Discussing Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs)

In summary: So there is no reason why we can't advance and find even more efficient and advanced ways to propel ourselves through the air. So in summation, I don't believe that UFOs are aliens.
  • #71
Well here is some alternative links to get started with.

http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/greer.htm
http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/1996/dec/m13-003.shtml
http://www.rense.com/general10/mitch.htm
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
Originally posted by username
I find this idea quite plausible. For example take the sinister nut job steven greer (who is very well connected with lawrence rockafeller etc) seems to fit the bill perfectly. Of course anything to do with this loon/scam artist will be eventually discredited.

Edit: I admit I don't know much about the rockafellers involvment in the government if at all.

Hey, you threw me off track. I mean a conspiracy by the military - hence the statements that come from foot soldiers to admirals. I mean the claims of direct observations by multiple witnesses or other likewise compelling scenarios within the military, in addition perhaps to other elements of the "UFO community". Are you willing to agree that one way or the other, some entity of the government must be lying about this issue with motive? To me this point seems virtually inescapable. If so, then I think we can reduce the complexity of the question by orders of magnitude.
 
  • #73
Originally posted by username
Well here is some alternative links to get started with.

http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/greer.htm
http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/1996/dec/m13-003.shtml
http://www.rense.com/general10/mitch.htm

Well, on the first link; I have a hard time buying it. I have hear Greer speak for at least ten hours and he never expressed and such beliefs. Most of his arguments seem quite reasonable. It is possible that my exposure is not representitive, but I can normally spot the lunatic pretty quickly. So, I'm not sold. Next, his association with Rockafeller does not surprise me. As I said earlier in this thread, I thought that one of the major legitimate conferences on this subject was sponsored by the Rockafellers back in the 1970s. This may only indicate another strong source of legitimate interest. As far as the last link, it sound like Greer overstepped his bounds, as indicated in the discussion:

(Edgar Mitchell) Although I firmly believe it is time for openness and disclosure by government, I object to being misused in this fashion and acquire guilt by association with certain claims that simply are not true.

Perhaps Greer got carried away with some bad information. But note the first part of the comment - Although I firmly believe it is time for openness and disclosure by government...

You are not convincing me yet.
 
  • #74
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Hey, you threw me off track. I mean a conspiracy by the military - hence the statements that come from foot soldiers to admirals.
I think foot soldiers maybe not even admirals are not going to be told what they saw is some super secret military hardware.
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Are you willing to agree that one way or the other, some entity of the government must be lying about this issue with motive?
Yes.
 
  • #75
Well, your response came up before my response to your response...so I will let the website catch up with our flying fingers and go visit my wife for awhile. To be continued...
 
  • #76
You are not convincing me yet.
I take it back about greer I think he is just another nut or at worst a scam artist maybe a bit of both. btw: the press disclosure was supposed to be about space weapons not ufos. He has a group that trains you to become an 'ambassador to the universe' meditating in fields with torches etc for ufo runways hehe like $500 dollars a go.

EDIT: you can see the URL for the storming of the underground space aliens base has been indexed by google: http://makeashorterlink.com/?A25E41994 however the document has been removed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #77
To put it in a nutshell I guess the UFO question comes down to three answers.

1. Witnesses are mistaken or unreliable.
2. The military/government/security is involved in a coverup conspiracy.
3. Both of the above.

Hmm getting very late for me so hope this makes sense.
 
  • #78
Originally posted by username
I take it back about greer I think he is just another nut or at worst a scam artist maybe a bit of both. btw: the press disclosure was supposed to be about space weapons not ufos. He has a group that trains you to become an 'ambassador to the universe' meditating in fields with torches etc for ufo runways hehe like $500 dollars a go.

EDIT: you can see the URL for the storming of the underground space aliens base has been indexed by google: http://makeashorterlink.com/?A25E41994 however the document has been removed.

I took a look and hit a dead link. I went to CSETI and saw that he is working to develop protocols for communication with ET. Look, I make no argument that scam artists and lunatics abound in "The UFO Community", but in order to be objective I think it is necessary to ignore this stuff. Once a true believer, anyone is bound to sound like a nut.

