Merged U.S.O.'s...what if...

[moon1969]

So who is right about UFOS and aliens? David Icke who says that the reptiles rule the world? Raelians and Claude Vorilhon? George Adamski, Jordan Maxwell or Louis Farrakhan? They all can"t be right. Could it be that they are all lying to make money and get publicity just like the businessman Kenneth Arnold?

 

[arthwollipot]

This is most certainly NOT my claim.

MY claim is that "U.F.O's manufactured by a non-human intelligence, HAVE been 'detected' throughout human history".

Excuse me. I said: "Your claim is that there are sightings of things that are manufactured by a non-human intelligence that has gone undetected throughout human history." The "undected" clause refers to the intelligence, not to the sightings. Or do you have evidence of the non-human intelligence itself?

As evidence I have famous paintings, crude black and white photos from decades past, modern color photography images, modern digital videos, and even documented radar signatures that surpass every known ability of even 'our' military.

All of which is speculative or anecdotal.

One should not dismiss the whole, for the defective part.

Not for just one defective part, no. Although a single defective part may may the whole non-functional, the point here is that all of the parts are defective.

Did I misread your previous statement, or did you say, "If 'you' saw one, you wouldn't believe your own eyes?"

No, it's pretty clear that you misread. What I was actually saying that if I saw one, I would exhaust all terrestrial possibilities before I jumped to the conclusion that it was manufactured by a non-human intelligence.

Isn't that called denial?

No, it's called critical thinking. You should try it some time.

 

[arthwollipot]

I'd like to add something if I may. I have seen UFOs. Lots of them. But they didn't stay U for long - I've been able to identify all of them in the end. None of them looked remotely like an object that was manufactured by a non-human intelligence (I think I'm going to call that MNHI from now on).

KotA, have you ever seen a UFO with your own eyes? Did you immediately assume that it was MNHI or did you seek ordinary, terrestrial explanations? Or is your opinion that MNHIs exist entirely from the documentary evidence?

 

[Cuddles]

Because "2" eye witnesses say otherwise...

Wow. "2" you say? Is that anything like 2? Why "do" so many of your words "have" scare quotes?

There is NO 'evidence' to 'glance' at, because it has all been destroyed.

No. All you can say is that there is no evidence. Which is exactly what we've all been saying. You can speculate about why this might be all you like, but you can't change the fact that there is exactly no evidence to support you. It's nice to see that at least you admit this, but it would be a lot nicer if you could actually understand what it means.

 

[Greg_in_CO]

Now that MUFON has released their commentary on the data they requested from the FAA which they claim verifies the claims of the mile-sized object that at times accelerated to 1,900-2,100 mph (I've seen various numbers quoted by different sources so I've included the range,) what is the best skeptical response? Is the radar data cited most likely cherry-picked to provide a post hoc validation of the witness reports?

 

[Astrophotographer]

What I was able to gather from the radar data they presented was there was one very slow moving object that had no transponder that was travelling towards Crawford, Texas. It's speed was consistently around 50mph (although there was one data point that indicated it may have sped up to something like 500mph for 30 seconds or something like that but it could have been a data point error). There was another target they focused on that had something like two data points that were 30 seconds apart. This supposedly indicated incredible speed but it was two data points that they could not verify were the same target. There were various spurious contacts. IMO, that target with the two data points may have been two unrelated spurious signals that MUFON decided to link together. Without more data points one can not say. However, there were no other data points for that target.
MUFON spent most of the time hand-waving about the non transponding target going towards Crawford and how the jets, that were on a training mission, could ignore such an incursion into US air space. IMO, it was probably a civilian aircraft that may have not required a transponder or that transponder was malfunctioning. Nothing to be concerned about but when you are into conspiracies, any red herring will do.

 

[Greg_in_CO]

That's very interesting. I don't suppose the MUFON analyst reviewed FAA data for the area of interest for the night before the reported sightings, or the night after, or any other time when there were no reported sightings to establish something of a baseline for those spurious data points that were interpreted as sudden acceleration?

