A very unusual documentary film that tells the story of how this really all got started.

UFOs - The true story of flying saucers [1956]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bGTLtdwPHM

nice
ufo footage begins here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bGTLtdwPHM&t=82m)

Here is another obscure documentary that I do not endorse as a whole by any means, but found interesting for a few reasons.

Firstlly, it was made by Rod Serling of Twilight Zone fame. I'm a fan of Serling's work but never heard about this one. Next, it has interviews with both Al Chop, the main character from the first video, and Allen Hynek. It also does a good job of telling a few of the stories referenced in the first video. After that it goes over a cliff [into the twilight zone] with cattle mutilations, and an extended interview with an alleged alien abductee.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phhGSqS3Wss

In the first video we see representations of Ruppelt, who ran the USAFs Project Bluebook, and who was a major voice for the military side of the UFO phenomenon. Also referenced indirectly was their contract astronomer, Prof. Allen Hynek, who essentially invented so-called ufology - the effort to investigate phenomena with as much scientific rigor as is possible. And finally, Al Chop, who was the head of the press section at Wright Patterson AFB, and who later worked at the Pentagon by special request.

Ruppelt wrote a book about his experiences in the AF while running Bluebook
http://www.nicap.org/rufo/contents.htm

Is no one interested in discussing the real story of UFOs? I see lots of activity around outrageous claims, but very little when respectable information is presented.

Note that UFO does not automatically mean ET. If it did, there would be nothing to discuss here.

Has anyone watched the first documentary besides Gustav?

Yeah I plan to but my head's just not in it right now. Soon.

Is no one interested in discussing the real story of UFOs?

You've obviously not came across me yet.

Yeah I plan to but my head's just not in it right now. Soon.

Hopefully not too long.

You've obviously not came across me yet.

Oh yes I have! :D Please, let's knock this discussion down a notch or two from your standards. I would like to approach this from the position that UFOs are indeed unidentified, which is my personal belief after nearly 30 years of interest; as opposed to alleged IFOs flown by aliens.

For anyone who thinks this entire subject is based in nonsense, then I strongly suggest watching the first video, and then reading Ruppelts book [already linked at the end of my second post].

All or most [some details may be known only to Al Chop] of the information in the film can be verfied through official Air Force documents or other mainstream sources. Most of this was covered in the USAF's Project Bluebook, which was run by Ruppelt.

Share any knowledge you have regarding Einstein's unified field theory and UFO propulsion :D

Please go away.

Please go away.

I am sorry Ivan Seeking. I will go away as you request :confused:

Oh yes I have! :D Please, let's knock this discussion down a notch or two from your standards. I would like to approach this from the position that UFOs are indeed unidentified, which is my personal belief after nearly 30 years of interest; as opposed to alleged IFOs flown by aliens.

For anyone who thinks this entire subject is based in nonsense, then I strongly suggest watching the first video, and then reading Ruppelts book [already linked at the end of my second post].

All or most [some details may be known only to Al Chop] of the information in the film can be verfied through official Air Force documents or other mainstream sources. Most of this was covered in the USAF's Project Bluebook, which was run by Ruppelt.

It's not nonesense, I have witnessed them myself.

Anyone who purports to UFO's as being nonsense are themselves woo woo and ignorant of all the hard facts supporting their existences.

Share any knowledge you have regarding Einstein's unified field theory and UFO propulsion :D

Well I know of one specific case, the Alcubierre Drive which uses a metric solution to the field equations of GR - by contracting the space in front of the vehicle you could move the vacuum to reach your destination. The vacuum is afterall dynamical.

As a scientist, I firstly dispute the use of the word "object" instead of "image", which can be the only assumption drawn without any material evidence. Likewise, the word "flying" (ie, propelling through the air) presupposes that the image is an object. Finally, the word "unidentified" is redundant in that it simply admits that they don't know what they're talking about. Thus, the combined term "unidentified flying object" (and its acronym "UFO") conveys no discernible scientific meaning.

Admissions from the film itself:

"the surface wind was 25 to 28 mph; it reached 37 mph" (in trying to rule out that the "objects" that "moved" against the wind could not possibly be balloons) — Pilots know that wind at the surface can be virtually unrelated to winds at altitude.
The objects or their flight "appear(s)/seems to be" (used six times) — Note the use of the word "appear(s)" or "seems", consistent with the idea of "image".
"They are definitely not free-falling" — It is a well-known fact that free-falling objects reach a terminal velocity that is "steady", and that the motion of free-falling objects can appear "horizontal" to ground observers.
"They are not meteors [or] birds" — Another conclusion made without explaining how they reached it.
"They are not ... any kind of known aircraft" — Emphasis on the qualifier "known". Post WW2 saw many high-performance experimental aircraft, and many of them were tested over the sparsely-populated western states. I met a former aeronautical scientist whose work on a very small ceramic torus for the B-58 Hustler in the 1950s that was classified Secret because its shape and composition obviously showed it was designed to decelerate air through the transonic range indicated that the B-58 was the first US supersonic bomber, whose speed was classified (ie, could neither be confirmed nor denied by the government), and thus, not "known".
"the distance is assumed to be" (used two times) — The distances to the "objects" are unknown, and thus, the average speed of 326.75 mph is ridiculously precise, and assumptions with a leeway of a factor of 2 (used in the film) or more is highly inaccurate.


However, the period musical score for government military documentaries was rather patriotically stirring.

Anyone who purports to UFO's as being nonsense are themselves woo woo and ignorant of all the hard facts supporting their existences.

UFOs are one thing. Alien spaceships are quite another. UFO just means you saw something in the sky that you couldn't identify. Common examples include the planet Venus and weather balloons.

There's no hard facts supporting alien spaceships.

UFOs are one thing. Alien spaceships are quite another. UFO just means you saw something in the sky that you couldn't identify. Common examples include the planet Venus and weather balloons.

There's no hard facts supporting alien spaceships.

It's a matter of believing the facts at face value then deciding whether aliens fit the bill, or whether you are one of these kinds of people who need to see an alien to seal the deal.

I am the former. I think observation of these ''objects'' in the sky often defy current technological capabilities including exhibiting intelligent control which must suggest they are being navigated.

