PDA

View Full Version : What happened to all the flying saucers?



Drbuzz0
2007-Aug-14, 05:00 AM
Where the hell did all the flying saucers go?

Man, back in the day, like the 1950's and 60's there were all those nice flying saucer UFO's. They were big and round and metallic and shiny.

My favorite were the ones which has the curvy disk and then bad the bubble on top with windows all around it, the insloped kinds.. kinda like they used to have on the old unpressurized passenger aircraft... only a bit bigger.

But now... no more. You rarely see the good saucer photos. I can only assume they have been retired and only flown by the old "classic saucer" alien fans, who fly them for fun to rallies and stuff.

You see the triangular ones every once in a while and the ones which are like a weird cross between a saucer and a bubble. Or even a wallnut or something. I think the triangle thing was kinda a fad in the 1990's, when the F-117 got all that attention... all the aliens were copying it's style...


But mostly now none of the good solid ones seem to show up anymore. Okay, traingles and wedges were kinda a dumb fad, but now the aliens seem to all be flying poorly-defined orbs and balls of goo or just little plasma-looking things. I guess it's the whole "Organic" style that is big now.. Too bad you can rarely see what the actual shape is.

Is it just me? Or does anyone else think that the old ones, like the classic 1955 "Bubble Top", and the 1966 "Kinda Chubby saucer with little landing feet" just seem to have more character to them?

Man.. UFO designers these days... no fresh ideas. No style

Rue
2007-Aug-14, 05:44 AM
At least with a flying saucer you know exactly what you're dealing with. I mean a "UFO" could be anything!

ngc3314
2007-Aug-14, 01:29 PM
It's even worse. They practically never get seen flying any more. In an interesting book, "Watch the Skies: A Chronicle of the Flying Saucer Myh", Curtis Peebles traces how the working myth of flying-saucer proponents evolved over the years, and examines how sightings changed with social factors. The last of the classic flying-saucer flaps happened around 1973; reported sightings changed from flying disks, etc. to reports of abductions and close encounters. (And when you come right down to it, the objects Kenneth Arnold described in 1947 weren't saucer-shaped, he just compared their motion to skipped saucers.)

He also cites work by Otto Billig pointing out that these flaps coincided well with periods of ill-defined tension at least in Western societies. The "ill-defined" part was important - the Cuban Missile Crisis (aka Caribbean Crisis aka October Crisis) didn't count, for example, because the reasons for dread were quite specific and well-defined.

Sticks
2007-Aug-14, 01:38 PM
The Greek restaurant closed down ... :whistle::shifty:

Drbuzz0
2007-Aug-14, 01:49 PM
Well I should actually confess that I have seen flying saucers and they are not entirely gone. I assure you: I can produce a flying saucer on demand.

I see a flying saucer, often headed in my direction, if anyone ever happens to serve my grandmother a cup of tea that is not hot enough or is otherwise not to her liking....

Palomar
2007-Aug-14, 02:07 PM
Where the hell did all the flying saucers go?

Why, everyone knows they all paired up with the flying cups!

And the dish ran away with the spoon...

CodeSlinger
2007-Aug-14, 02:11 PM
Didn't you hear? The old designs were pulled because they were found to produce too much graviton pollution. But rest assured, the engineers are working hard on the new environmentally friendly models.

captain swoop
2007-Aug-14, 02:29 PM
it's obv that the stealth technology used by the Aliens can make them look like whatever it is we expect to see.

Like they are Polymorphic, they can make themselvesd look like what the observer wants to see.

Drbuzz0
2007-Aug-14, 04:05 PM
it's obv that the stealth technology used by the Aliens can make them look like whatever it is we expect to see.

Like they are Polymorphic, they can make themselvesd look like what the observer wants to see.

Oh of course! They *want* us to see them. But only when we're alone... and preferably not with a camera.


They do allow their picture to be taken, but never when they're up really close and the lighting is good. If you have a Polaroid, it's dark and they're a half mile away, they might pose, but they're too shy to show up at the superbowl or anything...

ZappBrannigan
2007-Aug-14, 04:10 PM
Didn't you hear? The old designs were pulled because they were found to produce too much graviton pollution. But rest assured, the engineers are working hard on the new environmentally friendly models.
And, see, that's the really scary part. Because certain circles in the alien engineering community have been advocating the use of biofuel for flying saucers. And the "bio" they want to use... is US!

BEWARE when the aliens arrive at the UN with a book titled, "Man-Powered Flight!"

Amber Robot
2007-Aug-14, 04:16 PM
(And when you come right down to it, the objects Kenneth Arnold described in 1947 weren't saucer-shaped, he just compared their motion to skipped saucers.)

This is a very important point that is almost universally overlooked. The pilot who saw something actually described the shape of the objects, and they weren't saucer shaped. He did say they skipped like saucers. Others picked up on the word "saucer" and started claiming to see saucer-shaped UFOs. That to me is one of the strongest pieces of evidence against the UFO=flying saucer argument.

R.A.F.
2007-Aug-14, 04:22 PM
Others picked up on the word "saucer" and started claiming to see saucer-shaped UFOs.

A journalistic mistake becomes a world wide phenomena lasting more than 50 years...

Unbelievable yet true...

vonmazur
2007-Aug-14, 04:33 PM
Haven't you heard about the Drones?? Looks like a lamp shade frame, hangs around California....Even though a UFO site debunked the fakery, some true believers still are carrying on about it, and what it means "environmentally".

Makes me long for the good old days....

Dale

Swift
2007-Aug-14, 05:38 PM
BEWARE when the aliens arrive at the UN with a book titled, "Man-Powered Flight!"
Sorry Zapp, but all I can think of is the "real" Zapp saying "Man-Powdered Flight", giving a little trust of his hips, and Leela rolling her eye. :lol:

ZappBrannigan
2007-Aug-14, 05:56 PM
Sorry Zapp, but all I can think of is the "real" Zapp saying "Man-Powdered Flight", giving a little trust of his hips, and Leela rolling her eye. :lol:
Man Powdered Flight? Man Powder? How sensually sensual. Kiff! Bring me my man powder!

ZappBrannigan
2007-Aug-14, 05:58 PM
...and also a powdered donut!

Nicolas
2007-Aug-14, 07:04 PM
The demise of flying saucers can be linked to the demise of using full hub caps on cars. No coincidence.

novaderrik
2007-Aug-14, 07:46 PM
the shapes of alien ships have kept pace with the ability of Hollywood special effects crews to make different styles of ships and make them look realistic.
back in the 50's, all they had the technology to do was hang some plates upside down and wobble them a bit. so that's what the public expected to see when they saw something strange.
these days, and alien ship can be whatever we want it to be.
personally, i blame George Lucas and Gene Roddenberry for making our UFO sightings less uniform.

Waspie_Dwarf
2007-Aug-14, 08:04 PM
personally, i blame George Lucas and Gene Roddenberry for making our UFO sightings less uniform.

That is totally unfair... Steven Spielberg did his bit too.

Drbuzz0
2007-Aug-14, 08:35 PM
I liked the old UFO's better. They were exciting. Okay, even gawdy at times. But just the same: it was clear that being noticed and having style mattered.

"What's new for 59? Why it's the new Invader Series 5000. But this doesn't look like any invader you've seen before. With it's fully chromed underbelly, this saucer is sure to get you noticed. And be sure to let the wind flow through...or over your... bald grey head... with new ElectromaticPlus(tm) automated windows. And if it's night, you won't be sitting in the dark either. That's because the Series 5000 features the latest in high brightness glowing orbs, a feature to improve both style and safety.

So sure, you say. The Invader has looks, but I didn't get this saucer to just look at it. Well, friend, you haven't seen anything until you try opening the throttle on this one. The new AtomoPower(tm) gravity generator carries on the legacy of Invader series performance, but is updated to offer even better acceleration than previous models. And as you'd expect, the ride is smooth at any speed."

mugaliens
2007-Aug-14, 09:01 PM
Where the hell did all the flying saucers go?

I really don't the hell know, Drbuzz0. Perhaps they dwindled along with the imaginations of those who threw tin plates or hubcaps into the air and shot the result with an old, out-of-focus Argus.


They were big [sic] and round and metallic and shiny.

Hubcaps and pie tins usually are (and appear big when close and out of focus).


You see the triangular ones every once in a while and the ones which are like a weird cross between a saucer and a bubble.

What can I say? Advances in technology.


Or even a wallnut or something.

And apparently, some declines in technology, too.


...now the aliens seem to all be flying poorly-defined orbs and balls of goo or just little plasma-looking things. I guess it's the whole "Organic" style that is big now...

Goo is in. Hubcaps are out.


Is it just me?

Anything is possible.


Or does anyone else think that the old ones, like the classic 1955 "Bubble Top", and the 1966 "Kinda Chubby saucer with little landing feet" just seem to have more character to them?

Man.. UFO designers these days... no fresh ideas. No style

Well, I'd have to agree with you, there, particularly when computerized image analysis these days easily spots such fakes by the fuzzy edge gradients and other latent artifacts which can be measured given original camera and film information. So much so to the point where the size of those hubcaps can actually be calculated...

That might be one reason behind the goo (or as I've seen in a couple of pictures, the lights which were used in the darkroom to overexpose the negative, thus creating a glowing positive.

And glowing positives are actually quite cool. I enjoy showering them on co-workers from time to time, as it really makes their day.

Larry Jacks
2007-Aug-15, 01:03 AM
Oh of course! They *want* us to see them. But only when we're alone... and preferably not with a camera.

And drunk...

Maksutov
2007-Aug-15, 05:07 AM
I liked the old UFO's better. They were exciting. Okay, even gawdy at times. But just the same: it was clear that being noticed and having style mattered.

"What's new for 59? Why it's the new Invader Series 5000. But this doesn't look like any invader you've seen before. With it's fully chromed underbelly, this saucer is sure to get you noticed. And be sure to let the wind flow through...or over your... bald grey head... with new ElectromaticPlus(tm) automated windows. And if it's night, you won't be sitting in the dark either. That's because the Series 5000 features the latest in high brightness glowing orbs, a feature to improve both style and safety.

So sure, you say. The Invader has looks, but I didn't get this saucer to just look at it. Well, friend, you haven't seen anything until you try opening the throttle on this one. The new AtomoPower(tm) gravity generator carries on the legacy of Invader series performance, but is updated to offer even better acceleration than previous models. And as you'd expect, the ride is smooth at any speed."OK, that does it. Tonight I'm camping out at my local dealership so I can be first in line tomorrow.

:lol:

eburacum45
2007-Aug-15, 03:16 PM
One mildly interesting sighting of a roughly saucer-shaped object was the O'Hare airport event; the somewhat credulous NARCAP organisation has put out an interesting analysis of the sighting, available in PDF form here (large file)
http://www.narcap.org/reports/TR10_Case_18.pdf
I have to say I'm impressed, despite some errors in the paper (The initial table of witnesses is different in several respects from the names given to the witnesses in the text, and witness E and F are confused in the text as well- these are the first that pop up in a quick examination.)

But the phenomenon itself itself doesn't seem to be easily explained if it resembled the descriptions given by the various witnesses (which is a little hard, at they estimated it's size as ranging from a possible 88 feet to the size of a bird). In particular the possibility of a naturally occuring hole-punch cloud caused by the B-F effect seems to be adequately ruled out.

It is a shame that one of the more interesting sightings in recent years produced no significant radar return or verifiable photos; this is possibly because the witness known in this paper variously as Witness 'E' or 'F' was correct, and it was only a bird after all.

01101001
2007-Aug-15, 04:06 PM
It is a shame that one of the more interesting sightings in recent years produced no significant radar return or verifiable photos; this is possibly because the witness known in this paper variously as Witness 'E' or 'F' was correct, and it was only a bird after all.

Yeah, but was it an Earth bird, or a space-alien bird?

Ronald Brak
2007-Aug-15, 04:51 PM
I'm afraid we don't have many sightings anymore because we have gone back to making earth people the repositories of our fears and paranoia, just like back in the good old days of witch burning.

Swift
2007-Aug-15, 07:34 PM
I think it might be time for a song...

Where have all the flying saucers gone,
Long time passing,
Where have all the flying saucers gone,
Long time ago.
Where have all the flying saucers gone,
Young Earthers have crashed them, everyone.

Oh when will they ever learn,
When will they ev-er learn.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/aliens/very_first_smiley.gif

Orion437
2007-Aug-15, 09:32 PM
Yeah, but was it an Earth bird, or a space-alien bird?


Why is it that 01101001 isn´t questioning this thread with questions like "where is the conspiracy here?" "what is this thread doing here" "please explain what is the conspiracy here" ?

01101001
2007-Aug-15, 09:35 PM
Why is it that 01101001 isn´t questioning this thread with questions like "where is the conspiracy here?" "what is this thread doing here" "please explain what is the conspiracy here" ?

You tell me.

Robert TG
2007-Aug-15, 10:43 PM
Years ago you could achieve near celebrity status by telling the local press about a flying saucer sighting. Today all you will get is mockery and doubts about your sanity.

If today you saw something different in the sky would you report it or think twice before making a fool of yourself?

The media will run a story if it has a new angle on the subject. Proof is now required, otherwise it’s the same old hoax story again and it just doesn’t get reported.

Just think about how clever it is of ‘aliens’ to be able to use something as simple as a Hubcap to fly around earth in. :lol:

Drbuzz0
2007-Aug-15, 11:50 PM
Years ago you could achieve near celebrity status by telling the local press about a flying saucer sighting. Today all you will get is mockery and doubts about your sanity.

If today you saw something different in the sky would you report it or think twice before making a fool of yourself?

The media will run a story if it has a new angle on the subject. Proof is now required, otherwise it’s the same old hoax story again and it just doesn’t get reported.

Just think about how clever it is of ‘aliens’ to be able to use something as simple as a Hubcap to fly around earth in. :lol:

Would I report it? That depends entirely on what it was. If it were something that were impossible to identify, such as a distant light or a blurred shape, then no. I'd figure it's just a planet or atmospheric disturbance or maybe an aircraft.

If I saw something that I got a very good look at, and it was undeniable something that I could see was solid and different from what I had seen before. For example: Some sort of military aircraft or something.

There was a guy a while back (sorry I cannot find the source) who reported seeing a strange shaped aircraft with very long wings being followed by two air force chase planes. As he lived near Edwards AFB, be reported it to a media outlet and concluded it may have been a secret military aircraft of some type. It was somewhat taken out of context by some of the conspiracy folks, who claimed it was a reverse-engineered flying saucer or something.

Long story short: Turns out he was right. Not long after the citing, the project was revealed to the public. It seems it was tested in his area and he made the correct determination. This: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RQ-3_Dark_Star


Now, if I saw an actual craft that was undeniably alien? Well, I don't know what I'd do in that situation. I am not too concerned though. I also don't know what I would do if monkey flew out of my butt. But I'm not too worried about that happening.

Ronald Brak
2007-Aug-16, 12:02 AM
...Well, I don't know what I'd do in that situation. I am not too concerned though. I also don't know what I would do if monkey flew out of my butt. But I'm not too worried about that happening.

I actually have a contingency plan in case that happens.

Maksutov
2007-Aug-16, 09:23 AM
I actually have a contingency plan in case that happens.Careful.

If it's a Rhesus, you might go to pieces.


Meanwhile, back OT, in this "post-modern" age, everything comes around again, so it's just a matter of time until flying saucers (you know, the "real" ones like "Earth vs." (Ray Harryhausen's)) are deemed to be "retro" and suddenly reappear everywhere.

Infinity Watcher
2007-Aug-16, 10:52 AM
Careful.

If it's a Rhesus, you might go to pieces.


Would bring a whole new meaning to being Rh+ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhesus_factor) , although I'm not sure immunoglobulins would do much in this case.

Seriously I don't have much to add except to wonder how much in the "general consciousness" aliens are now-a-days, are people ascribing unknown sightings to something else now? It would be interesting to track reported sightings along with various Sci-Fi film releases though

novaderrik
2007-Aug-16, 08:12 PM
Would bring a whole new meaning to being Rh+ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhesus_factor) , although I'm not sure immunoglobulins would do much in this case.

Seriously I don't have much to add except to wonder how much in the "general consciousness" aliens are now-a-days, are people ascribing unknown sightings to something else now? It would be interesting to track reported sightings along with various Sci-Fi film releases though
after Independence Day came out, did everyone suddenly think that every slow moving, 15 mile wide cloud was an alien ship?

