Slashdot Mirror


British To Release UFO Files

Sean Stidman writes "Looks like the Brits are planning to release their secret files on many UFO sightings, including the famous Rendlesham Forest incident. These files should be ready for download by the end of this week, which I guess means by tomorrow. Are their servers going to be able to handle the load?"

314 comments

  1. Slashdotting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Are their servers going to be able to handle the load?"

    If the /. editors can refrain from duplicating this story tomorrow then nobody will remember the link.

    1. Re:Slashdotting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Good thing they never repeat submissions!

    2. Re:Slashdotting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Good thing they never repeat submissions!!

    3. Re:Slashdotting by Jugalator · · Score: 2

      If the /. editors can refrain from duplicating this story tomorrow then nobody will remember the link. .. including the editors, so when they stumble upon the news tomorrow or so they'll think "wow, we haven't linked to *that* before; I'll just post the news myself". If they won't stumble upon it, a Slashdot reader that forgot about the yesterday news will.

      So my theory is that regardless what will happen, there *will* be a dupe. ;-)

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    4. Re:Slashdotting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Whoever gets the content first, please post it on Kazaa.

      Kazaa keyword: Rendlesham

    5. Re:Slashdotting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess if the /. editors can refrain from duplicating this story tomorrow then nobody will remember the link. It's a good thing they never repeat submissions.

    6. Re:Slashdotting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good thing they never repeat submissions! .

    7. Re:Slashdotting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      May I add that it's a good thing they never repeat submissions?

    8. Re:Slashdotting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good thing they'll never repeat submissions!

    9. Re:Slashdotting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop your goddamn childish games, merely repeating what people say is not a good thing they never repeat submissions!

    10. Re:Slashdotting by Teknogeek · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wow. It's like that movie starring Bill Murray where everything kept happening over and over.

      What was it called again? Ghostbusters II?

      --
      I mod down anyone who uses M$ in their posts. I like to live on the edge.
    11. Re:Slashdotting by GrosTuba · · Score: 0, Redundant

      The movie's called "The Groundhog day", or "Un jour sans fin" in french, because he's stuck in Punxutawney (sp ?) for the day when the groundhog goes out of his sleeping bag, and if he shall see his shadow, then the winter will last another few months, or so I believe ...

      --
      Who needs a .sig anyway ?
    12. Re:Slashdotting by hatchet · · Score: 1

      Stargate SG-1
      episode: Window od opportunity

  2. Does anyone think... by mbone · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Does anyone think that this will actually _change_ anything ?

    I would assume any actual ET sightings would be "redacted out", as the Brits would say.

    1. Re:Does anyone think... by millette · · Score: 0, Redundant

      What? Now you don't trust governments? You watch too much television, or televiseur as the French would say.

    2. Re:Does anyone think... by caluml · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm British and I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "redacted out".

      In other news, London is covered in fog all the time, it never gets hot in the UK, and Sherlock Holmes is close to catching Jack the Ripper.

    3. Re:Does anyone think... by RussGarrett · · Score: 5, Informative

      To redact is just another word for edit, it comes from a latin derivation so it's not an Americanism or anything :).

      It's used in this sort of context to mean blanked out or removed - something they don't want to release (this is the irony in most freedom of information legislation - the government are allowed to redact whatever they want).

    4. Re:Does anyone think... by DickScratcher · · Score: 1

      Informative!

      You Yanks have no sense of irony.

    5. Re:Does anyone think... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fancy a cuppa? :rolleyes:

      I'm so sick of the stereotypical englishman perception from Americans. Please don't watch Eastenders/Monty Python/Fawlty Towers and think that the country hasn't changed. It's as insulting as us watching spagetti westerns and referring to Americans as cowpokes and asking for glasses of redeye and sasperilla.

      Andyboy_H
      (still unable to register)

    6. Re:Does anyone think... by Dave2+Wickham · · Score: 2, Funny
      In other news, London is covered in fog all the time, it never gets hot in the UK, and Sherlock Holmes is close to catching Jack the Ripper.


      Hey, two out of three isn't bad ;)

      *ducks*
    7. Re:Does anyone think... by VON-MAN · · Score: 1
      redaction
      edition
      derivation
      Ok, now pronounce these words like you would if you wore a alpine cap and had just bought a baguette the pain.

      You now see that (wellll, lets say) 60 percent of the longer English words are derived from french. Which isn't strange at all, if you know your history.

    8. Re:Does anyone think... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and French derives from Latin... so, foo.

    9. Re:Does anyone think... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      would rather do it like i'm holding a red rag to your bull.

      the difference is the same.

    10. Re:Does anyone think... by Zemran · · Score: 4, Informative

      The word is not in common usage so therefore is not what would be said in England. Just because it is of latin derivation (as are many English words) does not mean it cannot be an Americanism. Many words that are used in the US are not used in the UK but were once used in the UK and therefore have their normal derivation.

      The word means 'to put into literary or publishable form', re-edit, new edition.

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    11. Re:Does anyone think... by shepd · · Score: 1

      >You now see that (wellll, lets say) 60 percent of the longer English words are derived from french. Which isn't strange at all, if you know your history.

      I'm sorry, but I still think english is much more of a gestalt than you lead me to believe. And I think the phrontistery would agree with me on that.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    12. Re:Does anyone think... by chadm1967 · · Score: 1

      I'm with you on this one......I have a British wife and she's never heard of "redacted out", either.......

      I'm a huge fan of UFO research and Astronomy and I'm thrilled that out British friends are releasing this information. Some of the best UFO and Astronomy sites are in the UK.

    13. Re:Does anyone think... by Idarubicin · · Score: 4, Informative
      I would assume any actual ET sightings would be "redacted out", as the Brits would say.

      First, it would be "redacted", not "redacted out".

      Second, "to redact" is a verb that is used regularly in certain specialized areas--often in law, for example. Literally, it means to "edit". In practice, it usually refers to the censorship of private documents for release to the public. It is not a Britishism.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    14. Re:Does anyone think... by Ponty · · Score: 2

      Well, my mother who is from England (and isn't one of those god-awful Union Jack on every article of clothing people) uses words like 'redact' all the time. Indeed, I've often heard her offer to make my dad a 'cuppa.' So some Brits do it. She just doesn't do it ostentatiously.

      Now does anyone have any gumbands to bind my biros?

      Ta!

    15. Re:Does anyone think... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yep, I agree (on the whole latin derivation/uk&us usage etc)..
      for example "stat" which is a shortened form of "statim" - meaning "immediately" in Latin (and somewhat concidentally american).. Something I hear spoken _never_ here in the UK, apart from on US TV shows

    16. Re:Does anyone think... by rosie_bhjp · · Score: 1

      no doubt, but this comes from Middle English taken from Latin, which, I don't believe includes the Americas, the North American continent, or the United States.
      As the brit I used to work with used to say, "Management is nothing more than the redaction department for my ideas."
      Google returns about 65,000 hits.

      The etymology is here

      --
      A radio maverick jumps to internet only. The Future of Rock n Roll
    17. Re:Does anyone think... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I come from Austalia and am familiar with the term redact. Also I am sure that there are many Poms that use this term too.

    18. Re:Does anyone think... by some+guy+I+know · · Score: 1

      redaction
      edition
      derivation
      [...]
      derived from french


      You forgot "surrender", which the French usually use immediately following the word "We".

      --
      Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
    19. Re:Does anyone think... by garethwi · · Score: 1

      Mind you, it does sound like the sort of deliberately obscure word that Sir Humphrey Appleby might use.

    20. Re:Does anyone think... by darien · · Score: 2

      Peut-etre que les francais se rendent souvent en bataille, mais jamais en ce qui concerne la langue francais. Alors je crois bien plus probable qu'ils se seviraient du mot "rendons," apres le mot "nous" (deux fois).

    21. Re:Does anyone think... by darien · · Score: 2

      Please don't watch Eastenders/Monty Python/Fawlty Towers and think that the country hasn't changed.

      Or indeed that it was ever like that, except in rarefied pockets of society, isolated and exaggerated for the purposes of a TV comedy.

    22. Re:Does anyone think... by stephanruby · · Score: 2
      I'm French. The word redaction is a pretty common French Word.

      The British should know this word, they got all their latin from us.
      Before the queen, we used to own their asses for 300 years.

    23. Re:Does anyone think... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      elide is the word you want

    24. Re:Does anyone think... by elveu · · Score: 1

      It's as insulting as us watching spagetti westerns and referring to Americans as cowpokes and asking for glasses of redeye and sasperilla.

      you mean americans don't do that? well i guess i sure am glad that there are no stereotypes about us australians.

  3. In other news by paranoos · · Score: 1, Funny

    Bill Gates' birthday video will be available by the end of this week...

    1. Re:In other news by mackstann · · Score: 1

      will steve ballmer be there!!??

  4. Oh, I know this one! by OMGWTFBBQ · · Score: 1, Funny

    Are their servers going to be able to handle the load? No.

  5. Release UFO info? by Quasar1999 · · Score: 5, Funny

    What they will finally admit that the royal family is actually from some distant star system? I knew it!

    --

    ---
    Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
    1. Re:Release UFO info? by Toraz+Chryx · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, sure they are.. if you consider Alpha Centauri distant....

      for gods sake mankind, it's only four lightyears!

    2. Re:Release UFO info? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, she doesn't look Druish... ;)

    3. Re:Release UFO info? by Captain+Large+Face · · Score: 2

      Nope, just Prince Phillip

    4. Re:Release UFO info? by tuxedo-steve · · Score: 4, Funny

      I would have thought the blue blood was a dead giveaway.

      --
      - SMJ - (It's not just a name: it's a bad aftertaste.)
    5. Re:Release UFO info? by Ponty · · Score: 2

      Indeed, IIRC, the whole current line of 'em is German. They adopted the surname Windsor (named after the castle) when they decided that it was decidedly un-PC with WWI in full swing to have the name "Saxe-Coburg & Gothe" or "Hanover" of George II-Victoria. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I have it down.)

    6. Re:Release UFO info? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have it down. All you are missing is the blackadder quote.

    7. Re:Release UFO info? by Nexus+Seven · · Score: 1

      You mean:

      Cpn Darling: I'm as English as Queen Victoria
      Blackadder: So...your father's German, you're half German and you married a German?

  6. obligatory X-files reference by newsdee · · Score: 1

    The truth is out there, mate!
    Now if I can only get this blasted server to pick up these files...

    1. Re:obligatory X-files reference by OuD · · Score: 1
      The truth is out there, mate!

      Don't you mean: The truth is out there, ol' chap!

    2. Re:obligatory X-files reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Don't you mean: The truth is out there, ol' chap!"

      Drop the stereotype and walk away slowly, with your hands behind your head!

      Andyboy_H

    3. Re:obligatory X-files reference by voidware · · Score: 1

      Yes, the correct saying would be "The truth is out there, mate!"

      brandon

    4. Re:obligatory X-files reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      shut the fuck up you muppet.. no wait that should be "zippit zippy!"

  7. the truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If ufo fan's want to know what is really going
    on, go to this website for the truth about ufo's,
    aliens, and everything else.

    www.zetatalk.com

    This is the real deal :)

    1. Re:the truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bwahahahaha I run zetatalk.com as a parody. duh. You're meant to laugh

    2. Re:the truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're one of THEM! Running a site filled with disinformation!

  8. nyeh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the UFO is the one that's flying out the window as i've discovered the suckitude that is linux

  9. Incidents by VON-MAN · · Score: 2, Funny

    That "famous Rendlesham Forest incident" wasn't that the one with the UFO with the mysterious blue/red flashing lights. And with the red(!) flashing lighthouse a couple of clics away?
    Supposed the be the British "area 51", says a lot 'bout UFO loons :-)

    1. Re:Incidents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      This is the same lighthouse that was there before the incident, is probably still there, yet not generating any UFO reports? Does it emit radioactivity? Does it FLY? Cool, a flying lighthouse.

    2. Re:Incidents by Timesprout · · Score: 1

      Relax, it was just Eddie the Eagle on a training session

      --
      Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
      What truth?
      There is no dupe
    3. Re:Incidents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought Boscombe Down was the British 'Area 51'. http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/spotting/b oscombe_down.html

      Then again the bodies are at Porton Down.......

    4. Re:Incidents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scoff all you like, but they were American troops chasing through the trees and measuring exceptionally high radiation found in the area after the event. It was also the American FOIA that showed the UK govt to be lying about the event. Still laughing fuckwit?

    5. Re:Incidents by Nomad37 · · Score: 1

      You know, I always thought that it was odd that amongst enumerated powers such as trade and commerce, defence, external affairs that Australia's Constitution gives the Federal Government here power over lighthouses... Now I know why!

      --
      Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will! - Antonio Gramsci.
    6. Re:Incidents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never seen a "red" lighthouse before? Maybe it's a new yank type of lighthouse so it doesn't ruin your nightvision or somet?

    7. Re:Incidents by fanpoe · · Score: 1

      Report to homeworld: Using our awesomely advanced technology we crossed the vastness of interstellar space and found a secluded area of the planet to study to avoid scaring the natives. Unfortunately, we were unable to find the light switch that turns off the running lights.

      As it happens I would be amazed if there wasn't alien life out there somewhere. I've just yet to be convinced that any of it is visiting us whether it is unintelligent, unable, unwilling or whatever. If they can get here then I would expect them to be quite capable of either making their presence known or keeping it hidden whichever their preference was.

    8. Re:Incidents by mikerich · · Score: 2
      Yes they were American troops in the woods at night in a relatively unfamiliar country - which only makes it more likely that they got confused by local geography.

      They didn't record 'exceptionally high radiation' they claim to have found levels slightly elevated above background radiation - right next to a base storing nuclear weapons.

      If this is the best that the UFO conspirators can come up with, then their 'evidence' is even less credible than we thought.

      Perhaps the best archive on this fiasco is http://www.rendlesham.com/.

      Don't have nightmares.

      Mike.

