ET Visitors: Scientists See High Likelihood [Archive] - Page 3

Johnno

2005-Feb-22, 06:47 AM

Explain how misidentified visual phenomenon can return radar echos pic up on 3 radar screens on board of the B-29 Superfortress?

The amount of radar screens doesn't matter at all if they're all fed by the same source. I've been looking for information about the B-29 and its radar systems, so far all I've found is that a few of them were in '51 modified to become AEW aircraft, and fitted with large radars (one a piece).

If there were only 3 people onboard a B-29, why did you need 3 radar screens? Obviously they'd have to be from different systems.

Now tell me which those systems were ;)

Now, lets assume that the B-29 only had one radar, the big radar used for AEW. We'd have to figure out the stats for it, but it's possible that the "ufo" crafts were simply popping up and down on the edge of the radar's bottom limit. So you could in fact have 10 fighter planes, that all know the radar's sweep frequency, they all stay below radar, and then one, the one furthest away, pops up above radar. You get a echo. Then it pops down. Next sweep the plane second furthest away does the same thing. Since the planes are the same type they'd give the same radar signature, so it would appear like the plane had travelled really fast... while in reality there were two planes.

Now go find me the sweep frequency of the AEW radar used on the B-29 in '52. ;)

Could simply be that the air force wanted to test the radar's capabilities, not to mention the crew of the B-29 in question (maybe they did so with the other crews as well?).

It's not that hard to fool a radar.

So a "case" like that isn't solid unless they actually publish all the information...

edit: spelling

Archer17

2005-Feb-22, 06:49 AM

I'm not asking for analogies outlaw, why the evasions? It's a direct question regarding proper UFO investigation, a direct answer would be appreciated. If the unidentified flying object is no longer present, how can it be properly investigated?
That is the series of EVENTS observed caused by the presence of the UFOs at the moment they happened who are investigated.Sorry outlaw. You're citing after the fact speculation which happens on both sides of this issue .. which is why I have a problem with UFO "investigation" in the first place. How can UFOs be properly investigated if they are no longer there? You started this so I'll keep asking until I get a straight answer.

Archer17

2005-Feb-22, 07:36 AM

In retrospect outlaw, who "started " our above back-and-forth is relative. I was gonna edit it but I figure I'll let this be a lesson on snap-replies. I voiced the reason why I think investigation of UFOs is a flawed concept first, you called me on it. That's the only concession I'm making though. The ball is still in your court.

scourge

2005-Feb-22, 09:12 AM

Ahh man, this can't be good--I just read that the Jennings report gets into the (retarded) adbuction thing. Drat ](*,)

Archer17

2005-Feb-22, 09:39 AM

Well, that might not be such a bad thing scourge. It could mean that they'll cover all aspects of the UFO topic, which they should. Lay it all out and let the chips fall.

Fram

2005-Feb-22, 10:03 AM

I'm trying to calculate and imagine a few things about the Gulf B29 thing as linked.
They travelled at 5240 mph (more or less), and never came closer than 20 miles. That would make it a 15 second trip to pass through 45 degrees of one's vision (I hope I'm clear here and that my math is solid enough for those basic calculations). Would it appear as a 'streak', a 'flash', with that relative speed? I doubt it, but I guess there are people with more experience in that area here.

Johnno

2005-Feb-22, 11:22 AM

They travelled at 5240 mph (more or less), and never came closer than 20 miles. That would make it a 15 second trip to pass through 45 degrees of one's vision (I hope I'm clear here and that my math is solid enough for those basic calculations).

Well, for simplicity I assumed that the UFO was flying in a circle around the B-29, at around that speed it would take about 25 seconds to cover 90 degrees of the flyaround, at a distance of 20 miles.

Streak/flash? Not likely.

Even going as low as one second to cover 90 degrees of the flyaround would still probably not be considered a streak/flash. But let's assume so, just for fun. 1 second, 90 degrees of a flyaround, at a distance of 20 miles. That'd make it fly at close to 200,000 km/h, or around 135,000 mph. *chuckles*

edit: spelling and clarification.

Fram

2005-Feb-22, 11:33 AM

Johnno

2005-Feb-22, 11:38 AM

I just assumed that they travelled in a straight line along the plane, with the closest point being 20 miles away. Then you get 15 seconds for 45 degrees iso 25 seconds for 90 degrees. Not a great difference, just thought I would clarify!

Yeah that's what I started my calculations on, but since I'm on my lunch break I figured it'd be easier to do the quick and dirty, so a circle it was.
Seem to remember somewhere it mentioned how the UFOs were flying around the B-29, never coming closer than 20 miles. Then a circle would make more sense.

But you're right, not a big difference with these distances/speeds.

scourge

2005-Feb-22, 12:27 PM

Well, that might not be such a bad thing scourge. It could mean that they'll cover all aspects of the UFO topic, which they should. Lay it all out and let the chips fall.

Meh, maybe you’re right…but the abduction hysteria pretty much obliterates the already marginal credibility of the whole topic. There’s a gulf of difference between ‘sometimes really confounding events witnessed by trained observers seem to coincide with incredible radar returns’ and ‘little grey men pulled me from my bed without waking my wife sleeping beside me, only to subject me to traceless, nonsensical medical experiments and fill my head with a bunch of ridiculous new age drivel, then put me back in bed without ruffling the covers. And oh yeah, they do this all the time.’ !?! Y’know?

I see no reason to assume that sightings and ‘abductions’ are even related. I know a few people who have had night paralysis episodes, and they thought demons or something were holding them down…abductions are purely psychological. How come military Colonels and scientists never get abducted? Because the people who report abductions are loons, that’s why. IMHO, of course, :^o

outlaw

2005-Feb-22, 08:03 PM

Explain how misidentified visual phenomenon can return radar echos pic up on 3 radar screens on board of the B-29 Superfortress?

The amount of radar screens doesn't matter at all if they're all fed by the same source. I've been looking for information about the B-29 and its radar systems, so far all I've found is that a few of them were in '51 modified to become AEW aircraft, and fitted with large radars (one a piece).

If there were only 3 people onboard a B-29, why did you need 3 radar screens? Obviously they'd have to be from different systems.

Now tell me which those systems were ;)

Boeing also equipped the B-29 with advanced radar equipment and avionics. Depending on the type of mission, a B-29 carried the AN/APQ-13 or AN/APQ-7 Eagle radar system to aid bombing and navigation. These systems were accurate enough to permit blind bombing through cloud layers that completely obscured the target. The B-29B was equipped with the AN/APG-15B airborne radar gun sighting system mounted in the tail, insuring accurate defense against enemy fighters attacking at night. The B-29s also routinely carried as many as twenty different types of radios and navigation devices.
http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/boeing_b29.htm

Johnno

2005-Feb-22, 10:40 PM

Boeing also equipped the B-29 with advanced radar equipment and avionics. Depending on the type of mission, a B-29 carried the AN/APQ-13 or AN/APQ-7 Eagle radar system to aid bombing and navigation. These systems were accurate enough to permit blind bombing through cloud layers that completely obscured the target.

But this wasen't one of those B-29s. This was one of three AEW B-29s that had a AEW radar (AN/APN-20? from memory), why would they have bombing radar on a AEW aircraft? not to mention you couldn't pick up objects at a distance of 20 miles, that were horizontal compared to your position, with a bombing radar. No, I'd guess they didn't even have a bombing radar.

Oh yeah, I checked your link, that's for a normal B-29, not the AEW aircrafts. Maybe you should get your facts straight?

The B-29B was equipped with the AN/APG-15B airborne radar gun sighting system mounted in the tail, insuring accurate defense against enemy fighters attacking at night.

Hmmm, look what I found. B-29 AEW picture (http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/bombers/b29aew-1.jpg)

I can't see any turrets on it. Can you? Why would they have radar gun sighting systems on a aircraft without turrets?

So again, why would they have 3 radar scopes, when they only have one radar, and only a maximum of two people to operate them? redundant backups?

Now the question is, did they only have a crew of 3? I'd think that on a AEW they'd have more people, I mean half the bombbay was redone to house radar equipment.

Speaking of 3, there were 3 AEW B-29s. One blew its radar early on. Second one didn't have a preassurized cabin so it just flew low altitude training. Which leaves one plane, which of course basically just flew training/test flights.

Remember, these weren't operational planes, these were prototype tests.

outlaw

2005-Feb-22, 11:10 PM

No.Pixels bled are visible like a peas soup all aroud your cut and paste job.

I'm not sure what you mean by pixels bled, however it's not like I put down immense amounts of time to make this a proper faked picture, to fool anyone. It was just a fun trick to show that it's not that hard. I could've been more careful with the cut n paste, so I didn't have to clean up the edges of the paste, and then it would be even harder to tell.

What exact technique did you use to discover "pixels bled" ?

God old magnifying glass.

Oh I guess I could print it out on paper and then scan it and decrease the resolution, thus deleting my traces. Or I could build a model that doesn't require cut n pasting to take pics of, and hang it in a string or whatever.
Or I could make a model big enough and just toss it in the air.

Try it...I hope you will get better results.Because actually you have only made the demonstration than that it is not so easy to make a good faked UFO picture.Even with actual technology not available in the 50 and 60.

I've looked at enough UFO pics to know that there are obvious fakes out there, and obvious thrown objects. I have yet to see any clear images or video that are even close to convincing me.

Maybe you could point me in the right direction outlaw?
Maybe you can point me to the UFO picture you were suppose being able to fake?

outlaw

2005-Feb-22, 11:15 PM

Nicolas

2005-Feb-22, 11:15 PM

outlaw

2005-Feb-22, 11:25 PM

Oulaw, what about the bled pixels (I could see them without magnifying glass) on the non copy paste picture I've shown? And on the non copy-pasted trees in Johnno's picture? What does that say about the pixels around his craft being caused by copy-paste?
That is only around the object these "extra sized" pixels giving a "blurry effect" are visible revealing the copy and paste.
Edited.

