Wednesday, April 13, 2016

Big Brother and UFOs

I was channel surfing the other night and came onto a commercial for an upcoming program about a woman who had been abducted and murdered. What caught my attention was that they showed the woman using an ATM, walking in a mall, and later in her car and what looked like the arm of a man who had hidden in the backseat. In other words, her activities on that day had been documented to what I think of as a frightening extent. Nearly her every action was caught on video equipment; all used legally, all installed for safety, and putting all our lives under scrutiny.

I’ve seen the same thing on other programs. Police or federal agencies attempting to solve a crime or disappearance, use video from multiple sources to help establish a time line. Criminals are identified, crimes are solved, and more video cameras are installed everywhere.

Big Brother is now watching us all.

What, you might ask, has that to do with UFOs, the paranormal or the purpose of this blog…

Simple. With all those cameras everywhere, recording practically everything from meteor falls, aircraft accidents, to bizarre plays on athletic fields and incredible coincidences, you might ask, where are the UFOs?

And that’s the point. If UFOs are visiting with the regularity that is expressed here and in other forums, where are the good pictures and videos? I have said for years that one of the best UFO cases would be one where there are multiple photographs taken from multiple locations all independently of one another. We would have multiple witnesses, multiple chains of evidence and the ability to triangulate to determine the size of the object, the distance from the cameras, and the speed of the craft. With that sort of evidence it would be difficult to argue against alien visitation. It would take an elaborate conspiracy to pull off something like that because of all the ways to check the evidence.

One of the many pictures of a rare daylight meteor over
the Grand Tetons in Wyoming.
I have seen multiple videos of meteor falls. These are rare events that last but seconds and yet we see video of them all the time now. I remember one sequence from a number of security cameras and dashboard cameras that showed quite a bit of a fall from those different angles but we have nothing like that for UFOs…

Yes, I know the argument that these meteors are high in the sky and visible over a large area giving off lots of light, and that the UFOs are closer to the ground and not quite so bright, but still… we should have something like that by now and we don’t. Instead we’re treated to many dubious UFO videos that are often admitted to be fakes or pictures that when scrutinized carefully reveal the real nature of the object.

The point is this… the growing lack of these videos begins to argue against alien visitation. Oh, you can suggest that there are not as many UFOs flying around as we suspected so the opportunities for video are reduced, but there comes a point where that argument fails. We do have some good movie footage taken more than a half century ago, but the objects or lights simply are not resolved to the point where we can declare them alien. And there are pictures in which there are only two conclusions to be drawn, the object is either an alien craft or it is a hoax. But there is no way in the world today to answer that question because the evidence is just not contained on the photographs to make that sort of determination. (And yes, again, I understand that Occam would say it must be a hoax given our knowledge.)

I find this lack of good, multiple angle videos to be disturbing and anyone who is interested in UFOs should find the same thing, unless, of course, you believe that like vampires whose reflections don’t appear in mirrors, that the real UFOs are not visible to the camera lens…


A good, multiple angle, multiple witness video of a UFO would be nice addition to the piles of information collected to date. It just hasn’t happened yet. But maybe it will tomorrow.

82 comments:

Brian Bell said...

@ Kevin

I doubt any time in the near future a group of unrelated onlookers will see a UFO from various angles sufficient to triangulate size and distance.

It's been nearly seventy years since we heard about flying saucers and to this day no one has accomplished this in the public domaine.

Additionally, a quick glance at currently reported UFOs from around the country (NUFORC) demonstrates a statistical trend that UFOs are typically observed for just a few minutes (or seconds) only before disappearing. Also videos of said craft often show them moving so fast it would be near impossible to accomplish it.

Given that few people even glance at the sky or know what they are observing also compounds the problem of getting an accurate gauge on UFO size and bearing.

With that said, there are a few photographs that are compelling. The one at the following link being one of them.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/486670303461507743/

B&W photo at left.

As you know, the photo comes from the files of Lt. Col. Wendell Stevens. The image depicts a craft photographed by Air Force Captain Harvey Williams while flying a C- 47 at 12,000 feet 25 miles southwest of Provo, Utah.

While both skeptics and ET'ers are likely to criticize the image as being faked or perhaps even proof of alien visitation, we don't know what it was.

The best explanation to date (for me) has been that it was an early prototype of a US military designed and piloted saucer. This linked to the testimony repeated by McCandish concerning ARVs, and supported by the fact the image was discovered well after he illustrated what was observed by his friend at the SkunkWorks in the 1990's.

Laugh if you want, but the photo bears an uncanny resemblance to what was reportedly observed on the ground decades later.

Gene Steinberg said...

Good points, but remember that these surveillance cameras are usually pointed straight ahead or downward. They aren't covering the length and breath of a country road or the surrounding woods.

There are plenty of places where UFOs may be seen without the presence of Big Brother to catch it all in action.

Even the people with smartphones that are capable of taking great photos and 4K videos are busy looking down at the displays, sending texts, or taking selfies. They aren't looking to the skies.

Peace,
Gene

Anthony Mugan said...

Hello all (part 1 of 2)

I think this is a highly important point, to which could be added the general failure of UFO detection projects, the success of the Hessdalen project in detecting what appear to be naturally occurring plasma phenomena.
A few factors may be relevant:

1. I suspect the general numbers of ‘unidentified’ UFOs reported (e.g. in the Blue Book list or the extended list of about 1600 cases) greatly exaggerates the scale of the problem. Very few such cases have sufficient primary data to positively exclude the full list of mundane explanations. Given the very poor investigations of most of the cases in the record (and that we only have what information could be coincidentally collected at, best, rather than perfectly controlled situations) I may well be erring towards type 2 error here but I’ve only so far located 21 cases which I think represent a genuine puzzle with data at that level, and a similar number that just miss the cut but are probably relevant cases. This figure is almost certainly an underestimate, given how tight I have been in excluding cases without sufficient data, but many in the 1600 extended list of unknowns, for example, should never have been included.

2. To be fair to the early investigators we do now know of additional sources of misidentification, particularly plasmas associated with meteors, tectonic strain lights and ball lightning.

3. There are however a small but sufficient number of cases which are extremely suggestive of a deeper question. This is not the time or place to go into any great depth on these but some specific examples include:
i) The USS Gyatt case in 1964 where we have the original radarscope images that correlate extremely well with the visual observations of the pilot of a navy interceptor. This case was investigated in depth as it suggested a new Soviet long range supersonic aircraft operating from Cuba, something we now know not to have existed.
ii) Levelland 1957 – as discussed recently on this site it is very hard to account for the effects by anything other than an artificial device (generating an alternating or pulsed EM field). These types of effects reported many times but with usually less extensive information.
iii) Trans-en-Provence 1981 – biochemical effects that are also suggestive of very strong EM fields and other ground effects– difficult to fake the biochemical effects. Highly reminiscent of the less intrinsically credible ‘Florida Scout Master’ case (not one of the 21 but…’how much evidence do you need’ as the saying goes)
iv) Stephenville 2008 – an unusually well documented case with a suspiciously significant trajectory and duration rather too long for atmospheric plasma (as far as we know at the moment about these things).
etc etc etc….

Anthony Mugan said...

part 2 of 2

So, what is going on…?
There seem to be two broad possibilities (somewhat similar to those Ruppelt came down to in 1956, but I would suggest a development of his two options).
a) They don’t exist and we are missing something in the ‘hard cases’ that would eliminate them or.
b) They are following a ‘ambiguous strategy’ the net effect of which would seem to be to alert authorities to their presence but staying below the threshold of causing unavoidable acknowledgment of their existance with all the social and geopolitical consequences of that (e.g. Brookings report, 1960; see also Wendt and Duvall, 2008, “Sovereignty and the UFO’, Political Theory, 36(4))
To follow option (b) the nature and frequency of ‘events’ would change over time to maintain ambiguity but to reinforce the point as it seems needed (and to make the point to emerging world powers)
If the ambiguous strategy concept is correct then we should see the hardest cases invariably (or almost invariably – mistakes can happen to anyone) in locations and in situations which are relatively isolated.
This is one of the reasons why Roswell is so interesting. If it happened as suspected then it would be distinctly not ambiguous as far as the US government was concerned. It was however highly isolated in terms of location (and containable from the government’s point of view). A very clear (but containable) wake up call to one of the two superpowers of the time just at the time we were getting close to getting into space.

Brian Bell said...

@ Anthony

You wrote:

"A very clear (but containable) wake up call to one of the two superpowers of the time just at the time we were getting close to getting into space."

Interestingly Tim Printy not so long ago printed in his SUNlite newsletter that Kevin had commented on a blog (it didn't say which) that he suggested Roswell was a case where the aliens chose to deliberately reveal their presence by crashing their craft.

Is that still a theory out there? They chose suicide to communicate to us?

andycher said...

perhaps all this surveillance forces them to operate farther from earth, perhaps they have better technology now
perhaps our planet covering array of classified satellites gets the photos all the time but we can't see them

A

KRandle said...

Brian -

I have said for years that it might be these aliens, in an attempt to present themselves in the most nonthreatening way possible, deliberately crashed a craft, with the bodies of already dead crew members on it or they had constructed biological creatures that never lived but looked as if they had been killed in the crash. They just selected a poor place to do it because it allowed the military and by extension the government to hide the crash.

However, I never suggested this in a serious way nor have I ever thought of it as the truth. Only a fun look at what we have. It was never a theory and I had never postulated suicide, but the use of those crew who had already died, or that they were some sort of construct... nor can I believe that anyone ever took his seriously, though it might be a good plot for a "first contact" scenario, though I'm not surprised you might have thought this was serious.

TheDimov said...

