FAQ
It is currently Tue Sep 26, 2017 10:50 am


Author Message
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 6:26 pm
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 5:02 pm
Posts: 281

Offline
You asked me what i thought was the best or one of the best reports, there are many, I tend to discount Joe Blow being abducted and given an anal probe reports but here are two that stand out...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Tehran_UFO_incident

http://www.nicap.org/coyne.htm

I would like to get back to the OT, I can't explain any UFO sighting as anything, I do know there are some that are inexplicable but lacking any way to objectively investigate them I am looking for a way to confirm they are here and methods that don't require magical technology and reasons why they would bother to look at us to start with.

I read your paper skinwalker, the comparison is valid, in fact I would be willing to say very probable but I have a different perspective on it, being that the aliens I describe in the OT could be the source of at least some of our religions resulting on them experimenting with psychological manipulation of us due to the concern they may have of an emerging intelligence in the same planetary system as they occupy... all pure speculation of course...

I personally suffer from sleep paralysis, an odd thing that once resulted in me seeing "aliens" it's a funny story but I was skeptical even in the grip of sleep paralysis and aliens... :D


Top
SkinWalker
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 6:37 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 10:57 pm
Posts: 433

Offline
I see no reason why it cannot be a suspended object.
What reason(s) exist for it not to be?


Top
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 6:45 pm
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 5:02 pm
Posts: 281

Offline
SkinWalker wrote:
I see no reason why it cannot be a suspended object.
What reason(s) exist for it not to be?



Again I would have to direct you back to Maccabbee's report, he had the negatives i do not...


Top
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 4:25 pm
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 5:02 pm
Posts: 281

Offline
My little dog and pony show on this subject has to to with the spread of civilizations from star to star, our own Sun's ort cloud stretches nearly half way to the nearest star, if the ort cloud was colonized the jump to the ort cloud of the next star would be as natural and not much less brief than simply moving to another ort cloud object. The entire galaxy could be colonized in this manner over the course of millions of years. This makes the objection that star travel takes too long invalid.

This would be my first premise support my notion of where UFOs come from...


Top
Ophiolite
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 1:40 pm
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 12:00 pm
Posts: 261

Offline
The claim that interstellar travel takes too long and therefore ET would not visit is fundametally flawed. There are several alternatives:

1. Generation ships.
2. Suspended animation or hibernation
3. Embryos revived and reared by AIs
4. AIs
5. Very long lifespans
6. High velocities


Top
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 2:12 pm
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 5:02 pm
Posts: 281

Offline
Ophiolite wrote:
The claim that interstellar travel takes too long and therefore ET would not visit is fundametally flawed. There are several alternatives:

1. Generation ships.
2. Suspended animation or hibernation
3. Embryos revived and reared by AIs
4. AIs
5. Very long lifespans
6. High velocities



Agreed, at one time the main objection was the time it took to go to another star, this can now be shown to be invalid. My concept of artificial colonies is similar to generational star ships except the destination wouldn't be a planet.


Top
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:46 am
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 5:02 pm
Posts: 281

Offline
I've decided that the Fermi paradox applies to my hypothesis just as firmly as it applies to other planetary systems and maybe more so. It can be asserted that only signals actually beamed out into space could be detected over interstellar distances. The notion of signals leaking out of normal broadcasts being detected around another star is invalidated by interference from interstellar gases. But orbiting habitats would also communicate with each other and such signals should be easily detectable from Earth. Unless they are using technology we are unaware of their signals, even incidental ones should be obvious...

So we are back to the original conundrum, are eyewitnesses, photos, satellite detections, and radar traces enough to postulate alien visitation given the difficulties of interstellar travel...


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 2:59 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5700
Location: Iowa

Offline
That's where things get a bit fuzzier, because at that point things enter the realm of subjectivity and personal opinion.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:12 pm
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 5:02 pm
Posts: 281

Offline
iNow wrote:
That's where things get a bit fuzzier, because at that point things enter the realm of subjectivity and personal opinion.


That is of course exactly correct, I often wonder if UFOs, angels, elves and faeries are constructs the human mind goes to when encountering something unknown. Humans have certainly been seeing these odd things for as long as written records exist.

On the other hand why would multiple independent witnesses, radar, and satellites detect them at the same time?

It puzzles me greatly...


