Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Saru

Secret Soviet UFO studies revealed

102 posts in this topic

imgres.jpeg

SWIPED!

imgres-1.jpeg

and SWIPED!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey SGB, have you ever spoken with Sweetpumper about your sighting?.....He too seemed to have an identical experience to yourself......

also excuse me but I dont recall, have you ever spoken in detail about your sighting here at UM?

Sweetpumper's was more like an encounter than sighting :) . But yes, the UFOs seemed to be of similar class. Yes I have mentioned it in another thread. Basically, my brother and I saw two round objects that appeared metallic. Just imagine a passenger jet flying overhead, but instead of an elongated shape, it's round. That's how far they appeared to be. These two sphere were flying in a straight line, one behind the other in complete silence. when they fly in this straight line, the speed was about a regular plane flying really high that we normally see. All of a sudden, they both zigzag(turn left, right, left, right a few time). They were in perfect synchronization while doing the zigzag maneuvers. When they zigzagged, the speed was much, much faster than when they were flying straight. They basically make 90 degree turn many time. Just connect the dots below and you can see how they moved. The dots doesn't represent the crafts itself, just the pattern of their movement. Both spheres moved in the exact same manner and the distance between the two stayed consistent throughout. After all these, they just went up higher and higher and out of sight.

* * * *

* * *

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sweetpumper's was more like an encounter than sighting :) . But yes, the UFOs seemed to be of similar class. Yes I have mentioned it in another thread. Basically, my brother and I saw two round objects that appeared metallic. Just imagine a passenger jet flying overhead, but instead of an elongated shape, it's round. That's how far they appeared to be. These two sphere were flying in a straight line, one behind the other in complete silence. when they fly in this straight line, the speed was about a regular plane flying really high that we normally see. All of a sudden, they both zigzag(turn left, right, left, right a few time). They were in perfect synchronization while doing the zigzag maneuvers. When they zigzagged, the speed was much, much faster than when they were flying straight. They basically make 90 degree turn many time. Just connect the dots below and you can see how they moved. The dots doesn't represent the crafts itself, just the pattern of their movement. Both spheres moved in the exact same manner and the distance between the two stayed consistent throughout. After all these, they just went up higher and higher and out of sight.

* * * *

* * *

fascinating...cheers for the insight.

for the record can you explain why you didnt record it on your 'phone'? I think I know why...or at least know why I wouldnt, but just want to collect some real cases/reasons....to tackle the future question of 'there are over 6 biilion phones with cameras so why......''

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fascinating...cheers for the insight.

for the record can you explain why you didnt record it on your 'phone'? I think I know why...or at least know why I wouldnt, but just want to collect some real cases/reasons....to tackle the future question of 'there are over 6 biilion phones with cameras so why......''

Because you don't or can't stop watching. It happens too fast. As I've said before, you don't see this often, and the last thing you want to do is fumble for your phone and end up missing it. That, and the fact that anyone can fake a photo nowadays, it wouldn't matter if the photo was genuine or not. Plus, I use Photoshop everyday, which wouldn't help my case. Plus, without seeing it in person, it doesn't matter. You can't convey a sighting like this. It's almost impossible to believe without witnessing it yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Because you don't or can't stop watching. It happens too fast. As I've said before, you don't see this often, and the last thing you want to do is fumble for your phone and end up missing it. That, and the fact that anyone can fake a photo nowadays, it wouldn't matter if the photo was genuine or not. Plus, I use Photoshop everyday, which wouldn't help my case. Plus, without seeing it in person, it doesn't matter. You can't convey a sighting like this. It's almost impossible to believe without witnessing it yourself.

and that my friend is the answer I thought would be given.......makes perfect sense to me that fumbling for your phone and trying to switch it to camera etc etc would/could mean you miss the sighting.......I know I would not want to take my eyes off it....and if like most sightings they occur for under 1 minute this for me makes it highly likely a majority think like you do...I know I would do the same. I would imagine you spend the first thirty seconds doing double takes as your brain is saying 'come on what is it...maybe a plane etc etc'

Edited by quillius
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and that my friend is the answer I thought would be given.......makes perfect sense to me that fumbling for your phone and trying to switch it to camera etc etc would/could mean you miss the sighting.......I know I would not want to take my eyes off it....and if like most sightings they occur for under 1 minute this for me makes it highly likely a majority think like you do...I know I would do the same. I would imagine you spend the first thirty seconds doing double takes as your brain is saying 'come on what is it...maybe a plane etc etc'

It does make sense, but not for 100% of cases I would think. Some people claim long duration sightings, anything over 5 minutes should be possible to capture, and it seems rather suspicious that all footage is grainy.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does make sense, but not for 100% of cases I would think. Some people claim long duration sightings, anything over 5 minutes should be possible to capture, and it seems rather suspicious that all footage is grainy.

