Slashdot Mirror


France Opens Secret UFO Files

Radon360 notes that France has become the first country to open its files on UFOs. A new website lists over 1600 sightings dating back to the 1950s. "The online archives, which will be updated as new cases are reported, catalogues in minute detail cases ranging from the easily dismissed to a handful that continue to perplex even hard-nosed scientists. Known as OVNIs in French, UFOs have always generated intense interest along with countless conspiracy theories about secretive government cover-ups of findings deemed too sensitive or alarming for public consumption."

57 of 379 comments (clear)

  1. Moi by Mipoti+Gusundar · · Score: 5, Funny

    Je, pour une, bienvenu notre nouvelle ONVI maitre!

    --
    Will code for new sig.
    1. Re:Moi by jibjibjib · · Score: 2, Funny

      How do you say "Mod parent up" in French?

    2. Re:Moi by BlueTrin · · Score: 4, Informative

      You say:
      Donnez une bonne note au parent (there's no literal translation for mod up)

      or

      Votez pour le parent (implied that it is up)

      *Waiting for the freedom fries lovers to mod me down* :)

      --
      Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?
    3. Re:Moi by dmayle · · Score: 4, Informative

      <Offtopic>Ok, I won't go into how bad that French is...</Offtopic>

      It's OVNI for Objets Volants Non-Identifié. But the reason I'm posting is that I wanted to point out that this has been released by CNES, which is kind of like NASA in France. Not quite, as it's more of an educational institution, but it's very similar nonetheless...

    4. Re:Moi by Mjlner · · Score: 5, Funny

      Je, pour une, bienvenu notre nouvelle ONVI maitre!
      You know, a "pardon my French" would be in order...
      --
      Lemon curry???
    5. Re:Moi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Dammit, it's not called "french fries" or "freedom fries", it's called "chips"! I fear we lost an opportunity to teach Americans real English...

    6. Re:Moi by Library+Spoff · · Score: 5, Funny

      What's french for cliché ?

      --
      Acid House saves Souls
    7. Re:Moi by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 2, Funny

      >But wait, I "must be new here", right?

      Well, judging by your user id#, you would seem to be relatively new here. :-)

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    8. Re:Moi by rifter · · Score: 2, Informative

      French fries are long and thin, chips (in England) are thicker and shorter.

      Here in the US the thick ones are often called "steak fries."

      Here in Australia you get a strange crossover between British and American English, and so chips can mean either crisps or fries depending on context.

      Actually depending on where you go in the US chips can mean anything, within a restaurant context. Often, ordering "chips" in an Anglophile/English-style pub/restaurant will result in something like what other restaurants call "steak fries." Some restaurants will give you freshly fried "potato chips" which are basically what you call "crisps." Nevertheless, what you get when you order "french fries" varies widely as well. "French Fries" are supposed to be fried julienne potatoes which is where the name comes from ("frenched" being slang at one time for julienne), but most fast food places serve what used to be called "shoestring potatoes" instead (incidentally, shoestring potatoes also are, or at least were, available dried and canned).

      It gets even more confusing when you throw in "home fries" and "hash browns." To some people the two are the same, and in any case ordering either could result in a heap of grated, fried, salted potatos, a heap of diced fried potatoes, a fried potato patty with the consistency of a "tater tot" (often oblong shaped), or some variation on the theme. I am sure someone else will point to a variety of "tater tot" interpretations. At least we're consistent enough to almost always use potato in these dishes, unlike with some other foods (like Caesar Salad, which is a whole other contentious discussion which may or may not involved anchovies).

      Food in the US is weird, partially because of the many influences, immigrants, and rampant individualism coupled with inventiveness. As an aside, when hosting dinner for mobsters from New York and Boston simultaneously, don't serve clam chowder unless you want to clean up blood. Then again, I guess serving the Manhattan style would do nicely for that problem.

    9. Re:Moi by jythie · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Heh. Actually I have heard that British English has actually diverged further then American English... so maybe America needs to take English back to England?

  2. French Response by oldwindways · · Score: 3, Funny

    Honestly, if the French government though there were UFOs, they wouldn't bother to cover it up, they would just surrender.

