Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Why do you believe in UFO's and aliens?


  • Please log in to reply
257 replies to this topic

#196    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2012

Posted 22 October 2012 - 10:41 PM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 22 October 2012 - 10:04 PM, said:

I would appreciate it if you didn't project your fantasies about how you think I would respond to something as though it is actually the way I would respond to something.  Can you afford me at least that much respect McG?

Maybe you'll surprise me one of these days and actually say once in a while "By gum, there just might be something to that one".  LOL


#197    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 22 October 2012 - 11:07 PM

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 22 October 2012 - 10:41 PM, said:

Maybe you'll surprise me one of these days and actually say once in a while "By gum, there just might be something to that one".  LOL

The most perplexing part of this is that I've said that about quite a few cases actually.


#198    mcrom901

mcrom901

    plasmoid ninja

  • Member
  • 5,602 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:multiverse

  • space debris, decided to evolve and become us!

Posted 23 October 2012 - 04:12 AM

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 22 October 2012 - 07:16 PM, said:

No, Arnold never saw that.

so, since you didn't resppond to my other post, i'll ask you directly, were there any other witnesses to the 'non-disk' / 'wing' object which arnold had described?


#199    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,827 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 23 October 2012 - 04:15 AM

View Post747400, on 22 October 2012 - 08:22 AM, said:

That there may have been large formations of aircraft flying about that only one or two examples were known to have ever flown. That seems rather fanciful to me.

I think it is a big call to say you are across every R & D test associated with every flying wing and blended body design and able to say with certainty, "Yes, Nine Flying wings have never flown at once". With versions ranging from propellor driven to rocket driven it seems that more examples exist than have been discussed here.

View Post747400, on 22 October 2012 - 08:22 AM, said:

If this design had been evaulated, either by the Americans or anybody else, in the late 1940s, it would have been public knowledge long before now. There'd be absolutely no reason to keep the very existence of it secret still, unless we really do want to start supposing "secret" air forces and so on, which really is just as fanciful as supposing the occasional visit from extraterrestrials.

I do not believe that is the case. We do not need secret air forces to keep an aircraft under wraps. One aspect of design is all that is required to put a blanket over a project.

View Post747400, on 22 October 2012 - 08:22 AM, said:

See above; any experimental aircraft that may have been flying in the late 1940s would be public knowledge long before now, unless we really do want to start supposing "secret" air forces and so on, which really is just as fanciful as supposing the occasional visit from extraterrestrials.

The aircraft are public knowledge, I propose that all aspects of R & D are not. Why would they be? The candidate exists, you just say we have no record of nine flying at once. Other than that, the description fits very well, and even Kenneth Arnold felt they were ours. I echo Boon in that I do not know of such a flight, but I would like to know if it was not these how Arnold managed to draw one? Unless you are saying that aliens happened to come up with the same design the Horten Brothers did?

View Post747400, on 22 October 2012 - 08:22 AM, said:

I'm afraid it is, almost as fancful as an unofficial display by the CAF Snowbirds as an explanation for the Phonix Lights .

I do not see how. Snowbirds exist. Flying wings exist. We have both of them right here, and evidence to tie them in to the physical locations of the events. That I cannot provide you with the actual flight plans I do not feel paints them out of the picture, and offers an opening for an ET craft?
I guess a healthy imagination could make such a connection, but I do not see any rationalisation of the proposal.

View Post747400, on 22 October 2012 - 08:22 AM, said:

The point is not that a trial run may have happened without being recorded, it's that that number of that type of aircraft were never in the air at the same time, and what test flights there were were conducted either near to the factory in California, or from secure USAAF locations, for the exact reason that they wouldn't want any unauthorised observations of them.


Have you scoured the history if the N-1M? It made over 200 test flights. Were all of Arnolds "flying discs" exactly the same?


What about McChord AFB? The first test flight was from Dry Bed, were all flights from the same location, and what were the ranges?

