And it's not stationary at all, since the radar tracked it the trajectory/speed of this object is known and last time I checked balloons don't travel 13 miles in 6 seconds. But I'll expect something like "I don't trust what's written on the web".
And no, foo fighters follow the tail. They don't pull shit like that
Who attributed it to alien spaceships? No one? Didn't think so. But it has to be kept as a possibility because from the reports it looks likely that these flying things weren't made by any of us, and that they display some sort of intelligent behavior.
And no, scientists can't live with unexplained phenomenons and not take a crack at looking at what's going on with them. Except in the case of what they already decided cannot exist.
Yeah well you can google for the Nellis Air Force Range UFO from 1994, but you see, that had to be leaked, cause the thing about the USAF is, when they have something flying circles around their bases and they don't know what it is, they're not exactly going to call the newspapers or release all their footage and radar data under a Creative Commons license;-).
They are scientists, but they're not working for the advancement of science, they're working.. wait for it... for the Defence! That means they won't necessarily tell you what they find, they're just doing it for the sake of national security.
So you literally have to sit around and wait for something to happen, as people are watching the sky already anyway
Oh sorry, and what is the fucking SETI doing exactly? The same fucking thing. Just build automated stations that survey the sky, put them in different places and you'll get your own SETI for UFOs.
Yeah, right, a fucking glitch. Do glitch appear simultaneously in different machines and people at the same time into showing something consistent? Didn't think so..
You sit on it, because the evidence isn't enough to explain it.
That's right. But it's compelling enough to warrant a systematic scientific and methodological investigation, and by this I mean, not explaining reports, but actively looking at the skies with a whole bunch of instruments.
I mean seriously, consider this : we have all these huge radiotelescopes to look for a radio signal from space when we've never seen one before, we're looking very hard hoping to find one and interpret something out of it, but we have those weird unexplained things literally flying circles above us, and we can't create a single program to actively try to observe any?? Why can't we do the same when we, from experience, obviously have a much higher chance of observing something unexplained in our atmosphere than around some distant star? Don't you see the problem there?
Yeah, you see, that in my opinion is the problem with scientists. The defence guys actually try and investigate these reports and obviously it's not the Russians or the Chinese who spent the last 60 years flying those things above our heads. Which means at least SOME scientists should wonder what's up with these phenomenons and try to find out. Because that's a scientist's job to explain the world around us.
Which is what annoys me about scientists in general these days, they're more interested in dicking around with bullshit ass string theory and its 26 space dimensions straight pulled from their arse cause that's where the grant money is at, and no one's left to study the green elephant in the room that everyone tries to sweep under the rug.
You miss the point. If you want to prove the existence of alien spacecraft
No, you're the one who's missing the point, it's not about proving alien life, it's about getting ANYONE to get off their ass and investigate that whole shit, because it's obviously worth investigating, but it won't happen because the world is full of self concious pussies who are scared to come off as loonies.
The human visual system is build to measure distances and velocities at small scales.
Oh yeah? How about when it flies around you, can't you tell that when something is on your left side and 10 seconds later it's on your right side? How about when radars confirm what you saw? Yeah, thought so..
That's still a completely baseless claim to make anyways to say that "The UFO sightings (over Britain) in the 1960s were most likely stealth aircraft (such as the Lockheed A-12)".
Sort them into the "unexplained" folder and move on.
What the hell is wrong with you?? Why wouldn't you want to learn more, whatever it is. Well you're obviously not a scientist, otherwise you'd want to know.
I'm not even saying that alien spacecrafts are out there, I'm saying, something unexplained is definitely out there.
Find multiple anomalies that follow the same pattern and you might be getting somewhere
Okay seriously now you're just pulling my leg. Just fucking read military UFO reports and you'll see lots of patterns, namely glowing, fast accelerations, sudden changes of speed, close following of aircrafts, effects on the avionics when coming close, and an uncanny ability to get away when being fired at. Seriously, read some of these reports, start with the one I linked in my previous post.
And no, seriously, wtf does your link have to do with anything we're talking about? How let's see, you're arguing that some mysterious things are ultimately explained with a mundane explanation, therefore all mysterious things are explainable with something not extraordinary at all?
Sure, but the thing is, in the truly unexplained well documented military UFO reports, no single known man-made machine matches, cause it's not just about top speed, it's also about acceleration, agility, glowing, electromagnetic effects in our own aircrafts, and so on. Even the technology we publicly know we have as of 2009 can compete with those UFO reports from the 1950s.
