A couple of interesting UFOlogy topics

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Another case I read about many years ago (but don't remember the details) involved a young genius rocket scientist. (Not Bob Lazaar)

Apparently this genius impressed the government enough that he was shown alien craft at some secret military installation. He claimed the craft he was shown was covered with a "living skin" that would "react" when touched or even approached.

originally posted by: ColeYounger
a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Another case I read about many years ago (but don't remember the details) involved a young genius rocket scientist. (Not Bob Lazaar)

Apparently this genius impressed the government enough that he was shown alien craft at some secret military installation. He claimed the craft he was shown was covered with a "living skin" that would "react" when touched or even approached.

Yah, that's the psychologial defense version of aversion to 'living things'
with the baggage of modern techno-fascim.

Now mind you, the show Farscape with it's sentient, nearly completely
orgaic smartship was pretty awesome.

I'm not averse to the intellectual concept of 'vat grown ships'.

It's just that the deeply psychologically-rooted meta-reality
of at least 'high strangeness UFOs' seems to point in another
directon entirely.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

It's just that the deeply psychologically-rooted meta-reality of at least 'high strangeness UFOs' seems to point in another directon entirely.

Amen. I was just reading about the Karla Turner case. Another direction entirely is putting it mildly!

originally posted by: ColeYounger
In a recent network news story featuring Congressman Tim Burchett of Tennessee, this photo was shown. Another 'shoe heel' craft.

Thanks for the personal demonstration of how unreliable eyewitness testimony is.

I don't see any "shoe heel" craft in that image, which by the way has three UFOs and you didn't even say which one you think is the alleged "heel".

To me the image on the left looks like probably a mylar balloon in the shape of a blimp. The middle image looks like it's probably something out of focus. The balloon vendors on the internet claim the right image looks like the same shape as the batman balloons they sell which it certainly does, if that's the one you think is a "heel" shape.

Larger view/comparison of the batman balloon from another thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
a reply to: Lucidparadox

originally posted by: justgetahouse1
a reply to: Backagain

There was a pretty cool video released a while back on Youtube where a surveyor drone captured a small drone moving extremely fast in some hill area

It shows it banking like a miniature jet would

Fixed your embed...it's very hard to parse youtube video links from the list format if you're not used to them...the format here doesn't use the entire link, just a specific part of it, which is easier to find on the individual video link.

Also I'd recommending avoiding videos from Secureteam. Though the subject video appears to be a genuine video in this case, Secureteam will probably never admit it might just be a bug and has been known to fake other videos, so it's better to give the original source of the video which in this case according to the analysis video below is here.

The UFO Blacklist - Why was my ADGUK, 3rdPhase, SecureTeam10, Section51, etc, video moved to HOAX?


a reply to: ColeYounger

Wow! That thing was moving fast. Very cool!

What is interesting is that we are all so easily fooled by optical illusions. We can buy entire books of them.

Which leads to the point that we might think it's going fast when in fact it could be not moving very fast. Several analyses have stated it's probably just a bug from an interesting point of view.

Video and Photo Analysis of Beaver, UT UFO Video

The producer of that video added this comment:
"The folks over at Corridor Crew did a similar breakdown of this video and arrived at the same conclusion. It's probably a bug...not a UFO. Sorry, folks."

Perhaps the most famous illusion of speed UFO video in recent years is the "GoFast" video released by the pentagon. Everyone agrees that it gives the illusion of "going fast" as the title implies, but careful analysis using data on the display shows it's not going any faster than a balloon as explained in the following video.

a reply to: ColeYounger

From day one since I learned of the Kenneth Arnold's alleged sighting in the early 1960s I've never accepted it due to the reported distance between his plane and the alleged craft. Here's why: First, I've always had excellent vision and now at 84 years old on my last eye exam a couple of years ago the optometrist told me I had better than 20/20 vision possibly aided by a lens implant. Manhattan Island, where I live, is roughly 13.4 miles long. Every 20 blocks is accepted as 1 mile. From my 83rd st. address to 183rd st. is 5 miles. If I went to my 8-story building's roof and looked north to 183rd street and there was a piper cub or even an Airbus A380 (the European 747 the largest passenger aircraft ever made) flying above 183rd st. I don't think that I would see it with naked eyes let alone notice any details such as windows or markings. Yet the following is what Arnold reported, difficult for me to accept.

www.history.com...