If these objects are nothing we can create, or survive G-forces at least at speeds achievable by them and that we have official reports suggesting these objects evade interception, then aliens fit the bill in evidence, in proof they cut short as explanations --- simply because neither side can prove or disprove.

It's a matter of believing the facts at face value then deciding whether aliens fit the bill, or whether you are one of these kinds of people who need to see an alien to seal the deal.

I am the former. I think observation of these ''objects'' in the sky often defy current technological capabilities including exhibiting intelligent control which must suggest they are being navigated.

If these objects are nothing we can create, or survive G-forces at least at speeds achievable by them and that we have official reports suggesting these objects evade interception, then aliens fit the bill in evidence, in proof they cut short as explanations --- simply because neither side can prove or disprove.

But you only came to this conclusion by your want for it to be true. Cifo gave a very good explanation of what is wrong with the documentary (and with UFOlogical claims in general), and your ignorance to those objections speaks to your religious adherence to the ET myth.

But you only came to this conclusion by your want for it to be true. Cifo gave a very good explanation of what is wrong with the documentary (and with UFOlogical claims in general), and your ignorance to those objections speaks to your religious adherence to the ET myth.

ET-myth? You need to be careful. Thinking ET is a myth is a rather selfish claim in an otherwise, infinitely large universe with more planets than your puny little mind could fathom.

Your ignorance is the same as most skeptics. Thinking that because there is a lack of evidence is evidence against. It does not mean that no evidence exists.

As a scientist, I firstly dispute the use of the word "object" instead of "image", which can be the only assumption drawn without any material evidence. Likewise, the word "flying" (ie, propelling through the air) presupposes that the image is an object. Finally, the word "unidentified" is redundant in that it simply admits that they don't know what they're talking about. Thus, the combined term "unidentified flying object" (and its acronym "UFO") conveys no discernible scientific meaning.

Admissions from the film itself:

"the surface wind was 25 to 28 mph; it reached 37 mph" (in trying to rule out that the "objects" that "moved" against the wind could not possibly be balloons) — Pilots know that wind at the surface can be virtually unrelated to winds at altitude.
The objects or their flight "appear(s)/seems to be" (used six times) — Note the use of the word "appear(s)" or "seems", consistent with the idea of "image".
"They are definitely not free-falling" — It is a well-known fact that free-falling objects reach a terminal velocity that is "steady", and that the motion of free-falling objects can appear "horizontal" to ground observers.
"They are not meteors [or] birds" — Another conclusion made without explaining how they reached it.
"They are not ... any kind of known aircraft" — Emphasis on the qualifier "known". Post WW2 saw many high-performance experimental aircraft, and many of them were tested over the sparsely-populated western states. I met a former aeronautical scientist whose work on a very small ceramic torus for the B-58 Hustler in the 1950s that was classified Secret because its shape and composition obviously showed it was designed to decelerate air through the transonic range indicated that the B-58 was the first US supersonic bomber, whose speed was classified (ie, could neither be confirmed nor denied by the government), and thus, not "known".
"the distance is assumed to be" (used two times) — The distances to the "objects" are unknown, and thus, the average speed of 326.75 mph is ridiculously precise, and assumptions with a leeway of a factor of 2 (used in the film) or more is highly inaccurate.


However, the period musical score for government military documentaries was rather patriotically stirring.

Hello.

I have actually made no comment on the documentary, so I hope unlike the other poster before me, you don't consider this as a ''compliance that the video presents some kind of proof''. I don't even believe a video evidence could provide a proof. We need hard biological and perhaps quantum facts on the situation at large.

One point you make however, is that ''flying'' is a strange misused(?) etymological factor of things which we consider as images in our mind. Are you perhaps insinuating it is all the mind? Your post could be clearer for retards like me.

May I say secondly, ''flying'' is a strange term, which should involve an intelligent navigation of said objects. In light of this, there is plenty evidence that these things are intelligently controlled, a little investigation into this by anyone will confirm the same facts I hold by.

So tell me, what is your stance on these actual flying objects/images, from a strictly scientific point of view?

UFOs are one thing. Alien spaceships are quite another. UFO just means you saw something in the sky that you couldn't identify. Common examples include the planet Venus and weather balloons.

There's no hard facts supporting alien spaceships.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utX5HvMO0PM

ET-myth? You need to be careful. Thinking ET is a myth is a rather selfish claim in an otherwise, infinitely large universe with more planets than your puny little mind could fathom.

Your ignorance is the same as most skeptics. Thinking that because there is a lack of evidence is evidence against. It does not mean that no evidence exists.

Don't play stupid. You clearly don't have much to work with as it is, so I would advise against waste.

I did not mean that there are no planets harboring life outside of earth. That is not at all what I implied, and that was not at all the context of my comment. I was referring to visiting ETs, which are, in point of fact, a myth.

There is no evidence for them, despite thousands and thousands of claims to the contrary, and there is plenty of evidence against the idea that such a phenomena is even possible, let alone probable. Why should I take any position other than this?

Having an open mind does not include mythology. Are you open to the existence of leprechauns? Of unicorns? That's what UFOs are.

Don't play stupid. You clearly don't have much to work with as it is, so I would advise against waste.

I did not mean that there are no planets harboring life outside of earth. That is not at all what I implied, and that was not at all the context of my comment. I was referring to visiting ETs, which are, in point of fact, a myth.

There is no evidence for them, despite thousands and thousands of claims to the contrary, and there is plenty of evidence against the idea that such a phenomena is even possible, let alone probable. Why should I take any position other than this?

Having an open mind does not include mythology. Are you open to the existence of leprechauns? Of unicorns? That's what UFOs are.

have you gone back into our history , the B.C.E at least 6000yrs ago

apparently not

have you gone back into our history , the B.C.E at least 6000yrs ago

apparently not

What does this even mean?

What does this even mean?It is alien speak meaning "have you checked your history books?":)

I was referring to visiting ETs, which are, in point of fact, a myth.Myths are interfused with the unconscious mind, explaining away protracted psychological scenarios quickly and efficiently. The stagecraft of mythology is also infused with symbolic significance—symbols that interpret the nature of things almost meticulously. But a key proponent to the language of mythology is the collective unconscious mind that has scrupulously cultivated its language from across ancient millennia.

