http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39314000/jpg/_39314185_ufo203pix.jpg

A confidential Ministry of Defence report on Unidentified Flying Objects has concluded that there is no proof of alien life forms.

In spite of the secrecy surrounding the UFO study, it seems citizens of planet Earth have little to worry about.

The report, which was completed in 2000 and stamped "Secret: UK Eyes Only", has been made public for the first time.

Only a small number of copies were produced and the identity of the man who wrote it has been protected.

His findings were only made public thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, after a request by Sheffield Hallam University academic Dr David Clarke.

The four-year study - entitled Unidentified Aerial Phenomena in the UK - tackles the long-running question by UFO-spotters: "Is anyone out there?"

The answer, it seems, is "no".

read all: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4981720.stm

What a bummer for our believers.

the universe is a big place
it is impossible for me to believe that earth is the only planet with intelligent life

RTFA. It isn't asserting that "intelligent life" in the universe is limited to Earth. It's asserting that intelligent life on Earth is limited to indigenous species.

well said skin.

"They must be covering it up."

£5 on someone saying that later in the thread.

it says nothing about intelligent life, it only mentions "unexplained aerial phenomena".

i seriously cant believe they make the british people pay for stuff like this.

it says nothing about intelligent life, it only mentions "unexplained aerial phenomena".

i seriously cant believe they make the british people pay for stuff like this.

As a Brit I think it's worth a few quid to put this nonsense to bed!

it says nothing about intelligent life, it only mentions "unexplained aerial phenomena".

i seriously cant believe they make the british people pay for stuff like this.
What, did you expect them to psychoanalyse the aerial phenomena? :bugeye:

There is nothing to work on other than a few UFO's what evidence is there to suggest a UFO came from another planet unless we actully see the people frominside it.

To be brutaly honest i couldn't give a fuck if aliens exist

There is nothing to work on other than a few UFO's what evidence is there to suggest a UFO came from another planet unless we actully see the people frominside it.

To be brutaly honest i couldn't give a fuck if aliens exist

exactly.
we have been here for awhile, so i dont think aliens really matter.

Well once the aliens read this message of yours, you will care, you will.

I think you two are spoiled. You don't even care about your own personal safety. But I do guess you care about your own insecure paranoid self-centered ideologies. And that anything that goes against such must ultimately be destroyed.

I'll have to see what your next posts have to verify on that account.

I'll have to see what your next posts have to verify on that account.
ooooooooooh, so afraid of your verification
what will he think of us, what?!
bwhahahahahaha!! :D

p.s. I don't care for aliens too. And if someone does, it doesn't matter anyway.

Well once the aliens read this message of yours, you will care, you will.

I think you two are spoiled. You don't even care about your own personal safety. But I do guess you care about your own insecure paranoid self-centered ideologies. And that anything that goes against such must ultimately be destroyed.

I'll have to see what your next posts have to verify on that account.
Ooh, so it's the people who don't see every light in the sky as aliens that are paranoid? Glad we cleared that one up.

A confidential Ministry of Defence report on Unidentified Flying Objects has concluded that there is no proof of alien life forms.

What did you expect this report to state? That they had proof and here it is?

You people amuse me. You really do.

They're here, watching and scheming and doing their nasty tricks. Of course, they're just covering it up. :p

The Devil Inside:

it says nothing about intelligent life, it only mentions "unexplained aerial phenomena".

i seriously cant believe they make the british people pay for stuff like this.

Yeah, this reminds me of the time back when the british published a bunch of books which supposedly held "All possible inventions ever," later, when thousands of new inventions were created, they felt stupid.

Man has created flying machines which are top-secret, which appear alien because most people have never seen them, and most people relate such things to sci-fi films and almost automatically think "aliens!"

That reminds me of when I was in high school and I put the theory out, that flying saucers were indeed manmade and capable of insane manuevering. I told them of the things I had seen in the skies. Days later, people came up to me asking: "are you that kid who believes in aliens." When I was talking about this with them, just days before, I emphasized how they were manmade... it seams the sci-fi channel took a toll on their minds.

Have you ever thought that the guy who wrote the report could be an Alien? Protect your own specis....:D

"The four-year study - entitled Unidentified Aerial Phenomena in the UK - tackles the long-running question by UFO-spotters: "Is anyone out there?"
The answer, it seems, is "no"."

Oh, ok then...lol
Just friggin hilarious.

Someone answered "no" ? That is hilarious.....:D

Reminds me of one "Karlson" story by Astrid Lindgren. There a housekeeper asked if anybody is hiding in the wardrobe, and the burglars inside answered "No!".

.................. :)

In the Library of Space we are a book on the shelf of planets that is new, moderately interesting, and worth a small chuckle - but read for enjoyment more than understanding...yet hardly read at all.

Flying saucers are real, I have seen them, they are top-secret flying machines which are manmade, they propagate lies about extreterrestrials to cover up a technology which can be built if you hold only a basic understanding of electricity. You just have to know what goes inside them.

(high voltage tesla coils, tuned just right)

Flying saucers are real, I have seen them, they are top-secret flying machines which are manmade, they propagate lies about extreterrestrials to cover up a technology which can be built if you hold only a basic understanding of electricity. You just have to know what goes inside them.

What did you expect this report to state? That they had proof and here it is?

I don't know which is scarier...the people who "know" that UFOs are man-made machines or the ones that "know" that UFOs are extraterrestrial! Either way, it's insane to act like you have the foggiest idea what they are. They could be man-made, or they could be alien technology...I would accept either, I suppose, so long as no one claimed to know for sure.

But to claim to know for sure either way is rediculous! If all this stuff is top-secret (either the cover-up or the man-made technologies) then how the fuck do you know??

JD

Yea, it always seems that thees crackpot theorists know all the top secret government information that there is,
as if governments were incompetent idiots.

Insight: if they were incompetent, they wouldn't be governing you.

Hello,
Just thought I`d pop in my two penn` orth ,since it appears nobody thinks very clearly here.
I doubt very much whether the MOD would allow anything to be published on this subject unless they had total control of the information contained .
This so-called investigation has all the hallmarks of an incompetent ,hackneyed ,devious government department desperately trying to look as if they know what they are doing.
Since no papers have been published or reviewed by scientific peers ,this sort of gobbledegook has no value except as brainwashing for the unaware.

Awdsci.

And you of course are aware and informed of THE GREAT TRUTH. :rolleyes:

No, Only I know THE GREAT TRUTH™! Buy my book, dvd collection and collectible action figurines at www.thegreattruth.com

Do you have alien section and alien sex videos too?

:p good one. :D

a secret study in the recent past by hynek part of project blue book, concluded that 1% of saucer reports were indeed strange and needed careful examination...

ps: i was tempted to quote : "playboy recently conducted a survey proving gay men and women were extraterrestrials.." but what does that do to your beliefs? does that change your opinion on homosexualities (well i am reserving my opinion on that topic here, since most people here are in 40s and would prolly give me a lecture or something so whtvr)?...

and also, get a life dude, its summers beaches are soaring with chicks burning their skins just for you...mmmmm

later
Rick

I doubt very much whether the MOD would allow anything to be published on this subject unless they had total control of the information contained .
This so-called investigation has all the hallmarks of an incompetent ,hackneyed ,devious government department desperately trying to look as if they know what they are doing.
Since no papers have been published or reviewed by scientific peers ,this sort of gobbledegook has no value except as brainwashing for the unaware.

Awdsci.

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FreedomOfInformation/PublicationScheme/SearchPublicationScheme/UnidentifiedAerialPhenomenauapInTheUkAirDefenceReg ion.htm

Review it yourself and perhaps criticize some of the main points the 400 page report has reached in its conclusions.

Otherwise, your simple-minded criticism here is "gobbledegook" that "has no value."

And you of course are aware and informed of THE GREAT TRUTH. :rolleyes:

No, I doubt anyone on the planet is in that position.
However, it appears you`ve not taken advantage of the information at the head of this section ,which gives a reasonable resume` of the subject .
There is sufficient detail to provide some people with an interesting background to further reading .
Of course that may not include you,since that would require an open mind.

Awdsci

Some hold the mind so open, that the brain has fallen out of the scull.
Read the report and, if have objections, contact the UK gov.

They're here, watching and scheming and doing their nasty tricks. Of course, they're just covering it up. :p

No we're not.

...I mean they aren't.

Geoff

i have neither compulsion nor need to prove myself as anything, so yeah; your right..


Rick

I'll chip in my 2c. (I know you were all hoping I would.)

If there were such things as alien visitations - which I think we all have to admit are not out of the realm of possibility - then I would be a little dubious that any government would simply cough up the evidence and admit there were (although...haven't the Belgians, the Russians and Brazil or Mexico done pretty much that??? I'm sure I read that somewhere).

My impression is that it might not be very conductive to public order. Certainly not everyone's psychology would be so affected - but imagine the admission that there were intelligent bodies capable of fantastic power, in full knowledge of our existence and hovering over us, on whose presumably inhumanitarian sufferance we might consider ourselves to be living. If one could put a name to total multi-societal panic, that might be its initials. People might well worry about space-related natural disaster, but the latter represents an unintelligent threat and my impression is that the human psyche responds different to a perceived intelligent threat than a mere statistical risk.

Geoff

imo., if anything, that would unite the people of this planet, and that's a good thing™

Yea, it always seems that thees crackpot theorists know all the top secret government information that there is,
as if governments were incompetent idiots.

