UFO's

W   
hat are UFOs? Where do they come from?



My best guess on each count ... This subject is really interesting and doesn't cost anything since we cannot formulate any realistic course of action (in either case) other than to continue minding our own buisness.

1st Possibility:

They are yet to be discovered natural phenomenon. They are figments of people's imagination. Or outright lies. Or ... they're just not real.
Meaning: They are not people from outer space.

Solution:
Just mind your own buisness and go back to work.

2nd Possibility

They are genuine aliens.

Enrico Fermi made the first quantifiably meaningful statement about life on other planets when he said "Where are they?" in reference to back of the envelope calculations which anyone with an interest can make. Like, if the average distance between stars is about ten light years and the Milky Way is about 100,000 light years across and the speed of alien craft is 1/100 to 1/10 of light velocity, how long would it take for an advanced civilization to colonize the entire galaxy?

Well, the answer is 1 million years is very fast indeed and 100 million years is quite slow. Think each new colony sends out more than one but less than two new expeditions on average to colonize new stars. (If each new colony sends out two expeditions the galaxy would be clogged with more spacecraft than there are stars in only 37 x 10 light years = 370 light years; or, 37(doublings) x 1000 (years to get to another star, at 1/100c) x 1000 (years to develop the capacity to send another expedition) = 37,000,000 years.)

[For those interested
2^37 = 137,438,953,472 ...stars
and 2^10 = 1024 = 1 Kilobyte
2^20 = 1,048,576 = 1 Megabyte
2^30 = 1,073,741,824 = 1 Gigabyte
...just thought I'd throw that in]

Of course, the previous calculation is very conservative at 1/100c and 1000 years to get going again. We also have to consider that if two ships were sent out from the early colonies, those expeditions would have to go much farther to find a star not taken by someone else already. Also, we must speculate that there are many, many such initial civilizations so that they needn't colonize the entire galaxy. If there are, say, 1,000,000 places where colonization begins from then you begin to see why Fermi said "Where are they?". If we are an average planet in the middle of all of this we ought to have been visited already given that colonization times are on the order of tens of millions of years and that life has been on this planet for hundreds of millions.

Because I believe in the finality of the conservation laws, it won't be necessary to go into "other dimensional" type beings. There aren't any. And if some of the alleged things they do appear to be impossible, my answer would be "You can fake that, you know".

So my answer to What are UFOs and where do they come from? is advanced craft from elsewhere (in outer space).

What do they want? ... Just to investigate and possibly to act as a kind of interplanetary obstetrician. Our planet is about to be 'born'.

They may want to make some minor adjustments in our historical process in order to avoid a 'stillbirth'.
Obviously, thay don't need anything from us and aren't the least bit afraid of our 'violent' species. It would be nonsensical to think that we are absolutely unique in any major quality. Anything we are or do has all been seen before and is in the galactic data bank. What is unknown are the exact details of our development. (Interesting, but not galaxy shaking stuff.)

Why don't they land and talk to us? ... because ... When would you try to talk to the indigenous occupants of the new planet? These people have a perspective on events that is born of perhaps millions of years of experience. Maybe they should try talking to the apes? How about cavemen? Oh, ... maybe they should just bust right in when we're about to figure out everything on our own? (sort of like putting the last piece of the puzzle in when someone else has done all the work). No, they'll just leave us alone.

Their presence is well documented but in such a way that it is subject to disinformation counter measures. If you want people to see you and not see you at the same time, you must confuse the heck out of the situation and this is made easy by our willingness to delude ourselves into thinking they are not here. Most people don't want them to be here. Their existence does not fit into the limited philosophy of twentieth century man.
"It can't be ... therefore it isn't" (Hynek). [A trenchant statement if 'ere there was one].

Can we 'force' their hand somehow? ... Forget about it. All been tried before. They have their own agenda over which we have no control and ... Newsflash... it's not because we are technologically behind them. We are philosophically behind them which is far more important because it makes us blind by comparison.

Can we pick up their radio transmissions? ... I doubt it. If I was a spaceman I'd code my transmissions just as a sort of privacy matter. If everyone can hear what you are saying you lose part of your individuality (assuming that that would be of importance to them).