If ET really is visiting, and assuming that he/she/it/they are 1000, or 10,000, or 10,000,000 years ahead of us technologically and in some evolutionary sense, name one aspect of this "reality" that wouldn't sound bizarre and outrageous. Name one description of how ET should look that, if you saw him, would sound reasonable and easy to repeat to others. Likewise, how would a modern helicopter be interpreted by someone from the Bronze Age, or even in the middle ages? What would a witness sound like while trying to describe it to his neighbors? Given the premise of ET, what is normal behavior for those who have met him?

I try very hard to stick with the evidence and ignore the hype in all directions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #79
Originally posted by username
To put it in a nutshell I guess the UFO question comes down to three answers.

1. Witnesses are mistaken or unreliable.
2. The military/government/security is involved in a coverup conspiracy.
3. Both of the above.

Hmm getting very late for me so hope this makes sense.

All that one needs is a proof for the nature of the governement lies that must exist - whichever lies they may be.

Even if ET is nowhere near, I'll bet no one knows the entire truth.
 
  • #80
"When Prof. Peter Sturrock, a prominent Stanford University plasma physicist, conducted a survey of the membership of the American Astronomical Society he found that astronomers who spent time reading up on the UFO phenomenon developed more interest in it. If there were nothing to it, you would expect the opposite.
---Bernard Haisch, Ph.D., director of the California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics.
[1998] "An international panel of scientists that convened to ponder the possibility of extraterrestrial visitors was not about to answer that question, but they said the physical evidence in some UFO sightings merits further serious scientific review."

http://www.augustachronicle.com/stories/063098/tec_124-4879.shtml


'Of course it is possible that UFO's really do contain aliens, as many people believe, and the government is hushing it up. I couldn't possibly comment! --- Stephen Hawking
Millennium speech
EDIT: minor changes to format
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #81
"When Prof. Peter Sturrock, a prominent Stanford University plasma physicist, conducted a survey of the membership of the American Astronomical Society he found that astronomers who spent time reading up on the UFO phenomenon developed more interest in it. If there were nothing to it, you would expect the opposite."
---Bernard Haisch, Ph.D., director of the California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics
Er... no. People becoming more interested in a subject is a demonstration of willingness to believe, not of actual validity. The fact that people who enter into various cults gain fervour over time doesn't mean these cults have meaning - just that they offer the right things.
Not to infer UFOlogy is a cult, of course...:smile:

[1998] "An international panel of scientists that convened to ponder the possibility of extraterrestrial visitors was not about to answer that question, but they said the physical evidence in some UFO sightings merits further serious scientific review."
Incidentally, they always say that. But there is simply a lack of major physical evidence, outside of personal claims. And most UFOlogists refuse to really submit their research to serious review.

'Of course it is possible that UFO's really do contain aliens, as many people believe, and the government is hushing it up. I couldn't possibly comment!" --- Stephen Hawking
I always though he was suspicious.
 
  • #82
Originally posted by FZ+
Er... no. People becoming more interested in a subject is a demonstration of willingness to believe, not of actual validity. The fact that people who enter into various cults gain fervour over time doesn't mean these cults have meaning - just that they offer the right things.
Not to infer UFOlogy is a cult, of course...:smile:

You have so little confidence in scientists! Really though I agree, scientists aren't immune to predisposed beliefs. That’s why many won’t seriously consider the existence of UFOS. And yes there are two cults around this issue to this to be sure; one for and one against. Then there are the rest of us who have an interest in what is clearly a mystery.

Incidentally, they always say that. But there is simply a lack of major physical evidence, outside of personal claims. And most UFOlogists refuse to really submit their research to serious review.


If you review the reports, you will see that it is evidence and not testimony that creates the interest.
 
Last edited:
  • #83
Originally posted by FZ+
I always though he was suspicious.

Welllllllll, Ok. You've got me on that one.
 
