There are thousands of potentially habitable planets in the galaxy

43 תגובות

1. Avi Cohen

   "A."

   1. It is not related to the ability to do science with these merits.
   2. If non-existent evidence shows something that I want to be true then it will be a really important discovery. How would you react if you were told that?

   If a religious person comes to you and says to you - "It is important that we investigate miracles because if we do so and discover that they testify to the reality and existence of God, do you really not understand how important the discovery will be?" – What will be your answer to him?

   "B."

   Your analogy is incorrect. You want explorers to sail ships in a world without water.

   "third."

   When you talk about video stills do you mean blurry shapeless dots or endless fakes?

   What exactly are you talking about?

   At which landing site were the radiation levels measured and what were the radiation levels measured there before the supposed landing at the site?

   What landing site and what effects on the environment are you talking about?

   "With triangulation from several images or video, we can obtain data on the physical sizes of the objects in certain cases"

   And we have an example of this where exactly?

   Well this is a bit confusing, at some point you started talking about what evidence we might have and not about what we currently have. I didn't quite understand where.

   And when all the things you suggest don't work, will it teach us that the other intelligences responsible for UFOs simply know how to be ten steps ahead of us and are able to hide and hide themselves and prevent detection?

2. WALKING DEATH:
   1." If we treat the UFO phenomenon only as the things that have not been identified, all we will have to look at is problematic evidence. How do you expect to do science with this thing?”
   I do not agree with this statement for several reasons: a. If these evidences really show visits from other intelligences, do you really not understand how important the discovery will be? Especially if "they" do not want to be revealed, then it is even more important for us to try to find out as much as possible about them, and perhaps about their motives.
   B. If all the discoverers and scientists had such an attitude today we would not know about America and we would still be stuck in the Middle Ages. Do you really think that all discoveries came easily without crises and failures? I didn't say it would be easy, but through trial and error, we will eventually be able to advance our knowledge step by step. Despite everything and despite the obstacles, we managed to learn something about the universe and it wasn't easy either.
   third. If I look at the history of the UFO phenomenon, I do not agree with the statement that we are left with only evidence. We will also have lots of photos and video. Sometimes also landing marks, and landing sites where we can measure radiation levels, impact on the environment of the objects, etc... If we even have a catalog of different types of objects, we are already one step ahead. With triangulation from several images or video, we can get data on the physical sizes of the objects in certain cases, for example... there are many more things that can be done. I know I sound like I'm contradicting myself, but the fact that I said that the objects are stealthy, is not necessarily true in all cases, there are many cases where the objects also left a radar signature (and it was not a thermal inversion).
   "What do you suggest as a way to do serious research on UFOs?"
   The main problem is to catch the phenomenon in real time. Therefore, the first efforts will be to prepare an infrastructure that can bring the tools we choose to investigate the phenomenon to the right place and time. Today, with the help of the Internet, this can be done. It should also be noted that the effort should be carried out in several countries. The first thing that needs to be established will be the concentration of all observations under one database. More than once, sightings at a certain location lasted more than one day. Observations of the above type should be used. As soon as we receive an indication of a phenomenon that cannot be explained, a field team will deploy with the equipment to that location. A number of such teams will be strategically distributed at strategic points chosen by criteria to be determined. The teams will try to collect as much information as possible with the tools they have. All data will then be analyzed by appropriate experts for the relevant information.
   I would like to see an infrared and ultraviolet signature of these objects, we may be able to separate by these signatures between objects we are interested in and other phenomena. This is just an idea I thought about. I am sure that if we sat down to think about this possibility seriously, we could come up with several ideas for implementation.

3. for miracles,
   Sorry for taking so long to answer, I don't have time to answer everyone immediately...
   "The point is that there is no such phenomenon. There are all kinds of phenomena - and when there is something to investigate - the phenomenon is investigated." As I said in my response to Walking Depp, I also think that there is more than one phenomenon here, but the difference is that I think that there are at least two phenomena for which we have no explanation, one of which could be explained by a different technological civilization. Of course, some cases, and even most of them, have a simple explanation, as I said before.
   As I tried to show with the help of the case that Tyson mentioned, in the section that "Ahad" linked to, even when the phenomena are investigated, they are not investigated properly (I will go into more detail when I explain about the Blue Book), and the conclusion that remains in the public's mind or is presented in the media is distorted. Therefore, there is a problem here of transferring the relevant information to the relevant people in order to promote the issue.
   "Today there are radar trackers looking for remnants of satellites, etc..." As "Ahad" explained nicely, our culture already has radar and infrared evasion technologies, and today we are also working on technologies evading visible light frequencies. Just think what technology an advanced culture has only 200 years from us, when it is likely that if there really is a culture that comes to us from another planet, then the technological differences are greater than 200 years.
   "And be sure that those who investigate every rumor about UFOs are all those who believe in their existence - and they don't find anything either..." This is simply not true, there are findings, but there is no conclusive proof, since I have already said that the partisan bodies that investigate the issue do not have the appropriate resources to promote the subject…
   This is a circular argument - we do not allocate resources to investigate the issue because there is no proof of its existence, but there will be no proof of its existence as long as resources are not allocated to the issue. This specific issue cannot be investigated by putting it in a petri dish in a laboratory...
   "Maybe aliens are the killers and kidnappers? Would you agree with the police saying it was aliens?” I would disagree, but if every year there were 350 cases around the world, with thousands of eyewitnesses, and some of them captured it in a photo or video, and no other suitable explanation could be found according to the data, then I would consider devoting the means to researching the phenomenon.
   "And those high-tech extraterrestrials fly with lights on, and during the day?" Miracles, according to several theories that exist, these lights that many people mention are not related to a lighting system. The lights that these objects emit are described with different characteristics from the lighting of our planes, in particular they are described as a light that is contained within itself, as a sort of envelope. It is possible that these lights are electromagnetic radiation emitted by the propulsion system of the vessel. This may be the reason why disturbances in various electronic systems are occasionally reported at the same time of such meetings.