    9. Re:Incidents by mikerich · · Score: 2
      There were a number of lights visible in the area. The two brightest were white and probably belonged to the Orford Ness lighthouse and a lightship. The coloured lights appear to be the warning beacons found on transmitter masts.

      Best wishes,
      Mike.

    10. Re:Incidents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, the lighthouse and transmitter masts which have been there presumably for many years were confused by USAF personnel for a UFO, now that is one scary thought.

  10. This will never go through by I+Am+The+Owl · · Score: 5, Funny
    Even though the British government has been collecting information on its citizens for quite some time and violating their Constitutional rights to online privacy with their big government databases, they have nothing on the US.

    Do you think for a second that the NSA and the Alien Studies Administration (a secret, classified offshoot of the CIA) will ever let this come to light and compromise the Roswell coverup and numerous other incidents throughout the decades that have helped the government implant thought-tracking devices in the heads of key international figures in exchange for allowing the aliens to abduct a fixed quota of non-desirable citizens each year? Fat fucking chance! They are still out there, in their black helicopters and UFO-saucers, aiming their laser rifles at all the fuckers who think they have them beat. I can block their radiation brain wave modifiers with a special metal I concocted in my basement.

    I can't prolong this transmission because they are getting a fix on my location. Please, please, listen to me and believe me when I say that you need to steal this for the short time it is up before THEY realize it is there. Fight the power!

    --

    --sdem
    1. Re:This will never go through by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "violating their Constitutional rights"
      please stop applying American values to other countries. It's just pathetic that you can't understand that there are other legal systems apart from your beloved consitution.

    2. Re:This will never go through by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We get signal...


      How are you gentleman? All your radiation brain wave modifiers are belong to us. You have no chance to survive, make your time.

    3. Re:This will never go through by hkhanna · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Even though the British government has been collecting information on its citizens for quite some time and violating their Constitutional rights to online privacy with their big government databases, they have nothing on the US.

      Britain doesn't have a constitution, so their citizens don't have constitutional rights. Eh, big boy?

      --

      Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
    4. Re:This will never go through by Malc · · Score: 5, Informative

      Britain does have a constitution, but it's not a single written document - it's an uncodified constitution. It comes from several sources including statues such as the Magna Carta, Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, political conventions (laws and customs of parliament) and case law (common law). There are two basic principles: rule of law, and the supremacy of parliament

    5. Re:This will never go through by JamesCronus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      sorry to break this to you, but as a british citizen, until the recent human rights act, i didnt have ANY rights, at all. and not only that, i have no constitution either.

      in britain, the queen owns my ass. though in practice because of our civil war (yes we had one, and guess what its was before yours too!) she cant actually do very much with it.

      brain wave modifiers? hello?

      --
      dybia felly dwi a hampster (i think therefore i am a hampster)
    6. Re:This will never go through by suPerg0d · · Score: 1

      in britain, the queen owns my ass. though in practice because of our civil war (yes we had one, and guess what its was before yours too!) she cant actually do very much with it.

      It wasn't really all too much because of the civil war, more because of an increase in the electorate, but the Queen still does have some indirect power over us, such as she still chooses the Prime Minister. Although now she automatically chooses the leader of the party in majority, in the past Monarchs didn't, such as when William IV dissolved Lord Melbourne's governement in 1835 and chose Peel's to be Prime Minister.

      That was the last time, it happened because after the 1832 reform act, the Tories couldn't secure a majority. Although, it was close with Lord Halifax.

    7. Re:This will never go through by whereiswaldo · · Score: 2


      The Constitution is a piece of paper that basically says US citizens have certain rights. It had to be fought for.

      What about God given rights? Your rights as a human being? I don't need a bunch of old geezers to tell me what I should be free to do.

      I guess the Beastie Boys were right. You gotta fight... for your right... to paaaaaaaarrtttayy! :)

    8. Re:This will never go through by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "make your time"

      What does that mean, anyway?

    9. Re:This will never go through by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 1, Troll

      It's just pathetic that you can't understand that there are other legal systems apart from your beloved consitution.

      Well, considering that those other legal systems you mentioned are almost all based on our beloved Constitution, I think it's a fair statement.

      --

      I write in my journal
    10. Re:This will never go through by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in britain, the queen owns my ass.

      Rest assured that the Queen doesn't want your donkey.

    11. Re:This will never go through by shogun · · Score: 3, Funny

      in britain, the queen owns my ass. though in practice because of our civil war (yes we had one, and guess what its was before yours too!) she cant actually do very much with it.

      Oh? I woulda thought it was just because she's well over 70 now and wouldn't take all that much interest in it.

    12. Re:This will never go through by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who do you think has been violating your constitutional rights when your Freedom of Information legislation got in the way of your own government doing it?

      Why when the UK government privatised the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) did they back down and retain a large proportion and call it the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) ?

      Could it be that their second biggest customer after the UK MoD didn't want to contract a private company to conduct the actions that would in the US be deemed illegal ? Remember your consitution doesn't apply when it's our government doing it on behalf of your government.

    13. Re:This will never go through by AndrewRUK · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...until the recent human rights act, i didnt have ANY rights...

      Wrong. You did, and still do, have the right to do anything not prohibited by law. Our laws do not say "you are allowed to do U, V, and W," they say "you are not allowed to do X, Y and Z." (U, V, W, X, y and Z being things that you can or cannot do.) I don't need a law to say I can post on slashdot (for example) - the fact that no law says I can't means I can. (And, for the pedants in the audience, I mean in general, I know there are some things the law says I can't say - incitement to racial harted is an offence, as is saying I could get you illegal drugs [counts as intent to supply, iirc] - to give two examples.)

    14. Re:This will never go through by paganizer · · Score: 1

      I think there is a pretty clear-cut indication of how things stand.
      No one in the U.K. apparently wants to join with the Euro. The protests are quite large.
      But, that isn't stopping Blair from going after it hell bent.

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    15. Re:This will never go through by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What does [make your time] mean, anyway?

      Don't ask.

    16. Re:This will never go through by elvum · · Score: 2

      Politicians carrying out policy is hardly a breach of your human rights.

    17. Re:This will never go through by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So there.

    18. Re:This will never go through by corbettw · · Score: 2

      "Oh? I woulda thought it was just because she's well over 70 now and wouldn't take all that much interest in it."

      Unless it's to use it as a reward for one of her son's secretaries.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    19. Re:This will never go through by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      Britain does have a constitution, but it's not a single written document - it's an uncodified constitution

      Then it's no more a constitution than the British Commonwealth (or the European Union) is a nation.

      Every country has a "final authority" on its law--a 'highest law' that trumps all others. USA's is the constition--in the UK, I think it might still, technically, be the crown...

      Oh, and we have the United States Code, the rules of Congress, and common law, too--and prior to 1776, common law is (shockingly) identical to the UK's!

    20. Re:This will never go through by Malc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't see that this is different. In the US they have one document to refer to. In the UK they have many many documents, etc to refer to. So? That doesn't make it any less a constitution, although it differs considerably in implementation and philosophy to the American one. That doesn't mean either is better or worse.

      I believe the final say in these matters are actually made by the Law Lords. Of course, knowing the British constitution is a much harder task than knowing the American one. The constitution is considerably more flexible than the American one, meaning it is able to evolve more easily with time and be more representative of the day. Of course, with this flexibility comes the increased risk of abuse.

    21. Re:This will never go through by evil_roy · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Yeah , you had rights , you just didn't need them to be written down and rammed down your throat.

      The dumbing down of society. We will only have rights if we right them down and grant them to ourselves. PC bullshit that is best illustrated by the UN.

      I hate that sort of crap.

    22. Re:This will never go through by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does [make your time] mean, anyway?

      Don't ask.


      Maybe it is short for "make the most of your time".

      Ha ha ha.

    23. Re:This will never go through by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      I don't see that this is different. In the US they have one document to refer to. In the UK they have many many documents, etc to refer to. So? That doesn't make it any less a constitution, although it differs considerably in implementation and philosophy to the American one. That doesn't mean either is better or worse.

      I didn't say either one is better or worse (I personally think that my country's is better, but I haven't said that in this discussion until now.)

      What I DID say is that a bunch of different documents pieced together isn't a "constitution", especially in the same way that the USA's doc is.

      The usage of "constitution" to mean "the defining documents of a national government" is something that, AFAIK, arose after the rise of the USA as a major world concern--sometime after 1800, IIRC.

      I believe the final say in these matters are actually made by the Law Lords. Of course, knowing the British constitution is a much harder task than knowing the American one. The constitution is considerably more flexible than the American one, meaning it is able to evolve more easily with time and be more representative of the day. Of course, with this flexibility comes the increased risk of abuse.

      If it's the easily flexible part of the law, then it's not part of the "constitution", even in the sense that the word can be used when describing the UK's gov't. You need to drop common law, local law, and most parlimentary law--heck, drop everything that isn't right up there that can be revised throuh a process less complex than that required for the abolition of of parliment, and you've got what you could call your "constitution."

      Even with the linquistic shift my country's inflicted on our shared language, it's not proper to group every law in with "constitution."

    24. Re:This will never go through by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      huh??? Are you stupid or just a troll?

      Let me guess? You also think that the USA was the birth place of democracy, right?

      Let's think here... Magna Carta (1215, King John, etc.), that's at least 500 years before your "civilisation" was a twinkle in our eye.

      Democracy... sounds Greek, doesn't it?

      Typical stupid, uni-browed, fat, ugly American... read a book, for god's sake.

    25. Re:This will never go through by Malc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How about we refer to an American dictionary? Constitution. Nowhere does it say it has to be a single document. You are judging a foreign concept based on your own nation's practices. This just doesn't work. You're also using a very narrow definition of the word "constitution", also based on your country's practices.

      You obviously don't understand how the British constitution works. Have no doubt, it too defines many of the same things as the American constitution. In some way I prefer the British approach as it allows for more freedom: it defines what you can't do, which makes everything else permissive, and thus it is more able to cope with a changing world - there are parts of the American constitution that I think are outdated or unnecessary (e.g. 2nd amendment) that are now retarding society's development as people try to define themselves from this aging document. Don't get me wrong, the writers of that constitution did an amazing job and showed great foresight, yet it is still too rigid for me as it is a document from a different time when people had a increasingly different values.

      The parliamentary system goes against much of the grain of the American system by allowing the partial merging of the executive and legislative branches of goverment. However, this doesn't mean that the constitution is any less weak at preventing abuse of power. In fact, I see far more abuse going on right now with GWB and his cronies than in the parliamentary democracies. He surely cares little for individual's rights, whether defined by the constitution or it's intents, or not.

    26. Re:This will never go through by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have the right to over throw the gov. But it's never been used.

    27. Re:This will never go through by desolation+angel · · Score: 1

      The queen can give his ass to whoever she wants, usually one of her servants if you believe the papers...

      --
      This time I could be arsed.
    28. Re:This will never go through by meringuoid · · Score: 2
      But, that isn't stopping Blair from going after it hell bent.

      Hague said he'd definitely keep the pound. Blair said in principle he would join the euro, and in practice would put it to a referendum when the time was judged to be right.

      William Hague was subsequently defeated in the election, doing as badly as Major had in the previous one. And since then the Conservatives have barely appeared on the radar. If people cared so much about saving the pound, surely that line would have saved Hague's hide at the last election? Surely it would have won him at least _SOME_ votes...

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    29. Re:This will never go through by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      nonsense, GWB used it to overthrow Clinton

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    30. Re:This will never go through by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > sorry to break this to you, but as a british citizen
      "subject", not "citizen"!

    31. Re:This will never go through by Marr · · Score: 1

      You might wanna read the US Constitution sometime: It doesn't say "The People have these rights (yada yada)", it says "The Government does not, and must never have these powers (yada yada)". It does assume that People hold any right you care to imagine, unless specifically limited by a law. (A law which does not imply a power the Government does not have.)

      Clever stuff, and it held off the rot for a impressively long time.

    32. Re:This will never go through by Planesdragon · · Score: 2

      Nowhere does it say it has to be a single document.

      That's because the word has changed meaning. Language does that.

      You obviously don't understand how the British constitution works.

      Of course I do. You obviously can't seperate someone not agreeing with your chosen title for your core governmental system from someone who simply doesn't understand it.

      Don't get me wrong, the writers of that constitution did an amazing job and showed great foresight, yet it is still too rigid for me as it is a document from a different time when people had a increasingly different values.

      For the most part, the values of the late 18th century are identical to the values of the early 21st century. There have been some notable changes, and once those changes have gained sufficient momentum, the Constitution was amended.

      The parliamentary system goes against much of the grain of the American system by allowing the partial merging of the executive and legislative branches of goverment.

      You obviously don't understand how the american government is set up, do you? There is merging and oversight and balances of all three branches of government, all the time. (The President had to have congress pass a law to have a new Exectuive division, the President can veto just about anything congress passes, etc, etc.)

      However, this doesn't mean that the constitution is any less weak at preventing abuse of power. In fact, I see far more abuse going on right now with GWB and his cronies than in the parliamentary democracies. He surely cares little for individual's rights, whether defined by the constitution or it's intents, or not.

      Hardly. After the first major attack on American soil from a foreign body since Perl Harbor, we shifted our priority a bit from pure unfettered liberty to actually surviving. The Republican wins in Bush's midterm elections--a historical first--are a clear enough message that he's got some sort of mandate from the American people and that he's done something right in the past two years.

      Trampling individual rights of everyone in the name of everyone's security might be too much--but it's not abuse of power. Heck, I think that privacy and even a five-minute warning before the police come in is a priviledge and not a right.

      Besides which, I don't hear of G.W. Bush forcing the USA to join the European Union against the whole country's wishes...

    33. Re:This will never go through by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be delusional, Britain does NOT have a constitution.

    34. Re:This will never go through by paganizer · · Score: 1

      Hmm. I got a lot of negative replies on that one....maybe i'm wrong?
      I was using what I thought was an easier to understand analogy, to indicate that what the government in the UK does about something has nothing to do with what the people want; besides, if you look at the parent, it is an on-topic comment.