  • #84
"Dr. Peter A. Sturrock, Professor of Space Science and Astrophysics and Deputy Director of the Center for Space Sciences and Astrophysics at Stanford University; Director of the Skylab Workshop on Solar Flares in 1977:

"The definitive resolution of the UFO enigma will not come about unless and until the problem is subjected to open and extensive scientific study by the normal procedures of established science. This requires a change in attitude primarily on the part of scientists and administrators in universities." (Sturrock, Peter A., Report on a Survey of the American Astronomical Society concerning the UFO Phenomenon, Stanford University Report SUIPR 68IR, 1977.)

"Although... the scientific community has tended to minimize the significance of the UFO phenomenon, certain individual scientists have argued that the phenomenon is both real and significant. Such views have been presented in the Hearings of the House Committee on Science and Astronautics [and elsewhere]. It is also notable that one major national scientific society, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, set up a subcommittee in 1967 to 'gain a fresh and objective perspective on the UFO phenomenon.'

In their public statements (but not necessarily in their private statements), scientists express a generally negative attitude towards the UFO problem, and it is interesting to try to understand this attitude. Most scientists have never had the occasion to confront evidence concerning the UFO phenomenon. To a scientist, the main source of hard information (other than his own experiments' observations) is provided by the scientific journals. With rare exceptions, scientific journals do not publish reports of UFO observations. The decision not to publish is made by the editor acting on the advice of reviewers. This process is self-reinforcing: the apparent lack of data confirms the view that there is nothing to the UFO phenomenon, and this view works against the presentation of relevant data." (Sturrock, Peter A., "An Analysis of the Condon Report on the Colorado UFO Project," Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1987.)"
http://www.etcontact.net/Other/QuotePages/QuotesScientists.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #85
Dr. J. Allen Hynek was a professor emeritus and chairman of the astronomy department at Northwestern University. Earlier, he was director of the Lundheimer Astronomical Research Center at Northwestern. He has written astronomy books and articles that have appeared in numerous science journals, as well as an astronomy column for Science Digest magazine. He was chief scientist for NASA's satellite tracking program, and for twenty years was the scientific consultant to the United States Air Force in the investigation of the UFO phenomenon. He is credited with coining the phrase "close encounters of the third kind" and was Steven Spielberg's technical consultant on the film of that name. Dr. Hynek died in April 1986.

"During the years that I have been its consultant, the Air Force has consistently argued that UFO's were either hoaxes, hallucinations or misinterpretations of natural phenomena. For the most part I would agree with the Air Force. As a professional astronomer--I am chairman of the department of astronomy at Northwestern University--I have had no trouble explaining the vast majority of the reported sightings. But I cannot explain them all. Of the 15,000 cases that have come to my attention, several hundred are puzzling, and some of the puzzling incidents, perhaps one in 25, are bewildering. I have wanted to learn much more about these cases than I have been able to get from either the reports or the witnesses...Getting at the truth of "flying saucers" has been extraordinarily difficult because the subject automatically engenders such instantaneous reactions and passionate beliefs. Nearly all of my scientific colleagues, I regret to say, have scoffed at the reports of UFO's as so much balderdash, although this was a most unscientific reaction since virtually none of them had ever studied the evidence. Until recently my friends in the physical sciences wouldn't even discuss UFO's with me. The subject, in fact, rarely came up. My friends were obviously mystified as to how I, a scientist, could have gotten mixed up with "flying saucers"
Saturday Evening Post: 1966
Source
 
Last edited:
  • #86
"objects far exceeded the technology of the era "

"What I found [in doing research for the book Project Delta] was compelling evidence to claim that most of these aerial objects far exceeded the terrestrial technology of the era in which they were seen. I was forced to conclude that there is a great likelihood that Earth is being visited by highly advanced aerospace vehicles under highly 'intelligent' control indeed."
-Dr. Richard F. Haines, retired NASA senior research scientist at Ames Research Center and the Research Institute for Advanced Computer Science where he worked on the International Space Station.--From the preface of his book, CE-5, 1998.
 
Last edited:
  • #87
November 25, 1896, California, USA
"When [the mysterious light] first appeared it was seen moving rapidly from the northeast and heading in a southwesterly direction. As it neared the southern boundary of the city [of Sacramento] it turned directly toward the west and after passing the city went south, being distinctly visible for upward of 20 minutes."
-From the San Francisco Call, Nov 26, 1896--This light was observed by many prominent individuals including Deputy Secretary of State George A. McCalvy, District Attorney Frank D. Ryan, and E. D. McCabe, the governor's personal secretary.
 
