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?"

52 of 314 comments (clear)

  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 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.
  2. 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 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.)
  3. 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 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

    2. 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)
    3. 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.

    4. 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.)

    5. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

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

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

  7. 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.

  8. 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).

  9. 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 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.
    4. 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/
  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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 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
  13. 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

  14. 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.

  15. 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.
  16. Aliens *did* land in Britain... by mtec · · Score: 5, Funny

    but were successfully repelled by the local cuisine.

    --
    Cake or Death? Cake Please!
  17. 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.

  18. 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

  19. 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.

  20. 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.
  21. 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 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.

  22. 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.

  23. 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
  24. 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 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
    2. 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.

  25. 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?

  26. 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.

  27. 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.

  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. 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