Ufo NUtCAsEs

Skinwalker:

Mass hysteria! LOL

Yeah, they scrambled jets to go after the something that a few hundred people saw! Urban legend; don't think so! Yes, it is triangular in shape, the F-117, but this thing, whatever it was, was a hell of a lot bigger than an F-117 nighthawk! I don't think, nor do I believe, your concept is even close to what happened! Not sure if I can find a link, but if I do, I will post it here. It definitely wasn't what you suggest, although, you're suggestion is good, it's not what it was.

Found it. www.chez.com/lesovnis/htm/vidbel.htm

It appears all the video links are dead on this page, but there are plenty of pictures, including pictures of the radar screen in an F-16 that scrambled to intercept this thing, whatever it was. Some of the videos might work. And I stand corrected-it was thousands of witnesses. There were debunkers that suggested what you did-F-117, but the F-117 aircraft DOES NOT HOVER! I'll try to find some more links, with working video if at all possible.
 
Last edited:
I know....these Belgium sightings started in 1989. By your own link, Anton, it appears this was later....us the TR- 3B has been in service since 1994.

It's a cool concept though. The craft that is.
 
Originally posted by SkinWalker
Obviously a mass delusion/hallucination/hysteria. If it occured at all. I think it's likely that this is largely an Urban Legend, created ages ago.... it's been going about for a while, but no one at NATO offered to say with official status that "something was there" in connection with this alleged alien craft.

The source of the legend is most likely an F-117 in the early stages of testing and use.. it was flown in various locations around NATO countries to test radar defeating capabilities... it was tested around the time of this alleged alien craft, if I remember correctly. And it happens to be "triangular shaped." Seeing it for the first time during the Gulf War, I remember thinking it was "out of this world!"
Click to expand...

Your military right, hmm..... NEVER TRUST THE MILITARY THEY ARE TRAINED TO LIE TO THE PUBLIC AND CONVINCE THEM BULLSHIT.
 
Originally posted by ArcticChill2k3
Your military right, hmm..... NEVER TRUST THE MILITARY THEY ARE TRAINED TO LIE TO THE PUBLIC AND CONVINCE THEM BULLSHIT.
Click to expand...


Ha ha... hardly. Soldiers aren't trained to interact with the public at all.... unless of course it's to shoot them. ;)

And I was military. I'm retired now... Now I'm a full time college student at the University of Texas at Arlington.
 
A SkinWalker is a Navajo legend... a 'witch' if you will. Legend (there is more than one, but this is one of the more fascinating) has it that a Navajo witch would sacrifice a relative and earn the power to change shape to an animal form, often a coyote or dog. The Skinwalker would wear the skin of a dog on his shoulders and the skull on the head like so:
SkinWalker_warriorwolf.jpg


I'm an anthropology major, and find this type of lore fascinating. It demonstrates the universal concepts of Good/Evil that seem to exist in most, if not all, societies. To sacrifice a relative is telling of one's evil... then the "power" the skinwalker was alleged to have included being able to inflict illness or death on those they have it in for.

I first started using "SkinWalker" as a screen name in 1997.

Just to be clear, I don't believe in the legend... all my relatives are safe :cool:
 
The Skeptics Vs The Believers, I am somewhat in the middle, but if more evidence proves to me that e.t ufos exist, i may sway over to the believers side only if the skeptics cant debunk any evidence put forward by posters that is.
 
A couple of finer points:

Clouds appear on radar, so do high torque manovre vapour trails (that continue a swirl of vapours in the direction a Aircraft was originally destined on before a high torque turn).

Such manovres can cause these vapour balls to move in speeds and directions that craft can not withstand.

(I'm just noting this for the Flyer's that sometimes "see things")

There is also the possibility that the "footprinting" of different Frequency arrays (Satellite and Radio Antenna) can overlay at certain points, creating a higher frequency area. This in conjunction with any forms of molecular vapour can cause gases to become exited and glow, and even show up on radar.
(Even heat can do this, I'm sure you've seen heat vapours from the surface of tarmac, and how it gives the illusion of puddles/mirroring and even distort objects that are on the opposite side of your line of sight.)