Considering the zoom and autofocus capabilities of modern cameras, I find it difficult to understand as well. Even with manual focus, there is no real excuse for not having clear video or photos. Against that, though, if it's too clear then people will label a photo or video as fake because of the clarity. The folks who've done so much to fake both have made it difficult for anyone who may have legitimate photographic evidence to offer.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that they spike in sightings certainly were because of the cold war and new tech/weaponary. However this could simply mean the spike occured because of 'misinterpretations' that were far more possible OR its the reason the curiosity of our ET friends peaked again resulting in increase in sightings.....maybe a combination of both :)

as for the following comment 'Then the close encounter stories could simply be overactive imaginations which later fueled the dubious to make some money'

I dont know about that, I think we have a few cases that suggest it cannot be an over active imagination.. :alien: ..at least not without the aid of an induced hallucination.

oh and the editing....I agree with Kludge in that it did somehow make sense and it made me smile for some strange reason.. :tu:

The abduction thing has never been believable to me. For every story there seems to be ample doubt as to its authenticity. Believers always inject unknowable ideas as to why there are holes in the stories instead of looking at known human nature and the imperfections of our brains. The abductees may believe their own stories (i.e. they passed a lie detector test) but that does exclude the possibility of prosaic things like mental illness, whether temporary or not. I did not put this in my original post because so many people get offended when you state that they simply could be koo-koo for coco puffs or simply lying. Remember as much as some go on about the stigma there is a great deal of attention to be gained even by being an object of ridicule As a society a great deal of people seemingly enjoy watch human train wrecks (reality TV for example). There are a myriad of mental illnesses that could account for a large percentage of the famous cases that would NOT render the person to be a drooling psychotic mushroom.

These possibilities are infinitely more likely than beings travelling across the vast distance of space to 'probe' us in ships that do not resemble anything futuristic. We have the technology, or are quickly on the way to, to simulate most biological systems....why would these super advanced beings need to operate on us like we would have 50 or 100 years ago?

JMO.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering the zoom and autofocus capabilities of modern cameras, I find it difficult to understand as well. Even with manual focus, there is no real excuse for not having clear video or photos. Against that, though, if it's too clear then people will label a photo or video as fake because of the clarity. The folks who've done so much to fake both have made it difficult for anyone who may have legitimate photographic evidence to offer.

It certainly is true that these things can be created convincingly with CGI on a typical desktop PC these days but that does not account for the complete lack of virtually any at all. This is one area I have some knowledge about, CGI that is.

These are the programs I am familiar with (not an expert by any means thought): Lightwave, Modo 701, Zbrush, Photoshop, Marmoset and several others I cannot recall at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because you don't or can't stop watching. It happens too fast. As I've said before, you don't see this often, and the last thing you want to do is fumble for your phone and end up missing it. That, and the fact that anyone can fake a photo nowadays, it wouldn't matter if the photo was genuine or not. Plus, I use Photoshop everyday, which wouldn't help my case. Plus, without seeing it in person, it doesn't matter. You can't convey a sighting like this. It's almost impossible to believe without witnessing it yourself.

I agree with what you are saying but given the vast number of sightings you would think someone would snap a clear photo. It actually hurts the point that apparently these things are only seen by one or two individuals and never masses of people. If masses had seen them then you would expect some clear video/photos.The meteor in Russia is a good example. It was a short event and look at how many cameras captured that. You would think with all those dash cams running every time people hop in their cars something would have been captured and likely by more than one vehicle. Just an example of modern tech NOT finding UFO's...let alone alien space ships. JMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fascinating...cheers for the insight.

for the record can you explain why you didnt record it on your 'phone'? I think I know why...or at least know why I wouldnt, but just want to collect some real cases/reasons....to tackle the future question of 'there are over 6 biilion phones with cameras so why......''