      HAh!

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    35. Re:This will never go through by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be delusional, Britain does NOT have a constitution.

      And they have a pretty lousy THAC0.

  11. DUPE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  12. only if by malana-cream · · Score: 5, Funny

    Are their servers going to be able to handle the load?

    only if it's an x-fileserver.

    1. Re:only if by SaraSmith · · Score: 0

      that's not really that funny.

    2. Re:only if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      actually it was.. but I suppose there's got to be a place in this world even for boring old shits like yourself.

  13. Nice touch from the Brits by product+byproduct · · Score: 5, Funny

    Letting the Americans have one last turkey feast before announcing the alien invasion.

    1. Re:Nice touch from the Brits by haa...jesus+christ · · Score: 1

      it's all part of their plan tor retake america. they'll wait til we're all doped up on turkey meat and then release the alien...er, files. anyway.

    2. Re:Nice touch from the Brits by iomud · · Score: 2

      Turns out it was an alien-turkey race who have come to exact their revenge.

    3. Re:Nice touch from the Brits by Malc · · Score: 1

      Something to give thanks for I guess.

      Sorry, I'll fetch my coat.

  14. Re:Nope, they won't handle it by frankthechicken · · Score: 3, Funny

    Shortly followed by the next UFO sighting of their server flying out of the server rooms window in pain and anguish. Actually what am I saying, when the hell was the last time you heard of a server room with a window, let alone enough people paying any attention to it at all to notify of a new UFO sighting.

  15. Finally... by davidstrauss · · Score: 2

    We can learn the secret to phoning home.

    1. Re:Finally... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Call 1-800- C A L L - A T T ....

      Get those aliens to take back their horrible, carrot-headed hybrid!

    2. Re:Finally... by Capt.+DrunkenBum · · Score: 1

      There is no secret... Just dial 1-800-C-O-L-L-E-C-T.

      --

      Not everyone deserves a 320i

    3. Re:Finally... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What part of "british" do you not understand

    4. Re:Finally... by nurightshu · · Score: 2

      Mostly the dentistry (or lack thereof).

      --
      They that would sacrifice their .sig space for that cliched Franklin quote deserve neither.
  16. Yeah, does anyone think? by VON-MAN · · Score: 0, Redundant
    So, how does this work? You check the brits x-files, see no ET's and logically conclude that these have been "redacted out"?

    Next time i'll temper the sarcasm, sorry.

  17. Red & Blue lights? no no by SaraSmith · · Score: 1

    you're thinking of that seizure inducing pokemon cartoon

    1. Re:Red & Blue lights? no no by VON-MAN · · Score: 1

      Silly me...

  18. Fascinating, other countries have UFO's too! by dagg · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I've read about Project Blue Book, Roswell, and big-eyed aliens all my life. I don't know why... but it didn't occur to me that other countries had UFO-coverup stories. What else is out there?
    --
    What aliens already know about you.
    --
    Sex - Find It
    1. Re:Fascinating, other countries have UFO's too! by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      what? there are OTHER countries?

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    2. Re:Fascinating, other countries have UFO's too! by Mac+Degger · · Score: 2

      You should have realised by now that no single nation has a monopoly on idiots.

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    3. Re:Fascinating, other countries have UFO's too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check out "Above Top Secret" By Timothy Good, it focuses on UFO phenomena outside of the US.

    4. Re:Fascinating, other countries have UFO's too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you talking about? There is something outside of US and UK?

      Sjeez, the only gov that has the guts to come forward with info on UFO's is Belgium (well, the Brazil incident is quite close). Police on the ground and around 2000 people saw a triangle UFO. Belgium Air Force tracked it on radar and scrambled 2 F16 jets every time it came on radar.

      That was in 1989 and 1990. That same year, BAF told everybody that they tracked a UFO in its true form, meaning they had no clue what just invaded airspace. Well, 2 years ago, they haven't changed the story, just added to it. Radar images with the UFO on it, visual confirmation by 2 policemen on the ground, ...

      That's the kind of gov that knows people don't trust them. Hands up in the air saying "something was out there, we don't know what it was, it didn't try to attack us and no other country has this kind of tech".

      Rather that then weatherballoon stories.

  19. Re:Nope, they won't handle it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Not after we've slashdotted them."

    Somehow I expect .gov.uk will be a bit more stable than the usual slashdot [then suddenly dead link] linkage. Sorry to disappoint you.

  20. Slashdot goes full bore on Thanksgiving! by UrGeek · · Score: 1

    I am going to be off-topic for a moment to gives thanks to all of the hardworking guys and gals at Slashdot. I am so addicted that I have to check even on Thanksgiving and lo and behold, there is new content here as if it was any ole Thursday!

    Damn, Sam, THANK YOOOOOOOOOU!

    But you people deserve to take Christmas off!

    1. Re:Slashdot goes full bore on Thanksgiving! by nackrm · · Score: 2, Funny

      umm, where's the new content?

      --

      Be a man! View at -1
      acm.cs.uwec.edu
    2. Re:Slashdot goes full bore on Thanksgiving! by whereiswaldo · · Score: 1, Offtopic


      I LUF AMEDEEKAAAAAAA!!!

  21. Re:In Russia... by Angry+White+Guy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    In Russia, is is belongink, nyet are belonging, comrade. Am Thinking you no Russian...

    --
    You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
  22. Alien Haiku by Angry+White+Guy · · Score: 4, Funny

    The aliens land,
    taking all the hot women.
    Slashdotters are greived.

    --
    You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
    1. Re:Alien Haiku by tomhudson · · Score: 3, Funny
      The aliens land, taking all the hot women. Slashdotters are greived.

      More likely, most don't even notice the difference (at least not the editors w. the repeating stories)

    2. Re:Alien Haiku by ToadSprocket · · Score: 3, Funny

      It never does fail,
      The rule is 'I' before 'E',
      Except after 'C'.

      --


      If this article confuses you, don't worry. It was posted yesterday in a much clearer fashion.
    3. Re:Alien Haiku by martyn+s · · Score: 1

      ceiling

    4. Re:Alien Haiku by DeadMoose · · Score: 1

      ceiling

      The final verse said,
      Just for accuracy's sake:
      "Except after 'C'"

    5. Re:Alien Haiku by sean23007 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Don't you mean:

      "Slashdotters barely notice, as the jpegs of said women remain in place." ?

      After all, most of you wouldn't ever notice if all the hot women in the world actually didn't exist. As a matter of fact, to them, you don't...


      Joking.

      --

      Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
    6. Re:Alien Haiku by Darby · · Score: 2

      Well, it does blow the haiku, but for completeness:
      Except when sounded like "A" as in neighbor and reign.

    7. Re:Alien Haiku by RichardX · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It never does fail,
      The rule is 'I' before 'E',
      Except after 'C'.
      Except when sounded like "A" as in neighbor and reign.

      Actually, it does fail when you throw "weird" at it. E before I, and no C, or A. So.. uh.. nerr-nerr-ner-nerr-nerr

      Unless of course I missed another part of it which covers that case. In which event, this post is a forgery. By aliens. Big green ones, with bug-eyes, 'n everything.

      --
      Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
    8. Re:Alien Haiku by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but we can still have thier naked pictures, right? That's about all us ./'ers can get!

    9. Re:Alien Haiku by Darby · · Score: 2

      Actually, it does fail when you throw "weird" at it.

      I think this is a case of the lesser of two evils.
      Either you break the rule, or "weird" is spelled in a way which isn't.

    10. Re:Alien Haiku by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeti.

    11. Re:Alien Haiku by joss · · Score: 3, Funny

      I suspect that for many slashdotters, being abducted by aliens and forced to procreate is about their best chance of getting hot women.

      --
      http://rareformnewmedia.com/
    12. Re:Alien Haiku by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, now all our pr0n will be of ugly women.

      We'll just have to make do, I suppose.

    13. Re:Alien Haiku by Bobb+Sledd · · Score: 1

      Sorry to nit-pick... but to keep the rhyme it's:

      "...when sounding like 'ay' as in neighbor and weigh

      Of course, there are plenty of words that violate the rule:

      cleidoic, feisty, gneiss, greisen, heigh-ho, height, heist, leitmotiv, seidel, seismic, eider, codeine, either, neither, protein, seize, teiid, conscience, foreign, forfeit, prescient, sovereign, surfeit, heifer, heir, caffeine, casein, deil, disseize, geisha, inveigle, keister, leisure, monteith, obeisance, phenolphthalein, phthalein, protein, seize, seizin, sheik, sheila, specie, species, teiid, weir, (and of course,) weird -- just to name a few.

      Therefore, instead of trying to defend the rule why don't we all just agree that it's dumb and useless.

      --
      "They said I probly shouldn't fly with just one eye," "I am Bender. Please insert girder."
  23. Actually, the truth is... by Cap'n+Canuck · · Score: 5, Funny

    I believe it's not just other countries that have UFO-coverup stories; other planets have them, too.

    - This side of the river is intentionally left bank.

    1. Re:Actually, the truth is... by jsse · · Score: 1

      yeah, the aliens have to coverup the experiments involved castrating cows. It was so humiliating.

  24. Yaaaay!!! by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 2

    Does this means we'll be able to download all those UFO episodes????

  25. Interested but skeptical by aaronhurd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This will definitely be interesting to see, but as always with governments releasing "secret files," I am skeptical. Certainly these files, if they are legitimate, are not the complete collection, but rather very carefully selected tidbits from the massive archives of British intelligence.

    1. Re: Interested but skeptical by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > I am skeptical. Certainly these files, if they are legitimate, are not the complete collection, but rather very carefully selected tidbits from the massive archives of British intelligence.

      I suppose that means we'll still only be able to get the anal probe videos on p2p, eh?

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:Interested but skeptical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may already be aware, but one of the more interesting things going on at the moment is the Disclosure Project. Hundreds (literally) of military, industrial, and government former insiders have come forward with testimony about what they've seen over the years, about what the government knows, and more. They're all willing to testify under oath, and sign whatever sworn statements are required. They're willing and able to do interviews, and they're all pretty much ignored by the media.

      I can pretend I'm utterly enchanted with Dr. Steve Greer, the head of the project. Seems to focus way too much time on conspiracy stuff and unlikely energy source ideas, but all the same the project is worth a look. The witness video DVD is particularly compelling, and is worth the price.

      Personally I think much of the UFO blind-spot is a due to institutional inertia and convenience, rather than conspiracy. There's nothing you can DO with UFOs. They don't come when called, they can't be replicated at will, they don't advance your career, they appear to be making an active effort to actually BE confusing, they don't fit into anybody's agenda apart from a few nutballs, and they have the capability of swanning their way through our best security as if it wasn't even there. What's a fellow supposed to do with them? Nothing, forget about it, get back to work. They just aren't of any use to anyone and they are associated with career-killing sarcasm. Just move along.

    3. Re:Interested but skeptical by hplasm · · Score: 1
      ..massive archives of British intelligence

      Four words joined by a common thread of irony..;>

      --
      ...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
    4. Re:Interested but skeptical by Saeger · · Score: 2
      Seems to focus way too much time on conspiracy stuff and unlikely energy source ideas...

      Zero Point Energy may be unlikely, but it's not impossible either. Real science is actually flirting in this area... (but the conspiracy theorists have more fun with it :).

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    5. Re:Interested but skeptical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, you mean like America - Land of the free?

      Why not just call it Land of the Fat? Same sort of ring to it, but waaay more accurate.

    6. Re:Interested but skeptical by hplasm · · Score: 1

      Land of the free (as in Beer), perhaps.

      --
      ...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
  26. UFO != Alien Life by peterprior · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wish people would stop thinking "UFO! OMG! Aliens!"..

    A UFO is exactly that... an Unidentified Flying Object. It doesn't mean it's from another planet, it just means there was an object in the air, and some bystander with a fuzzy camcorder at best couldn't work out what it was.

    1. Re:UFO != Alien Life by Angry+White+Guy · · Score: 3, Funny

      But why do these bystanders always live in trailer parks?

      --
      You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
    2. Re:UFO != Alien Life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank again Captain Obvious!

    3. Re:UFO != Alien Life by TeknoHog · · Score: 2

      In addition, it doesn't mean "supernatural" either. This is another confusion that people sometimes make. Just because UFOs, aliens and the supernatural are somehow strange, doesn't mean they are related to each other.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    4. Re:UFO != Alien Life by Mac+Degger · · Score: 2

      Never seen the BangBus?

      Yeah, that thought grossed me out too.

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    5. Re:UFO != Alien Life by Grizzlysmit · · Score: 1
      I wish people would stop thinking "UFO! OMG! Aliens!".. A UFO is exactly that... an Unidentified Flying Object. It doesn't mean it's from another planet, it just means there was an object in the air, and some bystander with a fuzzy camcorder at best couldn't work out what it was.

      True, I can't wait to here the alien conspiracy crowds angst when it's revealed that all the incedents had perfectly normal explanations. Then again when have facts bothered conspiracy theorists, they preffer to roll their own.

      --
      in my life God comes first.... but Linux is pretty high after that :-D
      Francis Smit
    6. Re:UFO != Alien Life by Wraithlyn · · Score: 3, Insightful
      What "conspiracy" are you talking about?

      Extraterrestrial life could visit the Earth without there being some big conspiracy, you know. In fact any reasonable, open-minded mathematical analysis actually predicts it. The fact that we should, but haven't seen any aliens yet is known as Fermi's Paradox.

      The people who refuse to acknowledge facts and evidence are actually on YOUR side. Please read this. It covers all the reasons why scientists have stubbornly refused to admit there is an enormous body of verified (ie, visual reports which match radar evidence) observational evidence to suggest that we have been visited by craft that are 1) physically solid, 2) under intelligent control, and 3) in possession of propulsion technology far beyond human understanding.