    --
    "Si vis pacem para bellum" -Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus
    1. Re:French Response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Then the US would invade wherever the UFOs came from, only to retreat several years later when no WMDs are found.

    2. Re:French Response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh, ha ha. Someone mentions the French and then the next thing you know someone responds with a surrender joke. Quite original.

      French bashing was so 2002/2003. We saw how the other items in the American gung-ho mindset worked out for that time period: French bashing, invading Iraq, Guantanamo Bay prison, restrictive anti-terror laws, waterboarding, extraordinary rendition for torture, etc. Most people recognize that the French were right in 2002 and 2003 and that the rest of the items above were grave mistakes. Why continue to bash the French then? It isn't like they haven't helped out fight against the Taliban and al Qaeda--in fact the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaule is heading out to the Arabian Gulf for another tour. The French were against a war than most Americans are now against (Iraq) and support a war that most Americans still continue to support (Afghanistan). Continuing to bash the French is worse than pointless. It is like a jock beating up the smart kid because he was right and the jock was wrong. The main reason people continue to bash the French is to hide their own shame.

    3. Re:French Response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't the French been called surrender monkeys since WW2? I know that Iraq is what folks want to focus most recently when it comes to France, but certain reputations have been around for a lot longer.

    4. Re:French Response by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Now, speaking as a Brit, we've been bashing the French for a good thousand years or so (and they have been bashing us for at least as long). We see no reason to stop just because the Americans have started to join in (although, we do find that pretty funny, since the main reason that they are not still a colony of ours is that the French fought for their independence).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:French Response by WinterSolstice · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I disagree - while the US has aided "France" 3 times (Revolution, and 2 wars IIRC) we always did it from self-interest. Once to pay off a debt, twice to prevent a war. If Germany had held France, then that little island country off the coast would have fallen. The US would eventually fall as well.

      That's totally self-interest.

      --
      An operating system should be like a light switch... simple, effective, easy to use, and designed for everyone.
    6. Re:French Response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Twice in recent years (one still in living memory) we went over and save them from their own incompetence, even though it was not directly in our self interest to do so.

      Bullshit! Do you think that the Russians would have stopped at Germany if allied troops hadn't already liberated their empire in the West? It was only when the Nazis started losing on the Eastern Front that the US realised they had to act before communism overran the whole of mainland Europe. You were acting purely from self interest - not that there's anything wrong with that, but don't think there was anything different between US actions in WW2 and French actions in the 18th century.

    7. Re:French Response by badasscat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, from every source I've ever read/watched, etc. militarily we were winning the war (read: kicking some serious ass).

      We were "militarily" winning the war by our standards, which were not the same as either the Viet Cong's or the NVA's standards. They were also winning the war by their standards. Their military goal was to kill as many of us as possible and eventually drive us out. Which they did.

      Military is strategic as well as tactical. What you're forgetting is the strategic element, which is different from the political element. Tactically, we were running rampant all over the battlefield, and that convinced some that we were winning. But our military strategy was fatally flawed in the face of an enemy whose counter-strategy was to feign retreat and then infiltrate and kill using sneak attacks. We thought we were winning; they knew we weren't. It was in fact their strategy to convince us we were winning in order to provide them with easier targets, and they were pretty successful at it.

      The "we would have won if not for all the hippies" argument is not one that has ever held any water. We could have stayed there forever and we would have never secured that country. Imagine Iraq today, only around 10 times worse (and statistically, it was), and actually devolving rather than improving the more years went by, the more troops we poured in and the more bombs we dropped. After 30 continuous years of escalating conflict, what military strategy would have changed that result?

      Read your history.

      Indeed.

    8. Re:French Response by WinterSolstice · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I would say the chief factor was Russia switching to the Allied side, but that just my opinion :)

      --
      An operating system should be like a light switch... simple, effective, easy to use, and designed for everyone.
    9. Re:French Response by Castar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, OK. So France in WWII brings up a couple immediate thoughts. First, of course, is the stunningly ineffective defense of the Maginot line - they were fighting the last war. Due to that, there's also the incredibly rapid invasion of the German forces and the subsequent surrender by the French government - an understandable move, when their main defense had just been subverted so entirely.