4. Avi Cohen

   1. If we treat the UFO phenomenon only as the unidentified things, all we will have to look at is problematic evidence. 0 other type of evidence. How do you expect to do science with this thing? seriously?

   Radars cover just about every place where UFOs are observed so at least you should have that in addition, but you don't. You could say alien spaceships are stealthy but that still leaves us with no evidence to work with to do proper scientific research.

   What do you suggest as a way to do serious research on UFOs?

   2. "Having an elliptical shape with a protruding antenna" "It was so bright that you couldn't look at it directly"

   Which of these two things are we supposed to believe?

   This is exactly the kind of problem with such evidence. Their level of reliability is problematic. People use their brains to fill in gaps where they lack information and the results accordingly. People contradict themselves and you don't care because you want to believe.

   Do you know what a sunk cost is? Humans would often prefer to create a complex and wrong story to explain why they did what they did than to admit to themselves that they wasted their time on something wrong. This is one of the reasons why it is difficult for religious people to give up their faith. It is much more difficult for a person to admit to himself that he wasted all this time and resources on nonsense, than to strengthen his faith at the expense of the truth. And the human brain will not hesitate to invent things to do so.

   I doubt if Tyson even read the report, it's much more likely that he heard the story in a similar way to the way he told it. What is more, it is not certain that this is the same case. In any case, the difference is not as great as you present it when reading the report.

   It's funny that by the way you criticize the distortions of Tyson (who probably doesn't know the case in depth) but chooses to show a summary video that is no less distorted only for the side you want to show.

   You can criticize Condon's summary all you want but the documents are open to the public and the investigations themselves are not his work. If there was anything there that could be inferred beyond that you could present it. In fact, some of the cases that UFOlogists like to present are taken from this report, so it is a bit strange to hear criticism of it and how wrong it is considering that parts of it are used to argue for the existence of UFOs.

   Konkun was not interested in getting involved in this and saw the whole story as a farce, nice. On the other side you have people who make a living from spreading their stories and "evidence" for UFOs, and need people to believe in UFOs for that. And you require us to take these people and treat them as the objective side. So sorry but I don't buy it, the stronger interest to distort and lie is absolutely clear here.

   3. There is no evidence that is not evidence.

   You know what, today for the price of NIS 2000 you can buy a video camera and connect it to a computer that will save everything it captures. Gather a group of 100 people who will all photograph the sky in the same area, and according to the numbers of people who are there according to what you say, within a maximum of five years you should have something concrete in your hand, right? It does not require astronomical sums and it is not that such sums will help to achieve anything better than this.

   "It is unlikely that a simple person will have the necessary tools to check what the UFO he saw is"

   Why do you skip here the point that it is unlikely that a simple person without a background in sky watching would know how to reject dozens of basic explanations for things that can be seen in the sky, thus creating in ninety or so percent (according to your data) an unnecessary herd of sight.

   4. Yes. Pilots or police officers do not spend more time than ordinary people watching the sky and do not know better than ordinary people what the sky looks like and what is in it. Astronomers (in general, not all astronomers) are people who spend more time than ordinary people watching the sky, and also know better than ordinary people what the sky looks like and what is in it. That's why this statement of his is completely acceptable (and it's not like he invented it or anything).
   What can be done that people who look at the sky all the time should see more UFOs than people who don't, and that in practice this does not happen. So unless you think that the UFOs know how to track astronomers and avoid appearing where they are watching then you are wrong to disagree with this statement.