      I particularly like this piece:
      "This type of logic can be successfully applied to any claim. For instance, let's declare that dinosaurs are an extraordinary claim. This declaration requires no logical substantiation, just the way skeptics use their nearly zero a priori probability of extraterrestrial visitation to declare the claim extraordinary with no logical defense whatsoever, given the insufficient information to determine this probability. So, we have declared dinosaurs to be an extraordinary claim. The next step is to reject all fossil evidence for dinosaurs, since fossils are only acceptable for ordinary claims such as woolly mammoths; for extraordinary dinosaur claims, fossils are worthless. What we need, as dinosaur skeptics, is physical proof of an intact dinosaur. And, to make it even more similar to the skeptic approach, we don't need to defend the rationale of the demand for physical proof of dinosaurs; the fact that it is an extraordinary claim allows us to demand the very upper boundary of conceptually feasible modes of proof -- but conceptual feasibility does not translate into practical feasibility. Sure, I can demand physical proof, but will I get it? Is it worth ignoring fossil evidence in my wait for physical proof?

      We could extend the analogy further by applying more skeptic logical tricks. For instance, dinosaur articles are published in journals which already believe in dinosaurs; therefore, it is biased and one-sided, and hardly representative of truly critical peer review. We could assert that all fossils are best explained as hoaxes, misidentifications of known and unknown geological processes, and hallucinations and/or misinterpretations by overzealous paleontologists imposing their belief system on an anomalous rock. This, I can contend, is the "simplest explanation", and I don't have to worry about using overstrenuous logic because, in an absence of physical proof of dinosaurs, any explanation is simpler, no matter how contrived and convoluted! This is the essence of the scientific rejection of the UFO evidence: an overwhelming need to disbelieve coupled with a shameful lack of research into the actual evidence."
      No offense, but I think you "aliens are impossible" types are as close minded as the "flat earthers" and "fake moon landing" types.. no matter what volume of evidence you are shown, it's never good enough. The only difference between you and "conspiracy nuts" is that you have the backing of a bunch of scientists who don't want to admit how stubborn and blind they've been.
      --
      "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
    7. Re:UFO != Alien Life by stinking+git · · Score: 1

      Quite.

    8. Re:UFO != Alien Life by kisak · · Score: 1
      But why do these bystanders always live in trailer parks?

      A friend of mine who studies social anthropology noticed that when an anthropologist want to get in touch with a group he/she wants to study (that be a tribe in the rain forest or the local LUG), it was always easiest to get to know the outsiders in the group first. (Outsider as in one not very well respected in the group and often looked on as a bit weired, like a tribe member who always messes up the hunt or a LUG member who don't compile his own kernel). An experienced anthropologist will usually take advantage of this early contact to the group's outsiders to learn the languages and rules of the society he wants to study and then slowly try to get to know more important people in the group.

      My friend concluded that the reason UFOs usually visit trailer parks, is of similar reasons. The ETs just want to learn a bit about our language and culture with people who are easy to get in touch with, before trying to talk to more important figures in our society.

      Anyway, now that my "friend" got to now the real 3I337 HaCXoRs in my group, he does not talk to me much anymore :-).

      --

      --- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---

  27. Google Rendlesham Forest Cache Link by unorthod0x · · Score: 1
  28. Sorry, but it had to be asked... by Cap'n+Canuck · · Score: 1

    Which version are they releasing?

    - Carpal Diem - My wrist hurts today

    1. Re:Sorry, but it had to be asked... by RichardX · · Score: 1

      There will be two versions. The regular DVD, and the Collectors Edition Boxed Set, which contains an additional disc with "The making of", directors commentary, the missing JFK footage, and the definitive answer to whether there's a god.

      --
      Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
  29. Re:Nope, they won't handle it by Guiness17 · · Score: 1

    We'll see. They're building up towards a full on attack on their servers by allowing /. to have a run at them first!

    WE are the first wave!

    --
    Imagine for a moment a world without hypothetical situations...
  30. Just in time for Spielberg's "Taken" by trentfoley · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'd like to see just how much money Universal / USA Network / SciFi Channel have put in to promoting Mr. Spielberg's upcoming 20 hour mini-series. So far I've seen:
    1. Bombardment of ads for the show.
    2. Ads for freedomofinfo.org (checkout the whois)
    3. The Abduction Diaries ???
    4. A Geraldo style show about Roswell
    5. And now, paying off the Brits to unleash their hype^H^H^H^Hinfo.

    It all seems pretty expensive to me.

    1. Re:Just in time for Spielberg's "Taken" by DarkZero · · Score: 2

      Yeah, well, at least they're getting exactly what they deserve. Hopefully they'll get some more of it when the damn thing premieres on the Sci-Fi Channel.

    2. Re:Just in time for Spielberg's "Taken" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And just how much are you getting paid to promote it on Slashdot?

    3. Re:Just in time for Spielberg's "Taken" by payndz · · Score: 0
      >1. Bombardment of ads for the show. >2. Ads for freedomofinfo.org (checkout the whois) >3. The Abduction Diaries ??? >4. A Geraldo style show about Roswell >5. And now, paying off the Brits to unleash their hype^H^H^H^Hinfo.

      You forgot the next line...

      6. Profit!

      --
      You must think in Russian.
    4. Re:Just in time for Spielberg's "Taken" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      6...
      7... Profit!!!

      Sorry... it was obligatory...

  31. according to unnamed sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    the release will consist of ...
    - footage of brightly coloured aliens with CRT screens embedded in abdominal area
    - chemical analysis of 'moon' wenslydale
    - a police box

    1. Re:according to unnamed sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



      Doctor Who?

  32. Humorous anecdote... by httpamphibio.us · · Score: 5, Funny

    When I was a kid I overheard my dad talking about how my mom was applying for citizenship because she was an alien. Of course when I heard "alien" I assumed the outer space kind (or as I said back then, "out of space") because I had no knowledge of the foreign kind. The next day at school I told everyone I knew that she was an alien, it went over quite well. :)

    --
    sig.
    1. Re:Humorous anecdote... by isorox · · Score: 1

      because I had no knowledge of the foreign kind.

      But unlike many america,s you learnt ;)

  33. Aliens *did* land in Britain... by mtec · · Score: 5, Funny

    but were successfully repelled by the local cuisine.

    --
    Cake or Death? Cake Please!
    1. Re:Aliens *did* land in Britain... by Big+Mark · · Score: 2

      Hmm... I'm a Scot, and let me see what we have:

      Deep fried Mars Bars; haggis (which really IS a sheep stomach filled with horrible bits of sheep and not, as I delight in telling tourists, a small fluffy animal); porridge with salt and Tunnock's Teacakes.

      Beam me up, Scotty. And if you insist on bringing the haggis, make sure it's already out of the sheep this time!

      -Mark

    2. Re:Aliens *did* land in Britain... by perky · · Score: 2

      So they went to the states and after three weeks were unable to leave as the saucer couldn't carry the extra weight. You've got to love the American approach to cookery: "We can't make it better, so let's just make it bigger!". Same with the cars I suppose :-).

      --
      "The new wave is not value-added; it's garbage-subtracted" - Esther Dyson, Dec 1994
    3. Re:Aliens *did* land in Britain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you ever try Haggis?

      The stuff kicks ass! It's like the stuffing you eat on thanksgiving except it has meat in it! It is real kick ass stuff. I'd buy it over here it weren't so expensive.

    4. Re:Aliens *did* land in Britain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't mean..
      .. Yes! The Blancmanges mean to win Wimbledon!

    5. Re:Aliens *did* land in Britain... by macalmaclan · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the IRN BRU :)

    6. Re:Aliens *did* land in Britain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they also landed to USA but couldn't take off with the extra weight after visiting McDonalds?

  34. Analysis of the /. effect by jki · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Are their servers going to be able to handle the load?

    Finally this is NOT not off-topic :) Here's an analysis of the slashdot effect. In the UFO files case, I believe the effect will be tens of times powerful in terms of distinct visitors than the case I analyzed and hundreds of times stronger in sense of data transferred, as they are probably going to serve fat media. I believe they will go down.

    1. Re:Analysis of the /. effect by Broege · · Score: 1

      I believe they will go down.

      Why? For sure they are based on this hyper-advanced alien technology they won't admit to?
      So, if they manage to survive, we all will know.

      --
      homepage: www.tls.pl
      signature: not found
  35. Most of the files won't be released yet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    From, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ ldhansrd/vo981217/text/81217w03.htm:

    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert): Thirty-eight files are held at the Public Record Office for release under the terms of the Public Records Acts 1958 and 1967, the 30-year rule applying:

    AIR 2/18564 & 18565 UFO Reports--due for release 2002.

    AIR 20/12067, 12297 to 12306 Unidentified flying objects-due for release 2001.

    AIR 20/12399 to 12411 UFO reports--due for release 2003.

    AIR 20/12544 to 12555 UFO reports--due for release 2004.

    BJ 5/311 UFO: Met aspects--due for release 2001

    Four files are held by the MoD records management branch pending acceptance and transfer to the PRO, PRO references and transfer arrangements awaiting confirmation:

    AF/7463/72 UFO reports--provisionally assigned to PRO reference AIR 2/18831 for release in 2003.

    AF/7464/72 UFO reports--provisionally assigned to PRO reference AIR 2/18872 for release in 2004.

    AF/7464/72 Pt. II UFO reports--provisionally assigned to PRO reference AIR 2/18873 for release in 2005.

    AF/7464/72 Pt. III UFO reports--provisionally assigned to PRO reference AIR 2/18874 for release in 2006.

    In the absence of a thematic index of files stored in MoD's archives the identification of files has, of necessity, been limited to those created by the Air Staff Secretariat and predecessor branches. The following files have been identified and are earmarked for review by MoD at future dates, at which point they will be assessed for their suitability for preservation at the PRO. It is possible that some files created by other Headquarters divisions or establishments may contain papers on this topic. These could only be identified at disproportionate cost:

    AF/S4f(A)/422--one file--UFOs, BBC Radio Oxford Programme.

    AF/S4f(Air) U/506--one file--Statistical Analyses of UFOs.

    AF/3459/75--one file--UFOs: Policy and Policy statements--1970.

    AF/584 to 595--12 files--UFO reports.

    AF/596 to 602--seven files--UFO reports.

    AF/447--one file--UFO reports.

    AF/607 & 608--two files--UFO reports.

    AF/610 to 613--four files--UFO reports.

    AF/616 to 619--four files--UFO reports.

    AF/419--one file--BBC 2, Man Alive Programme: UFOs.

    17 Dec 1998 : Column WA178

    D/DS8/75/2/1--six parts--UFO reports, correspondence.

    D/DS9/75/2/2--12 parts--UFO correspondence.

    D/DS8/75/2/3--six parts--UFO reports, edited copies.

    D/DS8/75/2/4--three parts--UFO reports.

    D/DS8/75/2/5--two parts--UFO reports.

    D/DS8/75/3--one part--UFO, Parliamentary Correspondence.

    D/DS8/75/6--one part--UFO, TV discussion.

    D/DS8/75/7--one part--UFO, satellite debris.

    D/DS8/10/209--seven parts--UFO briefs, reports and correspondence.

    D/DS8/10/209/1--three parts--general briefs, reports, UFO correspondence

    1. Re:Most of the files won't be released yet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      D/DS9/75/2/2--12 parts--UFO correspondence.

      They have had correspondence with Aliens!!!!

      It's true, it's true, it's all true!

      Steve.

  36. If they dupe this story tomorrow... by jokercito · · Score: 0, Redundant

    they will have an Unidentified Slashdotted Server on their hands...

  37. Duke Nukem by Cheese+Cracker · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    The Brits has bought Duke Nukem's digital DNA from 3D Realms. "We needed people who could protect our women from the aliens. Therefore we'll clone a bunch of human embryos with Duke's digital DNA, and get us some superhumans." said the British Defense Secretary, Geoff Hoon.

    Now you all know that 3D Realms has been marketing Duke Nukem's DNA instead of working on Duke Nukem Forever... Well, it's coming "When it's done"... *yawn*

  38. This is *so* pathetic by perfessor+multigeek · · Score: 2

    Okay, so I read the Colonel Halt (love the name) transcript, looked at the photos, looked at the interviews and . . .
    What a pile of self-deluding baloney!
    Read the transcript. None of those guys knew how to use their gear, they couldn't even find enough flashlights, they didn't know the territory. I wouldn't trust those guys to tell me how many buttons were on their shirtfronts.
    Stuff hovering over Mexico City? Maybe.
    Weird sh*t at Roswell (even beyond it's being a military test site)? Yes, something seriously hinky was going on.
    Pilots saying that there's a lot in the sky that looks UFO-ish to them? I'm not in a position to judge.
    But this thing? Yeah, right. I'll trade ya my secret decoder ring for your deed to the Brooklyn Bridge and then we'll go investigate.

    Posting while I eat, like a true obsessive /.er,
    Rustin

    --
    Data is the lever, rigor the fulcrum, brains the force that drives it all.
    1. Re:This is *so* pathetic by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 1, Redundant

      You should give this page a read. It explains the whole story, from the initial reports down through the extremely reasonable explanations for all the allegedly weird events.

      It was just an optical illusion.

      --

      I write in my journal
    2. Re:This is *so* pathetic by perfessor+multigeek · · Score: 2

      I did. Good stuff.
      I have fantasies of someday living in a land where all children are raised to understand things like parallax, and shifting perceived color, and basic forest skills. Clearly that land will not be most of America anytime soon.

      --
      Data is the lever, rigor the fulcrum, brains the force that drives it all.
    3. Re:This is *so* pathetic by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 2

      I have fantasies of someday living in a land where all children are raised to understand things like parallax, and shifting perceived color, and basic forest skills. Clearly that land will not be most of America anytime soon.

      Well, no. Most Americans have to get in their cars and drive for more than an hour to get to anything remotely resembling a forest. Unfortunately, this is also true of a lot of the world. It's no surprise that the average 21st century person has no idea how to behave or what to expect in a forest. Most people only read about them at best.