Nicolas

2005-Feb-22, 11:49 PM

outlaw, can you make this further clear to me? I see as much blur and pixels around the tree the left down wing is pointing at, and seemingly enlarged pixels are also visible in that same tree and in the most right tree, at the same size of the enlarged pixels in the craft. At the moment, I see no clear difference between the copy paste edge and edges with only JPG artifacts.

EDITED TO ADD and that branch on the right of the craft seems to have exactly the same amount of pixels floating around it and seamingly enlarged pixels. Edges on the same angle show similar aliasing.

I know the craft is copy pasted, but what exactly shows to you the difference with the jpg artifacts around the trees and branch?

outlaw

2005-Feb-23, 01:29 AM

The pixels around the "craft" do not match the pixelisation of the trees it is even worst when zooming.The pixels around the "craft" -make the wings looking grossly like a... chainsaw.-
edited - -

Johnno

2005-Feb-23, 01:46 PM

http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/gulfc.htm

Bahahaha, priceless. Anyone who wants a laugh go read that article. Now keep in mind what we've been talking about. A craft at a 20 mile distance, going by in a flash, would be travelling at more than 135,000 mph. Also, let's assume for fun, that this was a B-29, with a crew of 3.

The names of the crew.

Pilot

piloted by Captain John Harter
Radar Officer

radar officer, Lieutenant Sid Coleman
Flight Engineer?/Radar Operator?

Master Sergeant Bailey bent over the scope
Navigator

Lieutenant Cassidy, the navigator

Wait, wait... 4 people? *chuckles*

No... correction...

Staff Sergeant Ferris

Hehe, 5 people!

So, is it a AEW B-29? Or a regular B-29? Did the AEW B-29 have a larger crew? That would explain the additional radar scopes. But why did they only have a crew of 3 in the other report, while saying it had the same amount of scopes.

Wait, is it supposed to be the same incident? Same numbers, same date. But different crews. Same location, same wordings (blur, flashes)....

Sounds like completely made up stories to me. Anyone comparing these, and doing the maths, will know they're bunk.

outlaw

2005-Feb-23, 02:22 PM

http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/gulfc.htm

Also, let's assume for fun, that this was a B-29, with a crew of 3.

No that is the number of radar scopes on board.Are you suggesting than a b29 is to small to carry more than 3 people on board.Check your math.
[/quote]

Johnno

2005-Feb-23, 02:41 PM

outlaw

2005-Feb-23, 02:46 PM

And here I could go on about the B-29 for a few pages. But I won't.

Normally the B-29 carried a crew of 3. The B-29 was *designed* that way, to take over for the B-17, which carried a crew of 10. Reason for having a smaller crew was the fact that the USAF lost a lot of B-17s during WWII, and with them large parts of the crew. So you could decrease possible human losses by 70% if you sent a B-29 instead of a B-17.

I still haven't found a lot of information about the AEW B-29s, why? Because they were only test aircraft, and there were only 3 of them.

Those two "gulf of mexico" incidents are complete bunk.
It is one incident.
You are the one who made up the story about the AEW.The report is about a B-29 superfortress in a training mission.Why are you try to confuse the issue.
Read carefully
http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/gulfdir.htm
Case Synopsis - Dominique Weinstein
The Officially Cleared Report - Maj. Donald Keyhoe

Johnno

2005-Feb-23, 04:53 PM

http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/gulfb.htm

Witness(es) B-29 (three crew members) including : 1st Lt Norman Karas and 1st Lt William W. Naumann.
http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/gulfc.htm

Captain John Harter

radar officer, Lieutenant Sid Coleman

Master Sergeant Bailey bent over the scope

Lieutenant Cassidy, the navigator

Staff Sergeant Ferris

So, it was a regular B-29, carrying a crew of at least 7, even though the official records state that there were only three crewmen aboard. A crew of 7 would indicate that the B-29 didn't have radar gun tracking, because then it would not need more than a crew of 3. A regular B-29 with 3 radar scopes, one for bombing radar, one for navigational radar, and one for turret radar even though it didn't have radar gun tracking. The bombing radar, looking straight down, was tracking UFOs at a distance of 20 miles, as was the gun turret radar, which wasen't installed because they had a crew to handle the gun turrets.

The UFOs were flying at a minimum distance of 20 miles from the B-29, yet passing the view of crewmen fast enough to look like blurry streaks, ignoring of course that at 5500 mph and 20 miles out it would take around 10 seconds to pass a 45 degree view of vision as seen from the B-29.

As I concluded earlier, complete and utter bunk.

Archer17

2005-Feb-23, 05:05 PM

He wasn't trying to confuse the issue any more than my posts regarding UFO investigation were "biased" outlaw. If I was to embrace some and not others, then that's bias. Seems to me that's what you're doing. I asked a simple, direct question more than once and still haven't got a straight answer from you. To refresh your memory - how can UFOs be properly investigated if the "object" is no longer there?

R.A.F.

2005-Feb-23, 05:07 PM

Why are you try to confuse the issue.

Speaking of confusion...is NICAP confused as to how many crewmen were on board?

chem_parapsych_student

2006-Mar-26, 04:16 PM

This reply is not to comment on Haisch's reliability or lack thereof. However, I do have one question for anyone here who might be knowledgeable about quantum physics. I am presuming some are aware of the experiments in relation to quantum teleportation, where a state of two entangled particles is created, and person A, interacts one entangled particle with another particle, notifies person B via sublight means, and then person B observes their particle, thus the teleportation having completed itself, and the original particle interaction destroyed in the process. My question is, could it be possible that a more advanced race, who might have figured out a way of conducting quantum teleportation on a macro scale could have had one of their ships, say a few million to a billion years ago, realizing our planet had the potential to develop life, sent a ship here at a sagnificant fraction of the speed of light, and that when it arrived here, with some field of entangled particles being monitored, UFOs were quantum teleported, to our planet and the originals could have been destroyed at the home world? This is not a question of whether or not there is any evidence this has happened, this is a question of whether or not the laws of physics would actually permit this to happen. Just curious. If anyone is knowledgeable about Quantum Physics, please let me know whether or not this is possible. Thanks.

eburacum45

2006-Mar-29, 08:16 AM

Sending objects by Quantum Teleportation might be possible, but the amount of information involved is probably excessive. To transport a human being, for instance, would take a thousand billion billion billion bits. To send this much info from star to star would take millions of years at least.
A much better idea wold be to send the blueprints for making the saucers in an automated factory in our system - the blueprints would be unlikely to exceed a gigabyte or so.

Wolverine

2006-Mar-30, 12:42 AM

After the resurrection... moved from Against the Mainstream to Life in Space.

Goblin

2006-May-27, 07:49 AM

Its equally improbably that we are here yet I'm typing this repy.

If you get past the EGO, which seems to be a major stumbling block throught our history. You might realize that we might not know as much as you think.

Our understanding of gravity is still very poor. I'm going to go out on a limb and state that many answers and future breakthroughs will come from the field of quantum physics. We are chipping at the tip of an iceberg.

No matter how much you crunch the numbers you will never be able to caculate if there is anyone out there. We can only make assumptions based on our narrow view and limited understandings of physics. The mother of all F ups is assumption yet thats all we have.

Food for thought, we have discovered a habitable zone in our galaxy. These are heavy metal stars thought of being able to form planets like earth. They aged those stars and found that 80% are older than ours. So if there is life out there we are at the bottom 20% of the evolution pile. Some stars are a billion years older than ours. Hmm thats a large number. How long have we had home computers? Seems like forever but its only 20 years or so.

Our problem is us, egos, greed etc. Its not condusive to science, the people in power on our planet are not the smartest people they are the greediest for power. Hate to say but most of the intellegent people computer geeks, various scientist, doctors etc are under the thumb of politics. No offense but most politicians are not very educated in science yet they hold the strings.

Whats worse is most scientists won't touch ET/UFO topic with a ten foot pole. Why not? career suicide, zero federal funding, and lets not forget the real big one Fear, fear of being thought of as a nutball by fellow scientists.

Seti is a noble cause but its like finding a needle in a giant haystack. At least they do get some funding. Anyone here that has done any research on the UFO topic will know that it should be studied and taken more seriously.

The most courageous (or crazy) are the few scientists that are activily involved in UFO studies. I for one would not do it, not unless I was retired and drawing a good pension. Its easy to take cheap shots on people in that field as it does have a high giggle factor. There is a problem with signal to noise ratio with UFOs. Even if the percentage of good credable cases are low does not mean they are not worth looking into. We waste a ton of money shooting probes at mars so I don't see why the goverment should not poney up some of our money to make sure we are not missing the forest for the trees.

Well, the likelihood that there is extraterrestrial life eslewhere in the universe is pretty high. But for exactly the same reasons this is likely, it is improbable that E.T. has dropped in for a visit here. This is the mistake Mr. Haisch makes in his article.

Halcyon Dayz

2006-May-27, 11:04 AM

We are not wasting tons of money shooting probes at Mars.
And do you have any evidence linking ET with the UFO-phenomenon?

Talking about wasting money. :eh:

R.A.F.

2006-May-27, 01:27 PM

Our understanding of gravity is still very poor. I'm going to go out on a limb...

We understand gravity well enough to know that you can't get too far out on that limb before falling. :)

Whats worse is most scientists won't touch ET/UFO topic with a ten foot pole. Why not?

Seti is a noble cause but its like finding a needle in a giant haystack. At least they do get some funding. Anyone here that has done any research on the UFO topic will know that it should be studied and taken more seriously.

I don't understand why you are "lumping" what SETI does, with UFO's. SETI is using actual science in an attempt to discover if there is life "out there".

UFO proponents have come to the conclusion that the aliens are out there and here without any actual evidence to demonstrate it to be so.

2 entirely different things.

...and to answer your question...why scientists won't "touch" the UFO topic??? The answer is the complete lack of any evidence that there is anything to be studied.