Mine was in 1992. Beepers was popular back then :lol: . But yeah, I think it would be easily dismissed as another grainy video even if it happened today. It was quite high and phone camera can't zoom very far with good quality. With all the video that we see now, I am sure there are some genuine ones. The million dollar question is which is real and which is fake.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does make sense, but not for 100% of cases I would think. Some people claim long duration sightings, anything over 5 minutes should be possible to capture, and it seems rather suspicious that all footage is grainy.

These longer duratation sightibgs are much more rare. My own was around 17 mins in 2002 but back then I didnt own a cellphone. So what are talking about then, just sightings from the last say 5-6 years when it might be reasonable to assume most people had a cellphone capable of taking pictures. Its really not a long time and past studies suggest the phenomena is prone to peaks and lulls. The last few years could be a slow period for the phenomena.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These longer duratation sightibgs are much more rare. My own was around 17 mins in 2002 but back then I didnt own a cellphone. So what are talking about then, just sightings from the last say 5-6 years when it might be reasonable to assume most people had a cellphone capable of taking pictures. Its really not a long time and past studies suggest the phenomena is prone to peaks and lulls. The last few years could be a slow period for the phenomena.

17 mins...Wow. Mine was less than 30 secs. I don't believe I had a chance to hear about your sighting, LS. If you don't mine, could you describe it again? thanks.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mine was less than Thirty seconds also ! But Oh ! WHat a 30 sec`s it was ! I would pay to see it again ! :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

These longer duratation sightibgs are much more rare. My own was around 17 mins in 2002 but back then I didnt own a cellphone. So what are talking about then, just sightings from the last say 5-6 years when it might be reasonable to assume most people had a cellphone capable of taking pictures. Its really not a long time and past studies suggest the phenomena is prone to peaks and lulls. The last few years could be a slow period for the phenomena.

We do get some pictures, though, and they seem to indicate UAP photographed are not solid craft.

Do you not find it strange that every single picture is blurry though? The last 5 or 6 years is about right for cell phones, but cameras started to get cheap around the year 2000. What we do know is that natural phenomena such as Min Min or Hessdalen produce captures such as:

Hessdalen-lights.jpg

And the UFO photos of alleged alien spaceships look like:

ECETI_Lightship.jpgworcester-ufo.jpg

It seems to me that we are getting the photo's, but not the ones people say we should be getting, which when described should look like this:

UFO_0.jpg

When it comes down to 100% of Alien claims produce nothing, but UAP claims produce an obvious light effect, you have to wonder.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to think UAP is likely to explain a good swath of actual legitimate UFO sightings.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I agree with what you are saying but given the vast number of sightings you would think someone would snap a clear photo. It actually hurts the point that apparently these things are only seen by one or two individuals and never masses of people. If masses had seen them then you would expect some clear video/photos.The meteor in Russia is a good example. It was a short event and look at how many cameras captured that. You would think with all those dash cams running every time people hop in their cars something would have been captured and likely by more than one vehicle. Just an example of modern tech NOT finding UFO's...let alone alien space ships. JMO.

Considering the zoom and autofocus capabilities of modern cameras, I find it difficult to understand as well. Even with manual focus, there is no real excuse for not having clear video or photos. Against that, though, if it's too clear then people will label a photo or video as fake because of the clarity. The folks who've done so much to fake both have made it difficult for anyone who may have legitimate photographic evidence to offer.

I have to agree, are we not told "if 1 % of UFO storied are true, then there is something the the alien claims"? I feel the same should apply to photos. If just 1% were to come out clean and legible, the answer is likely to become apparent. But not even 1% come out clear and legible where the more extraordinary claims are concerned, yet we do get good clear pictures of natural phenomena, such as the recent Russian Meteor.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to think UAP is likely to explain a good swath of actual legitimate UFO sightings.

I strongly agree. I do not know anyone who has such a well rounded understanding of UAP as your good self, glad to see you around again, even if sporadic for the meantime. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It certainly is true that these things can be created convincingly with CGI on a typical desktop PC these days but that does not account for the complete lack of virtually any at all. This is one area I have some knowledge about, CGI that is.

These are the programs I am familiar with (not an expert by any means thought): Lightwave, Modo 701, Zbrush, Photoshop, Marmoset and several others I cannot recall at the moment.

For me it's DAZ Studio (several generations), Poser7 & 9 (as opposed to 7 of 9 *sigh*), LuxRender, Adobe Premier (only because I have it, not because I actually know what I'm doing with it :blush: ), Virtualdub, Powerdirector, Gimp, Paint.net, PSP and a host of other stuff that probably needs to be thinned out someday. I have Adobe's CS2 suite but only loaded Premier so far. I'd probably be better off with Elements but that's not gonna happen for a while.

