UFO study finds no sign of aliens

Ophiolite said:
And awdsci the aircrews did not admit privately that the objects they had seen were under control ,were far superior in flight characteristics , and acceleration beyond the capability of any known aircraft.
What they did was privately express an opinion.

If something walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and lays duck eggs, it is probably a duck. If it wears a white smock, talks with a regional accent and cooks duck eggs it is probably a TV chef.
If an unidentified object behaves in a manner quite different from any aircraft, then it is probably not an aircraft, or spaceship, or free-from alien.
Click to expand...
Ophiolite,
Yes ,I see the point of the grammatical correction ,but the sense of the statement made by the aircrew (and many others) displays their surprise upon observing such an object so visually unusual .
Their technical capabilities ,observational skills and reliability cannot be in doubt else they would not be in their specialised field.
If a trained pilot states that he saw something totally unique to his experience, with supporting comments from a crewmember ,I would accept that they were being truthful.
If their observations gave positional , speed ,elevation and manoeuverability estimates of an object then I would accept they had seen something remarkable.
How would you describe their experience under those conditions ?
Then again ,if the object was displayed on the aircraft`s radar and on local ground based radar at the same time ,what then?
Or if two aircraft make the same observations ?
All these scenarios have actually happened ,but of course they cannot be proved,so the MoD discounts them.
Oh, by the way ,the radar tapes are "routinely re-used " by the RAF, "to keep costs down. "
It`s a funny old world .
Sorry about the rambling on!

regards ,

Awdsci.
 
Their technical capabilities ,observational skills and reliability cannot be in doubt else they would not be in their specialised field.
Click to expand...
They are not employed for their observational skills, but piloting ability (see my earlier post on aircrews' misidentification - history is rife with them, e.g. USAF F-15 pilot taking 2 UH-60s as Hinds and shooting them down in Iraq).
On a (very embarassing) personal note: I once came 23rd in the country on aircraft recognition (official Observer Corps tests, having scored 100% solo in previous tests). A couple of years later I misidentfied a Jaguar as an MRCA (Tornado to younger members) at an airshow where it (MRCA) was displayed for the first time... again in clear weather, broad daylight, etc.
ALWAYS doubt eyewitness reports, or at least never treat them as absolute proof.
 
awdsci said:
Ophiolite,
Yes ,I see the point of the grammatical correction ,but the sense of the statement made by the aircrew (and many others) displays their surprise upon observing such an object so visually unusual .
Click to expand...
It was not a grammatical correction. It was a semantic correction. The former relates to medium, the latter to message. All hail Marshall McCluhan.
awdsci said:
Their technical capabilities ,observational skills and reliability cannot be in doubt else they would not be in their specialised field.
Click to expand...
The entire point about the scientific method is that their observational skills and reliability must be doubted.
Read, re-read, absorb, understand and accept Oli's point on the reliability of eye witness testimony. It's crap. If I refuse to accept my own eye witness observations without independent verification (because of the known unreliability of eyewitnesses) then why, with all appropriate respect, the ****, should I accept anyone elses testimony.
awdsci said:
If a trained pilot states that he saw something totally unique to his experience, with supporting comments from a crewmember ,I would accept that they were being truthful.
Click to expand...
I would accept that they were probably being truthful. There are posters on this site who state that they truly believe that the US did not land a man on the moon. I believe they are telling the truth - they believe that the US did not land a man on the moon. This does not mean, however, that they are correct, only that they are truthful.
.
awdsci said:
If their observations gave positional , speed ,elevation and manoeuverability estimates of an object then I would accept they had seen something remarkable.
How would you describe their experience under those conditions ?
.
Click to expand...
They (1) probably (2) believe they have seen something remarkable. They may have seen (3) something remarkable, but there is no a priori reason to beleive it is an alien controlled spacecraft, anymore than there is to believe it is Santa Claus doing practice runs.
.
awdsci said:
Oh, by the way ,the radar tapes are "routinely re-used " by the RAF, "to keep costs down. "
Click to expand...
There is an implication here - only an implication - that the RAF is deliberately destroying evidence. I hope I am just misreading you. If not you should read some basic books on economics.

I should like to win £5,000,000 on the lottery. I should like that very much. I believe this is best achieved by (a) having the winning ticket. (b) checking the numbers carefully. (c) notifying the lottery authorities that I have the winner. The following strategy will not work. (a) Having a ticket that is similar to the winning ticket, but has two numbers different, though one is only one number away and the other is the reverse (e.g. 43 and 34) (b) hastily scanning the numbers and delightfully declaring I have a winner (c) contacting the lottery authorities and telling them I have won. (d) accusing them of conspiracy to defraud me when they say I do not have the winning ticket.

I hope the analogy makes sense. Remember that I still desparately want to win the £5,000,000, but I have no intention of fooling myself.
 
