UFO?.......No!

reply to post by elevenaugust


Whatever dude,

Like we're all too dumb to believe what's right before our eyes!

I've seen PLENTY of UFOs in the night skies of California where I grew up.

I saw Orbs, I saw Tubes, I saw Flying Saucers.

So please don't try to tell me they're ALL a figment of our imaginations.

OOPS Too late!!

They're even being seen in plain daylight in MANY countries now, as they've grown weary waiting for our lying world governments to confess to the cover up, and they have VOWED to make themselves known with or WITHOUT anybody's "help."

A street lamp dangling 2-300 feet in the air, yeah, sure you're right!

My personal opinion on UFO's is they are completely irrelevant and boring FO's. The only reason why they are such a unique enigma is because the accepted "blind faith" that aliens are flying these FO's. If its only humans flying them well,,, then who cares, not interesting right. How sad does the alien option sound.

Why can't we accept that all(ALL) of these FO's are manned by us not little green men? I mean why even call them UFO's, its stupid. If you see something up in air , ITS made by us and you have no right to know any other detail about it. And don't use the idea that your a tax payer and have the right to know about some military craft. All your going to get is a picture . But i guess since all you have is a picture your going to allow your imagination to take over on an image you know very well is man made.


Isn't all this a bit childish?

Just because "There are still 5% of the thousands of UFO sightings that they haven't identified until now" doesn't mean anything. Just means it wasn't identified yet, fact A.

For strange reasons some people can jump from that fact A to

- it's a mechanical object
- it is not from this planet
- it was build by aliens from another planet
- they traveled from who knows how far far far away planet to visit us
- they traveled from who knows how long to get here / used a wormholes / x,y,z technology to get here

Holy Flying Spaghetti Monster, Batman! Some people really can jump to conclusion without nothing to back up their delusions.

I have worked for the DoD and have seen classified aircraft before.

Rule of thumb: Don't go by what an aircraft looks like, go by how it moves. Rigid ligther than air craft exist and now are able to have electric turbofans fitted on them, so they can hover and speed up suddenly to hundreds of miles per hour. Some of them are 100+ ft in diameter. They are HUGE. Capable of carryiong a tank and several units. Up to 50 troops.. They are called hybrid airships, and have been in use for 15-20 years. They can be shaped like almost anything, and saucers and triangles are the most common types. They are MEANT to be mistaken as alien.

One in flight ... ( Carbon Fiber and aluminum ) -I believe this is an artists conception of the craft in flight ...

So these exist and have for a long time. But the caviat to that is the reason they are made to be mistaken for alien ships is that the DoD has observed craft whose most likely origin is unknown. These types of projects explain a lot of sightings, but not all. Certainly not the one I saw. (Yes, I have seen a craft of unknown origin, and from my obeservation fro ground level in Ohio, it went from Zero to between 27,000 and "infinite" depending on the altitude of the craft. the higher it was, the faster. It took less than 2 seconds to go over the horizon from a dead stop. and did a 90 degree turn without slowing down. No airframe we (or anybody) has would be able to withstand those G-forces, whether manned or not..

So unknown origin craft are out there... But unknown man-built craft are out there too in much greater numbers...

The common denominator for craft of truly unknown origin (at least as observed by the DoD) is a peculiar way of traveling with sudden jumps or "skips" in the sky.. Kind of the way the aurora borealis jumps. Electro-magnetism causes this kind of motion in objects, leading most DoD experts to believe EM fields are the mode of proulsion in objects moving this way. A prevailing theory is that somehow the mass of objects is decreased to nothing by some kind of disassociation from its higgs boson (HB) particles, therefore giving an object "near zero mass" . HB particles are believed to give objects mass. An object with no or microscopic mass could then be easily manipulated by even a small amount of EM force. This propulsion system would explain the odd movements, and silent propulsion in these objects, but the effects would still be sub-luminal (below the speed of light) , because an object would have to have some mass, if even at only quantum levels to be influenced by an EM field. So this does not explain interstellar travel, unless these craft are either unmanned or have been traveling for hundreds of years at near luminar velocity. What does that mean? Even though we have heard so much (Hawking / Kaku) about the possibility of alien invasion, the DoD believes that the origin of these craft is MORE likely to be extra-dimensional rather than extra- terrestrial. I kow thats a lot to take in in one post, but I assure you, this is the truth on the state of the DoD stance.

