Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of t..

You know, if the Air Force really did want to keep some of their
exercises a secret, why wouldn't they just say, "Golly, yes, I guess you
must have seen a UFO..." and leave it at that.

It seems odd when they sometimes say there was no UFO. It is
understandable that they would say "it wasn't us", but how could they
possibly know for sure it wasn't somebody else? Everybody stay calm.



Larry in AZ wrote:
> Waiving the right to remain silent, Pudentame <no.one RemoveThis @no.were.invalid> said:
>
>
>>But, IIRC, the USMC later admitted they were conducting training west of
>>San Diego that night. There were some pointed comments made about why
>>the military would first deny having aircraft in the area then later
>>admit they were operating there. They claimed it was all a
>>mis-understanding.
>
>
> It probably *was* a misunderstanding. There is not one solitary individual
> answering questions about all military operations.
>
> When the question was first asked of some overworked second lieutenant on IO
> duty that night, he may have known nothing about it, and answered, "Wasn't
> us."
>
> At some later point, the question got to the Colonel who did know about it,
> and decided that telling wouldn't compromise anything.
>
 >> Stay informed about: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of t.. 

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <dlzc1 RemoveThis @cox.net> wrote in message
news:OzVuj.13810$497.12207@newsfe14.phx...
> Dear William Graham:
>
> "William Graham" <weg9 RemoveThis @comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:mIOdnXQeu9GHXibanZ2dnUVZ_uqvnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>>> "Doc" <docsavage20 RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4b698113-03ed-4b7f-85d7-fc00f019c780@u72g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Feb 19, 6:24 pm, dlzc <dl... RemoveThis @cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> I've seen UFOs. But I don't care if I convince
>>>> someone of that, nor whether or not they were
>>>> of extra-terrestial origin. Not my job. I got 15-20
>>>> seconds of amazement, and a friend right next
>>>> to me that could not see it. I consider it a gift.
>>>
>>>> Heckling welcomed. No aluminum foil hats here.
>>
>>> I believe you've seen objects you've been unable
>>> to identify, by default making it a "UFO" from
>>> your vantage point whether it was a cloud or the
>>> Goodyear blimp. Not so easily convinced that it
>>> had anything to do with visitors from another
>>> planet.
>>
>> Yeah.....With my knowledge of aircraft, almost
>> everything in the sky is a, "UFO" to me.......But
>> the last thing I would assume is that any of it is from some other
>> planet......The closest "other
>> planet" is over 4 light years away from us, so
>> this is a no brainer.......
>
> Oh, I don't think the technology is impossible. If we can think of it, we
> can eventually accomplish it. I cannot believe we are the smartest
> organism to come along in the history of the Universe.

"Impossible" can mean many things to many people. In theory, anything might
be possible, especially to a pure mathematician. But realistically, if you
are going to bother to even consider (and discuss) any problem, then you
must consider the laws of physics as we know them to be today. And, in the
light of those laws, it is extremely unlikely that any object here on earth
came here from some other star system. - I have no objection to "flights of
fantacy" speculation, but just understand that when you indulge it these,
you are leaving the realm of rational thought, and entering the realm of
science fiction fantacy. IOW, when I look up in the sky, and see something
that I do not understand, I will be willing to believe almost anything about
it rather than speculate on it's origin being outside of our own solar
system. This is simply a practical matter based on all the laws of physics
that I have known (and used) during my whole lifetime. I spent about 30
years working at a high energy physics laboratory chock full of people with
PhD's in physics. We used relativistic mechanics on a daily basis to solve
real problems involved with the machines we built and used to investigate
the make up of matter. I can assure you that these equations were reliable,
and enabled us to do our jobs well. We built and used machines that cost the
taxpayers over 100 million dollars using them, and they worked as expected
when completed. So, I am forced to go with that technology unless and until
I am shown some other technology and had it explained mathematically to me,
and demonstrated to me as well.



>
> But if you have the technology, why would you come *here*? They probably
> already know what the Vogons have planned... It can't be for the "hot
> air", the pig swill of political rhetoric, or the very remarkable material
> governmentium. or they'd be seen over Washington D.C.
>
> David A. Smith
>
 >> Stay informed about: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of t.. 

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:41:22 -0800 (PST), Doc <docsavage20 DeleteThis @yahoo.com>
wrote:

>I'm limiting this to what seem like technically oriented groups, not
>including UFO forums in an attempt to avoid slobbering tirades from
>the tinfoil hat brigade.

