It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Maybe not so intelligent?

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 01:25 AM
Recently I was looking for a specific ufo crash, and I noticed in 1947 there were well over 30 documented (supposed) UFO crashes. Now, if in one year more than 30 ufo's crashed, maybe they're not so intelligent? And why do they keep on coming to empty areas, or hill billy country? Why don't they come to Atlanta, San Fransisco, New York, Michigan, And all the big cities? It just puzzles me they always come to deserts and crash. Sooner or later they're going to think we're eliminating them,

"Those Humans keep on destroying our shuttles"
"Well, Send more"
"They never come back"
"War it is!"

That's what I'm afraid of.

posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 01:58 AM
The problem is that there is no conclusive evidence that any UFO has ever crashed on Earth at all. I have seen eye witness accounts, photographs, documents, believers and debunkers, but until the powers-that-be roll out a busted craft and its luckless inhabitants, or until one crash lands in my backyard and I bash the injured aliens to death with giant dollar signs in my eyes, we cannot say that any aliens have crashed here.

That being said, crashing does not necessarilly denote a lack of intelligence. Remember that these aliens, if they are real, are piloting craft capable of staggering speeds in what is to them an alien enviornment on an alien planet. Given the sheer volume of UFO sightings documented each year, I think the little guys are doing well not to be raining down on us.

As for why the crashes are never reported over cities or heavily populated areas, perhaps, for the sake of argument, the aliens deliberately crash in the desert or in unpopulated regions to avoid killing large numbers of humans. There were those admittedly fairly spotty reports concerning the Tunguska incident where a few never-named individuals reported the object changing direction to avoid populated areas. Although I do not believe these reports, it seems like the logical and humane thing to do. It also prevents discovery of your technology by large numbers of humans. It also keeps you out of the human press and therefore out of the human mind, ensuring that we do not start looking for these guys and where they came from with any real effort.

The other alternative is that the aliens did not crash, but were shot down. This would explain why crashes typically take place in unpopulated areas, specifically to ensure a lack of discovery. If this is the case, then fair enough. If I flew a strange and incomprehensible craft into a primitive culture's airspace and refused to communicate and violated their airspace, I would expect to be shot down too.

Maybe we should be eliminating them.

[edit on 23/8/05 by Jeremiah25]

posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 02:32 AM
Good point. That would explain why the white house was on alert when a "White bloop disappeared from radar" they cleared the area and had sharp shooters and all that jazz.

But also, remember what Reagan said:

"I’ve often wondered...what if all of us in the world discovered that we were threatened by an outer - a power from outer space, from another planet. Wouldn’t we all of a sudden find that we didn’t have any differences between us at all, we were all human beings, citizens of the world, and wouldn’t we come together to fight that particular threat."

There are a couple more speeches that come to mind by him, but I'm too lazy to find them. Everytime he speaks about alien (alien creatures he calls 'em) he always talks about them invading or being destructive. That's quite scary.

posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 05:00 AM
I don't know that we should or are even able to eliminate "Them". I mean the UFO I saw didn't "eliminate" me and it had the chance so I can see myself returning the favor. I would return that Favor!

But I think about how many commercial Jetliners are fling around constantly and very few of them crash in the city , and most of the time the Mechanics are all on Strike! And we're just silly little humans playing with combustion!

So it amazes me that any ETVs ever crash , at anytime , but apparently they do, it just hasn't happened in a major metropolitan area yet.

[edit on 23-8-2005 by lost_shaman]

posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 05:05 AM
I've read that it might be from our radiation or strange mangetic type things. But that's silly, there's a CRAP load of radioactive chemicals floating in space along with magnetic nickle and such, or so i've read. Don't take my word for it.

Nevertheless, they crash, and don't do it on purpose. Unless they're Jappanese aliens.

posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 06:49 AM
The estimated number of ETV crashes is really quite low. To get this estimate I only consider fairly substantial cases (newspaper reports of an event, multiple eyewitnesses, etc). Some that are called crashes should probably more likely be considered some sort of expendable asset, like a probe or something of that sort.

