there's that much stuff left to play with. It's not like some new fuel will suddenly emerge, because we've seen a lot of what's out there, and we've seen how physics works in the universe and things just aren't doing what we need them to do in order to find that elusive power source that's going to get us to other stars in a short time scale.

But that is exactly what I mean, it'S like you say yourself: we have OUR working model. It matches our paradigms. For some old tribe, the world model of a schamanistic priest worked indeed - he even was able to be of help. He was able to influence the physical wellbeing of ill people. How - is something different. Interaction between his deeds, and his patient's mind, a thing of belief, placebo - whatever.

Our working model is science. For others it is some fundamentalistic interpretation of religion. what is science? It is much debated. Seing it from one of the perspectves that I personally prefer, radical constructivism, it means to take obervations and put them into an artificial order. If the ordering scheme changes, due to our way of looking at the world, so does the conclusions and relations we see between the obervations we make. It even can be that two paradigms work at the same time, but only on different levels. Newton physics do work - you can see that in every billiard match. Quantum phyasics work as well, but on a different level only. The one cannot be used to explain the observations on the level that the other paradigm fits well to describe.

Politics and economics also influence the way we see the world. Scienctific institutions more and more are object of getting sold to economical lobbies, means: business corporations. This changes their focus, their way to approach their field of research. the question "Why?" looses in importance, the question "How?" wins in importance. Understanding is replaced by how to help the paying industrial owner of that institute to reach his profit interests, and to supply him with the tools for a problem in the field of his business. You easily loose track of links and systems that way, and tend to focus on isolated details exclusively.

what I mean is simply this: science does not give us an objective, a final, an ultimate view of things, world, universe. Far the opposite: it is a highly subjective affair. Of course, a majority of scientist does not like to be told that. They see themselves as the priest of this new religion called "objectivity". the results of their work is not the final word. Becasue there is no such thing like objectivity. The observer determoines the outcome of the observation - by the simple fact of determening the situational variables, and by that: influencing the outcome. It is just our thinking patterns, our subjective and artifical way to bring our experinces into any kind of order. And we can create different sets of ordering structure by using the same categories - and then the same set of raw data suddenly has a completely different meaning and leads to different results.

The world is inside our heads. Star Trek needs to be accompanied by Mind Trek. But scientific exploration that is depending on getting financed by business and companies tends to ignore that.

Glasersfeld is such an exciting read!

[Beery]

But that is exactly what I mean, it'S like you say yourself: we have OUR working model. It matches our paradigms.

No. It is independently verifiable. It's not subject to bias. The scientific method is based on observation and proved through CRITICAL review. While scientific theories may be dreamed up subjectively, the scientific method supplies the required objectivity. For example, the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun is not something that's subjective based on our point of view or biases. Although the theory may have been arrived at subjectively, the proof of it is objective. I agree that politics and commerce have their influence, as many scientists can affirm throughout the years, but the Earth still revolves around the Sun no matter how much the Catholic church (and other non-scientific influences) have disliked the fact in the past.

Non-scientific influences usually only govern WHAT gets studied. They no longer have influence on the results of the studies. Sure, that means that some things that should perhaps be studied don't get funding, but it's entirely wrong to suggest that these influences negate the entire progress.

As for religion, it applies no set of rules by which theories can be tested. No religious tenet was ever subjected to the kind of critical review that scientific theories are constantly subject to. To suggest that science is little more than a new religion, comparable to fundamentalist religion, is nonsense.

[Skybird]

No. It is independently verifiable.

Independently...? But you are already depending on a system, an understanding of your human existence, in which the words "earth", "sun" and "revolving" have a predefined, subjective understanding. ;) If we would have been a highly technological civilization, but would live undersea, in an isolated cave without a sky above, the term "sun" and "planet revolving around it" wouldn't make sense. We even would not imagine it. Our living conditions, and our senses already massively influence the way we approach the universe. We focus on certain things, and completely miss others. If you still think i am off course, bind your eyes for one day so that you are simulating to be blind, and then go through that day for just 12 hours.

Or think in a sub-nuclear scale: the objects you speak of, for the most consist of nothing else but empty space, and like a handfull of dust particles inside an olymipc arena the incredibly small particles that are humming around in it even cannot and should not be imagined as hard, solid matter. We even cannot imagine what they really are, and if they are. They are abstract s for us only. We speak of probability clouds, of tendencies to exist and not to exist. So, depending if you look at it from a Newtonian perspective, or a subnuclear perspective, or even a spiritual one: we even cannot reach consensus on wether it is really two huge and massive and solid tennis balls, one revoling around each other, or if it is only empty space interacting with empty space - which we even cannot imagine. Liike billiard players we stick to the Newtonian pespective, becasue that way the oprder we have put our observation into allows us to do certain things. If things really are like they seem to us is something completely different. We do not deal with a last and final reality, but only our imagination of it.