Insight: if they were incompetent, they wouldn't be governing you.

explain the bush regime then :cool:

No, you have to explain the american nation to me. :D
The USA gov. is competent enough to handle its' own citizens.

There is an ancient Roman saying: Qualis rex, talis grex.
Literaly: like king, like people,
meaning is that the government is no alien outsider, but one of you.
And what people you are, such government you get.

so!
unidentified no longer!

its a bird, its a plane, its a plasma ball

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FreedomOfInformation/PublicationScheme/SearchPublicationScheme/UnidentifiedAerialPhenomenauapInTheUkAirDefenceReg ion.htm

Review it yourself and perhaps criticize some of the main points the 400 page report has reached in its conclusions.

Otherwise, your simple-minded criticism here is "gobbledegook" that "has no value."

Skinwalker, thank you for the information ,I am in the process of studying it.

My initial response is based on the BBC website summary ,which contained enough information to determine the ineptitude of it`s authors.
The unproven assumption " considerable evidence exists to support the thesis that the events are almost certainly attributable to physical, electrical and magnetic phenomena in the atmosphere, mesosphere and ionosphere." is largely speculative.
In my view ,to suggest this as the cause of all sightings is absolute nonsense,especially since atmospheric effects of this nature would be of a very brief nature .
I will try to get through the report as soon as time allows and I look forward to further discussion.

Regards,

Awdsci.

so!
unidentified no longer!

its a bird, its a plane, its a plasma ball

Dear Gustav,

Thou art sharp. Ouch.


;)

The unproven assumption " considerable evidence exists to support the thesis that the events are almost certainly attributable to physical, electrical and magnetic phenomena in the atmosphere, mesosphere and ionosphere." is largely speculative.

Perhaps you're being a tad modest?

In my view ,to suggest this as the cause of all sightings is absolute nonsense...

Or as Skinwalker often says, "Poppycock."

I once asked Kenneth Lay, former chief executive of the Enron corporation, if he ever did anything illegal. He said "No."

Good enough for me.

Skinwalker, thank you for the information ,I am in the process of studying it.



And how far has Skinwalker gotten into the approximately 400 pages?

Just wondering.

I suppose I could also not read it.
I've never read any of Phil Klass's "excellent" treatises on the subject of unidentified flying objects, either. Though, on occasion, I have been treated to his ideas.
Maybe someday I'll amuse myself with one of his works.

Hmm...

imo., if anything, that would unite the people of this planet, and that's a good thing™

Sounds like that Reagan quote. :eek:

Crazy Ron. Almost miss the old days.

Geoff

If anything, any sightings of "great significance" are going to be nothing but man-made machines, and if you'be never seen one before, you're just seeing a manmade TOPSECRET flying machine.

,especially since atmospheric effects of this nature would be of a very brief nature .

OK, so next time you see a hurricane twisting towards you, don't run, or take shelter, just tell yourself 'it's going to be brief'. :D

But it seems you are convolving phenomena; films of 'UFOs' which move, are over very quickly, and those of 'UFOs' that last a long time, appear stationary. So they are either shooting stars, or stars, or some other transient phenomena, or something mundane like a lighthouse, star, planet, whatever, or maybe a regular aircraft whose footage has been edited just to show the 'weird bit' (like defocussing).

But if you have good footage, showing flight characteristics, some foreground objects for comparison, that is in focus, and a good length, please share.

OK, so next time you see a hurricane twisting towards you, don't run, or take shelter, just tell yourself 'it's going to be brief'. :D

But it seems you are convolving phenomena; films of 'UFOs' which move, are over very quickly, and those of 'UFOs' that last a long time, appear stationary. So they are either shooting stars, or stars, or some other transient phenomena, or something mundane like a lighthouse, star, planet, whatever, or maybe a regular aircraft whose footage has been edited just to show the 'weird bit' (like defocussing).

But if you have good footage, showing flight characteristics, some foreground objects for comparison, that is in focus, and a good length, please share.

Phlogistician,
It seems you are being perverse ,referring to well known natural phenomena in the context of ufo`s.
I am not able to supply such films as you suggest ,since I do not have the resources to obtain them , although they may be available from other sources.
Or are you just being facetious?
I do have a serious interest in the subject, but trying to discuss it under these conditions of apathy and negativity is not pleasant .
I shall reserve further comment until a later date .

Regards

Awdsci.

If you encounter any apathy and negativity on these forums, it is not entirely intentional. It's just that we get a lot of "zomg aliens" nutters on here, so it is assumed that many people questioning the official stories without immeditaly providing an alternative are nutters. Please, show us the errors of our ways.

Phlogistician,
It seems you are being perverse ,referring to well known natural phenomena in the context of ufo`s.

Because most sightings of 'UFO's are natural phenomenon. I dislike the term 'UFO' anyway. Some take it to mean anything in the sky they don't recognise, whether it demonstrates 'flight' or not, and others hide behind the term meaning extra-terrestrial craft. What do you understand by the term?

I am not able to supply such films as you suggest ,since I do not have the resources to obtain them , although they may be available from other sources.

No they aren't, that's why I asked! I have never seen good quality footage, showing a craft actually flying, with either foreground or background objects to indicate any relative motion. All I have seen are blurry close ups, where any movement is obviously camera shake, and not controlled flight.


Or are you just being facetious?

Not at all, I've love to see some footage which challenged my world view. That would be awesome, but all I have seen, is rubbish. I won't settle for a wobbly out of focus dot, or a three second clip of a passenger jet where the running lights just happen to flash in order by coincidence. I alwys am suspicious of shorts clips; I wonder why the person showing them doesn't want us to see what happened before or after!

I do have a serious interest in the subject, but trying to discuss it under these conditions of apathy and negativity is not pleasant .
I shall reserve further comment until a later date .


Asking questions and asking for footage is not negative, it is a request for the positive.

OK, to get the discussion going, what do you mean when you say 'UFO', and what would you accept as footage to illustrate one?

zomg?

Geoff

Phlogistician,
I think I`ve been down this rocky road before.
To get a grasp of this subject requires a fairly long ,convoluted study of the material available, assessment of the evidence and sufficient time to allow all the factors involved to filter through one`s mind.
Even then,the very fact of being aware of the many distortions,political spin,outright lies etc., makes it extremely difficult to arrive at a considered opinion .
All I can say is, those people who do try to research thoroughly (that excludes me ,by the way) have to overcome an enormous amount of deliberate misconstruction from official sources.
I `ll be back !

Regards,

Awdsci.

Phlogistician,
I think I`ve been down this rocky road before.
To get a grasp of this subject requires a fairly long ,convoluted study of the material available, assessment of the evidence and sufficient time to allow all the factors involved to filter through one`s mind.
Even then,the very fact of being aware of the many distortions,political spin,outright lies etc., makes it extremely difficult to arrive at a considered opinion .
All I can say is, those people who do try to research thoroughly (that excludes me ,by the way) have to overcome an enormous amount of deliberate misconstruction from official sources.
I `ll be back !

Regards,

Awdsci.

You are correct. One person's word against another's.

I believe the best example here is: glass half full VS. glass half empty.

You mentioned assumptions earlier. The subject of UFOs is built on assumptions from both sides. Those that assume they exist, and those that don't.

To the people who don't believe that any flying (or floating) object is truly unidentified, any sighting WILL be explained away as this or that.

All of that is based on an assumption.

The assumption being that nothing is truly inexplicable, and that no non-human piloted craft have visited or are visiting this earth.

Assumptions, may I reiterate. That cannot be proven or disproven.

And, to further that, those assumptions are garnered—always—from a disadvantageous point of view: the ant trying to make sense of an Empire State Building. Also, what's never taken into consideration—and I've been trying to drill this possibility into your thick skulls—is that alien pilots of "UFOs" could conceivably (evidently) take exception to not being… identified.

Hello all,
You may be interested in this ;
Despite serving officers confirmation of sightings during flights, with clear descriptions of what was seen and correlated by radar images of `bogey` activity, the uk MoD deny that ` UAP`s ` are solid objects.
Their denial of facts leads me to doubt their integrity. I can only wonder what their reasons may be.

Regards

Awdsci

Their denial of facts leads me to doubt their integrity. I can only wonder what their reasons may be
It is not absolutely necessary for something to be a solid object to be illuminated OR give a radar return...
So what "facts" are they denying?

i prefer the swamp gas theory to the plasma balls one
how could those brits be so wrong?

Despite serving officers confirmation of sightings during flights, with clear descriptions of what was seen and correlated by radar images of `bogey` activity, the uk MoD deny that ` UAP`s ` are solid objects.
Their denial of facts leads me to doubt their integrity. I can only wonder what their reasons may be.
Remarkable. You make several attacks on the narrow minded approach of the sceptics, criticising their propensity for jumping to conclusions, then utter the above.

As Oli has succinctly pointed out they are not denying any facts. They are declaring, allegedly, that the observed objects are not solid. Rather than jump to the simplistic conclusion that objects observed in the sky are solid, they have adopted a more cautious, realistic, and, one suspects, investigative approach.

Your entire post smacks of intellectual dishonesty, but I shall give you the benefit of the doubt and attribute it to ignorance. Thus:
Despite serving officers confirmation
should probably read
Because of serving officers confirmation
i.e. having reliable eyewitness testimony has greatly aided their analysis of the sightings, not provided something to be ignored, as you imply.

with clear descriptions of what was seen
Again, your implication is that the observed objects must have been solid. You completely ignore the benefit to an analysis offered by 'clear descriptions'.