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:30 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5700
Location: Iowa

Offline
Like others above have posted, I find myself accepting the idea that some of these were pure well-intentioned but mistaken interpretations, while the rest were actual objects but were some sort of military tests or new spacecraft research. That's just my personal stance, though. I definitely think there is other life beyond earth, I just feel the current sample of evidence regarding visitation is better explained by the fallibility of the human mind than by actual visitors.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:52 pm
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 5:02 pm
Posts: 281

Offline
What bothers me is the cases that have huge amounts of data but no resolution, something odd does happen in full sight of people, radar, and other remote sensing devices. Hard to explain them all away and I feel like they shouldn't be explained away as misinterpretations so easily.

Sadly the vast majority are simple misinterpretations of conventional phenomena and hoaxes driven by the "me too" mentality of humans. But there are a very few that are something very different... What that something actually is constitutes the puzzle for me...


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:56 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5700
Location: Iowa

Offline
Indeed, and it's a puzzle for all of us. We just satisfy ourselves with different answers, is all. :)

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 4:05 pm
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 5:02 pm
Posts: 281

Offline
To me it's only a puzzle, once you assume an answer, the puzzle goes away...


Top
tridimity
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 4:38 pm

Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 5:55 pm
Posts: 1117

Offline
What is the point of the puzzle if it is inherently unanswerable - or if you actively evade the answer so as to be able to revel in the mystery of the puzzle? Such an approach is not conducive to progress and deprives of the satisfaction that comes with establishing solid answers (answers that are acceptable beyond reasonable doubt) and of the multitude of fresh questions so often revealed. If you are not already pursuing mainstream Science, why not give it a go? You may find it more intellectually satisfying than speculating over eye-witness accounts and photographs of unidentified flying objects.

_________________
gone also


Top
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 6:20 pm
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 5:02 pm
Posts: 281

Offline
tridimity wrote:
What is the point of the puzzle if it is inherently unanswerable - or if you actively evade the answer so as to be able to revel in the mystery of the puzzle? Such an approach is not conducive to progress and deprives of the satisfaction that comes with establishing solid answers (answers that are acceptable beyond reasonable doubt) and of the multitude of fresh questions so often revealed. If you are not already pursuing mainstream Science, why not give it a go? You may find it more intellectually satisfying than speculating over eye-witness accounts and photographs of unidentified flying objects.



This is not my only interest tridimity, in fact it is quite a low level interest of mine. But it does bother me that everyone seems to think that eyewitness and fake photos are the only evidence. While it's true that no one has a nut or bolt that has fallen off a UFO (not completely true) it's also true that UFOs have left identifiable traces, they have been tracked on radar, in a few instances multiple radars, multiple independent eyewitnesses of expert caliber, these things do indicate something beyond this being something fanciful. I see no reason why it should be simply swept away as silly.

The best non extraterrestrial explanation I have read had to do with something called plasmoids

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmoid

The interesting part is that plasmoids would be balls of light at night and could appear metallic during the day but they are almost as ethereal as alien space craft.

In all honesty I doubt any one single explanation can account for all aspects of this phenomena and some if not a great deal of it could be connected to human response to unusual magnetic fields.

I know I experience sleep paralysis and it has resulted in some unusual hallucinations which is one reason I discount totally the abduction phenomena, during a sleep paralysis some really wild things can appear to happen...

The current status of UFOs reminds me very strongly of how difficult it was to convince people that stones fell from the sky, for literally hundreds of years all reports of meteorites, no matter how many had seen them or the number of odd stones that were submitted as having fell from the sky they were totally discounted. Everyone simply knew that stones could not fall from the sky. To this day, few if any actual meteorites have been seen falling and the object tracked from source to ground and never lost track of. We assume they are from space because we know the characteristics a meteorite has to have but can any of them unequivocally proven to have fallen from the sky? Maybe a few but most are assumed to be from the sky because no other explanation fits not because they were actually seen falling from the sky. If science had stood by it's stance on meteorites we might still be poo pooing them all by saying no one has ever seen one hit the ground under controlled conditions. Deductive reasoning solves crimes by eliminating the possibilities that do not fit so what was this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonnie_Zamora_incident

If we all take the attitude that UFOs have to hoaxes or illusions or crazy people then we could miss the most important event in recent human history simply because we refuse to consider it...

