Unidentified Submerged Objects ~ USOs

[Kipperphoenix]

You've got that right! There's even a report made by Christopher Columbus.

Oh yea, I have heard of that sighting, don't know what to think of it.

[karl 12]

wouldn't surprise me if there was Extraterrestrial life living on the sea bed of the deepest part of the ocean. i can't remember where it is or what it is called but no man or machine can reach anywhere near the bottom because of the pressure

Yes,apparently the crush depth for submarines is 7000ft (although a specialy designed submersible managed 35,838 ft).

Some USOs have been plotted on sonar screens travelling huge speeds at these depths and its interesting to speculate just what these objects couild actualy be.

Edited February 3, 2009 by karl 12

[Captain Zim]

A depth of 7 miles was reached in 1960 by two men.

http://www.extremescience.com/DeepestOcean.htm

Some aliens might be better adapted to sea life. That reminded me of "The Abyss" movie.

That poses an interesting question. Computer simulations of planet formation show a lot of dry planets and a lot of wet ones (ie entirely covered by water to a depth of a hundred kilometres or so). If this reflects how things really are out there, then a large proportion of ETs could be aquatic. The most intelligent creatures beside man live in the oceans after all.

[karl 12]

I think skeptics and believers alike find the uso phenmomena interesting and its harder to understand what they are..

TFF you right about that one - I suspect true open minded sceptics find all these military USO reports extremely intruiging and speculate they may shed some light on the true nature of the UFO phenomena.

I also suspect UFO cynics will be loathe to address these accounts as they may shatter their bias preconceptions about 'all' unidentified phenomena being balloons, Chinese lanterns, swamp gas, Venus, birds,military flares or hub caps thrown from a Buicks.

[Hazzard]

Oh yea, I have heard of that sighting, don't know what to think of it.

It seems that Chris C, with crew, saw some lights on that main voyage....It was in the log. Funny thing, in the dramatization, there was a nice shiny 1980s flying saucer with lights all over, flying beside his ship..

Even funnier... Stanton Friedman said that he was sure that CC saw something even better then "just some lights in the dark"...but CC never told anyone because of the riducule/crazy factor.

Edited February 3, 2009 by hazzard

[skyeagle409]

It seems that Chris C, with crew, saw some lights on that main voyage....It was in the log. Funny thing, in the dramatization, there was a nice shiny 1980s flying saucer with lights all over, flying beside his ship..

Even funnier... Stanton Friedman said that he was sure that CC saw something even better then "just some lights in the dark"...but CC never told anyone because of the riducule/crazy factor.

But, it has now been revealed in his log as to what happened, which can't be denied. It was obvious it wasn't a weather balloon nor Jupiter and Mars. And, let's not forget that flying saucers were reported long before the voyage of Christopher Columbus, even over Japan hundreds of years before his journey.

I just happen to be in Corpus Christi, where full-scaled replicas of the ships of Columbus are on display. They sailed across the Atlantic ocean and currently, are on permanent display at the historic museum here, which devotes much on the history of his journey.

Not many people knew that Columbus reported UFOs during his journey, and now, you know.

Edited February 4, 2009 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

TFF you right about that one - I suspect true open minded sceptics find all these military USO reports extremely intruiging and speculate they may shed some light on the true nature of the UFO phenomena.

I also suspect UFO cynics will be loathe to address these accounts as they may shatter their bias preconceptions about 'all' unidentified phenomena being balloons, Chinese lanterns, swamp gas, Venus, birds,military flares or hub caps thrown from a Buicks.

I agree!

I was going to mention hub caps but you beat me to the punch.

[karl 12]

I was going to mention hub caps but you beat me to the punch.

A ha so I did

More intruiging USO accounts,incidents and reports:

http://www.zuko.com/Inexplicable/UFO_USO_Cover_Up.asp

[skyeagle409]

SkyEagle ,thanks for the reply,thats a fascinating link -I don't think I'd enjoy having seven miles worth of ocean over my head

Theres another very interesting incident from March, 1963 where American submarines were involved in exercises with a fleet of surface ships one hundred miles off Puerto Rico.

One of the submarines broke off from its assigned course and began pursuing an unidentified object which their instruments told them was travelling in excess of 150 knots at a depth of 20,000 feet.

Optical physicist and ufologist Bruce Maccabee had investigated the incident and stated that such speeds and depths were, and still are, impossible for today's submersibles (with the crush depth for submarines being about 7,000 feet).

The USO was tracked for four days by the carrier group, with the object moving at impossible speeds before stopping - reports were sent to CINCLANT (Commander-in-Chief Atlantic Command), but no determination was made as to the nature of the unidentified craft.

Other USO reports:

http://www.waterufo.net/bluebook/BBShipsDB2.htm

Cheers Karl

I wouldn't want to have seven miles of water over my head either! Especially in surrounding darkness.

[Mattshark]

I think bioluminescence would explain a very large part of this.

Not that sightings should ever be taken as evidence, no matter who the witness is.

