Proof that UFOs have been visiting the Bronx.

There is absolutely no reason in this age of smartphones that we don't have 1080p HD video of UFOs and aliens.

I want to believe they have been here but haven't seen 1 piece of proof.

On another note there are a lot of people in New York that could pass for aliens.

booboomagoo wrote:

There is absolutely no reason in this age of smartphones that we don't have 1080p HD video of UFOs and aliens.

I want to believe they have been here but haven't seen 1 piece of proof.

On another note there are a lot of people in New York that could pass for aliens.

It is possible the aliens/UFOs have cloaking technology that doesn't allow them to be photographed/videotaped at such high resolutions.

Roswell 1947 wrote:

booboomagoo wrote:

There is absolutely no reason in this age of smartphones that we don't have 1080p HD video of UFOs and aliens.

I want to believe they have been here but haven't seen 1 piece of proof.

On another note there are a lot of people in New York that could pass for aliens.

It is possible the aliens/UFOs have cloaking technology that doesn't allow them to be photographed/videotaped at such high resolutions.

So, Their cloaking devices are just good enough to not allow them to be videotaped at high resolution!? They've mastered the technology needed to bend time/space, but they can't figure out basic cloaking technology to allow them to not be seen at all?

Actually saw a photo of it and it looked like a lens flare. He's right, there's not a single piece of physical evidence to suggest we've been visited by ET.

UFO Expert wrote:

Roswell 1947 wrote:

It is possible the aliens/UFOs have cloaking technology that doesn't allow them to be photographed/videotaped at such high resolutions.

So, Their cloaking devices are just good enough to not allow them to be videotaped at high resolution!? They've mastered the technology needed to bend time/space, but they can't figure out basic cloaking technology to allow them to not be seen at all?

Actually saw a photo of it and it looked like a lens flare. He's right, there's not a single piece of physical evidence to suggest we've been visited by ET.

It's definitely possible. To go along with your line of thinking, perhaps the aliens want us to think they "might" be visiting us so as to keep us in fear, but they don't want to give it all away just yet.

booboomagoo wrote:

There is absolutely no reason in this age of smartphones that we don't have 1080p HD video of UFOs and aliens.

I want to believe they have been here but haven't seen 1 piece of proof.

On another note there are a lot of people in New York that could pass for aliens.

This is some of the most flawed logic I have ever read on LetsRun. That is really quite a feat. Congrats.

Please explain how it is flawed.

Tens of thousands of people have seen them with their own eyes. Photons hitting the rods and cones in the back of your eyes are no different than photons hitting the CMOS sensor inside of the now ubiquitous high-resolution camera.

There are more than 1 billion cell phone cameras in the world. It's strange to think not one conclusive picture has been taken based probability even if by accident. We should have video.

booboomagoo wrote:

Please explain how it is flawed.

Tens of thousands of people have seen them with their own eyes. Photons hitting the rods and cones in the back of your eyes are no different than photons hitting the CMOS sensor inside of the now ubiquitous high-resolution camera.

There are more than 1 billion cell phone cameras in the world. It's strange to think not one conclusive picture has been taken based probability even if by accident. We should have video.

What if the aliens are millions of year more "advanced" than us. Surely, they could POSSIBLY have developed device-specific cloaking technology. What if the aliens are actually our future selves, meaning they've traveled back in time to visit Earth? Also, as crazy as it sounds, it's possible that the aliens might actually be terrestrial, living under ground or in the oceans (and emerging in USOs).

Like someone said above . . . what is the point of cloaking yourself to devices just to let people see you are coming to rape them with probes? Worst tactic ever.

Roswell 1947 wrote:

booboomagoo wrote:

Please explain how it is flawed.

Tens of thousands of people have seen them with their own eyes. Photons hitting the rods and cones in the back of your eyes are no different than photons hitting the CMOS sensor inside of the now ubiquitous high-resolution camera.

There are more than 1 billion cell phone cameras in the world. It's strange to think not one conclusive picture has been taken based probability even if by accident. We should have video.

What if the aliens are millions of year more "advanced" than us. Surely, they could POSSIBLY have developed device-specific cloaking technology. What if the aliens are actually our future selves, meaning they've traveled back in time to visit Earth? Also, as crazy as it sounds, it's possible that the aliens might actually be terrestrial, living under ground or in the oceans (and emerging in USOs).

All this is possible, but not probable. And, even if it is true, they've left zero physical evidence. The best evidence we currently have is blurry photos and fuzzy anecdotes.

Nitinol is proof of their visits.

Roswell 1947 wrote:

http://www.ufodigest.com/news/0509/ROSWELL-DEBRIS2.php

Nitinol is proof of their visits.

You mean the kind of metal they put in my glasses so they are bendy?

They traveled millions of years and all they brought us were bendy glasses? WTH?

booboomagoo wrote:

Roswell 1947 wrote:http://www.ufodigest.com/news/0509/ROSWELL-DEBRIS2.php

Nitinol is proof of their visits.

You mean the kind of metal they put in my glasses so they are bendy?

They traveled millions of years and all they brought us were bendy glasses? WTH?

No, that's not all they delivered. Read "The Day After Roswell" for more information.

