It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

A UFO Conundrum #1

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Who or what is really building UFOs?



A lot of questions are raised by UFOs and a lot of people's explanations raise even more questions. In this thread, I hope to illustrate, in a simple way, some of my core questions in very few words...a lot of you will recognise them.

When I was reading about this unmanned test vehicle, I was reminded of all the UFO threads and researchers who claim that UFOs are terrestrial black technology. Then we have the guys claiming there are no UFOs...just an elaborate web of lies by the US Navy and others to protect stealth technology and advanced weapons whilst they steal billions from the black budgets. All plausible in some aspect imo.

I'm not offering any answers...I'm a skeptical fence-sitter on this one. I've seen two 'true UFOs' (in company) and have no idea what they were. Here we go then...

If this is our cutting edge technology...




Air Force launches X-37B space plane

Whose are these?






1987-Waterbury, Connecticut

If the UFOs are ours...why are we building these?





The images are simply to illustrate the point without writing a link-heavy essay...

Any reasonable explanations for this apparent conflict?



[edit on 24-4-2010 by Kandinsky]




posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 12:50 PM
link   
That is because the UFO's are not ours, they are of space. People you can deny it all you want, but the proof is in the pudding.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


Kandinsky, very interesting thread! I suspect the Edwards AFB object may be a photographic anomaly but there are some very intriguing photos and videos out there - here's another strange one from Catalina island:







On assignment to photograph Catalina Island for the US Navy, Mr. Leland Hanson of the Coast Guards, was in a helicopter when he filmed this object, which at first hovered, then sped across the length of the island. According to independent photographic experts, the disc's calculated velocity was between 130 to 170mph, and had no apparent wings or tail that would signify it as an airplane. However, researchers at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory computer enhanced the image and found that there might have been a tail rudder. The filming is shown first at real speed, then again in slow motion.

Better Quality



I think there's an awful lot of unanswered questions when it comes to the 'secret military project' opinion regarding UFOs - the main one being if we had the technology to make objects which execute right angle turns as far back as 1950s then why has noone ever heard of it?


UFO Flight Characteristics ~ Right Angle Turns.


The Coyne incident is another good example where a proponent of the 'black project' theory would have to concede that the US government had 'tractor beam technology' as far back as 1973.

Cheers.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Any reasonable explanations for this apparent conflict?


I think there is a fundamental flaw in your question, my friend. You are assuming there is a conflict.

In the case of the X-37B, we more-or-less know it's capabilities. It is a known quantity. However, the objects in the Waterbury and Edwards AFB photos represent an unknown quantity. We have no idea their capabilities, much less what we are even looking at.

If the objects in the Waterbury and Edwards AFB photos do represent some sort of human technology, their existence would not necessarily be in conflict with the X-37B. The Waterbury and Edwards AFB may not be able to achieve escape velocity or be otherwise space-worthy. Or the X-37B may fill some niche unfulfilled by the unknown objects.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   
“The X-37B is an important step in the effort to make space access more routine, affordable, and responsive,” Mr. Gary Payton, Air Force Under Secretary for Space Programs, said. “The technologies and concepts of employment that are proven by the Orbital Test Vehicle will be folded into development programs that will provide capabilities for our warfighters in the future. www.dodlive.mil...

The question becomes, whether it becomes a warfighter against UFO's or other nations.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Well they have been around for a long long time....
This was a hieroglyphics in the Temple of Osiris at Abydos.

So I am going to vote that our secret craft may be some of these sightings... but not all. THe "Orbs" I think are Et's mesa thinks.

[edit on 24-4-2010 by Grayelf2009]



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grayelf2009
Well they have been around for a long long time....
This was a hieroglyphics in the Temple of Osiris at Abydos.


While those are hieroglyphs, each one of the objects is not a heiroglyph unto itself but several. It is a palimpsest; the original hieroglyphs were re-carved and carved over. The photo you reference has been retouched to hide this. This is an un-retouched photo showing the hieroglyphs that have been carved over...



Those that have promoted this as evidence of ancient flying craft are attempting to deceive you.

If you do not want to accept that the Abydos hieroglyphs are a palimpsest, you must still answer why those particular hieroglyphs appear nowhere else in Egypt and why they are out of context with the rest of the hieroglyphs on the panel.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


By asking Who's are these? you have already made the assumption that the objects/lights in the photographs belong to somebody/something. I don't want to make that assumption. I'd rather ask What is this? What is the most likely explanation of this? The conflict only arises when you jump a. of things.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 


here is more info on DR's point, worth a watch-




posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 



I think there is a fundamental flaw in your question, my friend. You are assuming there is a conflict.


