I will reply to Eugene's contentions on the "other thread", here: http://www.saairforce.co.za/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=4764
. All quotes are from Eugene, unless I indicate differently. Might be a lengthy post, bear with me.
The fact that the postulated superhumans who run the Conspiracy do not seem to exist - in fact humans are supremely incompetent at running the simplest of conspiracies - in no way negates the imagined conspiracy.
Eugene, please qualify the bold part of your statement with facts. I think you are underestimating the human creature.
In one particular census of meteorites several dozen wide angle telescopes were used for a period of eight years in the USA. Each photographing its designated area all night long.
Please supply source of this data, I would like to reasearch as part of my ongoing investigations. A website with photographic evidence would be nice?
However your average UFO watcher can seemingly go out every night and see dozens of the things.
Please qualify this statement with some statistics. I believe only a handfull of skygazers see and report UFO sightings, a very small percentage. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_have_seen_a_UFO
A substantial number of people ascribing to the possibility of the existence of ET, but these millions of people do not go out snapping away every night and see dozens of things, as you put it.
Only between 650 and 5000 reports of UFO's that can be linked to possible ET activity is made per year according to Nuforc, http://www.nuforc.org/
and according to the UN UFO Panel about 1000 per month in August 2011. Here: http://weeklyworldnews.com/aliens/37705/ufo-sightings-up-357-in-one-year/
So your analogy that your average UFO watcher sees these things every night, is IMO hugely generalised and unfair.
A poll conducted by a member of the Discovery forum , asking just how many people actually believed in UFO's as being from outer space showed 63% said they do. http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9491991946/m/3321915869/showpollresults/Y
However, only 35 poeple responded so maybe a bit one-sided.
Taking the Gallup Poll staistics into consideration we're talking of about 50 Million people that has seen UFO's reported such and are open to the possibility of ET. In fact a third of the USA citizens are open to this suggestion.
The eyes are not a camera - have often been shown in many courts around the world to not be cameras as the images are filtered by our brains. The more gullible and uncritical the mind the easier it is to see fairies at the bottom of the garden or flying saucers in the sky.
Why do criminal courts then accept eye witness testimony as Prima facie evidence, basing someone else's life/ or restrictions to freedom upon eye witness accounts. Again you make a general statement and expect us to believe this. Please proove that your statement has "been shown in many courts around the world". Eye witness testimony are still regarded as the best evidence available even better than video footage.
Besides why would hyper-intelligent beings, able to build ships capable of trans-galaxial travel, want to abduct inbred Kentuckians to conduct sexual experiments on them?
For this to apply to your suggestion we would have to show, using physical laws, that UFOs of extraterrestrial origin must exist and then seek them.
If we(I) could proove that they exist we would not be having this discussion, now, would we?
The rest of your statement vis-à-vis the flat earth etc is an old tired argument regularly trotted out by the aficionados of the unexplained.
Might be old and tired, but still true, my friend.
Indubitably. The mathematical chances show that there is probably life out there somewhere - even if, to quote Spock, it's "life but not as we know it". However there is also an hypothesis gaining ground recently called the "Rare Earth Theory" - which postulates that the conditions existing on earth are unique and probably replicated nowhere else in the known universe.
You make reference to two seperate theories, Matehmatics and the Rare Earth Theorum, but you choose to only discuss the Latter as it fits in with your own pre-conceived perceptions. As far as I am aware Matehmatics has yet to be prooven wrong; so if it is mathematically possible, why not accept it as such? mathematically I think, if we are the only living planet it sure is a waste of a lot of universe???
Science is a methodology of investigating the known universe by observation and measurement. Sometimes those observations and measurements show us that an unknown must exist - and the majority of scientists find this exciting and will work hard to find that unknown.
Didn't you just sort of answer your own question: someone observed a UFO (not necessarily ET in nature) it was measured and investigated and a unknown exist. So now a bunch of crack-pots, calling themselves Ufologists, is "working hard to find that unknown".
BTW, I still cannot understand why you think all UFO sightings or reports related to unknowns are ascribed to the cover up conspiracy sector.
Nothing observed to date. SETI has been listening to the heavens for decades - and apart from the WOW signal, which was probably an anomaly, has found nothing.
At least one other "anomaly" was observed, called SHGb02+14a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_source_SHGb02%2B14a
), so this statement of yours again not true.
Also remember earth also sent a SINGLe radio signal into space, so anyone picking is up would also only have heard it once, not repeated, "probably an anomaly". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arecibo_message
Some conditions essential for life as we know it:
Conditions for life as we know it.
1) A planet neither too big nor too small.
2) An unusually large iron core which increases the magnetosphere which deflects
cosmic radiation and an increased gravitational pull keeping the atmosphere from dissipating into space.
3) A thinner crust than usual allowing plate tectonics. Essential for the long term carbon cycle.
4) A large tidally locked moon which lends stability to the planet aiding climate stability.
5) In the zone where liquid water can exist. And enough comet collisions in the early days to deliver enough water.
6) The occasional catastrophe to change evolutionary stasis.
7) In a neighbourhood where asteroid impacts are low and an atmosphere thick enough to minimize most meteorite impacts.
8 ) Tilted on it's axis so that seasons can exist.
9) A sun that neither too big nor too small. Big stars burn out too quickly.
Quite a number of these conditions were created by earth's early collision with Thea. Earth seems ideal - the Goldilocks planet, Not too big nor too small, just right. Not too warm nor too cold, just right.
Ok, so how would we be able to proove that these conditions are needed to sustain/create life as we know it if we cannot change it to see the impact it has on the habitat or system in question. I think this is just a random list of things that are true of our earth but impossible to qualify the truth of the contention.
What would be useful amongst UFO investigators is a healthy dose of cynicism rather than the wild gullibility most of them seem to suffer.
Why would you generalise when you too are one-track minded with your own pre-consieved ideas.
Archaeologists used to say: Treat the first incidence as an anomaly, the second as coincidence and the third as evidence.
Please mention which Archeologists made this comment? Btw, Seti have now two incidences; so we're at "coincidence". Funny, as an analyst I do not believe in coincidence ...
There have been so many hoaxes in this field - held to be absolutely true and sacred by UFO believers and still clung to after absolute proof has shown them to be hoaxes that one doubts their sanity in a lot of cases.
Unfortunately true, but not all are hoaxes. You yourself eluded that :
humans are supremely incompetent at running the simplest of conspiracies
Would this not be true of hoaxes as well?
Eugene, I did not try to attacck you, but rather the issue at hand. I only request additional info for my own benefit and to understand your approach, to give you and your point of view the respect it requires.
I apply sound scientific principles investigating any reports of UFO's, look at all the evidence, from ALL sources, and apply the "balance of probability" and "Beyond a reasonble doubt " theories. In this way I stay objective as long as is possible, but sometimes you see something that you just cannot explain, and science fails to explain it as well.