Rue
2007-Aug-16, 08:20 PM
after Independence Day came out, did everyone suddenly think that every slow moving, 15 mile wide cloud was an alien ship?

No, "V" did that.

Noclevername
2007-Aug-17, 02:12 AM
Soon the "New Saucer" wil be reintroduced to take advantage of the nostalgia craze, but it'll really just be a vaguely saucer-shaped hull over a modern small UFO frame. It'll cost as much as a regular UFO, too. And the gravatic engine will be in the wrong place.

PhantomWolf
2007-Aug-17, 02:30 AM
after Independence Day came out, did everyone suddenly think that every slow moving, 15 mile wide cloud was an alien ship?

I often point out lenticular clouds (http://images.google.co.nz/images?hl=en&safe=off&q=lenticular%20clouds&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi) and say "Look a UFO". It's best on a really windy day because all the other clouds are moving, and they don't.

01101001
2007-Aug-17, 03:21 AM
Why is it that 01101001 isn´t questioning this thread with questions like "where is the conspiracy here?" "what is this thread doing here" "please explain what is the conspiracy here" ?

You tell me.

No answer? I was hoping, for this fun thread, you'd have a conspiracy-theory story more fun than the truth.

The truth is, well, NASA pays me the same whether I ask relevancy questions or not. Weird, huh? Nonetheless, I therefore consider myself free to decide what question actions I myself take here -- conformant to the proprietors' rules. I'm pretty sure, if my contract-reading ability is worth anything, I'm under no obligation to ask particular questions. I can ask the questions I want to ask, when I want to ask them. Understand? It threw me at first, too.

If there's a question you want asked, and you think I should be asking it, now you know I just might not. I'm sorry, but it's going to be up to you to ask a question when you feel a question should be asked. Don't wait for me. I'll might only let you down. I've done it before. I've broken many hearts.

Good luck.

Questions?

Orion437
2007-Aug-17, 04:29 AM
No answer? I was hoping, for this fun thread, you'd have a conspiracy-theory story more fun than the truth.


No, i don´t have one, why should I ?




The truth is, well, NASA pays me the same whether I ask relevancy questions or not. Weird, huh?



I never said that 01101001 was an employee of NASA, so why is he making ironies like this one?




I therefore consider myself free to decide what question actions I myself take here -- conformant to the proprietors' rules. I'm pretty sure, if my contract-reading ability is worth anything, I'm under no obligation to ask particular questions. I can ask the questions I want to ask, when I want to ask them. Understand? It threw me at first, too.



Of course 01101001 is under no obligation. But it is curious the way he claims and asks with such a strong authority (http://www.bautforum.com/1039655-post26.html) for a conspiracy basis in a thread where the subject in question is the summun of conspiracy teories, but in a thread like this, making a mokery of the ufo phenomena, he chooses not to.




If there's a question you want asked, and you think I should be asking it, now you know I just might not. I'm sorry, but it's going to be up to you to ask a question when you feel a question should be asked. Don't wait for me. I'll might only let you down. I've done it before. I've broken many hearts.

Good luck.

Questions?

Questions, yes indeed. I have two:




But, what's the space/astronomy connection?

Isn't this just Off-Topic Babbling material?

01101001
2007-Aug-17, 04:45 AM
Questions, yes indeed. I have two:

Of whom are you asking?

Edit: Hello? Gone? I'll try to speed this up, by skipping an iteration. I put out that invitation for questions as a standard welcome after an explanation. Its purpose was to ask if you have questions of me, about what I said. Since you quoted that, I fear you might be asking your relevancy questions of me. If you are, I'm going to have to say, forthrightly, I don't know. It's true. I have no idea.

I haven't read all the articles in this topic. Strangely enough, NASA pays me the same, whether I read all the articles or not. So, once again, I take my behavior to be my choice. My superiors have never indicated it is otherwise. In the case of this topic, I chose only to read a few articles. So, if there is an answer to your question that is in one of the articles I skipped, I'm not able to help you out. I'm so sorry.

If there's not an answer in an article anywhere in the topic -- perhaps there isn't, if you're asking -- I suggest that the topic creator address your question. I probably have little influence over him, though. You may have to be more direct to find satisfaction.

If you think I somehow should know the answer, and that I am obligated to answer you, I can only say I disagree, and if that doesn't meet your expectations, please do escalate the matter to the folks who run this forum, as always.

PS: I am concerned if you are hurt by my, or our, participation in a topic that makes some sort of mockery of the UFO phenomenon -- if indeed that's the thrust of this topic, unknown to me. Might I suggest you not so cherish the UFO phenomenon that mere ideas which appear to poke fun at the topic, hurt you? If you can't do that, then perhaps you should avoid such topics in the future. I don't know what else to say. Sorry I can't be of more help.

PPS: I didn't address a lot of your questions in the previous article because they were asked in the 3rd person. I expect you're asking others why I'm behaving a certain way -- but, why on earth would third parties know my motivations? If you should actually want to know from me why I did something, you should indicate so by using phrasing such as "why do you do that" not "why does he do that".

Orion437
2007-Aug-17, 08:29 PM
Are you really a NASA employee? Sometimes it´s hard for me to understand an ironic comment in english.

01101001
2007-Aug-17, 08:52 PM
Are you really a NASA employee? Sometimes it´s hard for me to understand an ironic comment in english.

I could be. So far this month, NASA has paid me nothing for nothing. You might be safe to assume I am not an employee. Unless I work for the super-secret UFO Phenomenon Disinformation Division of NASA. In that case I'd probably be required to deny, or at least imply negatively, that I worked for NASA, but maybe I could hint that I did, so one just could never know for sure. I hardly know for sure!

It's a shadow world. OK, I'll say I don't. But I won't swear to it. I've denied it before without being believed, so I'm not sure what to say. If I swore I did, not everyone would believe it.

Please do trust me in this: there's nothing ironic about it. I'd classify it more in the piffle category. Officially.

BertL
2007-Aug-17, 08:59 PM
Stop messing with other people's heads, 01101001. You're scaring me. :(

01101001
2007-Aug-17, 09:56 PM
Stop messing with other people's heads, 01101001. You're scaring me. :(

I'm scaring myself!

astrophotographer
2007-Aug-17, 11:33 PM
I'm scaring myself!

You sound like Pinocchio in the latest shrek movie when prince charming was asking where Shrek was knowing that he could tell if Pinocchio was lying. Funniest part of the movie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3We2NiLOm0Y&mode=related&search=

Drbuzz0
2007-Aug-18, 03:20 AM
Soon the "New Saucer" wil be reintroduced to take advantage of the nostalgia craze, but it'll really just be a vaguely saucer-shaped hull over a modern small UFO frame. It'll cost as much as a regular UFO, too. And the gravatic engine will be in the wrong place.

Damnit. It's bad enough with those stupid PT-Cruisers all over the place. They are such a stupid corruption of the style they are supposed to represent it's just annoying... plastic wood grain and fiberglass bumpers pffff...

I really I hope I don't see some picstures of saucers flying around like that..

zeezishx
2007-Aug-19, 09:21 PM
Hi, this is my first post. I am wondering why there is so much making fun of the UFO phenemenon? Of course I am not one for churchy-seriousness about anything as such. But has NOone anything sensible to say? Do you really just discount all known accounts. I dont really mean abduction accounts as such. Though thety too should be treated seriously if people are genuinely feeling some unexplainable event happened.
But why cant you both be serious sceintist AND not ALL the time take the **** about this subject?
I am not being funny, or hurt or opset. I ask this question very cooly.

Serenitude
2007-Aug-19, 10:42 PM
Hi, this is my first post. I am wondering why there is so much making fun of the UFO phenemenon?

Because by and large, the accounts are funny.


Of course I am not one for churchy-seriousness about anything as such. But has NOone anything sensible to say?

Please read through our background of thorough investigations into these phenomena. AFTER that, please give me a definition of "sensible" that is agreeable with you.


Do you really just discount all known accounts.

At the moment, yes, until such point as convincing evidence should come to light. Have any to share? Although "discount" implies we have not researched them from every possible angle. Morelike you should say we have intensely researched them and found all known accounts not credible.


I dont really mean abduction accounts as such. Though thety too should be treated seriously if people are genuinely feeling some unexplainable event happened.

Treated seriously? Yes. By a qualified counselor or other mental health professional. By a skeptic, cosmologist, etc...? There is no compelling evidence to at this point, and in fact much physical and psycho/social evidence not to.


But why cant you both be serious sceintist AND not ALL the time take the **** about this subject?

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here (it's phrased very poorly), but I AM quite certain you've used profanity, which is a rule violation on our board, which you should take very seriously, as is using astericks or other characters to attempt to simulate or circumvent this rule. Consider this a freindly warning to not attempt that again, and to also take the time to visit the "AboutBAUT" forum and familiarize yourself with the rules here.


I am not being funny, or hurt or opset. I ask this question very cooly.

That is good. Posting while upset rarely leads to a positive result. And on a positive note, welcome to the BAUTForum zeezishx!

R.A.F.
2007-Aug-19, 11:17 PM
But has NOone anything sensible to say?

Sure, I'll give it a "shot".

There is not now, nor has there ever been credible, and/or convincing evidence that intelligent beings from other worlds have visited this planet.

How's that??

....and welcome to the board!!

astrophotographer
2007-Aug-20, 12:47 AM
Hi, this is my first post. I am wondering why there is so much making fun of the UFO phenemenon? Of course I am not one for churchy-seriousness about anything as such. But has NOone anything sensible to say? Do you really just discount all known accounts. I dont really mean abduction accounts as such. Though thety too should be treated seriously if people are genuinely feeling some unexplainable event happened.
But why cant you both be serious sceintist AND not ALL the time take the **** about this subject?
I am not being funny, or hurt or opset. I ask this question very cooly.

Sorry but that is the way the thread has gone. If you want my opinion, check out my website.

http://members.aol.com/tprinty/UFO.html

I guess I am close-minded on the subject as UFO proponents view it. I consider myself not so gullible as to believe everything I read or hear about UFOs. I would love to see a better effort by UFOlogists to present their case and I would be estatic if they could produce the goods. I even stated in one discussion on some board, that if convincing evidence was ever presented, I would delete my webpage and put up a new one stating that UFOs are real alien spaceships. So far, they haven't put out anything convincing or even compelling. They are far too busy trying to dig up crashed spaceships, alien bodies, or looking at old "unexplained" cases than to try and actively record UFOs real time.

JayUtah
2007-Aug-20, 03:17 AM
I am wondering why there is so much making fun of the UFO phenemenon?

Because in the context of the perspective applied in this thread, the UFO phenomenon is funny; it follows trends in popular culture, which wouldn't be the case if they were aliens from another planet.

Do you really just discount all known accounts.

No, we just don't believe in attributing them to alien encounters without some evidence.

Some accounts can be easily dismissed as publicity seeking. Others less so, in which case you tend to find cautious interest among skeptics.

Though thety too should be treated seriously if people are genuinely feeling some unexplainable event happened.

If it's unexplainable then there should be no offense taken when some particular explanation is rejected as improbable and without evidence. Yet we find that many proponents take offense when anyone suggests that their experience was not the result of an alien intervention.

Taking someone seriously does not necessarily mean accepting his intepretation of events without question. A skilled investigator interviewing a witness knows how to separate fact from interpretation; the human brain has a tendency to mix them up unconsciously.

But why cant you both be serious sceintist AND not ALL the time take the **** about this subject?

Because a serious scientist ceases to be either serious or scientific when he lowers his standards of evidence in order to accept some preconceived explanation offered without sufficient proof.

damienpaul
2007-Aug-20, 04:58 AM
I heard that the flying saucers were neatly lined up in a parking facility at both Fraser's and Serentitude's abodes.... but that is just speculation...

Serenitude
2007-Aug-20, 05:06 AM
I heard that the flying saucers were neatly lined up in a parking facility at both Fraser's and Serentitude's abodes.... but that is just speculation...

So help me, if you spoil my new, secret way to get to work... :mad:

damienpaul
2007-Aug-20, 05:07 AM
so, I AM right eh? excellent! how many light years to the gallon do you get?

Serenitude
2007-Aug-20, 05:25 AM
Oh, two or three...

Err, IF I had such a thing, mind you... :whistle: :shifty:

damienpaul
2007-Aug-20, 05:36 AM
of course!

2-3 ly/gallen is not too bad

what do you think of the rising hydrogen fuel costs?

Serenitude
2007-Aug-20, 05:48 AM
Not bad. I'm thinking of having the Niburians install a hydrogen skimmer, so I can just glide some off the surface here and there, but I haven't done a good cost analysis yet. Plus, the BA tells me that the Alpha Centaurians are supposed to be competitive with the Niburians in the next year or so, so I may just hold off ;)

damienpaul
2007-Aug-20, 05:53 AM
hmmmm I heard another unofficial tale that the BA may also have a flying saucer...and you two drag race your flying saucers in a pathway in Kuiper Belt - is this true?

novaderrik
2007-Aug-20, 06:01 AM
who here has read "the Dilbert Future" by Scott Adams?
i like his theory about where all the UFO's come from..

Serenitude
2007-Aug-20, 07:24 AM
hmmmm I heard another unofficial tale that the BA may also have a flying saucer...and you two drag race your flying saucers in a pathway in Kuiper Belt - is this true?

Sort of. We used to, but I got tired of losing. I just get his hand-me-down junk, for the most part. He gets the good gratis stuff, being the BA and all ;) :lol:

Neverfly
2007-Aug-20, 07:34 AM
This is a goofy thread but ill comment on something since another poster seemed to take offense to it.

It is an excellent point that over the years, sightings have not only decreased but also that the phenomina follows modern cultural and technological attributes.
You would think UFO's wouldn't change much even in fifty years. Because its alien... because a ship isnt going to radically change much.

In 1970 a UFO description sounded like something from Buck Rogers

Today it sounds like something from Farscape.

This thread brings into focus a slow change over a time period that clarifies that many observers of these "Alien craft" were inlfuenced by.

zeezishx
2007-Aug-20, 08:27 AM
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here (it's phrased very poorly), but I AM quite certain you've used profanity, which is a rule violation on our board, which you should take very seriously, as is using astericks or other characters to attempt to simulate or circumvent this rule. Consider this a freindly warning to not attempt that again, and to also take the time to visit the "AboutBAUT" forum and familiarize yourself with the rules here.





well........what a welcome mr little moderator sir. My GOD, have you got a taser as well. I bet YOU inspire free alive debate.

R.A.F.
2007-Aug-20, 09:58 AM
I bet YOU inspire free alive debate.

Are you impling that open debate is "stiffled" on this board simply because a mod advised you not to substitute ** for profanity or that you should familiarize yourself with the rules of this board?

Urbane Guerrilla
2007-Aug-20, 11:19 AM
How much effort would it take to start an internet rumor that crop circles come from irresponsible alien tweenagers swiping Daddy's saucer and doing doughnuts in farmers' fields?

Neverfly
2007-Aug-20, 11:29 AM
How much effort would it take to start an internet rumor that crop circles come from irresponsible alien tweenagers swiping Daddy's saucer and doing doughnuts in farmers' fields?

Wait, are you saying that ISN'T what happened?!?!

Grashtel
2007-Aug-20, 04:15 PM
well........what a welcome mr little moderator sir. My GOD, have you got a taser as well. I bet YOU inspire free alive debate.
Might I recommend that you loose the attitude, if you don't your stay here is likely to be severely curtailed and people aren't going to take your arguments seriously. One thing "free alive debate" doesn't need is people swearing at each other and getting angry.

Serenitude
2007-Aug-20, 05:05 PM
well........what a welcome mr little moderator sir. My GOD, have you got a taser as well. I bet YOU inspire free alive debate.

This is a violation of our civility and decorum rules - a post intended only for provocation of another member. Again, you are encouraged to visit the "AboutBAUT" forum and read the rules for forum use posted there, although if you consider a freindly warning not to use a banned word harsh, I fear your stay might be a short one, so I encourage you to take a deep breath, drink a Dr. Pepper, and adjust your attitude slightly, so that you can remain a good and longtime member ;)

captain swoop
2007-Aug-20, 09:13 PM
How much effort would it take to start an internet rumor that crop circles come from irresponsible alien tweenagers swiping Daddy's saucer and doing doughnuts in farmers' fields?