As for flying triangles and flashing lights in the desert:

1: The movie industry is always sending people out into the desert to film pieces of films, and this isn't just in deserts in the US. They sometimes use Camera rigs and boom's that are connected to overhead cranes which from a distance and in twilight would look like something hovering.

2: The use of particular types of "Kites" can be done for either of two reasons.

One is that particular "stealth technologies" can be rewired and fixed to metalic kites to generate a form of "Satellite blocker" rather than burning particular chemicals to create clouds or dousing the surrounding area in particular vapour trails.

(Very useful for stopping spy satellites and weather satellites getting too nosey with their "Scanners".)

The other is that certain individuals fly kites with camera's fitted to them, because they can be stood on public property and fly a kite high enough to take pictures and be in "No fly zones".

(So that might explain a few odd occurances near certain military facilities)
 
Skinwalker, you are an utter idiot. You should stick to anthropology and leave physics and the paranormal to people who know them. (X, I appreciate your effort, knowledge, and patience for people like this but the effect is usually temporary. You need to fix your spelling errors though, and stop switching there and their, loose and lose, it's and its, etc.) It's sad that you have to, like all the other pseudosceptics, make stuff up and handwave just because you wish it to be so. Oh, when a famous and corroborated clear UFO sighting is reported to you you say that it must be an urban legend or a hoax. What the hell do you know? Refusing to be an investigator because you haven't the time is no excuse for your lying. Let me explain how truth works: It is a double standard to expect that the burden of proof lies only on the positive claimant. Nothing allows one to deny a reported object or event unless that party has satisfied an equivalent burden of disproof. So, if neither exists, no party is allowed to form an opinion or attitude about the subject either way. Invoking the presence of a fantastic, mythical cartoon creature that hasn't been proven is a strawman, and has nothing, mostly, to do with those that are not simply elements of the present folklore, but are regularly claimed to be seen. The case is completely different. You contrive the cartoon just for the purpose of dismissing the cryptocreatures, when the rest claim the latter for the purpose of saying that they were seen.

Since your behaviour implies that you understand the UFO phenomenon (Phenomenon is singular. Learn English.), let's see you watch the Discovery, TLC, SciFi, and A&E UFO documentaries, having plenty of footage, and tell the obviously-misled, -deluded, and -mistaken party how those objects do not constitute positive evidence for artificial structures not conforming to aircraft or natural phenomena. It is often reported that 95% of sightings are explained to have mundane causes. The remaining 5% remained unexplained, not primarily because there is lack of information to explain them to have mundane causes, but because they remain likely objects that do not apply to your standard explanations. How can I tell? Look at the damned tapes. Sure, lenticular clouds and metallic discs can be mistaken from a distance, but clouds do not apply in the footage that make it on TV. They are clear, close shots of unmistakably metallic objects, some of which that move with the background, other objects, and with the shaking of the videocamera to show that these were extremely unlikely to be objects edited in by a faker. Yes, tapes are analysed. You claim that no evidence exists when you refuse to substantiate that claim. You ignore the number of solid (not gaseous) objects that are chased by fighter jets, and that even zip circles around or waver about jets, commercial planes, and Space Shuttles. No, they're not birds! And no, flying triangles are not extant wing craft. They're triangles. Look them up. Perhaps the triangles are Aurora, or black ops military craft. But they still don't behave like aircraft that fly by air pressure differentials. Prove that mass hysteria of such objects exists. Put up or shut up. You claimed it, so you prove it. Those who insult and reject the paranormal with excuses as weak as yours are identical to uneducated and inexperienced creationists who deny evolution. Both parties refuse to look at the sources whose subject they deny, and it is because of emotional bias against the subject and abject laziness. They resort to lying to stay sane and complacent and hope that the educated don't come along to beat the crap out of their beliefs.