BTW, if this discussion is really unacceptable on this forum I will gladly abandon it...


Top
tridimity
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 6:30 pm

Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 5:55 pm
Posts: 1117

Offline
The Mod's would have locked the thread by now if they deemed the topic unacceptable ;)

_________________
gone also


Top
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 11:30 pm
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 5:02 pm
Posts: 281

Offline
tridimity wrote:
What is the point of the puzzle if it is inherently unanswerable - or if you actively evade the answer so as to be able to revel in the mystery of the puzzle? Such an approach is not conducive to progress and deprives of the satisfaction that comes with establishing solid answers (answers that are acceptable beyond reasonable doubt) and of the multitude of fresh questions so often revealed. If you are not already pursuing mainstream Science, why not give it a go? You may find it more intellectually satisfying than speculating over eye-witness accounts and photographs of unidentified flying objects.



And BTw, i don't think this puzzle is inherently unanswerable. In fact i think it is answerable which is of course the point of this thread. I do know for sure that simply saying no it could not be that is not investigating, Dr. Hynek http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Allen_Hynek in fact was hired by the US Air Force to debunk UFOs and came away convinced that something real was happening.

Quote:
"Ridicule is not part of the scientific method, and people should not be taught that it is. The steady flow of reports, often made in concert by reliable observers, raises questions of scientific obligation and responsibility. Is there ... any residue that is worthy of scientific attention? Or, if there isn't, does not an obligation exist to say so to the public—not in words of open ridicule but seriously, to keep faith with the trust the public places in science and scientists?" (Emphasis in original)[4]


Dr. Hynek's thoughts on UFOs continued to change as he continued to study them.

Quote:
In a 1985 interview, when asked what caused his change of opinion, Hynek responded, "Two things, really. One was the completely negative and unyielding attitude of the Air Force. They wouldn't give UFOs the chance of existing, even if they were flying up and down the street in broad daylight. Everything had to have an explanation. I began to resent that, even though I basically felt the same way, because I still thought they weren't going about it in the right way. You can't assume that everything is black no matter what. Secondly, the caliber of the witnesses began to trouble me. Quite a few instances were reported by military pilots, for example, and I knew them to be fairly well-trained, so this is when I first began to think that, well, maybe there was something to all this."


He did come to complete turn around and the Zamora case was instrumental in this.

Quote:
It was during the late stages of Blue Book in the 1960s that Hynek began speaking openly about his disagreements and disappointments with the Air Force. Among the cases where he openly dissented with the Air Force were the highly publicized Portage County UFO chase (where several police officers chased a UFO for half an hour), and the encounter of Lonnie Zamora. A police officer, Zamora reported an encounter with a metallic, egg-shaped aircraft near Socorro, New Mexico.


Now from my point of view the Zamora has one flaw that makes me question the sighting... Humanoids I have a very difficult time believing in humanoid aliens. I see no reason to expect an alien to look anything like a human in anyway, if not for that I would think the Zamora case is about as close to ironclad as a UFO case can be.

Imagine yourself nearly 50 years ago with all of the witnesses and trace evidence would you just dismiss it and say it was nothing? I can't say i would even with the humanoid aliens.

One of Dr. Hynek's main laments was that the disinformation campaign by the US Air Force made it almost impossible to study these sightings in any scientific way.

Dr. Hynek did later on suggest some startling possibilities, some of which seem less than scientific.

Quote:
"There is sufficient evidence to defend both the ETI and the EDI hypothesis," Hynek continued. As evidence for the ETI (extraterrestrial intelligence) he mentioned, as examples, the radar cases as good evidence of something solid, and the physical-trace cases. Then he turned to defending the EDI (extradimensional intelligence) hypothesis. Besides the aspect of materialization and dematerialization he cited the "poltergeist" phenomenon experienced by some people after a close encounter; the photographs of UFOs, some times on only one frame, not seen by the witnesses; the changing form right before the witnesses' eyes; the puzzling question of telepathic communication; or that in close encounters of the third kind the creatures seem to be at home in earth's gravity and atmosphere; the sudden stillness in the presence of the craft; levitation of cars or persons; the development by some of psychic abilities after an encounter. "Do we have two aspects of one phenomenon or two different sets of phenomena?" Hynek asked.[12]
Finally he introduced a third hypothesis. "I hold it entirely possible," he said, "that a technology exists, which encompasses both the physical and the psychic, the material and the mental. There are stars that are millions of years older than the sun. There may be a civilization that is millions of years more advanced than man's. We have gone from Kitty Hawk to the moon in some seventy years, but it's possible that a million-year-old civilization may know something that we don't ... I hypothesize an 'M&M' technology encompassing the mental and material realms. The psychic realms, so mysterious to us today, may be an ordinary part of an advanced technology."[13]


