Do you believe in UFO?

[Nando]

The flying saucer shape is definitely not the best aerodynamic shape for use in an atmosphere.
However it is a sensible shape for some propulsion theories for space travel.

As to believing in UFO's.
Unidentified flying objects are exactly what they say they are, unidentified.
The vast majority eventualy have a logical and not an interstella cause.

Many unidentifieds that remain will be explained in logical terms in the future.
It is impossible to state that the sightings remaining are of spaceships from outer space.

I have seen at least three UFO's, one from the ground and two while flying.
Non of the three have been explained to my satisfaction.
I still remain unconvinced on the flying saucer theory.

In the late 40s early 50s there were lots of strange aircraft types in the air.
These were mainly tests being undertaken on German and Axis experimental types captured at the end of the war.
Some of these developed into the familiar flying wing and stealth types seen today.
It was the beginning of the cold war and non of the nations involved wanted to reveal what was going on.
A large number of UFO sightings have been of experimental aircraft and I think it was this period that started the craze.
Every one in America and his dog seems to have jumped on board.
I suppose it is a quick route into fame and the American Dream.
Having said all that, I still believe that spacecraft from other planets almost certainly exist.
The chances of seeing one are very remote unless the crew wants to be seen.

I thought the shape of a circle is the most efficient way you can possibly get. Hence why rain drops in a 2D view is a circle, meaning nature decides what the best shape is for cutting through the air.

Yea i haven´t excluded the military black projects as the cause for all of this. The problem though when accepting that theory is obviously that the technology explained by for example the Mexican Military above is so far ahead of anything commercially available.

Forgot the name of of a report but it´s very interesting, it´s witness testimonies from Military personell, fighter jet pilots, commercial pilots and people from those flight-towers where they have seen objects travelling at speeds we have yet to reach yet.
Or that they were dynamically superior.

They even sent up jetfighters to chase them down. I know as well an Airport in either Japan or Tokyo had to shut down because if UFO´s above the airfield.

Seems to me that the phenomenon is real, it exists very much. The question i guess is who owns it.

Either ET´s or it´s military black projects, both will open up a Pandora´s box but in different ways.

[Websta]

I thought the shape of a circle is the most efficient way you can possibly get. Hence why rain drops in a 2D view is a circle, meaning nature decides what the best shape is for cutting through the air.

Yea i haven´t excluded the military black projects as the cause for all of this. The problem though when accepting that theory is obviously that the technology explained by for example the Mexican Military above is so far ahead of anything commercially available.

I'm not sure about the logic about the shape of a rain drop. They actually assume a very inefficient aerodynamic shape (not actually a teardrop) due to the surface tension on the top of the droplet opposing the aerodynamic forces acting on the bottom:


I am still a bit skeptical as to whether a saucer is really the best way to generate lift. Sure, it very likely can create lift effectively, but for every single UFO sighting to be some spherical, saucer shape doing unbelievable aerobatics seems quite far-fetched to me. I just don't see such a design being more so much more efficient than a more traditional aircraft.

I can't deny that some UFO sightings are very compelling, but I can strongly believe that the most likely explanation are experimental aircraft or natural phenomenon or misrepresentation. The default position should never revolve around an alien explanation.

The other thing that concerns me is that I always feel as though I am not getting the full picture with these accounts of UFOs or intercepted NASA transmissions. And again, if the military organisations that supposedly have had UFO encounters (like the Roswell crash) had truly compelling evidence, we would have heard about it from a leak (it would be the news story of the millennium and whoever leaked it would be an overnight sensation). Anyone that does break the silence never has anything ground breaking to show us. The Mexican military encounter in 2004 had pretty decent public exposure and no one in the scientific community really batted an eye lid.

I do love the idea of intelligent life contacting us and am actually pretty intrigued by the NASA Discovery transmission about "an alien spacecraft under observation" as the official explanation from NASA regarding the intercepted transmission was pretty weak. I again don't feel like I have the full story though and am not even sure if it actually occurred.