Yep good question Mr Randle, with cameras all over the place why no action. It did make me think though of a guy in Perth here that was on some daytime TV show who talked about putting his camera facing the sky, magnifying it to 16X or whatever, and just filming for hours on end and he said (and showed footage of) craft that he said would inevitably appear, and behave in, well, UFO-like manners. I must admit his footage was interesting, and I tried it for one clear Summer day but got bored watching and gave up.. but perhaps he is onto something? Perhaps with a lot of patience something like what he is doing could pay off?

Brian Bell said...

@ Kevin

"I'm not surprised you might have thought this was serious."

Only because it's been brought up before, and also that Printy wrote about it referencing you.

I''m assuming he did so not in jest but with a level of seriousness. His write up can be read in "The Roswell Corner" at the following link:

http://www.astronomyufo.com/UFO/SUNlite7_2.pdf

Although you dismiss it as nothing serious, I've heard discussions about this "suicide" theory on "Coast to Coast AM" many years ago, and it was also the premise for Whitley Strieber's novel "Majestic" (below).

My thoughts were that it probably all started with you...decades ago. By the way, your fun little theory would be purely "speculative" in nature. Not something you seem generally fond of.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0765362872/ref=mp_s_a_1_6?qid=1460664209&sr=8-6&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=majestic&dpPl=1&dpID=51q2QcjImPL&ref=plSrch

Sarge said...

In one of the Star trek books called "Prime Directive" there is a scene in which the Federation officials are looking at a planet for possible first contact and are looking at all the so called "UFO" photographs in the public media and government archives.
There are literally thousand of them of all shapes and sizes. A search shows that less than a handful are of know spacecraft all used by the Federation in their study of the planet. The rest are simply described as unknown phenomenon.
The problem we face today is we don't have good enough photos and enough information to recognize the ones from this world, and the rest are in that huge mass of unknowns.
If only everyone set their camera for quality of the pictures instead of the number of pictures.

Sarge said...

I have a pet theory also. I think that long, long, ago in a galaxy far, far away a spacecraft got lost. After unknown eons adrift in the void it fell into this solar system and struck this planet in an area and time populated by semi intelligent beings.
And a legend was born.

Zak McKracken said...

Brian Bell

I think, the theory that Ufocrashes were somehow intended crashes will be renewed by a documentary, which will be released later this year.

David Rudiak said...

Here are some more interesting cases where hard data was obtained:

White Sands UFOs:
1. April 27, 1950: Four UFOs flying in formation were filmed by phototheodolite over White Sands with optical tracking from another site giving enough information to do a partial triangulation. According to the final report, the objects were about 30 feet in diameter and flying at about 150,000 ft (28 miles) at "undeterminable, yet high speed."

http://brumac.8k.com/WhiteSandsProof/WhiteSandsProof.html

2. Nov. 1994, Nellis Range, Nevada (Nellis UFO): A leaked military radar video recorded a UFO of the Nellis Test Range, very near the Nevada Test Site where nuclear tests were conducted. (within 6 miles of underground test sites) There is sufficient radar and video data to determine the size, speed, acceleration, altitude, and trajectory of the object. There are also zoomed images of the UFO showing it to be a highly anomalous multilobed object with a shifting appearance. (E.g., at the point where the object goes into a steep, high acceleration climb, three white, glowing lobes suddenly appear at the bottom.

I have done the most quantitative analysis of this video and discovered a very anomalous flight profile:

http://roswellproof.homestead.com/Nellis_Main.html
http://roswellproof.homestead.com/Nellis_discussion.html
http://roswellproof.homestead.com/Nellis_discussion2.html

1) Able to travel at very low speeds (approximately 30 mph), make a sharp turn, then accelerate to near supersonic speed (~700 mph)

2) "Rollercoaster" acceleration/deceleration (3 sets) with maximum positive acceleration ~9g and maximum deceleration ~6g (no conventional aircraft flies like this, rapidly accelerating, rapidly decelerating, again and again.

3) Did one steep climb of about 60 degrees accelerating first on the level to >700 mph first (where white white fuzzy lobes appear), then climbing steeply and seeming to coast upward for about 3500 feet before starting to level out and accelerate again.

4) After sharp turn, headed almost straight for tracking radar/camera covering 10 miles in about 2 minutes, for an average speed of ~300 mph.

5) Size about 28 ft across, 25 feet high, multi-lobed, no streamlined body.

Although radar range operators heard on audio initially think it might be a helicopter, then maybe balloons, as the object gets closer it gets obvious to them it is neither. Calls to other range operators also cannot establish an ID. Nobody knew what it was. The range is highly restricted and heavily monitored by radar and camera, making it extraordinarily difficult for anything to sneak in undetected and unrecognized.

The more quantitative data (max. speed ~700 mph, avg. speed 300 mph, accelerations to 9g) clearly rule out conventional objects like helicopters and balloons. Only jets or rockets could possibly achieve these speeds and accelerations, yet it is also clearly neither of these either by appearance or overall performance characteristics.

A true UFO.

CommanderCronus said...

Is it also possible that the phenomena itself has changed? Throughout the fifties and sixties there were lots of sightings of disk-shaped craft, and also some notable landing cases and CE 3s, but during the eighties something changed. Now we get lots of big black triangles, and those don't show up well at night. Could this indicate fundamental change in technology, or a change in the mission of such craft?

Brian Bell said...

@ Kevin

It occurred to me that if people want to observe and record UFOs or perhaps better UAP, they might organize a scientific approach to what people have been attempting to see using night vision optics. Most who do this are amateurs and hobbyists, while others claim they are collecting "proof" of alien visitation.

While many of these people are mistaking birds, insects, meteors, satellites, and commercial aircraft for alien spacecraft, from time to time they also capture anomalous objects that defy explanation. There are inherent problems with their understanding of the equipment (normal objects become glowing orbs under extreme magnification), however the recorded images below demonstrate that if a group of people were looking, they may be able to simultaneously observe and record UAP from different vantage points.

Examples:

USAF classified surveillance aircraft often reported as a "boomerang" or "chevron shaped" UFOs. Some claim TR3-B or TELOS although this is unknown. (Netherlands).

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IFdANC2RMz8

Large triangle captured on night optics. A similar one in daytime. (Michigan)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hjSQpDdKOG4

Same but in daylight:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PL2Oj-q3JZTUZzaaG-d4aAzGalbVgkGgkM&params=OAFIAVgH&v=0XUlDXKiXMA&mode=NORMAL

V formation with two objects that catch up to the primary cluster. Does not conform to standard satellite characteristics and speed. (Michigan).

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4DBxkztUwkM

Two objects, one following the other and clearly not in orbit but at lower altitude. The rear aircraft appears to be military by its navigation lights, although it lacks the standard FAA required tail light and the civilian international red strobe on top. The object before it has none and appears to be "saucer like". (Oregon)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ywsdnyjy9V0

Odd flashing object that shines a laser downward and pulsates while it does it. The laser is clearly not an aircraft searchlight, but could this be a military helicopter of some kind using a laser tracking or weapons aiming device? (Pennsylvania)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dnsta0cwZqQ

And yes, some evidence people will often declare something an "alien spacecraft" or mysterious aircraft (with chem-trails no less) when in fact, they are simply seeing a new military drone. In this case the new Italian Piaggio P.1HH "Hammerhead" (http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2015-02-26/hammerhead-takes-flight-gains-first-order), or perhaps the piloted Piaggio "Avante".

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ezfiwi4KOV4

Brian Bell said...

@ Sarge

The Millennium Falcon perhaps?

@ David

One obvious thing about your video case examples is that they all appear at or close to military test ranges. This raises the question of whether or not they are alien in origin, or something we built ourselves that remains classified.

Your cases are good though, and yes they are truly UFOs. The best may be the Nellis range recording, which is hard to dismiss given that it was leaked by a contractor and that it's clearly not faked.

While you assume it's an alien craft, I prefer to explain it as UAV that's designed to disrupt radar installations, and one built using the electrogravitic propulsion systems you claim are impossible for humans to invent.

@ Zak

Thanks for the heads up - should be interesting.

@ Cronus

We can capture black triangles on night vision. See the vids I posted. The problem is, these are probably not aliens but USAF/CIA/NSA survelliance craft which use active camouflage making them appear invisible to the naked eye and some optical recorders.

james tankersley said...

Kevin I am worried and furthermore now convinced that thanks to the ongoing US GOVT. secrecy still going on surrounding this mysterious subject, that if and when some real genuine evidence were to show up that it will still be labeled a fake or HOAX by those who don't want us to know simply because it is much easier to manipulate photo shop images on computers and what not and that would be the end of it. this is why some people still think the fox alien autopsy footage is still real.

JC said...

Hi I've been viewing this blog since the 'roswell slides'
The reason we don't see any 'ufos' on surveillance camera's and other is that no one from outer space is actually visiting us. Maybe if Mars was inhabited or the moons of Jupiter had life on it I could believe the Ufo stories. But these planets don't contain life. Other stars are simply to far away for creatures to visit us. As for the body's in the Roswell case. Didn't the militairy use primates in testing their crafts? I also wonder if Kenneth Arnold didn'mistake birds -pelicans I read- for flying craft? It seems unlikely that at that time they had several flying wing aircraft. There is mostly one prototype the use. Arnold saw 'craft' skipping like a stone on water. Wasn't it just migrating birds 'skipping' on the airwaves?

Neal Foy said...

Brian

I realize that you are smitten with the idea that Black Triangles are secret government projects. Stop a moment and consider the logic and logistics of such a claim. The black budget is said to be vast but it isn't without limits. consider the number of reports we have of these things, is it logical to assume that we have the money and logistical support needed to produce the number that have been reported world wide? I really don't think so. Some of the objects may well be secret projects but to say all of them are is stretching logic to it's limits.