No no, that argument is pure fucking bullshit. We're talking about phenomenons observed simultaneously by several pilots in different planes, ground personal, and detected both on airplane radars and ground radars.
There are no aliens that have ever visited Earth and there probably never will be.
Oh yeah? And tell me this genius, how on Earth do you know that?? Is this report easily explained by natural phenomena? Do you think that military UFO reports from 60 years ago about objects flying at speeds and accelerations still unattainable today could be top secret government technology that would be kept under the wraps still 60 years after it's been implemented? Do you think you can misidentify an aircraft when what you see and detect has characteristics impossible to our technology? Even if a natural phenomena can fly circles around fighter jets and easily outpace and distance them when they're being fired, don't you think it'd be worth a serious scientific investigation to determine the nature and mechanism of that natural phenomena?
No, they are skeptic because they haven't seen good evidence.
More like because they don't want to see it and quickly dismiss what they accidentally see anyways. But they tend to focus on average Joe's UFO sightings rather than the well documented and really hard to explain ones.
And my appeal to authority is justified in that you'd think that a highly trained elite pilot who's flown for years and even been to space would know what he's looking at when he looks in the sky around him.
Well, I strongly doubt there's any material out there to write a page about the company that makes the product... I mean I doubt anyone knows much more about Shenzhen Dingoo Digital Co., Ltd. besides what we know about their products.
When you can't tell what something is, you should look for an explanation for it
Fixed it for you. Contrarily to a popular myth, not all UFO reports are easily dismissable. What do you do when you have pilots reporting chasing an object flying past Mach 10 and that it's backed by ground radar? Do you try to look for an explanation, whatever it may be, or do you sit on it? Well you're gonna like this, cause what we do is just sit on it, and make sure to not tell anyone.
Yes, let me break down what you're doing here: you're dismissing all UFO reports because the majority are dismissable. Sure, reports from people who say they saw moving lights in the sky after a couple of beers in their backyard don't sound very compelling, but among all these worthless reports you have military reports such as these. What are you gonna do with those? Are you going to "totally explain it" or are you just going to dismiss it as "that probably was just a seagull and the F-4 pilots were out of their mind".
Are you a moron? I believe you are. I just said that UFOs were reported by pilots and NASA astronauts. Seriously, guys who actually went and walked on the Moon and otherwise have been high ranking USAF pilots have seen UFOs, and you want to dismiss it as superstitious kook BS? How many pilots must report something they can't explain before you deem the reported phenomenons worthy of scientific and methodological investigation?
Now that's a bit off topic, but the real reason is that "sceptics" like you have settled on a frozen idea of what's possible and what's not, and what you deemed permanently impossible you'll just ignore even if presented with most compelling reports or even if you see it with your own eyes. People like you just keep trying to find justifications for what they permanently consider impossible, without considering for a minute that maybe they're wrong about what's possible and what's not. It's called denial.
Sorry but how would one conclude with certainty that a pilot claiming that "something was maneuvering in great speed around their craft" was actually a precise star-like fixed point in the sky? And more importantly, how mad would a pilot have to be to think that a star is flying circles around his airplane?
Nice way to talk out of your arse, considered that very few UFO reports could be explained by a A-12/SR-71, which only two distinctive characteristics are a very distinct shape and the ability to fly very fast in a straight line, and as you said yourself, there's no reasons for such planes to go fly circles above Britain.
There's a plethora of UFO reports out there from civil and military pilots, as well as air traffic control staff, radar operators, military base personel, and yes, even astronauts who went to the Moon.
That's the irony of the UFO vs SETI situation, we as a whole just sit on a shitload of easily available information and better yet easy oppotunities to find out more about what could possibly be alien life artifacts flying in our own atmosphere, yet we insist to ignore it all, throw it in the loony bin and rather look for radioscopic needles in the haystack of the stars that are tens of light years away from us.
Methinks rather than pointing radio telescopes at the stars we should point more modest telescopes at whatever's flying in our sky. A few automated stations around the world that would observe the sky for moving objects automatically and record anything about the unidentified ones would offer great insight on the nature and characteristics of whatever those unidentified objects are, but no, no one cares, most shockingly not even scientists, who obviously have no interest in explaining the unexplained that occurs frequently in our atmosphere.
Slashdot Mirror
It's the same UFO...
And it's not stationary at all, since the radar tracked it the trajectory/speed of this object is known and last time I checked balloons don't travel 13 miles in 6 seconds. But I'll expect something like "I don't trust what's written on the web".
And no, foo fighters follow the tail. They don't pull shit like that
Oh yeah, and how many of those do even detect airplanes? Didn't think so...