[makaya325]

I think bioluminescence would explain a very large part of this.

Not that sightings should ever be taken as evidence, no matter who the witness is.

True, but how in the hell does that explain ice drillings, sightings and radar recordings by the navy?

[karl 12]

I think bioluminescence would explain a very large part of this.

Part of what?

Did you actualy read any of the accounts or testimonies?

Please describe why you think bioluminescence could explain a large proportion of these military/civilian 'unidentified submerged object' incidents.

Not that sightings should ever be taken as evidence, no matter who the witness is.

No,they should not be taken as 'proof'.

Circumstantial evidence is important and can be used to corroborate other forms of evidence (such as sonar confirmation evidence,ground trace evidence or government documentary evidence).

Its worth pointing out that in some countries, people are put to death for far less credible circumstantial evidence than this.

Edited February 6, 2009 by karl 12

[makaya325]

I think bioluminescence would explain a very large part of this.

Not that sightings should ever be taken as evidence, no matter who the witness is.

But they can be useful trying to figure outs whats goin on

[SOUL-DRIFTER]

Hello, Karl12. I see you post here as well.

Yes the USO phenomena is a much more interesting one in many ways over the standard UFO report.

If I recall there have been mysterious sounds and signals sometimes heard from the ocean that can not be identified.

Here is one.

At various times during the summer of 1997, an ultra-low frequency sound that rose rapidly in frequency over about one minute was detected at 50 degrees S, 100 degrees W. The sound was detected by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration with the Equatorial Pacific Ocean autonomous hydrophone array (which was U.S. Navy equipment originally designed to detect Soviet submarines), and was loud enough to be heard on multiple sensors, up to 5000km apart. Scientists dubbed it the "Bloop"

Edited February 6, 2009 by SOUL-DRIFTER

[makaya325]

Hello, Karl12. I see you post here as well.

Yes the USO phenomena is a much more interesting one in many ways over the standard UFO report.

If I recall there have been mysterious sounds and signals sometimes heard from the ocean that can not be identified.

Here is one.

With ufo's, misidentifications are likely to be pages long. With uso's, however... hmm.... what else is biolumiscent, large as a whale, and flies out of the water at unearthly speeds?

[SOUL-DRIFTER]

With ufo's, misidentifications are likely to be pages long. With uso's, however... hmm.... what else is biolumiscent, large as a whale, and flies out of the water at unearthly speeds?

And is often reported as metallic and these type of reports go back centuries as well...

[Mattshark]

Part of what?

Did you actualy read any of the accounts or testimonies?

Please describe why you think bioluminescence could explain a large proportion of these military/civilian 'unidentified submerged object' incidents.

No,they should not be taken as 'proof'.

Circumstantial evidence is important and can be used to corroborate other forms of evidence (such as sonar confirmation evidence,ground trace evidence or government documentary evidence).

Its worth pointing out that in some countries, people are put to death for far less credible circumstantial evidence than this.

Testimonies are extremely unreliable. No matter what scientifically they are worthless. To many confounding factors and are inherently unreliable and become more so further from the event. It has also been shown that people will make up and embellish explanations if they do not know what they saw.

As for bioluminescence. A lot USO sightings consist of see glowing underwater. Plenty of animals could explain that.

Sonar could be a school of fish, faulty equipment, misreading. There are lots of other explanations. Aliens is right down at the bottom of the list.

Because the reports are old, Soul-Drifter, or have a long record it doesn't give them any extra credence, it in fact means you should be more sceptical as they could have influence subsequent reports.

[SOUL-DRIFTER]

Testimonies are extremely unreliable. No matter what scientifically they are worthless. To many confounding factors and are inherently unreliable and become more so further from the event. It has also been shown that people will make up and embellish explanations if they do not know what they saw.

As for bioluminescence. A lot USO sightings consist of see glowing underwater. Plenty of animals could explain that.

Sonar could be a school of fish, faulty equipment, misreading. There are lots of other explanations. Aliens is right down at the bottom of the list.

Because the reports are old, Soul-Drifter, or have a long record it doesn't give them any extra credence, it in fact means you should be more sceptical as they could have influence subsequent reports.

Your points are valid...but only to a point...after which they become...ludicrous. And it does not take a rockey scientist to know what I am talking about.

Like KARL12 said 'Have you read the reports? or simply read the strange light reported ones...only?

Jesus...if we can not rely on testamony of our Navy personnel?...that doesn't say much about the people that help to defend us....does it???

Edited February 6, 2009 by SOUL-DRIFTER

[Mattshark]

Your points are valid...but only to a point...after which they become...ludicrous. And it does not take a rockey scientist to know what I am talking about.

Like KARL12 said 'Have you read the reports? or simply read the strange light reported ones...only?

Jesus...if we can not rely on testamony of our Navy personnel?...that doesn't say much about the people that help to defend us....does it???