5. walking death and "one" in relation to Tyson's clip:
   I have a lot of respect for Neil Tyson and his work to make astrophysics accessible to the general public, but I disagree with a number of things he said in the video you linked to:
   1. According to Tyson's words, the supporters of the aliens define any unknown phenomenon as extraterrestrials. As I wrote in my response to "Walking Deep" it is not possible to generalize all the "supporters of the obscurantists" under one umbrella, and there are many different approaches to the issue. There is no need to specifically refer to the extremists and their opinions. In connection with Tyson's definition, see in my last answer section 2, where I clearly define that in them it is an unidentifiable object, until it is identified, and even if it is not identified afterwards, in my opinion there is more than one phenomenon here, each of which is interesting in itself and requires attention, and it is Not necessarily extraterrestrials.
   2. The case that Tyson tells about a client from the "Blue Book" project, which I will expand on in another response to "Walking Depp". This is a classic case of the distortions found in that "study". The problem is that no one has the time to delve into the research itself or the evidence and everyone only knows the summary and recommendations of the Condon Committee which ruled out any possibility of the existence of an unexplained phenomenon, and closed the Gollel on the subject. Afterwards it became clear that Condon came with a biased opinion against the phenomenon, and his conclusions either ignore important research data, or are based on the distorted conclusions of the cases, against any scientific standard. About the Blue Book project:
   https://youtu.be/cYPCKIL7oVw?t=4219
   The case as Tyson remembers it: a police officer followed a UFO moving from side to side in the sky, while he was driving a police car and reporting the case on the radio. In the end it turned out that he was following the star Venus, and the star appeared to be bowing from side to side because the road was curved, and the policeman got carried away with his report, until he didn't notice it.
   The conclusion in the report gives "a little" more credit to the unfortunate policeman, but demonstrates very well the broken phone phenomenon that Tyson mentioned: the case of the UFO chase made headlines in the local media, then five days after a brief interview with the policeman, Major Hector Quintanilla announced, The chief director of Project Blue Book at the time, which the police were chasing first after a communications satellite, and then after Venus. (In the case, more than one police officer was involved, with one of them being an anti-tank gunner in the Korean War, and the police submitted a detailed report to Project Blue Book).
   But let's see what the report submitted to Blue Book about the case really was:
   Ravenna, Portage County, Ohio, April 17, 1967, the county sheriff reported a UFO incident reported by Officer Dale F. Spower. Time 03:00 at night until 06:00. First seen on road 224-24 and was followed by the police car until Conway, Pennsylvania along approximately 129 km. The object appears to take off from the ground, from a wooded area. Has an elliptical shape with a protruding antenna. It had a kind of hum, similar to the hum of an electric transformer. There were no colored lights, but a sort of silver glow, the object flew about 500 feet above the car. It was so bright that they couldn't look at it directly, and when it was above them, it lit up the whole area. A photograph of the bone was taken, but the development and film were of poor quality, and the bone cannot be distinguished according to Project Blue Book. He sometimes slowed down, then accelerated to high speed. sometimes also moves up and down. The glow from the bone was so bright that it blinded the driver. The object flies east. The bone was seen by several people on the same route: 3 people from the sheriff's office, and two patrol vehicles that chased the bone. No radar signature was detected by the airport radar in Pittsburgh, and no planes were launched towards it. The sky was clear of clouds, and some witnesses also stated that they noticed the moon and a bright star next to it at the same time. Hundreds of other people reported sightings of a luminous object in the morning hours.
   As you can see, the real story is far from Tyson's story. Here is a link to the Blue Book Project pages that talk about the case:
   http://bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?PageCode=MISC-PBB2-622
   And here is a summary of the case in the video, together with what happens to the policeman who dares to tell about the thicket he saw (for the attention of Woking Daf):
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJP8OxZr2kE
   3. It is true that eyewitness testimony is problematic, and much if not most of the testimony is eyewitness testimony. I do not claim that there is unequivocal evidence, but claim that it is more than likely that there is a phenomenon here that requires a more in-depth investigation. What does it look like? To the researcher who claims to have seen chimpanzees use a tool, and is told, they don't believe you, bring proof. So the researcher asks for funding so he can follow a group of chimpanzees in the Congo. He will not be able to prove himself without any help or funding. It is unlikely that a simple person will have the necessary tools to check what the UFO he saw is (including stealing an ashtray from a spaceship...)
   4. At the end, he declares that a pilot's or policeman's eyewitness testimony is no better than another person's, but one sentence before, he asks why amateur astronomers don't report obscurities more. That is, he considers only the group of astronomers as expert witnesses from all other people and professions. I do not agree with this statement.

6. Avi Cohen

   "How do you define many cases? Are the investigated cases more numerous than those that are not? Do you follow every case that happens?”

   If you had asked me a decade ago I could have given you good answers to this. Today I no longer follow.

   "Is there an organized and agreed-upon body that collects all the data and receives all the reports?"

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civil_aviation_authorities

   You can be sure that the American Air Force also follows everything that moves in the sky (the same probably applies to the Russians as well)

   "Add to that the fact that there are many cases that are not reported"

   On what basis do you determine this? If there is no information then there is no information you, cannot determine that any information exists based on a lack of information.

   If I saw that there was no talk of Microsoft's stock going up, would I be likely to understand that there is talk of it not being accessible or reported to me, and therefore I should understand that it is going to happen and that I should invest in Microsoft stock?

   "Do you think there is any interest for this person to report this?"

   I don't really want to talk about people's interests because everyone has their own. But I don't think anyone has any reason to be afraid to report such an event. It does not seem to me that a person who comes and reports that he saw such and such and does not know how to explain it without drama will suffer from the attachment of stigmas as you fear will happen. And it's not important that he should be concerned about his position in society. Pilots have reported UFO sightings and I don't know of anyone who lost their job as a result. In my opinion, those who do suffer damage to their status in society are harmed due to the way they relate to the event, the way they report it, and the way they present it, and not because of the report itself.

   A person who will come and say I saw XYZ and I don't know how to explain it. I would be happy if they could help me understand that he will not encounter any damage to his position in society.

   If something like this happened to me then I would definitely try to find out what it was, and I wouldn't sit and be silent for fear of what people would say. For 25 years I've been walking around with my eyes in the sky (in cities, in the desert, in the field and in the mountains) looking to see something like this and so far nothing. I have come across many fakes and I have not seen a single person who claimed to have seen such a thing without that person trying to sell me something. Yes, I had the chance (several times) to experience the feeling of what it is and then later on to recognize what it is.

   You are simply stating that if Tyson had seen a UFO he would have remained silent based on the fact that it matches your worldview. The exact opposite can easily be argued. First of all he talks about everything. Second, he is well aware that there are various explanations for this experience that do not amount to seeing a UFO and he is a scientist who would be very interested in knowing what the real explanation is, or at least the most likely. Contrary to your claim, he did not say anything bad about people who have seen UFOs, he simply stated that as a scientist he has no good way to treat such eyewitness testimony because he cannot do anything with it.