All that to create a digital world where my daughter and I can be together since we can't in the real world.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree, are we not told "if 1 % of UFO storied are true, then there is something the the alien claims"? I feel the same should apply to photos. If just 1% were to come out clean and legible, the answer is likely to become apparent. But not even 1% come out clear and legible where the more extraordinary claims are concerned, yet we do get good clear pictures of natural phenomena, such as the recent Russian Meteor.

The problem is how do we separate the legitimate clear photos from the fakes? I agree that, in light of the Moscow Meteor (I wonder if Moscow likes having a meteor named for it? :P), there should be oodles & scads of good verifiable photos. There aren't. Or are there? With the high number of fakes out there, one good honest one may have gotten lost in the shuffle.

It's kind of like finding an "alien hubcap." (Or was it a screwdriver?) There may be one or two floating around but if if the finder can't recognize it as being something extraordinary it may well go in the bin with yesterday's scraps. Even if the finder does recognize it as something well out of the ordinary, there isn't much that can be done to test for "alienness." I mean, how do you write to the manufacturer to find out ... stuff like that?

We've all heard/read about the "gotta be alien" claims regarding stuff dug up or found. One or two here on UM that I know of (and probably a lot more) have been challenged and they were found seriously wanting. Others "mysteriously disappeared" so can't be verified which doesn't stop "a certain element" from claiming proof of ETH. Heck, if one is to believe that element, entire spacecraft have disappeared which, in turn, involved numerous conspiracy theories and a few of us being accused of "disinformation agents" from any of several agencies*. It gets amusing - and tedious - after a while but never really quite boring.

* This, in turn, lead to me winding up with a goat. Long story there but not one worth telling. Ever.

The bottom line is that, thus far, no verifiable evidence of an alien presence has ever been located by anyone who'd recognize it as such or photographed by much of anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does make sense, but not for 100% of cases I would think. Some people claim long duration sightings, anything over 5 minutes should be possible to capture, and it seems rather suspicious that all footage is grainy.

Hey Psyche, no I agree not for 100% of 'claims' as opposed to cases. I say this because we can only really count those that had a genuine experience and are not just mistaking a distant light/or plane etc as a UFO. We then look at how many genuine sightings happened that lasted over 1 minute (lets use 1 minute as a reasaonable amount of time to allow you to capture it)....if we then take the time period when phones had cameras and also at a time when most people would carry one.....suddenly we have very few sightings that would meet this criteria.

I am therefore not that surprised no great photos are to be found or at least they are/cannot be as common place as suggested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The abduction thing has never been believable to me. For every story there seems to be ample doubt as to its authenticity. Believers always inject unknowable ideas as to why there are holes in the stories instead of looking at known human nature and the imperfections of our brains. The abductees may believe their own stories (i.e. they passed a lie detector test) but that does exclude the possibility of prosaic things like mental illness, whether temporary or not. I did not put this in my original post because so many people get offended when you state that they simply could be koo-koo for coco puffs or simply lying. Remember as much as some go on about the stigma there is a great deal of attention to be gained even by being an object of ridicule As a society a great deal of people seemingly enjoy watch human train wrecks (reality TV for example). There are a myriad of mental illnesses that could account for a large percentage of the famous cases that would NOT render the person to be a drooling psychotic mushroom.

These possibilities are infinitely more likely than beings travelling across the vast distance of space to 'probe' us in ships that do not resemble anything futuristic. We have the technology, or are quickly on the way to, to simulate most biological systems....why would these super advanced beings need to operate on us like we would have 50 or 100 years ago?

JMO.

to be honest abductions never really did it for me either. However since looking into teh Pascagoula case, it certainly has made me look at it much closer.

If there was ever an abduction, then at the moment Pascagoula would be my front runner, I think it wipes the floor with Betty and Barney, Travis and a couple of other high profile cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We do get some pictures, though, and they seem to indicate UAP photographed are not solid craft.

Do you not find it strange that every single picture is blurry though? The last 5 or 6 years is about right for cell phones, but cameras started to get cheap around the year 2000. What we do know is that natural phenomena such as Min Min or Hessdalen produce captures such as:

And the UFO photos of alleged alien spaceships look like:

It seems to me that we are getting the photo's, but not the ones people say we should be getting, which when described should look like this:

When it comes down to 100% of Alien claims produce nothing, but UAP claims produce an obvious light effect, you have to wonder.