Eieam Wun

2006-May-27, 02:07 PM

Well that was an interesting article, and no I neither have any evidence for or against the likely hood of ET visit now or in the past or the future just opinion. The article mention that we could be immerse within an alien civilzation, but of course were are they? With in another thread titled How are humans Atypical I mentioned that humans seemed to have reached this period in time where our brains are developed to questions these things yet with the many things our minds are capable what seems lacking is the necessity to even have such capabilities, in other words how exactly did we get to this point. I guess what I am trying to say is we like to "think" we are some what advance with all our "Theories", and very little actually established knowledge about the universe, we could be so far below them in terms of natural development, it isn't so much a matter of "why would they visit us" but a case of "could they even communicate with us on a level that we could understand" and if so for what purpose would that serve for either one of us? In my opinion we are admist an ET civlization and we are being studied, not intensely but casually as this ET civilization goes on about it "every day" life.

"What we know about the universe and its underlying physics makes it very unlikely that E.T. is here and attempting to phone home."

What exactly is it that we know for sure? We don't even know what gravity is but act as if it is virtually impossible to get rid of or utilized gravity in order to over come great distances.

Eyajwhynsos

Goblin

2006-May-30, 06:09 AM

Anyone that says there is no evidence that some UFO maybe more than misidentifications of common objects has not done their homework. I use to say that but then I actually read up on some cases. Starting from way back. Sure there are many nutballs (noise) but when you look at all the cases over the (too many for me) years and the quality of the people. They all are not nuts. You simply can't say there is no evidence, there is plenty certainly more than SETI has in its quest for a signal from space. Not saying Seti is bad just saying that they should not be the only game in town getting funds.

I'm not doing your homework for you, go out and read some then come back and chat.

Cases were someone saw a light in the sky don't count to me as much of anything. I would agree that those can be thrown in the trash.

Here is a semi recent case that I found interesting. Police from different cities got some up close views of this thing. They even did a fairly involved 3D recreation of what they saw. They all pretty much described that same object.

http://dbarkertv.com/UPDATE.htm

The video TV interview did a better job than the above site but it gives the gist of it.

I was thinking it's probably military but why would they fly it out in the open over cities? Showing off the new gadgets for the public? I really do not buy that it was the planet Venus as some experts has suggested. That explanation made no sense to me.

I worked with a woman that claimed to have seen one of these triangle ships back in 1980. I thought maybe she and her friends may have misidentified something but she was pretty adamant on what it looked like since it was fairly low. Was she nuts? Yea that crossed my mind but I had known her for 5 years and if anything was the painfully honest type. She said it hovered in the sky and when it took off it was super fast and made no sound. She was not some UFO nut just something that came up in conversation one day. I don't think I ever talked about anything like that with her before or since. Back then I did not think too much about it. When I started reading the other people had seen these around the nation like the Illinois case I'm thinking that maybe people are seeing craft like this. It very well could be our own stuff. What ever it is its pretty intense technology.

What do you think those cops saw? Was it misidentification? Military?

Goblin

2006-May-30, 06:34 AM

We understand gravity well enough to know that you can't get too far out on that limb before falling. :)

LOL, good one!

I don't understand why you are "lumping" what SETI does, with UFO's. SETI is using actual science in an attempt to discover if there is life "out there".
[/b]

Not saying Seti and UFOs are the same. As you know Seti is assumming there are ETs out there and they are using radio waves. If they never look for the signal they have zero chance of finding one. So if they look they have some chance even if its 100000000000000000000 to 1. Keep in mind they have ZERO evidense of any kind that there is a FM/AM ET signal comming from anywhere.

UFO rearch is pretty much saying that Fermi was correct and answer the "where are they" by saying that they are already here.

I'm saying that if you read all the information available (Which I know you have not) you will find there is more than evidense for UFOs being here than SETI has for a distant signal being transmitted from a distant ET civ.
Its more expensive research too, those giant radio telescopes are not at Wallmart prices yet.

Why not fund it? Don't quote the Condon report unless you've looked at all the Blue Book unknown cases.

R.A.F.

2006-May-30, 11:27 AM

Anyone that says there is no evidence that some UFO maybe more than misidentifications of common objects has not done their homework...snip...You simply can't say there is no evidence...

Oh, there's evidence alright. Problem is that the available evidence is not convincing. To accept "alien spaceships" as the explanation, then the evidence must be conclusive.

It simply is not.

I'm not doing your homework for you, go out and read some then come back and chat.

You make the assumption that those here have not "done their homework"...a bad assumption to make.

The video TV interview did a better job than the above site but it gives the gist of it.

Yes, I saw this show...

They even did a fairly involved 3D recreation of what they saw.

Not presisely correct. What they said they saw was recreated by the "3D artist". In the interview he even stated that he was only recreating what was described to him. If they were mistaken in what they saw, then that would carry over to the recreations.

They all pretty much described that same object.

Pretty much as in not?? One of the descriptions looked nothing like the others.

That show didn't really impress my. The website you've linked to impresses me even less. Most telling is the statement that "the Air force has the burden of proof..." which is a load of hogwash. Those making the extraordinary claim have the burden of proof and when I see anyone trying to "shift" that burden, I get very suspicious.

I was thinking it's probably military but why would they fly it out in the open over cities? Showing off the new gadgets for the public? I really do not buy that it was the planet Venus as some experts has suggested. That explanation made no sense to me.

Perhaps it wasn't a military craft or Venus, but eliminating those 2 doesn't make it automatically an "alien spaceship".

Re. "triangle ships".
What ever it is its pretty intense technology.

And that's another assumption. The "Phoenix Lights" were also described as a "triangle shaped craft" when in reality they were flares dropped from planes. Observers "colored in-between" the flares to make a craft that was simply not there.

What do you think those cops saw? Was it misidentification? Military?

Maybe...maybe not. The problem I have is the almost automatic assumption that if it can't be identified, then it must be an alien spacecraft. That is simply not the way science works when investigating something like this.

I'm saying that if you read all the information available (Which I know you have not)...

Once again, you are making assumptions...bad idea...

...you will find there is more than evidense for UFOs being here than SETI has for a distant signal being transmitted from a distant ET civ.

Right now, there is no evidence for either.

Why not fund it?

Unless/until there is some form of compelling evidence that it wouldn't be a waste of money, there is no reason to "fund it".

Eieam Wun

2006-May-30, 01:18 PM

I find reading these debates on proof of ufo and such rather intriguing but I gotta ask, with the many fields in science namely astronomy can we say with certainty that the evidence for the model set up is conclusive?

R.A.F. says: "Oh, there's evidence alright. Problem is that the available evidence is not CONVINCING. To accept "alien spaceships" as the explanation, then the evidence must be CONCLUSIVE." emphasis added

Convince: vb to bring to (as by argument) belief and or action. In other words its an opinion, and it is the opinion of some that say there is no such thing as dark energy. But ones opinion should not stand in the way of actively striving to understand the unknown in this case the UFO phenomenon.

conclusion: n the logical consequence of a reasoning process.

R.A.F. says: The problem I have is the almost automatic assumption that if it can't be identified, THEN IT MUST BE an alien spacecraft.

But this is done all the time, example we conclude that there most be something known as dark energy how else could the universe be expanding and at the same time accelerating? It seems convincing and there is a logical reason to support it, but there is no evidence, in fact it is the other way around. We look at the effects and find something to fit it (a logical step) excuse me some Presume that based on all that they are CAPABLE of studying by looking at the universe that the only logical conclusion is ONE thing: dark energy (not such a logical step). How can we even possibly begin to conclude only one possible cause? Wait...wait...I remember distinctively reading some where that...oh yeah "Then it must be an alien space craft" I mean what else could it be, you ufologist are so narrow minded gesh...

This in itself is an automatic assumption because we can't identifiy what is causing it only guess(because we don't have all the data on the entire universe nor can we ever or are even close to) so it must be dark energy.

R.A.F. says: Unless/until there is some form of compelling evidence that it wouldn't be a waste of money, there is no reason to "fund it". Yet they fund the field of astronomy quite handsomely.

As I said before intriguing but I had to ask, it seems that this field of ufology isn't being vigorously study not because of lack of evidence but because of lack want...that is wanting to admit such a field even exist!

Eyajwhynsos

R.A.F.

2006-May-30, 01:42 PM

...ones opinion should not stand in the way of actively striving to understand the unknown in this case the UFO phenomenon.

I "somewhat" agree. I do think that we could learn a lot by investigating the "phenomena" from the observers viewpoint. In other words, just why do people "need" to believe that we are being visited by aliens from other worlds, when the evidence is so obviously lacking?

Eieam Wun

2006-May-30, 03:16 PM

...I personally am not a ufologist so I am not here to debate the evidence or lack of as you put it. But perhaps some one can explain as best they can why some feel the need to say: "there is a need to believe aliens are visiting us humans from other worlds." Why does main stream science feel the need to present their theories as facts? To say this is to say that some or perhaps in your view all ufologist have some alternate idea of why aliens would be visiting us (some envitably do and some don't)? There are many who simple study and review and like most scientist in acknowledged fields come to conclusions about unidentified flying objects that best fits what they are studying. They are no different then any other scientist with the exception that main stream scientist an insignificantly small minority of the human race seems to think or appears to think that only their fields of study have any merit! Again we are moving from the area of scientific review and or study Or I should say revealing that main stream science is not within but is an area of opinionated theocracy with the notion of bringing the "right" scientific study,inquiry, answers, and fields to us mortal laymen (any one who isn't the "en" crowd).

Eyajwhynsos

R.A.F.

2006-May-30, 04:07 PM

Again we are moving from the area of scientific review and or study Or I should say revealing that main stream science is not within but is an area of opinionated theocracy with the notion of bringing the "right" scientific study,inquiry, answers, and fields to us mortal laymen.

emphasis mine...

I'm not quite sure what you are saying here (so correct me if I'm wrong), but you seem to be saying that mainstream science is not able to objectively evaluated the evidence concerning "alien visitors".

Which is silly...

Eieam Wun

2006-May-30, 04:55 PM

...this is what I am saying.

