If the Tehran episode had been an alien craft I would expect it to have departed UP, not West.
Oh, well if an alien vehicle doesn't do precisely what you expect it to do, it clearly demonstrates that it's not alien!
I also find some of the details in the wikipedia article a little over the top. "25 nm"? Why would an alien craft keep such a nice round earth-based number away?
You best be trolling. You don't know how round it is unless you know the precision. For all you know the precision here might be something like 3 nm.
Yeah, well, the best of the best of the USAF or the guy who discovered Pluto can tell you they saw unexplainable UFOs, judging by the comments in this thread it won't be prevent the armchair sceptics that populate Slashdot from dismissing it all entirely as "mind glitches" and such.
Shit, people like you are the reason there is a phrase that goes something along the lines of "don't argue with a troll because they'll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience".
lol, well you have a good point about radar stations, although you wouldn't necessarily know what they get or how often they get it, but there's a bit of a difference between mobile phones and ground telescopes, not to mention that people with mobile phones aren't exactly spending their nights watching the sky with their phone in their hand. As for astronomers, well, if I'm not mistaken they tend to look into telescopes which have a pretty narrow field of view so they probably don't even often catch an airplane, although again, why do you assume that it doesn't happen when it does? A quick Googling revealed that such illustrious astronomers as Edmund Halley and Clyde Tombaugh saw UFOs.. As for actually catching a picture of them, well, good luck taking a picture of an object moving at several times the speed of sound with a large telescope.
Well, that's off topic, but I think that string theory is a dead end, yet a lot of money gets poured into it, and some of the brightest physicists and mathematicians dedicate an important part of their talent and career to it. I may be wrong about string theory, but I don't think I am, and I suspect that a lot of the people involved know it but hey if that's what gets them grant money...
Why couldn't some money be poured into UFO hunting, if we'll admit that there's a chance that we'll learn more about a phenomenon that, whatever its nature, could lead for example to a new mode of propulsion? Well, not like I would suggest that it would be easy to learn more about what they are, short of succeeding at shooting one of them down, but hey, still worth asking the question..
Well, it's possible that it's a natural phenomenon, but according to the UFO rapports I personally choose to give credence to then they seem a lot like machines and they seem to exhibit a somewhat intelligent behaviour.
That's beyond the point anyways, the point is, this should be investigated. At least you seem to hold the premise that such mysterious phenomenons do occurs, so I guess we can agree on something.
What about when 4 different pilots report seeing the same thing and that it appears on radar? You guys are so deeply in denial it's not even funny, you just won't admit the possibility that what they report could even happen, I imagine probably because it would shake your know-it-all world view where you already know pretty much everything about anything.
Yeah, I guess that for a such a system to work on UFOs the telescopes would have to be couples with something like a fish eye camera to survey the entire sky for moving objects.
Well let's see: it seems somewhat likely that they weren't made by any of us, and they seem to exhibit some intelligent behaviour. Sounds good enough to me to consider that alien possibility, not that it should annihilate the chances for it all to be explained by Cheetos..
Sucker, I bet you didn't even read the "evidence" (the link 3 replies ago). I must however admire your intellectual courage for defending the unpopular position that people who think UFOs exist are loonies.
Exactly, actually I seem to recall that I was very dismissive of anything UFO-related until I read about this case. You have to give it to me that I never claimed there was any proof for alien presence though, I just claimed it was an explanation to seriously consider. Anything else can only be pure speculation. Although I'd like to point out that we ourselves go at great expenses to "annoy a couple of Martian pebbles";-).
But I think the real problem is that we usually don't even bother to read about such cases and are entirely too dismissive of the whole UFO thing, which is a shame considered there's obviously something to be figured out here, whatever its nature may be.
No no, I know that the F-117 and B-2 caused lots of UFO reports, but these have nothing to do with your typical UFO report which is a glowing object zigzagging in the sky and performing accelerations we can't even remotely reproduce, and that's been pretty consistent for the last 60 years or so.
And sure, I'm sure the Skunk Works are producing great looking stealth aircrafts, I mean the latest UCAVs look pretty alienish, but for one thing "fifty years" isn't that long in aerospace (just look at the B-52, made in the early 1950s, to be retired by 2040), and even if they're gonna look really cool and be really stealth and manoeuvrable and fast I really don't think they can possibly account for a lot of the UFO reports of the 20th century.