OP, I applaud your attempt to educate. I have thought along similar lines for some time but knew such a presentation can be taken as trolling. The thing to remember is that there can be a million explainable pictures but its the ones we can't explain that generate the true interest.

My point is, that the technology exists with these hybrid LTA aircraft to make it HUGE and in any shape, so the only way to know that something may be outside of our tech is to observe its speed and motion capabilities.

Why can't we accept that all(ALL) of these FO's are manned by us not little green men? I mean why even call them UFO's, its stupid. If you see something up in air , ITS made by us and you have no right to know any other detail about it. And don't use the idea that your a tax payer and have the right to know about some military craft. All your going to get is a picture . But i guess since all you have is a picture your going to allow your imagination to take over on an image you know very well is man made.


Isn't all this a bit childish?

Childish? Not at all. And there is a lot more to it than a picture. For you folks who claim you know that UFOs don't exist, I'd love to hear your explanations on some of the more prominent cases out there.

Tell you what, start with this one. Tehran 1976 UFO Incident

There are a lot of resources for this one alone. If you can satisfactorily explain away the reaction of fighter jets to this object (EME effects), the sightings by professionals and civilians, the radar returns, the maneuvars, etc.. heck, I'll be willing to listen to your opinion!

But no... no one who makes these sorts of claims.. that they know UFOs do not exist, can ever approach the cases that have solid evidence, and explain them away. They won't even try. They, probably like you will do, just ignore them completely. It's easier to discredit UFOs when you attack the fuzzy dots and ridiculous claims, rather than focusing on the sightings with solid fact behind them, right?

Very Nice Thread, it will get the hardcore believers into a "frenzy."

Originally posted by Furbs
Very nice thread.

My favorite part is the Alien Adherists saying things like..

OH YEAH WELL YOU CANT EXPLAIN ALL OF THEM!!!!

.. when the OP is not trying to explain all of them.

It goes a long way to illustrating the mindset of the Adherists.

It proves there are people who just WANT TO BELIEVE, no matter what.
kinda sad.


If you tell people to

Go Outside look up and Try To Find something unusual

Always one person who post this.^^

Chances are they will see something...because they want to.
Thats why I don't buy(believe) the youtube videos featuring the random guy out on his porch in the middle of the night staring at the sky using night vision camera. He wants to find something alien related, that person doesn't want to hear a "simple solution."

I don't know why have you even opened this thread, when you didn't showed us ANY proof, you just said to us what the main media had already told us...

So, you are something like BBC,CNN,FOX all in one.
Sorry mate, i trust you as much as I trust the main media.Guess how much i trust the main media...

Originally posted by Nikola014
I don't know why have you even opened this thread, when you didn't showed us ANY proof, you just said to us what the main media had already told us...

So, you are something like BBC,CNN,FOX all in one.
Sorry mate, i trust you as much as I trust the main media.Guess how much i trust the main media...

edit on 15-12-2011 by Nikola014 because: (no reason given)

Yeah everyone who comes up with logical solutions are MSM Media agents, DisInfo Agents sheep, blah blah...


People like you aren't out for the truth. You are out for what you want WANT to Hear. I bet if he made a topic and it said those photos were aliens ships from Andromeda or some other random alien related place you and your blind followers would have ate it up.

One of those people who rather use your "imagination".

reply to post by StarPeace


Logical?Seriously?Fly,bug,plane,asteroid,Superman and many other funny things?And you call that logical?

I don't believe in everything I see.You can read that in my signature below this post.But, the OP didn't showed us ANY, not ANY PROOF.He only said what he thinks those UFOs are...
I

With all due respect, this post sucks.

This presented against all the documented UFO stuff out there? Really.

First off a very well done thread and a very important one also because it displays and lays bare that what may appear to be a ufo, can be just about anything and it is also very important to rule out any other rational explanations before claiming it to be unexplained.