Regurgitation of that same thread a while ago?

-m-
--
Official website "Jonah's Quid" http://www.jonahsquids.co.uk
 >> Stay informed about: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of t.. 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of t.. 

Doc wrote:
<snip>
> Or do I have a mistaken notion of how powerful the available optics
> are? The News stations show clear, distinct shots of the fast-moving
> Space Shuttle when it's well into its trajectory on launch days, I
> would guess from at least as far if not farther than these objects are
> from the cameras. The above link is an incident that occurred over a
> major city and apparently caused quite a buzz. *Nobody* there had good
> gear they could whip out to take some pics?
>
> I would think a major city has astronomy buffs and universities who
> have fairly sophisticated gear already set up to photograph distant
> objects. Wouldn't capturing something at airliner altitude be quite
> possible?
>
> Thanks

The pix of the shuttle soon after takeoff are made through a
special telescope, made by Perkin Elmer, as I recall. It
allows the ground crews to monitor the takeoff closely, with
the extra use - a plus for the image-concisions NASA - of
providing dramatic shots for TV.
 >> Stay informed about: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of t.. 

"Doc" <docsavage20 RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7bd26cfc-ead8-412c-985a-a3e81e1be330@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 20, 2:52 am, "Dudley Hanks" <hanks.dud... RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:

> Having spent a lot of time taking shots in low-light conditions -- rock
> concerts, nightscapes, astronomical, etc -- I can vouch that it is not
> easy
> to get a good, crisp and clear object of something that is right in front
> of
> you let alone 35,000 feet above.


Many of these events happen during the day too.

Here's another way to ask the question. How difficult would it be to
get a clear shot of an airliner or a launching space shuttle during
the day - what would it take? By clear, I don't necessarily mean being
able to see the kid in the 8th row back picking his nose, but where
you can distinctly make out the form of the craft.

What about one of a manned balloon that's hovering at high altitude?
Totally different level of difficulty?

But, as was stated in my earlier post, if these incidents truly are evidence
of visitation from other worlds, then we are dealing with a rather dramatic
difference in technological capability. With this difference in mind, there
is no certainty that our level of photographic ability would be sufficient
to catch an image of futuristic crafts floating in some kind of time / space
netherland.

The eye can see dynamic ranges that currently cannot be captured in its
entirety by current films and sensors. There is nothing to say that
materials from other planets / solar systems will not reflect light or
generate some sort of visible image that cannot be reproduced accurately on
film / memory device. Hence, bad pics.

Trying to keep my mind open,
Dudley
 >> Stay informed about: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of t.. 

Larry in AZ wrote:
> Waiving the right to remain silent, Pudentame <no.one.RemoveThis@no.were.invalid> said:
>
>> But, IIRC, the USMC later admitted they were conducting training west of
>> San Diego that night. There were some pointed comments made about why
>> the military would first deny having aircraft in the area then later
>> admit they were operating there. They claimed it was all a
>> mis-understanding.
>
> It probably *was* a misunderstanding. There is not one solitary individual
> answering questions about all military operations.
>
> When the question was first asked of some overworked second lieutenant on IO
> duty that night, he may have known nothing about it, and answered, "Wasn't
> us."
>
> At some later point, the question got to the Colonel who did know about it,
> and decided that telling wouldn't compromise anything.
>

Well, I'm still of the opinion special ops was out doin' their thing.
It's natural for 'em to start out denying everything and only later
admit it was the military after they come up with a plausible cover story.
 >> Stay informed about: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of t.. 

Dear William Graham:

"William Graham" <weg9.RemoveThis@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:N8adnSyE_KW7ECHanZ2dnUVZ_rGhnZ2d@comcast.com...
....
> "Impossible" can mean many things to many people.
> In theory, anything might be possible, especially to a
> pure mathematician.

Be a little careful with "in theory". Theory presumes some
experimental underpinnings. I think you mean "imagination",
rather than "theory".

> But realistically, if you are going to bother to even
> consider (and discuss) any problem, then you must consider the
> laws of physics as we know
> them to be today.

Such as the quantum realm, where neither space nor time have any
meaning? Where all particle-particle interactions travel all
possible paths at all possible speeds (not limited to c)? Did
you mean those *known* laws of physics? What we don't know is
*why* it all seems to "pace" the way classical mechanics
describes. Quantum mechanics is not keeping our butts on the
planet.