So, what myth could the protagonist ET be representing?

It is alien speak meaning "have you checked your history books?":)

As it pertains to what?

Myths are interfused with the unconscious mind, explaining away protracted psychological scenarios quickly and efficiently. The stagecraft of mythology is also infused with symbolic significance—symbols that interpret the nature of things almost meticulously. But a key proponent to the language of mythology is the collective unconscious mind that has scrupulously cultivated its language from across ancient millennia.

So, what myth could the protagonist ET be representing?

Want to try that again in English?

I was referring to visiting ETs, which are, in point of fact, a myth.



Want to try that again in English?Sure, much obliged.

What myth could the protagonist, ET, be representing?

Sure, much obliged.

What myth could the protagonist, ET, be representing?

Repetition as clarification. Works every time. :rolleyes:

Aww, what happened to our Reiku? Did him get a timey time out?

Score one for the good guys. Pimps up, trolls down. Holla if you hear me.

As a scientist, I firstly dispute the use of the word "object" instead of "image", which can be the only assumption drawn without any material evidence. Likewise, the word "flying" (ie, propelling through the air) presupposes that the image is an object. Finally, the word "unidentified" is redundant in that it simply admits that they don't know what they're talking about. Thus, the combined term "unidentified flying object" (and its acronym "UFO") conveys no discernible scientific meaning.


very interesting
so when you look up into the sky and see something, it is an "image"
for instance a speck in the sky which is most likely a plane at high altitude can never be referred to as an object.......

gustav: hey, its a bird, a plane, its.......
cifo: nonsense, as a scientist, i can only attest that it is an image
gustav: image of what?
cifo: there is no material evidence for any further scientific assertions
gustav: do you wanna peer thru my binoculars?
cifo: it makes no difference. it is still an image
gustav: image of.......??
cifo: image
gustav: que?
cifo: IMAGE!

Aww, what happened to our Reiku? Did him get a timey time out?

Score one for the good guys. Pimps up, trolls down. Holla if you hear me.

Reiku frequently says things which border on insanity, but he's never wrote anything as brazenly retarded as this. This post should actually go into the douche bag hall of fame.

Gustav is back!! :o

What myth could the protagonist, ET, be representing?

The myth that people really, truly aren't as stupid as they seem.

:o

very interesting
so when you look up into the sky and see something, it is an "image"
for instance a speck in the sky which is most likely a plane at high altitude can never be referred to as an object.......

gustav: hey, its a bird, a plane, its.......
cifo: nonsense, as a scientist, i can only attest that it is an image
gustav: image of what?
cifo: there is no material evidence for any further scientific assertions
gustav: do you wanna peer thru my binoculars?
cifo: it makes no difference. it is still an image
gustav: image of.......??
cifo: image
gustav: que?
cifo: IMAGE!

"There are three men on a train. One of them is an economist and one of them is a logician and one of them is a Physicist. And they have just crossed the border into Scotland and they see a brown cow standing in a field from the window of the train.

And the economist says, "Look, the cows in Scotland are brown."

And the logician says, "No. there are cows in Scotland of which one at least is brown."

And the Physicist says, "No. there is at least one cow in Scotland, of which one side appears to be brown."

The myth that people really, truly aren't as stupid as they seem.

:oAre images of UFOs for real? I saw one when I was around 22 years of age. Two of us saw it, and even though it was a long time ago, I can still recall it. :)

Reiku frequently says things which border on insanity, but he's never wrote anything as brazenly retarded as this. This post should actually go into the douche bag hall of fame.

I hope you enjoy the ban, troll.

very interesting
so when you look up into the sky and see something, it is an "image"
for instance a speck in the sky which is most likely a plane at high altitude can never be referred to as an object.......

gustav: hey, its a bird, a plane, its.......
cifo: nonsense, as a scientist, i can only attest that it is an image
gustav: image of what?
cifo: there is no material evidence for any further scientific assertions
gustav: do you wanna peer thru my binoculars?
cifo: it makes no difference. it is still an image
gustav: image of.......??
cifo: image
gustav: que?
cifo: IMAGE!

That can't be what you took from his comment.

Reiku frequently says things which border on insanity, but he's never wrote anything as brazenly retarded as this. This post should actually go into the douche bag hall of fame.


indeed
all that whooping and hollering seems indicative of pathology


That can't be what you took from his comment.


light is processed by the eye and sent to the brain where it is formulated into a image. it is an representation of something

now what?


And the Physicist says, "No. there is at least one cow in Scotland, of which one side appears to be brown."


absolute certainty in a world of provisional truths? how cozily religious. but yes. we cannot be sure that the other half of the cow even exists

/pathologically skeptical

absolute certainty in a world of provisional truths? how cozily religious. but yes. we cannot be sure that the other half of the cow even exists

/pathologically skeptical

What things do we really need to be certain of in order to feel at ease?

..... in order to feel at ease?


an unwarranted presumption.

light is processed by the eye and sent to the brain where it is formulated into a image. it is an representation of something

now what?


Now I see why you spend so much time on the banned list. :rolleyes:

indeed
sci prefers to celebrate malice and dishonesty....



Aww, what happened to our Reiku? Did him get a timey time out?

Score one for the good guys. Pimps up, trolls down. Holla if you hear me.


I hope you enjoy the ban, troll.


Now I see why you spend so much time on the banned list. :rolleyes:

indeed
sci prefers to celebrate malice and dishonesty....

And look at who those posts are directed at.

1) Reiku (currently banned, formerly permabanned)
2) Gustav (fresh off the banned list, certain to return at some point)
3) Chipz (troll, destined for the banned list)

I've been here for almost ten years; I call them as I see them. I do not condescend quality members of this forum.

chipz is a troll because he had a critical response to your crap and deserves to be banned?


Aww, what happened to our Reiku? Did him get a timey time out?

Score one for the good guys. Pimps up, trolls down. Holla if you hear me.


Reiku frequently says things which border on insanity, but he's never wrote anything as brazenly retarded as this. This post should actually go into the douche bag hall of fame.



I do not condescend quality members of this forum


of which you are one?

/smirk

you just parrot standard talking points, kid

And look at who those posts are directed at.