What are they going to do?
My best guess is more of the same with this addendum. When it becomes possible for us to routinely travel to the other planets of the solar system and our planet is deemed reasonably stable, I predict that they will simply leave (unannounced). I say this because I think it is, philosophically speaking, the 'pithiest' thing they could do. And since the birth of a planet must be sacrosanct to them (if anything is important this should be), they fly......... leaving us to develop our new 'self' independently. We shall see them again when we arrive on their doorstep. And that will not be a long time judged by their standards. (I am presuming here that it is feasible for them to go back, which is not at all certain.)

Now, the interesting part . . .

How do they work?
Since the laws of physics are eternally valid and there are no new basic laws left to be discovered (they still need to be understood), we can conclude that the phenomena displayed is simply the perfection of known laws applied to technology.

The small discs are shuttles, not interplanetary craft. The long haul ships are the large, cigar shaped ones. They have this shape to travel through an interstellar medium which is not actually a perfect vacuum. There are plenty of atoms and sundry dust particles out there which could do damage if allowed to strike the hull at velocities of perhaps as much as 1/10 light velocity.
These must be deflected away from the craft by putting up an electric or magnetic shield. Obviously, they would want to present the smallest surface area in the direction of motion which means the cigar shape. The round cross section would allow the craft to be rotated to create and artificial gravity after arriving at their destination (or even during the trip which could take some centuries).

These craft will never approach close enough to light velocity to take advantage of time dilation because this option is closed by technical problems (well known by the scientific community). You simply can't get enough fuel of any imaginable sort to propel that sort of bulk. Near light velocity is reserved for particles only (one at a time). Suspended animation is a better route or reconstruction on arrival (whatever that may come to mean).

Where do you get the volunteers? ... Place an add. There will never be a shortage of volunteers to do anything which gives meaning to an individuals' existence. If we could presently send people to other planets never to return, you would have to beat the takers off with a truncheon.

As for the small disc shaped craft, here we have a case of form following function.
You can tell how they do it by observing their characteristics and referring to the known laws of physics. A little faith is the "robustness" of our own discoveries will go a long way. Just because something is discovered by people who travel in horse drawn carts does not mean that that discovery can be invalidated by someone in a spaceship. If a thing is true ... well, that's it ... forever.

In the first figure the small disc within the central hub has two purposes. 1. Attitude control (if the outer disc is rotating then to change orientation requires another disc to conserve angular momentum ... one disc goes one way and the other another). 2. Fuel ... newsflash ... these babies are wind up toys. Energy is stored in the inner rotating disc (this is effective for short range and doesn't polute the vicinity).
This is not to say that they don't have other forms of propulsion ... they do ... this is just what I believe to be the primary mechanism for short flights.

The second figure is an airfoil. Yeah ... a chopper blade. But it may also be magnetic.
In the airfoil case you just tilt the blade to the desired angel of attack and ... whoosh. (For analysis of how an airfoil works see [Index ..."Airfoils ... How they work"]. Every explanation I have ever encountered has been so inadequate as to be inaccurate.)

As a magnet, the polarity of the each successuve blade is reversed so as to repel ground material or air. Spread out evenly, the force would not harm someone underneath. The frequency is probably varied continuously to take advantage of the optimum push off. This is off the shelf stuff (our shelf) which they have perfected to the extreme limit.

The third figure represents a pod shaped craft which works by the electric wind method. The air is stripped of electrons and the resulting plasma is pushed off of.

Not shown are conventional blast mechanisms, e.g. chemical and nuclear rockets (dirty propulsion). This is the fundamental mechanism of interplanetary propulsion. You might want to throw in some gravitational sling shot effects as well. [No ... I don't mean chemical for interplanetary.]
Also, an advanced holographic system would allow them to fake anything whatsoever. What are you looking at, the real thing or a projection?

Inertia

These beings are reported on numerous occasions to have levitated people into their craft or themselves, etc. If true, they have the ability to accelerate every cell of a body simultaneously so that there are no inertial effects, e.g. if you mounted small engines all along the side of a rocket, the hull would experience no stress from the resulting acceleration.

Stunned people

This is amazing. People see the occupants of UFOs and are paralyzed. They don't even get zapped by some ray. These people are paralyzed with simple fear (like a deer in your headlights).

Crop circles

I don't believe high school students make crop circles ... I think they are made by college students as they seem to be getting too sophisticated and may require some computer assistance. A circle made by a ufo would not have those well defined edges unless they were made by ufo occupants mimicking the college students ... hah!