> And, in the light of those laws, it is extremely
> unlikely that any object here on earth came
> here from some other star system.

Absolutely *no* correlation between what you understand of
physics (today), and what a possible civilization that could be
older than ours might be able to do. Hell, it does not limit
"ETs" from being Earthling visitors from the future, ala the
"Philadelphia experiment" or "Sphere". Only classical physics
provides these limits. We already know physics that has no such
limitations.

> I have no objection to "flights of fantacy"
> speculation, but just understand that when you
> indulge it these, you are leaving the realm of
> rational thought, and entering the realm of science fiction
> fantacy.

Said about H.G. Wells, and a number of other folks. Seems like
their flights act to guide us... either towards or away from any
given path.

> IOW, when I look up in the sky, and see
> something that I do not understand, I will be
> willing to believe almost anything about it
> rather than speculate on it's origin being
> outside of our own solar system.

To each his / her own. Funny that you do not allow for physics
that you do not yet know.

> This is simply a practical matter based on all
> the laws of physics that I have known (and
> used) during my whole lifetime. I spent about
> 30 years working at a high energy physics
> laboratory chock full of people with PhD's in
> physics. We used relativistic mechanics on a
> daily basis to solve real problems involved with
> the machines we built and used to investigate the make up of
> matter. I can assure you that
> these equations were reliable, and enabled us
> to do our jobs well. We built and used
> machines that cost the taxpayers over 100
> million dollars using them, and they worked as
> expected when completed. So, I am forced to
> go with that technology unless and until I am
> shown some other technology and had it
> explained mathematically to me, and
> demonstrated to me as well.

Acknowledged.

So your take is, they cannot take pictures of something that
*cannot* exist? (Trying to drag this back to the thread topic.)

David A. Smith
 >> Stay informed about: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of t.. 

Bill wrote:
> You know, if the Air Force really did want to keep some of their
> exercises a secret, why wouldn't they just say, "Golly, yes, I guess you
> must have seen a UFO..." and leave it at that.
>
> It seems odd when they sometimes say there was no UFO. It is
> understandable that they would say "it wasn't us", but how could they
> possibly know for sure it wasn't somebody else? Everybody stay calm.
>
>
>

Wheels within wheels & misdirection. They got ya lookin' for alien
bodies at Roswell while they play around with their new stuff somewhere
else.

Ever read _The Purloined Letter_?


> Larry in AZ wrote:
>> Waiving the right to remain silent, Pudentame <no.one.TakeThisOut@no.were.invalid>
>> said:
>>
>>
>>> But, IIRC, the USMC later admitted they were conducting training west
>>> of San Diego that night. There were some pointed comments made about
>>> why the military would first deny having aircraft in the area then
>>> later admit they were operating there. They claimed it was all a
>>> mis-understanding.
>>
>>
>> It probably *was* a misunderstanding. There is not one solitary
>> individual answering questions about all military operations.
>>
>> When the question was first asked of some overworked second lieutenant
>> on IO duty that night, he may have known nothing about it, and
>> answered, "Wasn't us."
>>
>> At some later point, the question got to the Colonel who did know
>> about it, and decided that telling wouldn't compromise anything.
>>
 >> Stay informed about: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of t.. 

On Feb 20, 7:35 pm, "William Graham" <w....RemoveThis@comcast.net> wrote:

> (and that crop circles don't exist,
> either)


Oh, they definitely exist. They're created with great care by
pranksters and farmers who make a few bucks off charging admission to
idiots who want to gawk at them.

From what I've seen, making a good one takes a lot of planning.
 >> Stay informed about: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of t.. 

On Feb 20, 3:18 pm, "Dudley Hanks" <hanks.dud....RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If the military actually said, "Hey, isn't that neat!  You folks saw a UFO
> over Vegas last night.  Cool!"  Wouldn't that lead to a bit of anxiety on
> the part of Vegas residents?  Wouldn't the people of that fair city then be
> saying:  "So, with all the money in your budget you missed it?  Are you also
> going to miss a missile coming in over the Atlantic or Pacific?"


That was one of the reasons it seemed clear it was nothing. AFAIK
there was no attempt to engage the "visitors" - presumably the
military already knew what it was.
 >> Stay informed about: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of t.. 