      --

      I write in my journal
    4. Re:This is *so* pathetic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > the sky that looks UFO-ish
      Eh? UFO - Unitedifed Flying Object.
      You see something in the sky, and don't know what it is, then it is a UFO!

    5. Re:This is *so* pathetic by perfessor+multigeek · · Score: 2

      Well, maybe it's just me and my Puritan-esque family, but that just doesn't cut it for me. What, the Sierra Club's hikes are too expensive?
      Urk! Very frustrating. I've lived in cities all my life but my parents didn't have much trouble insuring that I spent some real time outside of them. As far as my father was concerned, his job wan't done until he left me at a camp site, told me to wait until (a half hour? an hour? don't remember) had passed and that he would meet me at the trail head. Did I have a few terrifying minutes here and there? Yeah, sure. None of them as bad as some time I've spent in Harlem.
      I just don't see what excuse people have for raising kids who can't tell a woodsman's blaze from "the cryptic and terrible signs of a UFO".
      Admittedly, I'm in an unusually snippy mood tonight, but some days I just want to drop all these folks one by one deep into Idaho with a few MREs, a knife, a shirt-jacket, and a compass (do we give 'em Polaris-Silvas or make 'em sweat?) and tell them that we'll see them back in town.

      Gol-dang-candy-assed, no good, stream-polluting, SUV-driving, garbage-leaving, backwoods-paving, flush toilet-dependent, water-wasting, mutter, mutter, grumble, bitch . . .
      Rustin

      --
      Data is the lever, rigor the fulcrum, brains the force that drives it all.
    6. Re:This is *so* pathetic by perfessor+multigeek · · Score: 2

      Point taken. I misspoke. What I meant to say is that there seem to be a lot of pilots out there with solid experience who speak of seeing what appeared to them to be intelligently driven vehicles of a sort not possible with current known technology. I *really* don't want to say "flying saucers" and, yes, UFO is a meaningless term since, as you pointed out, these are, by definition unidentified, look to be flying, and look to be objects, even though those same criteria would apply to wads of bubble gum shot up with boomerangs from the local school.
      BTW, what was the deal with all that talk recently about some hujungeous delta-shaped airship thingy that people were calling an alien craft but was actually some sort of U.S. military supply ship? I remember reading about it but don't remember where. Probably /. but I'm too lazy to do the search.
      Rustin

      --
      Data is the lever, rigor the fulcrum, brains the force that drives it all.
  39. THEY left one behind by netwalkr · · Score: 1

    Come back and get this one please! www.strangecosmos.com/view.adp?picture_id=7064

  40. Re:Rendlesham Forest Disclosure by buswolley · · Score: 5, Funny
    Rendlesham Forest Disclosure:

    release from British Freedom of Information Act excerpt: "According to witnesses ---- ------ ----- there ------- ---- --- are --- ---- ---- -- no ---- such ---- ---- -- thing ---- as ----- ----- -- UFOs.

    --

    A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

  41. Re:More illusions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hahahahaha.... ode business-profit troll.

  42. Re:Rendlesham Forest Disclosure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    yep theyll just black out anything sensitive. Or are the british better than the U.S.?

  43. /. effect or... by The_Guv'na · · Score: 1

    ...server abduction? {twighlight zone theme goes here}

    Then again if Hemos hasn't warned the admin, "UFO" could mean the /. effect: Unidentified Fscking Overload.

    Ali

    1. Re:/. effect or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL..

  44. what server? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I didn't notice a particular site where they were releasing this info. Yet another conspiracy ;)

  45. Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The British press will have a field day!

    http://www.tributefilms.com

  46. Re:Britain == land of the free. by chiedo · · Score: 1

    But what if he does understand, or what if he's expressing his opinion based on what he's experienced or read? Many people do understand how America is run and are not 100% happy with everything. Furthermore, his criticism of America is quite similar to views I hear about other counties from americans. He is right to challenge the notion of America being the land of the free, freedom allows you to do that.

  47. From all reports by Goonie · · Score: 2

    The British don't eat British cuisine(s) any more...or at least the infamous parts of it. They're too busy munching curry ... :)

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
    1. Re:From all reports by tim_uk · · Score: 1
      munch curry...:)>i/>


      Nah - we slurp curry.

      Tim

  48. Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..They'll have footage of Elvis returning home.

    </MIB reference>

  49. We dont actually need these docs by Beautyon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Because we already have everything we need out in the open:

    NUFORC has many reports of high strangeness and high quality.

    UFOSkeptic a must read for all "science types", written by Dr. Bernard Haisch.

    Science Logic and the UFO debate. Once you read this, you will have no doubts left.

    And finally, all the arguments of the skeptics were completely demolised single handedly by a man called Brian Zeiler on USENET circa 1996. Essential reading, if you have the patience.

    Essentially, the arguments about this subject are over. The interesting discussion is centered around what is to be done about this problem... if anything.

    --
    ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
    1. Re:We dont actually need these docs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes, all the arguments! Your insistence on such an absurdity proves your own credulousness.

    2. Re:We dont actually need these docs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oberg==fag

    3. Re:We dont actually need these docs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And finally, all the arguments of the skeptics were completely demolised single handedly by a man called Brian Zeiler [google.com] on USENET circa 1996.

      Sure. If you mean that patronizing, condescending and using all sorts of colorful ways to demean the the opposition is "demolis[h]ed".

    4. Re:We dont actually need these docs by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      UFOSkeptic [ufoskeptic.org] a must read for all "science types", written by Dr. Bernard Haisch.

      I'm afraid I'm not terribly impressed with this site. After reading through these documents, it became clear that Dr. Haisch has a habit of jumping to the most favourable possible conclusion given incomplete evidence (as opposed to saying "the evidence is incomplete; here are the options and we don't know which is true").

      The most thought-provoking case of this was his discussion of Fermi's Paradox. The paradox is that observations to date suggest that there are a very large number of worlds in the galaxy hospitable to intelligent water-based life, and yet we see no evidence of it and none of it has provably come to visit. Dr. Haisch notes that this either means that colonizing civilizations don't last long, or that aliens _do_ come to visit, and immediately concludes the latter. If anything, the lack of strong evidence of visitation or beacons or the like suggests that the former case is the more probable.

      As a side note, the implications of this chain of reasoning are fascinating to consider. Either civilizations almost inevitably eradicate themselves, or they almost inevitably become permanently introverted, or they almost inevitably move somewhere else (either a virtual world, a la "Calculating God", or another universe (a la the Sublimed Elders from the "Culture" novels). Another option is that even under favourable conditions, sapient life, or perhaps complex life of any form, is extremely rare. Yet another option is that there is some other factor affecting habitability of worlds that we haven't found yet that eliminates most from consideration.

      Whatever the case, there is by no means convincing evidence for the conclusion that aliens must be visiting us. Yet, the whole site is filled with jumps of logic like that.

    5. Re:We dont actually need these docs by Beautyon · · Score: 2

      If anything, the lack of strong evidence of visitation or beacons or the like suggests that the former case is the more probable.

      This is simply wrong. There is plenty of evidence, of high quality, that would convince any scientist that is not predisposed to automaticaly reject it.

      there is by no means convincing evidence for the conclusion that aliens must be visiting us.

      This is nonsense. Anyone who is reasonable, and who has read the abundance of high quality cases can only come to the conclusion that Dr. Haisch has come to. If anyone has a better explanation that accounts for all of the evidence, then they need to provide this explanation, and not reject out of hand the the one provided by scientists who have done the actual required work.

      --
      ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
    6. Re:We dont actually need these docs by spakka · · Score: 2
      There is plenty of evidence, of high quality, that would convince any scientist that is not predisposed to automaticaly reject it.

      'No True Scotsman' fallacy

      If anyone has a better explanation that accounts for all of the evidence, then they need to provide this explanation

      Begging the question. Providing a common explanation for a large set of different events presupposes accepting your belief that the events share a common cause.

    7. Re:We dont actually need these docs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      accepting your belief that the events share a common cause.

      Dont be stupid; that sentence means "in each case accounting for all the evidence of the case, and not cutting out the inexplicable data because it does not fit your prosaic explanation"

    8. Re:We dont actually need these docs by Beautyon · · Score: 2

      'No True Scotsman' fallacy

      That statement is not of the "No true Scotsman" type. From Wikipedia:

      The "No true Scotsman" argument is an argument of the form:

      Argument: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
      Reply: "But my friend Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
      Rebuttal: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

      This form of argument is a fallacy if the predicate ("putting sugar on porridge") does not follow from the accepted definition of the subject ("Scotsman"), or if the definition of the subject is silently adjusted after the fact to make the rebuttal work.

      Some behaviors are actually contradictory to the label; "no true vegetarian would prefer a beefsteak to a salad" is not fallacious because it follows from the definition of "vegetarian."

      A similar situation occurs in arguments about controversial topics such as Evolution. Evolution is defined as true and good by some people and as false and evil by others. When facts are presented to support one side of the argument or the other, Evolution is redefined to as needed. As such, the a debate about Evolution is unwinnable.

      A similar situation exists with Terrorism. Terrorism is bad and evil. Therefore any action done which is justified is automatically relabeled Freedom fighting.

      You have a similar problem in religion. Words have values independent of their meanings and people who believe essentially the same thing will disagree violently because the term used has a different connotation and meaning to the disagreeing parties.

      --
      ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
    9. Re:We dont actually need these docs by spakka · · Score: 2
      That statement is not of the "No true Scotsman" type

      Argument: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
      Reply: "But my friend Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
      Rebuttal: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

      You said:

      There is plenty of evidence, of high quality, that would convince any scientist that is not predisposed to automaticaly reject it.

      Admittedly, it isn't formatted over three lines, and doesn't involve Scotsmen and porridge, but if you substitute as follows, you'll see the similarity:

      Scotsman = scientist
      Puts sugar on porridge = is unconvinced by the evidence
      true = not predisposed to automatically reject it

    10. Re:We dont actually need these docs by Beautyon · · Score: 2

      Scotsman = scientist
      Puts sugar on porridge = is unconvinced by the evidence
      true = not predisposed to automatically reject it


      Using that substitution logic, you can argue that Christians are suffering from the "No true Scotsman" fallacy, because they reject polytheism in advance of hearing the arguments for polytheism. This is not the case; they are merely religious, and not propagating a fallacious argument.

      The practice of Science is fundamentally differrent from the practice of religion. The only thing that matters to scientists are the facts. If the facts invalidate a premise, then it is the premise that is flawed and which needs to be adjusted, not the facts.

      Anyone that rejects, changes or ignores the facts to protect a premise is not a true scientist, and is practicing a sort of religion, not science.

      This is more precisely what I meant to convey.

      --
      ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
    11. Re:We dont actually need these docs by nagora · · Score: 2
      This is nonsense. Anyone who is reasonable, and who has read the abundance of high quality cases can only come to the conclusion that Dr. Haisch has come to. If anyone has a better explanation that accounts for all of the evidence, then they need to provide this explanation,

      Okay: it's all made up or mistaken. I used to be a real UFO nut and read every report I could find; my girlfriend likewise. Then one day I realised that not a single UFO report was free of odd little logic and coherence gaps. After a while I realised that this is because the reports (other than simple mistakes) are made up by people that are not very good at making things like this up.

      It's all tedious thrid rate fantasy when it comes down to it.

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    12. Re:We dont actually need these docs by Beautyon · · Score: 2

      After a while I realised that this is because the reports (other than simple mistakes) are made up by people that are not very good at making things like this up.

      So your "explanation" is that its all lies and delusion.

      You have to do *much* better than that my friend, on every level.

      --
      ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
    13. Re:We dont actually need these docs by nagora · · Score: 2
      So your "explanation" is that its all lies and delusion

      Yep. That was my great breakthrough - one day I sat up and thought "The assumption I've always made is that there is some truth to these claims and that the reason I've not found it is that I'm doing something wrong.". Once that assuption is discarded it all makes a lot more sense. It wasn't me that was going wrong when I couldn't find a convincing case, it was the liars and genuinely confused people.

      That's why all the photographs are crap and why all the pictures of "aliens" look like people in badly-fitting suits. That's why the aliens act like idiots in all the stories. Because they aren't real! So much simpler than trying to fit all the ridiculous stories with their contradictions and unlikely behaviour into some coherent theory of retarded but advanced aliens spanning the gulf between the stars to wage war on wheat and harass some cows.

      You have to do *much* better than that my friend, on every level.

      No, I don't. There's no point in going beyond this as the UFO-nuts will never admit defeat. I have personally spent hours debunking everything thrown at me by these people and in the end it's exactly the same as trying to explain evolution to a creationist: faith is always stronger than argument, especially amongst the stupid.

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    14. Re:We dont actually need these docs by Beautyon · · Score: 2

      Yep. That was my great breakthrough...

      ..I have personally spent hours debunking everything thrown at me...

      Thats excellent; now you can permanently rest, having personally solved this problem for the entire world. Publish your results on a website. The world is waiting with baited breath. You will be famous for sure. And after its all finished, you need never speak of it again.

      What a relief!

      --
      ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
    15. Re:We dont actually need these docs by nagora · · Score: 2
      Thats excellent; now you can permanently rest, having personally solved this problem for the entire world. Publish your results on a website. The world is waiting with baited breath. You will be famous for sure. And after its all finished, you need never speak of it again.

      Like you'd care! UFO-nuts are not interested in logic, evidence or reason.

      Alien visitors are no more real than all the witches that were burned at the stake in the 16 to 17 hundreds. But there were plenty of "eye-witness" accounts from people that said they flew on broomsticks, curdled milk, or summoned demons. All of it, just like alien spaceships, utter crap.

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    16. Re:We dont actually need these docs by Beautyon · · Score: 2

      Like you'd care!
      Why do you care if anyone cares? Skeptics are the true psycotic personalities in their never ending and utterly pointless circular debates.

      ...utter crap.
      Whatever you say and think, I'm cool with it.

      --
      ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
  50. I knew it by WildBeast · · Score: 2, Funny

    That's why they want to invade Iraq. Saddam Hussein is an alien.

