My not-so-amazing UFO sighting

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by championoftruth

 

clear picture my foot.its just an over exposed fuzzy blob.

You couldn't tell that was balloons?

1980 ? who cares .it's history.

The point was that cell phones were rare amongst five year olds in 1980.

show me a high def picture or video from last year.must be clear,sharp be detailed.no fuzziness,no blur,no artifacts,

Why last year? Have the ones from 2012 expired already? You see, the thing with alien space vehicles is that they look fuzzy even when they are standing still. So inevitably any picture will look fuzzy.

2012 is when hi def cameras reached a billion.

You see, the thing with alien space vehicles is that they look fuzzy even when they are standing still. So inevitably any picture will look fuzzy.

No its because they are fake,doctored or illusions.Even the UFO fabnatics are falling away

Actually, I'm kind of interested in unusual UFO sightings, and the small scale variety occupy a worthwhile subsection. There have been a few small UFO sightings recorded, although I imagine the bulk of them get quickly debunked as balloons or kites. Even people who see them might just forget about it and chalk it up to something mundane, even though it really isn't.

There's no particular reason a UFO has to be a silvery flying saucer the size of a car or bus. With high technology tending toward miniaturization, they could just as easily be little probes that would be nearly impossible to spot in the sky, and might only become noticed if they're close to the ground.

There are a few of them around:
www.trueufosightings.com...

Even historically:
www.ufoevidence.org...

reply to post by championoftruth

2012 is when hi def cameras reached a billion.

I see.

No its because they are fake,doctored or illusions.

fake and doctored would be the same and technically, they would still be considered an illusion if they were faked.

I hope you know I'm messing with you a little but we really wouldn't know what a "real" alien space buggy would look like. Asking for HD photographs seems pointless since they can be faked also. Even that photo drak linked to can be faked.

What we need is a real alien, preferably alive that we can take turns at interrogating, poking, proding. Then we only would have his word that he was from another planet. And who will have the balls to take a ride with him and risk losing the ONLY alien ever captured? So we catch one and keep him or her or whatever and then we catch another and another. Once we have enough, we figure out how to get to their planet. Once we do that, THEN we can take some really rad pictures and movies. I am already investing in some go pro equipment.

draknoir2
My initial thought would be something like this:

But I don't recall those being widely available back in '80.

I would have loved to have had something like that as a kid. If any kid had something like that in my neighborhood back then he would have been treated like a celebrity by the other kids. Even Ross and Jeff, the "rich kids" who got all the awesome toys (like the big Millennium Falcon, and the Atari 2600 when it first came out) didn't have anything that could fly.

My father had a model internal combustion engine with a propeller like this, which was from a free flight model airplane, but he only ever had the engine, and plans to build the airplane to go with it, but he never did (much to the great disappointment of my brother and me).

The "rocket" that I saw definitely wasn't inflated; it was made of hard plastic or metal, and it flew straight as an arrow, no wobble whatsoever, and made no sound that I recall.

MaximRecoil

The "rocket" that I saw definitely wasn't inflated; it was made of hard plastic or metal, and it flew straight as an arrow, no wobble whatsoever, and made no sound that I recall.

I don't know. We see things through an innocence filter at that age. Seems odd that it would be a cartoonish rocket... a child's impression of a rocket. Perhaps that's how you made sense of it at the time.

draknoir2
I don't know. We see things through an innocence filter at that age. Seems odd that it would be a cartoonish rocket... a child's impression of a rocket. Perhaps that's how you made sense of it at the time.

In the late 60's my uncle, who was a forest ranger, saw what he described as a "rocket" zooming low over the treetops in an out of the way part of the Rockies. It was only much later did he realize that what he saw was probably a cruise missile test.

He never could explain the other time he saw a flying saucer take off from a small clearing, though. Forest rangers out in remote areas see all kinds of weird stuff they never report.

Still, if we assume that a child's perception is going to be distorted according to their experiences (or lack thereof), then we must also assume that some of the things they see and dismiss as "toys" or something else mundane might actually be something profoundly weird. No way to gather that data, though.

draknoir2

MaximRecoil

The "rocket" that I saw definitely wasn't inflated; it was made of hard plastic or metal, and it flew straight as an arrow, no wobble whatsoever, and made no sound that I recall.

I don't know. We see things through an innocence filter at that age. Seems odd that it would be a cartoonish rocket... a child's impression of a rocket. Perhaps that's how you made sense of it at the time.

It is cartoonish because I didn't draw a photorealistic image of it. A pointed nose, cylindrical body, and stabilizing fins is not just a child's impression of a rocket, it is a rocket shape; for example.

The main difference in appearance is that it had a significantly larger body diameter relative to its length than a typical functional rocket/missile.

You dont think this could have been a toy rocket with some kind of chemical propellant or by chance a radio controlled plane of some sort? Sounds like a strange sighting though Ive got to say, and Hey! Thanks for referencing my thread up there.

immoralist
You dont think this could have been a toy rocket with some kind of chemical propellant or by chance a radio controlled plane of some sort? Sounds like a strange sighting though Ive got to say, and Hey! Thanks for referencing my thread up there.

It was flying far too slowly; a few inches per second. I was able to stare at the detail of the material (metal or hard plastic) that formed its fuselage. Here is a sketch I just did which approximates that detail:

What do you think the possibility of it being filled with hydrogen or a lighter than air material is being that it was moving so slow?

immoralist
What do you think the possibility of it being filled with hydrogen or a lighter than air material is being that it was moving so slow?