"William Graham" <weg9.DeleteThis@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:N8adnSyE_KW7ECHanZ2dnUVZ_rGhnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <dlzc1.DeleteThis@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:OzVuj.13810$497.12207@newsfe14.phx...
>> Dear William Graham:
>>
>> "William Graham" <weg9.DeleteThis@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:mIOdnXQeu9GHXibanZ2dnUVZ_uqvnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Impossible" can mean many things to many people. In theory, anything
> might be possible, especially to a pure mathematician. But realistically,
> if you are going to bother to even consider (and discuss) any problem,
> then you must consider the laws of physics as we know them to be today.
> And, in the light of those laws, it is extremely unlikely that any object
> here on earth came here from some other star system. - I have no objection
> to "flights of fantacy" speculation, but just understand that when you
> indulge it these, you are leaving the realm of rational thought, and
> entering the realm of science fiction fantacy. IOW, when I look up in the
> sky, and see something that I do not understand, I will be willing to
> believe almost anything about it rather than speculate on it's origin
> being outside of our own solar system. This is simply a practical matter
> based on all the laws of physics that I have known (and used) during my
> whole lifetime. I spent about 30 years working at a high energy physics
> laboratory chock full of people with PhD's in physics. We used
> relativistic mechanics on a daily basis to solve real problems involved
> with the machines we built and used to investigate the make up of matter.
> I can assure you that these equations were reliable, and enabled us to do
> our jobs well. We built and used machines that cost the taxpayers over 100
> million dollars using them, and they worked as expected when completed.
> So, I am forced to go with that technology unless and until I am shown
> some other technology and had it explained mathematically to me, and
> demonstrated to me as well.
>
Attitude towards your fantasy vs. known reality is what is important.

I don't like the word "impossible" very much. It is just too limiting.
Unless we have people that are willing to crawl onto a limb to attempt
to prove that what was thought to be impossible actually is possible.

It is often important to know something about the limbs you climb out to,
but knowledge can be limiting as much ignorance, in some cases.

Then you get to faith. You have faith in science, and with good cause.
Others have faith in concepts or beings that science has debunked.
If they already have a distrust of science, as most religions seem to
want to teach, then the stretch to there being alien visitors.

A UFO is just something that flies that an individual can't yet identify,
Until you or someone you trust has evidence, it remains unidentified.
Nothing more nothing less. I can have a fantasy that it came from
the moon, or it is a illumination flare, or anything else I can come
up with. It is just important that I convey it as a fantasy, not fact.

People often say that they are telling you facts when in reality they
are using mostly flawed information to reinforce their fantasy.

David
 >> Stay informed about: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of t.. 

"David McCall" <mccallmail.RemoveThis@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Ij1vj.15560$MY2.15184@trndny07...
>
> "William Graham" <weg9.RemoveThis@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:N8adnSyE_KW7ECHanZ2dnUVZ_rGhnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <dlzc1.RemoveThis@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:OzVuj.13810$497.12207@newsfe14.phx...
>>> Dear William Graham:
>>>
>>> "William Graham" <weg9.RemoveThis@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:mIOdnXQeu9GHXibanZ2dnUVZ_uqvnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
> People often say that they are telling you facts when in reality they
> are using mostly flawed information to reinforce their fantasy.
>
> David
>
>
Exactly. So, I have little to go on but my own common sense, acquired from a
lifetime of observation and experience. This common sense tells me that
UFO's (as extraterrestrial objects) don't exist. I don't believe in bigfoot
and crop circles either, for the same kinds of reasons. And today, even with
good, sharp, crisp photographs, I wouldn't believe in them either.....So,
after about 50 years of hearing about these things, and with everybody and
his brother carrying cameras, I still haven't seen or heard of any decent
evidence on any of the three.....Make that four.....(We'll throw in the Loch
Ness monster, too.) And, as time goes on, the likelihood of there being
anything to any of these wild stories lessons more every day. I am more of a
non-believer today than I ever have been in the past. But hey, if others
want to waste their time speculating about those things, well, they can have
at it. I just don't want them to be angry at me for knowing better, or to
say things like, "You don't have an open mind." My mind has to be waiting
for them to bring me absolute proof.....If that's not having an open mind,
well, I'm sorry about that, but the burden of proof has to lie with the one
who claims that the little green men exist, and not with me who claims that
they don't.
 >> Stay informed about: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of t..