As for photography of any unknown objects in our atmosphere the limits of the cameras being used shouldn't be ignored. Cell phones for instance have very small sensors that are packed with pixels. Pixel density is a known cause of noise and artifacting, neither is conducive to good imaging. I could further explain some other limitations of photography if anyone cares to hear it.

John's Space said...

Brian,

We can capture black triangles on night vision. See the vids I posted.

The cameras Kevin is talking about don't have night vision. But, the suggestion that the visitors are reacting to our technological advances is possible/likely.

JC,

Based on my knowledge of physics, I would have to see the merit in your argument that interstellar distances are to vast for Earth to have visitors. This of course is based on the idea that only way to travel is based on reaction power vehicles and that there is no way around the limits posed by relativistic dynamics.

However, the craft that have been (claimed to have been?) observed seem to be other than reaction powered and may even be able to "jump" from place to place. If these reports are correct the our visitors have discovered scientific principles that we simply don't understand. In this case the lack of visitors could be the real mystery.

This is why I think the study of this subject is worth while, i.e. to see if there great advancements in physical science to be had or are we just refining things at the edge of knowledge such as particle physics (the very small) or cosmology which would have little impact practical technologies.

It is clear that if we are being visited, they don't want overt contact yet.

zoamchomsky said...

"perhaps our planet covering array of classified satellites gets the photos all the time but we can't see them"

What would be the greatest discovery of all time―unambiguous ET visitation―would be impossible to keep secret.

Decades of around-the-clock surveillance by DSP satellites have NOT detected even one ET spacecraft.

And if one chose to argue that point, I'd counter with "ET visitation kept secret by all the world's governments and wholly without consequence?"

The suggestion defies good sense!

Brian Bell said...

@ Nitram

"As for photography of any unknown objects in our atmosphere the limits of the cameras being used shouldn't be ignored. Cell phones for instance have very small sensors that are packed with pixels. Pixel density is a known cause of noise and artifacting, neither is conducive to good imaging."

>>> True, but I wasn't referring to cell phone imagery when people are using military grade Gen3 night vision scopes and 1080 DPI recording instruments.

"I realize that you are smitten with the idea that Black Triangles are secret government projects. Stop a moment and consider the logic and logistics of such a claim. Consider the number of reports we have of these things...."

>>> Tell us Nitram, how MANY reports are there? Millions? Thousands? Hundreds? And are they daily? Weekly? Yearly? I think you are more "smitten" with the idea that aliens are visiting frequently, hence the many, many "black triangle" sightings you claim. The facts bear out, however, that these "triangles" (and chevrons) aren't seen often or filmed often either. It would only take a dozen or fewer aircraft of this kind to produce the number of sightings I'm suggesting. And how many people are even looking? Very few.

Anthony Mugan said...

For goodness sake!
a) Zoam et al. This is not and never has been a matter of pure scientific enquiry. National security is far more significant and operates with an agenda that you clearly do not understand.
b) the idea that the USA or any other terrestrial power has created these things is drivel. We do not have the physics ( although there are hints of lines of attack on the problem) and the idea that we had technology like that however many decades ago and continue to spend billions upon billions on conventional technology is utter absurdity.


As far back as 1952 the CIA quite correctly identified that the stupidity and emotional tendencies of the population at large were the key risks here. They were right.

TheDimov said...

just thinking of a sighting such as the Phoenix Lights, I find it just amazing that they are able to evade clear, unambiguous photography/videoing, I mean apparently over 1000 people were supposed to have encountered that craft going ever so slowly above their heads and the thing was as wide as a couple of football fields. Yet we have 2, just 2 videos of some lights in the distance. I find this particular instance staggering anyway, I mean it wasn't all *that* long ago, and there were lots of cameras and video-cameras about then. Not a single person was able to rush into their homes, grab a camera, and take a photo of the thing just above their heads, just incredible. This in itself I find a huge mystery.

andycher said...

Zoamchomsky,if aliens have visited earth in the last 70 years, it is not much of a secret. It's just that almost no one believes the 'leakers.'
I'm curious about your statement that DSP satellites have not photographed even one UFO. Is that because they have another name for them, like 'fast walkers.'

A

Brian Bell said...

"...perhaps our planet covering array of classified satellites gets the photos all the time but we can't see them..."

I think the contrary. It's more likely that our classified satellites frequently detect other classified military objects which for good reasons our government has chosen not to let us see them.

As Zoam has said, nothing man-made in earth orbit has photographed alien spacecraft.

Those fuzzy orbs and pulsating lights often seen on ISS and shuttle videos have been explained by science quite well. Debris, moisture, and space junk are the culprets.

Neal Foy said...

As usual Brian you are confused, you can't even get who you are talking to right. Nitram didn't say what you quoted,I did. There have been at least hundreds of BT sightings reported. Some go back to the early 1950's. One in Baltimore was "explained" with BS about the flying wing. The problem was they never produced the wing in the number of objects seen and it never flew on the East coast.Not at that time anyway.

Marcos Frank said...

Hi Brian and all

What do you think about Marler's book "Triangular Ufos; An esitimate...". It would seem that triangular UFOs (or UAPs) have been part of this story from very far back and even account for most ( or as many) accounts as circular, classic saucer reports.

It seems that there are three types of craft that have always been reported. Cigar shaped, circular and triangular (or flat-edged). So perhaps there is in fact little variance.

I'm not saying that this is extraterrestrial, but if it is: any species that can travel these distances might do so in ways that make time seem stationary to us (same crafts, all the time).

Just a thought.

Marcos Frank said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lorrie Causey said...

..I suspect even evidence that could pass muster in a US court of law would not be enough to convince a hyper skeptic. Stanton Friedman I think said it best when addressing that type of skepticism: "..it can't be therefore it isn't..". No amount of evidence can overcome that type of reasoning...

zoamchomsky said...

Andy;

"Slow Walkers" and "Fast Walkers" are upper-atmosphere grazing meteoroids and small Earth-crossing asteroids.

"There are 240 known Apollos (Minor Planet Center), but it is believed that there are at least 2000 Earth-crossers with diameters of 1 km or larger, 100,000 larger than the Rose Bowl, and 70-80 million larger than a typical house (Ostro 1997)."

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/ApolloAsteroid.html

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/01/25/science/meteoroids-hit-atmosphere-in-atomic-size-blasts.html?pagewanted=all

Brian Bell said...

@ Neal

"Nitram didn't say what you quoted, I did."

Is there a difference? It's all the same to me...!

"There have been at least hundreds of BT sightings reported. Some go back to the early 1950's."

Remarkable. Do the math goober:

1950 to 2016 = 66 years

"Hundreds of sightings" = say 200 (I'm being generous)

EQUALS = 3 (THREE) sightings annually WORLDWIDE. That's one every FOUR months worldwide.

Yes....SO many sightings of these things it just boggles the mind how frequently they have been seen. Just no way any HUMAN machines could do that right? Gotta be "aliens".

David Rudiak said...

Brian Bell wrote:
One obvious thing about your video case examples is that they all appear at or close to military test ranges. This raises the question of whether or not they are alien in origin, or something we built ourselves that remains classified.

Your cases are good though, and yes they are truly UFOs. The best may be the Nellis range recording, which is hard to dismiss given that it was leaked by a contractor and that it's clearly not faked.

While you assume it's an alien craft, I prefer to explain it as UAV that's designed to disrupt radar installations, and one built using the electrogravitic propulsion systems you claim are impossible for humans to invent.


The problem with these "secret project" theories is that advanced, unconventional technology like this would be quickly incorporated into our own weapons system and we should see some public evidence of it. But we never do. E.g., Stealth technology was talked about by Pres. Jimmy Carter in 1980 (to counter claims that he was weak on national defense), then the Air Force spent the next decade denying that it existed (same Pentagon AFOSI counterintel office that put out the Roswell report), only for it to go fully public when it was employed during the first Gulf War. Similarly Pres. Johnson exposed the existence of the hypersonic spy plane SR-71 during the 1964 Presidential campaign to counter charges we were falling behind the Russians in weapons technology.

The point is, though these are still pretty conventional technologies in many ways (e.g., still use jet engines--many basic principles of stealth already known for 40-50 years.).

In the case of Nellis UFO from 1994, where is that advanced technology 20+ years later?

In the case of the 1950 White Sands incident, what technology did we have that could fly 30 miles up in formation at very high speed? These tracking stations knew all about the rocket tests there (in fact the incident happened right after they had been tracking and filming a rocket test, why most of the cameras were out of film). This had nothing to do with what was being tested there.

Impossible conventional explanations do not explain anything. That is why NASA/NACA aeronautical engineer called his book "Unconventional Flying Objects", not "Unidentified". They exhibit unconventional propulsion and flight characteristics. Hill was fully aware of our conventional aerospace technology, but these things go way beyond what we can do, like flying circles around our missiles--another White Sands incident, e.g.)

Brian Bell said...

@ Marcos

'What do you think about Marler's book "Triangular Ufos; An Estimate of the Situation".'

Well, the book is often mentioned by ufologists at UFO conventions as THEE reference work on their origins (that being extraterrestrial).

Personally I have mixed opinions on the book. It gives case after case of suspected sightings of black triangles, but does no analysis on the quality of the reports as viable examples. Some cases may just be misidentification of terrestrial phenomenon.

I think if we were to chart the frequency of the "hundreds" of triangle sightings mentioned my Neal, the preponderance would show a trend line that peaks in the 1980-1990's. That to me inficates its more likely a black project rather than a race of aliens who prefer to fly interstellar triangular craft.

The Beifield-Brown effect is a known "antigravity" system tested back in the 1940's. Interestingly those independent entrepreneurs who play with the effect today use TRIANGULAR shaped constructs.