I don't think there is room in there for a large enough volume of hydrogen or helium to overcome the weight of its hard plastic or metal structure. If it was made of very thin, lightweight material, like that inflatable blimp in the video that was posted earlier, it would work, but as you can see in the video; while it could fly slowly enough, it was effectively so light that it wasn't remotely stable. The thing I saw flew along as straight and stable as if it were on rails.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


And even if that were to happen, you would still have Mr. Skeptic over here try to debunk it. Skeptics are never happy because there's no such thing as objective truth. Disproving things is their religion.

brazenalderpadrescorpio
reply to post by ZetaRediculian

 

And even if that were to happen, you would still have Mr. Skeptic over here try to debunk it. Skeptics are never happy because there's no such thing as objective truth. Disproving things is their religion.

Yuk! I hate evil skeptics!

brazenalderpadrescorpio
And even if that were to happen, you would still have Mr. Skeptic over here try to debunk it. Skeptics are never happy because there's no such thing as objective truth. Disproving things is their religion.

Boo! We hate skeptics and their unceasing demand for reasonable proof! They are worse than Hitler!

reply to post by Blue Shift


I understand that you're mocking me, but it's not when they demand reasonable proof that bothers me. It's when they demand an unreasonable proof. This world is not as black and white as most people would like to think.

reply to post by Kandinsky


False memory is a very real phenomenon. Its one of those things that is probably more common than we realize. Its actually quite amazing that we function as a society.

I love this article by Oliver Sacks www.nybooks.com... should be required reading.

If the last thirty years have seen a surge or resurgence of ambiguous memory and identity syndromes, they have also led to important research—forensic, theoretical, and experimental—on the malleability of memory. Elizabeth Loftus, the psychologist and memory researcher, has documented a disquieting success in implanting false memories by simply suggesting to a subject that he has experienced a fictitious event. Such pseudo-events, invented by psychologists, may vary from mildly upsetting or comic incidents (that, for example, as a child, one was lost in a mall) to more serious incidents (that one was the victim of a serious animal attack, or a serious assault by another child). After initial skepticism (“I was never lost in a shopping mall”), and then uncertainty, the subject may move to a conviction so profound that he will continue to insist on the truth of the implanted memory, even after the experimenter confesses that it never happened in the first place.

What is clear in all these cases—whether of imagined or real abuse in childhood, of genuine or experimentally implanted memories, of misled witnesses and brainwashed prisoners, of unconscious plagiarism, and of the false memories we probably all have based on misattribution or source confusion—is that, in the absence of outside confirmation, there is no easy way of distinguishing a genuine memory or inspiration, felt as such, from those that have been borrowed or suggested, between what the psychoanalyst Donald Spence calls “historical truth” and “narrative truth.”

Even if the underlying mechanism of a false memory is exposed, as I was able to do, with my brother’s help, in the incendiary bomb incident (or as Loftus would do when she confessed to her subjects that their memories were implanted), this may not alter the sense of actual lived experience or reality that such memories have. Nor, for that matter, may the obvious contradictions or absurdity of certain memories alter the sense of conviction or belief. For the most part the people who claim to be abducted by aliens are not lying when they speak of how they were taken into alien spaceships, any more than they are conscious of having invented a story—some truly believe that this is what happened.

Once such a story or memory is constructed, accompanied by vivid sensory imagery and strong emotion, there may be no inner, psychological way of distinguishing true from false—or any outer, neurological way. The physiological correlates of such memory can be examined using functional brain imaging, and these images show that vivid memories produce widespread activation in the brain involving sensory areas, emotional (limbic) areas, and executive (frontal lobe) areas—a pattern that is virtually identical whether the “memory” is based on experience or not.

MaximRecoil

It was flying far too slowly; a few inches per second. I was able to stare at the detail of the material (metal or hard plastic) that formed its fuselage. Here is a sketch I just did which approximates that detail:

Okay, here's the thing.

Your UFO has a nose cone and stabilizer fins, the purpose of which is to provide stability in high speed flight, or on a lighter than air craft at lower speed. You state that the object was neither, so they serve no apparent purpose but to make it look like a caricature of a rocket. I'm thinking there are some key details that you are not recalling.

reply to post by draknoir2

I'm thinking there are some key details that you are not recalling.

Like a couple of balls maybe?

draknoir2

MaximRecoil

It was flying far too slowly; a few inches per second. I was able to stare at the detail of the material (metal or hard plastic) that formed its fuselage. Here is a sketch I just did which approximates that detail:

Okay, here's the thing.

Your UFO has a nose cone and stabilizer fins, the purpose of which is to provide stability in high speed flight, or on a lighter than air craft at lower speed. You state that the object was neither, so they serve no apparent purpose but to make it look like a caricature of a rocket. I'm thinking there are some key details that you are not recalling.

I don't know what its top speed capability was, I only know how fast it was flying during the ~minute that I saw it.

Also, how is it a caricature? Is the drawing of a rocket/missile on this 864th Strategic Missile Squadron insignia also a caricature?

brazenalderpadrescorpio
I understand that you're mocking me, but it's not when they demand reasonable proof that bothers me. It's when they demand an unreasonable proof. This world is not as black and white as most people would like to think.

Unfortunately, the people who think skeptics demand too high a level of proof are usually the people who don't have any at all. If I'm going to believe something, I want as much proof of it as possible and I'm willing to wait for it. Because why not? Why the hurry to believe?