If this is an example of the objectivity you bring to your study of these fascinating phenomena it is not surprising that you come across as gullible.

http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/2520/mod103ie.png

fools. these "masses" are astral travellers frollicking and whatnot

The reason UFO studies say there is no proof that aliens exist is because the aliens are smart enough to travel all this way so therfore can remain undetected if that is what they choose. We have pictures of sightings because that is when they want to be seen.

We have pictures of sightings because that is when they want to be seen.
Not always. From most sighting accounts, people describe seconds of visibility then zip poof they're gone. It's as if one second they're not present, then they are, then they're not.

And it's during this porthole of visibility that most accounts are witnessed and, I suppose, most pictures are taken—lousy pictures perhaps, but the point is UFOs are not exactly sitting still saying cheese before the camera clicks: it's supposed that for those few seconds before they shoot off they must first uncloak to shift gears, or rather, shift mechanism or generate an alternative energy field or activate special momentum or something.

But there's also a newer observation that seems to be consolidating, and it has to do with consciousness. Actually, I'm saying all this as though there are whole websites devoted to these supposedly "newer" topics, but the truth of the matter is I've just been culling and noticing inroads, then guesstimating and supposing.

Anyway, there seems to be a more savvy consideration now involving extraterrestrial consciousness. In a nutshell, it's supposed that ET consciousness is more akin to our own state of subconsciousness. Now, have you ever—I know I have—looked at someone across a room or in the street and they would automatically look right back at you? So similarly, during that porthole of visibility that I spoke of, it would seem that perhaps two different states of consciousness are meeting across a room, but that, from a human level, it would all be at a very subliminal level, hence clicking the camera or looking in "that" direction while "it" looked right back at you.

What is it that is missing from your life, Meantime, that requires you to create a fantastic world out of the mundane? Just curious.

In a nutshell, it's supposed that ET consciousness is more akin to our own state of subconsciousness.
By whom? There appears to a certain level of unconsciousness going on here...
hence clicking the camera or looking in "that" direction while "it" looked right back at you.
Love across a crowded galaxy?
To Sgal: they're smart enough to get here, smart enough to outwit radar systems with remarkable consistency and then get their kicks by turning the lights on in front of passenger jets or people who can't prove what they've "seen"? Some intelligence. :eek:
and
aliens are smart enough to travel all this way so therfore can remain undetected if that is what they choose
You phrase that as if the one (travelling here) automatically gives the capability for the other (remaining unseen). Chain of reasoning (?) on this please...

Remarkable. You make several attacks on the narrow minded approach of the sceptics, criticising their propensity for jumping to conclusions, then utter the above.

As Oli has succinctly pointed out they are not denying any facts. They are declaring, allegedly, that the observed objects are not solid. Rather than jump to the simplistic conclusion that objects observed in the sky are solid, they have adopted a more cautious, realistic, and, one suspects, investigative approach.

Your entire post smacks of intellectual dishonesty, but I shall give you the benefit of the doubt and attribute it to ignorance. Thus:
Despite serving officers confirmation
should probably read
Because of serving officers confirmation
i.e. having reliable eyewitness testimony has greatly aided their analysis of the sightings, not provided something to be ignored, as you imply.

with clear descriptions of what was seen
Again, your implication is that the observed objects must have been solid. You completely ignore the benefit to an analysis offered by 'clear descriptions'.

If this is an example of the objectivity you bring to your study of these fascinating phenomena it is not surprising that you come across as gullible.

Ophiolite,
I have to disagree,but I realise I may have inadvertently strayed from the OP discussion.
My references to "serving officers evidence ", is more likely to have come from another source , but just as relevant.
As briefly as possible ,may I explain? Oh thank you.
Many serving officers (RAF) have reported sightings which they could not explain, but most were told not to say anything in public .The MoD `s authority would prevent any further disclosure.
The aircrews involved admitted privately that the objects they had seen were under control ,were far superior in flight characteristics , and acceleration beyond the capability of any known aircraft.
Similar events have happened again and again, but with no public response from the MoD.
I have to assume that the secrecy is because the MoD cannot admit the possibility of a breach of UK airspace, thus they must deny the facts.
This seems to me a reasonable explanation of the situation.
Please don`t take my comments as abusive or ignorant, I can assure you that I mean no disrespect to anybody.
It`s just the way my mind works!
Regards,
Awdsci.

Many serving officers (RAF) have reported sightings which they could not explain, but most were told not to say anything in public .The MoD `s authority would prevent any further disclosure.
MOD prevention of disclosure is, probably, a good thing.
Re: reliability of "serving officers" or otherwise.
Check contemporary records for the number of Heinkel 113 fighters shot down in the early years of WWII as reported by RAF pilots. (Quite a number). Then check German records for the number of these aircraft that flew in combat. (Zero, the few that were built were photographed as "publicity stunt" and reported as being in service).
On a more contemporary note, at Farnborough a few years ago I was stood next to a US Navy pilot who misidentified a Russian aircraft for a junior member of the public.
This in clear weather, broad daylight and with the aircraft less than half a mile away, performing at very low level. And with its itinerary printed in the display programme.
Tell me again about eyewitness reliability :p

Excellent point Oli. Again, during the Battle of Britain, the claimed destruction of enemy aircraft, by both sides, would have meant there were no planes left to fight the battle after a couple of weeks.

And awdsci the aircrews did not admit privately that the objects they had seen were under control ,were far superior in flight characteristics , and acceleration beyond the capability of any known aircraft.
What they did was privately express an opinion. There is an interesting experiment conducted with two chemicals, which when mixed osscilate between two different states, associated with two different colours. A dramatic and apparently planned pattern emerges as these reactions alternate. It is, however, pure random chemistry with a pinch of synchronicity.

If something walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and lays duck eggs, it is probably a duck. If it wears a white smock, talks with a regional accent and cooks duck eggs it is probably a TV chef.
If an unidentified object behaves in a manner quite different from any aircraft, then it is probably not an aircraft, or spaceship, or free-from alien.

What is it that is missing from your life, Meantime, that requires you to create a fantastic world out of the mundane? Just curious.And I, to be perfectly candid Ophiolite, am even more curious to know why you and your ilk can turn a perfectly fantastic world into an incredibly flat one. I suppose it must have something to do with your credentials for the mundane—sheltered and pampered in a world you think is under your thumb… until the annual chore for filing those tedious tax returns interrupts the appeal of mundaneness. Lol.

M: In a nutshell, it's supposed that ET consciousness is more akin to our own state of subconsciousness.Oli: By whom? There appears to a certain level of unconsciousness going on here...Akin: Having a similar quality or character. Or are you proposing that your subconscious mind is sadly amiss and deficient in capacity and sharpness?? Perhaps you're right; it might have something to do with all that mundanity you glut yourself with.

M: In a nutshell, it's supposed that ET consciousness is more akin to our own state of subconsciousness.
Oli: By whom? There appears to a certain level of unconsciousness going on here...
”
Akin: Having a similar quality or character. Or are you proposing that your subconscious mind is sadly amiss and deficient in capacity and sharpness?? Perhaps you're right; it might have something to do with all that mundanity you glut yourself with.

Supposed by whom. Nothing to do with akin. Please learn to understand what you're reading. :rolleyes:
My subconscious is, from your point of view, sadly amiss. Inasmuch as I don't invent "explanations" with no grounding in the facts for what I've seen and doggedly stick to them...
PS my "mundanity" is, presumably, another of your inventions?

I don't usually post in this part of the forum, and I am not going to do this regularly. But I just wanted to state an opinion about this report.
I am very, very skeptical about UFOs. But this report does not hold the solution. Plasma balls, far from being the explanation for the majority of unidentified aerial phenomena, are likely to account for a very small proportion.
Additionally the report suggests that electromagnetic fields emitted by these hypothetical balls afffect the temporal lobe of the observer, making the observer more likely to misidentify the sighting as a solid object, and to over-react. I would like to say that this is essentially pseudoscience, and this report has little credibility for that reason.

On the other hand it is extensive in its scope, and worth reading (if you ignore the daft conclusions).

Additionally the report suggests that electromagnetic fields emitted by these hypothetical balls afffect the temporal lobe of the observer, making the observer more likely to misidentify the sighting as a solid object, and to over-react.
Why is that pseudoscience? Electrical fields can have an effect on the brain can't they?
Quick Google search gave these, and more:
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/T/templobelability.html
http://jnnp.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/67/1/51
etc, try http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&hl=en&q=temporal+lobe+electrical+fields&meta=&btnG=Google+Search

The Devil Inside:



Yeah, this reminds me of the time back when the british published a bunch of books which supposedly held "All possible inventions ever," later, when thousands of new inventions were created, they felt stupid.

Man has created flying machines which are top-secret, which appear alien because most people have never seen them, and most people relate such things to sci-fi films and almost automatically think "aliens!"