Interesting, however if you made your tracking/identification dismiss any object with a straight and monotonous trajectory (such as airplanes or satellites) I suppose it would eliminate a lot of such false positives.
Seriously, its very easy to screw up your mind and see stuff wrong, or stuff that isn't there.
STFU and quit making assumptions about how you think UFO reports are like, it's rarely "one guy saw this" it's more like "a bunch of pilots in different planes saw this in the sky and on radar". Sorry to burst your bubble but not all of that is trivially explainable as all you know-it-alls on Slashdot make it out to be.
Well, you're kind of right in the sense that it would be career suicide for a scientist to start investigating UFOs. But on the other hand, having no scientists investigating a mysterious phenomenon with the only excuse being not wanting to commit career suicide is quite unscientific.
Yeah, sure, considered for how long those UFOs have been around (about 60 years), sure, it makes a whole lot of sense that a) they'd manage to keep such a technological leap under the wraps for that and that b) that they'd choose not to use such a technology for anything but doing whatever dumb shit UFO reports say they do. I mean sure that's still a possibility but I really don't see how one nation would suddenly come up with such technology and manage to not get anyone in 60 years to ever talk about it, or that they wouldn't use it to help themselves out. I mean seriously, if anyone had UFO-like technology during the space race, do you really think that either Russia or the USA would have spent so many billions on space rockets?
No no see you got it wrong. No one's claiming anything here other than "we should look into that, because we definitely don't know what it is and it MIGHT be space aliens". Period. Nothing unscientific about that, what's unscientific is ruling out all possibilities and not looking for new ones. When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
Slashdot Mirror
If the Tehran episode had been an alien craft I would expect it to have departed UP, not West.
Oh, well if an alien vehicle doesn't do precisely what you expect it to do, it clearly demonstrates that it's not alien!
I also find some of the details in the wikipedia article a little over the top. "25 nm"? Why would an alien craft keep such a nice round earth-based number away?
You best be trolling. You don't know how round it is unless you know the precision. For all you know the precision here might be something like 3 nm.
Oh shut up.
Yeah, well, the best of the best of the USAF or the guy who discovered Pluto can tell you they saw unexplainable UFOs, judging by the comments in this thread it won't be prevent the armchair sceptics that populate Slashdot from dismissing it all entirely as "mind glitches" and such.
Shit, people like you are the reason there is a phrase that goes something along the lines of "don't argue with a troll because they'll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience".
Fixed it for you.
lol, well you have a good point about radar stations, although you wouldn't necessarily know what they get or how often they get it, but there's a bit of a difference between mobile phones and ground telescopes, not to mention that people with mobile phones aren't exactly spending their nights watching the sky with their phone in their hand. As for astronomers, well, if I'm not mistaken they tend to look into telescopes which have a pretty narrow field of view so they probably don't even often catch an airplane, although again, why do you assume that it doesn't happen when it does? A quick Googling revealed that such illustrious astronomers as Edmund Halley and Clyde Tombaugh saw UFOs.. As for actually catching a picture of them, well, good luck taking a picture of an object moving at several times the speed of sound with a large telescope.
Well, that's off topic, but I think that string theory is a dead end, yet a lot of money gets poured into it, and some of the brightest physicists and mathematicians dedicate an important part of their talent and career to it. I may be wrong about string theory, but I don't think I am, and I suspect that a lot of the people involved know it but hey if that's what gets them grant money...
Why couldn't some money be poured into UFO hunting, if we'll admit that there's a chance that we'll learn more about a phenomenon that, whatever its nature, could lead for example to a new mode of propulsion? Well, not like I would suggest that it would be easy to learn more about what they are, short of succeeding at shooting one of them down, but hey, still worth asking the question..
I see what you did there..
Well, it's possible that it's a natural phenomenon, but according to the UFO rapports I personally choose to give credence to then they seem a lot like machines and they seem to exhibit a somewhat intelligent behaviour.
That's beyond the point anyways, the point is, this should be investigated. At least you seem to hold the premise that such mysterious phenomenons do occurs, so I guess we can agree on something.
