Rendlesham Forest U...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Rendlesham Forest UFO incident - an appraisal

18 Posts
4 Users
0 Likes
2,527 Views
amy green
Posts: 2258
Topic starter
(@amy-green)
Noble Member
Joined: 18 years ago
17 Replies
Posts: 527
(@scommstech)
Honorable Member
Joined: 15 years ago

Although I do believe that we are not alone in the universe I find it hard to accept that a visiting life force would not make itself known to us....I personally think that all these observations could be rationally explained knowing the surveillance capabilities that are being explored by military interests around the world.

My own son himself a science lecturer in the south west (UK) described to me a sighting he had of lights unexplainable by normal science. However he could not convinced me that these were due to extra terrestrial beings. I could be wrong.

Reply
amy green
Posts: 2258
Topic starter
(@amy-green)
Noble Member
Joined: 18 years ago

Although I do believe that we are not alone in the universe I find it hard to accept that a visiting life force would not make itself known to us....I personally think that all these observations could be rationally explained knowing the surveillance capabilities that are being explored by military interests around the world.

My own son himself a science lecturer in the south west (UK) described to me a sighting he had of lights unexplainable by normal science. However he could not convinced me that these were due to extra terrestrial beings. I could be wrong.

There could be many reasons why they have not deliberately made themselves known, e.g. not just human interest in our military bases and nuclear capacity. To put down this particular case to humans just doesn't fit what occurred, e.g. the red explosion and the silent take off.

Also there have been many mass sightings of UFOs, i.e. a sighting seen by many people simultaneously....just google 'mass sighting UFO'.

By you saying that your son could not convince you, it does rather suggest a closed mind to the possibility of ETs visiting us. I find it very arrogant that people think they are the only ones alive in the cosmos.

Reply
amy green
Posts: 2258
Topic starter
(@amy-green)
Noble Member
Joined: 18 years ago

repeat post.

Reply
Crowan
Posts: 3429
(@crowan)
Famed Member
Joined: 14 years ago

By you saying that your son could not convince you, it does rather suggest a closed mind to the possibility of ETs visiting us. I find it very arrogant that people think they are the only ones alive in the cosmos.

Which, to be fair, Scommstech did not say -

Although I do believe that we are not alone in the universe.

Reply
amy green
Posts: 2258
Topic starter
(@amy-green)
Noble Member
Joined: 18 years ago

Which, to be fair, Scommstech did not say -

Ah...I missed that comment but, nevertheless, I was making a generalised comment there. No offence meant and not directed at him.

Reply
Energylz
Posts: 16602
(@energylz)
Member
Joined: 20 years ago

Likewise though (and again no offence intended to anyone) I find it ignorant to assume that any alien life would think like a human and e.g. be interested in our military or nuclear capabilities. If they've developed the technology to travel the vast distances to come and seek us out, then it's just as likely that something like nuclear power is childsplay to them, and they could easily observe activity on the planet from a distance without having to make landings, or they could easily protect themselves if they did land so wouldn't be all secretive etc. I also find it somewhat presumptive that Aliens would pick to visit us out of all the other possible life covered planets out there; to think we're of that much interest is somewhat egotistical. Maybe at some point in time, a contact will be made, but lots of frequent *sightings* (especially since the 1950's) and always in the same sort of areas of the planet seems a little too far fetched to be credible.

I've looked at many video's and supposed 'evidence' on the internet and I'm still not convinced by any of it. One problem seems to be that people assume UFO means Alien Life, but it doesn't, it just means something that is unexplained, and there are plenty of (currently) unexplained natural phenomena without having to attribute it to life from elsewhere.

Reply
Energylz
Posts: 16602
(@energylz)
Member
Joined: 20 years ago

Likewise though (and again no offence intended to anyone) I find it ignorant to assume that any alien life would think like a human and e.g. be interested in our military or nuclear capabilities. If they've developed the technology to travel the vast distances to come and seek us out, then it's just as likely that something like nuclear power is childsplay to them, and they could easily observe activity on the planet from a distance without having to make landings, or they could easily protect themselves if they did land so wouldn't be all secretive etc. I also find it somewhat presumptive that Aliens would pick to visit us out of all the other possible life covered planets out there; to think we're of that much interest is somewhat egotistical. Maybe at some point in time, a contact will be made, but lots of frequent *sightings* (especially since the 1950's) and always in the same sort of areas of the planet seems a little too far fetched to be credible.

I've looked at many video's and supposed 'evidence' on the internet and I'm still not convinced by any of it. One problem seems to be that people assume UFO means Alien Life, but it doesn't, it just means something that is unexplained, and there are plenty of (currently) unexplained natural phenomena without having to attribute it to life from elsewhere.

Reply
amy green
Posts: 2258
Topic starter
(@amy-green)
Noble Member
Joined: 18 years ago

EnergyIz, whilst I take your point about UFOs not necessarily being ETs, nevertheless if you delve further into this phenomenon (i.e. not just videos) then you will find a wealth of info involving much closer encounters with spacecraft that would be hard to explain away. Even in some videos, to just say it is a UFO seems inadequate when they can veer off suddenly at phenomenal speeds.