They (scientist who study ufology) are no different then any other scientist with the exception that main stream scientist an insignificantly small minority of the human race seems to think or appears to think that only THEIR FIELD of study have any MERIT!

Simply put with out the philosopical backdrop, it is not that they are not able, it is that main stream science does not take it seriously.

note: R.A.F. would say there isn't enough evidence.

Ufologist would demonstrate a rather large amount spanning over a rather large time scale.

R.A.F. has said that this is not convincing.

I have stated previous that convincing is nothing more then opinion, evidence is abound, example project blue book alone, a government issued study of the ufology phenomenon, did showed that there was a small minority of unaccounted sightings that could not be explain in ANY conventional terms.

If personal views of laymen are un reliable then their are still vast majority of train professional that can account for sightings that can thus be used for study which have been documented.

Conclusion: Interesting enough it isn't that main stream is uncapable they are more then capable more so then many ufologist, but to all prominent mainstream scientist the subject of possible aliens visiting earth remains for them a taboo subject. This is what I have said...

Again we are moving from the area of scientific review and or study Or I should say revealing that main stream science is not within but is an area of opinionated theocracy with the notion of bringing the "right" scientific study,inquiry, answers, and fields to us mortal laymen.

When their is reliable evidence for any unknown it should not rest on opinion of its "worthiness" but should be sought after to establish if possible just what is taking place if anything. In other words it should be studied vigorously simply because it is an area that we as a race do not comprehend and when after the scientific method has been aplied with as much vigor as that which has been applied to dark energy and been proven by such method as to be nothing more then a figment of the human race over the millenium, then one can say that indeed such endeavor has been applied to the field of ufology and it has been found wanting.

Eyajwhynsos

R.A.F.

2006-May-30, 05:32 PM

Interesting enough it isn't that main stream is uncapable they are more then capable more so then many ufologist, but to all prominent mainstream scientist the subject of possible aliens visiting earth remains for them a taboo subject. This is what I have said...

Thanks for the clarification...

Mainstream science/scientists don't find the "visiting aliens" question taboo. It's simply that evidence for such an extraordinary idea MUST CONSIST OF MORE than just "I saw something in the sky, and I believe that it was an alien spaceship".

What would you have "mainstream science" do? Should scientific standards be lowered to "accomodate" the kind of evidence typical of UFO sightings? If that were done, then we wouldn't be "doing" science at all.

Eieam Wun

2006-May-31, 01:26 PM

As I said before I am not a ufologist and can't defend what they believe to be intelligently controlled crafts. But usually when say a "trained man" such as an air force pilot is reporting that they saw something that could pass as unidentified flying object, if this isn't credible eye witness then what is?

and Interview with Gordon Cooper (excerpt)
OMNI Magazine, March 1980

original source | fair use notice

Summary: An excerpt of an interview given by former astronaut Gordon Cooper - Mercury 9, Gemini 5 - to OMNI Magazine in 1980, where he is asked about astronaut sightings of UFOs and about his own UFO sighting when he was an Air Force pilot in Germany in the 1950s.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following is an excerpt of an interview given by former astronaut Gordon Cooper - Mercury 9, Gemini 5 - to OMNI Magazine in 1980. While it shows that Cooper does have a belief in 'UFO's, it should - one hopes - resolve the issue of whether he did or didn't encounter any "Unidentified Flying Objects" during his space missions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excerpt of interview with Gordon Cooper: OMNI, March 1980, p. 106

OMNI: What about the repeated allegations that the astronauts saw many UFOs?

COOPER: It got so bad that there were deliberately falsified tapes of communications with the astronauts, where UFO material was simply edited in. To my knowledge, the only astronaut on any of the Mercury, Gemini, or Apollo missions who ever saw anything that might have been a UFO was Jim McDivitt, but he didn't get enough pictures to prove anything substantial. That's the only case, in spite of all the stories you hear.

OMNI: Didn't you go after some UFOs as an air force pilot in Germany in the 1950s?

COOPER: Yes, several days in a row we sighted groups of metallic, saucer-shaped vehicles at great altitudes over the base, and we tried to get close to them, but they were able to change direction faster than our fighters. I do believe UFOs exists and that the truly unexplained ones are from some other technologically advanced civilization. From my association with aircraft and spacecraft, I think I have a pretty good idea of what everyone on this planet has and their performance capabilities, and I'm sure some of the UFOs at least are not from anywhere on Earth.

This was found here at : http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/astronauts.htm

Any how this is becoming tedious to say observation is invalid especially coming from a trainned man is some how not credible is nothing more, in my opinion, then a contradiction. Science is based on observation it is one of the leading tenets in understanding that which you are attempting to understand. If all the evidence you have are sightings, then sort out those that are credible(ie trainned men) and go on from there. I am at a lost as to why comprehension of such a statement is lacking? But please feel free to rebuttal...

Eyajwhynsos

R.A.F.

2006-May-31, 05:19 PM

But usually when say a "trained man" such as an air force pilot is reporting that they saw something that could pass as unidentified flying object, if this isn't credible eye witness then what is?

A credible witness can also be mistaken in their interpretation of what they saw.

...to say observation is invalid especially coming from a trainned man is some how not credible is nothing more, in my opinion, then a contradiction.

Why a contradiction?? If a person views something and mis-identifies it, it doesn't make his testimony any less credible...It simply makes him (once again) mistaken. When dealing with such an important question as the "reality" of visitors from other star systems the most important thing is to make 100% sure that you haven't "fooled" yourself. IMO, that is what Gordo Cooper did. He let his belief "run away" with him.

Here (http://www.zip.com.au/~psmith/cooper.html) are 2 articles by James Oberg covering Coopers UFO's and pilot mis-identification. They are a very interesting read...

Goblin

2006-May-31, 05:24 PM

So you have read all the info available for 50 years. Maybe your correct I was making an assumption. I don't think anyone has seen it all. But if you are the one I tip my hat to you.

The scientific method must be modified for UFO research. The things are not going to stand still long enough to do research on. Its more difficult but I would not turn a blind eye to the current evidence out there. You may be a modern version of the folks that said the Earth is flat.

Do you know any of the blue book reporters? Any of the researchers? I mean met them in person.

I think both should be funded. Not just Seti.
Whats your fear?

I’m not saying those triangle craft are alien. I’m saying that I do not think they are mis identifications or visionary. I think they are real objects. I don’t know who is maneuvering them. I would like to know that. Would you like to know too?

Right now, there is no evidence for either.

Unless/until there is some form of compelling evidence that it wouldn't be a waste of money, there is no reason to "fund it".

R.A.F.

2006-May-31, 06:08 PM

So you have read all the info available for 50 years.

Nope...never said that. I am, however, very familiar with Flying Saucer Folklore.

The scientific method must be modified for UFO research.

Modified??? Scientific inquiry needs no "modification". That's just an excuse so as to "allow" bad evidence to be taken seriously. Sorry, ain't gonna fly.

The things are not going to stand still long enough to do research on.

This is certainly true...too bad that UFO's leave behind absolutely no physical evidence...

Its more difficult but I would not turn a blind eye to the current evidence out there.

What current evidence??

You may be a modern version of the folks that said the Earth is flat.

I guess that's suppose to be an insult, but it's such a dopey idea that I don't really have an answer for it.

Do you know any of the blue book reporters? Any of the researchers? I mean met them in person.

Why would you consider that relevant?

I think both should be funded. Not just Seti.
Whats your fear?

Do you "somewhere" in my posts detect fear??? Could you point it out to me??

I’m not saying those triangle craft are alien. I’m saying that I do not think they are mis identifications or visionary. I think they are real objects.

If you see "something" in the air, and if it is "unidentified", then it is speculation to conclude that it is a solid object. The only way to be certain that what you see in the air is an actual "object" is to walk up to it and "knock" on it.

Would you like to know too?

What I'd like to know is why is it after all these years of "Saucer sightings", the actual evidence is so crappy. With all the new model cam-corders with incredible zoom/stabilization capabilities, you'd think that we would have conclusive photographic proof by now...yet UFO images are as bad as they were 50 years ago.

A.DIM

2006-May-31, 09:37 PM

Standards of evidence concerning the ETH / UFO phenomena aren't really well established, nor has there been effective scientific inquiry, but opinions on the subject are readily abundant and can be, unfortunately, rather divisive.

I think we can all learn a little something from this article:

There's a Hole in My Philosophy (http://www.astrobio.net/news/article707.html).

Goblin

2006-Jun-01, 02:56 AM

I think these conclusions were made by the performance characteristics.

Right angle high G turns that would kill a human pilot. Some thought that they must be remotely operated because of this.

This is assuming the person was credible and had ground radar and visual confirmation. I have not seen these maneuvers but If I had seen a craft that went from zero to 5,000 in seconds then did a right angle turn. I would be scratching my head as to what could do that.

Its so unbelievable that one would think they it had to be some kind of mis identification as nothing we know of could do that.

R.A.F. What would you think if you observed a craft that did this? Would you think you were crazy? Would you tell anyone? I know it would not mean its alien since you could not see inside it.

I think people jump to the alien conclusions because of the performance characteristics are beyond any known technology. It does not mean they are correct but many will say "I know what I saw" and can't think of anything man made that could do it.

I "somewhat" agree. I do think that we could learn a lot by investigating the "phenomena" from the observers viewpoint. In other words, just why do people "need" to believe that we are being visited by aliens from other worlds, when the evidence is so obviously lacking?

Goblin

2006-Jun-01, 03:38 AM

BTW there is evidence.

1. Multiple radar (ground, air) and visual confirmations.
2. Effects on plants
3. Radiation level readings

Then you have the eyewitness accounts.

But no absolute smoking gun as in an actual craft.

Theoretical physics and cosmology are well funded but are not as scientific as some other fields such as microbiology. Black holes were never seen and are only seen now indirectly.

Only ignorant people would support non-funding of UFO research. They do research by proclamation rather than investigation. They do not want to be bothered with the facts because their minds are already made up.