Compared to whatever sort of estimate one might get when considering reported sightings, guesses at unreported ones, cave paintings, and all the other forms of evidence that mark a Visit, the ETV safety record looks pretty good.

I think the comparision between our cars and aircraft is reasonable, the ETVs seem to fall into the next logical catagory.

What this shows to me is simply that those who visit are mortal beings after all.

Physical evidence is by far the easist to control, and we have been picking up our own fallen aircraft and space junk for quite some time anyway...


posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 07:16 AM
July 08 - Windsor, Ontario Canada Ontario, Canada
July 18 - Chengtu, China Chengtu, China
July 10 - Beulah Bay, Alabama Alabama, U.S.A.
July 09 - Hollywood, California California, U.S.A.
July 07 - Niwot, Colorado Colorado, U.S.A.
July 09 - Thompsonville, Connecticut Connecticut, U.S.A.
July 15 - Clearwater, Florida Florida, U.S.A.
July 11 - Twin Falls, Idaho Idaho, U.S.A.
July 07 - Oelwein, Iowa Iowa, U.S.A.
July 17 - Marysville, Kansas Kansas, U.S.A.
July 08, 1947 - Ludlow, Kentucky Kentucky, U.S.A.
July 07 - Shreveport, Louisiana Louisiana, U.S.A.
July 10 -Springfield, Massachusettes Massachusettes, U.S.A.
July 11 - Laurel, Maryland Maryland, U.S.A.
July 09 - Midland, Michigan Midland, Michigan
July 06 - East St. Louis, Missouri Missouri, U.S.A.
July 07 - Bozeman, Montana
July 09 - Baker, Montana Montana
July 07 - New Hampshire
July 09 - Ringe, New Hampshire New Hampshire, U.S.A.
July 12 - Linden, New Jersey New Jersey, U.S.A.
June 27 - Tularosa and Eagle, N.M.
July 4 - Roswell, N.M. New Mexico, U.S.A.
July 12 - Eastchester, New York
July 10 - Greensburgh/West Chester, NY New York, U.S.A.
July 11 - Woodworth, North Dakota North Dakota, U.S.A.
July 01 - Circleville, Ohio
July 07 - Oxford, Ohio
July 07 - Jackson, Ohio
July 08 - South Bloomfield, Ohio
July 12 - Nelsonville, Ohio Ohio, U.S.A.
June 25 - Nyssa, Oregon
July 12 - Eugene, Oregon Oregon, U.S.A.
June 21 - Titusville, Pennsylvania Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
July 13 - Amarillo, Texas Texas, U.S.A.
June 21 - Tacoma, Washington
July 15 - Seattle, Washington Washington, U.S.A.
July 23 - Ragland, West Virginia
August 08 - Mullensville, West Virginia West Virginia, U.S.A.
July 06 - Grafton, Wisconsin
July 11 - Black River Falls, Wisconsin Wisconsin

That's a tiny porportion of UFO crashes in 1947

posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 07:35 AM
What is the basis for calling something a 'Crash' in this list?

When I say Crash I mean a vehicle with occupants. But what do you use to define what a Crash is? I have found a significant number of things reported in this way are actually human-made objects.


[edit on 8/23/05 by Alexander Tau]

posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 08:03 AM
Now that I can see your post's ... your list looks dubious to me at best.

Why are all the dates of your list of 30 crashes all from July? Are we supposed to believe UFOs crashed everyday for weeks!

[edit on 23-8-2005 by lost_shaman]

posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 08:15 AM
totally off-topic here but are bill hicks and alex jones the same person?
now THATS a conspiracy!

posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 09:56 AM
It has always been just a bit interesting to me that there was such a large number of crashes of UFOs that makes them seem so very fragile, and flown by extremely inept little green guys ... Then we have the one that flew in over Los Angeles and survived, reportedly, hundreds, if not thousands of anti-aircraft rounds.

Doesn't always ring true ...

posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 10:56 AM
Well, for "biological efficiency" the original saucer builder's jobs were outsourced to the sand hydras of North X'el-z181-amastan, and the quality was never the same afterwards.

Slightly more seriously---if any of this were real and I am generally skeptical---the Roswell and NM UFO crashes in 1947 may have taken place after the craft were lit up by radar.