The Biefeld-Brown is a fascinating effect with which levitation can be reached without moving or rotating elements. Static voltage is applied between asymmetric electrodes and a force towards the small electrode is generated. The object then floats in the air defying gravitational forces. Put enough electricity into It and a larger triangle will do the same thing.


Larry said...

Zoam wrote:

"Decades of around-the-clock surveillance by DSP satellites have NOT detected even one ET spacecraft."

How do you know that? Did you or do you have access to the DSP data stream? What level of clearance did you have?

How did they look for "ET spacecraft"? i.e., what wavelengths/power levels? Were there any filters in place--such as time and motion?

Inquiring minds want to know how much substance--if any--is behind your claim.

Neal Foy said...

Brian, insults like calling me a goober will get you nowhere. You obviously know nothing about the number of BT sightings reported. Please use your google search and educate yourself. The number of reports per year is far greater than 200, your skewed math is ridiculous and you continue to make an ass of yourself.

Like it not Nitram and I are not the same person.

Wind Swords said...

Gene recently did a show on a project to launch inexpensive (relatively speaking) satellites with a sensor package for detecting UFO's. I thought I heard of another project to create the same type of thing with ground based units in known UFO "hot spots". I think they are both interesting ideas because they would enable us to collect hard data and get away from relying almost exclusively on human testimony.

KRandle said...

All -

I let Brian's insult go because it wasn't all that bad, but that's it. No more.

Brian Bell said...

@ David:

You wrote:

'The problem with these "secret project" theories is that advanced, unconventional technology like this would be quickly incorporated into our own weapons system and we should see some public evidence of it."

Yes, in fact it has been incorporated into our defense systems already. The difference is HOW it's been incorporated.

Basically, a unified field propulsion system will not tolerate missiles or bombs being shot (or dropped) from the craft because it sets up a very highly charged electromagnetic field around the object (one of the reasons they are often reported as glowing objects).

Using this as a weapons platform is therefore not possible. This is the primary reason you didn't see UFOs firing missiles at hard targets in Iraq, Kuwait, or Afghanistan. It doesn't work because the craft would destroy itself. So no, you don't see CNN video of them in desert camo fighting terrorist forces.

So what are they good for? Just what Kevin's article refers to - "global surveillance....or big brother."

I'm referring to the mass surveillance of entire populations across national borders, something the US and it's English speaking allies have been doing since before 1950 (and Roswell) in the UKUSA treaty officially enacted on 5 March 1946.

In the late 1940's this was expanded to include Canada, New Zealand, and Australia and today is referred to as "The Five Eyes".

Since it's a secret treaty, its existence was not known to even the Prime Minister of member nation Australia (surprise, surprise) until 1973, and it was not disclosed to the general public until 2005. That's 59 years of classified secrecy.

What do they collect? EVERYTHING. Private, commercial, military and economic data on everyone. Those are facts, not fiction, and it's not conspiracy laden either.

While other Western nations have since been admitted, it's still controlled by The Five Eyes. Official NSA documents have stated:

"We (the NSA) can, and often do, target the signals of most 3rd party foreign partners".

That's right we spy on everyone including our friends and citizens.

What does this have to do with "big brother", UFOs, and black triangles?

I find it interesting that the "Belgian Wave" of black triangles coincided with a NATO meeting held the same month and attended by then President Bush in December of the same year where the topic included the rebuilding of Eastern Europe politically, militarily, and economically.

What else?

You wrote:

"That is why NASA/NACA aeronautical engineer called his book "Unconventional Flying Objects"....Hill was fully aware of our conventional aerospace technology..."

No because NASA is not part of the NSA or its mission. He has his theories yes, but there is no reason he would have been given verification that his theories were correct and currently being employed in technology used for clandestine surveillance on the US or other nations.

It's fact that gravity controlled research began in earnest in the early 1950's, with the USAF, aerospace companies (17 of them) and scientists. In 1965, forty-six unclassified antigravity projects were confirmed by the Scientific Information Exchange of the Smithsonian Institution. Of the forty-six, thirty-three were USAF controlled. It was everywhere in peer reviewed physics journals until it all just disappeared in 1973.

Why? Because it moved into black project budgets and some claim they achieved viable propulsion by then.

Brian Bell said...

Well Neal - you wrote:

"Please use your google search and educate yourself. The number of reports per year is far greater than 200..."

I did as you said and entered the following on Google search, which should produce something along the lines you claim,

"number of black triangle UFOs reported annually"

I got nothing on black triangles at all...nothing.

The best I could find (top hit) based on that search entry was an OpenMindsTV article summarizing MUFONS 2014-15 report on TOTAL number of UFOs sighted that year - no mention of black triangles in it either. Humm...

It stated 7,000 UFO sightings that year of which MUFON leaders claim "10 to 20% are unexplainable" (hence probably alien).

The article goes on to promote MUFONS' "Hanger 1" TV show, which even Kevin has stated is "hooey", and what I imagine some Iowans might also call "hog wash".

Ten to Twenty percent is way, way too high an estimate unless they are bias (and they are) not to mention an unusually wide standard deviation of 7.09!

Even my university astronomy professor who believed in alien visitors claimed the number was closer to 3-4%!

So unless you're claiming all "20%" of those 7,000 sightings per annum were "triangles", I don't know where you're getting your data from.

Certainly not Google as you claim. Perhaps your imagination?

If we used your flawed logic on MUFONS' numbers we would have 116 black triangles sighted per month here in the US, or if we use 10% then 58 per month. That's assuming all 7,000 are black triangles too.

Of course we know you're just babbling smack to back your belief that black triangles are alien spacecraft, right?

You'll need to do better than that!

Now, if we take the generous 4% more often reported we get 23 "black triangles" per month (again incorrectly assuming that all 7,000 annual sightings are triangles).

And if we apply the 4% to those 23 per month, more realistically stating 4% were ACTUALLY triangles, we get .92 per month, which as I originally stated is about 12 per year! (statistically less even).

This is pretty basic stuff Neal. It "ain't" that hard to figure out...

Neal Foy said...

Hmmmm, apparently it's extremely hard for you Brian, had you done even a cursory search with google you would have found the NUFORC website, they have 2500 BT reports in their database. That's just one reporting site, there are others just so you know. Even the most rabid skeptobunkers would agree that not all sightings are reported. Here's a tip Brian, limit your words used to the minimum in a google search to get better results. Most 10 year olds know that, why don't you?

Strangely enough, at the time you claim was peak for BT activity the reports are far fewer on NUFORC than now. Although it is true there was a lot of activity in those years. That would imply that the NUFORC database is incomplete. It doesn't include my sighting so make it 2501 at least.

Just how did you come up with the 4% reliable report number? Your professor at What's a Matta U is such a genius that he can't be wrong?

Since you know practically all there is to know about the super secret government BTs tell us Brian, do they have a kitchen on board or do they pack a lunch? Does a microwave oven interfere with the propulsion system you know so well? Please describe the shoulder patch worn by the crew, where are they trained, where do they park these things, how many hours of maintenance do they require per flight hour?

Tell us Brian, do you have now or have you ever had a security clearance to know all these things or are you just pulling them from out of thin air?

Don Maor said...

Brian, maybe your fault was to search for "black triangles".

Istead, you should search in databases by "triangle", "triangular UFOs" or "triangle shape". According to David Marler's book Triangular UFOs, there were indeed many reports of triangles circa 2004 and 2012, above the number os any other definite shape, including the saucer shape.

I am currently reading chapter 3 of Marler's book.

David Rudiak said...

Well Brian, all I see AGAIN is a lot of speculation. You're arguing that we have had advanced anti-gravity technology for 40+ years, based on a Biefield-Brown type high voltage propulsion technology, which goes back to the 1950s. (Did you know that T. Townsend Brown himself founded NICAP in 1956? So basically your creator of your alleged UFOs wanted them investigated? Perhaps you have things backwards as to which came first, including unexplained UFO cases predating his experiments.)

As for whether BB technology is true anti-gravity, I have yet to see this conclusively demonstrated. It is easy to demonstrate that an asymmetric high voltage electric field employed by Brown can lift light-weight objects (called "lifters"--lots of examples of YouTube and the Net), but quite another to do it in a vacuum, where I believe the lift disappears. If it was true antigravity, it should also work in a vacuum.

Instead it is probably the high voltage creates ions in the air which are accelerated from one electrode to another, creating an ion wind. That is what is creating the propulsion, but it is not very powerful and not very efficient. Probably the only advantage for surveillance over a conventional jet or internal combustion engine (which are much more efficient, particularly jets) is that it would be silent.

Your claim that such a propulsion system could not carry armaments because it would disrupt the propulsion shows that you don't understand any of the physics or engineering of B-B devices. If anything, a very high voltage field around such a craft would make it a very poor choice for electronic surveillance, creating a tremendous amount of EM noise.

That the NSA would supposedly launch black triangles over Belgium to spy on NATO is preposterous. Last I checked, NATO was on OUR side, the U.S. being the key member. How does this explain these black triangles being seen close to the ground in rural areas? What was the NSA spying on there--chicken coop lights?

I once got a few minutes at a MUFON convention to speak with Gen. Wilfried de Brouwer. de Brouwer was the Belgium Air Force officer placed in charge of investigating the black triangles, so maybe his opinion counts for something.

I asked him what might have drawn the black triangles to Belgium and not surrounding areas. He said there were two theories: 1) Belgium has the highest concentration of lights in Europe making it unusually bright at night, and 2) NATO is based there. I didn't ask him if he thought the NSA was spying on NATO with B-B antigravity craft (can't imagine why I didn't think to ask him this), but I seriously doubt he would have believed that the key member of NATO was spying on itself. On the other hand, it would make a great deal of sense if a foreign power, from Earth or elsewhere might be interested in NATO.