There are many more photos and videos of UFO than there use to be. But there are a ton a crappy ones.

The short blurry videos that never ever show the object leaving are suspect of being a hoax to me. Why would someone film something like that for 10 seconds and then get bored and turn off the camera? I would run the film until it either shot off or disapeared from view. But just because there are some hoaxers does not mean they all are. People swim with a shark fin to scare the wits out of others. I think we all agree that there are real sharks and not all are divers with a fake fin.

Goblin

2006-Jun-01, 03:58 AM

What do you think those cops saw? Was it misidentification? Military?

1. Maybe...maybe not. The problem I have is the almost automatic assumption that if it can't be identified, then it must be an alien spacecraft. That is simply not the way science works when investigating something like this.

2. What I'd like to know is why is it after all these years of "Saucer sightings", the actual evidence is so crappy. With all the new model cam-corders with incredible zoom/stabilization capabilities, you'd think that we would have conclusive photographic proof by now...yet UFO images are as bad as they were 50 years ago.

1. I don't think they said it was Alien. One cop said he could not say what it was but he could say what it was not. (star, planet, plane, blimp) I don't think any of them said it was alien. I think they did a good job of recreating what they thought they saw.

2. I have thought the same thing. The new digital cams are still pretty crappy vs film and so are the digi cam corders. Not many people fork out the cash for high end digital cameras. The rebel XT is decent for the price. Many people are using car phones for cameras I agree there are more of them out there but the quality is worse than 35mm film. I have seen a few decent films but not as many are you would think.

3. Do you know any of the blue book reporters? Any of the researchers? I mean met them in person.

Why would you consider that relevant?

3. Answer a question with a question! I will tell you once you answer the question.

Goblin

2006-Jun-01, 04:33 AM

Here are two short reads on two scientists views on UFO research problem.
One was a huge skeptic that changed his tune after researching the subject.
Take a look its not a long read. I share their sentiments.

http://ufologie.net/htm/hynekepup.htm

This one is a little longer but well worth the read. R.A.F might find it interesting as well :)

http://www.nidsci.org/pdf/scienceindefault.pdf

R.A.F.

2006-Jun-01, 12:04 PM

Standards of evidence concerning the ETH / UFO phenomena aren't really well established...

So would you agree with the following?...

The scientific method must be modified for UFO research.

...nor has there been effective scientific inquiry...

What would you consider "effective"? The determination that aliens exist and that they are visiting us?

Goblin...I was going to attempt to answer all of your questions...but then I read this...

Only ignorant people would support non-funding of UFO research.

I don't appreciate being called names, no matter how 'politely" it is done...I'm putting you on my ignore list...

A.DIM

2006-Jun-01, 01:59 PM

So would you agree with the following?...

You read the excerpt I provided, no?

Yes, I would agree that the "method," as it is, is certainly ineffectual in establishing anything other than ridicule of the phenomena.

What would you consider "effective"? The determination that aliens exist and that they are visiting us?

Not necessarily. I don't really think earthlings are actually prepared for such knowledge; they can hardly get over reverence of their "gods," and whose History it right.

But as you know, I differ fundamentally in that I don't consider the ETH as "extraordinary" and in doing so find it quite clear that "those from the heavens" have been a part of earth history from time immemorial. Applying similar standards of evidence as used in say Law or History I find the ETH being answered in the affirmative more plausible. Of course, I can't prove it since I haven't the physical evidence, which represents, IMHO, hyper rigorous materialist dogma of Science, which is the stalemate in this debate: "Produce irrefutable physical evidence of the alien or its ship."

R.A.F.

2006-Jun-01, 02:46 PM

You read the excerpt I provided, no?

I read it, yes.

I would agree that the "method," as it is, is certainly ineffectual in establishing anything other than ridicule of the phenomena.

So what changes would you make to the "method"??

I don't really think earthlings are actually prepared for such knowledge.

You over-estimate what the response would be to a "confirmed extraterrestrial visit". Once the bru-ha-ha had died down, people would go back to their "daily routine" or working, fighting, loving, and dying. An extraterrestrial visitor would not change that.

I differ fundamentally in that I don't consider the ETH as "extraordinary"...

Science recognizes the ETH by it's very nature to be an extraordinary claim. The fact that you don't recognize that changes nothing.

...hyper rigorous materialist dogma of Science...

Where do you come up with these "marvelous" little phrases?? :)

A.DIM

2006-Jun-01, 06:55 PM

I read it, yes.

So what changes would you make to the "method"??

I'm unconvinced you read the excerpt since in it is described the difficulty in applying the scientific method to something little more than "mythical, magical." Sufficiently advanced tech will be like magic to us; how do we apply Science's methods to "magic?"
So I can't say what might need to be changed, other than perhaps our mindset and frame of reference.

But how would you, RAF, study something intelligent that doesn't want to be studied?

You over-estimate what the response would be to a "confirmed extraterrestrial visit". Once the bru-ha-ha had died down, people would go back to their "daily routine" or working, fighting, loving, and dying. An extraterrestrial visitor would not change that.

And that's all it is - "bru-ha-ha" in italics?
This strikes me as very narrow minded as far as ramifications of ET visitation confirmation, but OK, I can't change your point of view.

Science recognizes the ETH by it's very nature to be an extraordinary claim. The fact that you don't recognize that changes nothing.

Science is a method and doesn't recognize "by its very nature" anything, let alone the ETH.
Assumptions are made by an observer and the assumption that ETs are somehow "extraordinary" is a byproduct of special-man-in-god's-image-geo-egocentristic thinking.

Where do you come up with these "marvelous" little phrases?? :)

Zingers off the cuff, my friend.
Like the one above too?

:)

NorthGuy

2006-Jun-01, 08:21 PM

Sufficiently advanced tech will be like magic to us; how do we apply Science's methods to "magic?"

I see this analogy used fairly often in this forum, and I'm not sure that it has much validity. Wouldn't sufficiently advanced technology simply be unrecognizable as technology? In any case, we would either be able to observe it or we wouldn't. If we can observe it we can study it. If we can't observe it then how would it even be relevant to us?

R.A.F.

2006-Jun-02, 01:56 PM

I'm unconvinced you read the excerpt since in it is described the difficulty in applying the scientific method to something little more than "mythical, magical."

Why "unconvinced"? Was I suppose to be "swayed" by that argument? To me, it's an attempt to say, "see, these UFO's are "magical", so no wonder science can't do a proper investigation." I don't agree...It's simply an excuse.

If alien visitors are real then science can determine that to be true. The problem here is that science is not in the "business" of demonstrating the "un-reality" of anything...

So I can't say what might need to be changed, other than perhaps our mindset and frame of reference.

I see no reason to change anything. The method has worked up until this point, and as I stated, the "magical excuse" doesn't fly. (pun intended)

...how would you, RAF, study something intelligent that doesn't want to be studied?

First off, if the assumption is that there are alien visitors, and the reason that we don't have better evidence is because they don't "want" to be studied...then why in the heck have they been doing such a POOR job of avoiding detection???

And that's all it is - "bru-ha-ha" in italics?
This strikes me as very narrow minded as far as ramifications of ET visitation confirmation...

Well, unless conformation was an of invasion force, I really don't see how you would figure everyday life would change. Oh, sure...if they landed and said "there is no god", those religious among us would have a problem...but you tell me, just how the "daily routine" would change??

Science is a method and doesn't recognize "by its very nature" anything, let alone the ETH.

When the claim is visiting aliens...and there is no "proof" to demonstrate that idea to be (in any way) true, and the "proof" that does exist, consists only of handwaving and excuses, then what would you call that claim...if not extraordinary???

Assumptions are made by an observer and the assumption that ETs are somehow "extraordinary" is a byproduct of special-man-in-god's-image-geo-egocentristic thinking.

What in the world does science have to do with "man in god's image thinking"??? You so casually slip "god" into what has to be a scientific endeauvor, and that's not the way science "works".

Like the one above too?

Not as good as the previous one. :)

A.DIM

2006-Jun-02, 02:28 PM

I see this analogy used fairly often in this forum, and I'm not sure that it has much validity.

Clarke's 3rd Law; it seems most reasonable to me but of course I consider it through human eyes and ideals.

Wouldn't sufficiently advanced technology simply be unrecognizable as technology?

You mean like "magic?"
Well the Law does say
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"

In any case, we would either be able to observe it or we wouldn't. If we can observe it we can study it. If we can't observe it then how would it even be relevant to us?

OK but skeptics' arguments hold that because UFOs are not repeatable, testable events, it doesn't matter how many "observers" there are, you can't apply the scientific method to them.
And so flock of geese, oil or military flares, sundogs and venus are the usual suspects for those reports which are truly inexplicable (eg radar visual occurences with EM effects).

I personally think the phenomena of UFOs is linked to the ETH, as observed and recounted throughout History and is more relevant to us than most care to imagine.

I can't prove my opinion but we're moving in that direction.

Eieam Wun

2006-Jun-02, 03:03 PM

Who cares anyway....

Northguy says: I see this analogy used fairly often in this forum, and I'm not sure that it has much validity. Wouldn't sufficiently advanced technology simply be unrecognizable as technology? In any case, we would either be able to observe it or we wouldn't. If we can observe it we can study it. If we can't observe it then how would it even be relevant to us?

We have yet to observe dark matter, dark energy, black holes, the big bang, the formation of a stars, gravity, the list goes on, how are any of these relevant to us?

The one and only Eyajwhynsos

A.DIM

2006-Jun-02, 03:04 PM

Why "unconvinced"? Was I suppose to be "swayed" by that argument? To me, it's an attempt to say, "see, these UFO's are "magical", so no wonder science can't do a proper investigation." I don't agree...It's simply an excuse.

Oh, I see; I viewed it as a scientist's insightful consideration of the topic.

But I didn't expect you to be swayed, just mindful of differing perspectives; an actual scientist's perspective, no less.

If alien visitors are real then science can determine that to be true. The problem here is that science is not in the "business" of demonstrating the "un-reality" of anything...