Kenneth Arnold’s Sighting
On June 24, 1947, the civilian pilot Kenneth Arnold reported seeing nine objects, glowing bright blue-white, flying in a “V” formation over Washington’s Mount Rainier. He estimated the objects’ flight speed at 1700 mph and compared their motion to “a saucer if you skip it across water.” (In newspaper reports of Arnold’s sighting, this description was mistakenly taken to mean that the objects were shaped like saucers, leading to the popularization of the term “flying saucer” as a synonym for UFO.)

What did Arnold see that day? Or, more to the point, what would he say that he’d seen? As Ted Bloecher writes in his Report on the UFO Wave of 1947, released in 1967, Arnold would later describe the airborne objects as flying in "a diagonally stepped-down, echelon formation," the entire assemblage "stretched out over a distance that he later calculated to be five miles." The objects seemed to be flying on a single, horizontal plane, but they also weaved from side to side, occasionally flipping and banking—darting around, Arnold would say, like “the tail of a Chinese kite.” They moved in unison, Arnold said. They didn't seem to be piloted, he said.

a reply to: idusmartias

good observation.

but if it was a 'high strangeness ufo', then it could have been
on the moon, and it's apparent size could have been anything.

my own CE5 the 'rivets' didn't change in size regardless of
distance between myself and 'the craft'.

But your point about not trusting famous UFO 'sightings'
is spot on.

Don't trust any of them. None of them have ever been
verified.

Kev

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks for pointing out my error. I appreciate your comment, as snarky as it was.

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear

my own CE5 the 'rivets' didn't change in size regardless of distance between myself and 'the craft'.

Perhaps the woman mentioned below had the same experience….



(Looking Forward Extraterrestrials and UFO’s …Book was published by the NYT 2020)

👽🛸🍸

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear

my own CE5 the 'rivets' didn't change in size regardless of distance between myself and 'the craft'.

Another riveting story…..with Craft said to be a triangle

Perhaps the “guy” mentioned below had the same experience….


👽🛸☕️🍩

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

Could be!

I don't tend to read books on the topic of UFOs, as that is a misstep
to the underlying mechanism that produces them.

But thanks! fascinating.

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

Yup. I even use the phrase 'like a hologram' in my thoughts
on my encounter.

Really, if you follow the 'holographic principle' in modern
physics, all of us might be living in a hologram.

Thus I don't say, "Just a hologram". It would seem that holograms
might be all that exist.

In my case, the hologram high in the sky theory doesn't work as
well for the 'lifeform' that came into my living room,

but of course 'one answer' does not necessarily answer all
facets of a situation.

it's also worth noting, that 'my hologram' followed mental
requests, in terms of changing form and vector/direction',

so that is ONE hell of a 'hologram'.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

At young age, I experienced “rivets” ….but unlike you.

I hit upon this with you, quite a few threads back…..but I didn’t go into the details…..perhaps one day I will in it’s own thread. It’s an abduction case with me….I’ll leave it at that.

👽🛸🍺

a reply to: Ophiuchus1


''Abduction cases' are difficult. I don't enjoy discussing them.

I will if necessary, but the people who experience this, typically have
religious beliefs, that so distort accurate perceptions of the event,
and are so entangled with their self-image, that anything I say will
hurt them and/or they become ultra-combative in their pain.

So I don't tend to discuss these things. It nearly can't go well.

I was 'posessed' once for 3 days when i was 20, and of course during
my BTUFO encounter I was paralyzed for 10 minutes, so I'm not just
some armchair philosopher; I know about this sort of thing.

But again, this topic all-but can't be looked at clearly, and for
what it actually is, so I may never write about it.

Kev

a reply to: Backagain

This report of a WW2 Foo Fighter reports a 6'-8" diameter UAP.


www.history.com...

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
a reply to: idusmartias

good observation.

but if it was a 'high strangeness ufo', then it could have been
on the moon, and it's apparent size could have been anything.

my own CE5 the 'rivets' didn't change in size regardless of
distance between myself and 'the craft'.

But your point about not trusting famous UFO 'sightings'
is spot on.

Don't trust any of them. None of them have ever been
verified.

