Even if you could rule out man-made and weather-related causes for some UFOs, that wouldn’t imply that they were caused by an extra-terrestrial civilization either. Some UFOs may still be unexplained, but all that means is that we don’t know enough about them to say what they are.
That said, I don’t think you can rule out weather and human craft. Others have already explained why I find the “primary” evidence unconvincing.
This is very speculative to me. I don’t think we can use it as evidence for or against.
Let me put it this way. My guess of what an interstellar civilization would look like makes predictions about what it would be like to encounter that civilization. Those predictions are not satisfied. This is strong evidence that no extra-terrestrial civilization (as I understand the term) has made it anywhere near us.
One of the reasons you were downvoted is that you asked us to evaluate evidence for “Aliens”. But that is impossible until you explain what you mean by “Aliens”. Obviously, there is something about these UFO sightings that makes you think they are more likely to be caused by aliens than by weather. Which implies that you think you know something about aliens that makes them a better explanation.
So what is it that you think you know about these “Aliens”?
“Even if you could rule out man-made and weather-related causes for some UFOs, that wouldn’t imply that they were caused by an extra-terrestrial civilization either.”
I agree. But in the cases of grey beings emerging from UFOs we can at least conclude that grey beings can occupy UFOs, if we trust primary evidence. This would be a massive discovery in itself, so why don’t we hear about it? We don’t have to conclude they come from outer space—who knows, they maybe live underground. Lets not speculate on that as we have plenty of interesting observations to delve into already—little gray men emerging from airborn thingies is HUGE in itself.
“So what is it that you think you know about these “Aliens”?”
It’s not that I know anything about aliens. It’s that more earthly explanations are completely implausible in many cases.
“That said, I don’t think you can rule out weather and human craft.”
In which cases? Just all cases, a priory? Or did you go through all previous sightings and came to that conclusion in every one case? Maybe others did the study for you, so you could provide a reference?
little gray men emerging from airborn thingies is HUGE in itself.
Um, no. A short guy in a grey suit stepping off a helicopter is a little grey man emerging from an airborn thingy.
Or did you go through all previous sightings and came to that conclusion in every one case?
No. I don’t see the point in digging through all the reports, when the reports I have heard about have been so underwhelming. I was skipping around, watching bits and pieces of the video you linked, until Manfred pointed this out:
The geiger counter reading is reported as “10 times background,” which sounds impressive if you’ve never held a geiger counter, but really just means a nearby rock had some potassium in it, or a dozen other possibilities.
So they basically lied. I actually haven’t ever held a geiger counter, so I had no way of knowing this. If asked to explain it, I would have had to admit that something weird was going on that I couldn’t explain. Except there’s a perfectly mundane explanation, and the only reason I was confused is because I was misled about the significance of the reading in the first place. After that I didn’t see the value in watching the rest of the documentary.
So I have a better idea. You tell me what you think is the single most convincing incident, and I will tell you,
How convincing I find the report on its own, and
How convincing it would be, assuming that there were thousands of similar, equally reliable reports.
Even if you could rule out man-made and weather-related causes for some UFOs, that wouldn’t imply that they were caused by an extra-terrestrial civilization either. Some UFOs may still be unexplained, but all that means is that we don’t know enough about them to say what they are.
That said, I don’t think you can rule out weather and human craft. Others have already explained why I find the “primary” evidence unconvincing.
Let me put it this way. My guess of what an interstellar civilization would look like makes predictions about what it would be like to encounter that civilization. Those predictions are not satisfied. This is strong evidence that no extra-terrestrial civilization (as I understand the term) has made it anywhere near us.
One of the reasons you were downvoted is that you asked us to evaluate evidence for “Aliens”. But that is impossible until you explain what you mean by “Aliens”. Obviously, there is something about these UFO sightings that makes you think they are more likely to be caused by aliens than by weather. Which implies that you think you know something about aliens that makes them a better explanation.
So what is it that you think you know about these “Aliens”?
“Even if you could rule out man-made and weather-related causes for some UFOs, that wouldn’t imply that they were caused by an extra-terrestrial civilization either.”
I agree. But in the cases of grey beings emerging from UFOs we can at least conclude that grey beings can occupy UFOs, if we trust primary evidence. This would be a massive discovery in itself, so why don’t we hear about it? We don’t have to conclude they come from outer space—who knows, they maybe live underground. Lets not speculate on that as we have plenty of interesting observations to delve into already—little gray men emerging from airborn thingies is HUGE in itself.
“So what is it that you think you know about these “Aliens”?”
It’s not that I know anything about aliens. It’s that more earthly explanations are completely implausible in many cases.
“That said, I don’t think you can rule out weather and human craft.”
In which cases? Just all cases, a priory? Or did you go through all previous sightings and came to that conclusion in every one case? Maybe others did the study for you, so you could provide a reference?
Um, no. A short guy in a grey suit stepping off a helicopter is a little grey man emerging from an airborn thingy.
No. I don’t see the point in digging through all the reports, when the reports I have heard about have been so underwhelming. I was skipping around, watching bits and pieces of the video you linked, until Manfred pointed this out:
So they basically lied. I actually haven’t ever held a geiger counter, so I had no way of knowing this. If asked to explain it, I would have had to admit that something weird was going on that I couldn’t explain. Except there’s a perfectly mundane explanation, and the only reason I was confused is because I was misled about the significance of the reading in the first place. After that I didn’t see the value in watching the rest of the documentary.
So I have a better idea. You tell me what you think is the single most convincing incident, and I will tell you,
How convincing I find the report on its own, and
How convincing it would be, assuming that there were thousands of similar, equally reliable reports.