Teasers you mean?

NGCHunter
2007-Aug-22, 12:46 PM
Where have you guys been? Flying saucers are alive and well! Sure, this video is fake, but it IS a classic flying saucer (spruced up a bit admittedly) and it IS supposedly a "recent sighting." Too bad for the hoaxster that the identical palm trees tell the tale of CG editing... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4999449024522921396&q=ufo&total=3574&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1
Point is, good ol' fashioned mechanical UFOs are still in style for some folks... For the record I happen to believe that it's still possible that a tiny tiny fraction of a percent of "UFO" reports could be truly "extraordinary" in nature though I don't jump to the assumption of ETs. Either that or the rest of my family on my mom's side is insane. They had a group sighting as a family back in the early 60's (silent silver disc with windows and an interior on a very low flying path) so either they had a group hallucination (despite not being drug users), they're very good liars, or they saw something out of the ordinary. Like I said though, I don't jump to the assumption of ETs, anything's possible, but I also don't assume that anyone who claims to have seen something like this automatically needs psychological help. Since just about all such reports are bogus or nonsense however, I totally agree that the trends in UFO reports are heavily influenced by popular media. As they say, I try to keep my mind open to a point, but not so open that my brains fall out.

eburacum45
2007-Aug-22, 01:08 PM
They had a group sighting as a family back in the early 60's (silent silver disc with windows and an interior on a very low flying path) so either they had a group hallucination (despite not being drug users), they're very good liars, or they saw something out of the ordinary.

The question should perhaps be 'something out of the ordinary- but what?'

It appears that many things which are somewhat out of the ordinary can be misperceived by observers to be very out of the ordinary.
See this link: Eye witnesses (http://www.webmesh.co.uk/overlord/eye.html)

Dr. William Hartman evaluated one "mass sighting" of a UFO that was determined to be the re-entry of a Russian booster stage for the satellite Zond IV. Several of the reports given by witnesses sounded incredible...(example follows)

...It was shaped like a fat cigar, in my estimation. I was impressed that it seemed of considerable size, the size of one of our largest airplane fuselages, or larger...It appeared to have square-shaped windows...I thought I caught a glimpse of a metallic look about the fuselage...It appeared to me that the fuselage was constructed of many pieces of flat sheets of metal-like material with a "riveted together look."...The many "windows" seemed to be lit up from the inside of the fuselage with light that was quite bright...

The two effects Hartmann describes- the 'excitedness effect' and the 'airship effect' together seem to be able to convince quite sensible people that they are seeing something more extraordinary than they really are.

NEOWatcher
2007-Aug-22, 01:10 PM
... They had a group sighting as a family back in the early 60's (silent silver disc with windows and an interior on a very low flying path) ...
A dymaxion house (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dymaxion_house) being airlifted?

NGCHunter
2007-Aug-22, 01:20 PM
The question should perhaps be 'something out of the ordinary- but what?'

It appears that many things which are somewhat out of the ordinary can be misperceived by observers to be very out of the ordinary.
See this link: Eye witnesses (http://www.webmesh.co.uk/overlord/eye.html)


The two effects Hartmann describes- the 'excitedness effect' and the 'airship effect' together seem to be able to convince quite sensible people that they are seeing something more extraordinary than they really are.

Fair enough but this wasn't just something off in the distance, nor was it strange lights or something you had to zoom in on with a camera (not that they had a camera). It went right past them, less than a hundred feet away. It was clearly a silver metallic circular object with windows and no obvious doors or engines. Maybe it was a giant aircraft sized balloon with transparent sections on top to make it look like it had windows by some skilled prankster, but that's bordering on conspiracy of a different sort (a government program designed to make people think they're being invaded???). This sighting was much to close and too detailed to dismiss as something that should appear far in the distance or as a dot in the sky with a tail - it'd be easier to dismiss it as a lie.

NGCHunter
2007-Aug-22, 01:23 PM
A dymaxion house (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dymaxion_house) being airlifted?

Heh, that's pretty good. I can see how people would mistake that if it were being airlifted. Don't have time right now to read the whole article, did they actually airlift those things? This was in mims-middle-of-nowhere, florida. The only huge difference between this and what they claim to have seen was that the windows were on a smaller secondary dome on the top, not around the bottom. They didn't see or hear any choppers either, but that doesn't mean there wasn't one there.

astrophotographer
2007-Aug-22, 04:47 PM
silent silver disc with windows and an interior on a very low flying path

Another great UFO "story". Lacks details and can not be followed up upon (date, time etc). Interesting that it had "windows" which apparently allowed them to look into the interior. I always wondered why they would need "windows"?

JayUtah
2007-Aug-22, 05:19 PM
It's just as wrong to suppose that they wouldn't need windows as it is to suppose they would.

That's the essence of the scientific problem in the alien-vistor hypothesis to explain UFOs. The alien-visitor hypothesis is untestable because the attributes of the supposed aliens are simply contrived to apply without natural restriction to whatever intricacy the set of observations proposes. Such explanations are not falsifiable and hence not plausible: plausibility cannot be established by means of ad hoc attribution.

drage
2007-Aug-22, 06:20 PM
The one reason ive never believed in UFOs is because if there are the amount of them we are told - we are already under attack. They are all over us like a wet shirt!

And why dont amateur and professional astronomers spot them first? They are looking into the sky all the time through instruments. This multitude of UFOs would be passing their field of vision all the time. And theres no way they cpould all keep quiet all at the same time in a huge conspiracy.

Though that desont mean there isnt alien life in the universe.

Are there any good new theories in science which answer the fermi paradox? Ive heard the ones like the "zoo theory" which is pretty fun. I keep shouting "get me out of here!" :-)

novaderrik
2007-Aug-23, 03:23 AM
i once saw what i thought was a shooting star directly overhead do a bunch of perfect high speed right angle turns and then zoom off over the horizon in the same direction it came from.
that was weird.
i don't know what it was, but i'm sure it probably was just light from Venus refracted thru some swamp gas or something.

Serenitude
2007-Aug-23, 05:20 AM
The one reason ive never believed in UFOs is because if there are the amount of them we are told - we are already under attack. They are all over us like a wet shirt!

To take the other side, we could simply be under study.


And why dont amateur and professional astronomers spot them first?

Possibly for the same reason that microbes don't realize they're being watched in a microscope? Any civilization that can develop the techology to somehow overcome C can probably hide from what would be our comparatively primitive detective technology.

Again, I'm just having some fun playing devil's advocate. Let me reiterate I don't personally believe we're being visited, myself ;)


They are looking into the sky all the time through instruments. This multitude of UFOs would be passing their field of vision all the time. And theres no way they cpould all keep quiet all at the same time in a huge conspiracy.

Radars are scanning the sky all the time, also, but the F111 has no trouble passing undetected through them ;)


Though that desont mean there isnt alien life in the universe.

Are there any good new theories in science which answer the fermi paradox? Ive heard the ones like the "zoo theory" which is pretty fun. I keep shouting "get me out of here!" :-)

I personally don't put much stock in Fermi's Paradox. It isn't much of a paradox, really, and has some rather gaping holes in it. It's akin (but not precisely) like simply dismissing dark matter because no one's managed to physically bump into it yet ;) The "zoo theory", if I recall it correctly, however, IMO, is quite a stretch. At that point, you're just a hop, skip, and a jump to Niburu :lol: Given the immense size of the universe, statistically, no matter how you choose to assign the odds, I don't see how there can't be another intelligent race, or at least has been or will be, at some point, in our universe's history, somewhere, but as much as it goes without saying that we have no evidence of that, we also have ZERO evidence that any have ever visited here. Nada ;)

Stuart van Onselen
2007-Aug-23, 07:02 AM
The real issue is, even if there is intelligent life* in this universe, what are the chances of us ever meeting them? After all, "the universe is a really big place".

In our galaxy alone, literally millions of vast space empires could evolve, decline, and die, without ever meeting each other, thanks to that irritating little thing called relativity, and it's "you can't beat C" consequence.


*(Earth doesn't count, we're not really intelligent, we're just over-evolved monkeys. :) )

Neverfly
2007-Aug-23, 07:42 AM
Who was the prominant astronomer that was asked if he hoped we would meet E.T.? ;)
He said, " I hope not!"

Given two species with one more developed than the other- the superior tends to devour the inferior. :p

In all honesty and casting all fears and consequences aside, I would HOPE that we could or would, one day, meet or communicate with intelligent life elsewhere.

But considering the junk we have been broadcasting in radio waves to T.V's I'm sure any other intellect would quickly realize we, in fact, are not intelligent and shun Earth for fear of getting Mobbed by Paris Hiltons.

Serenitude
2007-Aug-23, 10:03 AM
That would be sooooo hot.

Neverfly
2007-Aug-23, 10:10 AM
Sereni'dude:neutral:
Do you ever sleep?:neutral:

Serenitude
2007-Aug-23, 11:08 AM
Heh. Not much :(

Orion437
2007-Aug-23, 11:10 AM
And why dont amateur and professional astronomers spot them first? They are looking into the sky all the time through instruments.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IZD_RfFFHY

The Astronomer Alberto Quijano from Pasto Colombia has captured a UFO for approximately 1hr in our atmosphere. They had the telescope pointing to the Scorpio constellation when suddenly a strange object passed just under the Scorpio constellation and was filmed for an hour doing super extreme speeds and movements that defy any explanation.

The scientist says that it is undoubtedly a UFO! But doesn´t dear to call it an alien spaceship. "It moves like nothing I ever seen" He proceeds to say, “its movements are not like any asteroid, comet, or satellite or any other cosmic body we know of" They said that they will contact scientists from NASA to see if they can help them figure it out.

Orion437
2007-Aug-23, 11:17 AM
He is the Director of the Observatorio Astronómico de la Universidad de Nariño, and very respected:

http://www.universia.net.co/galeriadecientificos/matematicas,fisicaycienciasnaturales/albertoquijanovodniza.html
http://www.caracol.com.co/noticias/445552.asp

damienpaul
2007-Aug-23, 11:21 AM
Sereni'dude:neutral:
Do you ever sleep?:neutral:

Nah, he is drag racing Fraser and BA in their flying saucers

Neverfly
2007-Aug-23, 12:38 PM
Nah, he is drag racing Fraser and BA in their flying saucers

And from what I hear, losing pretty badly.

Serenitude, haven't you seen "The Fast and the Furious"?

A girly lookin man has no chance in beating a bald guy in a race:neutral:

JayUtah
2007-Aug-23, 01:36 PM
...was filmed for an hour doing super extreme speeds and movements that defy any explanation.

No. There is no basis for an estimate of speed here because there is no distance data. The only measurable motion is angular, and I've seen plenty of insects accomplish that same degree of angular motion.

The scientist says that it is undoubtedly a UFO! But doesn´t dear to call it an alien spaceship.

But be careful; that's a loaded statement. When witnesses say that, the UFO enthusiasts interpret it to mean he knows it's an alien spacecraft but "they" got to him to prevent him from saying so in public. That's different from someone saying he has no evidence at all that it's an alien spaceship, which is probably the case here.

"It moves like nothing I ever seen" He proceeds to say, “its movements are not like any asteroid, comet, or satellite or any other cosmic body we know of"

I agree its movement is not consistent with any cosmic body. The question is upon what basis are the candidate explanations being limited to cosmic bodies. We would want to ask some questions designed to test whether an unconscious bias were being applied: e.g., since astronomers are used to the things in their telescopes being very far away, was that the natural assumption in this case or are there circumstances that would support that judgment.

Clearly this is an extraordinary observation, but it doesn't necessarily have to be extraordinary in the sense of something with great cosmological significance. Silver model blimps, for example, are extraordinary and very seldom seen, and making a striking impact when you do see them; but they're not something so drastically new as to cause us to re-evaluate our place in the universe.

astrophotographer
2007-Aug-23, 01:52 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IZD_RfFFHY

The Astronomer Alberto Quijano from Pasto Colombia has captured a UFO for approximately 1hr in our atmosphere. They had the telescope pointing to the Scorpio constellation when suddenly a strange object passed just under the Scorpio constellation and was filmed for an hour doing super extreme speeds and movements that defy any explanation.

The scientist says that it is undoubtedly a UFO! But doesn´t dear to call it an alien spaceship. "It moves like nothing I ever seen" He proceeds to say, “its movements are not like any asteroid, comet, or satellite or any other cosmic body we know of" They said that they will contact scientists from NASA to see if they can help them figure it out.

Hmmm... I am curious about the images. The object jumps around in the video but one must realize that the video is a collection of exposures taken over a period of time. It appears he was using an SCT based on the video (I use a similar instrument). The bright star which is the overexposed image with the strong line implies there may have been internal reflections involved especially if he was using some form of telecompressor or other lens/filter. Remember the "saturn like object" near comet Hale-Bopp back in 1996. I am also curious as to what CCD camera was used. It looks to be an older model based on the quality of the images. Why contact NASA? If he were a real astronomer, he should contact the IAU and we also would be fed RA and DEC so others could see if they imaged the same thing.

NGCHunter
2007-Aug-23, 03:55 PM
The one reason ive never believed in UFOs is because if there are the amount of them we are told - we are already under attack. They are all over us like a wet shirt!

And why dont amateur and professional astronomers spot them first? They are looking into the sky all the time through instruments. This multitude of UFOs would be passing their field of vision all the time. And theres no way they cpould all keep quiet all at the same time in a huge conspiracy.

Though that desont mean there isnt alien life in the universe.

Are there any good new theories in science which answer the fermi paradox? Ive heard the ones like the "zoo theory" which is pretty fun. I keep shouting "get me out of here!" :-)

Lets suppose for a moment that an amateur astronomer did happen to spot an "alien spacecraft" in orbit while imaging something else. The question is, would he or she realize the extra-terrestrial nature of what they happened to catch? If it's just sitting in orbit it'll move like any other satellite, and provided it's not excessively large and/or in a very low orbit, and the telescope/CCD combination doesn't have a high arcsecond/pixel resolution (most amateur astrophotography is gravitating to wide field work anyway), the alien visitor will look just like any other satellite; an annoying streak in the image. Now how many amateurs bother to check and see which satellite showed up in their image every time that happens? And even if they did so and returned no hits, they'd assume it was just a classified spy satellite whose orbital elements aren't easily accessible. In my opinion, if an amateur were to accidently capture an image of a "visitor" in orbit they'd never even realize it. And if an advanced race were to visit I doubt it'd be for anything that required a lengthy stay; any sightings would be exceedingly rare, if they occured at all, and would ultimately be discared in the pile of hoaxes, lies, and mistaken sightings. It's like an extremely bad signal/noise ratio. We'll never know if we've been visited or not, and though we can say the odds aren't good, there's too much nonsense out there to find out if even one sighting was for real (and even if it was it'd never be provable scientifically). I know my story is just that, a story. It's not supposed to prove anything, but as a personal family experience it's shaped how I view the subject of hypothetical alien visitation. I don't rule out the possibility, only the "provability." You couldn't prove an encounter happened unless they went out of their way to make it provable, in which case the whole world would know about it. There'd be no chance for a "government coverup."

trinitree88
2007-Aug-23, 04:31 PM
With regards to the original post....there are 286 pictures :shifty: here:http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/recent/photo426.htm

Jim
2007-Aug-23, 04:42 PM
... Why contact NASA? If he were a real astronomer, he should contact the IAU and we also would be fed RA and DEC so others could see if they imaged the same thing.

I'm glad someone else with a bit more experience in the area mentioned this. My first thought was whether he had contacted any other observatories for confirmation. To me, that's the first step, taken while observing it.


.. Now how many amateurs bother to check and see which satellite showed up in their image every time that happens? ... In my opinion, if an amateur were to accidently capture an image of a "visitor" in orbit they'd never even realize it. ...

