Thanks, QED.

Not the serious ones, for example:

NARCAP came up with this statement:

NARCAP link on Mexican Military Ufos

Johnno, the Drake equation is galactic-scale, not universal. And the number is usually significantly higher than one, among professional scientists.

And you’re making my point for me regarding ‘proving extraterrestrial origin.’ A trip to the alien home world…or an alien autopsy, you say? As I said, we’d be better off investigating whether or not these things are –solid-, and getting precise measurements of their maneuvering capabilities, because proving –where something originated- is a fool’s errand.

What could you possibly mean by “any clear signs of being from other worlds?!” Tell you what—why don’t you give us a list of the top five ‘signs’ you’d expect of an alien craft, that would indicate that it was from another world. The only thing that might be a tip off, I’d think, would be outrageous maneuverability like high speed zigzag trajectories, silent hovering, and seemingly instantaneous accelerations…which is –exactly- what some of these reports describe. Hmm.

Algorithms, how many of the eyewitnesses of the Flight 800 tragedy reported these flight characteristics? Sure, it’s easy to get direction, size, and sequence mixed up. But totally unconventional aerodynamics? A seeming disregard of momentum? All described the same way by several independent witnesses? No, that’s not the kind of thing a dozen eyewitnesses all happen to simultaneously dream up about the same conventional aerial event.

I tend to agree that the ‘laws of physics’ haven’t been –broken-, but many reports indicate physical mechanisms and/or mastery that seem well beyond conventional capabilities. If we had aircraft that could hover and then accelerate to several hundred miles per hour in a fraction of a second with no apparent emissions or noise, or zigzag at acute angles at that speed, we’d never lose another dogfight, that’s for sure. And I want to know how it can be done, because something up there seems perfectly capable of that and a lot more.

A serious investigative effort wouldn’t be terribly difficult—we already have the radar and satellite technology in place, we just need access to the information. Collecting more detailed data would be a little harder, we’d need jets equipped with high-speed telescopic cameras, wide-band EM detectors, infrared, UV cameras, maybe magnetometers or whatever else might give us a clue about what these things are and how they work. Give the public a hotline and advertise it widely so, for a year or two, people all over the country could participate. Maybe we could set up a protocol where several witnesses from a given region together with radar contact that exhibited unconventional maneuvers, would merit an interceptor. This is just off the top of my head of course, but it obviously is not an insurmountable task by any means. Besides, setting up a system like this would increase national security, since any suspicious aerial activity would be reported right away.

I see that you've made the assumption (and are treating it as FACT), that whatever is being observed MUST be some form of (crewed or un-crewed) physical machine.

Care to show us how you have proven that??

My point still applies. I repeat my question: How close would another intelligent race's homeworld have to be to earth for the race to be considered neighbours?

I want proof, not possibilities or loose theories supported by claims which state "I've never seen anything behave like that, it has to be from another world".

And in which case you would have to fire a missile at one of them, or capture one of them. I don't really see that happening either. Unless you of course go for radar, in which case it's already been "proven" that they are -solid-.

So, set up your own radar station, or accept the fact that the military are not going to release the information. Or, that failing, join the airforce, become a radar grunt (been there done that) and see for yourself.


And now we're getting back to the fact that you have yet to provide video footage of said crafts, proving that they in fact do zigzag at high speeds, hover silently, and accelerate instantaniously... and video footage would of course not be enough, we'd need radar confirmation, and independent eyewitnesses that could not be influenced by each other.

Have any cases like that then?

You keep repeating high speed zigzag, instantanious acceleration, etc, but you've so far failed to convince me, in any way, that these things actually happen.

You claim so, but have failed to provide any credible evidence of the fact that it's actually happening.

Now, instead of actually just whining about it, how about you set up a website, get a petition going, or just collect money from people who want to see an "investigation", then buy a few planes, equip them in the way you suggested, and off you go. It's not that hard. All it takes is some money, and skilled people (which can be paid with money).

Or, make an appeal to people who live in areas with high concetrations of UFO signtings to set up tripods with digital video cameras hardwired to computers, and have them take footage of the area 24/7. With enough vid cams I'm sure you'd get some good footage, and it wouldn't be shakycam!

Of course that would take money as well, but hey, just set up a website and make a plea to your fellow wishful thinkers.

Or you could even invest in satellites........

Seems like an awful lot of trouble to figure out what some things are in the sky, when they don't interact with us, harm us in any way, etc, just give us a good light show.

R.A.F., I've stated, ad nauseum, that the first thing I'd like to know, is if these things are in fact solid. Which some of them indeed -appear- to be because of radar confirmation, as Johnno noted. And note the usage of 'if' and 'seem' above, and try to rememeber how important CONTEXT is to a statement, PLEASE.

Man, why is this topic so emotional?

I haven't had any luck finding video online of these things, anyone have any good links? I've already posted links to interesting cases and photos earlier in the thread, by request, but since anything short of an alien corpse isn't going to interest some people, I doubt it'll do a lot of good, sigh.

"Radar confirmation" means that EM radiation was reflected.
Plasma can reflect EM radiation and it is not solid.
So, "radar confirmation" does not necessarily guarantee without doubt that an UFO is a solid object.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

I'm not sure if we're speaking "solid" as in physical, or "solid" as in dense materia you can touch.

I guess I might've misunderstood scourge's point, what I meant by "solid" was that these things are actually out there, because radar can pick them up. but then again, radar can pick up clouds as well. try tracking a slow flying helicopter through a heavy storm, when their transponder is out... *sigh* memories...

Having read the CAA report on the Washington radar/visual sightings of 1952, I understand that radar can produce false images in inversion conditions; these are often images of features on the ground, including automobiles.
Inversions also sometimes cause visual phenomena; under some circumstances these visual phenomena are known as mirages. There should be no surprise that the two phenomena are sometimes associated.

__________________
Orion's Arm . The Starlark . Voices: Future Tense- Novella Contest Issue! . OA Flickr set

Oh dear lord. I even emphasized '-appear-' to avert this very argument!

I can't win

great, paternalism. i was wondering when that was going to come about.

anyway, just to keep with the generalistic, emotionaly filled, statements of pseudo fact regarding the impossibility that the UFO phenomenon implies the intervention of unknown form of aerial crafts i would like to say that in fact the UFO phenomenon is indeed a very real thing and more importantly it can surely mean the presence of advanced beings in our planet, now and in the past.

Fatima UFO-Like Apparitions Of 1917 Examined In New Book

more:

Fatima and UFO sighting similarities

Evidence, please. What indisputable facts convinced you?

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

I need to read of the link you gave (it's always a good laugh to get beliefs mixed up), but this line made me ROFLMAO:

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

The moral? Always proof read...

Ohh dear #-o

Shostak from SETI

interesting, if im interpreting your reaction correctly you're displaying the same kind of atitude you've criticized the skpetics of having:

scourge said:
just to be clear, im not "getting beliefs mixed up", the Fatima phenomenon was a very REAL phenomenon and it was studied by Portuguese and international scholars. in fact there was at least one portuguese scholar present during the events, besides that it had thousands of witnesses. two portuguese scholars wrote a book detailing the paralelisms between the UFO phenomenon and the events at Fatima. so i do think this presents itself like pretty solid evidence for the contact with advanced beings.

i've seen many argue in here that humans will distort actual events and invent interpretations, how you missed the probability that the Fatima incident went through a mistification process, specialy when one understands the phsycological and social idiosyncrasies of the portuguese culture, just shows the general emotional stance taken by some on this issue.