Last edited:
  • #88
3000 BC China: From the book " Memories of the Sovereigns and the Kings " published in the 3rd century AD in China:...in the third millennium B.C., before the birth of Huang Ti or of Chi You...
"sons from the sky", would descend to Earth on a star which was the shape of a saucer.
 
Last edited:
  • #89
Well I did not know they had saucers back then but anyway it could mean like a saucer from the top or bottom which would be circular or round a bit like a meteor or comet. I think ancient testimonies are really more useless than modern ones.
 
  • #90
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
When [the mysterious light] first appeared it was seen moving rapidly from the northeast and heading in a southwesterly direction. As it neared the southern boundary of the city [of Sacramento] it turned directly toward the west and after passing the city went south, being distinctly visible for upward of 20 minutes.

Sounds like a flare to me. What was the wind doing at the time ?

EDIT: It really could be anything like a model airplane/helicopter with a light attached to it.
 
Last edited:
  • #91
Originally posted by username
Sounds like a flare to me. What was the wind doing at the time ?

EDIT: It really could be anything like a model airplane/helicopter with a light attached to it.
I think you missed the date:
November 25, 1896, California, USA
 
  • #92
Originally posted by username
Well I did not know they had saucers back then but anyway it could mean like a saucer from the top or bottom which would be circular or round a bit like a meteor or comet. I think ancient testimonies are really more useless than modern ones.

Yes I think we should throw away all of the history books...
especially if we don't like what they say. :wink:
 
  • #93
Iran 1976

http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo6.pdf

http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo17.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #94
French Government UFO Study

http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo12.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #95
"A red and green glowing orb radiated as it hurtled across the southwestern Georgia skies that January 1969 evening. Ten minutes later, it vanished. That was Jimmy Carter's story — and he's sticking to it. Carter, then Georgia's governor, became the first major politician to risk achieving "crackpot" status by claiming he had had a close encounter."

"I don't laugh at people any more when they say they've seen UFOs," Carter said at a Southern Governors Conference a few years later. "I've seen one myself."

---Former President Jimmy Carter
ABC News interview
 
  • #96
I personally have seen a number of UFO's in my life but I attribute most of them due to the fact I need glasses not ET's.

EDIT: Maybe there is proof of UFO's but where is the proof of ET's piloting these objects?
 
Last edited:
  • #97
Originally posted by username
I personally have seen a number of UFO's in my life but I attribute most of them due to the fact I need glasses not ET's.

EDIT: Maybe there is proof of UFO's but where is the proof of ET's piloting these objects?

What I have posted so far probably references about 1% of the information about which I am aware...without thinking too hard. I have mostly just grabbed and posted quick links and quotes that I recognize as legitimate [that I have personally verified or that comes from a very good source]. I haven't even started to dig into the last ten to fifteen years worth of archived information that I have on various computers; or the mountains of evidence and claims that accumulate daily. I have only posted a few of the highlights of the field known well to any serious investigator; even to a hobbyist like myself [I do have a real job]. More to come. You be the judge; but if you wish to judge please look first.

I don't know if it is ET, but if so the implications are staggering! Don't you agree?

I do think we have safely ruled out any justification for the "only idiots believe in UFOs" position.

Edit: Although I think that nuts and other fruits are indeed found in the UFO crowd, I also believe that some of them only sound nuts. Given the premise of ET, how can we possibly know which is which?
 
Last edited:
  • #98
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
You be the judge; but if you wish to judge please look first.

True, maybe I need a new pair of glasses ;)

I don't know if it is ET, but if so the implications are staggering!

I think the implications could be quite staggering even if there is no ET's involved.
 
