Why I'm skeptical about the UFO phenomenon
This topic contains 37 replies, has 9 voices, and was last updated by 
PopeBeanie 10 months, 1 week ago.
-
We live in an age where cameras are sophisticated and almost anyone with a camera as lowly as a cell phone can take a razor-sharp image of just about anything. Our government can read a license plate number from an orbiting satellite.
So, why are so many UFO images either a blur or, if sharp, something any mildly adept photographer can fake either in the field or in a photo editor? As early as the 1950’s, Hollywood could produce nice sharp images of UFO’s that were out of their special effects departments.
I’m not denying that UFO’s exist nor am I asserting that they are some sort of government conspiracy. I simply don’t understand why in order to believe in them, we have to base our beliefs at least in part on “evidence” consisting of blurry images or images fabricated out of hubcaps or pie tins.
Take a look at this image which is supposed to be a clear image of a UFO, I don’t even think one needs to be a photographer to analyze away this image as probably a homemade artifact designed to look like a flying saucer and hung from a crane or something similar using fishing line. The shadow alone, cast onto the path below, indicates that the object is close and too small to house any but the tiniest alien creatures.
I’m tired of looking at blurry smudges or obvious fakes and being TOLD they are alien spacecraft. I’d really like to SEE one in a convincing photo with a backstory that makes the image convincing.
The trouble is there’s a good reason to doubt almost anything nowadays since almost anything can be faked or deep faked. For example, while I myself don’t doubt the moon landings, There’s little about the images that came from the landings that couldn’t be faked.
Thus, I don’t put moon landing skeptics in the same category as the flat earth dummies or the stolen election airheads. The moon landings could have been faked. I just doubt that they were for a variety of reasons. However, all clear images of UFOs I’ve seen look fake and probably are.
Unseen,
I’m not denying that UFO’s exist nor am I asserting that they are some sort of government conspiracy. I simply don’t understand why in order to believe in them, we have to base our beliefs at least in part on “evidence” consisting of blurry images or images fabricated out of hubcaps or pie tins.
The short answer is that no rational being has to believe anything without sufficient evidence, and that includes claims that UFOs are Ezekiel’s wheel in the sky or space aliens or Vril from The Hollow Earth.
Real pics plus physical evidence plus contact with the beings behind them, all subject to open independent, reproducable corroboration by any observer, or it never happened.
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 3 months ago by
TheEncogitationer. Reason: Addendum
Okay, so if this is true, SHOW US!!!
The article referenced above: Intelligence Officials Say U.S. Has Retrieved Craft of Non-Human Origin
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 3 months ago by
Unseen.
@PB
I’m sure technological advances will continue coming and that some of those in the future would look like magic to people of today, though history has shown that the advances we think will show up seldom do so, or when they do turn up, we’re often underwhelmed. The things we didn’t anticipate at all turn out to be Earth-shattering. Things like microchips and the Internet.
Remember holograms? Three dimensional video displays created out of light? You would have thought back then that holograms would be everywhere by now. Frankly, I’ve never seen a hologram. I wouldn’t even know where to go to see one. WTF?
I may be proven wrong someday in the future, but no physicist I’m aware of thinks there’s any way around the known laws of physics allowing for faster than light flight, much less instantaneous “Beam me across the Universe, Scotty”-type intergalactic travel, even using quantum entanglement.
The “worm hole”—a favorite sci fi trope—is certainly impossible to use if it is inside a black hole, because going into a black hole is fatal (ever heard of “spaghettification”?).
The bipedal two legs/two arms body plan is a good one to result in a highly technological race, so if aliens do arrive, there’s a chance they’ll have a bipedal body plan and look somewhat humanoid. Octopuses, dolphins and crows are quite bright but have physical limitations and/or environmental requirements preventing them from obtaining a level of high technology comparable to ours. Intelligent beings on other planets might be more intelligent in some ways but due to the limitations of their body plan or environment (aquatic, for example) be incapable of leaving their planet.
At any rate, my point is that there’s much more logic to remaining skeptical than to being pollyannical (which may be a neologism, but I think its meaning is obvious).
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 3 months ago by Unseen.
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 3 months ago by
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.