I then asked him if he thought they might be ET. He said something like, "Let's put it this way." He had a good friend, a fellow officer. He went to go to work one morning and saw a huge black triangle hovering silently over his car. De Brouwer said his friend told him this in total confidence, not filing an official report, fearing it would impact his military career. In another case, said de Brouwer, the eyewitness saw a huge, hovering black triangle tip upward to a vertical position and then rotate silently on its vertical axis. Now, said de Brouwer, no power on Earth remotely has any sort of technology that can do this.

So de Brouwer didn't explicitly say that he thought they were ET in origin, but he said it implicitly in a very strong way. This from the guy in a position to know if they were Earth-based technology or not and probably knew as much about the BT's as anyone.

KRandle said...

All -

I googled "black triangles UFO" and found dozens of interesting reports. I don't know why Brian got nothing and why that didn't cause him to ask what he had done wrong. We all know there have been black triangle reports so any reasonably astute researcher would have wondered if he had posed the question incorrectly...

However, this was not about the number of black triangle reports there have been, but about the lack of credible video footage of UFO sightings from multiple perspectives, so we will return to that topic.

David Rudiak said...

Some reasons why multiple UFO pictures/videos might not be seen:

1) UFO reports are heavily concentrated at night, making photography extremely difficult, little more than "lights in the sky" with no details, and smeared by long exposure times. (It is unclear why there is such a concentration. Could be a deliberate attempt to remain stealthy by operating mostly in darkness or it is easier to notice something unusual in the night sky than in daylight.)

2) UFO reports are concentrated in rural areas, not over more densely populated regions.

3) UFOs might commonly employ optical stealthiness or camouflage to remain largely unnoticed by eye or camera. (As well as radar stealth; in fact basic saucer-shape or sphere are naturally stealthy to radar.)

4) UFOs are typically reported low in the sky and operating in a very restricted area, arriving and departing vertically. This again would restrict the number of people who might see and photograph them.

5) Witnesses often report being so startled by seeing a UFO, even when they have a camera they don't think to use it.

6) UFOs, for reasons unknown, are commonly reported to quickly drain batteries on electronic devices like video recorders & cell phones, limiting time in which to capture images.

7) Smart phones with cameras may be widespread, but these are extremely tiny lens systems with very limited resolution as a result. In the vast majority of sightings, UFOs are well off in the distance and will be seen as little more than dots by camera.

8) There is no central clearing house of UFO pictures and videos, so we really don't know if its true that UFOs haven't been captured at different angles by multiple cameras. (This may be the most important reason of all.) You can certainly see numerous, poor quality UFO videos on YouTube, probably only a tiny fraction of the videos out there, with very, very few of these ever properly evaluated (to even see if they are genuine or of something truly unknown). Thus, it may be more of statistical sampling problem rather than a statement of fact.

9) Similarly, we have no idea what various militaries or intelligence agencies might have, groups that have the necessary resources and scope to collect good picture data with central data collection for analysis.

There certainly have been cases of UFOs captured simultaneously on multiple civilian/military radars (another form of electromagnetic detection and recording), such as the 1952 Washington Nationals, 1980 Belgian Triangles, 1965 Edwards AFB case, 1986 JAL 1628 UFO case, probably some others (these are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head).

Neal Foy said...

That's fine with me Kevin, that gets into my area as a photographer. I'll just go over a few possibilities, one would be that in a 1080P video each frame is about 2 megapixels. By todays standards for still photography that is low resolution. You couldn't expect much detail from such an image. For still photos, there is still a resolution issue for objects at a distance. As an example in a photo of a tree at more than a hundred feet or so with a normal lens it would be difficult if not impossible to count the leaves. Then of course we have the problem that UFOs are something of a transitory nature, to have high resolution cameras around the area at the same time would be unlikely. Possibly a group of nature photographers coming across a UFO would do the trick because they would likely to be equipped with high resolution cameras with long telephoto lenses. That would be ideal, how likely this would happen is anyone's guess.

Before Brian tears into me for the tree example I should note that in many of the UFO pictures we see of lights in the sky the object is only a few pixels. This is not enough to do much with. Then we have an exposure problem because the camera light meter is confused by the bright light against dark sky and simply isn't capable of making a correct exposure.

With official satelite photos we don't know if or how much they may be sanitized of anomolies. It's so easy to do with the smart cloning tools we have that a good operator could get rid of a UFO in two seconds.

Surveilance cameras usually are pointed at the ground, not the sky and some would suffer even more from resolution problems because of lack of storage space in some systems. This could improve as systems are upgraded.

Marcos Frank said...

Regarding anti[gravity-based propulsion, I am not sure the Bielfeld-Brown effect, or similar electromagnetism based effects are truly 'anti-gravity', if by antigravity one refers to a direct manipulation of the planet's gravitational field or the creation of a new one that counters the planet's. The Bielfeld-Brown effect results from an 'ionic' wind due to the voltage differences at the electrodes. Although some believed that ionic wind was only part of the propulsion, there have been several experiments that show this is what is likely causing lift. So lift is achieved but by principles that don't involve a direct manipulation of gravity.

However, Brian's point is interesting because with sufficient power, theoretically you could generate a BB field that could levitate heavy objects. The problem, and I think Hill discusses this as well in his book, is the power plant requirements to generate sufficient energy. A plant large enough to generate the required energy and compact enough to fit within a small airframe is not trivial. Was this problem truly solved by the US or USSR back in the 50's-60's? While it is possible that the fading out of scientific papers on anti-gravity drives by the 70's might reflect projects going 'dark' and secret, an equally plausible scenario is that people simply stopped working on this topic because it was not panning out. Instead, it proved more fruitful to continue development in jet technology, etc.

In addition ionic winds actually disturb the surrounding air-exert force on it--. Therefore a BB effect strong enough to lift a multi-ton vehicle would likely cause very noticeable downdraft or other winds; not something typically reported in these cases.

purrlgurrl said...

Not surprising to me, since I long ago began to feel that UFOs, even those that the "witness" believes to be a nuts and bolts craft, are products of a glitch of some kind that takes place in the functioning of the human brain. No, I'm not saying that witnesses are de facto crazy (but a few just might be), rather I'm saying that some outside, but naturally occurring, electromagnetic event interferes with brain functioning. That doesn't mean the witness doesn't have a "real" experience. It's just means that the witness interprets the experience (or brain glitch) according to prevailing cultural memes and stereotypes as well as his or her personal belief system. So, those who believe in ghosts believe they saw a ghost. Those who believe in Bigfoot believe they saw a Bigfoot. Those who believe in alien spacecraft ... etc., etc. This common, but yet undiscovered or poorly understood natural triggering event, might be at the root of all paranormal experiences. If this were the case, we will never find indisputable hard evidence to prove the stories of these experiences are based on objective reality.

KRandle said...

Brian -

I said the discussion of black triangles had ended.

cda said...

"Credible video footage"?

Would ANYTHING be credible now, given that you can put together almost anything you like now from computers, animation, special software, digital cameras, and goodness knows what else. Gone are the vintage days of UFO photographs (50s and 60s).

What I am saying is that nobody now would trust a captured UFO on film to be the real thing. And they would be right. Even if a true, genuine UFO from outer space, or some other source, actually come close enough to let someone take a good photograph or film, would anyone believe it to be the real thing at last? I doubt it.

No, we shall need the actual, captured, hardware; and even if we get that, it will prove a very steep task to convince the scientific fraternity.

Think of meteorites 200 years ago.

starman said...

purrgurrl wrote

"..the witness interprets the experience (or brain glitch) according to prevailing cultural memes and stereotypes as well as his or her personal belief system.."

In fact many UFO witnesses were skeptics prior to a sighting. And why the high percentage of sightings in remote areas? Are urban brains inherently less likely to have a "glitch" or does the "natural electromagnetic trigger" tend to spare urban brains?

David Rudiak said...

The fact that UFOs can SIMULTANEOUSLY be captured on radar, photos/videos, radiation detectors, create EM interference, cause physiological effects, leave behind trace evidence on the ground (burns, impressions, dessicated soil, etc.), and other PHYSICAL effects quite independent of witness perceptions, proves they have an independent physical existence and are not some vague "brain glitch".

Brian Bell said...

With slight modification I think what David has to say could ALSO go like this:

"The fact that GHOSTS can SIMILTANEOUSLY be captured on thermal imaging, photos/videos, motion detectors, create EM interference, cause psychological effects, leave behind trace evidence on the ground (burns, impressions, footsteps, etc), and other PHYSICAL effects quite seperate from witness perceptions, proves they have an independent physical existence and are not some 'brain glitches'.

By simply changing four words we easily convert David's claim that aliens really do exist into one totally supporting that GHOSTS do as well!

No this isn't trival and unrelated - for even Valle described the phenomenon as one all intertwined making it hard to discern one from another, and fact from fiction!

So you wonder why it's so hard to prove aliens exist via photography? Well it's akin to trying to prove ghosts are real via the same approach.

Photos won't do the trick - you must have much more than that. Unless of course you prefer chasing apparitions....!

As Gilles might say...."Well that's ufology after all...!"

james tankersley said...

there is another thing that bothers me when skeptics think they can explain the Roswell crash as some kind of secret balloon or plane.........and that is the description and the nature of the crashed debris itself. in fact we still don't have material like it today, though I hear we are coming pretty close to manufacturing it, and we should all know where it came from! foil like dull colored aluminum material that would flatten out when it was wadded up. steel I beams with strange writing totally unrecognizable as any language that was known at the time. these I beams could not be broken or cut and even burned just like the other pieces of the metallic debris that was discovered. and what about Jessie Marcels comment that a big sledgehammer couldn't dent a chunk of the bigger parts of the debris, that it would bounce off? this sounds like something TRULY out of this world to me, no matter how you try to explain it. the mundane just doesn't work here.

cda said...