That reminds me of when I was in high school and I put the theory out, that flying saucers were indeed manmade and capable of insane manuevering. I told them of the things I had seen in the skies. Days later, people came up to me asking: "are you that kid who believes in aliens." When I was talking about this with them, just days before, I emphasized how they were manmade... it seams the sci-fi channel took a toll on their minds.


sorry it took so long to respond. i dont frequent this subforum very often nowadays.

i am of the opinion that most of the crazy shit people see in the skies is probably just like you say: manmade.

i am old enough to remember in detail all the secrecy surrounding the stealth bomber before it was released. i watched "a current affair" (i was probably ten years old or so), and they showed aerial photographs of it before anyone else. there was such a freakout about the shape.....it seriously wouldnt surprise me at all if in 10 years we are flying little discs to war against eachother.

Why is that pseudoscience? Electrical fields can have an effect on the brain can't they?
Quick Google search gave these, and more:
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/T/templobelability.html
http://jnnp.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/67/1/51
etc, try http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&hl=en&q=temporal+lobe+electrical+fields&meta=&btnG=Google+Search

Much of Persinger's work has been difficult to replicate.
Putting that to one side, the field strength needed to achieve real effects in any part of the human brain is almost certainly greater than would be expected from a distant and transient meteorological phenomenon.

Oh, are we in court here now? Under oath or something? Hand on the bible, cross my heart, that sort of thing? Such an immaculately sane pseudo forum you lot are culturing. Horticulturally mundane for the mundane. No wonder this forum is so humdrum.
Oli: Supposed by whom."Supposed by whom," you ask? Why should you care? I mean, why be a hypocrite and pretend that suddenly those whom you have the least respect for might now be of relevance and opened to your luscious genius for discernment. But here's the thing: your discernment is humdrum and dull. Believe me, you don't ignite light bulbs.

"Supposed by whom," you ask? Why should you care? I mean, why be a hypocrite and pretend that suddenly those whom you have the least respect for might now be of relevance and opened to your luscious genius for discernment. But here's the thing: your discernment is humdrum and dull. Believe me, you don't ignite light bulbs.
Ah, we're back to that argument. Ask for data to confirm your wild ideas and get insults. Way to go.
It's because of statements aren't backed up that I have the least respect This is another example of throwing unverified (unverifiable?) statements out randomly in the hopes that some will be taken as fact.
Duendy was far more fun... :D

the universe is a big place
it is impossible for me to believe that earth is the only planet with intelligent life

There will always be some doubt as to 'if' intelligent life really exists on the planet Earth. I wonder sometimes about it myself.:D

And I, to be perfectly candid Ophiolite, am even more curious to know why you and your ilk can turn a perfectly fantastic world into an incredibly flat one. Such conceit in one so foolish is a wonder to behold.
I can indulge in the fantastic and the leap of the imagination. The world I live in is far from flat. It is multidimensional, vibrant and colourful. It is also real. I do not need to seek the unrealistic, the fatuous, the imaginary in order to experience a rich tapestry of events and phenomena. It appears that you do.
I suppose it must have something to do with your credentials for the mundane—I am only mundane once a week. The following day I am Tuesdane, followed by Wednesdane, and so forth.
sheltered and pampered in a world you think is under your thumb…You do realise these mind altering substances are illegal, don't you? Why would I think the world is under my thumb. I can't even fully control my own destiny, so controlling the world would be quite a leap. It is interesting, however, that you choose this particular criticism. It tells us rather more about you, than you would likely wish to be known.

Now that you have completed your ad hominem, in an effort at self justification, may we return to the thread topic?

And awdsci the aircrews did not admit privately that the objects they had seen were under control ,were far superior in flight characteristics , and acceleration beyond the capability of any known aircraft.
What they did was privately express an opinion.

If something walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and lays duck eggs, it is probably a duck. If it wears a white smock, talks with a regional accent and cooks duck eggs it is probably a TV chef.
If an unidentified object behaves in a manner quite different from any aircraft, then it is probably not an aircraft, or spaceship, or free-from alien.
Ophiolite,
Yes ,I see the point of the grammatical correction ,but the sense of the statement made by the aircrew (and many others) displays their surprise upon observing such an object so visually unusual .
Their technical capabilities ,observational skills and reliability cannot be in doubt else they would not be in their specialised field.
If a trained pilot states that he saw something totally unique to his experience, with supporting comments from a crewmember ,I would accept that they were being truthful.
If their observations gave positional , speed ,elevation and manoeuverability estimates of an object then I would accept they had seen something remarkable.
How would you describe their experience under those conditions ?
Then again ,if the object was displayed on the aircraft`s radar and on local ground based radar at the same time ,what then?
Or if two aircraft make the same observations ?
All these scenarios have actually happened ,but of course they cannot be proved,so the MoD discounts them.
Oh, by the way ,the radar tapes are "routinely re-used " by the RAF, "to keep costs down. "
It`s a funny old world .
Sorry about the rambling on!

regards ,

Awdsci.

Their technical capabilities ,observational skills and reliability cannot be in doubt else they would not be in their specialised field.
They are not employed for their observational skills, but piloting ability (see my earlier post on aircrews' misidentification - history is rife with them, e.g. USAF F-15 pilot taking 2 UH-60s as Hinds and shooting them down in Iraq).
On a (very embarassing) personal note: I once came 23rd in the country on aircraft recognition (official Observer Corps tests, having scored 100% solo in previous tests). A couple of years later I misidentfied a Jaguar as an MRCA (Tornado to younger members) at an airshow where it (MRCA) was displayed for the first time... again in clear weather, broad daylight, etc.
ALWAYS doubt eyewitness reports, or at least never treat them as absolute proof.

Ophiolite,
Yes ,I see the point of the grammatical correction ,but the sense of the statement made by the aircrew (and many others) displays their surprise upon observing such an object so visually unusual .
It was not a grammatical correction. It was a semantic correction. The former relates to medium, the latter to message. All hail Marshall McCluhan.Their technical capabilities ,observational skills and reliability cannot be in doubt else they would not be in their specialised field.The entire point about the scientific method is that their observational skills and reliability must be doubted.
Read, re-read, absorb, understand and accept Oli's point on the reliability of eye witness testimony. It's crap. If I refuse to accept my own eye witness observations without independent verification (because of the known unreliability of eyewitnesses) then why, with all appropriate respect, the ****, should I accept anyone elses testimony.If a trained pilot states that he saw something totally unique to his experience, with supporting comments from a crewmember ,I would accept that they were being truthful.I would accept that they were probably being truthful. There are posters on this site who state that they truly believe that the US did not land a man on the moon. I believe they are telling the truth - they believe that the US did not land a man on the moon. This does not mean, however, that they are correct, only that they are truthful.
.If their observations gave positional , speed ,elevation and manoeuverability estimates of an object then I would accept they had seen something remarkable.
How would you describe their experience under those conditions ?
.They (1) probably (2) believe they have seen something remarkable. They may have seen (3) something remarkable, but there is no a priori reason to beleive it is an alien controlled spacecraft, anymore than there is to believe it is Santa Claus doing practice runs.
.Oh, by the way ,the radar tapes are "routinely re-used " by the RAF, "to keep costs down. "
There is an implication here - only an implication - that the RAF is deliberately destroying evidence. I hope I am just misreading you. If not you should read some basic books on economics.

I should like to win £5,000,000 on the lottery. I should like that very much. I believe this is best achieved by (a) having the winning ticket. (b) checking the numbers carefully. (c) notifying the lottery authorities that I have the winner. The following strategy will not work. (a) Having a ticket that is similar to the winning ticket, but has two numbers different, though one is only one number away and the other is the reverse (e.g. 43 and 34) (b) hastily scanning the numbers and delightfully declaring I have a winner (c) contacting the lottery authorities and telling them I have won. (d) accusing them of conspiracy to defraud me when they say I do not have the winning ticket.

I hope the analogy makes sense. Remember that I still desparately want to win the £5,000,000, but I have no intention of fooling myself.

All these scenarios have actually happened, but of course they cannot be proved,so the MoD discounts them.
If they cannot be proved then they should be discounted. The RAF's job is air defence of the country (mostly), not keeping files on unprovable occurrences...
If the "thing" has not been proven to exist and poses no discernable threat then it will be dismissed as being outside of the remit.
Re-read those reports, in at least one of them the aircrew are reported as having changed their minds about the relative position of what they saw - first it was below them, and a couple of hours after they'd landed they insisted it was above them. If they can't make up their minds WHERE it was why should we accept as incontrovertible truth their opinion on WHAT it was?

Many serving officers (RAF) have reported sightings which they could not explain, but most were told not to say anything in public .The MoD `s authority would prevent any further disclosure.

Oddly, I've never heard any RAF pilots make any such claims, and I lived on an Airfoce base for several years, and knew pilots, ground crew, and radar operators. Also, I've met many and various people involved in Earth observation, from ecological groups, to defense oriented ones, and none of them have snapped pictures of UFOs. Bearing in mind that the latter group had rather extensive networks of equipment, and quite literally nothing flying would escape being captured onto their database, you'd think if something odd was there, it would be seen.

I've never met anyone credible that makes such claims. It's always hearsay, unattributed quotes, or people misrepresenting their status (Lazar, Pope, et al). Despite supposedly having witnessed these events, and having access to classified information, they never managed to get any of it out into the public domain. Odd, that spies could share nuclear secrets with the Soviet Union in the 50's, but in the internet age, a single, credible document cannot be copied and emailed around!

imo., if anything, that would unite the people of this planet, and that's a good thing™

It isn't a good thing if you are a Nation.

Nations don't want their citizens to look at themselves as Earthlings. They want them to view themselves as Americans, Brits, ect..