      However, then there's the second thing that springs to mind: the famous La Resistance movement, that continued fighting an entrenched occupying German force. In some ways, that's a lot more courageous than standing up to an invading enemy toe-to-toe. It's also recognized as a major contributor to the eventual defeat of the Germans - without the French resistance, Hitler would have had a strong base in France when D-Day came about.

      So it's very strange that the first part is the only part that's remembered on the Internet today. Especially since the Resistance was much more an expression of the French national character and less simply a reaction to strategic failure. I'm sure that the French commanders were spoken of unflatteringly, and the Vichy collaborators even more so, but the rest of the world absolutely recognized the French sacrifice and contribution to victory - at least, until relatively modern times.

      --
      I yearn for you tragically. A. T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.
  3. Link seems broken by atamyrat · · Score: 2, Informative

    To visit the website: www.cnes-geipan.fr. The article points to website http://www.cnes-geipan.fr/, which I couldn't access.

    Does anyone know the correct link?
    1. Re:Link seems broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      FTA:

      "The website itself -- which crashed host servers hours after it was unveiled due to heavy traffic -- is extremely well organized and complete, even including scanned copies of police reports."

    2. Re:Link seems broken by Gordonjcp · · Score: 4, Funny

      OMFG conspiracy! Either that or it's slashdotted already.

  4. "France has become the first country..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Radon360 notes that France has become the first country to open its files on UFOs.

    Because Radon360 is a twat.

    May 2006:
    http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FreedomOfInforma tion/PublicationScheme/SearchPublicationScheme/Uni dentifiedAerialPhenomenauapInTheUkAirDefenceRegion .htm

  5. Since this is France we are talking about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    will the database contain a field on whether or not the aliens looked delicious?

    1. Re:Since this is France we are talking about by Plutonite · · Score: 5, Funny

      These guys eat toads - I wouldn't land my green butt in France if I were an alien.

  6. Tag zis by ootykumar · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ze truth iz out zere

    1. Re:Tag zis by z0idberg · · Score: 2, Funny

      Your French accent sounds very German.

  7. Translation by cabinetsoft · · Score: 5, Funny

    Je, pour une, bienvenu notre nouvelle ONVI maitre!
    I surrender to our new UFO overlords.
  8. its a matter of point of view by rucs_hack · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you consider UFO to be what it actually means, that it is an object in the sky for which there is no current explanation, then that's fine. Ball Lightening was a 'UFO' till it was explained.

    To believe that these unexplained things are extra terrestrials is a huge leap, and one I would tend to scoff at. Not least because the whole 'flying saucer' and 'greys' crap only appeared in the US during the early cold war, with greys not being named till later.

    I will never believe that an advanced race can travel all the way across the inconceivable distance between stars, and be dumb enough to crash. Nor that they would travel that far and buzz people on their own, which is all that has supposedly happened.

    Not once have they made proper contact and opened a dialogue, or established a visible presence. That's would be like Christopher Columbus landing in America, blowing a rasberry at a native American, jumping back in his ship and heading home without another word. It's just silly.

    Most alien visitation theories read like children's stories, and most 'the aliens operated on me' stories read like early memories of visits to a dentist mixed with sexual fantasies.

    And yet I do believe that other life exists, to do otherwise is to be a fool, given the size of the universe.

    I do not, however, subscribe to the 'aliens are morons who can't steer a ship, and like to cut on us some from time to time' line of thought.

    1. Re:its a matter of point of view by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I will never believe that an advanced race can travel all the way across the inconceivable distance between stars, and be dumb enough to crash. Yeah, humans definitely have the market on that particular brand of stupidity (RIP Beagle 2). :-P
    2. Re:its a matter of point of view by BlueTrin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You might want to look at the Drake equation

      --
      Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?
    3. Re:its a matter of point of view by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Unless visiting Earth and scaring humans is the alien equivalent of cow tipping...