Your average, backyard, 2.5", "Let's see if we can find Saturn" astronomer might have a problem. However, the large majority of comets are spotted by amateurs looking specifically for something out of the ordinary; I'd guess they'd have a pretty good idea of what belonged up there and what didn't, even if it were an uncatalogued satellite.

astrophotographer
2007-Aug-23, 04:49 PM
Lets suppose for a moment that an amateur astronomer did happen to spot an "alien spacecraft" in orbit while imaging something else. The question is, would he or she realize the extra-terrestrial nature of what they happened to catch? If it's just sitting in orbit it'll move like any other satellite, and provided it's not excessively large and/or in a very low orbit, and the telescope/CCD combination doesn't have a high arcsecond/pixel resolution (most amateur astrophotography is gravitating to wide field work anyway), the alien visitor will look just like any other satellite; an annoying streak in the image. Now how many amateurs bother to check and see which satellite showed up in their image every time that happens? And even if they did so and returned no hits, they'd assume it was just a classified spy satellite whose orbital elements aren't easily accessible. In my opinion, if an amateur were to accidently capture an image of a "visitor" in orbit they'd never even realize it. And if an advanced race were to visit I doubt it'd be for anything that required a lengthy stay; any sightings would be exceedingly rare, if they occured at all, and would ultimately be discared in the pile of hoaxes, lies, and mistaken sightings. It's like an extremely bad signal/noise ratio. We'll never know if we've been visited or not, and though we can say the odds aren't good, there's too much nonsense out there to find out if even one sighting was for real (and even if it was it'd never be provable scientifically). I know my story is just that, a story. It's not supposed to prove anything, but as a personal family experience it's shaped how I view the subject of hypothetical alien visitation. I don't rule out the possibility, only the "provability." You couldn't prove an encounter happened unless they went out of their way to make it provable, in which case the whole world would know about it. There'd be no chance for a "government coverup."

I am not so certain about this. Many amateurs are recording the ISS with little difficulty and in enough detail to identify it. Yes, I have plenty of satellite streaks in my photographs and all are very small but I use a digital SLR with a low focal length. Many amateurs using CCDs are imaging galaxies in very long focal lengths and with fine resolution. My guess is they could probably identify large satellites (about the size of a bus) if they passed the field of view. Of course, they would just be wide streaks and not show detail.

Then we have the survey's done by NEAT, LONEOS, LINEAR, etc. They are covering larger areas of the sky looking for fast moving asteroids (and sweeping up just about everything else in near earth orbit). I am sure any foreign object invading the earth environment would be imaged and identified. I believe there was one such object some time ago that was thought to be an old Saturn rocket stage that may have returned into earth orbit (although this was never confirmed and could be just a small asteroid).

The amount of sky monitored by these surveys have pretty much eliminated the comet discoveries by amateurs (not completely yet). It would seem these instruments would be able to detect any large objects in earth orbit or approaching earth orbit.

JayUtah
2007-Aug-23, 04:52 PM
The object jumps around in the video but one must realize that the video is a collection of exposures taken over a period of time.

I didn't realize that. Yes, it does change the character of the evidence. It's still a moving object, but it's not flitting about.

...there may have been internal reflections involved especially if he was using some form of telecompressor or other lens/filter.

Can we know whether we're looking at the entire optical field of view, or has the image sequence been cropped and registered? Internal reflections usually correlate to deflection either of the target or of the optical axis. The apparent lack of change in field of view or of any object within the field of view counterindicates an internal reflection. However if we're looking at registered crops then the axis can have changed and put that big bright object through different parts of the optical path to create a varying reflection.

Why contact NASA? If he were a real astronomer, he should contact the IAU and we also would be fed RA and DEC so others could see if they imaged the same thing.

A quick Google indicates he may have personal contacts at NASA, if I'm reading the Spanish correctly. That may explain his choice of escalation. There may indeed be celestial coordinates available for this sighting, but they won't be given in a news report. If I'm hearing the Spanish report correctly, the observer operates a significant observatory, so I think he can be considered reasonably qualified.

astrophotographer
2007-Aug-23, 04:55 PM
He is the Director of the Observatorio Astronómico de la Universidad de Nariño, and very respected:

http://www.universia.net.co/galeriadecientificos/matematicas,fisicaycienciasnaturales/albertoquijanovodniza.html
http://www.caracol.com.co/noticias/445552.asp

It appears he is a professor of Math and Physics but not astronomy. If this is the case, he is just a professional who is quite involved with amateur astronomy. This observatory may be run by him but he is not a full time professional. I also did a quick check on him and I noticed that he had some images back in 1996 of Comet Hale-Bopp that were being used to suggest an object was following the comet. I can't tell if he was the source of somebody got his images and used them. The image I saw showed an artifact that was obviously dust on the CCD sensor. When I see this, I become increasingly skeptical. He also did not report his observations to the IAU and instead ran to the media to report his "find" just like Chuck Shramek of the Hale-Bopp companion fame. Makes you begin to really wonder about his methods.

astrophotographer
2007-Aug-23, 05:07 PM
Can we know whether we're looking at the entire optical field of view, or has the image sequence been cropped and registered? Internal reflections usually correlate to deflection either of the target or of the optical axis. The apparent lack of change in field of view or of any object within the field of view counterindicates an internal reflection. However if we're looking at registered crops then the axis can have changed and put that big bright object through different parts of the optical path to create a varying reflection.

It is hard to say what he is using and what the source of light may be. He may have also employed a field derotator. I am just wondering with it bouncing about if it weren't some sort of stray light/internal optical problem.


A quick Google indicates he may have personal contacts at NASA, if I'm reading the Spanish correctly. That may explain his choice of escalation. There may indeed be celestial coordinates available for this sighting, but they won't be given in a news report. If I'm hearing the Spanish report correctly, the observer operates a significant observatory, so I think he can be considered reasonably qualified.

I don't think that is good enough. See my post about Chuck Shramek and the Hale-Bopp companion "discovery". You don't go public with a discovery of something if you are a professional astronomer. You go straight to the IAU with a find and let them see if it can be recovered by others. Just because you are "director" of an "observatory" does not mean much. I know many amateurs who consider themselves "directors" of their own observatories. Some do very good work and all know to go to the IAU with any finds and not the media. If you examine the IAU site (http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iau/CometDiscovery.html)you will see why when they talk about "new" discoveries:


For every real new comet discovery, the Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams (CBAT) (http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iau/cbat.html) gets perhaps five reports of "discoveries" that do not pan out. And in most of these unconfirmed or erroneous discovery reports, the observers declare "NEW COMET" or "COMET DISCOVERY", even though they have only seen the possible object once (with no detectable motion), or even though they only have a single photograph on one night with a suspicious-looking object.

This does not completely apply in this case but you get the idea. All discoveries require some skepticism and that should apply in this case. Running to the media declaring you discovered something anamolous is not exactly what one would expect from a professional astronomer.

NGCHunter
2007-Aug-23, 05:17 PM
I am not so certain about this. Many amateurs are recording the ISS with little difficulty and in enough detail to identify it. Yes, I have plenty of satellite streaks in my photographs and all are very small but I use a digital SLR with a low focal length. Many amateurs using CCDs are imaging galaxies in very long focal lengths and with fine resolution. My guess is they could probably identify large satellites (about the size of a bus) if they passed the field of view. Of course, they would just be wide streaks and not show detail.

Then we have the survey's done by NEAT, LONEOS, LINEAR, etc. They are covering larger areas of the sky looking for fast moving asteroids (and sweeping up just about everything else in near earth orbit). I am sure any foreign object invading the earth environment would be imaged and identified. I believe there was one such object some time ago that was thought to be an old Saturn rocket stage that may have returned into earth orbit (although this was never confirmed and could be just a small asteroid).

The amount of sky monitored by these surveys have pretty much eliminated the comet discoveries by amateurs (not completely yet). It would seem these instruments would be able to detect any large objects in earth orbit or approaching earth orbit.

I too have tracked and imaged ISS, but ISS is unique; it's very large and very low (relatively speaking). In order to see any kind of significant detail you have to really crank up the magnification. Put ISS at a significantly higher orbit, like geosynch orbit, and it'd turn into a dot in most amateur scopes, even at high magnification. And yes, some amateurs still do image small galaxies and such, but I think the trend is towards wider and wider fields. It used to be that with amateur CCDs all you could really do was narrowfield galaxy work, now it's like a competition to see who can soak up the widest field of view in one shot. You're right about LINEAR and so forth, but even that only rules out a "presistant visitation" or a visitation with large numbers. What are the odds a single craft (say no larger than ISS) could go undetected without even trying to evade detection, provided it didn't do anything grandiose and stayed to a relatively high orbit most of the time? NEAT, LINEAR, et al are very good at detecting things that stick around in our neighborhood, but could very easily miss a transient event like someone just "passing through" our neighborhood might be.

One study I found particularly fascinating was an attempt in the 70s to search for ancient von neumann type probes the size of at least skylab hanging out at the lagrange(sp?) points. The theory was that if anything from a distant civilization were to visit us for a significant period of time in order to monitor us it might hang out at these handy gravitational zones to minimize the effort needed to remain in one place for long periods of time. Of course they didn't find anything there, though I believe the search only could have found objects with roughly the same size and albedo of skylab or larger. But what if we were to be visited by someone who didn't stick around? It could have very easily happened before a point history where we had the knowledge and technology to monitor our sky, or even if it happened today or anytime in the near future I doubt we'd catch it, or if some non-professional saw it they'd either disregard it or be disregarded themselves. Just my two cents though.

JayUtah
2007-Aug-23, 05:24 PM
I am just wondering with it bouncing about if it weren't some sort of stray light/internal optical problem.

I agree that it's consistent in some ways with an unintended catadioptric effect. And I'm going to defer to you and others for the specifics of that kind of investigation since I'm not as familiar with the behavior of the equipment that might have been used to produce this image. I agree with your interpretation that an obviously overexposed element in the image should alert a skilled interpreter to be aware of the possibility of reflection. He would have the burden to eliminate that possiblity by evidence or experimentation prior to telling someone it "defies all explanation."

As a general rule, any claim framed in that language should immediately be treated with skepticism. What it says is that it defies all the explanations that hold under the intepreter's assumptions. When you falsify all the hypotheses that arise from the assumptions, then you start examining the assumptions.

In fact, I'm reading BAUT right now because in the other window on my desktop I've got two data sets from two different sensors that purport to measure the same thing, and they don't agree, and I have to find out why. I've already gone through all the hypotheses that arise within the design assumptions, and then relaxed those design assumptions. I'm still stumped, so I'm trying to come up with all the unstated assumptions so that we can relax those. In this case, "A wizard did it," is not an acceptable answer just because I'm currently out of ideas.

I don't think that is good enough. See my post about Chuck Shramek and the Hale-Bopp companion "discovery".

I did, after writing my post. I saw previously that Quijano had been mentioned in conjunction with the Hale-Boppe anomaly, but I couldn't draw a conclusion from my own reading whether he had been associated with the extraordinary claim

You don't go public with a discovery of something if you are a professional astronomer.

Yes, that's suspicious.

I know many amateurs who consider themselves "directors" of their own observatories.

I'm the director of Jay's Backyard Observatory, but the only thing we've ever discovered is a whole lot of light pollution. I named my discovery after my cat.

All discoveries require some skepticism and that should apply in this case.

I agree, which is why I'm wondering idly how much we can know about how much was done to eliminate uncommon ordinary causes.

Neverfly
2007-Aug-23, 05:42 PM
(snip) ... I saw showed an artifact that was obviously dust on the CCD sensor.

In the little bit of night photography I have done, I have had this problem.

The camera sits on a motorized mount because the exposure time is so long, and the Earth is moving agianst the backdrop of stars.

A piece of dust on the lens will then move along with the sky-seeming to follow it.

Given your name, Im well certain you do quite a bit of proffessional quality night photography and so are causally familiar with such things.

But to those who don't have that experience at all to fall back on, it simply doesn't occur to them.

To those readers who aren't Im pointing this out to clarify how a speck of dust can be significant.

astrophotographer
2007-Aug-23, 06:36 PM
Given your name, Im well certain you do quite a bit of proffessional quality night photography and so are causally familiar with such things.


Actually, my images don't really compare with a great many others. I just took the name because I do dabble. Unfortunately, my funds are insufficient to keep up with the technology. Despite this, I am familiar with many of the issues and problems with CCD imaging. I would be interested in seeing what other astrophotographers, who tend to use this equipment (I use a digital SLR), think of these images.

astrophotographer
2007-Aug-23, 06:44 PM
I don't think that is good enough. See my post about Chuck Shramek and the Hale-Bopp companion "discovery".

I did, after writing my post. I saw previously that Quijano had been mentioned in conjunction with the Hale-Boppe anomaly, but I couldn't draw a conclusion from my own reading whether he had been associated with the extraordinary claim

I could not either but there was one posting where it appeared he was looking for anamolous objects (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/halebopp/esp_halebopp1.htm) (he admits they were later determined to be stars, which to me was obvious), which makes me wonder.

Neverfly
2007-Aug-23, 06:51 PM
Actually, my images don't really compare with a great many others. I just took the name because I do dabble. Unfortunately, my funds are insufficient to keep up with the technology. Despite this, I am familiar with many of the issues and problems with CCD imaging. I would be interested in seeing what other astrophotographers, who tend to use this equipment (I use a digital SLR), think of these images.

Im skeptical, and since you made the claim it is your responsibility to prove it.

Lets see a link to some images ;)

Unless you post on this board that thread that is for this purpose...

JayUtah
2007-Aug-23, 07:15 PM
...there was one posting where it appeared he was looking for anamolous objects (he admits they were later determined to be stars, which to me was obvious)...

I don't see anything that suggests he was looking for "anomalous objects." He photographed Hale-Boppe, which was probably then a justifiable activity for all astronomers professional and amateur. He initially attributed two items to comet debris, which (if true) would have been fortunate but not anomalous. The ultimate attribution to background stars he says was based on corroboration with another observatory's results, which strikes me as a responsible thing to have done. Whether he should have immediately recognized them as stars is something I'm not qualified to judge.

We have to be very careful not to embroil people in scandals to which their names are involuntarily attached. While I do think it's strange that he seems to favor publicity, there's not enough evidence for me to pigeonhole him as a habitual UFO-hunter.

Orion437
2007-Aug-23, 08:22 PM
I also did a quick check on him and I noticed that he had some images back in 1996 of Comet Hale-Bopp that were being used to suggest an object was following the comet. I can't tell if he was the source of somebody got his images and used them. The image I saw showed an artifact that was obviously dust on the CCD sensor. When I see this, I become increasingly skeptical. He also did not report his observations to the IAU and instead ran to the media to report his "find" just like Chuck Shramek of the Hale-Bopp companion fame. Makes you begin to really wonder about his methods.

I could not either but there was one posting where it appeared he was looking for anamolous objects (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/halebopp/esp_halebopp1.htm) (he admits they were later determined to be stars, which to me was obvious), which makes me wonder.

I don´t see where he is looking for anomalous objects? All i see is some pictures taken by him, pics that are used on that website, could you provide the text where he in person is specifically looking for anomalous objects?

Edit: Same observation as JayUtah.

Sorry for my english.

astrophotographer
2007-Aug-23, 08:49 PM
I don´t see where he is looking for anomalous objects? All i see is some pictures taken by him, pics that are used on that website, could you provide the text where he in person is specifically looking for anomalous objects?

Edit: Same observation as JayUtah.

Sorry for my english.

I stated that it "appeared" he was looking for anamolous objects. The two stars were trailing the same length as the other stars. I don't see how he could confuse them as cometary debris as it is obvious they were stars. If they had been with the comet, they would not have "trailed" since they appeared to be tracking the comet against the stars (as most astronomers do when photographing comets). Anyone that has any experience with this sort of thing would have known that.

astrophotographer
2007-Aug-23, 08:51 PM
Im skeptical, and since you made the claim it is your responsibility to prove it.

Lets see a link to some images ;)

Unless you post on this board that thread that is for this purpose...

Actually, my avatar is one of the images. You can browse my webpage:

http://members.aol.com/TPrinty/index.html

I particularly enjoy photographing comets:

http://members.aol.com/TPrinty/comet.html

I hope that meets my obligation.

Neverfly
2007-Aug-23, 08:57 PM
Extraordinary Andromeda.

Consider your claim debunked.

JayUtah
2007-Aug-23, 09:15 PM
The two stars were trailing the same length as the other stars.

Yes. It makes perfect sense under that observation that he should have concluded they were also stars.

JayUtah
2007-Aug-23, 09:27 PM
...could you provide the text where he in person is specifically looking for anomalous objects?

I think I see Astrophotographer's point a little better. The identification of the objects as stars is so straightforward that it is odd for Quijano to have considered anything else. It is odd for him to have considered them comet debris because debris would have more closely matched the movement of the comment, which Quijano was ostensibly tracking during his exposure. In other words, to overlook such a simple, obvious answer in favor of one for which there really was no evidence calls into question Quijano's motive in interpreting his photographs.