1) Reiku (currently banned, formerly permabanned)
2) Gustav (fresh off the banned list, certain to return at some point)
3) Chipz (troll, destined for the banned list)

I've been here for almost ten years; I call them as I see them. I do not condescend quality members of this forum.

JDawg, I've been here much longer than you -- and you haven't been here 10 years, maybe 6 or 7 tops? I'm not a troll, in fact I'm one of a few who make valuable contributions to Computer Science & Technology, I'd make more if there were other developers around. If I recall correctly; you first came here interested in physics while in school for your bachelors. How did that end up? How come your contributions to science are in the Political sub-boards? Gustav ends up banned due to intentionally inflammatory remarks and Reiku ends up banned for copy&paste mathematics. Roughly more than half of your total posts are accusations of "trolling", which (if spidergoat is correct) is ironically a bannable offense which is unenforced. You should work to improve your contributions.

i witnessed jdawg's birth too.
he is a pathological skeptic that trolls the pseudoscience forums...


Aww, what happened to our Reiku? Did him get a timey time out?

Score one for the good guys. Pimps up, trolls down. Holla if you hear me.

his m.o

/chuckle

he is alright tho

there is more to be learned about the world and the Universe from the unconventional than from the conventional

since the conventional go round and round with their thinking , which leads to nothing new . learned

there is more to be learned about the world and the Universe from the unconventional than from the conventional

since the conventional go round and round with their thinking , which leads to nothing new . learnedYeah. Vertical vs. lateral. Pimps, is it? vs. trolls, according to Dwag. But squares vs. new wave feels more appropriate here now. But the place use to be so excitingly lateral. Oh well; c'est la vie.

JDawg, I've been here much longer than you -- and you haven't been here 10 years, maybe 6 or 7 tops? I'm not a troll, in fact I'm one of a few who make valuable contributions to Computer Science & Technology, I'd make more if there were other developers around. If I recall correctly; you first came here interested in physics while in school for your bachelors. How did that end up? How come your contributions to science are in the Political sub-boards? Gustav ends up banned due to intentionally inflammatory remarks and Reiku ends up banned for copy&paste mathematics. Roughly more than half of your total posts are accusations of "trolling", which (if spidergoat is correct) is ironically a bannable offense which is unenforced. You should work to improve your contributions.

I've been here since 2003. As I said: Almost 10 years. And going by your join date--2010--apparently your math needs work. If you've been here longer than that, you must be a sock puppet of some permabanned idiot. I'm not surprised, given that attitude. Perhaps the moderators should check your IP.

And you're mistaken about my involvement in physics. And I have no idea what your contributions are to the CS&T forum are, but this is not that forum, and all I see you do here is troll.

And I have a couple thousand posts here. To say that "roughly half" are accusing trollers of trolling is absurd.

an unwarranted presumption.

Why?

As a scientist, I firstly dispute the use of the word "object" instead of "image", which can be the only assumption drawn without any material evidence. Likewise, the word "flying" (ie, propelling through the air) presupposes that the image is an object. Finally, the word "unidentified" is redundant in that it simply admits that they don't know what they're talking about. Thus, the combined term "unidentified flying object" (and its acronym "UFO") conveys no discernible scientific meaning.

Admissions from the film itself:

"the surface wind was 25 to 28 mph; it reached 37 mph" (in trying to rule out that the "objects" that "moved" against the wind could not possibly be balloons) — Pilots know that wind at the surface can be virtually unrelated to winds at altitude.
The objects or their flight "appear(s)/seems to be" (used six times) — Note the use of the word "appear(s)" or "seems", consistent with the idea of "image".
"They are definitely not free-falling" — It is a well-known fact that free-falling objects reach a terminal velocity that is "steady", and that the motion of free-falling objects can appear "horizontal" to ground observers.
"They are not meteors [or] birds" — Another conclusion made without explaining how they reached it.
"They are not ... any kind of known aircraft" — Emphasis on the qualifier "known". Post WW2 saw many high-performance experimental aircraft, and many of them were tested over the sparsely-populated western states. I met a former aeronautical scientist whose work on a very small ceramic torus for the B-58 Hustler in the 1950s that was classified Secret because its shape and composition obviously showed it was designed to decelerate air through the transonic range indicated that the B-58 was the first US supersonic bomber, whose speed was classified (ie, could neither be confirmed nor denied by the government), and thus, not "known".
"the distance is assumed to be" (used two times) — The distances to the "objects" are unknown, and thus, the average speed of 326.75 mph is ridiculously precise, and assumptions with a leeway of a factor of 2 (used in the film) or more is highly inaccurate.


However, the period musical score for government military documentaries was rather patriotically stirring.

You seem to missing a key fact: These events were all studied by the AF and the results of these investigations published in Project Bluebook documents.

UFO was a term coined by Capt Ruppelt, who ran Bluebook, as a replacement for the common language at the time, flying saucers, which resulted from the Arnold press report. Others have since adopted the language "unidentified aerial phenomenon" to further generalize the concept.

You don't really expect a complete scientific analysis in a documentary film, do you? These analyses were done by the same people responsible for our national defense - the USAF and other US intelligence agencies. While not beyond reproach, this was all on the level and was treated quite seriously. We would need to go to the original Bluebook docs for futher [and perhaps corrected] details. But the point is that this was directed by the USAF and not "some nutty UFO group" as is commonly believed.

UFOs are one thing. Alien spaceships are quite another. UFO just means you saw something in the sky that you couldn't identify. Common examples include the planet Venus and weather balloons.

There's no hard facts supporting alien spaceships.

There is no reason to conclude that this phenomenon [these phenomena] can be explained with prosaic explanations either. I think the first mistake is to make this about either ET, or weather balloons. There are other possibilities. And it takes quite a leap of faith to conclude that one can explain this all with weather balloons - a leap of faith that goes beyond reason and rational thinking, imo. This is why debunkers have to cherry pick their facts; or even deny the established facts.

It's not nonesense, I have witnessed them myself.

Okay, but even if you saw ET, you can never prove it. You can only share what you have observed and let the chips fall where they may. Trying to prove your experience through argumentation is not only futile, it discredits your position. To you it may be fact - you saw ET. To us, it's just another story with no supporting evidence.