I just can't change my opinion on the low chance of intelligent life evolving within the same time frame as us (see my first post in the topic)

[Nando]

Notice the 1mm drop. the reason it changes shape is because it´s water and when it gets big enough it will break apart into smaller ones. If you could increase the surface tension tenfold you would probably see it retain a circular shape.

Ahh but you see you are thinking in human terms (or primitive terms)
You don´t need to generate lift if you can theoretically speaking create anti-gravity.
Remember that even though we have B-2 bombers, they still fly on the same principle as the Wright brothers did.


All you need is an efficient shape that cuts through the air. What keeps it up in the air is not regular propulsion methods like for instance jet engines.

Yea no doubt, i would probably guess that more then 80% of sightings are just easily explainable things.
However... it´s the last 20% that is highly highly interesting. Possibly even the last 5%.

See you say that about leaks but everytime someone that has a job we depend on or we consider comes out as a whistle blower or says that he was indeed apart of it. The public automatically labels him as a crazy person.

Even if he would come with evidence, proper evidence. The Military could say "that´s fake" and erase everything that supports the notion that he was in the military.
Especially if this guy worked with Roswell or something. Those kind of groups are not official groups, that´s top secret stuff so erasing your name is even easier the deeper you are in it.

Just playing the devil´s advocate here.

Scientific communities rely on finance. Mainstream science today is not what it used to be. It is way to dependent on investors so if the investor doesn´t want his scientists to go check something out he can threaten by pulling the plug.

People have to eat, people have to have a job to go to.
This thing doesn´t even happen with this controversial stuff but far more "regular" everday stuff.

It´s hard to dispute the NASA recordings, and the fact that as you say gave a weak explanation they simply fuel the fire.
I just can´t see how any austronaut would use the words "Alien Spacecraft" for any other reason then Alien spacecraft.
It seems pretty obvious to me really.

Yea everyone has different opinions on life or intelligent life. My opinion is that we will find that the universe is actually crawling with life.
We have said numerous times that "nothing can live here on earth" then a couple of years later they find a bacteria who simply thrives in that area and have been for the last 2 thousand years.

Same with the bacteria that lives off of Arsenic. Our view on life forms just got turned on it´s head over night.

then you have the age. 13.7 billion years, our planet is 4.5 or 4.9 billion years. And us, the modern man has lived for about 200.000 years.

Just imagine a civilization that had a thousand year head start to us. Can you imagine the technology jump in one thousand years?
Our technology has been around for maybe 200 years and look how far we have come.

Again, just playing devil´s advocate.

[Nando]

Regarding Project Blue Book, government investigation into UFO´s. Not the best place to look for the real truth i guess.

Hynek was an associate member of the Robertson Panel, which recommended that UFOs needed debunking. A few years later, however, Hynek's opinions about UFOs changed, and he thought they represented an unsolved mystery deserving scientific scrutiny. As the only scientist involved with US Government UFO studies from the beginning to the end, he could offer a unique perspective on Projects Sign, Grudge, and Blue Book.
After what he described as a promising beginning with a potential for scientific research, Hynek grew increasingly disenchanted with Blue Book during his tenure with the project, leveling accusations of indifference, incompetence, and of shoddy research on the part of Air Force personnel. Hynek notes that during its existence, critics dubbed Blue Book "The Society for the Explanation of the Uninvestigated."[22]
Blue Book was headed by Ruppelt, then Captain Hardin, Captain Gregory, Major Friend, and finally Major Hector Quintanilla. Hynek had kind words only for Ruppelt and Friend. Of Ruppelt, he wrote "In my contacts with him I found him to be honest and seriously puzzled about the whole phenomenon."[23] Of Friend, he wrote "Of all the officers I worked with in Blue Book, Colonel Friend earned my respect. Whatever private views he may have held, he was a total and practical realist, and sitting where he could see the scoreboard, he recognized the limitations of his office but conducted himself with dignity and a total lack of the bombast that characterized several of the other Blue Book heads."[24]
He held Quintanilla in especially low regard: "Quintanilla's method was simple: disregard any evidence that was counter to his hypothesis."[25] Hynek wrote that during Air Force Major Hector Quintanilla's tenure as Blue Book's director, “the flag of the utter nonsense school was flying at its highest on the mast.” Hynek reported that Sergeant David Moody, one of Quintanilla’s subordinates, “epitomized the conviction-before-trial method. Anything that he didn’t understand or didn’t like was immediately put into the psychological category, which meant ‘crackpot’.”
Hynek reported bitter exchanges with Moody when the latter refused to research UFO sightings thoroughly, describing Moody as “the master of the possible: possible balloon, possible aircraft, possible birds, which then became, by his own hand (and I argued with him violently at times) the probable.”

