UFO study finds no sign of aliens

No, you have to explain the american nation to me. :D
The USA gov. is competent enough to handle its' own citizens.

There is an ancient Roman saying: Qualis rex, talis grex.
Literaly: like king, like people,
meaning is that the government is no alien outsider, but one of you.
And what people you are, such government you get.
 
SkinWalker said:
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/F...AerialPhenomenauapInTheUkAirDefenceRegion.htm

Review it yourself and perhaps criticize some of the main points the 400 page report has reached in its conclusions.

Otherwise, your simple-minded criticism here is "gobbledegook" that "has no value."
Click to expand...

Skinwalker, thank you for the information ,I am in the process of studying it.

My initial response is based on the BBC website summary ,which contained enough information to determine the ineptitude of it`s authors.
The unproven assumption " considerable evidence exists to support the thesis that the events are almost certainly attributable to physical, electrical and magnetic phenomena in the atmosphere, mesosphere and ionosphere." is largely speculative.
In my view ,to suggest this as the cause of all sightings is absolute nonsense,especially since atmospheric effects of this nature would be of a very brief nature .
I will try to get through the report as soon as time allows and I look forward to further discussion.

Regards,

Awdsci.
 
awdsci said:
The unproven assumption " considerable evidence exists to support the thesis that the events are almost certainly attributable to physical, electrical and magnetic phenomena in the atmosphere, mesosphere and ionosphere." is largely speculative.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you're being a tad modest?

awdsci said:
In my view ,to suggest this as the cause of all sightings is absolute nonsense...
Click to expand...

Or as Skinwalker often says, "Poppycock."

I once asked Kenneth Lay, former chief executive of the Enron corporation, if he ever did anything illegal. He said "No."

Good enough for me.
 
awdsci said:
Skinwalker, thank you for the information ,I am in the process of studying it.
Click to expand...

And how far has Skinwalker gotten into the approximately 400 pages?

Just wondering.

I suppose I could also not read it.
I've never read any of Phil Klass's "excellent" treatises on the subject of unidentified flying objects, either. Though, on occasion, I have been treated to his ideas.
Maybe someday I'll amuse myself with one of his works.

Hmm...
 
Avatar said:
imo., if anything, that would unite the people of this planet, and that's a good thing™
Click to expand...

Sounds like that Reagan quote. :eek:

Crazy Ron. Almost miss the old days.

Geoff
 
If anything, any sightings of "great significance" are going to be nothing but man-made machines, and if you'be never seen one before, you're just seeing a manmade TOPSECRET flying machine.
 
awdsci said:
,especially since atmospheric effects of this nature would be of a very brief nature .
Click to expand...

OK, so next time you see a hurricane twisting towards you, don't run, or take shelter, just tell yourself 'it's going to be brief'. :D

But it seems you are convolving phenomena; films of 'UFOs' which move, are over very quickly, and those of 'UFOs' that last a long time, appear stationary. So they are either shooting stars, or stars, or some other transient phenomena, or something mundane like a lighthouse, star, planet, whatever, or maybe a regular aircraft whose footage has been edited just to show the 'weird bit' (like defocussing).

But if you have good footage, showing flight characteristics, some foreground objects for comparison, that is in focus, and a good length, please share.
 
phlogistician said:
OK, so next time you see a hurricane twisting towards you, don't run, or take shelter, just tell yourself 'it's going to be brief'. :D

But it seems you are convolving phenomena; films of 'UFOs' which move, are over very quickly, and those of 'UFOs' that last a long time, appear stationary. So they are either shooting stars, or stars, or some other transient phenomena, or something mundane like a lighthouse, star, planet, whatever, or maybe a regular aircraft whose footage has been edited just to show the 'weird bit' (like defocussing).

But if you have good footage, showing flight characteristics, some foreground objects for comparison, that is in focus, and a good length, please share.
Click to expand...

Phlogistician,
It seems you are being perverse ,referring to well known natural phenomena in the context of ufo`s.
I am not able to supply such films as you suggest ,since I do not have the resources to obtain them , although they may be available from other sources.
Or are you just being facetious?
I do have a serious interest in the subject, but trying to discuss it under these conditions of apathy and negativity is not pleasant .
I shall reserve further comment until a later date .

Regards

Awdsci.
 