Orion437
2007-Aug-24, 12:33 AM
I think I see Astrophotographer's point a little better. The identification of the objects as stars is so straightforward that it is odd for Quijano to have considered anything else. It is odd for him to have considered them comet debris because debris would have more closely matched the movement of the comment, which Quijano was ostensibly tracking during his exposure. In other words, to overlook such a simple, obvious answer in favor of one for which there really was no evidence calls into question Quijano's motive in interpreting his photographs.

You are saying that because he may have done an erroneus interpretation at first on that sighting, that makes the motivation of Quijano´s questionable an all his sightings ?

astrophotographer
2007-Aug-24, 01:26 AM
You are saying that because he may have done an erroneus interpretation at first on that sighting, that makes the motivation of Quijano´s questionable an all his sightings ?

What I am questioning is his qualifications and ability to accurately eliminate potential sources of the "object" in his images. Based on what I see with the comments he made about his Hale-Bopp image, I am not sure he really is that much of an expert. Without more details of his image sequence/equipment, it is difficult to draw any conclusions. However, I am not about to take his word for it that he has shown that it was something in the sky and not in his computer or imaging system.

JayUtah
2007-Aug-24, 02:19 AM
You are saying that because he may have done an erroneus interpretation at first on that sighting, that makes the motivation of Quijano´s questionable an all his sightings ?

No, I think that's too simplistic an evaluation.

His interpretation of the Hale-Boppe photo isn't just an error such as any astronomer might innocently make. It's a conspicuous abandonment of a straightforward, common explanation. That means he either doesn't know about the straightforward explanation, or he doesn't care. If he doesn't know, then it doesn't much matter what he can't explain. If he doesn't care, then we have reason to distrust his judgment.

About the recent video, it is indeed odd that he would go so prematurely to the media. It's less about one occurrence tainting everything he does subsequently, and more about what might be seen as a recurring pattern of publicity-seeking.

If you want us to respect Quijano's judgment as something other than ordinary, then we have to look carefully at examples of his judgment in other cases.

Donnie B.
2007-Aug-24, 11:21 AM
Jay, I've always seen the comet's name spelled Hale-Bopp. You've been consistently spelling it Hale-Boppe. Is the latter a typo, or a different but legitimate spelling of the discoverer's name?

Or do I get the T-shirt? ;)

Amber Robot
2007-Aug-24, 01:12 PM
Jay, I've always seen the comet's name spelled Hale-Bopp. You've been consistently spelling it Hale-Boppe. Is the latter a typo, or a different but legitimate spelling of the discoverer's name?

Or do I get the T-shirt? ;)

It is Hale-Bopp. No "e". I've met Thomas Bopp and he seems like a pretty nice guy.

01101001
2007-Aug-24, 01:19 PM
It is Hale-Bopp. No "e". I've met Thomas Bopp and he seems like a pretty nice guy.

The "e" is a mysterious companion some say they have seen accompanying Hale-Bopp.

JayUtah
2007-Aug-24, 01:23 PM
I've been consistently misspelling it for no better reason than carelessness. I think the jury is still out on whether misspellings are a shirtable offense.

drage
2007-Aug-24, 07:00 PM
NGCHunter

"Lets suppose for a moment that an amateur astronomer did happen to spot an "alien spacecraft" in orbit while imaging something else. The question is, would he or she realize the extra-terrestrial nature of what they happened to catch? If it's just sitting in orbit it'll move like any other satellite, and provided it's not excessively large and/or in a very low orbit, and the telescope/CCD combination doesn't have a high arcsecond/pixel resolution (most amateur astrophotography is gravitating to wide field work anyway), the alien visitor will look just like any other satellite; an annoying streak in the image."

Well i dont know enough about astronomy to comment really but i believe humans are naturally curious and inquicisitve and if enough astronomers kept seeing objects in images that were not supposed to be in a particular part of the sky - we'd start hearing about it.

Instead we just get loads of photos and footage from UFO entusiasts which never is really decisive.

mugaliens
2007-Aug-31, 01:44 PM
With regards to the original post....there are 286 pictures :shifty: here:http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/recent/photo426.htm

Hmmm... Photo #1 out of 286 Photos in this Section looks exactly like an upside-down dinner plate thrown into the harbor.

The intentionally faked ones look far more realistic.

Jim
2007-Aug-31, 10:41 PM
I dunno... If you were a super-intelligent alien life form, and you wanted to keep your presence on earth a secret, wouldn't you very cleverly disguise your space ship to look like "an upside-down dinner plate thrown into the harbor?"

Seems like solid proof to me.
:whistle:

Van Rijn
2007-Aug-31, 10:54 PM
I dunno... If you were a super-intelligent alien life form, and you wanted to keep your presence on earth a secret, wouldn't you very cleverly disguise your space ship to look like "an upside-down dinner plate thrown into the harbor?"

Seems like solid proof to me.
:whistle:

I like that. And that's also the reason wny they keep changing the design - it's like the way the Doctor's Tardis is supposed to work: In popular culture we used to think alien spacecraft would look like saucers, and the aliens based their look on that. Today we have baroque CGI spacecraft designs in TV and movies, so current alien ships are made to look like CGI. When anyone actually sees and photographs an alien spacecraft, it is dismissed as poor CGI. Clever aliens indeed!

SLF:JAQ SFDJS
2007-Sep-01, 12:20 AM
Everyone knows those saucer ships are from Zeti Reticuli which is some thirty some light years away. So they'll make their return around the year 2012.:silenced:

astrophotographer
2007-Sep-01, 12:51 AM
Everyone knows those saucer ships are from Zeti Reticuli which is some thirty some light years away. So they'll make their return around the year 2012.:silenced:

Hmmm....Actually it is about 37-39 light years. I am not sure how 2012 comes into it unless you are implying that they travel at the speed of light.

publiusr
2007-Oct-12, 09:45 PM
I can't wait for ARA's new book The Saucer Fleet.

Some of my ideas:
http://www.bautforum.com/space-exploration/52758-diskship.html#post1087976

KaiYeves
2007-Oct-13, 12:44 AM
And Zeta Reticuli is in a state of quarentine because of all the trouble those Grays caused the last time they left their homeworld. They graffiti-ed up some field in Holland, I think.

transreality
2007-Oct-14, 11:54 PM
If you take the conventional view of progress you might be surprised that UFOs are following human aesthetic and technological trends, however, the obverse could well be the case. Knowing that we are primitive and desiring to advance our primitive technology and sensibilities the alien expose us to low tech trainer UFO models, simple and gaudy. Only later once we have assimilated these concepts do they expose us to more advanced ideas such as unstable aerodynamics and stealth the very ideas that so befuddled the watchers of the 50's. Now we are seeing (apparently) gooey biological craft, this must be providing a pointer to the technology that is curreently being divulged to mankind in those secret underground bases.

Neverfly
2007-Oct-15, 12:18 AM
Yeah but what about the Thundercats?

KaiYeves
2007-Oct-15, 12:35 AM
Yeah but what about the Thundercats?
You watched that show, too?

Neverfly
2007-Oct-15, 01:31 AM
Of course. And He-Man.
Saturday morning included the snorkels and smurfs.

When I was younger still, it was speed racer and George of the jungle.

KaiYeves
2007-Oct-15, 10:38 PM
When I was younger still, it was speed racer.
Go Speed Racer, go Speed Racer, go!
Got to love anime. I grew up with Pokemon and Sailor Moon, but saw Speed Racer in re-runs.
"Oh, you're my best friend
In a world we must defend!
Pokemon!
Oh, it's me and you!
Our worries propell us through
You teach me and I'll teach you!
Pokemon!"

Drbuzz0
2007-Oct-31, 05:49 AM
I wrote a blog post about this but I think I had better polish it up a bit:

http://depletedcranium.com/?p=168

~lightwaveryder~
2007-Oct-31, 06:20 PM
this topic has begun to weigh heavily on my mind since the drones popped up.
I have a pet theory.


my theory is that since they can travel through time or faster than light,
that we are seeing massive technological innovations on their end, in their
own respective timeline, within our meager lifespans.

Example, the saucers that crashed in 1947 might be 10,000 years old by ET standards.



that's my take on this.



~lwr~

eburacum45
2007-Oct-31, 06:41 PM
That is an amusing thought.

If they have developed faster spacecraft, they might be getting here faster; for instance the earliest craft might have left their home system two thousand years ago, while the more recent craft have only taken ten years to get here.

This means they have experienced nearly two thousand years of progress on their home planet while we have only experienced sixty years or so.

I don't believe it in the slightest, but it is an interesting idea.

Noclevername
2007-Oct-31, 06:50 PM
Of course. And He-Man.
Saturday morning included the snorkels and smurfs.


The strangest product of 80s SM television had to be Fred and Barney Meet the Shmoo. Or, now that I think of it, F&B Meet the Thing. God, I forgot just how weird that was. "Thing ring, do your thing!"

KaiYeves
2007-Nov-01, 12:56 AM
Or, now that I think of it, F&B Meet the Thing. God, I forgot just how weird that was. "Thing ring, do your thing!"
I actually understood that reference.

HypothesisTesting
2007-Nov-01, 05:29 PM
classic UFO sightings in 1947 : what had just ended?

classic UFO sightings in 1952 over DC: what was going on?

The public didn't know much about modern technologies, like the Manhatten Project, but they "knew" it had to be something exotic and advanced, maybe even from aliens?

Here's a let's pretend scenario:

in 1947: the entire population of Roswell is nuclear physicists.

in 1952: the entire population of DC is rocket scientists.

What would the alternative history of UFO "flaps" be then?

I'll just conclude by paraphrasing Carl Sagan in the Cosmic Connection, that focus on aliens is really a reflection of the human psyche at any given time in history.

KaiYeves
2007-Nov-01, 10:03 PM
I'll just conclude by paraphrasing Carl Sagan in the Cosmic Connection, that focus on aliens is really a reflection of the human psyche at any given time in history.
Indeed. About ETI, we know nothing, and as with the blank spaces on maps of antiquity, we are quick to invent monsters to fill those spaces of nothing.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-02, 07:41 PM
I'll just conclude by paraphrasing Carl Sagan in the Cosmic Connection, that focus on aliens is really a reflection of the human psyche at any given time in history.

In pre-industrial times, people were "abducted" by imps, spirits and fairies. Now, small large-eyed humanoids of our psyches and their dreamlike activities need a modern rationalization.

01101001
2007-Nov-14, 06:03 PM
Shocking revelation from Phil Plait, the Bad Astronomer:

BA Blog: NASA builds a UFO??? (http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/11/14/nasa-builds-a-ufo/)


Is it true that NASA is secretly building a flying saucer spaceship?

With NASA documentary picture (http://www.badastronomy.com/pix/bablog/2007/nasa_ufo.jpg)!

No, wait. Those aren't statements. They're questions. And the answer is...

Noclevername
2007-Nov-14, 08:06 PM
With NASA documentary picture (http://www.badastronomy.com/pix/bablog/2007/nasa_ufo.jpg)!


"Here, we see the world's smallest aerospace researcher, Doctor Thumbellina, examining a frisbee."

Van Rijn
2007-Nov-15, 01:32 AM
On a serious note, from a quick google it appears that the Apollo CM base was slightly under 4 meters in diameter, and this will be about 5 meters in diameter. I knew it was bigger, but I was curious about how much.

Bokmakierie
2007-Nov-16, 07:27 PM
Where the hell did all the flying saucers go?


Here they are :lol:
http://www.comics.com/comics/marmaduke/archive/marmaduke-20071021.html

Phil

NEOWatcher
2007-Nov-19, 09:08 PM
There's one in Philly... (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/offbeat/2007/11/19/guy.buys.ufo.wfmz?iref=videosearch)

A 14 footer from Mars Attacks and MIB-II cost him $10,000.

(I'm not crazy about the way they did the story... but that's CNN)

jayvinton
2007-Nov-30, 01:45 AM
It seems strange to me that as humans advance scientifically, the description of the UFO's advance in terms of appearance. The connection I am trying to make is that we appear to relate UFO's appearance, technology and abilities to our own advancement and what we see in science fiction.

100 years ago, the Electra, Texas UFO was supposed to be a Rocket with a flame tail. Now they are advanced triangles. While we didn't have rocket propulsion 100 years ago, we did have fireworks etc...

Myths have a way of fitting nicely into any timeframe.

Halcyon Dayz
2007-Nov-30, 02:00 AM
It seems strange to me that as humans advance scientifically, the description of the UFO's advance in terms of appearance. The connection I am trying to make is that we appear to relate UFO's appearance, technology and abilities to our own advancement and what we see in science fiction.

100 years ago, the Electra, Texas UFO was supposed to be a Rocket with a flame tail. Now they are advanced triangles. While we didn't have rocket propulsion 100 years ago, we did have fireworks etc...

Myths have a way of fitting nicely into any timeframe.
You just stumble upon the Psychosocial Hypothesis/Sci-Fi theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosocial_Hypothesis).
Which for me is a perfectly good explanation for the UFO hysteria.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-30, 02:14 AM
You just stumble upon the Psychosocial Hypothesis/Sci-Fi theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosocial_Hypothesis).
Which for me is a perfectly good explanation for the UFO hysteria.

I didn't know there was actually an official name for the phenomenon. :)

Sean Clayden
2007-Nov-30, 01:22 PM
Isn't a saucer an inefficient aerodynamic shape. Surely if there were such things as aliens and interplanetary travel a better shape would be used. Propulsion always in the saucer category comes from beneath.

R.A.F.
2007-Nov-30, 01:36 PM
Surely if there were such things as aliens and interplanetary travel a better shape would be used.

As you posted...aerodynamically, the "saucer shape" is just a bad idea, and there is no "shape requirement" when traveling through vacuum...

For instance, the Apollo LM.

Guess the "aliens" like their spaceships stylish, and not functional. :)

KaiYeves
2007-Nov-30, 09:12 PM
I didn't know there was actually an official name for the phenomenon.
Me neither. Thanks for the link!

impactstyles
2007-Dec-11, 05:06 PM
Hi. Let me begin by saying I am not new here. I visited this site, and posted, frequently about 6-7 years ago after watching the fox special on the moon hoax conspiracy theory. While you were all very knowledgeable and basically pulled me from the CT dark side by thoroughly answering all my questions to satisfaction (except the one about how the stars must have looked from the surface of the moon, why has not one astronaut commented on this because it must have looked beyond amazing with no atmosphere and light pollution in the way) and someone tells me the astronauts were too busy to notice, HOGWASH! But that is another discussion for another time.

Let me begin today’s post with some angst and rudeness (I apologize in advance)

Who is paying you people and how much? My god you call the CT people crazy but you are just as bad. There is a center you know and you all are wayyyyyyyy off from it. If this was politics, the Conspiracy Theorists would be all the way to the left of center, and you guys (skeptics to say the least) would be all the way to the right of center. You use this particular thread to discount UFO/UAP/Flying saucers, whatever you want to call them. You make all kinds of jokes but you forgot that there are never certainties in life. Theorists are CERTAIN Flying Saucers are real, and you skeptics are CERTAIN they do not exist. Now don’t tell me you are not certain because that is you politically correct way of denying your own reality. You do not believe. But your nonbelieving is just as whacky and out there as the believers. It really only leads me to one conclusion and that is; scattered among you skeptics are ex government employees, defense contractors, aerospace engineers et al. Who are doing nothing but spreading misinfo and disinfo. There has been so much government interest in this phenomena, that if it was as ridiculous as you claim, would warrant literally ZERO government research and involvement, yet ever since the "Battle for Los Angeles" the government has shown a keen interest in the matter, has compiled numerous reports/investigations, has step by step instructions for Air force personnel on how to react, and what to do when they encounter one. I know you are all probably cracking up laughing at me but what about the disclosure project with all the ex military, airline pilots etc? You think these highly trained highly qualified and professional people mistook ALL their accounts, that is beyond ludicrous and I truly believe you agree with me but will not admit it because you are here to spread propaganda about how insane the idea of a potential craft that is not of terrestrial origin is flying in our skies, invading our airspace at will. Now I know there are tons of secret military projects that get mistaken for flying saucers but like Stanton Friedman says "millions of radioactive isotopes are not fissionable, but a small few are. We do not care about the ones that aren’t; we only care about the small few. Heck even if literally ONE sighting by ANYONE over the years is credible, then it warrants serious investigation. Sure in part you are correct that it is a societal phenomenon. But you are forgetting what caused it to leak into pop culture....Roswell. We all know the details inside and out of this case, but my question is, ranchers in New Mexico were very familiar with weather balloons, as was the military, yet the story magically changes and the rancher is ordered to remain silent on the matter. Well that’s weird, see it is one thing for the rancher to mistake the crash debris, but the military????????? I mean it's staring at us right in front of our faces, yet you continue to mock and poke fun ridiculing the whole subject, furthering the mainstream science agenda of ignoring every and any credible sighting. Then you all question why sightings have gone down, why the shapes of saucers have changed etc... For a bunch of smart guys you are not looking at the big picture here. Sightings have not gone down, just do some worldwide research on the subject, and you will see constant sightings across this globe, it is just that you are so closed minded you already made the decision long ago these do not exist and are not real so you make no attempt to research the matter but then come to a public forum and spread lies that sightings have gone down and the craft has changed from hubcaps to globs of goo. If you did the required research necessary to make an informed comment, the classic saucer shape still is sighted regularly around the globe, but you would not know that. I will admit this entire field is littered with hoaxes, misinformation, disinformation, and flat out liars on both ends of the spectrum which makes it painfully difficult to sift through when trying to get some serious credible cases, but with enough elbow grease you would be surprised at the current sightings/images that are out there today.