Mars Global Surveyor

The arrival of the global surveyor at Mars occasions these observations.
The true objective of global surveyor is examination of the "FACE".
The survey of the surface is secondary.

When the face was first noticed, my initial reaction was that further examination was required. But the likelyhood of its being an artifact is low enough that a separate, special mission was unwarranted. So another look must be married to some other purpose such as a global survey.

(In fact, I thought in terms of "global survey" as the conjunctive at the time. So it must have occurred to others as well.)

 Decision input  =
 probability of success  x  +or- cultural impact
                   cost of project
As you can see the probability of success is admittedly small but the cultural impact would be great (a 9 or 10 on the 1-10 scale). Whether it would be positive or negative is open to debate. The cost will be high but will be very low if "piggybacked" on some other necessary project.

It would also be discrete since the CIA, etc. would want to keep any knowledge of extraterrestrials from the public until a determination of its positive or negative impact was made. The downloaded images of the face can be doctored or deleted if necessary.


Many rock formations resemble faces. You will have them pointed out to you by tour guides all over the country (above ground and under). The reason for this is clear enough. At 1-10 meters there are an awful lot of features to observe and because strata are generally in inches to feet layers, those that weather unevenly produce profiles that look like anything you might imagine.

Clouds have similar properties but are changing constantly so that many more formations appear. You are certain to see things resembling other common objects if you wait just a little while.

But at the kilometer range (the general size of the face) there are far fewer formations resembling anything. Obviously, just as there are fewer large craters on the moon than small, there are fewer familiar large features of any other type. In fact, I know of no feature anywhere in the solar system on a kilometer scale that resembles anything familiar.

There's just this here ... face.


If the face is an artifact, what is its meaning?

Since I accept that the UFO phenomenon is genuine, it is puzzling. Why leave such a calling card if one is here already? What was different, say, millions of years ago when the face was made? Possibly an observational base was set up there so as not to interfere with evolution on Earth and was later abandoned. But why leave any vestige? Why not obliterate all traces if one wishes not to be seen?

Another possibility is that the UFO phenomenon is false and the face is a calling card left for us when we develop far enough to be able to use information buried beneath it. Certainly such a formation would last a long time. But then why not just put a big "X" on the moon by moving boulders around? Such an artifact would last even longer there.

Lastly, maybe there's nobody anywhere and the "face" is what most people would be comfortable with ..... a random construction of wind, wave and wonder.

Anecdotal Evidence

I had a brief correspondence about extraterrestrials in which the other party stated that the acceptance of anecdotal evidence was proof of irrationality. The exact exchange was:

"There exists a wide range of rational people, who, based on their own judgement, with due regard to the former discussion, believe that the Earth is under a sort of benevolent observation by aliens who have probably been around for millions of years just watching the thing grow.".......(My statement)

If they believe this in spite of the total lack of evidence, they are not "rational people," by definition. .............. (The reply)


Why do we accept the word of others anyway ?
What conditions do we place on their words, if any ?
What actually constitutes "evidence" ?


This short story will illustrate my point.

One day a horseman rides into Hilgars' village and explains, with some agitation, that Ghengis Khan is one hundred miles away and coming in this direction.
"Flee, if you value your life ! He is killing all in his path !"

Hilgar, being a 'rational' man who accepts nothing but objective evidence, requests proof (not wanting to pull up stakes on the word of one man).

The stranger reports that he has no 'proofs' as he has just barely escaped with his life.
"But I have seen them, 20,000 strong at least, with my own eyes ... and the killing ... believe me, you must retreat now."
With that, he remounts and resumes his flight.

Hilgar discusses the situation with his friend Ragnar.
"I do believe, Ragnar, that this man is a liar. If not why does he ride away from the threat and not at an angle to it? He would have been safe long ago."
"Perhaps he has relatives in this area. Perhaps he wishes to warn his fellow countrymen. By my experience in judging men, he is a truth teller. We would do well to consider preparing our escape."

The next day another rider with a similar tale arrives. Still Hilgar is unmoved.
"It is more likely that you have 'mistaken' the hill people of Argis for Ghengis Khan. These wanderers move down to the plains just in this season in large groups. Undoubtedly, you have, in ignorance, misled yourself."
"But tell me, do these hill people possess fine horses and body armor? It is you, sir, who are mistaken. They are but eighty miles distant."
And Hilgars' friend, Ragnar, now shaken, decides to abandon his farm.
"Hilgar, I must protect my family. I believe these men. You must believe them also and leave."