Quite possibly


The point I'm trying to get across is the dissonance between accepting one idea over the other...or accepting both. The performance of UFOs apparently exceeds our current cutting edge technology. At the same time, they often don't reflect technology or designs that we are familiar with. The 50s technology of UFOs, if ours, isn't reflected by modern technology.

The UFO images are intended to represent the reported activity of UFOs...not specifically those in the images. They are intended to suggest the high accelerations, turns and erratic behaviour of UFO reports.

I was going to add UAVs to the OP also, but opted for simplicity. If we've had the capability to build craft that can manoeuvre like some UFOs since the 40s...why the celebration of UAVs today?

As I said, I've no answers. The idea was to fish for ideas that can straddle all explanations.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


By asking Who's are these? you have already made the assumption that the objects/lights in the photographs belong to somebody/something. I don't want to make that assumption. I'd rather ask What is this? What is the most likely explanation of this? The conflict only arises when you jump a. of things.


I agree with you...my thoughts on UFOs are speculative and without conclusion. The images are intended as cyphers for the conflict I perceive in the UFO debate and the explanations put forward. Some explanations make sense, but if accepted in their entirety...they generate more questions. I guess I'm trying...and failing...to draw attention and discussion to the questions


Edit to add: I star all posts in my threads unless they're particularly inane.

[edit on 24-4-2010 by Kandinsky]



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
The 50s technology of UFOs, if ours, isn't reflected by modern technology...


Could we be taking anecdotes of aeronautic feats at face-value when we have no reason to?


Originally posted by Kandinsky
The UFO images are intended to represent the reported activity of UFOs...not specifically those in the images. They are intended to suggest the high accelerations, turns and erratic behaviour of UFO reports.


Were the UFO in those reports actually performing such maneuvers or are were they only perceived to be? Outside of anecdotes, is there any video evidence of these craft performing such aeronautic feats?



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ReVoLuTiOn76
That is because the UFO's are not ours, they are of space. People you can deny it all you want, but the proof is in the pudding.


Aerial objects (though allegedly not all are aerial) known as UFOs and filmed/photographed/video have shown by their flight characteristics that they are not human-constructed. I'm of the opinion that no one can explain anything about them. Therefore, your comment "they are of space" is not an explanation, just your opinion. There is no proof, beyond circumstancial, and no pudding.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by karl 12
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


Kandinsky, very interesting thread! I suspect the Edwards AFB object may be a photographic anomaly but there are some very intriguing photos and videos out there - here's another strange one from Catalina island:
snip
Cheers.


The Catalina "UFO" is not a UFO, it is an IFO. A documentary of many years ago includes the film footage taken apart frame by frame and processed and what eventually emerges is a Piper Cub! Additionally, there is no way to tell in which direction the Piper Cub is flying unless you are familiar with Catalina Island's topography, IF it's really Catalina Island!

I have the above video footage in one of my UFO tapes.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 


Shrike, I agree about there being no unequivocable proof (or pudding) for the UFO subject and that the reported flight characteristics of these objects is very strange indeed - Pentagon/USAF spokesperson Albert Chop makes some interesting comments below about origin but I don't think we'll ever get any concrete answers from the USAF (or Office of Naval Intelligence).






The Chop Clearance List


Cheers.


PS. please post anything you can find to conclude the Catalina object is an aeroplane.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 


Additionally, there is at least one full-scene photo of the doorway where the palimpsest was photographed before the brouhaha as to what is really shown came into question and you can see the debris that fell from the palimpsest lying on the floor directly under the palimpsest.


[edit on 24-4-2010 by The Shrike]



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
snip
Were the UFO in those reports actually performing such maneuvers or are were they only perceived to be? Outside of anecdotes, is there any video evidence of these craft performing such aeronautic feats?


I am totally surprised by your last sentence! UFOs have been videotaped by professionals (NASA footage) and amateurs doing aerial maneuvers that humans wish they could build aircraft to perfom. Not only extreme acceleration, instantly pausing in flight (human craft have to decelerate), making angled turns, etc. Human craft on the other hand, accelerate slowly, make wide turns, decelerate (again), fall out of the air due to any mishap and, except for helicopters and VTOLs, glide in to a landing. A crash is not a landing!


All the time using vast amounts of energy/fuel/strain and humans have physical limits.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by karl 12
reply to post by The Shrike
 


Shrike, I agree about there being no unequivocable proof (or pudding) for the UFO subject and that the reported flight characteristics of these objects is very strange indeed - Pentagon/USAF spokesperson Albert Chop makes some interesting comments below about origin but I don't think we'll ever get any concrete answers from the USAF (or Office of Naval Intelligence).
snip
Cheers.


PS. please post anything you can find to conclude the Catalina object is an aeroplane.