Anyway, booms and cameras don't apply to most of the sightings that appear almost directly overhead. (That's some high boom.) The Phoenix lights were not balloons with flares. The military denied sending such up at that time. You immediately dismissed that tachyons could be counted as objects that exceed celerity because they started out that way. Well, you made that condition up. They never had to start out that way, but only needed to acquire an imaginary mass to satisfy the relativistic mass correction. Celerity is not a universal constant, but is dependent on other constants including Planck's, frequency, permittivity and permeability of vacuum, fine structure, electronic charge, and pi. Thus, with heterogenities in spacetime, different di-electric constants allow light to propagate at different speeds. (Look at Nanopoulos's cosmological observations that c is frequency-dependent and thus photons have a variable mass.) Mathematical and physical equations allow solutions for superluminal travel, because of those heterogenities (also look up evanescent waves) and because of another kind where Lorentz transforms can be reverted into Newtonian transforms because the mechanism of travel allows the properties to balance out. Look at the Alcubierre [warp] drive and Krasnikov tube, and the Scientific American articles on negative energy and superluminal travel, and NASA's Breakthrough Propulsion Physics drives. There will always be workarounds for problems imposed by physical laws, because such laws remain subject to mathematical and logical consistency that can be applied back to the physical world. The absurd energy requirements for interstellar and intergalactic travel within a lifetime can be ameliorated by understanding the meaning of an equipotential and the lack of necessity for the kinetic energy to be dissipated at arrival by yet more kinetic energy. Damn, the human ignorance.

-Aut
 
lysdexia, a big WELCOME to sciforums from me. I was beginning
to feel a little browbeaten by some of the physicists here. The
"Poll: what do you believe?" thread is modest compared to what
usually happens when someone expresses the opinion that
"UFOs" may be something not classically explained.
 
Lysdexia,

From what I have looked at you will not be seeing the top end of interstella travel being a "space ship". There are so many reasons as to why the overall physics would eventually prove that to embark on such craft would be too ludicrous for both economic and ergonomic reasoning.

However that doesn't mean that we or other won't be able to travel, but for us to get to the point of transversing that distance we are going to need to understand the physics of our universe far better than we know now.

As it would be easier manipulating the universe than building a spacecraft.
 
Welcome to the forums, Lysdexia!

I hope you can accept a welcome from an "utter idiot" such as myself :cool:

But as an Anth major, I find your vehemence toward me before posting anything else interesting.

Honestly, though, you lost your steam when you mentioned the "Discovery, TLC, SciFi, and A&E UFO documentaries" as credible sources of information. You might as well have mentioned Fox as well, since they are just as interested in making a buck as the other stations.

I try to leave the physics to people who know it, as much of it is beyond me... I do find it fascinating and have read some of Feynman's work, though I get lost in the math on frequent occasion. Still, I don't think there's much to know about the paranormal... it is, by definition, outside(para-) the norm and has little or no basis in fact.

What does have basis in fact, as far as the paranormal goes, is why people believe in things that are "outside the norm" to a degree that they become the norm. Ghosts are a good example, religion is another. UFOs is just another religion/cult as far as I'm concerned. I see too many similarities in belief structures to call it anything separate. For instance, people who devoutly believe in UFOs vehemently defend their existance and often accuse others of being "non-believers," very nearly calling them "heretics."

I also think that belief in things outside of one's control is a good way to escape one's self for some people. These believers have difficulty accepting that they lack control in their day-to-day lives and even go so far as to create fantasies of "alien abduction," much in the same fashion that people of similar problems create S&M fantasies where they submit to a dominant sexual partner. (Newman & Baumeister, 1996)

I am sincere about welcoming you to the SciForums... I won't hold that "utter idiot" comment against you, I'm sure you are a very nice person in real life, so if you can gain a little boost from ad hominem comments online where nobody is standing face to face with you, go for it.

Newman, L., Baumeister, R., 1996. Toward an explanation of the UFO phenomenon: hypnotic elaboration, extraterrestrial sadomasochism, and spurious memories. Psychological Inquiry, Vol 7, No. 2, 99-126.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top