The helicopter night shoot photo is very interesting, because it debunks the Chinese photos of the same kind, well done:

Amazing ufo china july 2010
www.youtube.com...




Another explanation I found interesting, although quite obvious, is the diamond shaped ufo you posted a link to, sure can explain a lot of videos.

However I do have a few that I don’t think fit your explanations:


1. Ufo’s over Iraq - quote: “Though they appear above most thunderstorms, they appear so briefly—less then a second—and so high up that it’s not so shocking that they weren’t discovered until 1989.”

It’s an interesting explanation however the lights in the night-vision video do not last briefly i.e. less than a second but remain fixed at the same points throughout the video. Again this video was taken by a soldier in a war zone, where a lot of high-end technology is at the forefront and used so there’s probably a rational explanation for lights, however, the notion of them being “sprites” seems farfetched especially when they’re supposed to be 35-80 miles up, not stationary, and appear within less than a second and since there are no sound of or a mention of a thunderstorm in the area, I still maintain that this is unexplained but probably has a military explanation.

2. The UFO naut. I also disagree with the UFO naut image that you purposely manipulated to fit your explanation. The image is too clear and albeit a little blurred the “beings” blurredness fits the horseriders blurredness, so I still maintain that it is unexplained, although you have to wonder if the being was seen at the time of the photograph or if it wasn’t visible until it was developed, probably the latter, since the being doesn’t appear to be the focus of the image and the horseriders would have noticed it as well and the horses probably would’ve panicked if they sensed anything…

3. The Dutch video of the “starlings”. You say no, just birds (possibly starlings), I have to disagree with “it” being starlings in that starlings tend to swirl around during their displays and not remain in a fixed formation, only can they appear to do so in a photo, but in the video whatever it is clearly maintains the same formation, and well, it appears to be a solid single object - not a lot of dots flying in formation, just looks like a flying rod really

And last but not least:
4. The Norway spiral. Yes, it was a failed rocket but only if you believe the official story, I fail to see
a. How it could not be seen as a breach of national borders and airspace that a rocket was tested by the Russians over Norway!
b. How can a failed rocket make such a perfect spiraling pattern?

reply to post by Nikola014

I don't believe in everything I see.You can read that in my signature below this post.But, the OP didn't showed us ANY, not ANY PROOF.He only said what he thinks those UFOs are...
I

Wrong. The OP started with things he knew were not UFOs and presented them as though they were. If you want to believe that a novelty balloon actually turns into an alien spaceship when it reaches a certain altitude, you are welcome to.

Originally posted by wigit
I'd love to know what the OP thinks of the China UFO. i.e. the one that was filmed during the solar eclipse a couple of years back. One pic here- www.ufocasebook.com...

Your source refer to Ufocasebook that refer itself to two other sources. One is a Youtube video that is not anymore avalaible and the other to "Chattahbox.com" which contains texts and this video:



I already (and others already did it also here, especially "Greeneyedleo" and "Spiritualawakening" just now! ) explained 1 year 1/2 what that was all about.... Extracts:

Well, I guess you are talking about this video:

www.youtube.com...

...which is only a collection of pictures that (for most of them) come from various sightings that took place at various dates...

Here are the six images:

n°1

n°2

n°3

n°4

n°5

n°6

Now, let's take a closer look.

* n°6 come from John Doe's blog and was mentionned on 2007 october. (In French.)

* n°4 was mentionned in ATS in 2009 July:

* n°5 come from a Russian Internet Site (original page removed) and was mentionned on 2008 June...

* n°3 was also mentioned in ATS in April 2010:

SOURCE

Also, here are some other examples of such long exposure shoots:




SOURCE



Artist view

.....And I also explained how it works with an helicopter:


What the eye sees


What the long exposure mode camera sees

SOURCE (Improved by myself)

So many of you are getting the OP's intentions here twisted.

Take a deep breath and let your guard down for a second... The intention is to clear up a lot of common mis-identifications.

I might as well just press the back button now though cos nobody will listen.