That's because neither the USAF, nor any other government and non-government agency nor anyone on planet earth has any authoritative answer, just romantic guesses.

Major Keyhoe's conclusion that the "Flying Sucers" are from another planet is an irresponsible conclusion for a person of his stature for he could not, if his life depended on it, prove it. He was just a victim of romanticism possibly initiated by movies and the 1938 "War Of The Worlds" radio program. BTW, I wonder if my parents were affected by that broadcast 'cause I was born in 1938 and here I am a UFOlogist!

I found some info about the Catalina Piper Cub and the documentary that showed the analysis of the 8mm film was included in one of Arthur C. Clarke's series, "Arthur C. Clarke's Mysterious World" which I preserved.

After doing a bit of searching just now I found the documentary on YouTube, Part 2 of 3:
www.youtube.com...
Jump to 1:56 and watch until 4:45.

April 15, 1956 - Professional cameraman Lee Hansen - He is interviewed and if this guy with his background can sound as unrealistic as he does, it's amazing that his footage was ever accepted as that of a genoowine UFO! The analysis was done at the JPL by Dr. Robert Nathan, a legend in his own time! Top expert in the computer enhancement of photographs. By the 3rd photo you can see that the UFO has lost its shape in favor of a terrestrial craft. After the analysis of the film Clarke says that because of the film and other reasons he is no longer interested in UFO sightings.

Since now anyone can see the footage analyzed, the rest of my findings, below, may not be necessary. However, I include it for further research by anyone interested in the topic.

Additionally, I found an ATS thread from 2009 where I railed about the Catalina Island footage, which must have been part of the discussion:

This topic is in the Aliens and UFOs discussion forum. (rss)
The Journey: The Ufo Case Of Anthony Woods
Topic started on 8-3-2009 @ 12:14 PM by ThInGS Ar3 NoT WHaT Th3y

reply posted on 8-3-2009 @ 06:47 PM by Learhoag

Award winners should turn out better product than this boring presentation. It bothers me when right off the start, photos of hoaxes are passed off as the real thing. The Catalina Island footage has been proven, through frame-by-frame analysis to be a Piper Cub. The photo of the Capitol (Wash., D.C.) has been proven to be reflections of the stret lamps. No evidence has ever been provided to prove that Roswell was anything more than misidentified balloons.

snip
-------------------------------------
Google: catalina island ufo a piper cub
Results 1 - 50 of about 16,100 for catalina island ufo a piper cub.

74.125.93.132...:rrhDDoE4dOwJ:www.darkecho.com/skepticalbeliever/abc.html+catalina+island+ufo+a+piper+cub&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us< br />
"There's a well-known 8mm film of a UFO over Catalina Island near LA, looks just like a disk flying over the hills. Jet Propulsion Labs did a digital analysis of the film, and you can clearly see, up close, that it's a Piper Cub."
-------------------------------------
forums.randi.org...
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster

Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 1,471 Originally Posted by Rramjet
Then you have simply not understood the evidence (object descriptions and drawings).

UFO: Circular (Blimp; cigar shaped).
Here is another case that is very similar with actual film evidence shot by a professional photographer. UFO described as "disc-shaped". Photographic analysis shows this to be the case.

Originally Posted by Rramjet
UFO: 25-65ft (Blimp: 250ft)
Witness estimated object size as 20m

Originally Posted by Rramjet
UFO: Speed of a jet plane (Blimp: top speed 78mph)
Speed estimated by witness as 150mph +/-. Analysis of film stated 130-170mph.

Originally Posted by Rramjet
UFO: Silent (Blimp: noisy)
Witness stated UFO had no sound.

Originally Posted by Rramjet
UFO: 1 upper fin (Blimp: 4 fins)
Witness reported no tail fin or any appendages. Analysis of the film by UFO proponents showed only a disc.

Originally Posted by Rramjet
Now the drawings. The drawings only resemble a blimp if you have a confirmation bias toward “blimp”. The drawings are a rather sophisticated representation of a 3-dimensional circular object on 2-dimensional surface.
Photographic evidence of this case analyzed by proponents showed nothing but a disc.

The witness also stated the following about the sky conditions under which he observed the UFO:

it was one of these clear clear days... you could see to infinity... ideal day for aerial photography (Arthur C. Clarke's mysterious world).

This is the April 15, 1966 Catalina Island film, which for over a decade was considered proof of UFOs. It turns out to be a film of a piper-cub type aircraft (see Arthur C. Clarke's mysterious world).

Top speed of the aircraft (assuming it is a piper cub) is something like 87 mph (about half of what the witness and "photographic analysis" estimated)

Length is 22 feet (just under 7m - about 1/3 of the size estimated).