I know none of this matters you will call me crazy, make fun of me, and continue to spread your propaganda, and it is truly sad that the future scientists will look to people like you for guidance and all you do is perpetuate the government agenda of ridicule whenever the question of "is it possible advanced life forms are visiting this planet and have been all throughout recorded history" is posed. History will not look back at this time period in a positive light, we live in a dark ages where anything outside of mainstream science is ignored or laughed at and suppressed. This is how we grow stagnant as humanity and it is sickening. Before the uber secretive cold war scientific and technological advances were public knowledge, now everything’s classified for the sake of national security and it holds the normal amateur engineers back from inventing the next form of transportation etc... Imagine Newton’s works or Einstein’s works were never released due to matters of National Security. It is disgusting.


In conclusion I just want to say you are all just as crazy and just as ill informed as the UFO believers out there, the only difference is you are on the opposite end of the spectrum.

sts60
2007-Dec-11, 05:30 PM
Hello, impactstyles. Welcome (back) to the board. What was your previous handle?

No, I don't think you're crazy, but I do think you might want to switch to decaf for a while.

I am not certain UFOs don't exist (as alien spacecraft). I don't think they do because the evidence is crummy. A series of fakes, misidentifications, anecdotes, and ambiguous and unrepeatable data. And I am looking at the big picture. Yes, I've worked in aerospace, and I've worked in the defense field, which gives me some insight into the nature of the claims and also into the behavior of the organizations you mention. I've also learned something about cultural reinforcement and groupthink and the malleability of memory in particular and subjective experience in general.

I will become a believer in ET visits the instant I am shown hard evidence - not anecdotes, not unverifiable claims, not ambiguous data. Really - I want to believe it - it would be amazing to know the neighbors have already dropped in to visit.

Swift
2007-Dec-11, 06:04 PM
Welcome back impactstyles.

I don't think you are crazy, I just don't think you are correct. I am not a government agent and no one pays me for posting here (I wish).

The reason I do not believe that UFOs are visitors from other worlds is that I have never seen any credible physical evidence of this. It does not matter how many people claim to have seen "something", people can be mistaken in what they see. And it is not up to me to prove they don't exist (that's logically impossible), it is up to the believers to prove they do. That's how science works.

Gillianren
2007-Dec-11, 08:35 PM
Who is paying you people and how much?

No one could pay me enough to betray history. No one. You may not believe me, but it is absolutely true. If I believed that Apollo was a hoax, that Roswell was really an alien crash, that any of the other conspiracies were true, no one could possibly pay me enough to claim otherwise.

I don't believe we have been visited by alien spacecraft; it's certainly possible that we have and the evidence isn't there, but I don't believe it. This is, naturally, different from belief or lack thereof in the existence of extraterrestrial life; I do believe in that. Without evidence, admittedly, but I do believe in it. However, I see no reason to believe that alien civilizations have visited Earth without evidence. And, realistically, there isn't any. There are confused eyewitness reports that are generally explicable by known phenomena. There are fuzzy photographs, many of which are obvious fakes.

However, I cannot fathom an alien civilization coming many, many lightyears, buzzing a few fields, and taking off again. I cannot fathom them being advanced enough to come that vast distance and being seen if they don't want to be. I cannot fathom them, in short, behaving the way they must be behaving if the UFO reports are, in fact, reports of alien spacecraft. It doesn't make any sense to me.

I am not a government employee. I never have been. And I can assure you that my disability check is nowhere near enough money to get me to lie about anything, much less to betray history. It's simply ridiculous to me to assume that it is, and I find it one of the most offensive things that it is possible to suggest about me.

KaiYeves
2007-Dec-11, 08:39 PM
No one could pay me enough to betray history. No one. You may not believe me, but it is absolutely true. If I believed that Apollo was a hoax, that Roswell was really an alien crash, that any of the other conspiracies were true, no one could possibly pay me enough to claim otherwise.
Ditto here.
As an archeologist, the past is my passion and I would never lie about it. I would never want to cause ignorance to anyone, because spreading ignorance is to poison the mind.
Money offered to me for that purpose would be fouler than used tissues.

SLF:JAQ SFDJS
2007-Dec-11, 10:28 PM
Hi. Let me begin by saying I am not new here. I visited this site, and posted, frequently about 6-7 years ago after watching the fox special on the moon hoax conspiracy theory. While you were all very knowledgeable and basically pulled me from the CT dark side by thoroughly answering all my questions to satisfaction (except the one about how the stars must have looked from the surface of the moon, why has not one astronaut commented on this because it must have looked beyond amazing with no atmosphere and light pollution in the way) and someone tells me the astronauts were too busy to notice, HOGWASH! But that is another discussion for another time.

Let me begin today’s post with some angst and rudeness (I apologize in advance)

Who is paying you people and how much? My god you call the CT people crazy but you are just as bad. There is a center you know and you all are wayyyyyyyy off from it. If this was politics, the Conspiracy Theorists would be all the way to the left of center, and you guys (skeptics to say the least) would be all the way to the right of center. You use this particular thread to discount UFO/UAP/Flying saucers, whatever you want to call them. You make all kinds of jokes but you forgot that there are never certainties in life. Theorists are CERTAIN Flying Saucers are real, and you skeptics are CERTAIN they do not exist. Now don’t tell me you are not certain because that is you politically correct way of denying your own reality. You do not believe. But your nonbelieving is just as whacky and out there as the believers. It really only leads me to one conclusion and that is; scattered among you skeptics are ex government employees, defense contractors, aerospace engineers et al. Who are doing nothing but spreading misinfo and disinfo. There has been so much government interest in this phenomena, that if it was as ridiculous as you claim, would warrant literally ZERO government research and involvement, yet ever since the "Battle for Los Angeles" the government has shown a keen interest in the matter, has compiled numerous reports/investigations, has step by step instructions for Air force personnel on how to react, and what to do when they encounter one. I know you are all probably cracking up laughing at me but what about the disclosure project with all the ex military, airline pilots etc? You think these highly trained highly qualified and professional people mistook ALL their accounts, that is beyond ludicrous and I truly believe you agree with me but will not admit it because you are here to spread propaganda about how insane the idea of a potential craft that is not of terrestrial origin is flying in our skies, invading our airspace at will. Now I know there are tons of secret military projects that get mistaken for flying saucers but like Stanton Friedman says "millions of radioactive isotopes are not fissionable, but a small few are. We do not care about the ones that aren’t; we only care about the small few. Heck even if literally ONE sighting by ANYONE over the years is credible, then it warrants serious investigation. Sure in part you are correct that it is a societal phenomenon. But you are forgetting what caused it to leak into pop culture....Roswell. We all know the details inside and out of this case, but my question is, ranchers in New Mexico were very familiar with weather balloons, as was the military, yet the story magically changes and the rancher is ordered to remain silent on the matter. Well that’s weird, see it is one thing for the rancher to mistake the crash debris, but the military????????? I mean it's staring at us right in front of our faces, yet you continue to mock and poke fun ridiculing the whole subject, furthering the mainstream science agenda of ignoring every and any credible sighting. Then you all question why sightings have gone down, why the shapes of saucers have changed etc... For a bunch of smart guys you are not looking at the big picture here. Sightings have not gone down, just do some worldwide research on the subject, and you will see constant sightings across this globe, it is just that you are so closed minded you already made the decision long ago these do not exist and are not real so you make no attempt to research the matter but then come to a public forum and spread lies that sightings have gone down and the craft has changed from hubcaps to globs of goo. If you did the required research necessary to make an informed comment, the classic saucer shape still is sighted regularly around the globe, but you would not know that. I will admit this entire field is littered with hoaxes, misinformation, disinformation, and flat out liars on both ends of the spectrum which makes it painfully difficult to sift through when trying to get some serious credible cases, but with enough elbow grease you would be surprised at the current sightings/images that are out there today.


I know none of this matters you will call me crazy, make fun of me, and continue to spread your propaganda, and it is truly sad that the future scientists will look to people like you for guidance and all you do is perpetuate the government agenda of ridicule whenever the question of "is it possible advanced life forms are visiting this planet and have been all throughout recorded history" is posed. History will not look back at this time period in a positive light, we live in a dark ages where anything outside of mainstream science is ignored or laughed at and suppressed. This is how we grow stagnant as humanity and it is sickening. Before the uber secretive cold war scientific and technological advances were public knowledge, now everything’s classified for the sake of national security and it holds the normal amateur engineers back from inventing the next form of transportation etc... Imagine Newton’s works or Einstein’s works were never released due to matters of National Security. It is disgusting.


In conclusion I just want to say you are all just as crazy and just as ill informed as the UFO believers out there, the only difference is you are on the opposite end of the spectrum.





Bravo!!!! :clap::clap: Atleast 90%

Swift
2007-Dec-11, 11:00 PM
Bravo!!!! :clap::clap: Atleast 90%
Which 90%? Do you believe we are being paid as government stooges? (and yes, that is a direct question, and I expect an answer - you know the rules)

SLF:JAQ SFDJS
2007-Dec-11, 11:51 PM
Government stooges? NO. I disagree that your are all crazy part.

pzkpfw
2007-Dec-12, 12:12 AM
Bravo!!!! :clap::clap: Atleast 90%

How is a number calculated with no facts to base it on?

astrophotographer
2007-Dec-12, 02:30 AM
There has been so much government interest in this phenomena, that if it was as ridiculous as you claim, would warrant literally ZERO government research and involvement, yet ever since the "Battle for Los Angeles" the government has shown a keen interest in the matter, has compiled numerous reports/investigations, has step by step instructions for Air force personnel on how to react, and what to do when they encounter one.


The "battle for LA" really had nothing to do with UFO investigations but if that is what you think, then feel free but there is plenty of good explanations for this event. As far as I know, following the event and once the military was satisified it was not an actual air attack, the matter was dropped and there was no further interest until.......



But you are forgetting what caused it to leak into pop culture....Roswell.

Actually, it was the Kenneth Arnold sighting a few weeks previous. Had Arnold not reported his sighting to the media and the media ran it in the papers, nobody in NM would have heard of Flying saucers and nobody would have thought they recovered a "flying disc".


We all know the details inside and out of this case, but my question is, ranchers in New Mexico were very familiar with weather balloons, as was the military, yet the story magically changes and the rancher is ordered to remain silent on the matter.

One weather balloon is easily identifiable. However, not many were multiple balloons with all sorts of devices (launch rings, parachutes, ballast tubes, radar reflectors, electronic equipment) attached. You are also quick with the fact the rancher was ordered to remain silent. There is absolutley no factual evidence to support this claim. In fact he told the media what he found. Oh....that is right, he was directed by the military to tell a fake story.



Well that’s weird, see it is one thing for the rancher to mistake the crash debris, but the military?????????

Correction. A few officers apparently misidentified something they were not familiar with. They were pilots and not weather officers. You put a lot of weight on the opinions of military personnel. As an ex-senior enlisted, I can tell you without a doubt that even the officers are not super intelligent. I know of one instance where several officers were misidentifying Venus as possible ship at night - an enlisted man corrected them after checking some astronomy software. However, back to the main subject, we are not talking about balloons, which would not be too hard to identify, but the reflectors and other materials that were attached to the balloons. In Ohio, a few people thought these objects were "flying discs". To add to the confusion, on the date of the misidentification there was an article in the morning Roswell paper describing "flying discs" that were recovered in Texas. They were said to have been constructed of foil like materials. What were these radar reflectors made of? Aluminum Foil, of course.

Lastly, one would think that if it were something really extraordinary, a picture or two would have been taken by all the people that supposedly handled it. There is not one photograph of any of this supposedly strange debris until it arrived at Fort Worth. What do these photographs show? Radar reflectors and balloon materials.


In conclusion I just want to say you are all just as crazy and just as ill informed as the UFO believers out there, the only difference is you are on the opposite end of the spectrum.

I don't consider myself ill-informed. I have looked at this subject extensively. Maybe my skepticism prevents me from seeing it from a neutral point of view but that is who I am. However, don't take my word for it. I suggest you look at what a panel of scientists (the 1997 sturrock panel) said about the subject after being presented a one-sided presentation from pro-UFO scientists:

It was clear that at least a few reported incidents might have involved rare but significant phenomena such as electrical activity high above thunderstorms (e.g., sprites) or rare cases of radar ducting. On the other hand, the review panel was not convinced that any of the evidence involved currently unknown physical processes or pointed to the involvement of an extraterrestrial intelligence.

These scientists had no prior interest in the subject and were exposed to only one side of the argument. Yet, they could not see anything in the data. All went back to their studies and did not suddenly find a need to study UFOs. This is not the first time this has happened since 1947. Each time a scientific panel looks at the subject, they all come to the same conclusion. That being that there is no need to think that anything extraordinary is happening. To me, that says a lot.

Halcyon Dayz
2007-Dec-12, 03:59 AM
You do not believe.
Exactly.

Skeptics require evidence.

impactstyles
2007-Dec-12, 02:36 PM
Hi everyone it is me again. Thank you for your thought provoking replies, much appreciated. Again I apologize if I came across as rude yesterday. I honestly do not remember my username from the 6 or 7 years ago, but I spent all of my time back then on the moon hoax conspiracy thread and photoshopped images of my little black dog on the lunar surface if anyone out there remembers those pics. Any who, the gentleman that answered my Roswell comments/questions makes a lot of sense, but I find something fishy about the entire story. The skeptics among you who need hard evidence, there is hard evidence, the question is, do you believe it? Of course there is no crashed saucer or alien body that we officially know about, but some abductees have had pieces of foreign metal removed from there body that was independently verified as metals not natural to this planet. There is the other gentleman, whose name escapes me now, who owns a piece of "something" that just fell from the sky one night and has been verified again to not be a meteor, asteroid, or anything from this planet. There are the Chinese dropa stones. Then there are all the stories throughout history. I know you are all well aware of the ancient astronaut theories. But I digress. I don't know how many of you get the science channel on your local cable service, and if you do I don’t know how many of you watched the special yesterday about the "lost" Apollo 11 moon tapes that were recently found and aired. During this special they interviewed a few of the "Houston" guys as well as a new interview with Buzz Aldrin. Here's the kicker if you did not watch it. Buzz openly admits that during his trip to the moon, they had a UFO follow them, and they have video of it. They showed the video on the special, but they said it was footage of a later Apollo mission, yet it was the same UFO. Then Buzz goes on to talk about his experience with cosmic rays as he tried to go to sleep. Finally Buzz, and the narrator concurs that nobody "cared" about the ufo following alongside them because they were so caught up with trying to figure out the cosmic rays. But this is exactly what really upsets me. That is proof. Just because you can not touch it or see it today, that was proof with the darned astronaut admitting so, but then they just gloss over it and focus on the cosmic ray scenario. Kind of like how our current president tells us Bin Laden is no longer a concern and most of America is like "Oh, no concern anymore, OK" Meanwhile he is the MAN to get. It makes no sense. To me Buzz Aldrin's words last night were an admission that this phenomenon is at least partly attributed to an extraterrestrial presence. Yet the way it was presented, no one would think twice about it. It was later admitted that to this day NASA still has no idea or admission to what this craft was that followed Apollo 11 to the moon.