Found this as well, never seen an explanation for it and it looks pretty damn real to me.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_J7ken4xJ0[/youtube]

If this one is real, it could be Roswell incident. Not sure what cameras they had back then though.

Sorry if i sound pretty enthusiastic about everything but that day i saw one literally changed my life.
Before that i used to laugh at it. Like really laugh and almost was condecending. "idiots...just dumb rednecks in the desert"
That type of idiot was i.

so at least you know why i´m posting this.


More regarding UFO´s.

Charles Halt, Former Air Force Colonel, Accuses U.S. Of UFO Cover-Up

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/2 ... 07492.html

these are guys we would trust with our lives. they risk being ridiculed their whole life, their whole families lifes.
And it´s all for a lie?
It just doesn´t add up.

[bhall]

This might be of interest.

[Nando]

It sure is,

Mars is another funny one. "oh no Mars have never held life"

Now we have found proof that is was indeed water on Mars and now the latest, NASA has found something that will go into the history books.

Even if it´s a bacteria at least it warms up the population to accept that life exists elsewhere.

[Nando]

Here it is! Read this one. They made an independent investigation and found that 5% were un explainable.

Witness testimonies from military, jet fighters, passenger pilots etc.
Some reports they even had evidence that something was there. they took samples of the ground etc and could see the chemical reaction in the grass etc.

COMETA report

http://www.ufoevidence.org/newsite/file ... _part1.pdf

http://www.ufoevidence.org/newsite/file ... _part2.pdf

[xxChrisxx]

“I think nature’s imagination is so much greater than man’s that she’s never going to let us relax.”
- Richard P Feynman

Turns out he was wrong.

Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

[Nando]

That´s really cute of you, i love how you make a perfect example out of yourself.

[hollus]

Same with the bacteria that lives off of Arsenic. Our view on life forms just got turned on it´s head over night.

I wasn't going to post, but that triggered me. That NASA report was wrong (I know what I am talking about, it is my field). The way is was reported, with a press conference before publication, was a mockery of the rest of the scientific community. The data in the paper lacked so much in rigor and controls that it would not have been accepted in a Ph.D. thesis (without NASA's or an equally big name behind it, that is). And since then NASA has acknowledged what many people though after the paper was actually published, that these bacteria lived IN arsenic, not OFF arsenic. They tolerate arsenic (which is quite a feat), but don't use it as a building block. Of course that was never announced as grandly, but you can google it yourself. Expect something biggish but not that big from NASA next week, they got burned badly recently.

Regarding UFO sightings, it is very interesting how the films and videos are always grainy, so far that one cannot make out details, overexposed, blurry... same applies to big foot and the loch Ness monster.

They are almost always made shooting at the sky. How do you propose to gauge the size and distance (and possibly the speed) of an object with no familiar textures moving against a background with no textures at all, when viewed from a single observation point (which most often is moving itself, again, without a proper reference). Your "real" UFO crash above is a good case in point. Overexposed, so the object itself has no shape. For all I see and its behavior, it could be a small rocket, maybe from fireworks, where you see only the flame, or it could be anything, there is not enough data to determine what it is. It could also be an alien spacecraft. Do we call 50%-50% on the chances?