    4. Re:its a matter of point of view by teslar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I will never believe that an advanced race can travel all the way across the inconceivable distance between stars, and be dumb enough to crash.
      I'm with you on the entire alien-free-planet-to-date argument, but you may want to reconsider that particular belief. Travelling distances between stars is a completely different thing from landing on a planet and this includes the mechanics involved. You may be incredibly fast in a vacuum but perhaps you've never encountered Earth-like gravity before or this Nitrogen floating around in the atmosphere so much. Looks harmless enough, but what do you know, it just happens to set the primary coil reactor on fire and corrode the entire fusion circuitboard in a matter of seconds, what an awkward time to find this out. Or maybe you just have no idea to compensate for 10 times the gravitational pull of your own home planet, maybe simply because your landing thrusters have nto been designed with that in mind. Either way, crash boom.

      Basically you assume two things in your belief: (1) familiarity with the Earth environment and experience therein and (2) total absence of mechanical/electrical/whatever failures. Neither is a given.
    5. Re:its a matter of point of view by CmdrGravy · · Score: 2, Funny

      We don't really know how Aliens thought processes would work but we do have a fair idea of the physical practicalities of manufacturing space ships and embarking on space journeys and based on that it's very hard to see why anyone would simply fly over to stick a few probes up the butts of dumb American farmers and fly off again.

      However until we have any evidence that Aliens are behind UFO sightings, which we don't, we shouldn't really spend too much time trying to justify how it might happen.

    6. Re:its a matter of point of view by rucs_hack · · Score: 3, Insightful

      1: Any race lacking in the ability to calculate the basic math of gravitational calculations would probably never get into space in the first place.

      2: Any Race unable to enter the atmosphere of a planet safely in a crewed ship would also be unlikely to be inclined to do so, or they would have gathered experience. After all, we've barely got started and already we know the problems involved in landing on different planets.

      Give aliens a little credit...

    7. Re:its a matter of point of view by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I would think a more plausable description of such behaviour would be -- analysis. Poke them, prod them, measure the results -- don't contaminate the experiment by introducing yourself into it. Pick a monkey and paint him green, see what happens (obligatory anthropology reference).

      I just hope a better metaphor isn't bugs in a jar. Some kid's going to pick it up and shake it, just to get us angry...

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    8. Re:its a matter of point of view by Oligonicella · · Score: 3, Informative

      Love the link. It reminds me of the dumb crap I bought into at age 12.

      Equation: N = R* fp ne fl fi fc L

      This is followed by an explanation of the 'variables' and the sentence "Most of these have not altered to any significant degree since that conference in 1961."

      Wow! Talk about disingenuous. fp is changing as we get new pictures. Planetary systems are thought common instead of fairly rare as in '61. The rest are a joke.

      ne (planets suitable for life) - unknown, we can't examine the small planets yet.
      fl (planets with life) - unknown, we can't examine the small planets yet.
      fi (those with intelligence) - unknowable.
      fc (those with radio) - unknowable.
      L (lifetime of advanced races)- unknowable.

      Lessee, that's five of seven that are unknown and three of those cannot in any reasonable stretch of the imagination even be known. Great equation.

      Well, they follow that with a lame caveat:
      "Values for some of these parameters are, of course, open to considerable disagreement..."

      Following that are the explanations for the current set of values. This is filled with such gems as (for fi and fc) "however many researchers of the topic agree 0.01". First, there are no researchers on this topic. Research cannot be done on this topic. What the author means is "however, many geeks during parlor talk fervently believe that 0.01". Not the same thing as science. Not a value to be used in anything but a parlor game.

      L is another good example. They're just using the length of our civilization with nukes. That's right. They consider us to be the average for the lifetime of advanced civilizations. Our one known example is used to average a galaxies worth of possible civilizations. Utter drek.

      This is what happens when dried scientists try to get sexy with parlor talk.

    9. Re:its a matter of point of view by schon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So thinks the gorilla: "We don't really know how Humans thought processes would work but we do have a fair idea of the physical practicalities of moving from one jungle to the another and based on that it's very hard to see why any human would simply come over to our group to watch us and then go away again."

    10. Re:its a matter of point of view by mpe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm with you on the entire alien-free-planet-to-date argument, but you may want to reconsider that particular belief. Travelling distances between stars is a completely different thing from landing on a planet and this includes the mechanics involved.