Come on Avatar, this is pretty simple stuff here.

a single, credible document......

oh
credible? what does it mean to you?
work the scenarios


whats that? did you say.....http://www.enchantedlearning.com/history/us/symbols/presidentialseal/color.GIF ...?

/cackle

ooh
look what i found
http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/4092/freeanalprobesandimplants8ka.jpg

looooool!!!

I didnt read all the 5 pages!

my idea is this: probably they (british gov) found that some ufos cases are just atmospherical phenomenons, but i dont think that explains everything. There are many cases where it seems that we are facing some kind of inteligence...the way ufos act are not in a random way (like many others natural phenomenons).

To be honest, i think that maybe there is something outhere ( i mean: here, on earth), lol) but i dont care. I cant do nothing about that. I am tired to read lots of storys about ufos and come to no conclusion.

I can personally guarantee you that no aliens have ever visited the earth. As if anyone would want anything with your...er, our...silly little planet.

Geoff

Actually your guarantee is worth shit. It's been more than 4,5 billion years, you can't possibly have the information to make such a claim.

LOL - Avatar, examine avatar.

;)

They are manmade flying machines, so naturally, they are not aliens

They are manmade flying machines, so naturally, they are not aliens
Then what about the abductions?

What abductions? As far as I know there is no proven case.

They are manmade flying machines, so naturally, they are not aliens

I'm sure a lot of UFO reports are due to natural phenomena.

Yes, natural phenomena, but I have personally seen technology in the sky, not just "phenomena." If you call a flying piece of metal, "phenomena" then well.....

As for abductions, I think the person claiming such is: A) A liar B) A person who was drugged, scarred shitless by men in alien suits to pose a false alien threat (and still a liar)

So you see, there are phenomena in the skies, but there are also top-secret aircraft that are by no means "phenomena," merely top-secret technology which I have seen defy physics as we know it. (high speed right angles and the like)

So we should believe you because you know what you've "seen", but someone who claims that they've been abducted based on what they've "seen" is a liar?
Can you say "double standard"? :bugeye:

OK, I'll take this a step further. So I start telling people around here about these top-secret flying machines, and I find more and more people believe this alternative to "They don't exist" or "They are real, they are alien." Finally at a certain point of telling people about this I get the "spooks" keeping an eye on me.

You don't have to believe any of this, thats just fine, however, I tell you now that I am not lieing. I know damn near to fact that Nikola Tesla invented the (electromotive (aka momentum synthesizing)) flying saucer. Which explains why Tesla said things like this: (remember, tesla was into ELECTRICITY)

"I am now planning aerial machines devoid of sustaining planes, ailerons, propellers, and other external attachments, which will be capable of immense speeds" - "My Inventions" - Tesla's autobiography.

"You might see it on the ground and you would never guess that it was a flying machine." -NIkola TEsla

I am now planning aerial machines
Note the word PLANNING... as a design engineer I can tell you absolute certainty (drawn from painful experience) there's a world of difference between planning and actuality...
And all I can say is, that after forty years of looking at and for military "secret projects" there is no convincing evidence that even the principles are known to enable us to build flying saucers. It's always a case of "well in some circumstances IF this theory were true and we could actually use it then it might be possible do so and so..."
And for the record I really do not think you are lying... just mistaken.

I know damn near to fact that Nikola Tesla invented the (electromotive (aka momentum synthesizing)) flying saucer. Which explains why Tesla said things like this: (remember, tesla was into ELECTRICITY)
Make one, and show that it works.

As for abductions, I think the person claiming such is: A) A liar B) A person who was drugged, scarred shitless by men in alien suits to pose a false alien threat (and still a liar)



Who would these men in alien suits be, then? What would be their agenda?

Who would these men in alien suits be, then? What would be their agenda?
Obviously to spread and continue the "rumour" of "Aliens visit Earth in their flying machines, it isn't top secret government technology"

Never mind that that just takes at least 12 more levels of tenuous probability merely to exist

Giambatttista:

"Who would these men in alien suits be, then? What would be their agenda?"

Their agenda would be to maintain world power and keep us in the dark as to many of mans greatest inventions. Their agenda would be to enslave mankind as deeply as possible. Look at our "Federal" Reserve, see how America is only paying the god-damned interest rate on it. See the oil prices fly into the sky, see George Bush make the Military Industry even more filthy/rich.

Hey Hamster, if I built one, I would probably disappear. I'm telling you, its 1984 in the year 2006. I know this is hard to believe, so I don't expect everyone to agree with it. But the flying saucers are capable of being built to fairly small sizes and thus they can watch anyone they wish to. I recall a time I was telling a man about the flying saucers and how they are manmade, next thing I know, he freaks out because he said that in the trees behind me, there was a bright white object which shot out into the sky. Their way of saying "I heard that" (since I was blabbering on about their deepest secrets)

If they were really smart, they'd put their spaceships in reverse and get the hell out;

any X-files fans here?

samcdkey, Im sure I get your drift here

Their way of saying "I heard that" (since I was blabbering on about their deepest secrets)
What I find exceedingly strange is that the "secret world government" manages to follow people around and give them little signs that they're being watched but can't stop several million conspiracy woo-woos from spreading it all over the internet. :rolleyes:
If there really were such a thing as man-made UFOs running off Tesla coils don't you think that the million and one books out there explaining them would have let at least one person build them? How come not one single writer on "Tesla's Wonderful Secrets Laid Bare" is exploring the universe, telling the electricity companies to go f*ck themselves 'cos he has all the power he needs thanks etc. etc?

Simple, Oli. They hire people to destroy the credibility of witnesses. They let the looser stuff out so that when people read it, a lot of them won't believe. Those who want to survive adopt protective coloration as a "woo-woo" because they know that they will be taken out if they are taken seriously.

Simple, Oli. They hire people to destroy the credibility of witnesses. They let the looser stuff out so that when people read it, a lot of them won't believe. Those who want to survive adopt protective coloration as a "woo-woo" because they know that they will be taken out if they are taken seriously.
So how do you explain the huge multiplicity of books available on "how to build a UFO", or cranks like Bearden et al who get their books published purportedly showing EXACTLY what to do to get "free energy" etc?
Why are there no outcries from the woo-woos of being threatened? Or verifiable reports of them being "taken out"?
There's almost as many UFO magazines in my local branch of W H Smith as there are TV guides, look at ED2K sometime for the number of publications showing how UFOs are powered (including "circuit diagrams" and "engineering drawings").
Nah, if there is a secret government they've lost control completely and by the end of the week my next door neighbour will be giving me a lift to the pub at Mach 6 in his invisible flying saucer that runs off 2 U2 batteries.... (and using his death ray on the coppers that try to pull him over for ignoring red lights).

This is the compromise between having some kind of lives and having a lot of our heads blown off, Oli. You might feel better once the U.S. government becomes yet another government that has resorted to purges and massive burning of books.

Look out, behind you.

No, look up.

This is the compromise between having some kind of lives and having a lot of our heads blown off, Oli. You might feel better once the U.S. government becomes yet another government that has resorted to purges and massive burning of books.
There is NO compromise - the alpha-woo-woos are publishing their spurious "engineering drawings" etc. and lesser grade woo-woos are buying them. For a "suppressed technology" it's doing so bloody well that probably more people believe in it than know/ understand anything about real science and engineering.
(PS as fully accredited MIB I can tell you that behind you and up are the directions we expect you to look - the real danger is from below. Or is that disinformation? :rolleyes: )

Actually this sounds like a good source of profit. Thank you.

It's not as profitable as "legitimate" science that predicts that the sky is falling, through. Watch the segue from bird flu, AIDS, and BSE to a massive buildup of nuclear-powered asteroid-diversion spacecraft which will just incidentally mine asteroids for Halliburton.

Those spacecraft take off from Iraq, no one is going to be able to tell if they leave radioactive contamination behind.

OK you guys, I'm going to make a prediction for all those unbelievers:

By July of next year one (or more) of the following IS going to happen:

a) The Oli-Archy (Oilarchy) of current day will lose a great deal of its power because free energy technology will have been released.

b) War may break out, fascism goes for the gold in another fruitless attempt for world dominion.

c) You won't be putting gasoline in your car anymore.

What I find exceedingly strange is that the "secret world government" manages to follow people around and give them little signs that they're being watched but can't stop several million conspiracy woo-woos from spreading it all over the internet.

Hey dude, the point is, they DON'T try to directly stop them from spreading the information, if they did that then they would be acknowledging that the "kook" is right. So instead they send the "spooks" after the "kook" in attempt to silence him/her if they are a big enough threat. And if the person is a REALLY big threat they may end up dying of "natural causes" in the very near future.

I can give you the name of the man who invented a very efficient way to use water in the automobile, but he was murdered before he could get this technology out, here, watch this video at water+free+energy (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3333992194168790800&q=water+free+energy)

(Stanley Meyer was the name of the murdered inventor)

That link contains a video of a man who was murdered for the sake of The Greedy Oilarchy Empire.

Back to the UFO thing...I'm not really sure if there are or aren't any (to use the phrase) 'aliens visiting the planet', but there do seem to be an awful lot of people having seen strange things. Mexico is absolutely rife with it; Russia as well and Belgium. As a matter of fact, I think it may well be the official position of the latter three nations that there are indeed "UFOs", though I think none have said that they're alien vessels. I recall reading something about a 'gun camera' view of three strange shapes over Mexico. Anyone have any information on this?

I do indeed appreciate that witness testimony is not always reliable, but I don't think it can be so easily broken down into refutation of the entire observation by misrepresentation of the trivial. It doesn't resemble the 'lottery example' given above IMO; if a man were shot in front of you, you might well not know the specifics of the occasion - the calibre of the gun, the time of day - but you'd have little doubt that you'd seen a man shot. Misidentifying a Tornado as a Jaguar doesn't strike me as being representative of the kind of logical discrepancy required to misidentify a commonplace object as a UFO.

They don't necessarily kill those who are in the news being the chief dissidents. That would be far too direct a confirmation. I think they spend the most effort discouraging those who have real credibility. The establishment can afford best to have on their side people who will spout the establishment line reliably. It doesn't matter if they are nearly complete idiots who can't do real science. It's safer that way and most of the listening public can't tell the difference. Those who can't tell the difference can be counted on to dismiss, marginalize, and even destroy those who can.

The occasional murder of someone who is directly linked to something like free energy, UFOs, rape charges against the President of the U.S., and so on, is not nearly politically dangerous enough. It's becoming safer as the decay advances.

Not only does the one who is in the public eye lose professional support, popular support becomes more limited to conspiracy theorists when he is forced to tell people that others in his line of work are dying right and left.

OK you guys, I'm going to make a prediction for all those unbelievers:
By July of next year one (or more) of the following IS going to happen:
a) The Oli-Archy (Oilarchy) of current day will lose a great deal of its power because free energy technology will have been released.
b) War may break out, fascism goes for the gold in another fruitless attempt for world dominion.
c) You won't be putting gasoline in your car anymore.
A) I really doubt it
B) There's always a war breaking out somewhere - specifics?
C) I probably will be - unless I'm not running a car
However, just for fun I'll bookmark this and come back for the laugh.
IIRC Meyer's car didn't perform and no-one has been able to reproduce his work... not even NASA or the military. Is there any proof that he was murdered? If so is there any proof as to who did (and at whose instigation?).
If the secret governemnt is so powerful why doesn't it get rid of the alpha-woo-woos BEFORE they become public figures? They're supposedly strong and pervasive enough to keep tabs on them so they should be able to nip things in the bud before it gets to the stage of arousing suspicion. Let me guess, bureaucratic inefficiency.
Misidentifying a Tornado as a Jaguar doesn't strike me as being representative of the kind of logical discrepancy required to misidentify a commonplace object as a UFO.
depends on your level of familiarity... in that particular case I'd had about 6 years of familiarity with the Jaguar and about a year with the Tornado (but not the actual hardware). Quite a large discrepancy I'd say.
but you'd have little doubt that you'd seen a man shot
There was an experiment done on British TV many years ago where a classroom full of adults were supposed to be there for a lecture when all of a sudden a man broke in and abducted (IIRC) the lecturer. Of course it was a setup but all the witnesses were asked to give a description. Not one was correct and hair colour varied from blond to brown to ginger to bald, height and build likewise varied. Eventually a consensus was reached that he was a fat bald guy - until it was then revealed that the guy who'd started the "fat and bald" description was plant put in there to sway perceptions. The "abductor" came on to be revealed as slim and brown-haired....
People at shootings have sometimes reported THEMSELVES as having been hit until checked by medical teams - surprise, they weren't. Keep telling me about witness reliability.

Oh know, I am not sposoring any no good layabot aliens! If there are aliens then good on them, if not then fine. eigher way you still have to eat your corn flakes in the morning!

OK you guys, I'm going to make a prediction for all those unbelievers:

By July of next year one (or more) of the following IS going to happen:

a) The Oli-Archy (Oilarchy) of current day will lose a great deal of its power because free energy technology will have been released.

b) War may break out, fascism goes for the gold in another fruitless attempt for world dominion.

c) You won't be putting gasoline in your car anymore.

You certainly won't be the first failed prophet on SciForums. We will hold you to this prediction.

Most of the prophets turn out to be a loss.

There was an experiment done on British TV many years ago where a classroom full of adults were supposed to be there for a lecture when all of a sudden a man broke in and abducted (IIRC) the lecturer. Of course it was a setup but all the witnesses were asked to give a description. Not one was correct and hair colour varied from blond to brown to ginger to bald, height and build likewise varied. Eventually a consensus was reached that he was a fat bald guy - until it was then revealed that the guy who'd started the "fat and bald" description was plant put in there to sway perceptions. The "abductor" came on to be revealed as slim and brown-haired....

The “plant” destroys validity of the observation as it pertains to the accuracy of witness memory – it would seem that some participants were going along with the “fat and bald” description out of a sense of an unwillingness to disagree with the plant, and not because they concurred with his account of matters.

depends on your level of familiarity... in that particular case I'd had about 6 years of familiarity with the Jaguar and about a year with the Tornado (but not the actual hardware). Quite a large discrepancy I'd say.

Yes, but you didn't think it was a duck, or perhaps Superman.

There was an experiment done on British TV many years ago where a classroom full of adults were supposed to be there for a lecture when all of a sudden a man broke in and abducted (IIRC) the lecturer. Of course it was a setup but all the witnesses were asked to give a description. Not one was correct and hair colour varied from blond to brown to ginger to bald, height and build likewise varied. Eventually a consensus was reached that he was a fat bald guy - until it was then revealed that the guy who'd started the "fat and bald" description was plant put in there to sway perceptions.

Yes, I remember this bit and I am as appalled then as now at the setup: a plant swayed perceptions altered eyewitness testimony. Now, that's a conditioned response and a deliberate attempt to alter that testimony. I disagree strongly that it can be used to infer that eyewitness testimony is unreliable. If it isn't, how can we infer anything about anything then?

Certainly some description of the man could be expected, but they wouldn't have said it was a woman, or a kangaroo.

People at shootings have sometimes reported THEMSELVES as having been hit until checked by medical teams - surprise, they weren't. Keep telling me about witness reliability.

That's panic though. Is that the same thing?

Yes, but you didn't think it was a duck, or perhaps Superman.
My predisposition was towards military aircraft, plus I was at an airshow... likewise a UFO "fan's" will be towards flying saucers.
Now, that's a conditioned response and a deliberate attempt to alter that testimony. I disagree strongly that it can be used to infer that eyewitness testimony is unreliable.
It shows that they were so unsure of what they'd actually seen that they went along with the most-repeated assertion.They were all there and they didn't even know what they'd seen... and knew they didn't know.
That's panic though. Is that the same thing?
Panic, excitement, whatever. Oooh bright lights in the sky etc. Don't a very large number of UFO reports contain words like "dread", "unease" etc? Self-induced because they couldn't immediately identify what they'd seen and convinced themselves that it was supernatural of extra-terrestrial.
The “plant” destroys validity of the observation as it pertains to the accuracy of witness memory – it would seem that some participants were going along with the “fat and bald” description out of a sense of an unwillingness to disagree with the plant, and not because they concurred with his account of matters.
But it shows that people will "go with the last opinion they were exposed to". If they were certain of what they'd seen they might have stuck with it, but none of them were and none of them did. That's why eyewitness testimony is just about the least-reliable method of obtaining legal evidence. Check out how many court cases have been dismissed because someone spoke to witnesses before they were interviewed about the case by police.

The “plant” destroys validity of the observation as it pertains to the accuracy of witness memory – it would seem that some participants were going along with the “fat and bald” description out of a sense of an unwillingness to disagree with the plant, and not because they concurred with his account of matters.

This experiment proves that such observations can be deliberately altered that easily by government plants whose job it is to deflect inquiry.

Did any of you here about that "alien in a duck" thing on Larry King Live? It was on a week ago or so.

It shows that they were so unsure of what they'd actually seen that they went along with the most-repeated assertion.They were all there and they didn't even know what they'd seen... and knew they didn't know.

No, it shows that witnesses are willing to subvert the truth in certain situations – a fact already well known. While I didn’t see the show in question, it would seem that the witnesses were being called on for opinions while in front of a large group of people – that alone would cause most of them to avoid any form of confrontation on such a minor issue.

It reminds me a bit of a psychology experiment I remember seeing years back. They were measuring the effect TV had on children, specifically as to whether kids would be more likely to play aggressively if they witnessed kids on TV playing aggressively. Problem was their test used one of those kiddy punching bag things to measure violent response. Needless to say, the kids knew that these are toys that supposed to be hit and that in doing so they were still within acceptable boundaries. Then the experimenters tried to extrapolate their results to forms of violence that ran counter to societal norms. Why did they use the punching bag instead of showing a video where kids ripped apart the teacher’s office and burned it? Same reason they put in the ‘plant’ on the other show. To obtain the results they wanted.

This experiment proves that such observations can be deliberately altered that easily by government plants whose job it is to deflect inquiry.

Already knew that, didn’t we? The experiment shows that even a hint of a threat (ie, a possible public confrontation with an unknown wingbat) goes a very long way to altering group testimony.

While I didn’t see the show in question, it would seem that the witnesses were being called on for opinions while in front of a large group of people – that alone would cause most of them to avoid any form of confrontation on such a minor issue.

So your argument is that the people altered their testimony of what they thought was a KIDNAPPING to avoid disagreeing with someone?
It wasn't an OPINION they were asked for, it was a description of what they'd seen, or are you supporting my contention that all that eye-witnesses can offer is opinion? :D

I say, Oli, could you perhaps give me some detail on what you are all descussing?