The chinese term to name what we in the West call physics, is Wu-Li. This usually is translated as somehting like "dynamic patterns/structures of organic energy". Where in the West we associate hard physics with hard matter, in the widest sense. Our engineering comes at our minds immediately, somehow, again: "hard" constructing. Even this already is another approach already, caused by a different (cultural) approach on life and meaning, and leading to shifted focusses of attention.

We depend on our senses and their perceptions. But these perceptions are no proove at all for anything what we believe we "see". They only proove the action of our brain, and that they work like intended by their biological design.

I never was able to grab a Newton law, turn it in my hand, and look at it from different angles. It is a thinking pattern of mine only, not more. I stick to it, because it serves my purposes. If I would be a drifting jellyfish, having intelligence nevertheless, it probably wouldn't have any meaning for me, for I can't use tools, and do not push around things.

And here we cross the line to a neighbouring discipline of research: mind, and intelligence.

But it is late... :lol:

I close with a quote by the astro-physician Prof. Timothy Ferris (I translate back into English from my German script): "So we do not have the universe in front of us "(as object of our reasearch, he means)", which will always remain an eternal riddle, but a model of the universe that we can let appear inside our heads (to our liking). For all of us not the cosmos out there is the final object of reasearch, but it's dance with our mind." And Prof John Wheeler wrote in one of his books (my translation): "A phenomenon only then is a phenomenon, when it is an observed phenomenon." Old wisdom, but still very actual...

[joea]

Really got to disagree with you Beery...I think it's the height of hubris to think we can know almost everything there is to know. Science may be self-critical and an excellent system for understanding nature but it is made by humans after all.

Skybird's last quote says it for me too.

[Beery]

Really got to disagree with you Beery...I think it's the height of hubris to think we can know almost everything there is to know...

Okay. But to say so is to underestimate the efficacy of the scientific method. Anyway my main point is that it's wrong to say that because we DON'T know absolutely everything, what we have learned is useless. That is, in effect what Skybird is saying. It's a recipe for faith-based science, and that's what led to the Spanish Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials.

[Skybird]

Really got to disagree with you Beery...I think it's the height of hubris to think we can know almost everything there is to know...

Okay. But to say so is to underestimate the efficacy of the scientific method. Anyway my main point is that it's wrong to say that because we DON'T know absolutely everything, what we have learned is useless. That is, in effect what Skybird is saying.

NO. Where have I said that? You twist my arguments here. I indicated exactly the opposite. I just said that science is a model in itself, too. I am a big propagator of logic, reason and sytematical and empirical research myself. But I do know that subject and object always, always interact and mutually influence each other. And this also has been written by far brighter minds than I am, too, since the 20th century (and even before!) I know that from psycvhology, from physics, from "physics-philosophy" (or however you want to call it, I direct to names like Heisenberg, Bohr, Einstein, and so many more). The way you look at something, no matter what, already defines (and limits) the range of probable outcomes. You cannot escape that as long as subject and object are two separates.

The last sentence on faith and witchcraft is bloody nonsens, completely, Nothing like that I said, nowhere. Don't connect me to those foolish words.

[rogerbo]

I do belive that sience is one of the Powers behinde our developement, BUT sience as it is today is thinking only in ways which are comfortable.

What's the main problem in sience ?? as further you go as more it costs, so you'll make your research in fields you KNOW you can profit later on. with this we have lost the liberty to search in fields where maybe only an Idea does exist.

Sure the Star Fleet has Antimatter Drives, who knows maybee some day we have them to as we are able to make Antymatter, avev if the amount is minimal but we can make it.

How long are we working on the Fusionreactor ?? We know it's possible (look at the Sun) but we don't have jet the capability to use it.
Our sience goes in direction where in a distance a profit is seen because the effort to discover something new is so Expensive that only the Industry and Govs. want to spend money and ofcoarse they do expect a ROI.

Look at the medicine, we have tons of pills and drugs against Cancer, Flu and even HIV, but almost NON for some little known but also Deadly illnesses or DNA defects. Why ??? Because you can't make Money with only a few Sik ppl.

[Beery]

Look at the medicine, we have tons of pills and drugs against Cancer, Flu and even HIV, but almost NON for some little known but also Deadly illnesses or DNA defects. Why ??? Because you can't make Money with only a few Sik ppl.