    1. Re:I knew it by tumbaumba · · Score: 1

      Saddam Hussein is an alien.

      Illigal alien.

    2. Re:I knew it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could you be an illegal alian of your own country?

      Well, I guess if the King Of Greece could be, but then he is not supported by his ppl, S.H. claims to be.

  51. Bored? Alien invasion in your own home town! by TrevorB · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Bored on a sunny day? Get a huge tank of helium, and about a thousand oblong silver balloons.

    Then drive around following them, pointing "What's THAT?!!".

    Great fun.

  52. Re:In Russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is Russian, is no "is" or "are" or "am." Impostor revealed!

  53. sure they can handle the load by zenst · · Score: 1

    Load wont be an issue seeing as the juicy bits will end up somewhere upon the bbc site and you can just cover it then as the daily BBC link. Is this the new trend in /. posting effects or will we see a return of the old yesterdays stories again syndrome, I wonder.

  54. Hessdalen by Openadvocate · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You should check out http://www.hessdalen.org/ where they have an automatic measurement station. There have been many sightings of lights. So they have a Sun box controlling some cameras, taking pictures etc,,,, well look for yourself.
    Even if you are not info spooky lights, it is still an interesting project from a technical perspective.

    --
    my sig
  55. Rendlesham ain't your father's UFO by Wraithlyn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Have you read this transcript and report? This is a military report, drawn from multiple eye witnesses, and includes scientific measurements of depressions, abrasions, and radiation levels.. this is not some hick in a trailer park trying for 15 minutes of fame.

    Furthermore, I think it's a bit dismissive in this case to call it "just some object in the air", like it could be a weather balloon or swamp gas or something. This is an object that moves and behaves like no known terrestrial phenomenon.

    What do you think it could be? Ball lightning? Its movements seem too deliberate. Secret American or Russian aircraft with magnetic/gravitic propulsion and stealth tech? About as hard to swallow as aliens.

    I'm not saying OMG! Aliens! ... But, I think this is pretty damn interesting.

    --
    "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
    1. Re:Rendlesham ain't your father's UFO by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Furthermore, I think it's a bit dismissive in this case to call it "just some object in the air", like it could be a weather balloon or swamp gas or something. This is an object that moves and behaves like no known terrestrial phenomenon.

      Except a light house.

      Someone had the common sense to go to the event site and look in the direction indicated by the report. Must have been a really cool-looking incongruity if you didn't recognize the illusion.

    2. Re:Rendlesham ain't your father's UFO by henben · · Score: 2
      How exactly is this transcript supposed to have been obtained? I'm sceptical about it because the language doesn't strike me as 1970s British English. In particular:
      Halt: We just crossed the creek.
      "Creek" isn't a term applied to British geography.

      Plus, the talk of deflection needles doesn't quite ring true.

    3. Re:Rendlesham ain't your father's UFO by Wraithlyn · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Thank you for responding. Yes, I've read the lighthouse theory. It's good, and raises some questions, but it simply can't explain all the observations, and it dismisses any observations that cannot be explained by its hypothesis as being "a marvellous product of human imagination."

      Here is a very logical and well written essay on UFO skepticism. In particular, I would like to direct your attention to the section entitled, "Occam's Razor and the Skeptics", roughly two thirds of the way down. I shall quote it here:
      "Occam's Razor and the Skeptics

      The UFO skeptics don't understand Occam's Razor, and they abuse it regularly. They think they understand it, but they don't. What it means is that when several hypotheses of varying complexity can explain a set of observations with equal ability, the first one to be tested should be the one that invokes the fewest number of uncorroborated assumptions. If this simplest hypothesis is proven incorrect, the next simplest is chosen, and so forth.

      But the skeptics forget two parts: the part regarding the test of the simpler hypotheses, and the part regarding explaining all of the observations. What a debunker will do is mutilate and butcher the observations until it can be "explained" by one of the simpler hypotheses, which is the inverse of the proper approach. The proper approach is to alter the hypothesis to accommodate the observations. One should never alter the observations to conform with a hypothesis by saying "if we assume the object was not physical, despite the level of evidence that would imply the solidity of a conventional aircraft with near-certainty, then we can also assume the object was not moving, was not exhibiting the color orange, was not 50 feet in diameter as described, and then declare that it was really Venus."

      Do you see what I'm getting at? The lighthouse hypothesis could explain a light appearing to move in the forest, but it doesn't explain how they observed what they described "as being metallic in appearance and triangular in shape, approximately two to three meters across the base and approximately two meters high." It doesn't explain how it could have "bank(s) of blue lights underneath". It doesn't attempt to explain why "the animals on a nearby farm went into a frenzy." It doesn't explain how the object vanished and was spotted again "an hour later near the back gate."

      It can account for the presence of radiation, the depressions on the ground, and the tree markings, but it can't explain the relationship... ie WHY they recorded a "peak reading in the three depressions and near the center of the triangle formed by the depressions. A nearby tree had moderate (.05-.07) readings on the side of the tree toward the depressions." Is it just a coincidence that the radiation levels from cosmic rays and whatnot are measurably strongest in the depressions and centre of the 'landing zone', and the side of the tree facing it? Perhaps. Unlikely though.

      It doesn't explain how "At one point it appeared to throw off glowing particles and then broke into five separate white objects and then disappeared." It doesn't explain how "three star-like objects were noticed in the sky. Two objects to the north and one to the south [which] moved rapidly in sharp angular movements and displayed red, green and blue lights.", or "The objects to the north appeared to be elliptical through an 8-12 power lens. They then turned to full circles.", or "The object to the south was visible for two or three hours and beamed down a stream of light from time to time." (Yes I know it mentions these last observations. Saying the above is "probably" just stars is NOT an adequate scientific explanation for these very specific and detailed observations corroborated by multiple eye witnesses)

      So, in conclusion, the lighthouse hypothesis attempts to 'mutilate and butcher the observations until it can be "explained" by one of the simpler hypotheses'. This is NOT the Scientific Method.
      --
      "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
    4. Re:Rendlesham ain't your father's UFO by Wraithlyn · · Score: 2

      They're not British, they're United States Air Force. The summary report starts out with "1. Early in the morning of 27 Dec 80 (approximately 0300L),two USAF security police patrolmen saw unusual lights outside the back gate at RAF Woodbridge.", and the "Halt" in question is "CHARLES I. HALT, Lt Col, USAF" as noted at the bottom of the transcript.

      --
      "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
    5. Re:Rendlesham ain't your father's UFO by Jamesie · · Score: 1

      It was an american spy satellite film recovery base in Britain.

    6. Re:Rendlesham ain't your father's UFO by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Here is a very logical and well written essay on UFO skepticism. [dabsol.co.uk] In particular, I would like to direct your attention to the section entitled, "Occam's Razor and the Skeptics", roughly two thirds of the way down.
      [...]
      What a debunker will do is mutilate and butcher the observations until it can be "explained" by one of the simpler hypotheses, which is the inverse of the proper approach. The proper approach is to alter the hypothesis to accommodate the observations. One should never alter the observations to conform with a hypothesis


      This is true when observations are taken under carefully controlled conditions (that is, after all, part of the scientific method). However, chance eyewitness accounts of *anything* under non-ideal conditions are about as closely related to reality as a typical "inspired by true events" TV-movie. This is the bane of police officers taking witness statements from accident scenes; it also makes it reasonable to claim that any given interpretation in the memo was not a correct one, especially given that known phenomena almost certainly accounted for at least some of the items described.

      This feeds back into the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" rule of thumb. If observations appear to contradict all expectations, and the observations are open to question, then it is fair to assert that the observations are likely to be at least partly mistaken. Note that this does not assert ironclad proof; only likelihood.

      If you want guesses as to the other points you raise, sure, I'll give them; but without having been there that night, they're so much hot air.

      Blind conjectures as follows:

      The lighthouse hypothesis could explain a light appearing to move in the forest, but it doesn't explain how they observed what they described "as being metallic in appearance and triangular in shape, approximately two to three meters across the base and approximately two meters high." It doesn't explain how it could have "bank(s) of blue lights underneath".

      Silouette of trees obstructing the light would do this quite nicely. Most of the light showing at the top, some glow at the bottom, and enough of a glow at the sides to give the impression of shininess. I can believe that the blue colour was an illusion; colour sense is royally screwed up in low-light conditions (light dim enough to be perceived as monochrome often looks pale blue or green). Without actually taking a look at this lighthouse, I have no explanation offered for why the pulsing light was described as red.

      It doesn't attempt to explain why "the animals on a nearby farm went into a frenzy."

      A meteor as bright as the full moon had passed overhead a few minutes ago. This is described in the link I cited. Or it could just as easily have been some other trigger; animal noise needn't be constant.

      It doesn't explain how the object vanished and was spotted again "an hour later near the back gate."

      Obstructed by trees as the observers moved would be my first guess. Other explanations doubtless exist.

      it can't explain the relationship... ie WHY they recorded a "peak reading in the three depressions and near the center of the triangle formed by the depressions. A nearby tree had moderate (.05-.07) readings on the side of the tree toward the depressions."

      That one's easy. Trees aren't radioactive. Any excess background was probably from rocks (my father had a few thorite samples at one point; drove a radiation counter nuts). Point the counter at a tree, and the tree blocks half of the background. Move so that you no longer have line of site to wherever the rocks in question are, or even move farther from the deposit, and you get a reduced count. Dirt will also do a decent job of blocking beta rays, as long as it's not itself radioactive.

      It doesn't explain how "At one point it appeared to throw off glowing particles and then broke into five separate white objects and then disappeared." It doesn't explain how "three star-like objects were noticed in the sky. Two objects to the north and one to the south [which] moved rapidly in sharp angular movements and displayed red, green and blue lights.", or "The objects to the north appeared to be elliptical through an 8-12 power lens. They then turned to full circles.", or "The object to the south was visible for two or three hours and beamed down a stream of light from time to time." (Yes I know it mentions these last observations. Saying the above is "probably" just stars is NOT an adequate scientific explanation for these very specific and detailed observations corroborated by multiple eye witnesses)

      You left out the part about the "red sun-like light" that pulsed and gave off the glowing particles observation being through trees, which means it could have been just about anything. Best guess: one or more people with flashlights checking out the site. A red pulsing light sounds more like a campfire, but wouldn't move.

      I have no explanation for the distant lights observed on the horizon, but am confident that one of the many usual glowing-moving-light explanations applies.

      So, in conclusion, the lighthouse hypothesis attempts to 'mutilate and butcher the observations until it can be "explained" by one of the simpler hypotheses'.

      Per my comments above, I think that taking all of the observations at face value would be even less accurate, especially given the evidence offered that _some_ of them (the disturbance caused by the meteor and the lighthouse's pulsing light) are very likely to not be the result of spacecraft activity (as they were classified in the report). The scientific method includes acknowledging noisy data as such.

    7. Re:Rendlesham ain't your father's UFO by Wraithlyn · · Score: 2

      First of all, seriously, thanks for taking the time to reply. It's nice to have a thought provoking, rational discussion about UFOs in a UFO thread instead of, say, making predictable, worn-out jokes about the Royal Family and such. :)

      "This is true when observations are taken under carefully controlled conditions"

      So, we can conveniently disregard ALL UFO sightings until one occurs in a laboratory? This is the essence of that "logical trickery" article I posted. Nothing is good enough for the UFO disbelievers, they always raise the bar for what is acceptable and believable when any new evidence rolls in.

      "However, chance eyewitness accounts of *anything*..."

      This isn't a chance eyewitness account, like a single bystander witnessing a car crash, and asked to recall his memory later. This is several people investigating something, and RECORDING their impressions AS they see them.

      "Silouette of trees obstructing the light would do this [create a metallic appearance] quite nicely. [...] I can believe that the blue colour was an illusion"

      Pure speculation deliberately concocted to make the observational evidence match better with the proposed hypothesis. Sorry.

      "I have no explanation offered for why the pulsing light was described as red."

      Oh.. I thought the lighthouse light WAS red, but you're quite right, it doesn't say that anywhere. Thanks for strengthening my argument ;)

      "A meteor as bright as the full moon had passed overhead a few minutes ago."

      The meteor timing doesn't make any sense to me. Your article mentions the meteor passed around 3am. Halt mentions in the transcript it is 1:48am when he notes the animal noises. Wasn't the meteor supposed to be verified as what they saw in the first place? How can this be if it happened later? Either way, there is nothing to support that the meteor passed WHEN the animals started acting up, and I don't believe the animals would collectively just wait a while before reacting.

      It doesn't explain how the object vanished and was spotted again "an hour later near the back gate."

      Obstructed by trees as the observers moved would be my first guess. Other explanations doubtless exist.


      They were LOOKING for it. I'm sorry but I can't see them losing such a bright light behind some trees for an hour, and it suddenly reappearing. They said it lit the whole forest. Passing in front of a tree isn't going to suddenly make it impossible to find again.

      I wouldn't presume to argue the finer points of radioactivity with you, I'll take your word on the tree thing... however, I notice you ONLY mentioned the tree. What about the readings which peaked in the ground depressions?

      You left out the part about the "red sun-like light" that pulsed and gave off the glowing particles observation being through trees, which means it could have been just about anything. Best guess: one or more people with flashlights checking out the site. A red pulsing light sounds more like a campfire, but wouldn't move.

      I left out the part about the red light cuz I thought that was easily explained by the lighthouse, sorry. People waving flashlights about in the woods do not appear to be red, blue, green lights in the sky moving rapidly with angular movements, or elliptical objects in the sky (under a 8-12x zoom, too), or an object in the sky that shines down a beam of light once in a while. And campfires do not pulse, they flicker. Pulse is a word used to describe something with a regular beat. You could argue they might've used poor word choice, but again, that would be twisting the observational evidence to fit better with the hypothesis.

      --
      "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
    8. Re:Rendlesham ain't your father's UFO by Beautyon · · Score: 2

      "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" rule of thumb.