      If these aliens evolved on a planet with an atmosphere they'd have had to work the mechanics out in order to get into orbit around their own planet. Even if an alien species could evolve in some completly different environment gravity is a fundermental universal force.

      You may be incredibly fast in a vacuum but perhaps you've never encountered Earth-like gravity before or this Nitrogen floating around in the atmosphere so much.

      Hence you'd probably want different vehicles for travelling through intersteller space vs looking around planets vs descending into planetry atmosphere.

      Looks harmless enough, but what do you know, it just happens to set the primary coil reactor on fire and corrode the entire fusion circuitboard in a matter of seconds, what an awkward time to find this out.

      Hence you could use these useful things called "robot probes". Also "seconds" is plenty of time for an autopilot to select "abort to orbit", unless the pilot has reaction times several times slower than humans it is also plenty of time for them to do something about the emergency.

      Or maybe you just have no idea to compensate for 10 times the gravitational pull of your own home planet, maybe simply because your landing thrusters have nto been designed with that in mind.

      The only thing any aliens need to know is the mass of their own craft. From that they can work out the mass of every object in the Solar system.

      Basically you assume two things in your belief: (1) familiarity with the Earth environment

      Actually "familiarity of a planet gas around it".

      (2) total absence of mechanical/electrical/whatever failures

      Or using multipally redundent systems. Especially of a a vehicle you intend taking into an alien environment.
      The idea of intelligent aliens who are capable of intersteller travel, yet ignorant of the basic mechanics of the universe and incapable of the engineering needed to stay alive is just incredible.

    11. Re:its a matter of point of view by mpe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And (3) sanity. What you're describing is the equivalent of trying to land on Jupiter in a Cessna. And we have a lot less experience with the Jovian atmosphere than any people capable of intersteller travel would have with rocky planets like the Earth.

      Even if such a species evolved in an environment very different from Earth they'd still know about rocky planets with gas atmospheres because such planets are common.
      Of course any alien from an environment unlike the Earth's surface would probably have to wear some kind of "hostile environment suit" in order to leave their craft. Any alien which could "walk" on the surface of the Earth with minimal or no artifical life support must have originated from a planet similar to the Earth...

  9. Oh for heavens sake by KlausBreuer · · Score: 3, Funny

    Why do people keep wanting to babble on about this idiocy? I want them to keep quiet about it - if you have to be a UFO-nut, I am certainly not interested in it.

    Sheesh, ACC offered my this planet for a nice quiet vacation, but everywhere I see people babbling about UFOs...

    --
    Free PC version of ChipWits at http://www.breueronline.de/klaus/chipwits/
  10. Comment servir l'homme ? by jmmerliot · · Score: 4, Funny

    Never forget,

    "Comment servir l'homme ?" (How to serve man ?)

    is a cooking guide....

    Juste loved this old TZ episode

    -- a true frog from France ^^

  11. A better translation and masters by Lord+Satri · · Score: 4, Informative

    Surprised by the bad translations in the comments, here's a more appropriate one (no, online translation tools are not as good as humans): Je, quant à moi, souhaite la bienvenue à nos nouveaux maîtres OVNIs.

    Additionally, it's not "secoupe volante" pour rather "soucoupe volante" (flying saucer) (see other comment on parent). And if they wanted to be our masters and already made contact, since they would have the technology to reach us, I guess they'd already be our masters. (well, looking at our politicians' behavior, maybe they already are! ;-)

    1. Re:A better translation and masters by rifter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And if they wanted to be our masters and already made contact, since they would have the technology to reach us, I guess they'd already be our masters. (well, looking at our politicians' behavior, maybe they already are! ;-)

      Anyone advanced enough to develop interstellar travel would probably be smart enough to come up with better plans than our politicians; if anything the Earth would be much better regulated than it is now. Then again they would also probably be smart enough not to bother ruling a backward planet filled with suicidal primates bent on taking the world with them.