All these scenarios have actually happened, but of course they cannot be proved,so the MoD discounts them.
Click to expand...
If they cannot be proved then they should be discounted. The RAF's job is air defence of the country (mostly), not keeping files on unprovable occurrences...
If the "thing" has not been proven to exist and poses no discernable threat then it will be dismissed as being outside of the remit.
Re-read those reports, in at least one of them the aircrew are reported as having changed their minds about the relative position of what they saw - first it was below them, and a couple of hours after they'd landed they insisted it was above them. If they can't make up their minds WHERE it was why should we accept as incontrovertible truth their opinion on WHAT it was?
 
awdsci said:
Many serving officers (RAF) have reported sightings which they could not explain, but most were told not to say anything in public .The MoD `s authority would prevent any further disclosure.
Click to expand...

Oddly, I've never heard any RAF pilots make any such claims, and I lived on an Airfoce base for several years, and knew pilots, ground crew, and radar operators. Also, I've met many and various people involved in Earth observation, from ecological groups, to defense oriented ones, and none of them have snapped pictures of UFOs. Bearing in mind that the latter group had rather extensive networks of equipment, and quite literally nothing flying would escape being captured onto their database, you'd think if something odd was there, it would be seen.

I've never met anyone credible that makes such claims. It's always hearsay, unattributed quotes, or people misrepresenting their status (Lazar, Pope, et al). Despite supposedly having witnessed these events, and having access to classified information, they never managed to get any of it out into the public domain. Odd, that spies could share nuclear secrets with the Soviet Union in the 50's, but in the internet age, a single, credible document cannot be copied and emailed around!
 
Avatar said:
imo., if anything, that would unite the people of this planet, and that's a good thing™
Click to expand...

It isn't a good thing if you are a Nation.

Nations don't want their citizens to look at themselves as Earthlings. They want them to view themselves as Americans, Brits, ect..

Come on Avatar, this is pretty simple stuff here.
 
phlogistician said:
a single, credible document......
Click to expand...

oh
credible? what does it mean to you?
work the scenarios


whats that? did you say.....
color.GIF
...?

/cackle
 
looooool!!!

I didnt read all the 5 pages!

my idea is this: probably they (british gov) found that some ufos cases are just atmospherical phenomenons, but i dont think that explains everything. There are many cases where it seems that we are facing some kind of inteligence...the way ufos act are not in a random way (like many others natural phenomenons).

To be honest, i think that maybe there is something outhere ( i mean: here, on earth), lol) but i dont care. I cant do nothing about that. I am tired to read lots of storys about ufos and come to no conclusion.
 
I can personally guarantee you that no aliens have ever visited the earth. As if anyone would want anything with your...er, our...silly little planet.

Geoff
 
Actually your guarantee is worth shit. It's been more than 4,5 billion years, you can't possibly have the information to make such a claim.
 
manmadeflyingsaucer said:
They are manmade flying machines, so naturally, they are not aliens
Click to expand...

I'm sure a lot of UFO reports are due to natural phenomena.
 
Yes, natural phenomena, but I have personally seen technology in the sky, not just "phenomena." If you call a flying piece of metal, "phenomena" then well.....

As for abductions, I think the person claiming such is: A) A liar B) A person who was drugged, scarred shitless by men in alien suits to pose a false alien threat (and still a liar)

So you see, there are phenomena in the skies, but there are also top-secret aircraft that are by no means "phenomena," merely top-secret technology which I have seen defy physics as we know it. (high speed right angles and the like)
 
So we should believe you because you know what you've "seen", but someone who claims that they've been abducted based on what they've "seen" is a liar?
Can you say "double standard"? :bugeye:
 
OK, I'll take this a step further. So I start telling people around here about these top-secret flying machines, and I find more and more people believe this alternative to "They don't exist" or "They are real, they are alien." Finally at a certain point of telling people about this I get the "spooks" keeping an eye on me.

You don't have to believe any of this, thats just fine, however, I tell you now that I am not lieing. I know damn near to fact that Nikola Tesla invented the (electromotive (aka momentum synthesizing)) flying saucer. Which explains why Tesla said things like this: (remember, tesla was into ELECTRICITY)

"I am now planning aerial machines devoid of sustaining planes, ailerons, propellers, and other external attachments, which will be capable of immense speeds" - "My Inventions" - Tesla's autobiography.

"You might see it on the ground and you would never guess that it was a flying machine." -NIkola TEsla
 
Last edited:
I am now planning aerial machines
Click to expand...
Note the word PLANNING... as a design engineer I can tell you absolute certainty (drawn from painful experience) there's a world of difference between planning and actuality...
And all I can say is, that after forty years of looking at and for military "secret projects" there is no convincing evidence that even the principles are known to enable us to build flying saucers. It's always a case of "well in some circumstances IF this theory were true and we could actually use it then it might be possible do so and so..."
And for the record I really do not think you are lying... just mistaken.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top