Are UFO's real?

Post Reply New Topic

Here's one that's pretty old that no one's been able to completely refute:



... and yet here's one I just faked in a photo editing program. So how do you tell?


ufo_fake by salem44dream, on Flickr

Well right, and I might have somewhat added my own interpretation but it seemed somewhat reflexive and I'll explain why. Both the terms 'magic' and 'supernatural' are relative words that have the distinct problem of being synonymous (colloquially at least) with both unexplainable and fictional. That tends to lend us lazy habits and jump circuit to believe that a firm land-bridge is formed between unexplainable and fictitious through such terms.

If we were going to hypothetically assume that things are either real or not real (that enough boiling or peeling apart of components could erase all caveats to that statement) and then that in the real domain there are still things that are unexplainable - both magic and supernatural are as decrepit in describing that quadrant of the heuristic as they are at describing my computer (for which I can assure you I've discovered no capabilities beyond the ordinary). On the other side when you have things that are both unexplained and fictitious, fictitious seems to do a good enough job of summing them up on its own, to call anything fictitious either supernatural or magic gives it more substance than what's earned. When you think about it 'supernatural' can't be neither fictional nor real - it has to be one or the other and, if its real, it has a method and it would fall within the realm of science.

While technically all things a person can think of are real in terms of neural patterns and neurotransmitters storing ideas and memories, or that elves and unicorns are as real as the movies and video games they show up in, that's a domain we think of as 'data', specifically our data - where fictional and real aren't as much of a problem, just that we're forced to parse the difference outside of the human data realm because its a place where we don't get to, or at least have no idea how to, pen in our own reality to the extent that we do in our own created virtual or data space.


Right. They'd either be desperate refuges who lost everything and had nothing else better to do, or, they would have figured out a way to break to treat time and space in a more illusory manner.

Part of the problem with UFO's is that, especially the light-forms, skip around, carve hard step patterns in the sky when observed, and move in ways which don't obey our laws at all. They even seem to, in the case or colored lights, sort of decay in the sense of not holding shape. It was the famous French researcher from the 60's and 70's Jacques Vallee who was one of the first to suggest two hypothesis from field research: 1) That UFO's are hyper-dimensional in nature and 2) That the world as we know it appears to be a control system of sorts and that these things seem to be either flash anomalies/distortions caused by the fabric of that system or they are direct breaches by the controllers. Its a far out claim but we have increasing numbers of scientists making TOE's that involve a holographic basis to the universe. Obviously his leap from holographic universe to UFO's being an apparatus of the control system is radical but the holographic basis seems to be losing its fringiness a bit lately. While many researchers are still just dreamy and starry-eyed about it all there's a strong enough contingent who believes that there's a significantly darker side to the phenomena, particularly those who full-on believe that these are the 'watchers' or B'nai Elohim of both Genesis and the book of Enoch.

Again, that's not to claim they're right, just to reiterate that it's part-in-parcel with the dialog around this stuff.

There is if you look for it.

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sliZd5arkII

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQNQEzsekHw

The last link qualifies as conspiracy theory material and will be re posted.
This message was broadcast over the top of five commercial strength TV transmitters' audio signals simultaneously in 1977. The only pirate event of this magnitude before or since.
Due to the impossibility of covering it up, it is derided as a 'hoax'.
Its protagonists have never been found.

You can't be serious.

That last is pretty funny, though.

I see Frisbees.

Those photos are so damned fake, it is a laught.

ruveyn

ruveyn

Yes, quite - it's laughable. It's also a total fake, never mind the whole "alien broadcast" aspect.
The guy at the start is Cliff Michelmore, a UK news/current affairs announcer, but his voice has been replaced and yet still roughly lip-synced so there is deliberate trickery afoot already.
Compare his voice with this (skip to 2:00) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0JcquQ96Xg (also at 2:36 and 3:34)

Guys, its a youtube clip, audio is often out of sync on that site.
Yes this broadcast actually happened. You wont have to look far to find many more accounts of it.

You didn't fully read what I said.
Yes, speech is often slightly out of sync on YouTube clips which implies it was once in sync so it's no big deal - but it's not his voice at all.
That video has already been very heavily manipulated before we get to what it purports to show, and it was manipulated with enough care to ensure lip-sync. Why would anyone bother considering the veracity of the remainder, knowing that?
If they're as reliable or as believable as the clip then they're worthless.