View Post747400, on 22 October 2012 - 08:22 AM, said:

As observed above, those are the uncompleted YB-35s lined up outside the Northrop factory, waiting scrapping.

And two went on to become jet propelled prototypes. As Boon said, Arnold drew a Ho. How did he manage that?
ET seems to be following us very closely for the ETH to be considered? They make spaceships out of stuff that looks just like Tin Foil and Balsa wood at Roswell, and two weeks earlier they were copying flying wings. Rather amazing that an advanced species would be so similar to us aesthetically.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#200    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,827 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 23 October 2012 - 05:29 AM

View Postsynchronomy, on 22 October 2012 - 01:20 PM, said:

The youtube link is to James Fox's movie "Out of the Blue". If you haven't seen it, I recommend you do. If you can't access youtube it would be worth your while to rent the movie.

Ohh, OK, thanks. I do have that one at home.

View Postsynchronomy, on 22 October 2012 - 01:20 PM, said:

Can you not set parental control on your home computer so your kids can't view it but you can? IIRC correctly restricting their access was your concern.

I had the router set to block it. One rule for all seemed vary fair, as it was not a unanimous decision.

View Postsynchronomy, on 22 October 2012 - 01:20 PM, said:

Anyway, it's a good movie giving a rundown on the current concerns about UFO's and the secrecy surrounding their existence.

I have watched it, but only once. I thought 50 Years of Denial was much better personally.

View Postsynchronomy, on 22 October 2012 - 01:20 PM, said:

I believe that the rest of the world (outside) US either has the same knowledge/contact with ET's/UFO's or they don't. If they do, they say nothing and if they have no contact, they still say nothing in either case it gives the appearance that they do. In other words they just apply same/similar secrecy rules as does the US. It's the old "keep them guessing" game in the interest of national security. I sort of answered that above. Countries other than USA, use the same "smoke and mirrors" policy with regard to UFO's/ET's perhaps to make the US think they have the same information, whether they do or not. I think most countries would have the same agenda relating to this subject.


Do not countries that are claiming to be open and honest about the UFO phenomena falsify this though? Brazil for instance claims it has opened it's files.

Examples:

France opens up its UFO files

France became the first country to open its files on UFOs on Thursday when the national space agency unveiled a website documenting more than 1600 sightings spanning five decades.

LINK


Brazilian Air Force Opens Its UFO Files

In accordance with the important of campaign UFO: Freedom of Information Now and publisher of Magazine UFO J. Gevaerd, the representatives of the Aeronautics had been serious, transparent and considerate how much to the claims of the ufologists. "This was a first contact with the officers, new chances will appear and who knows in a next future will be able to establish partnerships to organize research related to Phenomenon UFO.

LINK


And then we have the Disclosure project assuring us that disclosure is just around the corner.


UFO FILES - COUNTRIES RELEASING

LINK


View Postsynchronomy, on 22 October 2012 - 01:20 PM, said:

I agree, the skies/outer space are watched closely, however I believe that extraterrestrial vehicles may likely have some sort of "cloaking" ability. Seems there are examples of UFO appearing and disappearing sometimes and cases when witnesses see an object, but it is confirmed nothing showed up on radar. Heck, we already have quite good stealth technology ourselves.

If they have a cloaking ability, then why would some people see them and never someone with telescope pointed out of the system? Does not the frequency of alleged sightings not make it likely that if such technology was deployed that it would not be constant? And then we have to ask, how many of these alleged aliens are supposedly here? Some claim up to 57 species visiting, and they all have the same tech? Except us?
And what about ones that do show up on RADAR? How come they are never ever tracked leaving or entering the planet? Why is every single incident on our soil, and not in the skies?

It strikes me that as every single UFO answer to date has come from beneath out feet, that the trend is likely to continue?

View Postsynchronomy, on 22 October 2012 - 01:20 PM, said:

Maybe the US or other countries have the ET's in a negotiating position. If the ET's agenda is to peacefully assimilate with mankind, perhaps the US is saying to them "If you disclose yourselves to the general public, we will reveal to them that your agenda is hostile, so you maintain contact with us only" There's a few rumors of a false flag operation in which an attack by aliens could be staged.