There is no reason to conclude that this phenomenon [these phenomena] can be explained with prosaic explanations either. I think the first mistake is to make this about either ET, or weather balloons. There are other possibilities. And it takes quite a leap of faith to conclude that one can explain this all with weather balloons - a leap of faith that goes beyond reason and rational thinking, imo. This is why debunkers have to cherry pick their facts; or even deny the established facts.

No one is saying that every UFO case is a weather balloon. Stop knocking down straw men. He gave an example of a common case, however, and your blind dismissal of it speaks to your bias. You want these to be alien spaceships. You want this to be a conspiracy to hide them. The notion of it is thrilling and terrifying, and you don't want to give that up for some mundane explanation such as "weather balloon" or "secret fighter plane." That's too boring, right?

And what facts are cherry-picked, exactly? And what "established facts" are we denying?

Cifo, based on your response, I now realize that you probably only watched the last few minutes of the film. Correct? Is this what you consider an objective review of the subject?

No one is saying that every UFO case is a weather balloon Stop knocking down straw men. He gave an example of a common case, however, and your blind dismissal of it speaks to your bias.

Actually, my official conclusion on this matter after about 30 years of serious interest and research is that I don't have one. If you wish to twist this into some ulterior motive, then that only speaks to your own bias. I merely argue the facts as I seem them after a great deal of effort to understand this phenomenon, one way or the other. And I was only using the weather balloon explanation to be indicative of all prosaic explanations. It wasn’t a straw man.


You want these to be alien spaceships. You want this to be a conspiracy to hide them. The notion of it is thrilling and terrifying, and you don't want to give that up for some mundane explanation such as "weather balloon" or "secret fighter plane." That's too boring, right?

I have nine years of public posts as a moderator/mentor at Physicsforms, saying otherwise. I have never made such arguments and have specifically argued against conspiracy theories. So you are way out of line and just fantasizing. This is exactly what I mean when I say that debunking is often a religion in its own right. Gustav is right about that. You are literally creating reality in your own mind here. Nothing more.


And what facts are cherry-picked, exactly? And what "established facts" are we denying?
One example would be this thread where you intentionally ignore the facts, never mind learning them first, for a crackpot theory of your own. Your theory might be fine if the premise of the thread were true.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=112538

Actually, my official conclusion on this matter after about 30 years of serious interest and research is that I don't have one. If you wish to twist this into some ulterior motive, then that only speaks to your own bias. I merely argue the facts as I seem them after a great deal of effort to understand this phenomenon, one way or the other. And I was only using the weather balloon explanation to be indicative of all prosaic explanations. It wasn’t a straw man.

What facts? I have yet to see you present one. All you've done so far is dismiss reasonable explanations without any sort of qualification. All you do is say "That's not the case, and I have 30 years of research to back it up." If you really do (which I sincerely doubt) then you should have no trouble presenting some of these "facts" you keep talking about. And yes, it absolutely wrecks your credibility that to this point you have provided exactly none.


I have nine years of public posts as a moderator/mentor at Physicsforms, saying otherwise. I have never made such arguments and have specifically argued against conspiracy theories. So you are way out of line and just fantasizing. This is exactly what I mean when I say that debunking is often a religion in its own right. Gustav is right about that. You are literally creating reality in your own mind here. Nothing more.

Well, for one, we aren't at "Physicsforms," so that comment means absolutely nothing to me. Secondly, the only position you've taken here at all is that you don't "officially" endorse the ET theory (a qualifier that did not go unnoticed). You dismiss rational explanations without so much as a reason why, let alone an alternative theory. Your best effort on that account has been "there are other possibilities," which is to say absolutely nothing at all.


One example would be this thread where you intentionally ignore the facts, never mind learning them first, for a crackpot theory of your own. Your theory might be fine if the premise of the thread were true.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=112538

What facts did I ignore? The ET myth is very much like the Chupacabra myth. Or the Bigfoot myth, if you like. The Yeti, even. It's regional, is the point.

I pose the question again: And what facts are cherry-picked, exactly? And what "established facts" are we denying?

As something I might pull out of the air right off the bat, I'd be interested to know why so much of the 'Roswell Incident' seems to be on the black list. Stanton Friedman made a request under the Freedom of Information Act some time back about it and got an article so massively blacked out that it was near worthless - possibly as much as 2/3 blacked out? Can't recall.


Steven Aftergood of Secrecy News writes that on July 28, 1995, the General Accounting Office published a report on the Roswell Incident that said all the Roswell records had been destroyed. Now it's been discovered that the CIA has destroyed the budget records for that period in Roswell also.

The records were demanded by New Mexico Congressman Stuart Schiff, now deceased. The report found that "some of the records concerning Roswell activities had been destroyed" and that "there was no information available regarding when or under what authority the records were destroyed."

In fact, all of the activity records for the Roswell Army Air Force Base between 1947 and 1952 had been destroyed, in direct violation of the law. No reason for the destruction of the records was ever found.

Now, it turns out that the CIA's budget records for the same period are missing. These budget reports would have revealed details of budgetary allocations, including possible allocations involving Roswell or other UFO-related activity. In response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking declassification of the intelligence budget totals from 1947 and 1948, the Central Intelligence Agency says that it cannot find this information.

"We are unable to locate a document containing, or a series of documents from which we may deduce, the aggregate U.S. intelligence budget figure for Fiscal Year 1947," wrote Kathryn I. Dyer, CIA Information and Privacy Coordinator, in a June 27 letter to the Federation of American Scientists.

Likewise, "We are unable to locate a document containing, or a series of documents from which we may deduce, the aggregate U.S. intelligence budget figure for Fiscal Year 1948."

http://www.alien-ufos.com/ufo-alien-discussions/2445-us-freedom-information-act-ufos.html

The first question is: is the above true? One might objectively start there and wrangle the issue around.

Not sure why a UFO might crash, mind you.

As something I might pull out of the air right off the bat, I'd be interested to know why so much of the 'Roswell Incident' seems to be on the black list. Stanton Friedman made a request under the Freedom of Information Act some time back about it and got an article so massively blacked out that it was near worthless - possibly as much as 2/3 blacked out? Can't recall.

Probably because--get ready for this--it's classified information!