DR:

Are you saying that a few UFOs have done ALL SEVEN of the things you listed? If so, which sightings were these?

Or, more likely, that there are some sightings which exhibit, say, two or three out of these seven?

And what about actual hardware, as opposed to just "trace evidence"?

David Rudiak said...

Some naysayer nattering:

CDA: The claim was that UFO's were nothing but a "brain glitch", or just in people's heads, no physical reality. I gave examples of physical effects associated with UFOs independent of witness descriptions. E.g., simultaneous radar along with visual is independent corroboration of something physical in the sky, for which there are a number of cases. (In fact, the primary A.F. criterion in the past for scrambling jets for intercept was simultaneous radar and visual, not visual alone.)

It is not necessary that all the physical effects be simultaneously operative, and where did you get the idea that I ever indicated that? If an object hasn't landed, e.g., you would hardly expect ground impressions, soil desiccation, burnt ground/foliage, ground radiation readings, etc. However, a classic example of such a physical close encounter was the 1964 Lonnie Zamora/Socorro case. That had ground and foliage burning, landing pad impressions (with an interesting geometrical pattern), other ground marks, short-lived radiation that fogged photographs, fused sand, and a broken rock in one of the landing impressions with metal scrapings, found by Ray Stanford.

The metal was taken to a NASA lab for analysis by Stanford and Richard Hall. The initial report (as I recall--I'm traveling and don't have access to research materials) was a nickel alloy, but one that didn't match any known U.S./Russian/etc. alloy in the NASA metallurgical database. Then the scientist they were dealing with (who gave the unknown alloy report) was pulled from the case, and Stanford said they completely changed the analysis to silicon dioxide or common sand.

Brian Bell: So now the physical evidence for UFOs is equivalent to that of ghosts? Maybe you should inform the military or FAA to junk all their radar sets, picking up all those fictitious planes, missiles, etc., obviously just "brain glitches".

Radars can pick up so-called radar ghosts that can appear under certain atmospheric conditions, but simultaneous radar-visual cases would be very difficult to near impossible to explain this way, and there are cases of MULTIPLE radar picking up unknowns, which is also next to impossible to explain with radar ghosts or "brain glitches".

Also impossible to explain as "brain glitches" are mass sightings, for which there are sometimes hundreds of witnesses to a UFO. I have two such examples at my website from 1950, both leaving huge trails behind (physical effect), hundreds of witnesses, including pilots (civilian and military), CAA control tower controllers, and just ordinary people. I dare you to come up with a comparable mass sighting of a "ghost", plus leaving physical effects behind.

David Rudiak said...

James Tankersley:

I see things the same as you. Multiple witness descriptions of very anomalous debris (even ignoring body reports) point to ET origins. This is what got me interested in the Roswell case over 20 years ago and made me think there was something to it.

However, if you've followed blogs like this for any length of time, the skeptibunkers just blow off such eyewitness reports, stating there were no such descriptions in the newspapers back in 1947 (just the cover story foil, rubber, and sticks). Therefore, any witness who reported anomalous debris decades later can be dismissed as a hoaxer, senile or confused, contaminated by others, or weak-minded/gullible, with nefarious Roswell researchers placing alien memes in their brains. (maybe using alien mental telepathy technology?)

albert said...

@Marcos Frank,
As opposed to 'ion lifters', 'ion thrusters' are real -reaction- engines, that is, they are based of the same principles as rocket engines: accelerating particles. The typical example would be: sit on a skateboard(or other low-friction device) and throw a heavy object away from you. The board will move in the opposite direction. To model an ion lifter, imagine a long skateboard, with you at one end and your friend at the other. You throw the medicine ball to your friend. The reactive force moves the board as before, but it's canceled when your friend catches it.

!wiki has a good page on the many variations of "ion thrusters", as well as the BB effect.
. .. . .. --- ....

Neal Foy said...

Brian

Just because you believe that ghosts don't exist doesn't mean it's true. This is the same old it can't exist so it doesn't nonsense. Or does your super secret clearance give you insider information on ghosts too?

I don't want to open the floor for a discussion of ghosts, like alien visitation I prefer to keep an open mind, there isn't enough data to determine that one way or the other. So please stop trying to make me out as a "believer". I believe it is a possibility, but I can't be sure.

I agree that photos and videos alone won't prove alien visitation to me or many others.

cda,

Why do they have to have all seven parameters covered? As long as we have data that rules out the brain glitch theory that's all that's needed.

zoamchomsky said...

Neal;

Extraordinary claims are NOT TRUE until they're shown to be true.

Until unambiguously demonstrated to be true, "ghosts" and "UFOs" are NOT TRUE.

That's the way the real world works.

Over a century of data has shown that the "UFO" hypothesis is NOT TRUE. How much longer should we continue to consider this failed hypothesis do you think?

Kevin's observation is that IF REAL "UFOs" exists, then given the ubiquity of imaging devices today, they should be capturing a great many unambiguous images of REAL "UFOs." They are NOT!

Just as decades of around-the-clock surveillance by DSP satellites have NOT detected even one ET spacecraft or REAL "UFO" of any kind in near-Earth orbit.

These things are not matters of personal belief or popular "UFO" mythology on the Internet, it's a matter of what can be demonstrated positively in the world.

Neal Foy said...

Tell us zoam, where exactly is the line drawn between an ordinary claim and an extraordinary claim. Should we alter scientific method for one over the other or should we treat them the same way. Funny, I looked through a lot of definitions for scientific method and never saw extraordinary claims mentioned at all. All claims are equal. This extraordinary claim crap is just stuff you debunker types make up to draw attention away from the fact that you constantly paint yourselves in a corner by desperately trying to prove a negative.

What I'm trying to say is that there is ample evidence to support the fact that something of substance is flying around in our atmosphere. There is little evidence to tell us who or what is responsible. If a cop observes a car speeding but can't catch it to identify the driver it doesn't mean they don't exist. Or does it to you?

How do you know that the DSP satellites have NEVER detected a spacecraft? Do you have a super secret clearance thingy or does Brian let you borrow his?

Brian Bell said...

David wrote:

"I dare you to come up with a comparable mass sighting of a "ghost", plus leaving physical effects behind."

Well here are TWO cases - people reported physical effects too. And before you claim these aren't credible witnesses, it's all hoax, etc., let me remind you many UFO sightings are the same.

2008:

http://www.meetstheweird.com/paranormal/mass-ghost-sighting-shutters-school/

2013:

http://weekinweird.com/2013/05/03/crowd-runs-scared-witnessing-woman-fight-short-bald-ghost/

Now back to UFO's.....

It's true that Valle (a ufologist mind you) had concluded there's one central "intelligence" masquerading as aliens and saucers, and that "intelligence" he believes is the same one that once appeared as the mythical and sly tricksters behind ghosts, apparitions, gnomes, leprechauns and forest sprites.

Why? Because legend has it they demonstrate the ability to do exactly what you claim UFO's do.

Paul Young said...

Just because every man and his dog has a camera to hand at almost every waking moment of the day,(in the form of a smart-phone) doesn't mean they can start snapping away at the drop of a hat.
If something interesting came to view...something that interested me enough to be bothered to take a photo of,(a flying saucer would certainly qualify)...then it would have to stay around for quite a good few seconds in order for me to start shooting.
I just experimented with my own iphone.
After pulling it out of my pocket I had to press a button. Then I had to enter my pin. The iphone took a few seconds to decide if I got my pin right and then I had to swish over to my camera icon...press that icon...and the first thing my view-finder displayed was my own ugly mush, so I had to press the icon that reverses the direction in which my iphone needs to face. Only then was I able to take a shot.

All in all it took me around 25 seconds before I could take a snap...and that's without the added stress that I imagine I might come under if a flying saucer was hovering in front of me.

Paul Young said...

Commander Cronis..."Is it also possible that the phenomena itself has changed? Throughout the fifties and sixties there were lots of sightings of disk-shaped craft, and also some notable landing cases and CE 3s, but during the eighties something changed. Now we get lots of big black triangles,..."

Some UFOlogists believe it's not just one species of ET that visit us. Maybe one species vehicle of choice is the disc shape, and another might prefer the triangle shape...and another the delta-wing...etc.
"Horses for courses"
After all,the Chinese all get about on rickshaws and Italians on scooters... (don't they?)

KRandle said...

Paul -

Whipping out my smart phone, activating it, touching the proper icon for the camera and I was ready to go in under five seconds. The point here is that with so many cameras on so many phones in so many places it is strange that we don't have some good, multiple angle and independent photographs of a UFO. The picture in this post was of a meteor grazing the atmosphere over the Grand Tetons in Wyoming. I know of two different films and several photographs of this event that took place in the 1960s. There is no UFO photograph that matches this for the number of independent pictures.

Brian Bell said...

@ Paul

Kevin wrote:

"The point here is that with so many cameras on so many phones in so many places it is strange that we don't have some good, multiple angle and independent photographs of a UFO."

And Kevin is correct.

Digital Trends Magazine reported in 2014 that by 2015 the number of cell phones purchased (with cameras) would exceed the world's population (7.2 billion phones).

There are more than a hundred countries throughout the world where the number of cell phones exceeds the countries’ populations. Russia, for example, has 1.8 times more active cell phone accounts than people. Brazil has 1.2 times as many.

The last I read these countries used to be hot spots for UFO sightings.

The magazine also stated that phones with cameras outsell digital cameras 10 to 1.

China is the #1 phone market overall. What, aliens don't like to visit China?

So given that modernized nations have more camera phones in use than their own country's population, just where are all these photos if what you say is true?