Who attributed it to alien spaceships? No one? Didn't think so. But it has to be kept as a possibility because from the reports it looks likely that these flying things weren't made by any of us, and that they display some sort of intelligent behavior.
And no, scientists can't live with unexplained phenomenons and not take a crack at looking at what's going on with them. Except in the case of what they already decided cannot exist.
Oh sorry, allow me to let you go back to your stubborn and systematic denial of anything UFO-related.
Yeah well you can google for the Nellis Air Force Range UFO from 1994, but you see, that had to be leaked, cause the thing about the USAF is, when they have something flying circles around their bases and they don't know what it is, they're not exactly going to call the newspapers or release all their footage and radar data under a Creative Commons license ;-).
They are scientists, but they're not working for the advancement of science, they're working.. wait for it... for the Defence! That means they won't necessarily tell you what they find, they're just doing it for the sake of national security.
So you literally have to sit around and wait for something to happen, as people are watching the sky already anyway
Oh sorry, and what is the fucking SETI doing exactly? The same fucking thing. Just build automated stations that survey the sky, put them in different places and you'll get your own SETI for UFOs.
Yeah, right, a fucking glitch. Do glitch appear simultaneously in different machines and people at the same time into showing something consistent? Didn't think so..
You sit on it, because the evidence isn't enough to explain it.
That's right. But it's compelling enough to warrant a systematic scientific and methodological investigation, and by this I mean, not explaining reports, but actively looking at the skies with a whole bunch of instruments.
I mean seriously, consider this : we have all these huge radiotelescopes to look for a radio signal from space when we've never seen one before, we're looking very hard hoping to find one and interpret something out of it, but we have those weird unexplained things literally flying circles above us, and we can't create a single program to actively try to observe any?? Why can't we do the same when we, from experience, obviously have a much higher chance of observing something unexplained in our atmosphere than around some distant star? Don't you see the problem there?
Yeah, you see, that in my opinion is the problem with scientists. The defence guys actually try and investigate these reports and obviously it's not the Russians or the Chinese who spent the last 60 years flying those things above our heads. Which means at least SOME scientists should wonder what's up with these phenomenons and try to find out. Because that's a scientist's job to explain the world around us.
Which is what annoys me about scientists in general these days, they're more interested in dicking around with bullshit ass string theory and its 26 space dimensions straight pulled from their arse cause that's where the grant money is at, and no one's left to study the green elephant in the room that everyone tries to sweep under the rug.
What the hell are you drivelling about, bitch. Just read some military UFO reports on Wikipedia and shut the fuck up!
You miss the point. If you want to prove the existence of alien spacecraft
No, you're the one who's missing the point, it's not about proving alien life, it's about getting ANYONE to get off their ass and investigate that whole shit, because it's obviously worth investigating, but it won't happen because the world is full of self concious pussies who are scared to come off as loonies.
The human visual system is build to measure distances and velocities at small scales.
Oh yeah? How about when it flies around you, can't you tell that when something is on your left side and 10 seconds later it's on your right side? How about when radars confirm what you saw? Yeah, thought so..
That's still a completely baseless claim to make anyways to say that "The UFO sightings (over Britain) in the 1960s were most likely stealth aircraft (such as the Lockheed A-12)".
Sort them into the "unexplained" folder and move on.
What the hell is wrong with you?? Why wouldn't you want to learn more, whatever it is. Well you're obviously not a scientist, otherwise you'd want to know.
You want a clear picture? How about a clear video, complete with radar distance readings, raw on-screen radar return, and radar operator comments?. The propulsion system? If you had read a few military UFO reports you'd know that most seem to have a ionisation glow, if that can be any indication of what it does. Of course we don't know who piloted it, that wouldn't be a UFO if we knew that, what kind of moron would even ask that?
I'm not even saying that alien spacecrafts are out there, I'm saying, something unexplained is definitely out there.
Find multiple anomalies that follow the same pattern and you might be getting somewhere
Okay seriously now you're just pulling my leg. Just fucking read military UFO reports and you'll see lots of patterns, namely glowing, fast accelerations, sudden changes of speed, close following of aircrafts, effects on the avionics when coming close, and an uncanny ability to get away when being fired at. Seriously, read some of these reports, start with the one I linked in my previous post.
And no, seriously, wtf does your link have to do with anything we're talking about? How let's see, you're arguing that some mysterious things are ultimately explained with a mundane explanation, therefore all mysterious things are explainable with something not extraordinary at all?