Why don't believers ever consider that the blacked-out information might actually be a matter of national security? That maybe it might be bad for us if the Russians or Chinese or God-knows-who found out what we were doing in the 40s?


The first question is: is the above true?

Given that this comes from a place called "Secrecy News," I'm going to venture a guess and say no. Just as I'm skeptical when I hear that a group called "Noah's Ark Ministries" claims to have discovered that mythical boat. You have to consider the source.

But even if we allow that files have been destroyed, it does not mean that the government is hiding alien technology. It might simply mean (if true, which it almost certainly isn't) that they don't want information getting out. To make the leap from that to "they're hiding aliens!" is ludicrous.


Not sure why a UFO might crash, mind you.

I presume by this you mean an alien spacecraft? It wouldn't. Because it doesn't exist. Well, I'm sure there's a planet somewhere with a spacefaring alien race, so let me amend: There have been no alien spacecraft on Earth, so don't worry about it.

Probably because--get ready for this--it's classified information!

Why don't believers ever consider that the blacked-out information might actually be a matter of national security? That maybe it might be bad for us if the Russians or Chinese or God-knows-who found out what we were doing in the 40s?

Easy, dawg. I don't think I'm any kind of hard-core believer, so don't put me in that group, thanks. It's just that all that blackout for a cheapass balloon sensor, surely hugely outdated by now, seems kind of strange. I'm not really sure how it would be bad for us if the Russians - no longer the USSR - or the Chinese found out what we were doing in the 40's. Hell, the Brits and Americans were so badly penetrated like a decade later that one wonders what the point would be. I wonder if it would be worth looking at the blacked-out pages themselves to see if there's any kind of grammatical room for something like that.


Given that this comes from a place called "Secrecy News," I'm going to venture a guess and say no. Just as I'm skeptical when I hear that a group called "Noah's Ark Ministries" claims to have discovered that mythical boat. You have to consider the source.

I do; but I'm also looking to see if it's so in other sources.


But even if we allow that files have been destroyed, it does not mean that the government is hiding alien technology. It might simply mean (if true, which it almost certainly isn't) that they don't want information getting out. To make the leap from that to "they're hiding aliens!" is ludicrous.

Well, actually that's the competing hypothesis, so it's not that ludicrous. This iss the counter-argument.


I presume by this you mean an alien spacecraft? It wouldn't. Because it doesn't exist. Well, I'm sure there's a planet somewhere with a spacefaring alien race, so let me amend: There have been no alien spacecraft on Earth, so don't worry about it.

Ah-ah-ah: calm down. Put it this way: if FTL travel is so insanely impossible, why is there so much interest in it? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light) It can't work? Bit too early to completely count it out: they laughed at the natives who said they'd seen Columbus pull up in his ships too. Let's have a gander. What's to lose?

Easy, dawg. I don't think I'm any kind of hard-core believer, so don't put me in that group, thanks. It's just that all that blackout for a cheapass balloon sensor, surely hugely outdated by now, seems kind of strange. I'm not really sure how it would be bad for us if the Russians - no longer the USSR - or the Chinese found out what we were doing in the 40's. Hell, the Brits and Americans were so badly penetrated like a decade later that one wonders what the point would be. I wonder if it would be worth looking at the blacked-out pages themselves to see if there's any kind of grammatical room for something like that.

Perhaps we're not only talking about balloon sensors. Perhaps we're talking about means for spying on them, or our own people. Or maybe there was some other nefarious shit going down that they'd rather we didn't know about. It's obviously an interesting topic, but it doesn't have anything to do with ET.


I do; but I'm also looking to see if it's so in other sources.

Please share if you find anything.



Well, actually that's the competing hypothesis, so it's not that ludicrous. This iss the counter-argument.

No, this is not the competing hypothesis. It's a conspiracy theory imagined by crackpots and conspiracy junkies chasing a thrill. Nobody with a grain of integrity takes this seriously.

No offense intended, of course. Unless you happen to take this seriously. In which case, offense intended. You should know better.



Ah-ah-ah: calm down. Put it this way: if FTL travel is so insanely impossible, why is there so much interest in it? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light) It can't work? Bit too early to completely count it out: they laughed at the natives who said they'd seen Columbus pull up in his ships too. Let's have a gander. What's to lose?

Non-sequitur, obviously, and the study of FTL travel does not mean it will be ultimately achievable. But of course I'm not saying I know whether or not it's possible. I'm saying there's no reason at all to believe that ET has visited, and the implausibility of FTL travel is just one of many reasons to hold that opinion.

...for a professional debunker, perhaps
yeah
one who assumes, for some self serving purpose that et, by default, has to originate from the furthest possible point.

to whit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliese_581_d)....

Gliese 581 d (play /ˈɡliːzə/) or Gl 581 d is an extrasolar planet orbiting the star Gliese 581 approximately 20 light-years away in the constellation of Libra. It is the third planet discovered in the system and the fifth in order from the star.

Because of its mass, at least 5.6 times that of Earth the planet is classified as a super-Earth. Originally believed to be outside the habitable zone, in late April 2009 new observations made by the original discovery team concluded that the planet is on the outskirts of the habitable zone where liquid water may exist. In May 2011 researchers in France released a study of a three-dimensional climate simulation concluding that it is plausible that the planet has a stable atmosphere and liquid water on the surface, concurring that it is the first discovered terrestrial-mass exoplanet in the habitable zone, followed by HD 85512 b several months later.


so ahh...the mother ship was launched from gliese 60 years ago, got here in 30 traveling at speeds close to that of light. they skulk behind shit and send their scout ships to fuck with us and do anal probes

kinky little bastards!


There have been no alien spacecraft on Earth,....


mmm
such fanatical conviction

Why?


cant stuff be just matter of fact?
why emote about it?

as far as ease/discomfort goes, the physical aspect may be unavoidable but there would be a substantial variance in psychological expression of those two "feelings"

consider infants vs adults and the necessity of certitude
one's next meal perhaps

...for a professional debunker, perhaps
yeah
one who assumes, for some self serving purpose that et, by default, has to originate from the furthest possible point.

to whit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliese_581_d)....