Sorry I am rambling on here but another thing I want to address to the skeptics out there is this. Again why all the government interest? I could understand a few reports to throw people (and Russia) off the trail of our black budget military ops, but for these reports to continue for years on end just does not make sense if the phenomena was fabricated or easily explained by "swamp gas" or "Venus".

I anxiously await your replies.

Maksutov
2007-Dec-12, 02:55 PM
[edit]Any who, the gentleman that answered my Roswell comments/questions makes a lot of sense, but I find something fishy about the entire story. The skeptics among you who need hard evidence, there is hard evidence, the question is, do you believe it?What hard evidence? And, once again it's not a matter of belief.
Of course there is no crashed saucer or alien body that we officially know about, but some abductees have had pieces of foreign metal removed from there body that was independently verified as metals not natural to this planet. Where are the documented independent lab test results that demonstrate this claim?
There is the other gentleman, whose name escapes me now, who owns a piece of "something" that just fell from the sky one night and has been verified again to not be a meteor, asteroid, or anything from this planet. There are the Chinese dropa stones.Once again what are the results of physical and chemical analysis of these objects?
Then there are all the stories throughout history. I know you are all well aware of the ancient astronaut theories. But I digress.A poster here has as his signature (IIRC) "The sum of anecdotes is not equal to data."
I don't know how many of you get the science channel on your local cable service, and if you do I don’t know how many of you watched the special yesterday about the "lost" Apollo 11 moon tapes that were recently found and aired. During this special they interviewed a few of the "Houston" guys as well as a new interview with Buzz Aldrin. Here's the kicker if you did not watch it. Buzz openly admits that during his trip to the moon, they had a UFO follow them, and they have video of it. They showed the video on the special, but they said it was footage of a later Apollo mission, yet it was the same UFO. Then Buzz goes on to talk about his experience with cosmic rays as he tried to go to sleep. Finally Buzz, and the narrator concurs that nobody "cared" about the ufo following alongside them because they were so caught up with trying to figure out the cosmic rays.You might want to check out this thread (http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/64209-buzz-aldrin-larry-king.html#post1063495) where the facts of this matter are discussed in detail.
But this is exactly what really upsets me. That is proof. Just because you can not touch it or see it today, that was proof with the darned astronaut admitting so, but then they just gloss over it and focus on the cosmic ray scenario.It's proof that things in space can be temporarily misidentified by even the best of us, but with investigation and objective evidence, a correct identification can be made.
Kind of like how our current president tells us Bin Laden is no longer a concern and most of America is like "Oh, no concern anymore, OK" Meanwhile he is the MAN to get. It makes no sense. Careful with the political content. Check the rules (http://www.bautforum.com/about-baut/32864-rules-posting-board.html#post564845) if you haven't been here for a while.
To me Buzz Aldrin's words last night were an admission that this phenomenon is at least partly attributed to an extraterrestrial presence. Yet the way it was presented, no one would think twice about it. It was later admitted that to this day NASA still has no idea or admission to what this craft was that followed Apollo 11 to the moon. No, they finally figured it out. See the thread referenced above.
Sorry I am rambling on here but another thing I want to address to the skeptics out there is this. Again why all the government interest? I could understand a few reports to throw people (and Russia) off the trail of our black budget military ops, but for these reports to continue for years on end just does not make sense if the phenomena was fabricated or easily explained by "swamp gas" or "Venus".

I anxiously await your replies.What government interest? There's been little since Project Blue Book closed after demonstrating the various objects which had been mostly misidentified did not constitute a threat from the U.S.S.R. The reports continuing makes fine sense, since, as time goes by, new generations look at the sky and repeat the same mistakes.

astrophotographer
2007-Dec-12, 02:59 PM
Any who, the gentleman that answered my Roswell comments/questions makes a lot of sense, but I find something fishy about the entire story.

I admire your skepticism. Please apply it to the crashed spaceship story which is much less likely than a top secret balloon project, which was operating not far away from the debris site.



The skeptics among you who need hard evidence, there is hard evidence, the question is, do you believe it? Of course there is no crashed saucer or alien body that we officially know about, but some abductees have had pieces of foreign metal removed from there body that was independently verified as metals not natural to this planet. There is the other gentleman, whose name escapes me now, who owns a piece of "something" that just fell from the sky one night and has been verified again to not be a meteor, asteroid, or anything from this planet.

And your source for this information is? I have not heard of any such debris. All debris presented to scientists have always turned out to be something ordinary.





But I digress. I don't know how many of you get the science channel on your local cable service, and if you do I don’t know how many of you watched the special yesterday about the "lost" Apollo 11 moon tapes that were recently found and aired. During this special they interviewed a few of the "Houston" guys as well as a new interview with Buzz Aldrin. Here's the kicker if you did not watch it. Buzz openly admits that during his trip to the moon, they had a UFO follow them, and they have video of it. They showed the video on the special, but they said it was footage of a later Apollo mission, yet it was the same UFO. Then Buzz goes on to talk about his experience with cosmic rays as he tried to go to sleep. Finally Buzz, and the narrator concurs that nobody "cared" about the ufo following alongside them because they were so caught up with trying to figure out the cosmic rays. But this is exactly what really upsets me. That is proof.

Actually, Aldrin was edited in the TV show. He concluded that it was probably one of the SLA panels from S-IVB stage and said so when somebody inquired to him about his comments on that very show.


I could understand a few reports to throw people (and Russia) off the trail of our black budget military ops, but for these reports to continue for years on end just does not make sense if the phenomena was fabricated or easily explained by "swamp gas" or "Venus".

I anxiously await your replies.

The problem is that about 75-95% (depending on what UFOlogist/source you quote) of these sightings can be explained as ordinary events like "Venus" (called the "queen of UFOs" by Ufologist Valle). With such a large quantity of misperceptions/misidentifications, can the remaining 5-25% just be simple misperceptions that were reported so badly that an identification can't be made? It is on the burden of those making the claim that UFOs are something new to science and may be ET visiting to provide proof. Like Bigfoot, Nessie, fortune telling, talking to the dead, etc. the evidence is never very convincing and always boils down to "The witness would never lie or be mistaken". History has shown that witnesses do lie and witnesses make mistakes about what they see. Therefore, the most logical explanation for most, if not all, UFO reports is they are simply misperceptions/misidentifications/hoaxes. Until good solid evidence can be gathered to show otherwise, UFOs will remain a fringe topic that most scientists will ignore.

JayUtah
2007-Dec-12, 03:09 PM
The skeptics among you who need hard evidence, there is hard evidence, the question is, do you believe it?

I don't think you understand what we mean by "hard" evidence.

Of course there is no crashed saucer or alien body that we officially know about...

There is no crashed saucer or alien body about which we know even unofficially. There is only rumor and supposition, just as there is rumor and supposition about the appearance of the Virgin Mary in a tree stump a few blocks from my house.

but some abductees have had pieces of foreign metal removed from there body that was independently verified as metals not natural to this planet.

Not natural doesn't rule out artificial. Most people have detritus in their bodies. I carried a splinter for nearly 10 years, and I still have rocks in my knee from a spill I took when I was eight.

I've read dozens of biopsy claims, and none yet that describes something that cannot have been produced on Earth (e.g., industrial alloys, plastics, etc.) The reports say it's not "naturally occurring," but something doesn't have to be naturally occurring in order to wind up in our bodies. Man-made stuff winds up there too. For some reason, UFO enthusiasts inexplicably believe that if it didn't arise through some natural process, it must therefore be from some space culture.

...just fell from the sky one night and has been verified again to not be a meteor, asteroid, or anything from this planet.

You mean "anything from this planet" that fell within the researcher's imagination. It is impossible to rule out Earth-bound causes completely. Such determinations simply rule out what the researchers believe to be likely candidate causes.

There is a huge difference between, "This isn't any of the ten things I tested for," and "This is something from an alien culture and therefore proof that such a culture exists." Yet the UFO enthusiasts want us to believe the latter. None of what has been presented is what a scientist would term "hard evidence." What has been presented is a conclusion by default or presumption: it's presumed to be an alien artifact until proven otherwise. That's simply the fallacy of begging the question.

Buzz openly admits that during his trip to the moon, they had a UFO follow them, and they have video of it.

Buzz Aldrin's alleged UFO has been covered at length. It hasn't been secret at all. It was a piece of the Saturn V rocket.

That is proof.

No, it isn't. UFO enthusiasts simply tell only the part of the story they want to believe. They omit Aldrin's and others' later statements that the thing they first sighted was later positively identified as the SLA panel. It was unidentified for a while, but only for a while.

To me Buzz Aldrin's words last night were an admission that this phenomenon is at least partly attributed to an extraterrestrial presence.

Not attributed in any way, shape, or form. Nobody except the UFO enthusiasts believes anymore Aldrin was talking about anything but the SLA panel, including Aldrin.

It was later admitted that to this day NASA still has no idea or admission to what this craft was that followed Apollo 11 to the moon.

Completely, totally false. NASA conclusively identified it as the SLA panel based on its trajectory.

Again why all the government interest?

Because during the Cold War the U.S. was understandably paranoid. At first they thought these sightings might have been of Soviet craft of some kind, such as recon drones or combat aircraft. Then they feared Soviets might use some gimmick to create a bunch of sightings that would tie up U.S. air defense while they launched an attack.

The government interest decades ago was simply to see whether these sightings could be tied to any known national security threat. In some cases that could be ruled out affirmatively, because upon serious investigation the real cause was discovered (usually mistaken identification of common phenomena). But the affirmative method is not required. That is, an investigation doesn't necessarily have to determine the actual root cause in order to rule out some other root cause whose ruling-out was the primary activity.

Nowadays, ironically, the criticism is that government isn't interested enough. UFO enthusiasts chalk this up to the government supposedly already having first-hand knowledge of space aliens, therefore no further public research is needed. It's more parsimoniously attributed to the prior interest having been satisfied, and no change in the observations warrants revisiting the conclusion.

gzhpcu
2007-Dec-12, 04:22 PM
Ever since the days of Kenneth Arnold, there has been no crystal-clear, smoking gun evidence that unidentified flying objects are alien spaceships. If there had been, this discussion would not be taking place.

An interesting case is the 2004 Mexican military flir ufo video case in Campeche. Initially unexplained and intriguing, Captain Franz and others showed convincingly that the images were caused by oil flares (just compare the oil flare photos with the video). However, if you search for information on ufo sites, on some the case is still being presented as unsolved. This, unfortunately often happens: something is initially mistakenly identified as an ufo by an astronaut, pilot, etc. and then when an explanation is found, the initial report is not rectified.

A question for impactstyle: what is the difference between being a skeptic and being a non-believer? I, for one, don't consider myself an skeptic. I just can't accept assertions without proof, so I do not believe the assertions. (P.S. your replies would make easier reading, if you broke them down into smaller paragraphs - thanks)

impactstyles
2007-Dec-12, 04:24 PM
Not natural doesn't rule out artificial. Most people have detritus in their bodies. I carried a splinter for nearly 10 years, and I still have rocks in my knee from a spill I took when I was eight.

Dr. Robert Leir who has perfomed multiple surgeries removing these foreign objects has said some of the implants were biological and actually responded by "moving" when the attempt was made to remove them. He went on further to state that most of the foreign peices of metal removed have created nerve endings which, as humans, we still do not have the technology to accomplish.

...just fell from the sky one night and has been verified again to not be a meteor, asteroid, or anything from this planet.

Buzz Aldrin's alleged UFO has been covered at length. It hasn't been secret at all. It was a piece of the Saturn V rocket.

I apologize in advance again for not reading the other thread that talks about this...yet. But Buzz said during the interview he asked Houston how far away the rockets were at that time and they responded 6,000 miles, he then further states he knew this object was not 6,000 miles away but much closer.

To me Buzz Aldrin's words last night were an admission that this phenomenon is at least partly attributed to an extraterrestrial presence.

It was later admitted that to this day NASA still has no idea or admission to what this craft was that followed Apollo 11 to the moon.

Completely, totally false. NASA conclusively identified it as the SLA panel based on its trajectory.

So you are now telling me that during this documentary, not only did they stretch the truth, but they flat out bold face lied to their viewers, we are not talking a little stretch here, we are talking a completely made up, fabricated, based on nothing at all, lie.


Again why all the government interest?

Because during the Cold War the U.S. was understandably paranoid. At first they thought these sightings might have been of Soviet craft of some kind, such as recon drones or combat aircraft. Then they feared Soviets might use some gimmick to create a bunch of sightings that would tie up U.S. air defense while they launched an attack.

The government interest decades ago was simply to see whether these sightings could be tied to any known national security threat. In some cases that could be ruled out affirmatively, because upon serious investigation the real cause was discovered (usually mistaken identification of common phenomena). But the affirmative method is not required. That is, an investigation doesn't necessarily have to determine the actual root cause in order to rule out some other root cause whose ruling-out was the primary activity.

Nowadays, ironically, the criticism is that government isn't interested enough. UFO enthusiasts chalk this up to the government supposedly already having first-hand knowledge of space aliens, therefore no further public research is needed. It's more parsimoniously attributed to the prior interest having been satisfied, and no change in the observations warrants revisiting the conclusion.


With some time and research I can provide links/articles/non fuzzy pics/non fuzzy videos that more than warrant revisting the conclusion.


Random question, have you all ever heard of hyperdiminsional physics?

impactstyles
2007-Dec-12, 04:42 PM
...And regarding the disclosure project, if it is the popular belief in this forum that everything is explained, and everything is misidentified, then what about the disclosure project? I can believe a few military people and a few airline pilots might have been three sheets to the wind one night and thought venus=ET, but not the hundreds of retired military high ranking officials, pilots, engineers, etc. Again even if 99% of their sightings are explained, what accounts for that 1%, THAT is where my questions lie. If these people thought for one second that there was an alternative, easy explanation for what they saw, then they would not risk everything to come forward and publicly admit what they are saying, and again we are not talking one or two guys here we are talking hundreds.

gzhpcu
2007-Dec-12, 04:51 PM
In respect to your questions concerning Hoagland's hyperdimensional space and the disclosure project, I suggest you use the search function on this forum, and you will find both amply discussed.

Maksutov
2007-Dec-12, 05:18 PM
Dr. Robert Leir who has perfomed multiple surgeries removing these foreign objects has said some of the implants were biological and actually responded by "moving" when the attempt was made to remove them. He went on further to state that most of the foreign peices of metal removed have created nerve endings which, as humans, we still do not have the technology to accomplish.Here are a few links re Dr. Lier (http://www.psitalk.com/leir.html), who is a podiatrist and, as shown by his web site (http://www.alienscalpel.com/), a "true believer" in abductions. The lab results show materials that are found on Earth. Metallurgically the state/structure of the materials indicate a probable origin in one case from a low-nickel iron meteorite and, in the other, an Earth-based rock. Nothing remotely biological here.

The New Mexico Tech info looks legit, it being an accredited science and engineering school (http://www.nmt.edu/about/pres/accred.htm). However the National Institute for Discovery Science (http://www.nidsci.org/) is another matter entirely.

And of course, don't forget to visit the Alien Implant Research Online Store (http://www.alienscalpel.com/store.html)!

impactstyles
2007-Dec-12, 05:38 PM
Here are a few links re Dr. Lier (http://www.psitalk.com/leir.html), who is a podiatrist and, as shown by his web site (http://www.alienscalpel.com/), a "true believer" in abductions. The lab results show materials that are found on Earth. Metallurgically the state/structure of the materials indicate a probable origin in one case from a low-nickel iron meteorite and, in the other, an Earth-based rock. Nothing remotely biological here.

The New Mexico Tech info looks legit, it being an accredited science and engineering school (http://www.nmt.edu/about/pres/accred.htm). However the National Institute for Discovery Science (http://www.nidsci.org/) is another matter entirely.

And of course, don't forget to visit the Alien Implant Research Online Store (http://www.alienscalpel.com/store.html)!



OK. After reading the link you provided, it shows nothing of revealing the origion of the implants. Additionally, understand what I am about to write is in no way spam or advertising.