Top
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 2:35 am
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 5:02 pm
Posts: 281

Offline
This is a hard room but this video does show something unusual, it's dates from the late 90's i think, I first saw it on a UFO show but as far as I know no information has been given, on the show or off, about what it is. For the record i am not stating this is an alien spacecraft but what is it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLX2AaL6eJo

At first it just seems to be a ballistic object, maybe a flare or a shell but it seems to gain partial control after impact before finally crashing, my sons and i have been playing 20 questions about this for years... We are all sure it has a reasonable explanation but...


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 3:30 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5700
Location: Iowa

Offline
Moontanman wrote:
For the record i am not stating this is an alien spacecraft but what is it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLX2AaL6eJo

I don't know, but it's kinda cool, whatever it is.

It actually reminds me of a type of vortex long distance football (by Nerf called the Howler) I used to toss around with friends when I was younger, but powered somehow, and seemingly with much more mass (given how it impacted the ground).

It almost looks like it has two jets perpendicular to each other... one at the back and one on the bottom, as it looks like some sort of exhaust coming out in two directions, but it's hard to tell.


Also, FYI - I notice you may be struggling with the youtube videos in your posts. When you put the video link between the youtube tags, just change your https:// to http:// (remove the "s" so it's not longer a secure url) and that will fix it for you. Cheers. :)

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 11:30 pm
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 5:02 pm
Posts: 281

Offline
Like this?



Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 1:55 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5700
Location: Iowa

Offline
Yessir.

Now, am I right in that I see two distinct exhaust outlets, one pointing backward and one pointing downward?

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:12 am
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 5:02 pm
Posts: 281

Offline
iNow wrote:
Yessir.

Now, am I right in that I see two distinct exhaust outlets, one pointing backward and one pointing downward?



I've looked at this so many times and I do seem to see something like you said but I always figured it was an artifact of the film being so low quality. I can't quite tell if the object passes in front of the telephone poles or not either...


Top
GiantEvil
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 4:00 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 10:19 am
Posts: 786

Offline
The anomalous craft appears to be puck shaped without control surfaces. The shape is wrong for a lift body type fuselage, consequently the apparent ventral jetting is probably vectored thrust for lift. The craft comes in at a dive angle and appears to attempt a nose up correction too late. During each "bounce" the craft is obscured by the horizon which clearly lies beyond the telephone poles. After Final impact and breakup it can be seen that the object is behind the last pole. The video is too poor quality for me to determine which way any shadows lie. From the sheen of the object I would guess that the sun is behind the camera operator. I would guess that this is footage of an experimental craft of terrestrial origin crashing. Is there any information available about the date or location of the footage?

_________________
It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.
-W. K. Clifford-


Top
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 3:39 pm
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 5:02 pm
Posts: 281

Offline
GiantEvil wrote:
The anomalous craft appears to be puck shaped without control surfaces. The shape is wrong for a lift body type fuselage, consequently the apparent ventral jetting is probably vectored thrust for lift. The craft comes in at a dive angle and appears to attempt a nose up correction too late. During each "bounce" the craft is obscured by the horizon which clearly lies beyond the telephone poles. After Final impact and breakup it can be seen that the object is behind the last pole. The video is too poor quality for me to determine which way any shadows lie. From the sheen of the object I would guess that the sun is behind the camera operator. I would guess that this is footage of an experimental craft of terrestrial origin crashing. Is there any information available about the date or location of the footage?



Location was claimed by one source as Arizona but he provided no supporting evidence of this. I thought of the bouncing aircraft idea as well but for an aircraft to bounce and still maintain structural integrity enough to keep operating seems a bit much to ask of anything light enough to fly.

