98 replies to this topic

[Kludge808]

zoser, on 24 August 2012 - 09:56 AM, said:

But it then draws me back to the obvious question; what are the options?

First off, as has been pointed out innumerable times, faking photos is easy especially now with all the digital doohickeys and whatzits.  (Darkroom tricks can be done to accomplish the same end although I doubt much film is used these days.)  It is to the point that photographic evidence is no longer reliable.  This is made worse in the original event (UFO over New York) since there was only one witness.  There was no corroborating testimony or evidence, photographic or otherwise.

There's also the convenience of how that UAP showed up the second time so Mr. Titus could get a photo of it.  That's a little too convenient to fall within the realm of probability.

Getting back to generalities and discounting fakes, though, a very good one is misidentification of known objects.  One I know about first hand is how the sun can hit an airliner in such a way that the only visible reflection is from the fuselage.  That way a completely mundane airplane becomes a cigar-shaped UAP.  Another is ball lightning.  Another is weather inversions forming layers from which distant lights can reflect.  And so on.  And so on.  And when they're exhausted, a sighting becomes an unknown in which case both sides are obliged to provide overwhelming evidence theirs is the right one.  Thus far, no one has been able to in any case going.  That's why they're still unknowns.  However, unknown does not automatically equate to ET.

I'm very uncomfortable with the UFO over NY case in any event.  Something's not right and I'm not going to speculate what right now; I have more critical things to think about.  Further, having MUFON handle it won't do any good because they won't test all possibilities before declaring "Yes, by golly, we have a winner!"  NICAP at it's top form would have been better but it's gone.

[Kludge808]

shaddow134, on 24 August 2012 - 11:57 AM, said:

Aliens,Tooth fairy what ever you want to believe in really.....

Alien tooth fairies?  Now there's an interesting concept.

[Kludge808]

zoser, on 24 August 2012 - 07:26 AM, said:

Just how man have had close encounters but never reported it?

I tried a few times but usually wound up with restraining orders instead.

[Kludge808]

Lilly, on 24 August 2012 - 12:22 PM, said:

However, I'd also say that many unknowns being seen stand a good chance of being terrestrial in origin.
See this link: http://www.ufocasebo...triangular.html

Oh, no, Lilly!  We're not smart enough to build craft like that.  Gotta be alien tech.  Yep, yep.  

Seriously, I've seen these mentioned before and find them fascinating but I've always liked LTA (lighter than air) craft.  With that, there's research in things like the Biefield-Brown Effect which can be used as an electrostatic thruster which is silent yet effective.  I've experimented with low power versions called "lifters" and know it works but it also gives me an appreciation of how much energy would be required to provide propulsion for decidedly huge vehicles like the big black triangles.  As a result, I'm torn between that and electrically driven propellors with carefully designed blades.  Yeah, I know.  How mundane ...

[psyche101]

Not much better than Adamski's claims. Heck, isn't that one of Lazars' "sports models"?

If so many UFO's shoot up, why do they not continue out of the atmosphere? Not a one has ever been recorded doing so by amateur observer or official sources. If one did, we might have a direction to follow, and one that SETI could concentrate on.

And if they do not leave the atmosphere, where do they go? And if they do not leave via space, why would one think the visions were craft being controlled by aliens?

Because it is the best some of us can come up with right now. And thats about it.

[Kludge808]

psyche101, on 27 August 2012 - 07:53 AM, said:

Not much better than Adamski's claims. Heck, isn't that one of Lazars' "sports models"?

Wow, there are a couple names I've not heard much about lately.  I thought they both got laid to rest years ago as basic fakes.

Quote

If so many UFO's shoot up, why do they not continue out of the atmosphere? Not a one has ever been recorded doing so by amateur observer or official sources. If one did, we might have a direction to follow, and one that SETI could concentrate on.

We have a great number of satellites in space with "eyes" pointed outward.  Why have none of them detected anything coming or going?  Amateurs of one sort or another have been paying attention to the atmosphere and what's beyond it across the EM spectrum virtually from DC to daylight and they (at one time we but I haven't had anything operational for years) have seen/heard nothing.

Oh, wait.  I know.  Da Ebil Gummint suppresses that information because that's what they do.  That should cover any CTs responses quite nicely.

Quote

And if they do not leave the atmosphere, where do they go? And if they do not leave via space, why would one think the visions were craft being controlled by aliens?

Oh, but these are the friendly aliens based out of Area 51 and having underground bases all over the place.  Gee, I wonder if there's one here in Hawaii ...

Quote

Oooh, shiny!

[Quaentum]

Lava_Lady, on 25 August 2012 - 07:09 AM, said:

What about it?  He says "IMO".  I don't see the sun in the photo, only the sun light.  Unless there is another photo with the sun in it that statement is conjecture.  I choose to believe it because I don't see any thing faked, IMO.  Admittedly, I saw the pic via my smart phone but it's sufficient.  There are things out in our world that we can't explain away.  I accept that more willingly than things that are explained via fear tactics and social pariah-ism... ie religion.  