      The rules of evidence do not change because the subject is disliked; they must be applied evenly, across all events and evidence.

      Using that imaginary "rule of thumb", a heinous mass murder with one hundred bodies would require more evidence than a murder without a body to secure a conviction, simply because emotions are involved in assessing the severity of the crime.

      Science cannot (and normally does not) work like this. The only people who trot out this line are skeptics, who are emotionally guarding a position, and who are not actually interested in the facts.

      --
      ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
    9. Re:Rendlesham ain't your father's UFO by TheAncientHacker · · Score: 2

      Exactly. The professional "UFO Skeptics" are the worst example I've ever seen of "If the observations don't agree with the theory, the observations must be eliminated" reasoning. The consistently come up with explanations that only explain part of a report and then claim that anything that didn't fit their theory was either a lie or at best mass delusion. By the same level of "logic" you could equally prove that almost every UFO sighting was really Santa Claus and Rudolph's nose. But amazingly they get people to believe their twaddle.

    10. Re:Rendlesham ain't your father's UFO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An informative post. Thank you.

    11. Re:Rendlesham ain't your father's UFO by Wraithlyn · · Score: 2

      Thanks, that was well put. Extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary proof, this is a classic skeptic trick... exactly the same as the "fake moon landers"... landing on the moon is an "extraordinary claim", thus we need extraordinary evidence... the testimony of people who were there is no longer good enough, neither are the video records, telemetry data, physical moon samples, and so on. There will NEVER be enough evidence to convice these people... ditto the UFO skeptics.. the big difference is they're the majority (for now).

      Furthermore, who is to say that extraterrestrial visitations are an extraordinary claim in the first place? That's a completely arbitrary assertion. Quite simply, nobody is in possession of any facts that indicate such a claim is extraordinary. Could be quite common for all we know. (Perhaps we are a weekly feature on an alien version of "Animal Planet"... "Crikey! We're gonna get our saucer RIGHT up close to these buggers. Uh oh.. they don't look too happy. You have to be careful with Earthlings, they can react quite irrationally when scared! Me mate who was studying Roswell a few years back vanished without a trace!")

      Humour aside, the point is that all evidence should be examined with the same respect and standards (and healthy skepticism.. there are plenty of hoaxes out there), not ignored or twisted because the conclusion it might point to is "hard to believe".

      What they described at Rendlesham CANNOT BE ADEQUATELY EXPLAINED. It's as simple as that. Therefore the only argument is to claim they're not credible sources, and their descriptions are innaccurate. This is an argument that assumes the conclusion before the argument.

      --
      "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
    12. Re:Rendlesham ain't your father's UFO by antirename · · Score: 2

      Military hardware is actually a pretty good explanation. I've seen a couple that were tested with odd/very bright lights on them to break up the outline of the plane/helicopter. Example: I was catfishing after midnight on a military base a few years back. A very brightly lit, unidentifiable, and very quiet object dropped in over the treeline, hovered over the lake, and hit our boat with a spotlight from about a hundred yards out. It surprised the shit out of me, and I didn't know what it was. The guy I was fishing with did, but he let me wonder for about five minutes :) Turns out it was an Apache being tested with some kind of "silent rotor" technology. It didn't sound like a chopper, so you don't think of that when you see it. And all you see are the lights, which are also arranged so that it doesn't look like an Apache. Those army pilots could have caused any number of UFO sightings in area trailer parks, and maybe they did. Bottom line? UFO means "what the fuck was that?" At least in that case somebody told me.

  56. I wonder what happens by Sarin · · Score: 4, Funny

    if the ufo aliens post their story about earth on the intergalactic equivalent of slashdot, will earth be slashdotted by hundreds of millions of ufo's?

  57. Only half the story... by Ed+Avis · · Score: 2

    Okay, so the government is going to release its files. But I don't see any announcement that the aliens are going to release _their_ files about the incident. What are they trying to hide from us?

    --
    -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
  58. My Own Brand of Skepticism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a different spin on "government secrecy". I suspect that governments don't really know much more than the average citizen.

    The real reason for all the secrecy is that governments are ashamed to reveal what they DON'T know!!! After all, the military, in particular, owe their jobs to being "in control"!

    This is not to suggest that UFO's are not real in some sense, just that we really don't know what they are. Some government agencies may pretend to their superiors that they do "know", but a little thought must suggest that they can't know more than the common person.

    There are two possibilities:

    1/ UFO's are really operated by aliens who have mastered the speed of light and have technology thousands or millions of years beyond us. In this case, the aliens won't reveal anything about themselves that is remotely connected to the "truth" and all of those mighty government agents must know exactly nothing! Everything we think that we know is just a virtual reality, multi-media, sound and light show completely orchestrated by those highly advanced aliens.

    2/ UFO's are some subtle and unknown natural phenomenon. In this case their is nothing interesting for government agents to know!!! It will be of interest only to a few specialized scientists.

    At least I will know what I am looking for when I read these British "UFO Reports".

  59. Re:Britain == land of the free. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "I think its pretty fucking funny when people who have no idea how the US is run critizise it for things they don't fully understand."

    I should say the same to you.
    I have news for you friend, but I work from within the system you so boldly claim I know nothing about. I know more about it than you will ever hope to, because I see it from the inside out every day of my life.
    If you had any idea what was going on behind closed doors with regard to the people who are making decisions and passing laws in this country, you would be disgusted.

  60. cool by zogger · · Score: 4, Insightful
    --glad to see the brits *maybe* releasing some info. will remain to be seen how hokey or how real it is. Spain and some other nations have released a little as well.

    Link url to blackvault, the largest UFO site on the web, among other things contains thousands of US freedom of information act documents, and yes, there's a boatload of redacted out content, as in "nothing to see here, we just blacked this out because... uhhh... ya see.. I mean..., well because we can!" This site is BIG, well done, and thorough, I recommend it to serious researchers and enthusiasts AND skeptics.

    http://www.bvalphaserver.com/

    the Black Vault

    The web master started this site I *think* when he was 16, I've been visiting off and on for years.

    Here's my disclaimer. Some of ya'all might have noted my frequent reference to "government" as more or less a pack of liars. One of the two primary reasons (initially that is) I have held this position most of my life is because of "ufos". when I was a teenager some friends and I saw one very close up, very close. Nope, no drugs or booze involved to dispel any trolling. It was not swamp gas, nmoon on a ducks back, some helicopter, or any other explanation other than -no explanation. Some seriously advanced flying "something'. To describe it , it was a large glowing oval shaped whatever, it flew down the block just above the houses, stopped over a house closeby, hung out, then slowly went down the block, toward the end it started to climb then WHAM took off like mach bignumber and was gone. Tell ya whut you just do NOT forget things like this. So, I start reading about UFOs,and I notice the government more or less says they don't exist except as various lame reasons. Well, too bad, 'cuz I know this is a whopper. Score one for destroying a yong man's trust in government, already shaken by the kennedy whack, then oswalds rubout which was obvious to anyone with an iq above 50 as "eliminating some embarassing evidence".

    government=liars when it comes to certain things. This is IMO of course, but in the decades since I have seen no evidence to persuade me otherwise, in fact,I'd say the evidence FOR ufo's as being something "other" is better than for "honesty in government".

    Exactly what they are, no idea, demons to secret nazi craft, time travellers to interstellar visitors, angels to secret gov blackops-no idea, none. I tend to more think the correct answer is "all of the above".

    1. Re:cool by geek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      " Exactly what they are, no idea, demons to secret nazi craft, time travellers to interstellar visitors, angels to secret gov blackops-no idea, none. I tend to more think the correct answer is "all of the above"."

      Or it's none of the above and YOU'RE the liar. I trust elected officials with college educations and clean background checks with top level security clearance a lot more than 16 year old kids running websites.

      No offense, maybe you are right, maybe they are right, maybe I am wrong. I know it doesn't matter since you can't prove any of it. When you can I'll eat my words.

    2. Re:cool by zogger · · Score: 2

      check out his link, those freedom of information act documents come from government. Read them yourself.

      It's really just dismally hard to even describe with text what seeing a UFO does to you, I've tried several times and failed. It is in the classical sense "awe"some, it's just overwhelming. I distinctly remember all the hairs on my neck going up, it was that shocking and that much a sense of amazement and wonder. Imagine a split second where you experience every possible emotion, it's something like that.

      It is OK for you to be skeptical, this is your right. If you ever see one, you'll change your mind. That's about it. In a way-this is funny but true-here's an analogy. It's not perfect but it's good enough. Seing a UFO then trying to describe it,is like trying to explain sex to a virgin, no amount of words are the same as the experience.

    3. Re:cool by SN74S181 · · Score: 1
      It is OK for you to be skeptical, this is your right. If you ever see one, you'll change your mind.


      Well, that about sums up the basis of faith of a lot of religious zealots, too. They had a 'visitation' and/or witnessed a miracle.

      So you're in fine company with a bunch of people with rosary beads who saw blood drip from a statue.

    4. Re:cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      American government officials have sterilizated retarded people... Eugenics

      American government officials have allowed entire communities to not have their VD treated without informed consent until 1972...
      Tuskigee

      American government officials have exposed retarded people to radiation...
      1993: The Albuquerque Tribune publicizes 1940s experiments involving plutonium injection of human research subjects and secret radiation experiments. Indigent patients and mentally retarded children were deceived about the nature of their treatment.

      American government officials have placed American millitary units into such a position that those units attacked wedding ceremonies with jet planes...
      Wedding Attack

      If you blindly trust your government, then you are a fool. Freedom requires eternal vigilance and the willingness to die for that freedom. Even to die to defend other peoples freedom. Because if you let someone else's rights be trampled for your own personal safety, then it is only a matter of time until it is your turn...

      'First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing. Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me.' - Niemöller

      And the one thing that I really can't figure out... if there are no UFO's, why are the reports classifed? Why are documents released under the freedom of information act be blacked out so much? Some of the documents regarding Roswell have 75% of their content removed. Where there is smoke, there is fire... the governement is hiding something. Why not just tell us what it is and be done with it?

    5. Re:cool by Saeger · · Score: 2
      "...it's just overwhelming. I distinctly remember all the hairs on my neck going up..."

      Yeah, just like how people feel when they think they've seen a ghost. Except most people don't believe in old-fashioned ghosts and goblins anymore, so the mass delusion has modernized. :-)

      (I'm not saying it's definitely a delusion, since there's no hard evidence either way - which is why I'm also religiously agnostic (and consistent.))

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
  61. Re:Rendlesham Forest Disclosure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes. Yes they are.

  62. Some of the mods lack of humor... so... by Cheese+Cracker · · Score: 1

    maybe I should put it on the level they understand...

    1) UFO
    2) ???
    3) Profit

  63. Begium! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Belgium had a nice incident involving UFO's being spotted by people on the ground, by radar, and by pilots in planes - including military pilots scrambled to intercept the UFO's.

    As far as I know they never found out what exactly they were chasing...

  64. Technology by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 3, Funny

    Are their servers going to be able to handle the load?

    Of course. They all run on advanced alien technology.

  65. The files will say: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Incident #4232:
    Kook claims that aliens raped him in his sleep. Kook as has affinity to carrots and sleep walking.

    Incident #3222:
    Kook claims she was abducted off her couch after a long night of drinking, claims she woke up while being probed by aliens. When asked what the aliens looked like she said "James Bond"..

    Incident #2234:
    Kook in a trailer park claims he was abducted. Wife reports he was passed out the entire day and night while he slept through his alcohol poisening.

    The simple fact is that people are delusional and stupid.

    These are probably similar whackjobs who believe in "Twin Flam Energies" and all that hippy bullshit.

    Fuck Pseudoscience.

    1. Re:The files will say: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somehow I doubt that hippies have "Twin Flam Engeries".

  66. Brits Seize Humour Glands! by BiOFH · · Score: 2

    I was gonna say that maybe 'you' had been visited by aliens and had your funny bone removed... but then I realised you're a pommie so that's an anatomical impossibility. ;)

    --
    - I am made of meat.
    1. Re:Brits Seize Humour Glands! by JamesCronus · · Score: 1

      whats a pommie?

      --
      dybia felly dwi a hampster (i think therefore i am a hampster)
    2. Re:Brits Seize Humour Glands! by iMMersE · · Score: 1

      What's a hampster?

      --
      codegolf.com - smaller *is* better.
    3. Re:Brits Seize Humour Glands! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know how you can tell an Australian from a New Zealander? Check for the shackle marks on the wrists and ankles...

      For the person who asked what a pommie is... it's an Aussie term for a Briton and stands for "Prisoner Of Mother England"... they don't seem to understand that was their role.

    4. Re:Brits Seize Humour Glands! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      originally it was an acronym: POME

      Prisoner of mother England.

      It was originally a term used to apply to convicts sent to Australia. Free Australians eventually turned it against Brit's (since they were still "prisoners" of England).

    5. Re:Brits Seize Humour Glands! by JamesCronus · · Score: 1

      right, thats strange, i've been called a prommie, yet i'm british?????technically i'm a gog coming from north wales but that is something completly differnent

      --
      dybia felly dwi a hampster (i think therefore i am a hampster)
  67. What's curry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    forgive me for asking... I really want to know.

    1. Re:What's curry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Horrid.

      What the brits wrongly call indian food ;)

  68. Re:Britain == land of the free. by shepd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why is it in this 'free' land I'm assumed guilty until proved innocent if I forget the key to my encrypted documents? Not to mention the ever growing panopticon which is the streets of England.

    Me-thinks you need to read up a lot more on the state of freedom in these countries...

    --
    If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
  69. Cool! by Kwil · · Score: 1

    Free secret decoder ring!

    --

    That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze

    1. Re:Cool! by perfessor+multigeek · · Score: 2

      Yep. With the genyooine full color guaronteeed authentic picture of Buck Rogers in the Twenty-fourth Century and everything.

      --
      Data is the lever, rigor the fulcrum, brains the force that drives it all.
  70. Tape or DVD? by SEWilco · · Score: 1

    So will UFO be in tape or DVD? It may be difficult to find extra bits for bonus discs...