This guy claims it's from New Mexico...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LW7JaAbd3VY


Top
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Sat May 25, 2013 6:24 pm
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 5:02 pm
Posts: 281

Offline
Another day light disc, since it is modern it is suspect from the start

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... paign=1490


Top
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Sat Jul 13, 2013 1:08 am
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 5:02 pm
Posts: 281

Offline
Local UFO sighting...

http://www.wwaytv3.com/2013/07/12/ufos- ... s-airspace


Top
Neverfly
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Sat Jul 13, 2013 4:09 am

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 7:19 am
Posts: 68

Offline
We get a lot of U.F.O.'s here. I see one at least once a week.

The other day, I saw a U.C.O.

I had to do some google image searching, but eventually was able to make it into an I.C.O.

There are U.W.P.'s all over the place. I see dozens daily, loitering at bus stops, walking in malls... On rare occasions, a cop might stop one and identify him or her, making it an I.W.P. or an I.D.P. if it was in a vehicle.


Top
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Sat Jul 13, 2013 5:18 pm
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 5:02 pm
Posts: 281

Offline
Neverfly wrote:
We get a lot of U.F.O.'s here. I see one at least once a week.

The other day, I saw a U.C.O.

I had to do some google image searching, but eventually was able to make it into an I.C.O.

There are U.W.P.'s all over the place. I see dozens daily, loitering at bus stops, walking in malls... On rare occasions, a cop might stop one and identify him or her, making it an I.W.P. or an I.D.P. if it was in a vehicle.




this is an attempt to have a serious discussion, please identify all the abbreviations you list...


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Sat Jul 13, 2013 7:40 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5700
Location: Iowa

Offline
... and hopefully in the process DBAD about it. 8-)

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Neverfly
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Sun Jul 14, 2013 5:22 pm

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 7:19 am
Posts: 68

Offline
Moontanman wrote:
this is an attempt to have a serious discussion, please identify all the abbreviations you list...

Neverfly wrote:
We get a lot of U.F.O.'s (Unidentified Flying Objects) here. I see one at least once a week.

The other day, I saw a U.C.O.(Unidentified Crawling Object.)

I had to do some google image searching, but eventually was able to make it into an I.C.O. (Identified Crawling Object-it was a type of beetle grub my son asked me about)

There are U.W.P.'s (Unidentified Walking People) all over the place. I see dozens daily, loitering at bus stops, walking in malls... On rare occasions, a cop might stop one and identify him or her, making it an I.W.P. (Identified Walking Person) or an I.D.P. (Identified Driving Person)if it was in a vehicle.


iNow wrote:
... and hopefully in the process DBAD about it. 8-)

I will try not to be, but it's not always easy for me.


Top
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 10:03 pm
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 5:02 pm
Posts: 281

Offline
Interesting video interview with Michio Kaku...



Top
GiantEvil
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 4:17 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 10:19 am
Posts: 786

Offline
It's been my experience on forums, that Mr Kakus statements tend to be dismissed by the really hardcore physics and mathematics geeks.
The book sounds interesting though. Here's a preview on Amazon.
If an extra terrestrial society did exist, they could be a billion years ahead of us. But even at that, I doubt they can beat Relativity.

_________________
It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.
-W. K. Clifford-


Top
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:02 am
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 5:02 pm
Posts: 281

Offline
we already know it's possible to beat relativity... now it's just a matter of technology...


Top
GiantEvil
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 3:12 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 10:19 am
Posts: 786

Offline
Moontanman wrote:
we already know it's possible to beat relativity... now it's just a matter of technology...

If you are talking about the Alcubierre drive, it is only tentatively theoretical and not a given.

_________________
It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.
-W. K. Clifford-


Top
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Sat Sep 21, 2013 8:12 pm
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 5:02 pm
Posts: 281

Offline
GiantEvil wrote:
Moontanman wrote:
we already know it's possible to beat relativity... now it's just a matter of technology...

If you are talking about the Alcubierre drive, it is only tentatively theoretical and not a given.