   "It is true that there are certain cases that have been investigated, and even quite a few, but they cannot be defined as a "majority". How they were interrogated is another story."

   For me, an investigation similar to the one in the examples I gave is considered. And I think most cases are investigated at this level, even if only by the observers. When for example you count events like those where I saw something that after I followed it you found out what it was. Something that will not lead to the reporting of every unidentified object even though there was one in the beginning, so I'm pretty sure that most cases are indeed investigated. If you only count cases where there is no solution then maybe that changes the situation.
   You are welcome to do statistics on the subject. Until then, I am willing not to say that most cases have been investigated as long as you are willing not to say that the number of cases investigated cannot be defined as approximately.

   "Do they continue to be defined that way after we have been able to identify them? of course not."

   What reason do we have to assume that the unsolved observations do not belong to one of these solutions, and that the observer or the researcher was not able to associate the cases that remained classified as UFOs with one of these solutions?

   If we count only unsolved events then it is absolutely clear that all we will have is a collection of observations with shaky evidentiary strength, which cannot be explained. This is a way of reference that seems extremely stupid to me.

   "For the purpose of definition, how do we define incidents under the UFO definition? If theoretically there is more than one alien culture visiting, does that fall under the same category?”

   We will categorize as in any other field, with categories, sub-categories, and sub-sub-categories.

7. Miracles,

   I was only talking about your claim that our radars were supposed to detect the UFOs of the aliens, and I showed you that this argument is devoid of any foundation.

   The lights are another issue, and I didn't address that.

8. one
   Yes, yes... and those high-tech extraterrestrials fly with lights on, and during the day? Is it because of FAA regulations?

9. "If there was a metallic body of the size you described, radar systems would detect this body from a distance of millions of kilometers."

   Miracles,

   As you can tell I don't believe that aliens came here in spaceships but the argument you made is a bit ridiculous to say the least. If we with our current technology have been able to build stealth planes that radar can't see (the F-22 for example) then do you think that aliens with much more advanced technology who managed to get this far don't know how to build stealth aircraft?

   Miracles, some logic please.

10. Avi Cohen
    If there was a metallic body of the size you described, your systems would detect this body from millions of kilometers away.

    There are bodies in the world that look for UFOs and have never found anything.

    There are many murder cases every year that are not solved. And there are a lot of people who disappear.
    Maybe aliens are the killers and kidnappers? Would you agree with the police saying it was aliens?

11. 1. "(Which, by the way, is not really true because many cases are indeed investigated and usually resolved quickly)"
    How do you define multiple cases? Are the investigated cases more numerous than those that are not? Do you follow every case that happens? Is there an organized and agreed-upon body that collects all the data and receives all the reports? How many cases have you heard about in the last month for example?
    Let's start from the fact that you and frankly I are not aware of every case that happens and there is no single body that a person who has seen a UFO can report on it and it is agreed upon by all, and it is organized and works under the scientific method, collects all the cases that have happened, or has the budgets and manpower to devote for the purpose. I am not talking at all about the possibility of properly investigating the cases.
    Add to that that there are many cases that are not reported. Did you see the video that "Ahad" posted? Let's say that a certain person had a certain experience involving a UFO: he went for a walk in the desert at noon and a huge metallic triangular shape about the size of 4 football fields, with 3 lights at each vertex passed over his head, at a height of 50 meters, without any sound of an engine, and slid Silently until at a certain point it took off into the sky with incredible speed and disappeared from sight within 2 seconds. There was no other person next to him. Do you think there is some interest for this person to report this? After he watched the clip with Neil Tyson, do you think he would run to tell him about it? With all due respect to Neil Tyson, I am sure that even if he had seen a UFO, he would have remained silent, just because of the fear of "what will people say?". From the circus he made of the issue, there is no need for conspiracies to prevent information from reaching the public, enough is the fear for the status of the witnesses in society.
    It is true that there are certain cases that have been investigated, and even quite a few, but they cannot be defined as a "majority". How they were investigated is another story.
    2. "That it is not studied as a general phenomenon... because there is no evidentiary basis that this is a phenomenon with a common background factor".
    Again, we need to define what the phenomenon we are talking about is. We agreed that there is a phenomenon of unidentified objects. Do they continue to be defined as such after we have been able to identify them? of course not. Therefore, when they were reported and not yet investigated, they were part of the phenomenon, until they were explained. In the end, we will get a number of observations that have been explained, a number of observations that can be explained by the knowledge we have (but the explanation cannot be proven with certainty), and a number of observations that cannot be explained at all.
    There are an average of 5,500 observations per year. Of these, between 5-10 percent cannot be explained. That is, 275 to 550 unexplained observations. These are data from Mophon, they claim to have an orderly scientific method, but as I said, in my opinion there is no body capable of performing the job properly. The number is shown only to get a certain order of magnitude. Isn't that enough to do some kind of investigation?
    3. "And not a collection of separate incidents with different causes"
    For the purpose of definition, how do we define incidents under the UFO definition? If there is theoretically more than one alien culture visiting, does that fall under the same category? If one culture has more than one model of aircraft seen on different occasions, does it still fall under the same category (if we only have evidence of the models at different times)?
    I will respond to the rest in a separate response...