If multiple alien races are visiting the earth in droves, why no clear and indisputable photos?

- Do they block them with advanced alien stealth technology?

- Do they magically delete the images while simultaneously washing the photographer's memory of having taken the photo?

Or perhaps they really aren't visiting us at all.

Maybe it's simply in the minds of those who think they saw something but didn't.

Daniel Transit said...

Brian Bell said:

....So given that modernized nations have more camera phones in use than their own country's population, just where are all these photos if what you say is true?

If multiple alien races are visiting the earth in droves, why no clear and indisputable photos?

- Do they block them with advanced alien stealth technology?

- Do they magically delete the images while simultaneously washing the photographer's memory of having taken the photo?...


In my experience, with the unusual things I've video recorded in the London sky, the phenomena have almost never come very close, which seems possibly deliberate.

If so, then that could be a strategy of not allowing too much visual information to get out that would be detrimental to an overall plan.

It might also have to do with the limitations of the human being doing the recording.

There are cases of people taking UFO photographs and what turns up on the processed image is very different to what they saw or thought they saw.

There are also cases of the photographer not seeing anything unusual when the UFO photo was taken - the earliest reference to this that I know of is a George Adamski c.1951 photo [referenced/shown in a newspaper article of the 1950s].

There are also a few cases of people reporting missing time, as well as seeming anomalies with the camera etc.

Larry said...

About 20 years or so ago, when I was still a NASA employee and still had an active security clearance, I had an Air Force officer friend and colleague who was (like me) coming up through the ranks and getting more and more responsible job assignments. At that time he had just been assigned to a command position within the 50th Space Wing—the unit that has responsibility for operating all the spacecraft that the Air Force is responsible for. That includes the DSP satellites that Zoam keeps referring to. Like me, my friend had an interest in finding out the reality behind the UFO phenomenon, so one day we had a conversation about what, if anything, the DSP satellites could contribute to observing presumed UFOs. The answer, in short, was probably nothing.

The DSP spacecraft were designed for the specific purpose of detecting thermal infrared emissions on or very near the Earth’s surface that would correspond to the launch of large ballistic missiles and nuclear detonations. For this purpose they use actively cooled sensors with rather large pixel sizes (meaning they don’t have very high spatial resolution for objects near the ground). They sit out at geostationary altitude so that each spacecraft points continuously at a fixed region of the Earth’s surface. The spacecraft continuously rotates about the line of sight of the telescope which causes a linear detector array in the focal plane to sweep out a circular path on the surface—sort of like a rotating radar antenna. They therefore do not generate images, as such. Instead, they can detect hot spots if the total amount of thermal energy in the spots rises above a threshold value. Just like radar, the data stream from a DSP focal plane is subject to a lot of noise and spurious signals. For this reason—just like radar—there are a number of signal filters implemented in software that modify the displayed information before the operators ever see it. Nobody sits at Petersen Air Force Base or anywhere else and views the raw data stream. Nor do they look for UFOs; their only mission is to look for probable missile launches nuclear detonations and large aircraft in afterburner.

My friend pointed out that in order to use DSP for detecting UFOs one would first of all have to be sure that UFOs have a large IR signal within the bandpass of the spacecraft detectors. We know that to be true for missile launches and nuclear detonations, but there is no particular reason to think that that would be generally true for UFOs. Second, one would have to get access to the raw data stream and apply one’s own unique data filtering algorithms in order to search for whatever separates a “true UFO” signature (whatever that is) from the signature of a ballistic missile. This would all be massively complicated by the fact that the DSP data stream is very highly classified (Top Secret plus codeword protected).

Also, because DSP spacecraft stare at fixed locations on the Earth’s surface, they don’t detect ANYTHING in low Earth orbit whether conventional spacecraft or UFO. Any object at or near orbital altitude would whiz by the focal plane so fast that it would not be detectable. So while Zoam’s statements that no DSP spacecraft have ever detected UFOs either on the Earth’s surface or in low Earth orbit is likely to be true, it is rather meaningless. One wouldn’t actually know it to be true (or false, for that matter) without having been read into the program at the appropriate classification level (which I assume Zoam was not). If it is true that the DSP spacecraft have never detected a UFO, it is for the reason that they probably can't. Once again, Zoam is making authoritative sounding ex cathedra pronouncements on the basis of no actual knowledge.

Paul Young said...

David Rudiak...(replying to cda)

"CDA: The claim was that UFO's were nothing but a "brain glitch", or just in people's heads, no physical reality. I gave examples of physical effects associated with UFOs independent of witness descriptions. E.g., simultaneous radar along with visual is independent corroboration of something physical in the sky, for which there are a number of cases. (In fact, the primary A.F. criterion in the past for scrambling jets for intercept was simultaneous radar and visual, not visual alone.)"

I'd reckon that there are not just a number of cases, but a massive number of cases. One of the witnesses at the Disclosure Project briefing who really caught my attention was Michael Smith, (an US Air Force Radar Controller)
He perfectly describes the way the cover-up operates.
He was instructed if he saw an UFO on radar, that he was to notify NORAD, put nothing in writing and then keep it to himself.
He then goes on to explain the procedure for when civilians (ie, in this case, the local police)contact the RAF to report a UFO. He looks to see if there is a UFO on radar. If there is, he notifies NORAD...but whether there is, or isn't, a radar contact, he tells the civilian there is nothing showing on radar!!!

So that's how it works.
Joe Public see's a UFO. He contacts the police (or possibly the US Air Force direct.)
No matter what the radar chap can see, he tells the police there is now't on radar. Joe Public/Civil Police has to accept what the radar dude at the local airbase has told him because there is no further recourse!

Paul Young said...

Kevin...

If you can whip out your smart-phone from your pocket and take a snap with it in under 5 seconds, then you must be the Doc Holliday in the world of smart phone photography!

BTW...with practise, I have now got it down to 14 seconds.

Brian Bell said...

@ Paul

You wrote:

"Joe Public/Civil Police has to accept what the radar dude at the local airbase has told him because there is no further recourse!"

Not when radar at commercial and private airports detect something.

But of course I'm sure they are told to hand it over, say nothing, destroy the evidence...and maybe under armed threat, right? LOL

With that said, my brother served at Fort Bliss in the mid-1980's. He was a commissioned officer with the US Army air defense artillery (which means anti-aircraft missiles).

They would frequently go to White Sands for field exercises. One of the things he told me back then was his unit would often see "blips" that would travel across their radar screens between 1,000 and 2,000 mph. No authorized aircraft were in the area and he was told to ignore them. The explanation was they were "atmospheric and radar anomalies".

It baffled his men but they were told to ignore them. Can't say what they were but he said it was common. He won't discuss it any further, although he was never ordered to be silent about it.

cda said...

Paul:

Are you saying that radar sightings of UFOs are kept under wraps and that Joe Public would never learn about them? What about all those early cases documented in Keyhoe's books where simultaneous visual/radar cases occurred and were made public?

The same holds true today. To suppose there are a multitude of visual/radar sightings being withheld from the public is absurd. Just as is the discovery of actual hardware, trace materials, ground impressions, radiation readings and so on.

All these have been going on since the beginning of the UFO era. It is just that even with all their supposed combined weight of evidence, it never seems to amount to anything worthwhile. There is almost always an explanation, even if at first it appears inexplicable.

One example is Rendlesham. ETHers will tell you there was radar confirmation at RAF Watton. But was there? Skeptics like me will tell you that nothing happened at Watton, or at least nothing connected with Rendlesham. Similarly with the holes that allegedly appeared in the ground and the radiation readings. They are all either proof of ETH or meaningless, according to the side of the fence you sit on. And none of it is officially covered up; alternatively most of it is covered up, again according to which side you wish to take.

It is the easiest thing in the world to say "things are covered up". Indeed they may be, but what connection has this to the discovery of ETs? Answer: none, unless you are a conspiracist.

zoamchomsky said...

These "UFOs" are beginning to sound a whole lot like "The Dragon In My Garage." You know, the invisible, heatless fire-breathing one? (g)

Neal says, "...there is ample evidence to support the fact that something of substance is flying around in our atmosphere."

Funny thing about that belief, after a century of "UFO" reports, the absence of a great many unambiguous images of REAL "UFOs" of any kind is very good evidence that it's NOT true. But you're free to believe demonstrably false things.

First Neal tells us that ubiquitous phones aren't catching images of unambiguously REAL "UFOs" because they are just too elusive; they are seriously camera shy. It's the famous Shyness Effect for "UFOs!" They exist but they're virtually invisible.

Now Larry tells us that DSP satellites couldn't detect real nuts-and-bolts ET spacecraft entering Earth's atmosphere (if they existed) because DSP satellites aren't designed to detect ET spacecraft. But DSP satellites do detect meteoroids and small asteroids, from the size of a baseball to the size of house, skirting and exploding in the upper atmosphere around-the-clock according to Ed Tagliaferri, physicist and expert involved in the program, as reported here several times.

So, I guess Larry is telling us that the nuts-and-bolts ET spacecraft entering Earth's atmosphere do so without generating heat, and so escape detection. What an amazing feat! Just as the invisible heatless fire-breathing dragon does and escapes detection.

You can't photograph them because they're intensely camera shy, and you can't detect them with a space-based global infrared surveillance system because they don't emit heat. Gee, it's almost as if these REAL "UFOs" don't exist at all.

They're undetectable, so the suggestion that they exist--Neal and Larry's belief--as an hypothesis is nonfalsifiable!

It's not scientific, but we knew that already.

John's Space said...

This is relevant to the basic topic. The has been an ongoing effort to photograph object/lights in the night sky in Norway. They have some positive results.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzI3s7V5DKU

Larry said...