Some traction has been gained on this concept..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White%E2%8 ... rferometer

Warp drive research and potential for interstellar propulsion[edit source]

Quote:
The NASA research team has postulated that their findings could reduce the energy requirements for a macroscopic spaceship moving at ten times the speed of light from the mass–energy equivalent of the planet Jupiter to that of the Voyager 1 spacecraft (~700 kg)[9] or less.[10] By harnessing the physics of cosmic inflation, future spaceships crafted to satisfy the laws of these mathematical equations may actually be able to get somewhere unthinkably fast—and without adverse effects.[11] Also, Physicist and EarthTech CEO Harold E. Puthoff explained that contrary to widespread belief even the highly blue-shifted light seen on board such a spaceship would not fry its crew, being bathed in strong UV light and X-rays. It would however be dangerous to anyone seeing it fly by closely.[1]


as well as this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_va ... a_thruster

Quote:
Theory of operation[edit source]

A Q-thruster will utilize quantum vacuum fluctuations as its propellant. The quantum mechanical Casimir effect has demonstrated that quantum vacuum fluctuations do exist.[1]
A Q-thruster then uses the same principles and equations of motion that a conventional plasma thruster would use, namely magnetohydrodynamics (MHD), to predict propellant behavior. The virtual plasma is exposed to a crossed E-field and B-field, inducing a drift of the entire plasma in the E×B direction, which is orthogonal to the applied fields. The difference arises in the fact that a Q-thruster uses quantum vacuum fluctuations as its propellant, eliminating the need to carry any. This suggests much higher specific impulses are available for quantum vacuum plasma thrusters that will be limited only by their power supply’s energy storage densities. Test results have suggested thrust levels of between 1000–4000 μN, specific force performance of 0.1N/kW, and an equivalent specific impulse of ~1x1012 seconds.[2][3]


Top
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Sun Sep 29, 2013 1:36 am
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 5:02 pm
Posts: 281

Offline
Great Video of a UFO sighting...



Top
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Sun Sep 29, 2013 1:44 am
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 5:02 pm
Posts: 281

Offline
Wikki article about the Alaska sighting...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Air_ ... 8_incident

Quote:
A day later at FAA headquarters they briefed Vice Admiral Donald D. Engen, who watched the whole video of over half an hour, and asked them not to talk to anybody until they were given the OK, and to prepare an encompassing presentation of the data for a group of government officials the next day.[15] The meeting was attended by representatives of the FBI, CIA and President Reagan’s Scientific Study Team, among others. Upon completion of the presentation, all present were told that the incident was secret and that their meeting "never took place". According to Callahan, the officials considered the data to represent the first instance of recorded radar data on a UFO, and they took possession of all the presented data.[14] John Callahan however managed to retain the original video, the pilot's report and the FAA's first report in his office.[15] The forgotten target print-outs of the computer data were also rediscovered, from which all targets can be reproduced that were in the sky at the time.[14]


Top
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:16 pm
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 5:02 pm
Posts: 281

Offline
An odd little film clip, almost certainly fake but how can you really tell?



Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 10:47 pm
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
Maybe the government covers alien sightings up because the aliens ask them to? There are a few good reasons for aliens to keep their presence secret.

1) - It ruins their scientific observations of us if we know we're being observed.

2) - They think we might resent them for refusing to incorporate us into their multi-race federation. (We're not socially advanced enough to join it, unfortunately.)

3) - We also might resent them for being technologically immortal, and for refusing to share the secret with us. (Our population is growing too fast already.)

4) - They can do more to influence our civilization from the shadows than they could from a public forum. (Maybe they''d like to help us advance to the point where we could join their federation.)

5) - Avoiding the same mistakes that were made by European colonialists on Earth during the colonial era. When encountering a primitive civilization it's best not to introduce things too fast.


Top
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2015 3:01 pm
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 5:02 pm
Posts: 281

Offline
There seems to be a growing faction of UFO investigators that are proposing many of the truly puzzling sightings might be attempts at electronic warfare development, sounds pretty reasonable!


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2015 6:01 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5700
Location: Iowa

Offline
Moontanman wrote:
There seems to be a growing faction of UFO investigators that are proposing many of the truly puzzling sightings might be attempts at electronic warfare development, sounds pretty reasonable!

What types of things get lumped into the concept of electronic warfare? I think of things like hacking and EMP surges and physical munitions aimed at cell towers and fiber optic lines and the like.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2015 7:23 pm
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 5:02 pm
Posts: 281

Offline
iNow wrote:
Moontanman wrote:
There seems to be a growing faction of UFO investigators that are proposing many of the truly puzzling sightings might be attempts at electronic warfare development, sounds pretty reasonable!