12. Avi Cohen
    You wrote "After I explained all this, the point I want to make is that there is a phenomenon in our world that is not explained and we do not know its essence, and it is also for some reason not properly studied, which we call by the general and inclusive name of UFOs".

    The point is that there is no such phenomenon. There are all kinds of phenomena - and when there is something to investigate - the phenomenon is investigated. Today there are radar trackers that look for remnants of satellites, for example because they pose a danger to other satellites. Many countries in the world have aerial warning systems, some of which even see flocks of birds. There are weather radars that see clouds, rain and electrical phenomena.

    And be sure that those who investigate every rumor about UFOs are all those who believe in their existence - and they don't find anything either!!!! Doesn't that mean something??

13. Avi Cohen

    "Shouldn't we investigate a phenomenon because the theories some people have put forward about it are exaggerated?"

    No. But as mentioned, this is not the reason why it is not investigated. (Which by the way is not really true because many cases are indeed investigated and usually resolved quickly) What is meant by "investigated" is that it is not investigated as a general phenomenon. This is so because there is no evidentiary basis that this is a phenomenon with a common background factor and not a collection of separate incidents with different causes. As mentioned, there are many cases where the reason is the same (missile launches at night for example is a common source, as well as Venus, as well as mirages, as well as geese).

    "Please mention the serious studies you are aware of on the subject and their conclusions."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Blue_Book

    There is almost no event that is not investigated, the problem is that one day you hear a headline about an exploding UFO in the name of X. And the next day if you really search you find the answer on an insignificant page of the internet of people who really wanted an answer. About a month ago, suddenly a story ran about a UFO in the sky of Los Angeles, but then you never heard anywhere that it was a missile launch test, and that the airspace west of LA was closed because of it, and that flights from LAX changed their routes accordingly, and that all the information that this test was to occur was announced about a month ago. A few years ago there was the same story with lights in the sky of Norway, minus the warning because it was a Russian missile so no one was told.
    Here is a story of a UFO event investigation. One astronomer notices one night a group of lights flying together in a V formation. He is amazed, he knows the night sky and knows that this is not a mistaken identification of Venus or a planet or another star that inexperienced people sometimes mistake for UFOs when they see them. Despite the instinct to panic, he still decides to remember that he is a scientist and treat it rationally. He continues to follow the structure and eventually discovers that it is a flock of geese that are illuminated by lights from the ground.
    Some person finds a picture in the NASA archives of some mission of some space shuttle, in which a strange, black object appears not far from the shuttle above the Earth. A check in the NASA archives reveals that there are several other images of this object and in each of them the shape of this object is different. He thinks for a moment, amazing, there is a spaceship here that changes its shape, an incredible technology that no human can possess. But then he comes to his senses and decides to look a little deeper and discovers that it was a thermal blanket that was accidentally lost, and that its loss was recorded when the incident occurred.
    Another example can be heard in the link that one brought.
    There are more and they are almost always just as boring.

    "If some of the phenomena really point to the possibility of the existence of other intelligent technological beings, then the ones who control the rules of the game are them and not us, since they are much more advanced than us."

    If so, it is more likely that we would not have noticed them at all, which supports that the phenomenon does not indicate the existence of spaceships and aliens.

    "If they wanted to announce their presence to us, they would have done so a long time ago, and all our conspiracy theories would not have prevented them from doing so."

    In fact, you also rule out here that governments hide evidence from the general public that there are aliens visiting the earth. Something that should legitimize their claims that they have no such knowledge. As for example in the reports of NASA or the American Air Force.

    "Perhaps we are also not able to get to the bottom of the minds of other productions with completely different logic and culture, and are much more advanced than us"

    There are people who live right here, without advanced technologies, whose minds cannot be reached. It doesn't take much.

14. 1. "Those who mean spaceships and extraterrestrials are closer to the sane side of UFOlogy and large sections hold even more delusional claims about it...",
    I agree with you, as I said there are many "schools" if you can call it that, and it is not possible to include them all under one name, and indeed the theories that these are spaceships from another planet or another dimension are relatively mild compared to other theories. But the existence of such and other theories do not affect the essence of the phenomenon, but only the way people perceive it. Shouldn't a phenomenon be investigated because the theories some people have put forward about it are exaggerated? Does anyone think of not researching the quantum effects even though every now and then someone comes up with exaggerated and grandiose theories?
    Agree with me that this should not prevent a real scientific investigation, on the contrary, when there are such exaggerated theories, it is more important to investigate the matter and prove that they are wrong or not, according to the observations. Whether or not people's calls for serious investigation are important either, they should not affect the observations or the phenomenon.
    2. "The reason why it is not investigated properly, is that almost every time it is properly investigated, findings are discovered that show that there was nothing unusual, and when this is not the case, there is no evidence that can be examined in depth..."
    Please mention the serious studies you know about and their conclusions.
    There is a problem with this phenomenon, and this is a point that we as humans forget. If some of the phenomena really point to the possibility of the existence of other intelligent technological beings, then the one who controls the rules of the game is them and not us, since they are much more advanced than us (they have much more advanced technology than ours, which at our technological stage seems like magic and against the laws of nature). If they wanted to make their presence known to us, they would have done so a long time ago, and all our conspiracy theories would not have prevented them from doing so. Therefore, for a reason that is not clear to us, and perhaps we are also not able to get to the bottom of the minds of other productions with completely different logic and culture, and are much more advanced than us (just try to imagine how the ancient man would have understood our political considerations today?).