Worthless as the millions of witnesses at the time in 1977?

This. As to whether any of them are from another world or another dimension, I have no idea. But it is a topic that has fascinated me for a long time.

It's both interesting and revealing that you are studiously avoiding making any comment on the obvious voice forgery of the announcer.

Anyway, I did have a quick look and unsurprisingly, it's crap.
Another video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3cH3JJh-GM claims it occurred on a Saturday - but the program shown is "Day By Day", which only aired on weekdays.
You'll see this is also an "enhanced" version, designed to look super extra double-plus really scary!!
It's also quite simple to make a mess of transmissions if you know where the relays are.
There are many other things which prove it's utter nonsense - apart from that voice you're still ignoring. These might help you a little, but I suspect not:
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthre ... 059&page=2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_T ... terruption

Cornflake, the incident is referred to as "Southern Television broadcast interruption".
Anomalies in the youtube clip in no way counter the fact that this happened in reality.
Proving that this happened in reality of itself does not prove anything more - nor could it have been intended to.
Everything in the UFO field is presented in such a way so that every individual still has a choice in whether to believe in it or not.
That choice is still supremely yours.
I present the facts as I see them only in the interests of producing constructive debate.
For what its worth, I believe extraterrestrials and their craft to be a real thing.

It never ceases to amaze me how often people will see something flying in the sky and immediately assume that it and its crew are of extra-terrestrial origin.

Although it never surprises me at all how often alcohol, drugs, and a public-school education are involved in U.F.O. sightings.

@ripped: I'm well aware the event occurred: that's a simple matter of historical record. It's just the idiotic alien-based reasons behind it that are so laughable and the way countering evidence - actual evidence - is ignored.

I see the voice forgery is now demoted to being a mere anomaly. I suppose that's marginally better than completely ignoring it.
Assuming you can hear the difference - do you not think it in the slightest bit odd? This video is presented as evidence of some sort of alien intervention yet a good proportion of it is very clearly and easily demonstrated as faked.
I assume these aliens also had English accents so it would be easier for us to understand them? That's very thoughtful...
It seems you're more content to believe some scary, B-movie alien voice effect is more significant than a demonstrably faked announcer's voice. That's just irrational.

The only fact you've presented is that a broadcast was interrupted. The rest of it is some sort of bizarre fantasy.

My advice - try not to get worked up about it. When people ask for extraordinary proof what they really seem to mean is mainstream acceptance, outside of that you could have extraordinary proof but if it doesn't fit the heuristic of mainstream reality people will assume its a forgery, that its deceitfully cooked up by true believers to prove their religion, etc. ect..

I can't speak one way or another on the video but I've seen how - on other subjects - just how much people can push under the carpet by discrediting the sources. One good example: to this day people still quite commonly don't believe the outcome of the double-slit experiment, question the intelligence of the experimenters and then all who replicated the result, etc.. Heck I even uttered the same knee-jerk pedestrian responses these people did when I heard it because, even though my comments needed to make scientists bumbling idiots who had no concept of isolating fundamental variables in an experiment, their results just didn't fit anything that I'd come to believe or had been taught was real. Being that it was the one splinter in my heuristic it was much easier to attack it than everything contrary that I'd been taught.

It then doubles down and gets truly vicious when those same claims haven't met attempts to repeat by mainstream scientists and thus its both against the grain and not repeated. Sometimes the problems in an experiment are clear, other times the scientists themselves are just that afraid that the weight of other people's ontological dissonance with their findings will absolutely destroy their careers (in the field of science that's an incredibly big problem right now).

I don't think people do this to be mean or cynical, its just that very few have the time to really fact-check all the way through or try to compare it all across the board - hence they stay where its safe and use the mainstream/tinfoil heuristic on what crosses their radars. You kind of have to look at this as a force of nature more than you'd look at it as a stack of individual choices - ie. its too sweeping a dynamic in our culture to ever dream of trying to take it all on your shoulders, if you do and try to carry the burden of that much ontological dissonance you'll likely get hypnotized - just by sheer repetitive drumming - into either absolutely hating yourself in general or hating yourself for having the desire to try and look further. That's not where you want to end up.

ANCIENT ALIENS!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !