UFO study finds no sign of aliens

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

By whom? There appears to a certain level of unconsciousness going on here...

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

and

You phrase that as if the one (travelling here) automatically gives the capability for the other (remaining unseen). Chain of reasoning (?) on this please...

 

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.

 

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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).

 

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?clie...be electrical fields&meta=&btnG=Google Search

 

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.

 

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.

"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

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...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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 am only mundane once a week. The following day I am Tuesdane, followed by Wednesdane, and so forth.

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?