Evidence: The Case for Nasa UFOs Part 1. After the Ghostbuster gives his spiel and a really annoying introductory movie with the music, I kid you not, singing something like "Woo woo da", you then get a, well, lecture, from a young guy who appears on the face of it to have a certain amount of scientific background, but is seemingly unable to spot the crucial gap in his logic - ie, if the dots do impossible things for distant spacecraft, then they aren't distant spacecraft... not that they are spacecraft that happen to be incredibly advanced over our own! Anyway, I picked this up off JREF, but after I made my comment the thread died, so I wondered if anyone here would care to comment. I haven't watched all of it myself (and there's a Part 2 apparently). Incidentally, we seem to see a great deal of shuttle camera footage, but don't hope for anything remotely contextualising the images for you, in terms of when, where, etc. (Although I may have missed something due to poor sound quality). One thing the guy claims is that a dot that apparently scoots across the whole curvature of the earth (doing 900,000 miles per hour according to him) follows the earth's curvature. But he hasn't seen that it only actually curves when the camera does a real-time zoom out during the movie. The curve it follows is of course a parallax that instantly demonstrates that the dot is not thousands of miles away, but must in fact be yards away from the camera.
Most looks like ice and debris blown around by the shuttle's RCS units to me. The scene with the space station and the "moving object" is out of context. The shuttle's camera and the station are moving as well, and quite fast in their orbit. The "moving object" could well have been a bit of debris, another satellite, or even a distant star. I didn't notice if the object passed in back of or in front of the station or not and can't be arsed to watch the video again. I'm sure, however, this is just the type of video that significance-junkies and mystery-mongers love, since it shows how the establishment is suppressing the truth (in these publicly available bits of footage).
From what I remember the guys hypothesis moves from near science foundations to the Dogan tribe and some vast conspiracy theory that aliens have been visiting the earth for centuries. Like Skinwalker says, all the artifacts filmed appeared to be down to thrusters firing and overall shuttle movements. In fact some of the artifacts look like a Solar corona (The light from the sun hitting an object isn't subject to atmospheric dissipation) around dust particles or space debris. Therefore a corona appears to move infront or behind a tether (can't remember which). One other point that appears a flaw in his theory is in the second part when he concludes one such artifact is similar to a Dogan representation of an Alien craft, however would any interstellar traveller continue to use the same ship design for centuries? Doesn't our evolution and technological evolution suggest no?
A good argument, but doesn't the whole deal with the notion of a civilisation developing interstellar travel on a principally viable basis somewhat dictate that old chestnut regarding time travel would equally be popping up to the fore? Couldn't agree more with either of the assessments regarding the video by the way, what we're looking at here is ice, lens effects and a morbidly overweight actor being not too fussy regarding quite where he gets his protein from - but generally speaking, if there were either someone or something out there capable of doing the whole start trek deal for real - you'd be looking at events happening, chronologically speaking, in terms of some degree of chronological displacement occuring.... Just a shame the Dogon never really actually represented alien space craft, culturally speaking, in the first place really. It's just something they've been known to do to keep the tourists happy.... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I watched the entire series of 2 videos, what I can say is that it's compelling and opens my eyes to alot of what CAN BE. The reality is that I've tried finding out more concerning his theory of the Galaxy Clock, and while it sounds nice many people (the ones that do discuss it) have said it's complete nonsense. It lacks a scientific foundation according to many. I'm not even sure how this principle would be applied to interstellar travel, it makes no sense to me why the UFO's would make use of it. I also like the argument that if true why would the ship still be designed in the same fashion :-Z I'm at work Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I loved the flying doughnuts ... at some time there were 3 of them rotating with a hole in the center - then the mo.fuckin .astronaut actually focused , out of the window, and all 3 just dissapeared into real objects in focus - fuck you nasa !!! This MUST be the final proof of little green men on Mars !!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! :m:
Imagine you make a design but then create an Iteration or "Revision" before it's made a reality, even though that reality is actually a grandfather paradox. It would mean an infinite loop of iterations of design where the prior is always less advance in comparison to the latter (Unless curtailing to Artisan Aesthetics over functionality.) What I mean is so much hype goes on time travel and not so much on how FTL information if proven possible would create paradigm shifts in technology, which if manipulated correctly would take an otherwise exponential curve to vertical heights. [edit] To explain the point of the post, The ship designs would never be the same if FTL information was possible, let alone 'time travel'