 

[Astrophotographer]

I doubt it. From what I understand they only obtained data for that night. Interesting to note that one of the analysts (Schulze) has been busy studying various tapes for the past decade and a half concerning the airline crash off Long Island (TWA flight 800). He contends that vital data from the flight recorder is being withheld. I guess it is all about creating a conspiracy theory and less about trying to discover the truth.

 

[King of the Americas]

I'd like to add something if I may. I have seen UFOs. Lots of them. But they didn't stay U for long - I've been able to identify all of them in the end. None of them looked remotely like an object that was manufactured by a non-human intelligence (I think I'm going to call that MNHI from now on).

KotA, have you ever seen a UFO with your own eyes? Did you immediately assume that it was MNHI or did you seek ordinary, terrestrial explanations? Or is your opinion that MNHIs exist entirely from the documentary evidence?

Indeed, I have seen, with my own eyes, 'something(s)' that violated the prinicples of flight, as I know them.

I saw 2 craft/objects, move toward each other & 'combine' to make a 4 fold larger entity, than the 2 individuals, and then split apart again...

I saw this in concert with several other objects of similiar shape/apperance, that performed right angle turns while moving at a constant velocity, turns no 'human' pilot could safely manage.

 

[arthwollipot]

Indeed, I have seen, with my own eyes, 'something(s)' that violated the prinicples of flight, as I know them.

I saw 2 craft/objects, move toward each other & 'combine' to make a 4 fold larger entity, than the 2 individuals, and then split apart again...

I saw this in concert with several other objects of similiar shape/apperance, that performed right angle turns while moving at a constant velocity, turns no 'human' pilot could safely manage.

Or at least, it appeared that way to you. I'd hazard a guess that these "objects" were lights in the sky at night. It is well established that distances and angles are very difficult to judge in the sky, whether it's day or night. The objects could have been performing perfectly normal aerial maneuvers, which created the illusion of what you describe.

I'm not trying to claim that you didn't see what you say you saw. Only you can possibly know that. But human vision is notoriously limited, and the capacity of human memory to elaborate on perceived scenes is very well documented. All I'm saying is that there are other, perfectly rational, explanations for what you saw and that there is no need to leap to the conclusion that a non-human intelligence is at work.

For example, what you describe as "performing right angle turns while moving at a constant velocity" is not merely beyond the capability of human aircraft pilots. It's contrary to the known laws of physics - specifically Newton's law of inertia. Is it more likely that a non-human intelligence which has otherwise eluded investigation throughout human history has manufactured a craft which can violate one of the most well-established laws of motion known to science, or that you saw an optical illusion of some kind? I would suggest that the latter is vastly more likely.

 

[Cuddles]

For example, what you describe as "performing right angle turns while moving at a constant velocity" is not merely beyond the capability of human aircraft pilots. It's contrary to the known laws of physics - specifically Newton's law of inertia.

More to the point, it simply doesn't make sense as a sentence. Velocity is a vector with magnitude and direction. If something turns, it no longer has the same velocity. It's not a case of contradicting physics, it contradicts the definitions of the words used.

 

[JimBenArm]

This is not, in any way, shape, or form, evidence that there exist submarines of non-human origin. What is more likely, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, or Invisible Pink Unicorns?

Have you ever been around submarine sailors? We're the most non-human bipeds in existance!

 

[arthwollipot]

More to the point, it simply doesn't make sense as a sentence. Velocity is a vector with magnitude and direction. If something turns, it no longer has the same velocity. It's not a case of contradicting physics, it contradicts the definitions of the words used.

While true, I don't think it's particularly productive picking on the language used in the statement when there is a far more glaring problem with the physics. It was just a poorly-licked word. Let it go.

 

[Cuddles]

While true, I don't think it's particularly productive picking on the language used in the statement when there is a far more glaring problem with the physics. It was just a poorly-licked word. Let it go.

I gave up hope of anything productive coming out of this thread long ago.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Have you ever been around submarine sailors? We're the most non-human bipeds in existance!