Hey want to hear something funny? I was about to use similar pictures from Hessdalen to prove my point lol ...so how are we using the same evidence to argue for an oppsite position....wow and wow just goes to show the difference in interpretation I guess.

You see I thought the Hessdalen photos show that even with professional equipment being set up to capture these anomolies the best we can get are 'poor' images (in relation to the spaceship image you posted) so how can we expect the average man on the street with a phone to be able to capture a nice clear image? He is working against shock....double takes.....squinting of the eyes......excitement or maybe fear.......under 1 minute (most common length of sightings).......poor phone camera...motion blur...etc etc...I struggle to take a photo of someone with my phone...try using the iphone to capture someone just walking.....blurry photo...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The problem is how do we separate the legitimate clear photos from the fakes? I agree that, in light of the Moscow Meteor (I wonder if Moscow likes having a meteor named for it? :P), there should be oodles & scads of good verifiable photos. There aren't. Or are there? With the high number of fakes out there, one good honest one may have gotten lost in the shuffle.

I reckon we can tell them apart. And in fact, I do not think there are that many fakes left out there that leave people scratching their heads. I really think if one photo did exist that was undeniable that the UFO crowd would tout it like the Holy Grail. Like they tried to with the Belgium triangle, until the guy who made it came forward, even though for years beforehand experts were calling that one fake, and as it happens were exactly right when explaining method.

It's kind of like finding an "alien hubcap." (Or was it a screwdriver?) There may be one or two floating around but if if the finder can't recognize it as being something extraordinary it may well go in the bin with yesterday's scraps. Even if the finder does recognize it as something well out of the ordinary, there isn't much that can be done to test for "alienness." I mean, how do you write to the manufacturer to find out ... stuff like that?

Screwdriver :D My son has one of these replicas :D

sonic-screwdriver-closeup.jpg

We can test for Isotopic ratio, that will tell us for sure one way or the other if a thing is alien. We have had quite a few candidates over the years between Chuck Wade and Frank Kimbler we had had claims that they have pieces of alien spaceship. Not so it would seem. Whilst it is possible that something someplace is indeed genuinely of alien origin, I do not see any reason to believe such exists on this earth. All the claims are fiction.

We've all heard/read about the "gotta be alien" claims regarding stuff dug up or found. One or two here on UM that I know of (and probably a lot more) have been challenged and they were found seriously wanting. Others "mysteriously disappeared" so can't be verified which doesn't stop "a certain element" from claiming proof of ETH. Heck, if one is to believe that element, entire spacecraft have disappeared which, in turn, involved numerous conspiracy theories and a few of us being accused of "disinformation agents" from any of several agencies*. It gets amusing - and tedious - after a while but never really quite boring.

After reading about Frank Kimbler's "disappearing" metal fragment, nothing surprises me. That one was pretty much predicted. Or any claims made like Bob Lazars Element 115. All he had to do was expand the periodic table with a little poetic licence, and considering we have now made element 115, and happens to have not any of the properties predicted by Lazar, we know that is what he did. As you say, never quite boring, but the few predictions we do see are wildly out. Either these guys are tin foil hat people, or these aliens are having the laugh of their lives at making a few people look pretty stupid.

* This, in turn, lead to me winding up with a goat. Long story there but not one worth telling. Ever.

The best stories seem to have a goat in them for some reason..................... :unsure2:

The bottom line is that, thus far, no verifiable evidence of an alien presence has ever been located by anyone who'd recognize it as such or photographed by much of anyone.

Nothing verified, but plenty of claims. You'd think just one of them might be genuine, but if nothing else, the ETH teaches one that overreaching oneself is required. And perhaps it is.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Psyche, no I agree not for 100% of 'claims' as opposed to cases. I say this because we can only really count those that had a genuine experience and are not just mistaking a distant light/or plane etc as a UFO. We then look at how many genuine sightings happened that lasted over 1 minute (lets use 1 minute as a reasaonable amount of time to allow you to capture it)....if we then take the time period when phones had cameras and also at a time when most people would carry one.....suddenly we have very few sightings that would meet this criteria.

I am therefore not that surprised no great photos are to be found or at least they are/cannot be as common place as suggested.

But almost everyone in Russia can capture a meteor? Does that not seem to tip the balance somewhat? It is as short as the above and it was completely unexpected.

I think at least a handful should exist that do not look like a blur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.