So there was (allegedly) something in the sky, and a person took a pic of said (alleged) thing...  Looks real...  I accept that I don't know what the heck it is.  If some one can prove absolutely that it it's a fake then, fine.  I accept that as well.  Until then, looks real.  

Yes I said IMO because I am no photo expert and I admit I can be wrong.

Lourdes hospital is on the south side of Riverside Drive which runs east/west.  Looking towards Vestal from the hospital or the street means you are looking south to south west.  Though you can not see the sun, you can see the glow from the sun in the lower left of the image.  This puts it at dawn (approximately) which is backed up by the trees being in shadow indicating the sun is not very high in the sky.  The UFO is high enough that direct sunlight is lighting the edge and should also be lighting the bottom of the UFO but doesn't.  In my mind, the only reason for the discrepancy would be photo manipulation.

[psyche101]

Kludge808, on 27 August 2012 - 08:27 AM, said:

Wow, there are a couple names I've not heard much about lately.  I thought they both got laid to rest years ago as basic fakes.

You would be surprised. Bee here will happily take on anyone with a bad reputation as genuine truth-seekers being suppressed, and Ed Mitchell advocates Bob Lazar. Needless to say, I do not find Astronaut Mitchell's second hand claims convincing.

Kludge808, on 27 August 2012 - 08:27 AM, said:

We have a great number of satellites in space with "eyes" pointed outward.  Why have none of them detected anything coming or going?  Amateurs of one sort or another have been paying attention to the atmosphere and what's beyond it across the EM spectrum virtually from DC to daylight and they (at one time we but I haven't had anything operational for years) have seen/heard nothing.

We do with regard to natural phenomena though. I belong to an amateur astronomy forum where a fellow Aussie was the first to pick up 2 Jupiter strikes that NASA had missed. He informed NASA who then received confirmation on one of the strikes from another amateur astronomer. Then we have the gas worker from Yorkshire who discovered 4 exoplanets from home. The amateur contingent is largely overlooked IMHO.

Kludge808, on 27 August 2012 - 08:27 AM, said:

Oh, wait.  I know.  Da Ebil Gummint suppresses that information because that's what they do.  That should cover any CTs responses quite nicely.

I am not sure it covers any response, but might receive approval from a few Funny how these guys think they are answering unasked questions, when all they produce is quagmire.

Kludge808, on 27 August 2012 - 08:27 AM, said:

Oh, but these are the friendly aliens based out of Area 51 and having underground bases all over the place.  Gee, I wonder if there's one here in Hawaii ...

They must really like it here, none seem to leave, they just build fleets in underground bases with apparently the sole purpose of scaring some and befuddling others.

Kludge808, on 27 August 2012 - 08:27 AM, said:

Oooh, shiny!

I was surprised it was not red. To get to light speed, surely your vehicle has to be red!

But I think the OP pic has much of this nostalgic "classic" UFO look about it.

Quaentum, on 27 August 2012 - 06:20 PM, said:

Yes I said IMO because I am no photo expert and I admit I can be wrong.

Lourdes hospital is on the south side of Riverside Drive which runs east/west.  Looking towards Vestal from the hospital or the street means you are looking south to south west.  Though you can not see the sun, you can see the glow from the sun in the lower left of the image.  This puts it at dawn (approximately) which is backed up by the trees being in shadow indicating the sun is not very high in the sky.  The UFO is high enough that direct sunlight is lighting the edge and should also be lighting the bottom of the UFO but doesn't.  In my mind, the only reason for the discrepancy would be photo manipulation.

Pretty sound observation I would say.

[Kludge808]

psyche101, on 27 August 2012 - 10:35 PM, said:

You would be surprised. Bee here will happily take on anyone with a bad reputation as genuine truth-seekers being suppressed, and Ed Mitchell advocates Bob Lazar. Needless to say, I do not find Astronaut Mitchell's second hand claims convincing.

Well, there's an interesting pair, Bee and Ed Mitchell.  They do somehow go together thought.  Kind of like tar and feathers.

Quote

We do with regard to natural phenomena though. I belong to an amateur astronomy forum where a fellow Aussie was the first to pick up 2 Jupiter strikes that NASA had missed. He informed NASA who then received confirmation on one of the strikes from another amateur astronomer. Then we have the gas worker from Yorkshire who discovered 4 exoplanets from home. The amateur contingent is largely overlooked IMHO.

At the peak, I had several sets of ears pointed skyward, one on the hydrogen line at 1401 MC with a massive (for a rather small back yard) radiometric array, a broadband one centered on 20 MC for Jupiter's own variety of "whistlers" and a trio that covered basically 0 to 45 KC in three 15 KC segments.  (Sorry, I'm old school and using those Hertz things hurts. )  The 1401 MC radiometer had three National INS8073 SC/MP microcontrollers as well as a host of National COP402 & COP410 controllers handling all those gritty little nitties.  The other systems had the computers when the radiometer wasn't in operation plus had tape decks I'd custom made for them.  Having friends at Green Bank helped, of course, but in the end it had to be my sweat to make it all come together.