Sure, but the thing is, in the truly unexplained well documented military UFO reports, no single known man-made machine matches, cause it's not just about top speed, it's also about acceleration, agility, glowing, electromagnetic effects in our own aircrafts, and so on. Even the technology we publicly know we have as of 2009 can compete with those UFO reports from the 1950s.
No no, that argument is pure fucking bullshit. We're talking about phenomenons observed simultaneously by several pilots in different planes, ground personal, and detected both on airplane radars and ground radars.
There are no aliens that have ever visited Earth and there probably never will be.
Oh yeah? And tell me this genius, how on Earth do you know that?? Is this report easily explained by natural phenomena? Do you think that military UFO reports from 60 years ago about objects flying at speeds and accelerations still unattainable today could be top secret government technology that would be kept under the wraps still 60 years after it's been implemented? Do you think you can misidentify an aircraft when what you see and detect has characteristics impossible to our technology? Even if a natural phenomena can fly circles around fighter jets and easily outpace and distance them when they're being fired, don't you think it'd be worth a serious scientific investigation to determine the nature and mechanism of that natural phenomena?
No, they are skeptic because they haven't seen good evidence.
More like because they don't want to see it and quickly dismiss what they accidentally see anyways. But they tend to focus on average Joe's UFO sightings rather than the well documented and really hard to explain ones.
And my appeal to authority is justified in that you'd think that a highly trained elite pilot who's flown for years and even been to space would know what he's looking at when he looks in the sky around him.
Well, I strongly doubt there's any material out there to write a page about the company that makes the product... I mean I doubt anyone knows much more about Shenzhen Dingoo Digital Co., Ltd. besides what we know about their products.
When you can't tell what something is, you should look for an explanation for it
Fixed it for you. Contrarily to a popular myth, not all UFO reports are easily dismissable. What do you do when you have pilots reporting chasing an object flying past Mach 10 and that it's backed by ground radar? Do you try to look for an explanation, whatever it may be, or do you sit on it? Well you're gonna like this, cause what we do is just sit on it, and make sure to not tell anyone.
Yes, let me break down what you're doing here: you're dismissing all UFO reports because the majority are dismissable. Sure, reports from people who say they saw moving lights in the sky after a couple of beers in their backyard don't sound very compelling, but among all these worthless reports you have military reports such as these. What are you gonna do with those? Are you going to "totally explain it" or are you just going to dismiss it as "that probably was just a seagull and the F-4 pilots were out of their mind".
Are you a moron? I believe you are. I just said that UFOs were reported by pilots and NASA astronauts. Seriously, guys who actually went and walked on the Moon and otherwise have been high ranking USAF pilots have seen UFOs, and you want to dismiss it as superstitious kook BS? How many pilots must report something they can't explain before you deem the reported phenomenons worthy of scientific and methodological investigation?
Now that's a bit off topic, but the real reason is that "sceptics" like you have settled on a frozen idea of what's possible and what's not, and what you deemed permanently impossible you'll just ignore even if presented with most compelling reports or even if you see it with your own eyes. People like you just keep trying to find justifications for what they permanently consider impossible, without considering for a minute that maybe they're wrong about what's possible and what's not. It's called denial.
Sorry but how would one conclude with certainty that a pilot claiming that "something was maneuvering in great speed around their craft" was actually a precise star-like fixed point in the sky? And more importantly, how mad would a pilot have to be to think that a star is flying circles around his airplane?
Nice way to talk out of your arse, considered that very few UFO reports could be explained by a A-12/SR-71, which only two distinctive characteristics are a very distinct shape and the ability to fly very fast in a straight line, and as you said yourself, there's no reasons for such planes to go fly circles above Britain.
There's a plethora of UFO reports out there from civil and military pilots, as well as air traffic control staff, radar operators, military base personel, and yes, even astronauts who went to the Moon.
That's the irony of the UFO vs SETI situation, we as a whole just sit on a shitload of easily available information and better yet easy oppotunities to find out more about what could possibly be alien life artifacts flying in our own atmosphere, yet we insist to ignore it all, throw it in the loony bin and rather look for radioscopic needles in the haystack of the stars that are tens of light years away from us.
Methinks rather than pointing radio telescopes at the stars we should point more modest telescopes at whatever's flying in our sky. A few automated stations around the world that would observe the sky for moving objects automatically and record anything about the unidentified ones would offer great insight on the nature and characteristics of whatever those unidentified objects are, but no, no one cares, most shockingly not even scientists, who obviously have no interest in explaining the unexplained that occurs frequently in our atmosphere.