Gliese 581 d (play /ˈɡliːzə/) or Gl 581 d is an extrasolar planet orbiting the star Gliese 581 approximately 20 light-years away in the constellation of Libra. It is the third planet discovered in the system and the fifth in order from the star.

Because of its mass, at least 5.6 times that of Earth the planet is classified as a super-Earth. Originally believed to be outside the habitable zone, in late April 2009 new observations made by the original discovery team concluded that the planet is on the outskirts of the habitable zone where liquid water may exist. In May 2011 researchers in France released a study of a three-dimensional climate simulation concluding that it is plausible that the planet has a stable atmosphere and liquid water on the surface, concurring that it is the first discovered terrestrial-mass exoplanet in the habitable zone, followed by HD 85512 b several months later.


so ahh...the mother ship was launched from gliese 60 years ago, got here in 30 traveling at speeds close to that of light. they skulk behind shit and send their scout ships to fuck with us and do anal probes

kinky little bastards!




mmm
such fanatical conviction

Love how you just gloss over the trouble of an object traveling "close to light speed." Also, love how you simply assume that a planet in a hospitable zone has a spacefaring civilization.

And there's nothing fanatical about saying that UFOs are not ETs. Until you show me some evidence to the contrary, there's no reason to believe they aren't just like every other myth.

cant stuff be just matter of fact?
why emote about it?

I'm not sure we have much choice about the matter - we emote about facts, it seems to come automatically.



as far as ease/discomfort goes, the physical aspect may be unavoidable but there would be a substantial variance in psychological expression of those two "feelings"

consider infants vs adults and the necessity of certitude
one's next meal perhaps

Sure, but I am interested in the principle behind all this.

Uncertainty comes with a feeling of un-ease; and when we feel unease, we want to ease that. We tend to do that either by seeking certainty, to remove doubt; or by numbing ourselves.

Well, to change the topic somewhat—the documentary's first footage of "real, never-seen-before" UFOs was interesting in that the lit-up blobs of light casually crossing the sky, and the whole thing lasting under a minute, was so very much atypical of 1950's sensationalism—that's the sort of thing we're seeing today on YouTube.

What facts? I have yet to see you present one. All you've done so far is dismiss reasonable explanations without any sort of qualification. All you do is say "That's not the case, and I have 30 years of research to back it up." If you really do (which I sincerely doubt) then you should have no trouble presenting some of these "facts" you keep talking about. And yes, it absolutely wrecks your credibility that to this point you have provided exactly none.

That's right. I haven't made any specific claims and you are already hostile and forming conclusions based on your own expectations and biases. So after recieving your hostile pm accusing me of lacking a backbone, I decided to take look. I do respond to these threads, I just don't choose to waste all my time arguing with people who are irrationally hostile.

So are you capable of having a rational discussion, or do we just argue about your preconceived conclusions about my position?

I linked to the thread where you simply ignore the facts. If you are incapable of understanding the problem with your position on even this simple matter, then it isn't worth wasting my time trying to talk with you. I provided not only a link to a famous "encounter" in Africa, I also pointed out that there are many thousands of hits for African UFO reports. Your assumption is that these don't exist. That is simply irrational. You can say they're all crap, but the reports still exist, which was the point.

Are you denying the reports exist, or not?

That's right. I haven't made any specific claims and you are already hostile and forming conclusions based on your own expectations and biases. So after recieving your hostile pm accusing me of lacking a backbone, I decided to take look. I do respond to these threads, I just don't choose to waste all my time arguing with people who are irrationally hostile.

By "irrationally hostile," you mean "someone who makes me back up my bluster?" Because that's all I've done. You talk a lot of facts--who has them, who is ignoring them--but you never get specific. I'm simply asking you to get specific.


I linked to the thread where you simply ignore the facts. If you are incapable of understanding the problem with your position on even this simple matter, then it isn't worth wasting my time trying to talk with you. I provided not only a link to a famous "encounter" in Africa, I also pointed out that there are many thousands of hits for African UFO reports. Your assumption is that these don't exist. That is simply irrational. You can say they're all crap, but the reports still exist, which was the point.

Again, what "facts" did I ignore in that thread? This is what I'm asking you. To review, someone posed a question (the entire topic title was halved, so the question was not fully realized) essentially why we see certain urban myths in some parts of the world but not others. He cited as an example, which I do not hold to be accurate, that we "see more ghosts and evil spirits in Africa than Europeans and Americans."

I replied that it was because these things (specifically UFOs) are a cultural phenomenon, not unlike the Chupacabra of South America, or Bigfoot of the US.

What facts am I ignoring here? Are you contending that UFOs aren't a cultural phenomenon?

As for the Ruwa "incident," it reeks of hoax. All one has to do is look at the children's drawings to know that they're just drawing what they think UFOs are supposed to look like--there's no continuity to them, no similarities that would make you think that they represented a shared experience. You had traditional saucers, bubble-top saucers, upside down bowls, roundish things with jagged legs, etc.. It's a hoax.



Are you denying the reports exist, or not?

I would like to see some independent confirmation of these reports before I agree to anything (considering that, from what I can tell, they all seem to come third-hand from crackpot UFO blogs or shows like "Sightings," which you linked to in another thread.

But if you're asking if I think it's possible for UFO sightings to occur in Africa? Sure I do. There are lights in the sky, and people on the ground (in certain areas) who have seen movies and TV shows depicting aliens and their spaceships. I would not be surprised if people "saw" things like they do here.

Love how you just gloss over the trouble of an object traveling "close to light speed." Also, love how you simply assume that a planet in a hospitable zone has a spacefaring civilization.

Indeed. Imagine the Earth, if there had been no extinction of dinosaurs. Intelligent life may still develop, but it might take a lot longer, and require a minor, local extinction, or challenge for resources, so it can prosper. Imagine again, the Earth, and it was Neanderthals that prevailed. Imagine again, the Earth, and the Black Death mutating into a more pernicious disease. All things that can change or set back progress. Of course, even a planet that developed intelligent life early on, and had no major set backs, would have trouble with near light speed travel, their evolution might differ, but relativity still applies.


And there's nothing fanatical about saying that UFOs are not ETs. Until you show me some evidence to the contrary, there's no reason to believe they aren't just like every other myth.