      There is the interesting possibility of an interstellar society which regresses much like our own in that interstellar vehicles and other similar tech are so ubiquitous and education so inadequate that pilots/users actually have no idea how the equipment works or how to maintain it. Then stupid, sadistic fools with far more money than brains could cruise the universe in giant spaceships that deliberately waste energy in search of amusement and happen upon our planet. It would be much like some of the early European settlers and the games they played with natives (which weren't so much fun for them -- see the Yaqui and Tasmanians ), and not unlike that of a small boy molesting a pile of ants. It would require neither wisdom nor intelligence and as unlikely as it is would be more likely than the scenario you describe.

      Unless our planet's resources are more rare than we think, or there is some property of our location that makes it more important than we now know, it just doesn't seem that our planet would be that interesting to your average spacefarers except for the curiousity. If we were to be ruled by some spacefaring race you'd think the first thing they'd do is get rid of us since we are screwing up the planet they want.

      Incidentally, the fact we know of no other planet like ours and no other life than this makes it even more important that we do not mess this one up and start working on finding other systems in which to plant life while we still can. Even if there is life elsewhere this is still a good idea; I am actually pretty glad that Stephen Hawking agrees because people will listen to him before they will listen to anyone else on an issue like this.

  12. And that's not the worst part... by jpellino · · Score: 3, Funny

    The French are looking to prosecute any UFOs who aren't using open standards for their communications.

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
    1. Re:And that's not the worst part... by ericlondaits · · Score: 5, Funny

      Like those nefarious aliens that used AppleTalk in Independence Day!

      --
      As a Slashdot discussion grows longer, the probability of an analogy involving cars approaches one.
  13. Re:Unknown Flying Object by aadvancedGIR · · Score: 2, Insightful

    it many cases, it was simply clouds or optical illusions, which are not even flying objects. And then you add all those drunk peoples and the jokers to that list...
    Anyway, this base is nothing more than a list of police reports, even it there really was an alien origin in one of those phenomenons, the odds that this base contains anything usefull to prove it is almost nil.

  14. Quit with French bashing already !!! by unity100 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    especially you, americans !

    you should remember that the freedoms you are enjoying now were put forward in their current forms mostly by french intellectuals in 18th century, matured in this country and then were accepted by your founding fathers and incorporated into your constitution and the consequent revolution. not to mention french aiding you against the british, lafayette and all.

    and i dont even need to mention the french revolution, which is the social movement that set the way to the modern civilized society by overthrowing aristocracy not only in france, but in most of europe. it was eventually messed up by a short megalomaniac who is known as napoleon, but eh - revolution still did its thing.

    french are ok.

    the only problem is that, they hatch on stuff TOO long, only to put the stuff into action in 100-200 year intervals. and then, major things happen. all in the meantime they sleep, ruled by egotistic megalomaniacs.

  15. UFOs exist by jonwil · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Aliens and flying saucers may not exist but anyone who has seen something flying in the sky (bird, airplane or anything else) and cannot identify what it is has seen a UFO. More to the point, many secret "black" aircraft (both projects like the SR71, B2, F117 and U2 that have been revealed already and projects we don't know about) would be considered UFOs to anyone who doesn't know what they are.

    All those people who have reported UFO sightings near Area 51 are probably right, they most likely DID see UFOs. Since the prime use of Area 51 is to test secret aircraft in a way that makes sure that no-one finds out about them, most of the air operations out of the base would have appeared as UFOs to anyone except the few people working on whatever top secret project it is.

    As to why countries like America have not released their "UFO" files, its more likely to be because said files could contain information about "black" projects (those of the US, those of allied powers and those of enemy powers such as the Russians). Some of those aircraft are still flying (and some may well still be "top secret") and the US probably doesn't want information about aircraft that may still be used now or in the future to be made public.

    1. Re:UFOs exist by ajpr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah I agree with this. It's hard to imagine how much R&D the US spends on black projects. I'm still quite in awe of the Stealth Fighter which was on the drawing board in the 70s. Surely by now there is something else the money is being spent on? Maybe a nuclear pulse powered aircraft similar to Orion?

      Also even if some UFO's are aliens, the reason they might not contact us is that we are too stupid. We're unlikely to go to Mars and try conversing with any bacteria, and even on Earth we don't spend much time trying to talk to earthworms etc. Perhaps with computers in the future, intelligence will be on a completely different scale, something we can't even begin to comprehend, nevermind actually understand in any meaningful way.