I understand your point and agree with much of it, and I'm certainly no fan of how the pharmaceutical industry does business (especially in the US), but there are valid reasons (other than profit) why it's better to focus on illnesses that affect the many rather than the few. It might not be fair, but I think it's more fair than the alternative, which is to focus on the diseases of the few rather than the many.

[retired1212]

Aliens are advanced and yada, yada, yada...

why the hell they don't wear clothes? :88)

Seriously, if aliens are going to recruit humans then I will apply for the immigration in no time. fck humans :-j

[Drebbel]

British MOD Says UFO's Aren't Real

So this means somethhing unidentified is not real ?? How they know if they did not identify it ??

Wow, talking about a wild guess :D

[STEED]

British MOD Says UFO's Aren't Real

So this means somethhing unidentified is not real ?? How they know if they did not identify it ??

Wow, talking about a wild guess :D

Its a case for the British X-Files. Kap and Oberon are on the case if they ever get out of the pub. :lol:

[Sailor Steve]

They always seem to land in backwoods areas where no proof can be produced. Why don't they land on the White House lawn?

In 50 years of trying, no one has produced any real evidence. Show me an alien artifact. Show me and alien.

I don't deny any possibilities. On the other hand, if they don't want to knock on my front door, screw 'em.

[Skybird]

They always seem to land in backwoods areas where no proof can be produced. Why don't they land on the White House lawn?


They possibly intend to communicate only with intelligent life forms.

[Oberon]

They always seem to land in backwoods areas where no proof can be produced. Why don't they land on the White House lawn?


They possibly intend to communicate only with intelligent life forms.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :up:

Plus it'd really screw up the 'Take me to your leader' line.

[Abraham]

...
Anyway.. when it comes to some advanced extra-terrestrial lifeform that might be checking us out, I believe we'd know about it as much as ants would know about the little microcamera David Attenborough inserts in to their nest.
I think the human race has much more spacial awareness of its environment then ants have...
If extraterrestials were visiting us and checking us out we would have some hard data about it by now.

[Takeda Shingen]

UFOs and space beings? We might as well go on and debate the nature of the Yeti, Bigfoot, the Jersey Devil, Bloody Mary, the Goatman, shadow people and the Tooth Fairy. The truth is out there.

[Skybird]

...
Anyway.. when it comes to some advanced extra-terrestrial lifeform that might be checking us out, I believe we'd know about it as much as ants would know about the little microcamera David Attenborough inserts in to their nest.
I think the human race has much more spacial awareness of its environment then ants have...
If extraterrestials were visiting us and checking us out we would have some hard data about it by now.
Like animals have an idea that they are monitored by telecams from far away, and were marked with radio transmitters? ;)

first rule in exploration ij the wild, and animal observation: do it in ways so that they are not aware of your presence.Else they flee, or will no longer show their natural behavior.

If someone is advanced enough to reach us on our own little planet, he surely is also advanced enough to easily bypass all technology that we have. His abilities most probably would appear as pure magic to us.

[Abraham]

...
Anyway.. when it comes to some advanced extra-terrestrial lifeform that might be checking us out, I believe we'd know about it as much as ants would know about the little microcamera David Attenborough inserts in to their nest.
I think the human race has much more spacial awareness of its environment then ants have...
If extraterrestials were visiting us and checking us out we would have some hard data about it by now....
If someone is advanced enough to reach us on our own little planet, he surely is also advanced enough to easily bypass all technology that we have. His abilities most probably would appear as pure magic to us.This is a presumption. Any proof, links? Your statement proves nothing...

[MadMike]

Obviously the UFO debate has it's fringe element, with supposed contactees, New Age nutcases, not to mention the slew of fake photographs (the Gulf Breeze, FL, and Billy Meier incidents for example).

Sorry, but I've met too many reputeable people while in the military who have witnessed such craft (ranging from veteran SAC pilots flying airborne alert, to security police at missile silo's). Others have told stories that show hostile intent by these craft.

http://www.nicap.org/

Yours, Mike

[STEED]

http://img332.imageshack.us/img332/5642/martian7pw.png

We come in peace but not today. :o

[Skybird]

Obviously the UFO debate has it's fringe element, with supposed contactees, New Age nutcases, not to mention the slew of fake photographs (the Gulf Breeze, FL, and Billy Meier incidents for example).

Sorry, but I've met too many reputeable people while in the military who have witnessed such craft (ranging from veteran SAC pilots flying airborne alert, to security police at missile silo's). Others have told stories that show hostile intent by these craft.

http://www.nicap.org/

Yours, Mike

Hostile intent?

