Great UFO documentary

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Ivan Seeking, Jan 5, 2012.

  1. Ivan Seeking Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    957
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    nice
    ufo footage begins here
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Ivan Seeking Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    957
    Here is another obscure documentary that I do not endorse as a whole by any means, but found interesting for a few reasons.

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

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

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



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Ivan Seeking Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    957
    Is no one interested in discussing the real story of UFOs? I see lots of activity around outrageous claims, but very little when respectable information is presented.

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

    Has anyone watched the first documentary besides Gustav?
     
  8. Ripley Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,411
    Yeah I plan to but my head's just not in it right now. Soon.
     
  9. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    You've obviously not came across me yet.
     
  10. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    Hopefully not too long.
     
  11. Ivan Seeking Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    957
    Oh yes I have!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

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

    All or most [some details may be known only to Al Chop] of the information in the film can be verfied through official Air Force documents or other mainstream sources. Most of this was covered in the USAF's Project Bluebook, which was run by Ruppelt.
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2012
  12. khan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    130
    Share any knowledge you have regarding Einstein's unified field theory and UFO propulsion

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. Ivan Seeking Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    957
    Please go away.
     
  14. khan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    130
    I am sorry Ivan Seeking. I will go away as you request

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    It's not nonesense, I have witnessed them myself.

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

    Messages:
    11,238
    Well I know of one specific case, the Alcubierre Drive which uses a metric solution to the field equations of GR - by contracting the space in front of the vehicle you could move the vacuum to reach your destination. The vacuum is afterall dynamical.
     
  17. Cifo Day destroys the night, Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    685
    As a scientist, I firstly dispute the use of the word "object" instead of "image", which can be the only assumption drawn without any material evidence. Likewise, the word "flying" (ie, propelling through the air) presupposes that the image is an object. Finally, the word "unidentified" is redundant in that it simply admits that they don't know what they're talking about. Thus, the combined term "unidentified flying object" (and its acronym "UFO") conveys no discernible scientific meaning.

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

    However, the period musical score for government military documentaries was rather patriotically stirring.
     
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    UFOs are one thing. Alien spaceships are quite another. UFO just means you saw something in the sky that you couldn't identify. Common examples include the planet Venus and weather balloons.

    There's no hard facts supporting alien spaceships.
     
  19. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    It's a matter of believing the facts at face value then deciding whether aliens fit the bill, or whether you are one of these kinds of people who need to see an alien to seal the deal.

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

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

    Messages:
    8,596
    But you only came to this conclusion by your want for it to be true. Cifo gave a very good explanation of what is wrong with the documentary (and with UFOlogical claims in general), and your ignorance to those objections speaks to your religious adherence to the ET myth.
     
  21. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    ET-myth? You need to be careful. Thinking ET is a myth is a rather selfish claim in an otherwise, infinitely large universe with more planets than your puny little mind could fathom.

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

    Messages:
    11,238
    Hello.

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

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

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

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

    Messages:
    17,307
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utX5HvMO0PM
     

Share This Page