What types of things get lumped into the concept of electronic warfare? I think of things like hacking and EMP surges and physical munitions aimed at cell towers and fiber optic lines and the like.



Electronic warfare can spoof airplanes and or cause them to appear where they are not and confuse the radar as to the speed and size of the object, it's been going on since the late 40's


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2015 9:44 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5700
Location: Iowa

Offline
Oh, okay. Thanks for clarifying. That does make good sense.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Dywyddyr
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Sun Dec 27, 2015 8:13 pm
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2015 1:53 pm
Posts: 96

Offline
Moontanman wrote:
There seems to be a growing faction of UFO investigators that are proposing many of the truly puzzling sightings might be attempts at electronic warfare development, sounds pretty reasonable!

Not reasonable if they're visual sightings.


Top
Macgyver1968
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Sun Dec 27, 2015 9:53 pm
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2014 11:05 am
Posts: 49
Location: Dallas, Texas

Offline
Dywyddyr wrote:
Moontanman wrote:
There seems to be a growing faction of UFO investigators that are proposing many of the truly puzzling sightings might be attempts at electronic warfare development, sounds pretty reasonable!

Not reasonable if they're visual sightings.



Damn...I'm glad you're here. You're one of the members of the .com site I didn't want to lose contact with.

_________________
Fixin' shit that ain't broke.


Top
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Sun Dec 27, 2015 11:26 pm
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 5:02 pm
Posts: 281

Offline
Dywyddyr wrote:
Moontanman wrote:
There seems to be a growing faction of UFO investigators that are proposing many of the truly puzzling sightings might be attempts at electronic warfare development, sounds pretty reasonable!

Not reasonable if they're visual sightings.



Visual sightings are interesting, in fact the some of most high strangeness are often visual but visual alone is not reliable, Eyewitness testimony is the worst kind of evidence...


Top
Dywyddyr
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Sun Dec 27, 2015 11:37 pm
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2015 1:53 pm
Posts: 96

Offline
Moontanman wrote:
Visual sightings are interesting, in fact the some of most high strangeness are often visual but visual alone is not reliable, Eyewitness testimony is the worst kind of evidence...

Are you under the impression that, for example, a radar sighting is more reliable?


Top
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 9:13 pm
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 5:02 pm
Posts: 281

Offline
Dywyddyr wrote:
Moontanman wrote:
Visual sightings are interesting, in fact the some of most high strangeness are often visual but visual alone is not reliable, Eyewitness testimony is the worst kind of evidence...

Are you under the impression that, for example, a radar sighting is more reliable?


1952 washington DC sighting!

There is at east one sighting that was seen on multiple independent radar, multiple independent eye witnesses, both military and civilian, photographs, interaction with commercial and military aircraft. It happened over a series of several days the the object were seen to fly directly over the Capital building. 1952 washington DC sighting!

No explanation that took all the details into consideration was ever found, even the president was caught up in it.. These pictures are controversial with many calling them fakes even though many on the ground reported them...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_Wash ... O_incident

Image

Image


Last edited by iNow on Mon Dec 28, 2015 11:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Converted ginormous image into thumbnail


Top
Dywyddyr
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 10:58 pm
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2015 1:53 pm
Posts: 96

Offline
Moontanman wrote:
1952 washington DC sighting!
There is at east one sighting that was seen on multiple independent radar, multiple independent eye witnesses, both military and civilian, photographs, interaction with commercial and military aircraft.

Neither answers my question nor provides any actual point with regard to that question.


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2015 2:05 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4851
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
Seeing as this thread appears to have been revived, I feel obliged to resurrect the following post of mine :

marnixR wrote:
it's a long time since i had a look at potential evidence for UFOs on the web, the most interesting being the french CNES site : A history of UAP research at CNES, with 22% unidentified + 41% unidentifiable

the crux is that, amongst all the observations, there's not a single one positively identified as being an extraterrestrial artefact

not exactly much to go on to start building a theory why IFOs are here

(btw, let's stop pretending we're talking about UFOs here - if they're really unidentified, that amounts to very little evidence until some degree of success can be made in identifying them)

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Print view

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
Jump to:   
cron

Delete all board cookies | The team | All times are UTC


This free forum is proudly hosted by ProphpBB | phpBB software | Report Abuse | Privacy