Especially during ORSE.

USS HONOLULU
USS PROVIDENCE
USS LAFAYETTE

Yep, I can agree with that statement that most sub sailors are non-human. Of course it depends if you are a nuke or a coner.

 

[JimBenArm]

Especially during ORSE.

USS HONOLULU
USS PROVIDENCE
USS LAFAYETTE

Yep, I can agree with that statement that most sub sailors are non-human. Of course it depends if you are a nuke or a coner.

ORSE? Thanks for reminding me of that nightmare.

USS Pollack
USS Guardfish
USS George Washington

Ex-nuke ICC(SS). You?

 

[Astrophotographer]

ORSE? Thanks for reminding me of that nightmare.

USS Pollack
USS Guardfish
USS George Washington

Ex-nuke ICC(SS). You?

Ex-nuke ETCS(SS). I recall IC's when I was on my first sub, but they combined them with the EM's. Yes, the higher I got in the ranks, the worse ORSE became. My last tour it was a nightmare. I did three and when the third was over, I was glad to retire.

 

[JimBenArm]

Ex-nuke ETCS(SS). I recall IC's when I was on my first sub, but they combined them with the EM's. Yes, the higher I got in the ranks, the worse ORSE became. My last tour it was a nightmare. I did three and when the third was over, I was glad to retire.

Yes, I got caught in that forced conversion to EM. However, I refuse to call myself that. I was only an EMC for two years before I got out. Didn't stay to retire, though. Got out after 14, in 1987. Got married, had twins, and had enough!

 

[MrSangMang]

...they explain how U.F.O's aren't extra-terresterial...and thus far more likely to be real?

You seemed to miss the most important part of your question.. if you identify them, they're no longer (U)nidentified objects.

 

[King of the Americas]

Or at least, it appeared that way to you. I'd hazard a guess that these "objects" were lights in the sky at night. It is well established that distances and angles are very difficult to judge in the sky, whether it's day or night. The objects could have been performing perfectly normal aerial maneuvers, which created the illusion of what you describe.

Really? And what "normal aerial maneuver" could make a plane "appear" to move at a 90 degree angle??? Planes don't 'turn' at 90 degree angles, they 'bank' causing their flight path to 'arch'. Even the directional exhaust of an F-22 can't make the jet 'turn' at 90 degrees, without slowing down dramatically. These 'ojects' BROKE the laws of flight, as I know them...

I'm not trying to claim that you didn't see what you say you saw. Only you can possibly know that. But human vision is notoriously limited, and the capacity of human memory to elaborate on perceived scenes is very well documented. All I'm saying is that there are other, perfectly rational, explanations for what you saw and that there is no need to leap to the conclusion that a non-human intelligence is at work.

And yet humans have used their sight to navigate about this world, hunt the animals that crawl upon it, and even to shot at and kill their fellow man. Our sight may be limited, but it is far from useless... What I saw was some for which I had NO 'rational explanation' for. Human machines can't do what these objects managed to accomplish. Of course, I'd amend that stance if the government rolled out a pair of craft that could join together in mid-flight, increase their mass by 2 fold, and then separate again into their individual states.

For example, what you describe as "performing right angle turns while moving at a constant velocity" is not merely beyond the capability of human aircraft pilots. It's contrary to the known laws of physics - specifically Newton's law of inertia. Is it more likely that a non-human intelligence which has otherwise eluded investigation throughout human history has manufactured a craft which can violate one of the most well-established laws of motion known to science, or that you saw an optical illusion of some kind? I would suggest that the latter is vastly more likely.

I don't know and wouldn't wager what is more or less 'likely' when it comes to positively identifying what is a U.F.O. trait or attribute. What I know is that the objects I saw, along with another eye witness, dis-obeyed the laws of flight and motion as I know them. These objects stretched the envelope of flight capabilities to limits I could not imagine, before.

While I can't say for certain what they were, I can only say that no craft I have ever seen or studied could achieve the aerial feats that these craft demonstrated.