Between average LA in 1942 (no or mediocre radar versus battlefronts) versus nuclear establishments in 1947 there would be a huge increase in capability and power of radar.

The invention and deployment of the magnetron (which is one hellaciously clever device) during the WW2 years radically increased the tech and permitted higher frequencies and power.

Suppose this exacerbated a physical weakness in the craft?

Maybe in ET-land such dangerous things as high-power microwave transmitters are seriously regulated for the harm they can do to hovercraft aviation, and they didn't expect widdle humans to suddenly start beaming the cripes out of them.

posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 12:31 PM
However many crashes or sightings you can bet you will never see a UFO hull or its occupants smashed into the hill side make it on national TV news. Let alone a large metropolitan area. Of course we know every government is slow, beurocratic, and inept in general world affairs, exception in the case of covering up UFO crash sites and recovering alien bodies. Even the fattest donut eating beurocrat operates like a ninja to clean up all the evidence.

posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 12:51 PM
The majority of those dates are around the same time as Roswell, and only a few take place before. I think it's highly likely that most are copy cat hoaxes and military testing being blamed on UFOs in the wake of Roswel.

posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 02:52 AM
Hmm, that's a possibility. Once again, these are "documented". Not varified. But dude, 1947...Such a hoax wasn't common at all.

But most possibly those can be experimental aircrafts.

posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 03:08 AM
The example of the Battle of Los Angeles in 1942 certainly makes me think. You are right in stating that, according to various reports of the incident, the UFO survived any number of anti-aircraft rounds. It occurs to me that a craft capable of travelling through interstellar space, or even at the rate of speed credited to many UFOs, may require some form of shielding to prevent it from being damaged or destroyed as a result of colliding with objects at super-high speeds. Surely even a tiny rock would cause enormous damage if you were travelling at the speeds required for interstellar travel? Perhaps someone with greater scientific experience than I can comment on this.

The possibility also exists that their are different classes of UFOs, perhaps representing craft from various species of aliens. Another alternative is that the UFO that was fired upon in 1942 was genuine and most UFO sightings since have been sightings of government attempts to replicate alien technology. I would imagine that even if scientists were to back-engineer the propulsion system, shielding would be significantly more difficult.

posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 03:13 AM
Riding The Short UFO

Originally posted by Vinci
But most possibly those can be experimental aircrafts.

If we were losing them on such a grand scale, that would call our own intelligence into question, wouldn't it?

So we can either assume the aliens and/or the U.S. government were losing aircraft/spacecraft in record numbers, or perhaps consider the possibility that actual crashes did not occur in all the cases cited.

Fun premise for a thread, though. I can just see the little rascals, with their buck teeth, prodigious overbites, braces, pocket protectors and top-heavy heads fumbling around with the controls and taking a digger in comic fashion.

Not-so-intelligent life on other planets?

Sure. That would be special.

posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 03:31 AM

Not-so-intelligent life on other planets? Sure. That would be special.

I often wonder what would happen if, between now and the time when humans develop the capability for interstellar space travel, no aliens were forthcoming. What if we go out into space knowing no more than we do right now? What happens if we encounter a planet technologically less advanced then ourselves?

I guess what I mean is: what if, in the end, we turn out to be the super-advanced mysterious aliens to another species?

posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 03:47 AM
The Worst Of All Possible Worlds

Originally posted by Jeremiah25
I guess what I mean is: what if, in the end, we turn out to be the super-advanced mysterious aliens to another species?

Then the universe is in some deep, deep trouble.

Just look at our track record so far on this planet.

Bottled for export? Shai-hulud save us!

posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 03:56 AM

Then the universe is in some deep, deep trouble. Just look at our track record so far on this planet. Bottled for export? Shai-hulud save us!

I don't know, maybe we'll be a society of peaceful, benevolent explorers by then. We could bring peace and light to other denizens of the galaxy.

The whole universe must learn of Earth's peaceful ways - through force!

Mwuhahahahaha ....
My head hurts.

[edit on 24/8/05 by Jeremiah25]

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in