The fact that something remains unexplained with the available evidence normally points to the lack of proper evidence, but it does not enable one to choose a favorite explanation.

[Nando]

I wasn't going to post, but that triggered me. That NASA report was wrong (I know what I am talking about, it is my field). The way is was reported, with a press conference before publication, was a mockery of the rest of the scientific community. The data in the paper lacked so much in rigor and controls that it would not have been accepted in a Ph.D. thesis (without NASA's or an equally big name behind it, that is). And since then NASA has acknowledged what many people though after the paper was actually published, that these bacteria lived IN arsenic, not OFF arsenic. They tolerate arsenic (which is quite a feat), but don't use it as a building block. Of course that was never announced as grandly, but you can google it yourself. Expect something biggish but not that big from NASA next week, they got burned badly recently.

Woah that was news to me, you would expect in this society that if you paster something all over the internet then find out it wasn´t true that they would paste the correction all over internet.

I believe you, have no reason not to.
Here´s a link for others to read, http://www.nature.com/news/arsenic-lovi ... ll-1.10971
Thanks btw,

[Nando]

They are almost always made shooting at the sky. How do you propose to gauge the size and distance (and possibly the speed) of an object with no familiar textures moving against a background with no textures at all, when viewed from a single observation point (which most often is moving itself, again, without a proper reference). Your "real" UFO crash above is a good case in point. Overexposed, so the object itself has no shape. For all I see and its behavior, it could be a small rocket, maybe from fireworks, where you see only the flame, or it could be anything, there is not enough data to determine what it is. It could also be an alien spacecraft. Do we call 50%-50% on the chances?

The fact that something remains unexplained with the available evidence normally points to the lack of proper evidence, but it does not enable one to choose a favorite explanation.

I think that if we assume that video is real then it looks like a really old video and if it is, we can´t exactly complain about the quality as it simply did not exist any better. At least commercially.

It doesn´t look over exposed to me, it looks like the "craft" (or rocket, fireworks(unlikely) is heated.
Looks like an old black and white video with a craft that extremely heated to me.
The fact that it bounces up and then comes down is pretty interesting.

but as you say, could be fake, probably is fake. Here´s another, can see some of the shape of it.
Looks to be some kind of military video. But again, could be fake.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHTSta5etbI[/youtube]


I say we call it UFO for now I´m not saying it´s of alien descent or a military black project, i just think that people are a bit too quick by saying "oh it´s just a balloon or similar"

Even if an object would be a square, people would not hesitate to say it´s a balloon despite the fact that the geometric shapes does not correlate.

As i said, let´s stick with UFO´s, a nice 50/50 possibility.

But i suggest reading the COMETA report. Some very interesting things being said from people we depend on in everyday life.

It´s one thing hearing a redneck in the desert saying he was abducted but to hear a former Military pilot saying something chased them for miles it becomes a different ball game don´t you agree?

[Nando]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jn3YFqhWl4M[/youtube]

[Websta]

12 minutes of foreplay and then some weak UFO evidence. The webpage the video links to just plays the same crap again, and any video with the following in its comment section:

ufo disclosure 2012 london olympics false flag attack iran war alex jones david icke alien footage video film crash world war 3 nwo new world order invasion Aliens bombings bomb nuclear explosion Steven M Greer china usa top secret classified

is definitely out there to just entice website traffic. I'm surprised that the narrator didn't try to sell me a LeSabre

Here is a much more intelligent film:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqMf3towVVI[/youtube]

It at least tries to be unbiased and presents both opinions of sceptics and the unconvinced - that's a much more compelling documentary. I do not think it is anything alien, but it is very interesting footage. I agree with the sentiments at the end - NASA and other Government agencies should present all of the information they use to explain these events (calculations etc) to put the issues to rest.

[Nando]

It wasn´t ment as a video of proof, there are better videos for that, (like the ones i posted or you know posted)
It´s just designed to make you think,