This thread was started because scientists are arguing that our current physics and astrophysics predicts we are in the midst of galactic civilization... and would likely be kept unaware...

I see no reason to change anything. The method has worked up until this point, and as I stated, the "magical excuse" doesn't fly. (pun intended)

So apply the method to UFOs and give us the results?

I can't.

First off, if the assumption is that there are alien visitors, and the reason that we don't have better evidence is because they don't "want" to be studied...then why in the heck have they been doing such a POOR job of avoiding detection???

Desensitization?

I don't know, but the scenario offered by Grinspoon makes sense.

Well, unless conformation was an of invasion force, I really don't see how you would figure everyday life would change. Oh, sure...if they landed and said "there is no god", those religious among us would have a problem...but you tell me, just how the "daily routine" would change??

If you think things are so simplistic, RAF, then nothing I say will make any difference.

When the claim is visiting aliens...and there is no "proof" to demonstrate that idea to be (in any way) true, and the "proof" that does exist, consists only of handwaving and excuses, then what would you call that claim...if not extraordinary???

Thousands of years of texts and witnesses, abductees and modern day radar--visual cases, EM effects and competent observers hardly equate to "handwaving and excuses."

I see that we ourselves are ETs in only 6K years of civilization, and I am not so arrogant to think that we are the first or last to do so, nor do I impose our human limitations on ETI.

And so I can't consider the idea as extraordinary.

What in the world does science have to do with "man in god's image thinking"??? You so casually slip "god" into what has to be a scientific endeauvor, and that's not the way science "works".

I'm sorry, but you seem to have missed that point entirely.

Not as good as the previous one. :)

Oh well.

Eieam Wun

2006-Jun-02, 03:15 PM

Who is Grinspoon? You mention him in your last post and I was a bit intrigue with the reference you made concerning why "they" are doing such a poor job of keeping concealed.

R.A.F.

2006-Jun-02, 03:43 PM

...just mindful of differing perspectives; an actual scientist's perspective, no less.

So you agree with this particular scientist's perspective, yet you disagree with those scientists that state that the evidence is not convincing...

...or do you happen to agree with this particular scientist because his ideas "allow" for your ideas. The only way that kind of "bias" can be removed is to rely on evidence and not opinions.

...and would likely be kept unaware...

This speculation exists only to "allow" for your ideas...it is therefore subjective.

Desensitization?

I've asked this before, but just how long is this "desensitization" suppose to take??? Would you say that they will "reveal" themselfs within the next...say...10 years?...20?...50???

If you think things are so simplistic, RAF, then nothing I say will make any difference.

Gee...I must be "closed-minded", huh?? You didn't answer my question, so I will re-phrase and personalize it. Just how would your daily routine/existance be changed/different if it were confirmed that aliens were actually visiting the Earth??

Thousands of years of texts and witnesses, abductees and modern day radar--visual cases, EM effects and competent observers hardly equate to "handwaving and excuses."

Your opinion is noted...it's still not convincing...

I see that we ourselves are ETs in only 6K years of civilization, and I am not so arrogant to think that we are the first or last to do so, nor do I impose our human limitations on ETI.

Nor do I...but I will not be "fooled" by evidence that cannot stand up under critical inquiry.

And so I can't consider the idea as extraordinary.

So it boils down to you re-defining what an extraordinary claim "is", so that you can convince yourself that conclusive evidence is not required for confirmation of said claim.

I don't know what that is...but it's not science...

NorthGuy

2006-Jun-02, 06:10 PM

Clarke's 3rd Law; it seems most reasonable to me but of course I consider it through human eyes and ideals.

Quote:
Wouldn't sufficiently advanced technology simply be unrecognizable as technology?

You mean like "magic?"

If "magic" is simply shorthand for saying "I don't know what that is," I can understand. However, if we're saying "I don't know what that is, therefore it must be something metaphysical, supernatural, or ET," then I do not understand this leap of logic. How can "I don't know" lead to such specific conclusions?

I personally think the phenomena of UFOs is linked to the ETH, as observed and recounted throughout History and is more relevant to us than most care to imagine.

Observing and recounting are human activities, so UFOs (whether real or imaginary) are certainly relevant to human behavior, perhaps even in a profound way. There have certainly been some good stories, some of them written by Mr. Clarke. Otherwise, I don't see where they fit into science or my life or anywhere else in the real world. If only we could do more than write them off as "magic."

NorthGuy

2006-Jun-02, 06:21 PM

We have yet to observe dark matter, dark energy, black holes, the big bang, the formation of a stars, gravity, the list goes on, how are any of these relevant to us?

I can't make a scientific case for any of these. I would be in way, way over my head. But some conclusions can be drawn from indirect observation. We observe the effects but not the cause. The cause is still very real.

Goblin

2006-Jun-03, 04:13 AM

I never called RAF any names. I was speaking of people in general not specifics.
I still stand that there are many ignorant people that scoff at UFOs. Being ignorant is not a bad thing; we are ignorant about one thing or another.

4 years ago I was a scoffer and I was very ignorant. There I called myself a name now I will have to put myself on the ignore list :)

I really did not have any interest in UFOs until I met a few people that worked behind the scenes back in the 50s. I did me own reading and found there was much more to them than I had thought. It took me a awhile to accept that they all might not be a bunch of bunk.

No one particular story made me change my thinking. It was the total amount of information plus knowing a few trusted people (that I consider credible). Also I found some explanations to be fabricated on purpose.
ie. Temp inversions were used as explanations for radar returns directly overhead. The people that made these explanations are smart enough to know that can't be true yet they used it anyway. Ok maybe they were incompetent but it looks to be more of something that the average public or media person would buy vs someone with a physics background.

There are just too many of these out in left field explanations used over the years. It does not mean what was seen was alien but it does tell me that someone is trying to tone down a sighting. It could be they were too embarrassed to admit that they could not identify it, and rather than admit that they make up a explanation that will pass 95% of the population.

I apologize to the non ignorant, people here that have read all the available information and still say there is just nothing to it. Its a hard step to take and one can always fall back on "When it lands in my backyard I will believe"

I'm usually like that but the more research I did I found it increasingly difficult to ignore the picture that was being painted. I found it disturbing and still do. Once you start to think it may be possible then you begin to wonder what they want who they are etc.

I would like to some government support on this. The Condon panel was terribly flawed, as its final analysis did not match its own data. It’s over 1000 pages so not too many bothered to read it.

Goblin[/b]...I was going to attempt to answer all of your questions...but then I read this...

I don't appreciate being called names, no matter how 'politely" it is done...I'm putting you on my ignore list...

gzhpcu

2006-Jun-04, 05:20 AM

Goblin,
I have read quite a bit on the subject. While intriguing, there is still no "smoking gun". Obviously, it is difficult to investigate old cases. What I have said on this board, is that I would find it reasonable to have properly equipped surveilance aircraft on the lookout for such phenomena, say in alleged hotspots like Mexico. I agree with your position.

A.DIM

2006-Jun-04, 01:11 PM

Who is Grinspoon? You mention him in your last post and I was a bit intrigue with the reference you made concerning why "they" are doing such a poor job of keeping concealed.

Dr. David Grinspoon, planetary scientist and principal investigator for NASA astrobiology, author of the "hole in my philosophy" link I gave.
His questions dealing with how we can or can't apply the scientific method to intelligent beings who do not want to be studied are, in my mind, most pertinent.

eburacum45

2006-Jun-04, 04:22 PM

Nor can we apply that method to other mythological beings.

A.DIM

2006-Jun-06, 06:50 PM

If "magic" is simply shorthand for saying "I don't know what that is," I can understand. However, if we're saying "I don't know what that is, therefore it must be something metaphysical, supernatural, or ET," then I do not understand this leap of logic. How can "I don't know" lead to such specific conclusions?

What "specific conclusions?"

All I'm saying is that you can't expect to recognize any advanced tech and the many "magical" sightings of UFOs throughout History seem to fit rather
well.

Observing and recounting are human activities, so UFOs (whether real or imaginary) are certainly relevant to human behavior, perhaps even in a profound way. There have certainly been some good stories, some of them written by Mr. Clarke. Otherwise, I don't see where they fit into science or my life or anywhere else in the real world. If only we could do more than write them off as "magic."

I agree.

R.A.F.

2006-Jun-06, 06:59 PM

All I'm saying is that you can't expect to recognize any advanced tech and the many "magical" sightings of UFOs throughout History seem to fit rather well.

Can you demonstrate conclusively that we would not be able to "recognize it", or is the "catch phrase" of a sci/fi writer enough for you??

aside...I actually respect Mr. Clarke very much, except when he starts talking about the vegetation he thinks he see's in Mars images.

A.DIM

2006-Jun-06, 07:10 PM

R.A.F.

2006-Jun-06, 07:20 PM

How about an analogy like the magical "fire sticks" white men possessed while they warred against the red men?
Do you think the natives recognized them as technological items or did they perceive them as "magic?"

Problem with your "analogy"...the red men didn't possess any technology, so they wouldn't "know it" if it bit them in the butt.

Your "premise" also contains a fallacy. Just because advanced tech. "might" appear to be magical DOES NOT MEAN
that things that appear magical are automatically advanced tech. You can't assume it "works both ways' without some form of evidence.

I'm sure there are plentiful similar examples but I'm also sure that none would be convincing enough for you.

That's the 2nd time in the last few of your posts that you have "implied" that I am somehow closed-minded simply because I don't agree with what you have to say. I suggest that you STOP IT unless you can demonstrate that to be true.

Understand?

A.DIM

2006-Jun-06, 08:09 PM

Problem with your "analogy"...the red men didn't possess any technology, so they wouldn't "know it" if it bit them in the butt.

Are you saying that the many implements used for hunting, gathering, sewing, decorating etc weren't technology?

I think blanket stock statements like "wouldn't know it if it bit them in the butt" is meaningless, considering the tech they DID have.

Your "premise" also contains a fallacy. Just because advanced tech. "might" appear to be magical DOES NOT MEAN
that things that appear magical are automatically advanced tech. You can't assume it "works both ways' without some form of evidence.

But of course.
And then we find ourselves bickering over what evidence is.

After all, I accept the testimony of texts and witnesses throughout history as well as modern witnesses with radar-visual cases and the word of trained observers; aviators, police, military, scientists etc.

You do not.

That's the 2nd time in the last few of your posts that you have "implied" that I am somehow closed-minded simply because I don't agree with what you have to say. I suggest that you STOP IT unless you can demonstrate that to be true.

No, RAF, I haven't "implied" anything.
Reviewing 3 years of such exchanges as this between us will certainly show how nothing I say will be convincing enough for you.

I realize that nothing short of the craft landing on your head will be convincing to you.

So in the end, I'm a "woowoo" in your opinion, and you are, IMO, a pseudoskeptic.

That's OK, as long as we can have a few laughs along the way, right?

:D

Understand?

Certainly.

Do you?

HenrikOlsen

2006-Jun-06, 08:59 PM

Are you saying that the many implements used for hunting, gathering, sewing, decorating etc weren't technology?

I think blanket stock statements like "wouldn't know it if it bit them in the butt" is meaningless, considering the tech they DID have.
Let's modify the statement a bit then.
They didn't have any technology that used other than direct or stored musclepower.
Therefore they had no reference for the effects of firearms, hence their power was larger than anything conceivable except magic.

Goblin

2006-Jun-07, 04:44 AM

A.DIM you seemed to have started a very popular thread. Almost 19,000 views in a short period of time. We all may not agree on things but it seems we all have some interest in this topic. This is a topic that is a bit awkward to bring up in conversation with most people even though many have interest in it. The Internet makes this a bit easier.

It is clear that the military does have an opinion on this topic that is different from what the official public statements may say. Some people I know that were at Hamilton Air force base (they worked with/for project blue book) were told that the public could not handle it. They saw many cases that never made it to blue book. To them UFOs were real and were not ours, they logged them but it was not up to them on which ones were filtered. Even so blue book still has some very interesting cases.

None of them would/or have been interviewed on the topic. I know many people in the military have come forward just not the ones I know. They were not the people calling the shots as to where in the information would end up. They did not have any information to any downed or crashed UFO. They did have plenty on chases though, one right out of Rod Serlings Twilight Zone. Some weird stuff for sure. Yea yea I know its all just words and no proof of anything. Anyone can make up a story; I just have to go on my judge of character that they are not full of crap.

If real I find the technology to be very interesting. New physics? or yet to be discovered physics at work. In theory Einstein’s speed limit can be circumvented in at least three ways, each one has some huge hurdles to overcome. Manipulating space itself to me seems the most tangible vs multiple universe theories. Power sources needed seem unobtainable.

But maybe somewhere else Einstein would be considered a slow learner, someone stumbled across a way around restrictions we impose on space travel.

From what I know I do not buy that the reason for non-funding UFO research is due to it being of no scientific value. I believe it’s a bit more complicated than that.

eburacum45

2006-Jun-07, 06:36 AM

From a military point of view, it makes perfect sense to treat UFOs or, rather UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) as potentially significant, whether they are under intelligent control or not. They might represent a military threat, or at the very least they might represent a danger to air safety.

It also makes sense to keep much of the information collected out of the public domain, as the detailed reports contain a lot of data about the sensitivity and accuracy of detection systems, which are necessarily secret.

But none of this implies that UAPs are really artefacts under intelligent control; in fact the available evidence so far suggests that the Extraterrestrial hypothesis is unnecessary. Most of the famous cases happened a long time ago, when radar systems were very basic compared to today’s systems; if UAP were in fact solid craft they would be detected more often by modern systems, but that is not the case.
Every case that has so far been reported is likely to be the result of one of the following -
misidentification of known natural phenomena, unknown natural phenomena, misidentified manmade objects, including objects not known to the public, hallucination of various kinds, faulty recall of events and post-rationalisation (I believe this is very important in many early cases, where electronic records were not available) and deliberate hoaxes. In a number of cases it is not possible to identify which of these causes it the true one after the event; this is not a reason to immediately jump to the conclusion that there are extraterrestrials in our skies.
There have been unexplained cases galore for sixty years, give or take a year- but no contact. I can state with a certain amount of confidence that this situation will continue for another sixty years, whether the extraterrestrial hypothesis is true or not.

R.A.F.

2006-Jun-07, 12:28 PM

And then we find ourselves bickering over what evidence is.

I know what evidence "is".

I accept the testimony of texts and witnesses throughout history as well as modern witnesses with radar-visual cases and the word of trained observers; aviators, police, military, scientists etc.

You do not.

And there's a reason for that. If the question is, "Are there now, or have there ever been extraterrestrial aliens visiting the Earth?", then the quality of the evidence you present in the above paragraph is simply not enough to reach the conclusion that they are actually visiting. I know you don't "like" that, but that's the way it is.

Reviewing 3 years of such exchanges as this between us will certainly show how nothing I say will be convincing enough for you.

"Nothing I say will convince you" is a LOT different than "what I say has not convinced you". I don't know why you think it "reasonable" that the evidence not be convincing...it simply does not help your argument to characterize me as unconvincible, particularly when that is not true.

I'm a "woowoo" in your opinion...

Actually, my opinion is that you are mistaken...but you certainly can "call" yourself anything you want.

...and you are, IMO, a pseudoskeptic.

Once again...mistaken. Haven't you been "cautioned" by a mod. (I don't remember which one) that applying that "handle" to posters you disagree with was a "no no"??

NorthGuy

2006-Jun-07, 01:00 PM

How about an analogy like the magical "fire sticks" white men possessed while they warred against the red men?
Do you think the natives recognized them as technological items or did they perceive them as "magic?"

I'm sure there are plentiful similar examples but I'm also sure that none would be convincing enough for you.

Or did they simply ask, "Hey, how did you make that?"

In any case, I just have an issue with calling real world observations magic. It's a vague term which suggests a thing is supernatural. It suggests to me that we might as well not ask any more questions about the thing because we will never understand it. In my experience, when a person calls something "magic"--even in jest--they really mean "don't ask me any more about it."

Anyway, I'm probably going off on a semantic tangent, but I would like to know what the term magic means to you. Also, can you give examples of observations of things that you would call magic?

Goblin

2006-Jun-09, 08:39 AM

I agree the ET hypothesis is unnecessary, but it was what the military people I know concluded at the time. They said they did show up on radar much more than was ever reported. They did not call a public press conference for sightings. I don't know if their conclusions were correct. They were not going from radar alone, they had many up close visuals.
A paratrooper (He specialized in recovery of crashed aircraft) lost 2 buddies chasing one. The strange thing was both jets and UFO were on radar over the desert then they blipped off, everything went dead no radio nothing. They searched the desert for I think for weeks and found no signs of wreckage. The jets never returned to base. He said they had no idea what happened to them. Two radar operators confirmed his story. I have never read about any cases like that. Were they making it up? If you knew them you would not think so, but its not proof of ET just an unsolved mystery.
I think after seeing enough of weird things like that they probably just concluded that the objects were not ours and are probably ET.
Some people somehow think that these reports are from someone seeing a tiny light in the sky or some radar anomaly. The cases they talked about all had visual and radar, something more than mistaking the planet Venus for a UFO. Saying its from old faulty radar is like someone seeing a car at 20 feet and someone that was not there telling them it was not a car it must have been ball lighting shaped like a car from temperature inversions. Some explanations fit the picture but many others that sound stupid are from ill informed people that are making a statement that does not fit the sighting or case in question. That’s not to say that radar did not malfunction back then. But when you see it with more than one set of eyes and its on radar its a bit more compelling.

I don’t mind skeptics as I am myself but not to the point of being ridiculous. If someone said that they saw a bright light in the west and could not identify it. I would ask did it move? Ans, no it flickered, I would ask other questions like time and location. Then if I found that Venus was there around that time I could say that they probably were seeing a planet. I have read cases were people saw a triangle craft and then read what some skeptics reply was. They often will say something stupid like a planet. I’m thinking how can this skeptic astronomer even pull something like that out of his bag? At least read the report before you insert foot in mouth.

If you want to believe at least read some cases don’t blindly believe and if you want to be a die hard skeptic at least try to come up with a plausible explanation which requires you have some knowledge of the sighting.

From a military point of view, it makes perfect sense to treat UFOs or, rather UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) as potentially significant, whether they are under intelligent control or not. They might represent a military threat, or at the very least they might represent a danger to air safety.

It also makes sense to keep much of the information collected out of the public domain, as the detailed reports contain a lot of data about the sensitivity and accuracy of detection systems, which are necessarily secret.

But none of this implies that UAPs are really artefacts under intelligent control; in fact the available evidence so far suggests that the Extraterrestrial hypothesis is unnecessary. Most of the famous cases happened a long time ago, when radar systems were very basic compared to today’s systems; if UAP were in fact solid craft they would be detected more often by modern systems, but that is not the case.
Every case that has so far been reported is likely to be the result of one of the following -
misidentification of known natural phenomena, unknown natural phenomena, misidentified manmade objects, including objects not known to the public, hallucination of various kinds, faulty recall of events and post-rationalisation (I believe this is very important in many early cases, where electronic records were not available) and deliberate hoaxes. In a number of cases it is not possible to identify which of these causes it the true one after the event; this is not a reason to immediately jump to the conclusion that there are extraterrestrials in our skies.
There have been unexplained cases galore for sixty years, give or take a year- but no contact. I can state with a certain amount of confidence that this situation will continue for another sixty years, whether the extraterrestrial hypothesis is true or not.

eburacum45

2006-Jun-09, 09:42 AM

Some of the early reports of flying triangles may have been the result of the NOSS satellites; these objects travel in threes, known as trios or triads. The observers may have seen the threee lights travelling silently in formation and extrapolated a solid body in the gap between them.
This is certainly a very strong contender for some of the descriptions I have read; other observations are more difficult to explain without gross observational error or deliberate falsehood; both of which are possible.

Goblin

2006-Jun-11, 06:11 PM

I can believe that some are, just not the ones that were seen at 500 feet.
Those are either made up or some kind of craft the general public does not know about. Usually the military has no reply on any sighting. But this is very strange in light of 911 era. Either they do investigations behind the scenes or they already know what it is. Some of these objects have to be considered a threat to national security, ignoring them totally would be wreckless.

We may have some giant sats. in orbit. 2 years ago with my wife and kids we saw one go overhead. I assumed it to be the space station. I have seen hundreds of Sat. while doing backyard astronomy. I do not try to find them in the scope just with the naked eye. They all look like moving stars, depending on orbit are doing around 15k mph. What set this one apart was its size; it looked like a tiny model and its color.

I thought it must be very low to see detail but its orientation was not aerodynamic. It was squarish shaped with what looked like a long tube protruding out from one side at a 45 degree to its path. From that I concluded it could not have been in the atmosphere, as wind sheer would have ripped it apart. Size? angular size was probably at least 1/2 moon diameter, detail was easily seen, more than one could see in a jet at 40,000 feet. It was internally illuminated green. Not all parts but the extension tube was. I had never seen the Space shuttle or space station in orbit so at first I assumed it had to be one of those.

Later I looked up what those objects look like from the ground. I found I was in error in assuming it was the space station as it orbits at 200 miles and looks just like a star to the naked eye.

I did some calculations based on how much sky it covered it x amount of seconds. The unknown was the altitude, a fresbie thrown overhead at 10 feet can have a larger angular veocity than a Sat. traveling at 15,000 mph but at 200 miles up.

Even If I put the lower floor at 4 miles it was moving well beyond the speed of sound. I think it was around 6k at the low end, would have to dig up my old calculations. It really did not do anything special, no direction changes, just coasting like it was in orbit. I could not find a Sat. that matched the color though I did not really do an exhaustive search.

The problem was the size it would need to be for me to see it with detail with the naked eye. Depending on altitude it could be 1/2 mile (bouncing off the upper atmosphere) to much larger if its orbit was further out.

I then concluded that it must have been much lower. The problem there was how and why would it go thought the atmosphere at that non-aerodynamic angle without tearing it apart.

The problem I have is putting it in the atmosphere, which would explain how its shape could easily be seen.

Is there a Sat. that could fit this?

Things that are not even to be considered (By me) comets, space junk coming down, ordinary Jets etc. It did look pretty cool but at least to my kids and wife was not something they thought about much after that night. I am sure other people had to have seen it but unless they had some physics background or aviation background they would not have thought it was anything earth shattering.

If someone were to put a gun to my head to force me to take a guess. I would say it was in orbit vs being in the atmosphere and be stuck with it being extra large in orbit.

Maybe we pieced together something that large for a military space station.

I am hoping someone here might be able to shed some light on it.

Thats my only strange sighting and only found to be strange later and not at the initial time I saw it. If I had a camera in hand I could have gotton a tough shot, I think I only had 7-10 seconds to get a shot off, it was really moving.

Direction was West to East at 10:30 pm late Aug in Michigan goinh on 3 years ago.
Did not see it until just about directly overhead as the house blocked the west view.

Some of the early reports of flying triangles may have been the result of the NOSS satellites; these objects travel in threes, known as trios or triads. The observers may have seen the threee lights travelling silently in formation and extrapolated a solid body in the gap between them.
This is certainly a very strong contender for some of the descriptions I have read; other observations are more difficult to explain without gross observational error or deliberate falsehood; both of which are possible.

eburacum45

2006-Jun-12, 04:15 PM

I can believe that some are, just not the ones that were seen at 500 feet.

One aspect of the Unidentified Aerial phenomenon which causes confusion it the difficulty of estimating the height of an unknown object.
Quite simply, if you don't know what it is, you don't know how big it is;
and if you don't know how big it is you can't estimate its distance of height without some other clues.
At all. Period.

So if the object is in front of the cloud cover you can guess that it is from a couple of hundred yards to a few kilometers away; if there are no clouds or other objects of known size or distance associated with the object it could be as far away as several hundred kilometers, and may be in orbit.
Without definite clues, any estimate of height or distance is worthless.

By the way, you sighting sounds intriguing. I am almost certain it cannot have been a spacecraft in orbit, as it would have been bigger than any craft yet built; by humans, anyway.

eburacum45

2006-Jun-12, 04:31 PM

Possibly you saw the Space Shuttle in close orbit with the ISS; the two objects together might have looked like one object, and the 'tube' could have been an optical illusion caused by the tendency for bright objects to appear to bleed into one another. There were a number of missions three or four years ago- shame you don't have a more precise date.

Goblin

2006-Jun-13, 04:33 AM

No no there was no illusion to it. It was super easy to see. Not like trying to make out detail of jupiter on a soso seeing night.

The extension looked like a clear green glass tube (like a space walk tube) It was above some very light clouds but how much higher is hard to estimate. The orientation of its path made be believe it had to be in orbit.

I have never seen an object that could go through the atmosphere at a 45 degree angle.

Maybe a super low orbit but thats still like 100 miles is it not?

Trucks seen at 4 miles from a plane look very tiny. At 100 miles I don't think one could see any detail with the naked eye. I'm 20/20 but no superman.

I know leave it me to be to see something cool only to downplay it at the time and later find it was pretty interesting.

I remember telling my wife that some nuts going to think thats some UFO, its just the space station. Now I'm still scratching my head as to what it was.

One thing I'm certain of is the angular speed and detail, like looking at a small model. Like I said about its altitude I do not know how it could have been lower it was not moving in an airodynamic fashion and was above the clouds. No sonic booms, no trails etc. It was not just a tiny spot of green light, it had geometric detail that my wife and kids could easily see.

The ISS/shuttle overlap is a good guess but I don't think if those were place next to each other I could have seen any detail with the naked eye.
I just asked my wife what she thought the shape was. She said it was like a box tilted at 45d angle to its path with green blinking lights. Maybe the space shuttle? Why the green color and strobes?

If I got all excited at the time I would have drawn out a sketch etc. The only reason I remember the specifics is I did do a count in seconds to estimate angular velocity. It was not like a meteor but covered 1/3 the sky in less than 10 seconds, much faster than a typical jet at 550mph covers the sky at 30,000 feet. It was no question breaking the sound barrier unless it was 1000 feet up and then I would have heard something.

Those missions they had, do you know the altitude of them? Did they fly west to east? Shame on me for not nailing down a date/time as those things are logged. I don't think I will get a redo on it as I have not seen anything like it since.

Possibly you saw the Space Shuttle in close orbit with the ISS; the two objects together might have looked like one object, and the 'tube' could have been an optical illusion caused by the tendency for bright objects to appear to bleed into one another. There were a number of missions three or four years ago- shame you don't have a more precise date.

Goblin

2006-Jun-13, 04:45 AM

.
By the way, you sighting sounds intriguing. I am almost certain it cannot have been a spacecraft in orbit, as it would have been bigger than any craft yet built; by humans, anyway.

LOL, I'm not saying it was not built by humans. I'm saying it was in orbit vs being lower. Yes I understand the problem with it having to be too large but I have just as much of a problem with it being lower because I have never seen anything fly tilted through the air that fast.

I have a problem with the goofy color too. Why it was internally Illuminated green. I could not find anything on green sat, ISS or shuttle being that color.

There has to be some explanation I just don't have one.

eburacum45

2006-Jun-13, 08:30 PM

Since you say you could see blinking lights and detail, that really does rule out a man-made object in orbit. The ISS is the largest man-made object in orbit at a length of 100 meters; as you can see from this page, it is still tiny as seen from the ground, compared to the Sun and the Moon.
http://www.satcom.freeserve.co.uk/isstrans.htm

Also, lights on man-made objects in space are not bright enough to be seen with the naked eye from the ground - we see them by reflected sunlight.

So probably your object was within the atmosphere and relatively close- a number of kilometers up at the most.
If it was an aircraft (or more than one) with some sort of illuminated region on the underside that might fit the bill- but I have absolutely no idea what kind of craft this could have been, or why it should only be partly illuminated. Perhaps a refueling exercise?

Goblin

2006-Jun-13, 09:55 PM

Thanks for the link. It was easier to see than the photo on the first link. And that one looks to be magnified. See how the path it makes across the sun, note the orientation (its tough to see on that site) Its not lined up with its path exactly (in orbit it does not matter). The object we saw was much cleaner looking not blurred like that video. Plus add some color.

Ok so much lower, It covered the sky so fast it would have had to be like 400 feet above my head. Maybe refuling, but again its orientation was all messed up. Maybe it was 60,000 feet but even with the thin air I don't think you could fly a jet sideways. I'm positive on the orientation and checked with my wife to see if she noticed it too, she did.

It would easily have outpaced a common airliner that you see making com trails. They barely move across the sky when seen at 40,000 feet. No sound no trail on what ever it was we saw. I try not to think about it as its a paradox to me.

One more thing I could try is to contact an official ISS site and ask if in the past 3 years any Sat. or Shuttle could have been seen with the naked eye as anything more than point source of light. I'm thinking that tube I saw might have been a solor panel. A long shot at best, but what the heck.

Thanks for trying to help out.

Since you say you could see blinking lights and detail, that really does rule out a man-made object in orbit. The ISS is the largest man-made object in orbit at a length of 100 meters; as you can see from this page, it is still tiny as seen from the ground, compared to the Sun and the Moon.
http://www.satcom.freeserve.co.uk/isstrans.htm

Also, lights on man-made objects in space are not bright enough to be seen with the naked eye from the ground - we see them by reflected sunlight.

So probably your object was within the atmosphere and relatively close- a number of kilometers up at the most.
If it was an aircraft (or more than one) with some sort of illuminated region on the underside that might fit the bill- but I have absolutely no idea what kind of craft this could have been, or why it should only be partly illuminated. Perhaps a refueling exercise?