Some days pass and nothing happens. Hilgar is pleased that he has correctly assessed the situation and has not been taken in by the ignorance of the 'mob'.

Now arrives a third rider bearing a tale of an army twenty miles distant. And Hilgar senses that he must 'explain' the riders with an acceptable 'theory' to his remaining fellow villagers who follow his wisdom rather than Ragnar (these having already departed).

"My friends, clearly there is no danger to us. These riders are obviously brigands who wish to loot our farms of whatever goods we are unable to carry. Look at what has happened to Ragnars' property in his absence. Stay and do not be fooled."

On the last day . . . . . . a last rider.
"Over the next hill. Leave now or die."
The rest of the people scatter. Hilgar, now 'disgusted' with the gullibility of his neighbors, announces to the empty village square, that
"All of you are irrational! You believe in nonsense without evidence!"
With that, Hilgar receives his first bit of concrete evidence. . . .
in the form of a spearpoint embedded in his abdomen.

END


I think it should be clear why "rationality" cannot exclude anecdotal evidence.

So much of what we act on is purely anecdotal. If we did not trust our assessment of the veracity of other peoples' words (based on our own experience in living), we could not sustain any type of civilization.
Hence, those who believe that the earth is being observed by "aliens" (based on their own judgement of what others say they have seen), cannot be termed "not rational, by definition" even if they have no personal experiences with a "UFO".

Irrationality takes the form of actions and/or beliefs which cause the believer to be unable to function in what is considered a "normal way". No one can be called "not rational" if they can calmly state their beliefs and justify their actions in a logical fashion.
No one is "not rational" who acts on his own best reasoned judgement even if he is wrong.

How we act on anecdotal evidence is determined by the nature of that evidence.
If UFO anecdotal evidence indicated that aliens were malevolent, it would be rational to prepare for war. But the evidence suggests that they are likely to be indifferent so that preparing for war would be "not rational" while preparing to greet them in some way would also be "not rational" since the anecdotal evidence indicates that they are not interested in conversation. The only rational action to be taken (based on the anecdotal evidence) is simply to watch and talk about them. That's all.


Evidence . . .

Scientific evidence, as opposed to anecdotal evidence, consists of "reproducible physical events not controlled by sentient beings". Hence, recording the peek temperature of a chemical reaction is scientific. It can be repeated by anyone with the knowhow and equipment.

A UFO event can never be examined scientifically because it is not reproducible. It is ostensibly controlled by thinking beings and therefore falls out of the purview of science.
A piece of a 'crashed UFO' could be examined scientifically because the event "examined" would be a simple physical artifact which would now be independent of the sentient beings who created it.
But outside of crash artifacts, this is not the business of science.

It is the business of scientists (as human beings) however. These people might be best suited to examining the anecdotal evidence dispassionately. Herein lies the forte of the scientist (not the objective analysis of physical facts but rather "cold analysis of anything whatsoever").
Coupled with the "living experience" of a "normal" human being, a true scientist is probably the right person to look to in these matters. Hence, they are looked to by most people.

But they fall on their faces, losing credibility with the average man, because they lack the spine to call another man a liar to his face when confronted with an either/or situation of a witness who states:
"I saw a saucer shaped craft land in broad daylight, not more than one hundred feet away".
Here, the average man looks to his experience with others and knows that no third alternative exists. A scientist, generally, can't face this straight up (their reputation, or possible loss of it, gets in the way). So there is no one, in particular, to examine the issue.


There are many other "paranormal" subjects that have the same problems.
Suppose that the human brain, under some conditions, could do what George Lucas' company ILM does routinely. A person might be able to construct a "ghost" in his cerebral cortex and overlay that subjective entity on the external "real world". Thus, the person who says they have seen a ghost may not be lying. Perhaps when the average individual "feels" that someone is telling the truth, they may be actually telling the truth after all.

Even scientific evidence can be anecdotal.
If a number is expected to be 1.000000000000... and the actual reading is 1.00000000000000652 , it is by no means certain that the scientific community won't just "fudge" the number (pretend the actual number doesn't exist) in order to keep theory in order. And....
All scientific evidence is anecdotal if it isn't actually retried by independent researchers.


In the end, we have only our own judgement to rely on . . . and the judgement of our fellow man
(for whatever it may be worth).


Google
 
Web ebtx.com


Ebtx Home Page