If you encounter any apathy and negativity on these forums, it is not entirely intentional. It's just that we get a lot of "zomg aliens" nutters on here, so it is assumed that many people questioning the official stories without immeditaly providing an alternative are nutters. Please, show us the errors of our ways.
 
awdsci said:
Phlogistician,
It seems you are being perverse ,referring to well known natural phenomena in the context of ufo`s.
Click to expand...

Because most sightings of 'UFO's are natural phenomenon. I dislike the term 'UFO' anyway. Some take it to mean anything in the sky they don't recognise, whether it demonstrates 'flight' or not, and others hide behind the term meaning extra-terrestrial craft. What do you understand by the term?

I am not able to supply such films as you suggest ,since I do not have the resources to obtain them , although they may be available from other sources.
Click to expand...

No they aren't, that's why I asked! I have never seen good quality footage, showing a craft actually flying, with either foreground or background objects to indicate any relative motion. All I have seen are blurry close ups, where any movement is obviously camera shake, and not controlled flight.


Or are you just being facetious?
Click to expand...

Not at all, I've love to see some footage which challenged my world view. That would be awesome, but all I have seen, is rubbish. I won't settle for a wobbly out of focus dot, or a three second clip of a passenger jet where the running lights just happen to flash in order by coincidence. I alwys am suspicious of shorts clips; I wonder why the person showing them doesn't want us to see what happened before or after!

I do have a serious interest in the subject, but trying to discuss it under these conditions of apathy and negativity is not pleasant .
I shall reserve further comment until a later date .
Click to expand...

Asking questions and asking for footage is not negative, it is a request for the positive.

OK, to get the discussion going, what do you mean when you say 'UFO', and what would you accept as footage to illustrate one?
 
Phlogistician,
I think I`ve been down this rocky road before.
To get a grasp of this subject requires a fairly long ,convoluted study of the material available, assessment of the evidence and sufficient time to allow all the factors involved to filter through one`s mind.
Even then,the very fact of being aware of the many distortions,political spin,outright lies etc., makes it extremely difficult to arrive at a considered opinion .
All I can say is, those people who do try to research thoroughly (that excludes me ,by the way) have to overcome an enormous amount of deliberate misconstruction from official sources.
I `ll be back !

Regards,

Awdsci.
 
awdsci said:
Phlogistician,
I think I`ve been down this rocky road before.
To get a grasp of this subject requires a fairly long ,convoluted study of the material available, assessment of the evidence and sufficient time to allow all the factors involved to filter through one`s mind.
Even then,the very fact of being aware of the many distortions,political spin,outright lies etc., makes it extremely difficult to arrive at a considered opinion .
All I can say is, those people who do try to research thoroughly (that excludes me ,by the way) have to overcome an enormous amount of deliberate misconstruction from official sources.
I `ll be back !

Regards,

Awdsci.
Click to expand...

You are correct. One person's word against another's.

I believe the best example here is: glass half full VS. glass half empty.

You mentioned assumptions earlier. The subject of UFOs is built on assumptions from both sides. Those that assume they exist, and those that don't.
 
To the people who don't believe that any flying (or floating) object is truly unidentified, any sighting WILL be explained away as this or that.

All of that is based on an assumption.

The assumption being that nothing is truly inexplicable, and that no non-human piloted craft have visited or are visiting this earth.

Assumptions, may I reiterate. That cannot be proven or disproven.
 
And, to further that, those assumptions are garnered—always—from a disadvantageous point of view: the ant trying to make sense of an Empire State Building. Also, what's never taken into consideration—and I've been trying to drill this possibility into your thick skulls—is that alien pilots of "UFOs" could conceivably (evidently) take exception to not being… identified.
 
Hello all,
You may be interested in this ;
Despite serving officers confirmation of sightings during flights, with clear descriptions of what was seen and correlated by radar images of `bogey` activity, the uk MoD deny that ` UAP`s ` are solid objects.
Their denial of facts leads me to doubt their integrity. I can only wonder what their reasons may be.

Regards

Awdsci
 
Their denial of facts leads me to doubt their integrity. I can only wonder what their reasons may be
Click to expand...
It is not absolutely necessary for something to be a solid object to be illuminated OR give a radar return...
So what "facts" are they denying?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top