A fact I'll never find less than extraordinary.... As to the former: technically they wouldn't be being still designed in the same fashion - they'd all be from pretty much the same period in terms of the technological civilisation that built the things, it's just in arriving here, from our perspective, their arrival could conceivably appear interspersed by many intervening centuries - assuming current idea's concerning relativistic travel over interstellar distances remain, in practice as well as principal, correct. Basically, if you crack doing the Star Trek thing for real - interstellar travel on a viable basis - time travel becomes inextricably linked with the activity. No body gets to go anywhere particularly much or either far within their own lifetime without displacing a shit load of chronological time in the process - you start at one point in time and space and arrive at another, chronologically speaking, always in the past from your perspective. It doesn't matter whether your Captain of the USS Enterprise or Commander of the Roidal Mothership from Zeta Reticuli - consequently, from our perspective, visiting craft seem largely unchanged in design despite the passage of centuries largely because they're all from, relatively speaking, the same period... However, as I did endeavour to point out previously, the Dogon never actually claimed to have kept records of visiting alien space vessels - certain authors have claimed this, but this has never been either noticed nor indeed confirmed by any genuinely anthropological based study ever conducted - so the whole notion of these craft remaining unchanging as disclosed in historical documents kept by thee people remains wholly apocryphal to begin with... I'm wagering here your not actually employed in any capacity requiring you to press important looking buttons, are you?
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!... Hey, good answer. It's a little reminiscent of one of Douglas Adams better plot lines involving a pre-FLT travel civilisation steaming off to war with their neighbours by launching an enormous armada of battle ships hell bent on destruction - however, in the time intervening between their dispatch and arrival, FLT travel is developed, a diplomatic solution is reached and throughout the course of the following centuries peace and prosperity rules the galaxy - until, of course, the armada that everyone forgot about finally shows up and starts kicking rigours butt... With a UFO what are we actually looking at in concept here - a craft in itself capable of viable interstellar travel or something less rangefull, something designed to drop into atmosphere from orbit and return to it serving as some form of atmosphere capable transport and reconnaissance vehicle in the meantime? Realistically speaking our concept of either disc or disc-like UFO's only stems as far back as 1947 - so called "Historical" interpretations of UFO sightings as similar objects equally only crop up post Kenneth Arnold - all previous descriptions are actually markedly different from our classic flying disc shape - being described, vicariously, as "Foo Fighters" during the war years, corresponding to a likening form relatively speaking closer to that of winged shaped craft and previous to that the common description consisted of them being being referred to as "Ghost Rockets" - a description hardly reminiscent at all of either latter forms. Being as the actual history of UFO's as we generally tend to think of them extends only as far back as the course of the last 60 odd years or so - consider if you will how actually little standard aircraft design has actually changed over the same period - aircraft designs we today consider ultra modern in aspect, the B2 Spirit for example, actually isn't at all that very much different in design to some of the later examples of prop driven bombers designed and operational towards the end of WW2 and onwards into the early 1950's. The famous flying wing, remains but one example. On closer inspection we can, of course, notice and point too many, many difference in both aspect, design, propulsion systems employed and function - but in general aspect and principal a plane remains a plane as far as its general overall design goes becasue, irrespective of when it was built, in flying at all in the first place a modern day plane is using the exact same underlying physical principals that boxy piece of crap the Wright brothers first forced into the air back at the beginning of the previous Century. If indeed some form of continuity of design does in fact exist between UFO sightings of the present day and those of decades before, I'd largely venture it's becasue whatever principal by which they operate remains fundamentally as adequate to the necessities of their functionality as basically a tube with wings and an engine on it does for us... Basically, we have to get into the air from the ground up - the proposition with visitors remains quite the reverse - however they are supposed to get here to this, our solar system, they enter the atmosphere of this our world from orbit down - that's the exact reverse of any aircraft we have to build except those designed for planetary exploration - and, oddly enough, they don't generally tend to have wings either. Aesthetic coincidence or the product of design function?