  71. hmm by dmouritsendk · · Score: 1

    "These first steps mark important progress toward changing the culture of government and extending the public's right to know what is being done in their name" Freedom of Information Minister Yvette Cooper said in a statement

    Okay... seriously.. what DID them brits do to thiese poor aliens? And in the name of the british people! did they force them to play soccer and drink ale or something??

  72. an addition to their files by enos · · Score: 3, Funny

    The second they release their files, people are going to be reporting sightings of strange lights from where the server room used to be...

    --
    boldly going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse
  73. Of course... by Have+Blue · · Score: 2

    ...none of the target audience of these documents will ever believe them for a second.

  74. NORAD investigating contrails?!? by Mipmap · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Anyone else hear more about this? CNN has a story about an unidentified contrail being investigated by NORAD. Didn't know they tracked these things -and how does one tell one is special? Was it glowing green or something?

  75. What about the one listed in... by fuzza · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... the documentary book entitled The Philadelphia Experiment?

    No, I'm not talking about the movie (well I guess I am sort of), but this was a documentary on possible US Navy research into invisibility, just as in the movie.

    Most of the book is about that (I think; I haven't read it all yet), but in line with the "government conspiracy" angle there was a very interesting UFO sighting and subsequent follow-on (or is that redundant?) .

    I might post it here tonight when I get back home if anyone's interested; it's about 2 pages, which from a typical novel is probably little enough for fair use.

    (Then again, maybe it's online somewhere...)

    --
    Can't find examples of evolution? No matter, neither could Dawkins
    1. Re:What about the one listed in... by fuzza · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, I guess "Score 4, Interesting" means that someone's interested... just save some mod points for this post, OK? ;)

      This is taken from "The Philadelphia Experiment", Charles Berlitz and William Moore, pp173-7. The story is told in the book as being one- and two-levels removed, so there are a lot of extra names in here which I'm snipping. The gist of the actual UFO story is as follows...

      (It looks like this is reported elsewhere online, but not in this level of detail.)


      Late in the evening on Tuesday October 7, 1975, Robert Suffern, a twenty-seven-year-old carpenter from rural Bracebridge, Ontario, received a call from his sister, who lives down the road, asking him to investigate a strange glow that seemed to be coming from a nearby barn. Suffern drove to the barn, took a quick look around, and not seeing anything out of the ordinary, was proceeding to his sister's house when he was startled to see a darkened saucer-shaped object about 12 to 14 feet in diameter squatting on the gravelled road directly ahead of him.

      `I was scared,' he later recounted to a Toronto Sun reporter. `It was right there in front of me with no lights and no signs of life.' His car hadn't quite come to a full stop, he said, when the object `went straight up in the air and out of sight.'

      According to Suffern's story, he had no sooner managed to turn his car around and head for home when a strange, 4-foot-tall humanlike creature with `very wide shoulders which were out of proportion to his body' and wearing a silver-grey suit and a globe-type helmet walked out into the road right in front of his car. Suffern slammed on the brakes, skidding on the loose gravel, and came within inches of colliding with the creature, who promptly dodged out of the way, ran to the side of the road, jumped a fence, and disappeared into a field. According to the account Suffern gave to the Sun reporter, when the figure `got to the fence, he put his hands on a post and went over it with no effort at all. It was like he was weightless.'

      Badly shaken by this encounter, Suffern finally succeeded in driving home, only to discover when he looked out the window of his house that the UFO had returned, this time flying slowly close over the road. At that moment, it flew around an electric pole and again disappeared, seemingly going straight up into the night sky.

      Neither relatives, close friends, nor the reporters, investigators, and plain curious who descended on his farmhouse over the next several weeks could dislodge him from his story.

      `I know what I saw,' he said. `But I don't care if I ever see that creature again.'


      Of course, if the story ended at this point, it would be nothing more than another addition to an every growing list of mysterious and difficult-to-verify close-encounter cases in recent years. But there was more...


      On December 12, 1975, after the Sufferns were beginning to feel some semblance of order again (their farm was literally swamped for weeks by roving bands of curiosity seekers) three men were delivered to their home in an Ontario Provincial Police cruiser. The appointment had been pre-arranged in November. These officials arrived in full uniform, bearing impressive credentials and representing themselves as the TOP BRASS from the Canadian Forces in Ottawa, the United States Air Force, Pentagon, and from the Office of Naval Intelligence. Suffern, previously perturbed about the nature of his UFO encounter, claimed that ALL his questions were answered POINT BLANK and with NO HESITATIONS by these three helpful gentlemen. They `opened the books' to him and gave him the answers to the WHERE FROM, the What and the Why. They implied that the U.S. and Canadian governments have known all about UFOs since 1943 and have in fact been cooperating with the ALIENS in some unknown capacity since then!

      As if this wasn't enough to swallow in one gulp, the military `know-it-alls' threw us yet another curve when they made a formal APOLOGY [to Suffern] for the unfortunate incident of Oct. 7. They claimed it was a MISTAKE!! To which Suffern immediately thought out loud that it must have been a supersecret military craft. No, they claimed. It was a malfunction in the saucer that brought the craft down, complete with aliens, on his property. Mrs Suffern found all this quite impossible to accept, but when she quizzed them, the officers actually came up with the exact time of the landing - to the minute - a small detail that only the Sufferns knew and had not conveyed to anyone. They have had three different UFO sightings over their property, only the last of which they reported, and again the times and dates were duly related to them by the knowledgeable trio. The enlightened agents, carrying a battery of books and data (complete with gun camera photos of UFO), again emphasized that the landing was an ACCIDENT and should not have occurred...

      ... Further along we learned that the military still refer to UFO occupants as `humanoids'. Contact was apparently made in 1943 (reputedly through an accident which occurred during a U.S. Naval experiment regarding radar invisibility) and now our forces are aware of the aliens' movements on this planet...

      ... Suffern adamantly insisted that all his questions about the craft and the occupant were answered `to his satisfaction' despite the fact that (many) civilian investigators have visited him and offered alternate hypotheses to clear up the mystery for him. Many came close but none answered him with the same `degree of accuracy'...

      The critical key to Suffern's encounter is the fact that he had a `near miss' car situation with a physical entity, dressed in a one-piece silver suit and short in stature. If contact indeed had taken place then there could have been serious repercussions, had he actually run the being down. This could account for the military's intervention and unusual frankness...


      The Sufferns remained firm in their statement that all three military personnel answered all their questions with uncanny precision and immediately. Suffern himself claims that he knows the identities of these three men and can prove that they were not imposters. He also denies he is bound by the Canadian Secrets Act and claims that his only motive for keeping the details secret is for the `moral reason' of simply wanting to keep his part of the bargain by complying with the `government's wishes' in this matter.


      So, folks, what do you make of that?

      --
      Can't find examples of evolution? No matter, neither could Dawkins
  76. ho hum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    [b]2008[/b]: Aliens land on Earth. People of all races give up their petty bickering and fighting among and with each other and unite together in harmony to fight off the hostile Aliens.

    [b]2010[/b]: The Aliens from outer space have been beaten. The few remaining aliens jump in their spaceships and take off, vowing never to return. All of humanity rejoices over their united victory.

    [b]2011[/b]: Most of humanity returns to their petty nature, choosing to bicker and find problems with those who look different, act different, etc. Humans fight humans again and the whole ball of dung starts rolling again.

    1. Re:ho hum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2012: UFO skeptics throw out factual evidence of aliens existing.

  77. MOD: +1 Correct. by Bishop · · Score: 2

    The British do have a Constitution. It is oral not written.

  78. [HAIKU] Get real. by jfisherwa · · Score: 2, Funny

    Grievance for women?
    Only on one condition:
    Natalie Portman.

  79. Black Helicopters, Crop Circles and Orbs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The best footage ever, which you never see anymore, was on a show years ago which showed this glowing orb actually carving out crop circles. This was happening in broad daylight with the camera guy going nuts in the background and trying to follow it but it was all VERY clear. Then as if this wasn't weird enough suddenly one or two black military helicopters start buzzing the orb and the cameraman. The orb goes off from the field and hovers a few feet above the field at which point the helicopter gets real close and hovers too as if they can't believe what they are seeing and want to get a really good look.
    I'm not sure of the program now but the footage was absolutely real. I've never seen anything like it before or since that is so amazing, save maybe the face on Mars. The fact that you don't see this footage at all anymore makes me think it may have been squelched by someone.

    1. Re:Black Helicopters, Crop Circles and Orbs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Footage == Nothing

      When I see two aliens bumping uglies in front of me, then I'll believe. Maybe. It might just be CowboyNeal whacking off.

  80. Re:Britain == land of the free. by metlin · · Score: 2

    Atleast you have a properly implemented legal system, however bad it maybe.

    In most Asian countries, the laws are what the politicians and the police define. If you have money, power and status, there's nothing that you cannot do. Your complaints fall on deaf ears, even the simplest of ones.

    Just as an example, there is an anti-smoking law in India which prohibits smoking in public places, when a friend of mine questioned a cop for smoking in a public place, the cop said that my friend was the one smoking and dragged him off.

    I've lodged complaints against people who've mugged me, with details of their appearance and vehicle reg. numbers. So far, I've not even had a single response.

    Cops and government officials ask for bribes at every stage, even if you are law abiding. The politicians set the rules. My father had to quit his job because he wanted to name some corrupt people in his organization.

    Almost every politician is either from the Entertainment industry or has a criminal record, or both. What does the judiciary do? Absolutely nothing. Cases are lodged, and dropped with no charges and an apology.

    We fail to understand how govt. employees with meagre salaries buy cars and properties that even the richest cannot afford.

    I do not know abt UK, but I've been in the US, and have heard abt UK. Yes, to the dot perhaps it's a little bad, but not until you've lived the way we have. This is HELL.

  81. i think by LittleBigLui · · Score: 1

    there are some pictures of that party in the UFO report. you know, the borg cube with the disco lights on?

    --
    Free as in mason.
  82. More flexible than US constitution? by TheLink · · Score: 2

    Actually the lack of flexibility is nothing to do with the US constitution.

    Haven't you noticed that most US people quote their constitution mainly by its _amendments_?

    1st amendment, 2nd, 5th blahblahblah. (most people seem more familiar with the amendments than the document which was amended ;) ).

    While their constitution is definitely flexible and has changed with time, ironically most US-folk seem to quote the amendments as if they are eternal and cast in stone.

    Link.

    --
  83. OFF TOPIC by TheEnglishPatient · · Score: 1

    What's this got to do with the original article?

  84. this is daft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I live in Otley, a village about 3 miles from RAF woodbridge (ive been camping on base since it was 'closed down' and they started building houses where all the support huts used to be.)

    There werent any UFOs at Rendlesham, but, for an abandoned air base with no military personelle on it, there was a large number of helicopters flying real low, at night, with no lights on??? Three LYNXs with TOWs on them.

    Also, there were these guys walking round the runway the next morning, in a black jeep wearing black outfits, i kid you not.

    Not UFOs, but still a bit odd!

    Seb

  85. Study:Uneducated Outbreeding Intelligentsia 2-To-1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CHICAGO--In a report with dire implications for the intellectual future of America, a University of Chicago study revealed Monday that the nation's uneducated are breeding twice as soon and twice as often as those with university diplomas. "The average member of the American underclass spawns at age 15, compared to age 30 for the average college-educated professional," study leader Kenneth Stalls said. "America's intellectual elite, as a result, is badly losing the genetic marathon, with two generations of dullards born for every one generation of cultured literates." Added Stalls: "At this rate, by the year 2100 there will be five smart people on Earth, swallowed whole by more than 12 billion mouth-breathers incapable of understanding the binary exponentiation that swamped the Earth with their like." High-school dropout Mandi Drucker, 16, said of the findings, "All I know is, we're in love."

  86. Publish the documents on P2P networks! by Jeppe+Salvesen · · Score: 2

    People - if you are early, and manage to get the documents from the site before it falls apart, please share those documents using gnutella, fasttrack, freenet etc. P2P networks scale to much higher bandtwidths than even a massive server park.

    --

    Stop the brainwash

  87. Very Well Said by Beautyon · · Score: 2

    A brilliant post.

    As I said in another thread, the arguments about UFOs are over. The preponderance of evidence makes the nature of UFOs abundantly clear.

    The interesting discussions are now centered around what is to be done about this problem, how it is developing, and what use we can make of it for our own benefit.

    --
    ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
  88. This is the trigger... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The ET's have been trying to keep themselves secret as long as possible. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, they have been covertly prepping us politically and psychologically for an invasion. Once their existence becomes official they will cut their losses and commence the invasion.

  89. Re:Bored? Alien invasion in your own home town! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh no! Silver balloons! Run for the hills!

  90. Re:Bored? Alien invasion in your own home town! by TrevorB · · Score: 1

    Just release them from a silver derigible and pretend you're the mothership.

  91. British Intelligence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't that a misnomer?

  92. Same goes for evolutionists by ezakimak · · Score: 0

    Very interesting way to put it. I notice that this is exactly what all those people who profess evolution to be a fact rather than admit that it's still just a theory (and a poor one at that imo) do.

  93. Last Post! by alpg · · Score: 1

    There was once a programmer who worked upon microprocessors. "Look at
    how well off I am here," he said to a mainframe programmer who came to visit,
    "I have my own operating system and file storage device. I do not have to
    share my resources with anyone. The software is self-consistent and
    easy-to-use. Why do you not quit your present job and join me here?"
    The mainframe programmer then began to describe his system to his
    friend, saying: "The mainframe sits like an ancient sage meditating in the
    midst of the data center. Its disk drives lie end-to-end like a great ocean
    of machinery. The software is a multi-faceted as a diamond and as convoluted
    as a primeval jungle. The programs, each unique, move through the system
    like a swift-flowing river. That is why I am happy where I am."
    The microcomputer programmer, upon hearing this, fell silent. But the
    two programmers remained friends until the end of their days.
    -- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...