I hate the term UFO. Too often the pro-ET camp hide behind it, playing some probability game, that if all items cannot be identified, a % could be extra-terrestrial. It's a 'god of gaps' argument applied to ETs.

Indeed. Imagine the Earth, if there had been no extinction of dinosaurs. Intelligent life may still develop, but it might take a lot longer, and require a minor, local extinction, or challenge for resources, so it can prosper. Imagine again, the Earth, and it was Neanderthals that prevailed. Imagine again, the Earth, and the Black Death mutating into a more pernicious disease. All things that can change or set back progress. Of course, even a planet that developed intelligent life early on, and had no major set backs, would have trouble with near light speed travel, their evolution might differ, but relativity still applies.

Exactly.


I hate the term UFO. Too often the pro-ET camp hide behind it, playing some probability game, that if all items cannot be identified, a % could be extra-terrestrial. It's a 'god of gaps' argument applied to ETs.

Again, exactly. Also, I think the term UFO is used too loosely. Just because some local yokel doesn't know what the lights are over his house doesn't mean the object is unidentified. It might very well be a blimp, or a helicopter, or a jet, or a balloon, or something else entirely accounted for.

It might very well be a blimp, or a helicopter, or a jet, or a balloon, or something else entirely accounted for.So you're assuming everything is accountable?

Indeed...


Exactly. .....


phlog and jdawg wander the cosmos begging for scraps with their half empty tin cans

/smirk

...a % could be extra-terrestrial. It's a 'god of gaps' argument applied to ETs.


phlog refutes himself...

* There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.
* Therefore the cause must be supernatural.

...with "could be"

what a yokel

/snort


I replied that it was because these things (specifically UFOs) are a cultural phenomenon, not unlike the Chupacabra of South America, or Bigfoot of the US.


red herring

sputnik and the space race had cultural ramifications
arpanet revolutionized culture

are you contending the military is not a cultural phenomenon and thus a figment of yokel imagination?

/suitably dumbed down

So you're assuming everything is accountable?

Ultimately? Yes. Be it a weather phenomenon like ball lightning, a super-secret spyplane, or just a low-flying passenger jet, everything you see in the sky can be accountable.

Now, that isn't to say that everything will be. But everything can be.

sputnik and the space race had cultural ramifications
arpanet revolutionized culture

are you contending the military is not a cultural phenomenon and thus a figment of yokel imagination?



You're not following. I'm not saying the lights in the sky aren't real, I'm saying that they're not aliens, and that the assumption that they are is a cultural phenomenon.

are you contending the military is not a cultural phenomenon and thus a figment of yokel imagination?

that should read.....are you contending the military is a cultural phenomenon and thus a figment of yokel imagination


You're not following. I'm not saying the lights in the sky aren't real, I'm saying that they're not aliens, and that the assumption that they are is a cultural phenomenon.

assigning the "attributes: of a cultural phenomenon to ufos necessarily preclude an et origin

that is what you pull out of your ass
case in point....

http://www.greenturtle.com/images/take%20me%20dealer%20alien%20ufo%20t%20shirt%20h10 48i01m.jpg

..the evidence against an et origin of some ufos

that should read.....are you contending the military is a cultural phenomenon and thus a figment of yokel imagination

I understood what you meant. That was one of the few times you've actually managed to string together a complete sentence, so it stood out.


assigning the "attributes: of a cultural phenomenon to ufos necessarily preclude an et origin

that is what you pull out of your ass
case in point....

http://www.greenturtle.com/images/take%20me%20dealer%20alien%20ufo%20t%20shirt%20h10 48i01m.jpg

..the evidence against an et origin of some ufos

See, I got excited for a moment, because your posts were at least somewhat intelligible prior to this. Now I'm lost. What exactly are you trying to say here?

hmm..........*&I&%*&%#^%^%#%*)(

hows that?

hmm..........*&I&%*&%#^%^%#%*)(

hows that?

That's about what I'd expect, yeah.

Reiku frequently says things which border on insanity, but he's never wrote anything as brazenly retarded as this. This post should actually go into the douche bag hall of fame.

You know chipz... just because you never said I was retarded does not mean that I am any more flattered by this post.

I am still here for **** sake. Could you not have waited till I am properly banned, then do what all god-forsaken mods and posters do best when no one can reply, is talk the utter back off them.

:shrug:

:mad:

JDawg, I've been here much longer than you -- and you haven't been here 10 years, maybe 6 or 7 tops? I'm not a troll, in fact I'm one of a few who make valuable contributions to Computer Science & Technology, I'd make more if there were other developers around. If I recall correctly; you first came here interested in physics while in school for your bachelors. How did that end up? How come your contributions to science are in the Political sub-boards? Gustav ends up banned due to intentionally inflammatory remarks and Reiku ends up banned for copy&paste mathematics. Roughly more than half of your total posts are accusations of "trolling", which (if spidergoat is correct) is ironically a bannable offense which is unenforced. You should work to improve your contributions.

I am yet to see evidence of this.

I have been accused of this in the past by AN, to which the link was in fact my own work lol

You know chipz... just because you never said I was retarded does not mean that I am any more flattered by this post.

I am still here for **** sake. Could you not have waited till I am properly banned, then do what all god-forsaken mods and posters do best when no one can reply, is talk the utter back off them.

:shrug:

:mad:

Mind you, atleast you'd be in the perfect position to kiss my ass.

Mind you, atleast you'd be in the perfect position to kiss my ass.

Are you trying to set a record for shortest time between bans? C'mon, man.

Are you trying to set a record for shortest time between bans? C'mon, man.

I am sure Chipz calling you a retard is a verbal offense which should hold much more severity.

But then this is sciforums I suppose. They seem to be finding any old excuse nowadays to permaban me again. I shrug my shoulders and say it is a matter of time. I actually like this forum, which is the sad thing I guess. If anyone has took the verbal abuse I have taken off [some] members here over the years, anyone in their sane mind would have left long ago.

Maybe cheski was right then, maybe I must be slightly insane.

(Oooo did I say cheski... that rings a bell.... I am sure there was another member here banned called cheski chipz.)

I am sure Chipz calling you a retard is a verbal offense which should hold much more severity.

I completely agree. But he apparently struck a better deal with the moderators than you did, so comparing your offenses to his is futile.