Hi Regulus. This has devolved into a critique of the TV show I commented on in my last post just before the bottom of the previous page:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=54681&page=6&pp=20
Basically we're now arguing about the reliability (or not) of eye witness testimony... ho hum. But I think we're going to head off into Illuminati/ Secret Government spook agendas at any point now. :p

So your argument is that the people altered their testimony of what they thought was a KIDNAPPING to avoid disagreeing with someone?
It wasn't an OPINION they were asked for, it was a description of what they'd seen, or are you supporting my contention that all that eye-witnesses can offer is opinion?

If your stating that eyewitness testimony is unreliable, then you've got a point. If you're saying it's so random as to be useless in virtually all cases, then your point ceases. The western legal system is based upon a doctrine of eyewitness testimony, and on a case by case basis this stuff is evaluated for credibility and reliability. Certain people's claims aren't worth the paper they are written on. Others are. It's situational. For instance, if two witnesses INDEPENDENTLY report that a plane was upside down before crashing, then the odds the plane was actually upside down are higher than if only one reported it, or two who had collaborated before testifying. That sort of thing.

On this show you describe; it was this 'plant' that lead the witnesses to the opposite description of the perpetrator? How long did this process take? If, say, 1 hour - about how much of that time was taken up by the 'plant's' yattering? Were the eyewitnesses interviewed individually without anyone else present (ie, the way its done in the real world), or were they in a big group? That is to say, were the people in the experiment forced to provide their account in front of the 'plant', or did they give it later after he'd left?

IIRC about an hour, maybe less.
No idea how much of the time was taken up by the plant, it was a 3/4 hour programme, showing the entire thing in sections.
Cannot remember how the interview process took place, I vaguely remember thare was a group discussion bfore they were asked, and possibly they were interviewed separately.
If your stating that eyewitness testimony is unreliable, then you've got a point. If you're saying it's so random as to be useless in virtually all cases, then your point ceases.
First one. Definitely not the second.
In the Uk at least eye-witness testimony is very low on the list of admissible veidence and is trumped by physical or documentary IIRC. And pre-disposition is important.
And yes, independant witnesses are preferable to groups or collaborators.

CommunistHamster:
You certainly won't be the first failed prophet on SciForums. We will hold you to this prediction.

Yes, goooood, I hope you do hold me to this one.

I'm to give you some advice: Buy gold, silver, copper, etc, because the U.S. Dollar is going to die real soon here. The price of gold, silver and copper have all skyrocketed, however, to me it seams like the only reason for that is because the metals are NOT really gaining much worth, the American dollar is losing its worth, so it merely takes more dollars to buy an ounce of gold than before.... Our world is going to be going through some major changes in the near future.

The warning is out, good luck.

(though I posted this is pseudoscience, the advice is still good)

Yes, disclosure is inevitable, THEY are here, but THOSE coming are the ones to be concerned about, especially for THOSE that are all ready cast down here.

Yes, disclosure is inevitable, THEY are here, but THOSE coming are the ones to be concerned about, especially for THOSE that are all ready cast down here.

Norv, why did you come back here? Did your soap box break, or did they get a court order banning you from your favourite corner?

Does you mental affliction have a name, Norv?

I think it's due to the fact that school ends just around this time.
URI - the space idiot is back too.

IIRC about an hour, maybe less.
No idea how much of the time was taken up by the plant, it was a 3/4 hour programme, showing the entire thing in sections.
Cannot remember how the interview process took place, I vaguely remember thare was a group discussion bfore they were asked, and possibly they were interviewed separately.


The results seem unusually inaccurate, so I’m wondering if other controls might have been introduced by the producers to artificially retard the witnesses’ final report. The plant is the most obvious, but it’s also possible they filmed the sequence a number of times and went with the most dramatic audience verdict, for example. In any case, I should think that the endless supply of witness accounts in the legal system would give a more fertile ground for gauging when eyewitnesses cease to be credible or reliable.

I should think that the endless supply of witness accounts in the legal system would give a more fertile ground for gauging when eyewitnesses cease to be credible or reliable.
Hardly. eye witness accounts are allowed in law, but there is little scientific rigour applied to their acceptance or validity of what the claim to have (whether real or not). One lawyer will do his best to to discredit them, the other equally will try to make out that each is a paragon of virtue...
And after the case is closed I doubt that anyone actually follows up on whether they lied (or were mistaken) or not.
Courts are a social and legal process and have very little to do with science (even when calling expert witnesses).

But they are another means for defining objective reality. A man is guilty; he is innocent. Property belongs to this or that woman. Material evidence is always superior to eyewitness testimony; but I assume you're not saying that photographs and videocamera recordings are not material evidence? Some of those are verifiably fake, or misconstrued. Some have not been so declined.

In fact, were we to go farther, we could equally say that the scientific process - not in principle, but as applied, just as eyewitness statements - is based on hearsay as well. Who knows how many deer were lekking in that woodlot, really? How many observers were there? Do they have a reason to fudge their estimates one way or another? Frankly, we can't know anything for not knowing, it would seem.

Yes Geoffp, I have photographic evidence to support my theory on manmade top secret flying saucers... but you let any bought off "expert" look at my photographs and he will lie out his ass to cover up the truth.

Can you tell me where I go to get these payments. I mean it seems unfair that I am debunking your arguments and I'm not getting paid for it. Apparently everyone else is. How come I have been singled out to do it for nothing?

Yes Geoffp, I have photographic evidence to support my theory on manmade top secret flying saucers... but you let any bought off "expert" look at my photographs and he will lie out his ass to cover up the truth.
Let's see these pictures then. We are not paid to debunk rubbish, we do it for fun. In the event that your pictures are not rubbish then we will take serious interest in your theory.

In fact, were we to go farther, we could equally say that the scientific process - not in principle, but as applied, just as eyewitness statements - is based on hearsay as well.
It could be said, of course. But the point of science is that the method of obtaining the results can be done by anyone (although of course if you want to borrow my 30 km-diameter large hadron collider please give me a week's notice :D ).
If you dispute the official value for g, for example, the books show the methods used to obtain that value so you can check it.
Yes people do take the word of researchers (which is subject to distortion, intentional or not) usually without checking. And that could be regarded as accepting eye-witness statements at face value.
It's the open-ness of the methodology that keeps science "honest".

Well...the methodology is open to anyone. Get a camera and a tent, and congratulations! you're a UFOlogist. It's functionally no different from me checking out mountain deer in a valley lek and saying I see about 40, and that their genotypes are such and such. My point is that eyewitness accounts are not without value, unless we take all independent observation as necessarily dubious. One might say that scientists operate on a higher ethical standard. One might say that, anyway.

Well...the methodology is open to anyone. Get a camera and a tent, and congratulations! you're a UFOlogist.
Which shows that UFOlogy isn't a science because using the same methods does not produce the same results.
You are a loony because your photo shows a Venusian type 15 with inbuilt anti-matter drive whereas I am genuine because my photo shows that it's really an advanced gravitomagentic drone from Betelgeuse.
No, agreed, eye witness testiomony is not without some value. But many factors contribute to its reliability or otherwise - personal involvement, hidden agendas, mood etc. Not all of which can be discerned when receiving their statements.

But you're talking about measuring an essentially 'naturalistic' phenomenon. I can't get precisely the same deer feeding at the same time either, but it doesn't mean that ecological feeding patterns aren't correctly parameterized. Assuming that UFOs are from little green men, we're talking about randomly incident encounters with living organisms - and no living organism behaves quite like a physics problem, no matter how much easier it would be for the question if it did. It doesn't mean that the phenomenon is invalid.

However I do quite agree that someone going as far as arguing over whether a photo shows a Venusian type 15 with the interior antimatter drive, or the advanced gravitomagnetic Betelgeusian drone would properly be considered loony.

I mean, come on: everyone knows the Venusian 15 went out of production 10 or 12 eons ago. They don't even stock the 16 on Ragus Prime these days. =(

Errm okay. As for deer feeding (it's all wrong anyway - I know what deer eat and when. They eat the expensive junk they sell to kids for deer and they eat until mum and dad run out of money) there's full taxonomy of foodstuffs etc. And the minutiae are agreed upon by the guys who that sort of thing - and the overall pattern is tracked (I assume, not something I've thought about). Deer ALWYS eat this, SOMETIMES eat this, NEVER eat this, WILL eat this if X isn't available, etc.
And someone else can go out and validate or invalidate the findings. Someone who published that deer type Z ONLY eat plant type B can immediately be exposed as a fraud by one contradictory observation, someone who claims that deer NEVER eat can be shown a fraud with minimal thought (I hope!) etc. etc.
UFOlogy is all contradiction - it has no taxonomy, no "common ground" (every damn UFO book I've ever read disagrees with every other on nearly everything, shape, method of propulsion, construction material, manoeuverability (one book claims they can ONLY turn in 15 degree increments :confused: ) up to and including the idea that "they're from out there"). Where to start? Why bother?
I mean, come on: everyone knows the Venusian 15 went out of production 10 or 12 eons ago.
You forgot about the limited edition re-issue for retro-style rich boy collectors, check your latest catalogue.

And after the case is closed I doubt that anyone actually follows up on whether they lied (or were mistaken) or not. Courts are a social and legal process and have very little to do with science (even when calling expert witnesses).