  • #99
On January 16, 1957 - the day after NICAP's Board of Governors met for the first time - Board Chairman Delmer S. Fahrney called a press conference. News media all over the country quoted his statements (see Associated Press story below), identifing him as one of the few "top brass" to speak out in defense of UFOs.
WASHINGTON AP - Retired Rear Adm. Delmer S. Fahrney, once head of the Navy's guided missile program, said Wednesday reliable reports indicate thst "there are objects coming into our atmosphere at very high speeds. Fahrney told a news conference that "no agency in this country or Russia is able to duplcate at this time the speeds and accelerations which radar and observers indicate these flying objects are able to achieve."
Fahrney said he never has seen a flying saucer but has talked with a number of scientists and engineers who reported seeing strange flying objects. He added there are signs that "an intelligence" directs such objects "because of the way they fly. They are not entirely actuated by automatic equipment," he said. "The way they change position in formations and override each other would indicate that their motion is directed."

An Air Force spokesman said that service is still investigating all reports but has found absolutely no concrete evidence that there are flying saucers. He said that a majority of the reports are found upon checking to have some logical explanation, but that a percentage remains unexplained.

Fahrney called a news conference following an organizational meeting of a new private group. the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena, of which he is board chairman.

Fahrney told reporters he has no information or preconceived ideas as to whether the unidentified flying objects are from outer space, but believes they involve "a tremendous amount of technology of which we have no knowledge," and that their development must have taken a long period of time.
 
  • #100
Is there any testimonies from non military scientists and has anybody sweared under oath that the things they claim to have seen are real ?
 
  • #101
Originally posted by username
Is there any testimonies from non military scientists and has anybody sweared under oath that the things they claim to have seen are real ?
Even though many scientists have spoken out on the subject, and I have seen the signed reports from Carter and others, beyond public statements I don't remember a particular report that would satisfy your request. I am sure there are so I will check. Are you looking for affidavits, or just absolute conviction about these person's opinions?

Edit: Bare in mind that any public statements about UFOs by a scientist qualifies professionally as extremely risky behavior.

One real interesting story in this is that of Hynek. As the official debunker for the Air Force, he was the originator of the swamp gas explanations and other bogus debunking. He was in fact the person responsible for much of the popular attitudes found today in people who are unfamiliar with the UFO phenomenon. He then made a complete and public reversal in his position and became a leader in the UFO community. I suggest reading his book "The Hynek UFO Report".

For the moment, here is another scientist's point of view:
Dr. Jacques Vallee, astrophysicist, computer scientist and world renowned researcher and author on UFOs and paranormal phenomena. He worked closely with Dr. J. Allen Hynek. Commenting on the need for science "to search beyond the superficial appearances of reality":
"Skeptics, who flatly deny the existence of any unexplained phenomenon in the name of 'rationalism,' are among the primary contributors to the rejection of science by the public. People are not stupid and they know very well when they have seen something out of the ordinary. When a so-called expert tells them the object must have been the moon or a mirage, he is really teaching the public that science is impotent or unwilling to pursue the study of the unknown." (Vallee, J., Confrontations, New York: Ballantine Books, 1990.)
 
Last edited:
  • #102
Unidentified Flying Objects: An Historical Perspective
American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Design Engineering Conference
George W. Earley
Americana Hotel, New York City
May 15-18, 1967


http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/histper.htm
 
  • #104
"The UFO hypothesis and Survival Questions"
---declassified from SECRET.

http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo35.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #105
Atmosphere or UFO?
by Bruce Maccabee Ph.D.
Optical physicist for the Navy Deparment
--on RADAR events
http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/pdf/maccabee.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

The UFO report is expected to be submitted next month
2
Replies
37
Views
3K
UAP Report and the Standard Model
Replies
9
Views
2K
Using the surrounding airflow to deduce the physics around UAP/UFO
Replies
7
Views
1K
How to Watch a UFO: Tips for Identifying Unidentified Flying Objects
Replies
4
Views
4K
What Does UFO Mean? Exploring the Definition
Replies
6
Views
30K
Is the Washington Post compromised? (UFO story)
Replies
13
Views
2K
Is the Baltic Sea's Mysterious Object a Sunken UFO?
2
Replies
67
Views
28K
What Is the Physics Behind True UFOs?
Replies
2
Views
4K
Is IU-Purdue Teaching a Class on UFOs?
Replies
8
Views
3K
Golden Birds UFO Sighting: Unidentified and in the Sky
Replies
15
Views
5K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top