Kev

My 5 or 6 sightings cannot be trusted because I'm telling a tale and I cannot provide any evidence. But the details I provide for one unusual sighting takes it out of the average sighting. How's this one, memorable for me personally: I was walking to a bus stop. I arrive and after looking to see if a bus is visible in the distance I scan the familiar neighborhood. Across the avenue are apartment buildings set far back from the avenue. Above the buildings is a small, wispy transparent cloud. Lo and behold, there's white "orb" in the center but obviously behind the cloud. Excited and without taking my eyes off the cloud I reached for my analog (videotape) camcorder in my camera bag. I had taught myself to grab the camera and bring it out of the bag, turned on and my finger on the recording switch ready to go. I brought the viewfinder to my eye, aimed the lens and pressed record. Lordy, lordy, lordy! All I saw in the viewfinder was black. Then realization hit me. The night before I had videoraped the adjacent backyards using the ultraviolet filter in case I was fortunate to catch any weird creature as I had seen in many videos on the Internet and I forgot to switch-off the filter. At the bus stop this sequence took seconds and I had to look at the camera to find the UV filter switch to turn it off. As I did and looked back at the cloud the white "orb" was gone! Seconds! The second best sighting I ever had and I blew it! Can you imagine seeing a stationary white "orb" "hiding" behind a transparent cloud? To die for.

Now, do you accept my account as being factual without any evidence?

a reply to: idusmartias

I'ts a typical report, evidencing an APPARENT known pattern,
where some claim the 'phenomenon' makes certain not to
be recorded.

Of course that claim sounds like a 'god of the gaps logical fallacy'
too.

But in honor of the principle possibly having some merit,
I do say, "if you can record it, it's not the real deal".

I have NEVER seen a photo of something and had it turn out
'real'.

So one of two things:

1) such photos have never been real, and may never be real.
2) There are effects which are quite excellent at avoiding recording.

I cannot PROVE which of those two points are true.. now... (and gawd
I hate to use this word) pseudoskeptics would say that proposition
one is PROVEN by occam's scalpel.. but thats' not what sir william
of occam said.

he said, "“Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity.”
reference: www.britannica.com...

Both propositions have close to the same number of truth claims, which
is fine.. SWOO doesn't say that the mere act of having one less truth
claim means that soemthing is true.. that's just stupid.

(1=not real and 2=real but not recordable).

I could bring up carl sagan and prosaiciness.. all sorts of things
and be a pseudoskeptic if I wanted to.

But there's no need.

There are SO many similar claims to yours, and the very fact
you didn't record it, make it more likely to be true in my
mind, as I have a large set of information available about
such things.

But yah, you might be lying to me.

Welome to UFOlogy.

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
a reply to: idusmartias

I'ts a typical report, evidencing an APPARENT known pattern,
where some claim the 'phenomenon' makes certain not to
be recorded.

Of course that claim sounds like a 'god of the gaps logical fallacy'
too.

But in honor of the principle possibly having some merit,
I do say, "if you can record it, it's not the real deal".

I have NEVER seen a photo of something and had it turn out
'real'.

So one of two things:

1) such photos have never been real, and may never be real.
2) There are effects which are quite excellent at avoiding recording.

I cannot PROVE which of those two points are true.. now... (and gawd
I hate to use this word) pseudoskeptics would say that proposition
one is PROVEN by occam's scalpel.. but thats' not what sir william
of occam said.

he said, "“Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity.”
reference: www.britannica.com...

Both propositions have close to the same number of truth claims, which
is fine.. SWOO doesn't say that the mere act of having one less truth
claim means that soemthing is true.. that's just stupid.

(1=not real and 2=real but not recordable).

I could bring up carl sagan and prosaiciness.. all sorts of things
and be a pseudoskeptic if I wanted to.

But there's no need.

There are SO many similar claims to yours, and the very fact
you didn't record it, make it more likely to be true in my
mind, as I have a large set of information available about
such things.

But yah, you might be lying to me.

Welome to UFOlogy.

Below is a frame from an analog videotape I recorded in Central Park on 6-20-04. The dark object in the bottom right hand corner is a passenger jet ascending from La Guardia Airport and the reason for the recording as I was practcing with my new camcorder. The white orb was pointed out to me by a person sitting next to me.

a reply to: idusmartias

Yah. If you can take a picture of it, it's a misidentifiation
or misperception.

Is my take on it.

'real ufo encounters' mess up a person for a lifetime
generally and aren't recordable.