My father is a happy retiree with an interest in this subject. He literally just had a phone interview with Dr Lier yesterday. The Dr explained these things to him and my dad will put the entire interview on his website for all to see. We are not talking about websites, research or what have you, we are talking straight form the horses mouth this time, and the Dr said that one implant was biological and the others created nerve endings, and we do not have the technology as humans to duplicate this. He also stated that the body never rejects these implants either which is kind of fishy. I will stop here because I am not advertising or spamming for his website.

astrophotographer
2007-Dec-12, 05:46 PM
I can believe a few military people and a few airline pilots might have been three sheets to the wind one night and thought venus=ET, but not the hundreds of retired military high ranking officials, pilots, engineers, etc. Again even if 99% of their sightings are explained, what accounts for that 1%, THAT is where my questions lie. If these people thought for one second that there was an alternative, easy explanation for what they saw, then they would not risk everything to come forward and publicly admit what they are saying, and again we are not talking one or two guys here we are talking hundreds.

The problem is that these people don't realize they are mistaken at the time. Being a pilot, astronaut, or even housewife does not make one always right (although my wife would probably disagree). People of all trades make mistakes when they see something. Many of these people you are referring to are often telling their stories years later and memory can be a faulty thing. Others were convinced at the time of the incident that they saw something strange and extraordinary. This makes them unreliable simply because witnesses who are emotional often make mistakes in what they report. We could go through each case piece by piece but it will probably be a waste of time since you will always use the fall back position "but the witness reported this or the witness knew what he saw". Most of the high profile incidents have had alternative and more earthly explanations offered for them. Until something better than a few "UFO stories" by excited/emotional eyewitnesses can be presented, the more rational explanation will be accepted as the likely source.

Halcyon Dayz
2007-Dec-12, 06:36 PM
Don't get us wrong.

Nobody here is saying that it is impossible that Earth is, or ever was, visited by an extraterrestrial sentient life-form.
It is however extremely unlikely for a number of reasons.

Since we know for a fact that a very large percentage of all UFO sightings were either misinterpretations of natural or man-made phenomena, or genuine hoaxes, then we must, in the absence of any hard evidence indicating otherwise, come to the parsimonious conclusion that it is more then likely that all remaining sightings fall in the same categories.

(I hope that that sentence didn't get to convoluted.)

Swift
2007-Dec-12, 06:49 PM
<snip>
Again even if 99% of their sightings are explained, what accounts for that 1%, THAT is where my questions lie.
Just to add on to what Halcyon Dayz said, that's why they are called UNIDENTIFIED Flying Objects. I can say that I have seen things in the sky that I wasn't sure what they were. But, it is a big leap to go from "I don't know what that is" to "It must be from another planet". Without hard evidence that is actually is from another planet, then it just has to stay unidentified.

In the two fields I work in (work as a chemist, volunteer as a nature guide), I have learned a very important leason, it is fine to say "I don't know". People do that in science all the time.

Gillianren
2007-Dec-12, 06:51 PM
Random question, have you all ever heard of hyperdiminsional physics?

Speaking of people who won't believe an explanation when the evidence is right in front of their eyes . . . .

By the way, I would like an apology for your assertion that I would betray my own beliefs.

Dave J
2007-Dec-12, 07:49 PM
http://www.nuforc.org/

What do you make of this event? (trick question...)

JayUtah
2007-Dec-12, 08:55 PM
With some time and research I can provide links/articles/non fuzzy pics/non fuzzy videos that more than warrant revisting the conclusion.

Keep in mind that "the conclusion" in this context is "UFO sightings do not indicate a threat to U.S. national security." To say, in contrast, that something -- anything -- does indicate a threat to U.S. national security is an affirmative statement with a burden of proof. So to warrant revisiting the conclusion, you have to satisfy a burden of proof. Unfortunately, "I dunno what I saw," does not even approach the burden, much less carry it.

The government studies I'm familiar with do not even attempt to answer the question whether UFO sightings represent alien spacecraft. That they did, or should have, is simply the spin put on them by UFO enthusiasts.

JayUtah
2007-Dec-12, 09:09 PM
Dr. Lier is not credible. He has a vested interest in one interpretation. Further, he makes statements that are not supported by evidence nor the remainder of the medical community. One such statement is that there are no inflammatory responses around supposedly alien implants, and that normally-occurring debris should always exhibit one. That expectation is not medically true and is further counterindicated by my own experience. I believe Dr. Lier is overstating the defensibility of his interpretation of extracted items as medically anomalous.

HypothesisTesting
2007-Dec-12, 09:19 PM
I am not so certain about this. Many amateurs are recording the ISS with little difficulty and in enough detail to identify it. Yes, I have plenty of satellite streaks in my photographs and all are very small but I use a digital SLR with a low focal length. Many amateurs using CCDs are imaging galaxies in very long focal lengths and with fine resolution. My guess is they could probably identify large satellites (about the size of a bus) if they passed the field of view. Of course, they would just be wide streaks and not show detail.

Then we have the survey's done by NEAT, LONEOS, LINEAR, etc. They are covering larger areas of the sky looking for fast moving asteroids (and sweeping up just about everything else in near earth orbit). I am sure any foreign object invading the earth environment would be imaged and identified. I believe there was one such object some time ago that was thought to be an old Saturn rocket stage that may have returned into earth orbit (although this was never confirmed and could be just a small asteroid).

The amount of sky monitored by these surveys have pretty much eliminated the comet discoveries by amateurs (not completely yet). It would seem these instruments would be able to detect any large objects in earth orbit or approaching earth orbit.

This is a good discussion, something I didn't think of before. If there are as many UFOs as the "flaps" imply, I agree that some good resolution images of UFOs would have shown up by now. The fact that such are not occuring is good further confirmation that UFOs are not alien craft (not to mention the many other reasons such as the total improbability of "them" travelling to "us" in this whole large universe.)

Even though Stan Friedman makes a good point that the Blue Book Special Report 14 has hundreds of credible reports, that by no means implies these are aliens being sighted. And even J. Allen Hynek's probability-strangeness doesn't really get us closer to good solid evidence. When I listen to Stan Friedman these days, he almost sounds naive even though he's been around forever.

KaiYeves
2007-Dec-12, 09:25 PM
Government stooges? NO. I disagree that your are all crazy part.
I once shampooed my eyebrows, for which my father called me crazy. But I think everyone else here was a normal kid.

Noclevername
2007-Dec-12, 10:27 PM
But I think everyone else here was a normal kid.

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Oh, God, that's funny. Comedy gold. Seriously, I'm wiping my eyes now.

KaiYeves
2007-Dec-13, 12:12 AM
Oh, God, that's funny. Comedy gold. Seriously, I'm wiping my eyes now.
Well, I don't think anybody else here thought the Yeti was out to get them...

Noclevername
2007-Dec-13, 12:45 AM
Well, I don't think anybody else here thought the Yeti was out to get them...

I've had worse than that. Such as hiding, terrified, whenever someone rang the doorbell, being utterly convinced (decades before The Matrix) that I was in a fake reality being experimented on, fearing germs coming throught the telephone line, being afraid to touch certain patterns on the floor or feeling I had to touch certain patterns on the wall, peeing in a plastic bag so I wouldn't have to leave my room, peeking behing pictures, mirrors and furniture to make sure no one was watching me, and a slew of other wacked-outedness lasting well into my teen years.

KaiYeves
2007-Dec-13, 01:00 AM
I've had worse than that. Such as hiding, terrified, whenever someone rang the doorbell, being utterly convinced (decades before The Matrix) that I was in a fake reality being experimented on, fearing germs coming throught the telephone line, being afraid to touch certain patterns on the floor or feeling I had to tough certain patterns on the wall, peeing in a plastic bag so I wouldn't have to leave my room, peeking behing pictures, mirrors and furniture to make sure no one was watching me, and a slew of other wacked-outedness lasting well into my teen years.
Wow, I wasn't the only paranoid one. Here's a brief list of my fears:
There was a ghost in the bathroom, and another one in my closet that would come out and get me if I ever slept with my closet door open.
Already mentioned, thought if I didn't run down the hallway and into my room fast enough, the Yeti would eat me.
There was a monster in the basement that stole things I left down there.
If I was ever alone and unable to see, Gray Aliens would abduct me.
That's about it, but I still have a thing with looking at octopi and squid.

JayUtah
2007-Dec-13, 01:46 AM
I don't have eyebrows. Hazard of the trade.

Halcyon Dayz
2007-Dec-13, 11:02 AM
I don't have eyebrows. Hazard of the trade.
You mean it doesn't grow back? :shifty:

Swift
2007-Dec-13, 04:05 PM
I don't have eyebrows. Hazard of the trade.
Which trade: aviation design, hoax explainer, or theatre? ;)

torque of the town
2007-Dec-13, 04:48 PM
The Masonic Lodge have their secret handshake, Aerospace Engineers hav....



......Jeez, I've already said too much :shhh:

Michael Noonan
2007-Dec-13, 05:21 PM
With some time and research I can provide links/articles/non fuzzy pics/non fuzzy videos that more than warrant revisting the conclusion.


Random question, have you all ever heard of hyperdiminsional physics?

I have tried to invent a form of hyperdimensional physics. Start with two branes colliding. As you would know the flat earth folk get laughed at but not so the uni-centrists. There is a question of did we get all the details just right.

I am an ex-government employee and so not to be trusted (I sold train tickets), also recently struggling to answer you (my cat the 'alien') didn't want you to know this. No one considers that if two branes collide that the discharge must start from a side. Since there is no empty space it must be created which is very energy intensive, a sort of Tesla space if you like.

Aliens, I don't know. Intelligent beings, well not the humans anyway. Time travel is just round the corner and if you are getting visits from future humans consider them as good as dead. As stiff as the time line is if in quantum two time like line tenth dimension only one final existence is possible.

The cases are an intelligent species stops stupid humans from accessing time, probably already too late. The damage done to the mind local and global is incalculable. Case two humans are really smart and accept whatever carnage they exist in and elect to go forward. Case two only works with the almost total destruction of humanity on a regular enough basis because they just can't be trusted. Case three and the most likely, humans become smart enough to ensure total annihilation of the species which incidentally makes it finally safe for the rest of the universe.

So the short answer is if a species or lifeform in our timeline that genuinely valued its life found humans to be too dangerous. It could be forgiven for the total and utter destruction of all humanity after all we are most likely to do it to ourselves anyway. Just for argument lets say the sun is a large complex and sentient thing or the earth Gaia. Nano grey goo is not the sort of stuff to sneeze at you know.

Any peace mission sent back would be a failure as information corrupts in time brought back before its source and potentially changes (read destroys) the future it came from. And with quantum time like lines any present information corrupts the further forward in time it is available and preserved to be thought on.

Information must give knowledge, knowledge must lead to wisdom, wisdom creates new information or rewrites the source to remove it from corrupting factors. The nature of humans must be measured by group which means there is no hope by any standard unless you do as I do and hope for divine intervention :)

JayUtah
2007-Dec-14, 12:06 AM
Which trade: aviation design, hoax explainer, or theatre? ;)

The flames are mostly figurative in hoax work. Aerospace and theater each involve a fair amount of potential for facial heat transfer from actual flames.

We use safety torches in the theater. These gadgets burn a Sterno-like gel fuel at low temperature, held in a metal cage. Holding the torch in standard "unruly mob" fashion holds open a spring-loaded cover. If you should happen to drop the torch for any reason, the cover is released and springs over the burning end to douse the flame immediately. The design flaw is that if you hit something hard with the torch, the momentum of the gel fuel can carry it through the holes in the cage, dropping little bits of flaming fuel onto surface below. That leads to unintended choreography as you try to stomp out the little flamelets.

eburacum45
2007-Dec-14, 03:33 PM
Buzz Aldrin UFO
Aldrin sees UFO??? fact or hoax (http://www.bautforum.com/questions-answers/44763-aldrin-sees-ufo-fact-hoax.html)
Buzz says he saw a UFO? (http://www.bautforum.com/small-media-large/44762-buzz-says-he-saw-ufo.html)

Apollo UFOs
Apollo UFO transmissions (http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/10390-apollo-ufo-transmissions.html)
Video of UFO filmed by astronauts around the moon. (http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/3348-video-ufo-filmed-astronauts-around-moon.html)

Philip Corso
http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/66927-philip-j-corso-aliens.html]Philip J Corso and the aliens

Disclosure Project
http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/55546-disclosure-project.html]The Disclosure Project

Rendlesham
http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/43347-rendlesham-forest-incident-whats-your-take.html]Rendlesham Forest Incident, Whats your take!

Roswell
Roswell (http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/50850-roswell.html)
Roswell "confession"..... (http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/61390-roswell-confession.html)
Rational Roswell? (http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/16791-rational-roswell.html)
NM Governor Richardson Calls For Roswell UFO Investigation (http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/12968-nm-governor-richardson-calls-roswell-ufo-investigation.html)

Kecksburg
Kecksburg Case Proves NASA/Airforce Dishonesty (http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/48508-kecksburg-case-proves-nasa-airforce-dishonesty.html)
Kecksburg "UFO".... (http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/33566-kecksburg-ufo.html)
NASA to Search Files on '65 UFO Incident (http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/66330-nasa-search-files-65-ufo-incident.html)

Mexico Airforce Film
http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/11341-ufos-over-mexico.html

MJ12
MJ12 Documents (http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/67238-mj12-documents.html)

Shag Harbour
A "New Roswell" event from Discovery(pseudo) Scie (http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/19387-new-roswell-event-discovery-pseudo-scie.html)

miscellaneous
UFOs: a 60 year assessment (http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/53852-ufos-60-year-assessment.html)
What happened to all the Flying Saucers? (http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/63385-what-happened-all-flying-saucers.html)
.
.

publiusr
2007-Dec-14, 10:28 PM
Then there are the Xenu saucers that froze and accumulated debris around Saturn ;)
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/071206-saturn-moons.html

They always go the wrong way...
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/071212-milky-way-halo.html

From fiction...
http://www.arapress.com/saucer.html

The real things
http://www.astronautix.com/craftfam/lenicles.htm
http://www.cartechbooks.com/vstore/showdetl.cfm?User_ID=788487&DS_ID=4&St=998&St2=-70134&St3=73328&Product_ID=1602&DID=8

The source of contrails by Air Force bases--captured versions of these:
http://www.specialtypress.com/vstore/showdetl.cfm?DID=8&Product_ID=1713&CATID=1


Cooler than cool
http://www.specialtypress.com/vstore/showdetl.cfm?DID=8&Product_ID=1706&CATID=1

KaiYeves
2007-Dec-15, 12:24 AM
Shag Harbour
That always makes me laugh as there is a similarly named town on Long Island.

JayUtah
2007-Dec-16, 11:08 PM
...I don’t know how many of you watched the special yesterday about the "lost" Apollo 11 moon tapes that were recently found and aired. During this special they interviewed a few of the "Houston" guys as well as a new interview with Buzz Aldrin.

I'm about 40 minutes into watching a repeat of the program on the Science Channel that is evidently being referred to in this post ("First on the Moon: The Untold Story").

It's essentially sensationalist hogwash. There are egregious factual errors, errors of inference, and deliberate attempts to amplify the sensation of danger and uncertainty.

For example, during the discussion of the 1202 program alarm, a loud klaxon sound effect has been added to the soundtrack of the controllers diagnosing the problem, apparently to exaggerate the sense of danger. The narrator wrongly claims the computer had "crashed," and the program wrongly attributes the LM's off-target landing to the effects of this computer anomaly.

The claims that NASA never resolved the Apollo 11 UFO sighting and swore the astronauts to secrecy comes from NASA scientist Dr. David Baker. It's simply factually incorrect. It's ironic that such a statement should have been edited together with Buzz Aldrin talking freely about the sighting and explaining specifically that they didn't talk much about it over the radio at the time precisely to avoid misinterpretation by UFO woo-woos.

It's TV, not history.

torque of the town
2007-Dec-17, 12:11 PM
It's TV, not history.





Never let the facts......

jayvinton
2007-Dec-19, 02:01 AM
It seems to me that if extraterrestrials had the means, and power and technology to get here, they rightly wouldn't give a damn what we thought we saw.

Unless one lands in my back yard and Grak steps out, I over the years have just become a bemused non-believer. There's nothing crazy about not believing what cannot be proven irrefutably. There is a madness however in conversely believing in what cannot again be proven.

pzkpfw
2007-Dec-19, 06:46 AM
There is a madness however in conversely believing in what cannot again be proven.

You would think so... http://www.stuff.co.nz/4328786a12.html

Madness, politician, ... not going there.