What about when 4 different pilots report seeing the same thing and that it appears on radar? You guys are so deeply in denial it's not even funny, you just won't admit the possibility that what they report could even happen, I imagine probably because it would shake your know-it-all world view where you already know pretty much everything about anything.
Oh shit, a wild specimen of a pedantic syntaxologist!
Yeah, I guess that for a such a system to work on UFOs the telescopes would have to be couples with something like a fish eye camera to survey the entire sky for moving objects.
Well let's see: it seems somewhat likely that they weren't made by any of us, and they seem to exhibit some intelligent behaviour. Sounds good enough to me to consider that alien possibility, not that it should annihilate the chances for it all to be explained by Cheetos..
Sucker, I bet you didn't even read the "evidence" (the link 3 replies ago). I must however admire your intellectual courage for defending the unpopular position that people who think UFOs exist are loonies.
Exactly, actually I seem to recall that I was very dismissive of anything UFO-related until I read about this case. You have to give it to me that I never claimed there was any proof for alien presence though, I just claimed it was an explanation to seriously consider. Anything else can only be pure speculation. Although I'd like to point out that we ourselves go at great expenses to "annoy a couple of Martian pebbles" ;-).
But I think the real problem is that we usually don't even bother to read about such cases and are entirely too dismissive of the whole UFO thing, which is a shame considered there's obviously something to be figured out here, whatever its nature may be.
So yeah, nothing to do with the way I speak, since both the phrases you quoted are grammatically and syntactically correct.
A shame isn't it. I wonder who's coughing up the cash for that string theory madness.
No no, I know that the F-117 and B-2 caused lots of UFO reports, but these have nothing to do with your typical UFO report which is a glowing object zigzagging in the sky and performing accelerations we can't even remotely reproduce, and that's been pretty consistent for the last 60 years or so.
And sure, I'm sure the Skunk Works are producing great looking stealth aircrafts, I mean the latest UCAVs look pretty alienish, but for one thing "fifty years" isn't that long in aerospace (just look at the B-52, made in the early 1950s, to be retired by 2040), and even if they're gonna look really cool and be really stealth and manoeuvrable and fast I really don't think they can possibly account for a lot of the UFO reports of the 20th century.
Interesting, however if you made your tracking/identification dismiss any object with a straight and monotonous trajectory (such as airplanes or satellites) I suppose it would eliminate a lot of such false positives.
Let's aim radiotelescopes towards every nearby star in the sky! Oh snap, see what I did there?
Seriously, its very easy to screw up your mind and see stuff wrong, or stuff that isn't there.
STFU and quit making assumptions about how you think UFO reports are like, it's rarely "one guy saw this" it's more like "a bunch of pilots in different planes saw this in the sky and on radar". Sorry to burst your bubble but not all of that is trivially explainable as all you know-it-alls on Slashdot make it out to be.
Well, you're kind of right in the sense that it would be career suicide for a scientist to start investigating UFOs. But on the other hand, having no scientists investigating a mysterious phenomenon with the only excuse being not wanting to commit career suicide is quite unscientific.
Don't give me crappy contradictory narrative accounts, cos the human mind is capable of making up all sorts of crap.
If you're not happy with this account then there's no way you'd be happy with any.
Yeah, sure, considered for how long those UFOs have been around (about 60 years), sure, it makes a whole lot of sense that a) they'd manage to keep such a technological leap under the wraps for that and that b) that they'd choose not to use such a technology for anything but doing whatever dumb shit UFO reports say they do. I mean sure that's still a possibility but I really don't see how one nation would suddenly come up with such technology and manage to not get anyone in 60 years to ever talk about it, or that they wouldn't use it to help themselves out. I mean seriously, if anyone had UFO-like technology during the space race, do you really think that either Russia or the USA would have spent so many billions on space rockets?
No no see you got it wrong. No one's claiming anything here other than "we should look into that, because we definitely don't know what it is and it MIGHT be space aliens". Period. Nothing unscientific about that, what's unscientific is ruling out all possibilities and not looking for new ones. When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
Yeah, but no one wants to be the loony scientist who goes UFO hunting. Probably because that would actually kill your career.