There is a tail, rudder, and wheels. These were not seen by the witness despite it being a crystal clear day. UFO proponent photographic analysis of the film did not reveal the plane either. It was considered a 'disc' because that is what it looked like to the observer and in the film. However, it was not really a disc but a plane.

The conditions were very similar to that reported in the Rogue River case and "extensive" analysis was done by proponents to eliminate the potential for aircraft. They failed in doing so. So why am I to believe you when you state you find the blimp (or airplane) hypothesis "implausible"? Instead, you are more willing to believe the witnesses were 100% accurate in their report of the shape of the aircraft they observed while ignoring the one fact that nobody has ever seen this particular craft before or since. Sounds like a very unscientific approach to me.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


I believe it is highly likely that projects such as the X-37B, while useful in their own way, are ultimately excuses to secure more money from Congress for military black projects. I seriously doubt that the X-37B, which is basically just a really fast upper-stratosphere drone, is worth anywhere near the amount of money it has demanded over the past twenty years of research and development costs.

Check out this chart suggesting the true amount of American taxpayer dollars that goes into the military budget each year, much of which is for black projects:
Where Your Income Tax Money Really Goes



Now, add billions or even trillions of dollars more to that amount, because apparently there is a legal loophole that allows the CIA to siphon U.S. Treasury dollars from other government programs for undisclosed purposes, which basically means even more black spending which isn't even accounted for on the federal budget.

Finally, add to this the numerous cases of American scientists who claimed to have made breakthrough technological discoveries -- i.e. in the fields of gravitation -- shortly before they disappeared from society altogether.

We are being used.

[edit on 24-4-2010 by Magnus47]



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike
I found some info about the Catalina Piper Cub and the documentary that showed the analysis of the 8mm film was included in one of Arthur C. Clarke's series, "Arthur C. Clarke's Mysterious World" which I preserved.






Shrike, thanks for posting that video -I've got a lot of respect for Arthur and it does go into quite comprehensive detail about the analysis - there's another thread here dealing with all the many UFO/USO reports from around the Santa Catalina channel so will post it there.










Originally posted by The Shrike
That's because neither the USAF, nor any other government and non-government agency nor anyone on planet earth has any authoritative answer, just romantic guesses.

Major Keyhoe's conclusion that the "Flying Sucers" are from another planet is an irresponsible conclusion for a person of his stature for he could not, if his life depended on it, prove it.



Well I think Major Keyhoe would have been the first to admit he couldn't prove his opinions about the ETH - there is some pretty fascinating reading in his archives though.


Major Donald Keyhoe's UFO Archives.


I don't think many people entertained the EDH back then or were even aware of the connection these 'objects' appear to have with the world's oceans - if you've not read it before there's an interesting article below about the Pentagon, the Office of Naval Intelligence and the 'marine aspect' of the UFO subject.




Air Intelligence Division Study No. 203 with the help of the Office of Naval Intelligence presents the first important clue that the Pentagon was well aware of the phenomenon's marine nature.
This document is one of the rarest documents in the national archives linking the Office of Naval Intelligence to any association with the investigation of the phenomenon and offers an early clue that the study of the UFO phenomenon did not fall totally within the realm of the Air Force. Could the naval UFO experience be more involved than the air force? Is there a possibility that the Navy had years ago created a special secret group to investigate the strange aerial and marine manifestations? These questions are unequaled in importance in understanding the UFO phenomenon and the evolution of the modern UFO cover-up. Air Intelligence Division Study No. 203 represents the tip of an iceberg, of naval involvement with the phenomenon that has gone unrecognized for over a hundred years.

A considerable collection of data indicates Naval experience with the phenomenon dated back to the turn of the century and the Navy had accumulated more knowledge and experience with the phenomenon than was previously known. The first journal to routinely publish reports about the phenomenon as early as the 1900's was the U.S. Naval Hydrographic Office's "Notice To Mariners". And the first name given to the enigmatic phenomenon by that same office was "Celestial Phenomenon" seen at sea. Almost fifty years later the air force would call these same enigmatic objects "Unidentified Flying Objects".

One account published in "Notice to Mariners" provides insight into an early serious naval interest in the enigmatic phenomenon. As curious sightings of strange flying objects seen at sea are nothing new in marine history. This one case in particular had the potential to affect and shape naval interest in the phenomenon early in the century more than any other UFO sighting.


Link










Originally posted by The Shrike
The photo of the Capitol (Wash., D.C.) has been proven to be reflections of the stret lamps.


Yes, I agree about the photograph but what are your thoughts on the radar/visual sightings?

Gazrok's made an excellent thread about the incidents here and it appears even the U.S. Government weren't convinced about the 'temperature inversion' explanations.

Cheers.




top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join