The design's posed always seem Aesthetical to me, notibly Asymetry. Quite like the 'Little Grey man' dipiction that people often conclude is a reality. To me it's all too perfect, too much asymetry and no mention of defects (A humans face can alter with time and events), such things would suggest an artistic construct of someones psyche or a depiction of a mask (again the mask would be designed with the same artistic interpretations). Thats why the community of people that conclude such aliens and craft that go hand in hand, always seem false to me. You are right that the fundementals of flight rarely change, but they do alter occasionally. Yes Aerodynamics is pretty much the same however the materials available through technology (Notibly attempts at space exploration etc) can change the dimensions and power of whats available. My overall theory for eventual craft flight is that Aircraft in the future will not actually have engines but utilise Matrice Mechanics to create lift and propulsion. Basically turning Cars and Planes into mere Carriages, however you can question the number of antenna arrays and the amount of overall power consumption (although applied potentially node by node from Renewable energy sources) and of course the overall health related effects that might be presented. Such a system however would cut down greenhouse emissions and there are other unclarified (and potentially classified, not by a military but meaning things that need to be proven by experimentation and patentable) uses.
Ive not seen the footage, but it is beyond question that there are craft in the upper atmosphere/around the earth itself, i'll say that much, since this is the general issue at hand here. Im all for prosaic explainations where appropriate, but ive seen explainations such as the 'ice particle' theory been abused and stretched beyond logic far too offen in these sort of cases in a mad scramble to make the footage/data undestandable via 'known' or prehaps accepted phenomenon. The disk-shaped craft explaination (which is a known phenomenon, although offen forgotten) is offen the only reasonable and actually far more likely explaination once youve ruled out space debris/metorites/ice-particles. I really see no reason to leave such an explaination out of the equation in the process of reaching a 'best-guess' verdict. I highly recommend seeking out more nasa ufo footage (moutains of the stuff) for a better overall picture, you'll soon accept that space-debris cannot travel under their own power/suddenly change direction. And that ice particles cannot hover in upper atmosphere and then slowly descend towards the earth surface. To name but a few instances. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ... Though I largely agree with you here on this, isn't the term your looking for more correctly symmetry as apposed to asymmetry? Indeed, we do very much so respond to the presence of symmetry in either an object or rendering of such as indicative of either aesthetic preference or, indeed, artifact - most naturally occurring forms, including the human face, are indeed asymmetrical (ie, not being exactly balanced) where as the popular concept of your average alien mug indeed appears far too symmetrical (balanced on both vertical planes) to strike most people as being either real or particularly natural... Being as most reported UFO sightings generally relay descriptions of highly symmetrical forms, ie: disc's, crescents, cylinders, cones, toruses, the occasional sombreró - I'm gathering you mean its the basic lack of asymmetry being presented which dictate some form of aesthetic preference on the part of those relaying such description of what would be, in practice, actually highly symmetrical geometric forms. That being the case however technology, most especially aircraft, generally and by far in the main simply have to be highly symmetrical in order to function - in profile, obviously there's a good deal of difference between the back and front end of an plane - that much largely remains a given - but in all other aspects aircraft design requires symmetry and indeed presents as such in terms of most visual frames of reference. That being said of course, compared to the visual aspect of a flying disc, you're average plane looks about as symmetrically perfect as I should imagine Quasimodo's face must have appeared to the average Parisian, assuming of course such an individual in anyway remained actually living - since we know that a disc-shape remains all but singularly useless when it comes to straightforward aircraft design - and yet such objects routinely, via UFO reports, have being relayed as being not only capable of flight but also unusual degree's manoeuvrability we know doesn't conform to any kind of typical aircraft design or propulsion system adequate enough to explain such behaviour - indeed it is tempting to just attribute such descriptions as exist as being those of simply our own personal idea's of what massively advanced scientific and technological understanding looks like in comparison to that of our own technology currently applied.... It's conceivably a factor, I personally wouldn't in the slightest discount as being present within many largely uncorroborated eyewitness accounts as happen to crop up with tedious regularity. Even within highly corroborated reports, the interpretation that generally goes with most peoples