No, I'm ok. I'd rather look at some actual proof of aliens instead of lining the pockets of fiction writers.

I've ordered a small batch of a type of Nitinol with a custom temperature profile . . . while it is a cool metal it is hardly alien tech. It deforms outside of a fairly narrow temperature range so it's not really impressive.

But here is a good anecdote: years ago I was in a small class with a very famous materials science professor/researcher at a top university. We were discussing failure points in ceramics at the microscopic level when he told us about how he was sent a thin slice of ceramic in a nondescript package from a government lab and was asked to test it's failure properties.

His researchers placed it in a very expensive and powerful press to bend it and break it. The sample didn't even bend, even after repeated tests and maxing out the machine. He was confused by this and called the government facility that sent it to him for more information. The next day several people came by and politely asked for the sample and all related data.

He wasn't joking.

Cool story huh?

That is an interesting story. But saying it's not alien because it's not "high-tech enough" is a stretch. Read some on Rendelsham (1980) (no, it was not the lighthouse) and the Kenneth Arnold sightings.

It's really not that high tech.

There are much, much crazier things that human beings are producing on a daily basis. Look up DARPA. They fund projects with ridiculously low success rates just so they can be on the bleeding edge of technical advancement. This stuff is way closer to "alien" technology than anything in those books.

Again, I am a skeptic who would love to believe but verbal accounts just don't cut it for me. Hard proof speaks for itself.

booboomagoo wrote:

Please explain how it is flawed.

Tens of thousands of people have seen them with their own eyes. Photons hitting the rods and cones in the back of your eyes are no different than photons hitting the CMOS sensor inside of the now ubiquitous high-resolution camera.

There are more than 1 billion cell phone cameras in the world. It's strange to think not one conclusive picture has been taken based probability even if by accident. We should have video.

The flaw is to suppose that something doesn't exist because it hasn't been captured by a cell phone camera. There are known animals that haven't been caught on film. Most of human history wasn't captured on film. It is flawed to hinge one's belief in something on the absence of evidence.

Moreover, if aliens exist and have traveled to our planet, one can logically infer that they (a) possess superior technology than what we have and (b) they seem pretty intent on NOT being seen.

1. Tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people have seen them. But there hasn't been ONE confirmed picture on camera? ONE? What are the odds of that? Does this prove 100% that they haven't been here? No. But if you go on to appeal to logical inferences, why couldn't that apply to my line of thinking?

2. There are known animals that haven't been captured on film? I agree with that. But just because someone claims to have seen a unicorn but doesn't have video means I should believe them either.

3. So what if most of human history hasn't been captured on film? Every night on SciFi I see a bunch of people claim they were raped by aliens. Should I discount their them just because they haven't been around for most of human history? Anyways, cameras have been around for one hell of a long time, so I find your assertion irrelevant.

4. If they are so intent on not being seen, then why do a bunch of people claim to have seen them with their own eyes? Why would they make half-assed technology that allows you to see them coming but can't video them?

5. Finally, why would photons hitting the back of your eye to register an image of a spaceship all of a sudden stop working in a glass lens and film or a digital sensor? Why are they only picked up by shaky and fuzzy cameras that are usually maxed out on digital zoom so as to look more like optical aberrations than clear evidence of a spaceship?

I'm sorry if this is the worst logic you've seen on LR.com.

As a general rule, I don't cast my pearls before swine but you are particularly irritating.

First, people see UFOs not aliens. There are thousands of UFO sightings not alien sightings. The debate is about the nature of the UFO not that they are seen. There have been thousands of videos and pictures of UFOs. None have been confirmed as an alien spacecraft.

Second, the flaw in your logic is (a) assuming that there should be a video of aliens if they are real and (b) hinging your (dis)belief on the absence of a video proof.

As I said, there are countless real animals (not Unicorns) which have never been captured on film. We know they exist because we have fossil records to prove it. There is a rare giant squid that was captured on film for the first time less than two years ago but biologist had known of its existence for decades. Your disbelief should be directed at the lack of credible evidence (film or otherwise) not the absence of video evidence.

My main point is that most of us trust oral evidence for much of what we believe. Video proof is nothing special especially if the object is supposedly something from another world.

Mundus Vult wrote:

The flaw is to suppose that something doesn't exist because it hasn't been captured by a cell phone camera. There are known animals that haven't been caught on film. Most of human history wasn't captured on film. It is flawed to hinge one's belief in something on the absence of evidence.

Moreover, if aliens exist and have traveled to our planet, one can logically infer that they (a) possess superior technology than what we have and (b) they seem pretty intent on NOT being seen.

I wouldn't say it's flawed to hinge a belief on something on the absence of evidence, but I think it is flawed to claim that belief as an undeniable fact.

We may not have history on film, but there is an enormous amount of physical evidence lying around. The same can not be said for ET life visiting Earth. To date, there is not one single piece of physical evidence.

Traveling millions of light years and or the bending of space/time, or even finding and then flying through a wormhole (like they do on Interstellar), is beyond a simple "superior technology". Not to mention, if ET doesn't want to be seen, they're doing a lousy job. They can navigate interstellar space, but need exterior illumination on their spaceships!?