15. released to the world

16. Probably the subject or the page is sensitive. The reaction is in the cellars again.

17. Avi Cohen

    "The technical issues are important, but not at this stage. They are generally important. I don't know what you meant, what Chaim understood, and what it was about."

    They were important in the context Chaim and I were talking about. Finding artifacts in probe and satellite images. Assuming Sanaf had the chance to read what I wrote, it seems to me that Chaim now understands my words on the matter.

    "It is not possible to include all UFOs under one umbrella - they are different and diverse"

    This is true, but those who mean spaceships and extraterrestrials are closer to the sane side of UFOlogy and large parts hold even more delusional claims about it (global shadow governments under the auspices of lizards, demons and angels, interdimensional beings (well, the truth is it's not so much of the worst, but still)) . The amount of people who call to investigate the matter objectively without any bias is minimal.

    "That there is a phenomenon in our world that is unexplained and we do not know its essence, and it is also for some reason not properly investigated, which we call by the general and inclusive name of UFOs"

    The reason why it is not investigated properly, is that almost every time it is properly investigated, findings are discovered that show that there was nothing unusual, and when this is not the case, there is no evidence that can be examined in depth, usually due to the fact that all that is available is eyewitness testimony. In addition, in other cases deliberate forgeries, outright lies, deceptions and all kinds of delusional claims are discovered that often ignore actual evidence that contradicts them.

18. A nice piece about UFOs:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rz23v6aosjU

19. walking dead,
    Well, I got consent from your side of the discussion, but not Haim's. Let's say that for the purpose of the discussion my opinion is closer to Haim's opinion, with a note that even among the supporters of the UFO theories there is a wide variety and many disagreements. Until Chaim does not respond, I will try to present his position.
    Regarding 1: I also agree that UFOs are unidentified objects and do not necessarily constitute alien spaceships. I also accept your comment that sometimes they are not an object either, perhaps for example in the case of an image from a film, which are the result of the development of the film, and are an ARTIFACT (I don't know an appropriate term in Hebrew), which did not exist in reality.
    Regarding 2: the technical issues are important but not at this stage. They are generally important. I don't know what you meant, and what Haim understood, and what it is about. You can explain yourself if you think your words were misunderstood.
    Regarding 3: As I explained in the introduction, it is not possible to include all UFOlogists under one umbrella - they are different and diverse, also because this is an unofficial field, and there is no organized body that is accepted by everyone that can set standards.

    After explaining all of this, the point I want to make is that there is a phenomenon in our world that is not explained and we do not know its essence, and it is also for some reason not properly investigated, which we call UFOs. And again, it doesn't matter how someone defines the phenomenon, the fact is that it exists.
    The great discoveries of science sometimes started from one small data that did not fit the general theory they held at the time. For example, the deviations in the orbit of the planet Mercury, which indicated the general theory of relativity, Einstein's constant in the gravity equations, which indicated the expansion of the universe, and the lack of mass of the universe which is currently explained as dark matter, etc...
    Therefore, it is impossible for there to be such a widespread phenomenon that does not entail serious research, but only to prove that there is nothing new about it.

20. Avi Cohen

    1) As I already said, I agree with this. But it must be taken into account that sometimes the unidentified object is not an object at all, and sometimes the reason for the lack of identification (often) stems from the viewer's lack of knowledge or familiarity.

    2) The technical issues are important. Although it seems to me that Chaim objected to what I said on the basis that he thought I meant something other than what I meant.

    3) When UFOlogists say they want recognition on the subject of UFO research, they mean spaceships and extraterrestrials.

21. For some reason your comments appear more than once, and it is quite difficult to follow the discussion.
    Instead of arguing about technical issues, it is more helpful to start from the beginning.
    A UFO by definition is an unidentified object, so its existence does not necessarily point to the existence of a "spaceship" and hence to extraterrestrials.
    I would like to ask everyone, does everyone agree with this definition, and does everyone accept that there are UFOs according to this definition?

22. Life

    Well, now that the response has been taken out of the cellars (along with all its copy variations), and you can understand what I'm saying better (I hope), I would love to receive some response.

23. And of course now all the comments have been released and it comes out really stupid

24. Life
    Do you really think there is evidence of extraterrestrial life that someone is hiding?

25. Life

    It seemed to me that I had come up with the problem

    "I don't know how relevant light and shadow games are"

    I have quite a background in photography so I have a pretty good idea of ​​these things. This is the reason why when I came across claims of falsification of the moon landing photos it was very easy for me to filter out the XX. Of course, this does not mean that I know everything and in every image I am able to examine all the illusions of light and shadow and identify the shapes of objects according to them, but I am certainly able to do this well in many cases, and in many cases that seem strange to people, I know how to identify what causes it and why it is standard.

    "If I photograph you or your car from a few meters away, will you also say that there are games of light and shadow?"

    Yes, distance has meaning and influence, but angles, lighting intensities, contrast differences and the specifications of the photography equipment are often much more significant.

    "Then why do you think that with cameras with a resolution of 25 cm from an altitude of 400 km (these are the cameras of the MRO) it is impossible to find phenomena that are not geological, for example the photograph of the Beagle spacecraft"

    Who said such a thing? There are images from the MRO that include just about every human-made object that has landed on Mars. It seems to me that it is definitely possible to find phenomena that are not geological in the images of the MRO, but as of today I have not come across any such image.

    And in general regarding your responses, I don't understand what this whole journey of yours is here to put words in my mouth and thoughts in my head that are not there.