idea's concerning what sorts of principals such an object actually employs I equally find somewhat wholly spurious and not in the slightest possible to discern from such first hand accounts as stand up to some measure of factual scrutiny. ... Dispense with the necessity of having to explain a UFO in terms of it employing some form of wildly exotic and advanced propulsion system however and the sorts of forms as commonly described conversely do begin to make a modicum of engineering sense. A vehicle entering atmosphere from space simply doesn't require an engine in order to explain its apparent capacity for phenomenal degrees of speed - it needs some for of brake in order to slow down in orbit and thus facilitate descent - but to be in orbit in the first place means that such a vehicles mass is already travelling more than adequately fast enough to begin with from the onset. Inertial applied to it via whatever means placed it there in the fist place would remain more than adequate velocity enough to remain quite remarkable if viewed at lower altitude, within atmosphere, subsequent to initiating descent. The only other requisites necessary to account for a UFO, as pertaining to the sort of vehicle design and physical behaviour relayed in eyewitness accounts, remain that - a: such an inertially travelling vehicle possess some means by which to stabilise its continued forward motion and that b: it possess some equal means by which it can both maintain and control both its own altitude and rate of descent. Induce the principal of its mass to spin and continue to do so and it both attains inertial stability and maintains gravitational orientation - construct the principal of that same mass out of conductive material and that same action, in taking place within a magnetic field, brings about electrical induction thereby allowing the vehicle to produce its own magnetic field thereby allowing gravity, in that action of pulling the vehicle earthward, to bring about some degree of electromagnetic resistance between both fields and the direction in which gravity wants to compel the vehicle's mass to move. Being initiated at the onset in a micro-gravitational environment it would mean it possible for such a vehicle operating under these perfectly applicable physical principals to effect some measure of control over its rate of descent downward significantly earlier than reaching atmosphere - thereby facilitating a safer, more sustained entry into that atmosphere rather than having to drop like a stone and burn as our more usually applied approach somewhat dictates we must. Everything else apparently distinguishing a UFO as being in some fashion impossible to either explain or indeed achieve by our own level of technology simply remains as a side effect of simply using electromagnetic-resistance as opposed to air resistance from the onset - something which could only conceivably be achieved by starting off in orbit to begin with. Standard already well applied and understood physics allows for the existence of such a vehicle one could only describe in terms of both visual aspect and physical behaviour as being a UFO - without the recourse to have to feel we simply must have to bend the laws of physics completely out of whack in order to do it. That being the case however, irrespective of your average UFO nuts take on the matter including, I should happily imagine, my own - can we seriously conclude that your average description of uniform symmetry actually dictates a lack of imagination on the part of those that claim to witness such things so routinely - or, indeed, are they merely relaying what they simply observe and it remains a lack of imagination on the rest of our respective parts to simply knuckle down to the matter at hand and be prepared to actually think the proposition through? As you know, I can happily blow off so-called UFO incident report after report, largely becasue I genuinely find such testimony as mostly given either spurious or just wholly made up - but at the back of my mind I simply can't, in any degree of actual conscious say - "Actually, no. Something along the lines of what such and such describes remains completely beyond the bounds of reason." To consider aliens as being in anyway shape or form an actual explanation for anything - it doesn't. It doesn't explain a single damn thing and largely never will - it just begets more and more questions, none of which remain in anyway within the province of a single human being to in anyway adequately account for let alone adequately address. Even in attempting to do so, one has not one solitary way of knowing that one is right one way or the other - period. But before you get to all the alien crap you have to ascertain first and foremost weather or not the things which prompt people to flap on about aliens in the first place actually, physically can exist to be to be real enough to have been observed as having been present in the first place - if looked at objectively, the bog-ordinary version of the standard physics book not only can but in practice I'll wager actually does support the notion in terms of what people relay witnessing. Not in terms of what they simply presume to be the case or indeed commonly seem to presume to be implied by what consistently becomes relayed - but strictly in terms of what is simply relayed as having been observed. Not via the head, the eye.
