Originally posted by lost_shaman
The MoD's Condign Report actually addresses this issue by stating that 'if' UAP were actually constructed vehicles that they would have to be 'inertia-less Vehicles' which would require a completely new understanding of physics as we know them.

More precisely they display characteristics of an object or objects that have little or no mass. This is based on, for example, reports by pilots of UFOs “flying” through or “colliding” with their aircraft without causing any damage. An object with little or no mass e.g. a “plasmoid” would be able to make (seemingly) instantaneous accelerations or turns without defying the laws of physics.

Originally posted by lost_shaman
That's is just an example from the report, but the conclusion of the report that UAP are very rare and poorly understood natural phenomena, "Plasmoids", also means UAP fall outside of known physics as they have yet to be properly described.

Actually, if that’s the case, it’s technically not correct to say they fall outside the realm of known physics. No new physics are needed to explain the observed behaviors, what is needed is an explanation (mechanism, catalyst) for their formation and that would be naturally be done within the framework of existing physics. Only problem is the phenomenon, due to it’s rare and fleeting nature, has proven to be impossible to study with data gathered using existing techniques (witness reports, cameras, radar tracking etc.). Since the observed behaviors don’t represent any real threat to National Security (no harm, no fowl) this is why the MoD and USAF see no further need (or obligation) to explain them.

The frustrating reality (for many here I imagine) is the answer will have to come from the civilian/private sector…

Originally posted by undo
He was a 26 year old and a family man.
It was indeed his first station, but he had already been in for a year (it takes that long to get your first stripe). He's a Master Sergeant now. He could've made Senior, but he's not a politician.

Interesting that someone else and I had this same conversation a couple of days ago. You could have a doctorate and not make E-9 because of quotas and politics. The air force is certainly hard on rank. I was an E3 when I joined the Navy! But back to the topic,

I was hoping you could see that being skeptical is not a bad thing. People here have treated your story generally pretty well, I think. It's a good story and I wish we could get more out of it. Why not consider starting a thread on it with more details? Perhaps you could smoke out another witness, or people with similar stories of that period.

I'm not suggesting you can be converted to the Dark Side of Skepticism, but surely you see that with the number of outright hoaxes, misunderstandings, an unconditional believers that we simply cannot accept any story at face value without looking into details.

Several times here and elsewhere people have said, in effect, "If you are a skeptic, why do you even come here?" My answer to this is that most of the population doesn't even bother being skeptical; they just blow off the entire idea with a snort of derision, know nothing about the field, and couldn't care less. That puts skeptics in the middle. Also, skeptics often know a whole lot more about the field than a 'starry eyed believer' does. Without skeptics, there wouldn't be much discussion, and we all would not learn nearly as much about the issue.

Originally posted by Access Denied
More precisely they display characteristics of an object or objects that have little or no mass.

The underlying point behind my post was to point out that no matter what the explanation, known physics does not predict UAP that we are able to observe.

Regardless of the actual explanation, known physics doesn't predict UAP and will not until UAP are properly described.

Originally posted by Access Denied
This is based on, for example, reports by pilots of UFOs “flying” through or “colliding” with their aircraft without causing any damage.

Most pilots report very close encounters not actual contact.

The Russians according to the Condign Report, report the loss of pilots and aircraft.

Originally posted by Access Denied
An object with little or no mass e.g. a “plasmoid” would be able to make (seemingly) instantaneous accelerations or turns without defying the laws of physics.

That's what I'm talking about. That is not true because these "plasmoids" have not been properly described.




[edit on 18-6-2007 by lost_shaman]

To keep this thread alive, here's some provocation:


You "debunkers" or "non-believers" on this board arent even close to how the majority deals with these kinds of subjects. I love to talk openly about anything and everything, without any taboos or fixed viewpoints within my circle of colleagues, friends, neighbourhood. But when I touch on subjects like UFOs, Secret Societies and cults, Lost Civilisations, other dimensions, atlantis, etc. its like their mind goes BLANK.

They are not "sceptic" but not even able to consider or entertain or even think about subjects like these. They will giggle in a silly way, get all embarrased and red-faced or act like they didnt hear it. Some wont even understand what the hell I am talking about because they are not aware that such information even exists.

Now a question to the sceptics: You would you prefer, the extremely open minded types like us UFO-Believers or the ones just described?

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Now a question to the sceptics: You would you prefer, the extremely open minded types like us UFO-Believers or the ones just described?

Yeah, that's been brought up and it is certainly true. Skeptics are often in the middle of the issue, not to one side. I would prefer fellow skeptically inclined people in lieu of starry-eyed believers who are quick to worship moths, garbage can lids, and talk to greys on a daily basis, myself. I think believers are part of the problem and the major reason why those on the other side of skepticism blow off the entire subject. All the general public needs to see is one Greer puppet advocating insectoid worship or one Michael Horn shilling for Billy to know anyone interested in the subject has to be completely nuts. Believers like to think of themselves as 'open minded,' but often, their minds are so open that they have to be feeling a draft.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Now a question to the sceptics: You would you prefer, the extremely open minded types like us UFO-Believers or the ones just described?

Either type is good, I even try to make the old ladies from the Jehovah Witnesses that used to knock on my door see that there may be an alternative to what they think.

And I think that one of the problems is that the open mindedness of some (most?) of the UFO believers only applies to opinions that are in favour of what they already thought or those that are against the establishment, its not a real open mindedness, it's more of a way of showing that they are more unbelievers in what the "authorities" say than believers in UFOs.

I think that a little less extremism from both sides would give great results.

Originally posted by schuyler
but surely you see that with the number of outright hoaxes, misunderstandings, an unconditional believers that we simply cannot accept any story at face value without looking into details.

Are you skeptical of certain stories about UFOs, or are you skeptical about the whole subject altogether?

Good points schuyler and armap, good question logical thinker.

This leads to the question: What do we mean by open-mindedness? By open-mindedness we mean "considering all possibilities", not necessarily acting on them. In acting on them we would become oddballs who worship moths and garbage cans, as you amusingly put it. So, open mindedness is a good thing until one becomes emotionally involved and starts acting and re-acting on certain possibilities that are unproven. I am totally open towards the possibility that I could be abducted by aliens. But I wont start feeling emotionally sick about it, wont go to counseling for it, wont barricade my house against the threat. I will consider it with a sense of wonder and humour.

Schuyler, as far as going "starry eyed" is concerned: A childlike (not childish) sense of awe and wonder are needed to discover something new and have some fun. One thing the sceptics dont notice is that many of us are just having a little fun, speculating, maintaining some sense of mystery and amazement in our adulthood.

Become toooooooooooo sceptical and you will most certainly not discover anything new because of a pre-filter that discards anything different than your own pre-conception.