26. Life

    Another part

    "I don't know how relevant light and shadow games are"

    I have quite a background in photography so I have a pretty good idea of ​​these things. This is why in the garden when I came across claims of falsification of the moon landing photos it was very easy for me to filter out the bullshit. Of course, this does not mean that I know everything and in every image I am able to examine all the illusions of light and shadow and identify the shapes of objects according to them, but I am certainly able to do this well in many cases, and in many cases that seem strange to people, I know how to identify what causes it and why it is standard.

    "If I photograph you or your car from a few meters away, will you also say that there are games of light and shadow?"

    Yes, distance has meaning and influence, but angles, lighting intensities, contrast differences and the specifications of the photography equipment are often much more significant.

27. Life

    Well, let's try in parts

    "Then why do you think that with cameras with a resolution of 25 cm from an altitude of 400 km (these are the cameras of the MRO) it is impossible to find phenomena that are not geological, for example the photograph of the Beagle spacecraft"

    Who said such a thing? There are images from the MRO that include just about every human-made object that has landed on Mars. It seems to me that it is definitely possible to find phenomena that are not geological in the images of the MRO, but as of today I have not come across any such image.

    And in general regarding your responses, I don't understand what this whole journey of yours is here to put words in my mouth and thoughts in my head that are not there.

28. Life

    Well this is about the funniest answer ever written about me. I am a sales person, great, can I use you as a recommender in submitting a resume for a sales position?

    I tried again, but it flew to the cellars again.

29. Life

    Well this is about the funniest answer ever written about me. I am a salesperson.

    Well, we'll try to attach the cellars' response here anyway.

    "I don't know how relevant light and shadow games are"

    I have quite a background in photography so I have a pretty good idea of ​​these things. This is why in the garden when I came across claims of falsification of the moon landing photos it was very easy for me to filter out the bullshit. Of course, this does not mean that I know everything and in every image I am able to examine all the illusions of light and shadow and identify the shapes of objects according to them, but I am certainly able to do this well in many cases, and in many cases that seem strange to people, I know how to identify what causes it and why it is standard.

    "If I photograph you or your car from a few meters away, will you also say that there are games of light and shadow?"

    Yes, distance has meaning and influence, but angles, lighting intensities, contrast differences and the specifications of the photography equipment are often much more significant.

    "Then why do you think that with cameras with a resolution of 25 cm from an altitude of 400 km (these are the cameras of the MRO) it is impossible to find phenomena that are not geological, for example the photograph of the Beagle spacecraft"

    Who said such a thing? There are images from the MRO that include just about every human-made object that has landed on Mars. It seems to me that it is definitely possible to find phenomena that are not geological in the images of the MRO, but as of today I have not come across any such image.

    And in general regarding your responses, I don't understand what this whole journey of yours is here to put words in my mouth and thoughts in my head that are not there.

30. walking dead
    Why do I have the impression that in your profession you are a salesman and use all the shticks of salesmen in this discussion and try to show that you know everything and that you are one of the wise men of the generation. In your answers there is an element of Talmudic babbling that has nothing behind it.

31. walking dead
    Why do I have the impression that you are a salesman and you use all the shticks of salesmen to show that only you are right and you are one of the wisest of the generation? In all your answers I sense the ramblings of yeshiva students who have nothing behind them..

32. Life

    "If I don't know the car's quirks well, does that mean I'm not known to drive? If I don't exactly understand what's going on inside the computer, does that mean I don't know how to type and make presentations? "

    These are not good analogies in my opinion, because there is no equivalence between the strength of the effect between the examples, but still knowing the car's quirks can certainly make you a better driver, but understanding what is happening inside the computer does not affect your ability to type and prepare presentations.

    "Do those who use satellite images for climate studies necessarily understand how a satellite camera works?"

    If he is serious about his work I really hope so. I don't mean an understanding of how the parts work, but an understanding of what photography is capable of and what the output it produces means.

    "Does anyone who uses satellite cameras for agricultural purposes also do so with their eyes closed?"

    It depends on the usage. I appreciate that for each use the image viewer has to know different things.

    "He is a consumer of these photographs and does not deal with and does not have to have knowledge of space engineering."

    a) It is not loaded.
    b) Again, this is not the intention of understanding how the camera that takes them works and takes pictures.

33. walking dead
    If I don't know the car's quirks well does that mean I'm not known to drive? If I don't exactly understand what's going on inside the computer, does that mean I don't know how to type and make presentations? Does anyone who uses satellite images for climate studies necessarily understand how a satellite camera works? Does anyone who uses satellite cameras for agricultural purposes also do so with their eyes closed? He is a consumer of these photographs and does not engage in and does not have to have knowledge of space engineering. When you wash the floor in your home, do you necessarily know the chemical components of the cleaning agent you use? Does this mean that due to not knowing the chemistry of the cleaning materials you will do a poor job cleaning your home? You will figure out the rest yourself.

34. Life

    I have a response to you in the basements (for some reason). I just wanted to add that to be called to look at and interpret pictures without understanding how the camera that takes them works and takes pictures, is a kind of doing it blindfolded.

35. Life

    "I don't know how relevant light and shadow games are"

    I have quite a background in photography so I have a pretty good idea of ​​these things. This is why in the garden when I came across claims of falsification of the moon landing photos it was very easy for me to filter out the bullshit. Of course, this does not mean that I know everything and in every image I am able to examine all the illusions of light and shadow and identify the shapes of objects according to them, but I am certainly able to do this well in many cases, and in many cases that seem strange to people, I know how to identify what causes it and why it is standard.