So you’re suggesting that the legal system is disinterested in returning accurate verdicts? That the courts are subsequently indifferent to the possibility that witnesses have lied, and that this might have prejudiced a case? Interesting. I was under the impression that the system strives for exactly the opposite, and that of 1000 cases, maybe 800 or 900 are decided in the proper fashion.

A question on ‘scientific’ process – what specific physical characteristics of an alleged UFO sighting do you feel offers at least a starting point for laboratory testing? That is to say, other than a statistical doctrine of eyewitness reliability (presumably developed from an existing database), what scientific methodology do you feel is appropriate to measure an alleged phenomenon that tends to leave no physical evidence? For example, in the past I’ve suggested that medical science might in the future be able to break the deadlock through the ability to directly access a patient’s memory and examine the raw feed without the ‘filter’ of the witnesses’ spin. What’s your take on where the starting point is?

Errm okay. As for deer feeding (it's all wrong anyway - I know what deer eat and when. They eat the expensive junk they sell to kids for deer and they eat until mum and dad run out of money) there's full taxonomy of foodstuffs etc. And the minutiae are agreed upon by the guys who that sort of thing - and the overall pattern is tracked (I assume, not something I've thought about). Deer ALWYS eat this, SOMETIMES eat this, NEVER eat this, WILL eat this if X isn't available, etc.

Yes and no - deer are sometimes examined in the face of limited possibilities for feeding. What might they eat if they had a fuller range of foodstuffs? Who knows? Deer lick salt from roadsides, which is something no nutritionist thought they'd do until a few years ago.

And someone else can go out and validate or invalidate the findings. Someone who published that deer type Z ONLY eat plant type B can immediately be exposed as a fraud by one contradictory observation, someone who claims that deer NEVER eat can be shown a fraud with minimal thought (I hope!) etc. etc.

Or perhaps the rarity of the observation might provide false assumptions about the nature of deer feeding. Deer might eat very strange stuff indeed when we're not looking - birds, for instance. Do deer eat birds?

UFOlogy is all contradiction - it has no taxonomy, no "common ground" (every damn UFO book I've ever read disagrees with every other on nearly everything, shape, method of propulsion, construction material, manoeuverability (one book claims they can ONLY turn in 15 degree increments :confused: ) up to and including the idea that "they're from out there"). Where to start? Why bother?

Where to start! Why to bother! Good lord, man! - it's the unknown! The great blackness beyond! The place on our maps that says "Dragones lyve heare - goe ye nae farther"! The place that asks the questions:

"Are we alone in the universe?"

and:

"Can I get funded for this radiotelescope?"

The ultimate answer to existence, the universe and everything! Assuming you reject the otherwise reasonable answer of "42".

Or perhaps it's less significant than that.

Anyway, the point is that it's a very interesting question to me and a variety of other people.


Now, IF aliens were indeed 'real', we would indeed be stuck wondering what in hell they were, precisely, and I imagine the only question we could answer would be that they were from "out there...somewhere". But - if they are real - this wouldn't be an unacceptable hypothesis at the moment. Without capturing an alien craft (and subjecting THEM to alien probes for a change! see how they bloody like it!) and accepting visual evidence (or even landing evidence, if you like) we'd necessarily be forced to say

"Well, they're probably not from here, but we don't know where they're from. That's all we know. Can we get more funding in this round please?"

This wouldn't be at all different from how 'primitive' societies (meaning no insult to those of you from primitive societies; i.e. Australia) would view the arrival strange caravels from Europe. They would see a great thing floating on the water - as if "hovering" there! - making strange noises - a bizarre creaking and flapping sound - with giant white rectangular shapes - some strange new propulsive system that makes use of local physical forces, no doubt - and people wearing strange stretchy clothing and bizarre suits of metal. Those seeing it might well be scoffed at by other tribesmen -

"They did what to you, Slippery Anus?" [cringe] "BWAHAHAHA!"

- but their primitive (apologies to Australians) descriptions would suit their abilities to describe the phenomenon. They might suppose any number of things about the inhabitants of these strange, disturbing craft, all (unlikely) or none (much more likely) of which might be true.

(Actually the above comparison vis-a-vis alien visitation makes me a little nervous, if only for the reason that shortly after the strange metal-wearing visitors appeared, people got repressed. Doesn't bode well. If you're not here for something, then why did you drop in? You want our what?)

Personally, I'd much much rather be in that field than the one I'm in now. The opportunity to really get after a difficult question, a possibly unsolvable one!! Now THAT's something I could really get into. Genetics is deadly dull. Too bad there's no money in it. Ah well. Let's face it though: if we're handing out money for radiotelescopes in the search for extraterrestrial life and sending out probes and radio signals, we should probably be checking the front door to see if anyone's dropped by yet.

Little green man: "Hello? I got your message. Anyone home?"

Us: "Can't you see we're busy searching for extraterrestrial life? Sod off, you non-existent little gits."

You forgot about the limited edition re-issue for retro-style rich boy collectors, check your latest catalogue.

Well who cares what toffs drive? I vastly prefer the Type 8A with the -7100s BC fins. Who says last decimillenium has gone out of style?



[A subnote - apologies for the anal probing humour.

Of all the things that I could potentially accept about aliens and their quirky little ways, I have to admit that I would utterly reject the notion that anyone has been anally probed by any alien for any reason. I don't want to offend anyone, but it seems a little more likely that it's a manifestation of subconsious homosexual angst. Anyway, it's my understanding that all possible increases in scientific knowledge to be gained from anal probing have already been collected in Australia - Geoff]

Deer might eat very strange stuff indeed when we're not looking - birds, for instance. Do deer eat birds? This question is an especially good one as it matches the question as to whether or not UFOs, as alien craft, exist.

In the case of the deer we can easily determine they do not eat birds by examining their droppings for avian bones. These are not found.

In the case of alien spacecraft, a similar exmination of the shit published on the subject produces a similar result. They do not exist.

This question is an especially good one as it matches the question as to whether or not UFOs, as alien craft, exist.

In the case of the deer we can easily determine they do not eat birds by examining their droppings for avian bones. These are not found.

Oh, I've no doubt there'd be no bird bits in droppings. Avian bones are so small as to be quite easily digestible by humans too.

However, sometimes systems are a little more complex than initially expected. To wit - and sticking with the deer example - I give you this little-known but highly disturbing link:

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=870952003

"Rum health diet drives deer to snack on chicks"

Still sure that naturalist observation is so simple? Assumptions springing from lack of knowledge tend to get biased: either up, or down, but biased. I did like the "shit" joke, though. ;)

Let me propose another point here, without trying to unfairly sway the argument:

If space is just so damned limitless and vast, then by Sagan's calculation (and I don't suppose you'd impeach the man who coined the phrase "bil-yons and bil-yons" of stars) it is a mathematical...ugh, well not fact per se, more of a...proof? Still not good...function! there we are!...that there is intelligent life elsewhere in our amazing and expanding universe. Some reasonable proportion (on some reasonable distribution...Poisson, anyone? meh) of those intelligent buggers must have discovered space flight and must have space craft. Now, since I don't have to hand ultimately the list of the parameters - and frankly since some of them must by definition be unknown - it's hard to say whether any of them really would pass the "threshold scale" for the development of such tech (and, again: on what underlying distribution? Gaussian? who knows?) but the mathematical likelihood is there. From that point, one simply has to try and reason out how many - if any - of these groups might have developed FTL or something better (again, total unknowns, regrettably) and then how many might have detected our little globe (unknown function, but probably related to the exponential expansion of radio signal limited by its attenuation in space) and/or have bumped into Voyager and decided that humans looked "sentient" and/or "yummy". I'm no physicist, but if you had FTL travel I suppose with all that relativistic nonsense or whatever you might make a general tour of every bright star with an oxygen/water signature (which physicists devoutly inform me is detectable from the wobble of its photons, and not at all influenced by the shake tractor-trailers roaring down I-90), arriving before you started because of relativity and bang! presto! Bob's your mother's brood-mate.

Or whatever. Sunday afternoon; too lazy to care.

I did like the "shit" joke, though. ;)Thank you. It was the rasion d'etre for my post. :)

I take it that everyone knows what "rum" means in that context? Kind of funny that there is an alcoholic beverage whose name is a word that is used as a synonym for "bloody awful." I suppose that the term "grog" probably means "I want to puke."

I think that it is most obvious that aliens would not anal-probe humans, and that may turn out to be the biggest reasons why the idea that they won't is wrong. Aliens will do alien things that if we reverse-engineer them, we will understand them in our own terms. There are all sorts of obsessive behaviors in Earth's cultures that do not seem rational on the surface. When you look deeper they are outright nuts but at least there is an explanation. Can anal-probing other races become so acceptable to another sentient species that they don't understand what is wrong with it, that those who don't believe in it are thought to be irrational? I definitely think so.

...have we now moved to a debate on the ethics of anal-probing?

Not ethics at all. If aliens did in fact adopt the habit of probing anuses wherever they went, it might or might not make sense to us if we heard the explanation. There are a lot of things that humans do that defy explanation, like worshipping before an icon that depicts their savior being tortured to death. After that irrationality anal probing becomes easier to take.

In other words it doesn't have to make sense to us to actually happen. The argument that they just wouldn't because they are an advanced race is not a good one. A huge number of people on this planet believe in animals and people possessed by the devil. Some of them are allowed to drive cars and own computers. We haven't been getting better, either. Some of this irrationality is as usual forced on us by an insane government. There's a big surprise.