How could an advanced species think the US is the one who calls the shots for the entire planet? To be fair, this does not sound like an advanced species, but rather the opposite? It seems rather strange that an advanced species would be controlled by a lesser species?
And what about Rebel aliens? None want to make contact and see for themselves? I would bet a human would?

View Postsynchronomy, on 22 October 2012 - 01:20 PM, said:

I know I keep referring to the USA with most of this, but I think it likely that several countries share the same agenda which gives the appearance to many that these countries are working together.

That is the thing. Governments hate each other, I do not understand where any illusions of them "working together" exist. It's the US ETH and the rest of the world ETH. The Twain never meets. Like I said, the entire UN cannot even keep the Sea Shepard out of the water, I do not see any collusion existing currently even to benefit ourselves?

View Postsynchronomy, on 22 October 2012 - 01:20 PM, said:

Also, it would be likely IMHO, that the perpetrators of the secrecy are quasi-government groups and private sector black-ops types in order to keep the information away from FOI requests.

But again, you have competition, and competition is where the entire deal falls apart IMHO.

What do not understand is that these countries have to be working together for America to keep this quiet. I understand that you mention stealth technology, which to be honest I find a bit of an easy answer, like saying space is too big too cross, but just the same, neither are entirely accurate. I do not feel that Stealth technology can possibly count for every case when the alleged sightings are numerous. How can one have stealth, and then be seen all the time, but just not in space? That seem to be placing quite some conditions to qualify the idea?


But perhaps I did not word myself well.
What I cannot figure out is why would say China for example not tell the World that the US is receiving interstellar visitors? What reason could they have to keep quiet? This is what happened every time a Government did not play by the rules, as per the examples set out in the previous post. It is not an illusion of conspiracy between the US and China, and I do not think anyone has suggested that, but for the ETH to be at all possible, this must be so, and not illusion, but real collusion. But how so? The world does not work like that, and never has?

Cheers.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#201    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2012

Posted 23 October 2012 - 06:02 AM

View Postmcrom901, on 23 October 2012 - 04:12 AM, said:

so, since you didn't resppond to my other post, i'll ask you directly, were there any other witnesses to the 'non-disk' / 'wing' object which arnold had described?

You mean the old prospector who saw them too?  I think I read that in the records somewhere.



Fred Johnson, resident of First Avenue, Portland (Oregon), reported without consulting any records that on June 24, 1947, while prospecting at a point in the Cascade Mountains approximately five thousand feet from sea level, during the afternoon he noticed a reflection, looked up, and saw a disc proceeding in a southeasterly direction. Immediately upon sighting this object he placed his telescope to his eye and observed the disc for approximately forty-five to sixty seconds. He remarked that it is possible for him to pick up an object at a distance of ten miles with his telescope.

At the time the disc was sighted by Johnson it was banking in the sun, and he observed five or six similar objects but only concentrated on one. He related that they did not fly in any particular formation and that he would estimate their height to be about one thousand feet from where he was standing. He said the object was about thirty feet in diameter and appeared to have a tail. It made no noise. According to Johnson he remained in the vicinity of the Cascades for several days and then returned to Portland and noted an article in the local paper which stated in effect that a man in Boise, Idaho, had sighted a similar object but that authorities had disclaimed any knowledge of such an object.

He said he communicated with the Army for the sole purpose of attempting to add credence to the story furnished by the man in Boise. Johnson also related that on the occasion of his sighting the objects on June 24, 1947 he had in his possession a combination compass and watch. He noted particularly that immediately before he sighted the disc the compass acted very peculiar, the hand waving from one side to the other, but that this condition corrected itself immediately after the discs had passed out of sight. Informant appeared to be a very reliable individual who advised that he had been a prospector in the states of Montana, Washington and Oregon for the past forty years.



http://brumac.8k.com...LD/KARNOLD.html

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 23 October 2012 - 06:13 AM.