Navy personal are no more valid as witnesses in scientific study as anyone else. They are not trained in marine biology are they and even if they where they still would not be able to idnentify everything.

The testimonies are not evidence. They are not proof.

They are here say.

If you care to show real, government documented evidence (not from the links here they are not reliable). Then I will gladly look.

[karl 12]

As for bioluminescence. A lot USO sightings consist of see glowing underwater. Plenty of animals could explain that.

Sonar could be a school of fish, faulty equipment, misreading. There are lots of other explanations. Aliens is right down at the bottom of the list.

Are you not just engaging in the old 'UFO cynic' school of thought which involves shoehorning in a preconceived explanation irrespective of any eyewitness testimony or factual evidence?

Whilst its certainly worth dispassionately examining each and every possiblity before arriving at an objective conclusion,the debunker method usualy entails superimposing

a premeditated opinion onto an incident whilst at the same time wilfully ignoring any glaring discrepencies,factual innacuracies or contradictory evidence that gets in their way.

Can you give any specific examples of cases you think may be bioluminescence?

I appreciate the input on the thread but I think this explanation may be wrong as many experienced seamen,submariners and Naval officers have witnessed objects emerging from (and going into) the sea and reported objects being tracked on (sometimes multiple) sonar travelling huge speeds at unheard of depths.

Edited February 7, 2009 by karl 12

[SOUL-DRIFTER]

Navy personal are no more valid as witnesses in scientific study as anyone else. They are not trained in marine biology are they and even if they where they still would not be able to idnentify everything.

The testimonies are not evidence. They are not proof.

They are here say.

If you care to show real, government documented evidence (not from the links here they are not reliable). Then I will gladly look.

Testamonies is evidence. Evidence and proof do not mean the same. It takes evidence to get to the proof and evidence by itself is rarely proof.

Here is a link for you with over 500,000 declassified government documents pertaining to UFOs...enjoy.

http://www.theblackvault.com/

Edited February 7, 2009 by SOUL-DRIFTER

[Mattshark]

Are you not just engaging in the old 'UFO cynic' school of thought which involves shoehorning in a preconceived explanation irrespective of any eyewitness testimony or factual evidence?

Whilst its certainly worth dispassionately examining each and every possiblity before arriving at an objective conclusion,the debunker method usualy entails superimposing

a premeditated opinion onto an incident whilst at the same time wilfully ignoring any glaring discrepencies,factual innacuracies or contradictory evidence that gets in their way.

Can you give any specific examples of cases you think may be bioluminescence?

I appreciate the input on the thread but I think this explanation may be wrong as many experienced seamen,submariners and Naval officers have witnessed objects emerging from (and going into) the sea and reported objects being tracked on (sometimes multiple) sonar travelling huge speeds at unheard of depths.

No, I am not just shoehorning, but I do know how bad people are with identifying marine life. Especially organisms that are tiny and produce a lot of light (giant schools of plankton can do this as can schools of squid)

For example

"Then we saw a large blue glow approaching our ship underwater from the stern..and it was pulsing almost like the way embers flicker.

It was sort of oval in shape, but being underwater one could not see a definite shape, except that is was about as wide as it was long and that our ship's length was about the size of its diameter".

USS Ponce

"I was on the command bridge outside on the port side and looking to the lights of Palm Beach in distance just abeam and then I saw the lights under the surface some 30-40 meters away just abeam in the depth of some 10-15 meters. It looked like a big airplane without wings, tail with all the windows lit on it. There were some 10-15 windows, but I did not count them".

The fact that it is 10-15m under the surface and at night, like hell are they going to be able to distinguish windows.

One other thing.

Witness listed for the USS Monrovia: 11001

USS Monrovia's capacity: 1,352 enlisted and 103 officers.

Compliment: 500 enlisted and 55 Officers.

Instantly dubious.

Remember the internet = big collection of nonsense ever compiled.

[Mattshark]

Testamonies is evidence. Evidence and proof do not mean the same. It takes evidence to get to the proof and evidence by itself is rarely proof.

Here is a link for you with over 500,000 declassified government documents pertaining to UFOs...enjoy.

http://www.theblackvault.com/

Tell you what, try writing a scientific paper and using eye witnesses as evidence.

Do you think it'll be accepted?

I can tell right now that it'll be thrown straight out.

Witnesses are always unreliable.

I'm not gonna look through 500000 articles. I have really research to do (and a real review to write up )

[Queenofthefairies]

would you not consider that there are some things on the earth even YOU can't explain. you sound like another arm-chair "Expert" if you cannot then there is no hope mattshark

<QueenoftheFairies>

[Mattshark]

would you not consider that there are some things on the earth even YOU can't explain. you sound like another arm-chair "Expert" if you cannot then there is no hope mattshark

<QueenoftheFairies>

Of course there are plenty of things I can not explain. But by the same token I will not accept things on face value. Not saying my explanations are correct, but for the two cases I discussed above I would say they are. If I see something suspicious I see no harm in pointing it out either. Scepticism is healthy and important.