    2. Re:UFOs exist by unity100 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are no technology on earth capable of making any aircraft do 90 multiple degree turns while going with a 3000 km/hour speed, or disappear from naked eye.

  16. Surrender Monkeys by WED+Fan · · Score: 2, Funny

    The files show that between 1949 and 1972, France surrended a total of 122 times to suspected UFO invaders. There was another incident in which they negotiated a collaboration with alien grays, only to find out they were Basque shepards in ultra-lights, the language difficulty causing the misunderstanding.

    --
    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
  17. Gee, Thanks. by Radon360 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I didn't realize that submitting a story made me a "twat".

    That's great that you brought the fact that the UK government has released some similar information to the public, long before France had done so. Perhaps the reporter of this article should be labelled a "twat" for not researching the topic further and bringing up that point, or at least not make the bold comment about France being the first.

    Which brings up another point. If you ever have submitted a story to Slashdot, you'd recognize that the editors tend to take quite a bit of liberty on rewriting the story summaries (for better or worse). I didn't "note" anything...the summary was just rewritten to say I did.

  18. all your base are belong to us by jerryodom · · Score: 3, Funny

    toute votre base sont appartiennent à nous

    --
    For some reason I refuse to use either spell check or the spacebar properly.
  19. As above. . . by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Anyone advanced enough to develop interstellar travel would probably be smart enough to come up with better plans than our politicians; if anything the Earth would be much better regulated than it is now. Then again they would also probably be smart enough not to bother ruling a backward planet filled with suicidal primates bent on taking the world with them.

    You are thinking too human-centric.

    Consider the following possibility. . .

    Aliens exist in a higher state of reality than we can perceive; that is, they are with us right now, all the time. They function and exist in a state where time does not exist for them in the same way it does for us. That is, the thousands of UFO reports are not of nuts and bolts technology, but of bits of reality poking through into ours.

    Second. . . What if these aliens are to us what we are to cows. That they are here to eat us. What if they consume the energy from negative emotions such as fear and pain. This would explain our high population, our constant state of screwed up religion, war and general suffering around the globe. It also explains our media's and our education system's aversion of looking at sciences which would help explain the alien presence. That of being living on the "spirit plane", (so to speak). Of chi and magic in general.

    This explanation, as distasteful as it sounds, nonetheless answers all the puzzles presented to us be the short-sighted Carl Sagans of the world. Sci-fi wants us to think in terms of other humans from space. It doesn't look at the idea that aliens are far more intelligent and have no interest in communicating with us beyond manipulation and control.

    Look at our cattle industry. --We breed an entire race of animals totally controlled for our consumption. Aliens need to eat too.

    As above, so below.


    -FL

  20. Intent by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Right, first you accuse the parent of being too human centric and then you go and spill your heart out about how suffering and negative emotions are something more than just mechanisms that help humans interact with their environment.

    Negative emotions are certainly tied to behavioral mechanisms, but they nonetheless have an energetic quality. This is not human-centric. It's life-centric. Since aliens are also alive, it's a common denominator which we share with them. Our technology and perceived limits of physical reality are not. The original poster was making a false assumption with regard to this.

    And then you go on to complain about how media and schools have an aversion to science while posting gibberish which flies in the face of every even slightly credible scientific worldview.

    You only think I'm talking gibberish because you happen to be ignorant. Your concept of a 'credible scientific worldview' is limited by the media you watch and the education you received. Circular logic, I know, however it also happens to be correct.

    I could go an and refute every single one of your points in detail, but I bet you are not in it for discussion, judging by your casual dismissal of Carl Sagan.

    You could try, but seeing as you still believe in the orthodox explanation of reality, it means you probably don't know how to challenge conventional thinking and thus have little in the arsenal of your mind beyond the regular canned nonsense most sleepers come pre-installed with. For instance. . . Carl Sagan is an astrophysicist. Why do you believe this gives him any authority in the matter of UFOs? What does stellar chemistry and gravity modeling have to do with understanding alien intent?


    -FL