#202    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,827 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 23 October 2012 - 06:06 AM

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 22 October 2012 - 03:03 PM, said:

At any rate, the first jet-powered Flying Wing was tested in October 1947 so it could not have been what Arnold saw in June.

Secretary of the Air Force Stuart Symington ordered the cancellation of all flying wing programs in 1950, and refused to make even one of them available to the Smithsonian museum.

In many ways it was a very impressive aircraft for its time, but the whole program seems to have been dogged by accidents and mishaps, and some people even suspected sabotage.

You will be pleased to hear: (From WIkipedia)

The N-1M proved to be basically sound, paving the way for Northrop's later and much larger Flying Wing aircraft. The pioneering aircraft was then donated to the United States Army Air Forces in 1945 and was placed in the storage collection of the National Air Museum the following year. It sat there for nearly three decades but was finally brought back to static, non-flying status, in its final flight configuration, after several years of painstaking restoration during the 1980s; the N-1M is now on public display at the National Air and Space Museum's Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#203    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2012

Posted 23 October 2012 - 06:14 AM

This is what Bruce Maccabee said of Fred Johnson's written report:

"Mr. Johnson's letter to the Air Force indicates that he was in the right area at the right
time to see the objects which Arnold reported.  Johnson, like Arnold, reported that his
attention was attracted to them by a reflection, possibly a flash of light on the rocks he was
examining.  He reported only five or six, but it is likely that he missed seeing the others as
he concentrated on his telescopic view of a single one.  (Also, he was recalling the event
almost two months after it occurred, so he may well have forgotten some details, such as the
exact number of objects.)  He thought they were only about 1,000 ft above his altitude of about
5,000 ft.  

Adding his estimated distance of the objects above him, 1,000 ft, to his estimated
altitude, 5,000 ft, yields an altitude for the UFOs, about 6,000 ft, which is consistent with
the altitude indicated by Arnold's claim that they were traveling "in and out" of the mountain
peaks south of Mt. Rainier.  On the other hand, Arnold also said that, from his point of view,
the objects seemed to be climbing as they passed Mt. Adams.  He thought that they might even
have been a bit higher than Mt. Adams which is about 12,000 ft high.

Johnson claimed that he watched one disc for 45 to 60 seconds.  Assuming that they were
traveling at the speed calculated previously, about 1,700 mph, in 45 seconds they would travel
about 20 miles.  Although it may have been possible that Johnson could see the objects over a
distance of 20 miles from his location, it seems more likely that he saw them for less time.  
However, even if it were only for 30 seconds with his telescope, we may assume that he was able
to discern many details that Arnold couldn't see, such as the point on the front and the "tail"
waving side to side "like a big magenet" in the rear.  (Here I presume Johnson is comparing it
with the magnetic needle in a compass which swings left and right before reaching equilibrium.)  

He claimed that the objects were "round" and also "oval," thus generally agreeing with Arnold's
description of nearly round objects (certainly they they weren't square or triangular or T
shaped) and he estimated that they were 30 ft in diameter, a value that is smaller than Arnold's
estimate and smaller than the previously calculated value, suggesting that Johnson
underestimated the size.  (If he underestimated the distance above him he could also be likely
to underestimate the size, since the size estimate is based on the angular size - the visually
"apparent" size - and the estimated distance.)  He also stated that the speed was "greater than
anything I ever saw", which is consistent with the speed calculated from Arnold's sighting.  He
heard no noise.  He observed that while the objects were in sight the needle of his compass
waved from side to side.  The waving stopped after the objects were out of sight.

The last statement in Johnson's letter provides important confirmation of Arnold's claim
that he was able to see flashes of sunlight reflected from the objects.  In the previous
discussion of Arnold's sighting I pointed out that for the objects to reflect sun toward Arnold
it would be necessary for some portion of each shiny object to tilt at least to an angle of
about 60 degrees.  The idea that the objects could tilt that much is supported by Johnson's
claim that when he last saw the objects they were "standing on edge" while "banking in a
cloud."