    "If I photograph you or your car from a few meters away, will you also say that there are games of light and shadow?"

    Yes, distance has meaning and influence, but angles, lighting intensities, contrast differences and the specifications of the photography equipment are often much more significant.

    "Then why do you think that with cameras with a resolution of 25 cm from an altitude of 400 km (these are the cameras of the MRO) it is impossible to find phenomena that are not geological, for example the photograph of the Beagle spacecraft"

    Who said such a thing? There are images from the MRO that include just about every human-made object that has landed on Mars. It seems to me that it is definitely possible to find phenomena that are not geological in the images of the MRO, but as of today I have not come across any such image.

    And in general regarding your responses, I don't understand what this whole journey of yours is here to put words in my mouth and thoughts in my head that are not there.

36. walking dead
    I know the MRO photographs almost from the beginning and there are quite a few of them that raise questions. And not only these, also photographs from the ground. Here you don't need to study sources and when you photograph objects from zero distance I don't know how relevant the play of light and shadow is. If I take a picture of you or your car from a few meters away, will you also say that there are games of light and shadow? I don't think they are hiding anything from me. There is often a need to think outside the box. and can reach surprising results. Read Thomas Kuhn's book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". If you remember, in the 60s, American Air Force planes photographed Russian missile bases in Cuba. Did they fake it too? And their equipment was less sophisticated than the one found today. The twin buildings and the smoke billowing from them were seen by satellites. To identify on Earth and not on Mars seems wrong to me. A new research profession has been developing for several years and it is astro-archaeology. As part of these studies and their use, they identify archaeological complexes or testify to a place where it is possible to find sites worthy of carrying out this type of research. So why do you think that with cameras with a resolution of 25 cm from an altitude of 400 km (these are the cameras of the MRO) it is impossible to find phenomena that are not geological, for example the photograph of the Beagle spacecraft. At the end of the 19th century, Lord Kelvin, one of the great physicists of that time, said that we discovered everything that exists in physics, and then came relativity, quantum theory, aeronautics, nanotechnology, and more. So please be less pretentious, you will look for all kinds of rationalizations to show that only you are right.

37. Life

    Seeing an unidentified object in the sky does not mean that you have seen an extraterrestrial life craft. This is what Hanan really means in his calls for the study of UFOs, and this is what I am against.

    Only about two months ago I brought you a link to all the photos of the MRO in full resolution. This information is available to everyone. Do you believe that something is being hidden from you in this way? After all, if there was something like that, you wouldn't get to see these photos at all according to your thesis.

    I saw your photos and thousands of other photos and there was nothing in them of what you claimed. It's nice that you studied geology, but it seems to me that you lack lessons in photography, and that you didn't bother to read the technical pages that explain the input and output process of photography, so you have trouble understanding what you see in the pictures.

38. walking dead
    Do you know what you remind me of? You are the same ultra-Orthodox Jew from Bnei Brak to whom the Messiah is coming and what does that Ultra-Orthodox say? Only if the one who claims to be the Messiah undergoes a proper and strict conversion, only then will he be treated as the Messiah. I have a question to you? There are pilots and astronauts who claim that they did see UFOs, and if it turns out that they lied or were under the influence of drugs, they will lose their reputation and be grounded. Do you think they would risk it? They spent years studying to fly and/or training to be astronauts and suddenly one by one or all of them will start telling stories without any grasp of reality and don't tell me that's not an argument. If you carefully examine photographs from the moon or Mars you will see things that do not agree with geology and I studied geology, you will want to find these photographs yourself. You also remind me of the Yom Kippur War which started as a complete surprise because all the generals were locked in on a concept. You are no different from them.

39. Hanan
    Here are all the findings so far of UFO research:

    If you didn't understand... No findings 🙂

40. Hanan

    snap out of it. The study of UFOs will not lead to any discoveries of life throughout the universe. All the evidence and findings that exist that you indicate are evidence and findings that do not exist.

41. And the wait still exists, until the entire world of academia begins to recognize the issue of UFO research and stops ignoring (at least some of it), the evidence and findings that exist.

    What's more, walking in this direction is done safely and step by step.

42. There are ?!
    statistically exist.

43. There is a process here that goes in a certain direction in human knowledge. As we learn more about the universe, we lose the centrality and importance we attributed to ourselves:
    Before the Renaissance, man was the supreme production, God's senior: Man is the measure of all things.
    Our world was accordingly at the center of the universe, and all the heavenly bodies revolved around it.
    After that, we learned that the world revolves around the sun, and not the other way around, that the sun is one of many in our galaxy, that our galaxy is one of many in the universe, which spreads everywhere, and we are not at its center.
    Today we learn that our planets are not unique either, and most suns have planets, and also recently that planets such as the Earth are probably common phenomena in the galaxy.
    If we interpolate, the next steps are the discovery that our world is not the only one that contains life, and is only one of many kinds, and then that we are not the only intelligent beings, and probably not the smartest either...
    Each of the stages in these understandings was a scientific and cognitive revolution regarding our place in the universe, and each of these ideas had bitter opponents who did not stop at the methods of intimidation and destruction of the subjects of the new gospel (equipment, burning at the stake, accusations of heresy, social ostracism, ridicule, etc.).
    Acquiring knowledge is a social process no less than a scientific process.

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.