[MadMike]

If you can find a copy of "Above Top Secret" by Timothy Good, I highly recommend it. The content detailing a variety of incidents speaks for itself.
Check out the purported MJ-12 documents here-

Briefing On MJ-12 (7 Pages)

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Crete/9923/MJ12.html

Yours, Mike

[Oberon]

We come in peace but not today. :o

Nice Martian....but I prefer:

http://img125.imageshack.us/img125/4984/012a6qf.jpg

[Skybird]

If you can find a copy of "Above Top Secret" by Timothy Good, I highly recommend it. The content detailing a variety of incidents speaks for itself.
Check out the purported MJ-12 documents here-

Briefing On MJ-12 (7 Pages)

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Crete/9923/MJ12.html

Yours, Mike

Roswell, Majestic, and the like, well, red about it, never was sure what to think about it., especially Majestic. That there were some silly remarks being done by officials in order to cover what maybe was an UFO crash is beyond doubt, but in how far that event, if it took place, is evidence for "hostile intentions" I cannot see. If I go into the wild and drive around with a jeep and by accident stirr up a herd of animals, or I sit well-camouflaged on a tree and then fall down and brake my neck, the animals that I overserved hardly could conclude from that that the fact that I approached and observed them was "hostile intent". that description would also need an understanding for "their" motivation. One can do things that another must perceive as hostile - and nevertheless do it for his well-being only, or for other good and constructive reasons. I do not say it is like this in case with UFOs, but I point out that we do not know what they are doing, and why. So we do not know if their intentions are hostile. Maybe a gazelle in the bush also considers it to be hostile if it sees a human setting up a camera (it surely does, because it flees). What the gazelle by genes and instincs is programmed to be able to calculate in it's cognitions dooms it to having always an only very limited understanding of what we are doing, becasue we are so much superior than a gazelle is.

An intelligence reaching us by "travelling" through dimensions, or times, or space, or reaching manifestation thorugh our inner minds, and reach us on earth, surely must be even more superior to us than we are to this gazelle. Earth lies in those ten percent of space in this galaxy alone that represetns the youngest ten percent of all solar systems in this galaxy. That means that ninenty percent of all solar systems are older than earth, bby huindreds of millions of years. For the sake of simplification assuming that the spread pattern of intelligent life in this galaxy is even and regular, this would mean that 90% of those lifeforms in this galaxy that were intelligent enough to survive their evolution are probably millions of years older than we are, and ahead in their develoepment by the same time. It would be rediculous to assume that we and them would meet on even terms, on the same eye level. While they bypass the abyss of space, or time, or dimensions, or mind, we are even not able to walök on all surface of our own homeplanet with ease (talking of the deep sea covering roughly 70% of our planet).

I've red some material on all this myself, too, and never found these Hollywood-like scenarios convincing. Like the Santilli-video ten years ago was a fake, Majestic could be a fals hint, too. Maybe to distract from something diffrent, or an experiment in psychological warfare and to what degree the public can be influenced psychologically.

concerning Roswell, I have put my opinion making on ice, for I have too little trustworthy information too judge if it could be true or not. I tend to assume that this whole thing is just meant to distract from the real core and nature of the UFO phenomenon.

I know the David Jacobs, budd Hopkins and John Macks of this world and red their books, but the only books that have survived on my book shelf are:

Jaques Vallée

"Revelations. Alien contact and Human Deception"
"Dimensions. A Casebook of Alien Cotact"
"Confrontations. A Scientist's Search for Alien Contact"

Although I am quite familiar with the work of Kenneth Ring on NDEs, and think the early two books he wrote on that were pretty good, his book on UFO's I consider to be "Quatsch". A desperate attempt to rationalize the phenomenon, no matter what the cost will be.

[STEED]

We come in peace but not today. :o

Nice Martian....but I prefer:

http://img125.imageshack.us/img125/4984/012a6qf.jpg

HEAR, HEAR the proper version. :up:

[Happy Times]

Maybe they are afraid of us and keep hidden. :lol: The Earth is a pretty hostile enviroment. :hmm: I can imagine when we go to the stars we are going to be pretty hostile about it. Armed to the teeth and suspious of everybody. :rock:

[STEED]

Maybe they are afraid of us and keep hidden. :lol: The Earth is a pretty hostile enviroment. :hmm: I can imagine when we go to the stars we are going to be pretty hostile about it. Armed to the teeth and suspious of everybody. :rock:

BANG

"What was that?"
"Another Universe blown to atoms"

[Abraham]

One thing is certain: We don't know for sure...
:D

[STEED]

http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/6258/alien9aa.png

Come on in and have a good look around.