However, I agree.  Amateurs are given short shrift in the one place where everyone - amateur and professional alike - is playing with the same "source data", the sky.  Historically, amateurs have contributed more to astronomy in the way of discoveries than professionals but then there are significantly more of "us" vs "them" with significantly more eyes and ears pointed skyward at pretty much everything there is to be looked at.  Everyone has the same source data, we just use it differently.

Quote

I am not sure it covers any response, but might receive approval from a few Funny how these guys think they are answering unasked questions, when all they produce is quagmire.

Well, yeah.  That's how they work.  Well, one way.  Another is to claim harassment when asked to produce evidence or claim they don't have to since it's "common sense" or some such.  In the end, when there's else nothing left, there is still Da Ebil Gummint^tm.

Quote

They must really like it here, none seem to leave, they just build fleets in underground bases with apparently the sole purpose of scaring some and befuddling others.

And not a farglesnappin' one of them stops by to let this old pilot fly one.  What kind of a deal is that anyway?  I was a darned good pilot with jet time but got taken out by a medical.  If their flight systems are as good as they're cracked up to be (which may be a poor choice of terms), that shouldn't be a factor.

Quote

I was surprised it was not red. To get to light speed, surely your vehicle has to be red!

Well, yeah.  Isn't that why it's called red shift?

Quote

But I think the OP pic has much of this nostalgic "classic" UFO look about it.

Over the past 60 or so years, UAPs have changed significantly.  I wonder if it's due to equipment upgrades, different species' fleets, different classes of craft or simply what movie has produced the most recent influence.

[TheMacGuffin]

Well, the UFO I saw shot up into the sky, and many other people have reported them doing exactly the same thing.  One time, some scientists told me the must be using some kind of anti-gravity field, but I'm certainly no expert on that.

[Kludge808]

TheMacGuffin, on 28 August 2012 - 06:51 AM, said:

Well, the UFO I saw shot up into the sky, and many other people have reported them doing exactly the same thing.  One time, some scientists told me the must be using some kind of anti-gravity field, but I'm certainly no expert on that.

The only one that did for me was a high altitude weather balloon at 8500' that almost became a close encounter of the worst kind in sort of a "What the 4377 was that!" moment.

Anyway, extensive research has been done in the US and elsewhere into anti-gravity propulsion.  The most successful have been based on the Biefield-Brown Effect which is an electrostatic field and does work but isn't real strong.  To date, no one has been able to produce a generator capable of lifting its power source or anywhere near it.  It is fun to play with and there are sources on the web to show how to build lifters using this effect.

This, of course, discounts alien technology which would be a closely guarded government secret if it exists.  Here's sort of an interesting problem.  For anyone outside the very small tight community that would know about such things, there is absolutely no evidence any such technology exists.  There is also absolutely no evidence it doesn't exist.  This is so much like everything else in Ufology.  What a bummer.

[TheMacGuffin]

Kludge808, on 28 August 2012 - 07:01 PM, said:

The only one that did for me was a high altitude weather balloon at 8500' that almost became a close encounter of the worst kind in sort of a "What the 4377 was that!" moment.

This, of course, discounts alien technology which would be a closely guarded government secret if it exists.  Here's sort of an interesting problem.  For anyone outside the very small tight community that would know about such things, there is absolutely no evidence any such technology exists.  There is also absolutely no evidence it doesn't exist.  This is so much like everything else in Ufology.  What a bummer.

Naturally, I have no evidence about it.  This discussion was just a small, informal group of military people and scientists that concerned a variety of different subjects, and I just happened to be part of it--a very small part.  Well, we got to talking about the Washington DC flap of July 1952 and were just looking through some old records and documents, and some of the scientists started talking about anti-gravity fields and things like that.

[TheMacGuffin]

Come to think of it, in our little discussion group, someone also had a thick report from very early on in the UFO investigation, dating from 1948 or 1949.  I had a chance to look through that but never saw it again.  It mentioned Aflred Loedding and many of those people involved in the various studies back them--must have run to about 150 pages.  It was kind of a summary of what they knew back then, with the types on UFOs reported and quite a few pictures.  I'd forgotten about that one, but I don't think it was ever declassified and made available to the public--not that I'm aware of.

[TheMacGuffin]

Once in a while, amateur and professional astronomers do catch sight of what they believe are UFOs, but in this business you have to be looking in the right place at the right time--or looking everywhere all the time, like the military does.





I do not like that annoying music.  All I can say is that amateurs and professionals have reported quite a few "anomalies" out there in space over the years.  So did the scientists doing meteoric sky surveys, at least according to Dr, Hynek, as did the folks at Operation Moonblink.

One has to be uniquely lucky (or unlucky) to see a genuine UFO, though.

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 29 August 2012 - 04:31 AM.

[TheMacGuffin]

It's not hard to find a lot of these amateur astronomer UFOs on the Internet--shadows and lights and blinkers on the Moon, on other planets or in space.  This stuff has been reported for as long as any kind of astronomy has existed, which should not come as a great surprise to anyone.