Indeed I guess I meant symetry, however I was thinking of a saucer along one plane as apposed to the others which is why asymetry was mentioned, I didn't clarify what my thoughts were Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! In the case of a planes Symetry you can take into account that it's a mathematical application to generate balance, however aerodynamics of a plane is far different from a spacecraft. As you posed such craft have to deal with leaving and entering the earths atmosphere, if you were to take that spacecraft to a different planet then the gravitation and atmosphere is likely to be different which means your ergonomically formed spaceship with the mathematics of the forces of our planet in mind are likely to be put under strain through a different planets forces, implying different mathematics. The point was that when people tell complex lies or not so complex lies, there is usually a wealth of information missing from the story. The more the story is told, the more elaborate it becomes. Either the story telling jogs a memory here and there or the story teller just keeps adding new stuff to make it more entertaining (usually for themselves) This is why you can pretty much ask questions they don't expect to work out if they are fibbing or not. For instance if they say they were abducted you could ask a whole host of questions about what they were up to that night, what they had eaten, what they were wearing, what was on the television etc. Most people assume you won't remember, however if someone life changing occurs, absolutely every detail becomes a big thing and it remembered in it's full glory.
Isn't there one massive hole in this whole thing: If NASA has something to hide, and knows they have something to hide, why are they putting footage on TV?
For something specifically configured for atmospheric flight - indeed, you'd need to configure a different airframe for every planet you intended visiting - however a vehicle of the sort outlined wouldn't be configured actually for flight at all: more, with adopting a generalised, unidirectional airframe (provisionally disc like for sake of argument) you'd be looking at something designed to facilitate its smooth passage through atmosphere across 360 degrees of its horizontal plane - not flight, just atmospheric passage whilst remaining in atmosphere. Indeed, precisely as you relay, planetary mass and therefore gravitational force is always going to vary between planetary bodies - electromagnetic field strength of a planets electromagnetic field is equally likely to vary - but these kinds of environmental variations wouldn't in practice actually impact on the exterior design of a vehicle designed to use electromagnetic resistance in preference to atmosphere to maintain and control over both altitude and rate of descent. Indeed, absolutely, a plane configured for flight in our atmosphere won't fly in the atmosphere of say either Mars or Saturn - a field generating vehicle on the otherhand isn't using atmosphere to stay in the air no matter what the density or lack thereof - it would be simply designed to pass through it. A disc remains a perfect shape for facilitating passage through most atmospheric eventualities just so long as your not expecting to fly the ruddy thing... Actually, I couldn't agree more. a certain degree of vagueness and generalisation within any account usually indicates fibbing, or at the very least, as you say, embellishment to make the telling of the tale more interesting. On the matter of claims regarding abduction by aliens, I can honestly say I've never come across anything I could honestly say the relaying of the account left me with the slightest doubt in my mind that what's being relayed here, in happening at all, happened in someones head. When it comes to UFO sightings on the otherhand - when y'get down to it, it's like describing watching any other form of transport you care to mention - or should be. Other than it having been there and perhaps bobbling around a bit, there really isn't all that much by way actual action taking place to relay - odd thing seem, didn't move much like a plane - next thing y'know its gone. Even descriptions coming from trained observers such as pilots regarding surface detail, etc remain unclear - things like course, bearing, speed, manoeuvrability, etc - these details often come back perfectly clearly becasue that's part of what they're trained to look out for - but without a recognisable profile to latch onto visually, coupled with dealing with often times a highly fast moving object or objects - impressions regarding form is about all even the very best observes manage to get the opportunity to take on board and recollect, not much by way of visual detail. 9 times out of every 10 people are generally just so surprised to actually be seeing what it is they think it is they're seeing they generally do just merely focus on what it is they are seeing - and when you get a story that runs counter to that, even though actually in most instances all people are actually seeing turn out to be is a simple misidentification of something perfectly mundane just simply seen in an unfamiliar way - when the detail comes in too rich and a little too good to be actually true - then y'know someones taking the piss... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