It amazes me that we think we may have the measure re. motives of ETs visiting us. There can be so many reasons, some of which may not have occurred to us. For instance, could they be behind the mysterious crop circles appearing globally? Have we yet to break the code in understanding the symbolism of these?

Also, there is the theory that we have been genetically interfered with by ETs somewhere down the line (e.g. they still haven't found the missing link that connects us to apes). If this is the case, and so many think so, then they could be visiting us to see how their experiment is faring....keeping tabs on us.

Many believe that some of our advanced leaps in technology could be due to contact with ETs and trade offs..... We know nothing about what goes on in secret military bases in USA.

I like to keep an open mind on the matter.

Reply
Crowan
Posts: 3429
(@crowan)
Famed Member
Joined: 14 years ago

There IS no "missing link" between us and (the rest of) the apes. To think there is betrays a lack of understanding of evolution.

Reply
amy green
Posts: 2258
Topic starter
(@amy-green)
Noble Member
Joined: 18 years ago

There IS no "missing link" between us and (the rest of) the apes. To think there is betrays a lack of understanding of evolution.

Really? Can you give the evidence for this missing link please?

Reply
Crowan
Posts: 3429
(@crowan)
Famed Member
Joined: 14 years ago

What "missing link"? If there isn't one, there's no evidence for one.

Reply
amy green
Posts: 2258
Topic starter
(@amy-green)
Noble Member
Joined: 18 years ago

What "missing link"? If there isn't one, there's no evidence for one.

Oh I thought you knew.... o_O

The nearest evidence of connecting up the dots, i.e. linking humans to apes seems to be this (link below) although it appears still not be conclusive.

Reply
Crowan
Posts: 3429
(@crowan)
Famed Member
Joined: 14 years ago

If you read the article carefully, you will see that it does not indicate a "missing link between us and apes. We have not evolved from apes.
Both modern apes and humans have evolved from a common ancestor - "ape-like" not "ape".
Ape-like beings evolved into two groups - what we now call chimpanzees, and the rest.
One branch of proto-chimpanzees then evolved into both Bonobo Chimpanzees and early humans.
This is well known. The Telegraph article is referring to the find of an early human of the Homo Hablis type. Our line had already split from the line that became other apes before that.
Trying to find a missing link between us and apes is like trying to find a missing link between you and your parent's cousin's children - we and apes are on the same 'level' of evolution.

Reply
amy green
Posts: 2258
Topic starter
(@amy-green)
Noble Member
Joined: 18 years ago

If you read the article carefully, you will see that it does not indicate a "missing link between us and apes. We have not evolved from apes.
Both modern apes and humans have evolved from a common ancestor - "ape-like" not "ape".
Ape-like beings evolved into two groups - what we now call chimpanzees, and the rest.
One branch of proto-chimpanzees then evolved into both Bonobo Chimpanzees and early humans.
This is well known. The Telegraph article is referring to the find of an early human of the Homo Hablis type. Our line had already split from the line that became other apes before that.
Trying to find a missing link between us and apes is like trying to find a missing link between you and your parent's cousin's children - we and apes are on the same 'level' of evolution.

Sounds like splitting hairs. We are from the evolutionary branch of primates - even the link's title said ape!

Reply
Crowan
Posts: 3429
(@crowan)
Famed Member
Joined: 14 years ago

This is not splitting hairs. You are using careless language that simply serves to increase the confusion many people have around evolution.

Since a "missing link" doesn't exist, and since the link's title was designed to pull in punters rather than reflect the science the article was about, having "ape" in the link's title means nothing. The evolutionary split from our ape-like ancestors happened probably about 13m years ago. Homo Hablis developed about 2.5m years ago. The article calls this a "missing link" but this is not what most people mean by the phrase, which indicates a direct line from apes to humans.

And, more to the point, you put forward, "they still haven't found the missing link that connects us to apes" as evidence that extra-terrestrials had "genetically interfered" with us. Surely here you are using the phrase in the common sense. Otherwise, it is meaningless.

Reply
amy green
Posts: 2258
Topic starter
(@amy-green)
Noble Member
Joined: 18 years ago

This is not splitting hairs. You are using careless language that simply serves to increase the confusion many people have around evolution.

Since a "missing link" doesn't exist, and since the link's title was designed to pull in punters rather than reflect the science the article was about, having "ape" in the link's title means nothing. The evolutionary split from our ape-like ancestors happened probably about 13m years ago. Homo Hablis developed about 2.5m years ago. The article calls this a "missing link" but this is not what most people mean by the phrase, which indicates a direct line from apes to humans.

And, more to the point, you put forward, "they still haven't found the missing link that connects us to apes" as evidence that extra-terrestrials had "genetically interfered" with us. Surely here you are using the phrase in the common sense. Otherwise, it is meaningless.

Not evidence...I said the word 'theory'. Please stop misrepresenting my posts.
Thank you.

Reply
Crowan
Posts: 3429
(@crowan)
Famed Member
Joined: 14 years ago

I'm sorry - I was taking the word "theory" in the scientific sense, in which case it would certainly need evidence. This isn't misrepresentation, simply a lack of communication.

Reply
Share: