106 replies to this topic

[Tesla II]

DBunker, on 15 August 2012 - 05:01 PM, said:

I get it, I really do.

Its waaaay more exciting to speculate about UFOs beeing ET crafts. But lets be realistic, nukem..... to this date none of the UFOs has been shown beyond all doubt to be made by ET.

And you know that from the comfort of your chair... so mister i knoweverythingabouteverything tell me 150 years ago in Italy at st.peters church was was the flying machine the town witnessed? Oh i know it was an airplane ow wait a hot air ballon neither because no one was there from us who are commenting on this stuff... So if youtube or some US scientist will tell you a theory which he made up you will belive it as it was the law.... Even thou our history changes because people/scientist didn't guessed right many many things even till this day you still belive a man... He wrote a bible in there he wrote mankind was created by "god" so you will belive that even thou our flawed history says it was evolution..

What i am trying to tell you here is man is flawed so are most of hes creation, even thou people see weird things in the sky still doesn't mean they are witnessing something of earthly design... You can't know neither does your corupt goverment, nobody does like once psyche said...

[DBunker]

Nuke_em, on 16 August 2012 - 04:50 PM, said:

And you know that from the comfort of your chair... so mister i knoweverythingabouteverything tell me 150 years ago in Italy at st.peters church was was the flying machine the town witnessed?

Let me guess, there is an old painting of the event?

[itsnotoutthere]

zoser, on 14 August 2012 - 06:13 PM, said:

Are you saying we are totally unique in this incredibly vast universe?  Impossible.  We know nothing about the planet we live on never mind about the vastness of space and the unknown dimensions that exist therein.

Yes, thats quite possible, & to date the facts would seem to back it up.

[Kludge808]

Nuke_em, on 16 August 2012 - 04:50 PM, said:

What i am trying to tell you here is man is flawed so are most of hes creation, even thou people see weird things in the sky still doesn't mean they are witnessing something of earthly design... You can't know neither does your corupt goverment, nobody does like once psyche said...

First off, all governments are corrupt.  It's the nature of the beast and, to a degree, is necessary for them to function.

Second, separating this from the religious aspects, 'not being of earthly design' does not by necessity mean the ETH is in effect since it does not exclude atmospheric anomalies, some of which we still don't understand.  Also, Leonardo da Vinci preceded that event by some 350 years and he invented a few flying machines.  Is there any evidence that someone didn't carry on from his designs and make something that worked?  (Several have since been shown to be workable, by the way.)  I'm definitely not saying this is the case but one can't exclude it either.

[psyche101]

Tim Hebert, on 16 August 2012 - 01:17 AM, said:

Hey Psyche,

Hello Tim

Pleasure to see you here again.

Tim Hebert, on 16 August 2012 - 01:17 AM, said:

I guess my main points were somewhat lost in the noise.  Per Bragalia, the former president of the college (Dr. Stirling Colgate), New Mexico Institute of  Technology, told him that the event was an elaborate hoax that was designed by and implemented by a few students with the knowledge of some of the faculty members.  Supposedly, Colgate alluded to the targeting of Zamora with the use of basically a large Chinese lantern-balloon.  The rest of Tony's story is his take.  He may be spot on or totally in left field, but his article does merit a close look and given due consideration.

Indeed, not sure if it was noise though, Zoser tends to plug his ears until someone utters ET then he has plenty to say. I think even if one does not believe the claim it is not out of the ordinary for college students to play a prank on someone they have a common ground against, even in mirth. The rest of the story I would like to see more on, I have just found that in the past Tony has been willing to extend to some rather long odds in order to get a story across.

Tim Hebert, on 16 August 2012 - 01:17 AM, said:

Usually I avoid subjects like Socorro and Roswell because they tend to be Ufology's version of the Vietnam War...a quagmire with no exit strategy.

I could not blame you, I have been debating Roswell too long and too seriously, so I tend to get sucked into these debates too easily.

Cheers.

Edited by psyche101, 16 August 2012 - 11:50 PM.

[psyche101]

Kludge808, on 16 August 2012 - 03:23 AM, said:

[/i]

Er, could you educate the geat unwashed, Psyche?  (That would, of course, be me. )

LINK

Kludge808, on 16 August 2012 - 03:23 AM, said:

It doesn't require wanting aliens to take issue with Bragalia's account.  It is inconsistent with documented evidence and statements but rather is based on hearsay.

Aren't the documents we are dealing with a form of hearsay though? And I have to admit, how did this get so incredibly widespread so quickly? It indicates possible pre-emption.

Kludge808, on 16 August 2012 - 03:23 AM, said:

Much as I would love this to be ET, it is an "Unknown" as far as I can see.  Even though there is no known terrestrial explanation, it doesn't automatically say ET has arrived much as the pro-UFO camp would like to claim it does.  For example, the Evil Gummint had black projects even in 1964 and this could have been one of them.  And, yes, I know it falls in line with at least one CT but it has no less merit than aliens while both have significantly more than Bragalia's fun 'n games.  One thing it definitely was not was a balloon.

Well, there is a terrestrial explanation, wether one believes it is valid or not is another story. And again I allude to the mystery airships of the lat 1890's We have strange things happening in the skies that befuddle people and a long history of enigmatic appearances that are certainly not alien, as such, I feel there simply has to be more to understand as opposed to discover.
You say that it definitely was not a balloon, I don't suppose you would like to elaborate further on your own reasons? I have looked into that and according to all documentation from the time frame and find it is a pretty decent explanation to be honest. It falls down in some of the revised versions, but from the official documents, I have seen nobody ever post a good reason to discount them, and if that did exist, surely we would not even be discussing balloons?

Cheers.

[psyche101]

zoser, on 16 August 2012 - 07:52 AM, said:

I'm listening.

Sadly, I find that hard to believe. I think you should try to understand the people you are speaking to before chastising or making ignorant flippant remarks. You were rather rude to Jim OBerg IMHO as well.

I gave this link to Kludge, as you seem to have overlooked the information in Tim's post perhaps it is best I repeat the link for fear you will miss it. - LINK

zoser, on 16 August 2012 - 07:53 AM, said:

How do you know I didn't?

zoser, on 15 August 2012 - 04:23 PM, said:

Has anyone actually asked why anyone would want to perpetrate a hoax in a desert?  How could they guarantee anyone would even be there to see it?  Surely a small residential area would have been better.  This fails on all accounts.

That's how.

[psyche101]

IamsSon, on 16 August 2012 - 03:31 AM, said:

The Zamora case is one of the most thoroughly investigated close encounter cases because of the main witness's credibility, and the fact that at least one other person, from a different position saw the craft take off.  The idea that it was a hoax, especially the way it is explained in the article is ludicrous.

Would you mind elaborating on what points you find ludicrous so that they can be discussed? That statement is a bit broad brushed.

[psyche101]

Nuke_em, on 16 August 2012 - 04:50 PM, said:

What i am trying to tell you here is man is flawed so are most of hes creation, even thou people see weird things in the sky still doesn't mean they are witnessing something of earthly design... You can't know neither does your corupt goverment, nobody does like once psyche said...

Gidday Nuke

Thanks for the mention, I will keep saying that too, the mystery airships of the 1890's insiste there is more to this conundrum than we can currently fathom.

Cheers

[psyche101]

Kludge808, on 16 August 2012 - 06:46 PM, said:

First off, all governments are corrupt.  It's the nature of the beast and, to a degree, is necessary for them to function.

Indeed, and I think this is proof that a global ET CT is not plausible.

[Kludge808]

psyche101, on 17 August 2012 - 12:01 AM, said:

LINK

Cool, thanks.  I shall peruse as time allows.

Quote

Aren't the documents we are dealing with a form of hearsay though? And I have to admit, how did this get so incredibly widespread so quickly? It indicates possible pre-emption.

Let me respond in two parts.  First off, all documents are hearsay of one order or another.  One major difference is that documents remain stable over time as a rule while word of mouth changes, perhaps not intentionally but it still changes.  Memory slips and it can be misinterpreted.  This is one reason documents stand up in court where hearsay doesn't.

The spread is easy.  The story was published in the local paper and put on the wire.  Media outlets love anything sensational and that event was, to say the least, sensational.  UFOs were and I guess still are major news.  (I haven't seen a newspaper or watched/listened to the news since I got here.  That's part of what I was so intent on escaping from although I was only partially successful.)  Add to that people wanting to tell Great Aunt Millie in Debuque who will spread the story via gossip and you have a second method for it to spread.  The we add in the UFO folks, the curious and the souvenir collectors for their versions which also spread out via an assortment of means.  All in all, it would be difficult to contain something like that.  The situation at Socorro was not like that at Roswell where the number of eye witnesses was, contrary to the ever growing number, extremely limited and limited to a controllable group.  Socorro was uncontrolled until the federal level presence and by the time the feds - including the military - got there it was uncontrollable.  The best they could do was spin management ... kind of like Kelly Johnson's "lenticular clouds."

Quote

Well, there is a terrestrial explanation, wether one believes it is valid or not is another story. And again I allude to the mystery airships of the lat 1890's

I mentioned Ezekial's Wheel on another thread and, yes, the source documents for that are somewhat suspect but it's a good starting point.  Unexplainable things have been seen in the sky and reported in one form or another at least since then and possibly before.

This is pure speculation but bear with me.  Coming into more modern times, da Vinci invented several flying machines, several of which have since been shown to actually work, and the manned hot air and hydrogen balloons came into being in the late 1700s.  The first known manned, powered and steerable dirigible was built in 1852. ( http://en.wikipedia....ffard_dirigible ) Practical steam power has been known to some degree or another since 1600 or so and paddle wheels since well before that as was the screw, more importantly including the air screw (propellor.)  It is therefore very possible that someone beat Giffard but wasn't so well known.  In any event, it's entirely possible that those mystery airships were quite terrestrial and man made.

Quote

We have strange things happening in the skies that befuddle people and a long history of enigmatic appearances that are certainly not alien, as such, I feel there simply has to be more to understand as opposed to discover.

This is a good part of my reasoning behind preferring UAP over UFO.  It allows room for atmospheric anomalies of which we have little if any understanding.  We don't know everything about our own world which means we can't discount the possibility that what has been observed isn't natural.

Something I should add is that as a once upon a time pilot, what I shared airspace with was of prime importance to me.  If ET was in my airspace, I wanted to know about it.  It still is a concern even though I don't fly anymore simply because others still do.  Have I seen things in the air I couldn't identify while I was flying?  Yep.  And  a few times I got on the radio to see if ATC had anything on radar.  Sometimes they did and had a positive ID and other times not so much.  A couple times they asked if I wanted to report anything and I answered that I had no idea what I was looking at so hadn't a clue what to report.  They seemed rather relieved at that response.

Quote

You say that it definitely was not a balloon, I don't suppose you would like to elaborate further on your own reasons? I have looked into that and according to all documentation from the time frame and find it is a pretty decent explanation to be honest.

First, let's look at the wind and the object's path.  It rose vertically approximately 20' then traveled horizontally against the wind, accelerating as it did.  David Rudiak did the legwork on that and the link to it - http://www.roswellpr...il_24_1964.html .  I have to agree with his assessment of the wind conditions and note they agree with witness statements including Officer Zamora's.  With the last part of the visible flight being again upward at a rapid pace, without any downwind component, the balloon concept becomes difficult to buy.

Second is identification.  Officer Zamora was close enough to the object to be able to see what it was - or wasn't.  If it had been a balloon, it would have been terribly obvious at the less than 50' distance between him and it.  Note that at this point he was still wearing his glasses so Bragalia's continuous inference that he was unable to see fails.  In fact the only time Officer Zamora was without his glasses was one time around 15-30 seconds from when he stumbled on the way past his car to when he returned to it after the object went silent.  Further, another set of witnesses, tourists at a gas station, also saw the object pass at low altitude and commented on the "low flying aircraft".

Third is the flame.  It was blue on top and yellow on the bottom plus formed a very narrow cone.  Every flame I have ever seen used to do anything like lift a Chinese lantern or, in this case, balloon had the hot part - the blue part - at the bottom.  The coolest part is red fading to infrared then orange then yellow - which is the part most visible - then green then blue etc which is the hottest region.  (Side note: "Red hot" is somewhat a misnomer.  "White hot" would be significantly closer to really truly hottity hot.)  The shape of the flame is telling as well.  It's typical of one coming from a well designed nozzle.  Assuming something like a propane burner as a heat source (Very little else would be able to handle the volume.), the flame goes up and is pretty ragged with its only purpose being to provide heat.  And then there's the heat.  An experiment was done to find out how much heat and for how long to fuse the sand where the object had taken off from.  At 2200 deg F, it took 25 minutes.  That's about the heat from a propane flame.

Sooo ... Did they aim the burner down through a rather impressive venturi (nozzle) for that long to heat the air in the balloon and, as a side benefit, cause some of the sand to fuse with a good portion of their heat being lost due to the wind as well as the flame being kicked around then do a final burn just long enough to get it aloft and figure out a way to get it to travel several miles against the wind then cut it loose to escape vertically?  Or would the simpler answer of an unknown object of equally unknown origin that left trace similar to other events be the better choice?

Also, on chasing down added information, it turns out the school in question is pretty small plus anything that elaborate would have required more than 3-6 students.  Several students who were there at the time flat out said it wasn't one of their pranks.

Quote

It falls down in some of the revised versions, but from the official documents, I have seen nobody ever post a good reason to discount them, and if that did exist, surely we would not even be discussing balloons?

We're discussing balloons because Bragalia claims it was a balloon and apparently he's the Lord High Executioner of Socorro.

[Tesla II]

Just so you know i made up that event so i could see how people would react see you go mentionting paintings why? Because many of those had indeed weird flying things pictured all over but that was chinese lanters they didn't know back then what it was so they pictured something that flies, hell they didn't even had a flying machines back then, yet they pictured them, like they witness some flying object or a weather anomaly but then again anomaly stands for a RARE phenomena not a every second day phenomena... But that is not the case that i am trying to have... the case is you don't know what they saw,experience but you do make claims... How can doubt or support an event you weren't there... It is like saying it is hot on the moon... i know i wasn't there but i know...Until you give evidence for or agaisnt ,even theory works, it is just rubbish...

[zoser]

psyche101, on 17 August 2012 - 12:05 AM, said:

Sadly, I find that hard to believe. I think you should try to understand the people you are speaking to before chastising or making ignorant flippant remarks. You were rather rude to Jim OBerg IMHO as well.

I gave this link to Kludge, as you seem to have overlooked the information in Tim's post perhaps it is best I repeat the link for fear you will miss it. - LINK







That's how.

If I were to be honest with you psyche, I don't have a lot of time for people who set themselves up as professional UFO debunkers,  that hang their coats on their university PHD's.  I find attempts at debunking by such people difficult to follow, highly intellectualised to the point of non-comprehension, largely baseless, and full of more fantasy than any ET hypothesis could ever hope to have.

The explanations stem in the main from a fear of the unknown, coupled with a perceived threat to what they consider to be established scientific paradigms.  

When you have UFO cases backed in some instances by hundreds of witnesses and then one self appointed scientific hero trying to ridicule those people by drawing their attention to questionable not fully understood scientific principles then that is what I call disrespectful.  

Think; there is even debate raging today about what causes gravity!  What chance a debunking scientist trying to explain away the UFO phenomena.  It's laughable.

[Hazzard]

zoser, on 18 August 2012 - 11:04 AM, said:

What chance a debunking scientist trying to explain away the UFO phenomena.  It's laughable.

Few of the "evil UFO debunkers" are trying to debunk the UFO phenomenon. What would be the point!? Its a very real phenomenon. Everybody knows this.

What the "evil debunkers" are questioning though is the evidence presented by you (and others), and the claim, that some of the UFOs are made by ET.

[zoser]

Hazzard, on 18 August 2012 - 02:11 PM, said:

Few of the "evil UFO debunkers" are trying to debunk the UFO phenomenon. What would be the point!? Its a very real phenomenon. Everybody knows this.

What the "evil debunkers" are questioning though is the evidence presented by you (and others), and the claim, that some of the UFOs are made by ET.

So are we arguing about words here?  If I called them interdimensional travelers would that help?