Part 1 (in case anyone is still paying attention)
Zoam,

The essence of your argument is:
Premise 1; The DSP system has never detected an ET spacecraft.
Premise 2; The DSP system necessarily would have detected an ET spacecraft, if one were present.
Conclusion; no ET spacecraft were present during the lifetime of the DSP system.

But let’s get real; you have no freaking clue as to whether P1 is true or not. All you know is that you (and I, for that matter) have never HEARD the DSP program announce that they have ever detected an unknown. But why in hell would they ever announce such a thing to a schlub like you? As I said, the data stream is very highly classified, so the fact that you’ve never received such an announcement means absolutely nothing.

This brings us to Premise 2. P2 is very probably false, but you have to pretend that it’s true; otherwise you could not get to your preordained conclusion.

So now, let’s unpack the crapola you have piled up around this. You wrote:

“Now Larry tells us that DSP satellites couldn't detect real nuts-and-bolts ET spacecraft entering Earth's atmosphere (if they existed) because DSP satellites aren't designed to detect ET spacecraft.”

It is a simple historical fact that when the DSP performance requirements were laid down many decades ago, detecting UFOs was not one of them. Instead, various research programs were conducted to determine what the infrared signature of an ICBM missile launch would look like (i.e., Power Spectral Distribution, peak power, etc.) and what the atmospheric attenuation would be; the DSP spacecraft were then designed to detect that signal with high effectiveness. The fact that the resulting DSP spacecraft could occasionally also detect other IR sources—such as oil refinery stack flares and meteorites entering the atmosphere—was a happy coincidence. If you can show otherwise, I think we would all be interested to see your evidence.

“But DSP satellites do detect meteoroids and small asteroids, from the size of a baseball to the size of house, skirting and exploding in the upper atmosphere around-the-clock according to Ed Tagliaferri, physicist and expert involved in the program, as reported here several times.”

Yes, of course they do. Those of us who work professionally in the Planetary Defense field are well aware that DSP spacecraft can detect space rocks entering the atmosphere. And actually, they don’t detect the meteoroids directly, strictly speaking. Before entering the atmosphere, the meteoroids are far too small and too cold to detect directly. What DSP satellites actually detect is the very large release of energy in the atmosphere that results from the space rocks disintegrating and converting their kinetic energy into heat. That spot in the atmosphere where the meteoroid disintegrated is, of course, essentially stationary in the Earth reference frame. So DSP is not tracking moving meteoroids.

Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but space rocks are not ET spacecraft; in fact they’re not spacecraft of any kind. Those of us who work in the space mission design field also know that space missions incorporating an atmospheric re-entry vehicle specifically design the entry vehicle to NOT disintegrate and therefore to specifically AVOID a massive and near instantaneous release of detectable energy. Presumably, a spacecraft—whether ET or not—that disintegrated upon entry into the atmosphere wouldn’t be of much use to anyone.

Larry said...

Part 2
“So, I guess Larry is telling us that the nuts-and-bolts ET spacecraft entering Earth's atmosphere do so without generating heat, and so escape detection.”

We need a sidebar here to comment on the structure of your argument. Basically, you’re saying that because DSP can detect space rocks interacting with the atmosphere then it follows as night follows day that it should also be able to detect ET spacecraft. This is the same as saying “ET space craft = meteoroids” as far as DSP detectors are concerned. There are a host of unexamined assumptions in your argument that you show no sign of having considered. First of all, Earth impacting meteoroids from asteroidal sources move within a constrained set of heliocentric orbits; this fact is what gives them their characteristically high velocities. If you’re saying you know for a fact that all ET spacecraft (if they existed) would arrive at Earth with the same velocity as meteoroids then you are also saying that they move in the same orbits as meteoroids. How in the hell could you possibly know that?

Second, meteoroids are not engineered products; they are naturally occurring objects with a relatively narrowly defined range of mass density. The mass density of an object is the primary determinant of the ballistic coefficient. The ballistic coefficient determines how rapidly or slowly an entering body exchanges momentum with the atmosphere and therefore the rate at which heat is being dumped in the atmosphere. Meteoroids are also incapable of generating any substantial amount of aerodynamic lift (i.e., L/D = 0); this is why their trajectories are purely ballistic to a high degree of approximation.

Now to answer your question: An atmospheric entry vehicle (whether human or ET) is an engineered object. It’s entry velocity, ballistic coefficient, and L/D are all parameters that can be and are selected by the engineer. In conventional space mission design, it is standard practice to choose the entry velocity to be as low as possible to limit the total energy in the heating phase, choose the ballistic coefficient as low as necessary to limit the heating rate, and sometimes make the L/D greater than 0 in order to limit the inertial loads on the crew inside (in those cases where there is a crew). This difference in parameters is why a 70 ton space rock entering from heliocentric orbit would dump about 4 kilotons of blast energy into a single spot in the atmosphere in 10 milliseconds while a 70 ton Space Shuttle entering from Earth orbit dissipates about 0.5 kilotons of energy in about 30 minutes in a corridor that stretches half way around the planet. It is not necessary that an Earth atmosphere entering vehicle produce literally no heat in order to escape detection by an IR detector; it is only necessary that the peak emitted power in the IR portion of the spectrum be below the effective threshold detection level of the sensor. It is energy density deposited in the atmosphere (radiating in the IR part of the spectrum) that is detected by the DSP sensors, so it is entirely possible, within conventional engineering practice to suppress the peak IR signature of an engineered entering body by a factor of a billion, relative to that of a meteoroid of equivalent mass.

Larry said...

Part 3
“They're undetectable, so the suggestion that they exist--Neal and Larry's belief--as an hypothesis is nonfalsifiable! “

Please show me where I claimed that UFOs are undetectable. You must have real crappy reading comprehension, because I wrote no such thing. As far as I can tell, UFOs are readily detectable in the visible portion of the spectrum, sometimes detectable in the RF (radar), supposedly detectable acoustically, and perhaps detectable magnetostatically (i.e., by disturbances in the background magnetic field). I’m not even claiming that they are not detectable, in principle, in the IR. I’m simply saying that there’s no reason to believe that an ET spacecraft would radiate exactly the right IR power density needed to rise above the detection threshold of the particular IR sensor that you chose at random (DSP system), which is effectively what you’re claiming.

Your Premise #2 (which you have the burden of substantiating) is certainly not proven true by anything you have written. Your ignorance of the physics of asteroidal meteorites, IR detection systems, and atmospheric entry aerothermodynamics led you into resting your argument on a false equivalence between meteoroids and ET spacecraft

zoamchomsky said...

The documents posted today, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act and archival research, include documents on the theoretical work behind the concept of space-based missile detection, the early doubts about the feasibility of such detection, and 1960s research and development work on the Missile Defense Alarm System (MIDAS). They also include documents on the evolution of the DSP--with regard both to its capabilities and its use for a variety of additional missions, including the detection of intermediate-range missiles, bombers flying on afterburner and spacecraft.

So between DSP satellites and dozens of other Earth-observing satellites, the point remains:

If there were visiting ET spacecraft or real "UFOs" of any kind―then given the ubiquity of imaging devices on Earth and in near space―there should be unambiguous images them. There are not.

And when that evidence would be rather obvious, its lack is very good evidence that real "UFOs" of any kind do not exist, much less visiting ET spacecraft.

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB235/index.htm

Lorrie Causey said...

zoamchomsky: to further your thoughts: to a hardened skeptic, I don't believe *any* photograph would constitute very good evidence of the existence of UFO's (of the alien variety). Any negative, photo, camera or video can always be "tampered" with. As far as all of those satellites orbiting the Earth, who exactly has access to any of the photos they might have taken?

Lorrie Causey said...

Brian stated: "...Given that few people even glance at the sky or know what they are observing also compounds the problem of getting an accurate gauge on UFO size and bearing..."

I pretty much agree: at least in the US the population I think is increasingly urban, all of the entertainment is inside and light pollution plays it's part as well. This is all in stark contrast to how I was raised on a farm when we spent most of our time outdoors, even into the wee hours of the morning. Light pollution on our 200 acre farm was also non-existent....

zoamchomsky said...

Lorrie;

The subject of Kevin's blog post and mine isn't "any" photo but the absence of unambiguously TRUE "UFO" photos that would exist if real "UFOs" existed.

And how many satellite images of Earth in great detail would you like to see?

Just google "satellite images of Earth."

Craig McDaniel said...

Kevin,
In my work as owner of one of the largest sweepstakes websites in the world, I also have been following the mathematical odds of who wins a big prizes and why others don't. Even in my personal experience, I won two new trucks online. The sponsors shared information with me about how many total entries was in each sweep. The odds came out to about one in 10 billion of winning two trucks in a 3 year time span. Astronomical? Yes, but it happened and life changing for me. I still ask "why me" after all these years.

I see the same mathematical odds happening in see a UFO. I will say the odds are far better to see a real UFO than to win two trucks. I saw a big cylinder UFO in 2003 in broad daylight on a Sunday. I did see the UFO first but saw the reflection of light off of the cylinder. My first instinct was this jerk doesn't know how to land a passenger plane at the local airport. Way to high, a 1/2 mile out of alignment for the end of the runway. Then I started to notice details. NO WINGS to begin with and so on... No doubt in my mind what I saw. This story goes on...

The point is in both, I can't tell you why both happened. The truck wins were as real as you can get. I have actual prove of the wins. Respectfully I know I saw that Cylinder UFO, it's burned into my memory, but no actual prove in the end.

The last paragraph is why I support your endeavors so much. I strongly believe that there is actual, physical evidence some where on earth. Pictures and videos, well is not enough even for myself who saw a very real UFO. I think there is evidence in labs, with doctors and scientist and with big brother. Until there is more physical evidence that cannot be questioned or dismissed that it came for another world, another planet, another non-human being, that is what it will take to show the world.