Aside from the apparent confirmation of Arnold's sighting, Johnson's sighting is unique as
being the first to include a report of a physical effect during sighting (the apparent effect on
the needle of his compass).  This observation has led to calculations of the assumed magnetic
field strength needed to affect a compass in this way from a distance of 1,000 ft or more.
The resulting field strengths are immense."

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 23 October 2012 - 06:28 AM.


#204    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2012

Posted 23 October 2012 - 06:16 AM

I knew that I had read that quite a while ago, about how a witness on the ground also reported Arnold's UFOs to the military and FBI, but I never doubted that Arnold was a very reliable witness and basically telling the truth about what he saw.

Arnold also became the first civilian UFO investigator, since he started going around and collecting other reports in 1947, including from airline pilots.

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 23 October 2012 - 06:25 AM.


#205    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2012

Posted 23 October 2012 - 06:18 AM

View Postpsyche101, on 23 October 2012 - 06:06 AM, said:

You will be pleased to hear: (From WIkipedia)

The N-1M proved to be basically sound, paving the way for Northrop's later and much larger Flying Wing aircraft. The pioneering aircraft was then donated to the United States Army Air Forces in 1945 and was placed in the storage collection of the National Air Museum the following year. It sat there for nearly three decades but was finally brought back to static, non-flying status, in its final flight configuration, after several years of painstaking restoration during the 1980s; the N-1M is now on public display at the National Air and Space Museum's Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center.


That's good.  I'm glad that they at least saved something.  From what I've read, politics killed the flying wing at the time, even before they had the chance to work all the bugs out of it.


#206    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,827 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 23 October 2012 - 06:21 AM

View Post747400, on 22 October 2012 - 08:14 PM, said:

The reason they were grounded, just to address this point for now (I may get back to the more philosophical questions when I've got time) was because the original propeller engines were unsatisfactory. Therefore Northrop would, I'd have thought, have been very unlikely to decide to get together enough engines (each of them needing four engines) just to make them airworthy so they could, for some reason, fly them secretly and never tell anyone. That would be the kind of budget wasting excercise that, oh, only Government departments could think about. And why would they want to do that, if the design as it was had already proven to be unsatisfactory? It makes no sense at all, and until nine other suitable candidates can be found, then I think that we can rule the YB-35, at any rate, out as a candidate. And remember the size of these things; 172 ft wingspan. Can you imagine what nine of those would look like in formation? I'm sure someone other than Kenneth Arnold would've noticed that. And i'm pretty sure that, as a pilot, even a private one, Arnold would follow developments in aviation technology, and it wasn't as if the YB-35 was exactly secret; this was long before Area 51, so I dare say that he'd recognise a YB-35 for what it was if he saw one.

So if the YB 35's did go up, and failed, would it not be prudent to keep the failure from the public? At a time when structures were being pulled down for more iron for the war effort, why would the defence forces proudly announce failures? Perhaps this was how the differing designs were tested for all we know. What we do know is that we have something that looks exactly like that which Kenneth Arnold drew. How is that explained? And why would he then write to the defence department with his fears of a terrestrial nature?

Why does it have to be the YB 35?

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#207    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,827 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 23 October 2012 - 06:24 AM

View Post747400, on 22 October 2012 - 04:48 PM, said:

Anyway, what are these wild speculations to which you infer?

You joker you.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#208    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2012

Posted 23 October 2012 - 06:34 AM

This was the original Arnold drawing, which made them look flatter and more disc-like:

Posted Image

Posted Image


Or perhaps even like this:

Posted Image

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 23 October 2012 - 06:36 AM.


#209    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2012

Posted 23 October 2012 - 06:41 AM

Or this?

Posted Image


#210    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2012

Posted 23 October 2012 - 06:46 AM

Some people have pointed out similarities to other unconventional German designs, but I do not know if these were flying around in the US in 1947, or indeed if they were flying anywhere.  Did they ever exist, except on paper?

Posted Image


Posted Image





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users